Why Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Never Received Initiation from Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji

[Jagat]

Please forgive the above post. It is in some need of editing, which I don't have time for now. Please be sara-grahis. Your servant, Jagat

[raga]

JNDas: 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.

And on the other hand, someone who is favourable to Bhaktisiddhanta, his words can't be accepted as valid evidence at all by the other side according to this logic, particularly if the information is second-hand.

 

Therefore we would be in need of facts, first hand evidence.

 

But I find the proposal of Jagat on Pancaratrika-diksa and Bhagavati-diksa acceptable, and consequently see no need to debate on this. After all, the claim is that he did not receive pancaratrika mantra-diksa, and if this is true, and he received another kind of initiation instead, all well.

 

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.

 

Certainly he was a disciple of the Baba. I think no-one will contest their having a guru-disciple relationship.

 

Perhaps there were objections. For all we know, people actually used to have quite a few objections around that time, which nevertheless did not stop the Gaudiya Math from its course.

 

Late Jaya Nitai Das Baba was around building the samadhi when Gaura Kisora Baba passed away (JNDB was in Gaudiya Math back then). According to him, Bhaktisiddhanta was not there when Gaura Kisora Baba passed away, hinting that the entire history of his protecting the body of GKB with a stick in his hand etc. is a fabrication. I did not meet Jaya Nitai Das Baba in person, but I have spoken with several persons who heard it from him.

 

Now that you brought it up, JNDas, I would also like to see evidence to the fact that Gaura Kisora Baba was laid in samadhi by Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

 

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

[krishnas]

Originally posted by 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.

 

 

Dear Raga,

 

Thank you for your comments. I personally have no problem with you trying to convert me to your point of view, if you were trying to do so. Should your point of view prove to have superior basis in guru, saadhu, and shaastra, then I feel that I am obligated to accept it. Conversely, if I see conflicts with guru, saadhu, and shaastra, then I am obligated to reject it.

 

Hence, like you, I think I can honestly say that I am interested in the facts concerning the matter. As I believe I have already pointed out, what are considered "facts" by the author of the article I responded to are by no means established as such, at least not by any reasonable standard of proof.

 

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.

 

 

I want to point out that, even if Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta had said he was initiated "in a dream," this would by no means preclude the possibility that he had or was going to get, formal initiation. The article (by one Nitai das?) gave a similar example in regard to Advaita Prabhu, Maadhavendra Puri, and Siitaa-devi.

 

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.

 

 

This is an interesting story.

 

Assuming that some incident actually occurred upon which this story is based, and that the baabaajiis that you mentioned did in fact witness it, it isn't clear to me that we are seeing the *whole* story here. Jagat recently made reference to differences of opinion and practice among Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, by which I believe he is referring to Gaudiiya Math/ISKCON Vaishnavas vs Baabaajiis of Vrindaavana. That being the case, it seems more than likely that we are hearing this story retold through the eyes of the Baabaajii party, whom I'm sure are putting a very different emphasis on it. This is all ASSUMING that something like this ever happened.

 

Now let me ask the obvious question: How do we know that anything like this even happened? What is the evidence? So far, it still seems like hearsay. If you argue that it is the opinion of the Baabaajiis that it happened, then what of the opinion of Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta that he was in fact initiated? It just boils down to one opinion vs. another, so why arbitrarily reject Bhaktisiddhaanta's opinion and accept the account given by the Baabaajiis?

 

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.

 

 

Perhaps because it is convenient towards your position, you have given only half of the definition of "objective." Prejudice can and often is negative as well, and those who are inimical towards a great aachaarya are certainly not in any position to give an objective commentary about that aachaarya's biographical details.

 

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.

 

 

And this is exactly what I am getting at. Why should we accept Lalita Prasada's opinion, if we should not accept Bhaktisiddhaanta's? The perception of Lalita Prasada among Gaudiiya Vaishnavas is that he is inimical to Bhaktisiddhaanta. In that case, why should I trust him? I have no reason to think that he is objective, and every reason to think otherwise.

 

Gaura Kishora Baabaajii, based on everything I have read about him, lived the life of a recluse. I have to thus question the ability of the sources you mentioned to correctly name and identify all of his disciples. Again, how would they know?

 

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.

 

 

This is not true. In "Shrii Guru-paramparaa" Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta sings:

 

vishwanaatha-bhakta-saatha, baladeva jagannaatha,

taara priya shrii-bhaktivinoda

mahaa-bhaagavata-bara, shrii-garuakishora-bara,

hari-bhajanete jaa'ra moda

 

"Vishvanaatha Chakravartii Thaakura was the shikshaa-guru [instructing spiritual master] of Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana, to whom he taught the precepts of Shriimad-Bhaagavatam. Jagannaatha daasa Baabaajii was a very prominent aachaarya after Shrii Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana and was the beloved shikshaa-guru of Shrii Bhaktivinoda Thaakura. Bhaktivnoda Thaakura's intimate friend and associate was the eminent mahaa-bhaagavata Shrii Gaurakishora daasa Baabaajii, whose sole joy was found in hari-bhajana."

 

As far as revealing himself to be Gaurakishora's disciple, it is clearly understood from the fact that Bhaktisiddhaanta gives his own name next in the song. But let's assume that somehow it wasn't obvious, and that, as you have said, Bhaktisiddhaanta never revealed his connection with Gaurakishora to anyone.

 

This would force us to conclude that Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta created 64 Gaudiiya Mathas and initiated all of his disciples, all the while letting them think that he had no guru. This goes against the grain of Mahaaprabhu's teachings. To say that it stretches the limits of believability is an understatement.

 

A reasonable evidence to support your view would be if a majority of Bhaktisiddhaanta's disciples admited in their writings that they had no idea who their guru's guru was. Have you such evidence?

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.

 

 

Perhaps the issue here is whether or not Bhaktisiddhaanta received diiksha or shiksha initiation. If your complaint seems to be that Bhaktisiddhaanta was a shiksha disciple of Gaurakishora only, and that he never revealed his diiksha guru, than what of it? It is well known that shiksha is more important that diiksha, especially if one's diiksha guru does is found to fall short of the proper standards of devotional service.

 

Shrii Madhvaachaarya's diiksha guru was Achyuta Preksha, an Advaitin. Would you have us believe that Madhva should list his paramparaa through Achyuta Preksha? If you hold that diiksha is always more important than shiksha, then how you do you explain Madhva accepting Vyaasa as his guru? What about Lakshmiipati Tiirtha accepting Vyaasa Tiirtha? That was mostly likely a shiksha connection as well, since the Maadhva Mathas have no record of Lakshmiipati (admitted by BNK Sharma in his _History and Literature of the Dvaita School of Vedanta_). And of what of Maadhavendra and Iishvara Puri? Both of them were probably Advaitin sannyaasis, for reasons given in O.B.L. Kapoor's _The Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya_. Why didn't Maadhavendra Puri reveal his diiksha guru? Certainly in the guru-paramparaa found in Govinda-bhaashya, we find no record of a diiksha guru for Maadhavendra Puri - only his shiksha guru Lakshmiipati Tiirtha.

 

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.

 

 

How did you derive "consequently the recognized parivaras.... have their specific tilaka-svarupa" from "at the time of diksa the guru bestows the specific sectarian signs he carries unto the disciple"?

 

If the disciple must have the same kind of tilaka as the guru, then the logical conclusion of this is that all Gaudiiya Vaishnavas must have the same tilaka. For different sections to have different tilakas implies that somewhere, someone has deviated from his guru in this regard. Why then focus on the alleged difference between Bhaktisiddhaanta's and Gaurakishora's tilaka?

 

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?

 

 

What evidence have you to suggest that Bhaktisiddhaanta's followers have adopted a different tilaka than that of Gaurakishora? If there is such evidence, then the question is valid and deserves discussion. If there is no such evidence, then we are better off not wasting time discussing a non-issue.

 

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.

 

 

Gaura Kishora daasa Baabaajii did not practice these institutions of varnaashrama because he was a paramahamsa, not because he his alleged birth in a vaishya family was a disqualification.

 

Both Gaura Kishora and Bhaktisiddhaanta were already on the level of braahmanas. Hence, there was no need of Bhaktisiddhaanta getting a separate guru to give him initiation into sacred thread. This was not even in practice before Bhaktisiddhaanta, so to whom should he have gone to get this? Bhaktisiddhaanta was initiated by Gaura Kishora, who was already better than a braahmana, and then later Bhaktisiddhaanta got from the followers of Raamaanuja the practices of sacred thread, gaayatrii mantra, etc. I see no way that he could have done this differently. Nor do I see why he should have done it any differently.

 

If it is argued that Bhaktisiddhaanta could not be considered a braahmana because his guru Gaura Kishora was not a braahmana (due to birth as a vaishya), then I would refer you to shruti which states:

 

tarhi jaatir braahmaNa iti chet tan na |

tatra jaatyantarajantuShvanekajaatisambhavaat | maharShayo bahavaH santi || vajra up 5 ||

 

If someone says: "One becomes a braahmana by taking birth in a braahmana family," then the scripture replies: "No. That is not so. A braahmana may be born in any kind of family. Indeed, many great braahmana sages were not born from braahmanas. (vajrasuuchika upaniShad 5)

 

Then Upanishad then goes on to give several examples of braahmana sages who were of nonbrahminical birth, like Vyaasa, Vaalmiiki, Gautama, etc.

 

Hence, Gaura Kishora daasa baabaajii's qualification as a braahmana (for purposes of initiation) cannot be dispute because of his birth.

 

Nor can one dispute whether one is a braahmin on the basis of prescribed duties (like wearing of sacred thread, chanting of gaayatrii mantra), for the same Upanishad states:

 

tarhi karma braahmaNa iti chet tan na |

sarveShaa.m praaNinaa.m praarabdhasa~nchitaagamikarmasaadharmyadarshanaat karmabhir preritaaH santo janaaH kriyaaH kurvantiiti |

tasmaan na karma braahmaNa iti || vajra up 7 ||

 

If someone says: "A particular person is a braahmana because he performs his prescribed duties," then the scripture replies: "No. That is not so. Many pious living entities alike perform the prescribe duties resulting from their previous karma, but that does not make them all braahmanas. Therefore it is not performance of prescribed duties that makes one a braahmana." (varja suuchika upaniShad 7)

 

In fact, after stating several times what cannot be used to determine who is a braahmina, the Upanishad goes on to give only two criteria to determine who is a braahmana:

 

tarhi ko vaa braahmaNo naama |

yaH kashchid aatmaanam advitiiya.m... | etc

 

Then someone may ask: "Who is a braahmana, then? The scriptures answer: "A braahmana directly sees the Supreme Personality of Godhead..." (vajra suuchika upanishad 9)

 

kaamaraagaadidoSharahitaH shamadaamaadisampanno bhaavamaatsaryatR^iShNaashaamohaadirahito dambhaaha.nkaaraadibhir asa.mspR^iShTachetaa vartata evam uktalakShaNo yaH sa eva braahmaNa iti shrutismR^itipuraaNetihaasaanaam abhipraayaH |

anyathaa hi braahmaNatvasiddhir naastyeva |

sachchidaanandam aatmaanam advitiiya.m brahma bhaavayed aatmaana.m sachchidaananda.m brahma bhaavayed ity upaniShat || varja up 9 ||

 

Also, a braahmana is free of lust, attachment, and other vices, is endowed with peacefulness, self-control and other virtues, is free of envy, hankering, illusion, and other defects, and has a heart untouched by pride and false ego. The Shruti, Smriti, Puraanas, and Ithaasas declare that such a person is a braahmana. A person who does not have these qualities cannot be a braahmana. A braahmana always meditates on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss. Thus the Upanishad is spoken. (vajra suuchika upanishad 9)

 

Please note that this is directly from shruti, whose authority is not disputed by anyone. If wearing of brahminical thread and chanting of gaayatrii mantra were necessary prerequisites to becoming a braahmana, then this Upanishad would have said so.

