New Book On Parampara - Let's have a look

First, may I say that the seemingly diplomatic approach of giving the Sarasvati followers their own forum has not freed us from their irrational attacks sometimes posing as 'humble sharing' or whatever?

Rather it has enabled them to hide behind the moderation rules and establish a double standard, where they visit here and post their propaganda without fear of censure, because a suitably strong response appears aggressive.


As a first step towards rectifying this imbalance, I propose to look at a very curious post on Chakra.org, signed Giri Sharan Das advertising a new book available from the website of none other than our regular visitor, Muralidhar Das.

Here's a link to that page:

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/BMMar10_04.html

Here's a curious quote which ought to interest all here:

"The concept of Bhagavati Parampara, or Siksa-Guru-Parampara, as taught by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, is explained. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura's vision of Guru Parampara is contrasted with the ideas of Parampara current amongst some of the sahajiya traditions of India.

The mistaken beliefs of opponents of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, such as the followers of the siddha-pranali tradition which originates from Jayakrishna das Babaji of Vrindaban in the eighteenth century, are discussed."

Sahajiyas eh? Of course Muralidhar would never accuse us here of such a thing would he? In fact he knows it's quite wrong. A malicious lie.

So, first, I'm sure Sri Muralidhar Das, disciple of Srila BR Sridhar Maharaj, will be glad to assure us, representing the honour and reputation of his late Gurumaharaj, that he did not write this vicious slander himself.

Perhaps he can invite his friend Giri Sharan Das to visit here and confirm this? That would be a nice touch.

Then perhaps we can move on to discussing the new book's contents.

Oh, this one? I already pointed this out to Muralidhar, the text contains practially no references at all to the sources of the bits of information gathered. Hence, it is but a big story, which anyone may believe or disbelieve in at will.

I haven't seen this book. Does anyone have any comments on it? Madhava, you actually know the author, don't you? Perhaps you can invite him on these forums.

The latest fun - the Ignorant Blasphemers Roadshow is back again. JayKrishna das Baba the inventor of siddha pranali, huh? That is just 200 years ago. If our clown-like friend had Siddha Pranali himself he would see that they are going back all the way to the beginning. Nuff said. Let me guess what his sources are? Ah must be Professor Lion Heart!

Muralidhar is registered here as Perumal.

Sorry, I thought this was about the book by Finn Madsen.

http://www.sasnet.lu.se/madsdiss.html

No, we are rather talking about a traditional rah-rah.

Finn is a good friend of mine. I attended his dissertation defense, and he also gave me a copy of the dissertation. Unfortunately it is in Danish, so it is not really accessible to most devotees. (My copy is packed away in my boxes of books in Copenhagen, so I do not have it handy.) He did talk about turning it into a book, possibly in English, but I am not sure what came of that.

If you like, I can invite him to join this board.

Sincerely,
Elpis

Finn's defense attracted a large number of people. The room was completely full and many had to stand up. Many members of the local ISKCON was present.

After the defense they asked if there was any questions from the audience. Starting at a pretty low level of questions, one of the senior Danish devotees asked, "How come you refer to Srila Prabhupada as A. C. Bhaktivedanta and not as Srila Prabhupada?" Finn, who is a humorous and friendly person, replied, "Well, that is what I would say if I met him, 'Hello A. C. Bhaktivedanta, nice to meet you.'"

Sincerely,
Elpis

I'd say his dissertation* was defeated right there!


* "Today ISKCONs devotees are trying to create ways by which ordinary people can develop relations to ISKCON"

How embarrassing! I mean, it must have been a little embarrassing for him, too, since the abstract seems to indicate a sympathetic examination of the changes they hope to make. Did the questions get any better? (I don't expect that the questions from ISKCON members present did, but I'd hope for more substantive questions from someone!)

No.

In your GVA we read


This concept of raganuga bhajan taught by Jayakrsna is wrong.

Srila Rupa Goswami states in Bhaktirasamrtasindhu 1.2.291:


In his commentary, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Prabhu points out that in this verse Sri Rupa Gosvami has defined raganuga bhakti. Sri Rupa Goswami states that those individuals who in their intrinsic nature feel an intense longing and firm attachment for service following in the wake of the feelings and sentiments of the residents of Vrindaban, with no thought or attraction for the majesties of the Godhead, are alone eligible for following in the way of raganuga bhakti. The person eligible for raganuga bhakti may spontaneously follow Sri Radha and other Gopis in madhura rati, Nanda-Yasoda and others in vatsalya rati, Sridama-Sudama and others in sakhya rati, or Citraka-Patraka and others in dasya rati.

Raganuga bhakti awakens spontaneously in the heart of a devotee aspiring for service in the mood of the residents of Vrindaban. Srila Rupa Goswami's instruction is clear: the desire to engage in raganuga bhakti arises spontaneously from within. It not something learned. A disciple will learn how to engage in the sadhana (practices) of raganuga bhakti from a Guru, but the raga (love) comes from within the heart of the disciple. A truly qualified Guru can detect the devotional tendency within a disciple and provide appropriate guidance so the disciple engages in the proper practice of raganuga bhakti.

So, 250 years.. that is all.

What proof do you have of anything earlier than that? Even the young babaji from Bengal had not ever heard of this concept of guru-pranali from his Guru in Bengal.

Did Sarupa (Gopakumar) in Brhadbhagavatmrtam learn about his Guru-pranali from his Guru? No. Was Gopakumar practicing vaidhi bhakti or raga-bhakti? Raga bhakti. Did he attain his aspired for goal? Yes. If he came to visit Jayakrishna das babaji, would he have been turned away since he didn't know about his guru-pranali? Yes (but that would be no loss). Were the sages who saw Rama in Dandakaranya initiated into a sampradaya where they were informed about the ekadasa bhava? No. Did some of them become gopis in the next life simply because they developed spontaneous attraction when they saw Rama? Yes. They became gopis, and they had never learned about any siddha-pranali from anyone..

Dear Perumal. Learn Bengali. Then you can study the Gaudiya Vaisnava Abhidhana As It Is.



The GVA is not written by me but by Haridas Das, and Jaykrishnadas Baba is not mentioned in it because the hagiography section deals only with ancient Vaishnavas, whereas Jaykrishna das Baba is a more recent Vaishnava. So the story you quote is coming from elsewhere. Whoever wrote this Iskcon-version of GVA is putting words into Haridas Das' mouth or is just writing another book with the same name.



This is a blatant lie by whoever wrote this book that you are quoting.
He has probably read something in an English book by OBL Kapoor, and in his ignorance has supposed that Siddha Pranali is an invention by JKDB.



If you had had any contact with properly initiated devotees you would know that their siddha pranalis are all descending right from the roots of their lines, whether it be Nityananda or Advaita or whoever.



There is no real initiation into raganuga bhajan. Like you said, it is a spontaneous desire that arises in the heart of a lucky candidate.
I also find the story appalling and heart breaking, and it is not a standard that I have experience with. The mistake that you and your ignorant faith-fellows have is that there is only one siddha pranali club and they are all the same (hence your assumption that I am the author of GVA. I feel flattered). There is a wide range of Vaishnavas out there, and there are differing opinions about SP amongst raganuga Vaishnavas. Some are more liberal, some more conservative, some more ritualistic (like JKDB) and some more spontaneous. Your post was based largely on wrong information and prejudices.

That sounds awfully Kapoor'ish, the entire story. Elsewhere, he suggests that Siddha Krishnadas Baba of Govardhan is the origin of this "method". Suffice it to say, despite the good narratives, that sometimes his facts are a bit amiss.

Indeed, no entry for Jayakrishna Das Baba in GVA. What about GVJ?

Of course it is in the GVJ. The hagiography, that is, not the false notion that siddha pranali originates from Jaikrishna Das. I just wanted to point out to Perumal/Murali how ill-informed he is, and yet he goes out and writes books, like our Lion King and that Enemy of Three Cities.......

Even now billions of people on this planet don't know about Gaudiya Vaishnavism, yet it is 500 years old.

It seems clear to me that Jayakrishna was already adhering to an existing standard, because he says he cannot infringe on something that is in the diksha guru's jurisdiction. There is absolutely no tradition that credits him with creating this practice. Siddha Krishna Das Baba is clearly credited with the Gutika tradition of smarana, which is an innovation, so I don't see why the Gaudiya legends would not have clearly ascribed the siddha-pranali innovation to Jayakrishna, had he been its origin. In fact, I don't know of any legend ascribing its origin to any single individual, but we do have a written record of the ekadasa bhava given in Dhyana-chandra's paddhati, and possibly in Gopal Guru's paddhati (which I don't have). So why should we look elsewhere?

But there is a certain amount of argument in bad faith here, if you don't mind me saying, Murali Prabhu.

If we accept the guru-parampara, then clearly Bhaktivinoda Thakur accepted the siddha pranali system as he received it from his guru. We have no evidence of the contrary, but rather have a living tradition whereby he passed this practice on to his own son and initiated disciple, Lalita Prasad Thakur. So whatever inherent dangers he may have seen in the practice, he never rejected it.

In the Thakur's writings, it is clear that he attributes the beginning of the ekadasa-bhava tradition to Gopal Guru Goswami, who credits it to Svarupa Damodar Goswami. This may or may not be historically accurate, but that is the verdict of Bhaktivinoda Thakur, whom you accept as your infallible guru-varga.

So trying to confuse the historical record by crediting Jayakrishna Das with this innovation is confusing the issue and is in fact discrediting Bhaktivinoda Thakur himself.

When this particular question was raised, I could not help but chuckle (I was sitting on the back row as I had come late, so that did not cause any disturbance ). It is a bit sad, though. One would have expected more from a group of devotees who were actually part of the process that was under debate. Anyway, the discussion did reach a higher level as plenty of the students present had questions. I am actually surprised how many students Finn was able to attract. The defense was held in a small lecture hall and it was completely full.

I am not sure how Finn felt about the question, but he took it in good spirit. And yes, Finn is very sympathetic to ISKCON. More than being simply an academic piece of work, his dissertation also sought to reach out to ISKCON and give them food for thought on how to go about reforming their social structure.

Sincerely,
Elpis

An act of bad faith? Perhaps. But Madhava was aware of the contents of this booklet in November of last year, when I published it. He saw it then. I have never hidden the fact of what I think about the topics in question, and I was hardly hiding behind a disguise of being "Perumal" since Madhava and others knew Perumal was Murlidhar das in November of last year.

Jagat, in an article you wrote, you said:

Jagat, you have given this definition of "raganuga worship" in your article about Jayakrishnadas babaji. And as Advaita has pointed out, this concept of what raganuga bhakti is is wrong.

What I have argued is that this type of tradition became formalized by JayaKrishnaDas Babaji, who was very influential in his era, but this tradition was not in practice in the time of Mahaprabhu. Show me any reference for ekadasa-bhava in the writings of anyone other than Dhyanachandra Goswami, please. There were so many books written, but where are your references... Did Yadunandana Acharya teach it to Raghunath Das Goswami? Did Sanatan Goswami mention it in Brhadbhagavatamrtam?

I have written:


In his commentry to Bhaktirasamrtasindhu 1.2.291, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Prabhu says that in this verse Srila Rupa Goswami has given a definition of raganuga bhakti.

This is his definition of raganuga bhakti. Spontaneous attraction is required, only.

No mention of ekadasa bhava here. None anywhere, in any of the books of the Goswamis, is there? It was an innovation, which probably arose from people familiar with the writings of Dhyanachandra Thakur. An innovation which became an orthodoxy in the time of JayaKrishnaDas Babaji. I feel there is no evidence anywhere that this method of bhajan, this ekadasa bhava, was practiced universally in the period Mahaprabhu and the Goswamis. Indeed Jagat, I seem to remember reading an article somewhere, written by you, in which you stated that devotees in the Gaudiya Math have previously stated that this ekadasa bhava was a later innovation.

