About The Principles Of Sri-bhagavata-siksa-parampara -

To read, please, follow: http://russianpaintings.net/parapmara_eng.htm

Please, read the article of my beloved spiritual master Srila Bhakti Promod Puri Goswami Maharaja:
Disciplic Succession (Sampradaya)

Some quotes from the article

The meaning of 'sampradaya' is defined as knowledge descending in the chain of consecutive spiritual masters. Other than this definition it can be used to denote societies, associations and groups of people.

If I am not entirely mistaken, someone in that thread is doing some serious copy-pasting from some of my old posts.

In addition, of course our upasana is entirely different. We worship Radha-Krishna, and the worship is in manjari-bhava. The Madhvites worship Krishna alone. Thei also do not lay all that much emphasis on the Bhagavata; Madhva's Bhagavata-tatparya is by no means a prominent work of his. I believe the concept of bhakti-rasa is also alien to them. The Madhvites teach the doctrine dvaita, while the followers of Caitanya embrace the concept of acintyabhedAbheda.

Srimad Baladeva Prabhu has formulated nine proverbial statements, which have been verified by Sriman Mahaprabhu in His instructions to His close followers and which are accepted as the supreme principles of Vedanta philosophy

These nine 'Prameyas' were later propagated by Lord Caitanya as part of the Gaudiya Vaisnava doctrines.

Some of the imposters disciplic groups seem to have cast some doubts on the lineage of Sri Madhva but their suspicions are baseless and due to sheer ignorance. The evidence illustrated in books like Gaura Ganodesa Dipika, Bhakti Ratnakara, Prameya Ratnavali and also works of Sri Gopal Guru Goswami, all are in close agreement and testify to the disciplic lineage of Sri Madhva.

[After citing the sampradaya vihina ye - verse:] There is no chance of perfection of the mantra received if no implicit obedience to the previous spiritual masters exists.

At any rate, there is little benefit in discussing with people who come in with the "hee-hee" attitude.

At any rate, there is little benefit in discussing with people who come in with the "hee-hee" attitude.

Even so, I still tend to grit my teeth and remain silent while wishing that I had enough knowledge to refute these paltry objections. Maybe it is born out of righteous indignation I don't know, but I am not enjoying these pathetic criticisms.

And with all due respect Madhava, I think you (or even we) are skirting the real issue here.

See, that's your problem ji. You want to be justified and unimpeachable in the eyes of the Madhva/Tattvavadis. You need to step out of this straight jacket somehow.

Parampara = disciplic succession, sampradaya = tradition.

This is not my defect that someone think that sampradaya=diksa-parampara.

That is narrow understanding. First pure spirit, then parampara. First tradition then succession. Succession depends on tradition. In diksa-parampara not everybody are bhagavatas. But in sampradaya Bhagavatas are basis of tattva and purity.

Since dIkSA means accepting kRSNa-dIkSA-mantra from a vaiSNava-guru, the dIkSA-guru by definition is a bhAgavad-bhakta, or a bhAgavata.

There are different levels of bhagavatas. In the root of sampradaya and any parampara there are Maha-bhagavatas, not ordinary bhagavatas.

Feel the difference.

Yes, there are parSadas of Mahaprabhu at the root of the saMpradAya and the dIkSA-paraMparas. gauraGgera saGgi-gaNe nitya-siddha kori mane.

They put emphasis on charismatic vaishnavas whom are deemed fit to make innovations.
Thats ok.
But they should acknowledge that rather than trying to back up their position with shastra.

understand the Bhagavata-sampradaya line (or Bhagavata-siksa-parampara or school of pure devotion succession) there is no need to include all the members of diksa-line (lines) or diksa-paramparas which are propogating the ideal of pure devotion to the Lord - sampradaya (tradition).

Then what is your problem to accept the principle of construction of

Sri Bhagavata-siksa-parampara (Sampradaya which consists of Maha-bhagavatas whith their own respected paramparas)?!

Why would someone want to void out the gurus in a disciplic line? Is it because one is embarrassed about them (too ugly maybe), or what? It's like telling your kids that you had no great grandparents, etc.

The Saraswats have only one rationalization for their concept of parampara and that is personality.
They put emphasis on charismatic vaishnavas whom are deemed fit to make innovations.
Thats ok.

But they should acknowledge that rather than trying to back up their position with shastra.

Well, parampara means one teacher after another. What you have in Gaudiya Math is not one person after another, since many of the personalities in their presentation never met each other in person. You may call it a Bhagavata-siksa-sampradaya if you will. Parampara is another matter. We have clarified the difference between parampara and sampradaya clear in the earlier posts in this thread.

Formulated by Baladeva, verified by Mahaprabhu? Which Baladeva does this refer to? If Baladeva Vidyabhusan, then how were the nava-prameya formulated by him? If another Baladeva, then who?


Are they explicitly mentioned anywhere in the biographies of Caitanya? To whom among His parshadas did he instruct the nava-prameya?

The difference, however, is that as far as I know Baladeva did not say anything about Mahaprabhu propagating or verifying the nava-prameyas.

A proper understanding of the balance between divinity and humanity in the guru (and Krishna) is very important.

Gaursundar - Thirdly, careless usage of the term "charismatic personality" often leads to various personality cults and guru-deification as Jagatji as pointed out, and history has shown how dangerous this can get.

Jagat - Or that very instructive Bhaktivedanta Swami lila of wanting to circumambulate Govardhan when he was dying.

Well, parampara means one teacher after another. What you have in Gaudiya Math is not one person after another, since many of the personalities in their presentation never met each other in person. You may call it a Bhagavata-siksa-sampradaya if you will. Parampara is another matter. We have clarified the difference between parampara and sampradaya clear in the earlier posts in this thread.

Answer: Though, according to the nature of Guru-tattva (the
Guru-Principle) the Siksa Guru and the Diksa Guru are considered as
non-different from each other, yet, the importance of Diksa Guru is
understood to be more than the other. ...

Question No. 2
While compared between Siksa Guru and Diksa Guru---whose honour is
greater in the eye of a disciple or devotee?

Answer: It is Diksa Guru whose honour/respect is superior to all.

Yes, the difference is clear. Sampradaya consists of Maha-bhagavatas who leads there own paramparas (diksa and siksa).

My position concern not only Madhva, but any others too. Madhva is Maha-bhagavata, his followers are not. The followers are simple bhagavatas and there opinion may be different if they are not pure devotees.

So Santa Maharaja is teaching that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was deficient?

If Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati had accepted Santa Maharaja's teaching, he would have honored his diksa-guru by honoring his guru's diksa-guru.

Otherwise, in order to make the "siksa-parampara" idea work, the disciple is forced to conclude, "My gurudeva is worshipable, but my gurudeva was mistaken in considering his own diksa-guru worshipable."

That is a monstrous error for any disciple to make, from which countless other errors will flow.

Bhaktisiddhanta honored his diksa-guru by puting his name in the bhagavata-siksa-parampara.

Isn't it naive to worship a lineage solely on the basis that it originated with an associate of Mahaprabhu and comes to us in the form of our guru and paramguru?

We have no way of knowing that a deviation occured in 1693, or 1735 or 1827--that a mantra was changed, a philosphical tenet was butchered,

Perhaps the trauma of those old advertisements in BTG--"Meet a bona fide spiritual master...Bhavandanda Visnupada"--and endlessly preaching about the "unbroken disciplic succession" are finally catching up with me, but I'm skeptical of wholesale belief in parochial hagiography.

Is there a body of biographical information that is used as a means of establishing faith in Gaudiya traditions or is it an element of faith only?

"I'm gaining enlightenment from my guru and my line originates with an associate of Mahaprabhu, therefore everything in between must have been sacred"?

indradyumna - The following is a letter (1910) from Bhaktivinoda Thakura to Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati Thakura wherein Bhaktivinoda gives Sarasvati essential spiritual
instructions.

All the disciples of Srila Sarasvati Prabhupada knew the names of
Sri Bhagavata Das Babaji, Sri Jagannatha Dasa Goswami and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur.
That is why there is no much reason to say that "guru-pranali wasn't proclaimed
by Srila Sarasvati Thakur". This persons played more important role in the life of
Srila Gaura Kishora Dasa Goswami than Nanda Kishore from Shantipur.

Saraswati!

A rational approach will not do here. That is the problem with western devotees - soooo scientific.
...

