"Questions on Narayana Maharaja's 'Bhagavata Parampara'"
by Rocana dasa
November 21, 2004
Supporters of BV Narayana Goswami Maharaja recently published an article on the VNN website entitled “Guru Tattva and the Real Disciple”. This article, while just published on November 15, 2004, was actually a lecture given by Narayana Maharaja for Srila Prabhupada’s Disappearance Day, November 11th, 1996. The complete text of this lecture can be found on the VNN website. Having spent the last few years thinking and writing about the topic of Sampradaya Acarya, I was interested to note that in his lecture, Narayana Maharaja uses the term “bhagavata parampara” synonymously with my use of the term “Sampradaya Acarya”. Narayana Maharaja also uses the term “guru parampara” to refer to diksa lineage. Click "Comments" to see new linked index at top of this thread.)
Narayana Maharaja acknowledges here that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur followed the bhagavata parampara. He goes on to say that the guru parampara is included in the bhagavata parampara. While Narayana Maharaja unfortunately does not offer any clarification as to what the specific difference between these two lines is, he clearly indicates that there is a difference. The essential question that goes unanswered is what exactly is the difference between the two.
Vaisnava history tells us that after Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s departure, His senior disciples decided to reinstate the guru parampara. Narayana Maharaja’s own Spiritual Master, along with his fellow Gaudiya Matha spiritual masters, re-instituted the concept of guru parampara – but they did not do so on the authorization of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. In fact, they reinstated a guru parampara system that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had essentially rejected.
Narayana Maharaja states that the guru parampara is part of the bhagavata parampara. At the same time, he gives many examples in the bhagavata parampara where the guru parampara line is not followed. If we look at the continual history going back to Lord Brahma, we see that the bhagavata parampara is transcendentally independent of the guru parampara.
What is most questionable in Narayana Maharaja’s presentation is his insinuation that everyone who is strictly following the guru parampara from Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur is also, by nature, part of the bhagavata parampara.
I agree with Narayana Maharaja’s description, in paragraphs three and four of his lecture, of all the personalities who are considered part of the bhagavata parampara, but who don’t follow the strict rules of the guru parampara.
Narayana Maharaja makes the point that anyone who understands and accepts the teachings that are enunciated by the bhagavata parampara is essentially initiated, saying, “Initiation is a matter of heart and mood.”
Narayana Maharaja also says that a disciple can’t fall down. This statement has no real meaning in the absence of an explanation of what “falling down” means. Who is going to determine who is directly in line with the siddhanta, behaviour and moods of the true bhagavata parampara, or the Sampradaya Acaryas? Naturally, all gurus are expected to promote the idea that they are qualified, but how does the neophyte disciple or follower actually know who’s in line and who isn’t? If one who is in the guru parampara falls down, is he no longer in the guru parampara?
Narayana Maharaja writes:
“Guru-parampara is included in bhagavata-parampara. Those disciples who are fully following Gurudeva's mood and teachings are in the bhagavata-parampara.”
Narayana Maharaja likes to include Srila Prabhupada and his own guru as both being in the bhagavata parampara, and there’s much innuendo that all of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s disciples who didn’t fall down are also members of the bhagavata parampara. Yet our Srila Prabhupada went so far as to call many of his Godbrothers useless, and certainly indicated that he did not accept them as being in the bhagavata-parampara. And this is the real point of contention. If Srila Prabhupada had not made those statements – not only in letters and conversations, but right in the purports of his books -- then one may be inclined to just accept assertions like Narayana Maharaj’s. But the fact of the matter is Srila Prabhupada clearly chose to make such distinguishing points.
This means that Srila Prabhupada did not place these Godbrothers in the same category as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and all the others who Srila Prabhupada listed in the bhagavata parampara. Narayana Maharaja, on the other hand, is not clear about which one of his Spiritual Master’s Godbrothers should and should not be included in the bhagavata parampara.
The fact that Narayana Maharaja differs from Srila Prabhupada in his categorization of who is a member of the bhagavata parampara distinguishes him and his teachings on guru-tattva from Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada never, ever made the statements that Narayana Maharaja has made in this article, namely that he considered that Narayana Maharaja’s Spiritual Master, who was Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrother, is a member of the bhagavata parampara.
While Srila Prabhupada took sannyasa initiation from Kesava Maharaja, from the time that he started ISKCON onward we find no reference to the fact that Srila Prabhupada considered Kesava Maharaja to be in some exalted position as the other Sampradaya Acaryas and bhagavata parampara members. For that matter, Srila Prabhupada never mentioned the fact that Narayana Maharaja was his siksa disciple, that he accepted him as such, and that such a relationship existed.
So much is revealed in this presentation by Narayana Maharaja that distinguishes how different his vision of the bhagavata parampara is from Srila Prabhupada’s own vision. Those who choose to follow Narayana Maharaja as either their diksa or siksa guru – and especially those who had accepted diksa from Srila Prabhupada and siksa from Narayana Maharaja -- should make careful note of the fact that their diksa guru and their siksa guru differ in this very significant way.
Regardless of the sweet words spoken by Narayana Maharaja and his seeming glorifications of Srila Prabhupada, he avoids discussing the differences between them. In fact, he insinuates that there is no difference, that he and Srila Prabhupada were in agreement on these points. Yet Srila Prabhupada publicly admonished his Godbrothers for not following the mood of the bhagavata parampara, or as Narayana Maharaja says, the “siddhanta, behaviour and moods”. That was the reason Srila Prabhupada concluded that they were not part of the bhagavata parampara.
In the concluding remarks of his lecture, Narayana Maharaja states that if you’re not directly initiated by Srila Prabhupada, but are initiated by one of his bonafide disciples, then you’re fortunate to be in his line. Again, he’s not stating who is a bonafide disciple of Srila Prabhupada. In fact, he says that those who fall down are NOT disciples.
We know there are many so-called bonafide gurus in ISKCON, including those who have taken many disciples. The gurus are promoting the idea that they are in disciplic succession, and that consequently their disciples are in disciplic succession. At the same time, these gurus outwardly criticize Narayana Maharaja and don’t consider him to be part of the guru parampara. This begs the question: is criticizing Narayana Maharaja a form of falldown? And if so, does Narayana Maharaja therefore conclude that these disciples are actually not initiated by someone who’s bonafide, and therefore they are not in the guru parampara?
It’s obvious that Narayana Maharaja wants his audience and followers to think one thing – namely, that Srila Prabhupada is part of the bhagavata parampara, Narayana Maharaja’s guru is equally part of the bhagavata parampara, and Narayana Maharaja himself is therefore also part of the bhagavata parampara. But the question remains… who else is in the bhagavata parampara? What of Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers? How many of those does Narayana Maharaja consider have fallen down? Does Narayana Maharaja consider that ISKCON gurus are in the bhagavata parampara?
These are all legitimate questions that we’d like to have answered by Narayana Maharaja, but I doubt we’ll ever get straightforward answers on this subject. And neither will Narayana Maharaja’s followers.
Rocana dasa
Replies: 50 comments
Posted by Rocana dasa @ 11/23/2004 10:46 AM PST
An easy-to-read linked index of all the posts in the Blog thread:
This thread of discussion has turned into a rather long thread, making it somewhat unwieldy to read in blog format. This linked index will allow readers to advance directly to individual threaded postings.
Rocana dasa - 11/23/2004 - Postscript
Shiva dasa - 11/24/2004 - 1st Response
Rocana dasa - 11/26/2004 - 1st Counter
Shiva dasa - 11/26/2004 - 2nd Response
Rocana dasa - 12/01/2004 - 2nd Counter
Shiva dasa - 12/02/2004 - 3rd Response
Shiva dasa - 12/02/2004 - Comments on VNN Article
Rocana dasa - 12/03/2004 - Note
Sarva-drk dasa - 12/05/2004
Krsna dasa - 12/09/2004 - 1st Response
Rocana dasa - 12/11/2004 - 3rd Counter
Rocana dasa - 12/11/2004 1st Counter to Krsna dasa
Shiva dasa - 12/11/2004 - 4th Response
Krsna dasa - 12/12/2004 - 2nd Response
Rocana dasa - 12/16/2004 2nd Counter to Krsna dasa
Krsna dasa - 12/17/2004 - 3rd Response
Krsna dasa - 12/17/2004 - Repost of VNN Article
Shiva dasa - 12/17/2004 - Shiva dasa Counter to Krsna dasa
Rocana dasa - 12/21/2004 - 3rd Counter to Krsna dasa
Krsna dasa - 12/22/2004 - 4th Response
Rocana dasa - 12/28/2004 - 4th Counter to Shiva
Shiva dasa - 12/29/2004 - 5th Response
Rocana dasa - 12/29/2004 - 5th Counter to Shiva
*~*~*~*~
Govinda dasi - 3/13/2005
Siddhajana dasa - 3/14/2005
Shiva dasa - 3/14/2005 - 1st Response to Siddhajana
Siddhajana dasa - 3/14/2005 - 1st Counter to Shiva
Shiva dasa - 3/14/2005 - 2nd Response to Siddhajana
Shiva dasa - 3/14/2005 - 3rd Response to Siddhajana
Siddhajana dasa - 3/15/2005 - 2nd Counter to Shiva
Shiva dasa - 3/15/2005 - 4th Response to Siddhajana
Rocana dasa - 3/15/2005 - 1st Response to Govinda dasi
Siddhajana dasa - 3/16/2005 - 3rd Counter to Shiva
Shiva dasa - 3/16/2005 - 4th Response to Siddhajana
Siddhajana dasa - 3/16/2005 - 4th Counter to Shiva
Siddhajana dasa - 3/16/2005 - 5th Counter to Shiva
Siddhajana dasa - 3/16/2005 - 6th Counter to Shiva
Siddhajana dasa - 3/16/2005 - 7th Counter to Shiva
Siddhajana dasa - 3/16/2005 - 8th Counter to Shiva
Shiva dasa - 3/17/2005 - 4th Response to Siddhajana
Siddhajana dasa - 3/17/2005 - 9th Counter to Shiva
Rocana dasa - 3/17/2005 - 1st Response to Siddhajana dasa
Shiva dasa - 3/17/2005 - 5th Response to Siddhajana
Siddhajana dasa - 3/18/2005 - 1st Counter to Rocana
Siddhajana dasa - 3/18/2005 - 8th Response to Shiva
Shiva dasa - 3/18/2005 - 7th Response to Siddhajana
Rocana dasa - 3/19/2005 - 2nd Response to Siddhajana
Shiva dasa - 3/20/2005 - General Response
Shiva dasa - 3/20/2005 - General Response
As a postscript to this blog, following is a brief preface I sent to Chakra.org yesterday, along with a copy of the "Questions" article and a request for them to publish it.
~~~~~~~~~
Over the course of the last few years, the editors of VNN.org have refused to post six different articles that I have submitted to them for publication. This pattern is a particularly obvious one, given the fact that between 1996 and 2000, VNN published at least 20 of my articles – and never declined to print anything I submitted to them. Having asked for an explanation from VNN but never receiving one, I can only speculate on the reasons for their editorial position. It appears to me that their unexplained change of policy regarding my writings is due the fact that I have increasingly focused on the issues surrounding Srila Prabhupada’s elevated status, particularly in relationship to his Godbrothers in the Gaudiya Matha.
I am most appreciative that Chakra.org has taken an open-minded and non-sectarian stance, and continues to be willing to consider my articles for publication on their site. A number of my papers can be found at http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/vada/writings/writings.htm Included here are some of the articles VNN published over the years, but has since apparently deleted from their site database. (I count at least eight in this category, many of which speak to the above-mentioned subject.)
Posted by Shiva das @ 11/24/2004 12:22 PM PST
Hi Rocana.
Can you tell us your definition of Bhagavat parampara ? I was under the impression that it is cognate with siksa parampara i.e the parampara of tattva as opposed to a parampara of bodies or guru parampara.
I was under the impression that your use of 'Sampradaya Acarya' is based on the concept of specially empowered acaryas versus common acaryas, is this a wrong understanding of your concept ?
Guru parampara in the above conceptions would indeed be included in the Bhagavat or siksa sampradaya. The whole notion of a guru parampara is based on and structured within a siksa paradigm. A guru parampara that does not recognize or utilize the siksa or Bhagavat sampradaya is not considered to be in the sampradaya.
Maybe this is just a question of semantics. Srila Prabhupada's criticisms of people in the Gaudiya Math and it's offshoots were personal rebukes, they weren't ideologically driven. Prabhupada didn't warn his disciples away from certain people over disagreement over tattva, it was over reasons of impropriety. They were bad mouthing Prabhupada, they complained about a change of rituals, they complained about a change of focus in his preaching from the way they preached and taught e.g Prabhupada gave a more holistic approach, the rest gave a more narrow "manjari bhava" centric approach.
To say these people were not in the Bhagavat or siksa sampradaya is saying that they reject Gaudiya siddhanta.
So I am not sure you meant to say this.
As for your comment about Narayan Maharaja's statement that a disciple cannot fall down:
The meaning of "Fall down" in this use is cognate with leaving the service of the Guru.
The real disciple cannot fall down because a real disciple is a real disciple because he serves the Guru. If you stop serving the Guru then you are not a disciple, you have fallen down. So "Fall down" means fallen from serving the Guru. So a disciple cannot fall down, once you stop serving the Guru you are no longer a disciple, "falling down" means ending discipleship in this paradigm.
I may be wrong, but it seems that your remarks were based on interpretation and semantics, I am not so sure that Narayan Maharaja and your views were on the same topic.
Respectfully
Shiva das
Posted by Rocana dasa @ 11/26/2004 01:37 PM PST
Dear Shiva das,
Thanks very much you for your comments on this Blog posting. Here are a few replies to your questions and responses:
Can you tell us your definition of Bhagavat parampara?
My definition is that the Bhagavat Parampara consists exclusively of Sampradaya Acaryas. I have extensively described my conception of a Sampradaya Acarya in my paper. Our Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati have listed and numbered them. To my knowledge, the qualities and attributes distinguishing those listed from the many other great devotees in our lineage has not been elaborated upon by them. Consequently, we are left to come to individual conclusions. I have made my thoughts on this subject known in my writings.
I was under the impression that your use of 'Sampradaya Acarya' is based on the concept of specially empowered acaryas versus common acaryas, is this a wrong understanding of your concept?
What you have stated above is a simplified but accurate characterization. Let me offer some additional explanation relative to the discussion at hand. What constitutes “specially empowered” is at the crux of the matter. I don’t extrapolate from BV Narayan Maharaj’s lecture that he and I are even close to having the same understanding. He mirrors the commonly agreed upon “official” Gaudiya Matha explanation of this list of Bhagavat Acaryas presented by their Sampradaya Acarya, namely Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. The disagreement all along has been around whether our Srila Prabhupada is entitled to be on this list to the exclusion of his Acarya Godbrothers. More specifically in the Maharaja’s case, to the exclusion of his own spiritual master.
We are not attempting to establish Srila Prabhupada in this position simply out of personal sentiment. I made my case clearly in previous papers as to how Srila Prabhupada can be understood to be a member of this rarified category. The disciples of Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers seem to want to include their spiritual masters by virtue of the guru parampara principle, as we see it articulated by Narayana Maharaja in his presentation. This means, of course, that as disciples, they are also included.
I appreciate Narayan Maharaj’s predicament in this matter, and frankly didn’t expect any other opinion to be reflected in his presentation. We, on the other hand, as Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, are also placed on the horns of the dilemma, especially considering the very public analytical comments made by AC Bhaktivedanta Swami in relation to his Godbrothers. The question is, are we committing an offense in concluding that we should disregard these decrees and statements as, in your words, simply being “personal rebukes” that “weren't ideologically driven”? What sort of Bhagavat Acarya places such rebukes within his purports to scripture! By very definition, everything a Bhagavat Acarya says, particularly in a sastric context, must be viewed as having a strong ideological basis.
It appears that you, too, may have been bamboozled by the expert word jugglery of the Gaudiya Matha spokesmen, who’ve been having to deal with these proclamations since the time Srila Prabhupada made them. This would put you in the majority, as it seems most of ISKCON has adopted a similar attitude.
I was under the impression that it is cognate with siksa parampara i.e the as opposed to a parampara of bodies or guru parampara.
I am not saying that the Bhagavat Sampradaya is a siksa lineage. This “parampara of tattva” is completely transcendental and therefore not restricted by any guru definitions. Granted, there is a necessity within cultured human society to organize by definition, even in the guru category. Therefore, the Sampradaya Acaryas have delineated the societal responsibilities of diksa, siksa, etc.
My question to you, as well as to BV Narayana Maharaj, is whether or not any of those “common Acaryas” are qualified to be any sort of guru if they don’t recognize who the most recent Sampradaya Acarya is - namely His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Swami? Obviously, it isn’t simply a matter of declaring Srila Prabhupada as such, but rather of following his literary teachings, sadhana practice and preaching techniques as the most updated (according to time and circumstance) manifestation of the past Sampradaya Acaryas. In other words, it is a matter of whether or not all those calling themselves “common acaryas” -- whether diksa or siksa gurus –are following the most recent Sampradaya Acarya as closely as humanly possible.
To say these people were not in the Bhagavat or siksa sampradaya is saying that they reject Gaudiya siddhanta.
I’m not saying that they’re rejecting Gaudiya siddhanta. I’m saying that to the degree that they recognize and follow the most recent SA, to that degree that receive the blessings and the potency of the Sampradaya. It’s not a matter of rejecting, it’s a matter of realizing. This could be compared to someone in the Ramanuja Sampradaya preaching Vaisnavism, but not recognizing Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu as being the Yuga Avatara.
Initiating anyone into our Sampradaya without enlightening the newcomer as to which Sampradaya Acarya we are all supposed to be following seems to me to be more than just counter-productive. It is basically useless. Maybe teaching otherwise is better than nothing, but compared to the inconceivable benediction made available through Srila Prabhupada by the past Sampradaya Acaryas, it is a crying shame not to recognize this.
That is my reasoning as to why Srila Prabhupada warned us all not to go to his Godbrothers for even siksa, except in dire emergencies, as was the individual case in the very early days when western disciples were on lonely missions.
As for your comment about:
The meaning of "Fall down" in this use is cognate with leaving the service of the Guru.
The real disciple cannot fall down because a real disciple is a real disciple because he serves the Guru. If you stop serving the Guru then you are not a disciple, you have fallen down. So "Fall down" means fallen from serving the Guru. So a disciple cannot fall down, once you stop serving the Guru you are no longer a disciple, "falling down" means ending discipleship in this paradigm.
I can only ask whether or not you, too, are relying upon “interpretation and semantics” in coming to your conclusions as to exactly what Narayan Maharaja's statement means that a disciple cannot fall down.
Personally, I have detected a constant overriding objective in all that Narayana Maharaja says, which is to convince Srila Prabhupada’s diksa disciples to accept him as their siksa guru. Obviously he is doing a very convincing job, as we witness all the resultant conversions. He, along with the other Gaudiya Matha preachers, are highly polished professionals in the art of presenting our philosophy in such a manner as to satisfy their personal ends. We all know of many previously dedicated disciples of Srila Prabhupada who are now virtually disciples of BV Narayana Maharaja, or of the late Sridhara Maharaja. Everything about these converts indicates to me that they are more “in love” with their new siksa guru than with their original diksa guru, Srila Prabhupada -- who just so happens to be, apparently unbeknownst to them, a genuine Sampradaya Acarya. No doubt these “Swamis” are totally convinced that their rhetoric is absolutely true, which in some respects makes them even more dangerous.
Frankly, it doesn’t surprise me that this phenomenon is evolving as it is. I see it as the inevitable transformation from spirituality to religiosity that has taken place on this planet and throughout the material world from time immemorial. Thus Lord Sri Krsna has to come again and again.
I see it as my duty as a disciple to disseminate the truth, as I see it. During this very short time frame, we still have a golden opportunity to take direct advantage of the purity and potency of the unalloyed Sampradaya Acarya. To do so, it seems, one has to reject the onslaught of the ever-expanding bogus preaching coming from all directions that is attempting to undermine the true identity of Srila Prabhupada, who is our Sampradaya’s (Lord Chaitanya’s) mercy bestowed upon us, indiscriminately spreading like a tidal wave the ultimate teachings of pure Love of Godhead.
It’s your choice, and there is a choice to be made for all of us.
Posted by shiva das @ 11/26/2004 03:11 PM PST
Hi Rocana.
You said:
It appears that you, too, may have been bamboozled by the expert word jugglery of the Gaudiya Matha spokesmen, who’ve been having to deal with these proclamations since the time Srila Prabhupada made them. This would put you in the majority, as it seems most of ISKCON has adopted a similar attitude
I don't know what you mean here. I was only addressing what I thought was a misinterpretation of the way you identified the use of Narayana Maharaja's statements concerning "Bhagavata Parampara". I just don't think he was using the concept as a cognate for "Sampradaya Acarya". Whenever I have read about "Bhagavata or siksa parampara" it is used to stress the concept of disciplic succession based on tattva rather then an official diksa lineage.
This concept was used to deflect criticism on the gaudiya sampradaya because of gaps in the disciplic succession. The idea is that to be a bona fide member of the disciplic succession you don't need to receive diksa in an unbroken line of gurus. All that qualified you for inclusion in the parampara was the siksa initiation. Anyone who recieves the siska of the previous acaryas and or the Bhagavata, is considered to be in the disciplic succession. This has been called the Bhagavata or siksa parampara.
Your conception of the "Sampradaya acarya" is not cognate with that conception. They are two different things. A person doesn't need to have ever heard of Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada to be in the Bhagavata parampara. All that is needed is to have heard the message of the Bhagavata, from any bona fide source. The sampradaya acarya concept is based more on siksa from a particular source, and really it is closer to the diksa parampara concept then the siksa parampara or Bhagavata parampara concept.
I'm not arguing against your philosophical points, I just don't think that Narayana Maharaja was intending to mean what you suggested. At least I have never come across anyone using the term Bhagavata parampara in any other way then what I have stated.
Then you said:
I’m not saying that they’re rejecting Gaudiya siddhanta.
Like I said, I didn't think you meant to say that. But without clarifying the terms, this was what appears to have been said by you. If someone didn't know what your concept of sampradaya acarya was, and then read your definition of it as cognate with Bhagavata parampara, then it appears you are saying that only followers of Srila Prabhupada are in the Siksa parampara. Which is the opposite of the siksa parampara concept. You have no need to ever have heard of Srila Prabhupada to be in the siksa parampara, that is the whole point of the concept. It is not person specific, it is Bhagavata tattva specific. For example: If Srila Prabhupada had never come to the west, had never printed books, and had remained in India, if you had then come across the books of Jiva Goswami, or the Bhagavatam etc, in order to be considered a bona fide disciple all that you would need is to study those writings and apply them. Then you would be in the Bhagavata parampara and elgible to make disciples, if and when you became qualified. You would not need to have received the siksa or diksa from a particular current acarya. This is the concept of the Bhagavata parampara.
Your sampradaya acarya is really a type of guru parampara because it stresses a connection to an individual acarya, as opposed to siddhanta.
Then you said:
I can only ask whether or not you, too, are relying upon “interpretation and semantics” in coming to your conclusions as to exactly what Narayan Maharaja's statement means that a disciple cannot fall down.
Of course it is only my interpretation. I thought that was implied since there is no way I could know besides directly asking him. It just seems the logical understanding, otherwise it is a meaningless statement to say that a disciple cannot fall down. Any other interpretation makes no logical sense.
Falling down can only mean one of two things. Either leaving the service of the Guru, or not following sadhana and the rules and regulations attached to that practice. Since many people who are initiated disciples, stop practicing sadhana, and stop following the rules and regulations, therefore he couldn't have meant that as "falling down". They are still initiated disciples. And in that paradigm they have indeed "fallen down".
So saying a disciple cannot fall down in that context is meaningless, they do fall down all the time. The only explanation that makes sense, is what I posted i.e A disciple cannot fall down because once he stops serving the guru he is not a disciple anymore, the person may "fall down" (stop all connection to guru and bhakti), but he is no longer a disciple. A disciple in this context, by definition, is a disciple only as long as he is surrendered. That seemes to be the only logical use of the statement by Narayana Maharaja.
Of course I could be mistaken, it was just logical deduction.
Respectfully
Shiva das
Posted by Rocana dasa @ 12/01/2004 04:04 PM PST
Dear Shiva dasa,
Thanks for your continued comments. I’ve been giving careful thought to our discussion, so it’s taken me a little longer to respond.
This discussion is challenging in part because of our differing interpretations of what BV Narayana Maharaj has said. It appears that you are focusing primarily upon what you feel BV Narayana’s intended message was, and I’m focusing on what I understand to be the Sampradaya Acarya’s intention on the same topic. I have already made clear what my perceptions are on Narayana Maharaja’s character, motivations, and sincerity. You, in turn, have made it known that you don’t share my distaste for this personality. The impression I get from your comments is that you are quite fond of him. You appear to be somewhat well versed in his teachings, or at least familiar enough so as to offer a positive defense of his message. To me, this indicates that you are comfortable with the way he presents Srila Prabhupada, and are therefore presumably comfortable with his moon-struck story surrounding his intimate relationship with our Srila Prabhupada. As I admitted in the previous post, I tend to be suspicious of BV Narayana’s statements, especially when they are in direct relation to Srila Prabhupada. The article in question, which was presented in 1995 at a disappearance ceremony for Srila Prabhupada, is a good example of that.
In the presentation we’ve been discussing, BV Narayana and/or his editors felt moved to include “Sri Guru-parampara” by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada. The ninth verse and translation/purport is shown as follows:
sri varsabhanavi-bara, sada sevya-seva-para
tahara dayita-dasa-nama
prabhupada-antara"ga, sri svarupa-rupanuga
sri kesava bhakati-prajnana
gaudiya-vedanta-vetta, mayavada-tamohanta
gaura-vani-pracaracara-dhama (9)
The most distinguished Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, whose initiated name was Sri Varsabhanavi Dayita dasa, was always engaged in divine service to Hari, Guru, Vaisnava. An internal and intimate disciple of Prabhupada following in the line of Svarupa Damodara and Rupa Gosvami was Sri Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami.
Having full knowledge of Vedanta philosophy according to the Gaudiya sampradaya, Srila Kesava Maharaja annihilated the darkness of all mayavada arguments. He has served Navadvipa Dhama so much, and his life is an example for both practicing and preaching Mahaprabhu's message.
They go on to include the following:
tara pradhan pracarako, sri bhaktivedanta namo
patita-janete doya-dhama
His foremost disciple-preacher was Sri Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who has spread the message of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu throughout the world and is thus a reservoir of mercy and compassion for all fallen souls.
kesava priya mahajana vamana narayana haya
gaura-vani tadera prana-dhana
Most dear to Sri KeSava Gosvami were the saintly personalities Sri Vamana Gosvami and Sri Narayana Gosvami, whose life and soul are the teachings of Mahaprabhu.
Please note that an uninformed reader is likely to conclude that Srila Prabhupada is a disciple of Srila Kesava Maharaja, who of course is BV Narayana’s Spiritual Master. Naturally we know that is not an true characterization. Granted, Srila Kesava Maharaja was Srila Prabhupada’s sannyasa guru, but never did Srila Prabhupada himself identify Srila Kesava Maharaja as his guru in the manner that this verse depicts.
BV Narayana’s presentation goes on to include the following, which gets us to the crux of the matter:
or: tara sisya aganana, tara madhye prestha hana
sri bhakti-prajnana kesava
tara sisya aganana, tara madhye anyatama
sri bhaktivedanta narayana (9)
or: Out of Prabhupada's countless disciples, Sri Bhakti Prajana KeSava Gosvami was his dearmost. And out of the countless disciples of Sri Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami, one of the most prominent is Sri Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja.
Overall, we are given the essential message: 1) that Srila Kesava Maharaja was Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s dearmost; 2) that Srila Prabhupada was Srila Kesava’s “foremost disciple-preacher”; and 3) that of all Srila Kesava’s disciples, BV Narayana is one of the most prominent.I previously wrote:
It appears that you, too, may have been bamboozled by the expert word jugglery of the Gaudiya Matha spokesmen, who’ve been having to deal with these proclamations since the time Srila Prabhupada made them. This would put you in the majority, as it seems most of ISKCON has adopted a similar attitude.
My previous paragraph to the one you posted is: The question is, are we committing an offense in concluding that we should disregard these decrees and statements as, in your words, simply being “personal rebukes” that “weren't ideologically driven”? What sort of Bhagavat Acarya places such rebukes within his purports to scripture! By very definition, everything a Bhagavat Acarya says, particularly in a sastric context, must be viewed as having a strong ideological basis.
You replied by saying:
I don't know what you mean here. I was only addressing what I thought was a misinterpretation of the way you identified the use of Narayana Maharaja's statements concerning "Bhagavata Parampara". I just don't think he was using the concept as a cognate for "Sampradaya Acarya". Whenever I have read about "Bhagavata or siksa parampara" it is used to stress the concept of disciplic succession based on tattva rather then an official diksa lineage.
As illustrated by the example given above, the term “expert word jugglery” refers to the common practice of Gaudiya Matha preachers to expertly discount Srila Prabhupada’s pointedly honest statements concerning the spiritual inertia of his Godbrothers. In a manner similar to the Gaudiya Matha preachers, you parrot their phraseology with your use of the characterization, “unimportant personal rebukes with no ideological bases”. Your use of language leads me to conclude that you are also “taken in” i.e., “bamboozled” by their rhetoric. I, on the other hand, identify this shrugging off of Srila Prabhupada’s intended meaning to be dishonest and therefore offensive. Of course, I relate to Srila Prabhupada as a Sampradaya Acarya and the most recent representative of the Bhagavat Parampara. By adopting this perspective, I’m insulated from being taken in by this nonsense manipulative preaching. In all honesty, I have a difficult time wrapping my head around the Gaudiya Matha’s idea of a “tattva” parampara. I find their supposed logic a form of word jugglery. To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never explained the parampara in such ethereal terms. However, it is true that one of the principle criticisms Srila Prabhupada directed towards his Godbrothers was their disregarding the instructions of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati in the matter of not appointing successor Acaryas and cooperating together for the sake of effective preaching. Instead, they re-activated the mundane guru parampara system rather than maintaining Srila Sarasvati’s Bhagavat System. Falling to this temptation resulted in many disastrous events which directly contributed the fractionalization of the original Matha. I view all this “tattva” talk as a clever verbal camouflage intended to disguise their selfish intentions and egregious mistakes. They employ confusing rhetoric of “tattva” rather than acknowledge the Gaudiya Matha’s departure from the instructions of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. It was this deviation – not confusion over gaps in the Gaudiya Sampradaya – that I believe the rhetoric is designed to conceal.
You wrote:
This concept was used to deflect criticism on the Gaudiya sampradaya because of gaps in the disciplic succession. The idea is that to be a bona fide member of the disciplic succession you don't need to receive diksa in an unbroken line of gurus. All that qualified you for inclusion in the parampara was the siksa initiation. Anyone who receives the siska of the previous acaryas and or the Bhagavata, is considered to be in the disciplic succession. This has been called the Bhagavata or siksa parampara.
How certain are you that this term “Bhagavat Parampara” and the definition applied to it by Narayana Maharaja was actually expounded upon by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati? Can you provide evidence that it came directly from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, or was it a product of one of Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers? I have never read this in either Srila Prabhupada’s or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s writings, and would appreciate a reference if you have one.You wrote:
Your conception of the "Sampradaya acarya" is not cognate with that conception. They are two different things. 1] A person doesn't need to have ever heard of Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada to be in the Bhagavata parampara. All that is needed is to have heard the message of the Bhagavata, from any bona fide source.
I’m not so certain you have fully grasped the exact “concept” surrounding the Sampradaya Acarya. On top of that, I have conceded that my concern during this debate is centered around Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s and Srila Prabhupada’s vision of the Sampradaya compared to this tattva idea of BV Narayana’s. It appears there is a profound difference between the two. I admit that I’m not certain as to whether or not Srila Bhaktisiddhanta coined the phrase “Bhagavat parampara”, but I suspect it originated with one of his disciples. We see that in the verses below, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati titled his poem “Guru Parampara”, although he is essentially describing what Narayana Maharaj terms the “Bhagavat Parampara”. Consequently, I believe my position stands, as our Srila Prabhupada did, cent percent in line with the transcendental Madhva Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya as depicted by those great personalities I respect. When one speaks of Sampradaya, one is not only referring to its tattva. Although tattva is a primary ingredient there is also the sadhana, then also there is the mood as well as the degree of emphasis on preaching and the methodology for accomplishing our evangelical goal. A focus of Srila Prabhupada’s criticism of his Godbrothers is that they didn’t embrace the preaching mood in a manner desired by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. In an essay written by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta called “L’ Envoi”, he begins by saying “The happy day has come when we are destined to spread the message of our Great Master to distant corners of the earth …..This extension of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s spiritual gift to foreign countries is our humble offering at his feet”. Of course, he goes on to eruditely emphasize the importance of accomplishing this task. This prioritization is also characteristic of the past Sampradaya Acaryas, as much as this preaching mood is a part of our tattva. I could articulate innumerable ways that Srila Prabhupada’s mood and methods differed from his Godbrothers in this aspect, but I’m sure you’ve heard them all.
You also seem to minimize this difference when you state:
“They were bad mouthing Prabhupada, they complained about a change of rituals, they complained about a change of focus in his preaching from the way they preached and taught e.g Prabhupada gave a more holistic approach, the rest gave a more narrow "manjari bhava" centric approach.
Your choice of the world “holistic” sparks a wildfire of heated discussion, because it can mean so many things, none of them flattering. Srila Prabhupada’s preaching not only produced unparalleled results in devotee conversion and training, book and prasadam distribution, translating and commenting upon, printing and distributing essentially all the most important Vaisnava texts, what to speak of creating major temples in our holiest of places, but more importantly he zeroed in on the essence of our devious western cultural philosophical indoctrinations such as evolution, science, western religiosity, etc. What moves you to label this inconceivable achievement as simply ‘holistic’ is a mystery to me. Rather, it is the proof positive and sign from above of a true Sampradaya Acarya. Srila Prabhupada is a sacred gift directly sent by Lord Sri Caitanya -- a compass we should all be following. If you had made these statements public during Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON lila period, you could have expected plenty of flak. Today, such remarks seem commonplace. Can it be the insidious influence of Gaudiya Matha preaching? You tell me! You wrote:
2] The sampradaya acarya concept is based more on siksa from a particular source, and really it is closer to the diksa parampara concept then the siksa parampara or Bhagavata parampara concept.
I don’t understand what exactly you are trying to communicate here. “Siksa from a particular source?” If you are suggesting that I think we should all be taking siksa from Srila Prabhupada (i.e., all those considering themselves part of our Sampradaya) because he is the Sampradaya Acarya, then you are correct. But following the footsteps of the Sampradaya Acarya isn’t on par with simply taking normal siksa. I don’t want to be accused of inventing terms like maha-siksa, but essentially, given that Srila Prabhupada is the most recent Sampradaya Acarya, everyone who is currently a follower of the Six Goswamis should look to Srila Prabhupada’s teachings and pastimes as the expression of all the previous Sampradaya Acaryas. So in essence, Srila Prabhupada should be considered the primary siksa for all those presently considering themselves as being members of the Sampradaya.Following and staying on the path of the Sampradaya Acaryas is a foundational principle. Parampara by definition means succession, which implies that the most recent manifestation of the lineage should be followed if for no other reason then the fact that the present/latest Acarya is empowered/authorized to present the total teachings of the Sampradaya according to time, place, and circumstance. Whatever adjustments are required to achieve the goals of the past Acaryas are the responsibilities the Sampradaya Acarya. Lord Caitanya expected and predicated that the chanting of the Holy Names, or Krsna Consciousness, would be heard throughout the planet. Srila Prabhupada, amongst all of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s disciples, was empowered/chosen to successfully satisfy this divine desire. Why is this so difficult for you and others to comprehend? Before the undue influence of the agencies of Gaudiya Matha, essentially all Srila Prabhupada’s disciples felt as I do.
