Perspectives on the Sarasvata parampara

[Gaurasundara]

 

I would never try to argue that this was a diksa-line.

 

 

I don't recall arguing that either. In fact, I specifically stated that this issue is strictly an in-house doctrinal/technical affair for Gaudiyas since the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara is largely different from the Madhva listing. Therefore for all intents and purposes, Madhva opinions may be insightful and appreciable, but are ultimately irrelevant.

 

I believe that Jagatji has written an intere on this very subject.

 

 

The entire matter is somewhat of a mystery. Baladeva was well-versed in the Madhva-tradition. I have often wondered why he would present such a parampara.

 

 

What I find interesting is that Baladeva was actually initiated into the Madhva line. At least that is what I have heard. This is one of the reasons why the Ramanandis were forced to take him seriously. Had he been a fully-fledged "Gaudiya," they would not have given his opinion much weight since they were challenging the very authority of the Gaudiyas. The fact that he was an initiated Madhva gave him some sort of respct and authority inasmuch that the Ramanandis were forced to acknowledge him. Indeed, I beleive that some have commented that the Govinda-bhasya has a certain 'Madhva' style to it.

What I want to know, however, is how does this Madhva initiation correlate with his Gaudiya initiation by Radha-damodara das? Does it count as a re-initiation or what? Did he reject his Madhva guru?

[Gaurasundara]

 

Madhva's paramparA through his former dIksha guru Achyuta Preksha, citing the biography Manimanjari. Is Raga wrong, do you two simply disagree, or did Madhva have two dIksha gurus? If VyAsa also gave dIksha to Madhva, then why did not NArAyaNa PanditAchArya list that succession instead of Achyuta Preksha's?

 

 

Why ask me? Ask Cheap Shot Dasa.

 

Perhaps he will suggest that Madhvacharya "quietly rejected" his guru Achyutapreksa and "quietly accepted" Vyasadeva, because Madhvacharya was a very cultured acharya?

[Gaurasundara]

 

The key point here is that the teachings of the Madhva line and other lines mentioned above do not depend on the divinity of the founder. Whereas it seems the traditional Gaudiya lines base their root arguments on the fact that Mahaprabhu is Krishna Himself so they don't need to conform to any other principle.

 

 

As a Gaudiya Vaishnava, are you disagreeing with this point, that Mahaprabhu is Krishna Himself, yet one should "conform" to some "other principles" that Mahaprabhu did not establish?

 

Interesting. And just think if JNDas's initial contact was with the traditional Gaudiyas, he would be arguing against the Sarasvata-parampara.

 

 

Actually it isn't a strawman, nor directed to you. Someone here claims there never was a parampara based on Siksha in the history of the Vedic culture. Yet Krishna states he has come to reestablish the "parampara", and He does so by giving Arjuna Siksha. If you don't see the connection and still think it is a strawman argument, then theres not much I can do.

 

 

Of course it is a strawman, and an exceptionally weak one too. Can I remind you that we are discussing the diksa connections that have been in vogue since Mahaprabhu's time? Was Arjuna a Gaudiya Vaishnava? Did Arjuna receive any knowledge about raganuga-bhakti? Was Arjuna advised to chant 16 rounds and observe the four regs? What about mangala-arati?

 

Get my point? If you don't, then there is certainly nothing more we can do. You have been repeating yourself endlessly for at least a year and it is unlikely that you will change.

 

 

I agree that diksha paramparas exist, siksha paramparas exist, and even mixed diksha-siksha paramparas also exist.

 

 

I wonder if you even know the difference (or similarity) of diksa and siksa as defined in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition?

 

 

Personally I am happy that there are unbroken disciplic lines from Mahaprabhu.

 

 

It's wonderful to know that they have your approval and, hopefully, blessings.

[Gaurasundara]

 

I think it is obvious why other schools would look down on a philosophy that depends on the divinity of the founder. One can just as well use the same arguments to establish Sai Baba's teachings as correct. Vedantic traditions on the other hand measure their teachings against the prasthana-traya, not the divinity of their founder, and are thus able to be scrutinized independent of the particular tradition. Perhaps traditional Gaudiya schools don't see themselves as Vedantic traditions and aren't interested in being identified as such? That is the impression that I get.

 

 

This is just strictly my view and no one else's.

 

Did it ever occur to you that "traditional" Gaudiyas are highly interested in developing a personal relationship with Krishna and joining Him in His eternal pastimes, rather than stick around in the material world debating Vedanta like other veda-vada-rathas?

 

I find it highly interesting that Gaudiya sampradaya got by for such a long time by simply relying on the Srimad-bhagavatam as the natural commentary on Vedanta, whereas they were later forced to pen a commentary on Vedanta by Baladeva? In my view, I don't think there is much to gain from serious Vedanta study except to argue with geeks. There are those who claim that a sampradaya is defined by its allegiance to sastra (fair enough) and is also defined by its commentary on Vedanta-sutra. Such individuals are obviously unaware that Mahaprabhu came with a great unique gift that was never given given before at any time. Time spent in trying to attain this great gift is time well spent, I say.

[Gaurasundara]

 

Do you have the spiritual vision to know for sure that Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur is outside the mainsteam tradition of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Or then maybe the "mainstream tradition" itself is outside the spiritual sampradaya of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

 

Interesting view. Apparently you are using the standard of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura to define an entire tradition. Is that bona-fide, I ask you?

 

 

The historical and scriptural evidence presented by JNDas and others on these pages is clearly showing that a spiritual line of Parampara can come down through a succession of Spiritual Masters who are connected by siksa, not diksa.

 

 

As far as I can see, he is seeking evidence of other sampradayas to back up his idea of the Sarasvata-siksa-parampara. We are talking of Gaudiya Vaishnavism here, not other traditions. The examples of Krishna-Arjuna and Ramanuja-Yamunacharya are extremely weak. Plus I have just shown that Ramanuja's parampara is traced by diksa no matter what other may say. And that came from a well-known Sri Vaishnava.

 

 

So, if critics are speaking out against this type of spiritual succession then maybe we might say we consider those critics to be opponents of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.

 

 

Again, interesting view that is seemingly now base don both the spiritual status of Bhaktivinoda Thakura as well as a mish-mash of gurus lumped together in a non-sequential parampara. Well, first, no one is questioning Srila Bhaktivinoda's status. He was a realized acharya. However, as I have been showing on other threads, he is an extremely controversial figure in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. No matter how much one attempts to gloss it over, the fact remains that Bhaktivinoda presented doctrines that are against the teachings of the Gosvamis upon first glace. Why he did that, I do not know and it is the subject of my current research. However, because of the controversial nature of his teachings, it may not be a good idea to rely on him as a pivotal figure in your understanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

[Guest guest]

From Muralidhar das

About a year ago, I received the article below from Bhakti Vikasha Swami, of ISKCON.

 

His letter to me was rather long, but I am reproducing it in full here, including his footnote that lists Delmonico's criticisms of Prabhupada Srila Saraswati Thakur. For anyone who wants to get a better view of the background of this matter, this article is a good read.

 

I will get the quotes from the books of the Gaudiya Math of the 1920's later tonight, and post them.

 

<hr>

 

REPLIES TO DELMONICO

A certain Nitai dasa once served Srila Prabhupada as a Sanskrit assistant but offended Srila Prabhupada so badly (by asking his blessings to find "a bona fide spiritual master") as to become the only one of his disciples to suffer public rejection (See conversation quoted below). Srila Prabhupada thenceforth stated in a circular to the entire GBC: "Please let it be known that Nitai has become a venomous serpent. Be careful of him." Nitai soon found a "better guru" but soon left him also to return to America. He now hosts a website in his secular name of Neal Delmonico, wherein he describes himself as an unemployed scholar of Indic religion and philosophy, and has taken to attacking the very Gaudiya Vaisnava lineage he was previously initiated into, namely that of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his disciplic descendants.

Although I received Delmonico's list of accusations in an unsolicited email of April 2002, I didn't take them very seriously, considering that the spiritual qualifications and achievements of those he attacked were so clearly and monumentally greater than his own, that only persons of exceedingly poor discrimination could be influenced by Delmonico. Any neutral and somewhat sane observer who measures what Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati has done for the world against what Delmonico has done, and the character and obvious spiritual realization of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati against that of Delmonico, must surely conclude that Delmonico is not at all in a position to criticize Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, and is indeed taking a grave risk in doing so. Even without understanding the intricacies of various arguments offered, persons of balanced discrimination should immediately understand that if they have to choose between the position of Delmonico (and those he professes to defend) and that of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, they are spiritually safer in choosing the latter. Unfortunately, it seems that those indiscriminate enough to be swayed by Delmonico's poor taste is prevalent enough to warrant at least some reply; thus my response below, which does not examine Delmonico's points in great detail but is just to indicate that he is not as axiomatically correct as he avers (See below Delmonico's accusatory essay, to which this essay is a reply).

Before examining Delmonico's accusations against Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, it should be noted that Delmonico has no pretensions to any spiritual standing. As he states on his website:

"I am a skeptic… Over the years I have seen my attitude towards the Vaisnava tradition and towards religion in general change. I now see religion as mostly a form of fantasy-fulfillment, explainable better in terms of human need rather than divine revelation. Religious fantasies are for the most part harmless, but some times they become so powerful and intertwined with reality that they become like a sickness. This is when religion becomes very dangerous. …religious beliefs remain fantasy until proven otherwise and the standard of proof here is empirical."

Presuming that most readers targetted by Delmonico's diatribe are persons interested in practical cultivation of Krsna consciousness, they should note that Delmonico has nothing to offer spiritually. He has no spiritual advice other than to declare religion as a potentially dangerous form of fantasy. He is a self-declared empiricist and a skeptic, not a man of God. Although previously a practitioner of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, about which he gained considerable yet clearly superficial knowledge, he later chose to teach it as a paid servant of beef-eating materialists, and lost faith in the ideal of love of God enshrined in the bhakti movement.

Empiricly speaking, empiricist Delmonico's fascination with what he considers fantasy appears imbalanced. It also makes him slippery to contend with, as he presents arguments as if he were a votary of a certain school of religion, yet ultimately doesn't believe in what he pleads for. In other words, he is insincere, and his attacks on Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his followers appear to be motivated by sheer envy rather than a desire to establish something better.

Clearly, although Delmonico's lucubrations might interest mundane scholars, they are hardly to be considered reliable by persons interested in the genuine spiritual experience offered by Lord Caitanya and His followers. For as repeatedly emphasized in sastra, the supposedly rational intellect cannot approach the supramundane. Thus worldly academicians, despite their scrupulous standards of research and exegesis and laboriously acquired accumulation of facts and figures, are by their very outlook disqualified from inner understanding of Vaisnavas and Vaisnavism. Such personalities as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati simply cannot be understood by the mundane senses or intellect.

As Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati himself pointed out:

The empiric historian, with his geographical and chronological apparatus of observation, can have really no proper idea of the grotesque anomaly that he unconsciously perpetrates by his pedantic effort to gauze (sic) the absolute by the standard supplied to her victim by His deluding energy in the form of the mundane categories that can only limit and define them, whereas the function to be performed is to get rid of the necessity to do either. The empiric consciousness is not in the absolute consciousness at all. It can only bungle and commit a deliberate blunder by attempting to limit and define the immeasurable under the pleas of a necessity that need not be supposed to exist at all. By the empiric attitude one is led to launch out on the quest of the Absolute Truth with the resources of admittedly utter ignorance. This foolhardiness must be made to cease. The method of submissive inquiry enjoined by the scriptures should be substituted after being properly learnt by those who have themselves attained to the right knowledge of the same by the right method of submission. (From "The Real Nature of Sree Krishna.")

Great acaryas appearing in this world may in many ways appear to be ordinary men, for they walk, talk, eat, travel here and there, experience sickness, and in many other ways seem like anyone else. Yet the consciousness of pure devotees is eternally far above that of conditioned souls. Whereas unenlightened persons remain ever enmeshed in maya, liberated souls are perpetually immersed in intense love for Krsna. Their purpose in coming here is to bring others back to that world which they keenly hanker for in separation at every moment. By their causeless divine mercy, they infuse devotion into the hearts of those who have neglected Krsna since time immemorial.

For these reasons one can comprehend the Lord and His devotees not simply by reviewing exoteric historical details but rather from the esoteric spiritual platform of appreciating the Lord's relationships with His devotees. The character and activities of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati will remain ever incomprehensible to persons who have not entered into the spirit of his teachings, to whom he may seem dogmatic and intolerant. Yet mature students of Vaisnava theology need little warning that the actions, moods, and emotions of great devotees must not be confused with their mundane equivalents, and that the anger, disappointment, and other apparently less desirable traits of maha-bhagavatas are as much manifestations of their pure attachment to Krsna as qualities considered exclusively adorable by persons ignorant of transcendental reality. Fools are thus enjoined to not ascribe imperfection to that beyond their comprehension.

yanra citte krsna-prema karaye udaya

tanra vakya, kriya, mudra vijneha na bujhaya

Even the most learned man cannot understand the words, activities, and symptoms of a person situated in love of Godhead. (Cc Madhya 23.39)

It is ironic that without the mercy of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his followers, Delmonico and other self-appointed spokesmen of the old Vaisnava oligarchy would never have heard of Krsna at all, other than perhaps via the academic system which they flopped into after failing in attempts to practice a "higher,more authorized" process of bhakti. These ingrates foolishly dare to accuse Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his disciples of misleading and cheating others and being materially motivated-as if they themselves were more saintly, learned, and capable of giving guidance. Yet despite having acquired considerable book knowledge, most of these hellish pedagogues have not been able even to maintain the basic regulative principles of devotional service, and are hence hardly in a position to criticize personages almost universally recognized, except by themselves, as empowered acaryas.

For clearly, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's achievements could not have been possible unless he was imbued with krsna-sakti, the Supreme Lord's special potency for spreading Krsna consciousness. As stated in Caitanya-caritamrta:

kali-kalera dharma--krsna-nama-sankirtana

krsna-sakti vina nahe tara pravartana

The fundamental religious system in the Age of Kali is the chanting of the holy name of Krsna. Unless empowered by Krsna, one cannot propagate the sankirtana movement. (Cc Antya 7.11)

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's unprecedented accomplishments in spreading the message of Lord Caitanya-his profuse writing and publishing, establishment of numerous temples and monasteries, convincing of thousands to radically alter their lives in serious pursuit of spiritual values; the high quality of religious practice which he gave, his revival of a Gaudiya tradition almost lost in sensuality and irrelevance to a rapidly changing world; his natural indifference to sense gratification, forceful proclamation of truth without regard for cheap popularity, and the philosophical depth and realization which he communicated-clearly establish him as an extraordinarily empowered transcendental personality. To pronounce him an offender to Vaisnavas, not properly initiated, or mistaken in his methods or teachings is flagrantly inconsistent with his superlative achievements. As stated in Caitanya-caritamrta: Lord Caitanya's divinity is clear from His uncommon deeds and Krsna conscious realization; yet faithless persons do not see what is clearly evident, just as owls do not see the sunlight (See Cc Adi 3.85-86).

The biographies of Caitanya Mahaprabhu explicitly declare the Lord's desire that His name be preached all over the world, but myopically traditional Vaisnavas are not interested in this, nor have they any inclination or clue as to how it might transpire, remaining apparently blind to the fact that it is actually happening all around them, and that whatever prominence they may have acquired is merely a spinoff of the global diffusion of bhakti. They have nothing to say about this transcendental phenomenon, except to criticize devotees favored by Lord Caitanya to fulfill His wishes. Undoubtedly only a person with no true connection with Mahaprabhu would fault great personages engaged in widespread preaching of His name and message, for a true follower should be delighted at the wonderful perfusion of His glories throughout the planet.

Those self-appointed spokesmen of the "traditional school," who as either born or converted mlecchas could never have been accepted as disciples by strictly traditional caste conscious brahmanas and Vaisnavas, loudly tout brahmanism by birth-a position utterly meaningless in today's world, wherein the family name is usually the only difference between supposed brahmanas and the plebian masses they presume themselves superior to.

These unreasonable faultfinders profusely quote sastra without comprehending that since sastra gives innumerable varied injunctions applicable to different times, places, and circumstances, and that because no one is able to follow everything in sastra, nor even in Hari-bhakti-vilasa (certainly Delmonico does not do so), it is the duty and prerogative of an acarya to select those instructions suitable for the specific situation in which he has appeared; thus his teachings are to be understood according to the context in which he ministers. Particularly, his absolute teachings should not be confused with his functional ones, and as demonstrated throughout sastra, lower principles may be adjusted or foresworn to facilitate higher principles-basic points that the scholarly critics wholly fail to grasp.

Like acaryas Ramanuja and Madhva, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was a revolutionary with the task of reestablishing a nearly dead or forgotten religion. Although their messages appeared to be new, each presented his doctrine so powerfully that it came to be accepted even during his lifetime. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati appeared at a time of increasing materialism and impiety. Gaudiya Vaisnava society was almost wholly aberrant, to the extent that it was common even for its leaders-putative sadhus and gurus-to indulge in illicit sex and other vices (This is recorded in annals of the time, such as the writings of Bhaktivinoda Thakura; the Britisher Melville Kennedy documented in some detail the appalling state of Gaudiya Vaisnavism in the early twentieth century).

Pretense of spiritual advancement by persons of base character was so much the norm that aspirants for bhakti were almost certain to be misled by hypocrites posing as spiritual guides. Or even if somewhat serious newcomers were fortunate to attain good association, most were unqualified to avail of it. For instance, several aspiring devotees associating with Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji adopted his dress and attempted to follow his lifestyle. However, for practically all novices it was unviable to immediately come to the stage of a maha-bhagavata, and Babaji Maharaja rejected those who although unfit tried to do so. Unfortunately for such neophytes, there was no system or guidance for gradually advancing and overcoming anarthas. Their only options were to become an imitative babaji or a Vaisnava householder, in either case under the skewed, or at best inept, tutelage of an unqualified guru.

Perceiving that Gaudiya Vaisnavism as practiced during the past four hundred years was no longer practicable, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati divorced himself from its false proponents and introduced a new approach and social order sufficiently different as to be clearly distinguishable from the former. He not only revived the true spirit of Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mission, but inaugurated a method by which it could again be propagated to the masses. Previously Bhaktivinoda Thakura had uncovered the authentic Krsna consciousness movement preserved by a few reclusive maha-bhagavata babajis. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati now transferred this elixir of Krsna consciousness into a new container. He transformed religious practices suitable only for rare maha-bhagavatas into a pragmatic system on the madhyama-adhikari platform, thus creating an active preaching mission directed toward all people, regardless of class, caste, or cultural level. To effect such a transposition he necessarily had to make drastic reforms, but the result was an obvious success. Revolution literally means "to come back to the original point," and that indeed was Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's motto: "Back to home, back to Godhead."

To turn to Delmonico's specific accusations against Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, as stated in his essay given below (which although distasteful need be read to understand my replies). Delmonico states: "Sri Kisori Mohana Gosvami and Sri Kisori Das Babaji witnessed that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, when asked by Siddha Sri Ramakrsna das Pandit Baba in the early 1930s, declared that he was initiated in a dream." Delmonico then goes on to explain why such initiation is bogus. But Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati never told such a thing to his followers and indeed upheld an entirely different version of his initiation. As such one of these two versions of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's initiation may be taken as a fabrication. It is reasonable to accept the account consistently given by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's followers rather than that proffered by Delmonico.

Delmonico later asks, "Why do all Gaudiya Matha-chronicles give different dates and places of Bhaktisiddhanta's supposed initiation, some saying that he received Nrsimha mantra, as if Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji was a worshipper of Nrsimha?" I have not seen any Gaudiya Matha-chronicles that state that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati received Nrsimha mantra from Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji. It is well known that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati received Nrsimha mantra from Bhaktivinoda Thakura. I am also not aware of different dates and places being given for Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's initiation. The biographies concur that it was 1900 in Navadvipa. I have not seen an exact spot and date stated; but even if they are, and contradictorily so, apparent discrepancies in details do not necessarily invalidate a story, for details may have become lost or confused in course of time. Early followers of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, such as Bhakti Pradipa Tirtha Maharaja, have also recorded their personal witnessing the guru-disciple relationship between Srila Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, which thus even by empirical analysis appears undeniable.

Delmonico contends that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's acceptance of sannyasa from a photo of Srila Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, his donning of a brahmana's thread, and his adoption of saffron rather than white cloth, all contravene sastra. This may be superficially so, but are to be understood as adjustments that serve the highest principles of sastra. Lord Caitanya superficially took sannyasa from a Mayavadi, and that He would sometimes in humility introduce Himself as a Mayavadi sannyasi is sometimes cited by foolish commentators that the Lord was indeed a Mayavadi. Such mistaken acceptance of the external manifestation of an activity of a great acarya, without understanding the essential reasons for his choosing to adopt a particular mode of behavior, typifies mundane scholars who are blind to the beneficial effects thus produced. Such an assumption is also characteristic of the general superficiality of these smarta-like "diksa lines." By the way, according to his biographers Sripad Ramanujacarya took sannyasa "by himself."

Delmonico himself gives the example of a Vaisnava guru who wore burlap (presumably referring to Tinkori Baba, another guru who Delmonico went to and again left) which is certainly not white. If according to Delmonico burlap is acceptable, then why not saffron?(Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati has in his commentary on Cc Antya 13.61, rakta-vastra 'vaisnavera' parite na yuyaya, explained why servants of Vaisnavas accept sannyasa and the saffron cloth that goes with it.) By criticising wearing of non-white-cloth as non-sastric and therefore bogus, yet deigning to allow Tinkori Baba's donning of burlap, Delmonico torpedoes all his subsequent arguments against Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and others who he accuses of not following sastra. This discrepancy alone renders his whole thesis inconsistent and therefore useless.

Just for the elucidation of nitpickers: typical babaji dress in Vraja is soiled offwhite brown or gray, not pure white.

Delmonico: "A kaupina is given during the ceremony of sannyasa for a lifelong vow of celibacy."

That kaupins are given to sannyasis is no bar on others wearing them. Traditionally, kaupins are also given to new brahmacaris at upanayanam. And even today not only sadhus but also many householders in India wear them.

Delmonico: "Shaving the head is also only for sannyasis and not for others."

Wrong again, Professor. Shaving the head is enjoined for householders also, at least on the death of a close relative and on visiting holy places. As you are defending the babajis, most of whom have shaved heads, please go tell them not to as they are not sannyasis.

Delmonico: "Gaurakisora was initiated in the Advaita parivara. Why did Bhaktisiddhanta not wear his guru's tilaka if he was really his disciple?" Apart that Srila Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji as an avadhut was reputed not to wear tilaka, certainly Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati wanted to distance himself from these parivaras, who promoted guruship by birth alone-a misconception that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati fought against throughout his life. As such there is no harm if he introduced a slightly different form of tilaka, as sastra only gives general indications of how tilaka should be applied and there is no stipulation that it must be of particular form or shape other than two vertical lines and a mark resembling a tulasi leaf. The proliferation of tilaka designs came after Sanatana Goswami compiled Hari-bhakti-vilasa and there is no record of how exactly Sanatana or other of the six Goswamis applied tilaka. Various tilaka designs were introduced by different Vaisnava acaryas at different times and there is no harm if Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati as a Vaisnava acarya also introduced a different design. Even if his disciples did not use a well defined form of tilaka, there is no contradiction of sastra therein.

Delmonico: "The guru-parampara is placed in the wrong order on Iskcon-altars. The guru is seated on the disciple's right side at the time of initiation and remains there eternally. On Iskcon-altars the guru is on the left of the disciple. The latest guru should be to the right and the earliest guru leftmost." There is only convention but not sastric injunction governing the placing of pictures on altars. Certainly if Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada had pictures put on altars in that way, he knew what he was doing better than Delmonico, who never sat at the feet of any guru for very long.

Delmonico states: "Most of Bhaktivedanta's followers are not qualified brahmanas... what to speak of knowing Sanskrit, the men don't even know Hindi or Bengali, or even what the weather is like in India." I beg to inform Professor Delmonico that nowhere does sastra state that knowledge of meteorology, or even of Bengali, Hindi or Sanskrit, are prerequisites for brahmana-hood. And even if they were, still many "born brahmanas" particularly in South India are quite ignorant of Hindi, Bengali, or Sanskrit.

If at all there are to be brahmanas in the world then Delmonico's desire that they be "born brahmanas" is not the way. It's probably quite a few years since Delmonico was in India; if he were to return now he would find the weather the same but society quite changed. The old brahmanism is all but dead and Vaisnavas of Western extraction are widely accepted as brahmanas, sannyasis, and gurus. Even many persons born in brahmana families are today disciples of Western-born ISKCON gurus.

However I have some empathy with Delmonico's analysis that most Western brahmana initiates lack basic sadacara governing cleanliness, chastity, etc.-which is certainly shameful and in need of rectification. We may thank Professor Delmonico for his barbs in this regard and take them as a spur to improve. We may also thank him for personifying what he criticizes so well; by his personal example he has shown us some very dangerous pitfalls that we can now avoid.

However, sastra states and practical experience reveals that by proper training all classes of people can become true brahmanas by character and behavior and indeed there are already some good examples of this in the West. In the modern world it certainly is difficult to train people in sadacar, which is now practically lost even in India due to its present rampant materialism, but nevertheless by Krsna's grace education of devotees is improving in the present phase of ISKCON's pioneering work.

It would be nice if the less qualified sudra (i.e. out of work hireling) Delmonico could give up his envious attitude and join this educational attempt, thus putting his considerable book knowledge to good use and becoming an actual practicing brahmana instead of merely a Sanskrit scholar.

Delmonico proffers several distortions of truth and spurious arguments that beg the question and raise serious doubts about his status as a scholar or even as a clear thinking person. For instance he states, "Introducing varnasrama dharma, which is an institution of karma-yoga, is a namaparadha - dharma-vrata-tyaga-hutadi-sarva-subhakriyasamyam: To consider Hari Nama equal to any auspicious activity like (varnasrama) dharma, vows (sannyasa), tyaga and sacrifices." But as Delmonico must surely know, neither Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati or any of his subsequent followers have claimed that varnashram dharma is equal to chanting the holy names.

Nor as Delmonico infers was Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati intrinsically against calling householders "Goswami," nor even per se against family succession. It was the overwhelming misuse of these practices that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati stood against.

Most of the parivars are not direct seminal descendants of their supposed founders, and even if they were, atma vai jayate putrah does not mean that a son is automatically as worshipable as an exalted father. For instance in Caitanya Caritamrta, Krsnadas Kaviraja Goswami rejected several sons of Advaita Acarya as "useless." If atma vai jayate putrah were universally applicable, then all men would be as worshipable as Lord Brahma.

Delmonico: "A Vaisnava tyagi is not called sannyasi. In India a mayavadi is called sannyasi."

But Vaisnavas may also be sannyasis, as in the Sri and Madhva sampradayas, as also Lord Caitanya and His sannyasi associates.

Delmonico: "Sri Jiva Gosvami sees a difference between a sannyasi and a Vaisnava-nivrtta (tyagi): sisyan naivanubadhniyad ityadiko yadyapi sannyasa-dharmas tathapi nivrttanam api bhaktanam upayujyata iti bhavah-Just as it is wrong for a sannyasi to take too many disciples, so it counts also for renounced bhaktas." It is Delmonico's interpretation that Vaisnava-nivrtta means tyagi for here Jiva Goswami does not mention the word tyagi.

Delmonico's questionable scholarship is further reflected in his quoting Advaita Prakash as if authoritative, when its authenticity is hardly . It appears that Delmonico is so extremely biased that under the cover of an erudite veneer he is deliberately misrepresenting truth so as to bewilder devotees of little knowledge and tender faith.

But nonetheless if Delmonico's quote from Advaita Prakash is to be accepted-"The power of saintly association is so endless that even when one pretentiously dresses as a saint, one will attain liberation"-then even if he considers Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his followers bogus, then this quote is applicable to them also, and persons associating with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his followers will also attain liberation (although of course Gaudiya Vaisnavas do not aspire for liberation).

