HG Urmila nominated as a diksa guru

[Guest guest]

(she's awfully conservative....)

 

can you explain prabhu?

[Guest guest]

 

It should be wellknown that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura himself firmly disapproved of slander like this, and himself worshipped his Gurudeva Vipin Vihari Goswami with choice phrases.

 

 

Individuals like Neal Delmonico, Madhavananda, Jan Brezinski etc once worshipped Srila Prabhupada with choice phrases. That was before they changed gurus. But given the first statement, can I safely conclude that they are still Prabhupada disciples and that they won't object to this characterization?

 

If you know the correct answer, then you know why your own statement is itself begging the question.

 

 

Well I think you are getting slightly off-topic here. Of course I know about the situations of the individuals you mentioned, but this doesn't reflect on the issue of Srila Bhaktivinoda.

 

As Jagat (Jan) himself has just said, there is all evidence to suggest that Srila Bhaktivinoda presented his guru as Vipin Vihari Goswami. There is no evidence to even suggest the contrary. Besides, if you were allowed to ask Srila Bhaktivinoda today who his guru is, what do you think he would say?

 

I still say that Srila Bhaktivinoda accepted Vipin Vihari Goswami as his eternal spiritual master. No one else is authorised to state a different opinion. The evidence for this is contained in Srila Bhaktivinoda's own writings:

 

vipina-vihArI hari tAnra zakti avatari

vipina-vihArI prabhu-vara

zrI-guru-gosvAmI-rUpe dekhi more bhava-kUpe

uddharila Apana kinkara

 

“Krishna, known as Bipin Bihari, made his energy descend into this world as Bipin Bihari Goswami, my lord. Seeing me, his humble servant, in the dark well of worldly existence, he took the form of my spiritual master me delivered him.” (AmRta-pravAha-bhASya, p. 1687)

 

vipina-vihArI prabhu mama prabhu-vara

zrI-vaMzI-vadanAnanda-vaMza-zazadhara

“My exalted spiritual master, Vipina-vihari Prabhu, is the brilliant moon in the family of Sri Vamsi Vadanananda.”

 

 

When will Vilasa Manjari and Ananga Manjari [Jahnava Mata] see me and, being merciful, speak the follow essential words?

 

O Vilasa Manjari, Ananga Manjari and Rupa Manjari, please notice me and accept me at your feet, bestowing on me the essence of all perfection?

 

It should be noted that 'Vilasa Manjari' was the siddha name of Vipin Vihari prabhu.

 

Oh yes, and let's not forget that Vipin Vihari Goswami was the guru chosen for Srila Bhaktivinoda by no less than Mahaprabhu Himself!

[stonehearted]

Guest: (she's awfully conservative....)

 

can you explain prabhu?

 

Not in any specific way. I was really addressing something relative and subjective, and it may have been more accurate to write that she's maybe a little conservative for my taste. However, I have no inherent problem with conservatism per se. I don't think it's any sort of disqualification.

[Guest guest]

 

By being separate from her husband even though the husband has not taken sannyasa, Urmila Devi Dasi is guilty of nisiddhacara, or behaviour contrary to Vaisnava principles.

 

By disguising this separation as being 'vanaprastha', Urmila Devi Dasi is guilty of kuti-nati, duplictous behaviour.

 

By not being aware that in the vanaprastha stage the wife is still supposed to remain and follow her husband, she is guilty of not exhibiting proficiency in knowledge and understanding of sastra (scripture).

 

 

O anonymous Guestji, don't disguise your chauvinism by covering it with GBC Laws and Srila Prabhupada's letters.

 

Better that you show all of your teeth in a big smile if Urmila-devi goes back to her husband's home to be beaten soundly for her acts of rebellion.

[Guest guest]

 

What I am saying is this: saying that Srila Prabhupada was their guru, because they themselves said it at one point, is clearly misleading. Similarly, saying that Bhaktivinod Thakur's guru was Bipin Bihari Gosvami, simply because Bhaktivinod wrote this before meeting Jagannatha dasa Babaji, is also misleading.

 

 

Unlike the Americans of today, who accept a guru one day and then kick him away the next with all sorts of harsh words, Bhaktivinod Thakura was cultured. You probably won't find the sort of explicit rejection of Bipin Bihari Gosvami in Bhaktivinod's writings as you would of Srila Prabhupada from the likes of Neal Delmonico. That's because, rather than making a stink, it's more likely that a cultured Vaishnava would simply move on from a less qualified guru to a more qualified one. And an intelligent person with any sense of tact ought to be bright enough to catch the change of guru, rather than require some obvious, vulgar, and hostile statement to the effect.

 

 

You still haven't presented any form of clear conclusive evidence that conclusively proves that Srila Bhaktivinoda rejected Sri Vipin Vihari Goswami as his eternal spiritual master, conclusively.

 

Judging from your comments, we are expected to be as "bright" as you to catch the "change of gurus" because of a high standard of culture. Anything aside from this idea is misleading.

 

Sorry to break your illusions, but at the risk of repeating it is pretty obvious that neither is there any evidence of your ideas nor can you provide any. The logical conclusion therefore, is to reject your ideas as fantasy and speculation.

 

Besides, don't you think it would be a most severe maha-aparadha for Srila Bhaktivinoda to reject a guru that was chosen form him by Mahaprabhu Himself?

 

And I am not even starting on the implications for parampara here!

[Guest guest]

 

By being separate from her husband even though the husband has not taken sannyasa, Urmila Devi Dasi is guilty of nisiddhacara, or behaviour contrary to Vaisnava principles.

 

 

Not true!

 

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: One who desires to adopt the third order of life, vanaprastha, should enter the forest with a peaceful mind, leaving his wife with his mature sons, or else taking her along with him." (SB 11.18.1)

[Guest guest]

Awfully sorry for writing so much, but I just cannot resist!

 

 

(1) Who said anywhere that Bhaktivinoda ever rejected his guru in any way?