Personally I dont believe that Bhaktivinod wrote this letter. I can write a letter now and ascribe it to Mahaprabhu Himself - where is the proof?

A little ironic, no?

So all of you, followers of Bhaktivinode, Prabhupad and Bhaktisiddhanta, you should ask yourself from whom did they listen the sastra and who gave them spiritual birth? We all know the answer. They didn't study sastra from anybody and
Bhaktisiddhanta didn't get his spiritual birth from anybody simply because he has
invented his nation, or parampara. You cannot exist as a person if you do not have a father and family, similarly you cannot exist as a devotee if you do not have a guru. And everybody with only little brain, not much brain, but only little, can clearly see that Bhaktisiddhanta doesn't have a family.

Personally I dont believe that Bhaktivinod wrote this letter. I can write a letter now and ascribe it to Mahaprabhu Himself - where is the proof? And even if it were written by Bhaktivinod, so what? Where the 6 Gosvamis have spoken of Daivi Varnashrama and the lot?

It is well known all over the world that the caste system has degenerated into human rights abuses. If a Mahajana seeks to rectify this in the course of his preaching, what is the big deviation?

Advaitadas
Personally I dont believe that Bhaktivinod wrote this letter. I can write a letter now and ascribe it to Mahaprabhu Himself - where is the proof?

If Gaurakishor is a siddha, why would he take diksa from an unimportant person?
If Bhaktisiddhanta is a worshiper of the Guru principle, then why does he neglect or even disrespect his own param guru? That is not the Vaishnava custom. The Vaishnava acaryas, look at Sankalpa Kalpadruma, offer obeisances to Guru and Param Guru etc.

(Don't you have any doubts when you look at the mirror - generally?  )

QUOTE 
If Gaurakishor is a siddha, why would he take diksa from an unimportant person?
If Bhaktisiddhanta is a worshiper of the Guru principle, then why does he neglect or even disrespect his own param guru? That is not the Vaishnava custom. The Vaishnava acaryas, look at Sankalpa Kalpadruma, offer obeisances to Guru and Param Guru etc.

In Vaisnava world there is also siksa, not only diksa. Also I have heard that in asrama of Sri Ananta Das Baba western followers feel themselves uncomfortable because there is no any good relation with local devotees. Also there is lenguage barrier.

Where and when did Bhaktisiddhanta disrespect his Para guru and diksa-guru?

Between Lord Brahma (the first Maha-Bhagavata in the universe) and Srila Rupa Goswami there is no diksa-line. May be you want to cut off Lord Brahma from the Bhagavata-siksa-sampradaya (tradition of pure devotion which consists of Maha-bhagavatas)?

Seems I was incorrect about this, as Prameya-ratnavali 1.8 states:

iti upadisati harih krsna-caitanyacandrah
"Thus taught Hari in His form of Sri Krsna Caitanya."

Baladeva outlines the nava-prameya in his own words in PR 1.8 before finishing it off with the above line. Again, very intriguing...

Everybody in Europe knows about English or German tribes. They do not fall from Mars. But with Bhaktisidhhanta, his  "line" appeared suddenly with a special purpose. And that has been to slander other gurus and to preach agains them.

So all of you, followers of Bhaktivinode, Prabhupad and Bhaktisiddhanta, you should ask yourself from whom did they listen the sastra and who gave them spiritual birth? We all know the answer. They didn't study sastra from anybody and
Bhaktisiddhanta didn't get his spiritual birth from anybody simply because he has
invented his nation, or parampara.

When so little is known about our Gaudiya forefathers, how can we really ascribe such unfailing regard for them? Isn't it naive to worship a lineage solely on the basis that it originated with an associate of Mahaprabhu and comes to us in the form of our guru and paramguru? We have no way of knowing that a deviation occured in 1693, or 1735 or 1827--that a mantra was changed, a philosphical tenet was butchered, that a guru rejected a disciple but that disciple continued the parampara anyway.

Is there a body of biographical information that is used as a means of establishing faith in Gaudiya traditions or is it an element of faith only? If diska is the transmittal of divya-jnana, is it enough to say, "I'm gaining enlightenment from my guru and my line originates with an associate of Mahaprabhu, therefore everything in between must have been sacred"? Perhaps the importance and nature of parampara is being somewhat skewed in these discussions due to the juxtaposition with BSST's presentation?

Also I have heard that in asrama of Sri Ananta Das Baba western followers feel themselves uncomfortable because there is no any good relation with local devotees. Also there is lenguage barrier.

Bhaktisiddhanta honored his diksa-guru by puting his name in the bhagavata-siksa-parampara.

PS I think, that you all should see what is the original idea of the teaching. But not to look here and there. The Idea of Madhva was that he accepted Diety form as non-different from Bhagavan. Lord Caitanya accepted that from their tradition. Then why should we accept what the modern Madhvaites are talking about Sri Caitanya?!

At any rate, there is little benefit in discussing with people who come in with the "hee-hee" attitude.

We can do the parampara no favors by putting names into it.  It is what it is.  To think oneself qualified for "putting" names in the parampara is to think far too highly of oneself.

You have a solid point there, Vamsi. To think of oneself in a position in which one may choose one's own parampara and put in or remove people at will is practically a statement on one's being in a superior position than the parampara.

This is the gist of the orthodoxy argument. In an all out attempt to deny others any validity they have resorted to euphemisms like "empowered" in case of caitanya because all he gave was SikSA. They are somehow not able to swallow the fact that the divya gyAna is transferred by sikSA too. - So? Are there any examples of divya-jJana being transferred via siksa in the Madhva-paramparas?

Advaitadas
By not including him in his Greatest Hits - Best Of - parampara collection-presentation.

Madhva
You have a solid point there, Vamsi. To think of oneself in a position in which one may choose one's own parampara and put in or remove people at will is practically a statement on one's being in a superior position than the parampara.

That question can only be answered by those who believe in the GM Iskcon presentation of parampara. The teachings come from Rupa Gosvami through enlightenment received from Mahaprabhu, who is Krishna Himself. Lord Brahma has nothing to do with this. Read the 2nd verse of Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu.

Madhva
Of course it is naive to take diksa in a line simply because it originates in an associate of Mahaprabhu. I don't think anyone takes diksa merely on such a basis, at least outside the traditional Hindu family-initiations, in which case one does has no real opportunity to research the validity of either guru or the parampara. Then of course, perhaps someone will, as in the logic "all that comes from India is spiritual". That is, however, not a very intelligent approach.

Gaurasundara
I brought this up in another thread. Where exactly does Madhvacharya say that he accepts the Deity form as nondifferent from the Lord? Rather, the Madhvas say that the Deity is an iconic representation rather than the Lord Himself which is completely polarized to the Gaudiya conception. This is because, according to them, it would violate jaDa-Isvara-bheda, the difference between God and insentient matter. So how would you prove your above comments?

Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana, a prominent Gaudiya Vedanta scholar, has shed light on this disciplic succession.
The most worshipable Srila Prabhupada writes: “Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana, a great Vedantic scholar has admitted himself to belonging to the Lord Brahma disciplic lineage. Lord Sri Krishna was the original spiritual master, His disciple was Lord Brahma. Lord Brahma's disciple was Narada Rsi. Then on to Sri Vyasadeva whose disciple was Sri Madhva. From Sri Madhva the succession continued through Sri Akshobya, Sri Jayatirtha, Sri Jnana Sindu, Sri Daya Niddhi, Sri Vidya Nidhi, Sri Rajendra, Sri Jaya Dharma, Sri Purusottama then to Sri Brahmanya to Sri Vyasatirtha, Sri Laksmipati and finally to Sri Madhavendra Puri. Srila Madhavendra Puri's distinguished disciples were Isvara Puri, Sri Nityananda and Sri Advaita. The illustrious disciple of Sri Isvara Puri, Lord Caitanyadeva spread the message of love of Godhead as the highest goal throughout the world. Most of the renunciates of Sri Madhva were with one staff (ekadandi). And were titled "Tirtha Swami" in addition to their names. However, Sri Madhavendra was not of this category being titled Puri Goswami. The inference here is that he would have taken his renounced order from the Impersonalist groups, having that title (Puri Goswami), while his initiation and learning were definitely derived from the Madhavaites. In Bhakti Ratnakara, there is mentioned that Sri Nityananda Prabhu took shelter of Laksmipati for spiritual guidance. The main renounced devotees of the Madhva lineage were all denoted by this title "Tirtha Swami". Some of the imposters disciplic groups seem to have cast some doubts on the lineage of Sri Madhva but their suspicions are baseless and due to sheer ignorance. The evidence illustrated in books like Gaura Ganodesa Dipika, Bhakti Ratnakara, Prameya Ratnavali and also works of Sri Gopal Guru Goswami, all are in close agreement and testify to the disciplic lineage of Sri Madhva. The Sri Gopal Purvatapani Sruti proves that Lord Brahma was the disciple of Lord Krishna. That Sri Madhva was the disciple of Sri Vyasadeva is a noted historical fact (see life history of Madhva).”

