Perspectives on the Sarasvata parampara

[MuralidharDas]

Yes I have a downloaded version of GVA, which I got on a large database of texts I received from Sripad Vishnu Maharaj, the asssociate of Sripad Narasingha Maharaj of Mysore. In fact, I am cautious about what I have read in GVA.

 

<hr>

Madhava wrote:

How exactly was it in need of reform?

<hr>

There are discrepencies between the teachings of Mahaprabhu, Rupa and Sanatan and the teachings of these Mahants of the mid-17th century.

 

In Brhad Bhagavatamrtam we read that Gopakumar received the diksa mantra from his Guru and that the Guru and Gopakumara both fell in to ecstasy, then the Guru wandered away and did not meet Gopakumara again for a long, long time. Gopakumara followed his heart-felt feelings and went here and there, seeking good guidance. Siksa. Nowhere in that book can I remember any world that Gopakumara went to where any Guru or Vaishnava refused to give Gopakumara instruction because he didn't know his Guru pranali.

 

Yet in the case of Madhusudana das babaji from GVA:

<hr>

<blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

<hr>

After which Madhusudanadas Babaji went to Jayakrsnadas Babaji, and according to the translation I have, he was told:

<hr>

<blockquote>

"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."

</blockquote>

<hr>

 

Indeed the translation may be faulty. But nevertheless the story seems to suggest that he was told to go away. He could not be instructed Raganuga bhajan because his Guru's identity was not known.

 

How does this stand up to other well known facts, for example the life story of Syamananda Prabhu who attained a connection with Srimate Lalitadevi quite independent of the mood and parivar of his initiating Guru. The Guru of Totaramadas Babaji is unknown, as are the Gurus of Haridas Thakur, Krishnadas Kaviraj and many others. Is there any mention in the books of the Goswamis of an incident where a sincere seeker was turned away because his Guru was unknown? I think not.

 

When Mahaprabhu met that brahmana in South India who was reciting the gita every day, the brahmana who was saying the sanskrit words incorrectly because he was uneducated, did Mahaprabhu inquire about the lineage of the man's Guru? Of course not. Mahaprabhu's magnanmimous mood doesn't involve these kinds of considerations.

 

The original Sampradaya of Mahaprabhu spread through an altogether different process than the "Guru Pranali" method of the 17th century which, it seems, has come from Jayakrsnadas Babaji Maharaj. Jayakrsnadas Babaji may have been a great devotee but his method of bhajan which became the "orthodox tradition" in the 17th century is different from the magnanimous preaching style of Narottama, Srinivasacharya, Nityananda Prabhu etc.

 

-- Muralidhar

 

[Gaurasundara]

 

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.

 

 

Er, no. Kindly return yourself to the beginning of this thread and see my very first post there. The purpose of this 'entire' thread was to initiate a discussion about the Sarasvata-parampara and my evolution of understanding of it.

 

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

 

Your idea about my statement about no siksa-paramparas anywhere and Sarasvati Thakura's fabrication belongs within the Urmila thread itself. Since you obviously have a great deal of time on your hands, you can go and verify this and post links if neccessary. I'm not all that bothered, as I know full well what I am trying to discuss while it seems that you have a few misunderstandings on this matter.

 

 

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.

 

 

Huh? 100% wrong? I claimed that there is no instance of a siksa-parampara anywhere in other sampradayas and that their paramparas consist of diksa connections. I will concede that material has been provided that certain relationships in said sampradayas contain siksa-relationships; however, this does not invalidate my claim about there being diksa connections. My claim was two-fold:

 

1 - There are no siksa-paramparas observe anywhere.

2 - Paramparas everywhere have diksa connections.

 

You have produced enough material to refute Objection 1. However, you cannot and probably never will be able to refute Objection 2 for obvious reasons.

 

 

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 in a previous post, you claimed that you knew that ther are total diksa-paramparas, siksa-paramparas and mixed diksa-siksa paramparas. It's pretty obvious that other Vaishnava lines are either diksa-lines or mixed-diksa lines. This is shown in the tradition of Madhva; from Madhva onwards connection has been through diksa and traced in that way. From Ramanuja onwards connection has been traced through diksa and their paramparas have been traced in this way. From Sankara onwards connection has been traced through diksa and paramparas are traced in that way. You can go and research on this if you wish; I have already done so. Your argument is that "other paramparas contain siksa relationships too", but my argument, JNDas, is that paramparas are traced via diksa, upto at least the founders of the respective traditions. I would have thought this was obvious since I was comparing them to Bhaktisiddhanta's parampara that is entirely fabricated with the explanation that all the relationships were siksa.

 

 

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

 

 

*Sigh*

Still bashing your head against the wall on this one, I see. Can every member who is observing this discussion be kind enough to point out the difference between two years and five years? I'd appreciate it, because obviously I am very weak at mathematics.

Oh, and I am criticising Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati? Excuse me, where did that idea come from? I have never worded a single criticism of anybody despite being accused of doing so. It would be helpful if someone could provide evidence of my "criticism" especially since I have numerous times explicitly stated that I am not criticizing anyone. My first post on this thread should clear this matter up. I cannot do much more if readers still think I am criticizing. Such people prefer to believe in their own ideas rather than listen.

 

 

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.

 

 

Evidently, JNDas thinks he is the hotshot Acharya who is the sole expert on Vedic topics in the entire world. We must all fall at his feet and beg for his mercy. Please do not show your prowess in his presence as you will run the risk of offending him. You are officially categorised as having learnt from Google and articles written by offenders. Evidence of greater learning is denied and has no official existence.

 

Aside the sarcasm, have I mentioned that I have dealt with these points before? JNDas thinks that my Vedic knowledge consists of Google searches. That's all fine and dandy, but JNDas doesn't have a clue what I know and what I don't know because he is not omniscient. That's a fact. He assumes that I do not know anything and, last I heard, assumptions were not admissible as evidence.

If JNDas wishes to think in this way so as to congratulate himself for his own learning, I have no objection. in fact, I highly encourage him to do so.

 

Actually, is it possible to enquire what are JNDas's own qualifications in Vedic study? Conceit and arrogance, is that taught these days?

 

 

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.

 

 

And yet they have done. Duh.

 

 

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.

 

 

Er, yes, but I have already admitted being semi-wrong on this point so why are you dragging it further?

 

 

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.

 

 

However, we are really talking about the Gaudiya tradition, you know. The main theme of my posts along this line have been the prominence of diksa in the Gaudiya lines descending from Mahaprabhu or His associates. Diksa in the Gaudiya line is a pivotal experience that 'initiates' the sadhaka into an intensive regimen of sadhana (well, ideally) that is designed to establish an eternal bond between guru and disciple, as well as Bhagavan. Are you seriously suggesting that diksa performed in these lines does not mean the link in the parampara is based on diksha? If not, then what is it based on?

 

Readers here may like to note the discussion topic contained in an earlier thread where this topic was extensively discussed according to the precepts of the Gaudiya tradition. One might also note that JNdas was a participant there too, and the examples/comments he posed there have been repetitively posed here, as is always the case with this fellow. Talk much, learn nothing.

