Perspectives on the Sarasvata parampara

[raga]

 

JNDas writes:

 

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).

 

 

The following is written in my guru-pranalika in verse form before the more elaborate combined post-Caitanya guru- and siddha-pranali:

 

 

zrI-kRSNa brahma devaRSI bAdarayaNa saMJjakAn|

zrI-madhva zrI-padmanAbha zrIman-nRhari mAdhavAn ||

akSobhya jayatIrtha zri-jJAnasindhu dayAnidhIn |

zrI-vidyAnidhi rAjendra jayadharmAn kramAd vayam ||

puruSottama brahmaNya-vyAsatIrthAMz ca saMstumaH |

tato lakSmIpatiM zriman-mAdhavendraJ ca bhaktitaH ||

tac-chisyAn zrI-IzvarAdvaita-nityAnandAn jagadgurun |

devam Izvara ziSyaM zri-caitanyaJca bhajAmahe ||

 

 

This is from Prameya-ratnavali. The text continues in a similar way from outside PR, but I am not at liberty to post it here.

 

To sum it up, as a devotee, I certainly accept this, while at the same time, as a student of history, I find it highly puzzling. In fact, I find the entire episode of Baladeva's going to Jaipur and so forth very puzzling, in many respects. Many events seem very contradictory.

 

Say, for example, he went there to prove that we belong to a recognized sampradaya, one of the four, such as Madhva's, to which the Gaudiyas supposedly belong. Then the point was brought up that a sampradaya needs a Vedanta-bhasya to be recognized as a sampradaya. Then Baladeva wrote Govinda-bhasya, instead of presenting Madhva's own bhasya. This just isn't coherent at all.

 

 

 

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

 

 

I think this point has been many times: The post-Caitanya paramparas are drawn according to diksa, they are diksa-paramparas, and this was the practice until Bhaktisiddhanta's innovation. I think you'll have to agree on this. Could you just give me an OK if you agree, so I know that this point has been duly considered and we have a common premise for further questions.

 

 

[MuralidharDas]

Madhava,

 

In regard to Brhadbhagavatamrtam, my point is quite simple. At every place Gopakumara went to the devotees would advise and assist him according to their capacity. Whereas in the case of Madhusudana Das Babaji it seems that Jayakrishnadas babaji refused to give him spiritual guidance because the list of Madhusudana das Babaji's predecessor Gurus was not known.

 

Yes a Guru might give a devotee a test. But this is not a simple case of testing a devotee to determine his sincerity. In the case of Madhusudana das Babaji, and in the case of the young (unnamed) babaji, Jayakrishnadas babaji wouldn't teach them bhajan unless they could provide their Parampara list.

 

But Sri Jiva gave shelter to Syamananda, and it wasn't simply an "exception". Rather, that event shows that a devotee can go from one group of servitors to another, and that a devotee can sometimes depart from the association of his diksa guru and attain shelter with another spiritual master. In the case of Jayakrishnadas babaji, he wouldn't depart from the particular type of orthodoxy he followed. But in the case of Srila Raghunath Das Babaji, for instance, he also departed from the his diksa-guru and then became known as Swarupera Raghu. Yes, Madhava, I did read your comments about that issue when it was discussed a few pages ago. I disagreed with your view, but didn't comment then because it is so time consuming doing all this typing. But even while it is a fact that Srila Raghunath Das Babaji always offered countless obeisances to his diksa-guru, it was Sri Swarup, Rupa, Sanatan, and of course Mahaprabhu, who he connected with most closely.

[raga]

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

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

 

 

Well, to begin with, what you find in Bhaktirasamritasindhu is hardly a detailed description of how to practice raganuga-sadhana. You'll find only 30 something verses in the second wave of the first division, verses which outline the theological basis of raganuga-bhakti.

 

What you see in effect in the paddhatis of Gopal Guru and Dhyanacandra, which are practically the same as Jayakrishna Das Baba's method and the method widely spread among our tradition, is the detailed method of sadhana which is based on Rupa Gosvami's core instructions.

