Shiksha Parampara

[shvu]

 

There are some misconceptions about Shiksha Parampara viz, the Bhagavad Gita was received by disciplic succession and so on.

 

Krishna taught the BG to Arjuna. There is no record of Arjuna himself passing it on to anyone else. Vyasa apparently had divine sight and so wrote it down. This does not qualify as disciplic, but for practical purposes, let us assume that getting the Gita from Vyasa is good enough.

 

Prabhupada writes that he got his BG from disciplic succession through Madhva-Vyasa. The Madhva sampradaya people themselves do not put it this way. For them, Madhva is the start point of their sampradaya/parampara and there is no need to trace it all the way back to Vishnu. There is no such link either as we will see now.

 

Vyasa's Guru was his own father Parasara. Vyasa was never Narada's disciple either by Shiksha or Dhiksha. If he were, then Vyasa would have found it appropriate to mention him as such in his magnum opus, the Mahabharata. Thus it is impossible to connect Vyasa to Narayana through Narada.

 

Again Madhva's Shiksha Guru was Achyutaprakasha. SO if Madhva learn the BG, it was through this person, which will trace back to Shankara, because Achyutaprakasha was an Advaitin. Assuming that Madhva did meet Vyasa, Vyasa neither gave him Shiksha, nor Dhiksha. So Madhva himself never refers to anyone as his Guru, since he refers to himself as an avatar of Vayu. Moreover the link claimed by the Gaudiyas to Madhva is one of Dhiksha and not Shiksha.

 

Taking all this into account,any claim that the BG has been received through disciplic succession holds no water. If Prabhupada felt that the BG has to be received through disciplic succession only, he would not have had the BG published, which made it available to all and sundry. This implies that he himself did not think so. If one says that it is spiritual Shiksha, then the same can be said for anyone, anywhere, making it invalid again.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

This is an excellent topic to be discussed, thanks Shvuji.

 

But actually your premise is like a salad, so many points on diksa and siksa completely mixed. Therefore let's try to organize some of these concepts, according our (Gaudiya-vaisnava understanding, that may differ from other sanatana-dharma darsanans, as follows:

 

1. Diksa - divyam-jñanam yato dadyat kuryat papasya sanksayam tasmad diksti sa prokta desikais tattva-kovidaih - "Learned exponents of the Absoltue Truth declare the the process by which the guru imparts divya-jñana to the disciple and eradicates all sins is known as diksa." And the meaning of divya-jñana, or divine knowledge is: diviam-jñanam hy atra srimati mantre bhagavat-svarupa-jñanam tena bhagavata-sambandha-visesa-jñanam ca - "Divya-jñana is transcendental knowledge of Bhagavan's form and one's specific relationship with Bhagavan contained within a mantra."

 

2. Siksa - instruction on how to progress in the path of sanatana-dharma, or in any limb of yoga. Sri Hari acts as the original siksa-guru as He instructs Aejuna and through him all jivas. In our line we consider siksa as the instructions meant to progress in bhajana.

 

3. Diksa and Siksa-gurus: Both siksa and diksa-gurus are considered as equal and identical manifestation of Sri Hari.

 

4. Diksa-mantra: the mantras given by the guru at the time of diksa (initiation). yo mantrah sa guruh saksat yo guruh sa harih svayam gurur bhavet tustas-tasya tusto harih svayam - "The mantra is itself the guru, and the guru is directly Sri Hari's form. He with whom the guru is pleased also obtains the pleasure of Sri Hari Himself."

These mantras are invested with divya-jñana, or transcendental knowledge of Sri Hari's form and one's specific relationship with Bhagavan.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

 

Learned exponents of the Absoltue Truth declare the the process by which the guru imparts divya-jñana to the disciple and eradicates all sins is known as diksa.

 

This implies that there is nothing more to be achieved by the disciple as he already has divine knowledge. This would also mean that Diksha is the end-point of all Sadhana and not the start-point. However, far as I know, Diksha is initiating [formally accepting] a disciple after the Guru is satisifed that this person is qualified to be taught. From then onwards begins Shiksha, Sadhana and finally Divya Jnana is the result.

 

To clarify further,

 

idaM te naatapaskaaya naabhaktaaya kadaachana |

na chaashushruushhave vaachya.n na cha maa.n yo.abhyasuuyati ||

 

Never should this be declared by you to one who is devoid of austerities or one who is not a devotee, nor to one who does not wish to hear it, nor to one who cavils at me.