Then you wrote:
[Rocana] I’m not saying that they’re rejecting Gaudiya siddhanta.Like I said, I didn't think you meant to say that. But without clarifying the terms, this was what appears to have been said by you. If someone didn't know what your concept of sampradaya acarya was, and then read your definition of it as cognate with Bhagavata parampara, then it appears you are saying that only followers of Srila Prabhupada are in the Siksa parampara. Which is the opposite of the siksa parampara concept
It is a fact that we use and define certain terms in this debate differently, and it has created some confusion. For expediency in this discussion, I had to assume that the reader was familiar with my paper entitled “Sampradaya Acarya”. I had previously made sufficient commentary on my perceived definition of Bhagavata parampara (which is termed “guru paramapara in the paper, in keeping with Srila Prabhupada’s use of the term). Keep in mind, Narayana Maharaja chose to include in his VNN posting Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s “Guru Parampara” poem, wherein he lists the exalted members of our Sampradaya. True enough, he points out what type of guru relationship (diksa or siksa) those persons named in the poem had with one another. Srila Prabhupada also presented the same list. He said for us not to worry for the gaps. I tried to make myself clear in my paper that these listed personalities are the true and transcendental members of the parampara and they are exclusive Sampradaya Acaryas. You wrote:
You have no need to ever have heard of Srila Prabhupada to be in the siksa parampara, that is the whole point of the concept. It is not person specific, it is Bhagavata tattva specific. For example: If Srila Prabhupada had never come to the west, had never printed books, and had remained in India, if you had then come across the books of Jiva Goswami, or the Bhagavatam etc, in order to be considered a bona fide disciple all that you would need is to study those writings and apply them. Then you would be in the Bhagavata parampara and eligible to make disciples, if and when you became qualified. You would not need to have received the siksa or diksa from a particular current acarya. This is the concept of the Bhagavata parampara.
Your assertion is that the parampara is tattva specific, not person specific. True enough – except that if it weren’t for the persons, the tattva would not be carried forward. You’re suggesting that one doesn’t need to hear from the most recent Sampradaya Acarya, but can rather be connected to the Sampradaya by hearing from any of the past Sampradaya Acaryas. I’m emphasizing the importance of hearing from the most recent Sampradaya Acarya, because as we see in Srila Prabhupada’s books, he is commenting on what the Goswamis and the previous Sampradaya Acarya’s have written, and is therefore making it comprehensible by persons in this day and age. Srila Prabhupada emphasized time and time again that he is simply repeating the siddhanta spoken by all the previous Sampradaya Acaryas. The significance of Srila Prabhupada’s pastimes is that by chanting, hearing and comprehending his books/teachings, one is receiving the messages written by the Six Goswamis. Practical application of this philosophy is really “mission impossible” without Srila Prabhupada’s association. Your hypothetical examples contain some theoretical possibility, but are practically improbable. In our most recent Vaisnava history, according to Srila Prabhupada, Lord Caitanya chose to send a nitya siddha in the person of Srila Bhaktivinodha Thakura to resurrect Krsna Consciousness. The Thakur, in turn, prayed to Lord Caitanya to send another nitya siddha to assist him in preaching. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati then appeared as his own son. I propose that our Srila Prabhupada is yet another nitya siddha representative empowered to appear so as to complete the mission. Anyone who accepts this vision as being true and accurate must then come to the next logical conclusion, which is that the Supreme Lord felt it necessary for us Kaliyuga victims – particularly those born in the western world -- to be benedicted in this manner by his emissary. Lord Caitanya wasn’t satisfied that somehow or other, if we chanced upon Jiva Goswami’s books, we’d have everything we needed.
I appreciate your attempts to make me comprehend BV Narayana’s definitions of Bhagavat Parampara, but I don’t accept your explanations on the impersonal tattva concept of how Krsna Consciousness functions. We are following a very personal conception of achieving perfection, which implies not just speaking tattva but practically applying it to time, place, circumstance and ultimately to the individual disciple. Realized tattva is in reality Krsna Consciousness, thus the need for a Guru who presents practical sadhana, overall mood and preaching methods, and individual instruction, encouragement and engagement. So long as the common Acarya recognizes and carefully follows the most recent Sampradaya Acarya, he is qualified to be guru: siksa, diksa or any other prefix.
You wrote:
Falling down can only mean one of two things.
The use of the term “fall down” is equivalent to saying someone is sick. In other words, it can refer to any number of maladies ranging from the common cold to terminal cancer. The spiritual body, so to speak, is infinitely more complex than the physical one. Even your “two things” are expansive categories rather than simple explanations. I could give far more detail to these categories but for lack of time. Let me briefly comment on your line items:
1] Leaving the service of the Guru.
This phrase could mean any number of actions, attitudes, and motivations depending on the persons involved. The assumption is that the “Guru” is a bonafide member of our Sampradaya and the disciple is properly initiated. We have both witnessed many regrettable examples, both within ISKCON and the Gaudiya matha communities, wherein supposedly faithful followers have been exposed over time to not be the dutiful servant they have promoted themselves to be. There is no telling at what point in time they actually “fell down”. Many of our past leaders have made an art form out of pretending to be more advanced than they really are. Even though they were exhibiting many symptoms, their public supporters and/or disciples refused to acknowledge the obvious for fear of “fall down”. On a society wide level, the supposed watchdogs; the GBC, sannyasis, and other senior associates turned a blind eye to deviation. Many innocents were adversely affected by this type of irresponsible inactivity. This type of fall down is of a far greater magnitude than a neophyte leaving the “service” due to falling victim to the pushing of their material senses. As we are presently discussing Narayana Maharaj and Srila Prabhupada, I would go so far as to say that in my opinion, Narayana Maharaj is falling down in a grander manner and on a higher level, which is therefore more difficult for neophytes to detect. I speak of Narayana’s minimalization of the exalted position of Srila Prabhupada, the genuine Sampradaya Acarya. He goes further by usurping Srila Prabhupada’s disciples into his personal service on the pretext of giving them siksa association. He does this rather than enlivening them to re-activate their service to their true diksa guru. I feel this preaching strategy is an example of maha-fall down. The most glaring examples are Jadarani devi and Dhristadyumna dasa, but as we know there are plenty of others who have been convinced to switch their allegiance completely over to Narayana Maharaja. I am well aware of the conflicting opinions arising out of the correct definition of taking siksa, but here again is an example of the many differences between Srila Prabhupada and BV Narayana. I also don’t buy into all this nonsense rhetoric that BV Narayana views/depicts Srila Prabhupada as one of his siksa gurus. I’ll leave it at that for now, as I’ve written more extensively on this subject in other papers.
2] not following sadhana and the rules and regulations attached to that
practice.
This genre of fall down is another nebulous, catch-all rubric. Firstly, unless some devotee confesses to not following strictly, it is nearly impossible to ascertain to what degree they are actually following sadhana and the regs. It is so easy to create an appearance of being a strict follower when in fact this is not the truth. We both know of plenty of examples of this phenomenon. Then there is the question of which devotees are on what level of advancement in relationship to these rules, regs and sadhana. Srila Prabhupada is the perfect example. He spent his morning sadhana writing and then lecturing, whereas we were supposed to be following the standard sadhana/morning program he prescribed. We can both recall that many of the so-called leaders wouldn’t religiously attend this program nor publicly chant japa. So, who or how is anyone else going to determine whether or not some other Vaisnava is following or fallen as it applies to this practice? We can also venture into the realm of committing offenses to the holy name, the deities, and the devotees, while at the same time outwardly appearing to be following strictly.I have witnessed and personally experienced this “fall down” term being used for political and vindictive ends. Therefore, I tend to be more guarded about injecting these cloudy phrases, particularity in such an authoritative setting as a public lecture celebrating Srila Prabhupada’s Disappearance Day. Srila Prabhupada typically used this term when referring to the jivatma falling down from the spiritual world into the material world, but BV Narayana’s application is quite different and therefore somewhat suspect in this context.
You stated:
Since many people who are initiated disciples, stop practicing sadhana, and stop following the rules and regulations, therefore he couldn't have meant that as "falling down". They are still initiated disciples. And in that paradigm they have indeed "fallen down".So saying a disciple cannot fall down in that context is meaningless, they do fall down all the time. The only explanation that makes sense, is what I posted i.e A disciple cannot fall down because once he stops serving the guru he is not a disciple anymore, the person may "fall down" (stop all connection to guru and bhakti), but he is no longer a disciple. A disciple in this context, by definition, is a disciple only as long as he is surrendered. That seems to be the only logical use of the statement by Narayana Maharaja.
You offer what you believe to be the only “logical” explanation of what BV Narayana could have meant by “fall down” in relation to disciples actually being considered fallen. In one sense that is a non-debatable truism, but in the context of the lecture in question -- given by this most contentious personality – use of this term is exacerbated by the fact that he chose to leave the subject open to interpretation. This makes me suspect his motivations. Just see how we [older devotees] are “interpreting” the meaning in such a different way. My mind always reflects on just how a newcomer or vulnerable person would assimilate the term within this paradigm. I dare say, most unaware types would conclude that surrendering to and serving BV Narayana Maharaj would save them from “fall down”. Your servant,
Rocana dasa
Posted by Shiva Das @ 12/02/2004 01:58 PM PST
Hi Rocana, thanks for your thoughtful response.
You said:
You, in turn, have made it known that you don’t share my distaste for this personality. The impression I get from your comments is that you are quite fond of him. You appear to be somewhat well versed in his teachings, or at least familiar enough so as to offer a positive defense of his message. To me, this indicates that you are comfortable with the way he presents Srila Prabhupada, and are therefore presumably comfortable with his moon-struck story surrounding his intimate relationship with our Srila Prabhupada.
Actually I have made my position on Narayana Maharaja well known on other forums. I have made many criticisms of the way he tries to portray himself as the topmost acharya. He has made comments stating that he is Prabhupada's successor, I find this to be inconsistent with the words of a realized soul. Especially when there are and were many other gaudiya acaryas, many years his senior, still around with their own missions. I am not and never have been a supporter of Narayana Maharaja. I know that he has said unpleasent things about Sridhar Maharaja, and in general his preaching seems to be geared towards gaining recognition as the topmost devotee. Also some of his most confidential disciples spread the idea around in their preaching that "Prabhupada gave the ABC's, and Narayana Maharaja is giving the post graduate conception". They also present the idea that since Prabhupada asked Narayana Maharaja to take care of burial service, that this was a sign that Narayana Maharaja was chosen to be Prabhupada's anointed successor, Narayana Maharaja is as far as I know, not distancing himself from the words of those topmost disciples, and I assume that they are simply repeating what he has told them. Also I have heard that Narayana Maharaja is telling some of his disciples that he is such and such manjari, and has had Jadurani paint a picture of him in his "manjari swarupa". I find all of these things to be highly inappropriate. So, since you have never read any of my criticisms of Narayana Maharaja, I can understand your misunderstanding behind the motives of what I wrote.
You said:
Your choice of the world “holistic” sparks a wildfire of heated discussion, because it can mean so many things, none of them flattering. Srila Prabhupada’s preaching not only produced unparalleled results in devotee conversion and training, book and prasadam distribution, translating and commenting upon, printing and distributing essentially all the most important Vaisnava texts, what to speak of creating major temples in our holiest of places, but more importantly he zeroed in on the essence of our devious western cultural philosophical indoctrinations such as evolution, science, western religiosity, etc. What moves you to label this inconceivable achievement as simply ‘holistic’ is a mystery to me.
Holistic does not "mean so many things". Here is the standard definition:
a. Emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts.
b. Concerned with wholes rather than analysis or separation into parts
I was actually saying that Srila Prabhupada was giving a more thorough teaching in his presentation of Gaudiya siddhanta then many of his godbrothers and their disciples. I used the word "holistic" to contrast with the manjari bhava centric teaching style we find among most of Bhaktisiddhanta Gaudiya's outside of Prabhupadas influence. Prabhupada gave the correct "holistic" vision of rasa, while most of the rest are [in my opinion] misguiding and misguided in their single minded focus on presenting Gaudiya siddhanta as exclusively about trying to become a manjari. They constantly preach and relate the idea that Gaudiya siddhanta's sole concern is in trying to teach everyone how to follow the practices that will reveal their manjari swarupa.
Prabhupada did not do this. He did not slant all of his preaching towards the singular goal of trying to convince everyone that they need to follow the process of trying to realize their manjari swarupa. Instead he taught the authorized process which all bona fide acaryas have taught since Mahaprabhu's time. That is: There are 5 rasa's, everyone is different, Gaudiya teachings are meant to elevate you to the level where your eternal relationship will be revealed to you. It can be a parent, a gopa, a manjari, it can be any of a number of relationships. The bona fide acaryas in our line never teach the way many do and have in the recent past. So "holistic" was meant in it's literal sense. Prabhupada taught siddhanta holistically, as opposed to many others who teach apasiddhanta by trying to teach the idea that Gaudiya siddhanta is exclusively trying to bring everyone into the practice and vision of being manjari. Narayana Maharaja does this, as do many others. They are all teaching apasiddhanta by this practice of selective and coercive teaching style.
If you are not destined to be a manjari, and if you are in one of these manjari bhava cults, then you are being led down the wrong path. The bona fide acarya does not teach the way many of these "acaryas" teach. This is what they teach about one's eternal mood, this is from The Caitanya Siksamrta by Bhaktivinoda Thakura:
"Among the angas of bhakti mentioned in vaidhi bhakti such as kirtana , those which are favorable for his service are accepted by the practitioner of rägänugä. Those aspiring for däsya rasa copy the mood and gestures of Patraka and other servants; those desirous of sakhya rasa copy the mood and gestures of Subala and other friends; those desirous of parental rasa copy the mood and gestures of Yañodä and other elders; and those desirous of madhura rasa copy the mood, service and gestures of the Vraja gopis.
...There are two types of taste of greed: temporary and natural. Sometimes devotees hear about the qualities of Nanda or Subala, derive great bliss and sometimes show similar sentiments, but this bliss and the show of sentiments are short-lived. This is called temporary greed. There is no use in such a show. It is necessary for the guru to carefully examine which rasa -däsya, sakhya, vätsalya or madhura-gives natural greed. Detecting ones natural sentiment, the guru will give teachings according to that mood. If this is not done, then the instructed mood will not be permanent, due to the unsuitability to the disciple. It should be noted that not all seekers will be qualified for madhura rasa. If a guru finds it impossible for him to decide the rasa of the disciple, he will honestly admit his inability to the disciple and direct him to approach a suitable guru. The disciple has no alternative but to take shelter of the lotus feet of the bona fide guru."
Then from Bhakti-Rasamrta-Sindhu (1.2.295):
When an advanced, realized devotee hears about the affairs of the devotees of Vrndavana -- in the mellows of santa, dasya, sakhya, vatsalya and madhurya -- he becomes inclined in one of these ways, and his intelligence becomes attracted. Indeed, he begins to covet that particular type of devotion. When such covetousness is awakened, one's intelligence no longer depends on the instructions of sastra or on logic and argument.
From Caitanya Mahaprabhu in the Cc:
CC Madhya 22.159: Actually the inhabitants of Vrndavana are very dear to Krsna. If one wants to engage in spontaneous loving service, he must follow the inhabitants of Vrndavana and constantly engage in devotional service within his mind.
CC Madhya 22.160: The devotee should always think of Krsna within himself and should choose a very dear devotee who is a servitor of Krsna in Vrndavana. One should constantly engage in topics about that servitor and his loving relationship with Krsna, and one should live in Vrndavana. If one is physically unable to go to Vrndavana, he should mentally live there.
CC Madhya 22.161: Krsna has many types of devotees -- some are servants, some are friends, some are parents, and some are conjugal lovers. Devotees who are situated in one of these attitudes of spontaneous love according to their choice are considered to be on the path of spontaneous loving service.
Now again from Sri Caitanya explaining Raganuga to Sanatana Goswami:
CC Madhya 22.153: If one follows in the footsteps of the inhabitants of Vrndavana out of such transcendental covetousness, he does not care for the injunctions or reasonings of sastra. That is the way of spontaneous love.
PURPORT by A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura says that a devotee is attracted by the service of the inhabitants of Vrndavana -- namely the cowherd men, Maharaja Nanda, mother Yasoda, Radharani, the gopis and the cows and calves. An advanced devotee is attracted by the service rendered by an eternal servitor of the Lord. This attraction is called spontaneous attraction. Technically it is called svarupa-upalabdhi. This stage is not achieved in the beginning. In the beginning one has to render service strictly according to the regulative principles set forth by the revealed scriptures and the spiritual master. By continuously rendering service through the process of vaidhi bhakti, one's natural inclination is gradually awakened. That is called spontaneous attraction, or raganuga bhakti.
Now, Narayana Maharaja does not preach in this manner, nor do many other "acaryas". They try and steer everyone towards manjari bhava. Narayana Maharaja has even siad that if you are not following the path of manjari bhava you are not a Rupanuga. This kind of preaching is apasiddhanta, it is not "holistic" in the sense that it takes a single bhava and tries to enforce a vision of Gaudiya siddhanta around that single goal, for everyone. A holistic approach is the authorized method i.e you are not supposed to separate manjari bhava and make that as the singular raison d'etre of Gaudiya vaisnavism.
So why do many "acaryas" do that ? My only thought is that they are in ignorance and want to convince others that they are the topmost devotees i.e gopis.
You said:
I dare say, most unaware types would conclude that surrendering to and serving BV Narayana Maharaj would save them from “fall down”.
Very astute. I was being more generous, but your reasoning may in fact be the truth.
As for all the rest about the meaning of Bhagavat parampara. Bhaktisiddhanta wrote about the Bhagavata marga in "Brahmana O Vaisnava" : “This Tattva-vada, or Pancharatrika system, is not acceptable in the opinion of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Rather, He taught the path of bhagavata-marga.”
The various ideas you have about the sampradaya acarya are not the same thing as the true meaning of Bhagavata parampara. I assumed Narayana Maharaja was using it in it's proper way. You could be right and he could have been using it in your way.
This is what the Bhagavat parampara or siksa parampara is supposed to mean:
From a lecture on the Bhagavatam by A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami.
"Sravanam kirtanam visnoh smaranam--this is bhagavata-marga. And arcanam vandanam dasyam sakhyam atma-nivedanam--that is pancaratrika, arcanam. So out of the nine--nine, eight, seven, six, five--whatever you do, that is sufficient because absolute. Any item, even one item, you can, if you perform perfectly, that is sufficient. But there are nine alternative items. Just like Haridasa Thakura, he simply chanted, sravanam kirtanam. He did not establish any Deity, but he got perfection. There were many others. Just like Pariksit Maharaja. At the last stage of his life he simply concentrated in hearing Srimad-Bhagavatam. Sravanam. So if sravana is perfect, that is sufficient. Any one of the nine items, if it is done perfectly, that is sufficient. Pariksit Maharaja, he did not go to the temple. He sat on the bank of the Ganges, and he was very serious because he knew that "I am going to die within seven days. Let me finish as soon as possible simply hearing of Srimad-Bhagavatam." He was intelligent. Otherwise... Not that simply he was hearing. He was questioning, as you have seen in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. So he was very scholar. It means as the spiritual master, Sukadeva Gosvami, was a great scholar in Sanskrit, the king was also a great scholar. Therefore quickly he was reciting, and he was understanding. And as soon as there was some difficulty, he was immediately questioning.
So both the spiritual master and the disciple, they became perfect simply by sravanam kirtanam. This is Bhagavata-marga. Simply by hearing and chanting. The spiritual master chanted, recited Srimad-Bhagavatam, and that is being imitated."
This was what I considered the meaning of Bhagavat parampara to be. Anyone can achieve the perfectional stage without anything else then coming into contact, in some form or another, with Bhagavat tattva. And then they can continue the parampara. The parampara is not limited by time and space i.e direct diksa parampara.
This is obviously a different concept then the sampradaya acarya, which stresses the importance of, and hearing from a specific person or persons.
So I think there was some misunderstanding. I really didn't have anything of substance against what you wrote, like I said, I think it was just semantics. :)
Posted by Shiva das @ 12/02/2004 06:25 PM PST
I just looked at that article on VNN again. I find it typical of the Narayana Maharaja Manjari Cult that they attributed a poem from Bhaktisiddhanta without mention of the fact that someone added the following to the poem which is not part of the original.
sri varsabhanavi-bara, sada sevya-seva-para
tahara dayita-dasa-nama
prabhupada-antara"ga, sri svarupa-rupanuga
sri kesava bhakati-prajnana
gaudiya-vedanta-vetta, mayavada-tamohanta
gaura-vani-pracaracara-dhama (9)
The most distinguished Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, whose initiated name was Sri Varsabhanavi Dayita dasa, was always engaged in divine service to Hari, Guru, Vaisnava. An internal and intimate disciple of Prabhupada following in the line of Svarupa Damodara and Rupa Gosvami was Sri Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami.
Having full knowledge of Vedanta philosophy according to the Gaudiya sampradaya, Srila Kesava Maharaja annihilated the darkness of all mayavada arguments. He has served Navadvipa Dhama so much, and his life is an example for both practicing and preaching Mahaprabhu's message.
tara pradhan pracarako, sri bhaktivedanta namo
patita-janete doya-dhama
His foremost disciple-preacher was Sri Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who has spread the message of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu throughout the world and is thus a reservoir of mercy and compassion for all fallen souls.
kesava priya mahajana vamana narayana haya
gaura-vani tadera prana-dhana
Most dear to Sri KeSava Gosvami were the saintly personalities Sri Vamana Gosvami and Sri Narayana Gosvami, whose life and soul are the teachings of Mahaprabhu.
or: tara sisya aganana, tara madhye prestha hana
sri bhakti-prajnana kesava
tara sisya aganana, tara madhye anyatama
sri bhaktivedanta narayana (9)
or: Out of Prabhupada's countless disciples, Sri Bhakti Prajana KeSava Gosvami was his dearmost. And out of the countless disciples of Sri Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami, one of the most prominent is Sri Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja.
[End]
Why would they do this ?
They say that Bhaktisiddhanta wrote the poem, but neglect to mention that the above was added by some unknown author.
Does Bhaktisiddhanta include himself in the original poem ?
Yes. He wrote:
"I have no real interest in devotional services and I am a poor and lowly tridandi sannyasi named Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati."
Yet in the revised edition attributed to Bhaktisiddhanta we find that Narayana Maharaja is essentially given the position as inheritor of the mantle of topmost devotee.
What they do is imply that A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami was not even a disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta, but instead they mention Kesava Maharaja as one. And then they imply that A.C Bhaktivedanta is a disciple of Kesava Maharaja. Taking sannyasa from a Godbrother was what A.C Bhaktivedanta did, he did not become a disciple of Kesava Maharaja. The poem implies that Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja are Godbrothers, and that Prabhupada is Kesava's disciple, not Bhaktisiddhanta's.
And then they call Narayana Maharaja the "most dear" to Kesava Maharaja.
This sums up their mentality. They slickly misuse words to imply and relegate Srila Prabhupada as being a disciple of his own Godbrother so they can make it seem like Narayana Maharaja is Prabhupada's Godbrother, and that Narayana Maharaja is "more dear" to their Guru Kesava Maharaja, thereby we end up with Narayana Maharaja as superior to Srila Prabhupada.
Clearly this is meant to fool people who don't know the real story.
Why ?
$$Ka-Ching$$
Also one more thing. In your last post you wrote:
I admit that I’m not certain as to whether or not Srila Bhaktisiddhanta coined the phrase “Bhagavat parampara”, but I suspect it originated with one of his disciples. We see that in the verses below, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati titled his poem “Guru Parampara”, although he is essentially describing what Narayana Maharaj terms the “Bhagavat Parampara”.
The Guru Parampara poem is combination of diksa and siksa lineages.
Madhvacarya and a handfull of Tattvavadis are part of the Guru parampara, while they would not be a part of the Bhagavata parampara.
We cannot accept the Tattvavadi's as being in the Bhagavata Parampara because they reject Sri Radha Krishna, Sri Caitanya as Bhagavan and so much else that we accept. We interpret the Bhagavatam differently.
So even though we belong to the Brahma-Madhva Sampradaya, the Diksa or Guru parampara is not the same thing as the Bhagavata parampara.
There is a distinction between Bhagavata parampara and Guru parampara.
Posted by Rocana dasa @ 12/03/2004 05:53 PM PST
Dear Shiva das,
Thank you for your posting, which was interesting, as always. I appreciate your gracious mood, and am glad to have more detail about your position and experience. I’ll respond in more detail shortly, and I look forward to continue discussing with you.
Rocana dasa
Posted by Sarva-drk das @ 12/05/2004 12:34 PM PST
Dear Rocana and Shiva prabhus,
Dandavats. Heartfelt thanks to both of you for churning this topic, thereby producing so much appreciation in my heart for Srila Prabhupad and my own inconcievable good fortune to be his lowly disciple. Special thanks to Rocana prabhu for maintaining this site and investing so much time and energy promoting these truths concerning the true position of Srila Prabhupad in our Gaudiya heritage. May he bless you more and more.
