Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 Jagat is very quick to assign offensive and arrogant qualities to Sridhar Maharaja's comments about the women gurus who took diksha in the predecessor line of Bhaktivinode, but all he does is show his own prejudice and bias. He has ascribed so many heinous and chauvenisitc overtones to Sridhar Maharaja's statements and taken much liberty to assert such purports to the words of Sridhar Maharaja when in fact he has never been a student of Sridhar Maharaja and has no right or authority to claim to know the inner meaning behind the words of Sridhar Maharaja. The actual students of Sridhar Maharaja have never sensed or felt such intentions in the words of Sridhar Maharaja. Essentially, all Sridhar Maharaja was saying in the statement that Jagat is ascribing so much meaning to was that Bhaktivinode did not strictly inherit all his spirituality through his diksha line. It is a well known fact that Bhaktivinode acquired his most essential devotional character through his siksha line of spiritual masters. Sridhar Maharaja was not insulting or demeaning the devotee women in the diksha line of Jahnavi devi with that statement. He was simply expressing that the Bhaktivinode Thakur he knew was more of a product of his siksha line than his diksha line. He was only presenting the actual fact that not all the women gurus in the line of Vipina Bihari goswami possessed the same level of realization as did Bhaktivinode Thakur. To assert that every woman guru in the line of Jahnavi devi was automatically on the high platform of Bhaktivinode Thakur simply by the strength of diksha is a most unlikely proposition. The idea that realization comes automatically like some magic siddha-pranali through formal diksha is the concept that Jagat has been promoting for many years since he rejected Srila Prabhupada and took initiation from Lalita Prasad. He is trying to tell us that every women guru in the line of Vipina Bihari Goswami was automatically on the same level of Bhaktivinode Thakur simply by the act of receiving formal diksha in the line of Jahnavi devi. I don't think such a proposal is very sound or likely. His efforts to demean Sridhar Maharaja by ascribing such lowly intentions to his statements is very unbecoming of him and portrays a total lack of insight into the actual character and purposes of Sridhar Maharaja. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagat Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 I did not say anything about heinous. I don't remember what I said, as I can't find it in this very long thread. The point here is that Sridhara Maharaj and everyone else has these exaggerated expectations of what is necessary from a diksha guru. It has to be this exalted self-effulgent dramatic superhero fantastic being who knows everything, sees everything, understands everything, etc., etc. All Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept Rupa, Raghunath, Krishnadas, Narottama, Vishwanath, Baladeva, Jagannath Das and even Gaur Kishor Das. Bhaktivinoda Thakur is more controversial, but I have seen quotations of BVT in books by Kunja Bihari Das Babaji and heard his songs sung at Babaji pangats, etc. The point is that the so-called Bhagavata parampara, or siksha parampara, is accepted by all Vaishnavas, regardless of diksha line. I speculated in my first article on the subject ( that Saraswati Thakur may have originally been intending a unifying principle--as the siksha sampradaya would have been acceptable to all. This might have been treated with favor if he hadn't openly criticized the diksha lines. You can look in <a href=http://www.granthamandira.org/~jagat/articles/showarticle.php?id=15>"Charismatic renewal and institutionalization in the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the Gaudiya Math"), where I show clearly that Saraswati was wanted to marginalize the Pancharatrika system in favor of the Bhagavata "system." As far as I can see, Pancharatrika diksha is primarily about connection. The original charisma existed in the avatar generation, and those who descended from Mahaprabhu's associates were considered to have inherited that charisma. Of course, with our modern democratic vision we don't believe in inherited charisma any more, but back then they did. Nowadays, in a society like Iskcon, diksha has reestablished its original function of connecting the disciple to the institution and through it to the founder-acharya. If most of us were aware of existing power structures in the modern West, we would realize that the political critique of heritage can be seen as a successful propaganda exercise rather than a reality--Bush II is the icon of this. Genetic predetermination is the scientific basis that free-willers have to fight against. I have discussed the foundations of the hereditary tradition to some extent in Charismatic renewal article. May I add here that I have stated many times that I am not anti-Iskcon, anti-GM, anti-Ritvik, or anti-Babaji. I am in favor of the good that any of these groups can accomplish and against any of the evil they may do. I have natural preferences among them, in accordance with the extent to which I feel they are enlightened or progressive. I think that Gaudiya Vaishnavism has a strong and beautiful tradition with a rich literature. At the same time, the evolution of the movement requires that we view it in terms of modern critiques. In fact, in the above article, I followed Shukavak in identifying BVT and BSS as modernizers, within certain limits. Fundamentalism is also a modernizing movement, it just has certain myths about what the true, pristine past was really like. Fundamentalism wants to return to fundamentals, but usually with a modernized organizational structure. This is pretty much what the GM and Iskcon are. For more articles related to the issue, for those who have not read them--<a href=http://www.granthamandira.org/~jagat/articles/showarticle.php?id=14>Bhaktivinoda Thakur’s relationship with Bipin Bihari Goswami</a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 ...this is the thread that never ends it goes on, and on my friends.... so much hair splitting, it's a regular hairball ;-) I say we should all go out there and preach, inspiring other people to practice Krishna Consciousnes. In some way we will all be "gurus" then, and our "guru" debates will improve in both tone and substance... Hare Krishna! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagat Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 That is why I say I am for the good that anyone does and against the evil. Much as I have been arguing with the Judaism question, belonging to one or the other of these belief systems does not make one automatically right and just, nor automatically wrong and evil. A person with a perfectly good philosophy may be a complete jerk and a person with completely ridiculous ideas may be a force for moral good. Ideally, we should combine the best of both, but if we have to choose one, it should be moral goodness. As a matter of fact, if we honor our beliefs, we must do it through moral goodness. Why? Because people will not be able to separate the two. Your evil acts will be taken as proof of the wickedness or illusoriness of your ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 My wife did not stand up and say "I want to be a guru". The main reason that she was nominated, as far as I know, is because someone is very serious about wanting to be her disciple. Personally I am not interested in their domestic life. This is the point that interests me. Why did that someone feel they had to have an offically sanctioned okay from the committee before they could have a guru disciple relationship with Urmila dd? And why does she think she needs the committee's okay before she can accept a disciple? It sounds like that relationship was already being established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anadi Posted September 29, 2003 Report Share Posted September 29, 2003 AtyAhArAH prayAsaHS ca prajalpo niyamAgrahaH jana-saNgaH ca laulyaM ca SaDbhir bhaktir vinaSyati Bhakti is destroyed by the following six kinds of faults: (1) eating too much or collecting more than necessary, (2) endeavours which are opposed to bhakti, ( 3) useless mundane talks (in the name of bhakti), (4) failure to adopt essential regulations or fanatical adherence to regulations, (5) association with persons who are opposed to bhakti, (6) greed or the restlessness of the mind to adopt worthless opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts