Who can represent Gaudiiya Vaishnavism?

[Guest guest]

achintya, Rajaram Venkataramani

<v_raja_ram> wrote:

>

> 1) in iskcon / gaudiya vaishnavism every one can respresent the

gaudiya theology if they have faith.

>

 

I am revisiting this issue because I think it bears some scrutiny.

 

The question as to who can represent "Gaudiiya theology" is one worth

asking. Rajaram argues that anyone can if they have faith in it.

However, that is more or less a statement of ability. Anyone with an

internet address and an email address can represent any Vaishnava

philosophy if they choose. But whether that makes them eligible is

another story.

 

Who represents Gaudiiya Vaishnavism in practice? On the internet, it

seems that GV's representatives are primarily ideological converts,

many of whom are not initiated in that tradition (this is in contrast

to those who, for example, represent Tattvavaada and Sri Vaishnavism,

who are in most cases people who were born into these respective

traditions, and thus do so by accident of birth primarily). Not being

a true initiate into Gaudiiya Vaishnavism always raises the question

as to how faithful one is to the tradition he claims to represent.

 

Then of course, there are Gaudiiya Vaishnavas who are initiated,

although we cannot always accept their fidelity on this basis alone.

For example, there is one Swami whose articles regularly appear on

the internet who preaches the idea that Jesus is the incarnation of

Lord Balaraama. No evidence at all that I know of for such a

syncretic stance, but he says it anyway. About 10 years ago there was

another Gaudiiya sannyaasi whose disciples spammed the internet with

advertisements of "Spiritual Sex" as a cheap and yet alluring way of

attracting followers. Whether genuine at heart or not, his methods do

represent a very different approach to preaching than his

predecessors have established. Then there are other initiated,

perhaps even senior devotees and the ideas they preach - one thinks

that having homosexuals at a religious function is auspicious,

another thinks that giving sannyaasa to women is perfectly bona fide,

a third argues that his paramparaa has no link to Madhvaachaarya, a

fourth thinks raagaanuga is for every Tom, Dick, and Harry in blue

jeans, etc. There is even a senior Gaudiiya Vaishnava who thinks that

the Vedas originally existed in a pre-Sanskrit, proto Indo European

language!

 

Given the above, it seems that the number of permutations on Gaudiiya

Vaishnavism is approaching infinity. Surely some diversity can exist,

but on the pretext of diversity one cannot be asked to accept new

ideas of dubious origin which happen to appeal to the baser instincts

of people conditioned by maayaa. The question then, is a very

relevant one.

 

Who can truly claim to represent Gaudiiya Vaishnavism? Who really

represents "the real thing," and why is one devotee considered

a "real" Gaudiiya Vaishnava while others are not? What quality or

combination of qualities make one a Gaudiiya Vaishnava?

 

I would like to clear the table for discussion of this point.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla> wrote:

> achintya, Rajaram Venkataramani

> <v_raja_ram> wrote:

> >

> > 1) in iskcon / gaudiya vaishnavism every one can respresent the

> gaudiya theology if they have faith.

 

 

> Who can truly claim to represent Gaudiiya Vaishnavism? Who really

> represents "the real thing," and why is one devotee considered

> a "real" Gaudiiya Vaishnava while others are not? What quality or

> combination of qualities make one a Gaudiiya Vaishnava?

>

> I would like to clear the table for discussion of this point.

 

Hare Krishna

 

i guess to start with we can use the following verse. these are the

best ones which comes in my mind.

 

kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya

yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei guru haya

"Whether a person is a brahmana, a sannyasi, or a sudra, if he is

knows the science of Krsna, he is to be accepted as guru." (Caitanya

Caritamrta Madhya 8.127)

 

So above verse says that a person should know science of Krishna.

 

And now how one will know if a person knows science of krishna or

not the answer is here:

 

yare dekha, tare kaha 'krsna'-upadesa

amara ajnaya guru hana tara' ei desa

 

"Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Lord Sri Krsna as they

are given in the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. In this way

become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this

land." (CC, Madhya, 7:128)

 

So to the extent we *** really understand & follow *** the science

of krishna according to BG and SB, commensurately we are official

representatives of Gaudiya parampara or more precisely Chaitanya

Mahaprabhu.

 

Looking forward to what others have to say.

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

 

> > Who can truly claim to represent Gaudiiya Vaishnavism? Who really

> > represents "the real thing," and why is one devotee considered

> > a "real" Gaudiiya Vaishnava while others are not? What quality or

> > combination of qualities make one a Gaudiiya Vaishnava?

> >

 

> kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya

> yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei guru haya

> "Whether a person is a brahmana, a sannyasi, or a sudra, if he is

> knows the science of Krsna, he is to be accepted as guru."

(Caitanya

> Caritamrta Madhya 8.127)

>

> So above verse says that a person should know science of Krishna.

>

> And now how one will know if a person knows science of krishna or

> not the answer is here:

>

> yare dekha, tare kaha 'krsna'-upadesa

> amara ajnaya guru hana tara' ei desa

>

> "Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Lord Sri Krsna as they

> are given in the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. In this way

> become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this

> land." (CC, Madhya, 7:128)

>

> So to the extent we *** really understand & follow *** the science

> of krishna according to BG and SB, commensurately we are official

> representatives of Gaudiya parampara or more precisely Chaitanya

> Mahaprabhu.