 

 

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.

 

 

Incorrect. When JNDas says that I have "suddenly" attempted to change topic, he is lying through his teeth. JN, can you do us a favour and check your facts before you open your mouth? I have already explained that this thread was about my current perspective on the Sarasvata-parampara. Do yourself another favour and read my third post in this thread on page 1 from my reply to Theist:

 

"As far as I know, diksa-paramparas in Gaudiya Vaishnavism are supposed to be direct connections leading all the way up to the personal associates of Mahaprabhu. The reason for this is very simple and also complex, and the reason why certain people do not 'get it' is because they are obviously ignorant of this reason."

 

Get it? This has been the main theme behind almost every post I have made. Diksa lines in Gaudiya Vaishnavism have been traced via diksa either to Mahaprabhu or one of His associates. Until fairly recently, of course. Aside from that, I don't recall continually stating that there have been no examples of a siksa-parampara. I may have said it once or twice, but not certainly not as continually stating that diksa-paramparas in Gaudiya Vaishnavism are supposed to be direct connections leading all the way up to the personal associates of Mahaprabhu.

By the way, I'm glad that I re-posted my original quote from my third post to Theist. Read: "The reason for this is very simple and also complex, and the reason why certain people do not 'get it' is because they are obviously ignorant of this reason." Do you know the reason why diksa is important in GV, JNDas?

 

 

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.

 

 

I suspect that's what you would like to believe. I have known about the Sankara parampara for years. I even know which website you quoted it from. So it seems that you are being hypocritical when you accuse everyone else of learning only from Google searches when you so obviously rely on them yourself to make your point.

Even so, did you notice that several of the individuals are the same as those contained in the Brahma-sampradaya? Narayana Himself, Brahma, Vyasadeva. Are you saying that these three individuals in particular are Advaitins? Oh yes, Sukadeva Goswami too, he was an Advaitin? Well, they say that he was of the impersonalist ilk until he heard of the glory of Bhagavan, but hey, these "mayavadi rascals" are saying that Vyasa and Brahma and even Narayana Himself are Advaitins! What arrant blasphemy! How come you do not object to this?

 

Funnily enough, the Advaitins seem to claim that anyone who teaches even a semblance of their ideas must be an Advaitin, if only that they are still 'in the closet' so to speak. For this reason I do not take anything they say very seriously. JNDas says that I know nothing about Sankara and his parampara when I was an Advaitin for years. Right.

 

 

Unfortunately it was shown that, yes, even Shankara's Parampara is based on Siksha.

 

 

Not so fast. Being based is an altogether different thing. It is a fact that connections from Sankara have consisted via diksa even down to the present day. Considering the number of generations that have passed since Sankara as well as the number of disciples that each Sankara guru has initiated, we can well argue that dika holds a greater prominence. As always, critics are free to object against this if they wish. I have spoken with initiated Advaitins about this on several occasions.

 

 

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".

 

 

JNDas, don't be a grinch. Don't quote my comments out of context and reply to them when you know full well that I was talking about something else. It diminishes your credibility and this does not look good when you continually question the credibility of others.

 

My comment was directed to the "sudden change" of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's concept of initiation (and other issues) as compared to the status quo that had been in existence since the time of Mahaprabhu. Answer this point.

 

 

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.

 

 

I never said that anywhere. Having fun with strawmen again?

 

You know, it would be much more productive if people listen and respond to what I am saying, rather than what they think I am saying.

 

 

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.

 

 

I'm afraid that JNDas is missing the point once again. My comment (as is clearly understood in English) is that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta must have been sufficiently authorised to carry out this new tradition of initiation, if inded he was authorised. What is the evidence for this?

 

Instead the argument of Baladeva has been stupidly presented again, despite having received several replies/refutations. And just for the sake of clarity, Baladeva was not tracing his parampara in his writings. The main concern of Baladeva was to establish the legitimacy of the Gaudiya sampradaya at large. Therefore he presented the guru-parampara which is at the base of all branches of the Gaudiya tradition. Had he presented his own parampara, it would have read as follows:

 

Nityananda Prabhu - Gauridasa Pandita - Hridaya Caitanya - Syamananda Pandit - Rasika Murari - Nayanananda Gosvami - Radha Damodara Gosvami - Baladeva Vidyabhusana.

 

Bhaktivinoda presents his own parampara thus:

 

Jahnava Thakurani (Nityananda Prabhu) - Ramacandra Gosvami - Rajaballabha Gosvami - Kesavacandra Gosvami - Rudresvara Gosvami - Dayarama Gosvami - Mahesvari Gosvamini - Gunamanjari Gosvamini - Ramamani Gosvamini - Jogesvara Gosvami - Vipina Vihari Gosvami - Bhaktivinoda Thakura.

 

Of course, I'll expect you to again stupidly claim that this parampara is not "important" because paramparas can be/are based on siksa too. And you will again stupidly quote the examples of Arjuna, Ramanuja, and so on. Unfortunately for you, these paramparas are very important, do you know why? This is what I asked you earlier: "Diksa-paramparas in Gaudiya Vaishnavism are supposed to be direct connections leading all the way up to the personal associates of Mahaprabhu. The reason for this is very simple and also complex, and the reason why certain people do not 'get it' is because they are obviously ignorant of this reason." Do you know the reason why paramparas are important in Gaudiya Vaishnavism? If so, please state it and then we can continue from there.

 

 

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.

 

 

If you are still looking for clues, you may realise that the general theme of this thread (or at least my posts) are about the importance of diksa in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Madhvas trace their line through Acyutapreksa, that's all I'm interested in and need to make my point.

 

[by the way, since you're such a big fan of the Internet, check out Madhavacharya's bio on Madhva.net - Who does it list as Madhva's preceptor?]

 

 

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.

 

 

Oh right. I suppose I am speculating that sometime in the 1700s, the Ramanandis posed a serious challenge to the Gaudiyas by attempting to gain royal censure against them. By gaining royal censure from the Maharaja of Jaipur, the Gaudiyas would have been effectively marginalized and ridiculed for the rest of their days. During this time, the Gaudiya sampradaya faced a great danger. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti was regarded as a prominent Acharya in those days, but he was unfortunately too aged to handle this affair, therefore he deputed Baladeva to go to Jaipur and defend the Gaudiya sampradaya.

 

Did all of this actually happen? Maybe it was my speculation and thus I apologise for spreading these unconfirmed rumours.

 

 

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.

 

 

First of all, I am not aware that these venerated Acharyas wasted their time penning texts that described political issues. I would assume that they were too absorbed in their own bhajan to do that, or at least producing written material that dealt with devotional topics. Furthermore, I don't think that Baladeva was even alive at the time of Kavi Karnapura, so how could Kavi Karnapura even write such a thing even if he was interested in political matters?

I don't recall making a statement that Baladeva "made up" a parampara to gain the support of the Ramanandis. Seems that our highly-regarded JNDas is fantasizing about Lollipop Land again.

 

 

And you expect everyone to take your word on it because you researched this topic with a google search.

 

 

The Ramanandi confrontation is a historical fact and a milestone for Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Deal wth it.