 

- BG 18.67

 

Diksha will/should be to someone who conforms to the above criteria. My earlier point was that there is no shiksha line from Krishna or even Vyasa, for people to claim that the Gita has been received through disciplic succession.

 

Publishing the Gita to be read by all does not conform to the above verse either. But I guess it is easier to preach the Gita than to follow it. Just like people finding it tough to follow the Buddha's four noble truths, decided to worship him as an idol. That definitely is more easier than following his teachings which will only result in repression and hypertension.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

Now lets analyze this concept of diksa and its sastric basis:

 

"Learned exponents of the Absoltue Truth declare the the process by which the guru imparts divya-jñana to the disciple and eradicates all sins is known as diksa." And the meaning of divya-jñana, or divine knowledge is: "Divya-jñana is transcendental knowledge of Bhagavan's form and one's specific relationship with Bhagavan contained within a mantra."

 

In Kali-yuga, diksa-mantras are ruled by Jñanamrtasara sastras, specially by Narada and Gautama Pañcaratras (Gautama's is included in Narada's Pañcaratra). There one may observe the 5 properties of these mantras such as sandhya, prapsa, and so on. Its 3 components; bija, istadeva and sadhya. And also more details on these mantras as the sage, the deity who protects it, and so many other aspects.

 

One should observe that no sruti texts deals with these mantras in Kali-yuga, as all sruti mantras are considered as inefficient to convey diksa in Kali-yuga. Therefore all sampradayka paramparas are organized according Agama texts, concerning diksa mantras. Some smrtis give information on diksa mantras and other mantras, such as the Vaisnava-maha-tantra, following Pañcaratras and not any sruti text.

 

Srutis such as Upanisads and Vedas, Gitopanisad, Itihasas and smrtis are considered as sources of siksa, and not of diksa-mantras and its rules.

 

As "Divya-jñana is transcendental knowledge of Bhagavan's form and one's specific relationship with Bhagavan contained within a mantra," diksa is to be considered as a very personal and confidential process, and not as a generical instruction, or only as a ceremony ruled by some magic or tantric powers like a baptism or a fire sacrifice for example. Diksa only ends when the aim (sadhya) is attained. It is a long process that may demand many lifetimes to be completed.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Guest guest]

>> Publishing the Gita to be read by all does not conform to the above verse either

 

In a general manner you may be correct in this premise. However, let's follow the whole reasoning of the meaning of diksa and siksa.

 

To receive diksa one should have adhikara, eligibility or qualification. No guru should give diksa to an unqualified disciple. And what is this adhikara? The adhikara is paramarthika-sraddha, or transcendental faith. Not laukika-sraddha, or mundane and mutable faith.

 

The first stage or basis of this paramarthika-sraddha is called visvamayi-sraddha, or the faith caused by hearing and reading sastras in sadhu-sanga. Without this first stage there won't be any further progress in paramarthika or transcendental platform.

 

So, at first one may be placed as an avaidhik, or someone who is not following any sastric injunction in his life and is living almost like an animal. With the contact with sastra, some people and not all people in this stage, may have their vaisvamayi-sraddha awaked in some extent, and may attain the adhikara to get diksa.

 

'Sensu latu' one may consider as siksa all kind of instructions. When a person devoid of proper adhikara read or hear Gita, he will understand Gita as some karmic instructions, or as some jñanic instruction or some vaidhi-bhakti instructions. He will taste the material meaning (virat-rupa) of the sastra. He won't understand the subtle meaning and the transcendental meaning. But anyway he is getting some sukrti, paramarthika sukrti to further advancement. Knowing or unknowing it, no matter. When a sufficient amount of this paramarthika sukrti is accumulated, he will get sadu-sanga and thereafter the real diksa.

 

So, 'sensu strictu' one should consider siksa as instructions meant to develop diksa. We say that diksa gives one Sri Hari's rupa (form) and siksa gives one Sri Hari's svarupa (personality). One cannot dissociate both aspects. Therefore there is no difference between diksa guru and siksa gurus. One may have one diksa-guru and many siksa-gurus, according his particular situation.

 

Following this reasoning Srila A C Bhaktivedanta Swami Goswami's books may give ordinary siksa (siksa sensu latu) to everyone and special siksa (siksa sensu strictu) to those who are in his line, as this kind of siksa will follow diksa. First diksa, then siksa; it is not otherwise when one is considering only sadhakas.

 

Besides, there is no scarcity of Gitas published by so many institutions, Hindu sects, darsans, and even non Hindu people. Srila Prabhupada's Gita may be the most significative, but it is not the only one in the market.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

 

Besides, there is no scarcity of Gitas published by so many institutions, Hindu sects, darsans, and even non Hindu people. Srila Prabhupada's Gita may be the most significative, but it is not the only one in the market.

Yes. I wasn't singling out the Bg as it is, anywhere above.I was using Prabhupada's example, because as far as I know, other translators do not claim to have received it through disciplic succession.

 

The BG verse above refers to everyone who has made the BG public property. Not that it is incorrect, but the fact is that is not what the Gita recommends. Not only the Gita, but it refers to any Shastra in general. Publishing a work, kills the whole concept of Dhiksha/Shiksha. But then, that is present day culture.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

>>I was using Prabhupada's example, because as far as I know, other translators do not claim to have received it through disciplic succession.

 

Sure. But Srila A C Bhaktivedanta Swami Goswami was an acarya in the real sense of the word (acarya = one who teach by his own example and activities). No one can deny that he was a saintly personality, a renunciate with no home, bank funds, living on alms, performing bhajana all time, talking on sastras, on the Absolute Truth, and he was in a disciplic succession. He did not publish his Git due his selfish desires, he was following his guru-varga instructions.

 

His comments in Gita are not really his own comments. 'Bhagavat Gita as It Is' is the commentary on Gita made by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana during the 17th century. Srila Baladeva had to face a similar situation than Srila Prabhupada when he went to preach in Jaipur on the basic precepts of Gaudiya-vaisnavism to an alien assembly. And Srila Baladeva's commentary is just an extension of Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura's comment named "The Bhavanuvada of the Saratha-varsini-tika," following the line of his guru-varga instructions. Srila Prabhupada just has done some modifications on Srila Baladeva's commentary according time, place and circumstances, but in essence it is the same tika.

 

So, that's why Srila Prabhupada's Gita is received by disciplic sucession in his line. It is a real fact.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

 

[Ananga]

The acaryas' position on diksa parampara is quite clear: That mantras must be transmitted in an unbroken succession from guru to disciple. It is obvious that some people want to cloud the issue with references to siksa, but that can only mean one thing: That they are just doing it as a dodge to avoid some fact, such as a missing documentation of their own diksa line. If siksa is indeed some higher concept than diksa parampara, then why is such an important fact never mentioned by the Rupa or Jiva or Visvanatha or Baladeva or Bhaktivinode?

[premananda]

Originally posted by Ananga:

The acaryas' position on diksa parampara is quite clear: That mantras must be transmitted in an unbroken succession from guru to disciple. It is obvious that some people want to cloud the issue with references to siksa, but that can only mean one thing: That they are just doing it as a dodge to avoid some fact, such as a missing documentation of their own diksa line. If siksa is indeed some higher concept than diksa parampara, then why is such an important fact never mentioned by the Rupa or Jiva or Visvanatha or Baladeva or Bhaktivinode?

While reading the above a siddhanta came to mind. From what I understand the essence of diksa is siksa, or receiving transcendental knowledge.

 

Diksa-parampara doesn´t mean a succession of bodies in which 'dead mantras' are received, as Sridhar Maharaj put it once. Diksa means that divine knowledge, divyam jnanam is given to the disciple by the Guru. That divine knowledge is divided into two parts, knowledge about the Lord (which includes mantras that describe Him) and knowledge about the sadhaka´s specific relationship with the Lord (siddhapranali). Diksa-parampara is the line through which this divine knowledge is passed down. Therefore it is artificial to make a separate 'Siksa-parampara'. Diksa-parampara by definition includes Siksa-parampara, but the opposite may not be true.

 

PD

[Guest guest]

 

If siksa is indeed some higher concept than diksa parampara, then why is such an important fact never mentioned by the Rupa or Jiva or Visvanatha or Baladeva or Bhaktivinode?

 

This is another misconception that some people use to argue, employing the reasoning that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati has createad a new parampara and therefore he is the head of his own guru-pranali.

But actually pancaratrika-papramapra (diksa-parampara) is included within the bhagavata-paramapara instructed by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada has simply amalgamated both pancaratrika (agamic, or tantric) tradition and siksa (bhagavata, puranic, or smrti) tradition in one single parampara.

