'Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link' is now available online

[Guest guest]

Kulapavana Prabhu, you wrote:

 

"it is beyond me then why we should go through all this exercise of PL? no respectable devotee is going to minimize the position of Srila Prabhupada as a prominent acharya in the disciplic succession in our times, so why bother with PL?"

 

The PL model sees Srila Prabhupada as 'the most prominent direct link to the disciplic succession', this seems to me to be a different position than 'a prominent acharya in the disciplic succession in our times'.

 

The following is from a correspondence between two devotees, and I believe is relevant:

 

"Because of the institutional filters that many devotees have acquired around these terms, to describe Srila Prabhupada as the prominent siksa guru may tend to minimize him from his actual position and relationship with the members of his movement. The conception may be there, that "he's just my siksa guru, but my diksa guru, and the guru who is most important to me, is..." So, it's not that the term is intrinsically minimizing, but the relationship to the term of many ISKCON devotees may be so. It has been and is known that Srila Prabhupada is everyone's siksa guru. Still, there are many in the movement who barely acknowledge Srila Prabhupada's vyasa-puja, while

celebrating in a big way the vyasa-puja celebration of their "real guru" (that is, the devotee who performed their initiation ceremony)."

 

If you have time and interest, I also like the following:

 

http://www.yedaveda.org/pl-srila_prabhupada_is_qualified_to.htm

 

You also wrote:

 

"do you think the theoretical implementation of the PL idea in 1977 would have prevented the abuses and deviations of the past? like these guys did not know they were screwing up Prabhupada's mission? if so, you are either very naive or very ignorant."

 

I think that this touches on what you have written:

 

"By retaining the worship practices that Srila Prabhupada established, no one in Srila Prabhupada’s movement will ever experience that the Vaisnava perceived and worshipped as the current link to the parampara will experience difficulties in spiritual life. Such difficulties have caused much disturbance, and to reestablish Srila Prabhupada’s system of worship, with regards to the altar he instituted in his movement, and to recognize Srila Prabhupada as the point of unconditional surrender and the current link to the disciplic succession, would avert the possibility of such disturbances in the future. This will be a great burden lifted from the institution. Of course it is a loss and disappointment when any Vaisnava, especially one who has mentored others in Krsna consciousness, deviates from the path of bhakti-yoga, but if that Vaisnava is perceived to be the link to the parampara and the object of absolute surrender, then the effects can be devastating. There is no need for any devotee to experience such calamitous effects. Srila Prabhupada is qualified to receive worship through his picture and murti from all followers who have received transcendental knowledge from him. He is already doing this, in the capacity of prominent link to the disciplic succession, for many devotees who did not receive formal initiation from him. This confirms that he can do it, and we recommend that the movement establishes Srila Prabhupada as the guru to be worshipped as the current link to the parampara."

 

(this excerpt also comes from the link given above)

 

Thanks again for these exchanges.

 

Your servant,

Alex

[Kulapavana]

"I read with interest the article by B.G. Narasingha Maharaja, that appeared on VNN, about his views on the terms upakaaraka-guru and uddhaaraka-guru"

 

this is indeed a very good article and exactly presents the view of our lineage with respect to guru tattva. it would serve well all involved parties to study it closely.

 

first: study our own siddhanta closely. then: you will see no need to concoct any new philosophy.

 

that advice applies to both Iskcon and PL (or ritvik) sympathizers.

[theist]

I thought the Madhvaite example was a good one. I don't know the tradition but common observation tells us that Srila Prabhupada was commisioned by Krsna to initiate the Hare Krsna movement on a world wide scale. He is not one of many. He is a single standout among many and so deserves that specfic recognition for generations to come.

 

Myself having never undergone any formal intiation really don't have much to say on the particulars but it is rather wrenching to see peoples faith influenced by others away from Srila Prabhupada and onto pretenders just because they have a physical body on. I don't believe "clothes make the man" and so I certainly don't accept that clothes make a guru either. Putting faith in a body does not seem like a sound idea.

 

One problem may be our need to have everything lined up in neat and pre-determined properly marked little categories. But life proceeds on oftenoutside our understanding of how we think it should. Perhaps it our thinking that should be more flexible.

 

But I always come back to one's personal need to hear the truth of this matter directly from Krsna within the heart. For someone Srila Prabhupada may not be the most PL to Krsna while still being influential. There is a need for suppleness along with steadfastness in a healthy mind.

 

I talk too much. Time to just listen in for awhile.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

Kulapavana Prabhu, you wrote:

 

"this is indeed a very good article and exactly presents the view of our lineage with respect to guru tattva. it would serve well all involved parties to study it closely."

 

I found the article very interesting. I especially found this passage interesting:

 

"The uddhaaraka-guru position held by Ramanuja Acharya and Madhva Acharya in their respective successions, has already been given to Srila Rupa Goswami Prabhupada in our Gaudiya-sampradaya by none other than Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, approximately 500 years ago."

