Perspectives on the Sarasvata parampara

[Gaurasundara]

Dear devotees,

 

in order to save the "Urmila devi" thread from getting disturbed by a relatively "irrelevant" issue such as Srila Bhaktivinoda's diksa, I'd like to start off this new topic with explaining my current perspective on the Sarasvata parampara. I might also reply to some of the replies generated by my post, but let us see. Right now I would like to process my own experience with this.

 

It seems that I might have to give a little bit of my own history first so that people may understand my perspective on this issue. I am somebody who has basically grown up in ISKCON and I have been reading Srila Prabhupada's books, going to to temple, eating prasad, all the usual stuff. My experience of Gaudiya Vaishnavism lies with ISKCON. My primary allegiance is to Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON. Though being an 'outsider', I was drawn into a "mayavadi" movement for about 10 years, but I saw the light, so to speak, and realised the truth of Gaudiya Vaishnava teachings. ISKCON has been the singular constant in my spiritual life. It is possible that it always will be.

 

After escaping the mayavadi group in around 1998, I devoted myself wholeheartedly to studying the teachings of Gaudiya Vaishnavism through the books of Srila Prabhupada. My father had purchased a Srimad-Bhagavatam set when I was 3 years old when we became Life Members, and it was these books that I read. In Srila Prabhupada's books, we see that he often emphasizes the importance of coming in a disciplic succession. The reason is because the message was originally received from Krishna by Brahma (or Lakshmi, Kumaras, Shiva depending which sampradaya you are in) and passed down intact via a chain of gurus in disciplic succession. In BG As It Is, I could see the parampara for myself and it instilled in me a sort of sense of pride. I don't know why, perhaps I was proud that I was receiving an undistorted message since the veritable beginning of creation.

 

In a mixture of sheer curiosity and interest, I wanted to find out as much as I could about all these gurus. Why not? This is a direct disciplic succession coming from Krishna, and while I have received the message from Srila Prabhupada why should I not know about the other Acharyas? My knowledge of the Tattvavadi acharyas came from the infamous Dvaita website. I first saw this site before they started posting inimical articles against ISKCON and so on, and it was quite a good resource to find out about some of the pre-Mahaprabhu acharyas. About the post-Mahaprabhu acharyas, this knowledge came in bits and pieces from Srila Prabhupada's books and various unprofessional hagiographies published by ISKCON authors.

 

Right away I spotted that there were some anomalies in the disciplic succession. Research the dates for each Acharya and see for yourself. They don't fit. However, since I was relatively a "new bhakta" I thought that I was slipping into a mayavadi and offensive mentality, and that I should just establish myself in faith in what Srila Prabhupada said. The disciplic succession is direct and the message is clear.

 

Once I went to a public library and I picked up a book "The Hare Krishnas in India". It was apparently a famous book, an academic study of the "Hare Krishnas" in India. In that book there were various things that again caused me to think. Reference was made to a controversy wherein Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was never initiated by Srila Gaura-kishor das Babaji. What was I to do with this? This was not fanatical spouting by someone with an offensive mentality, this was an academic study. The implications were immediately clear: If Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was not initiated by GKDB, then how could Srila Prabhupada be in disciplic succession? There would have to be a sort of break in the tradition from Bhaktisiddhanta onwards.

Again, I chose not to believe this and again established myself with faith in Srila Prabhupada. After all, how is it possible for Srila Prabhupada NOT to be in disciplic succession when he has achieved so much "success" in his campaign to preach Krishna Consciousness in the Western World? How is it possible for Srila Prabhupada not to be in diciplic succession when he was so OBVIOUSLY empowered? So yet again I established myself in faith.

 

Some time later, (I am just giving a description of events, I have not given extreme details as I am trying to keep this as short as possible) I came across another article outlining exactly why Bhaktisiddhanta was removed from disciplic succesion. I now know that this is the 'infamous' article contained in one of Nitai das's e-zines on his . website. I don't know how I came in touch with this article, I think it was posted to our private ISKCON members email by one of our fellow devotees who wanted confirmation if the article was true in what it said? I even know who that person is and he is a member of Audarya Fellowship. Sorry, but I am not going to drop any names. They know who they are.

Anyway, so I considered refuting the points in that article for the benefit of our fellow ISKCON members, some of whom were disturbed by the article. I realised that I could not do so because:

 

a) My knowledge of Gaudiya Vaishnavism was not yet developed enough to refute such claims

b) The arguments I proposed were based mainly on sentimentality and were thus weak.

 

I thought the article was pretty impressive in only the way they had bunched a collection of "facts" to "prove" that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was not initiated. Other than that, I was in full disagreement with it because it so OBVIOUSLY contradicted my knowledge of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and parampara that I had learned from the books of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Throughout my life, Srila Prabhupada has been my very life. I may have offended him in my younger years due to not knowing his sublime position, and I shed hot tears and fall at his holy feet hoping that he may mercifully forgive me for all the offenses I have committed. I still bow down to the arca-murti of Srila Prabhupada whenever I visit the temple. I pray to him for his divine guidance so that I may find a bona-fide guru. I have nothing but total love and adoration for Srila Prabhupada. His books were so sublime and full of light that they destroyed my mayavadi mentality when I was within that group, and he saved me. I literally feel that I was shivering in a deep dark well, cold and hungry, thinking that I was happy when I was not, and Srila Prabhupada threw in a rope to save me. I'll always be supremely grateful for that great act of mercy. One of my favourite times of the year is the couple of months or so before his annual Vyasa-puja. This is because I am asked to write an article to be published in our annual Vyasa-puja book. It forces me to sit and think about all the gifts that I have received from Srila Prabhupada, how to be supremely grateful, how I can pay him back (when I can't!), and what to do next. There's no way I can ever disrespect Srila Prabhupad in any way.

 

Anyway, getting back to my point, the Nitai das article stirred up some other feeling within me. One thing that was nagging me was about the discrepancies in the parampara. At this time, I knew more information (though not totally) about the previous Acharyas. Some of the Acharyas listed in the Sarasvata parampara never even met each other, what to speak of initiation. Rupa Goswami is at the head of the line after Sriman Mahaprabhu, but he was never initiated by Mahaprabhu. How then, could this parampara be the vehicle to pass on the message of Krishna when there were obvious disconnections? Srila Prabhupad ahimself often used the example of a postman. The postman passes on the message without adulteration, etc. But according to the lineage of the Sarasvata parampara, some "postmen" just didn't get the message from the previous "postman." Excuse me, but the impression that I had always got from Srila Prabhupada's books was that each guru is initiated by the previous guru, that is why they pass on the message having HEARD it from them. This is obviously untrue when you see the dates of the Acharyas according to the list in the Sarasvata parampara.

 

After I knew that, the next step was to try and research what some of the most recent Acharyas had to say about this. I came into contact with articles by Narayana Maharaja, Sridhara Maharaja, and some other Acharyas, some of whose articles have been posted in the "Urmila" thread. [This whole diksa issue started on page 5 of that thread, and so far has continued upto page 10.] I discovered that the "explanations" there referred to some new (to me) concept of Bhagavata and Pancaratrika paramparas. Now before we go further, I'd like to admit that I don't understand (and probably never will) why the Bhagavat-parampara should be somehow "more important" than the Pancaratrika one. After all, isn't it imporant to pass on the message DIRECTLY? I still do not care for Bhagavata/Pancaratrika theories, as they are far too confusing and cloudy to make any sense for me.

However, satisfied that I had found an "explanation" for the apparent discrepancies, I AGAIN established myself in faith that my parampara was sound and that the critics were like "dogs barking at the moon," which itself shows a sample of the mentality against these criticisms.

 

What now? No matter what glossy explanation is given by "senior" devotees, no one can adequately explain why the Sarasvata Parampara has several discrepancies in it. Instead, I find several speculations and asastric explanations, with a hint of slander thrown into the mix. After all, who else would be audacious enough to state that the so-called "diksa-paramparas" are not the 'real thing' but that the "siksa-parampara" is where it's really at? Sorry, but this does not fit into the siddhanta that wa given by Srila Prabhupada.

 

Where did these arguments come from? Let us remind ourselves: To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada in his books, lectures, conversations, etc, presented the idea of the "divine message" and "parampara" as a postman who simply "passes on" the message." The message was passed onto him by his own postmaster-guru, and so on all the way upto Krishna. At least, this appears that the Sarasvata parampara is direct and sequential. That would be quite simple to understand and believe.

 

When it becomes known that there are discrepancies in the parampara, I find that the resorting to Bhagavata/Pancaratrika arguments and similar irrational and illogical arguments invariably have their origins in the Gaudiya Math. Now I am not interested in starting an internet war about ISKCON vs. Gaudiya Math as has been done many times, but it is a simple fact that Srila Prabhupada often advised his diciples not to associate with them, what to speak of using their arguments in debates. It is with the Gaudiya Math that we invariably find the slander that is often levelled at the "caste gurusbabajissahajiyas" and so forth. So Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura rejected Sri Vipin Vihari Goswami as his guru "quietly" because he was "cultured" and took Srila Jagannatha das Babaji as his guru. This was because VVG "perhaps" was a lower-class guru and "maybe" was not that bona fide at all. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura made a "mistake" in choosing such a lower-class guru and then rejected him when he found the "higher" Jagannatha das Babaji, from whom he took his "higher inspiration." Where did I first hear this story? On a Gaudiya Math website!

Please don't ask me which one, as I can no longer remember. I only remember that at the time I was compiling hagiographies of Srila Bhaktisidhanta, Bhaktivinoda, Gaurakisora and Jagannatha das, and I was forced to resort to view GM websites in the hope that they had more information about these Acharyas. I still have those hagios somewhere on floppy disc, but I remember that particular story appearing on a Gaudiya Matha website.

 

This has been the point of my earlier postings; I have always seen that to explain away the discrepancies in their parampara, modern-day Sarasvatas either resort to unfeasible Bhagavata/Pancaratrika arguments, or they will resort to slandering an acharya of their choice. Such as VVG. Personally I find the latter approach is not at all what I would expect of Vaishnava behaviour and etiquette. It is low-class and simply disgusting. After all, who has the audacity to claim that Vipin Vihari Goswami "may" have been a lower-class guru when the simple fact is that they have no access to original source material about him? Thus the slander perpetrated against him is ignorant Vaishnava aparadha. Bear in mind that I have been and still am a firm admirer of Srila Prabhupada and his disciplic succession, but when I see "fellow members" of this disciplic succession indulge in such gross bad behaviour, I feel extremely ashamed.

 

Where do I stand now? I now accept that there are discrepancies in the diksa-line Sarasvata parampara. To say anything else would be just plain dishonesty. How do I reconcile this with my faith in Srila Prabhupada?

 

Quite simple. I'm telling the truth about things.

 

On one hand, there is no sequentialism. On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada was obviously empowered to bring the great gift of Krishna-bhakti to the Western world. And he succeeded! How do we reconcile this? I would like to know. As I stated in one of my earlier posts on this subject, "I don't know why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta presented an invalid parampara although I would be highly interested in the reason." I'm still waiting for an explanation for why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta presented a parampara that has no direct diksa lines, and I would relish such an explanation. Of course, it has to be in accordance with Gaudiya siddhanta about pasing on the message. Probably the only person who can adequately explain is Srila Bhaktisiddhanta himself, and sadly he is no longer manifest to our eyes.

 

The answer is: I DON'T KNOW.

 

But I see no reason why I should continue to repress my feelings and believe blindly in things that I should be forced to accept. I feel that I have reached a plateau in my spiritual journey. I have experienced such a plateau many times before. In my experience, this means that I need to evaluate what I have learned so far, digest the knowledge, make sure that I understand it, work out my goals, and then proceed to reach that goal. As well as the diksa issue, there are several other issues that I may like to discuss, perhaps in other threads. But in any case, I see no reason why I should blindly believe in things that I should accept. Before I was weak because I didn't have enough knowledge. Now I am equipped with some verifiable facts about the dates of the Acharyas to prove there was no initiation or meeting.

 

After all, this is something that I worked out for myself right AT THE BEGINNING.

 

I think I've finished for now. I have not given all the details in my story related above, I might elaborate on some things if they are required. Readers are free to comment or discuss some of the things I have talked about, but I would really appreciate it if I didn't receive any abuse or insults. This entire post has been rather emotional to write and to remember the memories. Perhaps now some individuals can understand what my position is now.

[Guest guest]

 

Though being an 'outsider', I was drawn into a "mayavadi" movement for about 10 years, but I saw the light, so to speak, and realised the truth of Gaudiya Vaishnava teachings.

 

 

I'm just curious as to what mayavadi movement that was. Since you are telling your life story, I hope you will forgive me my curiosity for wandering what mayavadi yogi had influenced you for a whole 10 years and whom you only recently let go of.

 

[theist]

 

On one hand, there is no sequentialism.

 

 

I wish I could help but being unlearned on such things I must stay out. Don't want to just add more confusion.

 

I just can't help wondering if some clue doesn't reside in how 'sequentialism' is perveived.

 

Is it a succesion of bodies born in the same family one after another?

 

Is it a succession of formaly initiated people who may or may not have realized Krsna or not?

 

Or is it really something more subtle, a line of souls who have realized transcendental knowledge.

 

Of course the later might be separted by material time and space which would seem significant from our conditioned perspective but what meaning would time and space considerations have from the perspective of someone who has transcended their grip?

[Guest guest]

I am curious as to what sort of "mAyAvAdi" Gaurasundara found himself attracted to, despite being more or less raised in the company of GaudIya VaiShNavas. He is trying to give us a sense for where he is coming from, but he omits this detail. Putting on the psychoanalyst cap for a minute, I suspect there is more there in what he omits which is responsible for his current thinking than even he lets on. Probably even he isn't aware of the influence. But I for one would like to know more about what he has been doing with mAyAvAdis for 10 years, now that he suddenly came out of the closet, so to speak, to express all these doubts.

 

I'm also not really clear on what his thesis is. Is he saying there are problems (regarding sequentialism) with the BhaktivedAnta paramparA and challenging us to disprove him? Or is he sure that the problem is there and is simply expressing himself? Why would he need to express his doubts publicly unless he is inviting someone to debunk them? Or is he expressing his doubt because he would feel better refuting anyone who doubts his doubts?

 

What would be the purpose in remaining steadfast in the idea of an illogical paramparA if he himself believes there is nothing else for him? He states that he does not know the answers to his questions, yet he seems quite sure that no one else does. He seems quite judgemental of "modern-day Sarasvatas" though he himself seems to excuse himself from judgement - who again is the mAyAvAdi guru who so caught hold of his imagination, diverting him away from Krishna-consciousness, and that too for a whole 10 years? Indeed, I can't help but note that he repeatedly reaffirms his allegiance to Srila Prabhupada, as if to deflect any possible criticism that will come at him.

 

UGP

[Gaurasundara]

 

I'm just curious as to what mayavadi movement that was. Since you are telling your life story, I hope you will forgive me my curiosity for wandering what mayavadi yogi had influenced you for a whole 10 years and whom you only recently let go of.

 

 

No worries about the curiosity, I'll gladly tell you. At one critical point in my spiritual journey, I was led to believe in Sathya Sai Baba of South India. The reason I described him and his movement as "mayavadi" is because I felt that this an expression which Gaudiyas might understand, otherwise he is not even a proper mayavadi since he preaches his own brand of "philosophy."

 

This took place around December 1990, and I can clearly (and happily!) remember the end date: 5th July 2001.

 

Now one might wonder what I was doing with SB until 2001 when I earlier said that I took the Gaudiya teachings seriously around 1998 or so. Well, the answer is the same as I have given before: I tried to rationalise and rationalise and rationalise the SB beliefs with Gaudiya beliefs until I just couldn't do it any more. It was either one or the other. This is rather like how I felt I was unable to let go of the idea that the Sarasvata line is an 'intact' direct disciplic succession. My "loyal" feelings were actually based on sentimental grounds and therefore not valid. Oh yes, it was a rather painful transition as I remember and I spent countless hours thinking about it, until one day I woke up and said 'this is it. No more.'

 

And that's when I got very angry.

[Gaurasundara]

 

Is it a succesion of bodies born in the same family one after another?

 

Is it a succession of formaly initiated people who may or may not have realized Krsna or not?

 

Or is it really something more subtle, a line of souls who have realized transcendental knowledge.

 

Of course the later might be separted by material time and space which would seem significant from our conditioned perspective but what meaning would time and space considerations have from the perspective of someone who has transcended their grip?

 

 

Dear Theist, you ask very good questions and I admire how you think deeply about things. Though I must say that at this point I just simply do not know. Your questions are required to be answered by someone who has personal realisation and a deep understanding of Gaudiya guru-tattva. All I know is that I (we?) are expected to believe that the Sarasvata parampara as presented by Srila Prabhupada in BG is meant to be a direct disciplic succession of gurus. We now know that this is untrue.

As far as I know, diksa-paramparas in Gaudiya Vaishnavism are supposed to be direct connections leading all the way up to the personal associates of Mahaprabhu. The reason for this is very simple and also complex, and the reason why certain people do not 'get it' is because they are obviously ignorant of this reason. About being realized, I have no clue about this and it is one that I have been thinking about myself.

[Gaurasundara]

 

I am curious as to what sort of "mAyAvAdi" Gaurasundara found himself attracted to, despite being more or less raised in the company of GaudIya VaiShNavas. He is trying to give us a sense for where he is coming from, but he omits this detail.

 

 

Sorry for the omittance. I just didn't think it was necessary to elaborate on that part of my life since I was mostly writing about my evolution of thought on the parampara issue. The answer, though, has just been given in a previous post. It was Sai Baba.

 

 

Putting on the psychoanalyst cap for a minute, I suspect there is more there in what he omits which is responsible for his current thinking than even he lets on. Probably even he isn't aware of the influence. But I for one would like to know more about what he has been doing with mAyAvAdis for 10 years, now that he suddenly came out of the closet, so to speak, to express all these doubts.

 

 

Please feel free to discuss what you think about SB's influence on my life now. Although I've consciously got rid of all influences except a few pending matters, I'm open to any ideas. Though I must say that I have not "suddenly" come out. I was previously known here as "Vaishnava_das108" before I changed to 'Gaurasundara,' and I recall talking about SB too when the subject ame out. So there is nothing 'sudden' about this topic really.

