r/exHareKrishna

Every family has that relative who upgrades the family history a little at gatherings. "Actually we're distantly related to royalty." Nobody can quite disprove it and by the third retelling it's basically fact. The guru-parampara, the disciplic succession ISKCON traces back through 32 acharyas to Krishna himself, has a moment exactly like this and it happens, among other instants, at the link between Madhvacharya and Vyasa. Let's dig in.

Setting the scene

Madhvacharya is a real historical figure rather than a mythological one. He was born Vasudeva in the village of Pajaka near Udupi to a Tulu-speaking Brahmin family and became a sannyasi as a teenager under the name Purnaprajna before later becoming known as Anandatirtha and finally Madhvacharya. Most sources put his life at 1238 to 1317 CE though a minority tradition argues for 1199 to 1278 CE instead. Either way he was walking around roughly seven and a half to eight centuries ago arguing with rival Vedanta schools and founding maths that are still running today. Dates places disciples texts: all documented.

This is why he matters so much to the parampara story. He's the point where the lineage stops being legend and starts being history which makes what happens right at his entry point worth a closer look.

The boring true story

Madhva had a completely ordinary human guru. His name was Achyutapreksha sometimes written Achyutapreksha Tirtha an ascetic of the Ekadandi order based in Udupi. Madhva studied under him took initiation from him and by every mundane historical account this is the relationship that actually happened: two people a real place a real time an ordinary guru-disciple bond.

Just a monk teaching a very talented very argumentative student who went on to found his own school then mostly wrote his own teacher out of the record.

The other story the one with better production values

Tradition goes a lot further than "Madhva studied under a monk in Udupi." Tradition says Madhva met Vyasa in person at Badarikashram in the Himalayas where Vyasa is said to still be alive today meditating with roughly 427,000 years left on the clock. Madhva reportedly made the pilgrimage more than once with permission from his own guru Achyutapreksha each time.

According to the story Vyasa reviewed Madhva's Gita commentary approved of it embraced him then personally told him to go preach. Some versions go further still: Vyasa is said to have handed Madhva eight sacred Saligrama stones known collectively as the Ashtamurti and to have commanded him to return home and write a full commentary on the Brahma Sutras too. Madhva obeyed composed the Mahabharata-tatparya-nirnaya on his way back and eventually produced 37 works in total collectively known as the Sarvamula or "root of all scriptures" including commentaries on the Upanishads the Bhagavad Gita the Brahma Sutras the Mahabharata and the Bhagavata Purana.

That meeting is what gets Madhva his seat in the parampara. He's remembered here not as someone working in the tradition of Vyasa's teachings but as Vyasa's actual disciple appointed face to face. The meeting had zero independent witnesses which makes it a strong claim resting on a source who happens to be unreachable for comment for the next four hundred millennia.

And just like that Achyutapreksha is gone

Once the Vyasa meeting enters the story the real historical teacher quietly exits it. Look at the official list: Krishna Brahma Narada Vyasa Madhva. Achyutapreksha is absent from it entirely. The man who actually taught Madhva Sanskrit scripture and monastic discipline goes entirely unmentioned even though it was Achyutapreksha who first ordained him into sannyasa as a teenager and set him on the path in the first place.

The apparent logic is that the spiritual lineage outranks the historical one so the historical one gets dropped rather than added as a lower rung. One version wins. The other quietly leaves the building.

The tradition even contradicts itself

Here's where it gets genuinely awkward. Madhva's own institution in Udupi describes the pre-Madhva lineage completely differently: Hamsa Paramatma Chaturmukha Brahma Sanakadi Durvasa a handful of others and eventually Achyutapreksha. In this version the real guru returns to the story.

Compare that to the Gaudiya version: Krishna Brahma Narada Vyasa Madhva. Two traditions both claiming to describe the same lineage and they can barely agree on a single name in it before Madhva arrives.

A man who never shied away from a good story

None of this happened in a vacuum. Madhva has a reputation even among sympathetic historians for embellishment including a habit of citing texts and verses nobody else has ever found and for identifying himself as an incarnation of Vayu the wind god. He went further still claiming he had previously appeared as Hanuman to serve Rama and as Bhima to serve Krishna making this supposedly his third avatar on earth. Hagiographies pile on from there: he's said to have fought off a tiger attacking one of his disciples with his bare hands and to have single-handedly moved a massive stone slab that thousands of men together couldn't budge to keep a riverbank from eroding. Subtlety was clearly missing from his brand. Building authority through divine self-identification physical feats and creative citation seems to have been part of the same toolkit as the supernatural guru meeting.