 

Good verses to start with. However, I find this definition

unsatisfactory and incomplete. Let me explain why:

 

1) "Understand the science of Krishna." By itself, understanding is

clearly necessary, but not sufficient. For example, if a person

understands science of Krishna but speaks something else, then he

cannot be a Gaudiiya Vaishnava.

 

2) And what of those who spice up the "science of Krishna?" with

ideas not found in scripture? Jesus is the incarnation of Balaraama

and so forth. Can one be a Gaudiiya Vaishnava who introduces new

concepts into the tradition?

 

3) What does it meant to follow instructions of Bhagavad-giitaa

anyway? Devotees will argue that they preach because Krishna says in

18th chapter that those who preach are most dear to Him. Yet other

Vaishnavas will argue that the persons to be preached to, based on

that same chapter, should not be envious of Him. Everyone follows

their own tradition's understanding of BG and SB; this does not make

them Gaudiiya Vaishnavas.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla> wrote:

 

> So to the extent we *** really understand & follow *** the science

> > of krishna according to BG and SB, commensurately we are

official

> > representatives of Gaudiya parampara or more precisely Chaitanya

> > Mahaprabhu.

>

> Good verses to start with. However, I find this definition

> unsatisfactory and incomplete. Let me explain why:

 

I said two things - really understand and follow. Not just simply

understand. I thought it was quite implicit that following anything

means following it fully - speech, mind(thoughts) and actions. When

one think about following in this way i think we can dispense about

most of the objections you have raised.

 

Secondly let me add this line which i didn't earlier, that of course

this understanding of BG and SB has to be as Sri Chaitanya

understood it.

 

Now here we have a revised/updated defination:

 

"So to the extent we *** really understand & follow[in mind, actions

and speech] *** the science of krishna according to Sriman

Mahaprabhu's understanding of BG and SB, commensurately we are

official representatives of Gaudiya parampara or more precisely

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu."

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

Haribol,

 

Sumeet,

 

While you have given two important criteria (see ur email below), you missed the

most important one - that of formal initiation from a bonafide guru into a

parampara. If this is not there, the other two cannot happen. You cited the case

of Sri Ramanujacharya in a different email who went against his guru to

establish the true meaning of Vedanta, to find support for your cause. But, I

think such cases occur rarely and usually in the case of great devotees by the

will of the Supreme Lord. For common people like us caught in samsara and

conditioned by materialistic desires, the only way we can represent not just GV,

but any other sampradaya is by taking formal initiation. NO OTHER WAY. One

cannot *really* understand and follow, if he has not surrendered to a guru and

followed his instructions. Lord Krishna does not care for our direct devotion,

if he doesn't see our discipline to a diksa guru.

 

Initiation into a sampradaya provides the vital *link* to previous acharyas and

Lord Krishna Himself. Without establishing this link, whatever we think/say/do

won't have the desired effect. It won't carry the potency. Take for example

Srila Prabhupada's success in preaching KC in America - he got a great response

compared to what he could achieve in India. While, we may provide some valid

external reasons for this wonder such as "Americans were materialliy exhausted

and looking for something higher", "Indians were busy aping the West forgetting

their glory" and so on...however, the most important reason why Srila

Prabhupada's mission worked was because he was empowered not just by Krishna,

not just by Chaitanya, but most importantly by His guru Srila BhaktiSiddhanta

Saraswathi Thakur. Without this empowerment, even as SP himself has many times

said, it wouldn't have been possible for him to do this miracle. That is the

sole difference between him and other bogus swamis!!!

 

So, it is for this reason, I questioned Rajaram, and now I'm questioning you and

all others who fall into this category. Even I fall into the same category, and

thus, I know my limitations when I try to argue for a particular sampradaya. I

can, at best, be an outsider, offering my limited understanding.

 

Does this mean then that one has to take initiation into other sampradayas also

to talk about them? Certainly not...that would be contradictory to our surrender

to a particular guru and a particular parampara. But, having been empowered by a

guru, one can talk about other philosophies, not with an intention of

disrespecting them, but with a desire to present the truth.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

in your service,

 

Aravind.

 

Sumeet wrote:

 

Hare Krishna

 

i guess to start with we can use the following verse. these are the

best ones which comes in my mind.

 

kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya

yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei guru haya

"Whether a person is a brahmana, a sannyasi, or a sudra, if he is

knows the science of Krsna, he is to be accepted as guru." (Caitanya

Caritamrta Madhya 8.127)

 

So above verse says that a person should know science of Krishna.

 

And now how one will know if a person knows science of krishna or

not the answer is here:

 

yare dekha, tare kaha 'krsna'-upadesa

amara ajnaya guru hana tara' ei desa

 

"Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Lord Sri Krsna as they

are given in the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. In this way

become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this

land." (CC, Madhya, 7:128)

 

So to the extent we *** really understand & follow *** the science

of krishna according to BG and SB, commensurately we are official

representatives of Gaudiya parampara or more precisely Chaitanya

Mahaprabhu.

 

Looking forward to what others have to say.

 

 

 

 

Aravind Mohanram

Ph.D. Candidate

Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg.,

Penn State University,

University Park, PA 16801

www.personal.psu.edu/aum105