HG Urmila nominated as a diksa guru

[theist]

 

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.

 

 

I am sorry but I believe you are the one who is concocting on this point of disciples forming their own branches.

 

 

Here is an excerpt from a letter to Kirtananda LA Jan. 25, 1969

 

Regarding your question about the disciplic succession coming down from Arjuna, it is just like I have got my disciples, so in the future these many disciples may have many branches of disciplic succession. So in one line of disciples we may not see another name coming from a different line. But this does not mean that person whose name does not appear was not in the disciplic succession. Narada was the Spiritual Master of Vyasadeva, and Arjuna was Vyasadeva's disciple, not as initiated disciple but there was some blood relation between them. So there is connection in this way, and it is not possible to list all such relationships in the short description given in Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person. The conclusions which we have tried to explain in our Bhagavad-gita As It Is is the same as those conclusions of Arjuna. Arjuna accepted Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and we also accept the same truth under the disciplic succession of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. This is an axiomatic truth. So there is no difference of opinion of understanding Krishna between ourselves and Arjuna. Another example is that a tree has many branches, and you will find one leaf here and another leaf there. But if you take this leaf and the other leaf and you press them both, you will see that the taste is the same. The taste is the conclusion, and from the taste you can understand that both leaves are from the same tree.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I have no difficulty with your explanation of branches or the quote you found. My point was the countless times Prabhupada has discouraged us from doing our own thing, creating unbonafide branches, as he has complained about many times. Also, the quoes were in reference to him or qualified pure devotee gurus. Our current "vote 'em in" system of guru would not fit with these quotes. If they were to create branches, they would not be bonafide since they are not uttama adhikari. This was my point. It is the unqualified who are more tempted to do their own thing and branch off. I am no big iskcon supporter, but at least they keep their eye on the guru and if he falls down, he can't cover it up with any cult like clique like say Bhaktipada could, as he and his temple was considered a branch at one time.

[theist]

I thought you were saying gurus could be only in Iskcon. Sorry I misunderstood.

 

Yes that is a serious problem. Unqualified people voting in unqualified gurus and then having to keep their eye on them to make sure they don't exploit their disciples. The whole mess is an unnecessary disturbance.

 

The solution is to see Prabhupada's example.

[Guest guest]

I hadn't realize it sounded like I was saying guru's could only be in ISKCON. Now I see where it does. Sorry. I realize a pure deovtee can appear anywhere. I was saying though, that as Prabhupada's disciples he didn't want us to go off and do our own thing, and I find that scary anyway, for the reasons mentioned. But Prabhupada worked very hard to create a pure society, which it is far from, but I dont want to give up on it. I'd like to see it functional and correctly spiritual again. I had read something in Caitanya Caritamrta years ago where Prabhupada criticized branching off, so this too is what came to my mind. I did not get the feeling he wanted us to do something separate from him. However, I agree there can be pure devotees all over the planet, and they may show up in various groups. For us, in my humble opinion, we should stick with Prabhupada.

 

That may make my opinion more clear or sound worse. not sure.

[Guest guest]

 

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.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada has started many things which were contradictory to scripture. Only a pure devotee can do that. We can not do that. He started the brahmacarini ashrama which is nonexistent in Vedic literature, he gave women Gayatri/Brahmana initiation, he crossed over water and traveled as a sanyasi in order to preach, etc. So if someone wishes to disagree with ritvik in general, thats different. However, we can know the pure devotee does not have to follow shastra.

 

While such a thing may not be stated by Krishna in Gita, it is possible for Krishna to tell Prabhupada personally. He had direct communication and many of us know this who were around at the time.

 

Regardless, there is much evidence that ritvik was his last instruction. Some can disagree this was his last instruction, but not that he, the pure deovtee, had no right to do make changes according to time, place and circumstances in kali yuga, which isn't to indicate you were but to clarify how ritvik is possible and in line with Prabhupada.

[Guest guest]

 

 

Srila Prabhupada has started many things which were contradictory to scripture. Only a pure devotee can do that. We can not do that....

 

However, we can know the pure devotee does not have to follow shastra.

 

 

That is merely your own mental speculation. In bhagavad-gita Lord Krishna states that although He has no work to perform, nevertheless He is engaged in prescribed duties to set the example. He also states that great men the set the example by which others follow.

 

It is well known that an uttama-adhikari must come down to the level of a madhyama-adhikari (i.e. following scripture) to preach. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati demonstrated this practically by adopting the robes of sannyasa and reinstituting such things as brahmin initiation, sannyasa initiation, etc.

 

 

He started the brahmacarini ashrama which is nonexistent in Vedic literature,

 

 

However, the principle of protecting women does exist in Manu-samhita. Given that there was no alternative institution doing this, what Srila Prabhupada did was perfectly justified. In fact, one could argue that not to do so is ignorance of scriptural principles. The example above is a very poor one to validate your theory.

 

 

he gave women Gayatri/Brahmana initiation,

 

 

 

Again, there are Brahmin women too. This is only logical since brahmin men usually only marry brahmin women as a matter of custom. And as far as the Gayatri is concerned, I am not aware of specific prohibitions to women chanting it. I in fact recall reading somewhere that Mother Sita did chant it.

 

 

he crossed over water and traveled as a sanyasi in order to preach, etc.

 

 

 

I have yet to see the scriptural injunction which prohibits this. But assuming it exists, a Vaishnava should know the purpose behind the regulation instead of just blindly following it. Narada Muni told Dhurva Maharaja that devotional service must be taken up according to time, place and circumstance. This isn't the same thing as saying that you don't have to follow shastra. The example is given by Narada Muni himself. He gave Dhruva Maharaja the pranava mantra even though this is usually reserved for brahmins only. He didn't make up the mantra - he simply adjusted it for that particular time seeing Dhruva's special circumstances.

 

 

While such a thing may not be stated by Krishna in Gita, it is possible for Krishna to tell Prabhupada personally. He had direct communication and many of us know this who were around at the time.

