Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition

[Guest guest]

[Edited for the third time, this time hopefully to pass the moderation.]

 

 

Mukunda Dattaji, let me suggest that you should do an in-depth study into the

broader Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition outside the boundaries of ISKCON. Now,

kindly allow me to shed some light on some bits of history you need to

reconsider.

 

 

>>> This is the Nityananda-vamsa, one of the caste gosvami families whose

dubious ideas are criticized in the books and instructions of Srila Prabhupada.

<<<

 

To begin with, Nityananda Parivara and Nityananda Vamsa are very different. The

word parivara is used for a particular disciplic lineage, while the word vamsa

is used for a family lineage. Thus someone belonging to Nityananda Parivara

belongs to a disciplic succession descending from Nityananda, and someone

belonging to Nityananda Vamsa belongs to a family lineage descending from the

sons of Nityananda. While the descendants of Nityananda generally are also

initiated in a disciplic succession started by Nityananda, this is not a rule

in itself.

 

 

>>> In fact, none of the caste gosvami factions that later claimed Gaudiya

affiliation actually have any intact seminal succession, either from the Lord,

or needless to say from the six gosvamis. The Advaita and Nityananda lines are

the two chief caste gosvami lines. They originated in Bengal; in fact, the

latter consists of the descendants of Advaitacarya's sons who gave up Krsna

consciousness. <<<

 

The biggest of the Advaita-vamsas (family lineage descending from Advaita) was

started by Krishna Mishra Gosvami. What makes you propose that there is no

intact seminal succession there? Have you ever examined any geneological line

of Advaita Vamsa? And Nityananda Vamsa? I believe you haven't. Nevertheless you

speak with a voice of confidence. I personally know people initiated in the

Gosvami Vamsas descending from Nitai and Advaita. The arguments at the root of

the no intact seminal lineages have their foundation in plainly discrediting

just about any book (such as Nityananda Vamsa Vistara) which doesn't fit in the

theory. But who gives credit to the opposing view? We are supposed to believe it

on the critic's own authority.

 

 

>>> Suffice it say here that theologically, the caste/babaji alliance and the

Gaudiya Sarasvata paramparas are roughly comparable to the Catholic and

Protestant traditions of Christianity. <<<

 

If such a rough comparison was to be made, I would more likely see the Gosvami

traditions akin to the Catholic tradition and the Babaji traditions akin to the

Orthodox tradition. Among the Protestant traditions, I am best familiar with the

Lutherian tradition, and among the newcomers, I am acquainted with Mormons and

Jehovah's Witnesses. Perhaps a blend of the three come close to an adequate

equivalent for the Sarasvata lineage.

 

 

>>> However, it is a false substantiation to cite percentages here, as if vox

populi had any relevence.If it is a numbers game, though, I would agree with

Bhaktivinoda Thakura himself, who said that Vaisnavas could be assessed by how

many other Vaisnavas they create. <<<

 

Now, you are proposing that numbers are irrelevant, and at the same time are the

best criterion for assessing Vaishnavas. That is somewhat of an oxymoron I

think. You should first make up your mind and then make your point.

 

 

Regards,

 

Madhava

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Madhava wrote:

> To begin with, Nityananda Parivara and Nityananda Vamsa are very different.

 

Yes, parivara also means the more general "following." You'll

observe that I have addressed both the caste gosvamis and the babajis in

my later posts; I'm sorry if I didn't make this distinction clear here.

 

 

 

> >>> In fact, none of the caste gosvami factions that later claimed

Gaudiya affiliation actually have any intact seminal succession, either from the

Lord, or needless to say from the six gosvamis. The Advaita and Nityananda lines

are the two chief caste gosvami lines. They originated in Bengal; in fact, the

latter consists of the descendants of Advaitacarya's sons who gave up Krsna

consciousness. <<<

.. . .

>The arguments at the root of the no intact seminal lineages have their

foundation in plainly discrediting just about any book (such as Nityananda

Vamsa Vistara) which doesn't fit in the theory.>

 

Perhaps such books are discredited more by their dubious origin,

as we discussed regarding Lalitaprasada's assertions; caste gosvamis hoping

to increase their family prestige, etc., invent, reveal, or "discover"

such works all the time. Small wonder . . .