Once, it has been said that some discussions were going on with Madhva and other Sankarite scholars at Markanikaya ghat, all of them who were observing vows of fasting. Suddenly from the sky, like a blue cloud, Sri Vyasadeva appeared in the presence of all as witness and rejected all Sankara's ideology while accepting the philosophy of Sri Madhva. Srimad Baladeva Prabhu has formulated nine proverbial statements, which have been verified by Sriman Mahaprabhu in His instructions to His close followers and which are accepted as the supreme principles of Vedanta philosophy, Sri Madhva states:

(i) Lord Vishnu is the Supreme Entity
(ii) He is the Absolute Knower of all things
(iii) The material universe is real
(iv) The living entity is different from Lord Visnu
(v) All the living entities are the servants of the Lord Hari
(vi) There are two types of living entities (i)conditioned (ii)liberated souls
(vii) Liberation is in attaining to the lotus feet of Lord Vishnu
(viii) Liberation is possible only after living entities take to the transcendental service of the Supreme Lord
(ix) Direct evidence, inference and knowledge from scriptures are three types of proof

These nine 'Prameyas' were later propagated by Lord Caitanya as part of the Gaudiya Vaisnava doctrines. They are natural evidence in concord with Vedanta Sutra. These 'Prameyas' were not concocted by the author of 'Prameya Ratnavali' but were taken from Sri Madhva himself.

The ancient verse beginning with "Sri Madhva Mate Hari paratamah satyam jagat" means, by the philosophy of Sri Madhva, Lord Hari is the Supreme Truth, the material universe though apparently real is different and a transformation of His energy. There are innumerable living entities and all are ultimately servants of Lord Hari. They, by their different endeavors and by results of their actions attain to either high or low positions. The living entities, forgetting their eternal service to Lord Krishna by aversion to Him, have become entangled by material nature. This aversion has led them to ignorantly identify themselves as human beings or demigods etñ. By giving up such aversion, and becoming established in one's constitutional position in service to Lord Hari marks the dawn of liberation. When one is situated at the lotus feet of Lord Vishnu because of being naturally engaged in his original identity as eternal servitor of the Lord he becomes liberated. Pure devotion means to be free from all selfish desires related to fruitive activity, independent search for knowledge, etc. This itself entails liberation. The three types of proof are (i) Revealed scriptural knowledge(ii) Inference (iii) Direct evidence . That Sriman Mahaprabhu accepted the philosophy of Sri Madhva to be consistent with the axioms of the Vedanta, is clear from the writings of Sri Baladeva Prabhu.

Nevertheless, Srila Krsnadas Kaviraja, in the 9th chapter of Madhya lila of Sri Chaitanya Charitamrta has given an interesting account of the discussion between the Madhavites and Sriman Mahaprabhu. We can gather from this that the Madhavites strictly believed in the adherence to the formal varna-asrama system and the surrendering of the fruits of one's honest work to Lord Krsna as part of their devotional practice. Therefore this process would enable them in the end to attain the five-fold liberation and attain to the desired spiritual Vaikuntha planets. Sriman Mahaprabhu, by using the verse from the Srimad Bhagavatam 'sravanam kirtanam vishnu smaranam" as evidence, had demonstrated to them that hearing and chanting are the most important practices in respect to attainment of the pure objective, love of Godhead.

He gave this verdict to Srimad Raghuvaryatirtha Swami, the scholar of the Madhavites: "Hearing and chanting, which are part of the nine limbs of devotion service, leads to devotion to Sri Krishna, which is the fifth and most supreme goal of human life while the other four are simply cheating tendencies. Prema or love of Godhead is free from all such faults. Fruitive work, or the surrender of the fruits of such work can never lead directly to love of God. Nonetheless, by that path, the mind becomes gradually purified and can induce one to honor and adore the saintly people, giving rise to faith in the process of pure devotion. This means that faith in the hearing and chanting of the Holy Names etc. is primary and will lead one to the goal directly. To the extent that the gross and subtle impurities are nullified in a person. In that measure can love be instilled in one's heart. In conclusion, love of God is never generated by surrender of one's fruits of work. Love is dependent on the mood of self-surrender and submission of the individual which is only evolved by association of the saintly devotees. Hence the pure devotee rejects all ideas of liberation stemming from fruitive work and knowledge, shunning these as unfavorable to pure devotion. If these two are your aspired means and the goals as you have pointed out then it is my belief that you are saying this only to tease me"

After hearing the humble tones of Sriman Mahaprabhu's speech, the leader of the Madhavites, lowered his head in shame. Sriman Mahaprabhu was the "Acarya" in pure devotional conclusions and He went on to say, "the fruitive worker and Salvationists are devoid of devotion and it seems to me that your disciplic succession seem to stress their very two processes which is works and knowledge. Nonetheless, I see one exceptional positive quality in your succession, in that you believe in the blissful form of the Deity as the Supreme Lord."

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has written on this aspect: "Sriman Mahaprabhu tells the leader of the Madhavites, "Your philosophy is generally in contradiction to pure devotional conclusions but I see one outstanding supporting truth, the eternality of the Supreme Lord and the acceptance of the deity form as non-different from Him." The purport of this statement implied that my grand spiritual master, Sri Madhavendra Puri in recognizing this outstanding feature of the acceptance of the blissful Deity form, has for this reason accepted the disciplic line of Madhavites. Srila Jiva Gosvami has eulogized Sri Madhva in ‘Tattva Sandarbha' by writing: 'Madhva caranaih' which is plural tense (bahu cachan). Srila Baladeva's commentary on that same book runs: "The Srimad Bhagavat was highly worshipped by Sri Madhva. Sri Sankara had no chance to misconstrue the meanings of this book. Still, his disciple named Punyaranya who wrote a commentary based on Impersonalism or monistic ideals did cause many devotees (Vaishnavas) to deviate after reading the said commentary, by becoming attracted to it. Sri Madhva, to dismiss their deviant monistic ideals and to lead the devotees back on the proper path, had written a very conclusive commentary on the Bhagavatam counteracting the said deviant propositions. Hence the word "Madhva caranaih" as quoted in this sense, not only signifies great respect for Sri Madhva but also refers him as the proper predecessor Acarya in the disciplic line. Sri Madhva was the incarnation of the Wind God, Vayu himself in person. He is all knowing and not able to be surpassed. It is said, at one time, he defeated a very eminent scholar who was the head of the fourteen Maths in less than an hour. The scholar bowed down to his feet as a disciple and became renowned by the name of Sri Padmanabha."

In Srila Jiva Gosvami's commentary "Tattva Sandarbha" (26th chapter) for the word :"tattva vada gurunam" Srila Baladeva has written:

sarvam vastu satyam iti vadastattva
vadastad upadestrnam ity arthah

Meaning: By the inconceivable potency of the Lord, the particular transcendental Supreme object is non-different from its attributes. The potency of the Supreme Lord is the living entity and the material nature is a reflection of the spiritual energy. There are indeed both similarities and differences between the Supreme Lord and the living entity, also between the spiritual potency and material nature, all of which are inconceivable. The foundation and philosophy of the Gaudiya devotees is this principle of Inconceivable Oneness and Differences ("acintya bheda-abheda"). The point that Sri Madhva had accepted this in the start reinforces his unbroken connection with the Gaudiya devotees. From the texts of Sri Madhva, Sri Jiva Gosvami has collected much back up evidence for Gaudiya Vaisnavism, far more in comparison to that of any of other Vaishnava leaders. Though Sri Madhva did receive the renounced order (sannyasa) from the Sankarites at the age of twelve years, he never did support the monistic ideals of Sankara. He received initiation as "Purna Prajna", from Acyuta Preksa, his spiritual master, who later was converted by becoming his own very disciple!