 

 

I'm also not really clear on what his thesis is. Is he saying there are problems (regarding sequentialism) with the BhaktivedAnta paramparA and challenging us to disprove him? Or is he sure that the problem is there and is simply expressing himself? Why would he need to express his doubts publicly unless he is inviting someone to debunk them? Or is he expressing his doubt because he would feel better refuting anyone who doubts his doubts?

 

 

I don't know if you know this, but pages 5-10 of the "Urmila" thread led to a side-argument about the diksa of Bhaktivinoda. To simplify the matter, the Sarasvata parampara is not sequential as I (we?) have been led to believe. I do not agree for the various speculative "explanations" that have been presented to explain or defend the lack of sequence, precisely beause they are so far off the mark that it simply has to be red to be believed. Feel free to refute my ideas if you want to, but I'm not really interested in challenging anyone to disprove them. As I repeatedly said, these 'dead horse' of these issues have been 'flogged' again and again with no end in sight, so much so that the result is plain boredom. JNDas' "arguments" are a simple example of the snootiness in defense that just leaves me shedding tears of boredom. After all, I was and still am extremely offended that there is a class of people who slander Bhaktivinoda's diksa-guru in order to present the superiority of his siksa-guru. I'm not saying that Jagannatha das Babaji was not superior, just that I disagree with such mind-numbing arrogance. Why did I want to express my feelings in this thread? Mainly because, as usual, people started labelling me as nonsensical and slanderer, and so on. Predictable. I'm still waiting to receive the honour of 'Rascal Number One.' Also, some close devotee friends here wrote to me in a worried mood asking me to clarify my feelings and if anything was wrong. Also, I think writing it was a sort of purification for me. Now that I've got it out, I definitely feel a lot better.

 

 

What would be the purpose in remaining steadfast in the idea of an illogical paramparA if he himself believes there is nothing else for him?

 

 

I have and still do feel the mercy of Srila Prabhupada guiding my life. He sometimes appears in my dreams, and there are inconceivable "coincidences" of mercy that are still happening in my life. It was my birthday on Tuesday. I went to my local temple to see Radha-Krishna around the time of bhoga-arati (that's around 12.30pm right?) and I participated in the kirtan there. I was not expecting anything at all, but out of the blue the kirtaniya later gave me an entire plate of succulent maha-prasad. Was that a great birthday present from Them or what! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I am still continuing as before. I go to the temple on Sundays (and whenever else I can), help out with some seva there, take caranamrta, see the Deities, eat prasad, do my japa, read my books, and do on. I still bow before Srila Prabhupada and the Deities asking Them to be merciful and send me a bona-fide guru. I am waiting for an explanation for the "inconsistencies" of the Sarasvata parampara. Perhaps the bona-fide guru will be able to answer them satisfactorily.

 

 

He states that he does not know the answers to his questions, yet he seems quite sure that no one else does. He seems quite judgemental of "modern-day Sarasvatas" though he himself seems to excuse himself from judgement.

 

 

"No one else does." Well, they have answers alright but I just do not agree with those answers. Why? Because they betray an appalling lack of knowledge regarding Gaudiya siddhanta, not to mention being devoid of even simple commonsense. As I said, everytime this subject has been discussed the same arguments and the same refutations have been provided until it all descends into a teary mess of complete boredom. Of course everyone leaves the arena feeling all self-righteous and proud of their views and holding very fast to those deeply-held views but I find that there is a lack of real knowledge. Real knowledge, in the sense that everybody seems to be interested in "proving" their points seemingly without any care for the actual truth. Well, I decided to express my real feelings in an attempt to free myself of this mental conditioning of suppressing my feelings out of a fear of ostracisation, etc. I don't believe that I should be forced to believe in something blindly, I think it is a duty to at least check it out. I have my own brain and I must use it. I have also received the opportunity to be born in the human form of life and it is my sacred duty to make use of it, to get out of the samsara and to be with Radha and Krishna in Vraja which is my desire. I'd rather achieve this goal than to hold fast to some dogmatic beliefs that won't do anything for me. Again I'll say, if you think that I am excusing myself from "judgement" please feel free to question/challenge anything I've said. Just please don't expect me to get into a war about it, that's all. Too much war makes a person sick.

 

 

who again is the mAyAvAdi guru who so caught hold of his imagination, diverting him away from Krishna-consciousness, and that too for a whole 10 years? Indeed, I can't help but note that he repeatedly reaffirms his allegiance to Srila Prabhupada, as if to deflect any possible criticism that will come at him.

 

 

Well, this needs clarification. When I say that I was 'practically born in ISKCON,' it really means just that, I have been associated with ISKCON since my very birth. I am actually what is referred to as a 'congregational member.' The local ISKCON temple was the first 'outside' place I was taken to after I was released from hospital after my birth. It's also quite possible that I saw the Deities there, although I do not remember! /images/graemlins/smile.gif I went there almost every Sunday of my life, attended the Sunday School, associated with devotees, saw the Deities, ate prasad, etc.

 

Unfortunately it seems that I was a victim of the very qualities that I now condemn. I held fast to some beliefs that had their basis in sentiment and not fact. At that age, I was taught some basic beliefs about "Hinduism," like that Brahma Vishnu and Shiva are the three main Gods and that Brahman is superior to them and we have to merge in Brahman. Oh yes, and let's not forget that Krishna is NOT supreme, but that He is the eight avatar of Vishnu. So all that time, I couldn't help thinking that I was right and that all those devotees were wrong in thinking that Krishna is supreme. Nice that they were worshipping Krishna, but they were still wrong. I'll tell you something else. I didn't even know who Srila Prabhupada was. Though his murti is at the back of the temple room and I saw people bowing down to him, I was just aware of the fact that he FOUNDED this movement. It was never presented to me that he was an actual guru who had disciples and was a great saint and all. As far as I was concerned, he was just an ordinary man who went around the world opening temples of Krishna. And because Srila Prabhupada had been teaching these people "wrong" ideas about Hindu ideas, I felt resentment towards him. This was what I meant when I said that in my early years I had committed severe offenses towards Srila Prabhupada and that I beg forgiveness from him for such appalling ignorance. Thankfully, I have received some assurances that perhaps I may be releived though I am still not sure. Vaishnava-aparadha is a powerful thing indeed! Had I been receptive, I never would have had to wait until 1998 for his mercy to fully 'hook' me. So much time I wasted.

So to get back to your question, because I was a victim of my strongly-held incorrect beliefs, I fell under the sway of the Sai Baba movement. It seemed a nice alternative to the "suffocating" ISKCON, where any path you follow will help you reach the one God, etc., as opposed to the fact that "you can only follow the Hare Krishna path or else!" I suppose those were the days of fanatical preaching within ISKCON during the Zonal Acharya era, and this accounted for why so many were turned off. When I look back at that 10-year period in retrospect, considering what I now know about God, spirituality, etc., I think 'Jeesh! How could I have been so foolish to fall for that rubbish!'

And that's exactly the reason why I praise Srila Prabhupada very highly. I always have and I always will, precisely because he rescued me from the 'rubbish' that I got unwittingly entangled in. I really feel like that.

 

Gaurasundara

 

P.S. I said at the start that I may reply to the replies of JNDas and Audarya-lila etc who replied within the Urmila thread, when I have more energy. I've now decided not to do so, simply because the arguments there are so painfully weak that it would be a sheer waste of time to reply to. Besides that, I am not in a mood to respond to abuse and insults levelled by so-called "Vaishnavas" who certainly need to learn some good manners.

[gHari]

Only insincere shallow morons have the brass to have any sort of opinions outside of those held by Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. And that, is the truth.

 

Get a life. Buy some humility. Steal some. Just get off your high horse and get real. I'm sick of it all.

[Guest guest]

Gaurasundara, vaishnava_108, etc.

 

What? Good manners? You call the lineage presented by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati a lie and a fabrication and you say that there is evidence presented by a scholar that he was never properly initiated and you want to now talk about ettiquete or manners?

 

I applaud you for sharing your personal history and your personal philosophical issues. Since you have already expressed the opinion that whatever is said or can be said in defense of that which you are having trouble reconciling has been said and is less than satisfiying to your astute intelligence, I won't even bother with you. You will have to find your own way. You don't find the writings of Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja or any other Guru in the Sarasvati lineage acceptable - so where does that leave you? You will have to find your fortune elsewhere. Yours is an unfortunate dilemna to say the least. You are left with the very real possibility of thinking that Srila Prabhupada is a good man and was successful to an extent, but for real suddha bhakti you will have to go somewhere else. There are some who believe this and you apparently are being influenced by their association. My feeling is that it is most unfortunate for you. I feel very badly for you.

 

You mentioned the idea that one must be in a parivara that goes back directly to the associates of Mahaprabhu. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati taught his disciples to explain to those who asked to which parivara they belonged that they were in the Bhaktivinoda Parivara. Srila Bhaktivinoda is known as the seventh Goswami for a reason and it was the firm conviction of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta that he was a direct associate of Mahaprabhu.

 

Again, I think it is good that you shared your feelings here - but you are also very much unapproachable at this point and you seem to have made up your mind. Try to remember that the mind is material and too much reliance on it will only lead to Krsna completely disappearing - quite the opposite of what you are after.

 

At some point you will have to use your intelligence to reconcile the fact that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was entrusted with the Yoga pitha by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur and was also instructed to institute daivi varnashrama and to spread KC world wide. He set the stage and made the adjustments neccesary for the fulfillment of those orders. Mahaprabhu's name is known throughout the world virtually in every town and village due to the empowerment of Mahaprabhu himself. The vehicle he chose to fulfill his own predictions is the Bhaktivinoda Parivara. So you will have to find a way to understand the real tangible spiritual shakti given to Srila Prabhupada in order to spread the chanting of the Holy Name around the globe - something which no one else has done. Neal Delmonico made a lame attempt to explain this away in his offensive e-zine. You want to talk about laughable and foolish ideas that someone tries to pawn off on reasonable people - I have to say that he takes the cake in that category. To even give his offensive writings any serious consideration one would have to be fairly foolish in my opinion. His e-zine is full of unsubstantiated claims, incredibly offensive slander of devotees who have dedicated their lives to the mission of spreading the Holy Name of Krsna to the conditioned souls, incredible tastless and base propaganda that one would find in very low minded people - certainly not the stuff of a practicing vaishnava - at least not what I would expect. I asked him about his writings and their slanderous offensive nature on a forum once and his response was that he was not advanced and therefore his behaviour was excusable. He also said that he acted in that fashion due to his own Guru being slandered. All this while speaking about the ill effects of vaishnava ninda. Needless to say I don't find his reasons excusable - I understand the need to defend one's Guru and lineage if it is being attacked - but to engage in the same thing that one finds reprehensible in another is not a very good policy.

 

At any rate, good luck to you. I hope that you will find good company and dedicate your life to becoming Krsna conscious.

 

Even though you probably won't listen to this or, actually more likely you will find it foolish and intellectual 'boring', I want to remind you that there are many lineages and the Gurus representing those lineages have many disciples - but guess what? Most of them are not qualified to pass on KC to others in a substantial way because they have made little progress themselves. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was against the idea that the form was most important - and that is why he stressed substance over form and why he made the adjustments he did. For real spiritual life one must be a very qualified disciple - something that is usually overlooked in the external search that many feel is the genuine search for Sri Guru. The real search for Sri Guru is internal and begins within the sadhaka's own heart. The sincere and honest sadhaka will meet Krsna in the form of Sri Guru, not because he or she has a good intellect and a proud ego - but rather because he or she has a good heart.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Here is my post from the Urmila thread to Gaurasundar:

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Elsewhere he writes:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

Please provide the sanskrit verses of this injunction.

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

[Guest guest]

Well, thinking about what Gaurasundara has said, I think it explains a lot - this influence of Sai Baba on his life, I mean.

 

Gaurasundara repeatedly states that the opinions of others like JNdas are "lacking in common sense,betray an appalling lack of knowledge of Gaudiya siddhanta," etc. I am not a member of ISKCON, but noting some of the evidence presented by them, I am rather tempted to believe the reverse. At the very least, I don't see that some of the more vocal opponents of his are lacking in knowledge of siddhAnta or shAstra. Furthermore, I can't help but note the accusations Gaurasundara flings at his opponents (accusing them of insulting him and so forth), even though he himself makes remarks like "snootiness" and "boring me to tears" in regards to them. I find this somewhat hypocritical, as I would expect one to treat others with respect before one started to demand it for oneself.

 

So far as I can tell, two issues have been brought up by Gaurasundara in regards to his "doubts" about A.C. BhaktivedAnta's paramparA. These are: (1) that it is allegedly not a "sequential" list of gurus, and (2) that it is not a "dIksha" line of gurus. Regarding (1), he has not presented any specifics, so I'm not sure who he is referring to as out of sequence. Regarding (2), JNdas and others have given very intersting responses regarding the nature of dIksha which seemed a perfectly reasonable defense. Thus far, I have not seen a response by Gaurasundara to their arguments regarding "dIksha," one of which, as I recall, included a quote from ShrIla JIva GosvAmI.

 

From my very superficial view of the situation, it doesn't seem that the BhaktivedAnta paramparA is lacking in scriptural or traditional justification for its existence, although Gaurasundara's continued claims that it does persist in his mind. The question to me is why Gaurasundara thinks this way when his opponents have clearly presented evidence to refute them.

 

Looking back at what Gaura said about himself, I couldn't help but note that he was swayed by mAyAvAdi teachings in spite of his association with GaudIya VaiShNavas. It was especially interesting to note that the mAyAvAdi who so caught hold of his imagination was none other than Sai Baba. Sai Baba philosophy is not terribly intelligent, as we all no doubt know.

 

Therefore, Gaura's history suggests that despite a professed interest in knowing shAstric conclusions, he can nevertheless be swayed by the views of a charismatic religionist even when they lack shAstric backing. Certainly he has done this once with Sai Baba. It seems quite possibly that something similar has happened here - another charismatic individual who also has doubts regarding the BhaktivedAnta paramparA has influenced Gaurasundara - whether it was before he had the doubts or after that fact and simply solidfying them.

 

It also seems to me that there are some latent feelings of guilt and possibly hostility in Gaura's thinking. Guilt in himself for having been swayed by an obvious mAyAvAdi imposter like Sai Baba, and hostility towards ISKCON devotees for having beliefs which he previously thought were wrong. Now, Gaurasundara says he realizes A.C. BhaktivedAnta's position, but this does not seem to translate into respect for others who do the same! Indeed, he seems so convinced of his correctness in spite of evidence presented to the contrary - I suggest that this is nothing more than transference of his previously existing hostility towards ISKCON ideas (like Krishna is the Supreme Godhead) into something that is apparently more "scholarly" (Krishna as Supreme Godhead is ok now, but the paramparA is not). I suspect that his "doubts" regarding the BhaktivedAnta "paramparA" are really a smokescreen for the underlying conflict of loyalties which is taking place in his mind and/or the embarassment of having been so thoroughly incorrect in his previously held mAyAvAdi ideas despite the preaching done by ISKCON devotees whom he regarded as either less intellectual or more fanatical than himself. It's like his mind is saying, "if I can't win this argument, I will find another that I can."

 

The more I read his words, the more I get that sense from him of latent guilt and misplaced hostility. It appears to me that at least some of his doubts have been explained away to a reasonable standard, but I suspect that none of them will be explained away to his satisfaction. I have seen this phenomenon before - where some mAyAvAdi guy holds a grudge against ISKCON devotees for having anti-mAyAvAdi ideas, only to later lose faith in mAyAvAda and gain faith in ISKCON - but then they change the nature of the grudge into something else!

 

Another possibility is that Gaura feels a sense of anger towards ISKCON devotees because he feels that they did not adequately present their conclusions properly, thus leading to his being misled by Sai baba. This also a common failing of neophyte seekers - they blame someone else for the choices they make in life. This would also explain why Gaura maintains so much hostility against ISKCON devotees and anyone else who believes in the BhaktivedAnta paramparA. It's his way of "getting back" at them for their inability to prevent him from falling away.

 

All very interesting.

 

UGP

 

[Gaurasundara]

 

Gaurasundara repeatedly states that the opinions of others like JNdas are "lacking in common sense,betray an appalling lack of knowledge of Gaudiya siddhanta," etc. I am not a member of ISKCON, but noting some of the evidence presented by them, I am rather tempted to believe the reverse. At the very least, I don't see that some of the more vocal opponents of his are lacking in knowledge of siddhAnta or shAstra. Furthermore, I can't help but note the accusations Gaurasundara flings at his opponents (accusing them of insulting him and so forth), even though he himself makes remarks like "snootiness" and "boring me to tears" in regards to them. I find this somewhat hypocritical, as I would expect one to treat others with respect before one started to demand it for oneself.

 

 

Excuse me for not replying for several days. I have recently changed my ISP and there have been some problems. I am writing from the local library right now.

I think it is precisely because you do not know Gaudiya siddhanta very well, that is why you are tempted to believe in the explanations from those who do not know it very well. Suffice to say, I myself might have believed those "explanations" before but I do not now because to do so would be to believe blindly which was the whole point of my long previous post. I don't believe in such explanations and neither do I believe that one should accept such explanations blindly. As for hypocrisy, perhaps you may care to note that upon affirming my opinion that I do not accept the Sarasvata parampara as a diksa lineage, I was immediately labelled as a fanatic, slanderer, nonsensical and some other choice epithets. To retort back with "snooty" is not actually that bad, considering that most of the replies were snooty.

 

Main Entry: snooty

Pronunciation: 'snü-tE

Function: adjective

Inflected Form(s): snoot·i·er; -est

1919

1 : looking down the nose : showing disdain <snooty people who won't speak to their neighbors>

2 : characterized by snobbery <a snooty store>

 

I find it highly interesting the amount of abuse I get just because I express a view that doesn't "jive" with the way other people think. Talk about fanaticism, it is a cultish trait to "demonise" such people.

 

 

Regarding (1), he has not presented any specifics, so I'm not sure who he is referring to as out of sequence.

 

 

All of them, with perhaps the exception of Bhaktisiddhanta-Bhaktivedanta.

