Keeping Faith with Kheturi - What is the purpose of such articles?

After reading Keeping Faith with Kheturi, an old friend wrote me the following PM--



Unfortunately I don't have the time to answer this right now, but I will do so later in the day. If anyone else has an opinion, please feel free to share.

Interesting. At a quick glance, what you posted leads me to wonder whether someone is reading what you wrote, or rather reading into what you wrote.

To say that there were controversies surrounding some of the companions of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is no different from noting that there were controversies surrounding Sri Chaitanya himself. Does that in any way diminish their divinity? And, does the acknowledgement of their divinity mean that the said controversies all of a sudden cease to exist? That notwithstanding, I did not find anything that would have particularly minimized or called into question the divinity of Sri Chaitanya after a quick skim through the article once again.

I do not understand the creed who say that you must at all times pronounce the divinity of someone, lest you minimize their divinity and portray them as mundane people. This approach leads to narrations of Vraja-lila filled with "and then the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose pastimes are not material...", "and then God Himself, who is beyond the illusory energy..." which more often than not accomplish nothing but the spoiling of the mood.

All well, let's sweep aside the speculations of historians and scholars, the darned heretics. How are you going to cope with the vast array of discording views within the tradition, among the devotees? The idea of the facility of one true parampara that speaks with one voice and unanimously agrees on everything is, sadly, a bit of an utopian concept, if we are to delve anywhere beyond the surface of our tradition rich with plurality, if we are going to learn of any of the nuances of the ways Gaudiyas of different creeds have approached their tradition over the centuries.

Contradictions and disagreements do not vanish by proclaiming their absence. Seeking refuge from them like the ostrich who stuck his head deep in the pie on the sky is not an option for someone who is active in the society of devotees and encounters diverse views. A life of solitude, or if available, a life strictly limited to the company of those from one's very own branch of Gaudiyaism, with a similar background in Catholicism and preferably a similar bodily constitution and psychological profile, is the option of choice for those who opt for the denial approach.

With that, I do not mean to disparage those who opt for the said approach. It may prove very helpful in pursuing a life of focused bhajan. My reason for recommending selective company is to a great extent in the repercussions the approach causes in the shape of conflicts uncalled for when faced with diverse views, and the subsequent disrespect of another, that may prove rather harmful in our sound devotional growth.

Absolutely! I agree! Consider the following: Many literalist Vaisnavas consider all previous great Vaisnavas as "Nitya Siddhas"

The question can then be asked that, if all those who we accept have made advancement on the path enough to have been universally recognized as advanced, and therefore not subject to rebirth in this material world are actually NOT conditioned souls to begin with, then where is the example of a person who was conditioned and overcame that burden and became advanced?

If devotees cannot point to any example of a conditioned being who by the process of Bhakti overcame his or her conditioning, then where is the proof that such a system works?

The point in case that I was thinking of is Bhaktivinode Thakura. Born in a shakta, meat eating family (and not giving up that meat eating until quite late even after the beginning of his devotional career).

If he is considered a "Nitya Siddha" descended to help us (as all IGM devotees subscribe) then that is surely wonderful. However how much more wonderful would it be to accept that he was a conditioned soul who somehow became a perfect person (Sadhana Siddha)?

On the issue of "Who's an Avatara?" etc. Every sampradaya has it's literalists and non-literalists. Some Sri Vaisnavas would definitely say that Sri Ramanuja was an avatara of Sesa. Yet, I have also met very respected Sri Vaisnava acaryas (and also scholars, note that here I am referring to scholars who are also practitioners) who maintain that the association of the word Sesa with Ramanuja simply means that he was a sesa or servant, just as we all are, of the Lord.

On the issue of "Who's Orthodox and who's Heterodox?". I agree 100% with Madhava ji. One group sees certain ideas as belonging to it's "parampara" while another quoting members of the same "parampara" believe something completely different to be the one and only conclusion of that "parampara". The obvious example is so-called Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya conception, which tries to tie two different sampradayas into one.

A very excellent point! Wow.
After reading the kheturi article some time ago, I was very pleased with the sense of GV as a dynamic and evolving tradition- in process as the sadhakas that tread it's road.
This is a major point for GV in the 21st century, I think.

It seems the purpose of the mood of the article is pretty much there, in the closing of the article itself:

"For me, the Kheturi spirit on the one hand is a recognition of the traditional process of transmission of charisma—the recognition of this organic connection to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu through his companions and their descendents. But it is also the recognition that everyone who contributes to the advancement of the cause of prema-bhakti has a place in the divine hierarchy and must be recognized.

It is also a lesson that enthusiasm alone is only part of the answer; we need intellectual answers that will guard the sampradaya’s honor and its place in the hierarchy of world religions.

This is why I think that some kind of new Kheturi may be needed one of these days, in which past values can be affirmed and renewed, solid connections rebuilt between individuals who share those core values--a kind of foundation dedicated to the central pole of this prema-dharma, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu."
------------
I think that nowadays, in general, we will not find significant resistance from any quarter to the idea of Gaudiyas coming together to discuss propositions intended to benefit everyone.

It seems to me reactions such as the one from the person quoted here are isolated, peripheral attempts at discussions (sorting out of details, so to speak) before or around the larger debate. And even if in these opinions we find still traces of past harder dividing lines, they still tend to be more towards dialogue than otherwise (or at least they can be treated as such). It seems opositions have been gradually lowering and the mood in the air now is for putting heads together, a call for survival. The present predominat tendency among devotees clearly is veering towards opening up to the exercise of reason, a much needed addition to our practices.