I wrote this statement addressed to Advaitadas below on another thread, a few days ago. It sums up what I see wrong with this whole siddhapranali & ekadasa bhava idea.



Moreover, as I stated on the previous page, some sages at Dandakaranya who saw Rama were born as Gopis in their next life, and none of them engaged in the type of meditation taught by Jayakrishnadas babaji. And the idea that when someone attains perfection they will take on a spiritual body different from their self, which is taught by some of your "traditionalist" Gurus, is plainly contrary to Vyasa's statements in Vedanta Sutra 4.4.1 etc.. http://www.mandala.com.au/books/Vs-4-4-1.doc

Jagat, I appreciate the statements you made on another page in regard to myself and Kshamabuddhi. But finally, why have I engaged in any discussions with devotees on this forum in the first place? Well, that is a question I am wondering myself. From a slight involvement, comes a deeper involvement. But better if there is no involvement, perhaps. Advaitadas and Adiyen want me to go, it is clear. I guess I can make them happy.

This makes no sense.

My point is simple, if guru-pranali or siddha-pranali was universally practiced by the "traditions", then how come this young babaji who was initiated in the tradition (and who was obviously a serious seeker) had never heard of siddha-pranali?

Simple answer, siddha-pranali was not followed by all the schools of the "tradition". The idea that it was universally followed is a concoction.

What about this one, Murali?



The scriptural evidence reaches back to the 16th century (Gopalguru) and that does not mean that Gopalguru invented it, he simply recorded something that may have already been in practise before. And who speaks about universal practise? It goes to show that you are writing books about people you have never even met. This is prejudice. Siddha pranali is not a universal practise amongst Gaudiyas even now and I know many Vaishnavas in India who have no idea what it is. It is an esoteric practise and not, as many ignorant preachers say here in the west, something which is given willy nilly to every fly and every bird that comes flying by.



Oh but it is. How can you know otherwise? You never associated with any traditional Vaishnava anyway. It is practised in all branches [parivaras] but not by everyone. By a lucky few only.

The definition given reads as follows: "Serving Radha and Krishna in the siddha manjari body given by the mercy of the perfected guru under his guidance, is called raganuga worship."

Now, what is so wrong about that?

In raganuga-worship, there is no serving of Radha and Krishna?
In raganuga-worship, there is no service in a siddha-manjari-form?
In raganuga-worship, one does not serve under the guidance of a perfected guru?
In raganuga-worship, the siddha-form is not attained by the mercy of a perfected guru?

I also do not recall Advaitadas objecting to that definition. All he objected to was the odd claim that Jayakrishna Das Baba was the inventor of it.



Who cares how many bhavas there are, eleven or twenty-four? The spiritual body has infinite moods and aspects. Ekadasa-bhava is but one attempt to systematize the aspects of siddha-deha, just as we read many different attempts to systematically group the ingredients of the cosmos into eight, twenty-four and so forth. For example, I have been revealed knowledge of 17 different aspects of my siddha-deha, and there are infinite more to be learned from both the guru in a manifest form and the guru within.

I take it that you do not contest the concept of serving in siddha-deha at the stage of sadhana, and the concept of manjari-seva as being our ultimate aspiration. I also take it that you do not challenge the necessity of serving under the guidance of a guru and learning the details of worship from him. Is this right?



It is not very wise to extrapolate a universal principle from such an account. It is quite possible that the boy was not of the same caliber as Gopa Kumara, don't you think?



Ekadasa-bhava is not "an innovation, which probably arose from people..." It is clearly documented right there in the writings of Dhyanacandra and Gopala Guru. Why do you wish to shift it any further? Perhaps you are not comfortable with openly questioning the authenticity of Dhyanacandra's teachings, particularly because your Bhaktivinoda was so fond of them?



I do not think anyone is propounding that the way prominent in our sampradaya is the only way ever, anywhere. It's just the way we are accustomed to doing things in our sampradaya, and it seems to work rather well.

Jagat:


Did Gopakumar get told his Guru pranali - No.

Sanatan Gosami forgot to mention this 'all important' thing, hey?

