Originally published on January 19, 2015, this article was written by Willem Vandenberg (Varnadi das), who joined ISKCON in Amsterdam in 1990. He served in the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust in Sweden as a translator and editor and as a manager of one of its sub-complexes. After officially leaving ISKCON in 2010 he went on to further his career as a computer programmer in higher education. He now lives in Texas and enjoys life reading, writing, and traveling the world.

From Master To Disciple

The Disciplic Succession That Never Was

Willem Vandenberg (Varnadi das)

The Hare Krishna cult considers its “disciplic succession” of utmost importance. Followers are taught that the term indicates a true, unbroken chain of spiritual teachers, each a direct disciple of his predecessor. Without being a direct disciple of a teacher in such a succession, they claim, one cannot ever hope to please god and return to their version of heaven.1

The founder makes it very clear in his writings that being connected to an authorized succession is required for a spiritual organization to be authentic and spiritually potent, and he claims that the Hare Krishna movement belongs to such a succession.3

So what is an authorized succession, then?

Well, for the Hare Krishna cult it mainly means that the succession must connect to one of four main successions mentioned in “the Puranas” or “Vedic scriptures”. Based on those references they believe that spiritual knowledge received outside of these successions is useless. The founder traces his succession to its Puranic roots through a line of teachers that links up with a medieval tradition, which in turn claims decent from one of these four main successions. As support for this lineage, the founder and his followers refer to a song written by the founder’s guru, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.3

So they’re authorized, right? Then what is the problem?

In a tiny nutshell the problem is threefold: 1) references to the four Puranic successions are questionable and those successions consist of mythological persons only, 2) the medieval succession has questionable roots, and 3) the later succession is largely made up.

Now, before we go into further detail about these successions, the reader must take note of two important facts:

Let’s start at the root, then. The existence and acceptance of the Puranic uber-successions is based primarily on a single reference ascribed to the Padma Purana:

There is currently no existing version of the Padma Purana in which this verse can be found. The reference as it appears most commonly in the Hare Krishna cult actually comes from the Prameya-ratnavali (Chapter 1, verses 5 and 6) by Baladeva Vidyabhusana (who was desperately trying to establish the authenticity of the Renaissance-era succession already in the early 1700s).5 Also, verse 6, the part of the alleged Padma Purana quotation that lists Ramanuja, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbaditya, is not found in other instances of references to the Padma Purana, making a compelling case that it is an even later addition. Another reference detailing the four lineages and their seminal teachers is attributed to the Garga Samhita, Canto 10, chapter 61, verses 23 to 26. Few translations of this work are available and almost nothing is known about its origin.

The bottom line is that we simply do not know enough about the origins of the source texts, their manuscripts, their existing editions, evolution, dating, and historical context to say with certainty that they originate the verses as quoted. While this would be problematic in an academic context, or really for anyone concerned with verifiable facts, members of the Hare Krishna cult have a tendency to blindly accept and propagate anything that seems to support their ideologies.

Now consider the Puranic lineage itself:

These three personalities are purely mythological. From Vyasadev, who the founder says was a real person, born some 5,000 years ago, the succession continues with Madhva. Madhva at least was a real, historical person who lived from 1238 to 1317 C.E.6 He allegedly met the mythological Vyasadev in Badarik-ashram, in the Himalayas, where the sage is said to still be alive, meditating for the next 427,000 years—a meeting to which there were no witnesses. In addition, Madhva seems to have had a penchant for fabricating verses, references, and entire books (much like Bhaktivinod Thakur did many centuries later). He also established himself as an incarnation of Vayu, the god of the wind.7

The succession from Madhva throughout the centuries is well known. The connection of this line to the later Gaudiya line through Madhavendra Puri is highly questionable, though. Historically, Madhavendra Puri is said to be the teacher of Chaitanya, yet Madhavendra Puri’s own grand-teacher from the Madhva line, Vyasa Tirtha, lived from 1469 to 1539—outliving Chaitanya by five years... This is important, because it not only spans three links in the chain, but would woefully violate the custom where disciples will not initiate anyone before the demise of their own teacher. In addition, none of the renaissance era teachers ever give any details about Madhavendra Puri.8 It also deserves to be noted that in May of 2001 the Poornaprajna Vidyapeethain Bangalore, an institution founded by Shri Vishvesa Tirtha Swami of Pejavar Math (an actual 32nd link in the Madhva chain from his disciple Adhokshaja Tirtha), issued an official position statement categorically denying any conclusive philosophical connection between the Madhva line and that of the Gaudiyas.9

That leaves us with the lineage from the modern time back to Madhavendra Puri.