-------------

Unfortunately I don't remember much of the conversation, but I do recollect Jagat mentioning to me that he feels Saraswati Thakur broke away with the Kethuri tradition, to the detriment of Gaudiyaism. As it is fairly well known, opinions of Saraswatas range from Saraswati actually being the one who saved the sampradaya (as a lila) to he had no choice but to do what he did, so there was no flaw in his approach. But that his is not a line parallel to the ideal but meant to meet the ideal in a more reasanable order than the direction things would have taken had he not reformed as he did.

Anyway, I wonder if there would be a need for a revival of the Kethuri spirit at all if the Saraswati
elements were non existent.

Comments on this will be much appreciated and probably deeply considered. Thanks.

First of all, I would like to apologize to the person who wrote the original remarks. Since they were sent to me in personal correspondence it was wrong of me to post them without permission. I wrongly assumed that since there was nothing of a personal nature in them, it would not be a problem to respond publicly, especially since my response went far beyond the original remarks.

I was advised that the reference was to "articles" and that the reference was primarily to the article entitled Gadadhar Pandit : Bhakti Shakti. Since I don't see that there is that much difference between the two articles, and indeed feel that the themes are connected, I will just leave my response as it is.

Those who will find some of my work "unbearably sophisticated and thereby annoying" are advised to avoid this. I have to go out right now, so I will probably be returning to edit the document in a couple of hours.



I get this kind of response from time to time. In good Ayurvedic fashion, this writer ascribes his reaction in accordance with his dosha type. Quite correctly, for different types of people approach such things in different manners. We have recently been discussing the ruchi-pradhana and the vichara-pradhana types of Srila Jiva Goswami. See this this post and thread. Those who are ruchi-pradhana do not trouble themselves with historical or philosophical questions, the latter do. The former are, according to Sri Jiva himself, “prazastatara,” more praiseworthy. Therefore those of you, like Advaita, who are ruchi-pradhana types, need not trouble yourselves with these other areas of discussion.

Indeed, even a vAta or vichara-pradhana type like myself eventually gets brain fatigue and turns to the shelter of bhajan. nahi nahi rakSati dukRJ-karaNe. But all the sampradaya acharyas were predominantly vichara-pradhana types. Do you not think that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati himself was vichara-pradhana? And what about Sri Jiva and Baladeva, to mention just two of our outstanding acharyas? After all, Jiva did not say, “Vichara-pradhana bad,” he just said that since the ultimate goal is bhajan, those who go there directly are better. But since faith and desire are the sine qua non of bhajan, if one needs to deal with the questions that history and philosophy throw in our tracks in order to strengthen faith and desire, then what is the fault in that?

Indeed, in the Bhakti-sandarbha passage refered to above (202), Jiva states that for the vichara-pradhana person also, the starting point is faith--and even ruchi. (tatra prathamaM tAvat tat-tat-saGgAj jAtena tat-tac-chraddhA-tat-tat-paramparA-kathA-rucy-AdinA jAta-bhagavat-sAmmukhyasya tat-tad-anuSaGgenaiva tat-tad-bhajanIye bhagavad-AvirbhAva-vizeSe tat-tad-bhajana-mArga-vizeSe ca rucir jAyate.) In other words, he is not examining the articles of faith in a spirit of negativity, but in a spirit of constructive imagination. And since many of the acharyas mentioned above, through the use of constructive imagination, exercised great influence on their respective sampradayas, it would perhaps be wise not to be too critical of the vichara-pradhana Vaishnavas.

The first thing that needs to be understood is that different times and circumstances produce different kinds of questions. In the records of Mahaprabhu’s life, the main philosophical issue was Mayavada. The vichara pradhana Vaishnavas thought it necessary to study nyaya and Vedanta in order to be able to counter criticisms levied at Vaishnava practices by Shankaraite philosophers. On one level of profundity or another, Sri Chaitanya is described by Kaviraja Goswami as dealing with the opposing views of the Sri Sampradaya (with Venkata Bhatta), with the Tattvavadis, with Bauddhas, and with Mayavada doctrine in his talks with Sarvabhauma and Prakashananda, with Sufi Muslims in North India, etc. Kaviraja Goswami also makes rather controversial historical statements about Ballabhacharya and Keshava Kasmiri, a noted Nimbarka acharya. So, all these philosophical and historical statements are subject to examination, as they will certainly not be accepted on face value by exponents, traditional or modern, of these various groups.

Be that as it may, those are the questions of the 16th century, in a place called Bengal, on the other side of the world. The questions that face us here in the 21st century are quite different and, though they often belong to comparable families of thought or doubt, they are far more sophisticated. Society’s capacity to inquire into history, philosophy, psychology, our knowledge of comparative religion and religious psychology, are vastly greater than they were 500 years ago. If even a Bhaktivinoda Thakur, or Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, or a Bhaktivedanta Swami, are ready to face the challenges of a changing world, then why shouldn’t we? And believe me, since modern thought begins from the point of refusing to accept received wisdom at face value, it is totally inadequate to turn our modern doubters, point to revelation and say, “This alone is truth.” A bhajananandi could say this, but someone claiming to be a preacher would be severely restricting his audience. Someone with extraordinary charisma can browbeat the innocent with claims of revealed authority, but this is ultimately limited in its capacity.

The Bhagavata says we should seek out a guru who is zAbde pare ca niSNAtaM brahmaNy upazamAzrayam (SB 11.3.22). Sridhara and other commentators say—(1) The guru must be conversant (niSNAta means “graduated, finished study”) in the zAbda brahman, for if not, he will not be able to erase his student’s doubts. (2) He must be steeped in spiritual experience, for if not, he will not be able to instill understanding (bodha-saJcAra) in the student.

Everyone knows that appeals to authority are limited in their effect. This is why Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati could reject the existing parampara authorities in a rebellious age, attracting bright young Bengalis, and point to a convincingly higher, pristine understanding. The Goswami clans’ traditional claims to authority were comparitively weaker in the face of his more modern, egalitarian approach. However, he too used the traditional appeal to scriptural authority to establish his reforms.

The weakness of appeals to authority is especially evident when one has no answer, when even in the face of contradictory evidence one has to say, “I believe it is thus because I was told it is thus. I trust my guru more than my own sense perception, my own powers of reason, and a thousand contradicting authorities.” Very noble, indeed, but rather impractical. And most certainly limited in potential, especially if one prides himself on being a preacher.

Let’s consider the term zAbde brahmaNi for a minute. Let’s take Sridhar Swami’s comment and rephrase it in this way: “Shabda Brahman is that body of knowledge conversancy with which gives a teacher the ability to erase doubts in his student [about spiritual matters].” Since (1) doubts are in a constant state of evolution, and (2) appeals to a static authority alone cannot erase them, (3) Shabda Brahman must mean not only the original statements in the revealed scriptures, but the body of literature that has grown in interpreting and defending it, prioritizing aspects of it, deprioritizing others.

The second point, pare brahmaNi niSNAtam, means that there must be aparokSAnubhUti. Knowledge cannot be purely intellectual, it has to be realized. That is why the words upazamAzrayam follow: such realization has consequences in the spiritual master’s actions. One may approach a teacher of mechanics to learn how to fix a car; the transmission of knowledge in this case is sufficient. One comes to the spiritual master to find meaning and purpose in life, so one wants more than words, one wants to see the results in his character, his behavior and his achievements.

In the case of ruchi-pradhana devotees, they can go directly into hearing lila katha in the association of like-minded devotees. They have already passed niSThA and attained ruchi. So, practically speaking, the path of intellectual discussion—zravaNam and mananaM—leads only as far as niSThA.

* Jiva’s reference here is to an important statement in the upanishads that is usually used by followers of the jnana marga as the base definition of their path. AtmA vA are draSTavyaH zrotavyo mantavyo nididhyAsitavyaH “The atma is to be seen, to be heard about, to be reflected on and to be contemplated” (Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad, 4.5.6). Jiva is identifying nididhyAsana with niSThA.

Once one has reached this stage, the need for proofs to intellectually buttress faith is no longer there. Thus Jiva refers to Bhagavata 1.2.16-21, a section that is particularly illuminating in this regard.



He also quotes this marvellous verse for the ruchi-pradhana—






So, we have a body of texts we call revelation. If we think about them historically, we see that there is a growth and evolution of ideas in them. The Upanishads are summarized and synthesized in the Vedanta-sutra. This condensed version is given a more digestible form in the Gita. These two texts are expanded on in commentaries. The tradition of lila katha in Harivamsa, Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana also interprets the Upanishads and Vedanta—quotes and references permeate these texts. Then these works are commented on in their turn. Other traditions of lila-katha, the Gita Govinda primarily, but also Sri Krishna Kirtan, the padavali traditions of Chandi Das and Vidyapati, etc., all swell and capture the popular and devotional imagination. These are then personified by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in his ecstasies. Chaitanya's life and persona are then interpreted by vichara-pradhana devotees.

Thus Kaviraja Goswami says (in connection with Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s avatar)—





Both these verses are appeals to reason. “Try to understand Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s incarnation rationally.” If you don’t have spontaneous faith in Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, then consider these points.

Thus the body of interpretive and poetic literature grows and reaps new fruits and captures more hearts. And to think that it all came from a few small texts called the Upanishads! Give me the Bhagavatam and I will find the Upanishads for you—nigama-kalpa-taror galitaM phalam; give me Mahaprabhu and I will find the Upanishads—gatir atizayenopaniSadAm; but give me the Upanishads and I won’t find the Bhagavatam (gUDhaM paraM brahma manuSya-liGgam, zrutibhir vimRgyam, etc.), nor will I find Mahaprabhu, except in the most cryptic and allusory, and thus doubtful, manner.

The point is that we are talking about evolution. In religious tradition terms, evolution means taking a central idea and maintaining it in the face of cultural, historical, and philosophical challenges. Religious ideas do not remain static, even if they do remain faithful to a tradition. Will a Chaitanya Vaishnava say that his doctrines are against the Upanishads or Vedanta? Of course not. His doctrine shows the true meaning of the Upanishads. But are there other interpretations of the Upanishads possible—yes, and they are there in other traditions that have evolved in other ways.

Now what is the utility of a historical perspective? If we have the finished product, should we not just adhere to that and cultivate pure bhakti in the way that it comes to us at the end of the parampara line? Indeed we should, and if we are ruchi pradhana devotees, that will come naturally.

However, time and history have this funny way of not stopping. Indeed, in our yuga it seems to be speeding up. Education, communications, huge population increases widening the basis for discussion and possible points of view—all mean that the challenges to a simplistic understanding of our faith and tradition are multiplying and becoming more powerful. The power of our tradition is that in spite of these challenges, it has found a way of penetrating into the citadels of impersonalism and atheism, doubt and delusion. The Holy Name and the saintly devotees have been able to create faith and a taste for bhakti in persons even in a world such as this.

Nevertheless, in order to grow, to hold on to its own, to bring those who are attracted along to the stage of nistha, we must not be afraid to examine our assumptions and even those of our acharyas. If Krishna Das Kaviraj said things about the Madhva or Ramanuja sampradayas, for example, that are not representative of their doctrines, should we accept Kaviraj Goswami’s version over that of a student of those sampradayas? Polemicists are often caricaturists, and therefore cannot always be trusted to give a sympathetic understanding of their opponents’ views. This is normal, but hardly in the true spirit of Vaishnavism.

Taking the historical perspective means this: when such-and-such a text was written, it was written to address a specific audience. This article was written to answer a letter that I received from a particular friend, and though it may be fairly easy to understand without knowledge of his letter, other texts may not. For instance, if I tell a story or recite a nursery rhyme, it may have a fairly mysterious historical Sitz in Leben or context. But when it was written, that context did not need to be stated.

If I read the story of Nimai urinating on Murari Gupta’s plate, to cite one mysterious story found in the Chaitanya Mangala, what am I to make of it? Who is this story for? What is it trying to tell its intended audience? Is it possible to know or guess from the content of the story? Some aspects may be clear—Mahaprabhu was not a big fan of the Yoga-vasistha. Others less so—why is Murari being singled out as the butt of this rather embarrassing story, one that only Lochan Das has seen fit to tell? Perhaps we cannot take a single such incident or account as sufficient evidence in itself, but an accumulation of such evidences can paint a composite picture that is fairly evocative.

Furthermore, a study of history paints archetypal pictures. We know that in certain circumstances, certain things are likely to happen. For instance, in New Orleans, after a great natural disaster and the breakdown of law and order, there was looting. Had there not been looting, it would have been a bigger surprise, because human nature responds to cataclysms of this sort in certain predictable ways. Similarly, the history of religions shows us that there are certain patterns, some of which I alluded to in this (“Keeping Faith with Kheturi”) and other articles.

Max Weber is the great sociologist of religion who mapped out these patterns and I cannot make any such analysis without appreciating his contribution, just as I cannot deny the influence that Freud, Jung and a large number of other Western thinkers have had on this method of interpreting. Because their work is not Vedic does not make it less Shabda Brahman, in the sense that it sheds light on our understanding of these original texts and the history of their evolution. Though such interpretations may at first seem to challenge our previous understanding, they can in fact enrich them and lead them to a more mature understanding of all aspects of our faith and doctrine.

Weber is the person who contributed the concept of charisma and the various kinds of religious personalities—prophets, reformers, priests, etc. The most charismatic of such personalities attract followers in their own distinctive ways and often have such a powerful effect that all authority becomes invested in their person. Someone like Srila Prabhupada, for instance, even though he left a large corpus of books in which he wanted his personal authority to be preserved, took such a powerful hold over the imaginations of his followers that a structural collapse in the movement after his departure was almost inevitable. Indeed, some kind of mathematical formula could probably be made—the extent of a guru’s charisma is directly proportional to the amount of discord and confusion after his departure. Other elements could also be factored in: the length of time the leader was able to exercise his influence, the efficacy of the system set in place for the post-charismatic period and established lines of authority, the number of followers with their own charismatic appeal competing for domination of the movement after his absence, etc., etc.

Iskcon, despite the tumultous history it has undergone in the past thirty years, nevertheless had certain institutional strengths that have preserved it despite them. It has undergone through tremendous organizational upheavals, but the existence of a GBC body, a canon of authoritative texts (“law books”), a strongly established liturgy and ethos, as well as a definite place in Vaishnava history, and a few good men, have all saved it from total disintegration and allowed it to continue to grow.

Now, to think that something of this nature did not happen in the aftermath of Mahaprabhu’s disappearance and that of his principal followers would be very unhistorical and frankly unintelligent. Madhava has made several good points that support this point.

What I am saying is basically this: Read the texts on Mahaprabhu’s life with historical imagination. If Vrindavan Das says, “Stop fighting, guys. If you say Nityananda is no good, you will go to hell. If you say Advaita is better, or this one is better than that, etc., you will not get Mahaprabhu’s mercy,” this indicates clearly that there were people who were saying these things. Since Vrindavan Das keeps repeating and repeating these things, we can only come to the conclusion that it was a fairly difficult period with a lot of in-fighting and jostling for superiority, fault-finding and so on. Basically, this came out of an inadequate understanding of Chaitanya-tattva. The devotees, through direct experience, etc., had faith that Chaitanya was Krishna, but that idea alone was inadequate to meet the intellectual needs of devotees. The interpretation of Advaita and Nityananda’s ontological status was based on their relation to Chaitanya and the claims of their followers, etc. These things are already explained in the article, so I won’t return there.



The main point is this: There are so many people in India claiming to be avatars or nitya-siddhas, but these claims are somewhat untenable when faced with vichara. As far as nitya-siddhas are concerned, there is some basis for saying, “A sadhaka who attains siddhi enters eternal time. In eternal time, there is no past, present or future, concepts which are under the material concept of existence. Thus, once liberated, always liberated.” But since we are looking at things from the sadhaka point of view, we are better off keeping to it, or at least reconciling these contradictory positions satisfactorily in our minds.

In the case of avatars, however, the question is far more complex. Here I must resort to explaining archetypal theory and subjective idealism. All Indian thought returns to a basic premise, found in the Upanishads. “This world is not the real home of the soul. The soul’s existence transcends that of this world.” The fundamental concept of idealism, if I understand my philosophical terms correctly, is that we, as conscious entities, are ultimately only able to know our perceptions of the world, and not the world as it truly is. No matter how strong our faith in the existence of the world, we are condemned to live in the fortress of our own consciousness. No matter how deep our need for love, communication, acceptance, etc., by others in this world, we are ultimately alone. For the Mayavadis, the conclusion is that there is only one consciousness and that self-realization means to know “thou art that.” This doctrine taken to its extreme is called solipsism, “I am all that is.” And this idea is abhorrent to the Vaishnavas, whose basic premise is: “There is another.”