Yes, I agree that siddha-prananli may be traced back to Guru Gopal Goswami. It is in my book.

But was it universally practiced by all groups.

No!

Oh yes it was, how can you prove otherwise without documentation and experience? Unless you want to cite Bhaktisiddhanta's group as an example?
Tell me which parivara, Murali - Srinivas, Lokanath, Gadadhar, Advaita, Nityananda? Eagerly waiting for your answer.

What I really find absurd about this guru-pranali tradition as it is practiced nowadays by you people is this. Would you have me believe that in all your "bonafide traditions" all the successive generations of bona-fide Gurus were all uttama-adhikari fully realized souls. Here is what I wrote about this, earlier:



This is one point you people constantly avoid.

Madhava, on the thread "In the Lord’s abode, there are an unlimited number of forms" you could not refute the plain fact that in his Vedanta Sutra commentary Govinda Bhasya, Baladeva Vidyabhusana states that the soul does not take on a spiritual body when he attains liberation; the soul manifests its own eternal form.
http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=1319

Your Guru's teachings on this point are clearly, undeniably, different from what is given by Baladeva Vidyabhusana in Vedanta Sutra. Wriggle out of that if you can. Let me see you try.

And it is not just me who finds your ideas peculiar. On this thread http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=1319 Betel_nut wrote:

Ummmm.....


Geee.........

I think I mentioned about 50 times already, that Sanatan Goswami never mentioned any such thing as this method you prescribe, this siddha pranali, when he explained in detail how a soul practicing raga-bhakti (Sarupa) progresses from his day of initiation to his day of fulfilment.

And what is the place of this Brihadbhagavatamrtam in the Gaudiya Theology?

I am not saying that you are necessarily wrong, Murali. The Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya did not pop into existence ready-made, but evolved historically like anything else.

The Gaudiya Math accepts the idea of historical evolution and change, that new practitioners of the faith can make meaningful original contributions, so why this could not have been added to the Vaishnava practices I do not know.

Joseph O'Connell, a portion of whose book I published in the Editorials section, points out the importance of connection to the associates of Mahaprabhu that was so important in the early development of the sampradaya. This is a bit of magical thinking that might be hard for Westerners to understand, not having been born and brought up in a society where the theory of reincarnation is bred in the bone. The idea of parampara as a concrete "blood" connection to an actual resident of Nitya Vrindavan/Nabadwip was a "superstition" that was a great engine for its early spreading. Obviously, that wore out by the time Siddhanta Saraswati came onto the scene, but it still plays an important role in the Indian way of thinking, at least among traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

Siddha-pranali was a way of connecting organically to that reality. I don't think it could have existed in the first generation, because the connection was real and did not need to be artificially formalized in this way.

If I used the expression "bad faith" I only mean to say this: Bhaktivinoda Thakur accepted the tradition. So why, if you accept BVT, do you try so hard to discredit it? Don't you feel there is some inherent contradiction at work here?

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati is more "protestant" (since we seem to have started using these categories here) in that he calls for "justification through faith" rather than through external formalities like siddha pranali.

Jagat,

I really want to end this discussion. And what is more, I have no desire to offend anyone who is an innocent bystander to this endless cycle of internet quarrel between those who attack Srila Swami Prabhupada, and Srila Saraswati Thakura Prabhupada, and my Guru Maharja (Nabadwip has abused my Guru Maharaj on this forum, I have seen). By that I mean your Gurus.

In regard to siddha-pranali, my Guru-varga teaches that a realized Guru can communicate knowledge to a disciple, and say, "you are Bimala Manjari". But we will not accept the proposition that a non-realized sadhaka, a madhyama or kanishta vaishnava, can initiate someone and tell them "you are Bimala Manjari".

As such, I have no problem with the idea that Guru Gopal Goswami has given knowledge of "ekadasa bhava" and this has been disseminated through the Gaudiya community. But did Hridaya Caitanya tell Shyamananda, "you are a manjari". Did Yadunandana Acharya tell das Goswami, "you are a manjari".

Advaita seems to think that they all did. He has very strange ideas.

