More About Sannyasa (gm) - An anonymous letter.

This was passed on to me from someone who read Madhavanandaji's article on Prabandha Panchaka. Nice letter.

Thanks, Madhavananda makes some good points. Any reply back from Aranya Maharaja or others? I'd find it entertaining to read.

I have spoken several times with Hakim Prabhu in Vrindavan (the scholar NM is attacking). He is a very nice old gentleman. I've several times gone to him for scholarly help. The first time I met his son (who is also a Gaudiya scholar and a Phd) I mentioned something to him about how I had read NM's book and I found his arguments supporting sannyas to be ridiculous and his criticisms of his father to not be very gentleman-like. Sri Hakim Prabhu's son, just shrugged and said (referring to NM), "Anyway, he is a sannyasi. We should be respectful."

In my life, I try to avoid discussing such topics with these people (like Puru and others). I don't find much point in it. Kind of like trying to speak philosophy with a pit bull dog. He just keeps biting you. That's all he knows. That's how I see NM, he is engaging a kind of fanatical sentimental group and giving them (some kind of) encouragement in bhajan.

My persons of inspiration these days are vaishnavas like Siddha Manohar Das Baba of Govinda Kund (Do you have any of his books? Very nice! Let me know if you want any. I plan to go back to Govinda Kund to get more at Kartika time.) and Vijay Krishna Goswami, who passed away in 1899 in Puri. I want to do my guru's seva but I also want to do my bhajan. My Guru Maharaja liked real sadhus. He was fond of Kapoors book, "Saints of Vraja". I never saw him emphasizing all of this sannyas stuff. Every honest kindergarten student knows that it's just a preaching tactic.

Rather, my Guru Maharaja always emphasized bhajan and seva. I don't like all of the fanatacism and party spirit these days. Other than for my service I basically stay away from the ISKCON wallas. Even more fanatical I find are the Gaudiya Math devotees who I studiously avoid. However, after my last few visits to Radha Kund I've found a relatively new group of young bright-eyed missionaries to add to my list to be avoided. It happens everywhere. I think it is symptomatic of institutions and groups. They are chanting nama so I offer them my pranams as Rupapada advises, but I don't know of any groups that I am interested to associate with. I'll save that for those persons who strike me as anya-ninda-sunya sadhus. I pray to be blessed with association with those who are really serious about nama-bhajan, not circus performers, politicians, and born-again-evangelists, regardless of the costume they are wearing.

The problem I see with the Gaudiya Math is that they (like all other religions groups in history) just got absorbed in the externals and largely lost sight of the essence. Mahaprabhu and Saraswati Thakur found sannyas to be a useful preaching tool. However, when people start making up false traditions, ceremonies and symbols around it, it crosses the road to fanaticism.

Recently in Puri, I had a long talk with an old friend who is now a tridandi-dhari from NM. I had hoped to have an interesting philosophical exchange but I was shocked and disappointed to hear his views about sannyas. I mentioned to him and the other swami he was with that it was just a preaching tactic and they freaked out. They wanted to quarrel with me! I told them I don't want to argue. I'm in the same line with you. They kept insisting that I had no evidence to speak like that. I said yes I do, "sampradaya vihina ye mantras te nisphala mata -- where is your sannyasa parampara? Where is your tradition?" They then tried all of the ridiculous prabandha pancaka arguments on me. They couldn't defeat what I was saying, and only kept repeating, "If Aranya Maharaja were here, you wouldn't talk like this. He would put you in your place." I finally managed to calm them down a little and got out of there as soon as I could. I found them to be neither thoughtful nor reasonable. Their bhajan and concept certainly didn't strike me as being deep.

Thanks again for the article Prabhuji. I hope that all is well for you. Fakir Mohan Prabhu went to Europe again for preaching in the ISKCON temples. Pretty austere crowd to try to speak to, but many are enlivened by his presentation and presence.

QUOTE(Jagat @ May 7 2004, 04:26 PM)

Even more fanatical I find are the Gaudiya Math devotees who I studiously avoid.

I am surprised by -- and inclined to disagree with -- this unfair generalization and dismissal of all GM bhaktas. In my experience, there is a curious divergence of attitudes within the GM sub-sects, leading to one section that is quite broad-minded and another that is rigidly sectarian.

On the one hand, there are certainly some "my guru is the only guru" fanatics in more branches than just ISKCON. There are some in Swami B.V. Tirtha's lineage who proclaim loyalty to akara matharaja in a manner very similar to the standard ISKCON approach. And of course there are a few "personality cults" alongside these "institutional cults."

But there is also a fascinating tradition of broad-mindedness that persists in some quarters. When I read about Swami B.H. Vana, I don't get any sense of narrow fanatic cultism in his preaching. Neither do I see this in the writings of his disciple Vamana dasa (Walther Eidlitz).

Similarly, Swami B.R. Sridhara enthused many Westerners with the notion of vande gurun as brought out by his transcribed talks published in the well-known book Sri Guru and His Grace in the mid-1980s by Guardian of Devotion Press.

Interestingly, Swami B.R. Sridhara's successor, Swami B.S. Govinda, has moved his institution entirely away from that broad concept, as Swami B.S. Goswami notes on his website: http://www.dailydarshan.com/

Yet there is a substantial cohort of Western devotees who, from the late 1970s through the late 1980s, imbibed this broad-minded, inclusive and tolerant approach to the Gaudiya Matha. In some cases these devotees constrain their broad tolerance within Gaudiya Matha, but a few extend it to other followers of Mahaprabhu. I would certainly include Swami B.V. Tripurari in this latter category, and his disciple Audarya-lila dasa nicely represents his approach here.

Yes, I find it sad that so many Gaudiya Math devotees are such fanatics. It's depressing that I can generally have a deeper and more meaningful discussion of spiritual matters with a Roman Catholic monastic than with a typical GM bhakta.

But I wouldn't go so far as to write off the whole lot of them, as Jagat's correspondent seems to have done. There is an unacknowledged diversity among them, and I find it both fascinating and instructive to wonder about why this diversity has come about.

My correspondent is a broad-minded fellow himself, and I believe his comment was made specifically as a result of contact with NM's group. I think that if he saw your response he would immediately agree with it.

I also appreciate Sridhar Maharaj's approach, though I personally tested his broadmindedness, I think, when I appeared before him dressed as a babaji. You are quite right to point out that Govinda Maharaj's group has taken a very narrow guru-centered approach.

QUOTE(Jagat @ May 7 2004, 06:29 PM)

I also appreciate Sridhar Maharaj's approach, though I personally tested his broadmindedness, I think, when I appeared before him dressed as a babaji.

Of course, Swami B.R. Sridhara's most ready broadmindedness ended at the walls of Gaudiya Matha. Notice his dealings with his Godbrother Krishnadasa Babaji, and also his feelings about Swami B.H. Vana, who strayed a bit farther than the GM would typically countenance. Notice also that as far as I know, he initiated no babajis of his own, unlike his Godbrothers Swami B.P. Puri and Swami B.P. Kesava. Though a "liberal" in his ability to speak of Hegel alongside Haridas, he was certainly toward the "conservative" side in GM.

QUOTE(Jagat @ May 7 2004, 08:26 PM)

This was passed on to me from someone who read Madhavanandaji's article on Prabandha Panchaka. Nice letter.

Thanks, Madhavananda makes some good points. Any reply back from Aranya Maharaja or others? I'd find it entertaining to read.

I have spoken several times with Hakim Prabhu in Vrindavan (the scholar NM is attacking). He is a very nice old gentleman. I've several times gone to him for scholarly help. The first time I met his son (who is also a Gaudiya scholar and a Phd) I mentioned something to him about how I had read NM's book and I found his arguments supporting sannyas to be ridiculous and his criticisms of his father to not be very gentleman-like. Sri Hakim Prabhu's son, just shrugged and said (referring to NM), "Anyway, he is a sannyasi. We should be respectful."

In my life, I try to avoid discussing such topics with these people (like Puru and others). I don't find much point in it. Kind of like trying to speak philosophy with a pit bull dog. He just keeps biting you. That's all he knows. That's how I see NM, he is engaging a kind of fanatical sentimental group and giving them (some kind of) encouragement in bhajan.

My persons of inspiration these days are vaishnavas like Siddha Manohar Das Baba of Govinda Kund (Do you have any of his books? Very nice! Let me know if you want any. I plan to go back to Govinda Kund to get more at Kartika time.) and Vijay Krishna Goswami, who passed away in 1899 in Puri. I want to do my guru's seva but I also want to do my bhajan. My Guru Maharaja liked real sadhus. He was fond of Kapoors book, "Saints of Vraja". I never saw him emphasizing all of this sannyas stuff. Every honest kindergarten student knows that it's just a preaching tactic.

Rather, my Guru Maharaja always emphasized bhajan and seva. I don't like all of the fanatacism and party spirit these days. Other than for my service I basically stay away from the ISKCON wallas. Even more fanatical I find are the Gaudiya Math devotees who I studiously avoid. However, after my last few visits to Radha Kund I've found a relatively new group of young bright-eyed missionaries to add to my list to be avoided. It happens everywhere. I think it is symptomatic of institutions and groups. They are chanting nama so I offer them my pranams as Rupapada advises, but I don't know of any groups that I am interested to associate with. I'll save that for those persons who strike me as anya-ninda-sunya sadhus. I pray to be blessed with association with those who are really serious about nama-bhajan, not circus performers, politicians, and born-again-evangelists, regardless of the costume they are wearing.

The problem I see with the Gaudiya Math is that they (like all other religions groups in history) just got absorbed in the externals and largely lost sight of the essence. Mahaprabhu and Saraswati Thakur found sannyas to be a useful preaching tool. However, when people start making up false traditions, ceremonies and symbols around it, it crosses the road to fanaticism.