In Badarikasrama, he met Vyasadeva face to face, and after receiving his sublime instructions, began to engage in the service and worship of 18 Salagramas at his behest. One day, while Sri Madhva was bathing in the ocean, he managed to discover in huge block sandalwood (candana), from which a beautiful Deity of the younger boy Sri Krsna emerged. Later, He began to worship this Deity along with the 18 Salagramas, side by side in Udipi.

May be you didn’t notice, but there are different principles of making up pancaratrika-diksa-parampara and Bhagavata-siksa-parampara. First consists of every diksa guru (Who may be or not Maha-bhagavata).

That question can only be answered by those who believe in the GM Iskcon presentation of parampara. The teachings come from Rupa Gosvami through enlightenment received from Mahaprabhu, who is Krishna Himself. Lord Brahma has nothing to do with this. Read the 2nd verse of Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu.

NO. Lord Brahma is pure devotee of the Lord and Maha Bhagavata. Read Bhagavad Gita 4.8.

And you can judge any Maha-Bhagavata in it by the result of his preaching efforts.

Lord Caitanya said: “Haridas, Nityananda, go from door to door and ask them to chant the Holy Names”.

May be you didn?t notice, but there are different principles of making up pancaratrika-diksa-parampara and Bhagavata-siksa-parampara. First consists of every diksa guru (Who may be or not Maha-bhagavata). The second consists of only Maha-bhagavatas, who are personifications of Sampradaya (tradition of pure devotion).
And also there is no need to include every Maha-bhagavata in it. That?s all.

The Guru of Rupa and Sanatana as well as all other Goswamis except Jiva, and also the Guru of sons of Advaita Acarya is Srila Gadadhara Pandita.

Sampradaya is the succession of pure devotees who personifies divya-vidya.

1. They are counted among the pUrva-mahAjana, whom we honor as those who offered foundational conceptions in the general matter of bhakti.

2. Which list?

3. Though not explicitly mentioned as a dIkSA-guru, circumstantial evidence suggests that it was Vidyavacaspati.

1. You still dont understand Indra, the Sampradaya belongs to Mahaprabhu, who is Krishna. Krishna starts the Sampradaya, agreed? There is no need for the long list of ancient acaryas that precede Mahaprabhu that you have been fed by Iskcon and the GM.

You have made up bhagavata-parampara list. Who from the previous acaryas had mentioned that parampara? Srila Baladeva was for Srila Bhaktisiddhanta.

Advaitaji, the teaching of Mahaprabhu includes Srimad Bhagavata Purana and Sri Brahma Samhita as basic and principal texts. Since Brahma, Vyasa, Narada, Suka, and so on are among those, who composed and compiled these texts, can we say, that they are in our tradition from some point of view?

You have made up bhagavata-parampara list. Who from the previous acaryas had mentioned that parampara? Srila Baladeva was for Srila Bhaktisiddhanta.

The Guru of Rupa and Sanatana as well as all other Goswamis except Jiva, and also the Guru of sons of Advaita Acarya is Srila Gadadhara Pandita.

-21. Vishnu

-20. Brahma
-19. Narada
-18. Vyasa
-17. Madhva
-16. Padmanabha
-15. Nrihari
-14. Madhava
-13. Akshobhya
-12. Jayatirtha
-11. Jnanasindhu
-10. Dayaniddhi
-9. Vidyanidhi
-8. Rajendra
-7. Jayadharma
-6. Purusottama
-5. Brahmanayatirtha
-4. Vyasatirtha
-3. Laksmipati
-2. Madhavendra Puri
-1. Sri Isvara Puri
1. Caitanya
2. Nityananda

3. Jahnava

4. Kavi-karnapura
5. Rupa-Sanatana
6. Virabhadra
7. Jiva

8. Gopala Guru
9. Narottama
10. Syamananda
11. Rasikananda
12. Dhyanacandra
13. Ganga-narayana
14. Visvanatha
15. Jayakrishna Das
16. Siddha Krishnadas
17. Pandit Ramakrishna Das
18. Manohara Das

First of all, according to Bhagavad Gota 4.8, there is no separate Caitanya Era. That is why there should not be negative numbers. Secondly, first any way, according to Srimad Bhagavatam, first should be Krishna, not Vishnu. Read the sastra carefully, sonny :-)

I think you better withdraw before you make a complete fool of yourself, Indra. And your mentality (sonny) is really preposterous too.

You are becoming much better, guy.

Read the sastra carefully, sonny :-)

You should know  that there is such thing as context, soul.

Ok Madhva. You are becoming much better, guy. Now let us look for your mistakes:



First of all, according to Bhagavad Gota 4.8, there is no separate Caitanya Era. That is why there should not be negative numbers. Secondly, first any way, according to Srimad Bhagavatam, first should be Krishna, not Vishnu. Read the sastra carefully, sonny :-)

2. why did you mention only Sri Jahnavi Mata and excluded Sri Advaita Acarya (Sri Jahnavi Mata is wife of Lord Nityananda)?

3.Where is Krsna dasa Kaviraja Goswami (who didn’t mentioned anywhere his diksa-guru but only siksa-gurus) – the author of Sri Caitanya Caritamrita? Where is Raghunatha?

4. Just for me, please, explain, who is Virabhadra?

In conclusion of this message: you can make up any list you want. But what is your adhikar in comparison to the above mentioned Srila Gaur Kishor Das Babaji who gave diksa to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta?

Then I think that you should carefully read the HEAD OF THIS THREAD: About The Principles Of Sri-bhagavata-siksa-parampara. We are talking about parampara of Bhagavatas who are the gist of our Sampradaya (Sri Bhagavata - siksa -sampradaya) from Krishna-Brahma-etc. (even Madhva already agreed in his list) but not only about Caitanya Era. You should know  that there is such thing as context, soul.

vamsidas:
Seven pages into this thread, and Indradyumnaji is STILL treating "bhagavata-siksa-parampara" as if it were a synonym for "bhagavata-siksa-sampradaya."

The meaning of 'sampradaya' is defined as knowledge descending in the chain of consecutive spiritual masters. Other than this definition it can be used to denote societies, associations and groups of people. Srimad Baladeva Vidyabhusana, in his "Prameya Ratnavali", has written:

bhavati vicintya vidusa niravakara guru parampara nityam
ekantitvam sidhyati yayodayati yena haritosah

That the learned scholars and devotees should always meditate on the bona fide disciple succession. Only by doing likewise can one maintain himself as an unalloyed devotee of the Lord and will become the recipient of the mercy of the Supreme Lord. The constant discussion of the exemplary pure devotional conduct of the predecessor "Acaryas" will result in the purification of the heart of the disciple. Consequently, only in the unalloyed role of the servant of the servant can the purified disciple be freed from false ego and earn the grace of the Supreme Lord. The unalloyed devotees are the beloved of Sri Hari and specifically those in direct obedience to them, without the least form of artifice can hope to attain the mercy of the Lord. This is the prime reason why the initiated disciple should always meditate with faith on the disciplic succession. Srila Baladeva Prabhu too has enlightened us of his own spiritual roots in his book "Prameya Ratnavali". In that book he has mentioned two important verses for discussion, from Padma Purana.

sampradaya vihina ye mantraste viphala matah
ata kalau bhavisyanti catvarah sampradayinah
sri brahma-rudar-sanaka vaisnavah ksiti pavanah
catvarste kalau bhavya utkale purusottamat

Meaning : The holy formula (mantra) that is received without the proper disciplic succession will never bear any fruit. This is why in this age Kali, four great souls will emerge and establish the different Vaishnava successions in the form of Sri Brahma, Rudra, Sri Laksmidevi and the four Kumaras. The four great leaders will begin to manifest their four authorized disciplic successions from the holy Dham of Puri. Originally, Sri Laksmi Devi had given this sacred knowledge to Ramanujacarya, Lord Brahma to Sri Madhva, Rudra to Visnu Swami and the Four Kumaras to Nimbarkacarya. They, after being endowed with spiritual knowledge, promulgated their own individual disciplic successions.

Yes, we've reached the same conclusion. You can make up any list you want.

Hilarious, isn't it?

[w00t.gif]

Would you care to explain what you mean with the statement, "Bhagavata-siksa-parampara includes the pancaratrika-diksa-parampara"? How is it included?

