Do I allow for another BSST, etc.? Certainly. And if a person of such stature got his or her inspiration from me, I would be honored. But such devotees are rare and we should not make rules or forego them ourselves in the name of what great personalities are capable of when we are not similarly capable.

… The fact is he was not against it, but he was against misrepresentation of it, just as his father BVT was, and he took the trouble per the order of BVT to expose this misrepresentation everywhere.

Dear Maharaja Tripurari, where that leaves us at today, in your opinion?

It’s been now some 90 years after that, maybe more, and in 90 years world has gone through a lot. Several generations passed by. It’s almost a completely different world today. Visions changed, almost everything revalued. Do we accept new visions and revaluation on these subjects?

What is the future of both approaches in your opinion? Do you think they’re at all suitable for today’s world or do you think something else is possible too? Do you think they’re excluding each other or do you think they can complement each other? Do you see harmony between them? In the wide world we see modern symbiosis of different sciences and thoughts working exceptionally well together.

In your other article you mention that any way that will lead people to reach bhava for God is good, so in that matter you may also allow for some novel approach? Do you allow then for some new Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, a person or a few of them, who’d be able refresh the approach to devotion and inspire people even further in the future? True inspiration, non-sectarianism and a good example are terribly lacking in the world of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

Following those same lines from the discussion above, do you perceive some person in the future to stand in front of your picture, or a book for example, and feel inspired by you; and if that person inspires others much more than your own formally initiated students can or ever will do, how would you feel about it, and would you perceive that person as your beloved disciple? Or if your formally initiated students reject such a person for being unconventional in their opinion, but again very inspiring to others, how would you respond then?

These are all questions that naturally follow from the voluminous conversation above, and I think they’re are important, vital for the future of devotion. Your reflection on these questions I pose would be highly appreciated. Thank you.

Anyway, Maharaja, on the siddha-pranali issue, is it not the fact that the process was established and revealed originally by Gopal Guru Goswami (as you have explained in another article) who is in fact not in the direct Rupanuga lineage of Lalita and Vishaka Sakhi, but has his own lineage that in fact a different lineage than the “Rupanuga” lineage of Rupa Goswami who is in the camp of Ramananda Raya and Svarupa Damodar rather than Gopal Guru Goswami?

So, the siddha-pranali process was originally a type of raganuga sadhana that Gopal Guru Goswami gave SOME of his disciples and not even ALL of his disciples, but what had become an unfortunate imitative process when siddha-dehas were being revealed by gurus who weren’t really on that level and started the imitating.

However, in the line of Ramananda Raya and Svarupa Damodar who are Lalita and Vishaka, their camp of Sri Rupa and Ragunatha etc. etc., this siddha-pranali (ekadasa-bhava) is not standard to their form of raganuga sadhana.

Somewhere along the line the babas in Vrindavan all came to accept and promote this ekadasa-bhava as being the “tradition”, but it was only a tradition in their tradition of Gopal Guru Goswami and not in the tradition of Rupa or Raghunatha.

Is this not the right explanation?

I am sure you can add more and correct my errors.

The legacy of Bhaktisidhanta is not 100% in accordance with the practice of Bhaktivinode, i.e., the inner cultivation of a specific mood as one reaches out to give that, as Mahaprabhu himself did

In plain English this means that BSST while engaging in outreach did not distribute an inner mood (bhava). But we do see taht his sect has developed an inner mood and for the most part the same one as that of BVT. The fact that he did it in a different manner than BVT with regard to how BVT shared it with LP does not mean he did not give it out. Furthermore, we know only of LP as one who BVT gave ekadasa bhava to. He did not give it to everyone he initiatied and was far more conservative about giving it that you realize, and this conservativism is represented in BSST. LP was initiated near the end of BVT’s life and he was the Thakura’s son. BVT was not initiating and giving ekadasa bhava anywhere and everywhere, and neither was Mahaprabu for that matter, not Gopala Guru Goswami.

So the difference here between the two is not that one gave out bhava and the other did not, as you write, but rather that there is a difference between how BVT gave ekadasa bhava to one of his disciples near the ned of his life and how BSST distributed bhava in general (through the advocacy of kirtana primarily, as Mahaprabhi did). The fact that BSST did a number of things differently than BVT does not constitute a lack of representation on his part, but rather insight into the spirit of the teaching of BVT adjusted for time and circumstance.

You cite Jaiva Dharma, but it was BSST who published the book and distributed it widely. Anything we know about BVT and his practice in terms of what he has written about himself and his practice comes to the world through BSST. He did not leave anything out. He published and distributed all of the books of BVT, including those dealing with ekadasa bhava, etc. If BSST was against ekadasa bhava, why did he publish books about it? The fact is he was not against it, but he was against misrepresentation of it, just as his father BVT was, and he took the trouble per the order of BVT to expose this misrepresentation everywhere.

The sampradaya as per Bahktivinode Thakur is not completely represented in Saraswati Thakur. By making the change that he did, Bhaktisidhanta clearly split from the sampradaya to start a new one. This is the fact. Which is not to say it wasn’t a legitimate move. But it seems the Sataswata line has a hard time in coming to grips with this fact.