 

 

Regarding (2), JNdas and others have given very intersting responses regarding the nature of dIksha which seemed a perfectly reasonable defense. Thus far, I have not seen a response by Gaurasundara

 

 

Probably because, as I have been repeating endlessly, I am not interested in getting into arguments with blind believers who do not know the facts about parampara. This whole argument was born out of some bigoted statements that Bhaktivinoda's diska-parampara is not a precedent for female diksa-gurus because the male-oriented "siksa-parampara" of Bhaktivinoda is taken as more important. I disagree with such a bigoted and chauvinistic view. The simple fact is; Bhaktivinoda had a diksa-parampara which had women in it. In fact, more or less all Gaudiya paramparas have women in them. There is enough Gaudiya precedent (never mind Vedic) for Urmila to become a diksa-guru so long as she is qualified for the position. All the other argument is simply to show that the modern-day Sarasvatas are in no position to criticise other people's paramparas when there are enough unexplainable anomalies in their own.

 

 

Looking back at what Gaura said about himself, I couldn't help but note that he was swayed by mAyAvAdi teachings in spite of his association with GaudIya VaiShNavas. It was especially interesting to note that the mAyAvAdi who so caught hold of his imagination was none other than Sai Baba. Sai Baba philosophy is not terribly intelligent, as we all no doubt know.

 

 

It may not be terribly intelligent for you, but it is very intelligent to the millions of SB devotees who know no better. You cannot blame me for being "swayed" by impersonalists when it is all around. By the way, I was not very much attracted to SB's teachings. They were dry and boring to read, I used to avidly read accounts of his "miracles" and other people's experiences of him.

 

 

Therefore, Gaura's history suggests that despite a professed interest in knowing shAstric conclusions, he can nevertheless be swayed by the views of a charismatic religionist even when they lack shAstric backing. Certainly he has done this once with Sai Baba. It seems quite possibly that something similar has happened here - another charismatic individual who also has doubts regarding the BhaktivedAnta paramparA has influenced Gaurasundara - whether it was before he had the doubts or after that fact and simply solidfying them.

 

 

Not really, you're far off the mark here. I've already explained that I visited ISKCON temples not as a "Gaudiya Vaishnava," but rather as a "devout Hindu." I was basically a spiritual and religios individual who went to the temple every Sunday as a pious duty, just like Christians go to Church and Muslims go to Mosques. I didn't know much of Gaudiya siddhanta except their "strange" ideas (Krishna is above Vishnu, etc) and other things. There was no "sastric backing" given to me anywhere. After all, are you proposing that everyone who vists an ISKCON temple, especially for the free food, is a Gaudiya Vaishnava? Certainly not. It is obvious that people come to the temple simply to participate in the services as a pious duty, if not for the free food. I was like that, a devout Hindu coming to the temple as a religious duty. So what if I went to the Sunday school? We were only taught stories about Prahlada Maharaja, Dhruva Maharaja, and other "moral" tales, as well as rehearsing for dramas all the time. I certainly didn't learn any heavy siddhanta in there.

As for "another charismatic individual influencing me," where is he? I certainly don't see anyone around trying to feed stuff into my brain? Rather, this is the result of simple research that I knew by instinct right from the very beginning. If you are talking about the diksa issue in particular, then you'll be aware from my first post in this thread that I knew that there were anomalies in the Sarasvata parampara right from the beginning, except that I didn't have enough knowledge at that time to verify this. I do now, and it's just something that the Sarasvata-followers will have to get used to. And erm, try to keep the condescension low, OK?

 

 

It also seems to me that there are some latent feelings of guilt and possibly hostility in Gaura's thinking. Guilt in himself for having been swayed by an obvious mAyAvAdi imposter like Sai Baba, and hostility towards ISKCON devotees for having beliefs which he previously thought were wrong.

 

 

You're completely off the beaten track now. You make it sound as if I boiled with anger every time I set foot in an ISKCON temple. That's simply not true. The simple fact is that I didn't know who Srila Prabhupada was. It was never presented to me that he was a guru, a saint, or what-have-you. As far as anyone explained to me, he was a man who went around the world opening Krishna temples and writing books. Fine, but why worship a man? And such strange teachings, Krishna higher than Vishnu, etc. All this didn't bother me, it is simply a case of non-interest. No anger anywhere.

 

 

It appears to me that at least some of his doubts have been explained away to a reasonable standard, but I suspect that none of them will be explained away to his satisfaction. I have seen this phenomenon before - where some mAyAvAdi guy holds a grudge against ISKCON devotees for having anti-mAyAvAdi ideas, only to later lose faith in mAyAvAda and gain faith in ISKCON - but then they change the nature of the grudge into something else!

 

 

Certainly my questions have not been answered to my satsifaction, primarily because the answers make no sense at all when considering the history of the Gaudiya tradtion. Also, you might be advised not to compare me with anyone else you may have met. It's a well known fact that everyone is an individual and thus they all have different inclinations for a particular type of philosophy. And don't forget to include the process of change as well. Unless of course, you propose that I should remain stuck at a certian level of intellectual growth forever?

 

 

Another possibility is that Gaura feels a sense of anger towards ISKCON devotees because he feels that they did not adequately present their conclusions properly, thus leading to his being misled by Sai baba. This also a common failing of neophyte seekers - they blame someone else for the choices they make in life. This would also explain why Gaura maintains so much hostility against ISKCON devotees and anyone else who believes in the BhaktivedAnta paramparA. It's his way of "getting back" at them for their inability to prevent him from falling away.

 

 

So now not only am I fanatic, a slanderer, a nonsense, a rascal, a bounder, but I am a neophyte as well. Thank you! But again, you're wrong. Where did you get the idea that I blame anyone for following SB? I don't blame anyone for that and I'm pretty sure that I didn't make any statement to that effect in my previous post. I suggest you pay attention to what I actually say instead of speculating about what I might be saying. The idea is that I simply need to clear away the unfounded rubbish that has been indoctrinated in my brain by unscrupulous persons. And who says I am "falling away" from ISKCON? I am as devoted as ever before. Only yesterday I paid a visit to the temple. There was only one devotee who was serving the maha-prasadam after the bhoga-arati and I felt upset that only he had to handle it while I wait in line for my serving. So I decided to go and wash my hands and help him out. The experience satisfied me, I think it was the first time that I have served mahaprasadam on plates properly. Oh yes, and then one senior devotee who has known me since I was young asked if I could help with an upcoming mailout. While I was doing that, I caught up with some old friends and discussed Srimad-bhagavatam with them. Would I do all that if I was filled with hatred and boiling with anger ultra-fanatical as everyone makes me out to be?

 

 

All very interesting.

 

 

I'm sure it was. Now perhaps I may ask you a few questions:

 

1 - Who are you?

 

2 - What does "UGP" stand for?

 

3 - Why do you feel the need to psychoanalyse me?

 

4 - Why do you feel the need to psychoanalyse me incorrectly?

 

5 - While psychoanalysing me, why are you talking in the third person rather than to me directly? I am here, after all.

 

6 - Why are you obsessively focusing on a part of my life that is closed and has little or no relevance to my discussion of the diksa issue?

 

7 - If you are unsure about something I said, why not ask me for clarification instead of suspecting what I meant to say and publishing that?

[Gaurasundara]

 

Only insincere shallow morons have the brass to have any sort of opinions outside of those held by Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. And that, is the truth.

 

 

Well, what more can I say? Congratulations for alienating around 90% of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas who do not care for Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati or Srila Prabhupada.

 

And there are people who say I am a fanatic!

 

 

Get a life. Buy some humility. Steal some. Just get off your high horse and get real. I'm sick of it all.

 

 

Would you expect me to follow your example. I'm awfully sorry, but this is something you're just going to have to get used to. And you would also be advised not to have complete disresepct fotr the opinions of other people. And when I specifically asked people to have some basic etiquette and not abuse/insult me, you have done exactly the opposite by referring to me as a moron. Gee, thanks. I can add that to my long list of insults.

[Gaurasundara]

 

What? Good manners? You call the lineage presented by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati a lie and a fabrication and you say that there is evidence presented by a scholar that he was never properly initiated and you want to now talk about ettiquete or manners?

 

 

Dear Audarya-lilaji, even though we have disagreed in the past about some issues, I've always respected you in secret as a mature, thoughtful considerate gentlemanly devotee. But I am sorry to say, you are really accusing me of things that I never said. In your previous post in the 'Urmila' thread, you also accused me of being a slanderer : "Thank you for defending our lineage and it's dignity from the slander posted by Gaurasundara...For Gaurasundara - I thought you were through with slandering devotees. Now you want to brand the entire Saravata lineage as bogus. Wow!" - Please show me just one place in any of my postings where I have slandered anybody or anything, including Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, Srila Bhaktivinoda, Srila Prabhupada, and whoever else. Just one place where I have slandered everyone and everything. I think you will find that it is impossible, wouldn't you agree? So then you will have to admit that you have wrongly accused me of slander when it is clear that I have not.