Your servant,
Sarva-drk das
Posted by krsnadas @ 12/09/2004 08:15 PM PST
Dear Vaisnavas,
please accept my pranams.
All glories to Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga!
I have read the article of Sri Rocana Prabhu on Chakra Website.
As an aspirant to become a follower of Om Visnupada Astottara-sata Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja, i feel the need to reply something.
First of all i would like to tell you and many others who call Srila Narayana Maharaja just “Narayana Maharaja” that this is not the proper etiquette to mention the name of a highly advanced vaisnava in public or open letters. He is almost 84 years old (much senior to all of us), has served his Gurudeva his entire life flawlessly, preaches Mahaprabhus message everywhere and is wellknown and respected all over the world including the learned Vaisnava-comunities in Vrajamandala, Navadvipamandala and Sri Ksetra Puri Dhama. One should adress such a personality at least with the title Sri, Srimad, Sripad, Pujiyapad or Srila. That you adress even Om Visnupada Astottara-sata Sri Srila Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja who is the sannyasa-guru of Srila Prabhupada only as “Kesava Maharaja” is clearly showing your lack of knowledge and etiquette.
I am well aware of the fact that most members of IRM and others who try to spread kusiddhanta (wrong conceptions) and sadhu-ninda (vaisnava-aparadha) in the name of “protecting the teachings Srila Prabhupada” are not able to listen to good advice nor are they open to receive the truth. I only reply as a matter of duty and to inform the simple hearted and sincere devotees about facts so that they may not be misguided.
Sri Rocana Prabhu writes in his article:
Narayana Maharaja acknowledges here that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur followed the bhagavata parampara. He goes on to say that the guru parampara is included in the bhagavata parampara. While Narayana Maharaja unfortunately does not offer any clarification as to what the specific difference between these two lines is, he clearly indicates that there is a difference. The essential question that goes unanswered is what exactly is the difference between the two.
Reply: The essential difference between the two is that it may be that a guru in diksa-parampara may not be that elevated or prominent as the siksa-guru. In that case the siksa-guru is mentioned as the next link in bhagavat-parampara as it is the case of so many of our acaryas (Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakuras diksa-guru is Sri Vipin-Bihari Goswami but according to Srila Prabhupada we worship Srila Jagannatha Dasa Babaji Maharaj as his Guru is in bhagavat-parampara). If the diksa-guru shows all the necessary qualifications (mood of worship, realisation, etc.), he is both diksa-guru and member of the bhagavat-parampara (Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja was the diksa-guru of Srila Prabhupada and was also of such a high caliber that he is included in bhagavat-parampara). Thus guru-parampara is included in bhagavat-parampara.
RD:
Vaisnava history tells us that after Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's departure, His senior disciples decided to reinstate the guru parampara.
RD:
Not all senior disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura appointed the new Acarya. Because Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati instructed all to hear from Sri Ananta Vasudeva Prabhu, some took it as he was the most qualified. So they made him Acarya to uphold the institutional structure. Soon later he failed in following the Vaisnava-principles and then a big chaos broke out. You cannot say all, because that would also include Srila Prabhupada who was at that time a faithful, fullfledged member of the Gaudiya-Math. Some where maybe of different opinion and some where pushing there viewpoint over others because they had the political power to do so at that time.
RD: Narayana Maharaja's own Spiritual Master, along with his fellow Gaudiya Matha spiritual masters, re-instituted the concept of guru parampara...
This line makes no sense at all.
RD:
...but they did not do so on the authorization of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. In fact, they reinstated a guru parampara system that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had essentially rejected.
R:
Srila Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Maharaja left the institution together with the most prominent disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura after the chaos started and founded the Sri Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti in Calcutta together with two others, who where non-other then Sri Narottamananda Prabhu and Srila Prabhupada (at that time Sri Abhaya Caranaravinda Prabhu) he founded Sri Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti to protect the pure concepts of their Gurudeva. This move must have been transcendentaly authorised by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura because this disciples where most bonafide. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati did not appoint any acarya to show that the acarya is not to be appointed, but if anyone is qualified in all repects as Srila Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Maharaja was then there is no fault at all. Also Srila Prabhupada was never appointed as acarya but he became a very powerful acarya directly in line with his gurudeva, there is nothing wrong with that. One can become guru if one has all qualifications of a bonafide guru but to appoint somebody as acarya to rescue the structure of an institution might be the wrong way. Srila Prabhupada also never appointed any of his disciples as Acaryas in 1977 as acknowledged by the GBC in 1998.
RD:
Narayana Maharaja states that the guru parampara is part of the bhagavata parampara. At the same time, he gives many examples in the bhagavata parampara where the guru parampara line is not followed.
R:
Guru-parampara means diksa- or even more clearly pancaratrika-parampara, where nama and mantra are received by a qualified, living diksa-guru. There is no Acarya in bhagavat-parampara who has not undergone diksa-samskara according to pancaratrika-viddhi. Bhagavat-parampara included in guru-parampara means that non of the great acaryas in bhagavat-parampara rejected the viddhi-marga or the rules and regulations of excepting diksa-samskara by a living diksa-guru.
RD:
If we look at the continual history going back to Lord Brahma, we see that the bhagavata parampara is transcendentally independent of the guru parampara
R:
This is not true in any way and there are no examples of this. There is no Acarya in the four sampradayas who received nama and mantra from a guru who has already departed from this world. In the case of Madhvacaryas initiation Sri Vayasadeva was physically present and gave him diksa directly.
RD:
What is most questionable in Narayana Maharaja's presentation is his insinuation that everyone who is strictly following the guru parampara from Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur is also, by nature, part of the bhagavata parampara.
R:
Bhagavat-parampara means following completely, externally and internally following and serving the gurus innermost desires. Who is fully realized and a follower of the transcendental moods of his guru is member of bhagavad-parampara.
RD:
I agree with Narayana Maharaja's description, in paragraphs three and four of his lecture, of all the personalities who are considered part of the bhagavata parampara, but who don't follow the strict rules of the guru parampara.
R:
To say that they did not follow the strict rules of guru-parampara is completely bogus. Srila Narayana Mahararaja never said that and it is not mentioned in his class. It seems that Sri Rocana Prabhu has not understood what guru-parampara means, otherwise how can he write like this?
RD:
Narayana Maharaja makes the point that anyone who understands and accepts the teachings that are enunciated by the bhagavata parampara is essentially initiated, saying, "Initiation is a matter of heart and mood."
R:
The understanding of heart and mood is not intellectual work. It is only possible by receiving the special mercy of Hari, Guru and Vaisnavas. Who is disregarding the instruction of sastra and not following all rules and regulations of vaidhi-bhakti mentioned therein, someone who is not pure and simple-hearted cannot expect the special mercy of the Mahajanas.
RD:
Narayana Maharaja also says that a disciple can't fall down. This statement has no real meaning in the absence of an explanation of what "falling down" means.
“Falling down” is one of the most famous expressions nowadays in the community of devotees worldwide and not at all meaningless without detailed explanation. “Falling down” means to leave the shelter of guru, sadhu and sastra. Someone who has attained a higher platform on the path of realisation by guru and Krishnas mercy and later comes down to a lower platform due to inattentiveness, offenses, etc. is considered fallen. A sannyasi for example who had lost his taste in domestic affairs and was situated in the highest order of life, but later again enjoyed his senses and acted selfishly against the order of guru is considered to be fallen or a vantasi, an eater of his own vomit. In his class, Srila Narayana Maharaja intended to say, that someone who is a real disciple cannot divert from the path of devotion due to the intimate bond he has with the guru. Somebody who has krsna-prema cannot forget Krishna for a even a blink of an eye. In the same way does a real disciple never forget his guru. To be a real disciple one has to be liberated. A real disciple serves the manobhista of his guru in both, this world and the eternal realm.
RD:
Who is going to determine who is directly in line with the siddhanta, behaviour and moods of the true bhagavata parampara, or the Sampradaya Acaryas?
R:
Only a maha-bhagavat can recognize a maha-bhagavat. Who wants guidance in spiritual matters must therefore approach a genuine spiritual master who sees the truth. Even though rare, such living spiritual masters who are the manifestation of Bhagavans krpa-sakti are always present in this world for those who are sincere seekers of the ultimate goal of life.
RD:
Naturally, all gurus are expected to promote the idea that they are qualified, but how does the neophyte disciple or follower actually know who's in line and who isn't?
R:
The bonafide spiritual master does not have to promote himself. He his selfeffulgent like the sun. His preaching is succesfully spreading around the globe and he walks elegantly amidst barking dogs like a razor blade through warm butter. The neophyte cannot dicern who is a bonafide spiritual master with his material senses. By dint of his previous sukrti he will come in contact with sastra and sadhus. Even though the qualifications of a bonafide spiritual master are explained in the scriptures, the neophyte might be cheated by an imposter or by his own faulty vision. The only way for the neophyte is to take shelter at the lotusfeet of Sri Krishna in the heart, the Paramatma. By praying to Him, Krishna will send him a real living guru if he is completely sincere. Ones sincerity or sraddha is depending on ones sukrti and samskaras from this life or previous lifes.
RD:
If one who is in the guru parampara falls down, is he no longer in the guru parampara?
R:
Somebody who is acting against Hari, guru, vaisnavas and sastras, who is acting whimsically or is engaged in sinful acts is neglected by his boanfide guru for the timebeing unless he repents and corrects his attitude. One can say that in the real sense he was never initiated. Real initiation is the attainment of transcendental vision and the complete eradication of karma, sins, etc. There are two kinds of diksa. Vidvadrudhi is the ritualistic initiation where diksa-mantras are given, yajna is performed,where the candidate shaves his hair keeping a sikha, he receives a vaisnava name and thinks: “now i am initiated”. Avidvarudhi is the internal process of diksa or real diksa which is completed after going through five stages. The ritualistic diksa must be taken but if one does not follow, then there is never real initiation, only an outward show. The day where one receives the diksa-mantras is like enroling in school and receiving transcendental vision, real or complete diksa, is like succesfully passing the exams and being a teacher oneself. To be in guru parampara one has to be a guru, as the name says: “guru-parampara”. Everyone can be the receipient of mercy from guru-parampara however, but definitly not a representative of its divine concepts. Real preaching does only one who is able to rescue a soul from maya by distributing transcendental sound.
RD:
Narayana Maharaja writes:
"Guru-parampara is included in bhagavata-parampara. Those disciples who are fully following Gurudeva's mood and teachings are in the bhagavata-parampara." Narayana Maharaja likes to include Srila Prabhupada and his own guru as both being in the bhagavata parampara, and there's much innuendo that all of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's disciples who didn't fall down are also members of the bhagavata parampara.
R:
Everybody who is qualified is in bhagavat-parampara. Its members cannot fall down. But not everyone who did not fall down is in bhagavat-parampara. A madhyama-uttama-adhikari may take a limited number of disciples, he can initiate and give some of his realisations. He does not fall down and soon he enters uttama-kanistha-level if he himself keeps company of an uttama-bhagavat. He is guru but he is not uttama-uttama-bhagavat. There are gradiations of uttama-adhikaris also. the members in bhagavat-parampara are of the highest caliber, coming down from the spiritual realm, givers of the highest prema, such devotees are rare.
RD:
Yet our Srila Prabhupada went so far as to call many of his Godbrothers useless, and certainly indicated that he did not accept them as being in the bhagavata-parampara.
R:
Srila Prabhupada never called Srila Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Maharaja nor Srila Narayana Maharaja useless and nowhere in his bonafide books or letters will anyone find such a statement about these two!!! Srila Prabhupada has said many things against some of his Godbrothers but he also apologized in his last days for all what he said and that it was only for preaching and protecting the weak faith of his disciples.
RD:
This means that Srila Prabhupada did not place these Godbrothers in the same category as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and all the others who Srila Prabhupada listed in the bhagavata parampara.
R:
Srila Narayana Maharaja is not putting every guru in parampara in the same category as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Where does Sri Rocana Prabhu has this idea from?
RD:
Narayana Maharaja, on the other hand, is not clear about which one of his Spiritual Master's Godbrothers should and should not be included in the bhagavata parampara.