 

 

 

 

> But who gives credit to the opposing view? We are supposed to believe it

on the critic's own authority.>

 

...or the sectarian's assuemd authority; take your pick. Either

one depends on faith.

 

 

 

 

> Among the Protestant traditions, I am best familiar with the Lutherian

tradition, and among the newcomers, I am acquainted with Mormons and

Jehovah's Witnesses. Perhaps a blend of the three come close to an adequate

equivalent for the Sarasvata lineage.>

 

I have a few comments here. First, to compare Prabhupada's line

with the Mormons and other groups produces irrelevant but destructive

connotations that are totally needless, and beyond relevance--unless this

is one's actual purpose; so I think your comparison is bad for reasons

I'll explain below.

 

Second, such rough comparisons run out of accuracy when we start

to pick our subject apart like this; remember, I said it was only a very

rough comparison, and that mostly because I didn't want to get into the

kind of nitpicking present now that invalidates the comparison altogether.

What I was actually thinking of was the papal properties of seminal

succession, also argued at times by those who place the most emphasis on

Gayatri-diksa.

 

Perhaps more importantly, and especially in anenvironment of

intersectarian criticism, the whole process of such categorization often

becomes little more than religious gerrymandering anyway. Who really

has the position to pontificate what is "orthodox" or not, etc.? This I

hinted above as well. It's possibly germane here. We don't need any

hyper-sophisticated versions of "My line's better than your line, nyah

nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah..."

 

 

 

 

> >>> However, it is a false substantiation to cite percentages here, as if vox

populi had any relevence.

>

> If it is a numbers game, though, I would agree with Bhaktivinoda Thakura

himself, who said that Vaisnavas could be assessed by how many other Vaisnavas

they create. <<<

>

> Now, you are proposing that numbers are irrelevant, and at the same time

are the best criterion for assessing Vaishnavas. That is somewhat of an

oxymoron I think.

 

Yes, I can see you do. The problem here, if you will, is that

what Lord Caitanya requested actually does depend on numbers; He wants

*every* town and village in the world to chant the holy name. So Srila

Bhaktivinoda Thakura's emphasis on numbers seem to be necessarily

involved here.

 

However, I can add that it is also a question of quality as well

as quantity; only the most qualified can produce such objective results.

 

This returns us to our arbitration of "orthodoxy" or what have

you. It seems more sensible to designate the most qualified person as

the pontiff of orthodoxy, since dharma means to follow the Lord's order.

It is equally sensible to recognize the documented history that Srila

Prabhupada has already spread Krsna conscousness all over the world.

 

So to instead doggedly cling to a socially-defined orthodoxy

that was practically dead while Prabhupada was effecting all this seems,

well, pretty senseless.

 

Most importantly, what distinguishes this from the kind of

childish singsongs I depicted above is that it is above all PRACTICAL.

It matters entirely, in deed, for each one of us who has been awakened to

Krsna-bhakti through Srila Prabhupada's efforts, whether directly or

indirectly. The proof of the pudding is in the eating; it has no

proof if practically no one is going to eat it, nor does it have relevence.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Madhava" <harekrishna@s...> wrote:

 

> All I am requesting is that some potentially fanatic defenders of

the Sarasvata lineage in our audience should not start a campaign

specifically against Ananta Das Baba, as I read someone say here that

ADB does not accept the parampara-concept of the Gaudiya Matha. The

point I am making is that it is very difficult to find a single group

of Gaudiya Vaishnavas outside the Gaudiya Matha who accept the

parampara-conception of Bhaktisiddhanta. If you know of any, let me

know. And by all means, do make a specific case against the rest of

the Gaudiya tradition if you wish. Just do not pick a single

individual whom you try to tear apart as the symbol of everything you

find objectionable, as that is not the way thoughful men ought to

behave.

