Gaps in Guru Parampara

[Guest guest]

Gaps in Guru Parampara

 

Q & A with Swami B. V. Tripurari

 

"Saraswati Thakura strongly objected to the idea of a guru pranali in

which the guru was determined solely by connection through initiation

or by birthright while spiritually unqualified. He considered this an

example of a broken disciplic successions, hardly an unbroken one."

 

Q. I have been told that there are gaps of up to a hundred years

between many of the gurus in the lineage of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati

Thakura and that this explains why he placed more emphasis on

instruction (siksa) than on initiation (diksa). Can you comment on

this?

 

A. If Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura's lineage relies more on siksa

than diksa, then why did he give diksa to thousands of disciples? Why

not just give them siksa? The answer is because diksa and siksa are

both important. Still, one must acknowledge that in some instances a

siksa guru may have a more significant influence on a disciple than the

diksa guru.

 

For example, with regard to treading the raga marga, Visvanatha

Cakravarti writes in his Ragavartma-candrika that one can receive

esoteric instructions on this path from the diksa guru, a siksa guru,

or such instructions may appear of their own accord within the purified

heart of the initiated sadhaka. Devotees who receive those instructions

from a siksa guru might find him or her to be more or equally prominent

in their spiritual life than their diksa guru. This is not unusual in

Gaudiya Vaisnavism.

 

Of the two kinds of guru, diksa or siksa, which is most important? The

spiritual answer to this question is the guru who is helping you the

most at the stage you are in. If the siksa guru plays a prominent role

in your spiritual progress, it stands to reason that the siksa guru

would be included in your guru-parampara, which is, after all, the line

of preceptors through which Krsna consciousness has descended to you.

 

For example, I include Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja in the

guru-parampara that I belong to even though Srila Prabhupada is my

diksa guru. Why? Because I felt that the grace of Krsna came through

Srila Sridhara Maharaja to me in a prominent way after the departure of

my diksa guru. I think this is a rather dynamic way of looking at the

institution of guru-parampara, one that is hardly unprecedented in the

history of our sampradaya.

 

Q. Before Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura was there any

precedence for this type of thinking with regard to diksa and siksa

guru?

 

A. Look at the example of Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami. Who is his diksa

guru and who are his siksa gurus? At the end of nearly every chapter of

Caitanya-caritamrta he pays respects to his siksa gurus Sri Rupa and

Raghunatha, with no mention of his diksa guru. He does the same in

Govinda-lilamrta, including other siksa gurus. Why has he not mentioned

his diksa guru pranali? Why has he not stressed it anywhere?

 

The emphasis among the Six Goswamis was in many respects also on siksa,

or, better stated, the emphasis was appropriately placed on those who

had the most influence on the devotee's life. Indeed, in his writings

Sanatana Goswami only briefly mentions his diksa guru. Raghunatha dasa

is another prominent example. Should we not include Svarupa Damodara in

his lineage? It is clear from Caitanya-caritamrta that he got esoteric

instruction on bhajana from Svarupa Damodara, not from his diksa guru

Yadunandana.

 

Q. What exactly is a diksa guru pranali, and why didn't Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura emphasize his?

 

A. The term diksa guru pranali refers to a lineage of diksa gurus

extending back to a particular associate of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. In

some Gaudiya lineages, disciples are given a spiritual form to meditate

on and identify with through sadhana and are taught the spiritual

identity of all the initiating gurus in their lineage. Not all Gaudiya

lineages do this, nor is it necessary to have received this information

to attain the ideal of Gaudiya Vaisnavism.

 

The opinion of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura was that at some point

the emphasis on diksa guru pranali had became inordinate because in

many lineages a physical conception of guru-parampara had overshadowed

the spiritual conception of parampara. In other words many of the

so-called diksa-guru-paramparas of his time were less than spiritual

because the so-called gurus were considered qualified merely because

they were connected to an associate of Mahaprabhu through a series of

initiations or because they were born in a particular family, such as

the family line descending from Nityananda Prabhu. As I understand it,

in some cases these lineages had simply become businesses for putting

food on the table.

 

Saraswati Thakura strongly objected to the idea of a guru pranali in

which the guru was determined solely by connection through initiation

or by birthright while spiritually unqualified. He considered this an

example of a broken disciplic successions, hardly an unbroken one. In

his opinion these so-called spiritual lineages were simply examples of

Kali-yuga infiltrating the ranks of Mahaprabhu's fold. It was these

so-called Gaudiya gurus that Thakura Bhaktivinoda was speaking about

when he coined the term "kali cela" (disciples of Kali yuga). Srila

Prabhupada spoke of this condition after experiencing it in his home

life, and Srila Sridhara Maharaja spoke of how his father hated Gaudiya

Vaisnavas for their immorality. Now we have the same thing happening in

the Western world, and in some instances within the so-called lineage

of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. However, no modern person with

spiritual sensibility will accept this deception, any more than they

will accept a caste system in which a brahmana is determined by birth

without regard for guna and karma (quality and work).

 

Q. Some followers of so-called traditional Gaudiya Vaisnavism teach

that membership in a diksa guru pranali or birth a particular family is

not the only qualification that a guru needs, but that a guru does not

have to be a fully realized (siddha). So how important is it to find a

truly perfected guru?

 

A. We agree that the guru does not need to be perfect in realization.

Whatever he or she lacks Mahaprabhu can make up for. Still, the guru

must be a saranagata, a fully surrendered soul. In the devotional stage

of ruci, there is a slight influence of the svarupa-sakti, sreyah

kairava candrika vitaranam. Therefore Bhaktivinoda Thakura writes in

Bhakti-tattva-viveka that a ruci bhakta is an uttama adhikari.

 

Q. As for gaps in parampara, I accept the siksa lineage argument. But,

in our parampara what about the gaps of decades in-between gurus? I

understand why a siksa guru may be more important than a diksa guru,

but why aren't some gurus (siksa or diksa) listed in successive

generations?

 

A. There is at least one gap of about 100 years between Baladeva

Vidyabhusana and Jagannatha dasa Babaji. Either there was no one

prominent enough to equal the stature of these two devotees to warrant

listing his or her name or, more likely, the names of the prominent

siksa or diksa links for that section of the list have been lost. In

any case, Thakura Bhaktivinoda has written that sometimes not everyone

will be listed. In his book Jaiva-dharma the question is asked, "Is

there a list of names of spiritual masters in the parampara given

without any breaks?" The answer given is that "from time to time, only

the more important spiritual masters' names are included in these

lists." (Jaiva-dharma Ch.13)

 

Some sects object to this, but let's hear from them in a thousand or

more years and see how many guru names they are listing. For that

matter, Kali-yuga is said to last for 432 thousand years, of which only

five thousand have passed. With approximately four acaryas per century

in any given line, that means that by the end of Kali-yuga those that

insist on listing all the gurus in the lineage--and mediating on their

siddha deha's and eternal seva as an essential aspect of their sadhana

(siddha pranali)--will have to add 1,037 names to the list they already

have.

 

In contrast, the Bhaktivinoda parivara takes a practical approach to

this matter, listing only the prominent members. Its list will vary

among its now-numerous branches because prominence is somewhat

subjective.

 

Q. There are objections to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta having received

initiation in a dream. Is there any precedent for this?

 

A. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura did not receive diksa in a

dream. He received initiation from Gaurakisora dasa Babaji. Because of

Saraswati Thakur's innovations, many in the orthodox community doubted

that he was initiated at all. However, he was giving initiation in the

presence of Gaurakisora, his diksa guru, and Bhaktivinoda Thakura, his

siksa guru, with their blessings. The thousands of devotees who joined

Bhaktisiddhanta and under his direction preached widely for Mahaprabhu

exemplified those blessings. Most were well aware of the Gaudiya

sampradaya, but it was not until they met Bhaktisiddhanta that they

became enlivened to actually join it--not only join, but also

sacrifice. Sacrifice and surrender was the standard of

Bhaktisiddhanta's Gaudiya Matha monasteries. This is evidence enough

for his followers.

 

He did get inspiration in a dream to take sannyasa from Gaurakisora,

and later he formalized his sannyasa in front of his guru's picture.

However he was a life long celibate, morally stout, and learned, so in

quality he was already the perfect sannyasi. Having been ordered by

Bhaktivinoda to establish daiva-varnasrama, he established the order of

sannyasa in Gaudiya Vaisnavism as part of doing so. Many of us are

proud to be members of his illustrious lineage, a lineage we term

"Bhaktivinoda parivara," in that we accept Thakura Bhaktivinoda as a

nitya-siddha associate of Mahaprabhu, the "seventh Goswami," whose

inspired vision positioned Gaudiya Vaisnavism to interface with the

modern world. This is our faith.

 

If others are uncomfortable with our faith, let them seek shelter

elsewhere. If they can constructively point out any actual

discrepancies in our lineage as it is manifest today, let us be sincere

enough to address them and correct ourselves. We should conduct

ourselves such that, regardless of perceived discrepancies from times

gone by that others make much of, our character is enough to dispel

them. Let the current of Bhaktivinoda thrive forever in this world. It

is to this parivara, as it comes through Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati

Thakura, that the entire international community of Gaudiya Vaisnavas

is indebted. Our burden is to represent it properly, and I have no

doubt that if we do, any objections will disappear.

 

Questions or comments may be submitted at the Q&A Forum:

http://www.swami.org/sanga/ or email sangaeditor (AT) swami (DOT) org.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Moderator: sangaeditor (AT) swami (DOT) org

Tuesday, November, 8, 2005, Vol. VII, No. 15

Readership: 11,797

Back issue archive: http://www.eScribe.com/religion/sanga

Sanga website: http://www.swami.org/sanga

Audarya Bookstore: http://www.swami.org/merchant.mv

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you need to update your contact address, please drop us a note at

editor (AT) swami (DOT) org. Thank you.