Facts

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees,

 

please calm down. Trading harsh words achieves nothing and reaches

nowhere.

 

It is understandable that followers of a certain group of Vaishnavas

are duty-bound to protect/preach the principles as understood through

their respective guru-vargas, especially when they are under attack

of feel like that.

 

In this context, let me post a verse from Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura:

 

khalatA dashame lakSyA kAlIye sarpa-rUpake

sampradAya-virodho .ayam dAvAnalo vicintyate

 

"kAliya's malice always pollutes the water of the yamunA, which is

the spiritual liquid of the vaiSNavas. It is everyone's duty to give

up this tenth obstacle. The eleventh obstacle of the vaiSNavas is

sectarianism, which takes the shape of the forest fire. Due to

sectarianism a person cannot accept anyone outside of his own group

as a vaiSNava, and as a result he faces many obstacles in finding a

guru and associating with devotees. Therefore, extinguishing the

forest fire is most important." - shrI kR^iSNa-sa.mhitA 8.22

 

I would just like to affirm that I am fully dedicated to the guru-

varga of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada and Srila

Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

 

I have been doing some little research (on the Internet) while under

pressure of various personal and work projects, but my minimal

studies so far have enabled me to see that the so-called "criticism"

of the "babaji" school do indeed have some shastric basis. These

points include the necessity of a diksa-parampara, non-acceptance of

sannyasa, practice of siddha/guru-pranali, and others. Some of these

ideas have been discussed briefly but no firm conclusion has been

reached.

 

I am still not fuly capable of writing in depth as I will have to

read the various exchanges so far and fully digest them, but I would

like to present some FACTS that I hope will bring some sort of

structure to the discussions.

 

FACT 1: It is a FACT that Gaudiya Vaishnavism existed before the

appearance of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and was being propounded by

various "babaji" schools.

 

FACT 2: It is a FACT that some babajis were not pure representatives

of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, hence serious criticism was meted out and the

school as a whole suffered a bad reputation. This, however, does not

mean that genuine babajis do not exist, and indeed they are pure

representatives of Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

FACT 3: Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was a champion reformer of Gaudiya

Vaishnavism. In this role, he certainly made innovations that were

unheard-of at the time. This is unarguable fact.

 

FACT 4: Srila Bhaktisiddhanta has been criticised for these

very "unorthodox" innovations. As a result, the various paramparas

from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta (including that of Srila Bhaktivedanta

Swami) are indirectly criticised.

 

These are all I can think of so far, I'm sure I can discuss in depth

later or think of some more points, though I would rather wait until

the current discussions are more or less over.

 

I would also like to say that, regarding the inner desires of

Caitanya Mahaprabhu, it was Srila Bhaktivinoda who was the pioneer of

the program to preach Gaudiya Vaishnavism overseas, going so far as

to be the first Gaudiya acharya to write in English. Srila

Bhaktivinoda ordered Srila Bhaktisiddhanta to establish daiva-

varnasrama. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did this, or rather gave the

directions of how to do so, and also preached widely by establishing

64 Gaudiya Mathas. This preaching idea was extended via the ISKCON of

Srila Prabhupada, who at the end of his manifest devotional career

was reported to have opened at least 108 temples internationally.

These are unarguable facts.

 

These facts also do not have to give reason to fill the hearts of

devotees with (sectarian?) pride that is based on the idea of "our

guru-varga managed it, others did not," whether you admit it or not.

 

It is also a fact that there are two major types of Mahaprabhu

followers; Gosthyanandis and Bhajananandis. Gosthyanandis are

preachers, parivrajakacharyas, and are of the idea of Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta's line. Bhajananandis are the general babajis who

concentrate either on their own sadhana or who concentrate on raga-

bhajana. Gour Govinda Swami has many a time delineated upon the

similarities and differences of these two categories.

 

So I hope these are interesting facts.

 

In service of Gaura-Nitai,

 

Jay

 

P.S. There have been a couple of snide statements. I would just like

to clarify that I have committed no offense to Srila Bhaktivinoda

Thakura by asking if he ate meat, neither do I have any interest in

committing any offences. It is an autobiographical fact on his part

that I was VERY surprised to learn about. The premise is true

*providing* that the Svalikhita-jivani is an authentic text, which is

discputed in some Vaishnava circles.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Jay <dark_knight_9>"

<dark_knight_9> wrote:

 

> FACT 1: It is a FACT that Gaudiya Vaishnavism existed before the

> appearance of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and was being propounded by

> various "babaji" schools.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "babaji" schools here. There are

babajis in the Gaudiiya line who are well known and respected, such

as Jagannaatha daasa, Gaura Kishora, etc. Gaudiiya Vaishnavism was

being preserved carefully by the likes of Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana,

Vishvanaatha Chakravarti, and others before Srila Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

> FACT 3: Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was a champion reformer of Gaudiya

> Vaishnavism. In this role, he certainly made innovations that were

> unheard-of at the time. This is unarguable fact.