People are free to believe it as they wish but that doesn't change the fact that it actually happened. And no I did not find it on Google like you do, I read about it in ISKCON publications. Excuse me for not having first-hand experience of this incident as I do not recall being alive at the time.

 

 

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.

 

 

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. In any case, the issue here is that Gaudiya Vaishnavas after Mahaprabhu have lined themselves up according to diksa and not siksa. Deal with that too. It's a fact.

 

 

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.

 

 

Now who's speculating?

"If he copied it,he could have,instead of." Can you show me in the writings of Baladeva Vidyabhusana or Visvanatha Cakravarti that "Baladeva knew the real Madhva paramparas but made this one up anyway just for fun" ? What nonsensical speculation.

Perhaps you could apply your high standards to yourself before applying them to others?

 

 

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.

 

 

It's not my concern. My concern is with how Gaudiyas since Mahaprabhu's time have been tracing themselves via diksa. Including the Gosvamis themselves. Now, I wonder why? Do you know why?

 

[by the way, I really don't mind if people criticise and/or abuse me even though I object to it, but do you think a certain level of decorum can be maintained when referring to respected Acharyas? Referring to Baladeva Vidyabhusana as a "fool" and so on is not my idea of respecting the Acharyas.]

 

 

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.

 

 

According to my knowledge, Baladeva did not present Mahaprabhu's or the Gaudiya parampara to the Ramanandis. As far as I know he dealt with their objections and was demanded to write a commentary on Vedanta-sutra for the Gaudiya sampradaya to be regarded as genuine. When Baladeva listed the basic Gaudiya parampara, he did this in his Prameya-ratnavali which was written/published significantly later after the Ramanandi confrontation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

Add to this the fact that the Ramanandi's own parampara is extremely questionable and not recognized by traditional Sri Vaishnava lines

 

 

Why not?

 

 

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.

 

 

Read what I wrote again in its entirety before you accuse me of misrepresenting the Dvaita tradition:

 

"However, where is the source for this prameya-sloka in the writings of Madhvacharya or any other Tattvavada acharya? It doesn't exist. Modern Dvaita cholars such as Bannanjee Govindacharya have opined that the prameya-sloka is a fraud, most probably. In fact, the Dvaitins admit that the earliest reference to the prameya-sloka is to be found in Baladeva's prameya-ratnavali, where the prameya-sloka is penned in a slightly different way."

 

Indeed, I heard this from Srisha Rao himself. As if Srisha Rao is not smart enough to know his own tradition, would you suppose that Bannanjee Govindacharya - a world renowned Dvaita scholar - is incorrect when he thinks the prameya-sloka is a fraud? Where in Jayatirtha's works is this commentary" to be found? In fact, this is proof that you do not know very much about Madhva siddhanta either; it was not Jayatirth who wrote anything, rather it was Vyasatirtha. And I just found that old email in my inbox. Have a look and see:

 

 

However, to answer your question, there is no work of Madhva that gives the specific list of nine prameya statements. There is no such work of Vyasaraya either. For this reason, Bannanje Govindacharya has suggested that the prameya-verse attributed to Vyasaraya is a fake or a forgery, and that it does not adequately cover all tenets of Madhva's theology (e.g., as given by him in the first chapter of his Mahabharata-Tatparya-Nirnaya).

 

However, this view is not universally accepted, and the late Swamiji of the Palimar MaTha, who accepted the verse as authentic, stated that even those tenets of Madhva that are not obvious from the verse (such as the superiority of Vayu among the souls, or the doctrines of sAkshI and visheshha), are derivable from it. In that sense, one would have to say that there are not necessarily nine core principles in the theology of Madhva, but rather, that there are nine distinct statements of core principle, each of which might yield more than one correct interpretation.

 

The earliest record of which I am aware, of the prameya-shloka of Vyasaraya being found in a text, is in the prameya-ratnAvaLI of the 18th-cent. Gaudiya Vaishnava scholar Baladeva. He however clearly quotes the verse as extant and well-known (and offers a similar one of his own creation), so we may infer that there was an earlier text, or at least an earlier oral tradition.

 

Regards,

 

Shrisha Rao

 

 

Get it? And JNDas says to me to "Please stop misrepresenting the Dvaita tradition."

 

 

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

 

 

Refuted above.

 

 

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.

 

 

This is yet another stupid strawman, a strawman in a long succession of previous strawmen that I am beginning to get tired of burning to the ground. It really seems that for every strawman I burn, another two springs up in its place!

Now where did I declare that Baladeva "made up" the parampara to counter Ramanandi accusations?

Seems that JNDas is not being entirely honest when he quotes me. See the original quotation. When JN said this:

 

"Bhaktivinoda Thakur says anyone who does not accept this parampara given by Baladeva is 'the foremost enemy of the Gaudiya Vaishnavites'."

 

I said this:

 

"I don't see anybody here is denying the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara, do you? The issue relates to parampara since Mahaprabhu and not before, but for some queer reason you overlook this fact."

 

Thus I can say that JNDas is not an honest participant in debate, and chooses to twist people's statements out of context and beyond belief in order to depict them as inferior in any available way. I'll say it again: the pivotal focus of my premises is to discuss how the traditions since Mahaprabhu are only traced via diksa. I have little or no interest in pre-Mahaprabhu parampara as it is more or less irrelevant. Irrelevant for a good reason, yes, which JNDas does not yet know.

 

 

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.

 

 

Oh right, and previously you were giving everybody the impression that Ramanuja was "on his way" to see Yamunacharya, his very very prominent guru, but that the latter unfortunately left this world before Ramanuja arrived. At the risk of speculating, JNDas's major argument is that Ramanuja's siksa relationship with Yamunacharya is considered 'greater' than his diksa relationship with Mahapurna. Or Gosthipurna, as he insists. If Yamunacharya had not died, it is possible that Ramanuja would have been initiated by him? Why not? JNDas said earlier: "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." Right, so if Yamunacharya had not died he might have given diksa to Ramanuja, right?

 

Bear in mind that I am speculating here, so don't reply with any silly attacks that I am speculating when I am already admitting it.

Now JNdas is saying that Yamunacharya appointed five disciples to train Ramanuja in five disciplines! Why? Why could he have not received training from one person? What is the evidence of Yamunacharya's appointing of five disciples anyway?

 

 

Among these Gosthi Purna performed mantra-diksha to Ramanuja and Maha-purna performed tapa. The other three acharya's taught him Vedanta, Gita, etc.

 

 

In any case, I am not interested in this. The particular line of dicussion we are talking about is Ramanuja's initiation, not his tapa learning, Gita learning or Vedanta learning.

 

 

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,

 

 

Now this is just plain silly. Not only are we supposed to trace diksa paramparas and debatably a siksa-parampara, but JNDas would not have us believe that we should trace tapa, Gita and Vedanta paramparas too! Imagine that, tracing a line of teachers who taught tapa to one another. Vedanta to one another. Gita to one another.

And JNDas insists that I don't have a clue as to what I am talking about. By the way, JN is incorrect. It was not Gosthi purna who gave mantra-diksa, it was MahaPurna.

