How Far Do We Go? - Do we need to accept Mahaprabhu as God to be a Gaudiya Vaishnava?

Recently, an English friend of mine referred me to this comment;


"I've always been interested in politics and for a long time have been a bit of an America-basher, not for their values but for what their government has done throughout the world. My first encounters with Arabs (Muslims and non) left me rather sucked in by what I believed was a healthy resentment of imperialism. Of course, it didn't take long for me to realize that my lifestyle didn’t fit into their worldview. I even began feeling that it might just be bad to be homosexual.

"After resolving these doubts, I've still been tormented with ever-recurring questions about East versus West, modernity versus traditionalism, along with generally wondering: Must I be so open-minded as to accept a religion and/or a culture that seems close-minded about me?"

.... taken from this link;

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/letters.html

My friend told me that he has begun to feel the exact same way about Vaishnavism after two recent trips to India where he ballyhooed the customs and culture of the native Indian Vaishnavas, only to find that they reciprocated by denigrating his. He went out of his way to conform to the "norms" over there and yet was made to feel, in his words, a "mleccha" by a significant number of people.

His letter to me along with the issues on the link referred to above and the site that it is part of made me think long and hard about a few different things;

I often heard my Aunties and cousins say they never wish to take birth as a woman in a Muslim country. Yet at the same time they comply to their own society's double standards in regards to women that cause women in the west to say they never wish to take birth as a woman in India.

The creator of this website is a young Canadian Muslim and outspoken lesbian who wishes not to abandon Islam but reform it. She is one of many muslim liberals who take a non-literal approach to the Quran and strife for reform.

In regards to that and how it relates to some of the discussions here I ask;
where do non-literals draw the line? If they take a non-literal approach to all the places in the Quran that appear to advocate violence, then, why not take a non-literal approach to all the places that appear to advocate peace? Would Paradise be taken literally yet Hell not because it seeks to punish?

Where do Vaishnavas, in an attempt to openly and objectively approach their sacred literatures draw the line? If some things are rejected and others accepted what is the deciding factor? Are the multiplicity of Hells described in the Bhagwat taken allegorically while Goloka Vrindavan taken literally? Can such objectivity eventually lead to viewing Mahaprabhu as a spirtually charismatic social reformer? Wouldn't this be the ultimate conclusion, objectively speaking?

How far is it neccessary, if at all, for non-Indians taking to bhakti to adopt the obvious "India-centric" trappings of the external bhakti culture; sari, dhoti, tilak, Indian food, hierarchial and patriarchal social and family set-up, etc.?

Ershad Manji's been getting quite lionized up in these parts. A Muslim with Western values--just what the doctor ordered. But of course she is hammered by the more traditional Muslims. But it makes me personally happy to see her so outspoken about revising the understanding of Islam so that it accomodates more liberal values. You might know that she comes from the Ismaili subsect of Shia Islam, so she was already out in left field where the Orthodox are concerned. But anyway...

---

In answer to your main question. I heard a Zen Buddhist nun on the radio the other day. As I may have mentioned, the Dalai Lama was here in Canada for the last couple of week, sparking a lot of media interest in Buddhism. To be brief, this Zen nun, a Caucasian Canadian, talked about the interesting phenomenon of North American Buddhism. There are literally thousands of Buddhist centers throughout Canada and the United States, and most of them are predominantly Western. Though many are based in Japanese, Tibetan, Sri Lankan, Vietnamese or Thailand traditions, she pointed out that it is only now that there are really significant Western teachers who have assimilated their traditions--in some case creating hybrid forms--and adapted them to their own personalities, cultures and so on.

In fact, Buddhism has been slowly seeping into Western consciousness since the Theosophists, but it seems that it grows ever closer to the mainstream of Western ways of thinking, in spite of strong fundamentalist Christian opposition to it. It is especially suitable to secularized Westerners search for mysticism and transcendence. But there has definitely been an increase in the number of individualized, Westernized Buddhist establishments. The roots of Western Buddhism are growing ever deeper.

I think that the same can be said for Yoga. If you look at yoga literature over the last fifty years, you will see that the earlier books are mostly rehashings of the Indian traditions. Then you start getting more and more commentary, but still in what could be said to be a "phase of understanding" what is already there. Now, more and more truly original realizations of the process by Westerners, entirely independent of yoga's Indian origins, are popping up all over the place.

The same has to happen with Vaishnavism. We are still very much in "the phase of understanding" (we could also call it the "parroting" stage) what it is we have received, but in many ways have not yet assimilated Vaishnavism in such a way that it has truly become our own. When it does, then a Western Vaishnava will feel sufficiently confident of his own approach not to worry about acceptance or rejection by anyone from another Vaishnava group, even if it is "the real thing." In other words, he will be sure of having found the "real thing."

When this happens, then Western values like the improved status of women, social equality and other things that may be conspicuous by their absence in the traditional Hindu or Vaishnava worlds will be unself-consciously accepted as having real value. As a matter of fact, like you say, "Gopi-bhava, it's a woman's world." Our greatest strength is our Dual Divinity--the Divine Couple locked in deep embrace. This is a tremendously powerful symbol that trumps almost all the rest of our philosophy. If we rewrote our theology from scratch contemplating Radha and Krishna's beautiful forms, we would probably be as well-served as by scholarship.

Of course, as it stands, we already have some very strong theological works that do not need to be discarded, though we should be ready to adjust things in accordance with our deep insight into the meaning of devotion to the Divine Couple.

And in the end, it is quite possible that benefits will be gained on all sides, as the influx of converts is an influx of life. I have thought on many occasions that Western Vaishnavism may be a kind of Trojan horse, whereby some deeply-held Western values are smuggled into India.

What about the above questions?

That's all I can manage for now. But I think I gave something of an answer.

Ok, let me ask the members here........

Does someone need to believe that Mahaprabhu is God in order to be a "gaudiya vaishnava"?

Gaudiya Vaishnava cultivation is an esoteric practice, it is not an exoteric religion. therefore no one comes to claim: you have to believe such and such in order to... as does the Dalai Lama who e.g. claims "anata" (atma-lessness) and no creator God existing as the last basis for everyone to be accepted in Buddhism (He expressed that in a world Buddhism-teacher conference, where all the big shots of Western Buddhism of all kinds of different branches were present).

When you want to approach the heart of the realisation to be had as a Gaudiya Vaishnava, there is no other way than going to Sri Gauranga. Whether you accept him to be God or not, is up to you, it is depending upon your subjective realization. External dogmatic postulation is not goint to help, if you do not have your own inner connection to him and what he gives.

That aside, you cannot go around declaring yourself as a Gaudiya unless you agree with the basic doctrines of the tradition, the divinity of Mahaprabhu being one of them.

Quite similar to fundamentalist Islam.

Whoah, Nelly! From accepting Mahaprabhu as an Incarnation to fundamentalist Islam. That's a pretty big jump. I would be careful.

Madhava is nowhere near fundamentalist Islam. There are ways of looking at things, you know.

Christians have many ways of looking at Christ, but he is always the center of their religion. For Vaishnavas, "God" exists on something of a sliding scale. We have this famous Guru=God equation. Then there are all those gods, Gods, Shaktis, avatars, expansions, etc., who are also God. Then we have advaita-tattva, where everything is (we always add "in one sense") God. And what is all this nonsense about "God in human form", anyway? How can the infinite be placed in a finite form of "concentrated sac-cid-ananda"?

Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept the Chaitanya Charitamrita vision of Gauranga as an incarnation of Krishna in the mood of Radha. This idea has particular significance for us, and therefore, for us, Chaitanya transcends "mere" human teachership (guru-tattva) or mystic status (siddhi) to personify a symbolic ideal. He incarnates the tattva of Radha's supremacy over Krishna.

This is why we have so little patience with the parade of avatars coming out of India, for they are all simply teachers claiming to be "Brahman." This is something quite different.

Where is that parade of avatars coming out of India?
Where does it make it's rounds?

Yes, only fundamentalist Muslims say that a part of being a Muslim is believing that Mohammad (PBUH) is a prophet of God. That is certainly so.