Even his first real disciples arrive wrapped in a good story. On the walk back from Badarikashram Madhva is said to have met two Sanskrit scholars named Sobhana Bhatta and Svami Shastri near the Godavari river debated them and initiated them on the spot. They became Padmanabha Tirtha and Narahari Tirtha two of the four scholars Madhva would personally ordain into sannyasa and Padmanabha Tirtha went on to write the earliest known commentary on Madhva's own works.

So what actually happened here

Strip away the theology and a familiar pattern shows up one that appears constantly in medieval Indian philosophy and not just with Madhva. A serious thinker starts a new school. To be taken seriously the school needs a pedigree ideally one reaching back to the Vedas and ideally one that beats the pedigree of the school down the road. Shankara did it with Advaita centuries earlier. Ramanuja did it with Vishishtadvaita not long after. Madhva arrived a bit later to a crowded field building a doctrine of pancha-bheda or "fivefold difference" that rejected both of them outright and he needed something that topped them both. A personal in-person audience with Vyasa does exactly that.

Achyutapreksha was real and the relationship was genuine. It's just that "I studied under a respected local ascetic" makes for a much weaker opening line than "the author of the Vedas personally endorsed my commentary handed me sacred stones and told me to go preach." One of those earns a seat in the parampara. The other earns a footnote.

Which honestly is a very human thing to do. Even for a man who claimed to be the wind.

(A poster seen in ISKCON ashrams around the world)

Prabhupada claimed his authority derived from an unbroken line of succession reaching back to Krishna himself. Like a fruit passed carefully down through the branches of a tree, the true and clear teachings of Krishna are perfectly preserved in this ancient lineage. For 5000 years nothing has been changed.

In the Bhagavad Gita As It Is, Prabhupada lists 32 gurus including himself. He repeatedly claims his knowledge and power is based on this. The sincere will take advantage of it. The insincere will go elsewhere and be cheated.

This parampara is said to be a siksha line of instruction rather than a diksha line of initiation. Why does ISKCON completely ignore its diksha line?

Because there isn't one. ISKCON's initiation line and sanyassa line almost certainly began with Prabhupada's guru Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati.

Bhaktisiddhanta's Self Initiation

Bhaktisiddhanta claimed to have been given diksha by Gaura Kishora das Babaji.

This is denied by Lalita Prasad, Bhaktisiddhanta's own brother. Gaura Kishora had sworn to never accept disciples. Bhaktisiddhanta claims he privately broke this vow only for himself. Lalita Prasad, who was present, maintains their relationship was strictly one of shiksa.

Bhaktisiddhanta's claim is also rejected by Gaura Kishora's peers, the Vrndavana and Navadwip Babaji community. Bhaktisiddhanta put on saffron in 1918 and gave himself sanyassa. No one properly initiated into their lineage would do so. In their view, anyone properly initiated by Gaura Kishora, when reaching the stage of renunciation, would enter the Babaji order. Saffron cloth is strictly forbidden. When Bhaktisiddhanta gave himself sanyassa it was considered outrageous, and a rejection of their lineage.

Bhaktisiddhanta went beyond this, establishing his own tridandi sanyassa order, previously non-existent, even compiling 108 sanyassi names under questionable circumstances. He modeled this on the Sri Vaishnavas of South India, as Gaudiyas only wore the white cloth of the babaji.

It is interesting to note that as a brahmacari Bhaktisiddhanta wore white. In ISKCON today brahmacaris wear saffron, obsessively so, like mini sanyassis of the Gaudiya Math. It could be argued ISKCON's extremely destructive culture of renunciation and sexual repression begins here, as a deviation from tradition.

ISKCON's True Diksha Lineage

Assuming Gaura Kishora gave Bhaktisiddhanta diksha, it would have connected him to the Advaita Parivara, a caste goswami lineage. Gaura Kishora's diksha guru was Nimaichand Goswami. The list of gurus then goes like this: Radharaman, Sukadeva, Keshava, Radhagovinda, Gopinath, Dolgovinda Mishra, then finally Krishna Mishra. Krishna Mishra was the son of Advaita Acharya.