 

 

 

Right, here's the real danger of the ritvik doctrine: "We don't have to justify our beliefs based on shastra. Srila Prabhupada is a pure devotee in direct communion with Krishna and he can do what he wants." Like that, ritviks don't care what's in shastra. Instead, they expect that everyone else (even people outside the sampradaya) should accept their initial assumptions about Srila Prabhupada's credentials. Can you imagine what would happen if such idiocy went face to face with a non-Gaudiya critic of our philosophy?

 

.....

Madhva: Krishna is a form of Vishnu because in Vishnu Purana x.y.z it is stated...

 

Ritvik: I don't care about shastra. Prabhupada has given the siddhanta. He is in direct communion with Krishna obviously, so how dare you believe something else!

....

 

It's strange, but these ritviks don't understand Vedic culture at all. Srila Prabhupada is not a prophet whose every word is a shruti onto itself. He is a representative of a timeless Vedic culture. And that is why we worship him as a pure devotee.

 

These ritviks accept Prabhupada the way they accept Jesus - as the founder of some new idea based whose credentials must be accepted on the basis of blind faith.

 

 

moderators note: part of post removed as guest poster was unable to do so, see below

[Guest guest]

Oops, I had meant to delete the above from my last posting.

 

 

 

moderators note: part mistakenly included in above post removed, as guest unable to do so.

[Guest guest]

I'd like to respond to the post by guest (could the various guests please at least pick some name by which they can be differentiated and known so it is easier to respond?) quoted here:

 

"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."

 

Complain all you want, but I have yet to see any valid complaint registered here on this discussion regarding the qualifications or lack thereof of Urmila dd. She is a disciple of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami who has been practicing KC for 30 years. I don't know how well read she is or how good her overall sastric education has been - I haven't seen anything posted in this thread in that regard. What do we know about her? She is accepted by A.C. Bhaktivedanta as his duly initiated disciple - that much has certainly been established. When Sri Guru accepts a disciple he/she invests all their potency in that disciple - so we know she has good backing. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta said in one of his addressess on Guru Purnima (or it may have been his appearance day -not sure on that one) that he took up the position of Guru and the order of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and he quoted the pertinent verses from CC in that regard. Make no mistake about it, Sri Guru is not interested in disciples - he/she is interested in Gurus - real disciple means real Guru.

 

If you know of something about Urmila which disqualifies her as a disciple and represetatvie of her Guru Maharaja you certainly have not demonstrated it in this discussion. As much spritual capital as we recieve from our Guru Maharaja we are obligated and expected to spend that capital and help others as we ourselves have been helped. Urmila can give to others whatever she has imbibed from her Guru Maharaja. Why should you or anyone object to such a thing?

 

I don't know what your idea is regarding qualifications and such but I would suggest that a very good read for you or anyone who is interested this subject matter is 'Sri Guru and His Grace' by B.R. Sridhara Maharaja. In one section of that book he explains how he once thought the the Guru must be perfect and know everything. He cites three things, examples from his life and scripture, which changed his mind on that issue. I'll only cite one. He relates how he met one doctor and challenged him - 'do you know everything there is to know about medicine and healing?' The doctor answered 'no'. So the challenge was - how can you have the audacity to claim to be a healer if you don't have the knowledge to cure everyone? Sridhara Maharaja says that later he reflected on this and realized that the healing must be done - regardless of qualification - whatever capacity the doctor has for helping others - he must utilize that in good faith.

 

So you want to complain - show us the 'sastric qualifications' you expect Urmila dd to meet and then show us why you think she doesn't measure up to them - that would be more convincing than simply saying she must meet the sastric standards and not showing how it is that you feel she doesn't.

 

As far as the circle of faith goes - that is very personal whether you recognize it or not. Not everyone feels the same way or has the same faith that you have about your own Guru Maharaja (whoever that is) - these differences are there and will always be there. Who inspires faith in you and helps you to grow in KC may not be as inspirational to me. Who you feel is an uttama adhikari and the topmost Guru - the Jagad Guru - I may not agree with that assessment. Faith cannot be legislated. Ultimately it is up to the seeker of truth to decide for themselves where to place their faith. Sridhara Maharaja said in this regard that we should be faith makers not faith breakers. How much does it take for a person to come to the point of surrender even in a small way? How much must one risk in order to come forward and give up their comforts and what keeps them bound to matter in order to actually progress? We should applaud those attempts and encourage those who make that endeavor and support their faith. Besides that, if it is true that in order to recognize an Uttama adhikari one must have similar qualifications - who is it that is so qualified? It is all about faith in the end. And as much as there is blind faith, there is also real tangible faith.

 

My only point about leaving an institution is that there is a higher principle - that is the absolute consideration. We may find that in order to serve the absolute we must give up the lesser thing. We are not servants of the institution, we are servants of the absolute and if such a situation may arise where we find ourselves having to decide between the two - the choice is obvious for those who have come for the genuine article.

 

Srila Prabhupada's example is exemplary in this regard. He very much wanted to be supported by GM and cooperate with them. He always tried for this - but in the end he had to go alone and set up an independent institution in order to serve his Guru Maharaja.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

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.

 

 

Of course it would change. You will have presented clear and conclusive unarguable evidence that Srila Bhaktivinoda rejected Vipin Vihari Goswami as his revered Gurudeva. This would mean that Srila Bhaktivinoda's diciples are disconnected in their respective paramparas and have no hope. Unless of course, you are going to quote me the usual pancaratra/bhagavata balderdash that has been quoted many times before?

 

 

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.

 

 

Are you aware that Rupa-vilasa's "biography" has been criticised by senior devotees in ISKCON? The reasons generally include the fact that this biography is not detailed enough about certain pivotal events, and that Rupa-vilasa presents almost exactly the same weak speculations that you do. If you are seriously arguing on the basis of RVd's biography, then I'm afraid that you will no longer be credible. And before you ask, yes I have RVd's biography of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Bhaktivinoda. I also have Shukavak's study. Have you read Shukavak's book? There is a lot to be learned there.

 

 

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?

 

 

This is a ridiculous argument, because the initiation of Srila Bhaktivedanta is not disputed. For one thing, he himself is on record stating so and I think he did give the date for his initiation, though I'm not sure. On the other hand, you haven't presented any evidence that Srila Bhaktivinoda accepted Jagannatha das Babaji as his guru. More on this later.

 

 

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."

 

 

Well, I don't think that Jagat labelled you as an ISKCON fanatic. What he meant to say is that you are a 'scoundrel' if you think that just because you can provide no evidence to suggest that Bhaktivinoda rejected his guru and took Jagannatha das Babaji, it is still true simply because it is "likely."

Well, there's just one problem with your idea that I have said before: You cannot present your speculations as evidence. You have to accept the fact that no evidence exists. Your meaningless descriptions about being "highly cultured" do not have any relevance because according to the dictates of the Hari-bhakti-vilasa, a disciple who perceives his guru as "deviant" in any way is required to renounce him publicly. And vice-versa. So your "cultural" arguments are weak, again.

 

 

It is a fact that Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji is listed as Bhaktivinod's guru in Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's parampara.

 

 

Nobody is disputing that. In fact, you have just hit on the very crux of the matter. As I explained to you at least twice before, the Gaudiya tradition traces its parampara via diksa and not siksa. It is only Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's parampara that presents a fabricated siksa-parampara. This in itself shows that the opinion of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is not relevant to what we are talking about. Unless of course you choose to accept what he says which you obviously are.

 

 

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.

 

 

Not so fast. Remember that you are viewing the parampara only through Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's eyes. Have you forgotten that it is the opinion of Srila Bhaktivinoda himself that truly matters here? Given my reply to your previous point, how does a fabricated siksa-parampara prove anything, especially of your points? Nobody is denying that Jagannatha das Babaji was the siksa-guru of Srila Bhaktivinoda. The problem here is that paramparas in the Gaudiya tradition are traced by diksa, not siksa. This means you are wrong. Srila Bhaktivinoda himself initiated many disciples and presented his 'Vipin Vihari Goswami' parampara to all of them. Did you know that Jagat is a grand-disciple of Srila Bhaktivinoda? Jagat can verify that his great-grand-guru is Vipin Vihari Goswami, not Jagannatha das Babaji. This is because paramparas are traced through diksa and not siksa. Will I have to repeat this any more times?

 

 

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.

 

 

Really, I find your logic to be extremely appalling. Having several times informed you of the precedence of diksa-paramparas over non-existent 'siksa-paramparas' in this and previous posts, it is obvious that it is Vipin Vihari Goswami who was Srila Bhaktivinoda's guru. You cannot emphasize a connection with someone else because you ar enot authorised to do so. By the way, since you mention Rupa-vilasa's biographies, have you read RVd's biography of Srila Bhaktivinoda? According to it, Srila Bhaktivinoda had several siksa-gurus. At least three as my memory recalls. So why are you emphasizing the connection of Jagannatha das Babaji above the other three? If it is because you are attempting to follow the path of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, then you are on extremely shaky ground. The fact of the matter is that Vipin Vihari Goswami is Bhaktivinoda's guru. Mahaprabhu sent VVG to Bhaktivinoda, and Bhaktivinoda himself acknowledges this in several places. "You can dance around the issue all you want, but nothing will change that fact."

 

By the way, did you read with scintillating interest the article by B.B. Bodhayan Maharaja that was posted in the last page? I found it to be highly interesting? The very title of that lecture should enlighten people about this issue.

 

 

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.

 

 

First of all, Madhavananda was never a disciple of Srila Prabhupada. And for that matter, neither was Satyanarayana das. I see that you have resorted to your old "comparison" tactic. I think I clearly explained to you in my previous posting how this comparison is not valid. It appears that you are the one did not get it, Alpamedhasaji. "Culture" is an extremely weak argument. You are using this argument so that you can dishonestly "prove" your ideas as fact, all to get around the fact that there is no evidence of your ideas. Your ideas are totally speculative. Last I heard, evidence is needed to prove any point.

 

 

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.

 

 

It is a fact that Srila Bhaktivinoda was eating meat upto the point of receiving diksha. This means that he was eating meat even when he was publicly respected as an honourable Vaishnava and writing several of his most popular books, including Krsna-samhita. Where is the evidence for this? Well, Srila Bhaktivinoda himself stated the facts in his autobiogaphy. Would you have me believe that his authobiography is 'unbelievable' simply because you may not agree with the contents?

By the way, are you seriously trying to use this example that just because Bhaktivinoda's eating of meat was an "error", so he similarly made another "error" by selecting a less qualified guru? Again you are on seriously shaky grounds, not to mention committing most serious Vaishnava-aparadha. I just told you that upon receiving diksa, the desire to eat meat was totally dissipated from Bhaktivinoda's heart. This is almost exactly what Bhaktivinoda states in his autobiography. Doesn't that tell you something about the power of the diksha by Vipin Vihari Goswami? And what about the fact that Mahaprabhu Himself appeared in Bhaktivinoda's dreams shortly before he received diksa, telling him that He (Mahaprabhu) was soon going to send him a guru?

 

 

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.

 

 

It is mental speculation, that's a fact. Not only is it just mental speculation, it is Vaishnava-aparadha. You can perhaps get away with speculating but you cannot get away woth Vaishnava-aparadha unless the Vaishnava forgives you. About Bhaktisiddhanta's judgement, really it is the word of the whole entire Gaudiya tradition against his, not just that of Lalita Prasad Thakura. By the way, are you aware that no Vaishnava school anywhere has a siksa-parampara? No Madhva, no Ramanuja, no Vallabha, no Nimabarki, no nothing. Not even the "mayavadi" Sankara. All their paramparas are based on diksa. So Bhaktisiddhanta's judgment is not just against the whole Gaudiya tradition, it is against the whole of the Vedic ones too. The opinion of the majority may matter in some cases. In this case, it obviously does.

 

 

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.

 

 

Why do you speculate that something "may" have been wrong? Might not have been, maybe, and so on. Why do you not apply the same standards to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta? It seems that this is a double-standard we have here. By the way, let me emphasize again that Bhaktisiddhanta's "opinion" on this matter is largely irrelevant. What matters is Bhaktivinoda's opinion, and we should all know by now what that opinion was, exactly.

 

 

Didn't he get into some kind of fight with Bhaktivinod over the location of Mayapur?