As far as I know, BVT died in 1914, GKDB died in 1915, BSST took sannyas when both of his supposed-to-be authorities were dead, what is more he established Gaudiya Math in 1918, right? So it rather seems he introduced all the novelties when his gurus were dead. This is called independence

Wrong. Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati followed the instructions of Bhaktivinoda Thakura. With no objection, and more, with the blessing of Bhaktivinoda and Gorakishore dasa babaji he initiated disciples in the manifest presence of his gurus. He accepted his first disciple in 1906.

During the period of his preaching while his gurus were still present, Lalita Prasada served in his mission under his direction for several years both during and after the departure of Bhaktivinoda and Gorakishore. Sometime after their departure, Lalita Prasada took exception to the policies of the mission, the character of some of the leading disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta, and also with the sannyasa of Bhaktisiddhanta. Thus he left the mission.

It is worth noting that Bhakti Pradipa Tirtha Maharaja, a disciple of Thakura Bhaktivinoda, was the first person to accept sannyasa from Bhaktisiddhanta and that his sannyasa was predicted by Gorakishore dasa at the time of his initiation. At that time, babaji Maharaja predicted that in the future this new disciple would accept sannyasa from a sad guru and preach beyond the borders of India. After Tirtha Maharaja accepted sannyasa from Bahktisiddhanta he did travel to England for preaching under the direction of his sannyasa guru.

Thus while Lalita Prasada objected to the sannyasa of Bhaktisiddhanta, which he accepted from a picture of Gorakishore dasa after the departure of his gurus, it appears from the testimony of Tirtha Maharaja that his sannyasa was blessed by Gorakishore. In any case it did involve innovative preaching on the part of Bhaktisiddhanta, the kind of preaching that Bhaktivinoda wanted him to do. Indeed, if there is to be a daiva varnasrama that gives support to Gaudiya Vaisnava initiates in the budding stages of their practice, how will it be complete without the sannyasa order?

Still this and other innovations of Bhaktisiddhanta such as his Bhagavata or siksa guru parampara conception did cause a stir in the Gaudiya community, and Bhaktisiddhanta himself was critical of the moral standards of the community and other practices prominent at the time. Thus a rift developed, and the gap created between Bhaktisiddhanta and other Gaudiya sects only widened after his departure. Eventually rumors about Bhaktisiddhanta never being properly initiated surfaced, the principle protagonist being one of his own disciples who many considered the most qualified to succeed him. This of course gave strength to the long time opponents of Bhaktisiddhanta, while his followers, who had already broken into factions by this time, carried on with their independent preaching missions. Some of these preachers realized considerable success and this in turn brought renewed credibility to the line of Bhaktisiddhanta.

Although Lalita Prasada remained critical of his older brother, in the end he did feel some inspiration to donate the place of Bhaktivinoda’s bhajana in Nadiya, which was under his care, to A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, the most prominent preaching disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta. The donation was never realized, but the discussion surrounding it did signal a note of acceptance of the missionary activities of Bhaktisiddhanta on the part of Lalita Prasada in the final days of his life, as well as one of regard for Lalita Prasada on the part of A.C. Bahktivedanta Swami, who also allowed his disciples to occasionally visit with Lalita Prasada and hear his Hari katha.

i) since Bhakti Vikasa Swami from ISCKON confirms this in his new book on BSST, stating: ‘[...] He challenged that the line of parampara traced from Jagannatha dasa Babaji through Bhaktivinoda Thakura to Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji and then to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was unauthorized. Visvambharananda claimed that although Sarasvati Thakura was supposed to be the disciple of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, he was disqualified in several ways. First, Sarasvati Thakura did not accept as bona fide the recognized lineage of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, whose guru was in the Advaita-parivara. Furthermore, since Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji had never used a japa-mala, and had not given one to Sarasvati Thakura at the time of initiation but had simply placed some Navadvipa dust into his hand, Visvambharananda argued that such an initiation was not bona fide. The implication was that Sarasvati Thakura had not actually received pancaratrika-diksa from Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, so how could he confer it upon others? Nor had Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji worn a brahmana thread, so on what authority did Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati wear one? [...]

This confirms nothing other than the fact that a person named Visvambharananda made these claims.

j) since even if BSST (as he claimed) carried out the orders of BVT, wouldn’t it have been easier for BVT to simply give BSST diksha, like he did with Lalita Prasad? There are certain ‘hearsays’ that state BVT did not want to give it to him for several reasons(e.g. his attitude towards Bipin Bihari)

BVT wanted him to take initiation from GKDB for esoteric spiritual reasons.

k) since Lalita Prasad confirmed BSST was not initiated

Then why did LP serve in his mission for years helping him make disciples before leaving over other disagreements? And, again, why did BVT or GKDB not take exception to his initiating?

l) since GKDB was not a sannyasi, yet BSST took sannyas from his picture (both the act and the way he did it are controversial)

This indicates more sraddha in GKDB than not, and such is the basis of the connection between sisya and guru.

m) since there are no authorities on the command of which he acted and initiated

Not true as pointed out here by myself and others.