 

Do you know the paddhatis of Gopal Guru and Dhyanacandra? Do you consider them authoritative acaryas?

 

You may remember the 39th chapter of the Jaiva Dharma of your Bhaktivinod:

 

<font color="darkblue">The divine couple's pastimes are seen in Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami's Sri Visakhanandabhidha-stotra and other prayers. You should see the asta-kaliya pastimes in those poems. The proper method of worship (paddhati) is seen in Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami's Sri Manah-siksah. By following that method of worship you will become rapt in meditation on the divine couple's pastimes. Ecstatic love (bhava) is seen in Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami's Sva-niyama-dasaka. You should carefully observe the vows describe in that poem. Srila Rupa Gosvami described the rasas in his books. Lord Caitanya gave that task to him. However, Srila Rupa Gosvami did not describe how an aspiring devotee can enter into these rasas. That Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami, following the teachings in Srila Svarupa Damodara's Kadaca, described. Lord Caitanya gave these specific tasks to these devotees, and they all followed His order.

 

Vijaya-kumara: Please describe the tasks Lord Mahaprabhu ordered these devotees to perform.

 

Gosvami: The Lord ordered Srila Svarupa Damodara Gosvami to describe the method of worship according to the rasas. Following that order, Srila Svarupa Damodara Gosvami wrote his Kadaca, which is divided into two parts, one part describing the internal path (antah-pantha) or worship according to the rasas, and the other part describing the external path (bahihi pantha) of worship according to the rasa. The internal path he placed around the neck of Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami, who described that path in his writings. The external path Srila Svarupa Damodara Gosvami gave to Srila Vakresvara Pandita. That teaching is the great treasure of this temple. </font>

 

The method of Jayakrishnadas Babaji, later popularized by Siddha Krishnadas Babaji of Govardhan, is nondifferent in principle from what you find in the writings of Gopal Guru and Dhyanacandra.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

As I said (and as Bhaktivinod says in what I just cited), Bhaktirasamritasindhu does not deal with the specifics of entering the realm of raganuga-sadhana.

 

As far as the idea of mentally envisioned siddha-forms are concerned, the tikakaras are quite unanimous in their analysis of the seva ... siddha-rUpena - verse:

 

<font color=darkblue>Jiva and Visvanatha: siddha-rUpeNa - antaz-cintitAbhISTa-tat-sevopayogi-dehena - "In siddha-rupa -- In an internally thought body suitable for the desired service."

 

Mukunda: siddha-rUpeNa - manaz-cintita-svAbhISTa-tat-sevopayogi-dehena - "In siddha-rupa -- In a mentally thought body suitable for one's own desired service."</font>

 

[raga]

 

In regard to Brhadbhagavatamrtam, my point is quite simple. At every place Gopakumara went to the devotees would advise and assist him according to their capacity. Whereas in the case of Madhusudana Das Babaji it seems that Jayakrishnadas babaji refused to give him spiritual guidance because the list of Madhusudana das Babaji's predecessor Gurus was not known.

 

Yes a Guru might give a devotee a test. But this is not a simple case of testing a devotee to determine his sincerity. In the case of Madhusudana das Babaji, and in the case of the young (unnamed) babaji, Jayakrishnadas babaji wouldn't teach them bhajan unless they could provide their Parampara list.

 

 

Well, if they approached Jayakrishna das Babaji for guidance in the basics of raganuga-sadhana according to the known paddhatis, then I can quite well understand why Baba would refuse. Here's why (Dhyanancandra's paddhati):

 

<font color=darkblue>tatrAdau maJjarI-rUpAn gurvAdIn tu svIyAn svIyAn praNAly-anusAreNa saMsmaret zrI-guru-parama-guru-krameNeti tataH zrI-rAdhikAM dhyAyet | tataH zrI-nandanandanam || 344 ||

 

"In this meditation, before anything else, the sadhaka should perform smarana of the manjari forms of his own guru-pranali, beginning with his guru, then parama-guru, etc. Then he shall meditate on Sri Radhika, and after that Sri Nandanandana."</font>

 

Just how on earth are you supposed to teach this to someone who doesn't know his guru-pranali? This is what Dhyanacandra teaches, and this is what I was taught. The same method.