 

 

Precisely my point. I don't think you will ever find such explicit condemnation, nor should you expect to. Certain uncultured individuals (and please note I mean this in terms of Vedic culture, not racial as some individual very stupidly took it earlier) would unabashedly lash out at a guru whom they had left. But one would not expect this of Srila Bhaktivinod. He just quietly accepted a new one. That is perfectly in line with brahminical behavior.

 

 

Well, now I see that you're becoming very bold. I notice that you still haven't provided any sort of conclusive evidence to show that Srila Bhaktivinoda rejected his guru. You seem to be rather fascinated with drawing a comparison between Srila Prabhupada and his erstwhile disciple Neal Delmonico. The grand difference is that Neal Delmonico publicly renounced Srila Prabhupada as his guru, and Srila Bhaktivinoda didn't. That itself should tell you something, but you are still speculating that Srila Bhaktivinoda rejected him "quietly." Again I ask, evidence please? Your speculations are not evidence and you cannot expect us to accept them as such.

 

 

Of course, if you are as interested in Siddhanta Saraswati's opinion as it appears here, there is the fact that he did not list Bhaktivinod's guru as Bipin Bihari, even though this would have been the obvious choice based on formality. And then of course, there is the well known anecdote that Srila Siddhanta Saraswati objected to Bipin Bihari placing his feet on Bhaktivinod's head.

 

 

Well if you are going to bring Srila Bhaktisiddhanta into the equation then you should know that members here have discussed this subject to death, as Jagatji said earlier. The Sarasvata-parampara follow an unconfirmed "siksa-parampara" while the Gaudiya tradition is noted for its unbroken diksa-paramparas. Therefore the opinion of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta here is irrelevant for those who are not following his teachings. As for that "anecdote," where did you hear that little anecdote. I can guess that it is probably a case of propaganda from unfavourable sources in the Gaudiya Math. I can also give you more juicy anecdotes to support your ideas, but again their origin is in propaganda from Gaudiya Math. You simply have no idea if the story is true or not. Of course if you choose to believe it, then that is another thing.

 

 

Well, if I can't accept Siddhanta Saraswati's opinion that the parampara proper is listed through Jagannatha dasa babaji, I don't see why I should accept LPT's opinion to the contrary.

 

 

Because as I said earlier, it is only in the Gaudiya Math/ISKCON that the unconfirmed concept of a siksa parampara is followed. The Gaudiya tradition always has and always will follow diksa-paramparas. It's a simple fact that Jagannatha das Babaji did not initiate Srila Bhaktivinoda. It's also a simple fact that Lalita Prasada Thakura (Bhaktivinoda's son) was initiated by Srila Bhaktivinoda. LPT does not list JDB in his parampara.

 

You know, it's true. This issue has been debated to death. You might like to view some older discussion threads about this topic.

[Guest guest]

 

Of course, it was a ridiculous question if it had been asked in all seriousness in a way to question Prabhupada's authority. No, that was not the case at all. Please do not take the question as such. I am sure this question was posted in order to set the thread in the direction of questioning how this voting in of guru got started at all.

 

I may have caused you to misunderstand the poster's intent with the question by not adding more of the original post. For this, I apologize and pray that no offense was committed.

 

I also asked several related questions earlier in this thread and I will find the post and repost them asap.

 

 

Sorry. My response what not to indicate anything about your opinion, just the question in general. I may have misunderstood.

[Guest guest]

 

Here are questions that I asked way back on page three of this thread. I had asked three questions but now feel that only the first two are relevant to this discussion and that the third should probably be left off for now.

 

1. Did Srila Prabhupada authorize voting in gurus?

 

2. If not, then how, why and when did this procedure of voting in guru start?

 

 

Not only did he 'not' authorize it, he spoke out strongly AGAINST it. Said this is what Gaudiya Math did and he did not want us to ever do it.

 

Why is it done? Authorities do whatever they want, dont fool yourself otheriwise.

[Guest guest]

 

To respond to an earlier question, I think Srila Prabhupada said something to the efect that the leaders could increase the number of devotees initiating disciples as they found it appropriate.

 

 

Yes. He also said his disciples could become guru when he orders. He never gave the order.

[livingentity]

 

He never gave the order.

 

 

Then what?

[Guest guest]

 

Look, you really seem quite quick to offend and ready to fight over nothing.[/quot4e]

 

1. Not so. After all, you are writing big post in reply, so you are fighting.

 

2. Nothing? Read on.

 

 

 

What research have you done on this group to make such comments? You are only going on my quotes, and you tend to like to argue with anything I say. But lets make peace. The point is, I have not said anything only on opinion, but based on things I have read they say, including the rape issue. You can 'choose' not to believe it, but I have read it first hand, that they believe its ok to rape the wife and it is not really rape. Conservative? No, they are not conservatives. They are sense enjoyers, trying to enjoy as many women, and control them, and abuse them, as possible. If you dont believe me, do the research. But do watch out for their word jugglery. It is deovtees like them, who preached what they prached, that caused parents to be unable to protect their children, therefore gurukuli abuse. You seem to be under the impression I am misusing words like "male chauvinism," as if I fit in with those who use them on a daily basis. So please do the reaserach and you will see they themselves have said women are just toys to play with.

 

This is as far as I wish to talk about them.

 

 

 

I never said that. Your constant comparision of us americans against indian culture indicated that. If its not so, no need to be defensive. Maybe you dont realize you're doing it.

 

I have nothing against your culture, I have something against any culture presented as better than, or equally to, sublime Krishna consciousness. There is nothing like Krisna consciousness in all the three worlds, except for Krishna consciousness. This was merely my point, not to confuse the one with the other.

[theist]

 

Yes. He also said his disciples could become guru when he orders. He never gave the order.

 

 

This is another reason I avoid the ritviks while agreeing with many of their points.

 

They say (and prove) that a connection with Srila Prabhupada can still be had through his vani but then in the next sentence deny that Srila Prabhupada can order his disciples to to accept disciples themselves because he is no longer physically present.

 

Therefore it follows that any that do so must be acting out of a desire to acquire some false prestige for themselves and consider them envious.

 

Myself I can't imagine accepting one as a representative of Krsna who does not have a living connection with his own guru and the Lord in the heart.

