Why Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Never Received Initiation from Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

You guys are bogus cause... your socks don't match!

 

These arguments are for kids. It is common knowledge that the red cloth referred to is that worn by shaktas. Vaishnavas from many lines have worn saffron cloth for thousands of years.

 

[Guest guest]

>> When Puri Maharaja discovered the lack of initiation in the Gaudiya Math lineage, he called all of the leading sannyasi in the Math organization together and informed them of his discovery.

 

This is also Dr. Kapoor's version of the whole history. But we have Srila A C Bhaktivedanta Swami Goswami's version, as follows:

 

Prabhupada: ... One of my Gaudiya Matha Godbrothers, big, he became the head of this Bhag Bazaar Gaudiya Matha. So his wife was debauched, and she was bringing new paramour, and the child protested.

Pusta Krsna: New?

Prabhupada: Paramour. And the boy, he was ten years or twelve years old, he could understand: "Who is this man?" So he protested and said, "I shall tell all these things to my father." And he was killed.

Pusta Krsna: The boy was killed?

Prabhupada: By the mother.

Hari-sauri: She murdered him?

Prabhupada: Yes. Killed means given poison. And the father, that is, my Godbrother, seeing this, he also took poison. This is the end of Gaudiya Matha scandal. He was also one of the trustees. This Tirtha Maharaja was a trustee, and another Godbrother and this man. In the beginning, they were made trustees. In the beginning, Prabhupada was to undergo surgical operation. So he was a little nervous, that "I may die." So he made a scrap paper, that "In case I die, these three disciples will be trustees of the Gaudiya Matha Institute." That's all. So this Kunja Babu kept this. There are many long histories. So one of the so-called trustees was this Vasudeva. So he died, his end was like this.

Pusta Krsna: His son was killed, isn't it?

Prabhupada: His wife was a regular prostitute, and she killed her child, and on this shock, he took poison and died.

Pusta Krsna: He killed himself, oh.

Prabhupada: Naturally, he became shocked, that "This is my family life--the wife is prostitute and son is killed. What is the value of my life?" This was his spiritual realization. Just see. (laughs) And he was made the chief, and one of the supporter was Sridhara Maharaja.

Pusta Krsna: Vasudeva Sridhara?

Prabhupada: No, no. He was made chief. Guru Maharaja did not make him chief. But after his passing away, some of our Godbrothers voted him chief.

Pusta Krsna: Am I mis...? You had told me once, I'm not certain. Maybe I made a mistake. You said that Vasudeva, it was known fact that he was homosex?

Prabhupada: Yes.

Pusta Krsna: Vasudeva.

Prabhupada: He was homosex and sex, everything.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ananga]

Shocking! Scandalous! Such fraud in the guise of religion! Why hasn't someone sued the Isckon and Guaidya Manth for false advertising?

[Guest guest]

Babajis' Confederation & CO

 

Nowadays also some cyber-babajis included. They go to Vrindavana, Navadvipa, get a babaji's set including dor-kaupuna, guñja-mala, talasi-mala, and (more important) a gañja stock, they learn some slokas from Kama-sutra (in Sanskrit, of course) and make the way back to West. They buy a new computer and become cyber-babajis!

 

But who are the original babajis? Who started it, in what year did it begin, and from where did it originate? Srila Sanatana Gosvami and Srila Rupa Gosvami are called Gosvamis, not Babajis. No one addresses them as Rupa Babaji, Sanatana Babaji, or Srila Raghunatha Babaji. Who gave ekadasa-bhavas, siddha-pranali and other ingredients of the babaji's syndicate to them?

Babji is for certain a newly invention. Most of these so-called Gaudiya-vaisnavas neither known any Gaudiya-vaisnava philosophy, nor they have any sadacara, yet they call themselves babajis and some are even gurus.

 

They cannot understand Sri Caitanya Mahparabhu teachings, most are ordinary and illiterate villagers, mainly from Bengal, Orisa and Bihar, they think that Gaudiya-vaisnavism means to travel to Vrindavana or Navadvipa, live there, and have so many children. They consider that by doing this they are becoming gopis.

 

These people have a lot of influence of tantric, saktas, and all sort of Hindu beliefs, mixed with some new Muslin and even some Christian concepts. They go to a babaji guru and pay him some rupees, and the guru says: "I'm giving you siddha-deha, siddha-pranali, dor-kaupin, these beads, guñja-mala, and so on. Now you are my dear disciple, and do not forget my daksina every year!"

 

But these ordinary people are still thinking; "I am this body." They stay all day begin alms in the streets, living as professional beggars, they are unable even to cant harinama or to hear some harikata. They do not known the ABC's of Sri Caitanya teachings, they do not understand that they are eternally part and parcel and servants of Krsna and most do believe that at the end they will actually attain the nirvisesa Brahma, who is superior than Krsna. They do not known how to clean themselves after passing stool and urine, yet they imagine that they are becoming gopis with their present bodies!

 

They do not care if they drink liquor and eat meat, and people who are less intelligent than them call them babajis. Their harinama kirnana is performed in special circumstances, such as during funeral processions, when they expect to take a large payment from the deceased's rich relatives. The audience imagine that if the deceased body hear harinama while going to the cremation camp the jiva will be liberated or will attain Svarga. Therefore, these babajis sing in a very fancy melody and the audience applaud them, giving them some rupees.

 

This is the babajis's confederation. Now, some of the cyber babajis are trying to become gurus, and are fishing in these waters. OK, this Kali-yuga, no harm!

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[kailasa]

Guru Maharadj has told very clearly, that, when we are in a low rule(situation), Smarana is pernicious — we should to devote itself Kirtana.

 

Êèðòòàíà ïðàáõàâå, ñìàðàíà õàèáå

ñå êàëå áõàäæàíà íèðäæäæàíà ñàìáõàâà.

 

The school Sahadjiya has more as desirable Smarana , rather than Kirtana. They "adherents" Smarana . They conduct "renunciation" life and in mind(wit) identify itself with certain(determined) sakhi such — that of age having such duties, such place of service in Vrindavan, in certain(determined) lila, under the direction of such sakhi etc. by Similar meditation by him(it) order to be engaged their so-called guru. The practice of school Sahadjiya is those, but we deny similar practice. We consider(count) all this false and invented. They do not suit that world. They do not have present sambandha-gyana, knowledge that is that. Them "Smarana " consists in habitual recurrence of the certain fabrications, but she(it) can not result to anartha-nivritti, î÷èùåíèþ from materialistik of consciousness, in any other real result supposing anartha-nivritti. Their imagined achievements — the perfect delirium. They do not know a real rule(situation) of things: Gradual gradation from Viradji to Brahmaloka, Vaikuntha and Goloka. They ïóêóðà-÷óðèwàëå — " the thieves of a pond ". To think, that to me on forces to steal a pond, — cleanest(purest) self-deception. We believe, that such "Smarana " there is something like self-deception.

 

On óòõèéà áðèêøîïàðè, òàíàòàíè ïõàëà äõàðè

äóøòà-ïõàëà êàðèëå àðäæäæàí

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur speaks, what, if someone wants fruit, but to trouble itself, to get on a tree, it(him) a reluctance, for what fruit it(he) can expect? Either on broken, or on rotten. Without gradual and correct movement forward all will be game of imagination — as feats full. It is required consistently to reach(achieve) the world of true, suddha-sattva. And on ways it is necessary to cross set of levels of life: Bhur-, Bhuvar-, Svar-, Mahar-, Janar-, Tapar-, Satya-loka, Viradja, Brahmalocu. Mahaprabhu speaks, that Bhakti grows and rises up to Goloki, passing all these plans of life.

 

óïàäæèéà áàäå ëàòà áðàõìàíäàáõåäèäæàé

áèðàäæà, áðàõìàëîêàáõåäè ïàðàáéîìà ïàé

òàáå äæàé òàäóïàðè ãîëîêà-áðèíäàáàí

êðèøíà-÷àðàíà -êàëïàáðèêøå êàðå àðîõàí

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Jijaji

 

Be sure, that these babajis are not zoo curiosities, very rare and dodges. As you well know they are spread all over Vraja-mandala and Nvadvipa-dhama. Everyone may confirm the veracity of our information on their practices, creeds and behavior.

 

You may follow them and make commendations on their behavior and practices. But everyone knows that they are 3rd class people following a 3rd class of Gaudiya-vaisnavism.

 

As everything in this world and even in the next presents gradations, you may be leaned to follow the same class of people that you are accustomed to live with. But we have another tendencies and therefore we prefer to follow 1st class people and 1st class of Gaudiya-vaisnavism as taught by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to glorify our masters.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[jijaji]

Satya,

I have been down this road with you before..your just mastubating your EGO...and will post any stupid lie to support your fanatical conclusions. You accuse other Gaudiya Vaishnavas outside your missionary camp as this or that, but in reality have never witnessed them in their daily lives. You are just a plain RELIGIOUS BIGOT.

You post all kind of lies and crap about Shankara, rather than admit perhaps that shvu knows a bit more about advaita than you do! BUT NOOOOOOO...you have to have the inside scoop on every other religion or system outside your own! This is typical of missionary fanatical one-sided doomsday only we can save the world types!

 

;^)

 

[Gauracandra]

Yikes!!! Man are these forums getting nasty lately. Jijaji you have to admit you were purposefully posting these things against Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur as an attack. I realize that you may not agree philosophically with his conclusions and that is fine. But now you are calling foul because Satya has called into question the spiritual life of people you hold in high esteem. How about this? Lets cut out all of this nonsense, and have some cordial discussions about Krsna-katha. Its time we toned down these forums and became more civil.

 

Wishing you both the best,

 

Gauracandra

 

 

[jijaji]

Satyaraja of course has personally met all these people he says all these things about!

NOT......

 

Satyaraja ...you are one big nut buddy! Why waste time with such a fanatic, you will post anything you can lies, gost stories, to support yourself/ You ALWAYS say .."WE" there is noo .."WE" over there just some BIG brazilian NUT!

 

;^)

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>You accuse other Gaudiya Vaishnavas outside your missionary camp as this or that, but in reality have never witnessed them in their daily lives. You are just a plain RELIGIOUS BIGOT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't that exactly what you did by posting the allegations against Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati? Then when you get a similar response you complain.

 

I don't think we need to criticize anyone here (on either side). If there is a disagreement, then disagree with the philosophy politely. Have a discussion, not a war.

 

[jijaji]

jndas ...

 

I accept your plea for me not to be so in the attack mode. Perhaps a bit of bend up anger on my part in regards to this...

 

BEWARE THE PARTY SPIRIT

 

Satya....

 

Sorry if my temper got the best of me, please it's not that I do not accept the contribution of Bhaktivedanta or Bhaktisiddhanta. They both worked hard in the name of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. My disagreement is with the across the board discrimination of other Gaudiya Vaishnavs outside Gaudiya Math or Iskcon. There is always a word of contempt inplying because they do not belong to the newly formed Saraswata Parivar, they are sahajiya women mongers with loose morals. But can't those types exist ANYWHERE?

Within ANY group...I think so.

So My interest in this is not to associate with lowly types but to improve my raganuga bhajana in an authentic manner with the real McCoy (and they are out there!).

After belonging to one of the branches of Gaudiya Math (iskcon)for many years and not wanting to be a part of ANY missionary organization EVER again I choose a different path within the Gaudiya tradition. I am sorry if that upsets many here ...it shouldn't!

How many times in India do we meet people in Braja or orther locations who belong to other sampradayas..other Gaudiyas other Nimbarkites, Vallabites..etc.

You get the point.

 

Anyway..sorry on my part for any rudeness..

I will debate..but try and keep it clean!

 

;^)

jijaji

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Personally I am very fond of sadhu-sanga. I try to take every oportunity to associates with sadhus, regardless of their personal path, sadhana, etc. In the Vedic culture it was one's duty to serve the sadhus and learn from them the sat-bhava. There are many things preliminary to bhakti that we should learn from those following the sadhu marga.

 

I remember one Sadhu from Puri. He was very tall and well-built (maybe 6 feet plus). Probably around 45 to 50 years old. He wore only a single muddy orange clothe around his waste that went down past his his knees. He was a very big man (strong, not fat), and his entire body was covered by hair. Since he didn't wear a shirt, this was very visible on his open back. This seems to be a common lakshana among many sadhus.

 

We first saw him at the Jagannatha temple in Puri engaging in spiritual discussions with passers-by. In the Puri temple it is the habbit that there will be many small spontaneous "discourses" going on inside the temple, either by local pandits or sadhus. Someone will be speaking, and a dozen or so people will sit for a few minutes and listen, before going on their way. We met this sadhu in one such gathering.

 

Seeing that this person was a genuine sadhu, unlike most of the bogus sadhus you find in "holy places", we requested this sadhu to come to our house so that we could offer some service to him in the form of preparing his food, etc.

 

Being a genuine sadhu, he accepted our invitation, as it was an opportunity for him to preach the message of the scriptures, but only on the condition that we would perform nama-kirtana for him. Since our main sadhana is nama-kirtana, we were more than happy to oblige.

 

The next day he arrived at our house. He entered our puja hall and we began having bhajan and kirtan (just five of us including him).

 

He was very enthusiastic in his chanting of Hare Krishna, Hare krishna. After the chanting he told us about himself. Previously he had been a wealthy business man. He owned a trucking company, with a fleet of transport trucks. In India thats a pretty reasonable amount of wealth. About seventeen years ago (but this was four years ago when he told this) he had left everything and came to Rishikesh to become a sadhu. In Rishikesh he would try to associate with as many sadhus as possible, and he would eagerly listen to whatever instructions they would give him. He had not studied the scriptures, nor was he learned in the general sense of the word. His sadhana was to study the sadhus, not the books. In our entire conversation with him he never quoted a scripture, but his every word was from scripture. By hearing the sadhus and repeating their words, his speach spontaneously become shastra.