Now, I suppose the thing that you found objectionable would be my statement(s) about how the Sarasvata parampara is fabricated. Well, it is. Considering that we are led to believe that all of the gurus therein initiated each other and how it has been the tradition on the Gaudiya lineages to always initiate, you cannot seriously expect me to believe this of the Sarasvata parampara? For a start, some of those Acharyas never even met each other. I don't remember saying anything about "evidence presented by a scholar," but it is true that Shukavak das has written a well-researched book all about Srila Bhaktivinoda. His diksa-patra is contained there as well. People like alpa-medhasa are expecting me to compare this groundbreaking work with the heavily criticised Rupa-vilasa work that is nothing more than a hagiography. Heavily criticised by senior ISKCON sannyasis of course, whose names I am not at liberty to give.

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

Audarya-lilaji, you have been around in these forums much longer than I have. You should have seen these sort of topics come up repeatedly at least a million times or more, if not that. As for the example of Bhaktivinoda-Jagannatha, the proof rests in Bhaktivinoda's own diksa-patra. Bhaktivinoda presented this diksa-patra to his son, who presented it to our very own Jagat, who will present it to his own disciple should he ever choose to initiate. Hence, the disciplic successions goes on via initiation. There is no proof that Bhaktivinoda considered Jagannatha das Babaji as his "later guru" even though alpa-medhasa would have us believe his imaginary speculations. The quote provided that shows Bhaktivinoda's praise of Jagannatha as his "guru" refers to his being Bhaktivinoda's siksa-guru. This is not in dispute. Everyone knows that Jagannatha das Babaji was the siksa-guru of Srila Bhaktivinoda. Unfortunately, Alpa-medhasa would have us believe his speculations that Srila Bhaktivinoda "quietly rejected" his guru and "quietly accepted" a new one. This sort of speculation is inadmissible.

Please remember how this discussion came about. Babhru das posted Bhaktivinoda's guru-lineage to show precedent that there were female gurus at least in Bhaktivinoda's line. Alpa-medhasa thinks that no one should accept Bhaktivinoda's line as genuine because "Bhaktisiddhanta said so" and that Vipin Vihari Goswami is not bonafide. Well, considering the nature of the topic (female diksa-gurus) I think it would be safe to say that no one cares about Alpa-medhasa's point. The fact of the matter is that there is and were female gurus in the Gaudiya line. Everything else is just a childish clinging to some unproved facts. It's safe to say that Alpa-medhasa started this whole affait by denigrating and continuing to denigrate Bhaktivinoda's diksa like. More, he has been joined by several others. I protest against this because I do not like to see any Vaishnava slandered. Certainly Vipin Vihari Goswami was a bona fide Vaishnava since he was specifically chose by Mahaprabhu.

 

 

I applaud you for sharing your personal history and your personal philosophical issues.

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

You don't find the writings of Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja or any other Guru in the Sarasvati lineage acceptable - so where does that leave you? You will have to find your fortune elsewhere. Yours is an unfortunate dilemna to say the least.

 

 

Sorry, but I don't think so. First of all, the explanations provided by those respectable acharyas don't make any sense (what bhagavata? what pancaratra?) and do not take into account the simple fact that parivaras from Mahaprabhu's time have been diksa-only. Why is that? And why a sudden change to siksa? What does that prove?

 

 

You are left with the very real possibility of thinking that Srila Prabhupada is a good man and was successful to an extent, but for real suddha bhakti you will have to go somewhere else. There are some who believe this and you apparently are being influenced by their association. My feeling is that it is most unfortunate for you. I feel very badly for you.

 

 

Thanks very much for your kind concern, but I don't think my opinion necessitates my exit at any state. Can you please clarify what exactly you mean by "outside" ? As far as I know, you have always stated that you are a disciple of Tripurari Maharaja and thus you will not be in ISKCON, so where is the question of "outside?" I am not being influenced by anybody's association; I am simply finding the courage within me to state something that I have known practically from the very beginning of my Gaudiya study; that the Sarasvata lineage is not a successive lineage. What is the big problem with that? It is a fact.

If there is a perfectly rational explanation for why the Sarasvata parampara does not follow the usual traditions of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, then Iw ill accept it. Until then, I am bound by my conscience not to place any undue belief in unproved statements.

 

 

You mentioned the idea that one must be in a parivara that goes back directly to the associates of Mahaprabhu. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati taught his disciples to explain to those who asked to which parivara they belonged that they were in the Bhaktivinoda Parivara. Srila Bhaktivinoda is known as the seventh Goswami for a reason and it was the firm conviction of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta that he was a direct associate of Mahaprabhu.

 

 

I didn't say that one must be in a direct parivara. I said that it has been the tradition from Mahaprabhu's time to initiate disciples directly. There is not a single instance of "siksa initiation" in the Gaudiya lineage until the time of Bhaktisiddhanta. So I would like to know, why the change? What does it prove? What is it meant for?

Interesting that you provide Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's comments in this regard; "Bhaktivinoda parivara." That would mean that the GM/ISKCON would be descended from Vipin Vihari Goswami's line, right? After all, parivara means "family." Since the parivaras are descended from Mahaprabhu, it would be logical to state that GM/ISKCON acharyas are descended from Bhaktivinoda/VVG. Except that Bhaktivinoda didn't initiate Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. By the way, who said that Srila Bhaktivinoda was the Seventh Goswami?

As for being a direct associate of Mahaprabhu, anyone can achieve this. When the sadhaka attains perfection, and if he has worshipped both Krishna and Mahaprabhu, then he will attain two spiritual bodies; one in Vraja and one in Navadvipa. In the Navadvipa siddha-deha, one usually attains the form of a young brahmin boy and takes part in sankirtana-lila (so I've heard). In the Vraja siddha-deha, one attains the form of a young manjari and serves Sri Sri Radha-Krishna. Srila Bhaktivinoda certainly attained this.

 

 

Again, I think it is good that you shared your feelings here - but you are also very much unapproachable at this point and you seem to have made up your mind.

 

 

Please don't feel like that. I am not unapproachable at all and am quite open to hearing other people's views so long as they do not contain invective. After all, we are all trying to be some sort of Vaishnava and iridescent name-calling doesn't satisfy anybody.

 

 

At some point you will have to use your intelligence to reconcile the fact that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was entrusted with the Yoga pitha by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur and was also instructed to institute daivi varnashrama and to spread KC world wide. He set the stage and made the adjustments neccesary for the fulfillment of those orders.

 

 

Exactly. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was instructed to preach about davi-varnasrama by Srila Bhaktivinoda, in spite of the fact that varnasrama-dharma was not observed in the Gaudiya tradition before them. I have no problem with this. In fact, I'm researching it right now. However, what "adjustments" are you referring to? I think the question of initiation is a very important one and should not be adjusted. It is well-known how important initiation is on one's spiritual life. Why has that been adjusted?

As for what you say about Neal Delmonico, I am in full agreement with you on that point. Not only is he extremely scurrilous and offensive, but he does not seem to have any semblance of politeness as well. I have read his e-zone but I do not take much of the things he says very seriously. However, he has raised some very important issues, I think.

 

 

 

Even though you probably won't listen to this or, actually more likely you will find it foolish and intellectual 'boring',

 

 

Please don't misunderstand my statements in the way they were not intended. I was simply stating that the "explanations" that I have been hearing are repetitive with no end in sight, so how will this argument ever end. Isn't it annoying to hear something repeated? Isn't it annoying to hear something repeated? Isn't it annoying to hear something repeated? Isn't it annoying to hear something repeated? Isn't it annoying to hear something repeated?

See what I mean? I don't like repetition. New evidence or something different, sure, but not the same old arguments.

 

 

I want to remind you that there are many lineages and the Gurus representing those lineages have many disciples - but guess what? Most of them are not qualified to pass on KC to others in a substantial way because they have made little progress themselves.

 

 

May I ask who you are talking about, and how do you know they have made little progress?

 

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was against the idea that the form was most important - and that is why he stressed substance over form and why he made the adjustments he did.

 

 

What do you mean specifically by "form" and "substance"? I don't even see how this is even relevant to the diksa issue. If the confidential mantras are passed on from guru to disciple, that is basically the rite of diksa, and if the disciple chants those mantras, he will make spiritual progress by the power of chanting those mantras. What else needs to be done, except perhaps for the disciple to initiate disciples in turn and pass the mantras on? Of course there is much more to spiritual progress such as hearing of hari-katha, chanting, seva, etc, but I am talking about diksa-mantras though.

 

 

For real spiritual life one must be a very qualified disciple - something that is usually overlooked in the external search that many feel is the genuine search for Sri Guru.

 

 

Yes I am in full agreement with you here. This is why the Hari-bhakti-vilasa advises a one-year period (at least) for the guru and disciple to "check out" each other. It is also true that there are unworthy gurus and unworthy disciples who may more or less be in the business of cheating people, but I don't think that is a generalisation that one should apply to everyone who is not affiliated with the Sarasvata parampara. There are genuine spiritual Gaudiya lines out there, believe it or not. Srila Prabhupada's achievements were supremely fantastic not to mention unprecedented. However, it worries me when people use his achievements as "evidence" of his superiority over others. As if Mahaprabhu has not empowered anyone else.

 

Thanks for your kind post. I enjoyed reading it and will look forward to your reply. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[theist]

Gaurasundara,

 

It may be that you alieniated some with some heavy statements on another thread. I don't think that was your intention.