 

I am wondering what the reference for this event is. Is it perhaps somewhere in the CC? And what term is being referred to as having been bestowed apon Srila Rupa Goswami?

 

Does Mahaprabhu actually use the term 'uddharika' in refence to Srila Rupa Goswami...or does he use some other term that is seen by some as being synonymous with 'uddharika'?

 

The article was a real pleasure for me to read...still I don't see it as rendering invalid the principles presented in PL.

 

When you say that the article "exactly presents the view of our lineage" what are you basing this on? I am genuinely curious.

 

Your servant,

Alex

[Kulapavana]

"When you say that the article "exactly presents the view of our lineage" what are you basing this on?"

 

I'm basing it on my study of writings of our acharyas in this matter, Srila Prabhupada, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Thakura Bhaktivinode in general. And it relates to the essence of guru-tattva and not just the terminology used in this article.

[Guest guest]

Kulapavana Prabhu, you wrote:

 

"I'm basing it on my study of writings of our acharyas in this matter, Srila Prabhupada, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Thakura Bhaktivinode in general. And it relates to the essence of guru-tattva and not just the terminology used in this article."

 

I am not a scholar of the writings of the acaryas, so I can't comment on their general views of the essence of guru-tattva. I've read a few (perhaps questionable) translations of texts, and that's about it. I assume that Srila Prabhupada understands the acaryas, and at this point am comforable with focusing on receiving them through his writings, rather than going to him through them.

 

I'm also of the opinion that correctly translating spiritual litterature may well depend on certain existential conditions being present in the translator.

 

I have been in situations that to me seemed like people 'going to the acaryas' to make fuzzy something that Srila Prabhupada makes clear. Or to go around something in Srila Prabhupada's writings that they don't like...and to say that it actually means something else...because perhaps it shines too strong a light on our own shortcomings. Perhaps my reading of these situations is not correct, but that's how I experienced them.

 

What I personally found particularly interesting in the article was these two concepts of uddharika-guru and upakarika-guru. I am curious if it is in fact clear that the parallels to these concepts for us are Srila Rupa Goswami and the Rupanugas.

 

I thank you for the exchange so far. I will most probably return for more, but I want to chant japa now, so it may not be until tomorrow. Good evening to all.

 

Your servant,

Alex

[vijay]

Prabhu you still have not answered these questions.

Please be as clear as you can as i my conditioned intelligence failed to undestand the previous answer.

 

In the post it says "Beyond that, and as described in PL, even if all who serve in the capacity of ISKCON initiating guru were to be mahabhagavatas, my conviction is that they would embrace the PL model. Srila Prabhupada is available to serve as the guru, in the singular sense. Therefore, why would anyone, especially an advanced Vaisnava, want to try to fill a position that is already filled by Srila Prabhupada?"

 

So even if bhaktisidhanta maharaj was the prominent link srila prabhupada even though a mahabhagvat should of accepted BST as the Prominent link? Or if srila prabhupada (hypothetical)decides to come in the linage of iskcon again he should accept the founder acarya prabhupada?

 

"even if all who serve in the capacity of ISKCON initiating guru were to be mahabhagavatas, my conviction is that they would embrace the PL model."

 

How does he come to this conclusion unless he understands the thoughts of mahabhagvats now and in the future?

 

[vijay]

 

 

Prabhupada: So Krsna, if you cannot meet Krsna, you can meet with

Krsna's representative. Krsna may not be physically present, but

His representative is physically present. You can talk with him.

That is the system of Bhagavad-gita. Evam parampara-praptam imam

rajarsayo viduh. Parampara. Krsna says that "I talked with the

sun-god." Imam vivasvate yogam proktavan aham avyayam. "First of

all I talked with the sun-god." Vivasvan manave praha. "Then he

talked with his son, Manu. Then Manu talked with Iksvaku. In this

way..." Evam parampara-praptam, there is a disciplic succession.

So if you can be in touch with that disciplic succession, then

Krsna's representative is there. If you talk with the Krsna's

representative, then you talk with Krsna. Just like in office,

there are different departments, and the, there is a man,

departmental-in-charge. So if you can talk with that

departmental-in-charge, if you can please him, that means you are

pleasing the proprietor or director. There is no doubt. Because he

is representative. So physically you may not meet Krsna, but in

higher stage, you can meet. But accepting that you cannot..., but

He, you have to be in contact with His representative. That is

coming in disciplic succession. Then you talk with Krsna. It is

not difficult. The acaryas are there. Acaryam mam vijaniyam. Krsna

says. "All the acaryas," mam vijaniyam, "they are Myself."

Navamanyeta karhicit, "Never disregard acarya." Acaryam mam

vijaniyam navaman..., na martya-buddhyasuyeta "Do not be envious:

'How he can be? He's ordinary man. How he can be representative?'

No. Anyone who is talking of Krsna as Krsna talked, he's Krsna's

representative.

 

HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

 

Prabhupada says you can not see krishna directly only on the higher sense, same with experiencing prabhupada, (for those who are ritvic) until then we should search for a BONAFIDE physically present guru.

 

Anyway ultimately if we dont endeavour for the truth AND dont get mercy from the vaishnavas and the lord, whether you accept the caitya guru concept, the ritvic concept the prominent link theory or a physically present system (the traditional way) u will be cheated. No matter how sophisticated your theories, observation and words.

 

Bear in mind either a fool or self-realised person thinks he knows for sure the concept of guru (balaram's potency). With our hard endvour and humility and second by this work and humility we get mercy, only then can you understand guru.

101 theories will not help. The begining of spiirtual life is humility, else no actual learning takes place. All mental masturbation without the foundations of the subtle qualitys of humility and sincerity to understand such deep concepts, how far will we get in this debate without the basis?

 

 

 

[vijay]

I liked this.

 

Prominent Link: A Comment

 

BY PRABHUPADA DASA

 

EDITORIAL, Mar 29 (VNN) — Dear Prabhus, Hare Krishna! Please accept my respectful obeisances. All glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga.

 

It seems that ISKCON has adopted a Diksa successional system after the departure or Srila Prabhupada. This is evidenced by the "who-my-guru-is" designation that appears along with many devotees names. For example, were I a member of ISKCON, I would post my name thus, Prabhupada dasa ACBSP. If I were a disciple of H.H. Dhanavir Gosvami I would post my name like this, Prabhupada dasa HHDG. This convention is seen almost everywhere among ISKCON members. It seems to be the accepted manner of communicating to others who one's Guru is, and, since it is practiced by the devotees it must have been approved by the GBC. Since the GBC is the ultimate managing authority in ISKCON this would then be the official system, a Diksa successional system. If this is not a system authorized by the GBC then one can conclude that the GBC has lost its authority over the members of ISKCON or what it presents is not authoritative and the devotees are simply ignoring it.

 

When I ask a devotee who her or his Guru is one responds by telling me the name of the person who performed the Diksa initiation. It seems that in ISKCON the connection to the Sampradaya is made through the Diksa initiation and that Guru is presented to the world as "my Guru". It is also a fact with overwhelming support in Srila Prabhupada's translations and purports, and thus in the tradtion of the Sampradaya, that one must obey one's Guru and follow his instructions even if they are a personal inconvenience. It is such a strong admonition that many references state that the advancement of a devotee who disobeys the instructions of the spiritual master is stopped and even covered over. One's Guru is obviously that Guru who has initiated one into the Sampradaya and has taken charge of that persons spiritual life and to whom the disciple owes allegiance. There are no references to any philosophy or religious principle that a disciple has the option of disobeying one's Guru and obeying one's parama Guru, or someone else instead, simply based on the expression of "feeling more inspired by another." There are sufficient references to establish that one's initiating Guru is also the deciding factor in who one's shiksha gurus may or may not be.

 

One may be profoundly inspired and moved by one's parama guru or ones predecessor guru, but one is still duty bound to obey one's "immediate initiating Guru". If this is not the system of disciplic succession then anyone can follow anyone they happen to "feel" like following and there is no meaning to the word disciplic succession, [the word disciple meaning one who follows the instruction of an accepted authority] This leaves the door open for a so-called disciple being free to pick and choose who to obey or disobey simply on "perceptions" of inspiration at the time. Of course one need not obey if that Guru has fallen, but, if the Guru is not fallen, and one has taken initiation from him one must follow as that is one's prominant and "only" link to the parampara. One link is connected to the one before and the strength of the chain is passed through the links. It is not authorized for me to say, "I am more inspired by Srila Bhaktivinoda, so I am now disobeying Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Prabhupada and calling myself the disciple of Srila Bhaktivinoda.

 

What this would seem to indicate is that, devotees who do not want to strictly follow the instructions of their initiating spiritual master [the person they are in contract with], but jump over and begin to say, "my Guru is Srila Prabhupada, he is my prominent or more important link", have not fully understood the instructions of Srila Prabhupada. He is saying, "obey your Guru", the devotees are putting their Gurus initials after their names, thus telling the world that their Guru is so and so and, therefore, since "I am his disciple I am prepared to follow his instructions". If this is the case, and I did not like my Gurus instructions, or I thought I was getting more inspiration from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur, I would be authorized to post my name as Prabhupada dasa SBST. Or, if I was "feeling" more inspiration from Srimati Radharani, I could post my name as Prabhupada dasa SR. I could also say I am the disciple of Srila Rupa Gosvami or anyone who happened to inspire me more than than the Guru who initiatied me.

 

Individuals who present the theory that Srila Pabhupada is a more prominent or effective link than the Guru they accepted in the authorized Diksa succession have failed to understand the philosophy and religion of the Sampradaya. They understand even less who think that they can approach Srila Prabhupada directly by avoiding Diksa from his authorized disciples. Instead they make it into a mundane system that can be adjusted to their "feelings or perceptions" of who inspires them more. The system works by the full transfer of the Lords mercy along an unbroken chain of bonafide Gurus, the disciple maturing into a Guru, taking disciples and passing the message along. It works on the principle of successive OBEDIENCE to one's Guru. If one is not willing to offer strict obedience one should not make a pretense of initiation and then later disobey and jump over the head of one's guru.

 

On a final note. If the GBC has in fact established a Diksa system of successon for ISKCON it can be concluded that individuals who support the prominent link misconception are not actually members of ISKCON but of some other organization. Such arrival of opposing conceptions are an indication of the gradual sectarianization of the Sampradaya. In the absence of the GBC doing its duty of maintaining the principles in the Society, due to supporting their personal projects instead, individuals with ideas contrary to the philosphy and religion of the Sampradaya can easily pose themselves as authorities for those who would be blind followers. In many cases one can easily conclude that even the GBC has become a blind follower of such sectarian ideas.

 

It was a common occurance during the time of Srila Prabhupada that a disciple would come, take initiation and then later either leave the organization or concoct a different understanding. The mercy of the Guru is such that everyone is given a chance but that does not guarantee that everyone who comes will understand the essence of the instruction and get its ultimate benefit. Things are really no different now as one sees so many people coming to take initiation from Srila Prabhupada's disciples and then following the same pattern of departure and concoction. The Sampradaya passes from one generation to the next through the chain of submissive aural reception and humble obedience to one's Guru. There may be a host of individuals posing as devotees and struggling to be devotees and, out of this may come a legion of sects and pseudo movments but none of this has any effect on the non-sectarian truth and vision of the Sampradya.

 

With respect and hope of a bright future for ISKCON

Prabhupada dasa Adhikari

[vijay]

I see a few ways you can get to the root of this.

 

For those that believe they are in contact with prabhupada directly -ask him

 

For those in contact with caitya guru - ask him.

 

Others can use anuman (logic) based on srila prabhupadas sabda (athoritive statements).

 

Do what srila prabhupada says and get a spirtual master that can explain it, who fits prabhupadas discription of an uttama. This means that we have to be reletively pure to recognise one.

 

(Prabhupada: So Krsna, if you cannot meet Krsna, you can meet with

Krsna's representative. Krsna may not be physically present, but

His representative is physically present. You can talk with him.

That is the system of Bhagavad-gita. Evam parampara-praptam imam

rajarsayo viduh. Parampara. Krsna says that "I talked with the

sun-god." Imam vivasvate yogam proktavan aham avyayam. "First of

all I talked with the sun-god." Vivasvan manave praha. "Then he

talked with his son, Manu. Then Manu talked with Iksvaku. In this

way..." Evam parampara-praptam, there is a disciplic succession.

So if you can be in touch with that disciplic succession, then

Krsna's representative is there. If you talk with the Krsna's

representative, then you talk with Krsna. Just like in office,

there are different departments, and the, there is a man,

departmental-in-charge. So if you can talk with that

departmental-in-charge, if you can please him, that means you are

pleasing the proprietor or director. There is no doubt. Because he

is representative. So physically you may not meet Krsna, but in

higher stage, you can meet. But accepting that you cannot..., but

He, you have to be in contact with His representative. That is

coming in disciplic succession. Then you talk with Krsna. )

 

i prefer the last option to get a conlusive answer to this issue, which means il have to do alot of work on myself before I can recognise and find this vaishnava that i can directly talk to.

 

Haribol

[theist]

 

For those in contact with caitya guru - ask him.

 

 

It is not exactly for those in contact with Caitya-guru. But anyone who can see a little bit through scripture like Sri Isopanisad and Bhagavad-gita and have a little faith that the Lord really is in the heart and fullfilling the desires of all since time immemoriable can approach Caitya-guru and pray "My dear Lord. I am a blind man and cannot see You or Your representative. I am a dumbman and cannot recognize the words of your beloved devotee. Therefore please guide me to your representative and grant me the ears to hear his word as Your word."

 

Do you think Krsna will ignore such a humble prayer and yet be fulfilling all the other desires of madness that are apparent before us everyday? The one desire out of all these trillions in the universe that means anything and that is the one He will ignore?

 

Who knows His devotees and who they are better than Krsna?

 

Who knows your level of sincerity even better than you? Krsna.

 

He is already directing the wanderings of all conditioned souls including all of us so if we pray to meet and serve His devotee He instead will send us to a cheater? Does that make sense.

 

I wish to suggest something. All this mountain of words and thoughts and books and controversy is just a mental cover up that the mind plays on us under maya's direction so that we can avoid Krsna and His devotee and still fool ourselves into thinking that we are sincere seekers of the Absolute Truth. "Oh why can't I see Krsna's devotee? Oh when oh when will he be made known unto me? If not soon I shall dash my self on the rocks below this high cliff."

 

Just think of how many times the Supersoul has seen this little drama queen skit played out.

 

Nah, we are having trouble finding and properly serving Krsna's devotee only because we don't really want to. We can sense that following 100% such a soul spells the end to our material existence, our so-called independence and we aren't ready to give it up yet.

 

"Die to live" sounds good and I plan to start first thing tommorrow.

 

[stonehearted]

"Guest"

A: Inherent in assertions are axiomatic assumptions. An assumption of The Prominent Link, and it could be questioned, and this would form the basis for an interesting discussion, is that Srila Prabhupada would use the words "direct link", "primary link", "prominent link", and "current link" to describe the relationships of the Vaisnavas listed consecutively at the end of the Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is. That is, Srila Prabhupada would describe Narottama dasa Thakur as the direct, primary, current, and prominent link to the disciplic succession for Visvanatha Cakravarti, . . .

 

 

If we analyze this argument according to the system porposed by British philospher Stephen Toulmin, it's important to state the assumptions that connect one's assertion with the reasons supposed to support that assertion. However, if interlocutors don't accept those assumptions, the reasons and their supporting evidence are useless. In this case, I think the most generous thing we can say about these assumptions is that they may be arguable. It's more useful, though, to work based on what Srila Prabhupada did say and do. That's our process: following the example set by the acharyas. And in fact neither Srila Prabhupada nor anyone in our line has suggested anything like what is proposed here. The bhagavat- or siksa-paramapara put forth by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura did weave together many who made prominent contributions to Gaudiya siddhanta, but there were not the kinds of connections among them that this booklet suggests. For example, Jagannath das babaji Maharaja was separated from Visvanath Chakravarti Thakura by several generations and was initiated in a different line, descending (by sannyasa initiation) from Siddha Krishna das babaji (who called himself Dina Krishna das) of Govardhana. Jdb accepted vesha from Madhusudana das babaji, who was a grand-disciple of Baladeva Vidyabhushana. There's no reason to believe that Jagannath accepted Visvanath as his "prominent link" to Mahaprabhu, rather than his own gurus. That's not to say that he didn't appreciate the contributions of Visvanath; we all benefit from them, as we do from Baladeva's Govinda Bhasya and tikas on Bhagavad-gita and other scriptures.

 

It's possible to acknowledge the unique contributions Srila Prabhupada has made to the world and to our lives without making up concepts and pretending that they come from our guru varga. The best way is by becoming the kinds of disciples he exhorted us to be. I suggest that anyone who wants to understand something of guru tattva in our line read Srila Sridhar Maharaja's Sri Guru and his Grace carefully a couple of times. The nature of the links among the members of the bhagavat-parampara given by our gur varga is explained there by one of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's intimate disciples (of whom BSST said, after reading a poem Sridhar Maharaja had written about Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, "Bhaktivinoda Thakura himself has written this through him. Now I am satisfied that after me what I came to say, that will stay, that will remain; I find in these slokas the siddhanta."

 

That's not to denigrate the efforts of the author of the booklet in question. He has given much ffod for thought, but that thought should be guided by the words and examples of our acharyas, not by speculation on what they might have done. I recently heard a popular radio talk-show host making fun of what others believe America's founders would say in the modern context; then he proceeded to tell his audience what he thinks the founders would say today. What a load of bull puckey! We should be wary of demonstrating the same hubris with regard to our spiritual masters.

[vijay]

"I wish to suggest something. All this mountain of words and thoughts and books and controversy is just a mental cover up that the mind plays on us under maya's direction so that we can avoid Krsna and His devotee and still fool ourselves into thinking that we are sincere seekers of the Absolute Truth. "Oh why can't I see Krsna's devotee? Oh when oh when will he be made known unto me? If not soon I shall dash my self on the rocks below this high cliff."

 

nice analysis.

 

[vijay]

 

 

"A: Inherent in assertions are axiomatic assumptions. An assumption of The Prominent Link, and it could be questioned, and this would form the basis for an interesting discussion, is that Srila Prabhupada would use the words "direct link", "primary link", "prominent link", and "current link" to describe the relationships of the Vaisnavas listed consecutively at the end of the Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is. That is, Srila Prabhupada would describe Narottama dasa Thakur as the direct, primary, current, and prominent link to the disciplic succession for Visvanatha Cakravarti, . . ."

 

I really couldnt figure out what the answer above was saying until you simplified it. Thanks for the facts, has inspired me to read more indepth about our previous acaryas relationships with one another.

 

[krsna]

I think the following article may be useful to this discussion:

 

Parampara

 

by

 

Swami BG Narasingha

 

 

QUESTION: I have heard it said that there are some gaps in the list of names in the

Gaudiya parampara and that some of the names given there are actually fictitious names of

personalities that never really existed. Do you think this could be true?

 

 

ANSWER: In "Gaura-ganodesa-dipika" Srila Kavi Karnapura lists the parampara of the

Gaudiya Vaisnavas from Lord Brahma up to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu as follows:

 

tatra madhvi sampradayah prastavad atra likhyate

paravyomesvarasyasic chisyo brahma jagat-patih

tasya sisyo narado'bhud vyasas tasyapa sisyatam

suko vyasasya sisyatvam prapto jnanavarodhatat

tasya sisyah prasisyas ca bahavo bhutale sthitah

vyasal labdha-krsna-dikso madhvacaryo maha-yasah

cakre vedan vibhajyasau samhitam sata-dusanim

nirgunad brahmano yatra sa-gunasya pariskriya

tasya sisyo'bhavat padmanabhacaryo mahasayah

tasya sisyo naraharis tac-chisyo madhava-dvijah

aksobhyas tasya sisyo'bhut tac-chisyo jayatirthakah

tasya sisyo jnanasindhus tasya sisyo mahanidhih

vidyanidhis tasya sisyo rajendras tasya sevakah

jayadharma-munis tasya sisyo yad-gana-madhyatah

srimad-visnupuri yas tu bhakti-ratnavali-krtih

jayadharmasya sisyo'bhud brahmanah purusottamah

vyasa-tirthas tasya sisyo yas cakre visnu-samhitam

sriman laksmipatis tasya sisyo bhakti-rasasrayah

tasya sisyo madhavendro yaddharmo'yam pravartitah

kalpa-vrksasyavataro vraja-dhamani tisöhitah

prita-preyo vatsalatojjvalakhya phala-dharinah

tasya sisyo'bhavac chriman isvarakhya-puri-yatih

kalayamasa srìgaram yah srìgara-phalatmakah

advaitah kalayamasa dasya-sakhye phale ubhe

sriman raìgapuri hy esa vatsalye yah samasritah

isvarakhya-purim gaura urarikrtya gaurave

jagad aplavayamasa prakrtaprakrtatmakam

 

 

" I shall now begin this book by describing the disciplic succession descended from

Sripada Madhvacarya. Lord Brahma, the creator of the universe became the disciple of the

Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Narayana. Brahma's disciple was Narada. Narada's

disciple was Vyasa. Vyasa then transmitted transcendental knowledge to his disciple

Sukadeva. Sukadeva taught the same knowledge to his many disciples and grand-disciples in

this world. The famous Madhvacarya received initiation from Vyasa personally. Madhvacarya

carefully studied all the Vedas from Vyasa, and later wrote his book

'Mayavada-sata-dusani', where he proved that the Absolute Truth is the Supreme Person, full of all

transcendental qualities, and not the quality-less impersonal Brahman. Madhvacarya's disciple

was the exalted Padmanabhacarya. Padmanabhacarya's disciple was Narahari. Narahari's

disciple was Madhava-dvija. Madhava-dvija's disciple was Aksobhya. Aksobhya's disciple

was Jaya Tirtha. Jaya Tirtha's disciple was Jnanasindhu. Jnanasindhu's disciple was

Mahanidhi. Mahanidhi's disciple was Vidyanidhi. Vidyanidhi's disciple was Rajendra.

Rajendra's disciple was Jayadharma Muni. Among Jayadharma Muni's disciples was Sriman

Visnupuri, the famous author of the 'Bhakti-ratnavali'. Another disciple of Jayadharma was

Brahmana Purusottama. Purusottama's disciple was Vyasa Tirtha, who wrote the famous book Sri

Visnu-samhita. Vyasa Tirtha's disciple was Sriman Laksmipati, who was like a great

reservoir of the nectar of devotional service. Laksmipati's disciple was Madhavendra Puri,

a great preacher of devotional service. Madhavendra Puri was the incarnation of a

kalpa-vrksa tree in the abode of Vraja. This tree bears as its fruits the mellows of

servitude to Lord Krsna, friendship with Lord Krsna, parental love for Lord Krsna, and

conjugal love for Lord Krsna. Madhavendra Puri's disciple was Sriman Isvara Puri Svami. Isvara

Puri carefully understood the mellows of conjugal love for Lord Krsna, and was able to

distribute that fruit to others. Sri Advaita Acarya displayed the sentiments of

servitorship and friendship for the Lord, and Sriman Ranga Puri manifested the sentiment of

parental love for Lord Krsna. Lord Caitanya accepted Sriman Isvara Puri as His spiritual

master. The Lord proceeded to flood the entire world with spontaneous transcendental

love for Krsna." (Gaura Ganodesa-dipika 22-25)

 

The above-mentioned disciplic succession given by Kavi Karnapura has been accepted by

Bhaktivinoda Thakura and this is evident from the following statement:

 

ei samasta vakyadvara spasta pratita haya ye, Sri brahma sampradayai Sri Krsna Caitanya

-dasadiganer guru-pranali. Sri Kavi Karnapura Gosvami ei anusarre drta kariya sviyakrta

'Gaura Ganodesa-dipika' ya guru-pranalir krama likhiyachen. Vedanta-sutra-bhasyakara

Sri Vidyabhusana u sei pranalike sthira rakhiyacchen. Yahara ei pranalike asvikara karen,

tahara ye Sri Krsna Caitanya-carananucara-ganer pradhana satru, ihate ara sandeha ki?

 

"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 Ganodesa-dipika, and the writer of the commentary of the Vedanta, Sri

Baldeva 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 principle enemies of the followers of Sri Krsna Caitanya?"

(Bhaktivinoda Thakura - Sri Mahaprabhur-siksa, Ch.2)

 

Bhaktivinoda further states in Chapter Two of Sri Mahaprabhur-siksa that anyone who

does not accept these statements is an atheist:

 

Sri Krsna Caitanya sampradaya svikara karata gopane guru-parampara siddha-pranali

svikara Karen na, tahara kalir guptacara. Ihate sandeha ki?

 

"Anyone who refuses to accept such statements is a promoter of atheism. Those who

accept the authority of Sri Krsna Caitanya but secretly do not accept this disciplic

succession of spiritual preceptors are actually agents of Kali. Can there be any doubt about

this?" (Bhaktivinoda Thakura - Sri Mahaprabhur-siksa, Ch.2)

 

Considering the position of Srila Kavi Karnapura, it is highly unlikely he would have

simply fabricated a list of names to make up the parampara of Sri Caitanya. Kavi

Karnapura was the son of Sivananda Sena and he was thus always associated with pure devotees

and with the eternal associates of the Supreme Lord. The information that Kavi Karnapura

gives us about the identities of Mahaprabhu's associates in Gaura-lila and their

corresponding identities in Krsna-lila is extensive. It is therefore quite unlikely that

having access to such confidential information as regards the eternal associates of the

Lord that he would at the same time fabricate a fictitious parampara.

 

As Kavi Karnapura has heard from senior devotees about the identities of Mahaprabhu's

associates, he similarly heard from them regarding the parampara. In fact, although it

may not be mentioned in any particular book, it is widely accepted that Sri Caitanya

heard about the parampara of Madhavendra Puri at the time of his initiation from Isvara

Puri, the disciple of Madhavendra.

 

If what Kavi Karnapura had written in Gaura-ganodesa-dipika regarding the

Gaudiya-sampradaya parampara was indeed false - then the senior Vaisnavas present on the planet at

that time would indeed have objected to those statements. Yet such objections were never

raised. On the contrary, the community of Vaisnavas and pure devotees of Sri Caitanya

accepted the writings of Kavi Karnapura as bona-fide transcendental literature.

 

Just as we have heard from our spiritual master about the lineage of our parampara, so

it has always been the tradition among Vaisnavas that a spiritual master informs and

enlightens his disciple regarding their parampara.

 

The fact that there are also sometimes gaps in the parampara list of names, does not

mean that there is an actual break in the parampara. This topic has been briefly

explained by Bhaktivinoda in Jaiva-dharma as follows:

 

sampradaya-pranali ki sampurna-rupa rakha haiyacche?

 

madhye madhye ye sakala pradhana acarya haiyacchen, tahader namasakala sampradaya

pranalite acche.

 

"Is there a list of names of spiritual masters in the parampara given without any

breaks?

 

"From time to time, only the more important spiritual masters' names are included in

these lists." (Jaiva-dharma - Ch.13)

 

Although envious persons or persons with a poor fund of knowledge are sometimes quick

to criticize the Gaudiya-sampradaya for such apparent breaks in their parampara, the

fact is that there are also apparent breaks in other recognized and established

sampradayas such as the Madhva-sampradaya and the Ramanuja-sampradaya.

 

These apparent breaks are also acknowledged as existing by Madhva and Ramanuja

followers, but these apparent breaks are not considered as defects in their respective

sampradayas.

 

In the books 'Sampradaya Paddhati' and 'Mani-manjari' written by Hrsikesa Tirtha and

Narayana Panditacarya respectively (both direct disciples of Madhvacarya) the parampara

of the Madhva-sampradaya is given as follows:

 

Hamsavatara, Brahma, Catursana, Durvasa, Jnanasindhu Tirtha, Garudavahana Tirtha,

Kaivalya Tirtha, Jnanisa Tirtha, Para Tirtha, Satya-prajna Tirtha, Prajna Tirtha, Acyuta

Preksa, and Madhvacarya.

 

The gap between Acyuta Preksa (the guru of Madhva) and Prajna Tirtha (the previous

acarya) is approximately 400 years. The reason for this gap is explained that, during this

time the Vaisnavas in that area were being terrorized by the Naga Babas, and other

militant followers of Sankaracarya. They had gone completely 'underground' as a result of

it. After the time of Madhvacarya the social climate changed and the Vaisnavas were able

to resume their normal behavior and lived openly in society, establishing Mathas,

keeping parampara records, etc.

 

A similar gap, but this time of approximately 3,000 years, is found in the

Ramanuja-sampradaya. The recognized parampara of the Ramanuja-sampradaya from Visnu up to Ramanuja

is as follows:

 

Visnu, Laksmi, Visvaksena, Alvars, Nathamuni, Pundarikaksa, Rama Misra, Yamunacarya,

and Ramanujacarya.

 

From the Alvars (4000 BC to 2700 BC) to Nathamuni (584AD) there is a gap of more than

3,000 years. Despite this apparent gap the Ramanuja-parampara is accepted by all

Vaisnava scholars as a bona fide sampradaya. Also, it has been noted that during the period of

the Alvars, only Nammalvar and Madhurakavi were connected as guru and disciple

respectively. All the other ten Alvars were independent of each other. In other words they were

not related in any way as guru and disciple.

 

The point of contention wherein some persons try to establish that one must be in a

disciplic succession that can produce a list of names of its parampara (guru to disciple)

from the present day back to its very origin and prove the validity of those names by

producing old texts where such names are mentioned is not actually necessary, nor is

such a method accepted by other sampradayas as the ultimate pramana (proof). If it were

so, then it would not be possible to factually prove an unbroken chain of disciplic

succession in any sampradaya in the world today. Even those so-called sampradayas of Babajis

in Vrndavana and Mayapura who claim to have an unbroken disciplic succession, can only

prove such by creating imaginary literature and fabricating lies in support of their

fallacious claims.

 

Actually the evidence supporting the validity of any sampradaya via old books,

historical records and all such related materials are for the most part empirical evidence and

this is considered secondary to the most important type of evidence known as

srota-pantha or having heard from previous acaryas.

 

The mind and intelligence being material elements of this mundane world are prone to

rational thought and want proof of everything by the process of empirical knowledge.

Ultimately empirical knowledge is defective because it is gathered by the imperfect senses.

The process of srota-pantha however is the process by which realized knowledge of the

Absolute Truth is passed down from guru to disciple without any loss. This process

depends not on empirical evidence to prove its validity, but the process of srota-pantha

depends solely on hearing with faith.

 

The empirical philosopher cannot accept the reality of faith because he or she has no

experience of faith. Such less spiritually advanced persons do not know that faith

(sraddha) is a spiritual substance more real than all the empirical knowledge of the mundane

world combined.

 

Faith allows the descending eternal knowledge (sabda-brahman) to flow through the

realized spiritual master to the heart of a qualified disciple completely unobstructed by

any material defect. The knowledge of the empiricist however is always wrought with

troubles and defects because it is an ascending process and depends solely on the material

mind, intelligence, and senses, which are imperfect.

 

Those faithful devotees who have accepted the authority of the parampara mentioned by

Kavi Karnapura in "Gaura-ganodesa-dipika" are factually the persons responsible for

fulfilling the prediction of Sri Caitanya of spreading Krsna consciousness all over the

world. This is indeed another valid proof (pramana) of the validity of their parampara,

for as Krsna Dasa Kaviraja Gosvami states in Caitanya-caritamrta - only those who are

empowered by Krsna can spread the holy name of Krsna:

 

taha pravartaila tumi,--ei ta 'pramana'

krsna-sakti dhara tumi,--ithe nahi ana

 

On the other hand those who doubt the integrity of Kavi Karnapura and his followers

such as Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana, and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura are to be compared to a

thorn in the leg of the Supreme Lord and the association of such unfortunate persons

should be rejected.

 

[theist]

I was fearful of others being offended by my crumudgen-like view points. But every forum needs a crumudgen. It is my lot to play the role sometimes.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

Crumudgen-like? Much better than being ghost-like.

[vijay]

Crumudgen, whats the meaning of that then?

[theist]

 

vijay, it is a little hard to explain. Mostly it has a certain socialogical understanding. Here is what the dictionary says.

 

Main Entry: cur·mud·geon

 

Etymology: origin unknown

1 archaic : MISER

2 : a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man

 

 

I'll try an example. It is Saturday morning and some school age children are playing in the street in an average neighborhood. Just being kids. Along comes the old man that lives alone at the end of the street. He sees the kids and starts waving his cane at them while yeling, "you kids should be in school instead of out here making all trouble trouble".

 

That's a curmudgeon. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Kulapavana]

it may also be related to turning milk into curd with their acidity and bitterness... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

(altough usually curmudgeons dont generate anything good by their talk - in other words: the curd they make is worthless /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[theist]

They are just grumpy by nature.

[Guest guest]

Haribol.

 

If anyone is interested, there is a for the discussion of ideas relating to the book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link. Here it is:

 

prominent_link/

 

Your servant,

 

Alex