Delmonico: "Saying that Sukracarya, the guru of the demons, refers to the 'caste Gosvamis', (sukra meaning sperm), is not only very offensive but also hypocritical, because Sri Bhaktivinoda Thakura is only famous due to glorification by his own son Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati."

Appallingly poor logic. The fame or otherwise of Bhaktivinoda Thakura has no relationship to caste Goswamis being compared to Sukracarya. And it is inaccurate to state that Bhaktivinoda Thakura is only famous due to glorification by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, for Bhaktivinoda Thakura was not, as Delmonico implies, insignificant; he was highly respected by his contemporaries, and his tremendous devotional legacy certainly deserves to be made more widely known.

And yes, Professor Delmonico, we know that babajis aren't sahajiyas in the usual coinage of the term, but Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati chose to use this word to generically denote the whole melange of specious Vaisnava sects, who he perceived as being possessed of the basic error of practicing bhakti for their own, rather than for Krsna's, gratification. This is what Srila Prabhupada also referred to generally as "the sahajiya tendency." Both acaryas used the term in this much more practical sense, and both achieved the most practical results.

Delmonico: "Deviating from the sastras is often apologised for with the argument: 'Yes, Prabhupada/ Bhaktisiddhanta was a pure devotee, therefore he was empowered to introduce new injunctions.'" This is another non-argument, for neither Srila Prabhupada nor his Guru Maharaja professed to deviate from sastra.

Delmonico: "Some say: 'Well, all that scriptural evidence is very nice, but Prabhupada is beyond that. He is empowered by Krsna Himself, you can see that in these 208 temples in 184 countries, 25.000 followers, etc. etc.' The answer lies in the well-known saying: 'Religion without (scriptural) philosophy is sentimentalism and/or fanaticism.' Quantity does not prove quality. Rajneesh has millions of followers, many more than Prabhupada, but does that make him an 'empowered' pure devotee?"

Another tiresome non-argument. No one has ever claimed that Srila Prabhupada is beyond scriptural evidence, although it is accepted that an empowered acarya can adjust or even ignore lesser injunctions so as to fulfill higher injunctions. The whole purpose of sastra is to awaken conditioned souls to Krsna consciousness, and to do so all over the world necessitates breaking sastric rules such as those forbidding travel beyond India, or proscribing taking even water from a sinful person. By understanding the purpose of sastra (see Gita 2.46) Srila Prabhupada was able to establish the principles of sastra, and it is most illogical and malicious to compare his achievement, of convincing thousands of people to take to a clean life of devotional service, with the asastric and amoral popularism of Rajneesh.

Delmonico's quoting yah sastravidhim utsrjya is hypocritical inasmuch as he himself professedly has no faith in sastra and considers religion a fantasy.

Delmonico: "Throughout this essay it is shown that the followers of Bhaktisiddhanta distribute namaparadha." All that has been shown is that Delmonico knows a few verses, has acquired a jumble of facts and misinformation about Vaisnava history, and has a remarkably poor sense of logic and an envious mentality by which he proffers some unsupported, thinly supported, or mendaciously supported assertations in an attempt to discredit Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his followers.

Delmonico attacks the concept of bhagavata-parampara, which has been elaborately defended by other disciplic descendants of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati; thus there is no need to belabor the point here. As in considering all these arguments, it ultimately comes down to who one wants to accept as an authority. Personally I consider that anyone defended by such a spiritual bankrupt as Delmonico is ipso facto suspect; his spiritual paucity similarly tends to lend credence to those he attacks.

Although Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his followers offer profuse sastric justification for all their tenets, Delmonico accuses them as deviating from sastra. But what is perceived as being in accord with or contradiction to scripture rests mostly on individual acceptance or rejection of various interpretations or explanations offered. By nature, scriptural debate is practically endless ("tarko 'pratistha . . .," etc.), so the real truth is that which mahajanas advocate. This is really is the crux of the matter and brings us full circle: who should we accept, agnostic Delmonico or empowered acaryas Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and Srila Prabhupada?

Although sastric evidence is required in Krsna consciousness, it is ultimately a matter of the heart, not merely the head. Persons with a predominantly intellectual approach cannot really take it to heart, and usually get misled by a swollen head. Krsna consciousness is actually very simple for those who are simply interested in Krsna consciousness. Otherwise, it can get more complicated than can be imagined. Therefore although I have made concise replies to Delmonico's accusations, I don't intend to get into prolonged discussion about them. There are more important things to do then endlessly haggle with useless people.

 

SRILA PRABHUPADA ON SERPENT NITAI

Devotee: He asks how many pages. Yogananda asks how many... Because they say that you sent a newsletter to all the GBCs. He asks how many pages was the newsletter. And I said just two lines.

Prabhupada: Newspaper?

Hari-sauri: Newsletter to the GBC.

Prabhupada: What is that newsletter?

Hari-sauri: You said, "Please be informed that Nitai has become a venomous serpent."

Prabhupada: So this has been sent? (laughs)

Hari-sauri: Yes, to the GBC.

Devotee: Yogananda asked how many pages, when he heard about the newsletter. He thought that you spoke so long about that. And I just said, "Just two lines." But they never asked me what the letter said.

Prabhupada: Yes, two lines is sufficient.

Dhananjaya: Punar musaka bhava. Punar musaka bhava.

Prabhupada: Yes. This is exactly the same case. Punar musaka bhava, you know the whole story? A musaka, a mouse, was made a tiger, and the tiger wanted to eat the saintly person who made him. First of all he was mouse. So he came to the saintly person. "Sir, I am troubled. Give me some benediction.What do you want?Now, the cat always chases.All right, you become cat so that you'll not be attacked." Then after some time he came. "I am being chased by the dog.All right, you become a dog." From cat to dog, from mouse to... Then again he came. "Still, they are chasing me. Fox." And then in this way, and ultimately he made a tiger. And after becoming a tiger, he began to look, staring on the... "What do you mean by this?I shall eat you.Oh? You become again a mouse." (laughter) Again he became mouse. That's all.

Hari-sauri: The perfect example.

Devotee: Now he looks like dirty. You know, like brown. The dhoti's not white. It's like brownish.

Prabhupada: He harassed. "He has not increased my..." Hearing and hearing, he wants to go. So why not, if he found some real disciplic succession, some babaji, why he did not remain there? He is criticizing that our is not in the proper succession. So why he did not remain where he found the proper succession? Why he's sometimes in Vrndavana, sometimes Delhi, sometimes here. Why he is loitering? Crazy. Unfortunate. Unnecessarily picking out some trouble.

Hari-sauri: Faultfinding.

Prabhupada: The babajis, they are against anything preaching. They are very, very much against preaching. So I am preaching. Babajis, the Mayavadi sannyasis, and all of them, their idea is that I am ruining this bhajana and Hindu dharma. This is the propaganda. What I am writing, they are all wrong. And they are making... And they try to poison my disciples as far as possible so that the whole institution may be poisoned and break. This is their propaganda.

Hari-sauri: That was one thing that Nitai put in his letter, that the teachings of ISKCON are completely opposite or contradictory to what is actually in the sastra.

Prabhupada: Now he has become tiger. He wants to kill that philosophy. When he did not know anything he came to us. Now he has become learned, he wants to criticize. The same philosophy. "You have made me tiger, now I can see you are my eatable." (laughs) He could not find out any other eatable. "I shall eat you." The rascal. What can be done? (end)

(Room Conversation -- October 31, 1976, Vrndavana)

DELMONICO'S ACCUSATIONS

Why Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Never Received Initiation from Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji

1 ) Sri Kisori Mohana Gosvami and Sri Kisori Das Babaji witnessed that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, when asked by Siddha Sri Ramakrsna das Pandit Baba in the early 1930s, declared that he was initiated in a dream. Based on abhava pramana (evidence based on absence of counter evidence) I might as well claim that I received a dream-initiation from Sri Rupa Gosvami. Who can confirm or deny it? In this way the whole principle of initiation is undermined and made into a laughing stock. In Sri Isana Nagara's Advaita Prakasa (8.118-122) it is described how Sita-devi, the consort of Advaita Prabhu, received initiation in a dream from Srila Madhavendra Puri, but that Advaita Prabhu still found it necessary to give her a concrete, audible initiation.

sita kohe bahu bhagye toma painu dekha dehatma sodhana koro diya mantra diksa tabe puri sitare krsna mantra dila jagi sita mata kohe kiba camatkare svapnavese puriraja mantra dila more acarye kohila sita sarva vivarana tiho kohe bhagye tuya khandila bandhana prabhu sei mantra puna vidhi anusare subha ksane samarpila sva bharya sita re

"Sita devi told Madhavendra Puri: "I am very fortunate to meet you. Please sanctify my body and soul by giving me mantra initiation." Then Madhavendra Puri gave Sita krsna-mantra after which he vanished. When mother Sita awoke, she said: "How amazing! Madhavendra Puriraja gave me mantra in a visionary dream!" Sita devi told everything to Advaita Acarya, who said: "You are so fortunate that now all your bondage is destroyed." According to the rules, and on an auspicious moment, Advaita Prabhu then gave His wife Sita that mantra again."

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

3) How can you wear saffron cloth while your would-be sannyasa guru wore white? A parampara that starts with white cloth and then suddenly switches to saffron cloth and 'brahmana-initiation' is also not an uninterrupted siksa-parampara. All colors of garment but white are forbidden for a Gaudiya Vaisnava - rakta-vastra vaisnavera podite na yuyay (Caitanya-caritamrta, Antya 13.61) "A Vaisnava should not wear red cloth." nagno dviguna-vastrah syan nagno raktapatas tatha: "Wearing red cloth is like walking naked," and sukla-vasa bhaven nityam raktam caiva vivarjayet (both from Hari-bhakti-vilasa, 4.147,152): "Always wear white and give up red cloth." raktam nilam adhautam ca parakyam malinam patam paridhaya (Agamasastra quoted in Durgama-sangamani by Sri Jiva Gosvami on Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, 1.2.120 ): "Wearing red, blue or unwashed garments is a sevaparadha." In Sri Dhyanacandra Gosvami's Paddhati the guru is described as wearing white cloth (svetambaram gaura-rucim sanatanam -"He wears white cloth and his eternal form shines like gold"). And saffron dhotis do not exist at all, only saffron bahirvasas (outer cloth) for Vedic eka-dandi (mayavadi) sannyasis and white dhotis for householders. Grhasthas should not wear a kaupina (loincloth), and this is also not 'brahmana-underwear'. A kaupina is given during the ceremony of sannyasa for a lifelong vow of celibacy. It drags anyone down to hell who takes it off to have sex. Shaving the head is also only for sannyasis and not for others.

To say one is wearing saffron, not red, is a useless escape manoeuvre, because there is also a positive injunction, namely suklavaso bhaven nityah, "one should always wear white and neither red nor saffron." This is also not a question of 'the form ("what does it matter what color your cloth is?") versus the substance. It is not narrow-minded smarta-ism, because obedience is the substance. The Gosvamis have ordered us to wear white and bhakti means that you obey the orders of those who are both ordered and empowered by Mahaprabhu to lay down the law. One Gaudiya Vaisnava acarya who may be an avadhuta may wear burlap, but he did not tell his thousands of disciples to do so. He told them all to wear white cotton. The Srimad Bhagavata verse (3.5.38) does not mean that Gaudiya Vaisnavas can wear saffron or red cloth, there was no Gaudiya sampradaya yet in the time of the Bhagavata, and, Srila Sanatana Gosvami comments on this verse: yatibhir maha-prayatnena samsarasagaram sribhagavadbhakta helayaiva sukham taranti, "the ocean of samsara, which is hard to cross by yatis (mayavadi sannyasis), is easily and blissfully crossed by the Lord's devotees." The verse rakta vastra vaisnavera porite na yuyay is not taken out of context here. The story indeed is a personal question between Jagadananda Pandita and Sanatana Gosvami, but the moral of the story, expressed in the rakta vastra-verse, is an objective, absolute statement for all.

4) If Bhaktisiddhanta is Gaurakisora Das Babaji's disciple, then why didn't he give us Gaurakisora's guru-parampara, instead of saying that Gaurakisora Das Babaji was the disciple of Bhaktivinoda? Rather, Bhaktivinoda worshipped Gaura Kisora and approached him for bhekh. (Gaurakisora took bhekh from Bhagavat das Baba, the bhekh-chela of Siddha Jagannatha das Baba). Regarding Bhaktisiddhanta's version of the rest of the guru-parampara:

Sanatana Gosvami was actually the disciple of Vidyavacaspati. Rupa Gosvami was a disciple of Sanatana Gosvami. Jiva Gosvami was a disciple of Rupa Gosvami. Raghunatha das Gosvami was a disciple of Yadunandana Acarya. Narottama Das Thakura was a disciple of Lokanatha Gosvami, not of Krsna das Kaviraja. Visvanatha Cakravarti was a disciple of Radha Ramana Cakravarti and never met his would-be guru Narottama, for they lived a century apart. Baladeva Vidyabhusana was a disciple of Radha Damodara Gosvami, not of Visvanatha Cakravarti. Jagannatha das Babaji lived 150 years after his would-be guru Baladeva Vidyabhusana. Bhaktivinoda was a disciple of Vipin Bihari Gosvami, not of Jagannath das Babaji.

5) Why do all Gaudiya Matha-chronicles give different dates and places of Bhaktisiddhanta's supposed initiation, some saying that he received Nrsimha mantra, as if Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji was a worshipper of Nrsimha?

6) Where did Bhaktisiddhanta get his brahmana-thread from? Gaura Kisora das Babaji did not wear it (as the photos show), for he was born a vaisya. The proof that brahmana-initiation does not exist in reality is that there is a separate 10-syllable Gopala Mantra for brahmanas and an 18-syllable mantra for non-brahmanas. This means that 2nd initiation is not the same as brahmana-initiation. And if you do become a brahmana through such initiation, then why not receive the 10-syllable mantra instead of the 18-syllable mantra they now receive?