 

Therefore, one cannot dispute the brahminical qualification of Gaura Kishora and Bhaktisiddhaanta on the basis of lack of mantra initiation or birth.

 

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.

 

 

As per my understanding, Shrii Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii got the rituals from the Shrii Vaishnavas. He probably got the mantras from them as well, assuming what you say here is true.

 

Again, I don't see how this is a disqualification. Much of this criticism seems to be based on alleged differences over external matters, i.e. how one wears urdhva-pundra, what gaayatrii mantra he chants, what color is his dhoti, etc.

 

I will be very frank in saying that, I am more interested in whether or not one is faithful to the philosophy as taught by Mahaaprabhu and shaastra. No sensible person should follow a "Gaudiiya Vaishnava" who faithfully follows Hari-bhakti-vilaasa rituals, but yet disagrees with the Gosvaamiis on such essential topics as varnaashrama, the qualification of a saadhaka to practice raagaanuga bhakti, or the authority of shaastra.

 

</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.

 

 

I don't believe there is any question that Gaura Kishora daasa Baabaajii's shiksha guru was Bhaktivinoda Thaakura. He was known to also be a disciple of Bhaagavata daasa Baabaajii, who was a disciple of Jagannatha daasa Baabaajii. Who is the Advaita-parivara guru of Gaura Kishora? If it was Bhaagavata daasa, then why do you say that Bhaktisiddhanta did not recognize this connection as bona fide? If it is indeed the fact that Bhaktisiddhaanta did not recognize it as bona fide, then what was the reasoning? Let's hear the other side of the story, if applicable.

 

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.

 

 

And I think we have abundant reasons to reject such reasoning as superficial, for the reasons already given by me.

 

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?

 

 

The Baabaajiis claim that Gaura Kishora never gave diiksha to Bhaktisiddhaanta. Again, what of it? Can the baabaajiis show that Vyaasa gave diiksha to Madhva? By the Baabaajii's own logic, the whole sampradaaya is not bona fide because Madhva is not bona fide. So who has any business coming in a paramparaa beginning with Madhva, and then arguing that someone else's paramparaa is not bona fide?

 

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?

 

 

Because his own father urged him to take initiation from Gaura Kishora daasa Baabaajii, as recorded in _Ray of Vishnu_, pg 17. Quibble with the source if you like (I think the book was written by an ISKCON devotee), but you still have not provided any objective source for your statements.

 

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?

 

 

Which mantra are you referring to? Everyone knows the shaastric basis for the hare kR^iShNa mahaa-mantra. I am not aware of Bhaktisiddhaanta distributing any other mantra, except perhaps those which he gave during braahmana initiation.

 

Visvambharananda further objected that since Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was a sannyasi without a sannyasa guru, how could he give sannyasa to others?

 

 

On the basis of the fact that sannyaasa means renunciation. Merely dressing the part and/or receiving an initiation does not make one a sannyaasi:

 

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)

 

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.

 

 

And I agree 100% with this. Frankly, I don't see why orthodox Vaishnavas from any sampradaaya would have a problem with this.

 

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>

 

 

And that, I think speaks for itself. Sometimes the aachaarya must make compromises with certain shaastric regulations in order that the shaastric message be propagated. There is shaastric precedent for this also:

 

o.m namo bhagavate vaasudevaaya |

mantreNaanena devasya kuryaad dravyamayii.m budhaH |

saparyaa.m vividhair dravyair deshakaalavibhaagavait || bhaa 4.8.54 ||

 

Om namo bhagavate vaasudevaaya. This is the twelve-syllable mantra for worshiping Lord Krishna. One should install the physical forms of the Lord, and with the chanting of the mantra one should offer flowers and fruits and other varieties of foodstuffs exactly according to the rules and regulations prescribed by authorities. But this should be done in consideration of place, time, and attendant conveniences and inconveniences. (bhaagavata puraaNa 4.8.54)

 

Here it is clearly stated that devotional service must be executed with consideration for desha and kaala. It is not that the same stereotyped approach must be given to everyone, with the result being that if it cannot be done exactly the same in every time and place, that therefore the saadhakas cannot become Vaishnavas. The example is there in the Bhaagavatam itself. Naarada initiated Dhruva Mahaaraaja in the dvaadashaakshara mantra, which begins with pranava omkaara, even though Dhruva Mahaaraaja was not a brahmin but a kshatriya. Naarada was not at fault for making such a compromise. Aside from being a devotee of immaculate qualification, the result of his compromise was that Dhruva became a pure devotee. Hence, just as in Bhaktisiddhaanta's case, the effect of the preaching speaks for itself.

 

Note that I do not condone just anyone making such compromises. Obviously, the aachaarya who does this must be on the level of a Naarada. And the result must be that pure devotional service is being propagated. Again, I see no reason to criticize Bhaktisiddhaanta, as his preaching has given A.C. Bhaktivedaanta Swaamii, for whose preaching work even erudite Maadhvas and Shrii Vaishanavas have great regard.

 

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.

 

 

I don't see the big deal. There is abundant historical precedent to the effect that shiksha is ultimately what matters. Ideally the diiksha and shiksha guru are one, but practically this is not always the case. This has never been a controversy for other Vaishnavas, as far as I know.

 

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 point however, is that it does not mean being initiated in a dream, which I think topples objection #1 from Nitai-dasa's posting.

 

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".

 

 

In different Maadhva maths, there are differences in regards to the sequence of gurus listed in the paramparaas (also admitted by BNK Sharma). Compared to that, a difference in two or more accounts regarding the date of an aachaarya's admission is hardly significant, especially when you consider that this statement was probably just a misprint to begin with.

 

Then I have some accounts related by Nitai Das on record, from the time when he began to study the issue:

 

 

I have never met Nitai Das, and I don't mean to be dismissive of him or his research. But all of these statements are just second-hand evidence, probably colored by the attitudes of the persons with whom he spoke. This does not constitute hard evidence. If I want to play devil's advocate, I could question the accuracy of the accounts of these Baabaajii's, just as Nitai Das et. al. question the accuracy of Bhaktisiddhaanta's followers with regards to their paramparaa. Again, it just boils down to who you choose to believe, with no objective evidence why you should believe one over the other, except of course from the standard of "phalena pariciyate," in which case I know who I am going to take seriously.

 

Since I have remarked on this account already, I will not do so again here, except for one small point:

 

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 difference between this retelling of this account is that here, some doubt is admitted to the pujari's credibility. If Nitai Das has this doubt, I see no reason why I shouldn't also.

 

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.

 

 

And when one considers the source above, I think the reason for doubting it becomes obvious. At the risk of sounding sentimental, I want to tell you a little bit about where I am coming from. I was born in a conservative South Indian family, and traditionally we do not speak badly of our own brothers in front of outsiders, what to speak of Godbrothers in the same spiritual family. This is called culture.

 

Regardless of how erudite one might seem to be, we could never accept as a friend (what to speak of accepting as guru) a "Vaishnava" who was fixated on the real or alleged character flaws of his brothers or peers. It is simply unnatural. Even maayaavaadis will have a problem with this.

 

I had never heard of Lalita Prasad Thakur until his followers popped up on the internet and started quoting his negative remarks towards Bhaktisiddhaanta. That's it - no katha, just politics first and foremost.

 

On the other hand, the first time I heard or read the names "A.C. Bhaktivedaanta" or "Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii," it was in the context of their teaching about devotional service. With regards to the names "Bhaktisiddhaanta" and "Bhaktivedaanta," I had to read so much Krishna-conscious philosophy before I even got a hint of anything that seemed political in their writings, and even in those few cases, there was always a philosophical point to be made.

 

First impressions often are quite revealing. You must understand that, if it comes down to a question of Lalita Prasaada's character versus that of Bhaktisiddhaanta, I am simply not going to be convinced to just accept Lalita Prasaada's version of the events. I require objective evidence, which I have thus far not seen.

 

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.

 

 

I still do not consider this a crucial point.

 

quote:

--

>>>> 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 it is so clear that he intended to do so, you could perhaps support your contention by showing where in his writings Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta advised disciples to engage in large-scale photo-sannyaasi initiations.

 

quote:

--

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.

 

 

Circular reasoning. Chaitanya Charitamrita was written by Krishnadaasa Kaviraaja, whose authority is based on the fact that he was a disciple of the Gosvaamiis. Hence, the decision to accept the Gosvaamii's authority is just as arbitrary as the decision to accept or reject Bhaktisiddhaanta's.

 

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.

 

 

Which is why we have shaastra - to give objective criteria by which to judge the results of one's endeavors.

 

We also have other sampradaayas and their practices by which to compare. What Bhaktisiddhaanta introduced in terms of sacred thread initiations and wearing of saffron was no different than what had been established practice for the last thousand years in other sampradaayas. Can other "great souls" after the Gosvaamiis similarly justify what they "introduced?" With all due respect to them, I doubt it.

 

quote:

--

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.

 

 

Thank you for providing the quote. I looked at the URL, but again I did not see where the reference was given. However, I will take your word for it.

 

I will attempt to get my hands on a copy of Hari-bhakti-vilaasa, if for no other reason than to have more source material by which to see what you are talking about. Even still, it so far comes down to time, place and circumstance. Would Sanaatana-Gosvaamii take issue with the results of Bhaktisiddhaanta's preaching because it involved sannyaasis wearing saffron? Doubtful.

 

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 if we were living in a world where everyone recognized the "paramahamsa" culture of the Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, then Bhaktisiddhaanta's reforms would have been unnecessary. But India is not that kind of world, and people do recognize the authority of a saffron-clad sannyaasi, whatever else their beliefs might be.