 

That is all these new gurus need for support and authorization. If they feel they need to be proped up by some committee and some rubber stamp voted in OK for authorization I consider that a sure disqualification.

 

This is different someone talking something over with their Godbrothers or Godsisters. That would just be natural. but this voting...Nah.

 

[Guest guest]

 

It is the violation of this principle by the GBC policy of restricting, regulating and instructing ISKCON gurus through laws and rules that renders the ISKCON guru system as illict and anti-siddhantic. Thus it is quite obvious that a GBC system is not congruent with a multiplicity of spiritual masters under the authority of a GBC committee.

 

 

Why must this be done? The GBC know that if they do not regulate, instruct and keep watch over most 'guru's,' they will fall down or start to misuse absolute power absolutely. This is a sign of unqualification but they keep right on making more that require watch.

[Guest guest]

 

If Urmila has devotees who are taking siksha from her and who are inspired to seek diksha from her and she also has the inspiration to serve Srila Prabhupada by helping others who seek her help, then what problem should anyone who is outside that circle have with it?

 

 

This does not make her qualified, that's why this 'outside' circle is complaining. Strict following does not qualify her either. Guru must meet up to shastric qualifications and not waht a group of 'followers' are inspired or attracted to.

 

There should not be an outside circle in the first place. That is in truth, a clique or 'branch.'

 

I have been reading posts that gurus should leave ISKCON and start their own organization, which may not be what you indicate here, however to those who have suggested it, Prabhupada did not like this 'branching off.' He criticized it highly and warned us to never do like that. This idea of each guru creating their own group as a solution is merely a man made concoction.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Previously husband use to be pure deovtee.

 

 

This is a nonsensical statement. A wife's obedience to her husband in Vedic culture has nothing to do with him being a pure devotee. Wives were even obedient and faithful to rascals such as Ugratapas.

 

This does not mean I think it should be the same in the present. It is simply the state of things as they were in the past.

 

Rascal wrote:

 

Unlike the Americans of today, who accept a guru one day and then kick him away the next with all sorts of harsh words, Bhaktivinod Thakura was cultured. You probably won't find the sort of explicit rejection of Bipin Bihari Gosvami in Bhaktivinod's writings as you would of Srila Prabhupada from the likes of Neal Delmonico. That's because, rather than making a stink, it's more likely that a cultured Vaishnava would simply move on from a less qualified guru to a more qualified one. And an intelligent person with any sense of tact ought to be bright enough to catch the change of guru, rather than require some obvious, vulgar, and hostile statement to the effect. It's only because they don't that it has to be pointed out to them.

 

 

I agree with this 100% (and I am an American by the way). In India people are cultured enough to respect Sadhus, even those that are not 100% authentic. Even Prabhupada's father used to buy ganja for Sadhus that would visit his house.

 

The system is a sadhu must be respected reagrdless of whether one accepts his teachings or not. In such a cultural setting, you will never find a respectable person like Bhaktivinoda Thakur writing offensive and critical remarks about someone who was previously his guru.

[Guest guest]

 

"Yes. He also said his disciples could become guru when he orders. He never gave the order."

 

 

 

This is another reason I avoid the ritviks while agreeing with many of their points.

 

They say (and prove) that a connection with Srila Prabhupada can still be had through his vani but then in the next sentence deny that Srila Prabhupada can order his disciples to to accept disciples themselves because he is no longer physically present.

 

Therefore it follows that any that do so must be acting out of a desire to acquire some false prestige for themselves and consider them envious.

 

 

 

 

No offense intended to you. Hopefully this will add some clarity.

 

There are two types of ritviks. One believes as you have suggested, others believe that Prabhupada still can give the order or that there can still be someone who is self effulgent, an obvious pure guru. I am of the second category.

 

If someone actually shines, is blissful, does not fall down or have to be watched so they won't, or watched so won't start another iskcon mafia (Jayapataka comes to mind as an example). If a pure soul were to let themselves be recognized and it was evident that they were, without question, self effulgent, met shastric qualfication of guru, do not go against Prabhuapda's instructions, I would accept that soul with open arms.

 

 

 

Myself I can't imagine accepting one as a representative of Krsna who does not have a living connection with his own guru and the Lord in the heart.

 

 

 

As you probably know the ritivk point here would be that Prabhupada is not dead, he is still living and very much alive. There are those who never met him but experienced his presence.

 

 

That is all these new gurus need for support and authorization. If they feel they need to be proped up by some committee and some rubber stamp voted in OK for authorization I consider that a sure disqualification.[/qoute]

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

Again we agree. Prabhuapda spoke out more than once against voting. There is not one quote to prove Prabhupada was in favor of this voting system. Not one. There are many to be found against it.

[Guest guest]

 

"Previously husband use to be pure deovtee."

 

 

This is a nonsensical statement. A wife's obedience to her husband in Vedic culture has nothing to do with him being a pure devotee. Wives were even obedient and faithful to rascals such as Ugratapas.

 

 

 

 

Pardon the confusion. My intent was not about culture, but meant to be in reference to women and men in shastra. We see the husband was so pure, the wife had no problem taking the humble position or letting him make choices for her.

 

 

 

To be obedient in this day and age to Ugratapas may lead to serious problems for women and their children. No one is protected anymore.

[Guest guest]

 

Even Prabhupada's father used to buy ganja for Sadhus that would visit his house.

 

 

How do you know this? Can you prove it? Am not challenging you, just never ever heard this sort of things before and would need evidence to believe it. Prabhuada was so extremely strict that we follow all four of the regulative principles, and was so strict chastizing those who deviated or taught deviations, I therefore need to see for certain.

[Guest guest]

The ISKCON system of gurus under the restriction and regulation of a GBC is a massive departure from the shastric conception of a genuine spiritual master. Srila Prabhupada certainly never manufactured such an offensive concept. It is purely the product a renegade GBC. The ritvik system certainly does not strip any spiritual master of his natural authority and independence - it merely utilizes the legitimate authority of an acharya to appoint deputies to initiate on his behalf. As an acharya (sakshat-hari), he has that power and authority to appoint deputies.