 

 

yet Ramanuja was a disciple of Yamunacharya and was appointed by Yamunacharya as his successor.

 

 

Appointed by Yamunacharya, now? I thought Yamunacharya passed away before Ramanuja could reach there? Right.

 

Sorry, but in no way do Sri Vaishnavas accept Ramanuja to be a (direct) disciple of Yamunacharya. I have learnt this from Sri Vaishnava devotees. I am becoming even more convinced that this idea that you are pushing is just your fanciful conception. This is what happens when you live in Lollipop Land for too long.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

The Sri Vaishnava who I have consulted with draws his parampara through Nammalvar (Nammazhvar). He says that Nammalvar received diksa from Visvaksena. I'll accept his word over yours, thanks all the same.

 

 

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.

 

 

Yes, and we all know what Sri Advaita Acharya advised his wife to do when she was similarly initiated by Srila Madhavendra Puri in a "dream", don't we? This itself shows that the Gaudiya standards appears to be different, for an exceptionally good reason which you don't know. Thanks for proving my point.

 

 

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.

 

 

Fine, so I was wrong about that too. I'll admit that, no problem. Still, I made this point in order to show that some sort of reaction is necessary from the disciple if he observes his guru as being faulty in any way. This was not your (or rather, Alpa-medhasa's) stupid argument that Bhaktivinoda "quietly rejected" his guru and "quietly accepted" a new one because he was "cultured." Of course, Srila Bhaktivinoda was certainly a cultured acharya, but by any shot he was required to make some sort of reaction if he observed his guru as being faulty in some way. There is no evidence to suggest that Vipin Vihari was faulty in any way. In fact, Bhaktivinoda continued praising him in his writings even in his siddha form up until his practical last days.

You have no proof to suggest that Vipin Vihari Gosvami was faulty. Oh, except for some unreliable Gaudiya Matha propaganda.

 

 

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.

 

 

Excuse me, who do you think you are talking to? Are you capable of having a discussion without throwing invectives in any way? What are they teaching in ISKCON nowadays, to refer to everyone as "boy" ? Hmmm...

 

 

But when your bluff is called, then suddenly, "Oh its an in-house Gaudiya affair."

 

 

*Sigh*

How many times have I openly said that I have seen discussions about this topic many times? I have even participated in some of them, therefore I can immediately recognise when someone tries to make a point because someone has already made that point before in a previous discussion. This is the reason why I originally said that these types of discussions are repetitive. And as I have stated before and I firmly state now: There is no use in considering Madhva opinions on this subject because the Madhva parampara is different to the Gaudiyas. Thus this is an in-house Gaudiya affair.

 

Speaking of which, have you ever wondered why the Madhva parampara is different to the Gaudiyas, either via diksa or siksa? This shows that you really don't have a clue, do you? That is why you rely on explanations about "siksa-parampara" to back-up your view. Oh well, life is fun in Lollipop Land I guess.

 

 

Regarding Baladeva Vidyabhushana:

In reply to: 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.

 

 

Speculative premises? Excuse me, but I heard from ISKCON sources that Baladeva was initiated by a Madhva before he became a Gaudiya. If he later got initiated by Radha-Damodara das, that would naturally warrant rejection of his Madhva guru and re-initiation into the Gaudiya line.

In fact, I have good reason to believe this was published in Back To Godhead Magazine when they ran a serial on Baladeva's life. Therefore, if you think this is a speculative idea, take it up with those ISKCON people or the editorial staff of Back To Godhead, not me. OK?

 

I couldn't particularly care if he was initiated by a Madhva or not, that is why I broached the subject with Raga and asked his opinion. I didn't say it was a fact. Again, read what I say before replying to what you think I am saying.

 

 

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.

 

 

See? Instead of answering my question, you return with another of your infamous Cheap Shots. In case you didn't realise, that entire post was to be considered my personal viewpoint and not a debate. Yet you ignore this and try to include this in a debate and respond in an acrimonious manner. Fine by me.

For your information, I never believed that SB himself claimed to have come with a unique gift. Obviously you are not even familiar with SB's philosophy, even though you have no reason to be. For the record, SB claims to have advented for the purpose of restoration of Vedic dharma; in essence, he is repeating the age-old wisdom of the Vedic culture/literature. Whether he is actually doing this may warrant an entire thread dedicated to that subject.

 

 

This type of logic is really destructive and blind.

 

 

Certainly it is. The logic of believing in a siksa-parampara just because "other people do" such as Arjuna and Ramanuja is destructive and blind. Ignoring the examples of all the major acharyas in the Gaudiya tradition, you wish to follow a path which itself is a different path. I wish you well.

 

 

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."

 

 

Reminder, you are busy basing your argument on an isolated satatement, while I myself have continuously stated that my primary focus is on the tradition of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

 

 

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!

 

 

Yes, make fun and keep up with the dry wit. Obviously you have bags of fun when a sincere enquirer decides to do some independent research instead of blindly accepting dogmatic beliefs. Read my first post on this thread; it shows that I am not interested in subscribing to blind beliefs and that I am opening up to what others have to say. This marks a milestone in my spiritual search for God and the best way to attain Him.

 

And all you can do is scream with laughter. Shame on you.

 

 

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.

 

 

Perhaps I was rather harsh when I referred to you as a scoundrel, but really if you are honest with yourself you will have to admit that you have behaved extremely badly in this discussion. You have presented a lot of unnecessary strawmen that could have been avoided if only you had listened to what I said instead of thinking what I as trying to say. You have also lied in places, or at least seriously twisted my statements completely out of their context. You have also 'cast the first stone' by responding extremely rudely and arrogantly to my posts and that of others, and have also resorted to making below-the-belt personal remarks. Surely you must recognise this? There was no cause for that kind of behaviour and you must admit that you have been very badly behaved in this regard.

I am familiar with a little of your discussion history and I do know that you are knowledgeable in scriptural study. This entire website is a testimony to that. I regret that our relationship is tense and I would really pefer to interact with you on a more cordial basis. Just see the attitude that is evidence from my very first post. It is a searching, truthful and enquiring attitude. It is unfortunate that this discussion has degenerated to the low-class standards of useless name-calling and abuse from both sides. I will be the first to admit my own faults and apologise for them. I do recall making an apology in a previous post somewhere but it seems you have not seen it; so just for the record, let me take the first step and offer you the hand (namaskar) of decency and friendship and apologise for all of my cutting and rude remarks without exception. I hope you will accept this apology and agree to continue this discussion on the same terms.

 

So, JNDas, are you willing to continue this discussion in a manner free from invective of any kind?

[Gaurasundara]

Dear Muralidharji,

 

why are you always talking about Neal Delmonico?

[MuralidharDas]

Why am I speaking about Delmonico? Actually I hardly ever think of him.

 

But when I read this thread you started and saw that his idiotic ideas are still influencing people's beliefs I came in and spoke about what I know about this topic.

 

Muralidhar

 

PS, no need to call me Muralidharji. I don't spend much time in the Hindi speaking places of this world. Bangla forms of address are more my style, Bhai.