 

After staying in Rishikesha for several years he began travelling throughout India, as sadhus do, going from one holy place to the next. Just prior to coming to Puri he had been in Vrindavana. He told us how in one village outside of Vrindavana he had arranged for there to be 24 hour nama-kirtana going on continuously, and that it had been unbroken for 3 years (since he started it). He had each villager commit to hosting the kirtana in their house one day a month, in this way, every day the kirtana would move from house to house. The participants would change, but the kirtana would continue without stop. This is the true work of the sadhus, to bring all of us

in contact with the Lord.

 

Once a year, for the last three years, this Sadhu would visit Vrindavana to make sure the kirtana was continuing undisturbed. He would stay for a month and inspire them in their sadhana before continuing on his wanderings.

 

When we met him, he had just travelled from Vrindavana to Puri, and had been staying in Puri for the last three or four months. We asked him where he will go from here, he said he did not know, but that he would be happy to just be like us and do nama-kirtana whole day.

 

He spoke to us for around an hour, telling us the instructions he had received from various sadhus. I don't recall the conversation in detail (it was four years ago), but one thing stays in my mind. We were all wearing traditional Gaudiya tilak on our foreheads, made from the gopichandana mud. When he saw this he was very happy, and said it is very good that we are wearing the feet of Vishnu on our head. Then he said, "I may not appear to be wearing tilak, but actually I am wearing the real tilak of the sadhu."

 

He asked me, "Do you know what is the real tilak?" I didn't know, so he told me.

 

"Real tilak is when you lie flat on the ground offering ashtanga-dandavat-pranams. That mud that sticks to your forehead when you get up is your tilak. This is the tilak of the sadhus. We cannot keep fancy mirrors and such things for applying tilak to our head. We are wandering sadhus, we must be free from worldly possessions. We can only wear the natural tilak that comes from offering respects to everyone."

 

That was Sri Chaitanyas instruction, to become as humble as a straw in the street, to offer all respects to others, while not expecting any respect for oneself.

 

I never asked this sadhu what was his lineage, or what was his philosophy. It really didn't matter. He was a sadhu, and a sadhu must be respected.

 

After taking his meal, he walked off, and I never saw him again. That was four years ago. I wonder where he is today? Maybe in Rishikesh, maybe Haridwar, maybe Vrindavana. Who knows? But I am sure that he is doing the same thing there that he did with us in Puri. The true sadhu's life is for preaching and sadhana. Where ever they go they speak the instructions of the scriptures, and by so doing, they elevate the souls of common men like us.

 

[Guest guest]

Very nice narrative, Jñana dasa Prabhu. That makes me remember Srila Gour Govinda Goswami's way of life. He was a street sadhu like that for so many years. Penniless, barefoot, moving on to a holy place to another. He finally has met Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Gosweami at Vrindavana and took diksa and sannyasa vesa from him.

 

Srila Gour Govinda Goswami wasn't an ordinary sadhu. He was from a very old Vaisnava vamsa from Orisa, since Mahaprabhu's time. He was been a Gaudiya-vaisnava since his birth and knew so many branches of Gaudiya-vaisnavism, including Gaudiya-math, so many babajis, and so on.

 

He finally took shelter at Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Goswami's lotus feet, and thereafter it is hard for me to describe his realizations. He had manifested his gopi-rupa in a trance at Navadvipa, in a very secluded way and during some days continually. He was an uttama-maha-bhagavata and has manifested himself at Iskcon! It is hard to believe, but sadhus can really be founded anywhere!

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

 

satsangatve nissangatvam

nissangatve nirmohatvam

nirmohatve nishchala tattvam

nishcalatattve jivan-mukti

 

- Shankara

 

By Good association comes disassociation

By disassociation comes detachment

By detachment comes eternal truth

By eternal truth comes Liberation

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

BEWARE THE PARTY SPIRIT

 

Good advice, so let's try to follow it in the next thread, as this one is geting too long.

[Ananga]

Even if they could somehow substantiate Bhaktisiddhanta's diksa and so-called sannyasa, it would still not matter, because many of the followers that came later proved themselves to be totally inept and hypocritical.

[Ananga]

We need to consider motivations on this subject. Was the siksa parampara concept put forth to somehow benefit the tradtion, or was it merely a ploy to cover up something scandalous?

 

Re: Orange clothing. Just because a couple of individuals from the Advaita Paribar did something, does not mean that it is orthodox nor does it mean that it was accepted by the mainstream of the tradition as a valid practice.

 

[This message has been edited by Ananga (edited 05-12-2001).]

[premananda]

:-P

 

[This message has been edited by premananda (edited 05-27-2001).]

[jijaji]

Yea the real problem is trying to turn the entire tradition into a Jehovas Witness missionary movement and being critical towards all other Gaudiya Vaishnavas who won't join in with their fanatical chest beating!

 

jijaji

 

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

PEACE NOW

[krishnas]

Originally posted by jijaji:

Why Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Never Received Initiation from Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji

 

 

One of the members of a mailing list I moderate tried to cross post this article there recently. Since India Divine is where the discussion originally took place, I just wanted to offer a few comments. I will also post this response on the Achintya list (www.achintya.org) in case members there wish to continue debating it.

 

1 ) Sri Kisori Mohana Gosvami and Sri Kisori Das Babaji witnessed that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, when asked by Siddha Sri Ramakrsna das Pandit Baba in the early 1930s, declared that he was initiated in a dream.

 

 

This is the first I have heard that Bhaktisiddhanta was supposedly initiated in a dream. My understanding of the actual events was that the initiation was real.

 

From _A Ray of Vishnu_, Chapter 3, page 18:

 

"After thus indicating his readiness to take his life, Siddhaanta Sarasvatii began to cry. Shriila Gaura Kishora daasa Babaajii's heart was mealted to see this, so he told him to take bath in the Sarasvatii and then come back to him. At the time of initiation, he gave Siddhaanta Sarasvatii the name: Shrii Vaarshabhaanavi-devii-dayita daasa."

 

This was also my understanding before I read this book.

 

Based on abhava pramana (evidence based on absence of counter evidence) I might as well claim that I received a dream-initiation from Sri Rupa Gosvami. Who can confirm or deny it? In this way the whole principle of initiation is undermined and made into a laughing stock.

 

 

Where is the evidence that Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta received dhiksha in a dream? Before one criticizes, it seems reasonable that one should verify the facts first.

 

2) How can you take sannyasa in March 1918 while your guru passed away in November 1915? Gaudiya Matha chronicles admit that Bhaktisiddhanta took sannyasa in his room from a photo. Sannyasa cannot be taken from a photo, without physical permission of the person on the photograph, but from a living sannyasi.

 

 

I am not one to condone reckless abandonment of Vedic regulations. However, it should be pointed out that actual sannyaasa refers to giving up of material activites, and not merely a formal ritual after which one dresses a particular way.

 

kaamyaanaa.m karmaNaa.m nyaasa.m sannyaasa.m kavayo viduH || giitaa 17.2 ||

 

The giving up of activites that are based on material desire is what great learned men call the renounced order of life [sannyaasa]. (bhagavad-giitaa 17.2)

 

Now is there any question of Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta's renunciation in this regard? Note that I am looking for hard evidence, not low-class accusations based on hearsay.

 

I do not think there is any question of Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii's character or renunciation, and hence I see no reason why anyone who knows shaastra would object to the way he took sannyaasa.

 

I would also point out that most of these criticisms, at least in my experience, don't seem to be coming from the shruti paramparaas, who do rigidly follow shaastric regulations.

 

3) How can you wear saffron cloth while your would-be sannyasa guru wore white? A parampara that starts with white cloth and then suddenly switches to saffron cloth and 'brahmana-initiation' is also not an uninterrupted siksa-parampara.

 

 

Why is the external dress even significant in this regard? There has to be a logic to one's criticisms. Mere sentiment will never do.

 

By the "logic" above, we must similarly reject the Gaudiiya paramparaa on many other superficial grounds. For example, Maadhva sannyaasis take ekadandi sannyaasa and adopt the Tiirtha title. But Gaudiiya sannyaasis do not do this. Should we not therefore reject the validity of the paramparaa beginning from Madhva?

 

Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta had no guru nor God-brother from whom to take sannyaasa from:

 

"...Siddhaanta Sarasvatii took sannyaasa and took the name Shrii Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii Gosvaamii Mahaaraaja at the age of 44, according to the Vedic rites which he had gathered from the Raamaanujas in his travels. Taking sannyaasa from a picture was certainly not a standard practice of Raamaanujas. The situation, however, was unique. Shriila Sarasvatii Thaakura had no spiritual master who was physically present, and he had no God-brothers, being the only disciple of Gaura Kishora daasa Baabaajii." (pg 51)

 

How then, was Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta supposed to take sannyaasa, without anyone present to conduct the formal ceremony? If it is argued that he should not have taken sannyaasa (even though he was, by his actions, already more than a sannyaasi), then how does one explain Lord Chaitanya’s precedent? Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu took sannyaasa for the purpose of preaching, just as Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta did. Not only this, but Mahaaprabhu accepted sannyaasa from a maayaavaadi sannyaasi. If is wrong for Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta to take sannyaasa before the photo of a bona fide Vaishnava guru, then why is it not wrong for Mahaaprabhu to approach a maayaavaadi sannyaasi to give sannyaasa?

 

The taking of sannyaasa in both cases was a formality. The actual purpose behind it was to attain a position from which one would be able to preach, since it is well known that sannyaasis are regarded as distributors of spiritual knowledge. Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii took sannyaasa and revived the varnaashrama institution for his purpose, and also to encourage others to follow the same example:

 

"Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii Gosvaamii Mahaaraaja wanted to show an example to persons of the world from within the parameters of the varnaashrama system. Daivii-varnaashrama, or the practice of executing the principles of varnaashrama-dharma by those who simultaneously practice and preach the practice of saadhana-bhakti, was also much extolled by Shriila Bhaktivinoda Thaakura in his writings and was especially discussed by him in his Chaitanya-shikshaamrita. Therefore, to set a personal example of how the preacher, who comes to the madhyama-adhikaarii platform for his preaching work, also follows the principles of varnaashrama fo the sake of showing an example to his followers, Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii Gosvaami Mahaaraaja took sannyaasa." (Ray of Vishnu pp 54-55)

 

Someone may argue that varnaashrama is external, and thus there is no need to reintroduce it for the sake of widespread preaching. But this conclusion is not supported by shaastra.

 

In Vishnu Puraana, it is explained to Maitreya Muni, who asks how Lord Vishnu is to be worshipped by worldy persons, that varnaashrama is the means to satisfy Him:

 

varNaashramaachaaravataa puruSheNa paraH pumaan |

viShNuraaraadhyate panthaa naanyat tattoShakaaraNam || viSh P 3.8.9 ||

 

yajan yaj~naan yajatyena.m japatyena.m japan nR^ipa |

ghna.m stathaanyaa.m hinastyena.m sarvabhuuto yato hariH || viSh P 3.8.10 ||

 

tasmaat sadaachaaravataa puruSheNa janaardanaH |

aaraadhyate svavarNektdharmaanuShTaanakaariNaa || viSh P 3.8.11 ||

 

braahmaNaH kshatriyo vaishyaH shuudrashcha dharaNiipate |

svadharmatatparo viShNumaaraadhayati naanyathaa || viSh P 3.8.12 ||

The Supreme Visnu is propitiated by a man who observes the institutions of caste, order, and purificatory practices: no other path is the way to please him. He who offers sacrifices, sacrifices to Him; he who murmurs prayer, prays to Him; he who injures living creatures, injures Him; for Hari is all beings. Janaardana therefore is propitiated by him who is attentive to established observances, and follows the duites prescribed for his caste. The Brahmin, the Kshatriya, the Vaishya, and the Shuudra, who attends to the rules enjoined by his caste, best worships Vishnu. (viShNu puraaNa 3.8.9-12)

 

As these are scriptural injunctions, they are to be followed, or else one will never attain the supreme goal:

yaH shaastra-vidhim utsR^ijya vartate kaama-kaarataH |

na sa siddhim avaapnoti na sukha.m na paraa.m gatim || giitaa 16.23 ||

He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.23)

tasmaach chhaastra.m pramaaNa.m te kaaryaakaarya-vyavasthitau |

j~naatvaa shaastra-vidhaanokta.m karma kartum ihaarhasi || giitaa 16.24 ||

One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.24)

 

ONLY when one is on the stage of surrender to the Lord is one advised to give up various dharmas like varnaashrama. This is never stated for anyone on a lesser stage:

sarvadharmaan parityajya maameka.m sharaNa.m vraja |

aha.m tvaa.m sarvapaapebhyo mokShayiShyaami maa shuchaH || giitaa 18.66 ||

 

Hence, Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii was quite correct in trying to reestablish varnaashrama principles. Varnaashrama is meant to gradually elevate one to devotional service. Indeed, it is the method of devotional service for those who are not on the liberated platform, as understood from Vishnu Puraana above. There is no scriptural basis for renouncing varnaashrama unless one has attained sharanaagati.

The adoption of white dress and refusal to wear yagnopaveetam (sacred thread) is the hallmark of the paramahamsa. But being initiated does not automatically make one a paramahamsa, and to refuse to adopt the conventions of the varnaashrama institution actually shows contempt for the Vedic regulations.