Raghunath das Gosvami is a nitya siddha, he didnt have to be told he was such and such manjari. Further down in the paramparas are the sadhakas and sadhana siddhas.

A while back, I invited you to a dialogue over the sat-cid-ananda issue, but as I recall, you complained of not having the time at your disposal for such an undertakement.

Earlier on in this thread, where you brought this point about Baladeva up, I asked you to start a separate thread for it.

And now you have defeated me? Oh come on.

Where?

I know I wrote this:

Huh?

7 pages on this thread, dealing with this issue, which you renamed to "In the Lord’s abode, there are an unlimited number of forms"

Betel came to her conclusion, you said your say, I said mine, and the thread died.

Baladeva's statements are clear in Vedanta sutra. Have I said I defeated you? I never tried. But certainly you never gave any evidence to prove that the assertion that a liberated soul gets an external body when he goes to Goloka is right. A body which is waiting in heaven, like a coat on a coathanger, waiting for us to put it on. Never!

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=1319

Later you changed your tune, understanding it was wrong:



By the way Jaikrishnadas Babaji lived in Kamyavan, not in Vrindavan.

Yes that is written in the blurb someone wrote when a link was submitted to chakra.

That is not what I wrote in the book, which was completed 4 months ago.

Then why did you go on defending that blurb for so long?

I believe I explained that it is not an "external body". I posted many posts in that thread, to which I received no reply from you.

Anyway, if you wish, we can resurrect that thread and continue the dialogue. Perhaps you could read through that thread again and bring it up with a post where you summarize the points that have been in your opinion covered, and the points that are pending?

A few thoughts. Nowhere in the Goswami canon is Raganuga defined as seeing yourself as a manjari only, always the highest level is described as either following in the example (giving up everything) or mood (madhurya) or serving the damsels of vraja, never is it stated explicitly that one must soley concieve of oneself as a manjari to engage in raganuga. Secondly, If we have never experienced the stated result of a particular path why are we so sure of our expertise in our understanding of it and it's efficacy ? It seems a self delusion to think that our chosen mode of attainment is perfect and purely understood if we have never actaully attained what we believe to be the resulting benefit, it stands to reason that if we have not as yet attained the desired goal of meeting God then we should consider ourselves as not yet perfect in our vision and understanding.

I think our own best interest is served by the humble approach when we try to define for others what is the highest and best path to God if we have never actually come to the stage of experiencing that which we wish to convince others of as being the ultimate.

Who are we fooling ? Ourselves.

If we think we have realized the end game but have never experienced it then we will be closed to anything that is different then our conception, in this way we fool ourselves into thinking that any conception that is different then what we believe is automatically beneath our own conception, we know the ultimate therefore anything else is wrong.

Having never experienced the ultimate it makes sense that we need some change otherwise what is the holdup ? so our best interest is seeing our own conception as not necessarily foolproof and perfect, it's in our own best interest to be open to another conception then what we believe until we actually find ourselves in Krsna's association, otherwise if a higher reality comes we will be to egotistic to learn from it.

It would be helpful for you to study Brihad Bhagavatamrita by Sanatan Gosvami, or, if that is too long for you, the discussion between Ramananda Ray and Mahaprabhu in Madhya Lila chapter 8 of Caitanya Caritamrita. You will find there a whole succession of devotional stages, culminating in gopi bhava. From there you can move on to Raghunath das Gosvami's Stavavali, which will bring you the final end of the way from gopi bhava to specific manjari bhava. Radharasa Sudhanidhi is also very helpful, as is Vrindavan Mahimamrita and Utkalika Vallari.

One need not be experienced immediately - you can anyway not judge others' levels of experience - but one can have faith in the Gosvamis and trust their judgement. Narottam sang - rupa raghunatha pade hobe akuti, kobe ham bujhabo sei yugala priti "When will I be eager for the feet of Rupa and Raghunath, so that I can understand the love of Radha and Krishna."

I have read them, many many many times, you may want to to review the exact wording.

