Why Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Never Received Initiation from Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji

[krishnas]

Originally posted by stonehearted:

krishnas writes:

"My acceptance or rejection is based on that evidence, and on the assumption that each of you is representing your respective traditions properly. Jagat can choose to be unconvinced, but without addressing the specifics, I have no reason to believe that he has any good reason to disagree. "

 

This attitude demonstrates a problem in argumentation that pervades devotees' interactions as well. We seem to love dichotomies, and we blithely assert that anyone who does not accept our version (of anything) in toto, and who doesn't surrender absolutely to our supererior understanding, is necessarily motivated by ignorance, obsticacy, or worse.

 

Unbelievable. Do you have any idea why this thread exists in the first place? Just look at some select excerpts from the article which started this thread:

 

The fact that most of Bhaktisiddhanta's Western followers are not even brahmana by quality, but there is still 'brahmana initiation' proves that their brahmana-campaign is motivated by envy.

 

Throughout this essay it is shown that the followers of Bhaktisiddhanta distribute namaparadha. The 1st (satam ninda, blanket-blasphemy of the non-Iskcon-Vaisnavas), the 3rd (guroravajña not accepting guru parampara), the 4th (sruti-sastra-nindanam, knowingly deviating from the scriptures), the 8th (considering mundane piety other than the holy name, like their own varnasrama dharma, to be alternative means of salvation), the 9th (asraddadhane vimukhe 'pyasrnvati yas copadesah, preaching to the faithless, the averse and the unwilling, and the 11th (?) (aham mamadiparamo namni so 'pyaparadhakrt), chanting the holy name with false ego (envy and ambition). Is their 'success' then really so great? All their followers are encouraged to commit and spread namaparadha.

 

If you really want to address the issues you claim to be interested in, why did you not write in response to that article? Why are you instead attacking me? I have done nothing but refute the underlying misconceptions that are the basis of this author's offensive remarks.

 

We refuse to see beyond the zero-sum model, even in discussion among Gaudiya vaishnavas. This attitude makes it hard for us to really hear from and learn form each other.

 

You are setting a poor example in this regard. You haven't read or understood anything I have written. Either that, or your own biases are clouding your vision.

 

I have stated from the very beginning that I would accept the point of view of the other party if they could convince me based on evidence. I still stand by that. If you are going to have a discussion, then that is the best attitude to have.

 

On the other hand, what of your attitude? You have jumped in, accused of me fanaticism, ignored the actual guilty party, and proceeded to misrepresent the flow of this discussion.

 

This "hit and fade" style of yours strikes me as rather lacking in honor.

 

I have a lot to say on this but little time at the moment. Regarding the specific complaint, that Jagat hasn't explained to K's satisfaction why he's unmoved by his own and jn's points, souuds petty and petulant. In fact, Jagat has explained his perspectives quite clearly; the fact that K can't accept that there may be different perspectives on a points shows the limits of his experience with our line of thought and feeling.

 

You obviously have not read any of this thread. Jagat has not addressed any of the shaastric evidence I brought up. He has even admitted to this, saying that he is at a "low point" in his cycle (whatever that means). Most of what he wrote either tries to address one or two general points, or simply discusses something else.

 

All Jagat said is that he is unconvinced by any of the pramaanas I brought up, with no point-by-point explanation as to why.

 

If your bias is this obvious, then why even participate? Personal sympathies should not color one's loyalty to shaastra.

 

I'm not here often, largely because I find the contentious nature of most discussions annoying and distracting from my real business, which is finding company conducive to my attempts to cultivate Krishna consciousness.

 

A piece of advice: calling someone "petty" and "petulant" isn't likely to be too favorable to cultivating Krishna consciousness.

 

This also goes for Rati and everyone else who wishes to participate. If you are going to participate, then address the facts and let us discuss them like civilized men and women. Don't sink to hurling character attacks at me.

 

Slandering me gets you nowhere. Better instead that you attack Lord Krishna, for at least that way you might get liberation as Shishupaala did.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

[krishnas]

Originally posted by Jagat:

I find it rather unusual that people place the Veda and Sruti above the Goswamis.

 

If you are defending Gaudiiya Vaishnava philosophy from the criticisms of other sampradaayas, what are you going to quote to defend Mahaaprabhu? The writings of the Gosvaamiis or Vedas?

 

When Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana wrote Govinda Bhaashya to authenticate the Gaudiiya sampradaaya, did he quote from the writings of the Gosvaamiis or the Vedas?

Just to clarify, I am using "Veda" in a looser sense than most. Generally I also include the Itihaasas and Puraanas, which are considered as the fifth Veda. So I would not say there is no mention of devotional service in the Vedas. I would rather say that the conception of the Vedas as Samhitaa, Braahmana, Aaranyaka, and Upanishad alone, without also including the Itihaasas and Puraanas, is incomplete.

 

 

- K

 

 

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

www.achintya.org

[krishnas]

Originally posted by Rati:

I apologize if I have somehow offended you or your line. It is my understanding that we are following Rupa Goswami, hence the term Rupanuga.