 

"Traditionally, the followers of Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu, beginning with the Gosvaamiis of Vrindaavana had accepted the baabaajii-vesha (dress). According to the tradition, one does not accept a braahana's thread (or gives it up if he has accepted one) and does not carry a danda. One wears only a short white wrapper and a top piece. The idea is that when one has reached the liberated platform, he rids himself of any item of dress or symbol of varnaashrama-dharma (activities within the modes of nature, of which the sacred thread and sannyaasa aashrama are perceived as part) .... This is considered the final, transcendental stage of a paramahamsa Vaishnava." (Ray of Vishnu, pp52-53)

 

"Some persons also thought that to maintain the sacred thread and to accept tridanda-sannyaasa were practices opposed to Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu's teaching on the principle of humility: tR^iNaad api suniichena. However, this is a fallacious view. Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii Thaakura has explained it in the following light: If the sacred thread is not taken at the time of initiation, this constitutes contempt for the process of initiation. The thread is not to signify brahminical pride that 'I am meant to be served by everyone.' But rather is is a sign that one has been purified by the lotus feet of a guru. The thread is meant to indicate eternal service to the Lord, not egoism. And as far as accepting sannyaasa is concerned, that is for increasing one's serving mood - to serve the Lord with one's mind, body and words." (Ray of Vishnu pp53-54)

 

All colors of garment but white are forbidden for a Gaudiya Vaisnava - rakta-vastra vaisnavera podite na yuyay (Caitanya-caritamrta, Antya 13.61) "A Vaisnava should not wear red cloth." nagno dviguna-vastrah syan nagno raktapatas tatha: "Wearing red cloth is like walking naked," and sukla-vasa bhaven nityam raktam caiva vivarjayet (both from Hari-bhakti-vilasa, 4.147,152): "Always wear white and give up red cloth." raktam nilam adhautam ca parakyam malinam patam paridhaya (Agamasastra quoted in Durgama-sangamani by Sri Jiva Gosvami on Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, 1.2.120 ): "Wearing red, blue or unwashed garments is a sevaparadha." In Sri Dhyanacandra Gosvami's Paddhati the guru is described as wearing white cloth (svetambaram gaura-rucim sanatanam -"He wears white cloth and his eternal form shines like gold").

 

 

Even the most casual observer can note that NONE of the pramaanas above forbid wearing of saffron cloth, only red. None of them forbid “all colors of garment but white,” what to speak of forbidding saffron.

 

And saffron dhotis do not exist at all, only saffron bahirvasas (outer cloth) for Vedic eka-dandi (mayavadi) sannyasis and white dhotis for householders.

 

 

This is simply not true. I know for a fact that the Chinna Jeeyar Swami of the Sri Vaishnava sampradaaya wears only saffron. I have seen pictures of Maadhva sannyaasis who are wearing only saffron – see http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vaisnava_sampradayas_fs.html

 

Are you opining that these are not saffron dhotis they wear (in obvious defiance of your own senses) or that these sannyaasis are maayaavaadis?

 

Grhasthas should not wear a kaupina (loincloth), and this is also not 'brahmana-underwear'. A kaupina is given during the ceremony of sannyasa for a lifelong vow of celibacy. It drags anyone down to hell who takes it off to have sex. Shaving the head is also only for sannyasis and not for others.

 

 

These are so far unsubstantiated statements. Where is your evidence? You could be right, but so far you have offered no proof. Criticize if you must, but have the evidence to back it up, please.

 

To say one is wearing saffron, not red, is a useless escape manoeuvre, because there is also a positive injunction, namely suklavaso bhaven nityah, "one should always wear white and neither red nor saffron."

 

 

But the bottom line is that saffron and red are different colors. Your evidence is not applicable, and thus you have no case.

 

I also find it interesting that you have not provided the source for your quote “suklavaso bhaven nityah.” Are we supposed to accept it on the basis that it is Sanskrit? Whose injunction is this, and to what audience is it intended? You are generalizing this commandment to all people regardless of station. By your logic even Sri Vaishnava and Maadhva sannyaasis must also be at fault, since they do wear saffron.

 

This is also not a question of 'the form ("what does it matter what color your cloth is?") versus the substance. It is not narrow-minded smarta-ism, because obedience is the substance.

 

 

And what about obedience to shaastra? I have provided adequate pramaanas proving that varnaashrama dharma must be followed, even by the bhaktas. If it is your contention that sannyaasi dharma and wearing of sacred thread is not to be followed (which are unquestionably Vedic practices), then what is your justification for rejecting shaastra? Your arguments are rather inconsistent.

 

The Gosvamis have ordered us to wear white and bhakti means that you obey the orders of those who are both ordered and empowered by Mahaprabhu to lay down the law.

 

 

If one is not going to accept Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii’s qualification on faith (which is certainly your right), then why not also question the authority of the Gosvaamiis? Again, here is another inconsistency. Most of your basis for criticizing devotees in Bhaktisiddhaanta’s line seems to be based on select quotes (likely taken out of context) from the Gosvaamiis. I believe we have sufficient reason to doubt that you are properly applying the teachings of the Gosvaamiis in this case, for the many reasons already mentioned by me. Given that you are arbitrarily rejecting Bhaktisiddhaanta’s authority, why do you arbitrarily accept that of the Gosvaamiis? If you think it is sentimental to accept Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta’s opinions, it must also be sentimental to just arbitrarily accept those of the Gosvaamiis.

 

One Gaudiya Vaisnava acarya who may be an avadhuta may wear burlap, but he did not tell his thousands of disciples to do so. He told them all to wear white cotton.

 

 

Exactly. And one Gaudiiya Vaishnava aachaarya might take sannyaasa in front of a picture of his departed guru because of special circumstances. But it does not mean that he intended thousands of his disciples to do so. Obviously, you have no problem understanding the concept of exceptional spiritual leaders making temporary compromises with certain prescriptions. Why is it suddenly a problem now?

 

The Srimad Bhagavata verse (3.5.38) does not mean that Gaudiya Vaisnavas can wear saffron or red cloth, there was no Gaudiya sampradaya yet in the time of the Bhagavata,

 

 

By this logic, one can also argue that the scriptural prescriptions stating that we must perform bhakti yoga must also not be applicable to Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, since there was no Gaudiiya Vaishnava sampradaaya at that time (again, YOUR logic).

 

While we are on the subject, please check your verse numbers. SB 3.5.38 has nothing to do with sannyaasis or their dress. It deals with the subject of controlling demigods within the material universe.

 

and, Srila Sanatana Gosvami comments on this verse: yatibhir maha-prayatnena samsarasagaram sribhagavadbhakta helayaiva sukham taranti, "the ocean of samsara, which is hard to cross by yatis (mayavadi sannyasis), is easily and blissfully crossed by the Lord's devotees." The verse rakta vastra vaisnavera porite na yuyay is not taken out of context here. The story indeed is a personal question between Jagadananda Pandita and Sanatana Gosvami, but the moral of the story, expressed in the rakta vastra-verse, is an objective, absolute statement for all.

 

 

“Yati” does not necessarily mean “maayaavaadi.” The Twelve Essential Upanishads published by the Gaudiiya Math is translated by a sannyaasi who has the Yati title.

 

But even assuming it means this based on context here, and assuming also that you are referring to some other Bhaagavata verse besides SB 3.5.38, there is nothing in the above that suggests that a prescription to wear saffron refers only to maayaavaadi sannyaasis.

 

Much of this article seems like that. Evidence is brought up out of context, or else merely alluded to without offering specifics. I am far from convinced of its conclusions, which seem hastily put together.

