Sannyaasiis and the color of their cloth

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

 

> 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.

 

Injunctions which encourage the wearing of white cloth and forbid the

wearing of red cloth are not the same as saying that saffron cloth is

forbidden. Lord Chaitanya wore saffron cloth when He took sannyaasa.

Other Vaishnavas in various sampradaayas also wear saffron cloth.

Hence, I think we can be reasonably sure that there is nothing

inherently offensive about saffron cloth.

 

But it may still be argued that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta should wear

white cloth, because the injunctions of the Gosvamis require this. To

be honest, it is still not clear to me that the Gosvamis' injunctions

actually forbid saffron cloth. But even if they did, are we to then

follow blindly without understanding the principle? Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta reintroduced the principles of varnaashrama (such as

taking of sannyaasa, wearing of saffron, etc) for the purpose of

propagating Krishna-consciousness. It is no different in principle

from Lord Chaitanya also donning saffron cloth. There is a clear

shaastric precedent for adjusting regulative principles to take into

account time, place and circumstance:

 

o.m namo bhagavate vaasudevaaya |

mantreNaanena devasya kuryaad dravyamayii.m budhaH |

saparyaa.m vividhair dravyair deshakaalavibhaagavait || bhaa 4.8.54 ||

 

Om namo bhagavate vaasudevaaya. This is the twelve-syllable mantra

for worshiping Lord Krishna. One should install the physical forms of

the Lord, and with the chanting of the mantra one should offer

flowers and fruits and other varieties of foodstuffs exactly

according to the rules and regulations prescribed by authorities. But

this should be done in consideration of place, time, and attendant

conveniences and inconveniences. (bhaagavata puraaNa 4.8.54)

 

The taking of sannyaasa and wearing of saffron cloth is a Vedic

injunction, a part of the varnaashrama system. Rupa-Vilasa das

explains the concept of taking only white cloth in his book _Ray of

Vishnu_:

 

"Traditionally, the followers of Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu,

beginning with the Gosvaamiis of Vrindaavana had accepted the

baabaajii-vesha (dress). According to the tradition, one does not

accept a braahana's thread (or gives it up if he has accepted one)

and does not carry a danda. One wears only a short white wrapper and

a top piece. The idea is that when one has reached the liberated

platform, he rids himself of any item of dress or symbol of

varnaashrama-dharma (activities within the modes of nature, of which

the sacred thread and sannyaasa aashrama are perceived as part) ....

This is considered the final, transcendental stage of a paramahamsa

Vaishnava." (Ray of Vishnu, pp52-53)

 

"Some persons also thought that to maintain the sacred thread and to

accept tridanda-sannyaasa were practices opposed to Shrii Chaitanya

Mahaaprabhu's teaching on the principle of humility: tR^iNaad api

suniichena. However, this is a fallacious view. Shriila

Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii Thaakura has explained it in the

following light: If the sacred thread is not taken at the time of

initiation, this constitutes contempt for the process of initiation.

The thread is not to signify brahminical pride that 'I am meant to be

served by everyone.' But rather is is a sign that one has been

purified by the lotus feet of a guru. The thread is meant to indicate

eternal service to the Lord, not egoism. And as far as accepting

sannyaasa is concerned, that is for increasing one's serving mood -

to serve the Lord with one's mind, body and words." (Ray of Vishnu

pp53-54)

 

The idea is that the traditional Gaudiiya system emphasize that one

has achieved the paramahamsa stage. But one who has not done this

must still follow the scriptural injunctions. The problem was that

the system of paramahamsa style initiations had become so common that

even unqualified people were taking to it, and wrongfully scorning

the varnaashrama system. But one cannot call himself a Vaishnava (in

the Vedic sense) and criticize varnaashrama, for there is clear

shaastric basis to it:

 

varNaashramaachaaravataa puruSheNa paraH pumaan |

viShNuraaraadhyate panthaa naanyat tattoShakaaraNam || viSh P 3.8.9 ||

 

yajan yaj~naan yajatyena.m japatyena.m japan nR^ipa |

ghna.m stathaanyaa.m hinastyena.m sarvabhuuto yato hariH || viSh P

3.8.10 ||

 

tasmaat sadaachaaravataa puruSheNa janaardanaH |

aaraadhyate svavarNektdharmaanuShTaanakaariNaa || viSh P 3.8.11 ||

 

braahmaNaH kshatriyo vaishyaH shuudrashcha dharaNiipate |

svadharmatatparo viShNumaaraadhayati naanyathaa || viSh P 3.8.12 ||

 

The Supreme Visnu is propitiated by a man who observes the

institutions of caste, order, and purificatory practices: no other

path is the way to please him. He who offers sacrifices, sacrifices

to Him; he who murmurs prayer, prays to Him; he who injures living

creatures, injures Him; for Hari is all beings. Janaardana therefore

is propitiated by him who is attentive to established observances,

and follows the duites prescribed for his caste. The Brahmin, the

Kshatriya, the Vaishya, and the Shuudra, who attends to the rules

enjoined by his caste, best worships Vishnu. (viShNu puraaNa 3.8.9-12)

 

This makes it clear that ordinary men are to worship Vishnu through

the system of varnaashrama. Anyone who asserts that Gaudiiya

Vaishnavas are above this injunction should either (1) prove that all

Gaudiiya Vaishnavas are paramhamsas who are above scriptural

injunctions, or (2) admit that their concept of Gaudiiya Vaishnavism

is defiant towards shaastric authority and hence cannot be considered

genuine in any meaninful sense. After all, Lord Krishna Himself

states that

 

yaH shaastra-vidhim utsR^ijya vartate kaama-kaarataH |

na sa siddhim avaapnoti na sukha.m na paraa.m gatim || giitaa 16.23 ||

 

He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own

whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme

destination. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.23)

 

tasmaach chhaastra.m pramaaNa.m te kaaryaakaarya-vyavasthitau |

j~naatvaa shaastra-vidhaanokta.m karma kartum ihaarhasi || giitaa

16.24 ||

 

One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by

the regulations of scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations,

one should act so that he may gradually be elevated. (bhagavad-giitaa

16.24)

 

What it all boils down to in the end, is that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

very thoughtfully reintroduced Vedic regulations at a time when

widespread preaching to all kinds of unqualified people was to become

the rule. Blindly following injunctions meant for paramahamsas would

not have been faithful to the ideals of either the Gosvamis or the

Vedas. Once again, I don't see that the Babaji critics really have an

argument here, and hence I can only assume that their criticisms of

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta are motivated by concerns other than scriptural

ones.

 

yours,

 

- K