Revising History and Giving Credit to the Paramparaa (was Quibbling.)

[Guest guest]

achintya, Jan Brzezinski <jankbrz> wrote:

 

> Gaudiya Vaishnavism evolved over 350 years after the

> disappearance of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. As with every

> human phenomenon, it was born, grew and developed in

> response to the social situation in which it found

> itself. Without an understanding of context, our

> understanding is only partial. We make judgments based

> on our understanding or misunderstanding of context.

 

I think it is very important to understand the context in which

certain things occurred. For example, many who object to Srila

Bhaktivedanta's criticisms of the babajis neglect to realize that it

was they who exhorted him to give up his guru's order to preach and

instead stay in Vrindaavan to do bhajan. That is why Srila

Bhaktivedanta very correctly criticizes that attitude. It isn't

criticism of everyone with the name "babaji" in his title; rather, it

is criticism of a very specific attitude that unfortunately has

become common place among many who are known as babajis.

 

On the other hand, I think it is important to realize that we are

dealing with an eternal Vedic tradition. Sanaatana dharma does not

change, even when times change. Otherwise it is not sanaatana. We

need not subject every bit of philosophy and its application to a

contextual analysis when we have the guiding light of shaastra to

objectify things. This is one of the many reasons why it is difficult

to have a dialogue with an academic scholar; for them, nothing is

eternal or sacred.

 

> This why Benedict Arnold can be the synonym of

> treachery for the Americans and a loyal hero to the

> British. The victors write history, and so most people

> are left with only a one-sided understanding of

> history, in other words, myth.

 

Besides the Gaudiiya Math, it seems that others have also perceived

the decline in Chaitanya Vaishnavism after the Gosvamis. Mukunda

Datta quoted from a third-party, academic source. Surely that is

sufficient to show that there was a decline, as I believe you

yourself have conceeded. The issue has never been one of whether

there were any sincere Gaudiiya Vaishnavas at all. Rather, the issue

was that much cheating had gone on in the name of Gaudiiya

Vaishnavism, and compared to its earlier success during Mahaaprabu's

time, it had clearly lost its momentum to propagate itself.

 

> Victors are generally able to promote their

> understanding of history, which places their successes

> in the light of inevitability and divine will. It is

> the duty of the historian to see through such an

> ideological understanding of history.

 

It is also the duty of the historian to recognize the equally

appalling trend of historical revisionism. Recall that in the Western

world, there are groups which hold that the holocaust never happened.

The motivations behind such claims are obvious; they are intended to

generate sympathy for those whom history had long since condemned.

 

This is not to say that Bhaktisiddhanta's critics are like neo-Nazis.

Rather, what I am saying, is that they are simply employing the same

technique of historical revisionism to devalue Bhaktisiddhanta's

accomplishments and justify their own inertia. Despite all your

claims of objectivity, this is how I essentially see it right now.

 

> Through most of the world, those in the line of

> Siddhanta Saraswati view their successes in preaching

> as the sign of their being the true inheritors of the

> mantle of Chaitanya and Sri Rupa Goswami.

 

No, they view their successes in preaching as a result of their

having received the grace of guru and Gauranga through the disciplic

succession:

 

"Some of them said that it is greatly fortunate for the Americans

that I have started the Krsna consciousness movement in America. But

actually the original father of this movement is Lord Krsna Himself,

since it was started a very long time ago but is coming down to human

society by disciplic succession. If I have any credit in this

connection, it does not belong to me personally, but it is due to my

eternal spiritual master, His Divine Grace Om Visnupada Paramahamsa

Parivrajakacarya 108 Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami

Maharaja Prabhupada." (A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, Bhagavad-giitaa As

It Is Introduction)

 

Of course, when critics who remain sedentary in India begin to

criticize the Krishna-consciousness movement, it is only reasonable

for Bhaktisiddhanta's followers to point out that they have carried

out what Lord Chaitanya wanted. For all their claims to disciplic

purity, none of the other lines have done this the way Srila

Prabhupada has. This is an undisputed fact. It is also undisputed

that one must have the mercy of the Lord through the guru-shishya

paramparaa to carry out something that only Lord Chaitanya Himself

could have done. It has yet to be explained to me how there can be an

alleged break in the Saarasvata Gaudiiya line, and yet still they can

be successful in spreading the doctrine of Lord Chaitanya.

 

This is

> neither suprising nor, one might say, unjustified.

> However, the Gaudiya Math movement was born out of a

> polemic against the institutions of Gaudiya

> Vaishnavism as they existed at the beginning of the

> 20th century,

 

I disagree with the above. The polemic was not against genuine

Gaudiiya Vaishnavism, but rather against misconceptions that were

being practiced under the banner of Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. To call

some of these misconceptions as Gaudiiya Vaishnavism in the tradition

of Lord Chaitanya is certainly begging the question.

 

Perhaps you can enlighten us on what doctrines you feel have been

unfairly criticized by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Explain what is your

understanding of those doctrines, and then cite from Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta or Srila Bhaktivedanta's writings against them. Then

we can be clear on what it is you object to and what the basis of

your objections are.

 

It's healthy, I think, for a tradition to reexamine itself and make

certain that it is remaining true to its roots. That is exactly what

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did. It's also a fact that because he

challenged the existing "orthodoxy," his preaching has managed to

take off and affect so many people today. Without it, we wouldn't be

discussing this in the first place.

 

with the result that most people within

> the Gaudiya Math and its offshoots have a perception

> of the history of Chaitanya Vaishnavism seen through

> the light of this polemic.

 

I rather think that it is the other way around. It is the critics

whose perception of history is altered. It is altered because, in

spite of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's criticism, their gurus have remained

complacent with their inertia and bitter with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

Hare Krishna,

 

- K