 

 

[Gaurasundara]

Dear Muralidharji, I would like to question some of your points and request clarification for others.

 

 

There are discrepencies between the teachings of Mahaprabhu, Rupa and Sanatan and the teachings of these Mahants of the mid-17th century.

 

 

Could you kindly list the discrepancies that you have in mind, so that your point will be made clearer?

 

 

Nowhere in that book can I remember any world that Gopakumara went to where any Guru or Vaishnava refused to give Gopakumara instruction because he didn't know his Guru pranali.

 

 

As far as I am aware, SriBrhad-bhagavatam is a fictional story by Sanatana Gosvami in order to show that the glory of Krishna and Vraja-dhama as being the greatest of all. It is a story of Gopakumar's spiritual quest.

I doubt that today's sadhakas have the mental and bodily capacity to travel to various planetary systems in search of the 'highest goal' just like Gopakumara did. Gopakumara was not a sadhaka-disciple in the line of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. However, the important point in that story is how Gopakumara received the special mantra, and how he was able to reach his destinations and go higher and higher by virtue of chanting that mantra.

 

 

Indeed the translation may be faulty. But nevertheless the story seems to suggest that he was told to go away. He could not be instructed Raganuga bhajan because his Guru's identity was not known. How does this stand up to other well known facts,

 

 

As far as I know, it is essential to be initiated by a guru. What more, for the purposes of practicing raganuga-bhajana it is essential to know not just your guru-parampara, but the guru-parampara in their sidha identities. This is so you can envision yourself as performing service for Sri-Sri Radha-Krishna under the guidance of your entire siddha-guru-parampara. There are references to this in Narottama das Thakura's works as well as in Visvanatha Cakravarti's.

 

 

for example the life story of Syamananda Prabhu who attained a connection with Srimate Lalitadevi quite independent of the mood and parivar of his initiating Guru.

 

 

Syamananda Pandita was a notable exception. And it is indeed fascinating to note how he later followed the madhurya-rasa that was against the sakhya-rasa practiced in his parampara.

On a more esoteric level, madhurya-rasa contains the essence of all rasas. Sri Radhika, for example, is considered to be the topmost pinnacle of madhurya-bhava (madanakhya-mahava, to be precise) yet she exhibits vatsalya-bhava to Her close sakhis and is "highly praised" for doing so. I suppose you can say She is absorbed in sakhya-rasa as well since She is close to Her friends (sakhis).

 

 

The Guru of Totaramadas Babaji is unknown, as are the Gurus of Haridas Thakur, Krishnadas Kaviraj and many others.

 

 

I don't know who Totaramadas Babaji is, perhaps Ragaji can provide explanation. Haridas Thakura received diksa from Advaita Acharya. Krsnadasa Kaviraja's guru is also unknown though some say he received diksa from Raghunatha das Gosvami.

 

 

When Mahaprabhu met that brahmana in South India who was reciting the gita every day, the brahmana who was saying the sanskrit words incorrectly because he was uneducated, did Mahaprabhu inquire about the lineage of the man's Guru? Of course not. Mahaprabhu's magnanmimous mood doesn't involve these kinds of considerations.

 

 

I think I could explain this incident further if you kindly give the name of this Brahmana. Vyenkatta Bhatta, I presume?

 

 

The original Sampradaya of Mahaprabhu spread through an altogether different process than the "Guru Pranali" method of the 17th century which, it seems, has come from Jayakrsnadas Babaji Maharaj.

 

 

"Guru-pranali" and "Guru-parampara" both mean the same thing; a lineage of gurus. Therefore the "original sampradaya" of Mahaprabhu is certainly connected to a lineage of gurus coming either from Mahaprabhu or one of His associates.

 

 

Jayakrsnadas Babaji may have been a great devotee but his method of bhajan which became the "orthodox tradition" in the 17th century is different from the magnanimous preaching style of Narottama, Srinivasacharya, Nityananda Prabhu etc.

 

 

Narottama, Srinivasa Acharya and Nityananda Prabhu were all participants of Raganuga-bhajan. Actually this could not be said for Nityananda since He is Bhagavan, not a sadhaka.

 

Narottama and Srinivasa Acharya certainly did a lot of preaching, but they also engaged in raganuga-bhajan, meditating on their service-performing siddha indentites in line with their particular guru-paramparas.

[Gaurasundara]

 

Why am I speaking about Delmonico? Actually I hardly ever think of him. But when I read this thread you started and saw that his idiotic ideas are still influencing people's beliefs I came in and spoke about what I know about this topic.

 

 

OK now I understand. But to be fair, this sort of criticism has been going on ever since the time of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, I presume. In any case it is not necessarily the issue of "no diksa" that bothers me. I think that I have reached a point in my life where I need to re-evaluate my knowledge and to see if they are grounded in a solid body of evidence.

 

Anyway, nice to meet you! I called you 'Muralidharji' in my next post before reading this one. Thanks for calling me'bhai,' then I'll also regard you as my brother! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

I sincerely hope Vaishnavas can all be united one day.

[MuralidharDas]

In reply to:

 

Could you kindly list the discrepancies that you have in mind, so that your point will be made clearer?

 

<hr> You should read Brhadbhagavatamrtam. If you knew what was written in that book, what I was saying would be perfectly clear.

[MuralidharDas]

Gaurasundar wrote:

<hr>

I don't know who Totaramadas Babaji is, perhaps Ragaji can provide explanation. Haridas Thakura received diksa from Advaita Acharya. Krsnadasa Kaviraja's guru is also unknown though some say he received diksa from Raghunatha das Gosvami.

<hr>

Totaramadas Babaji was a very important preacher in Nabadwip in the early 18th century.

 

The story that Haridas Thakur was initiated by Advaita Acharya is unsubstantiated. It is written in just one place, the apocryphal book Advaita Prakash. This book is full of statements that are contrary to the facts presented in authentic literature from the era of the Goswamis. In this article by Giri Maharaj http://www.gosai.com/krishna-talk/advaita-prakasa.html

he quite conclusively establishes that Advaita Prakash is a not genuine. Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami and others have suggested that Haridas Thakur either was initiatd by some unknown person, or that he felt a natural attraction for Harinama and took a vow to chant constantly without receiving diksa. It is to be noted that in Chaitanya Bhagavat there is a story of Haridas initiating Mayadevi, a prostitute who tried to seduce him. He gave the lady Harinama, but he definately did not give her mantra diksa with Gopala mantra etc. The guru-disciple relationship in that case was not a diksa-guru and disciple relationship, if we accept the definition of diksa given by the "traditionalist babajis".

 

There is no authentic evidence anywhere about the any diksa guru of Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami. My own siksa-guru, Srila Bhakti Sundar Govinda Maharaj, is building a new temple at Seva Kunja in Vrindaban, at the place where Kaviraj Gosai wrote most of Chaitanya Charitamrta. My wife and I donated the first money to start construction of the new temple at that place. The diksa-guru of Krishnadas Kaviraj, in my humble opinion, is Sri Nityananda Prabhu, who appeared to Kaviraj Gosai in a dream. This is my reading of Kaviraj's statements in CC Adi Chapter 5. Additionally, Srila AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada has made the direct statement there that Kaviraja was initiated by Nitai.