When Bhaktivinod Thakur, the 19th century seminal teacher of the movement, died, it was traditionally up to his disciples to carry on the mission. However, his only initiated son had no interest and implored his older brother, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, to take up the task, despite the fact that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati had been rejected by his father and was never formally initiated. To that end, he was advised by his younger brother to invent a disciplic succession, which he did.10 It is this succession that the Hare Krishna cult holds up as their ticket to authenticity. The problem with a made-up succession is, of course, exactly that no matter how much it may appear coherent and factual, it can never be a proof of authenticity if it’s not in fact authentic.

The cult’s claim to descend in succession from renaissance reformer Caitanya Mahaprabhu himself, whom they consider an incarnation of Krishna, is usually presented like this (with pictures of the first five persons found on the altar of every temple):

But Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was not a disciple of Gaurakisor. He claimed he took initiation from Gaurakisor in a dream and he took sannyasa initiation from a picture of Gaurakisor years after his death.11 Gaurakishor, in turn, was not a disciple of Bhaktivinod Thakur, but a close friend, and Bhaktivinod Thakur was not a disciple of Jagannath das Babaji, but of Vipin Bihari Goswami.

Of these five important links four are broken to begin with.

But it doesn’t stop there.

Jagannath das Babaji was not a disciple of Baladeva Vidyabhusana, but of Jagadananda Goswami. Baladeva Vidyabhusana was not a disciple of Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur, but of Sri Radha-Damodara Deva. Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur was not a direct disciple of Narottam das Thakur. There are 160 years between their births. The link can be substantiated through Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur’s actual guru, Radha Ramana Cakravarti, a great-grand disciple of Narottam das Thakur, and it’s anyone’s guess why these intermediaries were left out. Narottam das Thakur was himself indeed the only disciple of Lokanath das Gosvami, but there are no indications that the latter was a formal disciple of Krishna das Kaviraj. As a matter of fact, Krishna das Kaviraj asked Lokanath das Gosvami for permission to write his hagiography on Caitanya, which would hardly be proper had Lokanath das Gosvami been his disciple.

The line does pick up with Krishna das Kaviraj, Raghunath das Gosvami, and Svarup Damodara, though not all seemed to have had formal teacher-disciple relationships. Svarup Damodar was a close friend of Caitanya, but there is no indication of a formal initiation by any of his purported predecessors.

Caitanya, however, was a formal disciple of Isvara Puri, while Advaita and Isvara Puri were both formal disciples of Madhavendra Puri.

In summary, there is the mythological Puranic Brahma-sampradaya, which has a fabricated connection to the medieval Madhva-sampradaya, which has a fabricated connection to the renaissance Gaudiya-sampradaya, which is full of holes and sputters to an end with the modern Hare Krishna cult, which therefore lovingly calls its own lineage the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-sampradaya—just in case you missed the connections.

So don’t be blind. Don’t ever just accept what you’re told.

Semper questio!

-Willem

References

1 Lecture in London, August 22, 1973: “Somebody was asking whether guru is absolutely necessary. Yes, absolutely necessary. That is the Vedic injunction.... Guru must come from the parampara system by disciplic succession.... Guru cannot change any word of the predecessor.... You cannot disobey the previous acarya or guru. No. You have to repeat the same thing.... So guru’s task is very great responsibility. He has to guide the disciple how to make him quite eligible candidate to get the perfect position, immortality, back to home, back to Godhead.”

Science of Self-Realization, BBT: “Reporter: Do you think your movement is the only way to know God? Bhaktivedanta Swami: Yes.” and “In order to learn the transcendental science, one must approach the bona fide spiritual master in disciplic succession, who is fixed in the Absolute Truth.”

CC Madhya-lila 9.289: “Unless one is connected to the disciplic succession of Madhavendra Puri, there is no possibility of awakening the symptoms of ecstatic love.”

