100 names of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu

[Guest guest]

> > Srila Prabhupada has said that anyone who thinks he can make advancement

> > outside the Krishna Consciousness movement is living in a great

> > illusion. I am sorry to say Nayan Ranjan which was his name before he

> > took Sanyasa in the Guadiya Math is in great difficulty. Let us pray

> > that he comes back to the shelter of Srila Prabhuapda's ISKCON.

>

 

 

the following is a sanga letter from Tripurari Swami, that was published on

vnn.org:

 

 

 

 

Q. Srila Prabhupada is the founder acarya of Iskcon and because the position

of founder acarya is unique it mandates that all Gaudiya Vaisanvas follow

him today. Was there institutionalization in Gaudiya Vaisnavism before Srila

Prabhupada became the founder acarya of Iskcon? Do you underestimate the

importance of the institutionalization of Lord Caitanya's teachings?

 

A. It is important to note that Srila Prabhupada is the founder acarya of an

institution, not a religion or even a lineage. The founder of Srila

Prabhupada's religion is Sri Caitanya. This is explained in Sri Jiva

Goswami's Sarva-samvadini tika on Sat-sandarbha. In Sri Caitanya's religion

there are many lineages. Srila Prabhupada is a member and prominent guru in

one of them, one that in modern times follows the vision of Bhaktivinoda

Thakura. Indeed, Srila Prabhupada identified his movement as the movement of

Thakura Bhaktivinoda. This statement is merely factual. It does not minimize

Srila Prabhupada and would not need to be made if it were not for those who

have tried to identify the title "Founder Acarya," with founders of

sampradayas, such as Madhva, Ramanuja, and Sri Caitanya. Unfortunately, this

kind of so-called glorification of Srila Prabhupada is often done to

minimize other Gaudiya Vaisnava acaryas and inadvertently clouds

philosophical discussions with emotions and tears that smear the ink on the

printed page of sastra.

 

As for the institutionalization of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, other than the softer

form of institutionalization in the form of literature, not much had been

done previous to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. He was perhaps the

first to make a major experiment in institutionalizing Gaudiya Vaisnavism,

even though he made a number of statements about the potential problems that

could arise from this. Given what has occurred in Iskcon in recent decades,

it might be in the interest of spreading Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's precepts

to place more emphasis on his essential teachings rather than so much

emphasis on institutionalization.

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura wrote, "The idea of an organized

church in an intelligible form marks the close of a living spiritual

movement. The great ecclesiastical establishments are the dikes and the dams

to retain the current that cannot be held by any such contrivances. They,

indeed, indicate a desire on the part of the masses to exploit a spiritual

movement for their own purpose. They also unmistakably indicate the end of

the absolute and unconventional guidance of the bona fide spiritual

teacher." (The Harmonist, January 1929)

 

Q. I read in an Iskcon publication that there are four disciplic successions

and the leaders of these successions are known as adi-gurus, or original

gurus. The duty of each member and all subsequent gurus in the sampradaya is

to simply transmit the message as received from the adi-guru without

adulteration. Is this correct?

 

A. The Padma Purana says that there are four Vaisnava sampradayas. In

relation to this statement our sampradaya would be the Brahma sampradaya and

our adi-guru would be Brahmaji. He passed the teachings through Narada to

Vyasadeva, who compiled the Vedas. When the teachings came to Madhvacarya,

he did not simply repeat what he had heard from others, rather he shed new

light on the Vedas by interpreting them according to his own spiritual

realization. His interpretation, known as dvaitavada, gave birth to a new

spiritual movement, in which prominent members further elaborated on the

philosophy of Madhva, as the tradition developed its own rites, rituals, and

spiritual practices.

 

Later in the Brahma-Madhva sampradaya, Sri Caitanyadeva, in accordance with

his own spiritual experience, shed new light on the teachings that Brahma

received from Krsna. His disciples, the Six Goswamis of Vrndavana, further

elaborated on the teachings of Sri Caitanya. In this way the Caitanya branch

of the Madhva sampradaya came into being and developed its own rites,

rituals, and spiritual practices. It is the religion of Sri Caitanya that

Srila Prabhupada came west to establish.

 

He did not come to establish a new sampradaya or religion. He came to

promote the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya, which he did by innovative

preaching, not by simply parroting what he had heard from his guru.

 

The point here is that while it is true that the teachings should be passed

on without adulteration, the real spirit of the parampara involves shedding

new light on the teachings, making them relevant to people of the times.

While Srila Prabhupada would often say to pass on what you have heard

without adulteration, his own example of adjusting the teachings according

to time and circumstance clearly demonstrates that preaching involves

understanding the teachings enough to deliver the essential message, in the

midst of altering many nonessential details. Disciplic succession is not

simply about repeating what you have heard from the previous guru. It is

about realization.

 

Q. I read that the adi-guru is the devotee who founds the disciplic

succession and establishes its original teachings, and that "founder acarya"

refers to the devotee who redirects the parampara and corrects the teachings

when they become lost or altered. In this regard some consider Srila

Prabhupada's contribution to be like that of Madhva and Ramanuja, who are

founder acaryas. Some consider them adi-gurus as well, so I guess Srila

Prabhupada could also be both an adi-guru and a founder acarya. The book I

read says further that Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains that devotees who

succeed the founder acarya are duty bound to see the teachings of the

parampara through the founder acarya's instructions. There was however no

reference from the writings of Bhaktivinode Thakura given to support these

statements. Did Bhaktivinoda Thakura actually say all this?

 

A. The terms adi-guru and founder acarya are defined here in a novel way.

Except for one instance, I have never read where any acarya used the term

adi-guru to refer to anyone other than Krsna, the original guru. Similarly,

the term founder acarya is not a scriptural term. If it were, it would be a

translation of a Sanskrit term. Founder acarya refers to the founding acarya

of an institution. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was the founder acarya of Gaudiya

Math, Srila Prabhupada was the founder acarya of Iskcon, Srila Sridhara

Maharaja was the founder acarya of Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math, and so forth.

 

Srila Prabhupada himself never explained the terms adi-guru and founder

acarya in the way that you have done. So from the start we are left to

accept the explanation of these terms with no supporting evidence.

 

Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary.

 

Srila Prabhupada writes, "If we are to accept guru, so the original guru is

Krsna because He instructed Lord Brahma, the first living creature within

this universe. Tene brahma hrda ya adi-kavaye [sB 1.1.1]. He instructed the

adi-kavi (Brahma, the original poet from whom the Vedic scriptures emanate).

He is the guru, Krsna. And in the Bhagavad-gita, he also says, imam

vivasvate yogam proktavan aham avyayam [bg. 4.1]. So He (Krsna) is adi guru.

In Bhagavad-gita also he is instructing Arjuna. He is adi guru."

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakura writes, "The adi-guru of all the spiritual masters in

the disciplic succession is Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Showing his great mercy, he instructed Brahma, the adi-kavi.

 

These truths were in turn taught by Brahma to Sri Narada, by Narada to Sri

Vyasa, and by Vyasa to Sri Madhvacarya. Such instructions as received

through this disciplic succession are called guru-parampara-upadesa."

 

The one instance I mentioned of adi-guru referring to someone other than

Krsna is in Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Harinama Cintamani, where he refers to

Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, and Visnuswami as adi-gurus. In Gaudiya

Vaisnavism the term founder acarya first came into use during the time of

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. It is not found in Harinama Cintamani or

any of the writings of Bhaktivinoda that I am familiar with. Therefore I

don't know how anyone could justify writing that Bhaktivinoda Thakura

interpreted the term founder acarya in any particular way. In this case it

appears to me that this reference from Harinama Cintamani has been grossly

misconstrued to equate the term founder acarya with the founder of a

sampradaya. I have already explained that the terms adi-guru and founder

acarya are not synonymous. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, not Srila Prabhupada, is

the founder of the Gaudiya Sampradaya.

 

Q. I am trying to understand the role of the siksa (instructing) guru in the

Gaudiya sampradaya. Some people are under the impression that the Gaudiya

sampradaya means Iskcon exclusively and are teaching that members of Iskcon

should not receive instruction in Gaudiya Vaisnavism from devotees outside

that organization. What is your opinion on this?

 

A. The International Society for Krsna Consciousness (Iskcon) is the largest

international Gaudiya Vaisnava organization. Some members of that

organization may believe that Iskcon alone, at the exclusion of other

similar Gaudiya sects, represents the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya. In my

limited experience, even when they know otherwise in theory, in practice

some Iskcon devotees tend to forget this fact, which sometimes leads them to

disrespect the rest of the sampradaya.

 

While you may have accurately described Iskcon's official policy in regards

to siksa guru, the truth is that many disciples of Srila Prabhupada have at

one time or another accepted advice and spiritual instructions from senior

devotees outside that organization.

 

In spite of their rules to the contrary, I have found that Iskcon members

have no difficulty in applying the principle of siksa guru in a way that

extends beyond the boarders of that society. Many Iskcon devotees

to Sanga and send me relevant questions on Gaudiya Vaisnavism, although I

have not been a member of Iskcon for twenty years. Others regularly read the

writings of acaryas who are outside of Iskcon or have accepted one or more

these acaryas as their siksa guru(s), while remaining within Iskcon for

convenience sake or other nobler reasons.

 

Yet some members of Iskcon are still blinded by the glaring misconceptions

that their official siksa guru policy is based on. The official position,

stating that disciples of Srila Prabhupada, my beloved diksa guru, cannot

accept someone outside of Iskcon as their siksa guru without being

considered deviant, is understood by many devotees as not only theologically

unacceptable but insulting as well.

 

One result of this ill-conceived policy is that devotees who practice Krsna

consciousness outside of Iskcon are ostracized and vilified by Iskcon

members, instead of being embraced as fellow Vaisnavas, which is the type of

non-sectarianism that Srila Prabhupada had ultimately hoped for.

 

At any rate, differences of opinion are a fact of spiritual life and it

should be clear on this matter that I differ with Iskcon's official policy.

However, differences should only remain if each party can muster sufficient

scriptural support to justify their opinion. I have yet to see any actual

scriptural support justifying the theory that one can only take siksa from a

member of one's own religious institution.

 

Indeed, if this were an actual scriptural imperative then no member of any

other Gaudiya Vaisnava sect or organization could take siksa from anyone in

Iskcon.

 

Q. I read that there are many types of siksa gurus and their role is to give

instruction in devotional service, generally known as abhideya. Is it

correct to say that a founder acarya is the siksa guru for his or her

followers, and the diksa guru initiates disciples giving instructions in

devotional science, known as sambandha?

 

A. There are many types of siksa gurus and of course the founder acarya of

an institution is certainly one of them. The founder acarya's influence on

the spiritual life of any particular devotee will depend on many factors,

but generally the best siksa guru for a devotee is the one who is helping

him or her the most at any particular point in time.

 

While Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, Srila Prabhupada, Srila Sridhara Maharaja,

Srila Kesava Maharaja, and so many others are founder acaryas for their

respective missions, it is left to those who represent them to make their

teachings understandable and accessible to devotees and the general public.

This is what these founder acaryas did with regard to the teachings of the

acaryas who came before them. Therefore to the individual, a particular

representative of the founder acarya may be even more important than the

founder acarya of the institution. This is the dynamic principle of

disciplic succession.

 

Otherwise, when it is said that the diksa guru gives sambandha jnana, this

really refers to the fact that he or she gives the mantra, wherein knowledge

of one's relationship with Krsna is found. Diksa means giving the mantra.

Everything else that follows is siksa. The disciple requires siksa at every

stage of progress. There is siksa on sambandha (conceptual orientation),

siksa on abhideya (the nature of the path), and siksa on prayojana (the

goal). Siksa may come from friends and associates, but the most helpful and

meaningful siksa comes from the association of advanced devotees. One should

seek out this type of siksa regardless of where it is found. Prohibiting

devotees from going beyond institutional boundaries to seek advanced

association can sometimes constitute an offense to the principle of guru, of

which Krsna is the adi-guru. Krsna cannot be imprisoned within the walls of

any particular religious institution and offenses to the principal of guru

cannot be counteracted by official institutional policy.