 

-- Muralidhar

 

[gHari]

Our buddy keeps saying how he respects this acarya, that saintly soul, yet at the same time while pretending to have doubts, really he is not doubting, but he is actually convinced that these saints and acaryas are all wrong. Wrong about parampara, wrong about raganuga, wrong about Srila Rupa's teachings, wrong about siddhanta. He himself is the authority, armed with a bucket of books and words, far above these other personalities.

 

He does not have doubts at all as he condescendingly reveals:<blockquote>"Certainly it is. The logic of believing in a siksa-parampara just because "other people do" such as Arjuna and Ramanuja is destructive and blind. Ignoring the examples of all the major acharyas in the Gaudiya tradition, you wish to follow a path which itself is a different path. I wish you well."</blockquote>

 

Don't dare again present yourself as an ISKCONer with doubts. You are too arrogant to have doubts. You have no relationship with ISKCON and your only relationship with Srila Prabhupada is as arrogant offender. Don't play games.

 

He will be stuck in his head the rest of this life demanding that Krsna bow down to his jnana. The jewel on the head of a cobra will never attract Sri Krsna. I wouldn't bother helping him polish up his jewel to spread his poison to the innocents with these two-faced con man tactics.

 

He left Srila Prabhupada for Sai, and now again he has left Prabhupada, this time for an even bigger fake - himself.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

If you are still looking for clues, you may realise that the general theme of this thread (or at least my posts) are about the importance of diksa in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Madhvas trace their line through Acyutapreksa, that's all I'm interested in and need to make my point.

 

 

Here is a look at the Gaudiya parampara. See if the parampara is indeed a diksha only parampara.

 

Based on the writings of Baladeva Vidyabhushana, Kavi Karnapura, etc.:

 

1) Gaudiyas trace their line through Madhva from Vyasa which is a siksha link.

 

2) Gaudiyas trace the next four successive acharyas after Madhva as being successive links in the parampara when in fact they all received mantra diksha from Madhva, thus the succession can only be one of siksha.

 

3) Gaudiyas include Shukadeva Goswami as belonging to their parampara as a Godbrother of Madhva despite the fact that Shukadeva Goswami never received mantra-diksha (as stated in the Bhagavatam).

 

People such as Bhaktivinoda Thakur have accepted this parampara as fact and consider anyone who rejects this parampara as "an enemy of gaudiya vaishnavism".

 

It is my understanding that even "traditional" Gaudiya's such as Ananta Das Babaji Maharaja accept this parampara to be factual (though they may not accept it as a siksha line).

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

My claim was two-fold:

 

1 - There are no siksa-paramparas observe anywhere.

 

You have produced enough material to refute Objection 1.

 

 

So I suppose you will do the honest thing and admit you were wrong when you stated Bhaktisiddhanta's judgment was against the whole Gaudiya tradition and Vedic tradition as well:

 

 

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

 

 

An honest person would retract this charge against Bhaktisiddhanta and admit they were ignorant of the facts involved.

 

 

My claim was two-fold:

 

2 - Paramparas everywhere have diksa connections.

 

 

 

Actually, your claim was that paramparas everywhere are traced ONLY by diksha connections. Do you see how the slight change in wording above completely changes your position? This shows a lack of honesty in debate, to switch one's position halfway through discussion.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Your argument is that "other paramparas contain siksa relationships too", but my argument, JNDas, is that paramparas are traced via diksa, upto at least the founders of the respective traditions.

 

 

My argument has remained unchanged, yet your position keeps changing as you begin to learn about the traditions of other paramparas. Why did you pretend to know these subjects and post emphatically that everyone was wrong and they could go look it up if they liked to? If you haven't studied a subject, then why pretend you have? And if you will pretend to have studied this topic, people may doubt that you are prentending you studied the Gaudiya tradition as well. If one has doubts, he should research and inquire in a manner relevant to his knowledge, not boldly declare that everything is how I think it is and no one can prove me wrong.

 

Before your position was that no parampara in Vedic history contained a siksha link, now you have adjusted this to "There may be siksha links, but only before the founder, not after."

 

Yet the four acharyas cited after Madhva in the Gaudiya parampara come after the founder. Thus your view that there are no siksha links after the founder of the parampara is wrong.

 

The parampara extending from Vyasa to Shuka, to Parikshit and onwards (bhagavata parampara) is only a Siksha parampara. It has nothing to do with the founder, and yet this is considered a branch of the Brahma sampradaya.

 

 

It's pretty obvious that other Vaishnava lines are either diksa-lines or mixed-diksa lines. This is shown in the tradition of Madhva; from Madhva onwards connection has been through diksa and traced in that way. From Ramanuja onwards connection has been traced through diksa and their paramparas have been traced in this way. From Sankara onwards connection has been traced through diksa and paramparas are traced in that way. You can go and research on this if you wish; I have already done so.

 

 

I hate to have to call you bluff on this again, but what research did you do to verify the mantra-diksha ceremonies of each acharya in the line of Shankara, Madhva and Ramanuja? The fact is you do not know whether or not each acharya has received mantra-diksha from the parampara-acharya or not. The fact that today (the last 100 years) the parampara is carried on through diksha is meaningless when these lines are traced back millions of years. You post absurd statements like you have researched the lines form Shankara onwards and they are all diksha lines. Stop pretending again. What historical or archealogical evidence have you analized to conclude the mantra-diksha gurus for each acharya in the line? Can you even name the acharyas coming from shankara down to today? Can you even name how many branches of the Shankara sampradaya exist today?

 

When you make such absurd claims, then people will laugh at you even when you make a good point in the future.

 

You are not someone with sincere doubts. You are someone who wants to pretend he knows something he does not know. If you had sincere doubts, then you wouldn't be making such fanciful claims.

 

 

By the way, since you're such a big fan of the Internet, check out Madhavacharya's bio on Madhva.net - Who does it list as Madhva's preceptor?

 

 

No thanks. My study of Madhva's line is deeper than going to a website to find out answers. I have lived in Udupi for several years and learned from Acharya's of the Ashta Mathas and other respectable scholars. Believe what you like about the Madhva line, I have no interest to convince you. But for other innocent readers I will point out your bluffs.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Oh, and I am criticising Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati? Excuse me, where did that idea come from? I have never worded a single criticism of anybody despite being accused of doing so. It would be helpful if someone could provide evidence of my "criticism" especially since I have numerous times explicitly stated that I am not criticizing anyone.

 

 

You want to charge Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati with fabricating his guru parampara. You are suggesting he is a cheater and a liar, yet you are the innocent one who has not insulted him?

 

He are some of your words:

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Now, I don't know why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta presented an invalid parampara although I would be highly interested in the reason, but simply the fact that paramparas are traced by diksa in the Gaudiya tradition is reason enough not to take it seriously at least for the time being.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Given my reply to your previous point, how does a fabricated siksa-parampara prove anything, especially of your points?