 

Every painting I have ever seen of Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu shows Him to be wearing saffron after His sannyaasi initation. That also makes sense, given that he got His sannyaasi initation from the Bhaarati sampradaaya, in which wearing of saffron was standard. So what of that? Was Mahaaprabhu violating the standards set by his disciples? Or could it be that time, place and circumstance should be considered in exactly how one executes devotional service?

 

quote:

--

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.

 

 

Wearing of saffron is the standard for sannyaasis in all sampradaayas. For Gaudiiyas it was different because varnaashrama customs were not strictly adhered to until the time of Bhaktisiddhaanta. There is no fault in this for persons like the Gosvaamiis, who were transcendental to varnaashrama. But this is not the case today. I would argue that Bhaktisiddhaanta HAD to make the reforms he did, given that Gaudiiya Vaishnavism had to be propagated to fallen persons.

 

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.

 

 

On the contrary, "desha-kaala-vibhaagavit" (SB 4.8.54). My point is that the changes which Bhaktisiddhaanta instituted were based on shaastra and were appropriate for time, place, and circumstance. Just as the decision not to adhere to those practices by the previous Gosvaamiis was also appropriate for their time and circumstance.

 

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.

 

 

Noted.

 

I am curious to read the rest of your review, particularly on the sections concerning raganuga bhakti.

 

 

Expect it some time in the next two weeks. I am by no means an expert, so feel free to dispute anything I say.

 

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?

 

 

If by "this" you mean your posting and my reply to it, then I am happy to. The Achintya rules forbid cross-posting an article without the author's permission. Thanks for your permission.

 

The main difficulty with Nitai dasa's article is that it makes some disparaging remarks about ISKCON/GM devotees. Just as in Brahminical culture, we do not dwell on the character flaws of others, so also on Achintya postings are required to be free of politics and fault-finding. It is okay to have a philosophical disagreement, even one that might have political ramifications. It is also ok to describe specific behaviors and whether or not they are supported by shaastra. It is not okay to make accusations against this or that religious organization, or point out the faults of their followers, etc. Hence, I am trying to figure out how best to edit Nitai dasa's article so that I can post it to Achintya with the philosophical points intact.

 

regards,

 

- K

 

p.s. forgive me this long and verbose writing. I will try to make future postings shorter and to the point.

 

 

 

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

www.achintya.org

[Audarya lila]

Just thought I'd add this as it was in a previous Sanga question and answer and relates to some of the questions posed.

 

Q. How can you call yourself followers of Sanatana Goswami? All colors of garment but white are forbidden for Gaudiya Vaisnavas, 'rakta vastra vaisnavera podite na yuyay' (Caitanya Caritamrta Antya 13,61). In Sri Dhyanacandra Gosvami's Paddhati the Guru is described as wearing white cloth (svetambaram gaura-rucim sanatanam). And saffron dhotis do not exist at all, only saffron bahirvasas for Vedic eka-dandi (mayavadi) sannyasis. A parampara that starts with white cloth and then suddenly switches to saffron cloth and 'brahmana-initiation' is hardly an uninterrupted siksa-parampara! How do you explain this?

 

A. Saffron cloth is not red cloth. It is for tridandi sannyasis, of which there are a number of examples in our sampradaya.

 

The context of Sanatana prabbhu's statement you cited from Antya lila 13.61, reveals that he is not condemning a particular color of cloth, but rather the cloth of a mayavadi sannyasi. Sanantana Goswami was wearing this red cloth on his head for the purpose of evoking loving sentiments from Jagadananda Pandita. Panditji thought it was Mahaprabhu's, and he was very pleased to see Sanatana Goswami wearing it. When Jagadananda found out from Sanatana Prabhu that it was a mayavadi's cloth, he became angry and expressed his angry love to the satisfaction of Sanatana Goswami, who then said "This red cloth is not fit for a Vasianva to wear." He was not condemning red cloth per se.

 

The other citations you mention refer to red cloth and not saffron. Some of them refer to the royal colors red and blue and not the dress of a sannyasi. All of these are citations from the Vaisnava smriti, which is open to adjustemt in accordance with time and circumstances. Indeed, much of Hari bhakti vilasa is not followed by many Gaudiya sects today.The Gaudiya Saraswata sampradaya is not the exception.

 

Indeed, the closest adherents to the form of Hari bhakti vilasa, the Radha Ramana Goswamis, have been know to wear saffron cloth themselves. Visvambhara Goswami and Purusottama Goswami are examples. I have seen them both in saffron. You are making much of the color of one's cloth. Would you also condemn the Tinkrori baba, a previous Mahanta at Radha kunda, for wearing burlap and not white?

 

The spirit of the injunctions regarding white cloth is one of distinguishing the sampradaya from Advaitins. If there are other ways to do this as well, they may be adopted following in the spirit of the injunctions. This is the idea of Tridandi sannyasa and the corresponding saffron cloth within daiva varnasrama as conceived of by Bhaktivinoda Thakura and implemented by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura.

 

Evidence for Vaisnava tridandi sannyasa is considerable. Sanatana Goswami himself offers this in his commentary on Brihatbhagavatamrta 2.7.14, in which he cites and explains SB 3.5.39. He explains the word yati in the Bhagavata verse to be a description of selfless devotees who take sannyasa. Outwardly in dress they are sannyasis, while in actuality they are bhaktas.

 

Our unbroken diksa parampara involves imparting the guru, gaura, and krsna mantras along with corresponding gayatris. We also give the brahma gayatri with the conception of vraja bhakti. For this you can read the brahma gayatri tika of Om Visnupada Bhakti Raksaka Sridharadeva Goswami published in his Gita commentary. We also accept maha mantra diksa.

 

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura received the maha mantra from Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and mantra gayatri diksa from Gaura kisora dasa babaji. Some people have tried to prove that Saraswati Thakura was not initiated by Gaura kisora dasa babaji, but even they admit that their evidence is inconclusive.

 

Evidence of the Thakura's spirituality, however, would be difficult to deny. He followed the vows of Haridasa Thakura at Vraja-pattana for almost nine years before beginning his preaching campaign, and his campaign involved fulfilling the prophecy of Mahaprabhu. He was an innovator, and this involved his stress on a siksa guru or Bhagavata guru parampara along with the diksa guru parampara. The idea of the Bhagavata guru parampara is that greater emphasis is given to those whose influence is greater in the lineage, regardless if they be one's siksa guru rather than diska guru.

 

Thus Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura emphasized the influence of Jagannatha dasa babaji in the life of Bhaktivinoda and drew his line accordingly. As with the color of cloth, here we are speaking of substance over form."

 

I hope this helps to better understand some of these complex issues.

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

 

For those who don't know - Sanga is a nonsectarian online community that shares an interest in the esoteric teachings of the Gaudiya Vedanta lineage and the writings of Swami B.V. Tripurari.

[Jagat]

I repeat: Siddhanta Saraswati never says he is the diksha disciple of Gaur Kishor Das Babaji.

 

This is not a diksha sampradaya, Hare Krishna Prabhu. So let's not get hung up.

 

Read Brahman o Vaishnava, especially the middle chapter, and you will see what Saraswati Thakur means about Pancharatrika vidhi and Bhagavata vidhi.

 

In Saraswati's opinion, Bhagavati vidhi is primary, Pancharatrika is secondary. If one has attained perfection on the Bhagavata path, there is no objection to initiating in the Pancharatrika mantras because siddhi is not dependent on those mantras. They are only a tool for use in archan.

 

You may see the shastras that Saraswati Thakur quotes there. The text of this document is translated by Pundarik Vidyanidhi and posted on the Russian library site. The translation is reasonably well done, though I have revised it where I have made use of passages.

 

You may find my article, <a href=http://istagosthi.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000138&p=>Charismatic renewal and institutionalization in the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the Gaudiya Math</a>, useful. Many of the relevant quotes from Brahmin o Vaishnava are cited there.

 

Here is a portion of that article:

 

<h3>Saraswati’s initiation (bhagavati diksha)</h3>

 

Just as Saraswati rejected Brahminical status by birthright, he similarly rejected the idea of automatic accession to guru status by the same means. This doctrine is one of the lynchpins of the Gaudiya Math and requires some detailed analysis, especially since legitimacy in Gaudiya Vaishnavism (even in some cases, to the deviant lines) customarily required initation in a recognized line leading back to one of Chaitanya’s associates. Saraswati claimed to be initiated by Gaura Kishor Das Babaji, but contrary to custom, placed no importance on the line of disciplic succession in which his guru himself had taken initiation and never communicated this line to his own disciples. Rather, he innovated something called the bhagavata-parampara. Furthermore, Saraswati clearly marked his separation from the rest of Gaudiya Vaishnavism by giving initiation to Vaishnavas who had already received the mantra from a family guru (kula-guru).

 

Though some point to the fact that Saraswati “did not have high regard for Bipin Bihari Goswami” (his father’s spiritual master), it seems that his quarrel was not with any individual, by with the entire existing system. Saraswati claimed that the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition had been infected by a kind of ritualistic approach to religion, styled as vidhi-marga, in opposition to the spontaneous devotional spirit of the bhagavata school of Vaishnavism that had existed at the origins of Chaitanya’s movement.

 

Siddhanta Saraswati took initiation from Gaura Kishor Das Babaji in January, 1901. Legend has it that he had to ask his master three times before being accepted, as the humble hermit of lower caste background at first doubted the sincerity of the well-to-do scholar. There are differing ideas about the type of initiation Saraswati received: according to some biographers he was given mantra, for others it was a bhagavati diksha. Not surprisingly, bhagavati diksha is a concept unfamiliar to most people, even those within the Gaudiya Math, as the only kind of initiation current in Vaishnava circles has always been of the pancharatrika type. The result is that many have wasted much time and effort unnecessarily trying to establish that Siddhanta Saraswati received pancharatrika-type mantra initiation from Gaura Kishor Das.

 

We get an idea of what Siddhanta Saraswati meant by bhägavati diksha from his Brahmana o Vaishava essays where he cites the example of Hari Das Thakur, a Muslim convert, who likely never received pancharatrika initation, who says:

 

<blockquote>I have been initiated into a vow to perform a great sacrifice by chant-ing the holy name a certain number of times every day. As long as the vow to chant is unfulfilled, I do not desire anything else. When I finish my chanting, my vow comes to an end (dIkSAra vizrama)... I have vowed to chant ten million names in a month. I have taken this vow (diksha), but it is now nearing its end.(1)</blockquote>

 

Saraswati continues, “Unless one becomes qualified as a sacrificial Brahmin in the sacrifice of chanting the holy names, the name of Krishna does not manifest. Although Hari Das was not a seminal or Vedic Brahmin, he had attained the position of a qualified initiated (daikSa) Brahmin.”(2) In other words, the simple commitment to regularly chant the holy names a certain number of times constitutes bhagavati diksha. Saraswati’s own life bears this out, as not long after receiving this initiation, he took up a vow to chant a billion holy names in Mayapur.