 

His glory was to protect neophytes do make any distinction between diksa and siksa gurus, as all sastra advise.

 

When one is considering only the pañcaratrika-paramapara and its criteria of diksa, bhagavata-parampara is clearly superior to pañcaratrika-parampara, because it is founded on the degree of proficiency in bhajana. The charm and superiority of bhagavata-parampara is that pañcaratrika-parampara is included within it.

 

First real diksa and thereafter siksa. That is the gradation in bhagavata-parampara. There is no possibility of siksa alone, as there is no proper dvija-jñana without diksa. If there is no seed, how to have a creeper?

 

The main aspect of the superiority of the bhagavata-parampara as introduced by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada is that in this system there is no obstruction regard to time. From the viewpoint of suddha-bhakti, both the doctrine of pañcaratrika and of bhagavata expound synonym opinions with the same objective, as in Caitanya-caritamrta is stated: pañcaratre bhagavate ei lasana kaya (Madhya 19.169) - If one obstructs pañcaratrika-system, no Deity worship, no proper sadacara, and so forth will be performed.

 

In diksa process, not only harinama and mantras are given, but also sadacara, rules to offer bhoga, worship of Deities and so on. Would one be able to follow bhakti-marga without these aspects?

 

Srila Bhaktiprajñana Kesava Goswami, as a guru nistha and naisthika-brahmacari, was the shadow of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada, and has clarified how the pañcaratrika-guru-parampara is included within the bhavagavata-parampara through the medium of a diagram, clearly demonstrating that Sarasvata Paribhar is included within Nityanada/Jahnava's Paribhar.

 

In this diagram it is also very clear that Srila Bipin Bihari Goswami is included in the bhagavata-parampara, and never he was excluded from it as some people may argue.

 

Sikasa and diksa-guru-varga are are completely amalgamated by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada and we cannot dissociate any of its members without incurring in a very serious guru-aparadha against the whole guru-varga. One may have a very deep insight of our guru-varga reading a book named "The True Conception of Guru Tattva," by Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja

 

Out of mercy to all jivas, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura has therefore amalgamated both systems; Pañcaratrika and Puranic in his Bhagavata-parampara, observing that sabda-brahma comes by the pañcaratrika system as it is prescribed in Kali-yuga and siksa is coming by smrti tradition.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[jijaji]

quote:

 

Srila Bhaktiprajñana Kesava Goswami, as a guru nistha and naisthika-brahmacari, was the shadow of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada, and has clarified how the pañcaratrika-guru-parampara is included within the bhavagavata-parampara through the medium of a diagram, clearly demonstrating that Sarasvata Paribhar is included within Nityanada/Jahnava's Paribhar.

 

> If this is true how come the line back to Ma Jahnavi is NEVER mentioned to new initiates?

The disciplic succession back to Ma Jahnavi is NEVER acknowledged....as being the beginning of that Guru-Parampara.

Also no Guru-Pranali is ever given.

 

jijaji

 

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

PEACE NOW

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Diksha is the transfer of divya-jnanam from the guru to the disciple. This process of transference is done through upadesha or instruction. Thus there is no difference between siksha and diksha in the real meaning of the words. The problem is some people misidentify diksha with an external ritual and procedure - an 'intiation ceremony'.

 

Thus they see a lack of a ceremony as indicating there was no diksha, or no transference of divya-jnanam.

 

The actual transference of divya-jnanam has no connection with external rituals. Thus diksha occurs in a very sublte way between the guru and disciple. We can see the case of Ramanuja Acharya who received diksha without having even met his spiritual master. By the will and mercy of Yamunacharya, Ramanuja received the divya-jnanam.

 

This is the essence of the siksha parampara, which is actually non-different from the essential diksha parampara.

 

The parampara of external rituals may be easier to measure and quantify, but it is just the interaction of the material elements.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-13-2001).]

[amanpeter]

Originally posted by jndas:

Diksha is the transfer of divya-jnanam from the guru to the disciple. This process of transference is done through upadesha or instruction. Thus there is no difference between siksha and diksha in the real meaning of the words. The problem is some people misidentify diksha with an external ritual and procedure - an 'intiation ceremony'.

 

Thus they see a lack of a ceremony as indicating there was no diksha, or no transference of divya-jnanam.