 

 

 

I would have thought this was obvious since I was comparing them to Bhaktisiddhanta's parampara that is entirely fabricated with the explanation that all the relationships were siksa.

 

 

Perhaps the next step will be to suggest one needs an authorized guru-pranali to attain Krishna, and thus Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivedanta Swami, coming from a fabricated parampara, are unrealized and bogus gurus.

 

I put this on record so we can see after three or four months what is your opinion. Of course your opinions change faster than the phases of the moon, so its hard to gauge. One minute its Sai Baba, then ISKCON, then Srila Gaurangapada, then Diksha-paramparas. Who can keep track?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Evidently, JNDas thinks he is the hotshot Acharya who is the sole expert on Vedic topics in the entire world.

 

 

I have hardly participated in these forums, even to read them, for the last five months. Only when foolish people pop up and make fanciful claims that Bhaktisiddhanta fabricated his parampara and that Bhaktisiddhanta's judgement is against the entire Vedic tradition then I will speak up. When people make such ignorant comments its time to call these people's bluff and expose them for people with little learning beyond copying and pasting things from other sites.

 

Last person to make these claims was Premananda. His raganuga bhakti didn't seem to have helped him much. After offending the line of Bhaktisiddhanta, he later went on to offend the line of his raganuga guru, and then the entire line of Mahaprabhu.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Evidence of greater learning is denied and has no official existence.

 

 

Display your greater learning and I will shut up. Till now you have displayed ignorance, and I have called you on it.

 

 

JNDas doesn't have a clue what I know and what I don't know because he is not omniscient. That's a fact. He assumes that I do not know anything and, last I heard, assumptions were not admissible as evidence.

 

 

You claimed you have studied the paramparas of all traditions, and that no Vedic tradition had a siksha parampara.

 

You were proved wrong.

 

You claimed the Madhva parampara was based only on diksha.

 

You were proved wrong.

 

You claimed the Sri Vaishnava line was based only on diksha.

 

You were proved wrong.

 

You claimed the Shankara line was based only on Diksha.

 

You were proved wrong.

 

You claimed the Gaudiya line was based only on Diksha.

 

You were proved wrong.

 

You claimed there were various vaishnava dharma shastras that instructed us to "publicly reject" a guru if we see anything "iffy". Your bluff was called and you were proven wrong, you couldn't cite a single reference from the many "vaishnava dharma shastras".

 

Now you want everyone to respect your vast learning and knowledge? No, thanks. I will continue to call your bluff. You have not undergone any systematic study of Vedic traditions, yet you want to pose as though you know them in depth.

 

And based on your "knowledge" you want to question the Sarasvata Parampara and claim it is fabricated by Bhaktisiddhanta? Yes, I will continue to call your bluff.

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Reagrding Shankara parampara:

 

Even so, did you notice that several of the individuals are the same as those contained in the Brahma-sampradaya? Narayana Himself, Brahma, Vyasadeva. Are you saying that these three individuals in particular are Advaitins? Oh yes, Sukadeva Goswami too, he was an Advaitin?

 

 

Study vedic tradition and you will learn that the majority of Vedic philosophies originate in parampara from the Lord and come down through Vyasa. The founders of the Shad darshanas are all disciples of Vyasa, yet this does not make Vyasa a follower of the Shad darshanas. Vyasa instructs people according to their position, and their understanding of his teachings is according to their position and natures. Thus the countless Vedic paramparas are formed.

 

The fact that Vyasa and Shuka have inaugurated the advaita parampara does not make them advaitis any more than it makes Vyasa a Nyayi, Vaisheshiki or Yogi for being the preceptor of these lines. Vyasa himself has later refuted the teachings of the Shad-darshana in Vedanta Sutra despite the fact that he is the origin of those teachings in parampara.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Funnily enough, the Advaitins seem to claim that anyone who teaches even a semblance of their ideas must be an Advaitin, if only that they are still 'in the closet' so to speak. For this reason I do not take anything they say very seriously. JNDas says that I know nothing about Sankara and his parampara when I was an Advaitin for years. Right.

 

 

Being a neo-advaitin is not the same as being a member of the Shankara sampradaya. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is a neo-advaitin. It means nothing. Simply because you were one as well means nothing of your knowledge pertaining to Shankara bhashya and tradition.

 

Your method is to try to claim credibility from every corner simply because you read a book or two.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

And just for the sake of clarity, Baladeva was not tracing his parampara in his writings.

 

 

Yes, he was tracing his parampara from before Nityananda's time, because Nityananda also comes in this parampara

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I wrote:

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.

 

 

Gaurasundar replied:

 

[by the way, I really don't mind if people criticise and/or abuse me even though I object to it, but do you think a certain level of decorum can be maintained when referring to respected Acharyas? Referring to Baladeva Vidyabhusana as a "fool" and so on is not my idea of respecting the Acharyas.]

 

 

Please show where I refered to Baladeva Vidyabhushana as a fool.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Oh right, and previously you were giving everybody the impression that Ramanuja was "on his way" to see Yamunacharya, his very very prominent guru, but that the latter unfortunately left this world before Ramanuja arrived.

 

 

Yamunacharya prior to departing gave instructions for Ramanuja to be trained by five acharyas (pancha-purna), and for Ramanuja to be installed as his successor. This is prior to Ramanuja having ever seen Yamunacharya. While the disciples went to bring Ramanuja, Yamunacharya went into Samadhi and never regained consciousness.

 

Please go and read Guru Parampara Prabhavam and this will be clear to you.

 

 

Now JNdas is saying that Yamunacharya appointed five disciples to train Ramanuja in five disciplines! Why? Why could he have not received training from one person? What is the evidence of Yamunacharya's appointing of five disciples anyway?

 

 

Read Guru Parampara Prabhavam and you will know.

 

 

In any case, I am not interested in this. The particular line of dicussion we are talking about is Ramanuja's initiation, not his tapa learning, Gita learning or Vedanta learning.

 

 

You know all about the Sri Vaishnava line, but you don't have a clue as to what tapa is? You think it is something you learn? Tapa is one of the pancha-samskaras, branding with fire the symbols of Vishnu on one's body. Gaudiya's should be familiar with it, as it is mentioned in prameya-ratnavali, along with the reason we do not apply it.

 

You don't even know the meaning of these words, yet you want to argue about them?

 

 

 

Now this is just plain silly. Not only are we supposed to trace diksa paramparas and debatably a siksa-parampara, but JNDas would not have us believe that we should trace tapa, Gita and Vedanta paramparas too! Imagine that, tracing a line of teachers who taught tapa to one another. Vedanta to one another. Gita to one another.

 

 

This is the problem with discussing with you. You don't know these topics and can't understand what is being written. Tapa is a ceremony of branding the symbols of the Lord on the devotee. Sri Vaishnava's will trace their tapa lineage through the guru who performed the tapa ceremony. When refering to the mantra lineage Sri Vaishnava's will trace their guru through the line of mantra-diksha. Thus Ramanuja's mantra-diksha guru is Goshti Purna, and his tapa guru is Maha Purna. Yet he himself was appointed the successor of Yamunacharya by Yamunacharya himself, this is clearly stated in Guru Parampara Prabhavam.