 

 

Looks to me that the entire residential area of Mayapur fought with Bhaktivinoda. I am glad that you brought up this topic of Mayapur. It seems that according to facts collected in Jagat's article on the subject, there is more evidence to suggest that it was perhaps Vipin Vihari Goswami who rejected Bhaktivinoda as his disciple, rather than vice-versa. Now I am not prepared to argue this position, as I am simply in the process of ascertaining the facts. However, there is more evidence of the former proposal than the latter.

 

 

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.

 

 

That's too bad. Hari-bhakti-vilasa and other Vaishnava dharma-sastras clearly enjoin the disciple to reject the guru in public if something "iffy" is perceived. And vice-versa for the guru concerning the disciple. Being "cultured" is of no advantage to anybody. Except perhaps you, who is heavily relying on this weak argument to prove your speculative ideas.

 

 

"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?

 

 

Fantastic. I was waiting to see if you would bring this subject up. Why should there be a controversy over the fact that Bhaktivinoda calls Jagannatha das Babaji as his "guru"? We have already stated above and previously that the relationship between them was that of siksa, and not diksa. That much is obvious. What you are trying to say is that Bhaktivinoda rejected his diksa-guru and emphasized his conenction to his siksa-guru. Not only is that untrue and highly speculative, but there is simply no evidence for it. Why can you not understand this simple point?

 

When Bhaktivinoda praises VVG in his siddha form, did you notice that? Did you notice that he is praying to members of his guru-varga in their siddha forms? Why does he do that? Do you know?

 

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.

 

 

Your position is simply as speculative as speculation can get. In fact, you have taken a novel position. Everybody (thankfully even today in the Gaudiya Math) acknowledges that VVG was Bhaktivinoda's diksa-guru and JDB was his siksa-guru. Some emphasize one over the other. It seems to be only you who is saying that Bhaktivinoda rejected VVG for JDB. That is a highly bold, not to mention offensive, statement to make. This is the very fact why I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence, of which you have none.

 

I'll even tell you why the relationship has been downplayed: BECAUSE THE SARASVATA-PARAMPARA IS A FABRICATION.

 

It's as simple as that. Now, I don't know why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta presented an invalid parampara although I would be highly interested in the reason, but simply the fact that paramparas are traced by diksa in the Gaudiya tradition is reason enough not to take it seriously at least for the time being.

 

 

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.

 

 

Fair point, I'll admit that I may not have given you a chance to respond. This is because I respond to posts on an individual basis rather than a collectiv eone. Thankfully you have presented your case in one post and I have replied in one post, so perhaps it can stay this way.

 

By the way, what do you make of the fact that Mahaprabhu sent VVG to Bhaktivinoda? I don't remember you responding to this point.

 

If you wish to respond further, then may I suggest you do so in another thread? This topic is about how Urmila-devi is nominated to be ISKCON's first female diksa-guru. The only reason why Bhaktivinoda came into the affair is because Babhru das posted Bhaktivinoda's guru-line, which clearly includes women and an thus be used as a precedent for female gurus in Gaudiya tradition. Your point about Bhaktisiddhanta's "rejection" of this parampara is irrelevant to this topic. I suggest you try to search the forum archives for the threads in which this topic has been beaten to death many a time. If not, then go ahead and create a new thread to discuss it yet one more time, and we can all repeat the same arguments again and again.

 

Best wishes,

 

Gaurasundara /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

P.S. Your style of talking reminds me of Hari Krishna Susarla. Are you him or an associate of his, by any chance?

[Guest guest]

 

If we had to choose one person who deserves to be called as the "guru" of Bhaktivinod Thakur, it is Jagannatha dasa Babaji.

 

 

Maybe I got it wrong, but I was under the impression that we had to accept the parampara as the guru gives it. In this case, Srila Bhaktivinoda never never never presented his parampara as coming from Jagannatha das Babaji, even after his so-called "rejection" of Vipin Vihari Goswami. What do you have to say about that?

 

 

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.

 

 

You really should read all of Bhaktivinoda's writings on Christianity as just one example. He may have written positive things but he also penned rather harsh criticisms of it.

 

By the way, did you know that Mahaprabhu received sannyasa-initiation from one of those "rascal Mayavadis" ? What am I supposed to do with that? Is Mahaprabhu an Advaitin?

 

I already know the arguments that you may present to refute this point as I am well aware of them, but for all intents and purposes Sriman Mahaprabhu was initiated by a Mayavadi for sannyasa. By that sort of "specious logic," this means that Mahaprabhu is a Mayavadi. Right?

[Guest guest]

 

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?

 

 

Click on the link below to find out:

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakura on Christianity.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

It is only Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's parampara that presents a fabricated siksa-parampara.

 

 

This argument again. You should go educate yourself and come back when your done. The siksha parampara did not originate with Bhaktisiddhanta, and is a timeless Vedic tradition begining with Lord Krishna instructing Arjuna via divya-jnanam. Arjuna never received diksha mantras from Krishna on the battlefield of kurukshetra, but was initiated as his disciple via siksha. Sukadeva Goswami also initiated Maharaja Parikshit via siksha, and Parikshit attained the highest abode of Vaikuntha through this initiation into divya-jnanam. In more recent times, Ramanuja was initiated by Yamunacharya despite never having spoken to him or seen him prior to his leaving his body. Diksha mantras were later given to Ramanuja by one of Ramanuja's God brothers, thereby showing that it is not the diksha mantras that make one the disciple, otherwise Ramanuja would not be the disciple of Yamunacharya but of Goshthi Purna.

 

Baladeva Vidyabhushana himself accepts a Sikhsa parampara that includes Madhvacharya in our line, something most of the caste Goswami lines and so-called "traditional paramparas" do not do. Madhva did not received diksha mantras from Vyasa, he only received Siksha and this is elaborately explained in the authoritative biographies of Madhva. Madhvacharya received diksha mantras from Achyutapreksha, who was actually his own siksha disciple.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur accepted the Siksha parampara listed by Baladeva Vidyabhushana as fact, not fabrication:

 

"The Brahma disciplic line is the path recognized by all the followers of Lord Caitanya. This information has been obtained in accordance with the evidence of the book 'Gaura Ganodesa Dipika' of Srila Kavikarnapura, written in proper sequence and has been verified by Srila Vidyabhusana. One who does not accept this succession is definitely the foremost enemy of the Gaudiya Vaishnavites."

 

Elsewhere he writes:

 

"Very soon, only one authorized disciplic chain will remain by the name 'Sri Brahma-Sampradaya'. All the others will merge under this banner. The 'Sri Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya lineage of pure spiritual masters or guru parampara is defined in this fashion. As before Lord Krishna-Brahma-Narada-Vyasa-Madhva down the line to Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu."

 

There are plenty of other examples of Paramparas that were not based on diksha mantras. But judging by your fanatical writing style I see it as a complete waste of time to discuss this matter with you.

 

We should also remember that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu never initiated anyone with diksha mantras. Diksha mantras are not important compared to siksha, for it is by divine knowledge that one actually attains diksha.

 

 

By the way, are you aware that no Vaishnava school anywhere has a siksa-parampara? No Madhva, no Ramanuja, no Vallabha, no Nimabarki, no nothing.

 

 

Again, educate yourself and come back when your done. Simply your adding a dozen "no"s and "nothing"s does not make your statement true.

 

 

I just told you that upon receiving diksa, the desire to eat meat was totally dissipated from Bhaktivinoda's heart. This is almost exactly what Bhaktivinoda states in his autobiography. Doesn't that tell you something about the power of the diksha by Vipin Vihari Goswami?

 

 

It tells us nothing other than that the process of bhakti is so powerful that even following an unauthorized process brings one transcendental results and detachement.

 

 

Looks to me that the entire residential area of Mayapur fought with Bhaktivinoda. I am glad that you brought up this topic of Mayapur. It seems that according to facts collected in Jagat's article on the subject, there is more evidence to suggest that it was perhaps Vipin Vihari Goswami who rejected Bhaktivinoda as his disciple, rather than vice-versa.

 

 

And since Vipin Vihari Goswami rejected Bhaktivinoda as his disciple, the diksha connection with Lalit Prasad is bogus as are any initiations Lalit Prasad gave to his disciples. Such people have no link to any parampara, neither diksha nor siksha.

 

Gaudiya saints such as Jagannatha das Babaji have accepted Mayapur as the birth place of Mahaprabhu and Bhaktivinoda Thakur valued their judgement more than his so-called "diksha-guru" and other residents of Navadvipa. This should tell us something about who the real guru of Bhaktivinoda Thakur was.

 

In Bhaktivinoda's own words, he accepts the Siksha guru as more important:

 

"The initiating spiritual master (diksha-guru) shows his cause-less mercy by giving his disciples instructions in chanting the mantra. By so doing, he points the disciples in the direction of the truths pertaining to the Supreme Lord, Sri Krishna. I consider the numerous instructing spiritual masters (siksha-gurus) to be more important, for they show more mercy by training the sadhakas in all the essential aspects of sadhana-bhakti." - Kalyana-kalpataru

 

 

Hari-bhakti-vilasa and other Vaishnava dharma-sastras clearly enjoin the disciple to reject the guru in public if something "iffy" is perceived.

 

 

Please provide the sanskrit verses of this injunction.

 

 

I'll even tell you why the relationship has been downplayed: BECAUSE THE SARASVATA-PARAMPARA IS A FABRICATION.

 

 

The fact that the Sarasvata school of Gaudiya Vaishnavism has spread Mahaprabhu's holy name to every corner of the world, including to your house and my house, is enough proof for me that their parampara is certainly blessed and empowered.

 

Go back and do some more Gauranga Nityanada Mantra Rajas and cool your head. Maybe ask Swami Gaurangapada what he thinks of your nonsensical statements.

 

[Guest guest]

Thank you for defending our lineage and it's dignity from the slander posted by Gaurasundara.

 

My Guru Maharaja wrote a nice little booklet about our parampara and the validity of the siksha parampara as given to us by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

There was a nice posting of Narayana Maharaja's writings regarding our lineage earlier in this thread. Sridhara Maharaja has also written and spoken about the validity of the siksha parampara.

 

For Gaurasundara - I thought you were through with slandering devotees. Now you want to brand the entire Saravata lineage as bogus. Wow!

 

BTW, are you going to provide any evidence about some of the things you said or shall we just accept them becuase you said them? For instance you challenged that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur always presented his lineage with BBV as his Guru even after accepting siksha from Jaggannatha dasa babaji. Where is the proof of this statement? (this is just one example of the type of statement of fact without evidence that you have argued is unacceptable in the case of alpa-medasa - do you want a different standard used when it comes to your good self?)

 

I rather liked the article posted by Jagat that was written by Bodhayana Maharaja. I immediately felt that what he was writing was in line with proper ettiquete and that it was also true. His examples from the literature to show precedence for his understanding were very good as well.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Guest guest]

Gaurasundara UK:

"Of course it would change. You will have presented clear and conclusive unarguable evidence that Srila Bhaktivinoda rejected Vipin Vihari Goswami as his revered Gurudeva. This would mean that Srila Bhaktivinoda's diciples are disconnected in their respective paramparas and have no hope. Unless of course, you are going to quote me the usual pancaratra/bhagavata balderdash that has been quoted many times before?"

 

This should calm the fires and provide some enlightenment:

 

Sri Guru and His Grace Chapter 3

By Srila B.R. Sridhar Maharaj

 

Dead Mantras

 

So, the very gist of the guru parampara, the disciplic succession, is siksa, the spiritual teaching, and wherever it is to be traced, there is guru. One who has the transcendental eye, the divine eye, will recognize the guru wherever he appears. One who possesses knowledge of absolute divine love in purity--he is guru. Otherwise the guru parampara is only a body parampara: a succession of bodies. Then the caste brahmanas, the caste goswamis, will continue with their trade, because body after body, they are getting the mantra. But their mantra is dead. We are after a living mantra, and wherever we can trace the living tendency for a higher type of devotional service, we shall find that there is our guru. One who has that sort of vision awakened will be able to recognize the guru wherever he may appear.

 

Initiation into the mantra means to impart real knowledge and devotional sentiment from one to another. And that must be genuine. Nothing can be known about a homeopathic globule by an outer physical inspection, but the potency is within. So also within the mantra the important thing is the type of thought or sentiment which is imparted through that sound. The impersonalists have got the same mantra, and are also chanting, the holv name of Krsna, but that sort of name will vanish in the brahmajyoti. They won't be able to cross the Viraja, the river between the material and spiritual world. When the mayavadi chants the name of Krsna, Bhaktivinoda Thakura says that his chanting of the name of Krsna is just like thunder to the holy body of Krsna. It does not produce any soothing effect.

 

The Gaudiya Math deals with reality, not with the frame. We are trying to understand what is what in the spiritual thought-world. We are not enchanted or captured by the mere form. We are interested in the step by step development in spiritual thought. In his Upadesamrta (10), Srila Rupa Goswami has said, karmibhyah parito hareh priyataya vyaktim yayur jnaninas, tebhyo jnanavimukta bhakti-paramah premaika nisthas tatah. "Out of many materialists one may be a philosopher. Out of many philosophers, one may become liberated and take to devotional service. Out of many devotees, one may attain pure love of Krsna. He is the best of all." We are interested in understanding this gradation: what is the Viraja river, what is the spiritual sky, the planet of Lord Siva, the Vaikuntha world of Visnu, Lord Rama's Ayodhya, and then Krsna in Dwaraka, Mathura, and Vrndavana? We want to know the realistic view of the whole gradation of devotional thought. Krsna shows this gradation in the Srimad-Bhagavatam (11.14.15) where he says:

 

 

na tatha me priyatama

atma-yonir na sankarah

na ca sankarsano na srir

naivatma ca yatha bhavan

 

"Neither Brahma, nor Siva, nor Sankarsana of Vaikuntha, nor the goddess of fortune Laksmidevi, nor even my own self is as dear to me as you. You are my favorite, Uddhava."

 

We have to follow the spirit; otherwise after Jahnava devi, the wife of Lord Nityananda, up to Vipina Goswami, from whom Bhaktivinoda Thakura took initiation, there are so many unknown lady gurus. Through them, the mantra came to Vipina Goswami, and from him Bhaktivinoda Thakura received the mantra. We accept Bhaktivinoda Thakura, but should we count all those ladies in our disciplic succession? What was their realization?

[Jagat]

Thanks for quoting that from Sridhara Maharaj. It will make the women of our sampradaya very happy.

 

Just because someone has not written big books or lengthy commentaries does not mean they are not advanced or self-realizaed. This comment implies that these ladies had no realization. Furthermore it implies that because they were women they were quasi-incapable of realization. This is what I get when I read this, and most people who read it get the same impression.

 

To me it shows the essence of the wrongheaded notion or misunderstanding that has been generated in the Gaudiya Math about the diksha sampradaya, and which is at the basis of all the confusion about self-effulgent gurus and exaggerated expectations from some kind of divine transcendental light coming from the unique representative of God on the planet, etc., etc.

 

When I wrote my Parampara article so many moons ago, when Satyaraj agreed to publish it in JVS, he had it vetted by several senior Iskcon devotees. They found this quote troubling and wanted me to remove it, but I refused.

[Guest guest]

"We have to follow the spirit; otherwise after Jahnava devi, the wife of Lord Nityananda, up to Vipina Goswami, from whom Bhaktivinoda Thakura took initiation, there are so many unknown lady gurus."

 

I believe this is the opening sentence that Jagat prabhu contends is offensive to all the ladies of our sampradaya.

 

I don't see this so much as Srila B.R. Sridhar Maharaj's contention that they were women, but that they are unknown. If you want to say it is wrong for me to quote this section of Sri Guru and His Grace because Maharaj cites that the "unknowns" are women, that's fine, but the bottom line is, I can't find ANY information whatsoever about Mahesvari Goswamini, Gunamañjari Goswamini, and Ramamani Goswamini.

 

As far as I can, they ARE unknown. I've not seen them explained in any books, and any internet search will only point to Brahma das prabhu's article where he explains the diksha parampara of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur.

 

I humbly ask that you or anyone here please provide us at the very least with some kind of information about the aforementioned Goswaminis. If they are not "unknown" as Sridhar Maharaj contends, then we can drop this debate as soon as we are all enlightened. I for one will be very happy.

[stonehearted]

I don't think I could say with any certainty what Srila B. R. Sridhar Maharaja meant to imply about the women gurus in Bhaktivinoda's diksa line. I see two things that may be inferred, though. One is what Jagat has offered: that they have n o realization. However, I don't think that this is necessarily what he meant, based on the attitutdes I see in those who accept Sridhar Maharaja's siksha. The other inference is simply that we don't know what their level of realization was, ans since we're more interested in link whose realization and contributions we can document, we list those devotees.

 

On another related note, I'm also not sure there's evidence that Bhaktivinoda did anything as drastic as reject Bipin Bihari Goswami, even quietly, as was mentioned in an earlier post, and replace him with Jagannath das. My understanding is that he gradually came to find the benefits of associating with and hearing from Jagannath das even greatere than what he received from Bipin Bihari. Creating a dicchotomy here reminds me of the ISKCON line that those who took siksha from Sridhar Maharaja, or who now take sikdha from Nrayana Maharaja, are somehow rejecting Srila Prabhupada. Even Jagat and Minaketana Ramdas, whom many revile as having rejected Srila Prabhupada by accepting initiation elsewhere, could be seen as not actually having rejected him, since both have publicly acknowledged their debt to him.

[Guest guest]

I try to avoid getting into arguments with fanatics, as I don't see much evidence that they assimilate what is being said to them and respond accordingly. This posting by Gaurasundara is a perfect example. However, I will respond to one point only:

 

 

 

Fantastic. I was waiting to see if you would bring this subject up. Why should there be a controversy over the fact that Bhaktivinoda calls Jagannatha das Babaji as his "guru"?

 

 

Gaurasundara, you previously stated, "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 was simply responding to this comment. Clearly there is evidence that Srila Bhaktivinod presented Jagannatha dasa Babaji as his guru. He could have given Bipin Bihari Gosvami's name here, but he did not, though he did in other writings which preceeded this one.

 

 

We have already stated above and previously that the relationship between them was that of siksa, and not diksa. That much is obvious.