Next comes Uddhava dasa Babaji the disciple of Baladeva Vidyabhusana. Uddhava dasa Babaji Maharaja's disciple was Madhusudana dasa Babaji, that much we know, and his disciple was Vaisnava Sarvabhauma Jagannatha dasa Babaji Maharaja. Nothing is really known of Madhusudana dasa Babaji or Uddhava dasa, as they are not considered major links, so we will go on to Jagannatha dasa Babaji the notable preacher. However, Madhusudan das babaji maharaj is not the same as Madhusudhan Saraswati the mayavadin ascetic that much we are certain of.

Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji Maharaja had a disciple named Bhagavat dasa Babaji Maharaja, and Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji was his disciple.

If my diksa guru feel offended for my love toward my siksa guru on that basis, he should be rejected by me. This would apply for me along, between myself and my diksa guru. It has nothing to do with my godbrothers. (diksa) It is nobody else business. Simple as that.

My idea is that Maha-Bhagavata can be at the same time the member of both. And the Bhagavata-siksa-parampara represents
the idea of pure devotion more wider. The conception of Pancaratrica-diksa-parampara represents the idea of pure devotion
more concentrated for the paticular line in the sense that paticular shcool introduce their own conception of
practice, philosophy etc.

Why do so many always insinuate that the Diksa Guru must be some weak bogus person? Is such a thing written anywhere in the shastra, about a weak bogus Guru? Shastra says the Guru is Bhagavan, that is all I know. It is a clear case of namaparadha - guror avagya. The 3rd offence is to disrespect the Guru.

Is that so? Jiva Gosvami teaches: sri gurvagyaya tat sevanavirodhena ca anyesam api vaishnavanam pujanam shreyah. anyatha doshah syat. yatha naradoktau gurau sannihite yas tu pujayed anyam agratah. sa durgatim avapnoti pujanam tasya nisphalam (Bhakti Sandarbha 238)

"It is beneficial to worship other Vaishnavas if it is on the order of the Guru and if it does not contradict his service. Otherwise it is a fault. It is said by Narada: 'One who worships another in front of his Guru will attain a bad destination and his worship is a waste."

Why do so many always insinuate that the Diksa Guru must be some weak bogus person? Is such a thing written anywhere in the shastra, about a weak bogus Guru? Shastra says the Guru is Bhagavan, that is all I know. It is a clear case of namaparadha - guror avagya. The 3rd offence is to disrespect the Guru.

I wonder what do you understand by "not contradicting his service".

"Go to the Babajis".

A disciple is not a property.

He is therefore more powerful than Raghunatha dasa Gosvami's diksa-guru, Yadunandana Acarya, and he was therefore more prominent in his life.

In a similar way, in the Jaiva Dharma Srila Thakura Bhaktivinoda has given the name of Premadasa Babaji's siksa-guru. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has written that Premadasa Babaji was the siksa-disciple of Pradyumna Brahmacari, but he has not written the name of the Babaji’s diksa-guru.

Do you accept Thakura Bhaktivinoda as an devotional authority, or just another 'charimastic' person on your list?

Again, if diksa-guru is a high-class Vaisnava and the disciple feels greatly indebted to him, then he must also give all honor to his diksa-guru.

By the way, the mood of arcana to the guru is in the lower stages of service to him.

Oh yes. The shastra says that one must not think of the guru as an ordinary man. But a dilemma then arises, "But what if we figure out that a dIkSA-guru is actually an ordinary man, shall we then shift him aside?" The dilemma, however, arises from a misconception to begin with.

In the few guru-pranali and siddha-pranali lines that I've seen, it seems quite common that they differ. Wouldn't that support an argument that diksa has often been viewed as something introductory, official, or somewhat external or, at least, that the diksa guru has often not been the "most advanced" spiritual influence for many raganugiyas?

I understand that to mean that the siksa guru must have an upasana compatible with that of the diksa guru. Hope you are not arguing with Jiva Gosvami?

What is the point of this statement?

Yadunandana is praised as a nitya siddha parikara of Mahaprabhu.

By the way, the mood of arcana to the guru is in the lower stages of service to him.

Where will you prove this from now? Bhakti - vinod, Siddhanta, Vedanta?

I would like to see some examples of this where the guru pranali of a disciple differes from his siddha pranali. Do you have any? Is this what you are saying?

You know what's funny? That Rupa Gosvami quotes as example of visrambhena guroh seva the verse acaryam mam vijaniyan navamanyeta karhicit na martya buddhyasuyeta sarvadevamayo guruh.
Also funny is that Gaudiya Math's BV Tirtha maharaja translates visrambhena as 'with faith' and not 'with intimacy'.
Third funny thing is that you did indeed quote two of the Bhaktis, siddhanta and vedanta, as example.

There are three levels of devotees who can act as sad-guru, none of them is by caste system or by smartas brahmanas qualifications.

The importance is that only sad guru can gives krishna prema.

The importance is that only sad guru can gives krishna prema.

A happy guru? 

*Sigh* I really don't see how replies like this help anyone. Catharsis maybe? Honestly, if someone has faith in a particular person or line, they're just going to get defensive and/or retaliatory. If they don't have faith, or if they also have faith elsewhere, they are already going to know the supposed faults, so what purpose does it serve?

It also seems to be the same type of mentality that is being criticized.

Back in Radhakund I make a sarcastic remark about a sadhu riding an automobile, but Krishna das Baba reacts with indignation "You should always think: "gaurer amar sob bhalo; ami ekmatra manda o choto. ami shata dosher doshi, ami sahasra dosher doshi, ami koti dosher doshi. Everyone belongs to Gaura and is thus good. I am the only one who is wrong and inferior. I have a hundred faults, I have a thousand faults, I have millions of faults and no one can have as many faults as me". Baba always sternly taught me tolerance and humility when I felt mistreated by anyone, and, although I was a turbulent young man at the time, he was not at all afraid to enforce his authority on me. On the other hand, Baba himself was utterly tolerant when insulted himself.

Q. In which order would you recommend a student to take up study of the works of Adi Sankara?

A. Being a Vaisnava, I would recommend that you study his final words first: bhaja govindam, bhaja govindam, bhaja govindam mudha mate, samprapti sannihite kale nahi nahi raksati dukrnyakarine, "O fools, just worship Govinda, worship Govinda, worship Govinda. Your rules of grammar and word jugglery will not protect you at the time of death."

Actually, I wonder if anyone even knows the meaning of "bhagavata-parampara"? According to a purport that I found in Swami B.H.Bon's translation of BRS, "bhagavata parampara" actually means a parampara of those who heard Srimad-bhagavatam in succession. I'm sure that everyone can see the inherent weakness of this proposal: if I walk into an ISKCON temple, for example, and hear the morning Bhagavatam lecture, I am an initiated Vaisnava in "bhagavata parampara" since I heard it from some guy on the vyasasana.

If needed, I'll provide that quote when I find it.

There is such a thing as siddha-pranali and Krishna das Kaviraja Goswami has described siddha-pranali in his commentary to Krishna-karnamrta. He says that both siddha-pranali and chanting the holy name are bona fide, but Kaviraja concludes by saying that of the two - the process of taking the name of Krishna is superior. One becomes pure by chanting the name without offense and the holy name itself reveals the astakala-lila (eight-fold pastimes), being nondifferent from Krishna and His lilas. (This reference available at Caitanya Research Institute, Calcutta)

Does anyone have these references from Krsna-karnamrta?

the Vrndavana anti-party was on a campaign to disrupt the faith of innocent devotees who had taken shelter of our Guru-varga.

1) "Only sastra (scripture) is an authority - no human can be so in any circumstance. Even God follows sastra to show the example. Sastra is there to make sure that the independent "self-effulgent" personalities do not appear.

Oh, this is old stuff. The author doesn't have enough fingers to count the obvious mistakes he makes. That's probably why there are more than ten of them. Granted, he compensates with attitude.

I will venture to guess that Advaitadas' guru has sisyas that are no longer active and who have had their faith 'disturbed'.

In fact I would think it would be unusually for any devotee who has taken up the service to guiding others to not have quite a mixture of sisyas, some of whom are genuine and serious and others maybe less so.

I don't have any inclination for discussions of this sort either and I agree with Jagat that it is simply bad manners to post such an article on this forum, but Advaitadas' assertion that one who has a genuine guru can NEVER have his/her faith disrupted or that one's whose faith is disrupted never had a genuine guru begged to be addressed.

This point about the reference from Saranga-rangada being available from Caitanya Research Institute in Calcutta, it tells much about the author's own study and resourcefulness of the scriptures. It is very likely that somebody in Calcutta told him that such a reference exists, and thenm instead of presenting us the original texts, he tells it's available from some fellow in Calcutta. Imagine if I told you, "The concept of parallel dIkSA-guru-praNAlI and siddha-praNAlI is specifically outlined in the Sankalpa-kalpadruma of Visvanatha," and continued, "... and the reference is available from the Royal Library of Nepal, go check it out."

If your Guru is genuine your faith can NEVER be disrupted, and if your faith can be disrupted your Guru is not genuine.

ONLY Shastra? Dunno who said that?

Indradyumna, you are like those guys who go into an Iskcon temple and tell people to follow Narayan Maharaj. Go and learn some manners.

I thought we had warned you about cutting and pasting articles that can only be understood as provocations.

Most of the people here have gone through discussions of this nature ad nauseum and are frankly not at all interested. If you have friendly inquiries, fine. If you just come here to moon us, you will be banned.

Jagat

You know, the title of this section: PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY -> About The Principles Of Sri-bhagavata-siksa-parampara - then what is your problem? Do you have adequate reaction when other have different point of view then your life-long experience. Nothing personal.

One modern adherent (known as Kalki) of raganuga process from Russia stated recently that 'lobha' - or desire - is enouth to follow the path of raganuga spontaneously, just now. It seems to be that he had borrowed his understanding from this site. And he strongly criticize (as Madhava do) the principles installed by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati.

One modern adherent (known as Kalki) of raganuga process from Russia stated recently that 'lobha' - or desire - is enouth to follow the path of raganuga spontaneously, just now. It seems to be that he had borrowed his understanding from this site. And he strongly criticize (as Madhava do) the principles installed by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati.

My point to them is:

Audarya lila das: "It also suggests that the measure of the genuineness of a sat guru is whether or not he/she has anyone who they accepted as a sisya who has become 'disturbed' in their faith. That is why I 'guessed' that your own guide most likely would not pass your lithmus test because the assertion is so obviously flawed."

I wonder how Tripurari Swami and Narasingha Maharaja get along nowadays?
Narasingha Maharaja seems to be very ANTI-siddha pranali and anti-Babaji camp, while Tripurari Swami seems to be a little more inclined to rub elbows with some of the siddha-pranali types and even imbibe some of their mood.

These two used to be quite friendly.

I wonder where they stand today?

I believe it is also possible to lose one's faith in the guru, and one's faith overall, due to aparadha. That would not qualify as a fault on the part of the guru, I hope. Otherwise, we would have to consider quite a few gurus unfit. I beliefe the example of the three reject sons of Advaita Acarya fits the case. Other examples, such as Rupa Kaviraja and Srinivasa / Hemalata, are also well-known.

I remember that case, too.

I think I should start referring to the Royal Library of Nepal more often... Swami seems to have gotten away with the strategy relatively well.

Any intelligent person should be able to see that his articles are shallow.

We have never met. But, I figured that since you were willing to discuss the most esoteric aspects of the Goswami granthas with strangers that you wouldn't have a problem with a little light humor.
I guess I was wrong. Your standards will take some adjustments.

Please forgive me for taking the liberty to jest with you.

I am not sure that he is getting away with it.  Bhaktarupa clearly exposed many of Swami's mistakes, and more could be added.  Any intelligent person should be able to see that his articles are shallow.

The meaning of both the above texts is identical - "When one has got even a slight feeling for the sweet moods of Krsna and His devotees through hearing their descriptions in texts describing the ultimate spiritual goal, such as the Bhagavata, [the raganuga sadhaka] no longer waits for the injunctions of scripture or for logical reasons to do so, but simply takes up [the raganuga devotional path]. This is the characteristic of lobha."

I think that that is the way.

I think that that is the way. Thirst you accept rules of sadhana (but not concentrated on your so called lobha) and beging to read from the 1st Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam thus purifying your heart from kama and gradually (when you are fixed in the process od sadhana) you are reaching the 10th Canto.

Please, if you wish to make serious points, you should directly refer to the writings of the Gosvamis.

Is there in the "Statement of Purpose & Board Rules" sayd that we should neglect the opinion of contemporary Vaishnavas and go directly to Srila Rupa Goswami?!

I am not inclined to take you seriously, Indradyumna, because you ignore the quotations from the Gosvamis I gave you. I will just spend this one minute telling you that in 22 years of raga practise I have never met anyone who did not read the first 9 cantos of the Bhagavat before reading the 10th one. Also I wish to remind you that that same A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami you are so enthusiastically quoting, published the 10th Canto (Krishna book) first, before the 2-9th cantos and had millions of them distributed all over the streets, shopping malls and airports in the whole world. I personally distributed 1000s of them as well.

Sri Chaitanya chose Rupa Goswami as the most fit person to distribute the raga-marga. He explains raganuga-sadhana-bhakti in his Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, which Srila Prabhupada gave us in a summary study, the Nectar of Devotion. The two divisions of sadhana-bhakti, vaidhi and raganuga, are the means by which one attains love of Godhead. Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains in his Sri Chaitanya-Siksamrta that vidhi, regulation that forms the basis of vaidhi-bhakti, is not contrary to raga (spontaneity). Pure vidhi is helpful to raga, and pure raga is a result of vidhi that is in harmony with the will of God. Vidhi helps us cure diseased raga (spontaneous attachment to that which is not Godly), and when raga is healthy (centered on Godhead), vidhi retreats. Vidhi and raga are in one sense separate while simultaneously inseparable, in that they are complimentary components of the same substance-sadhana-bhakti. The relationship between vidhi and raga in sadhana is like the relationship between medicine and the body. When the body is sick, it needs medicine. When the body is healthy, medicine is needed only for preventive care. In the development of spontaneous love, vidhi is compulsory. In raga-maga there may be some relaxing of vidhi-and this was characteristic of Srila Prabhupada's movement. Saranagati and asta-kaliya-lila, full surrender and 24-hour engagement in the service of Radha-Krsna, were the sum and substance of all that Srila Prabhupada spoke of and every action he performed.

Give me one quote from the Gosvamis that one must be free from kama before reading 10th canto or commencing raganuga bhakti, please.
Furthermore I would recommend you to patiently read our archives and the books of Visvanath Cakravartipada, particularly his Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu tika and Raga Vartma Candrika and Madhurya Kadambini. Enough said.

The meaning of both the above texts is identical - "When one has got even a slight feeling for the sweet moods of Krsna and His devotees through hearing their descriptions in texts describing the ultimate spiritual goal, such as the Bhagavata, [the raganuga sadhaka] no longer waits for the injunctions of scripture or for logical reasons to do so, but simply takes up [the raganuga devotional path]. This is the characteristic of lobha."

Go directly? There should be no difference between contemporary Vaishnavas and Rupa Gosvami, that is the trick. This is called rupanuga.

Is there in the "Statement of Purpose & Board Rules" sayd that we should neglect the opinion of contemporary Vaishnavas and go directly to Srila Rupa Goswami?!

1. Philosophical and theological matters shall be ultimately resolved by referring to the foundational writings of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. The Visitor shall not insist in public that the view he presents is appropriate unless he presents reasonable evidence to back it up.

1. Philosophical and theological matters shall be ultimately resolved by referring to the foundational writings of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. The Visitor shall not insist in public that the view he presents is appropriate unless he presents reasonable evidence to back it up.

Therefore, we are persistent that instead of citing secondary (or fourth-ary) sources, you present us with the primary source texts from which the conclusions may be drawn. If you fail in that, but nevertheless post all sorts of statements cited from here and there, then what's the point?

Suppose that real Bhaktivinod/Siddhanta diehards consider their books foundational? Foundation of the Bhaktivinod Sampradaya? 

So, that is your Idea, that you can abandon (reject) anyone opinion if there is nothing from Goswamis.

May be better go and meditate on your siddha-deha? (at least)

One does not exclude the other. One can both preach and meditate.

Suppose, any problem?

May be you don't understand?

So, that is your Idea, that you can abandon (reject) anyone opinion if there is nothing from Goswamis. May be you are expert in the mood of Gosvamis? Then why are you accepting instructions from anyone else except Goswamis? Why there is forum? May be better go and meditate on your siddha-deha? (at least)

Can you explain what is slight feeling in your quote and how that feeling depends on purity (anartha-nivritti)?