R:
This paragraph is simply an example of sadhu-ninda. Nowhere in his classes or books does Srila Narayana Maharaja show that he is not clear about guru-tattva. By saying that Srila Narayana Maharaja is unable to dicern who is a vaisnava and who is not, Sri Rocana Prabhu has practically said that Srila Narayana Maharaja is a kanistha-adhikari who is devoid of tattva-jnana and discrimination. Srila Prabhupada considered Srila Narayana Maharaja to be an ideal guru-sevaka and both where intimate friends, this no one can deny. How Sri Rocana Prabhu will please his spiritual master by exercising his uncontrolled tung in such a way is beyond my immagination.
RD:
The fact that Narayana Maharaja differs from Srila Prabhupada in his categorization of who is a member of the bhagavata parampara distinguishes him and his teachings on guru-tattva from Srila Prabhupada.
R:
This Paragraph is nothing but Sri Rocan Prabhus speculation to suit his purpose of creating division between two empowered acaryas. If Sri Rocana Prabhu would be so kind to give evidence from Prabhupadas Books where Srila Prabhupada shows his understanding of bhagavat-parampara i will be very happy to proof that all of his trying to spread this kind of poison is completely useless. Srila Prabhupada differs not an inch with Srila Narayana Maharaja on the point of guru-parampara. However, the unity between the teachings of Srila Prabhupada and Srila Narayana Maharaja can be only seen by nonenvious persons who are free from politics.
RD:
Srila Prabhupada never, ever made the statements that Narayana Maharaja has made in this article, namely that he considered that Narayana Maharaja's Spiritual Master, who was Srila Prabhupada's Godbrother, is a member of the bhagavata parampara. While Srila Prabhupada took sannyasa initiation from Kesava Maharaja, from the time that he started ISKCON onward we find no reference to the fact that Srila Prabhupada considered Kesava Maharaja to be in some exalted position as the other Sampradaya Acaryas and bhagavata parampara members.
R:
What Sri Rocana Prabhu says here is completely wrong and evil.
In his lecture on the 21st October 1968 in Seattle (BBT Folio) Srila Prabhupada called Srila Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Maharaja a true renunciant, transparent medium of his guru, a holy person, a vaisnava, an ocean of mercy, a representative of the Lord. Twice in his speech he said that he went to Krishnas abode after his departure and he called him “His Divine Grace Om Visnupada Sri Srimad Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja preceptor of our spiritual master”. He glorified his sannyasa-guru even to such an extend that he took a prayer of Srila Raghunath Dasa Goswami to Sanatana Goswami and changed it so that Srila Kesava Maharajas Name appeared where there was the name of Srila Sanatana Goswami. Srila Kesava Maharaja gave the gopi-mantra to Srila Prabhupada and the empowerment to preach (sannyasa). Their relationship was very very intimate, they where bosomfriends. Sri Rocana Prabhu is supremely ignorant about the value of this intimate relationship, fully covered by maha-maya he unfortunatly knows no better to write foolishly.
RD:
For that matter, Srila Prabhupada never mentioned the fact that Narayana Maharaja was his siksa disciple, that he accepted him as such, and that such a relationship existed.
R:
In a letter to Srila Narayana Maharaja from Butler, Pennsilvania in 1968 Srila Prabhupada writes: “Our relationship is certainly based on spontaneous love. That is why there is no chance of us forgetting one another.”
What more can be said? There are many more Letters of Srila Prabhupada and many facts that show Srila Prabhupadas intimate relationship with Srila Narayana Maharaja. These Letters still exist in original handwriting by Srila Prabhupada in Bengali and English. Sri Rocana Prabhu thinks that Prabhupada must tell him directly who is his siksa-disciple even though it is shown by his dealings with Srila Narayana Maharaja. The dealings between siksa- guru and siksa-disciple are of intimacy and confidential but Sri Rocana Prabhu stays outside of such loving relationships and has no access to them. Did he ever accept and thought about that Srila Prabhupada said that Srila Sridhara Maharaja is his Siksa-guru? Actually his poor presentation shows only that he does not know what is diksa and what is siksa and that he has know realisation of both. To recognize the dealings between vaisnavas one has to be a vaisnava himself.
RD:
Regardless of the sweet words spoken by Narayana Maharaja and his seeming glorifications of Srila Prabhupada, he avoids discussing the differences between them.
R:
There are no differences. A Swan knows how to extract the essence. Srila Prabhupada did so many things in his preaching that where outwardly not at all as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati did things. The maha-mantra sung together, use of Harmonium during Kirtan, installation of Radha-Krishna without Mahaprabhu, ladies and gents mixed, names of deities, dresscode, the temple program, standards...etc, so many things, but was he not empowered? Was he not a maha-bhagavat? Was he not in line with his Guru?
There was no fault in Srila Prabhupada ever, nor will there ever be! Even though outwardly for the wordly eye there where many differnces there where no differences in the real sense. His guru and Krishna, the whole parampara dictated him how to preach succesfully, he was fully connected and fully in line. One can find so many differences when one does not understand what the nature of suddha-bhakti and the guru-disciple relationship is. The descending of prema-bhakti is crooked like Krishna himself. Materialists will never be able to measure this movement, to put it in a box, to catch it. They will be cheated and left behind bereft of nectar. Did Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura live like Jagannatha Dasa Babaji Maharaja? Did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati spend his daily live like Srila Goura Kishora Dasa Babaji? Did Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura mechanically perform exactly the same activities as Srila Narottama Thakura? If the answer on these questions is no, then what is the harm when Srila Narayana Maharaja would differ from Srila Prabhupada outwardly or in his preaching? As Srila Prabhupada showed is changing of institutional Standards, preaching strategy and so on no criteria to ascertain who is the acarya. Why then does Sri Rocana Prabhu come up with such childish points?
RD:
In fact, he insinuates that there is no difference, that he and Srila Prabhupada were in agreement on these points. Yet Srila Prabhupada publicly admonished his Godbrothers for not following the mood of the bhagavata parampara, or as Narayana Maharaja says, the "siddhanta, behaviour and moods". That was the reason Srila Prabhupada concluded that they were not part of the bhagavata parampara.
R:
Now Sri Rocana Dasas mind speculates to the maximum degree, what can be done? He thinks that “Only when Srila Narayana Maharaja also critizises the Gaudiya Math Acaryas will i accept that he is in line with Srila Prabhupada” what a stupidity. “Srila Prabhupada said that none of his godbrothers are in line and Srila Narayana Maharaja says that they are in line!” What a big problem!!! What a big deviation!!! Srila Prabhupada apologized for saying things like this, that can be heard on tape. Why did he apologize? He established the Bhaktivedanta Charity Trust, a platform to cooperate with his godbrothers, why? Trustees of which are Srila Bhakti Dayita Madhava Gosvami Maharaja and Srila Bhaktivaibhava Puri Maharaja, useless people engaged as trustees? He said in his final days that THE WAR IS OVER and he apologized!!! These where his final words. Does Sri Rocana Prabhu and the final-order interpreters have no ears?
RD:
In the concluding remarks of his lecture, Narayana Maharaja states that if you're not directly initiated by Srila Prabhupada, but are initiated by one of his bonafide disciples, then you're fortunate to be in his line. Again, he's not stating who is a bonafide disciple of Srila Prabhupada. In fact, he says that those who fall down are NOT disciples.
R:
Srila Narayana Maharaja said so many times that those who follow Srila Prabhupadas instructions and his mood are true disciples. They can be anywhere, not only in ISKCON. It seems that Sri Rocana Prabhu never had the association of Om Visnupada Astottara-sata Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja who was a very pure devotee and diksa-disciple of Srila Prabhupada.
RD:
We know there are many so-called bonafide gurus in ISKCON, including those who have taken many disciples. The gurus are promoting the idea that they are in disciplic succession, and that consequently their disciples are in disciplic succession. At the same time, these gurus outwardly criticize Narayana Maharaja and don't consider him to be part of the guru parampara. This begs the question: is criticizing Narayana Maharaja a form of falldown? And if so, does Narayana Maharaja therefore conclude that these disciples are actually not initiated by someone who's bonafide, and therefore they are not in the guru parampara?
R:
Srila Narayana Maharaja did not speak of ISKCON in his Lecture. One can be a bonafide disciple of Srila Prabhupada without staying within the Institution of ISKCON.
RD:
It's obvious that Narayana Maharaja wants his audience and followers to think one thing namely, that Srila Prabhupada is part of the bhagavata parampara, Narayana Maharaja's guru is equally part of the bhagavata parampara, and Narayana Maharaja himself is therefore also part of the bhagavata parampara.
R:
Srila Prabhupada told his disciples that he is the representative of God and that he is guru. What is the harm when Srila Narayana Maharajas does so too and calls himself a member of bhagavat-parampara? Srila Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Maharaja is a crest jewels in bhagavat-parampara there is no doubt about it. What is the problem with all that?
RD:
But the question remains� who else is in the bhagavata parampara?
R:
There is a lot of space in Bhagavat-parampara. Srila Jiva Goswami, Srila Narottama Thakura, Srila Srinivasa Acarya, Sri Syamananda Prabhu... all of them where present at the same time and had wonderful relationships. There was no narrowmindedness. Whoever is qualified is in bhagavat-parampara. Still maha-bhagavatas of such caliber are rare.
RD:
What of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers?
R:
Are in bhagavat-parampara when they have all the qualification.
How many of those does Narayana Maharaja consider have fallen down?
R:
Stupid question.
RD:
Does Narayana Maharaja consider that ISKCON gurus are in the bhagavata parampara?
R:
When they are qualified, yes.
Your servant Krsna Das
Posted by Rocana dasa @ 12/11/2004 12:50 PM PST
Dear Shiva dasa,
Obeisances and glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Thanks again for your recent posting. It has been interesting to consider your various points, and to attempt to clarify my position in relationship. Sorry it took me so long to respond, but we’ve opened up quite an extensive discussion here!
Over the course of this discussion, we’ve touched upon quite a number of different topics, including our personal opinions on Narayana Maharaja’s character and activities, and Narayana Maharaja’s version of the “Guru Parampara” poem. I appreciated your further comments on the term “holistic”. To a great extent, our discussions have been an exploration of definitions of a number of terms:
bhagavata parampara
guru parampara
siksa parampara
tattva parampara
Sampradaya Acarya
Since your last posting, I’ve done further reading on these subjects. In particular, I read the “Supremacy of the Bhagavata Parampara” article by BV Narayana, and now realize that this angle of discussion is likely the source of your use of this term. Assuming that’s correct, it certainly helps me to understand the context you’re writing from.
Generally, you seem to use the terms “bhagavata, siksa, and tattva parampara” synonymously. As I clarify below, I don’t accept bhagavata and siksa parampara to be synonymous. And, I don’t accept the term or the concept of tattva parampara as I currently understand you to be using it. The discussion had been made more complex as we consider the “Sampradaya Acarya” concept in the mix.
Here’s a brief summary of what I understand from our discussion up to this point:
We have not yet concluded that we’re in agreement on my definition of Srila Prabhupada as Sampradaya Acarya. While you haven’t opposed the concept, you also haven’t embraced it. You have stated that you understand the Sampradaya Acarya concept to be closer to the diksa parampara concept then the siksa parampara or Bhagavata parampara concept. Then again, you’ve said you think the Sampradaya Acarya is synonymous with siksa parampara, as opposed to guru parampara (line of bodies). You’ve also said you see Sampradaya Acaryas as closer to guru parampara, because it stresses connection to an individual Acarya rather than to siddhanta. I would be interested to hear your definitive position on this.
I previously stated that in his recent VNN article, Narayana Maharaja uses the term “bhagavata parampara” synonymously with my use of “Sampradaya Acarya”, in that he points to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s poem “Sri Guru Parampara” as describing the bhagavata parampara. This particular article of BV Narayana’s is best understood in the context of his “Supremacy of the Bhagavata Parampara” article written in 1998, which can be found at: http://www.vnn.org/world/WD9812/WD05-2621.html.
After reading this article I surmised that in fact, my original impression of the Bhagavat parampara is indeed in line with both Sampradaya Acaryas (Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Bhaktivedanta) presentation of the guru parampara and therefore coincides with my concept of the exclusivity of the rarified Sampradaya Acarya. I continue to be mystified by your expressed opinion of Bhagavat parampara as being exclusively tattva and not a “line of bodies”. Granted, some of the language used by BV Narayana Maharaj might lead one to your conclusion. Overall, however, his use of the term Bhagavata parampara is in defense of the Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya linage as presented by “jagad guru Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupadaji” in comparison to the Pancaratrika parampara as presented by “some sahaijya Vaisnavas”.