 

 

JNdas has already quoted Srila Bhaktivinod's statement to the effect he considered the shiksha line more important than formal diksha alone:

 

"The initiating spiritual master (diksha-guru) shows his cause-less mercy by giving his disciples instructions in chanting the mantra. By so doing, he points the disciples in the direction of the truths pertaining to the Supreme Lord, Sri Krishna. I consider the numerous instructing spiritual masters (siksha-gurus) to be more important, for they show more mercy by training the sadhakas in all the essential aspects of sadhana-bhakti." - Kalyana-kalpataru

 

To this, I would like to add that "diksha" has a colloquial meaning (the meaning you take when you say Bipin Bihari is Bhaktivinod's diksha guru) as well as a functional meaning (which allows one to have diksha even in the absence of the formal ceremony by the same name). This latter meaning is given by Srila Jiva Gosvami, who quotes a passage from the Agamas in his Bhakti-sandarbha:

 

divyaM jJAnaM yato dadyAt kuryAt pApasya saGkSayam |

tasmAd dIkSeti sA proktA dezikais tattva kovidaiH ||

ato guruM praNamyaivaM sarvasvaM vinivedya ca |

gRhNIyAd vaiSNavaM mantraM dIkSA pUrvaM vidhAnataH ||

 

"The teachers who are knowers of the truth say that since it gives (da) divine knowledge and destroys (ksi) sin it is called diksa. Therefore, paying obeisance to the guru and offering him one's all, one should receive a Vaisnava mantra diksa preceded with proper procedures."

 

Please note that here diksha is defined by the actual transmission of divine knowledge. The procedure alone does not make it "diksha," although it is spoken of colloquially as such. This is why it is important to distinguish which guru was actually more influential in instructing Srila Bhaktivinod Thakura. If you want to say that Jagannatha dasa Babaji was Bhaktivinod's shiksha guru, then I have no problem with it. But if you want to say that Jagannatha dasa Babaji did not give diksha to Bhaktivinod, then based on the above definition I would have to beg to differ, in as much as I don't see how you can prove that Jagannatha dasa babaji did not transmit divine knowledge to Srila Bhaktivinod.

 

And as far as which guru was more instrumental in transmitting divine knowledge to Bhaktivinod, well. There is the fact that Bipin Bihari and Sri Bhaktivinod clashed over the location of Mayapur, suggesting some difference over at least one aspect of divine knowledge, does it not? As well as the fact that the parampara listing by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, who actually got results with the knowledge he had (unlike his critics), which prefers the listing from Jagannatha dasa Babaji.

 

 

What you are trying to say is that Bhaktivinoda rejected his diksa-guru

 

 

If you weren't so angry and quick to respond, you will see that I wrote no such thing. I simply pointed out that Bhaktivinod would not explicitly write of his rejection of Bipin Bihari Gosvami based on etiquette. It may be that BHaktivinod rejected BBG in his heart, or maybe he did not reject him necessarily but simply found a more qualified guru. Either way, if we speak of any one single "guru" for Bhaktivinod, it is Jagannatha dasa Babaji. If you want to insist that he also received mantra initiation previously by BBG, I have no problem with it. Getting mantra initiation in India is not a problem if you come from the right caste and know your gotra. Whether it is meaningful is another thing altogether.

 

 

When Bhaktivinoda praises VVG in his siddha form, did you notice that? Did you notice that he is praying to members of his guru-varga in their siddha forms? Why does he do that? Do you know?

 

 

 

Big deal. Many disciples of Srila Prabhupada also praised him as a personal associate of Krishna before leaving his service and spurning him later. This proves nothing.

[Guest guest]

Oops, that last posting was by me.

 

Alpa-medhasa

 

(so as not to get confused with any other guests)

 

 

[Guest guest]

I admit that when I first read the quote about the 'lady Gurus' in Sri Guru and His Grace I had the exact same impression that Jagat described. I wrote a note beside that quote when I read it indicating my own dissatisfaction with it. I still think that there could have been a better example given - but the principle is what has to be understood - we are looking for the substance, not the form. Besides that if you look at Sridhara Maharaja's writings and spoken words you will find that he did not hold the idea that women by dint of their gender were automatically to be discounted and thought of as being of little to no substance. In fact Sridhara Maharaja even predicted that we would have women acharyas in our lineage in the future (maybe predicted isn't accurate - I think it's more like acknowledged that the possibility exists that the day will come (again)).

 

Also, one should read the whole section where this quote comes from because Sridhara Maharaja gives other examples as well for the principle he is elucidating - we must be substance seekers, we must trace out the living vital life of saranagati and place our heads there and seek our prospect there. He also gives the example of chanting the maha mantra. He explains that the mantra is not the external sound - it is not only lip deep - it's very substance is living and conscious. Not only that, but Krsna is adhoksaja and supremely independent - no one can force him to do anything - so he is also more or less present in His Holy Name depending on His own sweet will. Srila Prabhupada also pointed this principle out when he said that the chanting should be heard from the lips of a pure devotee and he also said that if we hear it from the wrong source (one who doesn't have the substance) it can cause a poisonous effect - just like milk touched by the lips of a serpent. So we know that Krsna can't be contaminated in any way by anything - so what does this mean? It means that Krsna is present in the name chanted by his pure devotee and if we want to have a chance to be involved in that - the cultivation of suddha nama - then we must be careful to cultivate the chanting under the guidance of a suddha vaishnava.

 

BTW, the term Bhagavata Parampara has two meanings - it is a lineage of Mahabhagavatas and it is modeled after the lineage in which we recieve the Bhagavata itself, which is through a siksha lineage. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's siksha parampara is very much a critique of the Gaudiya Vaishanva tradition of his time and so serves to simultaneously disrupt it and unify it. It is disrupting because it is a critique of the perversions of the time. The examples given are illustrative of the idea - mantras passed on by those who aren't qualified in any way other than having received the mantras from one who is qualified - or from a lineage that has qualified Gurus in it. This is very much what we are talking about here - the vitality of the lineage and the qualification of one to represent the lineage and give life to his/her disciples. It is unitive because the siksha parampara includes members from all the various diksha lineages so acknowledges them all while dismissing that from any of them which is lacking in substance. Adoption of ideas of the smarta brahmins, making a livihood out of keeping the holy places hostage in the name of keeping them up and repairing them etc. These were legitimate critques, but all devotees should be careful of blanket condemnation. Who is it that thinks for one second that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta would approve of the nonsense that has gone on in his name and in the name of the lineage and dignity that he brought to Gaudiya Sampradaya. Much of what happened in GM and Iskcon is the very type of thing that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta spoke out so boldly against. He stood firmly on the side of truth and would definitely be one of GM's and Iskcon's harshest critiques in my own estimation.