Funny thing about the Bhagavatamrtam, why in this ultimate work is both gopa kumar and his disciple both ending up as cowherd boys ? hmmmmmmm. Why write the definitive work on the ascencion of the jiva to goloka and end with the jiva becoming a gopa ? hmmmmm makes me wonder...or does it ?

Huh? Verses 92 to 157, the last verses of BB are Gopibhava all the way! And what about anarpita carim cirat karunaya avatirna kalau samparpayitum unnatojjvala rasa?

You might like to quote any one of us on that one?

Dear Murali. The answer to your question lies in Narottam Das Thakur's Prarthana Giti :

prabhu lokanatha kobe sange loya jabe; sri rupera pada-padme more samarpibe
ei nava dasi boli sri rupa cahibe; heno subha ksana mora koto dine hobe
sighra ajna koriben - dasi hetha aya! sevara susajja karya koroho tvaraya
anandita hoiya hiya tara ajna bole; pavitra monete karya koribo tatkale
sevara samagri ratna thalete koriya; suvasita vari svarna jharite puriya
donhara sammukhe lo'ye dibo sighragati; narottamera dasa kobe hoibe emati
sri rupa pascate ami rohibo bhita hoiya; donhe puna kohiben ama pane caiya
sadaya hrdaye donhe kohiben hasi; kothay paile rupa ei nava dasi?
sri rupa manjari tabe donha vakya suni; manjulali dilo more ei dasi ani!
ati namra citta ami ihara janilo; seva karya diya tabe hethaya rakhilo
heno tattva donhakara saksate kohiya; narottame sevaya dibe niyukta koriya

"When will my master Lokanatha Gosvami take me along and submit me to Sri Rupa (Gosvami or manjari)'s lotus feet? When will that blessed moment come when Sri Rupa Manjari will look at me and call me 'this new maidservant', quickly ordering me: "O dasi! Come here! Quickly get the paraphernalia of your service!'? My heart will be filled with joy when she orders me like this, and I will do my service with a pure heart. I will keep my paraphernalia for service on a jewelled plate, fill up a golden pitcher with scented water and quickly come before Radha and Krsna. When will Narottama Dasa attain that state? I will shyly stand behind Sri Rupa as Radha and Krsna look at me again, smile and ask Rupa with kind hearts: "O Rupa! Where did you get this new maidservant?' Hearing Their inquiry, Sri Rupa Manjari then tells Them: 'Manjulali Manjari (the spiritual name of Srila Lokanatha Gosvami) has given me this maidservant to bring her before You! Knowing her to be very humble I kept her there to serve You". After telling Them this directly she will engage Narottama dasa in Their service."

Note that Narottama is introduced to Rupa Manjari and then to Radha-Krishna through his Guru, Lokanatha Gosvami. You will be asked, when coming to the pearly gates, who your Guru is, and if you have none (in siddha deha) the gatekeepers will say: "No admission. Get out." Evidence? yasyaprasadan na gatih kuto'pi - "Without the Guru's grace you are not going anywhere." In Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu, Bhakti Sandarbha, Caitanya Caritamrita, and Prema Bhakti Candrika it is clearly stated that meditation on the siddha deha is a part of sadhana bhakti, so it is completely natural that this is done under the auspices of the Guru in sadhaka deha. This makes the sambandha with the Guru complete and I wouldnt settle for less than that if I were you......
I do agree with you that Jaykrishna Das Baba should have been more flexible and have given the boy his siddha pranali himself, due to the unavailability of his diksa Guru, though. But that does not mean you should not have this dual external/internal sambandha with your Guru at all.