 

What is not bona-fide is that any spiritual master be subjected to the regulation and restrictions imposed by a committee of his peers as we see happening in ISKCON in the current diksha guru system. The current guru system of ISKCON under the regulation and dictation of the GBC is a vastly greater departure from the traditional Gaudiya parampara than is the ritvik system. It is unprecedented, unauthorized and offensive to the founder acharya of ISKCON who clearly established that a genuine spiritual master is not to be subjected to the advice and control of anyone apart from his own spiritual master.

[Guest guest]

Jagat wrote:

 

 

Could you give me a date and place for that monumental event please?

 

 

 

I suppose I could research it and get back to you, but would that change anything as far as you are concerned? I think we both know it would not. Forgive me for being blunt, but instead of asking questions for the purpose of being argumentative, maybe you should ask only if you are prepared to hear the answers.

 

If you actually are interested, you could consult the biography compiled I believe by Rupa-Vilasa. That's where I would start. But you are obviously smart enough to look for yourself.

 

So I freely admit I don't know when Srila Bhaktivinod met Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji. I also can't give the date and place of Srila Bhaktivedanta's initiation by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. I would not assume from my lack of knowledge on the subject that the initiation did not take place, and/or that there was no guru/disciple relationship between them in either case. Should I?

 

 

Only a scoundrel would expect anyone to accept that the absence of evidence was "proof" of anything.

 

 

 

I see. So when all else fails, fall back on the timeless 'ISKCON fanatic' paradigm: "I know I won't agree with what you're about to say, even though I have not heard it yet. So let me preemptively label you a rascal and be done with it."

 

It is a fact that Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji is listed as Bhaktivinod's guru in Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's parampara. Given that Bipin Bihari Gosvami gave diksha to Bhaktivinod, it is obvious that he would have been the logical first choice in such a listing. But he isn't. Now that could only lead to one of two logical possibilities: (1) that Jagannatha dasa Babaji's instruction or qualification was superior to that of Bipin Bihari's in some way, or (2) that Bipin Bihari was somehow regarded as unsuitable as a genuine guru. Whatever the case may be, it is clear that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta considered the link to Jagannatha dasa Babaji to be more important. Thus, while Bipin Bihari went through the motions of giving Bhaktivinod initiation, it was Jagannatha dasa Babaji who was his "guru." You can dance around the issue all you want, but nothing will change that fact.

 

I also find it interesting that you have resorted again to the "but Bhaktivinod glorified Bipin Bihari Gosvami as his guru" tactic. Right. Well, I'm sure if we comb through old COM postings, letters, BTG-articles, etc, we can similarly find writings by Neal Delmonico, Satyanarayana dasa, Madhavanada dasa, and so on who declared at some point in their respective pasts that Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami was their guru. Now is it ok for me to ignore what happened later and say they are all Prabhupada disciples? Really, Jagat. This is such an elementary concept that I'm not sure why people like you and Gaurasundara just don't get it.

 

There are some who suggest that Srila Bhaktivinod ate meat in his earlier years. Whether this was the case, I do not know. But if Srila Bhaktivinod was capable of making such a grievous error, it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that he might have made an error in selecting a less qualified guru before meeting a more qualified one. Now, you can scream that this is "mental spekulation." But the point remains that despite being the logical first choice, Bipin Bihari Gosvami was not listed as Bhaktivinod's guru in the Saraswati parampara. Why not? If you say that something is wrong with Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's judgement, then it is your gurus' word against his. Maybe it is your gurus who are wrong. And no, I don't think that majority opinion = correct opinion.

 

Otherwise, you have to acknowledge that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta thought something was unsuitable about Srila Bhaktivinod's relationship with Bipin Bihari. Perhaps Bipin Bihari was a fine guru, but just not as qualified or enlightening as Jagannatha dasa Babaji. Or maybe something else was wrong with Bipin Bihari. Didn't he get into some kind of fight with Bhaktivinod over the location of Mayapur? The point is, these were cultured gentlemen, and I would not expect them to raise a stink by spelling out the details in public. That may be very difficult to accept by people who are used to reading all sorts of dirty laundry on the internet about devotees, but they will simply have to. Even ordinary pious brahmins in my experience, what to speak of Vaishnavas, will not have much taste in discussing someone's dirty laundry.

Gaurasundara wrote:

 

 

As Jagat (Jan) himself has just said, there is all evidence to suggest that Srila Bhaktivinoda presented his guru as Vipin Vihari Goswami. There is no evidence to even suggest the contrary.

 

 

I beg to differ that "there is no evidence to even suggest the contrary."

 

In Shri Vishnu Priya palli patrika, Sri Bhaktivinod writes -

 

he jagannath das prabriti adhunatan gouranga priya bhaktagan, apanader charane amara dandabat patitia hoiya kritanjali puvrvaka prathana koriteche, apanara shri sanatan goswamir sthalabhisikta hoiya shri shri mayapurer

sthanasamuha nirdesha korun. ekhan apanarai amadiger guru ar kahake janaibo

 

"O Jagannatha Das, as well as all the devotees of Gauranga, we fall and offer dandavats at your feet and pray to you that you take the mantle of Sri Sanatana Goswami and reveal the places of Sri Mayapur. You are our guru, who else shall I pray to?"

 

Here is an explicit reference in which Srila Bhaktivinod refers to Jagannatha das as his guru. Why would he do that when Bipin Bihari is actually his "real" guru? Can you give an answer without speculating?

 

My position is simply that Srila Bhaktivinod went on to accept Srila Jagannath dasa babaji as his guru. This is the position of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and his disciples also. The relationship with Bipin Bihari Gosvami, despite being formalized by diksha, has been downplayed, for reasons that are unclear. And it isn't likely that you will find evidence from Srila Bhaktivinod's writings that explains why this is, since a Vaishnava will not try to offend others, or even speak out against a guru who might have given him some benefit. It's different, I realize, from the culture of 1980's ISKCON, in which "devotees" mark their departure from their guru by posting all sorts of hostile material towards him all over the public domain. But get used to it. It's called culture.