 

The actual transference of divya-jnanam has no connection with external rituals. Thus diksha occurs in a very sublte way between the guru and disciple. We can see the case of Ramanuja Acharya who received diksha without having even met his spiritual master. By the will and mercy of Yamunacharya, Ramanuja received the divya-jnanam.

 

This is the essence of the siksha parampara, which is actually non-different from the essential diksha parampara.

 

The parampara of external rituals may be easier to measure and quantify, but it is just the interaction of the material elements.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-13-2001).]

 

Thank you very much for reminding us of this most important point. Please allow me to express my gratitude also for your presence here as a participant, in spite of your position as an administrator. Much more personal than at VNN.

 

 

 

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

 

Hare Krsna Hare Krsna

Krsna Krsna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama

Rama Rama Hare Hare

[Maitreya]

 

Originally posted by shvu:

Vyasa's Guru was his own father Parasara. Vyasa was never Narada's disciple either by Shiksha or Dhiksha. If he were, then Vyasa would have found it appropriate to mention him as such in his magnum opus, the Mahabharata. Thus it is impossible to connect Vyasa to Narayana through Narada.

 

shvu,

 

What about SB 1.5?

 

 

 

[shvu]

 

SB 1.5 is where Narada tells Vyasa about his own life story and tells him to describe the glories of the Lord. It does not say that Narada intitiated Vyasa nor that he taught him anything.

 

Surprisingly the Bhagavatam does not contain the life story of Vyasa. For his life story one has to read the Mahabharata, which is his main creation. It tells the story of how Vyasa was born to a fisher-woman, how he renounced the world at a young age, tutored by his father Parasara, etc.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

I should add that the Brahma-Madhva link was not Chaitanya's idea. Nor was it by his immediate disciples. In fact they are clear that their Sampradaya and philosophy is not connected to any of the other existing systems. It was based on Chaitanya's teachings. 200 years after Chaitanya came Baladeva Vidyabhushana. He was faced with a challenge based on a spurious verse from the Padma Purana, which stated that there were only four authorized sampradayas. Probably he was not aware that the verse was spurious. Thus he had to link his sampradaya with an existing one and he chose Madhva's. He also added the Vyasa and above portion, based on Bhagavatam 1.5.

 

Here is that verse from the Padma Purana,

 

atah kalau bhavisyanti catvarah sampradayinah |

sri-brahma-rudra-sanaka vaisnavah ksiti-pavanah ||

 

ramanujam srih svcakre madhvacaryam caturmukhah |

sri-visnu-svaminam rudro nimbadityam catuhsanah ||

 

Note the names of Madhvacharya and Ramanujacharya !

 

This verse is fake because,

 

1. It is not found in standard editions of the Padma Purana.

 

2. It authorizes four different Sampradayas. This is unacceptable because all four have different beliefs and interpretations. This means only one or none of them must be true and thus everyone of them claim that it has to be their own. The people of Madhva Sampradaya do not accept the position of four valid Sampradayas. I am guessing it is the same with the other three as well.

 

Cheers

 

[Gauracandra]

Out of curiousity, could someone give me a verse from Caitanya Caritamrta where Mahaprabhu gives someone pancaratrika-diksa? Thanks for your help.

 

Gauracandra

[jijaji]

quote:

 

Sarasvata-paribar is clear linked with Nityananda/Jahnava Thakurani's line of pañcaratrika diksa.

 

Then why is she not given proper acknowledgement in Bhaktisiddhantas siksha sampradaya...I mean think about it! HER NAME IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN HIS LIST!

But yet the claim of belonging to her parivar! And why pray tell should the name of Ma Jahnavis parivar be changed to Sarasvata paribar?

 

 

jijaji

 

 

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

PEACE NOW

[Guest guest]

>> If this is true how come the line back to Ma Jahnavi is NEVER mentioned to new initiates? The disciplic succession back to Ma Jahnavi is NEVER acknowledged....as being the beginning of that Guru-Parampara. Also no Guru-Pranali is ever given.

 

We don't known where there is scarcity of these basic info. In our Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti there are many instructions on this subject matter including a large book that we already mentioned with so many details. Sarasvata-paribar is clear linked with Nityananda/Jahnava Thakurani's line of pañcaratrika diksa. There is nothing new in this paribhar as some are arguing. It is also detailed all the relationships made by siksa and there are explanations on why these relationships were necessary.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Guest guest]

>> It was based on Chaitanya's teachings. 200 years after Chaitanya came Baladeva Vidyabhushana. He was faced with a challenge based on a spurious verse from the Padma Purana, which stated that there were only four authorized sampradayas.