Recently in Puri, I had a long talk with an old friend who is now a tridandi-dhari from NM. I had hoped to have an interesting philosophical exchange but I was shocked and disappointed to hear his views about sannyas. I mentioned to him and the other swami he was with that it was just a preaching tactic and they freaked out. They wanted to quarrel with me! I told them I don't want to argue. I'm in the same line with you. They kept insisting that I had no evidence to speak like that. I said yes I do, "sampradaya vihina ye mantras te nisphala mata -- where is your sannyasa parampara? Where is your tradition?" They then tried all of the ridiculous prabandha pancaka arguments on me. They couldn't defeat what I was saying, and only kept repeating, "If Aranya Maharaja were here, you wouldn't talk like this. He would put you in your place." I finally managed to calm them down a little and got out of there as soon as I could. I found them to be neither thoughtful nor reasonable. Their bhajan and concept certainly didn't strike me as being deep.

Thanks again for the article Prabhuji. I hope that all is well for you. Fakir Mohan Prabhu went to Europe again for preaching in the ISKCON temples. Pretty austere crowd to try to speak to, but many are enlivened by his presentation and presence.

Mahaprabhu and Saraswati Thakur found sannyas to be a useful preaching tool.
!

That's all it is a tool and not an end in itself.

We are not interested in a perfect sannyasa ISKCON record at the expense of true spiritual realisation.

What KC realisation would lead one in the 'sannyasa asrama' to receive theraputic treatments alone from a female counselor ?

I find citing the fact that Paurnamasi of Braj lila wears ocher and conducts herself in the manner of a sannyasini a better argument for the giving of sannyas to women than I do for justifying sannyas in the Gaudiya Tradition.
Although, I don't see a problem with either one and wonder why I have heard that so many sannyasis seem to be against the idea of women taking sannyas. Why is that when formal sannyas for anyone was never a tenent of the Gaudiya tradition anyway?

QUOTE(betal_nut @ May 15 2004, 08:30 PM)

Your query is a complex one, so let me attempt two different approaches:

Traditional context: "Sannyasa" does not exist. Vairagya does. Is there any prohibition against female vairagis, I wonder? Have there been any female vairagis in the past or present?

ISKCON/GM context: Whether sannyasa is a tenet of the Gaudiya philosophy in the first place is largely irrelevant considering that it is happening now. I believe we need to fully research the origins of how BSST got his ideas. That is, if anyone here is actually bothered about it. I believe from my readings of BSST's books is that he was inspired by Prabhodananda Sarasvati, a tridandi-sannyasi of the Sri Vaisnava school. This much is already known anyway.
Is there any precedent for "female sannyasa" in the Sri Vaishnava school? I think not. I have heard stories of how Ramanujacharya appointed a number of women to a certain position, but I have not collected enough information about this to ascertain whether those women were true sannyasinis. The Advaita and Dvaita schools also have not and do not appoint women to the position of sannyasa. These days, you can find many sannyasinis advertising themselves and their seminar talks in newspapers, and also on posters in Indian grocery stores. They usually have no genuine sampradaya or serious philosophy, just a shim-sham version like the neo-Advaitins do.

QUOTE(Gaurasundara @ May 16 2004, 01:01 AM)

ISKCON/GM context: Whether sannyasa is a tenet of the Gaudiya philosophy in the first place is largely irrelevant considering that it is happening now. I believe we need to fully research the origins of how BSST got his ideas. That is, if anyone here is actually bothered about it. I believe from my readings of BSST's books is that he was inspired by Prabhodananda Sarasvati, a tridandi-sannyasi of the Sri Vaisnava school. This much is already known anyway.

Would you care to point me to a text where Prabodhananda is described as a tridaNDi-sannyAsin of any sort?

There are examples of female vairagis in the Gaudiya tradition.

Now, in the context of GM/Iskcon I wonder why this has not taken the shape of "sannyasa".

QUOTE(betal_nut @ May 16 2004, 06:46 PM)

There are examples of female vairagis in the Gaudiya tradition.

Now, in the context of GM/Iskcon I wonder why this has not taken the shape of "sannyasa".

Because the whole point of their saffron-cloth sannyAsa was its employment as a method of preaching, something aimed at gaining a status of social respectability, and female sannyAsins would have not been socially acceptable in the climate of the times, and therefore counterproductive to the very reason of the innovation to begin with.

Sannyasinis at the time of BSST in India may not have been socially acceptable but certainly in the west at the time of ACBVS it would have served to attract the masses and media to Iskcon even more and cast them in a positive light (empowerment of women). I'm just surprised that ACBVS did not see the utility in such a thing during the 70's when the Feminist Movement was at it's glorious height.

QUOTE(betal_nut @ May 16 2004, 07:17 PM)

Well, it's not surprising at all, given that Bhaktivedanta, reformer as he was, probably still did not want to cut ties with the rest of the tradition altogether. He was already on the fringe of acceptable with his revisions in the eyes of his peers in the land of Bharat. Had he gone a radical step further in an already volatile environment, he might have been written off as a heretic.

Also, he did not seem to be a person who was fond of pussyfooting around with the feminist movement, so that's probably also a contributing factor.