 

Alpa-medhasa

 

p.s. Before you start posting remarks like "oh, and I see you *still* have not responded to...." it helps when you give the other person a chance to respond, rather than assuming that because you responded three times to him within the same day, that he somehow ignored you.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Though I am not a follower of Narayana Maharaja, I think that the following material by him should explain the issue that you two are debating and discussing. The issue of Vipina Bihari and Bhaktivinode seem to be nicely explained in this writting of Narayana Maharaja:

 

 

Pancaratrika Guru-Parampara and Bhagavata-Parampara

 

by

 

Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja

 

An excerpt from the forthcoming biography of nitya-lila pravista

om visnupada astottara-sata ..

 

Sri Srimad Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami

Maharaja

 

In recent times newer and newer questions are being invented in regard to

Sri Guru-parampara in the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya. Some people are of

the opinion that Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana was initiated in the Madhva

sampradaya and that he was not a Gaudiya Vaisnava. In spite of attaining

the

association of Gaudiya Vaisnava, the influence of the Madhva sampradaya

upon him was so great that in his own literatures he has stubbornly

included

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and His Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya, in the Madhva

sampradaya without any reasonable justification. Thus he cannot be

considered an acarya of the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya. Some ignorant

persons say that jagad guru Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupadaji has

created a new concept -- bhagavata-parampara. In this bhagavata-parampara

he

has explained that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura is a disciple of Vaisnava

Sarvabhauma Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji Maharaja and that Sri Gaura Kisora

dasa Babaji Maharaja is a disciple of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura. Some

sahajiya Vaisnavas are also presenting the doubt that Sri Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati accepted the renounced order, sannyasa, from himself, and

consequently, his guru parampara is not bona fide. My most worshipable

Srila

Gurudeva has shattered all these accusations by powerful logic and solid

scriptural evidence. His analysis of the subject is being presented here.

 

The disciples and grand-disciples of Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

Prabhupada are currently preaching suddha krsna-bhakti and Sri Harinama as

preached and practised by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu throughout the entire

world. They have preached extensively in countries such as America, Canada,

France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and

Australia. Consequently, in every prominent city, moreover, in every town

and village, the streets and avenues are resounding with the sound of the

holy name and young men and women are applying themselves to the

cultivation

of suddha-bhakti with great enthusiasm. They are meeting Vaisnavas from

India, performing harinama sankirtana together and preaching suddha-bhakti

everywhere. Being agitated by this, a few ignorant, so-called Vaisnavas of

the sahajiya community are trying to mislead the common man by presenting

fraudulent accusations against the Sarasvata Gaudiya Vaisnava lineage.

Srila

Gurudeva has established the rational and perfect conclusion on this matter

in his own essay entitled "Gaudiya Vedantacarya Sri Baladeva". We are

extracting some lines from that essay:

 

Guru-parampara of the Commentator

(Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana)

 

We are presenting before you the historical truth which is obtained upon

considering the guru-parampara of the commentator, Sri Baladeva

Vidyabhusana. First of all he acquired specific expertise in the

bhakti-sastra under the guidance of virakta siromani (the crest-jewel of

detatched sadhus) Pitambara dasa. After that, he accepted pancaratriki

diksa

from a Vaisnava by the name of Sri Radha Damodara dasa, who had appeared in

the seminal brahmana dynasty in Kanyakubja. Radha Damodara dasa was the

grandson of Rasikananda Murari. He accepted diksa from another Kanyakubjiya

brahmana, Sri Nayananandadeva Gosvami. Rasikananda Prabhu is the fourth

person in the pancaratrika guru-parampara of the commentator Baladeva

Vidyabhusana. Sri Rasikananda Prabhu was a disciple of Sri Syamananda

Prabhu. The aforementioned Nayananandadeva Gosvami was the son of Sri

Rasikananda. The guru of Sri Syamananda was Sri Hrdaya Caitanya, whose guru

was Gauridasa Panita. Sriman Nityananda Prabhu had bestowed His mercy upon

Gauridasa Panita. Even though Syamananda Prabhu was a disciple of Acarya

Hrdaya Caitanya, afterwards he accepted discipleship under Sri Jiva

Gosvami.

Sri Jiva Gosvami was a disciple of Sri Rupa Gosvami, who was a disciple of

Sri Sanatana Gosvami. Sri Sanatana Gosvami was a follower and associate of

Sriman Mahaprabhu.

 

Sisya-parampara of the Commentator

 

An account of the pancaratrika parampara has been given beginning from

Sriman Mahaprabhu down to Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana. Now an account of his

sisya-parampara is being given: Sri Uddhara dasa, referred to in some

places as Uddhava dasa, was a disciple of the commentator. Some hold the

opinion that these are two different personalities. Whatever the case may

be, Uddhava dasa had a disciple named Sri Madhusudana dasa. Jagannatha dasa

Babaji was a disciple of this very Sri Madhusudana dasa. Previously, as

sarvabhauma Vaisnava or prominent leader of the Vaisnava community in

Mathura mandala, Ksetra mandala and Gaura mandala, he became famous by the

name of Siddha Jagannatha dasa. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura accepted this

very Jagannatha dasa Babaji Maharaja as his bhajana siksa-guru by the

system

of bhagavata parampara.

 

Under the direction of Vaisnava Sarvabhauma Srila

Jagannatha dasa Babaji Maharaja, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura discovered the

birthplace of Sriman Mahaprabhu at Sridhama Mayapura. Srila Bhaktivinoda

Thakura was the siksa-guru or bhajana-guru of Srila Gaura Kisora dasa

Babaji

Maharaja. Srila Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja, having given diksa

mantra

etc, accepted my gurupadapadma, om visnupada astottarasata Sri Srimad

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada, as his own disciple. Whoever is

incompetent in accepting this parampara is to be counted among one of the

thirteen types of apasampradaya mentioned in writing by Sri Totarama Babaji

Maharaja. Alternatively, he may be regarded as the creator of a fourteenth

apasampradaya.