7) Then there is the argument: "Ah, then you have an uninterrupted succession with so many ladies, but what was their realisation?" What were the realisations of Jahnava Thakurani, Hemalata Thakurani, Krsnapriya Thakurani, Siddhesvari Mata, etc.? The Gita proclaims that ladies can attain the Supreme Abode, but those who do not follow the scriptures (be they men) can forget about it-

mam hi partha vyapasritya ye 'pi syuh papayonayah striyo vaisyas tatha sudras te 'pi yanti param gatim (Bhagavad Gita, 9.32)

"O Partha, anyone who surrenders to Me, even low born women, merchants and laborers, will reach the Supreme Abode."

Better a submissive lady than a wayward, independently operating pandit, svami, etc. And even if these ladies did not have so many spiritual realisations that is still no excuse for just fabricating a guru- parampara.

Gaudiya Matha preachers attract followers from family gurus ('caste Gosvamis') by pointing to Sri Jiva Gosvami's statement in Bhakti-sandarbha (210): tad etat paramartha-gurvasrayo vyavaharika- gurvadi parityagenapi kartavyam, "One should give up a mundane guru and take a spiritual guru", but this 'mundane guru' refers to a village elder or parent, not to a family guru, for in Hari-bhakti- vilasa (4.141) the Brahma-vaivarta Purana is quoted:

upadestaram amnayagatampariharanti ye tan mrtan api kravyadahkrtaghnannopabhuñjate

"Even the vultures will not eat the dead corpse of the ungrateful one who abandons the amnayagatam guru."

In his commentary to this verse Srila Sanatana Gosvami writes: amnayagatam kula-kramayatam: This amnayagata guru means a guru who has come in a family succession."

8) What is the tilaka svarupa of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his followers? For instance, the Nityananda parivara-initiates have a Nim-leaf on the nose, the Advaita Parivara-initiates have a Banyan- leaf on the nose, the Syamananda Parivara-initiates have an anklebell-form on the nose and so every bonafide Gaudiya Vaisnava parampara has its own tilaka svarupa, which is revealed by the guru and personally placed on the 12 parts of the disciple's body by him at the time of initiation. In Hari- bhakti-vilasa (2.85) it is quoted: sampradayika mudradi bhusitam tam krtañjalim, "At the time of initiation the disciple receives the sectarian signs from the guru". In the commentary to this verse Srila Sanatana Gosvami writes: sampradayikam guru-paramparasiddham, "This sampradayika refers to the guru-parampara," and mudra tilaka maladi, "And mudra refers to tilaka and strings of beads." If Bhaktisiddhanta was a disciple of Gaurakisora then why do they put on this gopicandana tilaka without any fixed and distinct svarupa? Gaurakisora was initiated in the Advaita parivara. Why did Bhaktisiddhanta not wear his guru's tilaka if he was really his disciple?

9) The guru-parampara is placed in the wrong order on Iskcon-altars. The guru is seated on the disciple's right side at the time of initiation and remains there eternally. On Iskcon-altars the guru is on the left of the disciple. The latest guru should be to the right and the earliest guru leftmost.

10) Who is a brahmana? a) In ISKCON/Gaudiya Matha we see everyone ultimately receiving brahmana-initiation. But which varnasrama-society has only brahmanas? Even from their viewpoint "we judge people on their qualities and not on their birth," most of Bhaktivedanta's followers are not qualified brahmanas. ISKCON/Gaudiya Math "brahmana"-women leave their husbands, have children from different men (this is lower than a sweeper's wife in India), and, what to speak of knowing Sanskrit, the men don't even know Hindi or Bengali, or even what the weather is like in India. No one knows even basic sadacara, the practices of cleanliness and chastity. 90% of Iskcon members are businessmen ("qualified vaisyas" perhaps?) Quality and birth are anyway non-different: karanam gunasango 'sya sadasadyonijanmasu (Gita, 13.22). "The cause of birth in either a good or a bad species is one's attachment to a certain psychological quality (culture, habit)." The fact that most of Bhaktisiddhanta's Western followers are not even brahmana by quality, but there is still 'brahmana initiation' proves that their brahmana-campaign is motivated by envy. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has taught His followers trnad api sunicena "One must consider oneself lower than a blade of grass," not an ignorant mleccha considering himself equal to a brahmana.

b) Envy is the cause of the mentality: "Nowadays brahmanas are full of faults, so now we will launch our own varnasrama-system." A human being can and should not do that, for it is created by God Himself, and He is the highest authority (caturvarnyam maya srstam "The four castes are created by Me (God, Krsna),") and not by the human being Bimal Prasad Datta. 'Religious principles are created by God Himself" (dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam, Srimad Bhagavata, 6.3.19) Envy of brahmanas will cost you dearly, for Sri Krsna Himself says in the Bhagavata (10.64.41-42):

vipram krtagasam api naiva druhyata mamakah ghnantam bahusapantam va namaskuruta nityasah yathaham praname vipran anukalam samahitah tatha namata yuyam ca ye 'nyatha me sa danda-bhak

"O My relatives! Do not harm a brahmana, even if he mistreats you! Even if he is a sinner, you should still bow down to him. Even I bow down to the brahmanas. Whoever acts otherwise is punishable by Me!" The best example is Indra, who had to suffer severely for killing the brahmana Vrtrasura, even though he was a demon.

The Lord further tells Srideva in Srimad Bhagavata (10.86.53):

brahmano janmana sreyan sarvesam praninam iha tapasa vidyaya tustya kim u mat kalaya yutah

"The brahmana is superior to all living beings by birth, let alone when he is austere, learned, content and devoted to Me."

dusprajña aviditvaivam avajananty asuyavah gurum mam vipram atmanam arccadavijyadrstayah (S.Bhag. 10.86.55)

"Men of crooked understanding, who do not know this, disrespect a brahmana and are envious of him, who is identical with Me and their very self."

c) The Bhagavata (7.11.13) declares that a brahmana must first be born in a family that has always, throughout the generations, followed all the samskaras for brahmanas.

d) The Vedas teach that a sannyasi renounces his brahmana-thread when he takes sannyasa (sutra- sikha-tyaga, C.C.), but in Gaudiya Matha/Iskcon sannyasis continue to wear the thread, even though they are not born as brahmanas in the first place!

e) The brahma-sutra (thread) is only for practising the brahma gayatri, not for the Vaisnava diksa- mantras like the gopala mantra and the kama Gayatri. Only the last two are mentioned in Hari- bhakti-vilasa as Gaudiya Vaisnava diksa mantras.

f) A brahmana is called dvija, or twice born. How can you have the second birth (upanayana- samskara) without having had the first one (saukra or seminal birth)? The brahma gayatri investment is done by the father of a brahmin boy when he is 11 years old. The boy should not see the sun for many days (since the brahma gayatri is a solar mantra) and is locked up in a room with the windows shut and given only havisyanna (porridge without salt, spices or sugar) to eat. Initiation into krsna- mantra is a separate initiation which is only given to active Vaisnava brahmanas. This is called the brahmana's third birth (daiksa janma). For instance, Mahaprabhu already wore His thread when He received krsna mantra from Isvara Puri and Advaita Prabhu had been doing brahma gayatri for decades when He received krsna mantra from Madhavendra Puri.

g) Sanatana Gosvami says in Brhad-bhagavatamrta (2.2.57):

esam yajñaikanisthanam aikyenavasyake nije jape ca sadguruddiste mandyam syad drstasatphale

The Maharsis offered Gopa Kumara the status of a brahmana, but he thought to himself: "If I accept the position of a brahmana, I will surely slacken in my practise of the mantra that I received from the bonafide guru, and that is certainly not good. brahmanas are only engaged in yajñas and are not engaged in other matters."

h) Introducing varnasrama dharma, which is an institution of karma-yoga, is a namaparadha - dharma-vrata-tyaga-hutadi-sarva-subhakriyasamyam: "To consider Hari Nama equal to any auspicious activity like (varnasrama) dharma, vows (sannyasa), tyaga and sacrifices."

11) Who is a sannyasi? A Vaisnava tyagi is not called sannyasi. In India a mayavadi is called sannyasi. In his Durgama-sangamani commentary on the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.2.113) Sri Jiva Gosvami sees a difference between a sannyasi and a Vaisnava-nivrtta (tyagi): sisyan naivanubadhniyad ityadiko yadyapi sannyasa-dharmas tathapi nivrttanam api bhaktanam upayujyata iti bhavah - "Just as it is wrong for a sannyasi to take too many disciples, so it counts also for renounced bhaktas."

12) There has never been a prohibition by the Gosvamis or the scriptures against calling householder- acaryas 'Gosvami'. On the contrary, Sri Narottama Thakura Mahasaya sang: doya koro sitapati, advaita gosai addressing the householder guru Advaita Prabhu with gosai. Advaita is also repeatedly called gosvami in Kavi Karnapura's Caitanya-candrodaya Natakam. To see the Gosvamis as different from the Lords - Nityananda and Advaita - who they directly descend from in family line is an offence to Nityananda and Advaita, for the Vedas teach us atma vai jayate putrah - "As father, so son", or: "The child is the image of the father." Saying that Sukracarya, the guru of the demons, refers to the 'caste Gosvamis', (sukra meaning sperm), is not only very offensive but also hypocritical, because Sri Bhaktivinoda Thakura is only famous due to glorification by his own son Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.

Regarding family-succession, there is no reason that one should not be initiated by one's parents: Hemalata Thakurani, guru of Yadunandana Thakura, took initiation from her father Srinivasacarya, Krsna Misra took initiation from his mother Sita-devi and Virabhadra Prabhu took intiation from his co-mother Jahnavi Devi. Virabhadra was a son of Nityananda Prabhu, but according to the Advaita Prakasa he went to Advaita Prabhu for diksa. Advaita Prabhu sent him back to his own family to take diksa there, which confirms that it was the wish of Nityananda and Advaita Prabhu that these family- guru paramparas would be created.

13) It is also not true that a person cannot give initiation when his guru is still alive. This practise is widespread throughout Gaudiya Vaisnava history. For instance, Rasikananda gave initiation while his guru Syamananda Thakura was still alive.

14) Deviating from the sastras a) Is often apologised for with the argument: "Yes, Prabhupada/ Bhaktisiddhanta was a pure devotee, therefore he was empowered to introduce new injunctions." If that is so, then everyone can say the same of their gurus, including the followers of Jayatirtha, who introduced the use of hashish and LSD as a 'sadhana.' A genuine pure devotee will surrender to the sastras.

tasmacchastram pramanam te karyakaryavyavasthitau jñatva sastravidhanoktam karma kartum iharhasi (B.Gita, 16.24)

"Therefore one should follow the scriptural authority in what is to be done and what is not to be done. Once knowing the scriptural injunctions, one should act accordingly."

b) Some say: "Well, all that scriptural evidence is very nice, but Prabhupada is beyond that. He is empowered by Krsna Himself, you can see that in these 208 temples in 184 countries, 25.000 followers, etc. etc." The answer lies in the well-known saying: "Religion without (scriptural) philosophy is sentimentalism and/or fanaticism." Quantity does not prove quality. Rajneesh has millions of followers, many more than Prabhupada, but does that make him an 'empowered' pure devotee?

yah sastravidhim utsrjya vartate kama karatah na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham na param gatim (Bhagavad Gita, 16.23)

"He who rejects scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims, will not attain perfection, nor will he become happy or attain the Supreme Abode."

srutismrti mamaivajñe yas tu ullanghya vartate ajña-cchedi mama dvesi madbhakto 'pi na vaisnavah

Sri Krsna says (quoted in Bhakti-sandarbha, para. 312): "The Srutis and Smrtis are My orders. Those who violate, disregard and disobey these orders are haters of Me. Though they may be my devotees, they are still not Vaisnavas."

Disregarding the scriptures is the 4th offence to the holy name (sruti-sastra-nindanam). Moreover, Srila Narottama Thakura Mahasaya says (in the Prema-bhakti-candrika): sadhu-sastra guru vakya, hrdaye koriya aikya - "The words of the guru must be compatible with the words of sadhu and sastra, just as the words of sadhu must be compatible with guru and sastra and the words of sastra must be confirmed by sadhu and guru." Not that the guru can say whatever he wants merely on the strength of his large number of temples and his large material success.

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

15) Vaisnava ninda - Even if there were any kind of parampara in Gaudiya Math/Iskcon, their initiation must still be rejected on the basis of their systematic and collective slander of the Vaisnavas, with most of whom they are not even acquainted. Sri Jiva Gosvami quotes Narada Pañcaratra in Paragraph 238 of Bhakti-sandarbha:

yo vyakti nyayarahitam anyayena srnoti yah tav ubhau narakam ghoram vrajatah kalam aksayam

iti naradapañcaratre ataeva durata evaradhyas tadrso guruh vaisnava-vidvesi cet parityajya eva - guror apy avaliptasya karyakaryam ajanatah utpathapratipannasya parityago vidhiyate iti smaranat tasya vaisnavabhavarahityenavaisnavataya 'avaisnavopadistenah' ityadi vacanavisayac ca

"'A person who speaks contrary to the morale enunciated by the Vaisnava-sastras, and the person who hears such immoral teachings will both live in a foul hell for eternity'. If an instruction of Sri Gurudeva is contrary to the sastras, then association with such a guru should be given up and he should be worshipped from a distance. If the guru is an enemy of the Vaisnavas, it is most auspicious to give him up altogether. The word dvesa (hatred) also stands for ninda (slander) (nindapi dvesasamah, Bhakti-sandarbhah). Therefore an offender to the Vaisnavas is not qualified to be a guru, and he must be abandoned. A guru who is attached to sense gratification, who does not know what is to be done and what is not to be done, or who acts contrary to the bhakti sastras must be abandoned. He has no Vaisnava-feelings, therefore he is an non-Vaisnava (non-devotee). The scriptural saying 'A mantra received from a non-Vaisnava will drag one to hell' also shows that an non-Vaisnava guru is to be abandoned."