 

Saraswati then goes on to distinguish between the Bhagavata and Pancharatra schools of Vaishnavism.

 

According to his analysis, though there were originally many categories of Vaishnava, all but two of them had been lost. These were the Bhagavatas, whom he associates broadly with bhava-marga, or the path of emotion (raganuga bhakti), and the Pancharatras, who are associated with the ritualistic path of deity worship (vidhi-marga). The former followed the ecstatic path of chanting the Holy Name, the religious procedure meant for the Age of Kali, while the latter followed a path that had been prescribed in a previous age.

 

Saraswati divides the four principal Vaishnava acharyas according to these two categories, assimilating Madhvacharya and Nimbaditya to Bhagavata-marga and Ramanujacharya and Vishnuswami to the latter. Nevertheless, to a greater or lesser extent, he admits there had been an intermingling of the two broad groups of Vaishnavas, with the elements of the Bhagavata culture based on hearing and chanting being accepted by the Pancharatras and the Bhagavatas accepting the need for deity worship on the lower stages of practice (kaniSTha-adhikAra).

 

According to Saraswati, though Madhva strictly speaking followed the bhagavata-marga and Madhavendra Puri had accepted initiation in his line, neither Madhavendra nor Chaitanya accepted his doctrines, which had in time been infiltrated by pancharatrika ideas. In fact, at a certain point Saraswati even equates Madhva’s “Tattva-väda” with Pancharatra. Saraswati cites Baladeva Vidyabhushan who, though considered by many to be wholly responsible for the Gaudiyas claims of connection to the Madhvas, pointed out four teachings in the Madhva line to be particularly unacceptable to Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Thus, Saraswati says, “This Tattva-väda, or pancharatrika system, is not acceptable in the opinion of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Rather, He taught the path of bhagavata-marga.”

 

Saraswati further goes on to associate everything that is connected to the vidhi-märga with Pancharatra, and all that is with the raga-marga to the Bhagavata path. This is particularly significant, especially in view of the claims of traditional Gaudiyas to be faithfully following the rägänuga process and to whom initiation and the practice of rägänugä are integrally linked. He writes,

 

The regulated worshipers on the pancharatrika path serve their worshipable Lord Narayan here under the shelter of two and half rasas—shanta, dasya, and sakhya with awe and reverence. Above Vaikuntha is Goloka Vrindavan, where Sri Krishna Chandra, the perfect object for all five rasas, is eternally worshiped by His devotees who are the repositories of love… The worshipable Lord of the pancharatrika Vaishnavas resides in Vaikuëöha, and the worshipable Lord of the bhägavata Vaishnavas resides in Goloka. (121-2)

Saraswati then directly criticizes the situation in the contemporary Gaudiya Vaishnava world:

 

The pancharatrika Vaishnava principles of medieval South India have to some extent entered the current practices of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Descendants of the Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas became more or less attached to the path of archan, like the followers of the Pancharatras, and spread subordination to Sriman Mahaprabhu, sometimes in its pure form but more often in a perverted form. Like the householder acharyas of the Ramanuja sampradaya who are addressed as "Swami," Gaudiya householder acharyas have similarly accepted the title of Goswami. While preaching the pure path of bhäva explained in the Srimad Bhagavatam, Sriman Mahaprabhu distinguished it from mundane formalities, but in due course of time His teachings have become distorted into a branch of the pancharatrika system. This, however, is not the purpose of Sriman Mahaprabhu’s pure preaching. (98-99)

Saraswati's criticism extended to the hereditary gurus of the Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya for further distortions:

 

...some immature pancharatrika-mantra traders are presenting imaginary material names and forms as the goal of life and the path of perfection (siddha-pranali); in this way they gratify the minds of their disciples as well as disclosing their own foolishness and ignorance of the Vaishnava literatures.

Followers of the Gaudiya Math hold that the siddha-pranali tradition is not to be found in the earliest texts of the school. They have a very different idea of the practice of rägänugä bhakti. The spiritual identity is something that spontaneously comes out of one’s inner being as a result of purification through spiritual practice and not through formal instruction. This implication is present in the following statement by Saraswati disciple, Sridhar Maharaj:

 

To get the mantra from a sat guru, a genuine guru, means to get the internal good will or real conception about the Lord. The seed of a banyan tree may be a small seed, but the great big banyan tree will come out of that seed. The will with which the particular sound is given by the guru to the disciple is all-important. We may not trace that at present, but in time, if a favorable environment is there, it will express itself and develop into something great.

To summarize, it would appear that Saraswati went beyond simply criticism of the deterioration of morality in the sampradaya, but attacked some of its most cherished institutions, which had been established as early as the Kheturi festival.

 

=====NOTES=======

 

(1) CC 3.3.240-1, 124. These translations are by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, which Pundarika Vidyanidhi uses throughout his translation of Brähmaëa o Vaiñëava. Swami translates dékñä as vow, which seems to fit the context. Neither Siddhanta Saraswati nor Bhaktivinoda Thakur have explained these verses in their commentaries to CC.

 

(2) Brähmaëa o Vaiñëava, 108. The context here is interesting, since Hari Das says that he has almost finished the dékñä, which is a vow to complete a certain limited performance of chanting, i..e. chanting a certain number of Holy Names within a predetermined period of time. A lengthy discourse on the history of initiation is impossible here at this time. Suffice it to say that in the original Vedic context where the word dékñä was found. As Gonda intimates in his magistral article on dékñä correctly indicates that the Tantric (and päïcharätrika) rite of initiation is more closely modeled on the Brahminical upanayana. (“Dékñä,” in Change and Continuity in Indian Religion. The Hague: Mouton and Co., 1965, 444ff) “According to the scriptural injunction, a Brahmin has three births: the first is from his mother, the second comes at the time of taking the sacred thread; the third comes with initiation into the sacrifice.” (Manu 2.169). It may be that Saraswati was in fact reverting to a more primordial concept of initiation as a genuine rebirth, or conversion, rather than a ritual formality of any kind.

[Jagat]

Dear Hare Krishna,

 

Please don't mind me recycling a couple of other connected posts that I made on the Dharma Mela in March of this month. I only do so because you have probably not seen them and they have never been posted on this forum before:

<hr>Sun, Mar 10 2002 05:44

 

Jagat

 

Dear Rochan Prabhu,

 

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to read my few words and for attempting to read Joseph O’Connell’s article as well. In one sense, though you may be more emotionally involved than I in analyzing the question of Iskcon’s organizational structure, our discussions are purely academic, for neither of us has much influence in Iskcon. We have differing perspectives and perhaps someday someone will give our opinions some importance, but for the time being, everyone involved seems to think that he or she knows best. So we are all left with our perspective, emotional or detached, but the ones that count are those of the people with the capacity to do something about it.

 

1. The rationality of the Ritvik position and its adherence to the spirit of the Bhagavata sampradaya

 

I think your comments are very rational and are closest in spirit to the Ritvik solution, which I do not find totally without merit despite my strong reservations. The only difference I see between you and them is that you don’t think new devotees should identify themselves as Prabhupada’s diksha disciples. I don’t think this is a particularly important difference and you may eventually be convinced of the Ritviks’ arguments.

 

After carefully going through Brahmana o Vaishnava (the text of the speech Siddhanta Saraswati gave in Balighai, Medinipur in 1911), I believe that the cornerstone of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati’s reform consisted in devaluating Pancharatrika initiation in favour of a new concept, that of Bhagavati diksha. He explains Bhagavati diksha in Brahmana o Vaishnava as being equivalent to the instruction Hari Das Thakur to the prostitute, where Hari Das says that he has taken diksha (Prabhupada translates “vow”) in the sacrifice of the Holy Name, i.e., of chanting a crore of names in a month).

 

I assume that since there is little to support Saraswati’s ever taking Pancharatrika diksha from Gaura Kishor Das Babaji, and it also seems that the timing is right (Saraswati took initiation from GKDB in 1901 and started his billion name vow not long thereafter), that this is how Saraswati understood Bhagavati initiation.

 

Saraswati may have meant more than simply Hari Nam initiation, as the expression “bhajana siksha” is also bandied about, but he also argues that mantra-initiation is not particularly important since archana as a devotional process is secondary to chanting the Holy Name, to which end he quotes the relevant Bhagavata- sandarbha section on the necessity of being initiated to engage in archana.

 

Furthermore, the Bhagavata parampara does not seem to need a direct physical connection with the preceding acharya, so it is not altogether out of the question that Saraswati intended (or would have approved) an institution modeled along the lines that you and the Ritviks describe. Even so, since I assume that you would consider puja or archan to be a necessary part of Prabhupada’s institution, some kind of Pancharatrika initiation would be necessary for that purpose. Some kind of ritual initiation signifying membership in the institution would also presumably be part of your vision. This has traditionally been one of the functions of the Pancharatrika initiation, so why not connect the two? It seems more logical to identify the connection as being directly with Prabhupada rather than eliminating initiation entirely.

 

You have sold the elephant, so why not let go of the goad?

 

2. Problems with “hard” institutions

 

Of course, I am personally not in agreement with any Gaudiya Vaishnavism that does not make Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Radha Krishna milita-tanu, its center. The criticism I have of both Iskcon and the Gaudiya Math is that they seem to be doing this. The GM makes Siddhanta Saraswati and Iskcon Srila Prabhupada their points of reference respectively. As a consequence, they separate themselves from other Vaishnavas who make Gauranga and Radha-Krishna their goal in life; they stress their differences rather than their points of agreement. This is unfortunate. There is no reason why all Vaishnavas who claim to have the common goal of attaining love for Radha and Krishna should not be able to associate with each other. There may be considerations of personal qualifications (questions of character) that enter into play, as well as differences in individual mood (rasa); but the shared common goal should at least guarantee cordiality and even cooperation.

 

Now to return to O’Connell’s terminology, this kind of shared symbol system is what O’Connell was calling a “soft institution.” To a certain extent, such soft institutions are very much operative already. It is possible for us to talk about international Vaishnavism despite the relative weakness of “hard” institutions like Iskcon and the Gaudiya Math. So, in a sense, institutionally speaking, to we appear to be back where we started: loosely affiliated devotees associating according to their own conscience. In some cases, we may use facilities provided by Iskcon or some other Vaishnava group to facilitate association, but the proportion of individuals who accept its authority structure are in the minority and decreasing.

 

Now the question is whether or not such dispersal and decentralization is a good thing. Is small beautiful? You have emphatically stated that you do not think so and you point to the corporate model. (I think that you should consider the fundamental distinction between corporations and democracies; they are hardly the same.)

 

The word O’Connell used to characterize “hard institutions” was “coercive.” I think this is an important word to focus on:

 

<blockquote>"Hard institutions" are those with a centralized executive authority exercising coercive sanctions, and mechanisms for marshalling extensive mundane resources for community interests or for mobilizing the adherents against external threats.</blockquote>

 

Now if we reflect on this definition, we will see not only advantages in such institutions, as you have done, but also disadvantages. Traditional Vaishnavism from the time of Rupa Goswami was consistently suspicious of such hard institutions: Rupa Goswami says not to take many disciples, nor to engage in elaborate projects. Even Gaura Kishor Das Babaji specifically told Saraswati not to take disciples or to live in Kali’s capital city, Calcutta. Saraswati believed it possible to overcome these dangers through commitment to a higher purpose and yukta vairagya. He cited the example of Ramanuja, who distributed a secret mantra far and wide despite the interdiction of his spiritual master. We cannot argue with this insight. Nevertheless, we must try to understand why there was resistance to his innovation and respect that position as having a foundation in the very roots of the tradition. We must also recognize the dangers involved.

 

We should also be aware that Saraswati Thakur himself was somewhat leery of organized religion. You have perhaps seen the article “Putana” that Puru Das likes so much to post. Here is just one paragraph:

 

<blockquote>The idea of an organized church in an intelligible form, indeed, marks the close of the living spiritual movement. The great ecclesiastical establishments are the dikes and the dams to retain the current that cannot be held by any such contrivances. They, indeed, indicate a desire on the part of the masses to exploit a spiritual movement for their own purpose. They also unmistakably indicate the end of the absolute and unconventional guidance of the bona-fide spiritual teacher.</blockquote>

 

The hard institutional model has left many people by the wayside. Persons like us (you, Rochan, and I) have found difficulty with the hard institutional model: unlike me, you still have some faith that it may work effectively with a little fine-tuning: it would be possible to temper the centralized executive authority by introducing democratic institutions and checks and balances, etc. Forgive me if I find this unlikely to happen. It’s too easy for people to walk with their feet.

 

The hard institution taken to the extreme is a fanatical cult, with or without a charismatic guru. It is necessarily exclusive and thus limited in its possibilities.

 

3. Intermediate Institutions

 

I want to suggest that you look a little more closely at the idea of “intermediate” institutions. Now admittedly, the big problem for a movement in the West is that we don’t have the fallback of Varnashram, however imperfectly applied. In India, though Varnashram is hardly in accordance with the scriptural image of it, nevertheless, Prabhupada was convinced that it had to be established. It has been murder trying to understand what Prabhupada really meant when he asked us to start Varnashram Dharma. Mostly people seem to take it that he meant creating self-sufficient communities, centered on agriculture, and perhaps that is what he meant. Perhaps he was not sure. It has been some time since I read through everything he had to say on the subject, but my feeling is that he meant an extended lay community. Iskcon has failed miserably at creating such a community because it has consistently devalued and driven people away who do not wish to commit to the ascetic in-temple lifestyle. It has not encouraged anyone to seek self-fulfilment in anything other than renunciation and exclusive bhakti, without realizing that all life is on one continuum and that finding one’s place within society is a necessary part of self-discovery.

 

At the same time, it stems the impulse for further spiritual discovery by arrogating a monopoly of spiritual knowledge to itself. This same distressing tendency is found in Narayan Maharaj, too, but at least he can claim to know something. This claim is weaker in Iskcon, and as far as I can see, laughable in the Ritvik group. (What I mean is that their knowledge of the larger tradition is very weak as they restrict themselves so tightly to Prabhupada’s books alone. As such they remove themselves even further from the “soft” institutions of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.)

 

As far as the intermediate institutional model is concerned, I believe there are functioning examples in society. The Baptist Church, for instance, has achieved a fair amount of success through such a model.

 

Anyway, I really have to stop here, but I think that the general discussion is salutary. Hope to hear from you soon. I rather like this pensive, long term debate, rather than the quick thrust and parry. Of course, leaving things too long usually means that everyone loses interest.

 

<hr>Fri, Feb 8 2002 14:14

 

Jagat

 

Dear Prabhus,

 

I think the ideas of hard, soft and intermediate institutions from Joe's article will be useful, as well as the Weberian concept of "charisma", which though he mentions it only in passing is a fundamental to the .

 

Please allow me to elaborate and forgive me if I get pedantic. The term charisma is as often misunderstood as misused. The way Weber meant it was not as some kind of magical force of personality, but rather as the force that legitimizes what someone says or does as valid. In Gaudiya Vaishnava terms we often talk about "guru, sadhu and shastra" as the three sources of legitimacy -- i.e., the individual bearer of charisma, or personal authority; the sadhus or Vaishnavas -- the social custom of the wider society of Vaishnavas; and the written body of work known as the shastra, which though often called the ultimate authority is in fact overriden by guru and sadhu on many occasions.

 

Where personal charisma is very strong, we get what Weber liked to call a "prophet." I will pass on discussing various categories of prophet, but suffice it to say that where there are prophets, there are usually breaks with the old tradition, the creation of new religious sects and succession problems.

 

Now we have in our recent Gaudiya history, two cases of "prophets." The first is Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, the second is Bhaktivedanta Swami. In a sense, it could be said that Saraswati Thakur broke with the standard Gaudiya Vaishnava model of "soft" and "intermediate" institutions to go the "hard" institutional model. As Rabindra Swarup has said, his disciples got it wrong and ended up with something that looks more like a "hardish intermediate" institution. Srila Prabhupada, to probably no one's surprise more than his own, ended up with the chance to do it right.

 

Now here I think that Rochana is quite right when he says that for Iskcon devotees to go to the Gaudiya Math for advice immediately after Prabhupada's disappearance was to court a Gaudiya Math solution. The current Iskcon solution (MASS) and the Ritvik solution are both attempts to subordinate personal charisma to the "hard" institution in an absolute manner.

 

Wherein lies the problem? The problem lies in the hard-wiring into the tradition of the need to access "personal charisma" or pure devotion through a carrier of that devotion in the spiritual master. This concept is one that is completely subversive to "hard" institutions.

 

As Srila Prabhupada's disciple, Rocana Prabhu, you may say that you revere his institution above spiritual life itself (though curiously you are no longer an active participant in that institution), but your problem of "taking shelter of a bona fide spiritual master" has been solved (in a manner of speaking). For others it has not.

 

Your servant,

 

Jagat

[krishnas]

Originally posted by Jagat:

I repeat: Siddhanta Saraswati never says he is the diksha disciple of Gaur Kishor Das Babaji.

 

This is not a diksha sampradaya, Hare Krishna Prabhu. So let's not get hung up.

 

Dear Jagat,

 

First of all, my name is Hari Krishna, not Hare Krishna.

 

Secondly, it is not I who am hung up on this issue. My point all along regarding the diiksha question has been, "so what?" Not only is it obvious that shiksha is the important factor in the paramparaa, but also that this has been the case since before Chaitanya. Normally diiksha is the binding factor between guru and disciple, and the diiksha guru is the shiksha guru. But there are exceptions to this case, and in such exceptions, it has often been more appropriate to give the shiksha connection more regard.

 

We have numerous examples since the time of Madhva in which shiksha connections were given more regard than diiksha connections. I notice that while I have brought up such examples several times, nevertheless it is again being asserted that diiksha initiation is the absolute rule.

 

Bhaktisiddhaanta's emphasis on shiksha is nothing new, and one cannot argue that his views on this point represents the creation of a new sampradaaya distinct from that of the Gosvaamiis. There is no evidence that Lakshmiipati Tiirtha took diiksha from Vyaasa Tiirtha. There is no evidence that Maadhavendra Purii took diiksha from Lakshmiipati. One cannot ignore the example of the puurvaachaaryas and reasonably suggest that Bhaktisiddhaanta is somehow "breaking with custom." He has done no such thing, since the custom has been to give shiksha more regard than diiksha. In fact, one can effectively argue the opposite based on historical precedent: the emphasis on diiksha regardless of shiksha represents the actual break with tradition.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

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

www.achintya.org

[Jagat]

Dear Hari Krishna Prabhu,

 

Please excuse me for making an error in your name. I try to avoid such stupid mistakes, so please do not be too displeased with me. You signed without your full name, so I did not have a reminder to guide me.

 

Well, I don't think that I am going to get into it. I've had quite my fill of the whole business.

 

A few random thoughts: a tradition is a tradition. If you say a tradition has gone off course, that is one thing, but when you make a change to put it back on course, it is you who are breaking with tradition. A revolution is always against the one in power, even if the one in power is there illegitimately. So I believe my use of terms is correct.

 

As to whether the tradition was correct or not, that is another matter, which as I say, I am in no mood to get into. My article touches on some of these matters by looking into the development of the traditions themselves.

 

Initiation is used as a legitimizing tool. Siksha is rather problematic in this regard. Narayan Maharaj, for example, claims to be Srila Prabhupada's siksha disciple. This does not give him any standing in Iskcon. Similarly, Sridhar Maharaj's siksha disciples like Tripurari Maharaj have no standing in the Chaitanya Saraswata Math, and so on. Exceptions can of course be made, but even then I assume that legitimate diksha from a Gaudiya Math acharya in good standing would be expected. Krishna Kanta, who wrote the Final Order, was considered by many Iskcon people to have no authority to speak because he was uninitiated.

 

It is easy to claim to be a siksha disciple, but it is like claiming to be the crown prince. Show me your DNA. Or claiming to be a doctor--show me your diploma. Even if you can cure your patients, you will still get tossed out on your ear if you have no diploma.

 

Both siksha and diksha disciples interpret their spiritual masters' words; they hear instructions uniquely meant for them, etc. But diksha disciples are in a position to interpret with authority, to give new directions to old institutions. Initiation gives them that legitimacy. Siksha is very arbitrary in this regard.

 

Reformers return to roots, to golden ages of the past. And their followers continue their traditions, but slowly, incrementally, according to time and place, they change and adjust, until some new reformer comes along to change it back. Of course, that can never be done, and they are also innovators of a conservative kind. In the marketplace of ideas, the one backed by the most economic and political power is usually deemed right by popular opinion. Rightness or wrongness has little to do with it. In Gaudiya Vaishnavism that goes by the slogan "Krishna shakti vina nahe tar pravartan."

 

And of course, siksha may be more important than diksha, but surely "bhagavati diksha" is an innovation of some sort? What is your interpretation of that term?

 

Haribol,

 

Jagadananda Das.

[theist]

A short question from the peanut gallery if I may.

 

Suppose someone has been given mantra in Sankara's line and chants it faithfully with the intention of attaining sayuja-mukti.Isn't his attainment limited to that goal by not having received proper siksa?If so does that not indicate siksa is predominant over mantra-diksa?

 

Sorry if this is very elementary.Remember Christ said to "Suffer the children".

[Tarun]

I'm not Rtvik, yet I know Rtviks who follow PrabhupAd more intensely, id est, in an everyday practical way better than many of his direct initiates.

Their connection to paramparA cannot be denied.