 

Now that is Shvuji interpretation on sampradaya's history. But the fact were quite different than that. Actually Srila Baladeva wasn't there in Jaipur to defend the position of Gaudiyas due this verse of Siva-gita (that is present in UNESCO's Padma Purana).

 

In Jaipur the Ramanin branch of the Sri-samparadaya was arguing that the worshiping that Jaypur's Maharaja was performing to Sri Govindadeva was spurious due the presence of Sri Radha and Sri Mahaprabhu at the altar, besides the ritual and other so-called misconceptions.

 

Maharaja Jay Singh I I of Jaypur, was a Vaisnava and acted as an impartial judge in this content. He knew that only the followers of Sri Rupa Goswami could be considered as qualified to take up the challenge from Ramanins. The leader of the rupanuga-guruvarga at that time was Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, who was very old and spending most of his time in antar-dasa and deep bhajana. So, Cakravartipada personally sent to Galta Jada his dear disciple, the Gaudiya-vaisnava Vedanta maha-mahopadhyaya pandita-kula-mukuta Sripada Baladeva Viadyabhusana among with his own personal servant, Sri Krsnadeva.

 

The main question was on upasya-tattva and all other aspects (such as philosophy) were secondary.

 

Ramanins' allegations were that Radha is not mentioned in Visnu Purana and Srimad Bhagavatan, and therefore She could not be placed at the same level of Maha-Laksmi, but as someone in the category of the apsaras of Svarga, who has descended to Sri Krsna's lila among the other gopis to play their role as prostitutes during Sri Krsna's youth. After His pastimes in Vraja, Sri Krsna went to Mathura and Dvaraka and in His mature age He got married with His queens, all virtuosos and Sri's expansions.

 

Therefore, Ramanins could not admit Sri Krsna's parakya-rasa with gopis, that they judged too much immoral. They only could admit svakya-rasa with Sri Krsna's queens, since in this condition Sri Krsna was really married according Vedic rules, in a fire sacrifice, hearing the mantras, and so on.

 

Srila Baladeva's argument regarding sampradaya's upasya-tattva were very powerful. One may also argue why Ramanins are linked to Sri-sampradaya since there is no mention on Sri Rama-avatara in Visnu Purana. Ramanins were actually following Sri Tulasi dasa Goswami's Sri Ramacaritamanasa, that is Srimad Bhagavantam in disguise! All philosophical tenets of Sri Ramanuja and Visnu Purana were been rejected by them, and now they were also following a new doctrine of the same age of Gaudiya's.

 

So, they were forced to admit that the basis of their link with Sri-sampradaya was upasya-tattva, and not any philosophical aspect. As they were worshiping Sri Rama as a vilasa avatara of Sri Narayana, the upasya-tattva of Sri-sampradaya was preserved. Therefore they could not be considered as an independent sampradaya.

 

Srila Baladeva, thereafter, proved Ramanins that Gaudiya-vaisnavas were also included in Brahma-Madhva-sampradaya, as their upasya-tattva was the same, Sri Gopala Krsna. They did not change the upasaya tattva while including Sri Radha that is Sri Krsna hladini-sakti and Mahaprabhu who is the combined aspect of Sri Radha and Sri Krsna. Srila Baladeva had also proved that Sri Radha's name was mentioned in many Agamas, Puranas (sucha as Padma, Garuda, Narada, and so on), as Maha Laksmi, and not as an ordinary apsara from Svarga.

 

Srila Baladeva also had pointed out the doctrine of parakya-rasa as Sri Krsna's entertainment with His own hladini-sakti's expansions, and this cannot be considered as immoral.

 

As Ramanins were completely defeat by his arguments, they argued that Gaudiyas could not support their point of view according sruti, as they diverged from Madhva's commentary on Brahma-sutra in many aspects. So, they would accept Srila Baladeva's arguments if they were support by a new comment on Brahma-sutras.

 

Srila Baladeva then made a commentary on Brahma-sutra in seven days, named Govinda-bhasya. His comment was so perfect and beautiful that the whole opposite party become crestfallen and speechless. It was Sri Govindadeva Himself who made this commentary by employing His servant manifested body.