There is no justification whatsoever for slandering Vaisnavas, for Sri Krsna Himself proclaims in Bhagavad-gita (9.30):

api cet suduracaro bhajate mam ananyabhak sadhur eva sa mantavyah samyag-vyavasito hi sah

"Even if he commits the most abominable activities, whoever exclusively worships Me (without worshipping demigods or endeavouring for liberation - Visvanatha) is to be considered a saint, since he is on the right way."

Satam nindam paramam aparadham vitanute: "Blaspheming the saints is the first and foremost offence to the holy name."

In the Vrndavana-mahimamrta (17.83) Sri Prabodhananda Sarasvati has written:

svananda sac cid ghana rupata matir yavan na vrndavana vasi jantusu tavat pravisto'pi na tatra vindate tato'paradhat padavim paratparam

"As long as one is so offensive as not to see all the creatures who live in Vrndavana as transcendentally blissful and full of ecstatic love and transcendental flavours, the supreme position of Radha's maidservant will remain unattainable, even if one has already entered Vrndavana."

Unless one gives up the company of a slanderer one is sure to fall down. The Srimad Bhagavata (10.74.40) confirms this:

nindam bhagavatah srnvan tat-parasya janasya va tato napaiti yah so 'pi yatyadhah sukrtaccyutah

"Anyone who hears the Lord or His devotee (tat-parasya janasya va) blasphemed, and does not leave, will fall down."

b) Some call Radhakunda Narakakunda, and say 'there is not a single rupanuga Vaisnava there.' To this it can be replied - yattirthabuddhih salile na karhicit janesvabhijñesu sa eva go-kharah (Srimad Bhagavata, 10.84.13) "Anyone who comes to a holy place (like Radhakunda) only to bathe without meeting the learned persons there or recognising them, is like a cow or an ass." If one wants to keep one's men for the preaching-mission - for this is the only reason why other Vaisnavas are systematically slandered - then one may say 'you are not qualified to associate with such deeply realised souls.' Then one has caught two flies in one blow - one has glorified the Radhakunda Vaisnavas and at the same time have kept one's money-machine erect.

c) Babajis are not sahajiyas, for sahajiyas are Saktas or Mayavadis who have tantric sex with other men's wives, identifying themselves with Radha and Krsna. Babajis don't do this. They do not imitate the Gosvamis, but follow them, by wearing the dress Goswamis not only wore themselves, but also advised all other Vaisnavas to wear in works like the Hari-bhakti-vilasa and Caitanya-caritamrta (cited previously). Even if they are playing Vaisnava by falsely wearing the dress it is said:

sadhu sangera alaukika apara sakti hoy chale sad-vesa-dhari jiva jivanmukti pay (Advaita-prakasa 9.61)

"The power of saintly association is so endless that even when one pretentiously dresses as a saint, one will attain liberation."

(end)

[Guest guest]

 

From Muralidhar das...

<hr>

The following is from Pratipa-priyanather prashner pratyuttor written by Sri Gaur-Govinda Dasadhikari Vidyabhushan and published in 1924 by Bhaktivinod Asan in Daulatpur Prapannashram. This booklet may be regarded as an official answer of Sri Gaudiya Math to common challenges during its early period.

 

<blockquote>

21. They say that Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswatipad never received any Diksha-mantra by accepting somebody as his Guru. It is neccessary to know his Guru-pranali.

 

Answer: Your griha-bauls and Jati-Goswamis in their majority are far from being supporters of sadachar, confessed by Shuddha-Bhaktas and Vaishnavas. If they spread any insubstantial gossip, we are not responsible for that. Sripad Siddhanta Saraswati Prabhu accepted Diksha in full accordance with Shastra from Sri Sri Vishnupad Gaura Kishor Das Mahodoy in the month of Magh, 1821 Shakabda. For one who doesn't know his Sri Sri Gurudev or his Guru-pranali the very meaning of the term 'Guru-pranali' is not required at all. It is yet unknown persons, novices in Bhajan, who are introduced in society by their previous Guru-parampara; famous Vaishnavas don't have to be introduced by this method. Sripad Siddhanta Saraswati Prabhu has given his Guru-parampara in his 'Brahman Vaishnav taratomya Siddhanta' and in Chaitanya Charitamrita.

</blockquote>

 

Additionally, as I mentioned before Sri Bhakti Pradip Tirtha Maharaj wrote in his book Srila Saraswati Thakur

 

<blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

 

Sri Bhakti Pradip Tirtha Maharaj was in a position to know the truth about whether Srila Saraswati Thakur had received Diksa. He was an initiated disciple of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur. He had been directed to take initiation from Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur by Srila Gaurkishore Babaji himself. Bhakti Pradip Tirtha Maharaj was also the first devotee to receive sannyasa from Srila Saraswati Thakur. He is the elder brother of one Ananta Vasudeva, and the son of Sri Radha Govinda das Babaji, who received his Babaji-vesh from Prabhupada Srila Saraswati Thakur.

 

Further note by Muralidhar:

On Nitai Delmonico's web site the claim is made that in the 1930's Prabhupada Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami met some Babas in Vrindaban and told them he had been initiated in a dream. Given that the statements in Pratipa-priyanather prashner pratyuttor reproduced above were published in a book in the 1920's, only an idiot would think that Prabhupada would then have gone to Vrindaban several years later and met with his opponents, the monkey babas, and told them "I was initiated in a dream".

 

When Prabhupada Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami went to Vraja in the 1930's he did not meet with the so-called "Siddha" Sri Ramakrsna das Pandit Baba. But Srila Sridhar Maharaj and Sripad Keshava Maharaj (the guru of Narayana Maharaj) did meet with Ramakrsna das Baba. When he met this Baba, Keshava Maharaj spoke for a long time, glorifying the Paramahamsa Babajis, and saying that a brahmacari or sannyasi is on a lower level of realization and status. At that time, Keshava Maharaj (Vinode Bihari) was a brahmacari. He glorified and glorified the status of a Paramahamsa Babajis. This Siddha Sri Ramakrsna das Pandit Baba was happy to hear that. Then, softly, Keshava told the Ramakrsna babaji something else. Keshava Maharaj said to him that the Paramahamsa Babajis are all very exalted - but you are not one of them.

 

This story was told to us by Srila Sridhar Maharaj, an eye-witness.

 

-- Muralidhar

[Guest guest]

<center>Search For The Truth

by

Prabhupada Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami

</center>

 

If one says even once, 'Krishna, I am Thine', Krishna delivers him from the bondage of the limiting energy (maya). If a person chants the kirtana of Hari (being submissive) in every way it is only then that he can cease to seek honour for himself, can render due honour to everyone, and be humbler than the blade of grass. A person who is subject to lust, anger, etc., does not possess the utmost humility which is greater than that of the blade of grass, and even if he has a taste for limited material enjoyment he is never humbler than a blade of grass. Utmost humility, greater than that of the blade of grass, is the characteristic of him who is unceasingly given to the quest of Krishna. That is, he who is addicted to the uninterrupted mellowing process of the agony of loving separation from Krishna.

 

"By constant listening to and reciting the deeds of Krishna with faith and reverence Godhead enters the heart in no very long time." The empiric truth available in this world has a certain characteristic of relativity. The truth that manifests itself in the relative (material) function is not the (unalloyed) Truth. The service of the Supreme Lord is not the service of matter. Krishna alone is the Object of our constant supreme service. Perform always the chant of Krishna, of His quality, of the distinctive personality of His servitors, of His pastime. The lotus feet of Sri Gurudev, who advises our worship in every way, should be the constant object of our worship in every way. He is the eternal associated counterpart of Godhead. Vaishnavas who serve Sri Guru are objects of our worship.

 

The only method that is open to us for gaining our destination is to follow in the footsteps of those great souls who have preceded us on the same path. Those great souls of former times are possessors of true knowledge which is attended with spiritual love and detachment from the world. The heart that is brightly illuminated by the pure spiritual essence bears the name of Vasudeva.

 

The sanyasis of the triple staff (tridandi) ensure their progress in the direction of Truth by accepting the above mode of judgement. Mankind will be assured of progress on the path of spiritual endeavour by acceptance of the triple staff of renunciation and being thereby enabled to join in the chant of the Tridandi Bhikshu of the town of Avanti of the Bhagavata: "Adopting this unceasing attachment to the Supreme Soul worshipped by the former great souls, I shall get across this abyss of gloom, which is extremely difficult to cross, by serving the Feet of the Bestower of Salvation."

 

Krishna is the sole real Object of worship. He is the only Object of worship of all living entities that can or will ever be. He attracts His devotee for the purpose of serving His servants.

 

The Ultimate Reality of Krishna has been called Swayamrupa, "Beauty's Own Self". By obtaining portions of Whose Beauty, His servants have become most exquisitely beautiful. The community of the servants of Krishna regard the Beauty of form as an offering for His service, by means of which the Divinity will be served. No beauty is comparable to a millionth part of the Beauty of Krishna. When we endeavour to approach Krishna by way of service we have to be possessors of beauty, and are actuated by the desire of beautifying ourselves. Then arises the process which is called Abhisara (i.e., proceeding to the secret place of assignation). There are two kinds of Abhisara viz., (1) the sukla or white Abhisara and (2) Krishna or dark Abhisara. The gopis (milk-maids) run to Krishna by one method when the moon is risen, by another method when the moon does not shine. There is the same secret expedition for the quest of Beauty, of the Good Quality of distinctive individual servitude, of Pastime.

 

Krishna is Beauty Himself and Sri Baladeva Prabhu is Krishna's Own Manifest Form.

 

"The soul is not realized by one who is without support of the Divine Power, neither with austerities, nor again by the avoidance of all ceremonials. The enlightened person who endeavours to attain Him by these methods enters the realm of Brahman".

 

"The lotus Feet of Nitai (Nityananda) are most refreshingly cool like crores (multitudes) of moons. The shade of His Feet relieves us from the scorching heat of the world. Leaving out Nitai, Who is so merciful, one must not have Radha-Krishna. May we ever hold firmly to the Feet of Nitai."

 

Nitai is real manifestation, but not real Beauty. He is not omnipotent or strong by the help of any other entity. It is not possible to separate Omnipotence from Him. He is not devoid of power. The power of Baladeva is the disitinctive power of Himself, the Manifestation of Krishna's Own Self. Although in Baladeva the proprietorship of power is predominant He still belongs properly to the category of Divine Power. Baladeva is just next to Krishna in the category of object of worship. In Maha-Vaikuntha, He is manifest as Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. The topics of the fourth dimension lie beyond the three-fold specification of the linear, superficial and cubical magnitudes of this world. The topics of the fifth dimension are still higher. They are such words as flow from the Flute of Sri Krishna. "He is the same beloved Krishna with Whom I am united here in Kurukshetra. And Myself also am, indeed the Radha. This is the very same bliss of our meeting with one another. Yet My mind is longing for the woodlands on the sloping banks of the Kalindi with the fifth-scale music of the sweet Flute playing in the heart of the groves" (Padyavali 386).

 

[raga]

 

Gaurasundara:

 

What I find interesting is that Baladeva was actually initiated into the Madhva line. At least that is what I have heard. This is one of the reasons why the Ramanandis were forced to take him seriously. Had he been a fully-fledged "Gaudiya," they would not have given his opinion much weight since they were challenging the very authority of the Gaudiyas. The fact that he was an initiated Madhva gave him some sort of respct and authority inasmuch that the Ramanandis were forced to acknowledge him. Indeed, I beleive that some have commented that the Govinda-bhasya has a certain 'Madhva' style to it.

What I want to know, however, is how does this Madhva initiation correlate with his Gaudiya initiation by Radha-damodara das? Does it count as a re-initiation or what? Did he reject his Madhva guru?

 

 

It is known that Baladeva studied the Madhva-tradition prior to meeting Radha Damorar Goswami. However, I have never seen evidencen that he would actually have been initiated among the Madhvites.

 

GB and PR certainly have a touch of Madhva to them.

[raga]

 

Gaurasundara:

 

In reply to:

 

One jolly fellow can have a party on his own. Gaurasundara appears to be having a good time.

 

_________________________________

 

I'm only having "fun" in the sense that I am continually amazed at the appalling lack of logic in some arguments that have been displayed for the consideration of the readers.

 

On the other hand I am not having "fun" at all on account of the consistent sarcasm, rudeness, and downright nastiness displayed by certain self-appointed defenders of the Sarasvata parampara. What started as an open-minded quest to discuss various issues that arise in such discussions has degenerated into backbiting, name-calling, and just plain stupidity. Really, if this is the treatment I get when I have decided to be honest with myself and re-evaluate my faith in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, I shudder to think how a "new bhakta" will be savaged beyond description if he ever sets foot on this board.

 

After reading this post of yours, I had a spontaneous flow of thoughts that I would love to articulate but I have decided not to. I suppose you get the general vibe. It would be simply a complete waste of time.

 

 

Feel free to articulate it. However, do run a reality check on yourself before you do it. I think it may be a while since your last deep introspection, judging by this discussion, at least.

 

For all I can see, while you have presented noteworthy evidence, you have also presented numerous claims you would never be able to substantiate, and resorted to a number of logical fallacies, very rarely admitting that you were actually wrong. Spare me from collecting them together for you, I have more pressing matters to take care of.

 

"The world is a mirror." Think about that.

[raga]

 

Muralidhar quotes:

 

21. They say that Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswatipad never received any Diksha-mantra by accepting somebody as his Guru. It is neccessary to know his Guru-pranali.

 

Answer: Your griha-bauls and Jati-Goswamis in their majority are far from being supporters of sadachar, confessed by Shuddha-Bhaktas and Vaishnavas. If they spread any insubstantial gossip, we are not responsible for that. Sripad Siddhanta Saraswati Prabhu accepted Diksha in full accordance with Shastra from Sri Sri Vishnupad Gaura Kishor Das Mahodoy in the month of Magh, 1821 Shakabda. For one who doesn't know his Sri Sri Gurudev or his Guru-pranali the very meaning of the term 'Guru-pranali' is not required at all. It is yet unknown persons, novices in Bhajan, who are introduced in society by their previous Guru-parampara; famous Vaishnavas don't have to be introduced by this method. Sripad Siddhanta Saraswati Prabhu has given his Guru-parampara in his 'Brahman Vaishnav taratomya Siddhanta' and in Chaitanya Charitamrita.