I still question who actually introduced the term “bhagavat parampara”, and particularly the definition applied to it by Narayana Maharaja and his guru, Sri Srimad Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja. In the article mentioned above, it is difficult to determine how much of the content is originally from Kesava Maharaja and what is Narayana’s additional expansion. To my knowledge, this term and usage was not introduced by either Srila Prabhupada or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. I suspect it was introduced by one of Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers, most likely Kesava Gosvami Maharaja. You’ve given an opinion of what Narayana Maharaja means by his use of the term, but so far you have provided no citations for it, so that is still an open question.
My own definition of the bhagavata parampara is that it is made up exclusively of Sampradaya Acaryas, and specifically, of those 32 Sampradaya Acaryas listed by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Prabhupada. Given that they refer to this list as being the “guru parampara”, I consider that to be the bona fide descriptive term. Until a citation is provided to support use of the term “bhagavata parampara” rather than “guru parampara” as a means of describing the list of 32 Sampradaya Acaryas, then I consider the latter to be accurate. Having now read “Supremacy of the Bhagavata Parampara”, I better understand Narayana Maharaja’s use of the term “guru parampara”. As he used it in that article, he was in fact describing the Pancaratrika parampara. In the lecture most recently posted on VNN, it appears that Narayana Maharaja assumes that those present have familiarized themselves with terms exclusive to his “branch”. This illustrates the degree to which converts to BV Narayana’s camp have to essentially learn a new vocabulary in order to fully comprehend what he is saying. If, in his more recent VNN posting, he had prefaced the term “guru parampara” with “Pancaratrika guru parampara”, much of the confusion would have been eliminated.
Early in our discussion, the term “guru parampara” was introduced in the context of diksa and siksa lines due to the fact that Narayana Maharaja introduced it in that way (sans “Pancaratrika”) in his recently posted VNN article. I pointed out the discrepancy in terms, and emphasized that Narayana’s use is different than Srila Prabhupada’s and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s. Instead, Narayana Maharaja states that guru-parampara is included in bhagavata-parampara, and those disciples who are fully following are in the bhagavata-parampara. Having not read his earlier “Supremacy” article, it was very difficult for me to decipher his intended meaning.
History shows the bhagavata parampara (Sampradaya Acaryas) is transcendentally independent of the traditional guru Pancaratrika parampara. I do not accept that an accurate explanation of the Bhagavata Sampradaya is that it is a siksa lineage. Rather, it allows for a siksa connection and doesn’t insist on an exclusive diksa relationship. On the other hand, I opine that our Sampradaya is completely transcendental and is therefore not restricted by any guru definitions or time restrictions. We should have complete faith in the proclamations of the Sampradaya Acaryas, and especially the most recent.
You stated that bhagavata parampara is synonymous with siksa parampara, i.e., parampara of tattva, and that it is the opposite of guru parampara, or a line of ‘bodies’. This is still very confusing to me. Perhaps you care to elaborate?
You equate “guru parampara” with a line of bodies, just as Narayana Maharaja equates “guru parampara” with siksa/diksa lines. In his “Supremacy” article, he is actually referring to the Pancaratrika guru parampara. However, Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta use the term “guru parampara” to refer to the 32 Sampradaya Acaryas whom you (and Narayana) refer to elsewhere as being the bhagavata parampara. This inconsistency in use of terms has created confusion throughout the discussion. On one hand, it is simply an exercise in semantics, but on the other hand, there are some important siddhantic truths that need to be clarified. Again, we would need to determine how/where the term “bhagavata parampara” was first introduced in order to codify your definitions of terms. For example, you wrote:
“Anyone who receives the siksa of the previous acaryas and or the Bhagavata is considered to be in the disciplic succession. This has been called the Bhagavata or siksa parampara. I'm not arguing against your philosophical points, I just don't think that Narayana Maharaja was intending to mean what you suggested. At least I have never come across anyone using the term Bhagavata parampara in any other way then what I have stated.”
I do not consider bhagavata parampara to be synonymous with siksa parampara, in that the personalities who are members of the bhagavata parampara are in that category due to their potency and realization, and regardless of whether they’re in siksa or diksa relationships. The bhagavata parampara is transcendentally independent from classifications of diksa or siksa line, therefore the two are not really synonymous. If we consider that this term was probably coined by Srila Kesava Maharaj as a literary way in which to explain our transcendental linage – in the context of his debating with sahaijya critics -- then I suppose it could well be a matter of semantics. Regardless, I still would not tend to use “Bhagavata parampara” in my writings, as I prefer to use terms in context as Srila Prabhupada used them.
You state that guru parampara is based on and structured within a siksa paradigm, and a guru parampara that does not recognize or utilize the siksa or Bhagavat sampradaya is not considered to be in the sampradaya. You therefore conclude that Narayana Maharaja was not using the concept of bhagavata parampara as being synonymous with “Sampradaya Acarya”, and that my Sampradaya Acarya concept is not the same as the true meaning of “bhagavata parampara”.
First, according to your previous definition of guru parampara, it is a ‘line of bodies’. Consequently, you can’t say that it is structured within a siksa paradigm, since a diksa line also falls within the definition of a ‘line of bodies’. Second, you state that a guru parampara that doesn’t recognize the Bhagavata Sampradaya isn’t bona fide. Third, you conclude that Narayana was therefore not using bhagavata parampara synonymously with Sampradaya Acarya. The logic of that conclusion escapes me. Can you explain how your conclusion falls out of these two assertions? Fourth, you conclude that my Sampradaya Acarya concept is not the same as the true meaning of “bhagavata parampara”. Again, I don’t understand the logic behind your conclusion. Can you elaborate?
You understand bhagavata or siksa parampara is used to stress the concept of disciplic succession based on tattva rather then diksa lineage. I agree to the extent that the bhagavata parampara only includes persons who are completely in line with the siddhanta on the level of a Sampradaya Acarya. You suggest that this concept was used to deflect criticism on the Gaudiya sampradaya because of gaps in the disciplic succession, but it appears to me that they were actually dealing with the sahija critics by using the Pancaratrika parampara template. It’s also important to note that in the “Supremacy” article, it is clear that the Pancaratrika guru parampara is used by Kesava Maharaja to explain to critics that our lineage does, in fact, follow the Pancaratrika system by virtue of a line of both siksa and diksa relationships. This, too, weights against your use of the term “guru parampara” as being synonymous with siksa parampara.
Aside from that, I still think that the Gaudiya Matha’s rhetoric around tattva was used partially to deflect other issues and agendas, such as the confusing mess these Godbrothers created during the period directly after the departure of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Our Srila Prabhupada made it known that he was very upset about their course of action.
You think I misinterpreted the way Narayana Maharaja used the term “bhagavata parampara”. You don't think he used the term as being synonymous with "Sampradaya Acarya", because you think he uses it to stress the concept of disciplic succession based on tattva rather then an official diksa lineage. However, that statement does not disqualify the Sampradaya Acarya concept, which is also based on tattva, not diksa or siksa lineage. Basically, if we just accept the rarified supremacy of the nitya siddha Sampradaya Acaryas, then whatever they state as being our actual parampara we accept. Therefore we can transcend all this confusion. I present our Srila Prabhupada as the most recent member of the line of Sampradaya Acaryas. As such, he chose to not elaborate in such detail over this issue. Consequently, it may be best to avoid getting too enmeshed with this “tar baby” of an issue. Admittedly, the comments made by Narayana Maharaja’s article in commemoration of Srila Prabhupada’s departure entangled me. While it has been enlightening to go down this road of discussion with you, it also makes me even more appreciative of the benefits of committing exclusively to the Sampradaya Acarya rather than going out into the wide world of so-called Acaryas looking for siksa association. Over the years I have discovered just how different Narayana Maharaj and his branch are from Srila Prabhupada. I only wish more of my Godbrothers and sisters could see just what they have gotten themselves into by accepting Narayana Maharaj as their siksa guru.
You conclude that my concept of “Sampradaya Acarya” is different than “bhagavata parampara” because even if one has never heard of the most recent Sampradaya Acarya, he can get connected simply by hearing the message of the Bhagavata parampara from any bona fide source. You quoted references to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s and Srila Prabhupada’s use of the term “bhagavata-marga”, suggesting that their use of this term equates to the proper meaning of the terms “bhagavata parampara” or “siksa parampara”. You again emphasize that my “Sampradaya Acarya” concept is not the same as the true meaning of Bhagavata parampara.
You wrote:
From a lecture on the Bhagavatam by A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami."Sravanam kirtanam visnoh smaranam--this is bhagavata-marga. And arcanam vandanam dasyam sakhyam atma-nivedanam--that is pancaratrika, arcanam. So out of the nine--nine, eight, seven, six, five--whatever you do, that is sufficient because absolute. Any item, even one item, you can, if you perform perfectly, that is sufficient. But there are nine alternative items. Just like Haridasa Thakura, he simply chanted, sravanam kirtanam. He did not establish any Deity, but he got perfection. There were many others. Just like Pariksit Maharaja. At the last stage of his life he simply concentrated in hearing Srimad-Bhagavatam. Sravanam. So if sravana is perfect, that is sufficient. Any one of the nine items, if it is done perfectly, that is sufficient. Pariksit Maharaja, he did not go to the temple. He sat on the bank of the Ganges, and he was very serious because he knew that "I am going to die within seven days. Let me finish as soon as possible simply hearing of Srimad-Bhagavatam." He was intelligent. Otherwise... Not that simply he was hearing. He was questioning, as you have seen in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. So he was very scholar. It means as the spiritual master, Sukadeva Gosvami, was a great scholar in Sanskrit, the king was also a great scholar. Therefore quickly he was reciting, and he was understanding. And as soon as there was some difficulty, he was immediately questioning.
So both the spiritual master and the disciple, they became perfect simply by sravanam kirtanam. This is Bhagavata-marga. Simply by hearing and chanting. The spiritual master chanted, recited Srimad-Bhagavatam, and that is being imitated."
That is indeed a very nice excerpt from Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. I can see how you extrapolated your understanding of “Bhagavat parampara” from the term “Bhagavat-marga” as used by Srila Prabhupada above. Whether you and BV Narayana would agree on your explanation is another matter.
I understand the above quote to have yet another meaning which is similar to yours, but not entirely the same. In the above passage, Srila Prabhupada is emphasizing the necessity of hearing from the correct authoritative source in conjunction with the prerequisites of the sincere disciple. “Both the spiritual master and the disciple, they became perfect simply by sravanam kirtanam.”
In his purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam 7:5:23-24, Srila Prabhupada also writes:
"Hearing of the holy name of the Lord (sravanam) is the beginning of devotional service. Although any one of the nine processes is sufficient, in chronological order the hearing of the holy name of the Lord is the beginning. Indeed, it is essential. As enunciated by Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, ceto-darpana-marjanam: by chanting the holy name of the Lord, one is cleansed of the material conception of life, which is due to the dirty modes of material nature. When the dirt is cleansed from the core of one's heart, one can realize the form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead--isvarah paramah krsnah sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah.
Here he is also distinguishing between the concept of being able to thoroughly engage in any one of the nine processes in order to gain perfection, and the imperative requirement to hear and chant. By hearing and chanting in accordance with directions set forth by Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu for this age, one can realize Krsna. Everyone must hear and chant as a prerequisite to engaging in any or all of the other devotional practices: "Sravanam kirtanam visnoh smaranam--this is bhagavata-marga.
It’s interesting to explore these passages in the context of our discussion. You appear to be asserting that Srila Prabhupada’s use of the term “bhagavata-marga” is somehow synonymous with the term “bhagavata parampara”, which we have been discussing up to now. You’re saying that the conclusion one can extrapolate from Srila Prabhupada’s statement is that you can hear from any one of our Sampradaya Acaryas, and in that way gain access and therefore the mercy and realizations that distinguishes our Sampradaya from others? If your answer is yes, I disagree, because the essence of the principle of parampara is that the most recent manifestation of the Sampradaya is empowered to present our siddhanta in the most comprehensive manner according to time, place and circumstance. The most recent Sampradaya Acarya is empowered to make whatever adjustments are required so as give the conditioned souls the greatest opportunity to comprehend.
You wrote:
This was what I considered the me