 

Pancaratrika Parampara and Bhagavata-Parampara

 

From the aforementioned guru parampara we acquire the understanding that

Sri

Baladeva Vidyabhusana is a follower of Sriman Mahaprabhu within the

spiritual family lineage (parivara) of Sri Syamananda prabhu. On account of

Acarya Sri Syamananda accepting the guidance of Sri Jiva Gosvami and

because

Jiva Gosvami is exclusively rupanuga (a follower of Sri Rupa Gosvami), it

therefore follows that Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana is also a rupanuga

Vaisnava. Whoever does not acknowledge that Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana is a

rupanuga Vaisnava, having said that he is in the line of Sri Syamananda,

and

thinks that he is not qualified for the topmost service mood of unnata

ujjvala rasa, is certainly a deluded offender.

 

Although Sri Baladeva

Vidyabhusana was initiated in pancaratrika diksa by Sri Radha Damodara

dasa,

he also accepted siksa in Srimad Bhagavata and the literatures of the

Gosvamis. Bhagavata-parampara is superior to pancaratrika-parampara. It is

founded on the degree of proficiency in bhajana (bhajana-nistha). The charm

and superiority of bhagavata-parampara is that pancaratrika-parampara is

included within it. In bhagavata-parampara there is no obstruction in

regard

to time. From the viewpoint of suddha-bhakti both the doctrine of

pancaratrika and of bhagavata expound synonomous opinions with the same

objective. In Sri Caitanya Caritamrta it is said;

 

pancaratre bhagavate ei laksana kaya (C.c. Madhya 19.169).

 

The prakrta sahajiya sampradaya, while

introducing themselves as the followers of Sri Rupa Gosvami, accumulate

offences to the lotus feet of Sri Jiva Gosvami. Similarly, nowadays the

jati

gosvamis and those who accept their remnants, such as several members of

the

sahajiya, kartabhaja, kisoribhaja, and bhajanakhaja sampradayas, while

proudly conceiving themselves to be the followers of Cakravarti Thakura,

employ various disrespectful explanations against the commentator Sri

Baladeva Vidyabhusana. In this way, they are growing excessively hateful

and

progressing towards hell.

 

We are presenting herein a diagram of the pancaratrika guru-parampara and

bhagavata-parampara by which readers will be able to properly appreciate

the

speciality of sri bhagavata-parampara and also understand how pancaratrika

guru-parampara is included within the bhagavata-parampara.

 

Through the medium of this diagram we will give an account of the

pancaratrika guru-parampara and bhagavata-parampara of Sri Syamananda

Prabhu, Sri Narottama Thakura, Sri Raghunatha dasa Gosvami, Sri Baladeva

Vidyabhusana, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati

Thakura etc.

 

Pancaratrika Guru-Parampara and Bhagavata-parampara

 

Sri Madhavendra puri

(siksa guru) (diksa guru)

Sriman Nityananda Prabhu Sri Isvara Puri

Sri Gauridasa Pandita Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu

Sri Hrdaya Caitanya (diksa guru) Sri Sanatana Gosvami

Sri Rupa Gosvami

Sri Jiva Gosvami Sri Lokanath Gosvami

(siksa guru) (diksa guru)

Sri Syamananda Prabhu

Sri Rasikananda Prabhu Sri Narottama Thakura

Sri Nayanananda Sri Ganga Narayana Cakravarti

Sri Radha Damodara dasa Sri Krsna Carana Cakravarti

(diksa guru) Sri Radharamana Cakravarti

Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti (siksa guru)

Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana

Sri Uddhara (or Uddhava dasa) Sri Jahnava Thakurani (in the line of)

Sri Madhusudana dasa

Sri Jagannatha dasa Sri Vipina Vihari Gosvami (diksa guru)

Sri Bhagavata dasa Sri Bhaktivinoda Thakura (siksa guru)

Sri Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji

(diksa guru)

Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura

Sri Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Gosvami

 

 

Sri Madhavendra puri

Sri Advaitacarya Sri Isvara Puri

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu

Yadunandanacarya Sri Svarupa Damodara, Sri Rupa Gosvami

(diksa guru) (siksa gurus)

Sri Raghunatha dasa Gosvami

 

 

Sri Syamananda Prabhu -- In pancaratrika guru-parampara Sri Nityananda

Prabhu's disciple is Gauridasa Pandita, and his disciple, Hrdaya Caitanya

is

the diksa-guru of Sri Syamananda Prabhu. In bhagavata-parampara Sri

Caitanya

Mahaprabhu's disciple is Sri Sanatana Gosvami, his disciple is Sri Rupa

Gosvami, and his disciple is Sri Jiva Gosvami. Sri Syamananda Prabhu is the

siksa disciple of this very Sri Jiva Gosvami. It will not be an

exaggeration

to mention here that in tattva, rasa, bhajana and in all respects, Sri Jiva

Gosvami was superior to Sri Hrdaya Caitanya. Therefore Sri Hrdaya Caitanya

himself personally sent Sri Syamananda Prabhu to Sri Jiva Gosvami for

advanced instruction in the practice of bhajana and Sri Syamananda Prabhu

accepted the anugatya (guidance) of Sri Jiva Gosvami. Thus the serious

matter which is deserving of our consideration here is this - which is

superior, pancaratrika guru-parampara or bhagavata-parampara?

 

Sri Narottama Thakura -- In the same way, according to pancaratrika

guru-parampara, Sri Narottama Thakura's guru is Sri Lokanatha dasa Gosvami.

Yet there is no record of Sri Lokanatha dasa Gosvami's pancaratrika diksa

guru to be found anywhere. In such texts as Sri Gaudiya Vaisnava Abhidhana

it has been stated that his guru is Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu. However,

it is a well known fact that Sriman Mahaprabhu did not make anyone His

disciple according to the pancaratrika pranali (method). Therefore, if

Sriman Mahaprabhu is the guru of Sri Lokanatha Gosvami, then it is only on

the basis of bhagavat-parampara. On the other hand, although Sri Narottama

Thakura is the pancaratrika disciple of Sri Lokanatha Gosvami, he is also

the disciple of Sri Jiva Gosvami in bhagavata-parampara. In the anugatya of

Sri Jiva Gosvami, Sri Narottama Thakura became steeped in bhajana-siksa.