Advaitadas -

I wasn't in any way suggesting that your guru is not qualified.  I don't know him and would not make such a foolish assertion given my lack of aquaintence with him.  My points are very simple and don't require a great deal of intelligence to grasp.

Your statement, "If your Guru is genuine your faith can NEVER be disrupted, and if your faith can be disrupted your Guru is not genuine" is wrong on both counts.  You have already agreed to that, so enough said.  Why do you feel it is something personal with me?  I have great faith in my guru and am happily situated in service under his care and guidance.  Since your statement above is false, why would I be affected by it one way or the other? 

My only point in 'guessing' about your guru and applying your theory to him is that I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that any genuine guru who is merciful and accepting quite a number of sisyas has not had some of them slip away due to deficiencies in their own practice - aparadhas as Madhava has pointed out.  No phd required to figure out my meaning on that account.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

May be you don't understand?

I prefer to follow nitya siddhas like Rupa and Jiva Gosvami. They were ordered and empowered by Mahaprabhu Himself. Any objection? It seems rock safe to me.

And can I humbly ask you: does it help you to rech anartha-nirvritti? (or overcome)?

How can I explain a feeling? It is simply like that, the Gosvamis say so and it is like that. How can I explain to you how a cool breeze feels. anartha nivritti? Please READ MY POSTS OK?  I quoted Visvanatha Cakravartipad's raga vartma candrika, saying that raganuga bhakti starts from the shelter of the Guru and before anartha nivrtti!

Did Rupa Goswami manufacture something new that was not found in sruti, smriti, purana and pancharatra? How does Rupa Goswami derive the authority to manufacture dharma. Doesn't Lord Krishna say dharman tu sakshat bhagavat pranitam? Therefore, did Rupa Goswami give Gaudiya Vaishnavism or did Krishna give Gaudiya Vaishnavism?

So, you are called Rupanugas, but is being rupanuga the sanatan-dharma? Or, does being rupanuga mean following sruti, smrit etc - the dharma given by the Supreme Personality of Godhead?

Did Rupa Goswami over-ride the sruti, smrti etc., or did he show how sruti, smriti etc. support the Vraja-bhakti?

Being rupanuga means following sruti, smriti purana etc. - especially Bhagavat Purana. Whatever Rupa Goswami gave must be supported by sruti, smrti etc.

Making rupanuga into a cult in and of itself, without referring to sruti, smriti, purana was never the intention of Rupa Goswami.

So, now has the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya been replaced by "rupanuga"? Is rupanuga independent of the sampradaya? Has the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya changed it's name and been reduced down to the rupanuga cult?

It appears that the rupanugas are now attempting to over-ride the traditional sampradaya and claim exclusive rights.

It appears that the rupanugas are now attempting to over-ride the traditional sampradaya and claim exclusive rights.

should one meditate on Krishna-lila and his siddha-deha in it before he is on the stage of anartha-nivritti?

PS picture  - means you are not on stage of anartha nivritti or what? (anger)

May I ask; who first manufactured the term "rupanuga". Where in sruti, smriti, pancharatra or purana is the term "rupanuga" given?

Which follower of Rupa Goswami manufactured the term "rupanuga".

I never said I was, though it could always be divine anger, like the one of Shiva or Advaita Prabhu !

One can do that but it will be no more than an image. The real thing will come at the stage of bhava, as you will read in Visvanath Cakravarti's Madhurya Kadambini.

May I ask; who first manufactured the term "rupanuga". Where in sruti, smriti, pancharatra or purana is the term "rupanuga" given?

Which follower of Rupa Goswami manufactured the term "rupanuga".

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's theory 'first maranam (death of the ego) and then smaranam (remembering Krsna's pastimes)" (Prabhupader Patravali, Chapter 2) contradicts the teachings of the Gosvamis.

bahya antara ihara dui to sadhana;
bahya — sadhaka dehe kore sravana kirtana
mane — nija siddha deha koriya bhavana;
ratri dine kore vraje krsnera sevana

"There are two kinds of devotion in practise — external and internal. In the external practitioner's body devotional practices of hearing and chanting Krsna's glories are performed, and internally, in the mentally conceived spiritual body, one renders mental service to Krsna in Vraja day and night."
Caitanya Caritamrita Madhya 22

That's a hodgepodge smattering of statements that are neither substantiated or verified. Something along the lines of a smokescreen.

You must show the total context, the level of candidate and the reference in specific.

Throwing together a collections of references out of context, out of sequence and out of place does not a valid argument make.

Please, stop taking everyone to be ignorant baffoons that you can bluff with a patchwork philosophy derived by taking so many references out of context and out of place to support arguments that oppose the conclusions of the Goswamis.

The context of this is sadhana bhakti. It is a Bengali translation of the verse seva sadhaka rupena siddha rupena catra hi from Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu 1.2.295, the whole chapter deals with sadhana bhakti.

Then I have one more humble question: If there is no real (fruiting) meditation on sidha-deha until the stage of bhava - then why Madhava and may be you are critisizing the Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's representation of raganuga bhakti (he was very strict to so-called rupanugas who was meditating to siddha-deha before attaining the stage at least of anartha-nivritti and so on)?

Is sadhana-bhakti a whimsical lifestyle? Is sadhana-bhakti something that one squeezes in between acts of sense gratifaction?

Can any neophyte that occasionally practices some devotional acts qualify as a sadhaka?

We Sahajiyas are a pig-headed bunch. We just won't listen to anyone who tells us not to hear, discuss and try to understand Radha and Krishna. As a matter of fact, the more people tells us we are unqualified, the more pigheaded we become. You see, the fact is WE KNOW WE ARE NOT QUALIFIED and we go ahead anyway.

After all, as Bhaktivedanta Swami said, if you are going hunting, why not hunt rhinoceros? So if service to Radha's lotus feet is the highest possible goal, then we have decided (like the arrogant scum we are) that we will accept nothing less. And since the way to attain this perfection is just to desire it, we follow Narottam Das's instruction -- sAdhane bhAvibe jAhA siddha dehe pAbe tAhA.

Madhava, do we have a link to that chapter 10?

I think that you should specify here: what smarana do you mean - it may be the remembrance of Krishna nam (that is also smaranam) and it may be remembrance (meditating) on one's siddha-deha in Krishna lila (smaranam tu suddhantahkaranatam apeksate). You have to elaborate and then claim that Bhaktisiddhanta is right or wrong.

About what type of smarana was Srila Bhaktisiddhanata so cautious in the case of begginers on the way raganuga?

dhyeya matra sphuranam samadhir iti (Bhakti Sandarbhah—Paragraph 278) "The aforementioned item of recollection knows five stages. A slight seeking of Sri Hari's names and forms is called smarana, withdrawing the heart from all the sense objects and holding Sri Hari's forms, attributes etc. within it, is called dharana (holding), specific meditations on the Lord's form and so is called dhyana, uninterrupted recollection, which flows like a stream of nectar, is called dhruvanusmrti and pure contemplation in meditation is called samadhi. As a result of susevana (nice practice) of the item of recollection the practitioner will gradually be blessed with bhava samadhi (pure loving contemplation).

As members of the Caitanya Sarasvata-parampara, we are all followers of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. As such, we cannot neglect his teachings and we must view the teachings of the previous acaryas in light of his teachings and example.

Does something make you think that the Vaishnavas here do not venerate the raga path, which they have chosen? Does venerating it mean avoiding it?

Did you read article I gave the link for? I would like to hear some comments.

Manjari Svarupa Nirupana, chapter 10

10.1 Varieties of moods, varieties of ecstasies

The gopis constantly relish the nectar of Krishna’s form, his qualities, his taste, his fragrance, sound and touch; coming to beg from them the remnants of their feast are my mind, the mendicant, with the senses, his five ragged disciples, in the hope that they will be able to maintain their lives.

Tasting this sacred rapture himself, the Lord taught it to all the devotees. The Lord was rich with the jewels of prema; never discriminating as to the place or recipient, he gave them freely to whomever he met. He was the greatest of all philanthropists.

. Who are 'we' ? Certainly not me, nor the majority of participants on this forum.
2. Why we cannot neglect or even reject his teachings if they contradict the teachings of the foundational acaryas, which they do so often? This has been amply shown on this forum and in the old raganuga forum as well. Do we need to repeat these proven points over and over again?