But for Vaishnavas, as I said briefly on the ishta-devata thread recently, this other is not found externally, but internally. All Vaishnava philosophers accept the existence of the external world as true, a very useful point of view, but not as an ultimate reality--real only as a reflection of the true world, which is experienced internally in the purified consciousness. This is, of course, the exact opposite of the empiricist point of view--nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu. But that's another can of worms which I'd rather leave closed for the moment.

Archetypes are the entities that populate our subconscious. Thus for both Mayavadis and theistic Vaishnavas, Jungian archetypal psychology is useful for understanding. Jung himself refused to pronounce on Ultimate Reality, but his neo-Platonic leanings take us into distinctly Mayavada territory. Nevertheless, all religions are to some extent or another idealistic and use Platonic categories.

For the Mayavadis, the archetypes are temporary in nature. Indeed, their whole understanding of God Himself as a product of Maya comes because, like Jungians, they take the archetypes as being “in their mind” and having no ontological reality. Vaishnavas, however, believe in the substantiality of their inner world—when purified by sadhana in the light of the teachings of the acharyas.

The controversy we had some time back about the sadhaka and siddhas from the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu 2.1, was based on this misunderstanding. These various bhaktas, who are ashraya alambanas, are archetypes. Even historical personalities—even the guru—are archetypes. Try to understand guru-tattva in this way and it will clear your mind of a lot of the misconceptions about guru-tattva. Guru is both an archetype and a person “out there.” Of the two, the archetype, the internalized guru, is more important. When we surrender to guru, what we are doing in effect is fixing that archetype in our hearts and giving it a clearer form.

Nitya-siddha and sadhaka-siddha archetypes are fairly easy to understand. Even the Guru archetype, even as Guru=God, is fairly easy to understand. This latter concept is, despite our differences from Mayavadi philosophy, quite similar in concept. However, for the Mayavadi, the avatar is just an extension of this principle. An avatar is simply a greater guru, a fuller manifestation of the archetype. Therefore, they have the tendency to see any guru as a manifestation of this archetype, and therefore as an avatar. For Vaishnavas, however, a great guru or sadhaka, or even nitya-siddha, is quite distinct from an avatar or the Svayam Bhagavan.

Since Chaitanya Mahaprabhu appeared as a devotee and guru, and since Krishna also appeared as a human being (gUDhaM paraM brahma manuSya-liGgam) and guru (kRSNaM vande jagad-gurum), we must ask the question, how do they differ from ordinary gurus, even from the guru archetype? In Krishna’s case we have a long history of arguments, based mainly on the Bhagavatam, which are rehearsed in the Sri-Krishna-sandarbha and buttressed by Rupa’s rasa theory in the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. These are ultimately the most powerful arguments, precisely because they appeal to an archetypal vision of the Supreme Self. By following the basic understanding of Rupa Goswami, Kaviraja Goswami was able to present a vision of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu that placed him firmly in this same frame of reference. He is experiencing rasa, not simply teaching the yuga dharma. He is more than guru, he is the viSaya-vigraha. And even though he acts as the ashraya, this is in fact an event of supreme importance in understanding the glory of the Supreme Ashraya, Srimati Radharani.

This understanding was never fully developed before Chaitanya Charitamrita, even though it was likely well understood by Narottam and Srinivasa, well enough to convince the guests in Kheturi of its power, and its ability to place order in the understanding of every other personality in Mahaprabhu’s lila.

Yes I did say something like that. I did not really go through it much in the article, just touching on it in the section you quoted. At one point I believed that Saraswati Thakur really wanted to find a way, i.e., the siksha sampradaya, of establishing a broad recognition of suddha siddhanta that would be acceptable to all the diksha lines. However, his idea that the siksha sampradaya could replace the diksha lines was, in my opinion, a break with the system that was put in place in Kheturi, i.e., the idea of an organic connection to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu through an unbroken disciplic succession connected to his associates.

As I said elsewhere, since initiation is principally about sambandha, and since diksha guru is only one, a succession can only really be through initiation. The siksha sampradaya idea seems to support the game of musical gurus that is so popular.

The diksha guru is primarily the person who fixes and clarifies your sambandha. According to the scriptures, the devotee who even explains a single word of scripture is a manifestation of guru.




The sravana guru is a form of Krishna, but the diksha guru, who reveals the the ishta-devata to the disciple and his relationship with that istha-devata, is even more worshipable.

As pointed out in the article, Bhaktisidhanta did the very thing: went with the times.

And in doing so, he ruptured with the spirit of Kethuri. (This shouldn't make any difference to those who didn't though).

It seems to me Bhaktisidhanta's rupture was a necessity which still stands: What when the diksha guru fails?

It does happen, doesn't it?

I am going to make time to sit down and read this response and then I will get back with my thoughts if I think they are worthwhile. In the meanwhile from what I have skimmed it has given me much to ponder and I am thankful for that. I appreciated the article "keeping fath with kheturi" when I read it a few months back. It's good to be able to take in the gaudiya doctrine from as many angles of vision I think, but I can also see how it can make some upset. Writing such things is often a thankless job, but I think it is needed, and for that I thank you Jagat.

So this is Dasa. I am the old friend of Jagat who wrote him the note you saw posted by him at the beginning of this thread. Jagat and I know each other from the mid 70’s when we were in Mayapur and Calcutta together. He and I both saw Lalit Prasad Thakur at different times and for different purposes I think. We used to talk and associate regularly during this period and had a good friendship which was valuable in those days. I had not seen or heard from him in a long time until I happened by accident upon this site about 3 or 4 months ago. I saw Jagat, and Gaurasundar and a few others I know and after a while I joined. I read Jagats article “Gadadhar Pandit Bhakti Shakti” and informed him that I had some problems with it but was not explicit. He asked me to read “Keeping the faith with Kheturi” and I did so which prompted the statement you see at the beginning of this thread. However, even in this note to him I was still not very explicit about which parts of the articles caused me concern. I will now attempt to point out in a spirit of discussion the parts of the articles that cause me concern and why. Before I do that though I wanted to say that I deeply appreciated his article on Ruci Pradhan and Vichara Pradhan devotees. It was extremely informative and I can actually understand the need for certain devotees to perform these mental and intellectual gymnastics before they can feel like they have done their due diligence and had their deepest doubts answered. I also can see the possibilities of the application of this kind of research in teaching the tradition to others. However, never during the entire article that he wrote about Ruci Pradhan and Vichara Pradhan devotees did I ever feel like I was listening to an outsider, a scholar or a historian giving me his sterile non committal view of the subject. I always felt that I was listening to a Gaudiya Vaishnava giving me an overview of the information and his Gaudiya siddhantic conclusion. I cannot say the same for the above two articles and now I will point out why.

In the opening paragraph of his article on “Gadadhar Pandit Bhakti Shakti” Jagat writes:


This paragraph reminds me of an event that happened during the mid late 70’s in America. Baba Ram das, Timothy Leary, and a few other self appointed leaders of the pseudo spiritual movement in the 70’s got together and decided that somebody named, I think it was Da Free John or maybe Baba Free John, was an Avatar. Baba Ram das statement to the press was “I think we got one here I think we have an avatar” The way this paragraph is written it appears that solely based on the decision of a few pious, sober, educated men Nimai becomes the source of all avatars Sri Krishna. I can see the press release now “Hey guys I think we got the big one here I think we got the source of all Avatars”

I have a problem with the language in this paragraph. I am completely certain that it could have been written in such a way that these men were able to ascertain by scripture and the symptoms exhibited by Nimai that Nimai in fact fit the definition of Swayam Bhagavan Sri Krishna. The way it is written now it appears like a bunch of middle age men from the Masonic lodge got together and decided who he was just based purely on speculation. I am listening to a historian and a scholar not a Gaudiya Vaishnava and for me this is a problem. Let me point out a couple of other, in my mind, very poor representations of the divinity of Sri Gaurachandra.


To me this sentence is about style above substance. Instead of talking about how those middle age sober men recognized in scripture and in Nimais behaviour what had been hidden before their eyes all along we are given clichés about religious superstardom conjuring up images of Nimai in a sequined suit, sunglasses, and a sitar. The next paragraph I have issue with is this:


The beginning of this paragraph is talking about the Caitanya Bhagavat, and the Caitanya Caritamrta. Jagats assessment here is very insightful and he poses an important question that if one reads the two biographies one must ask a very important question: What kind of Krishna is Gauranga or better still Which Krishna is Gauranga. Unfortunately Jagats answer conjures up this image of the six Goswamis winking at each other in the bowers of Vrndavan while they try to show that Gauranga is the supreme Krishna. Why is this sentence written in such a way that it leaves a question in the mind of the reader “well is Gauranga the supreme Krishna or did the six Goswamis make him the supreme Krishna?” Why doesn’t the sentence more directly say that the six Goswamis gathered evidence from all the scripture to SHOW THAT GAURANGA IS THE SUPREME KRISHNA? My problem with the writing is that the sentence structure constantly leaves room for doubt. Here is one more problem I have in the Gadadhar Pandit article and then I will move on to the Kheturi article.


Now we have Swarup Damodar manufacturing Gauranga’s divinity. I am absolutely positive that if someone asked Swarup Damodar “Did you formulate the first doctrine of the Pancha Tattva? His response would be “No! I just revealed from scripture what was already there about the actual position of each member of the Pancha Tattva.” Jagat then says:


Now we have a democratic convention of the followers of the different groups to work out the party platforms of each personality after the publication of the Caitanya Caritamrta. I cannot help but feel that one should be able to be a vichara pradhan devotee and express possible inconsistencies with a better resolution and conclusion to the inconsistencies then an open ended sentence that leaves everyone thinking that the divinity of the Pancha Tattva was the result of a group political decision between disparate parties.

I apologize if some of my writing is a bit sarcastic. It is unfortunately one of my writing styles and in this particular instance I feel it is applicable. However I mean no disrespect to Jagat. The Gadadhar article was a good comparative study of the various biographies and I got a better idea of some of the motivations of the writers I just wish that they were treated and presented more like the enlightened souls that they are instead of struggling jivas trying to forge a new religious movement.

So I have decided to put this up first and finish my comments on Kheturi tomorrow. However, it will basically be along the same lines as this. I will select and explain why I dislike some of the language in the article. So now it is everybody else’s turn to express their appreciation or more likely their dissatisfaction with my response.

Your Worthless Servant
Dasa

Dasaji, thank you for the thoughtful and thought-provoking post. I do not see why anyone should express particular appreciation or dissatisfaction with this -- you raise important issues that deserve to be addressed.

It appears that your main issue are with the style, not with the actual content. Let me try to gloss some of them from a different angle.


The exact words over the criteria were, "suddenly and surprisingly". The biographies of Mahaprabhu I've read strongly suggest that it was indeed the devotional fervor of Nimai that brought about the changes in the hearts of the devotees. Do you recall reading about people ascertaining his divinity based on scripture and symptoms in his biographies, and of this being the main cause for his acceptance as an avatar? The passage does not speak of speculation. If anything, this would actually be an apt illustration of vichar versus ruchi pradhan -- we would rather view the companions of Mahaprabhu as vichar pradhan, who diligently examined him and then drew a befitting conclusion! It was, however, the jubilant waves of prema brought forth by Gauranga that affected the hearts of one and all, and as much was told to Sarvabhauma by his brother in law, that he would only come to realize Mahaprabhu via his grace.

