Srila Bhaktisiddhanta vs. other Hindu reformers (was Quibbling.)

[Guest guest]

achintya, Jan Brzezinski <jankbrz> wrote:

 

> decadent. I suggest that we all admit right away that

> this decadence was in great part recognizable only

> because of the mirror that the British--both

> Orientalist and Christian--held up before them.

>

> We must look at both Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Siddhanta

> Saraswati in their time and place. No one likes to

> hear that Saraswati Thakur took a page out of

> Vivekananda's book, but this is in fact what he was

> doing. He saw the Vaishnava society of his time to be

> hopelessly decadent on many levels. Its householder

> acharya core was (according to him) engaged in

> religious life purely as a business and acted like any

> other self-interested elite. This was part and parcel

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati should never be spoken of in the same

breath as Swami Vivekananda or other so-called Hindu reformers. This

may be a very popular comparison for secular academics, but for

Vaishnavas this is distasteful. Only sheer audacity would inspire one

to speak of a pure Vaishnava in the same context as a meat-eating,

cigarette smoking, atheist who preaches a very watered-down version

of Advaita which is meant to appeal to the masses.

 

Above and beyond this, such audacity is also accompanied by ignorance

of historical facts. If you wish to call both Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

Saraswati and Swami Vivekananda "Hindu reformers," you must

immediately qualify by that by pointing out their widely divergent

motivations - they are as different as night and day. Swami

Vivekananda was a well-known admirer of the West and Western so-

called "rationalism." This can be seen in the way his followers,

specifically the initiated ones, adopt Western conventions in their

preaching. These include Western clothes, use of spoon and fork,

eating of meat, drinking of liquor, and "church-style" gathering

places complete with pews and organs. Readers of Srila Prabhupada

Lilamrita will recall when Srila Prabhupada met with members of the

Ramakrishna Mission in New York City, the latter had encouraged him

to adopt some of these Western conventions, lest he not be able to

survive.

 

Vivekananda's Advaita sales pitch was clearly meant to appeal to

secular-minded individuals educated in the Western style. This is

obvious from his writings, and his speeches at the World Parliament

of Religions in Chicago. For example, regarding Deity worship, he

stated, "This is why the Hindu uses an external symbol when he

worships. He will tell you, it helps to keep his mind fixed on the

Being to whom he prays. He knows as well as you do that the image is

not God, is not omnipresent... Idols or temples or churches or books

are only the supports, the helps, of his spiritual childhood; but on

and on he must progress." (_Chicago Addresses_, p30-31) This doctrine

is completely unfounded in Vedic literature, but it appeals to people

who, like Christians, have no use for Deity worship.

 

Furthermore, it is also obvious that Vivekananda's writings were

intended to arouse nationalist sentiments and engage people in acts

of material welfare for their fellow Indian brethren. In his

_Thoughts of Power_, he writes, "Our aristocratic ancestors went on

treading the common masses of our country under fot till they became

helpless, till under this torment the poor, poor people nearly forgot

that they were human beings." (p.26) Vivekananda betrays his disgust

with the traditional Vedic system of government by ascribing to them

the sins which actually the British colonialists were guilty of. He

goes on to write, "They (the people of India) have been complelled to

be merely hewers of wood and drawers of water for centuries, so much

so, that they are made to believe that they are born as slaves, born

as hewers of wood and drawers of water." Clearly Vivekananda has a

problem with people who who are content with simple jobs, but a true

spiritualist recognizes work as a means to an end, with the actual

worth of a person being transcendental to his material work.

 

The nationalist/welfare sentiments become obvious later on:

 

"Do you feel? Do you feel that millions and millions of the

descendants of the gods and of sages have become next-door neighbours

to brutes? Do you feel that millions are starving today, and millions

have been starving for ages? Do you feel that ignorance has come over

the land as a dark cloud? Does it make you restless? Does it make you

sleepless? Has it gone into your blood, coursing through your veins,

becoming consonant with your heartbeats? Has it made you almost

mad?.... This is the first step to become a patriot, the very first

step.

 

Come, be men. Come out of your narrow holes and have a look abroad.

See how nations are on the march. Do you love man? Do you love your

country? Then come, let us struggle for higher and better things...

 

With all my love for India, and with all my patriotism and veneration

fo the ancients, I cannot but think that we have to learn many things

from other nations... That we did not go out to compare things with

other nations, did not mark the workings that have been all around

us, has been the one great cause of this degradation of the Indian

mind." (p27-28)

 

Note how Vivekananda clearly associates India's degradation with her

people's lack of interest in the Western world. Note also how his

speech culminates in a nationalistic cry for material welfare. His

speech is repeatedly peppered with various expressions of patriotism.

What this shows is that Vivekananda's motivations were clearly

material in nature, motivated by admiration of the West, and a

tendency to see India's lack of material progress as evidence that it

was a backward nation.

 

How can anyone even think to compare such a person to Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati? Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had no direct

interest in the politics of India or other nations. Devotees will

recall that when a young Abhay Charan met Srila Bhaktisiddanta, the

former was active in the Gandhi non-violence movement and argued that

India must first be freed before anything else, since she had been

under the English heel for the last 200 years. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

rejected this proposition completely, and stated that everyone,

Indian and otherwise, had been enslaved by maya since time

immemorial.

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati reinstated traditions and customs

which the spiritually backward Western world would perceive as

regressive. Why would he reinstate the varnaashrama system if he was

interested in the admiration of Western thinkers, when Western

thought at that time was completely opposed to their perception of

a "hereditary caste system?" It makes no sense.

 

While Vivekananda turned outward, to concerns of India's poverty and

material progress, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta turned inward, to the nature

of the soul and means of acquiring true self-realization. Unlike

Vivekananda, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta faithfully followed the tradition

of scriptural commentary laid down by his predecessors, rather than

trying to create a new and innovative institution that would earn the

admiration of Western materialists. Also unlike Vivekananda, Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta never compromised on basic issues of sadaachaara

etiquette.

 

Jan also writes, "I suggest that we all admit right away that this

decadence was in great part recognizable only because of the mirror

that the British--both Orientalist and Christian--held up before

them." This is simply not true. The implication of this statement is

that Vaishnavas lack the ability to recognize and reform themselves;

rather, they need the "rational" West to point out their flaws. Such

a viewpoint is not only insulting, it is clearly wrong. All

throughout Vaishnava history, great spiritual leaders such as Madhva,

Raamaanuja, and even Lord Chaitanya, have always appeared at times of

great philosophical and moral decay, using shaastras as the means to

effect reform. Why does Jan not abscribe their motivations to foreign

influence? Why does he assume that only Srila Bhaktisiddhanta cared

about impressing foreign invaders?

 

Given that such a theory is not consistent with Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta's behavior, I think it should be realized that such

assertions regarding Srila Bhaktisiddhanta serve the ulterior motive

of decrying his authenticity as a Gaudiiya Vaishnava. One would do

well to note this "backdoor" approach to criticism - rather than

attacking head on and saying what they actually think, the critics

try more subtle approaches such as this one to slowly devalue his

accomplishments.

 

Regardless of the motivations, what is abundantly clear is that this

comparison of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta with Vivekananda is at best

irresponsible scholarship. This is a list dedicated to Gaudiiya

Vaishnavism in the Saarasvata Gaudiiya tradition, and these kinds of

remarks, frankly speaking, have no place here. I believe we have a

very tolerant policy here that encourages disagreement; we will not

however, allow anyone to abuse that policy and insult our aachaaryas,

however implicitly, in the name of "scholarship." If the critics feel

that this is too restrictive, then their needs would be better served

by secular Indology lists where nothing is sacred and no one need be

revered.

 

regards,

 

- K