 

If you look at the case of Jayakrishna and the young babaji, you'll see how deep Baba's concern was for the young baba, and how he wished him well, and how by the power of his great benevolent desire, Vrindadevi personally arranged for the guru-pranalika of the young baba. Had the idea of guru-pranalika been wrong, Vrindadevi could have just rebuked Jayakrishna for demanding something irrelevant. However, what did she do instead?

 

In the case of Madhusudandas Babaji, I cannot see a problem either, judging by the end result. It is not at all uncommon for gurus to refuse teaching the confidential method of raganuga-bhajana to someone. All I can see in the dealings of Jayakrishnadas Baba is compassion and concern for Madhusudandas's spiritual welfare, and the way he saw the hand of Radha in the anomalous situation is remarkable. If you wish to take a more generous look at it, it is with the blessings of the Siddha-baba that Radharani came to bless the newcomer, Madhusudandas.

 

Alas, if they do not teach it for someone, they are blamed for being miserly, and if they do teach it, they are blamed for teaching confidential topics for anyone and everyone. Blame it is, regardless of what they do.

[raga]

 

Muralidhar:

 

In regard to Brhadbhagavatamrtam, my point is quite simple. At every place Gopakumara went to the devotees would advise and assist him according to their capacity. Whereas in the case of Madhusudana Das Babaji it seems that Jayakrishnadas babaji refused to give him spiritual guidance because the list of Madhusudana das Babaji's predecessor Gurus was not known.

 

 

Let's just put it this way: one cannot go to the guru and demand a certain kind of guidance. The guru is the doctor, and the disciple is the patient; whatever medicine the guru describes, that the disciple is to take. This is exactly what Jayakrishnadas Baba did: he diagnosed the disciple and gave him what was best for him. And just see, did it not turn out quite all right? Had Siddha Baba not instructed him, what would have taken place? No-one can say.

 

I find it hard to imagine how you can propose that Siddha Baba did not assist Madhusudan Das Baba. I suggest you read the story again with a more generous mind. Reading the biographies of saints with a desire to find fault is not exactly the best way to go.

[MuralidharDas]

Yes Madhava,

 

Reading about Jayakrishnadas Babaji's ashram and pastimes reminded me of Jaiva Dharma immediatly; and I yes I am aware that the process of meditating on one's internal spiritual form is described in scriptures.

 

I said his teachings were a concoction and I think I was wrong to say that.

 

You also said:

<hr>

<blockquote>

"In this meditation, before anything else, the sadhaka should perform smarana of the manjari forms of his own guru-pranali, beginning with his guru, then parama-guru, etc. Then he shall meditate on Sri Radhika, and after that Sri Nandanandana."

 

Just how on earth are you supposed to teach this to someone who doesn't know his guru-pranali? This is what Dhyanacandra teaches, and this is what I was taught. The same method.

</blockquote>

<hr>

I have a simple answer to this.

 

Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami and his direct disciples such as Srila Sridhar Maharaj say that when the devotee is purified and receives Grace he will understand his own spiritual identity and the identity of his Guru.

 

Syamananda Prabhu bathed in the pond when instructed to by his Guide, and emerged in a transcendental feminine form. Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur also wrote of emerging from the water in this transcendental form and going to render service to the Divine Couple. Madhusudana Das Babaji, apparently, also became a changed person after he entered the pool of water...

 

Your question was, how do you teach someone to attain this. Srila Sridhar Maharaj said we don't need to learn or practice this mental imagining of ourselves entering the transcendental realm. Because, as you know, Raga come naturally, from within. The divine form, also, is already within us (though as I remember it, you don't accept that idea, do you Madhava?).

 

By the way, my readings of the life story of Madhusudana Das Babaji and his contemporaries were not for the purposes of finding fault in them. In fact when I read the story a year ago I just felt so much empathy for Madhusudana Das Babaji when he was told to go away, and I found it interesting that Srila Jagannatha das Babaji Maharaj was a disciple of this devotee who did not know his guru-pranali.

 

 

 

[MuralidharDas]

Madhava, speaking to JNDas:

<hr><blockquote>

I think this point has been many times: The post-Caitanya paramparas are drawn according to diksa, they are diksa-paramparas, and this was the practice until Bhaktisiddhanta's innovation. I think you'll have to agree on this. Could you just give me an OK if you agree, so I know that this point has been duly considered and we have a common premise for further questions.</blockquote>

<hr>

I am not being merely argumentative. But I really do dispute the proposition that from the time of Mahaprabhu up to Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati the Gaudiya Vaishnava lineages were always "diksa lines of succession". I don't see that Srila Saraswati Thakur made an innovation when he placed more emphasis on the siksa connections than on the diksa connections. A devotee must always worship his diksa guru. But sometimes the siksa guru is a more significant person in your life.

 

Consider the cases of Syamananda Prabhu and Srila Raghunath das Goswami...

 

The diksa guru is always to be shown honour, but in some cases we find that a devotee has become somewhat separated from his diksa guru and found another shelter. Syamananda Prabhu was violently beaten up by his initiating guru Hridaya Chaitanya Prabhu after Hridaya Chaitanya found that Syamananda Prabhu had received shelter from Sri Jiva Goswami. After that, Hridaya Chaitanya Prabhu left Vraja and returned to Bengal. Whereas in the case of Srila Raghunath Das Goswami, we read that Mahaprabhu himself told the devotees that Das Goswami was to be considered "Swarupera Raghu". That is the parampara: Mahaprabhu, Swarup Damodara, then Rupa and Sanatan, who advised and guided Srila Raghunath Das Goswami, then comes Sri Jiva Goswami, the diksa disciple of Sri Rupa. I realize that Madhava has a different interpretation of Mahaprabhu's saying "Swarupera Raghu", but for me the meaning is self evident.

 

[raga]

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

 

You also said:

______

 

"In this meditation, before anything else, the sadhaka should perform smarana of the manjari forms of his own guru-pranali, beginning with his guru, then parama-guru, etc. Then he shall meditate on Sri Radhika, and after that Sri Nandanandana."

 

Just how on earth are you supposed to teach this to someone who doesn't know his guru-pranali? This is what Dhyanacandra teaches, and this is what I was taught. The same method.

______

 

I have a simple answer to this.

 

Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami and his direct disciples such as Srila Sridhar Maharaj say that when the devotee is purified and receives Grace he will understand his own spiritual identity and the identity of his Guru.

 

 

I know this is the position of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his followers. However, I thought we were discussing the conceptions of the Gosvamis here.

 

Let's consider this statement, for example (Bhakti Sandarbha, Anuccheda 312):

 

<font color=darkblue>sAkSAd vraja-jana-vizeSAyaiva mahyaM zrI-guru-caraNair mad-abhISTa-vizeSa-siddhy-artham upadiSTaM bhAvayAmi |

 

"I meditate on the specific form of one of Krsna?s associates in Vraja, which my Sri Guru-carana has instructed me in, so that I can attain my specifically desired siddhi."</font>

 

There is definitely no restriction for hearing about one's own siddha-rupa and that of his gurus prior to attaining complete realization.

 

Also, you'll find in Bhaktivinod's theory of Panca-dasam that sravana-dasa, which includes hearing of one's own siddha-svarupa, is the first step in raganuga-bhajana, followed by varana-dasa, acceptance, and then smarana-dasa, the five stages of remembrance and meditation, finally to reach apana-dasa, corresponding to svarupa-siddhi, and sampatti-dasa, or vastu-siddhi.

 

 

 

Because, as you know, Raga come naturally, from within. The divine form, also, is already within us (though as I remember it, you don't accept that idea, do you Madhava?).

 

 

Let's call it an open question. This thread is already cluttered enough without yet another branch!

 

 

 

Your question was, how do you teach someone to attain this. Srila Sridhar Maharaj said we don't need to learn or practice this mental imagining of ourselves entering the transcendental realm.

 

 

Yes, I am aware of Sridhar Maharaja's stand on this. However, as I said, I was under the impression that the discussion was about the teachings of the Gosvamis here. As I've demonstrated, the tika-karas on Bhaktirasamritasindhu declare in one voice that a raganuga-sadhaka should meditate on an internally / mentally thought siddha-form which is fit for the service he desires to attain, in other words, which is not yet attained.

 

 

 

In fact when I read the story a year ago I just felt so much empathy for Madhusudana Das Babaji when he was told to go away, and I found it interesting that Srila Jagannatha das Babaji Maharaj was a disciple of this devotee who did not know his guru-pranali.

 

 

I don't think Madhusudan Das Babaji was of prominent influence in Jagannath Das Babaji's life, at least based on my readings. In fact, there is even controversy over whether it was Madhusudan Das Babaji of Suryakund or Krishna das Babaji of Govardhan who was his vesa-guru. According to Haridas das, the majority holds the latter opinion, though Biharidas Baba sides with the version involving Madhusudan Das Babaji.

[raga]

 

I am not being merely argumentative. But I really do dispute the proposition that from the time of Mahaprabhu up to Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati the Gaudiya Vaishnava lineages were always "diksa lines of succession". I don't see that Srila Saraswati Thakur made an innovation when he placed more emphasis on the siksa connections than on the diksa connections. A devotee must always worship his diksa guru. But sometimes the siksa guru is a more significant person in your life.

 

 

Well, the guru-paramparas of the present day bear testimony to my claim. Go around, and ask for anyone in any branch of the tradition to reveal their guru-parampara. If they choose to disclose it, you'll find it is a diksa-line.

 

Can you present any other Gaudiya branch who would present a siksa-parampara as their disciplic succession from the days of Mahaprabhu to their present guru? I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I've never heard of one, while I've heard of dozens of diksa-paramparas from various branches of our tradition in Vraja, Bengal and Orissa.

[gHari]

If you think I have added nothing to this discussion, then I would suggest that you may not be quite as perceptive, or as fortunate, as you think you are, my friend.

 

This crocodile you wrestle has no jurisdiction over me.

 

gHari

[MuralidharDas]

Madhava wrote:

<font color="blue"> Can you present any other Gaudiya branch who would present a siksa-parampara as their disciplic succession from the days of Mahaprabhu to their present guru? I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I've never heard of one, while I've heard of dozens of diksa-paramparas from various branches of our tradition in Vraja, Bengal and Orissa. </font color>

<hr>

 

You want me to provide evidence of an unbroken parampara, when in fact you know very well that my Guru Maharaj said that the zig-zag line of Guru Parampara can disappear and then reappear after a gap of a few generations.

 

Here again is the very well known quote from Sri Guru and His Grace, chapter 10, published nearly 20 years ago:

<hr>

<blockquote>

The Zigzag Line of Truth

 

Baladeva Vidyabhusana was very akin to the Madhva sampradaya. But when he came in connection with Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, he showed great interest in Gaudiya Vaisnavism. He has also commented on the Srimad-Bhagavatam and Jiva Goswami's Sat Sandarbha. And that enlightened thought is a valuable contribution to our sampradaya. We cannot dismiss him. He is our guru.

 

At the same time, if my own relatives do not give recognition to my guru or to the service of Mahaprabhu, I must eliminate them. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada has explained the siksa guru parampara in this way. Wherever we find the extraordinary line of the flow of love of God, and support for the same, we must bow down. That line may appear in a zigzag way, but still, that is the line of my gurudeva. In this way it is accepted. We want the substance, not the form.

 

We have left all social concerns and so many other shackles. For what? For the Absolute Truth. And wherever I shall find that, I must bow down my head. And if a great soul shows us, "This is the path to where you will find your thirst quenched. The line is in this zigzag way," we must accept that for our own interest. We are worshipers not of form, but of substance. If the current of spiritual substance comes another way, but I think that I must try to go this way to reach my goal, it is only jealousy, blind tenacity to stick to the physical thing. We must free ourselves from this material contamination and try to understand the value of spiritual truth.

</blockquote>

[MuralidharDas]

Madhava wrote:

<font color="blue"> I don't think Madhusudan Das Babaji was of prominent influence in Jagannath Das Babaji's life, at least based on my readings. In fact, there is even controversy over whether it was Madhusudan Das Babaji of Suryakund or Krishna das Babaji of Govardhan who was his vesa-guru. According to Haridas das, the majority holds the latter opinion, though Biharidas Baba sides with the version involving Madhusudan Das Babaji. </font color>

 

 

 

Biharidas Babaji was the personal servant of Srila Jagannatha das babaji and he lived with him for many years. He was with him in his final years in Nabadwip, and he personally carried Srila Jagannatha das babaji from place to place on his back. Biharidas Babaji associated with many devotees of the Gaudiya Math and was personally told by Jagannath Babaji "avoid the monkey-like babajis".

 

Haridas das was simply an historian, as you have mentioned. Did he ever meet Srila Jagannatha das babaji?

 

[MuralidharDas]

Madhava, speaking to JNDas:

<hr><blockquote> <font color="blue">

I think this point has been many times: The post-Caitanya paramparas are drawn according to diksa, they are diksa-paramparas, and this was the practice until Bhaktisiddhanta's innovation. I think you'll have to agree on this. Could you just give me an OK if you agree, so I know that this point has been duly considered and we have a common premise for further questions. </font color></blockquote>

<hr>

 

 

Yadunandana Acharya was the initiating guru of Srila Raghunath das Goswami. In Chaitanya Charitamrta, in the "Chaitanya Tree" listing for Yadunandana Acharya we see that the names of Yadunandana Acharya's diksa and siksa gurus are both mentioned:

 

<blockquote>

CC Adi.12.56-57

sri-yadunandanacarya--advaitera sakha

tanra sakha-upasakhara nahi haya lekha

vasude va dattera tenho krpara bhajana

sarva-bhave asriyache caitanya-carana

 

The fifth branch of Advaita Acarya was Sri Yadunandana Acarya, who had so many branches and sub-branches that it is impossible to write of them.

 

Sri Yadunandana Acarya was a student of Vasudeva Datta, and he received all his mercy. Therefore he could accept Lord Caitanya's lotus feet, from all angles of vision, as the supreme shelter.

</blockquote>

 

This description of the Chaitanya Tree is in fact a description of the different branches of the Gaudiya Sampradaya.

Srila Raghunath das Goswami is not listed as a sub-branch in the lineage of Sri Yadunandana Acharya.

 

Srila Krishndas Kaviraj Goswami has linked the name of Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami with the name of his siksa-guru, Sri Swarup Damodar Goswami.

 

<blockquote>

CC Adi.11.91-92

 

mahaprabhura priya bhrtya--raghunatha-dasa

sarva tyaji' kaila prabhura .-tale vasa

prabhu samarpila tanre svarupera hate

prabhura gupta-seva kaila svarupera sathe

Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami, the forty-sixth branch of the tree, was one of the most dear servants of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. He left all his material possessions to surrender completely unto the Lord and live at His lotus feet.

 

When Raghunatha dasa Gosvami approached Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu at Jagannatha Puri, the Lord entrusted him to the care of Svarupa Damodara, His secretary. Thus they both engaged in the confidential service of the Lord.

</blockquote>

 

So, you asked for evidence of a post-Chaitanya parampara where the link is through the siksa-guru.

And here it is in Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami's Chaitanya Charitamrta :

 

<font color="red"> Sri Swarupa Damodara => Srila Raghunath das Goswami </font color>

 

 

 

[MuralidharDas]

GHari, I appreciate your input and others do too, I'm sure.

[Guest guest]

Reading this thread, it is clear that Gaurasundara really does not know what he is talking about. Time and time again he makes emphatic statements only to be shown that he is completely wrong. I agree with Ghari that Gaurasundara has simply become too caught up in himself. He thinks he knows more than he does, and each time sticks his foot squarely in his mouth. Then, he just talks around in circles hoping nobody remembers the silly statements he just made, moments before. Perhaps this is a ploy, to make brazen and subtle offensive statements against Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, so as to keep his foolish agenda going for as long as he can. This way, as Ghari states, he can “spread his poison to the innocents with these two-faced con man tactics”.

[Guest guest]

Some argue that because gaudIyas trace their line through dIkSa, but only in the post-Caitanya time, that therefore all gaudIyas are supposed to continue doing this and not to do so means departing from gaudIya vaiSNava practice. BhaktisiddhAnta's example and that of his successors is not accepted because their practices are in dispute. In fact, it is concluded by such persons that BhaktisiddhAnta's paramparA is a fabrication, based on the above premise.

 

Well, by the same logic, gaudIya vaiSNavas in the post-Caitanya time before BhaktisiddhAnta/Bhaktivinoda:

(1) never left India and

(2) never initiated Westerners into vaiSNava practice.

 

So, we should conclude from this, that those who teach gaudIya vaiSNavism outside bhArat and initiate Westernerners are therefore going against the gaudIya tradition, and fabricating new practices not approved by orthodox gaudIya vaiSNavas.

 

The ramifications of this are obvious. Those who go to gaudIya vaiSNava temples outside BhArat, nay those who even so much as dare to live outside BhArat, should either go back to BhArat and stay there, or admit that they themselves are not traditional gaudIya vaiSNavas. Furthermore, those who are not born in BhArat should not on one hand accept dIkSa in gaudIya sampradAya and yet on the other hand criticize others for not adhering to certain traditional practices. Remember, for 300 years gaudIya vaiSNavas have never accepted foreigners into the sampradAya. Therefore, traditional gaudIya vaiSNavas will not accept foreigners into their sampradAya and those who do so are not traditional.

 

Comments?

 

[Guest guest]

----

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.

 

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

Thank you for exposing this con man.

[raga]

 

Muralidhar:

 

You want me to provide evidence of an unbroken parampara, when in fact you know very well that my Guru Maharaj said that the zig-zag line of Guru Parampara can disappear and then reappear after a gap of a few generation.

 

 

No, I'm just asking you if any other Gaudiya branch outside Gaudiya Math have chosen to follow a siksa-parampara, whether unbroken or zig-zag. If you intend to hold up the premise that Bhaktisiddhanta didn't introduce something new that wasn't there in the post-Mahaprabhu era before him, you should put up with the claim.

 

 

[raga]

 

Biharidas Babaji was the personal servant of Srila Jagannatha das babaji and he lived with him for many years. He was with him in his final years in Nabadwip, and he personally carried Srila Jagannatha das babaji from place to place on his back. Biharidas Babaji associated with many devotees of the Gaudiya Math and was personally told by Jagannath Babaji "avoid the monkey-like babajis".

 

 

I have occasionally observed that sentences befitting the Gaudiya Math claims are put into the mouths of previous mahatmas to support their rhetoric. What is the source of this statement attributed to Jagannath Das Babaji?

 

Aside this, Biharidas was not the only follower of JDB, and according to Haridas dasji, the majority sides with the opinion that JDB received bhekh from Siddha Krishnadas of Govardhan.

 

 

 

Haridas das was simply an historian, as you have mentioned. Did he ever meet Srila Jagannatha das babaji?

 

 

No, please don't twist my words. You know just as well as I that Haridas Dasji was a very dedicated Vaishnava. What I'm saying is that he wrote GVA in the capacity of a scholar and historian, not as some sort of infallible visionary. By the way, have you ever read his biography?

[raga]

 

So, you asked for evidence of a post-Chaitanya parampara where the link is through the siksa-guru.

And here it is in Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami's Chaitanya Charitamrta :

 

Sri Swarupa Damodara => Srila Raghunath das Goswami

 

 

You don't seriously expect me to accept this as evidence? At least give me a couple of generations or something. Who among the followers of Das Gosvami gave this as his parampara? Who among the "grand-disciples" of Das Gosvami listed "Svarupa - Raghunatha Das - Any Guru - Myself" as his parampara?

 

Yes, Svarupa did have a very significant influence in Das Gosvami's life, more than Yadunandan Acarya had, this is not in debate; nobody has ever claimed that a siksa-guru cannot have more influence than a diksa-guru.

[raga]

 

Anon writes:

 

Well, by the same logic, gaudIya vaiSNavas in the post-Caitanya time before BhaktisiddhAnta/Bhaktivinoda:

(1) never left India and

(2) never initiated Westerners into vaiSNava practice.

 

 

I suppose you've never heard of Baba Premananda Bharati?

 

I suppose you've never heard of Yashoda Ma and his student Richard Nixon (Krishna Prema Das)?

 

Besides, I bet you haven't studied the history of the Gaudiya sampradaya much beyond some elementary ideas available in ISKCON. I suppose I'll "call your bluff" now, as JNdas is fond of doing with Gaurasundara whenever he claims something he can't back up and hasn't studied.

 

Please don't forget to sign your posts if you become more involved.

[Guest guest]

Gaurasundara don't think of the new bhaktas, they can think for their self. I'm a Prabhupadanuga.Don't you think you are committing a great offense?

I as a new bhakta am amused how foolish you are.

Indas has given you so much evidence, still you don't want to accept their statements.

There is one thing i'm learning of this discussion, how to preach to people like you in the most Sinful city of earth, Amsterdam.

Thank you very much Indas it is nice to know that their are scholars, who can give answer this foolish people.

[Guest guest]

>I suppose you've never heard of Baba Premananda Bharati?

 

>I suppose you've never heard of Yashoda Ma and his student Richard Nixon (Krishna Prema Das)?

 

Proof of a recent concotion.

[MuralidharDas]

For your interest, Madhava, I had a book by Prof. Nixon (Swami Krishna Prema). In his book he had a very interesting way of describing verse of Bhagavatam "Brahmeti Paramatmeti Bhagavan iti sabdyate etc.."

 

Swami Krishna Prema said that Brahman realization is the highest, and that we progress towards Brahman by worshiping Bhagavan. By worhshiping Bhagavan Sri Krishna, we can attain Brahman realization. He even went so far as to say that Sri Jiva Goswami had got in wrong, and that Shankara was right. Reading this, I threw the book away, 20 years ago.

 

 

[MuralidharDas]

Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj stated that Srila Raghunath das Goswami was one of the main branches of the tree of Sri Chaitanyadev's sampradaya. Then Kaviraj Gosai gave mention to the link with his siksa-guru, Sri Swarup Damodar Goswami. The relationship with Das Goswami's diksa-guru is explained elsewhere in the CC, but when it comes to a discussion of "Gaudiya lineages" Kaviraj lists Srila Raghunath Das Goswami as a big branch of Sri Chaitanyadeva's tree and a student of Sri Swarup Damodar Goswami.

 

Reject this if you like. I don't care what you think.

 

You ask whether other branches of Gaudiya Vaishnavism also see their Parampara in the way that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati has described it. Well, maybe not. But come to think of it there is a devotee called Jagat who thinks that even though his Parama-guru (Bhaktivinode) was rejected by his Guru (Vipin Vihari), still, somehow, he and other persons initiated by Bhaktivinode Thakur's disciple Lalita Prashad are in some way members of the Gaudiya sampradaya. There must be some sort of zig in Jagat's parampara, or maybe a zag, or a zig-zag that goes around Bhaktivinode and Vipin Vihari and somehow connects with the previous generations.

 

-- Muralidhar