 

 

I hate to point this out, but this passage seems to be mainly concerned with dismissing the persons who make the objection. A plain statement of facts would prove much more effective.

[raga]

 

Muralidhar tells:

 

When Prabhupada Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami went to Vraja in the 1930's he did not meet with the so-called "Siddha" Sri Ramakrsna das Pandit Baba. But Srila Sridhar Maharaj and Sripad Keshava Maharaj (the guru of Narayana Maharaj) did meet with Ramakrsna das Baba. When he met this Baba, Keshava Maharaj spoke for a long time, glorifying the Paramahamsa Babajis, and saying that a brahmacari or sannyasi is on a lower level of realization and status. At that time, Keshava Maharaj (Vinode Bihari) was a brahmacari. He glorified and glorified the status of a Paramahamsa Babajis. This Siddha Sri Ramakrsna das Pandit Baba was happy to hear that. Then, softly, Keshava told the Ramakrsna babaji something else. Keshava Maharaj said to him that the Paramahamsa Babajis are all very exalted - but you are not one of them.

 

This story was told to us by Srila Sridhar Maharaj, an eye-witness.

 

 

What a beautiful way to treat a Vaishnava. Thumbs down for Keshava for his impudence. It is this very attitude which makes the relationship with the Gaudiya Maths and the rest of the tradition so tense, this self-righteous attitude, that as long as we are in the line of Prabhupad Saraswati Thakur, we can go out and tell anyone off and behave as we wish.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

OK, I'll concede that point and accept that I am semi-wrong on that count.

 

 

You think you are "semi-wrong" on the point that there are no Siksha paramparas in the history of Vedic culture? This entire thread is simply based on your argument that in the history of Vedic culture there was never a case of a siksha parampara, and that Bhaktisiddhanta was the first person to "fabricate" a siksha parampara. It was based on these two points that most people have objected to your statements.

 

And now when you are shown that you are 100% wrong in your position, suddenly you admit your "semi-wrong" and that the real point of discussion is about the post chaitanya era. What nonsense. When you have been shown to be wrong, try to pretend the discussion is about something else. Well, your real contention was as follows:

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. Not even the "mayavadi" Sankara. All their paramparas are based on diksa. So Bhaktisiddhanta's judgment is not just against the whole Gaudiya tradition, it is against the whole of the Vedic ones too.

 

 

Of course your bluff was called and it was pointed out that you don't have a clue as to what your talking about. Yes, not only the Vaishnava lines, but even the "Mayavadi" Shankara line is a siksha parampara.

 

And you, with your two years since officially leaving the Sai Baba movement want to criticize Bhaktisiddhanta due to your ignorance:

So Bhaktisiddhanta's judgment is not just against the whole Gaudiya tradition, it is against the whole of the Vedic ones too.

 

 

Yes, you thought Bhaktisiddhanta's judgement was against the entire Vedic tradition. What do you know about the Vedic tradition? Your study consists of doing google searches and reading articles written by Jagat. That's all fine and dandy, but when you want to criticize Acharya's based on your google searches someone will call your bluff and point out that you don't know anything.

It appears that the Madhva and Ramanuja paramparas present various siksa connections. However, it is undeniable that the parampara from those figures onwards consists of diksa.

 

 

Undeniable according to what measure? Stop joking around here pretending that you have a clue about the Madhva parampara and which acharyas received mantra-diksha from whom. There is no way you can know about these acharyas and the initiations they received. Even Madhva scholars will not be able to identify this in most cases.

 

The fact that a single link can be shown to be based on Siksha and not Diksha is enough to invalidate your claim that there was never a Siksha Parampara in the Vedic tradition.

 

Furthermore, simply because diksha may have also been performed in a parampara does not mean the link in the parampara is based on diksha. Diksha is performed for nearly everyone in Vedic tradition, and it is natural that the most qualified individual would perform it, who would usually be the guru.

This is the point I was trying to make, the connection with paramparas is of diksa and not siksa.

 

 

Yet time and time again it has been shown that there are countless paramparas in the Vedic tradition that are not based on diksha but on siksha. Yet you want to claim that Bhaktisiddhanta fabricated the concept of a siksha parampara.

Let's get back to my original point, a point that I have been repeating over and over again: Since the time of Mahaprabhu, connection to His parampara has been via diksa and not siksa. Get it?

 

 

But this wasn't the topic at all. You have suddenly attempted to change this topic. Your contention had nothing to do with "from the time of Mahaprabhu". You continually stated that there was never a tradition in the history of Vedic culture of a Siksha parampara and that Bhaktisiddhanta had fabricated this concept. You even went as far as saying even the "Mayavadi" Shankara didn't have a Siksha Parampara. Of course you had no clue about the parampara of Shankara and just thought you would throw that in to appear intelligent. Unfortunately it was shown that, yes, even Shankara's Parampara is based on Siksha.

Why the sudden change?

 

 

Yes, that's my exact question. Why the sudden change of this topic from "No Siksha Parampara in Vedic History" to "No Siksha Parampara since Mahaprabhu".

 

Of course it is a fact that Baladeva Vidyabhushana has given a Siksha parampara in his writings. But according to your view Bhaktisiddhanta must have interpolated that, because you say he is the one who fabricated the concept of Siksha parampara.

For you (or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta) to introduce the NEW concept of a siksa-parampara in a tradition that has always traced their lines via diksa, is to de facto declare that you are a highly-empowered individual who is sufficiently empowered to do such a thing.

 

 

Yet prominent Gaudiya Vaishnava Acharyas such as Baladeva have traced their parampara in writing via Siksha, and people such as Bhaktivinoda Thakur have accepted this as truth. Yet you want us to believe Bhaktisiddhanta fabricated this concept of Siksha parampara.

Sure, but the fact that they trace their parampara through diksa should tell you something. They do not trace their line via the "siksa" line of Vyasadeva despite the fact that they consider him more important. Are we getting a clue here?

 

 

No, you haven't gotten a clue on this yet. Madhva's trace their diksha line through diksha, and their parampara through Siksha via Vyasa.

 

Regarding Baladeva Vidyabhushana listing a Siksha Paramapra:

This point has already been addressed. Those three authorities accepted the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara for perhaps the possibility of guarding the sampradaya from alienation.

 

 

Huh.. Say whut? According to who? Your word makes it a fact? Simply because you cannot explain why these prominent Gaudiya acharyas present a Siksha Parampara, therefore you start speculating as to their intentions. "Maybe they did it for this reason...Possibly it was because"... "Perhaps..." No one cares about your speculative view on why they did it. Can you show me in the writings of Baladeva Vidyabhushana, Vishvanatha Chakravarthi or Kavi Karnapura any statement where they say "Baladeva made up this parampara to get the support of the Ramanandis." What nonsensical speculation. And you expect everyone to take your word on it because you researched this topic with a google search.

 

The fact is these prominent Gaudiya Acharya's have stated in their writings that Mahaprabhu's line comes through this parampara, which is a Siksha parampara.

This happened when the Ramanandis disputed the authority of the Gaudiyas. Must we go over this again?

 

 

If Baladeva Vidyabhushana was just copying the Madhva's parampara to get public recognition he could have copied the actual parampara of Madhva's line instead of presenting this novel parampara. Anyone who knows even a little about Madhva knows who his direct diksha disciples were. Thus one would have to assume Baladeva Vidyabhushana was a complete fool with no knowledge of Madhva's line in order to mess up copying the parampara so badly.

 

And if one could present a completely messed up parampara and still be recognized by the Ramanandis, then it seems the pressure by the Ramanandis wasn't that serious. They just take your word for it, regardless of how messed up your parampara listing may look. Add to this the fact that the Ramanandi's own parampara is extremely questionable and not recognized by traditional Sri Vaishnava lines; it becomes clear that this argument that Baladeva wrote this parampara for public recognition is baseless.

By the way, here's an interesting fact for everyone. Much is made of the "prameya-sloka" that apparently embodies Dvaita's beliefs in a nutshell. However, where is the source for this prameya-sloka in the writings of Madhvacharya or any other Tattvavada acharya? It doesn't exist.

 

 

Please stop misrepresenting the Dvaita tradition. The prameya-shloka is authored by Vyasa Tirtha who certainly predates Baladeva Vidyabhushana. Even prior to this, these prameyas had already been defined by Jayatirtha in detail, though not in the form of a single shloka.

 

In summary, dear "everyone", please don't take this "interesting fact" as fact.

I don't see anybody here is denying the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara, do you?

 

 

It was your view that there was never a Siksha parampara in the history of Vedic culture and that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati fabricated the concept of a Siksha parampara. It has been shown beyond doubt that the pre-mahaprabhu parampara is a Siksha parampara, to which you replied that this parampara is simply made up by Baladeva to counter the Ramanandi's accusations. Thus, yes, you are denying the pre-mahaprabhu parampara.

So there you go. Even though Ramanuja was influenced by five teachers including Yamunacharya, his parampara is nevertheless traced via diksa.

 

 

Yamunacharya appointed five of his disciples (pancha-purna) to train Ramanujacharya. Among these Gosthi Purna performed mantra-diksha to Ramanuja and Maha-purna performed tapa. The other three acharya's taught him Vedanta, Gita, etc. Those who want to trace the mantra-diksha line will refer to Gosthi-purna, those who want to trace the line through tapa will refer to Maha-purna, yet Ramanuja was a disciple of Yamunacharya and was appointed by Yamunacharya as his successor.

 

In addition to the case of Ramanuja we can refer to the Alvars who also received no diksha yet are the root of their parampara. As had been pointed out, Nathamuni also reestablished the parampara through a "vision". We find similar initiations in the case of saints such as Tukarama, where the simple vision of a divine personality was enough to initiate them.

Read Raga's comments and stop wasting everybody's time:

 

This point was originally made by me (though not in Raga's words) that a guru-rejection in public is necessary in order to let the public know you have rejected your guru because of such-and-such reason.

 

 

No offense but Raga's comments are his opinion and don't follow from the verses he cited. The verses specifically said one should go to a private secluded place and using logic correct one's guru who has engaged in improper conduct. It even said one should not reject such a guru. Only if the Guru was adversive to bhakti should he be renounced, again no mention of a public display. Your claim was that the Hari Bhakti Vilasa "and other Vaishnava Dharma Shastras" (which ones?) require one to publicly reject a guru if you see anything "iffy". There is no such scriptural injunction.

 

The idea that one should publicly reject the guru for the entire world to know was Raga's own opinion, and was really quite contrary to the verses cited.

Raga said: I would never try to argue that this was a diksa-line.

 

Gaurasundar said:I don't recall arguing that either.

 

 

Right... let me remind you what you argued. You said in the history of Vedic culture there has never been a siksha parampara, that all paramparas (including the "Mayavadi" Shankara) use diksha to trace their paramapra. This view would include Baladeva's parampara, wouldn't it? So, yes, you did argue that this was a diksha parampara.

In fact, I specifically stated that this issue is strictly an in-house doctrinal/technical affair for Gaudiyas since the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara is largely different from the Madhva listing.

 

 

Oh, poor boy. Now everyone is bothering you with these Madhva examples, how unfare. Yet wasn't it you who tried to use these examples to support your view? So its fine when you think it supports your view. But when your bluff is called, then suddenly, "Oh its an in-house Gaudiya affair."

 

Regarding Baladeva Vidyabhushana:

What I want to know, however, is how does this Madhva initiation correlate with his Gaudiya initiation by Radha-damodara das? Does it count as a re-initiation or what? Did he reject his Madhva guru?

 

 

You are basing everything on speculative premises. And now you want to even suggest he got reinitiated... interesting logic.

Such individuals are obviously unaware that Mahaprabhu came with a great unique gift that was never given before at any time. Time spent in trying to attain this great gift is time well spent, I say.

 

 

Yes, fascinating logic. And you used to also believe that Sai Baba came with a great unique gift that was never given before at any time. Yet, now you feel the 10 years you spent trying to attain that great gift wasn't that well spent.

 

This type of logic is really destructive and blind.

We are talking of Gaudiya Vaishnavism here, not other traditions.

 

 

Reminder. It was you who was talking about other traditions, and the "fact" that no Vedic tradition has a Siksha parampara. Your bluff was called and now suddenly "No, no... now we are only talking about Gaudiya traditions, not other traditions."

 

 

Why he did that, I do not know and it is the subject of my current research.

 

 

Break out the google searches, research is coming!

See what I mean? This is why I say that you are nothing but a simple scoundrel. In any case, I do not care for the opinions of a liar.

 

 

That's me alright. Wandering Miscreant, Scoundrel, and Liar.

[Guest guest]

Now I understand why Gaurasundara has been publicly attacking the Sarasvata line. After all according to him Dharma-sastras tell us if there is any doubts in our mind, we should go to public internet forums and declare boldly that the guru is bogus, balderdash, fabricated, not serious. But since we now know that Gaurasundara is wrong, that the Dharma-sastras do not advise such actions, but rather speaking in private, perhaps Gaurasundara will remain quiet.

[MuralidharDas]

Madhava said:

I hate to point this out, but this passage seems to be mainly concerned with dismissing the persons who make the objection. A plain statement of facts would prove much more effective.

<hr>

 

I cut and pasted the translation of Gaur-Govinda Dasadhikari's words in his book of 1924. Would you have preferred that I changed the words? Or that the translator (a sannyasi disciple of Sripad Bhakti Pramode Puri Goswami) should have sanitised or altered the translation?

 

Anyway, what Gaur-Govinda Dasadhikari said makes a mockery of Nitai's fake story that Srila Saraswati Gosai went to Vraja in the 1930's and told Ramakrshna bubba "I was initiated in a dream". I don't think Nitai made up that story himself, I think it originated from some "babajis" in Vraja. In my opinion, those lying snake baba associates of Ramakrshna Baba are perfect examples of the hypocrite "Putana" type spiritual mentor. The fake spiritual guide. The pratistha-loving hypocrite babajis that Srila Saraswati Thakur and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur were struggling and preaching against. They certainly filled Nitai with the poison of their vampire kisses, didn't they?