In ISKCON we never even heard of these names. Why?

Either because Bhaktisiddhanta never received diksha in this line, or because he so radically departed from this lineage it became irrelevant.

ISKCON's Babaji Lineage

Gaura Kishora was initiated into the Advaita Parivara as a householder. When he took the order of Babaji, he was given babaji initiation into the line of Baladeva Vidyabhusana. His guru was Bhagavat das Babaji. The line of succession then goes like this: Jagannath das Babaji, Madhusudan das Babaji, Uddhava das Babaji, then Baladeva Vidyabhusana.

It is strange ISKCON does not claim this Gaudiya luminary as a direct guru, nor do they deeply study his books. Devotees are only aware of the Govinda Bhasya. Why is this so?

Because like the diksha line, Bhaktisiddhanta was never initiated into it. Nor did he care to be. He rejected this babaji line to begin his own sanyassa lineage.

ISKCON's Siksha Lineage

ISKCON claims instead to be a siksha lineage coming from Bhaktivinode Thakur.

Bhaktivinode was initiated into the Bhaghnapar Goswami lineage. This caste goswami line traces its origins to Ramachandra Goswami, the son of Chaitanya's intimate associate Vamsivadanananda Thakura. He was adopted by Jahnavi Mata, the wife of Nityananda.

Unlike ISKCON, they are Gaura Gadadhara worshipers, who practice siddha pranali.

Bhaktivinode's guru was Bipin Bihari Goswami, whose guru was Yajneshvara Goswami. They have a family line going all the way back to Vamsivadanananda Thakur.

Lalita Prasad, another of Bhaktivinode's sons, received both siksha and diksha from his father. He went on to become a guru himself, with many disciples, loyal to his father's lineage. He established a temple in his father's birthplace.

Bhaktisiddhanta did not. Bhaktisiddhanta instead claimed to secretly receive diksha from Gaura Kishora, a siksha disciple of Bhaktivinode. Why not go directly to his father? Bhaktisiddhanta rejected the diksha line of Bhaktivinode, in the same way he rejected the diksha and babaji lines of Gaura Kishora.

Living in ISKCON, we never even heard these names. This is because Bhaktisiddhanta criticized and attacked this pedigree.

Rejecting Bhaktivinode's Guru

Bhaktisiddhanta rejected the Bhagnapara Goswamis and their ideas of birth as a prequalification. This issue was famously debated in Balighai where Bhaktisiddhanta was supposedly crowned victorious. A mob demanded his foot water threatening to riot. The police forcibly seized the champion, bathed his feet, and sprinkled it on the eager crowd, or so ISKCON tells us.

This debate wasn't against some obscure caste goswami sect. It was a public challenge to Bipin Bihari Goswami by the son of his disciple. Bhaktivinode likely pretended to be sick so he could not attend. This was to avoid disrespect to his guru.

Another issue is the establishment of Mayapura. The Bhagnapar Goswami lineage considered Navadwipa to be the place of Chaitanya's birth and activities. Gaura Kishora's bhajan kutir is in the area traditionally believed to be the place of Chaitanya's pastimes, as are the kutirs of many babajis.

Bhaktivinode and Jagannath das Babaji claimed that a new place, the village of Mayapura, in a Muslim area across the Ganges, was the true birth place of Chaitanya and the home of Srivas Thakur.

Bipin Bihari tolerated this from his disciple Bhaktivinode Thakur. Despite their disagreements there was always a relationship of mutual respect. However, after Bhaktivinode's death, Bhaktisiddhanta's movement began to spread. Bhaktisiddhanta took dramatic steps to build a temple in Mayapura, in opposition to the traditional temple in Navadwipa. Bipin Bihari openly criticized this.

During the life of Bhaktivinode, there were incidents of Bhaktisiddhanta aggressively arguing with Bipin Bihari Goswami. Once he even threw a bucket of water at him. Bhaktivinode kicked him out of his house for this. Now tensions began to seriously escalate. Bhaktivinode was no longer around to restrain his son.