 

To be continued…

 

H. Krishna Susarla

www.achintya.org

 

 

 

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

www.achintya.org

[gHari]

Hari Krishna Susarla,

 

It is so pleasant to hear from an ancient internet aquaintance. I don't usually read this nonsense, but by Krsna's mercy I just happened to check its level of degradation tonight, happily to see you put a big period at its end. Well done, as usual.

 

gHari from SRV

 

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

Gary Stevason

Seeking the Kingdom of God

[raga]

Let me make it very clear that I am not interested in an intense back-and-forth knee-jerk stubborn quarrel over anything mentioned in the thread topic title. I am also not trying to convert anyone to anything, just in case somebody was going to say that. I am interested in the historical facts surrounding the initiation of Bhaktisiddhanta. I trust our intelligent audience can understand this.

 

Here are my notes on the subject matter of the initiation of Bhaktisiddhanta.<blockquote><font color=brown><center>

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS EXPRESSED</center>

 

a) Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was in the habit of visiting Ramakrishna Dasa Pandita Babaji during his visits to Vrindavana since he was without a doubt one of the most respected of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas of the 1920s and 1930s. On one occasion Sarasvati was highly praising Gaura Kishora Babaji in Pandita Baba's presence. Pandita Baba asked him if he had re-ceived initiation from him. Sarasvati said he had received it in a dream. Pandita Babaji said that that was fine, but he should receive it in the flesh since that is the only type of initiation accepted in the Caitanya tradition. Bhaktisiddhanta said he would and ended the visit.

 

Years later Sarasvati returned to Vrindavana as the acarya of the Gaudiya Matha, a famous man. He visited Pandita Babaji and was asked again if he had gotten initiation from Gaura Kishora Dasa Baba. His answer was the same, at which point Pandita Baba got extremely angry with him for making disciples without proper initiation. This incident was witnessed by Sri Kisori Mohana Gosvami, Sri Kisori Dasa Babaji and Advaita Dasa Babaji of Govardhan.

 

b) There is no indication of Sarasvati's being initiated by Babaji Maharaja in any of his objective biographies, objective meaning compiled by anyone who would not be bound out of prejudice to accept the statement of Sarasvati, being a follower of his. The brother of Sarasvati, Lalita Prasada Thakura, denies Sarasvati's receiving diksa from Babaji Maharaja. The pujari and other residents of Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji's bhajana kutira knew of only four disciples of Babaji, but Sarasvati was not among them.

 

c) Sarasvati did not reveal the parampara of Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji to his followers. In fact, even the name of Babaji Maharaja?s diksa-guru is was not revealed by Sarasvati. Now, why would a disciple not reveal the diksa-parampara of his guru? It is a common practice that at the time of diksa the guru reveals his guru-pranali, or the succession of gurus back to the time of Sriman Mahaprabhu and His associates.

 

d) According to Hari Bhakti Vilasa (2.8.5), at the time of diksa the guru bestows the specific sectarian signs he carries unto the disciple:

 

sampradayika mudradi bhusitam tam krtanjalim

 

In his commentary on this verse, Sri Sanatana Gosvami explains: sampra-dayikam guru-paramparasiddham, "This sampradayika refers to the guru-parampara," and mudra tilaka maladi, "And mudra refers to tilaka and strings of beads." Consequently the recognized parivaras, like Nityananda-parivara, Advaita-parivara, Narottama-parivara and Syamananda-parivara, have their specific tilaka-svarupa. If Sarasvati received diksa, why is it that he and his followers have adopted a tilaka which was not worn by his diksa-guru, who must have at the time of diksa given a specific tilaka-svarupa to Sarasvati?

 

e) Wherefrom did Sarasvati receive the sacred thread and the brahma-gayatri, which he passed on to his disciples? Certainly not from Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji, who was a vaisya by birth, and did not chant the brahma-gayatri, nor wear a sacred thread.

 

f) What is the origin of the specific set of mantras given in the line of Sarasvati? Hari Bhakti Vilasa mentions Gopala Mantra and Kama-gayatri as diksa-mantras. The paddhatis of Gopala Guru and Dhyanacandra give an elaborate list of mantras for raganuga-sadhana, but the guru-mantra and guru-gayatri given by Sarasvati are different from the ones given in these paddhatis.</font></blockquote>

Then let us turn to some of the source material I have at hand. I find the following statement of Bhakti Vikash Swami of ISKCON, who is compiling a biography on Bhaktisiddhanta, very interesting:<blockquote><font color=brown>In 1932 Visvambharananda dasa Babaji, on behalf of many babajis and caste Goswamis in Vrndavana, published a book opposing Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his Mission, citing extensively from sastra to support his arguments. He challenged that the line of parampara traced from Jagannatha dasa Babaji through Bhaktivinoda Thakura to Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji and then to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was unauthorized. Visvambharananda claimed that although Sarasvati Thakura was supposed to be the disciple of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, he was disqualified in several ways. First, Sarasvati Thakura did not accept as bona fide the recognized lineage of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, whose guru was in the Advaita-parivara. Furthermore, since Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji had never used a japa-mala, and had not given one to Sarasvati Thakura at the time of initiation but had simply placed some Navadvipa dust into his hand, Visvambharananda argued that such an initiation was not bona fide. The implication was that Sarasvati Thakura had not actually received pancaratrika-diksa from Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, so how could he confer it upon others? Nor had Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji worn a brahmana thread, so on what authority did Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati wear one?

 

Moreover, Visvambharananda argued, Sarasvati Thakura claimed to be a follower of Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who was initiated by the caste Goswami Bipina Bihari. Why then did Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati not accept guru-parampara by seminal descent? Bhaktivinoda Thakura had given him a Nrsimha mantra for worshiping the Deity, yet Sarasvati Thakura was giving a Radha-Krsna mantra for this purpose. Wherefrom did he derive this mantra, and on whose authority did he distribute it? Visvambharananda further objected that since Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was a sannyasi without a sannyasa guru, how could he give sannyasa to others?

 

Sarasvati Thakura responded by explaining the concept of bhagavata-parampara, or siksa-parampara. He maintained that the essence of parampara lies in the transmission of transcendental knowledge, not merely in a list of contiguous names. The life of the parampara is maintained by the maha-bhagavatas, who embody the essence of scriptural knowledge. Therefore, to trace the parampara through such maha-bhagavatas truly represents parampara.

 

He said, "Bhaktivinoda Thakura is Kamala Manjari, a personal associate of Radharani. He ordered me to establish daiva-varnasrama. I must obey his order. The acarya is not under the sastra. The acarya can make sastra. Bhaktivinoda Thakura, the acarya, has inspired me in various ways. By his mercy and that of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja and the previous acaryas we are going on, not caring for the precise technicalities of smartas.

