Tattva-viveka
Gaps in Guru-Parampara
Brianfeather - May 19, 2005 9:21 pm
I have been told that there are gaps of up to 100 years between many in the Saraswata lineage, can you comment on that as well when the times comes SwamiJi?
your servant,
Brian
Radhanama Dasa - May 20, 2005 4:13 am
Brian, i was "googling" away trying to learn some more about this subject and i found this article by B.G. Narasingha Maharaja that seems to address your concern.
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 tisˆhitah
prita-preyo vatsalatojjvalakhya phala-dharinah
tasya sisyo'bhavac chriman isvarakhya-puri-yatih
kalayamasa srˆ¨garam yah srˆ¨gara-phalatmakah
advaitah kalayamasa dasya-sakhye phale ubhe
sriman raˆ¨gapuri 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.
i hope this helped a little.
Swami - May 21, 2005 8:49 pm
I have split this topic off into s separate thread. Narasingha Maharaja's article addresses the issue, but more discussion is warranted. It would be helpful Brian if you could respond to what Chris has posted. Does this answer satisfy you? If not, why?
Regardless there is much more to say. So I encourage everyonne to think carfully on this issue and comment. This thread, as we shall see, is interrelated to the Varnasrama thread and the Self Made Sannyasa thread. It should also take us into a discussion of siddha pranali and the lineages that oppose Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura.
Brianfeather - May 24, 2005 1:54 am
Thank you SwamiJI, I will read it in the morning and respond from what my good friend cris has posted 
.
I was distributing books all week at various festivals and have not een able to check in until tonite.
your servant,
brian
Swami - May 28, 2005 6:44 pm
This is an important discussion. Brian, we have been waiting for your response before moving ahead. Does anyone else have anything to say, and comments or questions? How does it feel to be in a "broken" disciplic succession, or is it broken at all?
Brianfeather - May 28, 2005 7:23 pm
Sorry I cant find the link that Chris posted.
After some research it appears to me that iskcon relies more on a siksa lineage rather than diksa.
I also find this initiation thu a picture/dream to be very interesting.
Comments?
Swami - May 28, 2005 7:36 pm
Sorry I cant find the link that Chris posted.
Chris, could you post that link again? Then we will go on to Brian's questions. More participation would be appreciated.
Brianfeather - May 28, 2005 7:46 pm
Brianfeather - May 28, 2005 10:03 pm
In "Gaura-ganodesa-dipika" Srila Kavi Karnapura lists the parampara of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas from Lord Brahma up to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu as follows:
I am more interested in the pranali after Sri Chaitanya.
yrs,
brian
Audarya-lila Dasa - May 28, 2005 10:42 pm
Basically the question has to do with the notion that in order for a spiritual lineage to be 'legitimate' it must be unbroken, in this case back to Lord Chaitanya.
This is the notion that is preached by some of the members of some of the various parivars - that their lineage can be traced in an 'unbroken' fashion back to Mahaprabhu or his principle associates.
Westerners who have previously been affiliated with one or another branch of the Bhaktivinoda parivara who have now rejected our lineage and taken shelter in one of these 'traditional' lineages are very outspoken in their critique of our lineage. They belittle the idea of a siksha Guru parampara or a Bhagavata Parampara.
This is really the framework for the question that Brianfeather is looking to have answered.
Audarya-lila Dasa - May 29, 2005 4:09 pm
If anyone searches through the sanga archives they will find that Guru Maharaja has addressed this issue fairly extensively as it has come up in different forms on several occasions. It would be a good idea for anyone who has any doubts or misunderstanding regarding our lineage or has to address such doubts in others to go carefully through the archives.
Here is a summary of what one will find there:
1) Gaura Kishora dasa babaji is the diksha Guru of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta
2) Srila Bhaktisiddhanta presented his lineage in a novel way since the lineage he traces draws connections that are pancharatrika and bhagavata connections and the lineage is certainly not drawn as an unbroken diksha lineage.