This conflict became public with Bhaktisiddhanta openly denouncing the guru of his father and brother. Bipin Bihari returned the favor. Outraged by public personal attacks, the building of an unauthorized holy place, and Siddhanta Saraswati giving himself sanyassa, Bipin Bihari formally excommunicated him from the Gaudiya Vaishnava community of Navadwipa.

ISKCON doesn't talk about that!

Bhaktisiddhanta then committed the ultimate offense to the guru parampara of his father: he erased it from history. He declared Bipin Bihari's spiritual family morally bankrupt and denied them a place in the lineage tree. In Gaudiya Vaishnava culture, removing a guru from your recorded lineage is the highest form of disrespect.

Conclusion

As we see, ISKCON's guru parampara truly begins with Bhaktisiddhanta. He began his preaching activities after taking sanyassa in 1918. ISKCON's parampara is not 5000 years old. It is 108 years old.

Bhaktisiddhanta rejected his father's lineage and went to war with it. He was not initiated into it.

He claims to have been initiated by Gaura Kishora das Babaji instead. There is no record of this. Those present said it never happened. Gaura Kishora officially refused to take any disciples. Nor did Bhaktisiddhanta carry on this parampara.

He gave himself sanyassa initiation, then began an unauthorized sanyassa tradition within Gaudiya Vaishnavism. He rejected Navadwipa as the home of Chaitanya and established a separate competing holy place. All of these things were considered extremely offensive by both his father's lineage and the godfamily peer group of his own guru.

Bhaktisiddhanta rejected the authority of the entire Gaudiya community and began his own religion. Yet his disciple, A.C Bhaktivendanta Prabhupada, repeatedly claimed his authority was derived from an unbroken tradition handed down from Krishna, Brahma, Madhva and Chaitanya, using this claim to attract his own cult followers.

(The term "Sanatanis" means "Eternals")

In the last 15 years Indians have come to reject the name Hindu. They believe the word to be a foreign term forced upon them by outsiders. Motivated by nationalist zeal they have begun calling their religion Sanatana Dharma, and themselves Sanatanis.

ISKCON devotees are doing this too. The name "Hindu" has come to feel pejorative. They have started avoiding it and replacing it publicly with Sanatana Dharma.

This is inaccurate. The term Hindu has long been used by Indians to describe their religion. Chaitanya himself used the word 500 years ago, according to Krishna das Kaviraja.

“amara matula haya tomara nagare
nagaremariya hindu-dharma nasta kare”

CC, Adi-Lila 17.214

He accuses Chand Kazi of destroying Hindu Dharma. The term Sanatana Dharma was reserved for the unchanging inner nature of the atma. The temporary ever shifting beliefs and practices of mankind as they exist in India was called Hindu Dharma. This was distinct from Islam which was called Mleccha Dharma.

It is absurd to refer to something temporary as sanatana. The word refers to that which exists outside of time. In modern Indian languages, the word has come to mean something very old, but this is colloquial and philosophically inaccurate.

To call oneself a Sanatani is also absurd. "Hello, I am an Eternal". Just like the Marvel Superheroes.

This is more than simply reactionary polemics, it is a bold declaration of superiority. It is to say Indian religion is eternal and all others are not. "Sanatana Dharma is the only true religion. It is eternal and true. Your mleccha dharmas are temporary and illusory."

Prabhupada would certainly agree with this sentiment. Though in the exact same way, he considered Vaishnava Dharma to be distinct from, and superior to, Hindu Dharma. This is why devotees resist using the word Hindu to describe themselves. They believe they are the "Sanatanis".

Prabhupada would reserve Sanatana Dharma to refer to the nature of the soul, which he believed to be submission to Krishna. Ironically this is due to the heavy influence of Mleccha Dharma (via Sufism) onto Vaishnava Dharma.

Sanatana Dharma, when used accurately, refers to the atma as described in the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita with adjectives such as eternal, unchanging, ever existing, primeval. It is that which is beyond description and one with Brahman.

.

Anger is a necessary and healthy emotion. It is our power to defend our boundaries. It is necessary in this world to fight back against those who would harm us. If we do not, we will be taken advantage of. We will be bullied by individuals and institutions.

Anger in ISKCON

ISKCON teaches the opposite. Anger, or krodha, is a sin. It is one of the sad ripus, or six enemies. Anger is born of lust, or frustrated attachment and desire. You cannot reach perfection until you renounce all anger.