 

I wish I could help more but not being formally initiated in any line what do I know. Although frankly this animosity between the different groups seems rather silly and childish to me. Of course I don't understand the issue at a very deep level.

 

To me the real villians are the pretentious persons from any camps. That can be found in false preachers as well as fake babajis.

 

So often it seems like people are just recycling some old gossip and heresay. Can this really help us find that river of transcendental knowledge?

 

It becomes especially dangerous when we consider the high nature of those who are the subject of such talk."So and so told me he heard from someone that Bhaktisiddhanta was never properly initiated" etc. Or "Did you hear that so and so Baba took an extra long look at some girl on the path to the Yamuna today".

 

If we really want to know who to hear from we should ask Supersoul to guide us. I know you have heard that a thousand times but I can't find a flaw in it or a better method.

 

 

I also find your willingness to consider these points so seriously and at great depth refreshing and encouraging as I believe it bodes well as a sign that this parampara will continue in good hands.

 

I fear the "just believe brother" types greatly. They avoid these difficult internal struggles in favor of parrot like repetition. This attitude will enable us to get along quite nicely in some group or another but when our faith is really put to the test in some way it won't be enough to support us.

 

I would suggest slowing down a bit and really reviewing JNdas' points to you in another post. Consider those points in an open way and I feel you will see the answer there.

 

Hare Krsna

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

I think it is precisely because you do not know Gaudiya siddhanta very well, that is why you are tempted to believe in the explanations from those who do not know it very well.

 

...

 

Probably because, as I have been repeating endlessly, I am not interested in getting into arguments with blind believers who do not know the facts about parampara.

 

...

 

All the other argument is simply to show that the modern-day Sarasvatas are in no position to criticise other people's paramparas when there are enough unexplainable anomalies in their own.

 

...

 

Sorry, but I don't think so. First of all, the explanations provided by those respectable acharyas don't make any sense (what bhagavata? what pancaratra?) and do not take into account the simple fact that parivaras from Mahaprabhu's time have been diksa-only.

 

 

With your solid two years of practicing Krishna consciousness you seem to think a lot of yourself and little of others.

 

Simply because something doesn't make sense to you does not mean it is illogical or incorrect. Trigonometry doesn't make sense to a child in the first grade. Continue studying with humility and everything will become clear.

 

You are carrying too many misconceptions and you assume you know more than you actually do. Don't study like a grasshopper, jumping from one book to the next. Undertake a systematic study of the Gita and Bhagavatam, preferably under a sadhu, and things will become clear.

[gHari]

Alone. I was simply reporting the character of your entire group which you claim comprises 90% of Gaudiyas. You were not singled out among that group of poseurs.

 

However, for presenting such offenses in a public forum like you have done I report that you are indeed much much lower, and that your spiritual life has ended or rather it never began since it has all been mental arrogance and self-aggrandizement since day one. Such offenses are never forgiven by Sri Krsna.

 

It is a disgrace that you use that name and sad picture to represent yourself. The sooner Krsna removes it from my sight the better.

 

I have tasted the pudding and no poseur is going to concoct such lies in my presence. How did they become so arrogant?

 

[gimmegames]

I agree with Gaurasundara.

[Guest guest]

Dear Gaurasundara -

 

I appreciate your candor and honesty. I will certainly agree to put our past behind us because I am a firm believer in progress and that people do change - myself included obviously - otherwise, what hope do we have?

 

I have very little time to post right now so I will make this short for now.

 

The parampara that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta presented as Bhagavat parampara has always been known to be a siksha parampara - the fact that you have recently come to understand that it is not a diksha parampara in the traditional sense doesn't change anything except maybe your perception of it. I must admit that it is confusing for new devotees since parampara literally means 'one after the other' and in GM and Iskcon the tradition follows the pancharatrika tradition even while presenting a siksha parampara. Many devotees aren't aware of all the facts and that leads to confusion.

 

What I mean by substance and form is simply this - there must be actually life within the form, otherwise the form alone is misleading at best. What is the need for Sri Guru if it is just a matter of formality? All the mantras that he/she gives to the disciple are available in written form - so if it is just a matter of chanting the correct mantra - that's available for any and all. I already posted something about this on the 'Urmila' thread - I gave the example of the mantra - Srila Prabhupada said that hearing the maha mantra from an envious person would cause a poisonous effect and used the analogy of milk touched by the lips of a serpent. Sridhara Maharaja mentions that Krsna is his name - but not the external feature - it is not that Krsna is just 'lip deep' in his words - Krsna reveals himself according to his own sweet will - so with the Holy Name - there is form and substance, as is the case with all aspects of spirituality. It depends on the vision and realization of the seer - for proper vision we need guidance from one who has spiritual vision.

 

I think it should be obvious what I meant about many taking initiation but few having the qualification to initiate others - for that, some advancement and genuine standing in bhakti must be there - again it is not a formality. Just because one takes diksha from a qualified Guru doesn't make them automatically qualified to initiate others. The seed is there if one has a genuine connection -but one must advance through the various stages. Only one who has bhava can give it - see?

 

My Guru Maharaja just recently was speaking about this issue somewhat, and in that talk he mentions that initiation is not a single point in time - it is a process and it is not 'complete' until the sadhaka reaches the stage of bhava. I'll listen to the lecture again and see if I can't post more on this, but the point is that initiation takes time and certainly dedication.

 

Sadhaka's who are starting the process are generously called 'devotees' but really the sadhaka is a genuine bhakta when he/she has the awakening of love in his/her heart which is obviously a considerable attainment. Krsna says what? Out of thousands, one is interested, out of them one may become liberated, out of them one may know him in truth. Remember that one of the characteristics of bhakti is that it is rarely attained. So even though so much formality may be there - the substance - suddha bhakti must also be there - that's what I'm talking about.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

 

p.s. - I didn't answer all your questions - you mentioned the 'scholar' and his assertions regarding the controversy of whether or not Srila Bhaktisiddhanta recieved diksha from Gaura kishora dasa babaji in the first post on this thread. I guess I spoke a bit harshly to you and reacted a bit too emotionally to what I perceived you to be saying - I apologize for that. When you posted in bold that the Sarasvati parampara is a fraud I couldn't help but come to the conclusion that you were referring to the spiritual attainment and validity of the lineage. It appears from what you have said here that your issue is that you thought the siksha parampara was being passed off as a diksha parampara and therefore your conclusion is that it is fraudulent. Of course it is not being represented as a diksha parampara, although as I mentioned above, many aren't aware of that and they assume that it is.

 

 

[stonehearted]

As Jahnava-Nitai and Audarya-lila have pointed out, that you haven't been able to make sense of or accept the replies to your queries does not mean they don't make sense or are not authoritative. One thing you may not be taking into account is that those who give those explanations and who accept them aren't just blind followers. Rather, their ability to understand these points, including that the paramaparas given by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and Baladeva Vidyabhushana, for example. are not presented as diksha connections. Another implication that has been made along the way is that because some (many) in such a parampara aren't initiated by the previsous link, they haven't been properly initiated. Not so. We know, for example, that Bhaktivinoda Thakura was initiated, as was Gaura-kishora. The same holds for all members.

 

One misconception common to conditioned souls has been described as "atmavan manyate jagat": seeing others as having the same mentality, flaws and limitations we have. You need to consider that the understanding of parampara demonstrated by BSST, Srila Prabhupada, Srila Sridhar Maharaja and their follwers may grow out of genuine spiritual realization. They all (including, at the risk of appearing arrogant, many of us) have much more practice, much more guru-kripa, behind their assertions than you have. A little humility goes a long way. That said, I don't think it's necessarily the case that your doubts make you inferior; we have all confronted these questions, and we have all gone through sometimes-painful journeys in developing our understanding. Jagat, for example, has been quite candid about his continuing adventures in understanding these things. Whereas he rejected the idea of Bhagavat-parampara at one point, he has since changed his position, perhaps a couple of times. (Forgive me, Jagat, if I mischaracterize what you've written on this. I'm getting ready to sign off to go teach a class, and I'm rishing a little. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me.)

[raga]

 

Whereas he rejected the idea of Bhagavat-parampara at one point, he has since changed his position, perhaps a couple of times. (Forgive me, Jagat, if I mischaracterize what you've written on this. I'm getting ready to sign off to go teach a class, and I'm rishing a little. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me.)

 

 

A fascinating observation. How has he changed his position, and when?

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees,

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but when I read what is written I feel that devotees such as Jahnava Nitai Prabhu are tired of discussing this old topic that has been discussed so many times before...

 

In his book about Srila Saraswati Thakura, Bhakti Pradip Tirtha Maharaj writes:

<ul>

Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami was exceedingly fortunate in breathing an atmosphere of pure devotional surroundings from his cradle. He showed unique aptitude for a pure life of religious devotion and formation of various pious habits and practices from the seventh year of age. At that time he committed to memory the whole of the Gita and could explain it. While a student in Serampur Missionary School, in or about 1884-5, Srila Saraswati Thakur was initiated into Nrisimha Mantra and Sri Harinama by Srila Thakur Bhaktivinode... - Page 1.

 

Since 1895 Srila Saraswati Thakur had been attending the Viswa Vaishnava Raja Sabha then situated in Krishna Sinha Lane (now Beadon Row). In 1901 he took iniation into the greatest Mantras of Gaudiya Vaishnavas from Srila Gaura Kishoredas Babaji Maharaj, the well-known saint of Nabadwip. - Page 3.