Seriously, you cannot go around declaring yourself as a member of any group, whether religious, political or otherwise, unless you agree with their basic ideas. For example, you could never call yourself a member of the Republican Party unless you agreed that democracy, separation of state and church, separation of public and private, and so forth, were ideals worth preserving. Granted, there is room for ideological plurality and that is why there are different parivars of republicans, but the plurality must evolve around certain common principles.

Mahaprabhu instructed certain of His intimate associates to write the authoritative scriptures for His followers.

Those scriptures portray Mahaprabhu as God.

If Mahaprabhu was NOT God, He did not have the authority to commission these new scriptures, so they should be rejected in favor of the authentic scriptures, leaving no reason for one to consider oneself a "Gaudiya Vaishnava."

I think a far more interesting question would be: "Different followers of Mahaprabhu understood His Godhood differently. And He Himself sometimes recoiled at the notion of His Godhood. So WHAT DOES MAHAPRABHU'S GODHOOD MEAN, both ontologically and practically in the life of His devotee?"

I took the liberty of adding a subtitle to this thread's header. I hope that's OK with you, Betal Nut.

Just as a point of order (and off-topic), I have sincere concerns that he expressed himself in this matter. Having been heavily involved in Buddhism when I was younger, I find it difficult to imagine of HH the Dalai Lama making these kinds of comments, when it is widely acknowledged within most branches of Buddhism, that rather than being a atheistic doctrine (ie denying God), Buddhism is rather non-theistic (ie silent on God).

Thats a good one, you want the kingdom of God without God and everyone here even considers this to be a serious topic for discussion. Please, remain betel_net and not become just a nut.

Actually, it is not that you have to accept Mohammad (PBUH) as a prophet of God (amongst many others), but you have to accept him as the LAST prophet having the LAST word on the LAST divine revelation.

So, I was wondering if it would be possible for someone to be a Gaudiya Vaishnava who accepted all of Rupa Goswami's instructions on worshipping Radha and Krishna but yet view Mahaprabhu as not Radha and Krishna combined.

Actually, somebody else asked me this and I'm coming here for the "answer".

I think the answer has been heard already. If one were to reject such a core belief of a religion, it would be pointless to consider oneself its follower.

Well, that is also what the Qur`an says. Is that a "fundamentalist" text?

The first time I ever heard of "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu" was from an Amar Chitra Katha comic of the same title. Those of you who have been to India will know that this is a truly delightful brand of comic that retells great legends and Puranic tales, as well as contemporary figures, in a way that is appealing to youngsters and fun.

I felt drawn towards this "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu." The old front cover of it depicted Mahaprabhu with arms raised and looking heavenward, and behind him was a ghosted-out picture of Krishna playing His flute with a mischievous smile. As if Chaitanya was looking for Krishna, and Krishna was hiding right behind him!

The next major period I head of "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu" was through ISKCON and ISKCON literature. I heard snippets of His life-story here and there but was never, even upto today, able to read a complete account of His life story. I heard that this "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu" was God through ISKCON literature. This was not the idea that was given to me through that comic, but then again how much can you realize from a comic?

From hearing of "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu" as an extremely attractive and charismatic devotee of Krishna, to hearing that He was actually an incarnation of Krishna meant to taste the mood of Radha, appearing in the guise of a devotee to teach us the same - these were not very difficult ideas for me to believe. In fact, I feel that this made me even more drawn to this Chaitanya figure; long hair, dhoti, the way He was always depicted crying in ecstasy chanting the holy name, the charisma was always there. To this day I still do not know why I am so drawn to Mahaprabhu. I am so happy to study Gaudiya philosophy and to find out that He is God. I am so happy to know that He is God.

Mahaprabhu's divinity is inseparable from Him.

I love Him.

I think that reality is so much complicated (even Lord Brahma or Lord Shiva don't know exaxtly how does this universe arranged). That is why we should take into consideration first that to simply draw the line between some religious doctrine is not the question of objective character but rather the question of objectivity (personal understanding).

Many people think so.