. . .

Then, on "religious super-stardom", which is read as "conjuring up images of Nimai in a sequined suit, sunglasses, and a sitar". The only image "religious super-stardom" invokes in me, aside the very clear and literal meaning, is a vague memory of "Jesus Christ Superstar", which I am certain is not very related. You do realize that there are infinite choices of words, all of which invoke some kind of imagery in someone. Some of your wordings invoked negative associations in me due to my past contact with ISKCON and some of its less enchanting aspects.



I can think of at least two reasons why it might not come forward with the boast of "free of all doubt, we declare thus".

1. The relationship between Gaura and Krishna is viewed differently by some of the Navadwip tradition and the tradition we might view as "mainstream". "Gaura-paramya-vada" is a keyword you may want to read on.

2. The Goswamis did not in fact gather all that much evidence on Gauranga's divinity. He is very briefly treated in their works, and as amazing as it is, there isn't even a single chapter in any text dedicated to him, aside two ashtakams, what to speak of a treatise on his godhood.

These raise a number of other questions which are best dealt with in a separate thread.



Where do you find that said? I'm afraid you are reading into this rather than reading it. To formulate a doctrine concerning someone's divinity is not to manufacture his divinity. It is to explain it.

Kavi Karnapura attributes the famous Pancha-tattva shloka to Svarupa Damodara's Kadacha. It therefore follows that he was likely the first to come forward with the concept.

I doubt Svarupa Damodara would say that he has only revealed what was already there in the scripture, since much of what Mahaprabhu came to teach was not there in the scripture prior to his advent.

This is rather similar to our saying that Vyasa compiled the Vedas. You could then ask, "What do you mean, he compiled them, you're basically then saying that they aren't apaurusheya, that he just manufactured them." Speaking of him, Vyasa is actually an excellent example of the process of introspection as a medium of gaining further insight. Certainly we wouldn't attribute fault to him on account of that, now, would we? Why can this then not be the case with Mahaprabhu's companions, if it was the case with an avatar himself!



The fact that Srivas Pandit was replaced by Narahari Sarakar in Lochan Dasa's version of Pancha-tattva, and that Gaura-ganoddesh-dipika is abundantly filled with diverging views on who was whom in their previous births, shows that there was evidently a process of "figuring out" and discussions going on. There is also a vast number of other material that speaks of the same.

Such issues are easy to shrug off if one is willing to forego the study of the source texts that actually deal with the said issues. And, if someone is disinclined from doing that, it is perhaps best that he refrain from discussions on topics where such matters come up, as such topics may not prove nourishing for someone with a pliable faith easily influenced by diverging views. Please do not read that as particularly directed at you, it is a general observation.

I hope you won't mind that I am brief here. I understand a bit better the problem.

(1) Language: Some of my articles were not written with a devotee audience as my primary target. However, I do think it is sometimes necessary for devotees to recognize how others may or do see things. This was one of the intentions of the long post in this thread.

(2) Second, and perhaps more important, is a certain way I have come to see the world and devotional matters. I think that we can look at historical events and see them in almost purely human terms and still find the theological vision of the Goswamis and preserve our faith. The main reason for this is that the vision is internal.

This is also why I don't get quite as hung up on Guru Tattva as so many others, most of whom are seeing the physical form and activities of the guru as more important than the Guru within. (This is why I don't have a problem with the Prabhupada-lilamrita, either, unlike Rochan.) This is also why certain people have an issue with the Goswamis going to the toilet, whereas I don't. This is why I don't have a problem with evolution, either.

In other words, I don't have a problem with the human/divine dualism.

So eternal truths can reveal themselves in time, through the confusion of human history. But as was my point in the discusion of the vicara/ruci distinction above, if you feel that since you have realized the conclusion of the Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas, there is no need to follow the 80 years of debate that needed to take place before it became generally accepted, there is no problem.

And I remind you that such debates still come up from time to time. Bhaktivinoda Thakur was involved in the last great Gaura debates--do we need a Gaura mantra? Is Mahaprabhu Krishna with Radha bhava or is he Radha and Krishna milita-vigraha? In those days there were still great assemblies where these issues were debated and conclusions arrived at--such as the famous one in Midnapore where the Brahmin-Vaishnava question was discussed, or the "Are Gaudiyas a bona fide sampradaya? debate that Baladeva participated in, or the Parakiya-svakiya debates that took place at around roughly the same time. I don't think Kheturi was that different, though it seems to have been conducted in a less confrontational manner (though, as noted, Birbhadra was NOT there). But as I also said, it is a credit to Narottam, Srinivasa and Jahnava Mata that they were able to present a clear vision that everyone could live with.

(3) As a last point, I think that the hope that I held up at the end of the article, which Anand noted in her post in this thread, is that it may still be possible to find a place for everyone in the Gaudiya Vaishnava family, but it will admittedly be tough.

And a fourth point, which is quite important, which I mentioned in the long post, is that the difference between an avatar and a guru comes through a theological understanding. This is why Kaviraja Goswami had to make the point that the Yuga Dharma could be taught by an amsa, but that Vraja prema could not. Since the guru is to be seen as God, where do we draw a line between this God and that one? In some places people think that any extraordinary preacher deserves the title of avatar--so what is the diference between them and Gauranga Mahaprabhu? That's why I said, "If Krishnadas Kaviraj had not come along, Mahaprabhu would be just another 'avatar' littering the history of Hinduism."

I also wish for such a thing to happen where there is a place for all Gaudiya Vaishnavas in one family. This was the dream and prediction of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur that all vaishnavas would embrace in Vaishnava Prema and Vaishnava Dharma. He predicted that all the religions of the world would then flow like rivers into the ocean of Vaishnava Prema. OH WHEN WILL THAT DAY BE OURS?

I understand Mahaprabhu had to come and teach Vraja Prema. Isn't that Vraja Prema being handed down through the disciplic succesion? Aren't amsa's (guru's) in the line from Mahaprabhu now distributing Vraja Prema by transferring it to the heart of their worthy disciples? Or are you saying that Vraja Prema can only really be given by Mahaprabhu and that if we become qualified under the guidance of the pure devotees we then get a chance to take birth in Mahaprabhu's naimittika lila and receive Vraja Prema from Him directly? Please clarify this for me and maybe others. Because I have heard it both ways. What is your take and your evidence for taking whatever position you take on this point.

I can guess feelings of Dasa Ji and Jagat Ji. Somehow for some points I feel there may be some space of framing the same sentence in some other way, which would satisfy both scholars and devotees. No I am not stating Jagat Ji has done any wrong, but in this regard one name is coming to my mind who has maintained a beautiful balance in similar writings. Jagat Ji have you ever read any article by Nrisingha Prasad Bhaduri in bengalee? If not I bet you would skip your dinner that day, because his writing would provide you enough food . I am pretty impressed about his skill in balancing the thought for both types of communities.

A small introduction about Nrisingha Prasad Bhaduri. He is by far perhaps one of the most knowledgeable, thought provoking scholars in today’s bengalee intellectual circle. Though he belongs to a Bengali Vaishnava family, he him self a practicing Vaishnava, he in his writings he presents his thought mainly for non-believers, scholars and non- Vaishnava i.e. mainly for secular circle, yet devotees will find the same very interesting and inspirational from that writings. I have come with the contacts of his writings mainly through annually publish magazine “Bartaman Patrika” during durga puja festival generally termed as “Puja Barshiki” or annual edition during puja festival. In this magazine he analyzed annually one important religious historic Vaishnava charatctes. He has so far analyzed main Characters of Maha Bharata for e.g. Draupadi, Vima, Arjuna Karna et el . Once he wrote about Mahaprabhu. Last year he has written about Balarama. I am expecting this year it may be Krishna Chandra. I must say it is an experience to read his articles, with the profound knowledge, critical analytic power mixing in those. When last year I came into contact with some of the Jagat Ji’s article, first time I thought that he must be very pleased in having read some of his article, I do not know for sure whether he actually read or not.


Jay Nitai

Dasanudas

Here is my post answering some of the points made by Madhavaji about my original post.



I agree with your point but I do not get that either from the words "suddenly and surprisingly" It would have been nice if Jagat made a reference to the conversion via the spiritual experience that they had instead of suddenly they woke up one morning and surprisingly they belieived in Nimai! In other words I feel like it is not giving the reader the real reason why they had a change of heart.
. . .



If I have invoked negative feelings in you by writing in a style that reminds you of the negative experiences you had with ISKCON I deeply apologize. It is not easy to erase writing and language styles developed over two decades of association. By the way my sister played Mary Magdalene in the "Jesus Christ Superstar" national road tour.



I guess it comes from my background in Ayurveda and Herbolgy. If I formulate something that did not have an existence prior to my formulating it then I manufactured it. Maybe I am reading into it because of my background.



It is true that there is little or no evidence in scripture about the divinity of the other members of the Pancha Tattva other than Mahaprabhu and the information about His divinity is also sparse.



well compiling an oral tradition into a written one should not invoke such accusations but I understand your point.




I do not take it personnally I undersand from Jagat that I am not alone in my feelings about the style of presentation of the historical information hence his above article on ruci and vichara pradhan.

Dasaji, I do agree that, were the article solely directed to an audience of devotees, some sections might call for rephrasing. However, articles written with a mixed audience in mind are practically unavoidably compromized in some respects as far as the style is concerned. I do understand what you are heading at - What I do not understand is the vigor of the reaction. Instead of saying that such things you do not wish to read, why not read them while relishing the gist of what is being said? If someone speaks of our Gauranga to a mixed audience, presenting his ways in a language and style digestable for a wide spectrum of people, shall we not regardless remember the glory of our Gauranga from the narration?



You needn't apologize for that. I merely pointed that out to make a point, the point being that a choice of words that wouldn't invoke negative associations in anyone is a virtual impossibility.



Virtually all theology is formulated - "Put into a systematized statement or expression". The doctrine of rasa presented in Sri Rupa Goswami's works is a brilliant formulation. It draws concepts from earlier sources, yet presents an unique and most befitting blend of rasa-analysis to gloss the lila of Radha and Krishna. It wasn't written before. This doesn't mean it was concocted, fabricated. The eternal truths are infinite and boundless, no quantity of literature will ever encompass them in their full scope. Regardless, saints and philosophers formulate theological models that reflect the nature of the said truths, thereby helping the mankind understand and approach the divine.

. . .

Again, I do understand the concern you present. That notwithstanding, I strongly feel that our rich tradition can afford being presented in a number of styles on different avenues, to diverse audiences. When we encounter styles not matching with the form of presentation we are accustomed to, let us assume it has nevertheless been done with the best of intentions, and try to extract the essence of it as we would assume a loving devotee would feel the gist of it to be when presenting in the said style.

An approach without due regard for a plurality of approaches leads to a state of religious xenophobia. While it may be viable in a constrained environment, I find it impracticable for someone who leads a life involving social exchanges in the framework of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, in which cross-tradition exchanges abound.