 

It is mine as well. Where we disagree perhaps, is in what Rupa Gosvaamii represents with respect to the greater Vedic tradition.

 

Did not ACBS Srila Prabhupada himself state when he gave the babaji vesh initiation to Oudoulomi Das that the Vaishnava always wears white? I do not think I was hallucinating when I heard the statement first hand.

 

Good for you. But are we now admitting his statements as evidence in this discussion? I believe he has given adequate arguments substantiating the current Gaudiia Vaishnava practices. Shall I now quote those as well?

 

Anyways, yes there were associates of Mahaprabhu as well that were in the sannyasa order that wore saffron, but the precedent was set by the six Goswamis and followed up until Bhaktisiddhanta's time. That is simply an historical fact, nothing more or less.

 

And what of Mahaaprabhu wearing saffron and taking sannyaasa initiation in the Bhaarati sampradaaya (maayavaadi)? If we are going to refer to historical facts, let us refer to all of them, please. Are you saying that even His example is not to be followed? Not even for the purpose of fulfilling His expectation of propagating Krishna-consciousness?

 

We can go around in circles indefinitely and ad infinitum over this issue, and never reach any agreement. So, perhaps it is just best to agree to disagree, don't you think? For some reason, these things keep getting rehashed on the internet, and it is always the same arguments put forth. Time to move on.

 

Where we seem to disagree is in what defines the Gaudiiya Sampradaaya. Your postion, and that of Raga, Jagat, et. al (who probably come from different lines but still agree on this), is that the following of the external rituals forms at least part of the definition of sampradaaya, and someone who follows different rituals is by definition from a different sampradaaya.

 

My point all along is that the Gaudiiya Vaishnava sampradaaya is defined first and foremost by its system of Vedaanta interpretation and its conclusions. The idea that Gaudiiya Vaishnavism is defined by rituals is an attitude which seems to deviate from the essence of what the Gosvaamiis taught.

 

Note that I am not saying that one can ignore regulative principles and simple be a Gaudiiya by agreeing with that philosophy. What I have said, and supported with evidence, is that there is scriptural and historical precedent for temporarily adjusting external requirements for the greater purpose.

 

I also do not see the Gosvaamiis as representing a tradition that is separate from the Vedic one. Rather, I see them as reinvigorating the already existing Bhaagavata tradition, which is itself based on the Vedas. Inherent in this is the assumption that the Vedas and Bhaagavatam are one in purpose if not in presentation. While emphasizing the Bhaagavatam is clearly a distinction of our line, it is not consistent with that to ignore evidence from other scriptures.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

 

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

www.achintya.org

[stonehearted]

Originally posted by krishnas:

A piece of advice: calling someone "petty" and "petulant" isn't likely to be too favorable to cultivating Krishna consciousness. Don't sink to hurling character attacks at me.

I spent quite a bit of time composing a point-by-point response, but I apparently lost it when I went back to look at the beginning of the thread.

 

Essentially, I said that if you were to read my note carefully, I didn't attack your character or person anywhere. I called into question the contentious nature of your argument (there are other, sometimes more effective, ways to argue, unless the only objective is to "win"). I also asked what biases you think are so obvious in my remarks. A bias against Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati? Show me the evidence, sir. I've never been accused of that one before. Personal sympathies? For whom? Ive neve met Jagat, raga, or Rati, as far as I know. I have not rejected BSST's line ; in fact, I really appreciate the reformist/revolutionary approach to preaching sparked by Bhaktivinoda and carried by Bhaktisiddhanta. I think that for any of us to try to meddle in affairs between BSST and Lalita Prasada is a huge mistake. However, it seems that LP's appraoach would have left me in the dark. I have access to any light only because Srila Prabhupada was inspired by BVT and SBSST to come and insist that we consider the teachings of Lord Chaitanya.

 

I will try hard to avoid writing anything here that may appear critical of you; if I slip, accept my gratitude in advance for your rebukes in response.

[raga]

I was putting together my summary of points as per your request, when you jumped the gun and did it first. Now what? Should I again be diverted and respond to these, or do you really want to see what I have to say? If you can wait a little longer, I can try to incorporate your points in mine. I haven't even gotten around to finishing my refutation of the Nitai das article.

OK. So, I suggest that instead of contributing miscellaneous points here and there, as your next posting you post a well-prepared presentation of the points you wish to make, along with adequate evidence. For the sake of clarity in presentation, be sure to present the various points clearly separate from each other, so a reply can be easily compiled, and reference to the original can be easily made. I suggest using a format similar to a document you can see at http://www.geocities.com/mad0147 . Thanks.

 

 

[raga]

There is something seriously wrong with a line of logic that attempts to define the Gaudiiya Sampradaaya according to practices which Mahaaprabhu did not follow.

 

Then there is the logic that scriptures like Bhagavad-Giitaa, Bhaagavatam, etc are "outside" our tradition, while Hari-bhakti Vilaasa is "inside." I disagree. All of the shaastras are part of our tradition. Otherwise, what is its basis?