A few questions:

Who's higher: ZrI AdvaitAcarya or ZrIla Sarasvati ThAkur?

Think clearly before u answer.

Who really initiated ZrI NityAnanda RAma?

[abhi_the_great]

My humble opinion:

Trying to measure the activities of great acaryas with material standards meant for ordinary devotees might prove a failure and sometimes offensive.

 

The genuinity of BSST and SP is that they fulfilled the prophecy of Sriman Mahaprabhu of spreading the holy name in all villages and towns around the world. After this kind of unimaginable achievement, if we are petty enough to ask for material proofs of their legitimacy, we shd conclude that there is something wrong in our own understandings of shastras. This is envy at its greenest. We are giving so much importance to material activities, than the essence of all these activities - krishna prema.

 

Let us assume, BSST never took proper diksha from GKDB. But can we say the mercy from Sriman Mahaprabhu never flowed to BSST thru GKDB? What is the purpose of all these formalities like diksha? Only to rcv the mercy and empowerment. While judging great acaryas, especially empowered by Krishna, our logic and material considerations are just a naught.

 

Following the footsteps of these great acharyas is the only hope. Their legitimacy is the movement they have established around the world. Its easy to find fault in these institutions, but the fact remains that only they have succeeded in creating such a worldwide movement. It wd be better to say that these Vaishnavas are simply super-human rather than complaining, they cd not establish varnasrama, they cd not grasp the meaning of SP. Why don't we ourself establish and show the Vaishnava World, instead of complaining? Ohters wd only be happy to follow our footsteps.

 

Phalena paricayate - yes the results speak for themselves. They are the greatest evidence of legitimacy. They show that Prabhu Nityananda is pleased. If Nityananda is pleased Gaura Candra cannot reject. That is the only hope!!

 

GAURANGAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

 

Nityananda, bless us preach!! We are your illegitimate sons/daughters, but still you care for us so much. We are most fallen and we don't understand all this philosophy. We just want to pls SP and yourself with our preaching. Other Vaishnavas spit at our legitimacy, but you benignly smile at our humility. Allow us to remain, forever, your fallen illegitimate servants.

 

humbly yours

abhi

[raga]

Who's higher: ZrI AdvaitAcarya or ZrIla Sarasvati ThAkur?

Think clearly before u answer.

Who really initiated ZrI NityAnanda RAma?

Sri Advaitacarya. Srila Sarasvati Thakur is his fragmental part and parcel.

 

If you mean, "Srila Sarasvati Thakur is a manjari, therefore he is higher in rasa than Sadashiva-Mahavisnu", then consider these two points:

 

1. The associates of Mahaprabhu tasted manjari-bhava, the gift He came to give; consequently, for instance several sakhas also have a manjari-identity.

 

2. In Advaita-parivara, Prabhu Sitanath is worshiped in His multiple divine identities, including those of a prominent sakhi, a prominent manjari etc. I will not go into detail here, since details on such information are not meant for publishing on www.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Who's higher: ZrI AdvaitAcarya or ZrIla Sarasvati ThAkur? Think clearly before u answer. Who really initiated ZrI NityAnanda RAma?

Personally I think it is a stupid question. Factually I know I am lower than both of them, and the millions of other devotees of the Lord. Thus I should just worship all of the devotees and not worry who is higher than who.

 

[raga]

Krishnadas: Jagat recently made reference to differences of opinion and practice among Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, by which I believe he is referring to Gaudiiya Math/ISKCON Vaishnavas vs Baabaajiis of Vrindaavana. That being the case, it seems more than likely that we are hearing this story retold through the eyes of the Baabaajii party, whom I'm sure are putting a very different emphasis on it. This is all ASSUMING that something like this ever happened.

 

For the record, Pandit Ramakrishna Das Baba was one of the most prominent Gaudiya acaryas of the time, revered by everyone including Bhaktisiddhanta (viz. OBL Kapoor's Vraja Ke Bhakta). Even members of other sampradayas would come and ask questions from him.

 

One can go on ad infinitum arguing that this or that person's statements are rejected because he was unfavourable towards Bhaktisiddhanta. We can divide the whole world into the favorable and the unfavorable, but the fact of the matter is that most are neutral, and not much concerned about it at all. Sometimes we label as "inimical" everyone who does not agree with every detail of any particular teacher. A dangerous view in my opinion.

 

 

As far as revealing himself to be Gaurakishora's disciple, it is clearly understood from the fact that Bhaktisiddhaanta gives his own name next in the song. But let's assume that somehow it wasn't obvious, and that, as you have said, Bhaktisiddhaanta never revealed his connection with Gaurakishora to anyone.

 

No no, this is not the point at all. If you read attentively, you'll see what I said: Bhaktisiddhanta did not reveal the guru-parampara of Gaura Kisora Das Babaji. He had a diksa-guru parampara in Advaita-parivara, as we have learned from sources outside the Gaudiya Matha. It is the custom for the guru to reveal to the disciple his guru-parampara through which he worships Their Lorships. This is called guru-pranali.

 

Shrii Madhvaachaarya's diiksha guru was Achyuta Preksha, an Advaitin. Would you have us believe that Madhva should list his paramparaa through Achyuta Preksha?

 

The Madhvites indeed do list their parampara through Achyuta Preksha. The Madhvites list their parampara as follows:

 

Hamsavatara - Brahma - Catursana - Durvasa - Jnanasindhu Tirtha - Garudavahana Tirtha - Kaivalya Tirtha - Jnanisa Tirtha - Para Tirtha - Satya Prajna Tirtha - Prajna Tirtha - Acyuta Preksa - Madhva, etc.

 

The Madhvite parampara has been listed like this since the days of Narayana Panditacarya, the biographer of Madhva, a disciple and associate of his.

 

If you hold that diiksha is always more important than shiksha, then how you do you explain Madhva accepting Vyaasa as his guru?

 

I suggest you browse through the "Diksa" - thread, since most of the diksa-siksa issue has already been dealt with there at length with adequate evidence from the writings of the six Gosvamis, who laid the foundation for orthodox Gaudiya practices, including the diksa-issue.

Why didn't Maadhavendra Puri reveal his diiksha guru? Certainly in the guru-paramparaa found in Govinda-bhaashya, we find no record of a diiksha guru for Maadhavendra Puri - only his shiksha guru Lakshmiipati Tiirtha.

 

On what grounds do you conclude Laksmipati Tirtha to not be the diksa-guru of Madhavendra Puri? This is the first time I've ever heard such a proposal.

 

How did you derive "consequently the recognized parivaras.... have their specific tilaka-svarupa" from "at the time of diksa the guru bestows the specific sectarian signs he carries unto the disciple"?

If the disciple must have the same kind of tilaka as the guru, then the logical conclusion of this is that all Gaudiiya Vaishnavas must have the same tilaka. For different sections to have different tilakas implies that somewhere, someone has deviated from his guru in this regard. Why then focus on the alleged difference between Bhaktisiddhaanta's and Gaurakishora's tilaka?

 

 

Several prominent associates of Mahaprabhu started their own diksa-lineage with its particular tilaka. Hence the tilaka of Nityananda-parivara has a neem-leaf on it, the tilaka of Advaita-parivara a banyan-leaf, the parivara of Narottama a tulasi-leaf connected with the upper lines with a short line, the parivara of Vakresvara and Gopal Guru a big open tilaka widening to the sides, the parivara of Gadadhara a traditional Vishnu-tilaka, the parivara of Syamananda a traditional Vishnu-tilaka with a dot in the middle from the anklebell from Radharani, etc.

 

What evidence have you to suggest that Bhaktisiddhaanta's followers have adopted a different tilaka than that of Gaurakishora? If there is such evidence, then the question is valid and deserves discussion. If there is no such evidence, then we are better off not wasting time discussing a non-issue.

 

Since Gaura Kishora was initiated in the Advaita-parivara, he had a tilak with a wide banyan leaf on the nose.

 

I think Jagat may know more about the specific tilaks of different parivars.

 

Gaura Kishora daasa Baabaajii did not practice these institutions of varnaashrama because he was a paramahamsa, not because he his alleged birth in a vaishya family was a disqualification.

 

Gaura Kisora was born in a vaishya-family in the district of Pharidapura, in the village of Vagyana. In his youth he was married, and for twenty-nine years he worked as a grain broker, being thus engaged in the occupational duties of a vaishya. After the death of his wife, he approached Bhagavat Das Babaji for receiving babaji-vesa.

 

Both Gaura Kishora and Bhaktisiddhaanta were already on the level of braahmanas. Hence, there was no need of Bhaktisiddhaanta getting a separate guru to give him initiation into sacred thread. This was not even in practice before Bhaktisiddhaanta, so to whom should he have gone to get this?

 

In varnashrama-culture, a young brahmin boy receives the sacred thread and the brahma-gayatri from the family priest.

 

No sensible person should follow a "Gaudiiya Vaishnava" who faithfully follows Hari-bhakti-vilaasa rituals, but yet disagrees with the Gosvaamiis on such essential topics as varnaashrama, the qualification of a saadhaka to practice raagaanuga bhakti, or the authority of shaastra.

 

Has there been any disagreement over the three topics you mention above? If so, where?

 

I don't believe there is any question that Gaura Kishora daasa Baabaajii's shiksha guru was Bhaktivinoda Thaakura. He was known to also be a disciple of Bhaagavata daasa Baabaajii, who was a disciple of Jagannatha daasa Baabaajii. Who is the Advaita-parivara guru of Gaura Kishora? If it was Bhaagavata daasa, then why do you say that Bhaktisiddhanta did not recognize this connection as bona fide?

 

I would be curious to see on what basis Bhaktivinoda is considered to be THE diksa-guru of Gaura Kisora. Interestingly, Bhaktivinoda received babaji-vesa from Gaura Kishora.

 

Bhagavata Das Babaji was the vesa-guru of Gaura Kisora, not the diksa-guru. Gaura Kisora received diksa from Nanda Kishora Gosvami of Shantipura.

 

quote:

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?

Which mantra are you referring to? Everyone knows the shaastric basis for the hare kR^iShNa mahaa-mantra. I am not aware of Bhaktisiddhaanta distributing any other mantra, except perhaps those which he gave during braahmana initiation.

 

I am referring to the following mantras:

 

1. Brahma Gayatri

2. Guru Mantra

3. Guru Gayatri

4. Gaura Mantra

5. Gaura Gayatri

6. Gopal Mantra

7. Kama Gayatri

8. Gopi Bhava Mantra (sannyasa mantra)

 

The abovementioned mantras are given in the line of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. The first seven are given at the time of diksa, the eight at the time of giving sannyasa.

 

You must understand that, if it comes down to a question of Lalita Prasaada's character versus that of Bhaktisiddhaanta, I am simply not going to be convinced to just accept Lalita Prasaada's version of the events. I require objective evidence, which I have thus far not seen.