3) The lineage is instructive to us because it shows that sometimes siksha takes precedence, in terms of influence, over diksha.
4) It has further been commented upon that the lineage was also a critique in some ways of what Srila Bhaktisiddhanta saw as a deviation and problem amongst some Gaudiya lineages at the time he composed it. The bodily conception had become the focal point even though it was obvious that some who inhabited said bodies were not qualified to give diksha. This is an extremely important point. How many disciples did A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami have? How many of them are qualified to give diksha? Just because they have some connection doesn't mean they are qualified to connect others. Their diksha could be said to be 'incomplete' in terms of their own attainment at this time and as such a connection with them will not be as valuable to an aspiring sadhaka as having a connection with one of his disciples who has developed to the stage of bhava bhakti.
5) This lineage places the emphasis back on the spiritual substance rather than on the bodily succession. It doesn't mean that our lineage is lacking such a succession, but rather that the important point is be connected to the substance and not merely the form.
This should be enough to start a good discussion.
Swami - May 29, 2005 4:24 pm
If as you say Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura's lineage relies more upon siksa than diska, why did he give diksa to thousands of disciples? Why not just give them siksa? I think you have to rethink this argument. In our lineage diska and siksa are both important. However, we acknowledge that in some instances a siksa guru may have a more significant influence on a disciple than his or her diksa guru. This is not some new invention, it is based on core tenants of the Gaudiya tradition.
For example, with regard to treading the raga marg Visvantha Cakravarti writes in his Ragavartma-candrika that one can receive esoteric instructions on this path from one's diksa guru, a siksa guru, or they may appear of their own accord within one's purified heart. So if one receives them from a siksa guru, this guru may have a more prominent influence on one's life.
Which guru is most important? The one that helps you the most. This is the spiritual answer. So if for any reason one's siksa guru takes precedence over one's diksa guru in terms of influence in one's spiritual life, it stands to reason that one would include that siksa guru in one's guru parmampara. Parampara menas "one after another." First comes the diksa guru, and in some instances next comes the siksa guru.
In my life I certainly include Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja in my parampara, even though I am initiated by Srila Prabhupada, becasue Krsna came to me in this form in a prominent way after the departure of my diska guru. I think this is a rather dynamic way of looking at the institution of guru parampara, one that is certainly traditional.
Look for example at the life of Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami. Who is his diska guru and who are his siksa gurus? At the end of nearly every chapter of Caitanya Caritamrta he pays his respects to his siksa gurus, Sri Rupa and Raghunatha, with no mention of his diksa guru. He does the same in Govinda-lilamrta, including other siksa gurus. Why has he not mentioned his diksa guru pranali? Why has he not stressed it anywhere.
It ws the opinion of BSST that at some point the emphasis on the diksa guru pranali became inordinate when a physical conception got the upper hand over an spiritual conception of parampara. When the so called guru parmapara became no more than a parmapara without real gurus. When the so called gurus were considered as such merely becasue they were born in a particular family, such as the family line descending from Nityananda Prabhu, regardless of the fact that such lineages had become nothing more than a business for putting fish on the table. Saraswati Thakura objected to this and consided it an exmaple of a broken disciplic succession, hardly an unbroken one. He considered it an example of kali yuga—wherein birth determines a brahmana—infiltrating the ranks of Mahaprabhu's fold in the form of birth determning who is a guru.
Is it so hard to accept that people would stoop to making a business out of the institution of guru parampara? After all, it is kali yuga, and Thakura Bhaktivinode was speaking about so called Gaudiya gurus when he coined the term "kali chela" (disciple of kali yuga). We also have first hand accounts of the condition of Gaudiya Vaisnavism in West Bengal that corroborate this unfortunate and embarassing condition of some of the guru paramparas. Srila Prabhupada spoke of this condition after experiencing it in his home life, and Sridhara Maharaja also spoke of how his father hated the Gaudiya Vaisnavas for their immorality. Indded one can experience this even today! An inordinate empahsis on the diksa parampara with the addition of siddha pranali as "the only way" has come about for less than spiritual reasons. No modern person with spiritual sensibility will accept this deception, any more than they will accepet a caste system in which a brahmana is determined by birth without regard for guna and karma.