Ok. But I'm mostly begginer on the path of raganuga, that is why I can't write like an expert poet otherwise it'll be imitation.

But one must be qualified first, as stated clearly by Srila Sarasvati Thakura, by "fifteen or twenty years of (purely) chanting the Holy Name" — and his disciples were required to chant 64 rounds every day.

The followers of the rasika camp claim that the only qualification necessary is lobha (greed). This is true, but it must be actual lobha, which is not a cheap thing. One must be cautious to not mistake mere enthusiasm to hear the confidential lilas as actual lobha. Immitation of lobha does not mean that one actually has lobha. Srila B.P. Puri Goswami has commented thus:
"The awakening of greed (lobha) which qualifies one for raganuga bhakti is not to be taken cheaply, as if easy to attain." (Art of Sadhana. Chapter 14.)

It is clear from this statement of Sarasvati Thakura that one should hear high topics; indeed, one must hear such topics. But one must be qualified first, as stated clearly by Srila Sarasvati Thakura, by "fifteen or twenty years of (purely) chanting the Holy Name" — and his disciples were required to chant 64 rounds every day. Furthermore, Srila Sarasvati Thakura explains, "The beginners need not hear these topics or they will misunderstand." How can this be interpreted in any other way?

Devotees should know such a transcendental ideal exists within the realm of devotion and as emphasized by Sarasvati Thakura, anartha-nivrtti is essential to enter that plane.

The followers of the rasika camp claim that the only qualification necessary is lobha (greed). This is true, but it must be actual lobha, which is not a cheap thing. One must be cautious to not mistake mere enthusiasm to hear the confidential lilas as actual lobha. Immitation of lobha does not mean that one actually has lobha. Srila B.P. Puri Goswami has commented thus:

"The awakening of greed (lobha) which qualifies one for raganuga bhakti is not to be taken cheaply, as if easy to attain." (Art of Sadhana. Chapter 14.)

These pastimes exist symbolically in Vraja and only as impressions in Goloka. Actually they are not found there, and cannot exist there.

Devotees should know such a transcendental ideal exists within the realm of devotion and as emphasized by Sarasvati Thakura, anartha-nivrtti is essential to enter that plane.

On the other hand the Lord didn't speak the most confidential pastimes to everyone. We know how strict He was that He was leading the kirtana with His intimate followers behind the closed door.

But one must be qualified first, as stated clearly by Srila Sarasvati Thakura, by "fifteen or twenty years of (purely) chanting the Holy Name" — and his disciples were required to chant 64 rounds every day.

we just don't agree with the stage of advancement when the internal practice of smaranam is appropriate.

I should be enough for you to try to understand that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta followed strictly the teaching of Bhaktivinoda Thakur who taught that medation in the perfected spiritual body becomes possible at the stage of asakti (which by the way is still in the stage of sadhana - albeit an advanced stage)

If you haven't reached puberty, you can't have a baby, no matter how hard you try. So there is no point in trying.

If you haven't reached puberty, you can't have a baby, no matter how hard you try. So there is no point in trying.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had his view on the way of doing bhajan as a sadhaka.
but thats not the universal view for all time.

i came to appreciate his warning like not " to rush in as a fool where angels dont dare to".

but that doesnt necessarily mean that i should only enter the raga-path when all anarthas are gone. thats a long way to go.

Quite likely he learned this text from Jagadananda or Gadadhara Prana.

What disturbs me most, with all of these GM fellas that come barging in here with their aggressive canvassing ...

Jagat, I noticed that the GGM edition bundles together anucchedas, like [312-314]. What's the logic in that?

In me 'umble opinion Sarasvati Thakura did what He did because he felt that many were giving up hearing philosophy in favor of meditating on lila prematurely, kind of like trying to run before learning how to walk.

So He had a good reason, He wasn't trying to be mister party pooper but it
was HIS experience that HE FELT many who were following raganuga sadhana
were not qualified to really understand the lila they were meditating on due to
having given up or severely lessened their hearing from philosophy.

As I have noticed as well, for instance their was a devotee at another forum
who was continually posting and discussing only stuff from descriptions
of lila, the various intracacies of the daily lives of the gopis was his
obsession, yet whenever he got involved in discussions on philosophical basic
understanding of tattva the resulting ignorance he displayed was stunning,

dhyana (meditation) requires a pure heart, whereas kirtanam (chanting) does not

They end up wasting their time and energy on something they take to be real raganuga sadhana but in reality due to a lack of a strong philosophical understanding it is only a shadow of the real thing.

The point is that of education in siddhanta and realization of that siddhanta, that is necessary for proper raganuga sadhana otherwise what is the point ?

For example if someone had no real education from Gita, Bhagavatam,etc. Then spent all of his sadhana time meditating on Krsna lila what effect would that have ?

The higher reality is not attainable by any amount of meditation,
as Bhaktivinoda says "it is only through the mercy of the devotees
and not otherwise" and of course the will of God.

I'd say, and please don't mind me saying, that most of our regular contributors would probably score well above the average if we had a quiz on siddhanta amidst people from various GM-branches

For example if someone had no real education from Gita,Bhagavatam,etc. Then spent all of his sadhana time meditating on Krsna lila what effect would that have ?

Well you can take the Gita and Bhagavatam and the rest of the sastra and study them, or you can basically do little to none of that and focus exclusively on Krsna lila, Which will bring you closer to Krsna ?

My point was that Bhaktisiddhanta had a reason for doing what He did, The people who want to practice some form of smaranam etc calling it raganuga sadhana can do that, He wanted to do something different.

Mahaprabhu instructed Sanatan Goswami that internally contemplating on ones siddha deha while serving Sri Krsna throughout His eternal pastimes and externally performing hearing, chanting and other items of bhajan is called 'raganuga bhakti'. The ordinary 'people' didn't make it up.

Krishna is Durga. Durga is Krishna. One who sees that they are different will not become liberated from the cycle of repeated birth and death.
She is identical with Gokula's queen Sri Radha, who possesses a great treasure of love for Krishna. By her grace the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all living entities, is easily understood.

The other way you can see it is in a more esoteric light, Instead of it being a form of mental visualization with the above process if we have sufficient realization and knowledge we will see this so called material world in a different way, we will see Krsna's pastimes "mentally" in the sense that our view of this world as either material or spiritual is based on our own mental view point, and likewise our ability to see Krsna's pastimes in the  here and now is also dependent on our mental view point.

Krsna is everywhere we only need that revealed to us, first we need education and realization, as Jiva Goswami pointed out quite emphatically.

I'm not saying they did, but there is a big difference between seeing the words written down describing lila and trying to mentally concieve of that compared to the real meaning for those who have knowledge and realization.

For example; what is this process you call raganuga sadhana ? In my opinion you can see it in two ways, the first is to accept at face value the words of the lila and try to imagine that reality utilizing as you described the bhajan,hearing chanting etc.

Due to your lack of experience you are unaware that there is a handed down process and practice of visualizing the pastimes of the Lord as a means of sadhana in order to attain the fruit of realizing those same lilas.

...have not written the lila granthas with the purpose of one speculating into how it can one day have some meaning in ones sojourn of spiritual evolution. These books are actually handbooks of meditation guides. Unless you have a Guru who can introduce to you this path of bhakti, this will always remain a mystery as it was for me till I met and served a Vaisnava saint who practices raganuga bhakti.

Before I met my Guru and read the Goswami granthas (translated by Adwaitaji) raganuga bhakti was a huge mystery. I didn't have a clue to what it was. Why? Because I did not have darshan with raganuga saints, not read any literature connected with it. I read BBT Caitanya Caritamrta a couple of times, but the raganuga teachings of Mahaprabhu did not shine through within my heart.

I know why it is difficult for you to accept a straight classical traditional approach to the raganuga teachings. Most of it I explained above.

I can assure I am well aware of the tradition, how can you judge what I have experienced ?

And have you come to the conclusion of meeting Krsna ?

Anyone who says different don't know Jack, or Krsna.

"Hey the book says it's time for you to go

So this was Bhaktisiddhanta's reason, He had the same exact experience of people not qualified to enter into raganuga exclusively doing so and neglecting their education, So He wasn't trying to do anything but create a more efficient sanga where study of philosophy was valued above all else, once educated then and only then would raganuga sadhana have any real value. This is His vision and what he tried to establish for his disciples.