 

"Although this concept of bhagavata-parampara appears to be new, it is based on the essential understanding of the scriptures. Something new given by an acarya but based on sastra is called vaisistya (a special characteristic). Acaryas Ramanuja and Madhva both apparently introduced something new, but because their teachings were based on sastra they came to be accepted. Phalena pariciyate: 'An action should be understood by its result.' My commitment to devotional service and my preaching activities speak for themselves. Owl-like persons cannot see this, but those who are honest will accept it."</font></blockquote>

Bhakti Vikash Maharaj relates, "It [the quote from BSST] is almost certainly not verbatim, especially as it was originally spoken or written in Bengali. It is as told to me by the late Jati Shekhar Prabhu, a disciple of SBST."

 

I find it significant that even an insider will admit that a traditional pancaratrika-diksa most likely never took place, although a kind of initiation was there, which they experience as sufficient.

 

The following statement is given in a biography, compiled by Bhakti Kusum Sraman Maharaja:

 

"With the permission of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, Srila Sarasvati Thakura accepted Bhagavati initiation from Srila Babaji Maharaja in the month of Magha (January-February) 1900 A.D."

 

It is unknown to me what the "Bhagavati initiation" means. Perhaps it means a kind of informal initiation, in the spirit of "Bhagavata parampara".

 

The BBT printing of Brahma Samhita states: "In 1905, following the advice of his father, Siddhanta Saraswati accepted spiritual initiation from Gaurakisora dasa Babaji." It is obvious that the authority of this statement is questionable, given the five-year error in the date compared to the Gaudiya Matha edition, which I recall draws the time from Bhaktisiddhanta's own writings in "The Harmonist".

 

Then I have some accounts related by Nitai Das on record, from the time when he began to study the issue:<blockquote><font color=brown> The eyewitnesses I know of and from whom I heard were eyewitness to Bhaktisiddhanta's admission before Pandita Ramakrsna Das Baba that he had not received initiation from Gaura Kishora Das Babaji. Bhaktisiddhanta was in the habit of visiting Pandita Babaji during his visits to Vrindaban since he was without a doubt the most respected of the Caitanya Vaishnavas of the 1920s and 1930s. On one occasion Bhaktisiddhanta was highly praising Gaura Kishora Das in Pandita Baba's presence. Pandita Baba asked him if he had received initiation from him. Bhaktisiddhanta said he had received it in a dream. Pandita Babaji said that that was fine, but he should receive it in the flesh since that is the only type of initiation accepted in the Caitanya tradition. Bhaktisiddhanta said he would and ended the visit.

 

A few years later Siddhanta returned to Vrindaban, now the acharya of the Gaudiya Math, a famous man. He visited Pandita Babaji and was asked again if he had gotten initiation from Gaura Kishora Das Baba. His answer was the same, at which point Pandita Baba got extremely angry with him for making disciples without proper initiation. Pandita Babaji threw him out of the ashrama and Bhaktisiddhanta, fearing damage to his reputation, began his calumny of the Vrindaban babas and forbade his disciples from associating with them. This account was given to me by Advaita Das Baba (I'm unsure if this is the correct name of this baba after all these years) in Govardhan who said he was witness to the admission.

 

. . . . . . . . . .

 

In addition, I did a little research on my own. During one of my visits to Nabadwip I visited the bhajana kutir/mandira of Gaura Kishora Das Babaji and spoke with the pujari there. I asked him if he knew whether Gaura Kishora Das Babaji had any initiated disciples. His answer, after consulting with some of the other elders of the compound, was that, as far as he knew, there were only four, a married couple of modest means and two others, agriculturalists, none of whom were Bhaktisiddhanta. How he knew this and how reliable his testimony is, I don't know. </font></blockquote>

The diksa-connection between Bhaktisiddhanta and Gaura Kishor Dasa Babaji was also denied by Sri Lalita Prasad Thakur, his brother, who certainly was around and well informed of the incidents surrounding Bhaktisiddhanta. He also expressed how Bhaktivinoda was dissatisfied with Bhaktisiddhanta's attitude towards Vipin Vihari Gosvami and several other senior Vaishnavas, and therefore refused to personally initiate Bhaktisiddhanta, despite bestowing pancaratrika-diksa and siddha-pranali to Lalita Prasad and some other disciples of his.

 

The following statement was given by a western sannyasi of the Gaudiya Matha:

 

"There were witnesses to the initiation. Because there was a witness to the initiation of Saraswati Thakura, even after 100 years the opposition has not been able to make much of that rumor. Now of course the witness is also dead, but one of his relatives still lives in Vrindavana and knows something of the event."

 

I would tend to conclude based on the considerations above that Bhaktisiddhanta did not receive pancaratrika-diksa as it appears in the Hari Bhakti Vilasa, though there certainly was a kind of guru-disciple relationship between him and Gaura Kisora Babaji, and some kind of event of acceptance of disciplehood may have taken place. The crucial question at hand is whether diksa-mantras were given.

 

Would anyone have further details on record in this regard?

 

[raga]

A few short notes on what you wrote:

 

>>>> One Gaudiya Vaisnava acarya who may be an avadhuta may wear burlap, but he did not tell his thousands of disciples to do so. He told them all to wear white cotton. <<<<

 

Exactly. And one Gaudiiya Vaishnava aachaarya might take sannyaasa in front of a picture of his departed guru because of special circumstances. But it does not mean that he intended thousands of his disciples to do so. Obviously, you have no problem understanding the concept of exceptional spiritual leaders making temporary compromises with certain prescriptions. Why is it suddenly a problem now?

I would like to note that Bhaktisiddhanta indeed made a rule of this exception, and intended to change the practice of the tradition, since he clearly advised his disciples to do the same. Therefore the argument you offer is not sound, since the exception was not an one-time case or even temporary.

 

If one is not going to accept Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii's qualification on faith (which is certainly your right), then why not also question the authority of the Gosvaamiis?

Because it is documented (for instance in the Caitanya Caritamrta) that Caitanya Mahaprabhu authorized and empowered the six Gosvamis to establish the precepts of the path He brought to this world. On these grounds, it is easy to place one's faith in the Gosvamis.

 

It may not be equally easy to place one's faith in a reformer who appears four hundred years later. After all, with all due respect to the achievements of Bhaktisiddhanta, there have been many great souls who established something different from the current tradition. We may ask, "Why not have faith in them all? And if not, why have faith in the Gosvamis?" But this is not a sound proposal.

 

I also find it interesting that you have not provided the source for your quote "suklavaso bhaven nityah." Are we supposed to accept it on the basis that it is Sanskrit? Whose injunction is this, and to what audience is it intended? You are generalizing this commandment to all people regardless of station. By your logic even Sri Vaishnava and Maadhva sannyaasis must also be at fault, since they do wear saffron.

 

"shukla vasa bhaven nityam raktam caiva vivarjayet" -- this is from Hari Bhakti Vilasa, from a section describing appropriate clothing for Gaudiya Vaishnavas. If you look at the original article, ( http://bhajankutir.net/nitai-zine-vol-7/node5.html ), you'll note that reference is given -- Hari-bhakti-vilasa, 4.152.

 

This injunction is not meant for everyone. It is well known that Hari Bhakti Vilasa was written to establish the codes of sadacara for Gaudiya Vaishnavas, the followers of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu -- not for others, like Madhvites or Sri Vaishnavas.