So this is my first point: We need an unbroken diciplic succession. Comments please.
Madangopal - May 29, 2005 7:12 pm
QUOTE(Swami @ May 28 2005, 02:44 PM)
How does it feel to be in a "broken" disciplic succession, or is it broken at all?
It feels great to be in a disciplic succession that has a living tradition following the spirit of the siddhanta. I personally can't relate to staking my worth as a follower of the Gaudiya tradition based simply on the fact that there is an unbroken chain of bodies. Didn't Sridhara Maharaj call this idea a succession of bodies? It is basic to our philosophy that the spirit is the important thing, not the body... SO, in succession we want the spirit over the physicality of succession.
Purvapaksin: well then you philisophically put yourself with the rtviks, why don't you just take shelter of Rupa Goswami?
Answer: Because initiation by a departed acarya is a heresy. Every Gaudiya worth their salt will recognize oneself as a follower of Rupa, and take initiation from a present follower of his siddhanta.
The parampara is always broken, even Krsna talked about it. It is re-established over time by Him or His representative.
On another site this discussion is going on amongst Gaudiyas outside the Saraswata parampara. The complaint seems to be more that ISKCON/Gaudiya Matha make a claim that their parampara is unbroken. Maybe that should not be preached so much as the understanding of WHAT parampara really means and why the succession of bodies being broken is not that important.
Audarya-lila Dasa - May 29, 2005 7:45 pm
Guru Maharaja,
Thank you for your clear post. Your summary should be very carefully thought about. At first glance it may appear to be a restatement of what our lineage's opponents are saying about us - but put in the context of your post, it becomes very clear indeed! Broken or unbroken isn't determined by a list of bodily succession wherein one may find sadhakas inhabiting the body that clearly don't represent Mahaprabhu and his teachings. The example of making a business out of the affair is very pertinent in that regard.
I have no experience with anyone in the so-called traditional lineages except western converts who left our lineage. Since my experience to date with Gaudiya Vaishnavism has been limited to Iskcon and Audarya ashrama for the most part I don't have any first hand experience of deviations within other lineages. I have seen plenty of deviation within Iskcon and I can understand from those examples within our own lineage how one may find that people are making a business out of giving diksha so that they can maintain themselves. I'm not aware of anyone buying fish as such, but I have seen first hand some of the nonsense that has gone on in the name of representing the parampara.
I think it is very instructive to note that both Sridhara Maharaja and Srila Prabhupada had first hand experience of the type of deviation we are talking about. From this it is quite clear that what appears externally to be 'unbroken' can and indeed does sometimes represent a clear break in the lineage.
Gauravani Dasa - May 29, 2005 7:47 pm
"Unbroken" depends on what the conception of disciplic succession is. If unbroken means passed from guru (siksa or diksa) to disciple without consideration of the qualification of either, then the conception is based on material considerations. If a disciplic succession considers the spiritual merit of both guru and disciple then the material circumstance in which it happens to appear is not much concern--only whether or not the spiritual substance has been transmitted and received.
The fact that Gaudiya Vaisnavism is around today proves that there is an unbroken disciplic succession, otherwise how could it have been spread without spiritualy inspired individuals.
I agree we need an unbroken disciplic succession. That means we have to find that person who is inspiring us in our pursuit of our spiritual ideal. If the inspiration is there, then there is our oportunity to get connected (or stay connected) with the lineage.
Swami - May 30, 2005 1:08 am
Guru Maharaja,
I think it is very instructive to note that both Sridhara Maharaja and Srila Prabhupada had first hand experience of the type of deviation we are talking about. From this it is quite clear that what appears externally to be 'unbroken' can and indeed does sometimes represent a clear break in the lineage.
Not only SM and SP, thousands of devotees joined Bhaktisiddhanta and under his direction preached widely for Mahaprabhu. Most were well aware of the Guadiya sampradaya, but it was not until they met BSST that they became enlived to join it. Not only join, but sacrifice. This was the standard of GM, sacrifice, surrender, monasteries. More later.
Swami - May 30, 2005 2:41 am
QUOTE(Swami @ May 28 2005, 02:44 PM)
On another site this discussion is going on amongst Gaudiyas outside the Saraswata parampara. The complaint seems to be more that ISKCON/Gaudiya Matha make a claim that their parampara is unbroken. Maybe that should not be preached so much as the understanding of WHAT parampara really means and why the succession of bodies being broken is not that important.
Regarding any other discussion groups, this discussion is for our members. I do not want to be quoted from here on another forum where I am not participating to reperesent myself.
SashidharaDasa - May 30, 2005 8:15 am
Dandavats,
Actually this months CD on Chaitanya Charitamritha by Swami is very nice explaining the position of Siksha Guru I request all to hear that .
However I have quite a few concerns on this topic since some time of course these never interfered or obstructed my faith towards Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya and our Bhakti Vinoda Parivara.
i) Firstly I always wondered why Bhakti Siddantha Prabhupada never emphasised on lineage of Vipina Viharai Goswami , Bhakti Vinoda Thakura had taken Diksha from him though ? If the siksha he got from Jagadananda Babaji was more significant then why in the first place he had taken diksha from VVG ? Also I read some where that BVT had a dream where Lord Chaitanya told him that he is sending his Guru and came VVG the next day morning , is that true ? But later BVT had differneces with VVG and BSST Prabhupada also confronted with him in his childhood, doesnt this show some disrespect towrds Diksha Guru ?
ii) If we insist on Siksha so much then one may ask the need of Diksha ? That is lets say some disciple might be taking siksha from Swami and who is never being initiated how to convince him that he has to take diksha to actually get connected ? He might argue that it is a mere formality as anyway we are stressing on Siksha more than Diksha ?
Looking for your insights..
ys
-Sashidhar
Bhrigu - May 30, 2005 8:55 am
Another question to ponder is what "qualification" actually means. The "traditional" Gaudiyas would not agree that birth in the right family is the *only* qualification a guru needs to have, but they would say that a guru needs not be a siddha. The question seems to be whether it is more important to preserve the lineage or to find the "perfect" guru.
To take it all down to practical reality: if Guru Maharaja would pass into the nityalila today, what should we do? Should we turn to the shelter of shiksha-gurus in different lineages/ groups, or should we elect or in some other way nominate a successor to Guru Maharaja from amongst his initiated disciples, to preserve his lineage? The second option is what has been done in almost all Gaudiya Mathas: after the departure of the charismatic founder, a senior disciple of his has been selected as the next acharya. Often, the present acharya is more of a representative of his institution than a charismatic guru in his own right. This is of course the state in ISKCON as well.
In this sense, there seems to be more of a stress on the pancaratric parampara even in our Bhaktivinoda Parivar today.
Madangopal - May 30, 2005 11:50 am
You are not being quoted. Audarya Lila has thrown a few good comments into their discussion. I am spying in there every once in a while. 
The discussion is remaining pretty civil, with some mild appreciations of BSST coming out of an inconclusive discussion of his "deviations". One persons deviation is anothers devotion...
Here is some food for purvapaksin about the main disagreements the other lineages have with Sarasvati Thakur. We have pretty much discussed them all, but more discussion may come out.
* The novel presentation of parampara, the disemphasis on diksha-parampara.* The introduction of brahma-gayatri and upanayana-samskara as a part of Gaudiya Vaishnava practice.
* The promotion of consideration of brahminhood without consideration of birth.
* The adoption of saffron clothes and sannyasa-ashram (that to an extent followed the model of Sri-sampradaya).
* The adoption of a monastic model in which renunciates were the center of the devotional community (that to an extent followed the example of Ramakrishna Mission).
* The promotion of varnashrama-dharma.
* Some teachings concerning raganuga-bhakti and meditation on siddha-deha.
* Teachings on the origin of the soul as something else than beginningless bondage (which, I believe, was derived from his father).
* An aggressive and confrontational style of preaching that often slighted others, including other Vaishnavas.
* The misuse of the word "sahajiya" in describing those who held differing views.
I'm personally interested in what is meant by "teachings on the origin of the soul as something other than beginningless." I was under the impression that Bhaktivinoda Thakur's jaiva dharma does teach of the anadi bondage. What "other" teachings are there except for the varied presentations of Srila Prabhupada?
Madangopal - May 30, 2005 12:01 pm
As for gaps in parampara, I accept the siksa lineage argument. But, what about the actual listing of parampara given by some of our acarya's that have gaps of decades inbetween teachers? I think B.V. Narasimha Maharaj gave the argument that only the prominent teachers are listed. Is this the case, or are there gaps in our bhagavata parampara? I understand why a siksa guru may be more important than a diksa guru, but why aren't some guru's (siksa or diksa) listed in successive generations? Is my question understood?
Swami - May 30, 2005 3:16 pm
Dandavats,
i) Firstly I always wondered why Bhakti Siddantha Prabhupada never emphasised on lineage of Vipina Viharai Goswami , Bhakti Vinoda Thakura had taken Diksha from him though ?
If the siksha he got from Jagadananda Babaji was more significant then why in the first place he had taken diksha from VVG ? Also I read some where that BVT had a dream where Lord Chaitanya told him that he is sending his Guru and came VVG the next day morning , is that true ? But later BVT had differneces with VVG and BSST Prabhupada also confronted with him in his childhood, doesnt this show some disrespect towrds Diksha Guru ?
Prabhupada BSST did not have much respect for Bipin Behari Goswami. He saw things in BVT that were not present in BBG--realization. In the end his early vision proved significant. When BVT envisioned the birth palce of Mahaprabhu and sought to establish it, thereby exposing those who in the name of Guru Paramapara and so on had created a false birth place to make a living off of pilgrims, BBG rejected BVT and sided with those who opposed him. However, at that time Jagannatha dasa Babaji came and confirmed BVT's realization.
It is true that BVT always showed at least formal respect for BBG, but in substance he differed in some ways from him, as this significant event illustrates. Perhaps BSST was more outspoken in nature. Furthermore, his harsh criticisms can be traced to Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, who was well known for being extremely cynical and critical of pseudo devotees and pseudo gurus.
Regadring the dream of BVT, yes, he had a dream that went something like that. The Lord's ways are mysterious.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - May 30, 2005 4:20 pm
I would like to make a general statement. The question I have is how useful it is to discuss the legitimacy of our sampradaya? To put is bluntly, “what happen with just chanting Hare Krsna?” We, as disciples of Guru Maharaja, a pretty confident that we are in the right hands, so what is the need in proving that we are legitimate to others? For example, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada introduced some radical changes to the sampradaya and we can see the fruits of those changes now, but at the time nobody knew how it will payout and if there is divya-jnana behind those decisions. So it takes some sraddha to follow the Guru, because we simply cannot assess His realizations and qualifications. We have to follow our heart. How important is it for you to prove to the outside world that you are right and your path is correct? It seems that we spend too much time discussing technicalities. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Madangopal - May 30, 2005 5:53 pm
I agree with you Nanda Tanuja, that ultimately our faith determines what qualifications we see in our guru parampara. You should notice though that these are in-house discussions. These exercises of studying contradictory ideas and analyzing various claims to truth increase and strengthen that faith. Tattva-viveka - analysis of the tattva is what we are doing. Then, when the brain gets tired we go nurture that faith by "just chanting Hare Krsna".
Bhrigu - May 30, 2005 6:19 pm
I kind of agree with you, Nandatanuja. We have faith in Guru Maharaja and his line. Still, he has clearly indicated that he wants us to discuss these topics, since we are all likely to become exposed to them at some point, and since they may undermine our faith if we do not know how to answer them. It is unrealistic to believe that we'll be able to convert for example the folks at Gaudiyadiscussions, but we need to know how to answer their challenges.
That said, towards some of the technicalities:
When BVT envisioned the birth palce of Mahaprabhu and sought to establish it, thereby exposing those who in the name of Guru Paramapara and so on had created a false birth place to make a living off of pilgrims, BBG rejected BVT and sided with those who opposed him. However, at that time Jagannatha dasa Babaji came and confirmed BVT's realization.
This is strictly speaking not correct. It is said (but the proof seems to be missing) that Bipin Bihari Goswami rejected Bhaktivinoda because of this issue -- but not at this time, but only quite a bit later, 1918 or so, after Bhaktivinoda had already passed on, probably under pressure from those opposing Srila Saraswati Thakur.
At any rate, it is clear that even though Bhaktivinoda only showed the highest regard for BBG (even in his last book), and perhaps drew some inspiration for some of his books from him and the Baghnapara Goswamis (I remember reading about this somewhere but forget the details), his connection with him was mostly a formality. Even before taking initiation, Bhaktivinoda had become known as Bhaktivinoda, written books, preached widely and perhaps even made disciples. He is a nityasiddha and did not need initiation, but he took initiation to quiet the people who were criticising him for preaching without diksha.
I'm personally interested in what is meant by "teachings on the origin of the soul as something other than beginningless."
Generally, Gaudiyas have simply stated that the bondage of the jiva is beginningless. BVT does not disagree, but adds that the jivas have their origin in the tatastha-sakti. These two views do fit together, but that is a topic we might want to save for later...
On the whole, Madhava's (?) list of deviations is not very well thought out. For example, making brahmin-hood available for others than born brahmins was something many other reformers at least spoke about at these times. He seems to forget the historical context. The aggressive way of preaching has been seen since the time of Nityananda, and calling others sahajiyas is also quite standard.
The problem in such debates is the same as when revisionists debate with those who say that the Holocaust happened. The revisionists will know every single small flaw in the standard history and focus on them, making the ordinary historians seem foolish. They, on the other hand, will have a hard time doing the same, since their opponents are so diversified that they can dodge any attack saying that it doesn't apply to them.
Also, since the "traditional Gaudiyas" in the West are all ex-ISKCON/ GM people, they know all the details about our acharyas' teachings and activities, while we know almost nothing about theirs. If someone went through their books in the same way they have done with say Prabhupada's, I'm sure that person would also find all kinds of strange things.
Swami - May 30, 2005 7:43 pm
I think that Narasimha Maharaja found a published article in which it was stated that BVT was rejected by Bipin Behari Goswami. Perhaps it was after BVT left the world (in samadhi ). I do believe that BBG sided with the wrong side on the issue Mahaprabhu's birth place. By the way, there is a good article byu a scholar on the dispute about the site on Narasingha Maharaja's site.
At any rate, of interest to this discussion is the following. The two most well know lineages descending from BVT are those of BSST (who took Harinama from him and considered him his siska guru), a siska line, and another from BSST's brother, Lalaita Prasada, who received dksa from BVT. Three of my Godbrothers left our line after Prabhupada's departure becasue they were convinced that it was not an unbroken line. They entered the line of Lalita Prasada as an alternative. However, they were unaware that BBG rejected BVT, effectively rendering his line, by their own standards, broken. Now what?
Swami - May 31, 2005 12:30 am
Dandavats,
ii) If we insist on Siksha so much then one may ask the need of Diksha ? That is lets say some disciple might be taking siksha from Swami and who is never being initiated how to convince him that he has to take diksha to actually get connected ? He might argue that it is a mere formality as anyway we are stressing on Siksha more than Diksha ?
Looking for your insights..
ys
-Sashidhar
This may have been addressed already, but diksa is more than a formality. However, sometimes the act of giving diksa is only that or less, thus the need for siksa in the least from an advanced devotee. As I mentioned earlier, Prabhupada BSST initiated thousands. So his example should resolve this issue.
Swami - May 31, 2005 12:50 am
Another question to ponder is what "qualification" actually means. The "traditional" Gaudiyas would not agree that birth in the right family is the *only* qualification a guru needs to have, but they would say that a guru needs not be a siddha. The question seems to be whether it is more important to preserve the lineage or to find the "perfect" guru.
.
We agree that the guru does not need to be perfect in realization. Whatever he or she lacks Mahaprabhu can make up for. Still, the guru must be advanced, a full saranagata. In ruci some slight influence of savrupa sakti is there, sreyah kairava candrika vitaranam. Therefore BVT writes in Bhakti-tattva-viveka that a ruci bhakta is an uttama adhikari. I know instances of much, much less advanced devotees giving so called siddha pranali to neophytes and then claiming to be one of the exclusive channels to prema. They insist that nama sankirtana, Krsna mantra diksa and dhyana are not sufficient. They should read Brhad-bhagavatamrta. Those of you who are more astute may have noticed how such persons shy way from Sanatana Goswami.
Where is "siddha pranali" mentioned in any of the Six Goswami's books? Even some other so called "traditional" lines reject this concept. Haridas Shastri of Gadadhara Parivra for exmaple is dead against it. If it works for others fine, but to insist that it is essential is not. Although related, this may be the subject for another thread.
Robertnewman - May 31, 2005 1:31 am
I'm personally interested in what is meant by "teachings on the origin of the soul as something other than beginningless." I was under the impression that Bhaktivinoda Thakur's jaiva dharma does teach of the anadi bondage. What "other" teachings are there except for the varied presentations of Srila Prabhupada?
A devotee named Swami Bhaktiraghava Sadhu has written a book called "Tatastha Sakti Tattva" which presents an interesting viewpoint backed up by voluminous quotes from shastra and the commentaries of the acharyas in our line. In a nutshell, the idea is that the jiva does have a definite point of origin (although not exactly in "time" as we understand it) at which it makes an initial choice either for spiritual or material existence. From this point of view it is quite correct to say that the jiva falls down into the material world by misuse of its free will; however, the falldown is from the tatastha state and not from the spiritual world of the internal potency. It is still anadi, however, in the sense that there's no way to locate the jiva's falldown in mundane history. One of those achintya things that some people need to break their heads upon in order to keep their intelligence humble! 
Swami - June 4, 2005 7:23 pm
As for gaps in parampara, I accept the siksa lineage argument. But, what about the actual listing of parampara given by some of our acarya's that have gaps of decades inbetween teachers? I think B.V. Narasimha Maharaj gave the argument that only the prominent teachers are listed. Is this the case, or are there gaps in our bhagavata parampara? I understand why a siksa guru may be more important than a diksa guru, but why aren't some guru's (siksa or diksa) listed in successive generations? Is my question understood?
Yes, there is at least one gap between Baladeva Vidyabhusana and Jagannatha dasa Babaji of about 100 years. The answer is that either that there was no one prominent enough to equal the stature of either Baladeva or Jagannatha to warrant listing his or her name, or more likely whoever put this list together did not know the name of any prominent siksa or diksa links for that section of the list.
As Thakura Bhaktivinoda has written, sometimes not everyone will be listed. Some sects object to this. However, let's hear from them 10,000 years from now and see how many they are listing. For tht matter, kali-yuga is said to last for 420 some thousand years, of which only 5,000 have have passed. With about four acaryas per century in any given line, that means that over the next 415,000 years lineages that insist upon listing all the gurus in the lienage and mediating on their siddha deha and eternal seva as an essential aspect of their sadhana (siddha pranali) will have to add 16,600 names by the end of kali-yuga to the ones that are already in place.
The Bhaktivinoda parivara on the other had takes practical approach to this matter, listing the prominent members. Its list will vary among its now numerous branches and promienece is somewhat subjective.
Madangopal - June 4, 2005 7:46 pm
or more likely whoever put this list together did not know the name of any prominent siksa or diksa links for that section of the list.
As Thakura Bhaktivinoda has written, sometimes not everyone will be listed.
Its list will vary among its now numerous branches and promienece is somewhat subjective.
1)Where does our list come from? Was the first compiler of the "list" Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta?
2)Can you advise me where Bhaktivinoda talks about not everyone being listed? It is interesting that Bhaktivinoda gives his siddha pranali line in his biography/letter to Lalita Prasad. I wonder if anywhere else (maybe a more public writing) he lists parampara differently...
3)What is the diksa parampara argument for the initiations of Rupa or Sanatana? Or is there one? Certainly they are accepted as most substantial acaryas, but they are not the beginning of a seminal line and what is the record of them receiving diksa from Gaura Hari?
Swami - June 4, 2005 8:25 pm
1)Where does our list come from? Was the first compiler of the "list" Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta?
2)Can you advise me where Bhaktivinoda talks about not everyone being listed? It is interesting that Bhaktivinoda gives his siddha pranali line in his biography/letter to Lalita Prasad. I wonder if anywhere else (maybe a more public writing) he lists parampara differently...
3)What is the diksa parampara argument for the initiations of Rupa or Sanatana? Or is there one? Certainly they are accepted as most substantial acaryas, but they are not the beginning of a seminal line and what is the record of them receiving diksa from Gaura Hari?
1. Not sure but here is a link to an article written by BP Kesava Maharaja in which he seeks to satisfy those who need a list of siksa and or diksa names.
2. 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)
3. I believe that Sanantan Goswami mentions his guru in one of his works. Regardless, the emphasis among the Goswamis was a siska emphasis in many respects, or better stated the emphasis was appropriately placed on those who had the most influence on sisyas. Not only Rupa and Sanatana, but Raghunatha dasa is a prominent exmaple. Should we not include Svarupa Damodara in his lineage? It is clear form Cc that he got esoteric instruction on bhajana from SD, not from his diksa guru Yadunandana. Krsnadasa Kaviraja is another prominent example. Indeed, he received idksa in a dream from Nityananda Prabhu himself and repeatedly pays respect to his siksa gurus!
Swami - June 5, 2005 12:25 am
Brian,
You mentioned intiation through dream. BSST did not receive his diska in a dream. Furthermore, those who doubt he was intiated need to consider that he himself was giving initiation in the presence of GK and BVT with their blessings. When others objected to his preaching, naturally he reacted strongly, as he had been preaching with the belssing and inspiration of his gurus.
Somewhere it is mentioned that he got the inspiration from GK to take sannyasa in a dream and then formalized that in front of GK's picture, but he had already been ordered by BVT to establish daiva varnasrama, which included establishing a sannyasa order, and he himself was a life long celibate, morally stout, and learned.
Otherwise diksa by dream is not unprecedented. From his own words in Cc Krsnadasa Kaviraja appears to have been initiated by Nityananda Prabhu in a dream and then he proceeded to Vrindavana under Nitai's order where he took shelter of his siksa gurus. It is to these siksa gurus that he continually pays his regard in his books.
The bottom line here is, as Bhrigupada mentioned, with good reason we accept BVT to be a nitya siddha–the Seventh Goswami. We are members of the illustrious Bhaktivinoda Parivara, and it is to this parivara that the entire international community of Guadiyas is indebted. Those who try to separate BSST from BVT separate BVT from the world and themselves. Hail BVT! Hail his parivara! Embrace its precepts, its mantras, and its empahsis on nama sankirtana and taste its sweetness for yourself.
Bijaya Kumara Das - June 5, 2005 3:39 am
Brian,
.
The bottom line here is, as Bhrigupada mentioned, with good reason we accept BVT to be a nitya siddha–the Seventh Goswami. We are members of the illustrious Bhaktivinoda Parivara, and it is to this parivara that the entire international community of Guadiyas is indebted. Those who try to separate BSST from BVT separate BVT from the world and themselves. Hail BVT! Hail his parivara! Embrace its precepts, its mantras, and its empahsis on nama sankirtana and taste its sweetness for yourself.
Ki jaya Guru Maharaja.