Looks like this forum is not a very good source of sanga anymore. People here are more inclined to talk about anything other than GVism. Anyway, here are my humble thoughts on the issues raised. At the rate this forum is going I don't know when I'll go back again here.
On Q 1: I think it’s unwise to make generalisations that everyone that adhere to the core concepts of what GVIsm are about would say that initiation to the seeds of prema bhakti is VALID ONLY in an unbroken line of diksha gurus.
I think even the most conservative trad devotee has now outgrown his/her “purist” mentality.
I don’t know of any trad guru who claim that. They may say it is of paramount importance to one’s grounding into the esoteric significance of initiation but no guru has said that it’s a surefire ticket for a place in the inner circle in Vraja.
I remember, that the late Govinda Goswami of Radhakunda had stated that Bhaktivedanta Swami had Krishna’s personal hand when he went to the west. And even Ananta Das Babaji Maharakj has commented on the good works BS had done for GVism.
Swami Tripurari by putting a dialectical distinction between siksha and diksha , guru pranali system gives an envious slant on siddha pranali system by implying that an unbroken line does not carry the essence, only the form. Which is not necessarily true.
There is a living essence running through the guru pranali system.
However, even in the surface level an unbroken chain has validity because at least there’s a working system in place to help assure that the real deal is passed on down the line.
By rehashing this topic , Tripurari Swami is put in a bad light. As if he is implying that it’s a bad thing to have a system in this physical world that can help keep intact the history, tradition and the intimate knowledge going back from the 6 Goswamis.
As if the Swami has hang up on this so called list. Doesn’t he think that gurus like him have enough intelligence to know when a guru may not be on the “list”. Maybe I’m not in the historical loop, but I don’t know of anyone in the “list” that shouldn’t be there.
What is clear to me is that many modern day westerner gurus shouldn’t even be allowed to go near the guru club’s door.
About Baladeva’s on parampara. Although I’m not sure if the translation presented by the T.S. is correct , I’d say that a succession does not have to be always vertical – top to bottom in a straight line. A succession can also be a line pointing downwards expanded laterally (sideways) from time to time, as is the case with the direct disciples of Madhavcharya.
The listing of names of Madhavacharya’s direct disciples in succession maybe siksha line alright, but it DOES NOT PROVE in anyway that it is not a diksha parampara at all.
We are all very far from the distant past so we may never know. But one thing is sure though, the diksha connection in siddha pranali is well emphasized and a historical unique character of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
To cast aside diksha connection as a significant connection like a negative baggage is unacceptable.
If one wants to engage in a philosophical argument one has to be consistent , otherwise it’s pointless.
We all agree that a mantra has power. Diksha is mantra (and much more), therefore it has power.
Therefore diksha in the guru pranali parampara has the power to connect one to the energetic source.
Does Tripurari Swami think we do puja to a carved stone?
On Q2: Phew..... Nothing in this account makes me convinced that Bhaktivinode Thakur has anything other than respect for his diksha guru.
If anything, the criticism alleged levelled by the Radhakunda Babajis are rehashed from the very very distant past . The only group that seem to raise Lazarus back from the dead are the IGMers.
On Q4: I just hate this sentence of T. Swami : “SP and his spiritual master spoke against siddha pranali”
As if siddha pranali is the 4 headed monster lurking in the dark ready to devour an unsuspecting aspirant.
On Q4: Of course the acharyas as individuals may have had their own expertise in channelling their realizations to the outside world . But I think to say that we should make distinctions on each and every acharyas’ tattva is counter productive to the development of spontaneous relationship to the object of our goal.