 

In regard to what Keshava Maharaj said to that Ramakrshna Baba: Keshava Maharaj was a resident of Nabadwip and he had a lifetime of experience about genuine Vaishnavism and the fake Vaishnavism of the imitationists. I offer Keshava Maharaj my eternal respects because Keshava Maharaj risked his life to save Prabhupada when the anti-party in Nabadwip tried to murder Srila Saraswati Thakur by stoning him with bricks.

 

Madhava, it doesn't impress me when you play this game that your saintly babas are victims of unjustified abuse and that Saraswati Thakur and his disciples are aggressors. None of these topics would have been dredged up again if Nitai had removed the false lies he posted on his web site. Google links to Nitai, and unknowing people such as Gaurasundara get misled when they read his lies. Lies. Nothing but.

 

Come to think of it, Jagat's writings are also "highly controversial". He disputed Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur's finding of the Yogapitha in Mayapura and sided with the group who think that Ramchandrapura was the site of Mahaprabhu's birthplace. But in Bhakti-ratnakara it specifically states that when Ishana took Narottama Mahasaya to visit Koladwip they crossed the Ganga and toured the holy places there, then went on to Ramchandrapura, then crossed the Ganga and returned to Mayapura on the eastern shore. Bhakti-ratnakara also says that the Yogapith is near to the old temple of Jagannatha, and that places Mayapura just exactly where Bhaktivinode Thakur said it was. Near the Kazi's tomb. You call Bhaktivinode Thakur controversial. I call him a divine visionary, a seer of truth. And it is only by his causeless grace that a white dog like me has come to know about Guru-Gauranga-Radha-Govinda.

 

-- Muralidhar.

 

[gHari]

A common flaw in formal logic is called "Hasty Induction". If I see 200 bears and they are either brown or black, and then inductively I conclude that no bears are white, I have committed the logical error of hasty induction.

 

Since there is no stipulation in the writings given by the founders of the Gaudiya tradition that all lineages will be strictly diksa in nature, then one can assume that anyone speculating that such a formality exists transcendentally must be using induction. Clearly they haven't visited the North Pole yet. Or, as they would have us believe, polar bears are not really bears at all.

[raga]

 

Muralidhar:

 

I cut and pasted the translation of Gaur-Govinda Dasadhikari's words in his book of 1924. Would you have preferred that I changed the words? Or that the translator (a sannyasi disciple of Sripad Bhakti Pramode Puri Goswami) should have sanitised or altered the translation?

 

 

No, of course not. To tell you the truth, I would be curious to read the document in its entirety. It is a historically important publication, since it is the first "official position paper" of the Gaudiya Math in regards to the controversies, if I am not mistaken. Is it available online, or otherwise in an e-format anywhere?

 

 

 

Anyway, what Gaur-Govinda Dasadhikari said makes a mockery of Nitai's fake story that Srila Saraswati Gosai went to Vraja in the 1930's and told Ramakrshna bubba "I was initiated in a dream".

 

 

Let's make a deal. You don't start calling babas "bubba" and I don't start calling your folks "bhukti rakshak", "bhukti vedant" and so on. I think we'll be better off that way.

 

 

 

 

In regard to what Keshava Maharaj said to that Ramakrshna Baba: Keshava Maharaj was a resident of Nabadwip and he had a lifetime of experience about genuine Vaishnavism and the fake Vaishnavism of the imitationists. I offer Keshava Maharaj my eternal respects because Keshava Maharaj risked his life to save Prabhupada when the anti-party in Nabadwip tried to murder Srila Saraswati Thakur by stoning him with bricks.

 

 

With due respect to Keshava Maharaj, Pandit Baba was not a resident of Bengal. He was born in Jaipur and lived in Vraja during his years of bhajan. Have you read his biography? Quite a fascinating individual he was.

 

 

 

Madhava, it doesn't impress me when you play this game that your saintly babas are victims of unjustified abuse and that Saraswati Thakur and his disciples are aggressors. None of these topics would have been dredged up again if Nitai had removed the false lies he posted on his web site. Google links to Nitai, and unknowing people such as Gaurasundara get misled when they read his lies. Lies. Nothing but.

 

 

No, I am not making it black and white. I know there are babas who are way off the track nowadays, and I have no reason to believe there were none during the time of Bhaktisiddhanta. However, I do take objection to the extent to which the critique is generalized.

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

The following is the description of the Brahma-Maadhva sampradaya as given in Gaura Ganoddesha Dipika:

 

tatra madhvi sampradayah prastavad atra likhyate

 

paravyomeshvarasyasic chishyo brahma jagat-patih

tasya shishyo narado’bhud vyasas tasyapa shishyatam

shuko vyasasya shishyatvam prapto jnanavarodhatat

tasya shishyah prashishyash ca bahavo bhutale sthitah

vyasal labdha-krishna-diksho madhvacaryo maha-yashah

 

... [remainder of verses ommitted]

 

We should note that according to the parampara given in Gaura Ganoddesa Dipika, the Brahma Sampradaya does not only include a Vyasa to Madhva link, but also a Vyasa to Shukadeva Goswami link. Shukadeva Goswami belongs to the Brahma sampradaya, yet he was never given mantra-diksha by Vyasa as mentioned in the Bhagavatam:

 

yam pravrajantam anupetam apeta-krityam

 

Thus it is again shown that the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara given by Baladeva Vidyabhushana and other Gaudiya Acharyas is a siksha-parampara. How else can Shukadeva Goswami be included in it alongside Madhva, Jayatirtha and others?

 

 

 

 

-----------

 

[Translation of the above passage is as follows:

 

"Lord Brahma is the direct disciple of Vishnu, the Lord of the spiritual sky. His disciple is Narada, Narada's disciple is Vyasa, and Vyasa's disciples are Shukadeva Gosvami and Madhvacarya. Padmanabha Acarya is the disciple of Madhvacarya, and Narahari is the disciple of Padmanabha Acarya. Madhava is the disciple of Narahari, Aksobhya is the direct disciple of Madhava, and Jayatirtha is the disciple of Akshobhya. Jayatirtha's disciple is Jnanasindhu, and his disciple is Mahanidhi. Vidyanidhi is the disciple of Mahanidhi, and Rajendra is the disciple of Vidyanidhi. Jayadharma is the disciple of Rajendra. Purusottama is the disciple of Jayadharma. Sriman Lakshmipati is the disciple of Vyasatirtha, who is the disciple of Purushottama. And Madhavendra Puri is the disciple of Lakshmipati."

[MuralidharDas]

Madhava wrote:

I would be curious to read the document in its entirety. It is a historically important publication, since it is the first "official position paper" of the Gaudiya Math in regards to the controversies, if I am not mistaken. Is it available online, or otherwise in an e-format anywhere?

<hr>

I only have fragements of the book. I will write to Narasingha Maharaj and ask him if he can forward the full document. However, he hasn't been responding to my emails for a while. Madhava, this Narasingha Maharaj is Russian. Maybe you know of him yourself. My other Russian friends such as our Bharati Maharaj see him in Russia sometimes, but Russia is a big place.

 

I expect Narasingha Maharaj of Mysore will have a copy of this book, too. I spoke with Narasingha Maharaj about these "controversies" when I met him in Puri a few months ago. He has always been friendly to me. Narashingha Maharaj of Mysore also has a copy of "Saraswati Jayasree".

 

- Muralidhar

 

 

[MuralidharDas]

Below is the biography of Sri Madhusudana Das Babaji, the vesa (sannyasa) guru of Srila Jagannatha das Babaji Maharaj. This biography, I believe, is written by Haridas das. I personally don't believe a lot of things that Haridas Das wrote. But I present this story about Madhusudan Babaji as it shows, quite clearly, that the concocted method of teaching "raganuga bhajan" taught in Vraja in the 17th century by leading authorities such as Siddha Jaykrsnadas Babaji was in need of serious reform.

 

Note the statement by Siddha Jaykrsnadas Babaji to Madhusudan Babaji: "It is clear that in the present situation you have no right to do raganuga bhajan."

<hr>

 

44. MADHUSUDANA DASA BABA:

 

He was born in a Kulina family, he was a lover of Krsna and full of the spirit of renunciation from his early childhood. Against his wishes his parents arranged his marriage when he was a boy. On the night of his wedding he ran away from the bridal room and went to Sri Vrndavana. Not wanting to be detected by anyone he stayed secluded places. Sometimes he spent many days on the bank of the Jamuna without taking any food.

 

One day he was sitting on the bank of the Jamuna contemplating the idea of taking initiation from some Vaisnava Mahanta. Suddenly a scion of the lineage of Gangamata came there to take his bath in the river. That Mahanta instructed Madhusudana to take bath in the Jamuna and afterwards he would initiate him. Filled with joy, Madhusudana immediately did as directed and the Mahatma initiated him into the Dasakshara (ten-lettered) mantra, explaining to him the import of the mantra. After receiving the mantra Madhusudana went into a trance. When he regained external consciousness the Mahatma had vanished before he could even ask his identity.

 

Madhusudana began chanting the mantra and roamed from one place to another, eventually arriving at Manasi Ganga. There he took shelter at the lotus feet of Krsnadasa Babaji saying, "I am an uneducated boy, please be merciful to me and instruct me about performing bhajan. Seeing the boy's spiritual effulgence, Siddha Baba asked his identity and Madhusudana told him everything. After hearing his story Siddha Baba said, "You know that our method of performing raganuga bhajan must have its hereditary link, that link is established by knowing the lineage of your guru, but you know nothing about your guru's identity or his family. Thus you have no right to do raganuga bhajan. Yet you have been given a mantra, therefore you should not be initiated again. For these reasons I cannot teach you bhajan."

 

At that time strict observance of the customs of the different sects was followed and no one deviated from it. Hearing Siddha Baba's words Madhusudana burst out crying. This touched the heart of Siddha Baba, who then instructed him to go to Siddha Jaykrsna Dasa Babaji of Kamyavana, who had the power to tell him about his Gurudeva's identity and lineage.

 

Madhusudana hurried to Kamyavana and Siddha Baba listened to his story. Although he understood everything, Siddha Baba did not want to deviate from the custom of the sect and thus he said, "Brother, I am unable to understand from your account. But you should not disregard the factor of your diksa. It is clear that in the present situation you have no right to do raganuga bhajan. Go and do Harinama alone and whatever is the desire of Sri Mahaprabhu and Srimati Radharani, that will come to pass. It may be that your guru, who is the representative of God, has given you the initiation you desired, it is he who will fulfill the rest of your desire."

 

Feeling extremely depressed Sri Madhusudana went to Radha kunda. He began to think, "If I am not entitled to do bhajan then what is the use of keeping this body alive. Tonight I will drown myself in the waters of Sri Kunda." That evening at midnight he tied a Govardhana sila around his neck and dove into the water of Sri Kunda and sank deep into the water. Suddenly, someone took off the stone from around his neck, put a piece of palm leaf in his hand and threw him on the bank of the kunda. When the morning came Madhusudana was disappointed that he had not died, but was happy to find the palm leaf in his hand. He then went to Siddha Baba of Govardhana and told him everything, except about the palm leaf. Siddha baba sent him to Siddha baba Jaykrsna of Kamyavana. Siddha Jaykrsna saw the palm leaf and said, "You have attained the extraordinary mercy of Sri Radha. Go back to Sri Kunda and pray to Sri Radha and she will not doubt fulfil you desire by bestowing her mercy upon you."

 

Madhusudana did as instructed and, by the grace of Siddha Baba that night, Sri Radha appeared and instructed him, "Go and stay at Surya kunda and practice bhajan there, you will attain siddhi there. Do not give diksa in the mantra which has been given by me, keep it a secret throughout your life." Later in his life Madhusudana taught many disciples bhajan but he never gave mantra diksa.

 

At a fairly advanced age Madhusudana heard that his wife was coming to meet him. Immediately he left for Govardhana and foiled his wife's attempts to meet him.

 

Shortly afterwards Madhusudana developed a serious sore on his leg. Thinking that his death was certain he tied a piece of cloth around the sore and went to a deserted spot in the forest. When the Vaisnavas from the area realized that Madhusudana had disappeared they were all greatly distressed. As Madhusudana's affliction grew he simply chanted the name of Radharani, awaiting death. For two days he remained in that state without having a drop of water. Because he did not want to be found he chanted quietly with tears rolling down his face.

Seeing his pitiful state Sri Radha, the goddess of mercy, could no longer restrain herself. She took the form of a young Vraja girl, who Madhusudana was acquainted with, and came before him in the afternoon of the third day carrying some capatis and water. Seeing him she said, "Why do you remain here in this pitiful state? I had to search everywhere to find you. You did not come for madhukari yesterday, nor the day before, thus my mother sent some for you-please take it." Madhusudana had known this girl for a long time and he replied teasingly with mock-anger, "Why do you come here? How did you know I was lying here?" The girl replied, "I keep track of everything. Now you please eat and let me go, I have some work to do." Madhusudana answered, "I won't eat these so you better take them back." Comforting Madhusudana the girl said, "My mother has instructed me to see that you finish eating everything I have brought. Everyone has to undergo one type of physical suffering or another, come and fill yourself." Hearing the soothing words of the young girl Madhusudana felt impelled to eat everything. He then warned the girl not to come again. The girl looked at him with a soft smile, then left.

 

Sometime later Madhusudana realized that there was no pain in his body. He removed the cloth and to his amazement found that the sore was completely healed. Slowly he raised himself up and went to the house of the girl who had brought him the food. He asked the Vrajmayi of the house where her daughter was. She replied that she has been at her father-inA law's house for the last three months. Madhusudana then clearly understood the mystery and tearfully went back to his kutir. Although Madhusudana did not want this story to become known, he could not hide what had happened and thus he became known as `Siddha.'

 

After this incident large numbers of Vaisnavas approached him for spiritual guidance. Early one morning one Babaji requested Madhusudana to explain the glories of Yogapitha. Madhusudana began explaining and gradually became so absorbed that he went into samadhi. The Vaisnavas present tried to bring him back to consciousness by performing kirtana but were unsuccessful. To this day the death anniversary of Madhusudana is celebrated at his burial site in Suryakunda.