 

your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Guest guest]

 

This argument again. You should go educate yourself and come back when your done. The siksha parampara did not originate with Bhaktisiddhanta, and is a timeless Vedic tradition begining with Lord Krishna instructing Arjuna via divya-jnanam. Arjuna never received diksha mantras from Krishna on the battlefield of kurukshetra, but was initiated as his disciple via siksha. Sukadeva Goswami also initiated Maharaja Parikshit via siksha, and Parikshit attained the highest abode of Vaikuntha through this initiation into divya-jnanam. In more recent times, Ramanuja was initiated by Yamunacharya despite never having spoken to him or seen him prior to his leaving his body. Diksha mantras were later given to Ramanuja by one of Ramanuja's God brothers, thereby showing that it is not the diksha mantras that make one the disciple, otherwise Ramanuja would not be the disciple of Yamunacharya but of Goshthi Purna.

 

 

 

All good points. To this I would also add a couple of more examples: Krishna-Brahmaa-Naarada-Vyaasa. At least in the last two connections, I'm pretty sure there is no evidence of an official fire ceremony being performed. There is also the Vivasvaan-Manu-Ikshwaaku line spoken of by Lord Krishna in Bhagavad-gita, who refers to this as a "paramparaa." So, given that these were rulers of demigods and men, and not brahmins, and as such do not perform the initiation ceremony, should we reject it as a valid paramparaa even though Krishna says otherwise?

 

The LPT/caste gosvami will likely say that the scriptural examples don't matter, because the Gosvamis have allegedly set different standards of paramparaa which contradict the scriptural ones. That is why I have a hard time taking them seriously. They make the same mistake in their thinking that ritviks do - they take the spiritual master as an independent shruti and don't care about the scriptural backing of his words.

 

 

We should also remember that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu never initiated anyone with diksha mantras. Diksha mantras are not important compared to siksha, for it is by divine knowledge that one actually attains diksha.

 

 

 

And that is the opinion of Srila Jiva Gosvami also:

 

divyaM jJAnaM yato dadyAt kuryAt pApasya saGkSayam |

tasmAd dIkSeti sA proktA dezikais tattva kovidaiH ||

ato guruM praNamyaivaM sarvasvaM vinivedya ca |

gRhNIyAd vaiSNavaM mantraM dIkSA pUrvaM vidhAnataH ||

 

"The teachers who are knowers of the truth say that since it gives (da) divine knowledge and destroys (ksi) sin it is called diksa. Therefore, paying obeisance to the guru and offering him one's all, one should receive a Vaisnava mantra diksa preceded with proper procedures."

 

 

 

Please provide the sanskrit verses of this injunction.

 

 

 

I also would like to see the Sanskrit for that. I don't recall anything in there about "rejecting the guru in public," only that one should not continue to follow a guru who has abandoned regulative principles. Actually, I'm not even sure if this latter point is in HBV, or if it was something Srila Bhaktivinod said.

 

Alpa-medhasa

[Guest guest]

 

However, I will respond to one point only:

 

 

 

Actually, what I meant to say here is that "I will respond to one paragraph/section only." The rest of the article by Gaurasundara was a bunk presentation full of already-refuted conclusions or unverified ideas based on unclear authorities.

 

Alpa-medhasa

[theist]

 

To me it shows the essence of the wrongheaded notion or misunderstanding that has been generated in the Gaudiya Math about the diksha sampradaya, and which is at the basis of all the confusion about self-effulgent gurus and exaggerated expectations from some kind of divine transcendental light coming from the unique representative of God on the planet, etc., etc.

 

 

Actually every resident of the spiritual world is self-effugent. Isn't the guru supposed to be a resident of the spiritual world?

 

"...opened my eyes with the torchlight of knowledge..."

 

Is the torchlight of knowledge not luminous and actually the transcendental light in and of itself?

 

The question is how can we recognize Krsna and His representatives with our presently material vision obscured by our mundane intellects?

 

 

Krsna says to Arjuna: But you cannot see Me with your present eyes. Therefore I give you divine eyes. Behold My mystic opulence.Bg 11.8

 

Before we truly see Krsna within everything and can truly recognize His appearance as guru we must become graced by Krsna to receive divine eyes.

 

 

B.R. Sridhar Maharaja:

So, the very gist of the guru parampara, the disciplic succession, is siksa, the spiritual teaching, and wherever it is to be traced, there is guru. One who has the transcendental eye, the divine eye, will recognize the guru wherever he appears. One who possesses knowledge of absolute divine love in purity--he is guru. [...] We are after a living mantra, and wherever we can trace the living tendency for a higher type of devotional service, we shall find that there is our guru. One who has that sort of vision awakened will be able to recognize the guru wherever he may appear.

 

 

 

Only divine eyes can see the divine. Is that really so mysterious?

[Guest guest]

 

 

You really should read all of Bhaktivinoda's writings on Christianity as just one example. He may have written positive things but he also penned rather harsh criticisms of it.

 

 

That's precisely my point, which you have just proven so eloquently.

 

Just as it is wrong to take only Bhaktivinod's positive comments on Christianity/Western European culture in his earlier writings, and extrapolate from it his ultimate viewpoint in regards to the West, so it is wrong to take only his pre-Jagannatha dasa writings and extrapolate from them that Bipin Bihari was The Guru (as in, most influential one) of Bhaktivinod.

 

Alpa-M

[Guest guest]

In reply to:

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

 

This nomination is obviously politics. It just so happens that Urmila kicked her husband Pratyatosh out of the house and restrained him with legal measures...

 

 

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

 

 

 

Not so, according to Pratyatosh himself:

 

http://vnn.org/editorials/ET0309/ET20-8357.html