Following Sri Caitanya's representatives

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Madhava wrote:

> In drawing parallels with the other Vaishnava sampradayas' vocal support

and regard for Prabhupada's efforts, we must understand that they are not

directly concerned in preserving the doctrinal purity of the Gaudiya

sampradaya.>>

 

Who is qualified for that? Fools rush in. Or, as the world's

foremost acarya used to say, "first deserve, then desire;" it's simply not

so easy to attain such an exalted adhikara (cf. Bhagavata, 11.20.26):

 

"It is firmly declared that the steady adherence of

transcendentalists to their respective spiritual positions constitutes

real piety and that sin occurs when a transcendentalist neglects his

prescribed duty."

 

 

 

 

>> The members of the Gaudiya tradition, though (for the most part)

respectful, are generally less vocal about it on account the fact that

so much blanket condemnation towards the rest of the tradition has been

presented by those belonging to the Sarasvata lineage. >>

 

Srila Prabhupada's criticisms are aimed at those who are cheating

in various ways, which he also identifies generally; I mentioned this

earlier with respect to avoiding personal attacks. However, even if there

was some "blanket condemnation" of "the rest of the tradition," it would

only seem fair that those who are demonstrably the most prominent acaryas

in the world should be allowed their due prerogative. Axiomatically,

someone is always going to be the best, relatively speaking, so why not

just give them the hard-earned respect they deserve more than all others?

Everyone had an equal chance and the same mandate (cf. Cc. adi 9.39-41),

but only one of them took it up to the extent that he succeeded in

fulfilling Mahaprabhu's mandate, by Krsna's Divine grace. I honestly

don't see why anyone whose theological principle is to offer all respects

to others without expecting any in return, shouldn't be able to appreciate

this--unless he's just a spoil sport, or worse.

 

 

 

 

> Undoubtedly some faults have been legitimately pointed out, but aside

> this, much unnecessary critique has been cast on undeserving, sincere

> saints.

 

This--coming from anyone who unecessarily steps in and of his own

volition begins criticizing Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and other

undeniably empowered acaryas by name--would not seem to be very representative

of innocent and sincere saints. I'm not saying that's the case here, as the

moderator has admitted inviting our current discussions. However, it is

very important to recognize the fact that there is an amazingly vocal (and

tenacious) minority that does this sort of thing to ISKCON devotees

regularly.

 

That said, I agree with you completely.

 

 

 

 

> I agree wholeheartedly that much of the critique that has been presented

is in bad taste. In my experience, this does not arise so much from the

babajis (or whoever their holy gurus be), but from their negative experiences

from the time they spent either in ISKCON or in the Gaudiya Math.>>

 

Even though there are more eloquent ways of saying that such

persons are about as objective as any other disgruntled quitters can be,

your subtext is as clear as its motivation. More important, though, is

to focus on *why* their experience was bad; it can most definitely be

demonstrated that in many (if not most) cases, it was because their

behavior was at least as bad even then as it is now.

 

 

 

 

> The discovery of a whole new world of Gaudiya Vaishnavism often becomes a

poor excuse for inconsiderate and often harsh critique. > >

 

Such critics also remain remarkably blasphenmous, so perhaps they

more accurately just represent the low caliber of association they now

actually prefer, regardless of whatever spiritual allegiances they may

claim.

 

 

 

 

> I see the same phenomenom in many who leave ISKCON to take shelter of any

Gaudiya Matha guru, the group of B.V. Narayana Maharaja perhaps standing out

from the crowd as the foremost in this regard. >>

 

Of course. Again, however, it is notable that he too has often

been associated with the babaji class.

 

It would be interesting to do a survey to see how many of those

who leave ISKCON also eventually leave the next guru/s they find too.

 

 

 

 

> I trust our considerate audience can evaluate this in a proper way and

direct the critique to where it's due, to immature individuals with bad

experiences from the past.>

 

That's flattering, to be sure, but I disagree. Not only do some

people baldly lie about what (and who) they really trust, but a major

reason they do so is that they know very well how many others haven't

a clue about how to evaluate such relatively esoteric topics.

 

 

 

 

> generally disciples of some Baba or Gosvami, but whether their views

are approved of by the Baba or the Gosvami, that is the question.>

 

Indeed. I've raised it quite a few times so far.

 

 

MDd