 

So, to summarize the whole contend, we can say:

 

1. Ramanins did not agreed with parakya-vada, and they only supported svakiya-vada.

2. Ramanins stated that the upasya-tattva of Gaudiya-vaisnavas was merely a new invention.

3. Gaudiyas did not have a comment on sruti to support their sampradaya's philosophical tenets.

 

Therefore, the contend wasn't caused by a single verse from Padma Parana, as the aspects in discussion were much more deep than that.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

 

I read your posting and do not find why Baladeva did not continue his Sampradaya as an independent one. Chaitanya, Jiva, Roopa and Sanatana did not feel a need to connect their Sampradaya with Madhva's. Why did Baladeva have to do it after 200 years? After all the existing Madhva sampradaya started from Madhva. Similarly Chaitanya's Sampradaya could have continued as starting from Chaitanya as it orignally was intended to be. The reason is the verse from Padma Purana, which does not allow a fifth valid Sampradaya to come up.

 

The arguments that you have posted above deal with how Baladeva Vidyabhushana justified his linking up with the Madhva Sampradaya. My point is the why and not the how.

 

Cheers

 

[premananda]

Originally posted by jndas:

Diksha is the transfer of divya-jnanam from the guru to the disciple. This process of transference is done through upadesha or instruction. Thus there is no difference between siksha and diksha in the real meaning of the words. The problem is some people misidentify diksha with an external ritual and procedure - an 'intiation ceremony'.

 

Thus they see a lack of a ceremony as indicating there was no diksha, or no transference of divya-jnanam.

 

The actual transference of divya-jnanam has no connection with external rituals. Thus diksha occurs in a very sublte way between the guru and disciple. We can see the case of Ramanuja Acharya who received diksha without having even met his spiritual master. By the will and mercy of Yamunacharya, Ramanuja received the divya-jnanam.

 

This is the essence of the siksha parampara, which is actually non-different from the essential diksha parampara.

 

The parampara of external rituals may be easier to measure and quantify, but it is just the interaction of the material elements.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-13-2001).]

First you sounded very convincing, but then I asked myself this question:

"How come that Sri Jiva Gosvami defines what diksa is while describing the necessity of receiving Vaishnava-mantras from a true Guru?"

 

This basic principle, mantra-diksha, is the very basis of all siksa. Therefore one cannot say that it´s OK to only receive siksa. There is no real siksa without diksa, because diksa is the entrance to and the foundation of siksa, the teachings, divine knowledge.

 

The examples of Sri Ramanuja and Yamunacharya are most likely not applicable in our cases. We can not dismiss the necessity of diksa by saying that those great saints did not receive it.

 

"Thus they see a lack of a ceremony as indicating there was no diksha, or no transference of divya-jnanam."

 

There is no real transference of divyam jnanam if the disciple has not received actual initiation, mantra diksha.

 

Divyam jnanam in the context of the writings of Sri Jiva Gosvami is defined as follows.

 

That divine knowledge is divided into two parts, knowledge about the Lord (which includes mantras that describe Him) and knowledge about the sadhaka´s specific relationship with the Lord.

 

P D

 

[premananda]

http://www.vnn.org/world/9806/08-1853/index.html

 

Here is an old article of mine, which applies to this thread.

 

P D

[premananda]

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/980526-1826/index.html

 

And another.

 

Jaya Radhe!

[Guest guest]

>> SB 1.5 is where Narada tells Vyasa about his own life story and tells him to describe the glories of the Lord. It does not say that Narada intitiated Vyasa nor that he taught him anything.

 

Shvuji understanding on Srimad Bhagavatam 1st Canto chapter 5 is quite interesting. There Sri Narada clears instruct Srila Vedavyasa on how to write a literature on bhakti, describing Sri Hari's pastimes, the glories of His names, associates, and so on. To fulfil Sri Narada's instructions, Vedavyasa wrote Srimad Bhagavatam as a conclusion of all Vedic lore.

 

In our humble understanding, the preceptor who gives one instruction on spiritual matters is considered as guru. For certain Shvuji is waiting for a smrti text where Sri Narada gives formal diksa to Vedavyasa in a fire sacrifice, with mantras, collecting alms for Sri Guru's asrama, daksina, and so on.

 

In this text from Srimad Bhagavatam, the importance of siksa is detached as having the same importance of diksa. We known that Sri Krsna Dvapayana can be considered as Parasa Muni's diksa disciple, but here he is linked with Narada by siksa-parampara.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa