Is A Physically Present Spiritual Master Required?

[Guest guest]

 

That's a bogus argument.

Letters to disciples are different.

 

In the letter to Rupanuga Srila Prabhupada wrote "my instruction to you all is to avoid my Godbrothers".

 

So, that was not a single instruction to a single disciple as Srila Prabhupada said "my instruction to you ALL".

 

In that specific case the instruction may be applicable to all disciples at the time the letter was written. Prabhupada instructed some of his disciples to learn from his Godbrothers on other occasions.

 

Small children are often instructed not to leave the back yard by their parents. That instruction does not apply to the time they become adults.

[Guruvani]

 

It is in discussions like these that Puru Prabhus's imput is sorely missed.

 

So true.

He was very expert at burying opposing arguments with post after post of copy/paste that went on and on and on so that the topic was essentially lost in his BVML library of books, letters and quotes.

 

Basically, he was good at hijacking a topic and ruining the discussion by turning it into parrot sqwuaking competition.

[Guruvani]

 

In that specific case the instruction may be applicable to all disciples at the time the letter was written. Prabhupada instructed some of his disciples to learn from his Godbrothers on other occasions.

 

Small children are often instructed not to leave the back yard by their parents. That instruction does not apply to the time they become adults.

We know that Srila Prabhupada sent Acyutananda and some others to get siksha from Sridhar Maharaja.

Acyutananda Swami learned how to play mrdanga and perform bhajans at the Math of Sridhar Maharaja.

 

that is my point.

 

we don't have any such example of Srila Prabhupada ever sending any disciples to Narayana Maharaja for siksha or for sanga.

 

If Srila Prabhupada thought so highly of Narayana Maharaja, then why don't we have any examples like we have in him send some disciples to the Matha of Sridhar Maharaja?

 

Srila Prabhupada never sent any disicples to Narayan Maharaja.

 

Why didn't he instruct his disciples in Navadvip to go take sanga from Narayana Maharaja?

 

He did on occasion send some men to Sridhar Maharaja, but he never sent any disciples to GVS or Narayana Maharaja.

[Guest guest]

 

If Srila Prabhupada thought so highly of Narayana Maharaja, then why don't we have any examples like we have in him send some disciples to the Matha of Sridhar Maharaja?

 

 

Because at the time Sridhar Maharaja was the most senior man and Narayana Maharaja was in comparison a junior man. Time marches on.

[Guest guest]

 

Bhakta Tom: "They can not hear the supersoul but they can hear Prabhupada?

I dont think so, and if they say "we never said we can hear Srila Prabhupada" then what good is your guidance? Because that is the ritvik system Srila Prabhupada used when He was physically present here."

 

 

Haribol prabhu. Just to clarify, I did not make the above comment. I was QUOTING Devasirath who made the comment. I was disagreeing with Devasirath prabhu. I pointed out via the words of Srila Prabhupada that simply by reading his books and following his instructions, one is most certainly directly HEARING from Srila Prabhupada. Please refer to the quotes I posted where SP states this. Thank you.

 

Ys

Bhakta Tom

[theist]

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0">

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> I understand and I agree with your position bhakta Tom.

[krsna]

Sampradaya-Pranali

by Srila B P Puri Gosvami

The sampradaya institution has existed in this holy land of Bharata since time immemorial. The word sampradaya is a passive nominal formation from the Sanskrit verb root, sam-pra-da ('to hand down'). Lexicographers define it as 'the instruction that is passed down in a line of spiritual masters.' This is also called disciplic succession or guru parampara, and implies that such instruction in spiritual truth is passed down personally from teacher to disciple in a direct chain (srauta-parampara).

Other synonyms for this concept include amnaya, nigama, and the Veda. The great sage, Vyasadeva, uses the term amnaya in the Srimad Bhagavatam:

bharata-vyapadesena

amnayarthah pradarsitah

'By means of the Mahabharata, I revealed the ancient knowledge of the Vedas as I received it through disciplic succession.' (SB 1.4.29)

The word amnaya is derived from the verb root mna combined with the prefix a. Two definitions are given for this term: 'that by which religious instruction is given' or 'that by which religious teachings are repeated over and over again.'

The same word is sometimes found preceded by the sam- prefix (samamnaya).1 Our most worshipable Srila Prabhupada has explained this term in his Gaudiya-bhasya to Caitanya-bhagavata (2.1.255):2

'Srila Sridhara Svami explains the word samamnaya in his commentary to the Bhagavatam (10.47.33) as meaning the Veda. The most perfect teaching is the one that directs us to the supreme abode of Visnu. It is that which the sages have repeated over and over again, and that by which the supreme religious teaching is given.'

Visvanatha Cakravarti has defined samamnaya as complete knowledge (sampurno vedah). The word veda is defined as that scripture which gives us knowledge of God and religion. It is explained as follows in the Vedanta: 'that divine instruction or word of God that brings knowledge of dharma and Brahman into human society is called Veda.'3 Something similar is stated in the Puranas: 'The Veda is the scripture that was spoken by Lord Brahma and explains dharma.'4

The root meaning of the word nigama is 'emanation' because the four Vedas emanated from Lord Brahma's four mouths. Another definition breaks the word down into two parts: the prefix ni- meaning nitaram or 'forever' and gama meaning 'explain' (from the causative form of the verb 'to go'); thus the scripture that forever explains the supreme truth of Brahman is called nigama or Veda.

The following verse is found in the Mundaka Upanisad:

brahma devanam prathamah sambabhuva

visvasya karta bhuvanasya gopta

sa brahma-vidyam sarva-vidya-pratistham

atharvaya jyestha-putraya praha

'Brahma appeared as the first of all the gods. He created the universe and continues to protect the earth. He taught the knowledge of Brahman [that he had received from the Lord], which is the basis of all learning, to his oldest son Atharva.' (Mundaka Upanisad 1.1.1)

Then, further on in the same Upanisad, this statement is found:

tasmai sa vidvan upasannaya samyak

prasanta-cittaya samanvitaya

yenaksaram purusam veda satyam

provaca tam tattvato brahma-vidyam

'The learned spiritual master who has realized Krsna should properly instruct the peaceful and self-controlled disciple in the knowledge of Brahman, i.e., knowledge combined with love for Krsna, by which he can be attained.' (Mundaka Upanisad 1.2.13)

The Srimad Bhagavatam is the essence of all the Veda and Vedanta. There, Krsna tells Uddhava,

kalena nasta pralaye vaniyam veda-samjnita

mayadau brahmane prokta dharmo yasyam mad-atmakah

tena prokta sva-putraya manave purvajaya sa

tato bhrgv-adayo grhnan sapta-brahmarsayas tatha

'In the course of time, the Vedic message was lost in the great flood of universal destruction. Then I once again spoke this religious knowledge about myself to Brahma, who told it to his oldest son Manu. Then Bhrgu and the seven great sages received it from him.'(SB 11.14.3-4)

This topmost religion related to the Lord himself has been kept intact to the present day through the institution of disciplic succession, the holy chain of the sampradaya. Outside of the sampradaya, it is difficult if not impossible to come into contact with these pure teachings. That is why the Padma Purana states:

sampradaya-vihina ye mantras te nisphala matah

atah kalau bhavisyanti catvarah sampradayinah

sri-brahma-rudra-sanakah vaisnavah ksiti-pavanah

catvaras te kalau bhavya hy utkale purusottamat

'Any mantra that does not come in disciplic succession is considered to be fruitless. Therefore, four divine individuals will appear in the age of Kali to found disciplic schools. The founders of these four Vaisnava sampradayas are Laksmi or Sri, Brahma, Rudra and Sanaka Rishi, and the acaryas of the Kali Age who follow their lines will appear in the holy city of Purusottama in Orissa.'

The great Gaudiya acarya, Baladeva Vidyabhusana quotes these two verses in his book, Prameya-ratnavali, citing the Padma Purana as their source. In the 1927 edition of the Prameya-ratnavali, two commentaries were published: Kanti-mala by Krsnadeva Vedanta-vagisa and Prabha by Aksaya Kumara Sastri.5 Both these commentaries confirm that they come from the Padma Purana. Narahari Cakravarti (also known as Ghanasyama Dasaa), the son of Jagannatha Cakravarti, a disciple of Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, also quoted these two verses in his Bhakti-ratnakara (5.2111-2) and attributed them to the Padma Purana.

Finally, there is the testimony of Kavi Karnapura, also known as Puri Dasaa,6 the youngest son of Mahaprabhu's intimate associate Sivananda Sena, who paid his obeisances to Mahaprabhu, calling him the 'the family's worshipable Deity' (kuladhidaivata7). In his Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika (21-22), Karnapura both quotes a part of these verses and attributes it to the Padma Purana:

pradurbhutah kali-yuge catvarah sampradayikah

sri-brahma-rudra-sanaka-hvayah padme yatha smrtah

atah kalau bhavisyanti catvarah sampradayinah

sri-brahma-rudra-sanaka vaisnavah ksiti-pavanah

'The founders of four sampradayas appeared in the Kali-yuga. According to the Padma Purana, they were Sri, Brahma, Rudra and Sanaka Rishi. There it is said, 'Therefore the Vaisnavas, Sri, Brahma, Rudra and Sanaka Rsi, will appear in the Age of Kali to purify the world by establishing the four Vaisnava sampradayas.''

Gopala Guru Gosvami, an associate of Mahaprabhu and disciple of Vakresvara Pandita, also accepted this concept of the disciplic line and the principle of four distinct Vaisnava sampradayas.

In his translation and commentary on the Prameya-ratnavali, our most worshipable Srila Prabhupada had this to say about these verses: 'The four Vaisnava disciplic lines trace their origins to these original spiritual masters: Laksmi, Brahma, Rudra and the four Kumaras: Sanaka, Sanatan, Sanandana, and Sanat Kumara. In the Age of Kali, four great founder-acaryas aligned themselves with these original spiritual preceptors and spread their teachings. Each of them began their preaching mission out of Purusottama-ksetra in Orissa. Mathas representing each of the four sampradayas had a strong presence in Puri as recently as a century ago. At certain times, one or the other of them becomes stronger and takes the lead in performing spiritual welfare work for the conditioned souls of this world.'

ramanujam srih svicakre madhvacaryam caturmukhah

sri-visnu-svaminam rudro nimbadityam catuhsanah

'Laksmi accepted Ramanujacarya as her representative; Brahma selected Madhvacarya. Shiva chose Visnu Svami and the four Kumaras, Nimbarkacarya.' (Prameya-ratnavali 1.7)

Our worshipable predecessor, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, also wrote on this subject in Jaiva Dharma (Chapter 13). There, in response to the question, 'Why is there a disciplic succession?' he writes:

'In this world, many people are contaminated by the impersonalist doctrine and thus fall into a life of sin. If there were no disciplic succession, or institution of devotees free of this contamination, then it would be very difficult for ordinary people to find saintly association. This is why the Padma Purana tells us, 'Any mantra that does not come in disciplic succession is considered to be fruitless. Therefore, four divine individuals will appear in the age of Kali to establish disciplic schools.' Of these four schools, the oldest is the Brahma sampradaya. This disciplic succession has existed since the time of Lord Brahma and is still strong. Whatever scriptures—whether Veda, Vedanta or other—are taught in a particular school maintain their original form; no interpolations are possible in these texts. Thus there can be no doubt about the mantras that are found in the books of these ancient schools. Thus a disciplic succession of saintly persons is an absolute necessity for human society and that is why the institution has existed since the earliest times.'

Bhaktivinoda Thakura continues his discussion of the subject by asking the question, 'Is the list of names of spiritual masters in the disciplic succession given without any breaks?' His answer: 'From time to time, only the more important spiritual masters' names are included in these lists.'8

Every disciple has the duty to remember the names of the spiritual masters in his disciplic succession as a part of his daily meditation. This is confirmed by Baladeva Vidyabhusana in his Prameya-ratnavali (1.4):

bhavati vicintya vidusam niravakara guru-parampara nityam

ekantitvam siddhyati yayodayati yena hari-tosah

'The learned disciple should daily remember the entire flawless disciplic succession. From them comes single-minded devotion, and from such devotion, the pleasure of Lord Hari.'

Srila Prabhupada comments: 'The disciple purifies his own character by hearing and discussing the exemplary lives of the previous spiritual masters. As his character is purified, he identifies himself as a servant of the pure devotees. He thus receives the blessings of the Lord to engage in bhajana without distractions. Narottama Dasaa Thakura says that Nityananda's lotus feet are eternal, and the servant of Lord Nityananda is also eternal. When the living being abandons his materialistic way of thinking and takes shelter of the transcendental lotus feet of the spiritual master, he attains the eternal spiritual world and his greatest good.' (Gaudiya-bhasya)

[krsna]

Baladeva gives the list of names of spiritual masters (pranali) in his disciplic succession in the Prameya-ratnavali:

sri-krsna-brahma-devarsi-badarayana-samjnakan

sri-madhva-sri-padmanabha-sriman-narahari-madhavan

aksobhya-jayatirtha sri-jnanasindhu-dayanidhin

sri-vidyanidhi-rajendra-jayadharman kramad vayam

purusottama-brahmanya-vyasatirthams ca samstumah

tato laksmipatim sriman-madhavendram ca bhaktitah

tac-chisyan srisvaradvaita-nityanandan jagad-gurun

devam isvara-sisyam sri-caitanyam ca bhajamahe

sri-krsna-prema-danena yena nistaritam jagat

'I praise Sri Krsna, Brahma, Devarsi Narada and Vyasa; Madhvacarya Padmanabhacarya, Narahari, Madhava, Aksobhya, Jayatirtha, Jnanasindhu, Dayanidhi, Vidyanidhi, Rajendra, Jayadharma, Purusottama, Brahmanya, and Vyasa Tirtha. Then I worship with devotion Laksmipati and Madhavendra, whose disciples were Isvara Puri, Advaita Acarya, and Nityananda, who acted as spiritual masters to the universe. I worship Lord Caitanya, who became the disciple of Isvara Puri and saved the world with the gift of love for Krsna.' (Prameya-ratnavali 1.7)

And Kavi Karnapura described the same Brahma sampradaya in a slightly different way in the Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika:

paravyomesvarasyasic chisyo brahma jagat-patih

tasya sisyo narado'bhut vyasas tasyapa sisyatam

suko vyasasya sisyatvam prapto jnanavabodhanat

vyasal labdha-krsna-dikso madhvacaryo mahayasah

tasya sisyo'bhavat padmanabhacaryo mahasayah

tasya sisyo naraharis tacchisyo madhava-dvijah

aksobhyas tasya sisyo'bhut tac-chisyo jayatirthakah

tasya sisyo jnana-sindhus tasya sisyo mahanidhih

vidyanidhis tasya sisyo rajendras tasya sevakah

jayadharma munis tasya sisyo yad-gana-madhyatah

srimad-visnu-puri yas tu bhakti-ratnavali-krtih

jayadharmasya sisyo'bhud brahmanyah purusottamah

vyasatirthas tasya sisyo yas cakre visnusamhitam

sriman laksmipatis tasya sisyo bhaktirasasrayah

tasya sisyo madhavendro yad-dharmo'yam pravartitah

tasya sisyo'bhavat sriman isvarakhya-puri-yatih

kalayamasa srngaram yah srngara-phalatmakah

advaitam kalayamasa dasya-sakhye phale ubhe

isvarakhya-purim gaura urarikrtya gaurave

jagad aplavayamasa prakrtaprakrtatmakam

'Brahma, the master of this universe, was the disciple of the lord of the spiritual world. His disciple was Narada and Vyasa became the disciple of Narada. Suka became the disciple of Vyasa through the awakening of spiritual knowledge from him. Madhvacarya took initiation in the Krsna mantra from Vyasa. His disciple was Padmanabhacarya, whose disciple was Narahari, who was followed by Madhava Dvija. Aksobhya was his disciple, then Jayatirtha, Jnanasindhu, Mahanidhi, Vidyanidhi and Rajendra followed. Jayadharma Muni was one of Rajendra's many disciples and Visnu Puri, the author of Bhakti-ratnavali and Brahmanya Purusottama, became his disciples. Vyasa Tirtha, the author of Visnu-samhita was the disciple of Purusottama. Laksmipati Tirtha, a reservoir of devotion, was the disciple of Vyasa Tirtha. Madhavendra Puri was the disciple of Laksmipati, and it is by him that this religion was founded. His disciple, the sannyasi Isvara Puri, took up the mood of conjugal devotion, while Advaita Acarya [also the disciple of Madhavendra] took up the moods of servitude and friendship. Gaura accepted Isvara Puri as his guru, and then flooded the material and spiritual worlds [with love].'(Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika 23-32)9

Though there are some slight differences, one can see that these two accounts of the disciplic succession through Madhvacarya to Caitanya Mahaprabhu are substantially the same.10 Gopala Guru Gosvami accepted the same disciplic succession. Therefore, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote in his Mahaprabhura siksa,

'[in the Tattva-sandarbha,] Srila Jiva Gosvami first established the authenticity of received knowledge, and then that the Puranas fall into this category of authoritative sources of knowledge. After that, he showed that the Srimad Bhagavatam was the most authoritative of all the Puranas. In order to prove the superiority of the Bhagavatam, he cited statements by Brahma, Narada, Vyasa and Sukadeva, as well as texts written by Vijayadharma, Brahmanya Tirtha, and Jagat Guru Madhvacarya. From all these statements, it is evident that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu belonged to the Brahma sampradaya, as it descends through Madhvacarya. Kavi Karnapura confirmed this line of disciplic succession in his Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, and the writer of the commentary on the Vedanta, Baladeva Vidyabhusana, did so again in his Prameya-ratnavali. Is there any doubt that those who do not accept this line of disciplic succession are the principal enemies of the followers of Caitanya Mahaprabhu?'

In the Gaudiya Vaisnava world today, there are a few short-sighted individuals who wish to disavow any connection to the Brahma-Madhva sampradaya and consider the Gaudiya disciplic succession to have come into being with Mahaprabhu himself. But we have to ask the question why Mahaprabhu accepted Madhavendra Puri into his spiritual lineage? Bhaktivinoda Thakura took up this question in his Mahaprabhura Siksa as well:

'Nimbarka Acarya's doctrine of 'difference and non-difference' (bhedabheda) was inadequate. With the advent of Lord Caitanya and his teachings, the Vaisnava world finally received this doctrine in its complete form. Madhvacarya accepted the idea of the Lord's eternal form of consciousness and bliss (sac-cid-ananda-vigraha) and because this is the basis of the acintya-bhedabheda concept, Mahaprabhu accepted the disciplic line that came from Madhva.

'Previously, the Vaisnava acaryas had some technical points of difference in their teachings and this resulted in the establishment of different religious schools. Only with the advent of the Supreme Truth himself in the form of Lord Caitanya, could the lacunae in these various doctrines be corrected as a result of his omniscience. Mahaprabhu combined Nimbarka's 'oneness in difference' with the concept of the sac-cid-ananda-vigraha of the Supreme Lord found in Madhva's teachings, Ramanuja's concept of the Lord's energy (sakti), Visnu Svami's idea of purified non-dualism (suddhadvaita) and the dedication of the Lord to His own devotees (tadiya-sarvasvata). By this most scientific doctrine, which he named acintya-bhedabheda, Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu showered his mercy on the entire universe.

'In a very short time, there will exist only one school of Vaisnava teaching, which will be named the Brahma sampradaya. All other Vaisnava schools will come into the fold of that one disciplic succession.'

Some modern researchers have not been able to find the verses attributed to the Padma Purana that have been quoted above and so conclude that they are interpolations. No doubt motivated by envy of the Vaisnava religion, they thus minimize the necessity for a disciplic succession instructed in these verses. But this understanding is completely illogical.

Our beloved spiritual master, who has now entered the eternal pastimes of the Lord, accepted the disciplic line given by Baladeva and the concept of the Bhagavata-parampara. This is the disciplic succession that we meditate on every single day. Some people do not wish to admit that Madhavendra Puri was ever a member of the Madhva sampradaya. On this matter, Srila Prabhupada had the following to say:

'The disciplic succession of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas is the one given by Baladeva Vidyabhusana. The spiritual masters of the Madhva line are sannyasis in the single-staff (eka-dandi) tradition, most of whom take the title 'Tirtha.' They are generally given the name Sri Madhva, followed by their sannyasa name, and then the title, Tirtha. Madhavendra Puri was a sannyasi, but his title was 'Puri.' However, this does not mean that he could not have taken sannyasa in the Puri line of sannyasis and still have received Pancaratrika diksa in the Madhva line.

'According to the Bhakti-ratnakara,11 Nityananda Prabhu was a disciple of Laksmipati Tirtha. All the acaryas of the main matha of the Tattvavadis of the Madhva sampradaya in Uttararadi (Udipi) have the Tirtha title. Thus some of the leaders of the Sahajiyas doubt the connection of the Gaudiyas to the Madhva line. But their doubts are a result of their own ignorance. For the most part, the descriptions of the disciplic succession found in Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, in the works of Gopala Guru Gosvami, in the Bhakti-ratnakara and the Prameya-ratnavali are in agreement with each other.'

(The Gaudiya-bhasya to Prameya-ratnavali)

Laksmipati Tirtha was the thirteenth guru in descendance from Madhva, otherwise known as Ananda Tirtha. In the Bhakti-ratnakara, Nityananda Prabhu is said to have been his disciple, whereas the Prameya-ratnavali says that he took initiation from Madhavendra Puri. The one or two other discrepancies in these guru lists are of this type.

Baladeva Vidyabhushan's lineage is further given as it follows on after Nityananda Prabhu: One of Nityananda Prabhu's followers was Gauri Dasaa Pandita of Kalna, who in Krsna lila was one of the twelve Gopaas, Subala Sakha. Gauri Dasaa had a disciple named Hrdaya Caitanya, who in turn initiated Dukhi Krsna Dasaa or Syamananda Dasaa, who was given instruction by Jiva Gosvami in Vrndavana. Syamananda's disciple was Rasikananda Murari, whose grandson and disciple was Nayanananda Deva Gosvami. His disciple was Radha Damodara, a great scholar born in Kanyakubja (Kanauja) who wrote the well-reputed text, Vedanta-syamantaka.12 Baladeva, who won renown as the Bhasyakara for his elaborate exposition of the Vedanta-sutra according to the Gaudiya understanding, was initiated by Radha Damodara Gosvami.

Srila Prabhupada adds, 'Sri Uddhava Dasa or Uddhara Dasa was the follower of the author of the Govinda-bhasya, Baladeva Vidyabhusana. Uddhava Dasa, Madhusudana Dasa and Jagannatha Dasa Babaji, all of whom adopted the lifestyle of the paramahamsa, followed him in preaching the path of pure devotion through their example. In the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya, these saints are the objects of the greatest faith and reverence.'

This Jagannatha Dasa Babaji, who was known widely as vaisnava-sarvabhauma or 'universal monarch of the Vaisnavas,' is our predecessor acarya, who gave direction to Bhaktivinoda Thakura.

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu recognized the Bhagavatam to be the genuine commentary on the Vedanta and thus considered it unnecessary to write a separate explanation of the Brahma Sutras. The Garuda-purana in particular states that the Bhagavatam is the explanation of the Vedanta-sutra, the Mahabharata and other historical epics; it gives the meaning of the Gayatri mantra and all the Vedic literature. However, there came a time when, by the wish of the Lord, the acaryas of the Ramanuja sampradaya in the Galta village of Jaipur created a lot of trouble by denying the validity of the Gaudiya school, which managed the service to the Govindaji deity in Jaipur, saying that it had no historical basis. They accused the Gaudiyas of not having a tie to any one of the four Vaisnava disciplic successions.

Though the King of Jaipur was a Gaudiya Vaisnava, he was troubled by their arguments. Word came to Visvanatha Cakravarti in Vrndavana, who was the most prominent acarya of the Gaudiya school at the time. Due to his advanced age, however, Visvanatha was unable to defend the sampradaya's reputation, but sent his dear student, Baladeva Vidyabhusana and a disciple, Krsnadeva Sarvabhauma, in his place.

When the king saw these two poverty-stricken monks, he had his doubts that they would be able to debate with the learned scholars of the Ramanuja sampradaya. However, his anxiety was soon dispelled when he witnessed the profound scholarship of the two ascetics. Nevertheless, it was decided that until the Gaudiya school had a commentary of its own on the Vedanta, based on the three reliable sources (prasthana-traya) of scripture—the Sruti, the Smrti and the Sutras, it would not be accepted as a legitimate sampradaya.

Baladeva asked the accusers for some time—seven days according to some, three months according to others—to write a Gaudiya commentary on the Vedanta. He then went to the Govindaji temple and prayed earnestly to the Lord, 'O Lord, O Govindaji! I am a follower of your dear companions, Svarupa Damodara and Rupa Gosvami. Please preserve their spiritual descendants and the honor of their line.'

On the first two nights, Baladeva received only minimal directions from the Lord and was not satisfied with what he had heard. On the third night, however, the Supreme Lord gave him his full mercy and reassured him that he would be able to achieve his goal. In a very short time, Baladeva completed writing his commentaries on the Upanisads, Vedanta-sutra, Bhagavad-gita and the Bhagavatam. He named his exposition of the Vedanta-sutra, Govinda-bhasya. This seems indeed appropriate, for it was by Lord Govindaji's blessings and inspiration that Baladeva was able to accomplish this task.

The scholars of the other sampradayas were astonished by the quality of Baladeva's commentary and were mollified by it. As a result, all opposition to accepting the Gaudiyas as a separate school or sampradaya stopped. This was the playful Lord Hari's tricky way of bringing into existence a commentary on the Vedanta-sutras that would give joy to the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. It is said that whenever the Lord does anything, he accomplishes many purposes by it.13

We believe that Baladeva Vidyabhusana, who was so blessed and dear to Lord Govinda, is sufficient authority to make an official statement on the disciplic succession and that his word should satisfy any honest and intelligent person that the Gaudiya sampradaya is genuine.

(From Caitanya Vani 19.5, pp. 84-89.)

NOTES

1 amnayate samyag abhyasyate athava amnayate upadisyate dharmo'neneti amnayah

2 krsnera bhajana kahi samyag amnaya | adi-madhya-ante krsna-bhajana-bujhaya || 'The most perfect strands of the Vedic literature as passed down in disciplic succession direct us to worship Krsna. From beginning to middle to end, they explain only the worship of Krsna.'

3 dharma-brahma-pratipadakapauruseya-vakyam vedah.

4 brahma-mukha-nirgata-dharma-jnapaka-sastram vedah.

5 Calcutta (Shyam Bazar): Sanskrit Sahitya Parishad, 1927.

6 Sivananda Sena had three sons, Caitanya Dasa, Sri Rama Dasa, and Sri Puri Dasa. Puri Dasa was given the name Kavi Karnapura by Lord Caitanya himself, when at the age of seven years, he recited a Sanskrit poem he had written himself (CC 3.16.65-75). It is said that this extraordinary ability came as the result of sucking Mahaprabhu's toes as a baby (CC 3.12.50). Karnapura's guru was Srinatha Cakravarti. He wrote ten books including Caitanya-carita-maha-kavya, Caitanya-candrodaya, Ananda-vrndavana-campu, Alankara-kaustubha, Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, Brhad-ganoddesa-dipika, Arya-sataka, Caitanya-sahasra-nama, Sri-kesavastaka and a commentary on the Tenth Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam.

7 devo nah kula-daivatam vijayatam caitanya-krsno harih. Ananda-vrndavana-campu 1.3.

8 Jaiva Dharma, ed. Bhakti Dayita Madhava Gosvami. Calcutta: Caitanya Gaudiya Math, 1989. pp 213-4.

9 These verses are also quoted in Bhakti-ratnakara 5.2149-2162.

10 Nava-ratna, an even older text by Madhavendra Puri's disciple Hariram Vyasa, who lived in Vrndavana and was a contemporary of the Gosvamis, also contains a list of acaryas in the Brahma sampradaya. It is given as a citation from Sri-guru-pranalikoddesa:

sri-krsno bhagavan brahma narado badarayanah

sri-madhvah padmanabhas ca nrharir madhavas ca sah

aksobhyo jayatirthas ca jnanasindhur dayanidhih

vidyanidhis ca rajendro jayadharma-munis tatha

purusottamo brahmanyo vyasatirthas ca tasya hi

laksmipatis tatah sriman madhavendra-yatisvarah

isvaras tasya madhavo radha-krsna-priyo'bhavat

tasyaham karuna-patram hari-ramabhidho'bhavam

This list corresponds in every detail with that of Baladeva. Nava-ratnam 1.5-8.

11 5.2271-2332.

12 Published with notes and appendices by Umesh Chandra Banerjee. Lahore; Motilal Banarsidas (Punjab Sanskrit Book Depot), 1930.

13 eka lilaya karen prabhu karyya panca-sat (CC 3.2.169).

[krsna]

1969 June 10 : "Unless one is a resident of Krishna Loka, one cannot be a Spiritual Master. That is the first proposition. When the Spiritual Master speaks it should be taken that Krishna is speaking. That is a fact.":pray:

[Guest guest]

 

What is to stop His Divine Grace appearing before someone today and giving him instruction.

 

Is there a difference between physically present and personally present?

 

ps I never said he appeared in his heart.

 

 

Anyone could just come and say Srila Prabhupada just initiated me, or just told me to do something. The problem with this is there are no witnesses and one has to rely on that persons statement. dangerous

[Guest guest]

<i><b>Physical presence is immaterial. Presence of the transcendental

sound received from the Spiritual Master should be the guidance of

life. That will make our spiritual life successful. If you feel very

strongly about my absence you may place my pictures on my sitting

places and this will be source of inspiration for you. (Letter to

Brahmananda and other students, 19/1/67)</b> </i>

This subject wouldn't even be controversial unless ISKCON had a political need to amass and control many disciples by its concoted gurus.

[krsna]

 

Physical presence is immaterial. Presence of the transcendental

sound received from the Spiritual Master should be the guidance of

life. That will make our spiritual life successful. If you feel very

strongly about my absence you may place my pictures on my sitting

places and this will be source of inspiration for you. (Letter to

Brahmananda and other students, 19/1/67)

This subject wouldn't even be controversial unless ISKCON had a political need to amass and control many disciples by its concoted gurus.

 

:pray: :pray:

[theist]

 

Anyone could just come and say Srila Prabhupada just initiated me, or just told me to do something. The problem with this is there are no witnesses and one has to rely on that persons statement. dangerous

 

This arguement has no value.

 

So you want to rely on some system of external confirmation that someone is a disciple of a given spiritual master. The majority of those formally initiated by Srila Prabhupada have yet to become his disciples in the internal or spiritual sense and many have used their external "closeness" to Srila Prabhupada as a means to exploit gullible devotees like yourself into thinking they are the next link in the parampara and thus sucking up the material assests and worship of their spiritually blind followers...Very dangerous.

 

Personally I am ignorant of who is authentic and who is a genune disciple of a genuine guru. And I will remain ignorant until the Lord in the heart reveals His devotee to me.

 

Until the Lord in the heart personally grants one the divine eyes to see the spiritual reality he remains blind.

 

Better to be blind and know it then to be blind and think you can see. The later being very dangerous.

 

Also is there anything possibly more sad and pathetic then blind people pretending they can see and trying to live life as if their eyesight were intact? The acme of which is to pretend to be guru and/or to follow such such delusional person oneself.

 

They call that the blind leading the blind and they both fall into the ditch.

 

Very dangerous.

[Guruvani]

well said Theist.

You are living proof that formal diksha is not the pre-requisite for acquiring transcendental knowledge and surpassing the limits of sabdha-brahma.

 

It appears that there are basically two kinds of seekers on the spiritual path; the form worshipers and the substance worshipers.

 

We hear this endless rant from the form worshipers about how vital is the need for a "living guru" and formal diksha, when it is quite obvious that the persons who follow that path are no better and in many cases less realized than the substance worshipers who are not very concerned with formalities.

[Guest guest]

Beautiful point. And then you would have a huge bunch of ritviks, who have no clue about Sidhanta, claiming to be disciples and effectively destroying the movement.

 

 

Anyone could just come and say Srila Prabhupada just initiated me, or just told me to do something. The problem with this is there are no witnesses and one has to rely on that persons statement. dangerous

[Guruvani]

 

Beautiful point. And then you would have a huge bunch of ritviks, who have no clue about Sidhanta, claiming to be disciples and effectively destroying the movement.

 

And people like you have got the "sidhanta" all figured out ?

 

Maybe you could learn how to spell "siddhanta", then learn the "siddhanta" and then come back when you know what you are talking about?

 

The "siddhanta" is not about formalities.

It's about spiritual knowledge and the science of Krishna consciousness.

 

This formal diksha cult is turning out some real doozies nowadays.

 

Sadly, it appears that many of them are just so uniformed and ignorant of the "siddhanta" that they are falling for this formal diksha cult and forgetting to learn the philosophy of Krishna consciousness.

[Shakti-Fan]

Siksa diksa: 'acknowledging spirituality'

 

"It is possible that the siksa guru may do more to bring about one's deliverance than the diksa guru. This does not minimize the importance of diksa. It merely serves to acknowledge spirituality wherever it comes from."

Q&A discussion with Swami B.V. Tripurari.

Q. Who is eligible for diksa and when is initiation complete?

A. One who has sraddha is eligible for diksa. In the context of diksa, the initiate learns the particulars of bhajana-kriya from his guru. By following these guidelines the initiate becomes free from the basic anarthas and his bhajana becomes nistha. However, initiation is complete when one reaches the stage of asakti and glimpses his spiritual identity, because diksa is a function of sambandha-jnana, which reveals one's relationship with Krsna.

Q. Though there may be many siksa-gurus, doesn't the actual delivering power lay with the bhagavata acarya?

A. This is the general rule. However, sometimes we see that the siksa guru is a great devotee and we cannot deny his spiritual influence. It is possible that the siksa guru may do more to bring about one's deliverance than the diksa guru. The seed of bhakti is necessary, but it will not fructify without watering.

Q. Could you give some examples of the siksa guru doing more than the diksa guru.?

A. The diksa guru of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, but he taught his followers to consider themselves Bhaktivinoda parivara, followers of Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who had a greater influence upon him. Bhaktivinoda Thakura was initiated by Bipin Bihari Goswami, but his siksa-guru, Jagannatha das Babaji played a more significant role in his life. In Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Jaiva Dharma, Vijaya Kumara received ekadasa-bhava from his siksa-guru in Puri, not from his diksa-guru in Navadvipa. The diksa-guru of Raghunatha dasa Gosvami was Yadunandana Acarya, but his siksa-guru was Svarupa Damodara, who had a much greater influence on him, as did Rupa and Sanatana Gosvamis, who became his siksa-gurus after the disappearance of Svarupa Damodara Gosvami. Sukadeva Gosvami was the siksa guru of Suta Gosvami and he played a more prominent role in his life than his diksa guru.

All this does not minimize the importance of diksa. It merely serves to acknowledge spirituality wherever it comes from.

Q. Can't the guru acarya be one who is not present on the planet, like Srila Prabhupada, but is accessed by his representatives?

A. No, this is not correct. We cannot connect ourselves to the sampradaya through a purvacarya such as Srila Prabhupada.

Q. Aren't Srila Prabhupada's books guru-sastra-sadhu in one?

A. Not according to sastra or other sadhus, or to Srila Prabhupada himself for that matter. If this were the case, we would not need Srila Prabhupada at all. If we accept this premise, we may as well just connect directly to Krsna through Bhagavad Gita, calling it guru-sastra-sadhu in one, or directly to Vyasa through Srimad Bhagavatam.

[Guruvani]

Did Haridas Thakur give formal diksha to the prostitute that he turned into a Maha-Bhagavat?

 

I have never read anything about the prostitute that Haridas Thakur delivered as getting formal diksha.

 

She was instructed to chant the Maha-mantra and serve Tulasi Devi.

 

If she ever took formal diksha I would like to hear when and where.

 

I don't think there is any doubt that she was delivered.

 

Why do these professional gurus keep reducing diksha down to a formal ceremony.

 

We all know that diksha is vital.

 

What we all don't agree on is that diksha is a formal ceremony or some sort of contract between the guru and the disciple.

 

In the whole of the books of Srila Prabhupada I don't see anything about diksha being some kind of contract or mutual acceptance.

 

 

What we do hear is that one should be initiated by a Vaishnava.

 

What exactly that diksha actually is seems to be quite misunderstood, especially by men who initiate disciples as a means of livelyhood and subsistance.

 

When you don't depend on an influx of "disciples" for your livelyhood, it is a lot easier to be honest about what spiritual diksha actually is.

[Guest guest]

So it's now all about spellings? This isn't a spelling bee contest!

 

 

And people like you have got the "sidhanta" all figured out ?

 

Maybe you could learn how to spell "siddhanta", then learn the "siddhanta" and then come back when you know what you are talking about?

 

The "siddhanta" is not about formalities.

It's about spiritual knowledge and the science of Krishna consciousness.

 

This formal diksha cult is turning out some real doozies nowadays.

 

Sadly, it appears that many of them are just so uniformed and ignorant of the "siddhanta" that they are falling for this formal diksha cult and forgetting to learn the philosophy of Krishna consciousness.

[Guruvani]

 

Q. Can't the guru acarya be one who is not present on the planet, like Srila Prabhupada, but is accessed by his representatives?

 

 

Where did Tripurari Maharaja get the authority to say that the representative system that Srila Prabhupada set-up in ISKCON had to end with his passing away?

 

Srila Prabhupada most certainly used representatives in ISKCON and left ISKCON with that same system in place and never authorized Tripurari Maharaja or anyone to dismantle that representative system.

 

Srila Prabhupada says in his books that one can accept the acharya or his representatives, so Tripurari Maharaja seems to be challenging the instructions of Srila Prabhupada in this matter.

 

Who has the authority to say that the representative system cannot work after the acharya is gone?

Srila Prabhupada certainly never said that.

 

That is the propaganda of career gurus who accept disciples for a living.

[Guest guest]

SRILA BHAKTIVEDANTA NARAYAN GOSVAMI MAHARAJA

Srila Sanatana Gosvami has written in the Brhad-bhagavatamrta about a boy named Gopa-kumara, who was born in a brahmana family in Govardhana. He had engaged in a great deal of devotional activities in his past lives. To help him, Srimati Radhika sent Her associate in the form of a Guru, who thus descended to introduce him to the teachings of bhakti, starting from the beginning. That Guru gave him the gopal-mantra, but before He could explain the meaning of the mantra, He fainted in ecstasy and then disappeared. Nevertheless, the boy began to chant the mantra with great faith. By doing so, all his desires for worldly things were quickly and amazingly dispelled. He went to Puri to perform bhakti, and there he saw that his Guru was waiting for him on the bank of the ocean. But again, as his Guru began was explaining something about the mantra, He fainted and then disappeared, and He could not be found anywhere. Thus, his Gurudeva was helping him to experience the mood of separation. In the end, his Guru explained to him about sakhya-rasa, vatsalya-rasa and madhurya-rasa, the mood of Krsna as one's beloved. Gopa-kumara became self-realized and later shared his realization with his disciple, Jana Sarma. His disciple learned everything and became expert in all tattvas (established philosophic truths) by his mercy, but there was something lacking. He could not weep for Krsna and he had no realization.

 

You can hear these topics, but can you loudly weep for Krsna like Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Srila Rupa Gosvami and others? Only by the mercy of your Gurudeva can you weep - and only if your Gurudeva is bona fide and realized. The boy wanted to weep and become a servant of Krsna, but he could not. Then the Guru, Gopa-kumara, who was now also sent by Radhika, placed his hand on his young disciple's head and blessed him to realize all the subject matters spoken by him - to realize transcendental moods. The disciple at once began to weep loudly, and to sing, and his heart melted. He suddenly disappeared from that place, appeared in Goloka Vrndavana, and there he saw Krsna herding the cows, singing, and playing on His flute. He ran to Krsna, overjoyed. They both fainted, and after that Krsna embraced him. The Guru must be expert and realized, and then he can give you the blessing of full transcendental realization - simply by placing his hand on your head. This is really sadhu-sanga.

[Guruvani]

It's interesting that preachers like Tripurari Maharaja never actually come forward to debate issues in a public forum and actually defeat other arguments openly. They sit behind a business desk surrounded by a handful of supporters dictating some pronouncement with absolute certainty, though they would never dare meet anyone in a public debate over these issues.

 

They sit on their big cushions and pontificate to their groupies, but never coming out to actually answer challenges and questions publicly and show how flimsy their positition actually is.

[Laulyam]

The Fire has Come to Test Us

What we have received from our spiritual master we understood only in a rough estimation. Now, things have come in such a way that we have to scrutinize ourselves in every position. We have to analyze ourselves.Atma-niksepa, self-analysis has begun. We are under trial. What we have received from our spiritual master, in what way have we received it? Properly, or only showingly? The time has come to purify us, to test whether we are real students, real disciples, or his disciples only in face and confession. What is the position of a real disciple? If we live in a society, what is the depth of our creed? In what attitude have we accepted his teachings? How deep-rooted is it within us? The fire has come to test whether we can stand. Is our acceptance real? Or is it a sham, an imitation? This fire will prove that.

So, this is the real field of sadhana, or practice. Our practice, our advancement needs these difficulties. Otherwise, we may not know what is progress, and we will become hypocrites, and give the adulterated thing to others. So, to purify ourselves, it is necessary that so many disturbances come.

And God has no error. He commands the environment. It is not our responsibility. The responsibility of the environment does not rest upon us. If I am sincere, then I have to adjust myself with this environment and put my faith before Him. "Everyone may leave me, but I shall stand alone!" With this attitude we must march on, whatever the circumstances may be. Then the recognition may come in my favor, that "Yes, under such trying circumstances he is still there." Our superiors will be pleased with us.

The relative and absolute considerations are always coming in clash. The absolute should be accepted and the relative sacrificed. Still the relative is necessary. After graduation from primary school another teacher is accepted for higher education, but that does not mean that the primary teacher is neglected or insulted. For our own interest, whatever we find which is akin to what was given to us by our guru maharaja, whatever we find that will enlighten us further, and whatever will help us to understand more clearly what we heard from our guru maharaja, must be accepted. Is my realization a living thing, or is it dead? Anyone who has come in connection with the infinite cannot but say this: "I am nothing." That should be the salient point.

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 this form, but of substance. Wherever I feel the presence of my Lord in an intense form, I must be attracted to that side. Krsna says, sarva dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja. Wherever we shall find Him, we must run in that direction. My interest is with Him. Not that we can challenge, "Why did Krsna appear here, and why is He appearing there?" If a man in a boat is passing through the current and finds himself in danger, then from whatever side help may come, he must run to that side.

If we are worshipers of Siva, when we understand the special superiority of Narayana, should we stick to Siva? And then Krsna? In the Brhad-bhagavatamrta the story is told of how Gopa-kumara, by chanting his Gopala mantra, gradually leaves one stage and progresses to the next. There, the gradation of devotion is traced from the karma-kanda brahmana, to a devotee king, then to Indra, then to Brahma, then to Siva, from him to Prahlada, then to Hanuman, then the Pandavas, then to the Yadavas, to Uddhava, and finally the gopis. In this zigzag way he is passing. In the sincerity of his quest, his thirst is not being quenched until he goes to Vrndavana. So, the Brhad-bhagavatamrta has shown us the line of guru parampara, or the real line of our quest, of our search.

[Guest guest]

Later, when Gopa Kumar was mature, he had a disciple named Jana Sharma. In Srila Sanatana Goswami's Brhat Bhagavatamrta it is Gopa Kumar narrating his journey through the different level of bhakti in order to enlighten his this disciple.

 

...Gopa-kumara became self-realized and later shared his realization with his disciple, Jana Sarma. His disciple learned everything and became expert in all tattvas (established philosophic truths) by his mercy, but there was something lacking. He could not weep for Krsna and he had no realization.

 

...The boy wanted to weep and become a servant of Krsna, but he could not. Then the Guru, Gopa-kumara, who was now also sent by Radhika, placed his hand on his young disciple's head and blessed him to realize all the subject matters spoken by him - to realize transcendental moods. The disciple at once began to weep loudly, and to sing, and his heart melted. He suddenly disappeared from that place, appeared in Goloka Vrndavana, and there he saw Krsna herding the cows, singing, and playing on His flute. He ran to Krsna, overjoyed. They both fainted, and after that Krsna embraced him.

 

Srila Narayana Maharaja has explained that nowadays no one can do like this except for someone like Narada Muni. Yet the fact remains that this is what Srila Sanatana Goswami has written, therefore all the acaryas in our line take it as absolute truth. Just because something is imitated by a rascal such as "Guru Maharaji", the late Muktananda and others doesn't mean that it does not exist. At least according to Srila Sanatana Goswami.

[Guruvani]

Srila Prabhupada instructs in Bhagavad-gita As it Is:

 

 

One should try to follow the disciplic succession from Arjuna, and thus be benefitted by this great science of Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā.

 

So, the disciplic succession of Arjuna does not have any diksha line.

Its just a siksha sampradaya.

 

Nonetheless, Srila Prabhupada advises to follow in the disciplic succession of Arjuna and get the benefit of learning Bhagavad-gita.

 

It's obvious from this statement by Srila Prabhupada that there is a parampara other than the formal diksha parampara that we hear so much propaganda about.