Digest Number 676; ; parampara vicara

[Guest guest]

How do the critics of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura's presentation

of parampara understand the activities of Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Prabhupada viz-a-viz Lord Caitanya's well known and documented (in Caitanya

Caritamrita and Caitanya Bhagavat) desire that Krishna consciousness be

spread throughout the world?

 

Lord Caitanya predicted that Krishna consciousness would be spread

throughout the world. Srila Prabhupada did it. Or would some critics say

that Srila Prabhupada spread a form of maya throughout the world, the

antidote for which is to go to Radha-kund and find a babaji to deliver one

from it?

 

This sounds absurd but nevertheless seems to be the logical conclusion of

certain critics' arguments.

 

It would be more realistic to accept that Srila Prabhupada spreading of

Krishna consciousness throughout the world is indicative of his being

empowered by Lord Caitanya to do so. And not to audaciously assume him

disqualified if some aspects of his doing so are technically difficult to

comprehend.

 

In writing the above I have mostly, from a slightly different angle,

repeated points already made.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Bhakti Vikasa Swami"

<Bhakti.Vikasa.Swami@p...> wrote:

> How do the critics of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura's

presentation

> of parampara understand the activities of Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta

Swami

> Prabhupada viz-a-viz Lord Caitanya's well known and documented (in

Caitanya

> Caritamrita and Caitanya Bhagavat) desire that Krishna

consciousness be

> spread throughout the world?

 

Apparently, they understand it as being no different from sitting in

a solitary place and doing bhajan as some babajis have done.

 

Of course, we are always happy to entertain the doubts of our

spiritual "cousins." But obviously, when a very clear command of Lord

Chaitanya's to go forth and preach to everyone:

 

ataeva aami aaj~naa dilu.n sabaakaare |

yaahaa.n taahaa.n prema-phala deha'yaare taare || CC, aadi, 9.36 ||

 

Therefore I order every man within this universe to accept this

Krishna consciousness movement and distribute it everywhere. (shrii

chaitanya charitaamR^ita, aadi-liila, 9.36)

 

ataeva saba phala deha'yaare taare |

khaaiyaaha-uk loka ajara amare || CC, aadi, 9.39 ||

 

Distribute this Krishna-consciousness movement all over the world.

Let people eat these fruits and ultimately become free from old age

and death. (shrii chaitanya charitaamR^ita, aadi-liila, 9.39)

 

....is interpreted in such a way that even those devotees who do

exactly the opposite (i.e., remaining in a single place and only

preaching to those who come to him) are also considered faithful to

the instruction, then we can see how desperate the critics are

becoming to try and justify their departure from the Gaudiiya

tradition.

 

I respect the activities of any person who commits himself to

devotional service, whether it is in performing austerities or

travelling and preaching. But when representatives of gurus who are

not carrying out Lord Chaitanya's order presume to criticize Srila

Prabhupada who clearly has, then it is only fair for us to point out

the facts.

 

> Lord Caitanya predicted that Krishna consciousness would be spread

> throughout the world. Srila Prabhupada did it. Or would some

critics say

> that Srila Prabhupada spread a form of maya throughout the world,

the

> antidote for which is to go to Radha-kund and find a babaji to

deliver one

> from it?

 

Let us be charitable. It appears that the critics want us to believe

that what Srila Prabhupada did was certainly very good and conducive

to developing pure devotion, but nevertheless if we want the "real

thing" we must look for someone who follows the Gosvamis' technical

injunctions even though they do not represent the spirit of Gaudiiya

Vaishnavism.

 

This reminds me of a similar sentiment, albeit in a different

context, that appears in the Bhaagavatam:

 

dharmaH svanuShThitaH pu.msaa.m viShvaksenakathaasu yaH |

notpaadayedyadi rati.m shrama eva hi kevalam || bhaa 1.2.8 ||

 

dharmaH - occupation; svanuShThitaH - executed in terms of one's own

position; pu.msaam - of humankind; viShvaksena - the Personality of

Godhead (plenary portion); kathaasu - in the message of; yaH - what

is; na - not; utpaadayet - does produce; yadi - if; ratim -

attraction; shramaH - useless labor; eva - only; hi - certainly;

kevalam - entirely.

 

The occupational activities a man performs according to his own

position are only so much useless labor if they do not provoke

attraction for the message of the Personality of Godhead (bhaagavata

puraana 1.2.8).

 

Of course, in the above statement, the condemnation is of those who

perform varnaashrama without developing the logical conclusion of its

practice, i.e. pure devotional service. But the principle is clearly

the same: we need to see the big picture rather than becoming caught

up on particulars. We need to realize that some regulations have

greater emphasis than others.

 

The critics put more emphasis on things like the dress of a

sannyaasii, the formality of initiation, etc etc. Whereas Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta and his disciplic line, which I believe more truly

represents the spirit of Gaudiiya Vaishnavism, emphasize actual

substance beyond the appearance of external customs. As someone who

was raised in an Indian family, I do put great value on Vedic

customs, and I would never suggest that they are unimportant. But

clearly there are other principles that are more important than

external customs, and these must be assessed before one presumes to

argue who is and is not a genuine Vaishnava.

 

yours,

 

- K