>

 

I don't have any particular design regarding Ananta Das Baba or

members of his line, and I certainly don't think my objections are

anywhere in the realm of fanatical. If I have specifically mentioned

his name in my objections, it is only because his name was brought up

by people presuming to represent his line with regards to the

philosphical differences between the Gaudiiya-Saravati paramparaa and

the so-called "rest of the Gaudiiya tradition." Obviously, if one

steps forward and names his school, and then proceeds to criticize

the postion of another line of thinking, the rebuttals will likely be

directed towards the person making the criticisms. That's hardly

fanatical; it's just human nature. If one wishes to criticize, he

automatically submits his own views for polite scrutiny. If his views

don't hold up to polite scrutiny, then it might be best not to

criticize.

 

In any case, I would like to steer this discussion away from

questions of character and back into the specific points of

contention here. Much reference is made in this thread regarding the

minority position of the Gaudiiya-sarasvata line compared to that of

others also claiming to be orthodox Gaudiiya Vaishnavas (as if

numbers somehow decided correctness), with the implication being that

the Saarasvata line has deviated from Shrii Chaitanya's teachings

while others have presumably remained faithful. The basic premise of

these objections seems to be that the line of Gaudiiya Vaishnavas

given as Srila Bhaktivinoda Thaakura -- Srila Gaurakishora daasa

Babaji -- Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati -- Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta

Swami Prabhupada is not really an "orthodox,traditional," or

faithful Gaudiiya Vaishnava line descending from Shrii Chaitanya

Mahaaprabhu. Since this is a mailing list dedicated to discussions of

Gaudiiya Vaishnavism as it is taught in this paramparaa, this is

obviously a serious criticism which should be addressed here. Of

course, our opponents are sometimes quick to add that certainly,

Srila Prabhupada's line has contributed much in the name of Gaudiiya

Vaishnavism, etc etc, but the bottom line is that Srila Prabhupada

and his immediate predecessors are not the real thing when it comes

to Gaudiiya Vaishnavism, as far as these "other" Gaudiiya Vaishnavas

who are allegedly the orthodoxy are concerned.

 

As far as I can tell, some of the objections which are brought up by

these other parties (of whom the disciplic descendents of Ananda Das

Babaji are merely one) seem to be as follows:

 

1) Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received a "dream" initation only from his

guru Srila Gaurakishora dasa babaji. He never received a physical

initiation. Hence his initiation was not genuine.

 

2) Srila Bhaktisiddhanta took his sannyaasa initation before a

picture of his guru-mahaaraaja, even though ordinarly one becomes

ordained in the physical presence of his guru. Therefore,

Bhaktisiddhaanta's sannyaasa inititation is also not genuine

according to Vedic or Gaudiiya principles.

 

3) There are allegedly injunctions in the Gosvamis' literature to the

effect that sannyaasiis should not wear red cloth, and positive

injunctions that one should wear white cloth. Therefore, based on

this, the wearing of saffron cloth is prohibited by Gaudiiya

sannyaasis, and since this practice is relatively new (as it was

reintroduced by Bhaktisiddhaanta), the followers of Bhaktisiddhaanta

(who do wear saffron when they enter the renounced order) have

deviated from the Gosvamis' injunctions and are thus not true

followers of their line.

 

4) Srila Gaurakishora dasa babaji was not the disciple of Bhaktivinod

Thaakura but of someone else. Therefore Srila Bhaktivinod Thaakur

could not be his guru, and for the paramparaa to be listed in this

way is wrong. In the same line of argument, many other paramparaa

connections in Bhaktisiddhaanta's listing are objected to on the same

basis, i.e. that this devotee actually had this Gosvami as his guru,

and not anyone else.

 

5) Different Gaudiiya Math chronicles appear to give different times

and dates of Bhaktisiddhaanta's initiation, some even saying that he

received Narasimha mantra, implying that he was a devotee of Lord

Narasimha. So therefore Bhaktisiddhaanta's initation is questionable

at best.

 

6) Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati could not have received his brahmin

thread from Gaurakishora dasa Babaji, because the latter never wore

one and furthermore was born into a Vaishya family. There are several

implicit objections here: (a) that Gaurakishora dasa Babaji never

wore a brahmin thread based on the available pictures of him, (b)

that he was a vaishya by birth, and could thus have never attained

the status of a Brahmin, and that © one has to have the sacred

thread in order to confer brahminical status on a disciple.

 

7) The various parivaras have distinct tilakas, and Gaurakishora dasa

babaji was initiated into Advaita-parivara. Therefore, why did not

Bhaktisiddhanta take the tilaka of the Advaita-parivara?

 

8) Brahmins can only come in families that have always been brahmins;

i.e. brahminical birth is a necessary prerequisite to becoming a

brahmin. Thus, the practice of initiating devotees outside of brahmin

caste with brahmin thread is also a deviation.

 

9) The institution of varnaashrama dharma by Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati is a form of naamaparaadha, because it implies that such

pious activities are equal to pure devotional service.

 

10) Only maayaavaadiis are sannyaasiis; that Vaishnavas in

Bhaktisiddhaanta's line also take sannyaasa is a deviation of sorts.

 

11) There is no prohibition against getting initiation from one's own

parents or a householder guru. This is allegedly discouraged in the

Saarasvata line, and hence is evidence of another type of deviation.

 

These appear to be some of the main objections brought forward in

documents I have read; possibly there are many more, but these are

the only ones I have seen which seem worth addressing. The rest of

the objections which I have seen appear to amount to finger-pointing

and accusations, as if any one religious group had the monopoly on

wrong-doing and insincere followers. I have pretty much avoided these

objections on the grounds of having no interest in sentimental

arguments or politics.

 

Perhaps we can now address some of these objections one by one.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, krishna_susarla wrote:

 

> In any case, I would like to steer this discussion away from

> questions of character and back into the specific points of

> contention here.

 

I don't agree that these are really the important things, nor

are they that relevent. Because I see proper character as an essential

prerequisite to the valid concerns you've raised, I think ignoring it's

role here may only obscure things. The Vaisnava acaryas posit generic

dharma as the defacto basis of eligibility for Vedanta study; Srila

Prabhupada similarly argued fairly often--especially with the so-called

Christians--that there is little point in discussing higher theological

matters (or here, perhaps, the details of its application) unless one also

practices the basics, the subreligious and regulative principles. This is

first and foremost, practical--and it is consequential.

 

Moreover, deliberately creating an environment in which this

pivot is perceived as irrelevent makes a very powerful, affective

statement in itself. Requisite adherence to the disiplines of sadacara

separates our isthagosthi from a forum of mere armchair speculators.

To ignore this in practice brings us--in effect--not very far from the

secular intellectual position that one's personal actions have no bearing

on the validity of one's voice or reason (I mentioned Isopanisad 10

previously in this regard). It's subtle relativism, and as I hinted

above, it may even be what some people wish to effect. And that's

nescience.

 

I've argued that there is definitely a recognizable, inauspicious

pattern of misbehavior seen among those who usually instigate discussions

of the topics you've summarized, at least in the West. There is no need

to reiterate just how these people are typically sinful, but that they

reject their bonafide guru in order to adopt other Vaisnavas' views (with

which they feel more comfortable)--is not something to be taken lightly.

This is what I'm addressing here, in terms of sadacara. After all,

"disciple" means discipline. A disciple's duty is to fix his mind on

the instructions of his guru, without any allowing any distractions.

 

 

So put very simply:

 

What will those who accept guru-nistha as the active principle of

spiritual life learn about this discipline from someone who has already

rejected their guru?

 

 

Since this is as significant as it is consequential, I feel it is

irresponsible to ignore it mainly out of fear of getting involved in

character assasination, etc. It is quite possible to focus on the purpose

of such sadacara (especially vis-a- vis one's gurus) without indulging in

sectarian politics or personal attacks. Discussing the visible mistakes

that some people made, currently continue making, or even encourage

others to make--definitely seems much more relevent at the moment than

pedantically quibbling over the dogmas of a few otherwise relatively

insignificant sects.

 

That said, I would also be happy to discuss the topics you've

listed with any of those now claiming to advocate caste gosvami/babaji

ideology--provided such persons confirm that they have not previously

rejected their Vaisnava guru, such as Srila Prabhupada.

 

MDd