 

In Vedic tradition there are different categories of guru. There is the guru who gives mantra, the guru who gives sannyasa, the guru who performs tapa, etc. Lineages can be traced through all of these ceremonies.

 

 

JNDas would not have us believe that we should trace tapa, Gita and Vedanta paramparas too! Imagine that, tracing a line of teachers who taught tapa to one another. Vedanta to one another. Gita to one another.

And JNDas insists that I don't have a clue as to what I am talking about.

 

 

Yes, case proved. You don't even know the meaning of the word you are debating about, and you are posing as though you know everything. You think tapa refers to something a guru teaches, like Vedanta or the Gita; when in reality it refers to branding the disciple with fire.

 

 

It was not Gosthi purna who gave mantra-diksa, it was MahaPurna.

 

 

Again, please read Guru Parampara Prabhavam before commenting. Ramanuja was sent to receive mantra diksha from Gosthi Purna 18 times, and each time he was refused the mantra, until the final visit.

 

 

Appointed by Yamunacharya, now? I thought Yamunacharya passed away before Ramanuja could reach there? Right.

 

 

Yes, if you had studied Ramanuja's life you would know these things. Yamunacharya appointed Ramanuja as successor without Ramanuja being present.

[MuralidharDas]

That was brilliant, Jahnava Nitai das Prabhu.

[MuralidharDas]

I wrote

<hr>

 

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?

 

<hr>

Madhava replied

<blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

<hr>

 

This method of devotional service here labelled as "raganuga bhakti" is altogether different from Srila Rupa Goswami's description of raganuga bhakti in Bhaktirasamrtasindhu.

 

Again, it says in this biography of Jayakrsnadas Babaji that he introduced a particular method of worhip:

<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>

 

Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati is often criticized for making innovations. But it is interesting to note that many of the "traditions" of the so-called "mainstream tradition" of Gaudiya Vaishnavism arose in the early 18th century. The taking of "vesa", the ritual acceptance of the kaupina and the name "babaji", for instance, only started about 250 years ago.

 

What is more, these stories wherein it is said that a devotee needs to mentally imagine the siddha forms of the devotees in his Guru-parampara, while imagining oneself rendering service to Radha-Govinda, are not at all like the process of raganuga bhakti described in Bhaktirasamrtasindhu.

 

Srila Prabhupada writes in the Nectar of Devotion, chapter 15:

 

<hr><blockquote>

Srila Rupa Goswami has definded Raganuga bhakti as spontaneous attraction for something while completely absorbed in it, with an intense desire of love. Devotional service executed with such feelings of spontaneous love is called raganuga bhakti. Devotional feelings under the heading of raganuga can be further divided into two categories: one category is called sensuous attraction, and the other is called relationship.</blockquote>

<hr>

 

In consequence of this, my Guru Maharaj said that we need not try and imagine ourselves as direct associates or servitors in the intimate circle of Radha Govinda. Better that we make ourselves busy with washing the pots in the temple. For Radha Govinda are there in the temple and when we develop a surrendered mood of service for the Deities, natural raga will arise within.

 

-- Muralidhar

[raga]

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

In Brhad Bhagavatamrtam we read that Gopakumar received the diksa mantra from his Guru and that the Guru and Gopakumara both fell in to ecstasy, then the Guru wandered away and did not meet Gopakumara again for a long, long time. Gopakumara followed his heart-felt feelings and went here and there, seeking good guidance. Siksa. Nowhere in that book can I remember any world that Gopakumara went to where any Guru or Vaishnava refused to give Gopakumara instruction because he didn't know his Guru pranali.

 

 

Brihat Bhagavatamrita isn't exactly the case example of a sadhaka's life, to begin with. Generally you would get instructions from the guru on the chanting of your mantra. Gopa Kumar got none, and his journey was long. This serves to instruct us to inquire further into the meaning of the mantra in order to clarify the prayojana in the beginning, to not unnecessarily prolong our journey. Of course, the journey of Gopa Kumar was intentionally what it was, to help Sanatana Gosvami explain the foundation tenets of Gaudiya theology to us.

 

Besides, I don't recall GK asking anyone for siksa in raganuga-bhajana. There are basic practices such as yogapitha-smarana (read in GG's & DC's paddhatis) which require knowledge of one's guru-pranali.

 

 

 

How does this stand up to other well known facts, for example the life story of Syamananda Prabhu who attained a connection with Srimate Lalitadevi quite independent of the mood and parivar of his initiating Guru. The Guru of Totaramadas Babaji is unknown, as are the Gurus of Haridas Thakur, Krishnadas Kaviraj and many others. Is there any mention in the books of the Goswamis of an incident where a sincere seeker was turned away because his Guru was unknown? I think not.

 

 

Syamananda is another excellent example of an exception. We cannot take it that histories in which the ista-deva appears directly to the sadhaka to instruct him are the rule.

 

I think it is quite common that a guru can test the disciple's determination, and so forth. You are quite hasty to draw negative conclusions about mahatmas. I wouldn't say I consider it a very wise course of action. Remember, tanra vakya kriya mudra vijne na bujhay.

 

 

 

The original Sampradaya of Mahaprabhu spread through an altogether different process than the "Guru Pranali" method of the 17th century which, it seems, has come from Jayakrsnadas Babaji Maharaj. Jayakrsnadas Babaji may have been a great devotee but his method of bhajan which became the "orthodox tradition" in the 17th century is different from the magnanimous preaching style of Narottama, Srinivasacharya, Nityananda Prabhu etc.

 

 

I wonder if you read what I wrote about Visvanatha. Oh yes, and Gopal Guru and Dhyanacandra, too.

[raga]

 

Could you kindly list the discrepancies that you have in mind, so that your point will be made clearer?

_________

 

You should read Brhadbhagavatamrtam. If you knew what was written in that book, what I was saying would be perfectly clear.

 

 

Trust me, I am quite familiar with the book. However, I have time and again observed how people are able to read a book and blur its message altogether with their own ideas, while neglecting muhc of what doesn't fit in their preconceived views. Therefore, if you have something in particular in mind, I suggest you refer me to certain passages of BBhag and ask me to compare them to certain passages in the text you quote. Though I enjoy researching very much, unfortunately I don't have the time to cross-reference essays to books paragraph by paragraph on a daily basis.

[raga]

 

GHari writes:

 

Our buddy keeps saying how he respects this acarya, that saintly soul, yet at the same time while pretending to have doubts, really he is not doubting, but he is actually convinced that these saints and acaryas are all wrong. Wrong about parampara, wrong about raganuga, wrong about Srila Rupa's teachings, wrong about siddhanta. He himself is the authority, armed with a bucket of books and words, far above these other personalities.

 

 

Dear friend, it is evident that you don't have what it takes to make a positive contribution for this discussion; all I see you doing is putting down and condemning Gaurasundar, and anyone else for that matter who disagrees with your status quo. If you had some educated insights into the history of our tradition, or some degree of information on the pre-Prabhupad writings of the sampradaya, perhaps you could contribute something worthwhile. Thanks for considering.