 

Sri Raghunatha dasa Gosvami -- In pancaratrika-parampara Sri Raghunatha

dasa Gosvami is a disciple of Sri Yadunandanacarya, who is situated in the

pancaratrika sakha (branch) of Sri Advaitacarya. On the other hand, if we

deeply consider the life history of Sri Raghunatha dasa Gosvami, then we

find the indelible influence of the bhajana-siksa of Sri Svarupa Damodara

and Sri Rupa Gosvami is very clear. Sri Svarupa Damodara and Sri Rupa

Gosvami are his gurus in bhagavata-parampara. In this example also, if we

compare pancaratrika-parampara with bhagavata-parampara then we find the

superiority of bhagavata-parampara is shining as radiantly as the sun.

 

Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana -- According to pancaratrika guru-parampara Sri

Baladeva Vidyabhusana is a pancaratrika disciple of Sri Radha Damodara in

the parampara of Sri Syamananda Prabhu. On the other hand, from the

viewpoint of bhagavata-parampara he is a disciple of Sri Visvanatha

Cakravarti Thakura. Sri Radha Damodara himself had personally sent Sri

Baladeva Vidyabhusana to Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura to study Srimad

Bhagavata and all the various Gosvami literatures and also to receive

advanced instruction in bhajana. The guidance of Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti

Thakura in the life of Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana is widely known. Only

under

the guidance of Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura did he defeat the Sri

Vaisnavas in the royal court of Galta and keep intact the service and

worship of Sri Sri Radha-Govindaji. Attaining the mercy of Sri Govindadeva,

the worshipable deity of Sri Rupa Gosvami, he composed Sri Govinda Bhasya.

 

There is certainly no room for any doubt about Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti

Thakura being a rupanuga Vaisnava. Therefore, since Sri Baladeva

Vidyabhusana is under the guidance of Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura

there is also no doubt about his rupanugatva, his being a rupanuga

Vaisnava.

Furthermore, it is a well known fact that, having attained the mercy of Sri

Govindadeva, he ensured the continuing service of that very deity who was

the treasured life's breath of Sri Rupa Gosvami. So from this perspective

in

the light of his attaining the mercy of Srila Rupa Gosvami and his

aradhyadeva Sri Govindaji, what doubt could possibly remain in regard to

his

rupanugatva?

 

Sri Bhaktivinoda Thakura: According to the pancaratrika guru-parampara Sri

Vipina Bihari Gosvami, who is situated in the pancaratrika-parampara of Sri

Sri Jahnava Thakurani, is the diksa-guru of Sri Bhaktivinoda Thakura. On

the

other hand Vaisnava Sarvabhauma Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji Maharaja is

his

bhajana siksa-guru in bhagavata-parampara. Jagannatha dasa Babaji Maharaja

is a disciple of the famous Madhusudana dasa Babaji Maharaja in the

parampara of Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana. In regard to tattva-jnana,

bhajana-siksa etc it is not necessary to say that Vaisnava Sarvabhauma

Srila

Jagannatha dasa Babaji Maharaja is superior to Sri Vipina Bihari Gosvami.

No-one can deny that the stamp of the guidance (anugatya) of Srila

Jagannatha dasa Babaji Maharaja is imprinted in the life of Sri

Bhaktivinoda

Thakura.

 

Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura -- According to pancaratrika

guru-parampara his diksa guru is Sri Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja,

who,

by pancaratrika guru-parampara is situated in the branch of Sri Jahnava

Thakurani. Srila Babaji Maharaja accepted the attire of a renunciate (vesa)

from a disciple of Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji Maharaja, namely Sri

Bhagavata dasa Babaji Maharaja. Thus by bhagavata-parampara, Sri Gaura

Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja is in the branch of Srila Jagannatha dasa

Babaji

Maharaja. In this way Srila Sarasvati Thakura is in the parampara of Sri

Jahnava Thakurani by pancaratrika-parampara and he has been connected with

Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji Maharaja in bhagavata parampara.

 

By shedding light on his life history, it is established that he made the

practices, precepts, bhajana pranali and fulfilment of the aspirations of

Sri Bhaktivinoda Thakura the sole aim and object of his life. Thus, in

bhagavata-parampara his guru was Sri Bhaktivinoda Thakura, whose guru was

Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji Maharaja. Therefore there is not even the

least

opportunity to raise a finger against the guru-parampara of Srila Sarasvati

Thakura, the founder-acarya of the Sri Gaudiya Mathas.

 

There are several additional facts worthy of our consideration on the

subject of pancaratrika guru-parampara and bhagavata-parampara.

 

(1) If a pancaratrika diksa-guru in his siddha-svarupa (constitutional

spiritual form) is situated in a comparatively lower rasa than his

disciple,

then how will he give bhajana-siksa pertaining to the more elevated rasa?

In

this situation, the disciple must go elsewhere and take shelter of such a

Vaisnava who is qualified to administer the appropriate superior guidance.

For example, Sri Hrdaya Caitanya in Krsna-lila was an associate in

sakhya-rasa, whereas his disciple Sri Syamananda Prabhu (Duhkhi Krsna dasa)

was an associate in madhura-rasa. Therefore Sri Hrdaya Caitanya himself had

personally sent Duhkhi Krsna dasa to Srila Jiva Gosvami to receive higher

bhajana-siksa pertaining to madhura-rasa.

 

(2) The guru and disciple in pancaratrika guru-parampara may be in the same

rasa, however the guru may not be so highly qualified. Under such

circumstances for higher bhajana-siksa the disciple must go and take

shelter

of another uttama Vaisnava who will be called his guru in

bhagavata-parampara.

 

From these two considerations, we can conclude that there are some

inherent

defects in the pancaratrika process, whereas bhagavat-parampara, being

completely free from these defects, is flawless in all respects.

 

(3) All members of the Gaudiya sampradaya consider themselves to be the

followers of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, accepting Him as jagadguru. However,

on what basis do they consider that they are His followers and accept that

He is their guru? Sriman Mahaprabhu is not anyone's guru in

pancaratrika-parampara, although He Himself is a disciple of Sri Isvara

Puri

in pancaratrika-parampara. There is no recorded account anywhere to the

effect that Sriman Mahaprabhu has given diksa-mantra to anyone. Therefore

if

the Gaudiya Vaisnava community accepts the anugatya and discipleship of

Sri

Caitanya Mahaprabhu then that can only be on one basis, and that basis is

--

bhagavata-parampara.