2 SB 6.5.22, purport: “Thus the Gauḍiya-Madhva-sampradaya is in the disciplic succession from Narada Muni. The members of this disciplic succession—in other words, the members of the Kṛiṣhṇa consciousness movement—should follow in the footsteps of Narada Muni”

Letter to Upendra, February 13, 1968: “There are four Sampradayas from the beginning of the creation. One is called Brahma Sampradaya, and is coming down by disciplic succession from Brahma; another Sampradaya is coming down from Laksmi, called Sri Sampradaya; another is coming down from the Kumaras, they are known as Nimbarka Sampradaya; another Sampradaya is coming from Lord Siva, Rudra Sampradaya or Viṣṇu Svāmī. These are four bona fide Sampradayas that are accepted by the bona fide spiritualists. ... In the later age the Brahma Sampradaya was handed down though Madhva Acarya; in this Madhva Acarya disciplic succession came Isvara Puri. This Isvara Puri was accepted as Spiritual Master of Lord Caitanya. Therefore, we being in disciplic succession of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, we are known as the Madhva Sampradaya. And because Lord Caitanya appeared in Bengal, which country is called Gaudadesa, our Sampradaya party is known as Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya.”

Lecture SB 3.26.10, December 22, 1974: “...if one person who desires to advance in spiritual life, he must take initiation from the sampradaya. So we belong to the Gauḍiya-sampradaya.”

3 Sri Guru Parampara, by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur:

4 See Google search on Siksha vs. Diksha: https://www.google.com/search?q=iskcon+siksa+vs+diksa

5 Is the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya connected to the Madhva line?, by Jagadananda das

6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhvacharya

7 Genuine Ancient Source, Deliberately Fabricated Material, or Divine Revelation: An analysis of selected quotes that Madhva ascribes to the Brahmatarka, Ekkehard Lorenz, 2005 (MA thesis. Bramatarka is the name of a fictitious work which is quoted most frequently, and often at considerable length, in the Sanskrit commentaries of Madhva, the founder of the Dvaita school of Vedanta. Some Indology scholars, and of course the entire Madhvaite community, believe that Brahmatarka is a genuine ancient work, now lost. There is, however, good and ample evidence that this work never existed, but was used as a source by Madhva, who claimed that it was an ancient text, like the Veda, authored by Vyasa, and therefore ultimately authoritative in philosophical debates. The verses that Madhva ascribes to the Brahmatarka, are all his own compositions)

Mahidasa Aitareya in the Work of Madhva, Ekkehard Lorenz, 2003 (BA thesis. The opponent was Asst. Prof Erik af Edholm from the Department of Comparative Religion, Stockholm University)

8 Is the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya connected to the Madhva line?, by Jagadananda das

9 Position Paper on ISKCON by the Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha: http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml

10 Saffron, by Subal das [autobiography], Steve Bohlert, unpublished 2004: “[Lalita Prasad Thakur:] The line that your guru maharaja listed in his Bhagavad Gita was made up by my brother Bhaktisiddhanta. He was rejected by our father Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and his guru, who was Bipin Bihari Goswami. Bhaktisiddhanta spoke against Bipin Bihari from the stage of a large public gathering in Calcutta. He called him a caste Goswami and a sahajiya (a cheap cheater). When our father heard about this, he said, ‘You should keep out of religious affairs. It would be better if you went and lived in Mayapur alone. Chant Hare Krishna and pray for Lord Chaitanya’s mercy.’ But when our father Bhaktivinode Thakur died, I went to my brother and said, ‘Who will carry on our father’s teachings now that he is gone? You are the oldest.’ I was working for the government like our father did, while he was doing his spiritual practices and was a scholar. ‘You’re the one to do it,’ I told him. ‘How can I do it when I’ve been rejected by our father and his guru?’ was his reply. ‘You’re smart. Make up a disciplic succession. Who will know?’ He did it. When he went to Vrindaban to preach, the babajis there knew he had made it up. It did not jive with known historical facts and relationships between the personalities mentioned. Bhaktisiddhanta approached Gaura Kishor Das Babaji, a highly respected hermit saint who was an intimate associate of Bhaktivinode Thakur, for initiation a couple of times and was rejected. When Gaura Kishor died, Bhaktisiddhanta got word of it and claimed his body saying he was his only disciple. No one else had been initiated by him and Gaura Kishor was in no position to object”

11 The True History of Bhaktisiddhanta, by Madhavananda, 2002