 

And what about obedience to shaastra? I have provided adequate pramaanas proving that varnaashrama dharma must be followed, even by the bhaktas. If it is your contention that sannyaasi dharma and wearing of sacred thread is not to be followed (which are unquestionably Vedic practices), then what is your justification for rejecting shaastra? Your arguments are rather inconsistent.

Wearing a sacred thread is for brahmanas only. Traditional sannyasa in the Gaudiya Sampradaya means renouncing one's family ties, and accepting a simple white cloth of a sadhu instead of a danda and a saffron cloth. This is evident from all predecessor examples.

 

To state that not following the reforms of Bhaktisiddhanta is disobedience of shastra equals blaming for the entire Gaudiya tradition preceeding him for disobedience of shastra, since these practices were only instituted by him -- a historical fact.

 

 

Please note that many of the comments I have offered are not directed towards offering a conclusion on the issues themselves, but rather on the soundness of your logic in responding to the arguments.

 

I am curious to read the rest of your review, particularly on the sections concerning raganuga bhakti. I suggest having references from the Gosvami Granthas and Visvanatha if you intend to refute any of them. Perhaps you would also like to post this on the acintya-list?

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

On one occasion Sarasvati was highly praising Gaura Kishora Babaji in Pandita Baba's presence. Pandita Baba asked him if he had re-ceived initiation from him. Sarasvati said he had received it in a dream. Pandita Babaji said that that was fine, but he should receive it in the flesh since that is the only type of initiation accepted in the Caitanya tradition.

Just a note on this point, which has already been posted in this thread somewhere. This story of the dream initiation statement has no supportive evidence other than a third person account from an acquiantance of the Babaji, who was not very favourable to Bhaktisiddhanta. Thus it is not at all valid as evidence.

 

Further more, if Bhaktisiddhanta was not regarded as the disciple of Gaura Kishora Dasa Babaji, then certainly there would have been objections to Bhaktisiddhanta performing the samadhi rituals for Gaura Kishora Dasa Babaji.

[Jagat]

All of this can quite easily be resolved if we remember that Siddhanta Saraswati himself NEVER claimed to have received Pancharatrika initation from Babaji Maharaj, but Bhagavati diksha.

 

The debate thus shifts to the following: What constitutes bhagavati diksha?

 

We have been debating this issue for years. Have a close look at Saraswati Thakur's "Brahman o Vaishnava" book. There he specifically states that the Bhagavata parampara is not dependent on Pancharatrika initiation. Saraswati deliberately separated himself from the Pancharatrika "mantra businessmen" and started a new sampradaya.

 

What is interesting is that subsequent to Saraswati Thakur, legitimacy in the Gaudiya Math has once again be established by Pancharatrika initiation. The Ritvikvadis, for instance, claim that the system of Bhagavati diksha to Srila Prabhupada is still possible, and that the external act of Pancharatrika initiation is a mere formality. This is exactly Saraswati Thakur's position.

 

There are a number of Srila Prabhupada quotes, especially from his letters, that also support this. They have been quoted on the diksha and siddha pranali threads on this forum.

 

I have found three definitions of Bhagavati diksha--one appears to be the transmission of the desire to serve (i.e., the conversion experience is the real initiation; or the "planting of the bhakti-lata bija"), the second is the giving of the order to engage in Harinam. (Saraswati quotes the use of the word diksha in Haridas Thakur's speech to the prostitute from Chaitanya Charitamrita as support.) The third would be a wholehearted commitment to the teachings of the guru.

 

Saraswati's "bhagavati diksha" in 1901 was followed shortly afterward by a committed attempt to perform a yajna of a billion Holy Names, so it seems to me that the second definition was the one Saraswati gave most importance to. This is also the one he gives in the "Brahmana o Vaishnava" booklet.

 

Historically speaking, we have a number of conflicting reports, but I think that we can take it on the evidence provided by Saraswati himself that (1) he never took Pancharatrika initiation from Gaura Kishor Das Babaji Maharaj; (2) this was a deliberate choice on his part (or perhaps that of his guru); (3) that he held Pancharatrika initiation to be subordinate to Bhagavati diksha and that therefore one who had the latter could give the former, even without having received the same.

 

Unfortunately these ideas are a bit revolutionary for many of us to comprehend. This may be attributable to a certain "sthula buddhi" (please see the discussion on the currently active diksha thread on this forum). However, I would say that the majority of people in Iskcon and the Gaudiya Math have either not understood or not been able to communicate this fundamental premise about initiation, even though Sridhar Maharaj clearly stated that the Gaudiya Math was a "siksha" sampradaya, not a "diksha" sampradaya. As I said, the adherence to Pancharatrika norms in the period subsequent to Saraswati Thakur are proof enough of this. (Pancharatrika initiation is necessary for an institution, to establish legitimacy.)

 

This idea is not without merit and I believe that it existed prior to Saraswati Thakur himself. On the whole, the idea is that we all belong to a family of devotees who follow the ideals of Rupa and Raghunath. Saraswati Thakur chose to separate himself from the other "followers of Rupa and Raghunath" for numerous reasons, most of which you are no doubt familiar with. Nevertheless, it is always possible for us to revive that sense of belonging to one spiritual family.

 

In order for that to happen, however, we must put a little water into our wine on the initiation issue. Those in the diksha sampradayas will never accept the siksha sampradaya as bona fide. They will always say, "If you accept the siksha, then you will accept the siksha about diksha." This will be very hard to overcome.

 

On the other hand, those in the Gaudiya Math must come to a proper understanding of the nature of Bhagavati diksha and all that it entails vis-à-vis the traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya.

 

(1) That Pancharatrika initiation transmitted without the Bhagavati diksha (or conversion experience) is useless.

 

(2) That Saraswati Thakur did indeed start a new sampradaya, the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Saraswata sampradaya. Though it is new, it claims to be true to the original goals of Mahaprabhu, Rupa and Raghunath.

 

(3) That Saraswati's ideas connected to Siddha pranali are intrinsically and deeply connected to this debate.

 

(4) That Saraswati's ideas connected to Daiva Varnashram are intrinsically and deeply connected to this debate.

 

In either case, on whatever side of the debate we stand, we should try to avoid Vaishnava aparadh. Because someone has decided to accept the traditional view of Gaudiya Vaishnava diksha does not mean that he has not received bhagavati diksha in the three senses given above.

 

On the other hand, those who are in the traditional sampradayas, without necessarily agreeing with Saraswati's solutions, should (and I think in most cases do) admire his commitment to the Holy Names and the teachings of Rupa and Raghunath and thus wholeheartedly endorse most of what he has done.

 

Problems only arise when we set out to deliberately blacken the reputation of the other side, ludicrously accusing others falsely of things like institutionalized transvestism or orgyism.

 

There will always be a divide between the two sections of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The division was born out of certain fundamental differences. This is not a reason that we cannot find a certain sense of brotherhood and affection for each other. This, at least, is my hope.

 

Jagadananda Das

 

<font color=#f7f7f7><small>

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-23-2002).]