 

 

 

Gaurasundara, in case you haven't heard, Sripad Bhakti Pradip Tirtha Maharaj is (was) an initiated disciple of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura. Srila Gaurkishore Babaji told him "Go and take initiation from Bhaktivinode Thakura", and that is what he did.

 

Bhakti Pradip Tirtha Maharaj was intimately connected with Gaurkishore, Bhaktivinode and Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. He received gayatri diksa from Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati in 1910, at the house of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura in Kolkata. Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura sat in the chair and watched, and Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati did the fire yajna and gave the mantras. This is the history of our Saraswat sampradaya.

 

Bhaktivinode, and Saraswati Thakura, are nitya-siddha Vaishnavas. It is an offence against the Holy Name to criticize the devotees who are sincerely preaching the glories of Krishna - and who can deny that Bhaktivinode and Saraswati Thakura have been the agents through whom the Holy Name has spread around the world.

 

-- Muralidhar

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Below is an article by Srila Bhakti Sundar Govinda Dev Goswami Maharaj, the successor of Srila Sridhar Dev Goswami Maharaj.

 

Srila Govinda Maharj was the eldest son of Nitaipada Dasadhikari, of Bamanapara village, a guru in the line of Nityananda Prabhu's succession. The family name, "Dasadhikari", was given to the family by Nityananda Prabhu Himself. But Srila Govinda Maharj went away from that tradition and took initiation from Srila Sridhar Maharaj. Indeed many people from the "traditional" lineages have come to serve in the Gaudiya Mission of Saraswati Thakura.

<hr>

Srila Bhakti Sundar Govinda Dev Goswami Maharaj:

 

Gaurakishor das Babaji Maharaj was extremely renounced man. He never cooked for himself. He begged some rice, madhukari, and put it in a clay pot with some water. After about 12 hours he was taking that rice together with some salt and chili. He spent many days in this way.

 

Sometimes he went to see Bhaktivinod Thakur in Godrumadwip for hearing the Srimad Bhagavatam from him. There he lived in a simple room.

 

Prabhupad Saraswati Thakur also stayed together with Bhaktivinod Thakur some times. Then lastly Bhaktivinod Thakur said to his son, "You need now diksa and Babaji Maharaj is your guru. Then you beg from him diksa."

 

Gaurakisor das Babaji Maharaj stayed in Koladwip, near to Ganges there is still this Dharamsala. There was public latrine and he took one public latrine from the proprietor of the Dharamsala and he was living in that latrine, because he was very renounced mentality and didn't want to meet with others. And latrine's smell is very bad and nobody would go to him and that's why he was staying there. Sometimes he was staying in a straw hut.

 

Anyhow, this way Gaura Kisor das Babaji Maharaj was spending some time here and that time Mayapur was already discovered.

And when Bhaktivinod Thakur said to Prabhupad Saraswati Thakur, "he is your guru", he went to Gaura Kisor das Babaji Maharaj to ask him for initiation.

 

But Babajji Maharaj replied "O Saraswati Thakur you are so learned, you are rich man's son, then I am thinking, I am very poor and not perfect Vaishnava. You try to take initiation from someone else and leave me." But when he saw that Prabhupad was determined to take initiation from him, he said "O.k. I will ask Mahaprabhu." And every time when Saraswati Thakur went to Babaji Maharaj he said, "Oh, I forgot to ask Mahaprabhu." And Prabhupad Saraswati Thakur remembered Narottam Thakur's position with Lokanath das Goswami.

 

Lokanath Das Goswami didn't want to take disciples. He was very renounced type, too much renounced type. But Narottam Thakur wanted to take initiation from him. Prabhupad Saraswati Thakur remembered that situation and he was also very determined to take initiation from Babaji Maharaj. When he expressed every day his wish to Gaurakishor Das Babaji Maharaj he always told, "O I forgot to tell Mahaprabhu", then Prabhupad was thinking, "What is this. I am a good boy and I have some qualification, why he is dishonouring me this way. But still I must take diksa from him." And when Babaji Maharaj saw his determination, he told "Yes, Mahaprabhu told me I shall accept you." Then Babaji Maharaj initiated Prabhupad Saraswati Thakur.

 

Bhaktivinod Thakur spent his last time in Calcutta and Prabhupad Saraswati Thakur also went from time to time to Calcutta. Then Gaurakishor das Babaji Maharaj said to Saraswati Thakur, "Oh, Saraswati Thakur, Calcutta is the place of Kali. You don't go there. There is so much illusion and that place is Kalisthan. You are my disciple, and not to go there that is good." Then Prabhupad Saraswati Thakur said, "Oh Babaji Maharaj, oh Prabhu, now I understand what do you want to say. By your grace I won't be defeated by maya, illusion, I will not be defeated by Kali. And why you are telling that - now it comes in my mind, I shall start my preaching in Calcutta, because there is necessity." After that Prabhupad Saraswati Thakur went to Calcutta for preaching.

 

When Gaurakishor das Babaji Maharaj disappeared that time Prabhupad was brahmachari, but all the sahajiya society, babaji society tried to take Babaji Maharaj's body for their business. He was very famous vaishnava, Siddha mahapurusha. And if they will make his samadhi mandir, then they can earn so much money. And they always wanted to stay with Babaji Maharaj and then some chaos came, who will get Babaji Maharaj's body. And Saraswati Thakur heard news from Kunja Babu, that Babaji Maharaj had disappeared and he came from Mayapur to Koladwip. And there he told to the sahajiyas, "You don't touch Babaji Maharaj's body. He is siddha mahapurusa."

 

But the sahajiyas said, "You are only brahmachari, we are all babajis. We must claim his body. You have no right to claim it." Then Saraswati Thakur replied, "I am the only disciple of Gaura Kishor das Babaji Maharaj, I have right to take his body for samadhi."

 

Then verbally fighting were going on. Then the police officer also came. Lastly Prabhupad Saraswati Thakur said, "You all the babajis are mixing with women, you have no character, you are eating fish, you cannot touch Babaji Maharaj's body. Anyone who will touch his body he will get that reaction. This is my curse. Anyone qualified can touch the body, otherwise not." Then he told, "who not mixed with women last one month he can touch", then 15 days, then 10 days, then 5 days, then he told, "last night", but after hearing all babajis left the place. The police officer was very suprised to see that and he asked Saraswati Thakur, "If they tell lie which way you will prove they didn't mix with women?" Saraswati Thakur said, "Yes, I believe if they will say,' No, I did not mix with woman.' If they have that type of brave character they can touch Babaji Maharaj."

 

And Prabhupad took Babaji Maharaj's body. And the babajis were thinking, when Saraswati Thakur given the samadhi and went back to Mayapur they would take away Babaji Maharaj's body in the night. Then Prabhupad arranged for a few days some guards and went back to Mayapur. And later mother Ganges was disturbed to see the activites of the babajis she changed her course a little and took that samadhi.

 

And when mother Ganges took the samadhi Saraswati Thakur sent some of his disciples and they took some remnants of the body and they made samadhi at hidden Radhakunda in Mayapur. And Prabhupad's realization was that Gaura Kishor das Babaji was an incarnation of Raghunath Das Goswami.

 

[gHari]

We should not be at all surprised to find that the parampara relationships in the designated Bhagavata succession parallel the relationships of those glorious personalities in the spiritual world; the ultimate intricate elegance of madhurya rasa.

 

One has to minimize Krsna greatly in order to mistake an ordinary human to be Him. Be sure not to continue minimizing Him by entertaining even slightly the notion that His great devotees are liars and cheaters. Deal with that flaw that robbed you of ten years. Don't let it ruin the rest. Don't let another mouse like Dr. Demonico make a fool of you again.

 

The mind is not as great as you think. It is time to taste the pudding. Then no one else can lead you away from the truth; all their words will become simply meaningless static.

[Gaurasundara]

Haribol! The problems with my ISP are over, I can now view this forum from home again. For some reason, I was not notified of replies to my recent posts despite that I have enabled that function, so please excuse me if I have replied very late.

 

 

Gaurasundara, It may be that you alieniated some with some heavy statements on another thread. I don't think that was your intention.

 

 

Dear Theist, thank you for your kind comments. Please believe me when I say I never intended to cause any friction. That is why I decided to rejoin this forum with another identity and picture so that I may be a quiet observer and maybe post from time to time. Unfortunately I saw some denigratory statements on the Urmila thread and responded to them, and thus a big bonfire erupted. In retrospect, I guess I can see how my statements seemed harsh and I certainly apologise for that. However, I think that this standard can be equally applied to all and for all.

 

I agree with everythign else you have said in toto, and would just like to comment on this final point:

 

 

I would suggest slowing down a bit and really reviewing JNdas' points to you in another post. Consider those points in an open way and I feel you will see the answer there.

 

 

Thanks. I have seen those points been made dozens of times and on several occasions I think I refuted some of them. Suffice to say, I don't think that these points are an answer to the problem. I think I may comment again on those points (o some of them) but right now I have no plans to do so, because frankly, I'm rather upset of this topic arising again and again. Please take care of yourself.