 

Would you care to explain what you consider to be the "innovations

that were unheard-of at the time?"

 

- K

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Jay <dark_knight_9>"

<dark_knight_9> wrote:

 

> I have been doing some little research (on the Internet) while

under

> pressure of various personal and work projects, but my minimal

> studies so far have enabled me to see that the so-

called "criticism"

> of the "babaji" school do indeed have some shastric basis. These

> points include the necessity of a diksa-parampara, non-acceptance

of

> sannyasa, practice of siddha/guru-pranali, and others. Some of

these

> ideas have been discussed briefly but no firm conclusion has been

> reached.

 

I disagree. Please show us your evidence, and better yet, explain

away the evidence I have already provided. There is nothing like "non-

acceptance of sannyaasa," since sannyaasa as defined in Bhagavad-gita

is the logical result of spiritual life. Nor is there "necessity of a

diksa-parampara" as we see numerous instances in the Gaudiiya

paramparaa that are shiksha links only.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla

<krishna_susarla@h...>" <krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

> achintya, "Jay <dark_knight_9>"

> <dark_knight_9> wrote:

>

> > FACT 1: It is a FACT that Gaudiya Vaishnavism existed before the

> > appearance of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and was being propounded by

> > various "babaji" schools.

>

> I'm not sure what you mean by "babaji" schools here. There are

> babajis in the Gaudiiya line who are well known and respected, such

> as Jagannaatha daasa, Gaura Kishora, etc. Gaudiiya Vaishnavism was

> being preserved carefully by the likes of Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana,

> Vishvanaatha Chakravarti, and others before Srila Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

 

Exactly, and if there were babajis like Jagannatha das and

Gaurakisora das then, there are surely bona-fide babajis even now.

Why shouldn't there be?

 

As I stated elsewhere, certainly some babajis simply tried to fulfil

their own desires in the name of religion which brought bad

reputation, and this in turn led to criticism by Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Prabhupada et al, but this does not mean

that ALL babajis are corrupted in some way. If one says that the

babaji school is tainted, then one will have to explain why we (in

Srila Prabhupada's line) have three babajis in our parampara, the

above two plus Vamsidasa Babaji.

 

In fact, the tradition of "renuncation" before Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

meant being a "babaji" as in the acceptance of babaji-vesa. In that

context, the Six Goswamis were babajis too. Even Srila Bhaktivinoda

accepted babji-vesa, thus he counts as a "babaji" too.

 

Yes, I am also aware of the by-says in "Ray of Vishnu" that a

precedent for tridandi-sannyasa was made by Srila Prabhodananda

Sarasvati. It would be interesting to see how Madhava and/or his

colleagues respond to this.

 

In essence, my simple point in "Fact 1" simply meant to say that

Gaudiya Vaishnavism existed before the appearance of Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta. It is also true that it was "carefully preserved" by

Srila Cakravartipada and Sri Vidyabhusana, but this is not the ONLY

parampara of Gaudiya Vaishnavism that existed. There were other

paramparas too.

 

 

> > FACT 3: Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was a champion reformer of Gaudiya

> > Vaishnavism. In this role, he certainly made innovations that

were

> > unheard-of at the time. This is unarguable fact.

>

> Would you care to explain what you consider to be the "innovations

> that were unheard-of at the time?"

 

Well, according to the propaganda of the babaji school, Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta initiated the acceptance of tridandi-sannyasa, daiva-

varnashrama, etc.

 

They categorically say that the concept of tridandi-sannyasa was

*never* in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. On the other hand, we have a

statement that Srila Prabhodananda Sarasvati took tridandi-sannyasa.

So we need to see an adequate response to this statement before we

can verify if the "no sannyasa" concept is indeed true.

 

In service of Gaura-Nitai,

 

Sanjay

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla

<krishna_susarla@h...>" <krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

> achintya, "Jay <dark_knight_9>"

> <dark_knight_9> wrote:

>

> > I have been doing some little research (on the Internet) while

> under

> > pressure of various personal and work projects, but my minimal

> > studies so far have enabled me to see that the so-

> called "criticism"

> > of the "babaji" school do indeed have some shastric basis. These

> > points include the necessity of a diksa-parampara, non-acceptance

> of

> > sannyasa, practice of siddha/guru-pranali, and others. Some of

> these

> > ideas have been discussed briefly but no firm conclusion has been

> > reached.

>

> I disagree. Please show us your evidence, and better yet, explain

> away the evidence I have already provided.

 

 

I am rather busy now. Perhaps tomorrow or after that.

 

>> There is nothing like "non- acceptance of sannyaasa," since

sannyaasa as defined in Bhagavad-gita is the logical result of

spiritual life. Nor is there "necessity of a diksa-parampara" as we

see numerous instances in the Gaudiiya paramparaa that are shiksha

links only. <<

 

OUR parampara certainly. Not others, as in the case of the Nityananda

and Advaita parivars, and other parivars. They are based on diksha.

 

 

In service of Gaura-Nitai,

 

Sanjay

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Jay <dark_knight_9>"

<dark_knight_9> wrote:

 

> Exactly, and if there were babajis like Jagannatha das and

> Gaurakisora das then, there are surely bona-fide babajis even now.

> Why shouldn't there be?

 

[snip]

 

> In essence, my simple point in "Fact 1" simply meant to say that

> Gaudiya Vaishnavism existed before the appearance of Srila

> Bhaktisiddhanta. It is also true that it was "carefully preserved"

by

> Srila Cakravartipada and Sri Vidyabhusana, but this is not the ONLY

> parampara of Gaudiya Vaishnavism that existed. There were other

> paramparas too.

 

Dear Jay,

 

I have never contested anything in the above paragraphs. If you felt

that I have, then you are mistaken.

 

> Well, according to the propaganda of the babaji school, Srila

> Bhaktisiddhanta initiated the acceptance of tridandi-sannyasa,

daiva-

> varnashrama, etc.

 

Varnaasharma dharma has its basis in Vedic scriptures which all

Vaishnavas, including the Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, must accept. It is not

a novel concept introduced by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. If some of the

topmost devotees were not practicing it prior to him, this was likely

because (1) they were beyond lower dharmas like varnaashrama (sarva

dharmaan parityajya....) and (2) they were not engaged in the kind of

widespread preaching to unqualified people that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

envisioned his movement would be. Nevertheless, many other devotees

in Lord Chaitanya's own time clearly observed varnaashrama dharma. It

has its place in reforming people so that they can become more

advanced in their spiritual life. To say that practice of

varnaashrama is equating it to Hari-naama is simply wrong.

 

> They categorically say that the concept of tridandi-sannyasa was

> *never* in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. On the other hand, we have a

> statement that Srila Prabhodananda Sarasvati took tridandi-

sannyasa.

> So we need to see an adequate response to this statement before we

> can verify if the "no sannyasa" concept is indeed true.

 

Lord Chaitanya, Prabhodananda Sarasvati, and many others observed the

sannyaasa order, wore saffron, etc. It is wrong to say that Gaudiiya

Vaishnavism means giving this up.

 

> > I disagree. Please show us your evidence, and better yet, explain

> > away the evidence I have already provided.

>

>

> I am rather busy now. Perhaps tomorrow or after that.

 

As far as I can tell, most of Bhaktisiddhanta's "innovations" simply

amount to reinstating Vedic institutions (like varnaashrama) which

are required for the population at large. Had someone else been in

his position, they would likely have done the same. If Vedas right up

to Bhaagavatam are not a part of our tradition, then I agree that the

varnaashrama institution was a novel introduction. But then, that

would be tantamount to saying that Gaudiiya Vaishnavas have no basis

in shaastras.

 

> >> There is nothing like "non- acceptance of sannyaasa," since

> sannyaasa as defined in Bhagavad-gita is the logical result of

> spiritual life. Nor is there "necessity of a diksa-parampara" as we

> see numerous instances in the Gaudiiya paramparaa that are shiksha

> links only. <<

>

> OUR parampara certainly. Not others, as in the case of the

Nityananda

> and Advaita parivars, and other parivars. They are based on diksha.

 

The question is whether or not the Vedic institution of paramparaa,

and specifically the Gaudiiya instituion of paramparaa, require

diiksha only connections. So far, it has not been proved that either

of them do, and many examples have been provided by me to the

contrary. Even the other parivars still accept the paramparaa listing

from Vyaasa via Madhva. That connection is certainly a shiksha

connection, as are the connections between his co-disciples, and

quite possibly even the connection between Vyaasa Tiirtha and

Lakshmiipati Tiirtha.

 

Yours,

 

- K