Anger should only be allowed to attack the enemies of the cult. This includes ex devotees and others who criticize ISKCON, and Advaita Vedantists, Buddhists, atheists, and others who do not believe submission to the person of Krishna is the final absolute truth.

This is gaslighting. We are not allowed to defend ourselves, we are only allowed to defend the cult.

Living in Submission

The absolute worse thing one can do with anger is direct it to a devotee. Especially if that devotee is senior or a Prabhupada Disciple. That is spiritual suicide. Though seniors can, and often do, use anger to "chastise" those beneath them. We should not see this as abuse, rather it is mercy. We should be grateful.

The devotee must never fight back. To stand up for oneself is egotism. We should feel embarrassed about the urge to stand up for ouserlves. Anger must be forced down, bottled up and repressed.

This is humility. Trnad api sunicena, taror iva sahisnuna. You cannot chant the Holy Names effectively until you let others walk over you like grass and you tolerate all abuse like a tree.

Even juniors and equals must constantly be forgiven no matter what. Even if they rape us or steal our money or have sex with our wives. If we even think angry thoughts about them we must bow down to them and chant "vancha kalpa tarubhyas ca", declaring them to be wish fulfilling trees (Hindu genie lamps). It may be painful but Krishna is pleased.

A good devotee becomes a dasa, or slave, of ISKCON. They do whatever they are told in an attitude of meek surrender. They sacrifice their future well being, their health, their time, their money. They should give everything to the movement and gratefully accept whatever little is given to them in return.

The devotee has no boundaries. There is nothing that belongs to them, no personal space, no private time. They are slaves awaiting command. They live with no independence and no security, dependent upon their masters, fearing the cosmic sin of their own disobedience.

A Destroyed Nervous System

When we are stripped of the ability to defend ourselves we naturally live in fear. The nervous system gets stuck in a fight, flight, freeze response. The anger is trapped inside with nowhere to go. We live in constant hyper arousal. Things that remind us of our lack of boundaries, and thus our past bullying, trigger us into extreme anxiety.

This is only healed when we again reclaim anger. We have to release it.

Somatic Release

One technique for releasing trapped anger within the nervous system is Somatic Release. When we are triggered into fear, we can shake our bodies. It signals to the nervous system that the danger has passed and stress can be shed. This is common in mammals. When a lion survives a brush with death, it often shakes uncontrollably, as do humans.

Another effective technique to freely express anger when triggered. This can involve expressing rage, shaking our fists, screaming and punching into a pillow. We can shout (even under our breath) in defiance of the trigger "F you! Get out of my space" F off and leave me alone". These are good mantras. We don't have to express this to others. It is not about fighting. It is about privately becoming okay with anger, and releasing what is trapped inside of our nervous system.

By doing so we are telling ourselves "I am defending myself now, the world better watch out".

We should not be afraid to vocally draw boundaries, or to warn others when they cross them. We should stand up for ourselves, and others, when the need arises.

Nor should we let others get away with abusing us. They should pay a price. Though we should also not be consumed by the need for revenge. Forgiveness is a fine virtue, but those who have been bullied and abused, so is confidence.

Embracing Anger

Sometimes those who have been abused, who have been made to live in fear, are afraid of their own anger. They do not want to be like their abuser, they do not want others to fear them. This is natural. However, it is okay to make people fear you when they are harming you.

Sometimes we are afraid that if we release the anger within we will hurt people or become a bully ourselves. We will become just like those rude Prabhupada Disciples. This is not true. We have to trust ourselves that we can use anger properly in self defense, and not to dominate or harm others.

They call cows "Gaumata" talk about loving and protecting them BUT at the same time they heavily consume and promote dairy: milk, ghee etc

Like...how does that make sense?

Cows are forcefully repeatedly impregnated and seperated from their calves to produce heavy amount of milk. Even if you tell devotees that they are exploiting cows they don't stop

They willingly disregard the fact that they are causing cow cruelty for dairy. Also these "Cow lovers" are very anti vegan. Wtf!

They don't have logic they just blindly follow leaders and scriptures. All this "GAUMATA" drama is bullshit FAKE FAKE FAKE.