From Raga Vartma Candrika:

"the siddha rupa means one’s own desired mentally conceived spiritual body, that is suitable for direct transcendental service to Lord Krishna"

How to follow in the footsteps of the people of Vraja? In one’s physical body one follows in the footsteps of Srila Rupa Goswami and other saints that lived in Vraja, and in the mentally conceived spiritual body one follows in the footsteps of Srimati Rupa Manjari and the other eternal associates of Krishna. (First Diffusion 11)

Those who follow the order of the Gaura Ganoddesa Dipika “always do japa of Krishna's holy name, which is related to the desired mood” in their mentally conceived spiritual bodies, are also called “related to the desired mood” which is a direct cause for attainment of their goal. (First Diffusion 14)

Sri Gopala Guru Gosvami (disciple of Vakresvara Pandit, personal servant of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and first mahanta of the Gambhira Math in Puri), Dhyanacandra Gosvami (disciple of Gopala Guru Gosvami) and Sri Bhaktivinoda Thakura (in the last chapter of his book 'Harinama Cintamani'), who is even the father of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, also preached guru-given siddha pranali. Sri Gopala Guru Gosvami writes in his manual (verse 306):

sarva laksana sampanna bhava havadi bhusita
guru prasada janani guru rupa priyanuga

“She (the manjari siddha deha) is endowed with all attributes and decorated with emotional ornaments and exciting gestures. She is born of the mercy of the Guru and follows her dear guru rupa sakhi.” Dhyanacandra Gosvami echoes this in verse 87 of his own manual. Sri Gopala Guru Gosvami writes in verse 309 of his manual: sri radha krsnayoh parsva-vartini nava yauvana guru dattasya namno’sya mata vargadya manjari “She always stays alongside Radha and Krsna and she is in the prime of youth. The name of her mother is derived from the first syllable of the name given by the Guru”, Dhyanacandra Gosvami echoes this in verse 90 of his own manual. Dhyanacandra Gosvami further writes in verse 108 of his manual – guru dattam ca bhavayet “The disciple should meditate on the other manjaris according to his Guru’s description.” Sri Vrndavana Cakravarti, granddisciple of Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti, comments on Govinda Lilamrta (1.3): sri guror ajnatah gopikakaratam va kriyamana sati sa prema seva manasi sevocyate — "One must render loving mental service in the form of a gopika on the order of Sri Guru." And in his commentary on verse 23.94: ragamarga sadhaka bhaktair manasa manobhavitena yogya vapusa sri gurvajna tat seva yogya siddha vapusa — "The practitioners (sadhaka bhaktaih, not siddha bhaktaih) of the path of raga should mentally meditate on a suitable spiritual body that is rendering suitable service on Sri Guru's order." To those who charge: "Yes, but nowadays nobody is qualified for siddha pranali." It can be said 1) Bhaktivinoda wrote Jaiva dharma and Harinama Cintamani in the 20th Century, not the 16th Century 2) The Bhagavata (11.5.38) says: kalau khalu bhavisyanti narayana parayana, "throughout the age of Kali there will be Vaisnavas".

Please, always quote the Sanskrit.

Do you have a copy of the Gopal Guru manual, Advaitaji? We don't have that on the GGM and would really like to. It's an important document.

Dates:

HNC 1900 (barely made it)
Jaiva Dharma 1893

Please forgive me a moment of pedantry, but if HNC was written in 1900 we cannot accurately say that it "barely made it" as something written in the 20th century.

There is no "year 0" in the Western calendar. The "first century" went from years 1 to 100.

The 19th century lasted from 1801 through 1900.

So Jaiva Dharma and HNC are perhaps best described as "late 19th century" works.

To add to the pedantry: If it was published in 1900, it was most unlikely written in that year, but in some year before that.

OK OK Folks! 1899 or 1901 - it's not from the stone age, that was my point. The point is they are modern books and prove that siddha pranali has not expired in just a few centuries.

Yes. Jaiva Dharma and Harinama Cintamani were written and published DURING THE LIFETIME of several preachers who taught that the practices given in those books ought no longer to be followed.

Perhaps they were rather the last instructions for the last bonafide rAgAnugA-bhaktas of the 19th century?

Yes, Rupa Gosvami became obsolete from January 1, 1900.
Of course if that is the case, why was the Nectar of Devotion published as late as 1969 and the Nectar of Instruction in 1975? Why bother reading the Gosvamis books at all, or even chant Harekrishna? Is there an expiry date to that as well?

There should be a tag, "Best before Bhaktisiddhanta."

Of course, that tag would have to be pasted over Rupa Goswami's original tag, "Use before anartha-nivritti"