Here is the first point to which I want to have an answer from you:

 

1. Do you agree that Mahaprabhu requested and empowered the six Gosvamis to establish the proper codes of conduct for His followers?

 

 

Jagat has not addressed any of the shaastric evidence I brought up. He has even admitted to this, saying that he is at a "low point" in his cycle (whatever that means). Most of what he wrote either tries to address one or two general points, or simply discusses something else.

 

All Jagat said is that he is unconvinced by any of the pramaanas I brought up, with no point-by-point explanation as to why.

Second point:

 

2. What is the shastric evidence you have provided to establish the legitimacy of a siksha-parampara?

 

 

And what of Mahaaprabhu wearing saffron and taking sannyaasa initiation in the Bhaarati sampradaaya (maayavaadi)? If we are going to refer to historical facts, let us refer to all of them, please. Are you saying that even His example is not to be followed? Not even for the purpose of fulfilling His expectation of propagating Krishna-consciousness?

Point three:

 

3. Have you seen any Gaudiya Vaishnava shave away his sikha and take initiation in ekadanda-sannyasa in the Shankara-lineage? That would certainly bring credibility to our preachers as being very Vedantic men.

 

Where we seem to disagree is in what defines the Gaudiiya Sampradaaya. Your postion, and that of Raga, Jagat, et. al (who probably come from different lines but still agree on this), is that the following of the external rituals forms at least part of the definition of sampradaaya, and someone who follows different rituals is by definition from a different sampradaaya.

Point four:

 

4. In a tradition in which pancaratra is an essential part of practice, the ritual part of it certainly does form a concrete part of the sampradaya's characteristics.

 

Would you address my response to siksa-parampara and pancaratrika-traditions?

 

My point all along is that the Gaudiiya Vaishnava sampradaaya is defined first and foremost by its system of Vedaanta interpretation and its conclusions. The idea that Gaudiiya Vaishnavism is defined by rituals is an attitude which seems to deviate from the essence of what the Gosvaamiis taught.

Point five:

 

5. Please present the relevant excerpt from the Gosvamis' literature based on which you draw the conclusion above. Rather than assuming the Gosvamis' intentions in accordance with our nature, we need to review their writings.

 

Please be kind and respond to these five points. Whenever you comment on any one of them, please indicate so by placing the relevant point number in front of your reply.

 

You complain about our not addressing your points, but I see you neglecting up to 80% the points I have been making in my earlier letters.

[krishnas]

Originally posted by raga:

Hari Bhakti Vilasa draws its content mainly from the Pancaratras. In the Pancaratrika tradition, diksha is a very essential element in worship. In a lineage where the precepts of worship along with mantras with which one is to worship are given, the lineage will naturally be traced according to diksha.

 

I just want to clarify something. I am not arguing that diiksha should be abandoned or ignored. I am arguing that there are exceptions to the rule that a connection can only be legitimate if there is diiksha between the two individuals. I will provide more evidence in this regard later.

 

Otherwise, the ideal is clearly that there be diiksha initiation, and this ideal is being followed in the Sarasvatii line to the present day. At least in ISKCON, with which I have some experience, one cannot officially call one's self a disciple unless he has had at least first initiation.

 

The example of siksha-parampara in the Gita is not concerned with passing on methods of worship.

 

However, this a supposition. I would say "speculation," but I don't want to endure yet another round of character attacks due to the negative connotations of that word in ISKCON parlance.

 

There are other methods of worship besides those reserved for braahmanas.

 

Certainly siksha-parampara is a legitimate way of tracing a lineage in non-pancaratrika traditions.

 

If I proceed drawing the evidence from the Pancaratra corpus of literature in arguing the necessity for a diksa-lineage in the Gaudiya tradition, will it be acceptable for you?

I don't doubt that HbV is faithful to Pancharaatra. But even Pancharaatra and HbV must be faithful to the Vedic ideals (again, I'm including Itihaasas and Puraanas when I say Vedic).

 

I think the central problem here is how sampradaaya is to be defined. As I have mentioned previously, inherent in your definition of sampradaaya is that a specific set of rituals or ways of doing things must always be followed, without which one cannot claim to be in the same sampradaaya. At the risk of sounding sentimental, I still think this approach is missing the point.

 

- K

 

 

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

www.achintya.org

[krishnas]

Originally posted by raga:

You complain about our not addressing your points, but I see you neglecting up to 80% the points I have been making in my earlier letters.

Guilty as charged. Whatever I have not responded to was due to lack of time, not lack of desire or evidence. It was my intention to get to everything eventually - you can either believe that or choose not to.

 

It would help to some extent if certain parties not participating in the discussion refrain from jumping in with "hit and run" character attacks. Perhaps the weakness is also mine for bothering to respond to them.

 

I was putting together my summary of points as per your request, when you jumped the gun and did it first. Now what? Should I again be diverted and respond to these, or do you really want to see what I have to say? If you can wait a little longer, I can try to incorporate your points in mine. I haven't even gotten around to finishing my refutation of the Nitai das article.

 

yours,

 

- K