 

Lalita Prasada Thakur received diksa and siddha-pranali from his father Bhaktivinoda Thakur. He chanted the holy name from three to five lakhs on a daily basis. I would not just sweep him aside as another ordinary fellow whose words weigh next to nothing.

 

Wearing of saffron is the standard for sannyaasis in all sampradaayas.

 

To the best of my understanding, for instance the Nimbarka sampradaya renunciates only dress in white, not saffron.

 

<hr>

Please excuse me for not commenting on all of your points. That would certainly have made my posting twice the length of yours. Instead, I have only contributed on points for which I had substantial facts to contribute.

 

There would be more to contribute siksa-diksa wise, but much of it has been already done in the past threads.

<small>

 

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-24-2002).]

[Jagat]

Originally posted by theist:

Suppose someone has been given mantra in Sankara's line and chants it faithfully with the intention of attaining sayuja-mukti.Isn't his attainment limited to that goal by not having received proper siksa?If so does that not indicate siksa is predominant over mantra-diksa?

I think this question has been dealt with in Brihad-bhagavatamrita. There Gopakumar receives a mantra from a spiritual master who then disappears without giving him any further instruction other than to chant constantly. Gopakumar goes on chanting and the mantra leads him to various siksha gurus until he reaches Goloka.

 

A person may attain perfection through teaching alone. Diksha gives certain benefits like a confirmed relationship or channel through which the grace of the spiritual master can pass.

 

Generally siksha is sufficient, but diksha confers legitimacy. Therefore those who are not initiated generally do not act as diksha gurus.

 

[raga]

Generally siksha is sufficient, but diksha confers legitimacy. Therefore those who are not initiated generally do not act as diksha gurus.

 

Do you know of historical examples from within the Gaudiya tradition of persons who would have initiated others without receiving diksa themselves?

[sha]

Originally posted by theist:

A short question from the peanut gallery if I may.

 

Suppose someone has been given mantra in Sankara's line and chants it faithfully with the intention of attaining sayuja-mukti.Isn't his attainment limited to that goal by not having received proper siksa?If so does that not indicate siksa is predominant over mantra-diksa?

 

Sorry if this is very elementary.Remember Christ said to "Suffer the children".

 

This reminds me the two verses from 'Sri Krishna Karnamritam' by Sri Lilasuka Bilvamangala Thakura posted on another board:

 

cintAmaNir jayatu somagirir gurur me

zikSAguru zca bhagavAn zikhi piJchamauliH

yatpAda kalpataru pallava zekhareSu

lIlA svayaMvara rasaM labhate jayazrIH

 

(SKK. 1.1)

 

Here Bhagavan Krishna is declared as the 'Siksha Guru' by the Saint apart from his other two casual and formal gurus.

 

zaivAvayam na khalu tatra vicAraNIyam

paGcAkSarI japa parAn itarAM tadhApi

ceto madIya matasI kusumAvabhAsaM

smerAnanam smarati gopa vadhU kizoraM

 

(SKK 2.24)

 

I have always belonged to the 'Saiva Sect' and I have been sincerely CHANTING the "Siva Pancaakshari Mantra" -

"Om Namah Sivaaya" all along.

But I have NO IDEA WHY this Young Sweetheart of Gopis is following me and my heart is also enjoying the REMEMBERENCE of His Smiling, Beautiful Blue face!!! "

[kailasa]

Initiation not yagya and lot mantras.

[krishnas]

Originally posted by Jagat:

Well, I don't think that I am going to get into it. I've had quite my fill of the whole business.

 

 

Dear Jagat,

 

That is certainly your right. But please understand that I am not going to accept any point of view if it will not stand up to polite scrutiny. So far, I can't help but note that many critical points I raised in regards to the Nitai das article have gone unanswered. While I object to blind following, I should point out that blindly following an opponent's point of view is still blind following.

 

A few random thoughts: a tradition is a tradition. If you say a tradition has gone off course, that is one thing, but when you make a change to put it back on course, it is you who are breaking with tradition. A revolution is always against the one in power, even if the one in power is there illegitimately. So I believe my use of terms is correct.

 

 

"Caste by birth" has been the custom in India for the last several hundred years. A person's claim to being a brahmin is considered legitimate if he is born into a "brahmin" family, regardless of his actual qualification or disqualification. There are shaastric pramaanas to contradict this view, but nevertheless it has become almost standard.

 

Now, using your logic, if one objects to this and proposes a shaastrically-based system of initiations (one in which, for example, the guru actually instructs the disciple and trains him prior to initiation), then we must conclude that this system is a "new" tradition that breaks with the old tradition and thus represents a revolution.

 

Deviant traditions are not legitimized by time nor the charisma of the "guru" who introduced them. At the risk of sounding fanatical, a sincere saadhaka should only be concerned with those traditions that are based on shaastra. After all, one who discards those injunctions cannot attain the Supreme Goal, as per Bhagavad-Giitaa 16.3.

 

As to whether the tradition was correct or not, that is another matter, which as I say, I am in no mood to get into. My article touches on some of these matters by looking into the development of the traditions themselves.

 

 

Unfortunately, I do not believe Vaishnavas have the luxury of NOT considering the correctness of a position, as the correctness or lack thereof is the whole point.

 

Initiation is used as a legitimizing tool.

 

 

That it is, but often falsely. Many young males born into Indian brahmin families get "initiation" by a "priest-for-hire" before they become adults. This is in spite of the fact that they (the initiates) might be drunkards and/or meat-eaters. Would you have me believe that such people are really brahmins just because they took their vows? Would you have me believe that they are actually connected to any sampradaaya?

 

Siksha is rather problematic in this regard. Narayan Maharaj, for example, claims to be Srila Prabhupada's siksha disciple. This does not give him any standing in Iskcon.

 

 

I intend no disrespect towards H.H. Naaraayana Mahaaraaja. But his followers claim that he is a shiksha disciple of Srila Prabhupada because they made chapatis together in their days at Raadha-Daamodara temple in Vrindaavan. When I pointed out that this is not shiksha, and that it renders the whole concept of shiksha meaningless were it to be claimed as such, they could offer no real response.

 

I do not think this is a very good example. ISKCON devotees, and indeed all other Vaishnavas, should judge the legitimacy of a guru on the basis of guru, saadhu, and shaastra, with emphasis on shaastra. I personally cannot accept Naaraayana Mahaaraaja as a disciple of Srila Prabhupada because, other than the lack of evidence of any real instruction, there seems to be some significant differences in their concept of who is eligible to hear what (at least according to how the NM followers have represented that philosophy to me). Others may disagree, of course, but let us save that for a separate discussion.

 

The point is, neither diiksha nor shiksha claims should be accepted *blindly.*

 

Similarly, Sridhar Maharaj's siksha disciples like Tripurari Maharaj have no standing in the Chaitanya Saraswata Math, and so on. Exceptions can of course be made, but even then I assume that legitimate diksha from a Gaudiya Math acharya in good standing would be expected.

 

 

I am not arguing that diiksha is unnecessary or superficial, and you would do well to remember that.

 

I have only argued that there are diiksha lines, in which the knowledge and training gained by a shiksha guru is given higher regard, and rightfully so. This may be because the diiksha guru is illegitimate in some way (like the familiar "priest-for-hire" in India, who knows the mantras but cannot practically apply philosophy), or simply less advanced than the shiksha guru.

 

I have only argued this because the Nitai Das article claims that Bhaktisiddhaanta's paramparaa as listed is illegitimate, based on superficial reasoning that ultimately fails to take into account historical precedent. This whole discussion was initiated by the Nitai das school of thought.

 

Krishna Kanta, who wrote the Final Order, was considered by many Iskcon people to have no authority to speak because he was uninitiated.

 

 

Then those ISKCON people are wrong, period. Krishna Kanta's lack of authority was not due to his being unitiated, but because his paper contradicted shaastric pramaanas regarding guru-tattva.

 

I don't buy into the argument that an uninitiated person automatically has no authority to speak. There are many initiated devotees whom I have met who have no idea what they are talking about. I have also met uninitiated bhaktas who have a very good grasp of shaastra.

 

If a person speaks correctly on the basis of shaastra, there is no question of denying the authority behind his words. Vedas do not depend on *anything* for their authority. This is accepted by all Vedaanta schools.

 

The weakness of an uninitiated devotee is that there is only so much shaastra he can learn without the aid of a guru. He will also need training from the guru in other areas besides just his knowledge base.

 

There is no logic to the claim that one's lack of initiation means that everything he says is wrong. This is just a ploy used by lazy devotees who do not want to step up to the plate and debate, which of course requires that they read Srila Prabhupada's books.

 

It is easy to claim to be a siksha disciple, but it is like claiming to be the crown prince. Show me your DNA. Or claiming to be a doctor--show me your diploma. Even if you can cure your patients, you will still get tossed out on your ear if you have no diploma.

 

 

And similarly, if you get a degree from an unaccredited school of medicine, you will probably end up committing malpractice.

 

If the guru is not qualified, or the diiksha is not accompanied by proper instruction, then the diiksha is meaningless. "Where there is smoke, there is probably fire." If the diiksha guru were really in an authoritative position to begin with, there is no reason for a disciple to look elsewhere for instruction. Or else it may simply be that the shishya is converted to another sampradaaya due to association of a superior guru.

 

Both siksha and diksha disciples interpret their spiritual masters' words; they hear instructions uniquely meant for them, etc. But diksha disciples are in a position to interpret with authority, to give new directions to old institutions. Initiation gives them that legitimacy. Siksha is very arbitrary in this regard.

 

 

As is diiksha, for the reasons already mentioned.

 

Let us the take the example of Madhvaachaarya. He was initiated by Achyuta Preksha, but later he got shiksha from Shrii Vedavyaasa and claimed Vyaasa to be his guru. Now, is it not incorrect for Madhva to claim disciplic descent from Vyaasa? After all, where is the diiksha?

 

Reformers return to roots, to golden ages of the past. And their followers continue their traditions, but slowly, incrementally, according to time and place, they change and adjust, until some new reformer comes along to change it back. Of course, that can never be done, and they are also innovators of a conservative kind. In the marketplace of ideas, the one backed by the most economic and political power is usually deemed right by popular opinion. Rightness or wrongness has little to do with it. In Gaudiya Vaishnavism that goes by the slogan "Krishna shakti vina nahe tar pravartan."

 

 

In Vaishnava Vedaanta schools, rightness or wrongness is determined by scriptural evidence, and not vox populi. Merely quoting the deviant attitudes of religious organizations does not grant your arguments substance. It is of course, the academics' point of view that the prevailing trends must be given due regard since nothing is ultimately objective or supremely authoritative. But that is not a Vedaantists' view, nor should it be.

 

And of course, siksha may be more important than diksha, but surely "bhagavati diksha" is an innovation of some sort? What is your interpretation of that term?