 

This episode, however, is narrated in a different way by Vrajvasi Vihari das Babaji (the personal servant of Srila Jagannatha das Babaji): In the month of Kartika (Oct-Nov) the Baba of Suryakunda, Madhusudana, once announced that he was going to recite from Bhagavatam. Hearing this the ladies of Vraja requested that he recite in Bengali and then translate into Vrajbhasa. He then began reciting from Rasapancadhyayi.

 

The son of a low-caste man residing at Suryakunda attended the discourses given by Madhusudana daily. Seeing this several of the listeners began to criticize. On the final day of the recital that boy sat on the lap of Madhusudana and listened to the class. After some time this boy asked, "Babaji! Where did Lord Krsna take rest after Rasa? Was it at Sevakunja or at Sanket-vana?" Suddenly the sound of an explosion was heard and Madhusudana passed away. His burial coti is still found in Suryakunda.

 

<hr>

Note by Muralidhar:

 

A point to notice here is that Srila Jagannatha das Babaji received his instructions in performing bhajan from Madhusudana Das Babaji, and Madhusudana Das Babaji did not know his official "guru-pranali". Indeed, Sri Radha Herself gave him guidance, and his life story shows the beginnings of a departure from the orthodoxy promoted by Siddha Jaykrsnadas Babaji and his associates.

 

 

[MuralidharDas]

In regard to Nitai's mentors, who told him lies...

 

The extract below was written by Sri Bhakti Pradip Tirtha Maharaj in his book Sri Sri Bhagabat Samlapa, which he wrote in English while preaching in London in 1933.

<hr>

<blockquote>

The Supreme Lord Sri Krishna, the Fountainhead of all, manifests Himself at the end of Dvapara Yuga of twentyeight-four-Yugas in Vaivasvata Manvantara when Kalpa begins during the Day of Brahma. The Leelas of Sri Krishna are of two kinds, viz., (i) Eternal, and (ii) Causal. (i) He enacts His Leela in Goloka and is divided into eight distinct periods for His eternal loving devotees; (ii) His Causal Leela, the indirect reflection of His Eternal Goloka Leela, is enacted in Gokula-Vrindavana, Mathura and Dvaraka and is indispensable for the "Sadhakas" who are aspirant after "Vraja-bhajan". The Sadhakas must be bereft of the obstacles that stand in the way of their Vraja-bhajan by invoking the causeless Grace of Sri Krishna and Sri Balarama. His "Naimittik" (causal) Leelas are as follows: (1) His killing of Putana. Putana is the veritable embodiment of hypocricy. She represents psuedo-Gurus or psuedo-Sadhus who are advocates of enjoyment and renunciation. Baby Krishna kills this witch in order to preserve the neophyte of devotional love from the hands of psuedo-Gurus or psuedo-Sadhus. (2) His Breaking of Cart represents bearing the burdens of superstition, inertness and pride with high lineage, wealth and erudition. Baby Krishna kills this burden of superstition etc., for the good of the neophyte, out of His Infinite Grace. (3) His killing of Trinavartasura represents the pedantry, logomachy in consequence, dry reasonings, false logic and the company of those who resort to such practices. Baby Krishna kills this obstacle of Vraja-bhajan being graciously pleased with the humility of the neophyte.

</blockquote>

<hr>

 

There is a clear message here. Don't get involved in debates with people who are haunted by Trinavarta, Sakatasura, Putana etc.. That kind of association will only drag us down and it will never lead us to the stage of proper Vraja-bhajan. And be careful about who you listen to.

 

-- Muralidhar

[raga]

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

Below is the biography of Sri Madhusudana Das Babaji, the vesa (sannyasa) guru of Srila Jagannatha das Babaji Maharaj. This biography, I believe, is written by Haridas das. I personally don't believe a lot of things that Haridas Das wrote. But I present this story about Madhusudan Babaji as it shows, quite clearly, that the concocted method of teaching "raganuga bhajan" taught in Vraja in the 17th century by leading authorities such as Siddha Jaykrsnadas Babaji was in need of serious reform.

 

 

I am quite familiar with this biography, and I beg to differ from your far-fetched interpretation.

 

To begin with, Jaykrishna das Babaji was the siksa-guru of Siddha Krishnadas of Govardhan, who in turn was a revered siksa-guru of Jagannath Das Babaji. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, Jagannath das Babaji has never objected to the method of bhajan taught by Siddha Jayakrishna Das Baba.

 

I am certain that you know of Bhagavan Das Baba, too. He was very dear to Jayakrishna Das Baba, and vice versa.

 

Practically all of the famous babajis contemporary to Jagannathdas were in some way connected to the heritage of Jayakrishna Das Baba and Siddha Krishnadas of Govardhan.

 

Oh yes, and if you go around Vraja, you'll find out that there are a number of guru-pranalis (and corresponding siddha-pranalis) tracing their way back through Jagannath Das Baba. He taught the same method of worship, that method which you call concocted.

 

Next time I go to Vraja, I can do further research on the heritage of Jagannath Das Babaji if you are interested.

 

 

 

A point to notice here is that Srila Jagannatha das Babaji received his instructions in performing bhajan from Madhusudana Das Babaji, and Madhusudana Das Babaji did not know his official "guru-pranali". Indeed, Sri Radha Herself gave him guidance, and his life story shows the beginnings of a departure from the orthodoxy promoted by Siddha Jaykrsnadas Babaji and his associates.

 

 

What you see in the case of Madhusudandas Baba is not a departure from the orthodoxy, but rather an exception. The very fact that Radha requested him to not initiate others in the mantra he received bears testimony to this fact. Nothing in the life of Madhusudandas Baba suggests that he would have preached a path different from that of the other mahants of the time.

[MuralidharDas]

In regard to JAYAKRSNADASA BABAJI, some more info from the same source:

 

<hr><blockquote>

Both Siddha Krsnadasa Babaji of Govardhana and Siddha Madhusudana dasa Babaji of Suryakunda were loyal to Jayakrsna dasa. After Jayakrsna received the Madanamohana Deities one young Babaji came to assist him with the service of the Deities. This young Babaji, by dint of his modesty, attachment to service, and devotion to Jayakrsna, soon received the grace of Siddha Jayakrsna. Out of deep affection Jayakrsna desired to teach this young Babaji raganuga bhajan and asked him whether he had any guru-pranali. The young Babaji answered, "I am not aware what guru-pranali is, nor did I inquire from my gurudeva about it." Siddha Jayakrsna then explained that raganuga bhajan meant serving in utter loyalty to siddha gurus through the body of a siddha-gopi. He explained that this was the only way to attain the loving service of Sri Radha Govinda. For this purpose, Jayakrsna instructed the young Babaji to return to his homeland and bring back information from his gurudeva and his guru-pranali, thereafter Jayakrsna would initiate him into raganuga bhajan.

 

No doubt the young Babaji was anxious to know about raganuga bhajan but he was so deeply absorbed in serving Madanamohana and Siddha Jayakrsna that at the thought of parting with them he burst into tears. Jayakrsna comforted him and eventually convinced him to bring his gurupranali from Gaudamandala. Thus the young Babaji tearfully set out one night walking to Hathras to catch the train. In those days there was no railway route connecting Mathura and Bengal. Passengers going to Bengal had to catch the train at Hathras. As he approached Hathras the Babaji desperately prayed to Sri Radharani and Vrndadevi that he may die before boarding the train. Radharani responded to the young Babaji's prayer and the train departed, leaving him standing on the platform.

 

Meanwhile, Vrndadevi admonished Siddha Jayakrsna in a dream saying, "Why did you send away that young Babaji? His gurupranali is lying on the throne where your Deities stand." Siddha Jayakrsna awoke startled and though he did not see Vrndadevi, he apologized to Her quietly in his mind. Early in the morning after finishing his bath, he entered into the temple and found the gurupranali on the throne of Madanamohana. Holding it carefully clasped to his chest and remembering the grace showered upon him by Vrndadevi, Siddha Jayakrsna went to the temple of Govindaji and tearfully apologized to the Lord, praying that the young Babaji would return safely.

 

Returning to his bhajan kutir, Siddha Jayakrsna awaited the arrival of the Babaji, frequently looking at the road in anticipation as he attended to his daily Deity service. Shortly before evening the young Babaji arrived completely exhausted with thirst and hunger. Because he had disobeyed the order of Jayakrsna, the Baba approached fearfully with tears in his eyes and fell at the feet of Jayakrsna. Siddha Baba was ecstatic and held the young Babaji in his embrace, bathing him with his tears. The young Baba explained how he had returned and apologized for disobeying his command. Being in anxiety about the young Baba, Jayakrsna had not taken any prasada for two days. Now they sat together happily and Siddha Baba explained how Vrndadevi had showered her grace upon the young Babaji. After this episode Jayakrsna came to be known as "Siddha" in Vraja.

</blockquote>

<hr>

 

Madhava:

Where, in the writings of the sad-Goswamis is the any statement saying that in order to perform Raganuga Bhakti one must follow this sort of practice taught by Jayakrsnadas Babaji?

 

Moreover, in my post I did not say that Srila Jagannathadas Babaji Maharaj criticized Jayakrsna Babaji. No doubt Jayakrsnadas Babaji was a high type of Vaishnava. But what I am saying is that this method of devotion which was the orthodoxy in 17th century Vraja was in need of reform. It is not the method of devotional practice taught by Rupa, Sanatan or Mahaprabhu.

 

Another quote from this biography:

<hr><blockquote>

The tradition of raganuga bhakti presently in practice among the virakta Vaisnavas and householder devotees of Vrajamandala can be traced to Siddha Jayakrsna dasa Babaji of Kamyavana who first introduced it.

</blockquote>

<hr>

 

PS, this is from Haridas das's Gaudiya Vaishnava Abhidana, isn't it??

 

Oh, and I also agree to stop saying "Bubba".

 

[raga]

 

Muralidhar:

 

In regard to JAYAKRSNADASA BABAJI, some more info from the same source:

 

 

Yes, a well-known episode, again. I do not know if I would take much objection to the statements of people who have had the darshan of Vrindadevi, at least not very lightly.

 

 

Where, in the writings of the sad-Goswamis is the any statement saying that in order to perform Raganuga Bhakti one must follow this sort of practice taught by Jayakrsnadas Babaji?

 

 

Well, there are clear statements to the effect that one must meditate on a siddha-deha suitable for the service of Radha and Krishna during the practice of raganuga-sadhana, and Jiva Gosvami declares that siddha-deha to be an internally envisioned form which one desires to attain. The practice of Jayakrishnadas Babaji is the natural extension of this concept.

 

I trust you are acquainted with the paddhatis of Gopal Guru and Dhyanacandra which advise one to meditate on one's guru-pranali in their manjari-forms prior to envisioning onself serving Radha and Krishna. This succession of gurus in siddha-forms is what is meant by the term "siddha-pranali". If you care to browse around the Raganuga forums, you'll find the references. Otherwise I can post them here, too, though preferably into a separate thread.

 

 

PS, this is from Haridas das's Gaudiya Vaishnava Abhidana, isn't it??

 

 

Haridas das is a historian, he is not the voice of absolute truth echoing from the heavens. His research is valuable, not infallible. At any rate, I take it that you have copied the content herein from the online files from veda.harekrsna.cz or an equivalent source, a collection of dozens of files drawing mainly from GVA but also from other sources. As far as I can see, they do not always directly correspond to GVA, the editor, whoever that may be, has chosen to add and extract some passages as he has seen fit. I would particularly like to look up the following passage:

 

 

After hearing his story Siddha Baba said, "You know that our method of performing raganuga bhajan must have its hereditary link, that link is established by knowing the lineage of your guru, but you know nothing about your guru's identity or his family. Thus you have no right to do raganuga bhajan. Yet you have been given a mantra, therefore you should not be initiated again. For these reasons I cannot teach you bhajan."

 

 

I suspect there are a number of mistranslations here. I'll look into this sometime tomorrow, provided that the account is indeed in GVA, and not in Gaudiya Vaishnava Jivana, which I do not have at hand.

 

Guru's identity and family is probably a mistranslation of "svarupa o parivar", where parivar would refer to his disciplic lineage. "Family" is also a possible translation, though not compatible with the context.

 

Now, what would be the reason why Siddha Baba says that someone is not qualified for raganuga-bhajana if he does not have a disciplic line? The idea is that you are the servant of the servant of the servant, etc. You cannot jump in straight ahead. If you read Prarthana of Thakur Mahashaya for example, you'll see how he makes the link through Manjulali (Lokanath) to Rupa Manjari. Likewise, you'll see Visvanatha follow the same idea in the end of his Sankalpa-kalpadruma, wherein he reveals the siddha-svarupas of his diksa-guru-pranali, his "siddha-pranali" in short.

 

 

 

Moreover, in my post I did not say that Srila Jagannathadas Babaji Maharaj criticized Jayakrsna Babaji. No doubt Jayakrsnadas Babaji was a high type of Vaishnava. But what I am saying is that this method of devotion which was the orthodoxy in 17th century Vraja was in need of reform. It is not the method of devotional practice taught by Rupa, Sanatan or Mahaprabhu.

 

 

How exactly was it in need of reform?

 

Besides, with due respect, the tradition of Bhaktisiddhanta does not exactly reflect the way of life of Rupa-Sanatana either. Peaceful bhajananandi life is what you see the babajis doing. Rupa-Sanatana did not roam around the country founding monasteries, collecting alms and filing court-cases. Now, I am not saying that this is necessarily wrong, just that it is quite different. You may respond, "but it is the exact equivalent in spirit". Well, to that I respond, "the example of Jayakrishna das Baba is the exact equivalent in spirit". Will this make us much wiser?

[raga]

Oh yes, for the record, in the future you could do me a favor and somehow mark, perhaps in bold or in red typeface, items which you consider objectionable or crucial to the point you are making. Otherwise, it is hard for me to figure out what exactly it is that you see in a long piece of text that you want me to pay attention to.