 

(4) Each and every Gaudiya Vaisnava is proud to call himself rupanuga. But

let us consider this point; how many people did Sri Rupa Gosvami make his

disciple by the pancaratrika method? Sri Jiva Gosvami is his one and only

diksa disciple. So on what basis do the Gaudiya Vaisnava community accept

Sri Rupa Gosvami as their guru? Sri Rupa Gosvami himself is also not a

diksa

disciple of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Therefore how is it possible to be a

follower of Sri Rupa Gosvami and at the same time be a follower of Sri

Caitanya Mahaprabhu? Even Sri Sanatana Gosvami who is the siksa-guru of Sri

Rupa Gosvami has no second thoughts about calling himself rupanuga. The

basis of all these examples is one -- bhagavata-parampara. Sri Rupa Gosvami

is the disciple of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the Gaudiya Vaisnava

community consider Sri Rupa Gosvami to be their guru only on the basis of

bhagavata-parampara.

 

Who is the pancaratrika diksa-guru of Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami? He

has not mentioned the name of his pancaratrika diksa-guru in any of his

literatures. He has described the names of his siksa-gurus in Sri Caitanya

Caritamrta, Adi 1.37:

 

ei chaya guru -- siksa-guru ye amara,

tan-sabara .-padme koti namaskara

 

And at the end of each chapter of Sri Caitanya Caritamrta it is written:

 

sri-rupa-raghunatha-pade yara asa,

caitanya caritamrta kahe krsna dasa

 

By this he has accepted Sri Rupa Gosvami and Sri Raghunatha

dasa Gosvami as his main siksa-gurus. Thus he has also accepted them as

gurus on the basis of bhagavata-parampara.

 

From these facts it becomes thoroughly obvious that bhagavata-parampara,

which includes pancaratrika parampara, always shines forth brilliantly.

Therefore, whoever ignores these facts and casts aspersions upon the

guru-pranali of Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and

Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura or doubts that they are rupanuga is

certainly a staunch opponent of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and a secret agent

of Kali.

 

Thus whatever opinion my most worshipable Srila Gurudeva has written on the

subject of the guru-pranali of Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana and also in regard

to pancaratrika guru-parampara and bhagavata-parampara is both logical and

fully in agreement with the established conclusions of the scriptures

(sastra-siddhanta).

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Rascal wrote:

 

 

 

Actually, I wrote it... though I suppose you could call me a rascal. It will help me to develop a little humility, and anyway since I have no taste for serving the Lord's lotus feet, it's probably true...

 

 

 

I agree with this 100% (and I am an American by the way).

 

 

 

Thank you! I'm glad someone understood what I was getting at without trying to accuse me of racism. I guess it's a limitation of the internet that remarks can be so easily misconstrued. LOL, most of my devotee friends are in American bodies and are some of the best examples of the sort of "culture" I was trying to refer to! I also notice some elements of that culture even among ordinary Indians - I take this to be a surviving remnant of Vedic culture rather than a uniquely "Indian" thing. There are many things done by Indians which are nonsense, but sometimes when you look closely at the older generation in particular, you can see traces of habits which were followed even in ancient times. Like, for example, the way a guest is received. But I digress....

 

 

In India people are cultured enough to respect Sadhus, even those that are not 100% authentic.

 

The system is a sadhu must be respected reagrdless of whether one accepts his teachings or not. In such a cultural setting, you will never find a respectable person like Bhaktivinoda Thakur writing offensive and critical remarks about someone who was previously his guru.

 

 

 

And that was my point all along. If we had to choose one person who deserves to be called as the "guru" of Bhaktivinod Thakur, it is Jagannatha dasa Babaji. The fact that Bhaktivinod has not "rejected" Bipin Bihari Gosvami explicitly is not at all unusual. He did get diksha from him and obviously must have thought the world of him at one point. Incidentally, it is also well known that before getting interested in Vaishnavism, Bhaktivinod Thakur was in the employment of the British and was quite taken aback with Christianity. Should I judge him to be a Christian and and a British collaborator based on his early writings? This is the logical result of the sort of specious reasoning used by Bipin Bihari supporters to date. We have to take the full historical context into account, I think.

 

Alpa-medhasa

[theist]

In reply to:

--

Theist:

Myself I can't imagine accepting one as a representative of Krsna who does not have a living connection with his own guru and the Lord in the heart.

 

 

--

Guest:

 

 

As you probably know the ritivk point here would be that Prabhupada is not dead, he is still living and very much alive. There are those who never met him but experienced his presence.

------------------------

 

Yes, I understand Prabhupada is not to be considered a 'dead' guru which is what is implied when people use the term living guru. I simply hate hearing that.

 

What I mean by living connection with guru has nothing to do with bodily existence of guru in this dimension or not.

 

Even if the "disciple" is in the same room with the person who gave him his beads and performed some initiation ceremony the connection may be dead. Whereas someone who never met his guru in vapuh may even now have a living connection through his vani.

 

As I see it only the connection should be considered living or dead and never the guru. It seems like such a highly offensive term.

 

Unless one has a living connection to someone with a living connection he is not linked up to the parampara as I see it.

[Guest guest]

 

The current guru system of ISKCON under the regulation and dictation of the GBC is a vastly greater departure from the traditional Gaudiya parampara than is the ritvik system.

 

 

This has got to be one of the most idiot things I have ever seen written. There is no precedent for a ritvik system in the Gaudiya parampara! How is it any better than the ISKCON system?

 

The basic idea behind ritvik is that you can go to a less qualified individual as a representative guru of someone more qualified. But such a thing is not stated by Lord Krishna in BG 4.34. According to it, we should approach someone who is qualified, i.e. who has seen the truth. If no one like that exists today, then the parampara is dead. There's nothing like going to an unqualified individual for instruction in place of an actual guru.

 

Alpa