 

 

I have no interpretation, since this is the first time I have heard it. All I know is that diiksha is most certainly not a "magic wand," as someone else put it.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

 

 

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

www.achintya.org

[Jagat]

I am sorry that you have got me at a low point in my cycle, HK prabhu.

 

You make many good points. Nevertheless, I will just reiterate two small ones:

 

(1) Interpretation is going on constantly. To say that anyone is "in line" with the true Vedic siddhanta is pretty much a non-sense.

 

I forgot the other one. Just shows where I'm at today.

 

Haribol.

 

Jagat

[shvu]

 

Let us the take the example of Madhvaachaarya. He was initiated by Achyuta Preksha, but later he got shiksha from Shrii Vedavyaasa and claimed Vyaasa to be his guru. Now, is it not incorrect for Madhva to claim disciplic descent from Vyaasa? After all, where is the diiksha?

What Shiiksha did Maadhva get from Vyaasa? Where does he acknowledge Vyaasa as his Guru?

 

FYI, Maadhva knew everything, for he calls himself as an avatar of Vaayu and he acknowledges no one as his Guru (Neither Achyutaprakaashaacharya nor Vyaasa) in his works. Hence, their Sampradaya starts from Maadhva himself.

 

Cheers

 

[krishnas]

Originally posted by shvu:

What Shiiksha did Maadhva get from Vyaasa? Where does he acknowledge Vyaasa as his Guru?

 

FYI, Maadhva knew everything, for he calls himself as an avatar of Vaayu and he acknowledges no one as his Guru (Neither Achyutaprakaashaacharya nor Vyaasa) in his works. Hence, their Sampradaya starts from Maadhva himself.

 

Cheers

This is not true according to what I have been told by Dvaita followers. "Madhva claimed no one else but Vyaasa as his guru," they told me, in response to my pointing out that he got diiksha from Achyuta Preksha.

 

Quoting from the Dvaita Home Page (http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/AnandaT_1.html):

 

"Finally, at the age of eleven, upon the birth of a younger brother (who many years later joined his order as Vishnu Tîrtha) he was ordained into sanyâsa, whence he was given the name Ananda Tîrtha by his guru Achyutapreksha Tîrtha, a.k.a. Achyuta-pragnya Tîrtha..."

 

[snip]

 

"Visual evidence, if one may call it that, of Srimad Ananda Tîrtha being Madhva, the avatâra of Vâyu, was obtained by Trivikrama Pandita when the latter had the great fortune to observe the three forms of Vâyu worship simultaneously -- Hanumân worshipping Râma, Bhîmasena worshipping Krishna, and Ananda Tîrtha worshipping Vyâsa..."

 

Quoting from shriimadhva-vijaya 8.1-5: (in the translation, this section is entitiled "Vedavyaasa teaches Madhva all the shaastras")

 

".2. PoornaPrajna had an excellent mind capable of knowing completely all

aspects of the extremely secret tenets, which remain to be known (only by specially

qualified persons like Brahma and Mukhya Prana). VedaVyasa was an appropriate Guru

for him as only He could expound fully such tenets to such a disciple. Therefore, the gods honoured Madhva’s approaching VedaVyasa for knowledge in this manner.

 

.3. God in the form of Vyasa filled up fully the mind of Madhva already

having a large capacity for knowledge with knowledge in greater measure. This mind was

God’s residence (he lived constantly in the mind of Madhva) and it was already full of

auspicious knowledge. This was similar to God in the form of Krishna filling up His large city of Dwaraka which was already full of wealth and people with even greater wealth and numbers of people.

 

Note: The Rjus like Madhva have this extraordinary capacity for knowledge – just like Dwaraka could hold

more wealth and people, when it was already full.

 

.4. PoornaPrajna with infinite intelligence listened in a very short time from VedaVyasa, with the name Anantha (signifying infinite knowledge) the most appropriate meanings arising naturally (without any forced interpretation) of the infinite numbers of Vedas, Mahabharatha, Puranas, Brahma Suthras and Pancharathra Agama, which are very dear to the good people.

 

Note: There is no doubt that both the teacher and the student have to have infinite capacities of intellect,

memory etc to completely transmit and receive the entire mass of Shastra literature correctly and fully in

the short time the two were together. It is this extraordinary storehouse of knowledge that makes Madhva’s

compositions matchless for authority, brevity and total consistency.

 

.5. VedaVyasa, who rests on the bed of the serpent Shesha (in his form resident in Vaikunta) had given His great blessings (in the form of auspicious knowledge) to Mukhya Prana (Madhva), who is the greatest of the Rjus, in infinite lives in the past. Thus, though Madhva knows and understands all the Shastras by himself, Vyasa taught all the subjects to him again and thus further sharpened his wisdom by His great

blessings."

 

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

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

www.achintya.org

[krishnas]

Originally posted by Jagat:

(1) Interpretation is going on constantly. To say that anyone is "in line" with the true Vedic siddhanta is pretty much a non-sense.

 

That interpretation is going on constantly is not contested by me. The undisciplined mind has a tendency to speculate, to reinterpret, to pick and choose what suits his fancy, etc. If everyone surrendered to a bona fide guru, this tendency would be curbed to some extent.

 

But because "interpretation is going on constantly," it does not logically follow there is no one, true Vedic siddhaanta.

 

I think it is really sentimental to allude to the plurality of views as evidence that none of them have it 100%.

 

I'm sorry, but again I think your statement just reflects an academic's approach to scripture, in contrast to the Vedaantist's approach, which is to acknowledge that there is such a thing as a correct meaning and try to get at it.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

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

www.achintya.org

[krishnas]

Dear Raga,

 

Apologies for the tardy reply. I am breaking this one up into several segments.

 

quote: That being the case, it seems more than likely that we are hearing this story retold through the eyes of the Baabaajii party, whom I'm sure are putting a very different emphasis on it. This is all ASSUMING that something like this ever happened.

 

For the record, Pandit Ramakrishna Das Baba was one of the most prominent Gaudiya acaryas of the time, revered by everyone including Bhaktisiddhanta (viz. OBL Kapoor's Vraja Ke Bhakta). Even members of other sampradayas would come and ask questions from him.

 

I do not wish to get into a character debate. I am not familiar with the devotee whom you describe. I only wish to point out that one can revere a Vaishnava, only to be disappointed by his behavior later. Similarly, one can revere a Vaishnava but for all the wrong reasons. I don't have the book you cited, so I do not know why OBL Kapoor makes this claim about Ramakrishna, or what the basis is.

 

One can go on ad infinitum arguing that this or that person's statements are rejected because he was unfavourable towards Bhaktisiddhanta. We can divide the whole world into the favorable and the unfavorable, but the fact of the matter is that most are neutral, and not much concerned about it at all. Sometimes we label as "inimical" everyone who does not agree with every detail of any particular teacher. A dangerous view in my opinion.

 

Raga, please bear in mind that it was *you* who first brought up the idea of "prejudice." You do not appear to accept biographies of the relevant incidents which are authored by Bhaktisiddhaanta followers. Fair enough. That is your right.

 

I have only pointed out that prejudice works both ways. One can always accuse someone of being biased towards the sampradaaya in which he is initiated, but without hard evidence you have no proof. Merely assuming that the accounts are inaccurate because other parties have a different viewpoint is begging the question. There is no reason to assume that the Baabaajiis are neutral simply because they disagree.

 

Most of the internet Gaudiiya Vaishnava community never heard of Lalita Prasad Thaakur until his followers started criticizing Bhaktisiddhaanta. This is really unnatural in Vedic culture. Even Maadhva and Shrii Vaishnava sannyaasis, who have less in common philosophically with Gaudiiyas, will never fail to offer high praise for Srila Prabhupada when in the public light.

 

The party of Laliita Prasaada Thaakura has so far offered little defense for their accusations. Most of the "evidence" they quote seems out of place, given more significance that is due it, or is simply hearsay. If his followers could provide solid evidence for their claims, the issue of character would not even come up. However, they have failed to do so thus far, but nevertheless accuse followers of Bhaktisiddhaanta of prejudice.

 

Hence, you are transforming this into a character debate. Do I believe Bhaktisiddhaanta's followers or Laliita Prasaada's? Without any real evidence to go one way or another, I can only stick to the party who so far seems obedient to shaastra (Bhaktisiddhaanta) and whose founder I believe to be of exemplary character (Bhaktisiddhaanta).

 

I do not like character debates. I also am not one to assume that someone is "inimical" because he disagrees with me. You would do well to remember that. But until you or someone else gives me more to go on, then that is all this is.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

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

www.achintya.org

[krishnas]

No no, this is not the point at all. If you read attentively, you'll see what I said: Bhaktisiddhanta did not reveal the guru-parampara of Gaura Kisora Das Babaji.

 

Bhaktisiddhaanta *did* reveal that paramparaa. He revealed Gaura Kishora's shiksha guru to be Bhaktivinoda. This is the link which is being given emphasis, more so than any alleged diiksha Gaura Kishora had previously.

 

You cannot argue that the Jagannaatha --> Bhaktivinoda --> Gaura Kishora --> Bhaktisiddhaanta line is not a paramparaa because of the shiksha connections. In Bhagavad-Giitaa we find:

 

ima.m vivasvate yoga.m proktavaanahamavyayam |

vivasvaanmanave praahe manurikShvaakave'braviit || giitaa 4.1 ||

 

eva.m paramparaapraaptamima.m raajarShayo viduH |

sa kaaleneha mahataa yogo naShTaH parantapa || giitaa 4.2 ||

 

Krishna instructed this science to Vivasvaan, who instructed Manu, who in turn instructed Ikshvaaku. And in BG 4.2 Krishna refers to this as a "paramparaa."

 

Where is the evidence that Krishna and Vivasvaan sat down, lit the sacrifical fire, and performed the diiksha ceremony? Not here. But even assuming there was such an event, the same could not have been the case between Vivasvaan and Manu, and Manu and Ikshwaaku. These were the ancestors of the Solar dynasty into which Lord Raamachandra appeared. They were rulers, not brahmins. There is no way they were performing diiksha initiations.

 

This is an example of a shiksha paramparaa. Krishna refers to it as such. Why is not a guru paramparaa, when Krishna says otherwise?

 

He had a diksa-guru parampara in Advaita-parivara, as we have learned from sources outside the Gaudiya Matha.

 

Again, I would like to know who this diiksha guru was and what is the evidence. I am not contesting it. I am just curious. Perhaps this diiksha guru was in fact the genuine article, but it is still possible to give emphasis to another shiksha guru.

 

In the Chaandogya Upanishad, there is a conversation between Naarada and the Sanaat-kumaaras in which the former approaches the latter for instruction. But it is no snub on the Kumaaras that our paramparaa does not list them. The connection to Lord Brahmaa is given greater emphasis, since the instruction of Shriimad Bhaagavatam comes in that line.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

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

www.achintya.org