Heritage and objectivity -

This brings to mind a related question. When one receives diksha in one of the "orthodox" parivaras, is a sadhaka required to adopt a sectarian mindset of "My parivara has the only correct teachings, while all the others are wrong to a greater or lesser extent"?

Is there room for an attitude of "My parivara has teachings and practices that are appropriate for me. Those teachings and practices have come down authentically and purely from Mahaprabhu and His associates, but other lineages may also have their own teachings and practices, distinct and sometimes even contradictory from my own, yet purely and authentically representing what Mahaprabhu gave through a different associate"?

Obviously, this could be taken to an absurd and illogical extreme, in which anything and everything were wrongly justified. Yet isn't it possible that just as there are a variety of "authentic" eternal relationships with Divinity, there may be a variety (though not necessarily an infinite variety) of "authentic" teachings, even though they may disagree and even contradict one another on certain key points?

We have a much easier time proving the historicity of Mahaprabhu than Christians have proving the historicity and activities of Jesus. Yet even in our tradition, there are some points of controversy regarding Mahaprabhu's history (e.g. His disappearance) and relation to His devotees (e.g. the acceptability of the Gauranga-nagari perspective).

If we try to rely on history to find the "one true Caitanya Vaishnavism," exclusive of all others (i.e. "which side of the schism(s) should I be on?"), aren't we faced with our own set of problems equally severe as what the Christians face? Yes, we can "prove" Mahaprabhu's advent from scripture, but isn't even this by definition somewhat subjective, as He is a "hidden avatara" and not supposed to be foretold in the usual manner? For that matter, once one ventures into the realm of shastra-as-clear-predictor-of-Mahaprabhu, doesn't one have to face other problematic questions about shastra itself (such as the age of the Bhagavatam, the apparent divergences between known archaeology, astronomy, and statements in scripture, etc.)?

Ultimately, although there must be a historical truth that could be found, isn't our tradition fundamentally one that makes an "aesthetic" rather than a "historical" argument for its doctrine and practice? Rather than taking an almost-Christian approach of saying "Mahaprabhu's history, as predicted in shastra and as lived during His pastimes on earth" is what validates our doctrine, don't we almost say the reverse -- that the doctrine of rasa requires us to accept Mahaprabhu's life and precepts as supremely Divine? If so, shouldn't there be room to be accepting of a fairly wide variety of differing expressions of doctrine and practice, as would befit differing eternal relationships with Divinity, even though as sadhakas we must each hold fast to just one of those expressions as our own?

Obviously, to be a Caitanya Vaishnava, one must accept Mahaprabhu's worldview, and the literature of the Goswamis et al., as objectively true. Yet is that truth necessarily a historical truth, or is it a deeper aesthetic truth? Can I accept the Fifth Canto as "objectively true" without accepting it as "an astronomical primer"?

If not, won't Caitanya Vaishnavism by definition remain a "medieval" faith, stuck in the past like some schools of Shi'ite Islam, as we struggle to come up with ways to "fit" the Fifth Canto cosmology (and shastra-driven assumptions about archaeology, linguistics, etc.) within modern science or else to deprecate modern science?

But if it is possible to hold to the absolute aesthetic truth of our tradition even while acknowledging that some details are "true" without being "historical" or "scientific," then doesn't this open the door to abuses by innovators who decide to change fundamental traditions, or to write their own scriptures? Note that this line of argument would tend to let Bhaktivinode "off the hook" for his allegedly "fabricated" documents, which would conceptually be not much different from a 7th century AD author "backdating" his recension of the Bhagavatam.

I'm rambling a bit, so I'll bring this to a close. But I guess I'm wondering just how broad our differences can be, without resulting in schism, if we take a properly broad view of the Caitanya Vaishnava tradition?

Our tradition makes a rather audacious assertion -- that the ultimate Form of Divinity came among us just 500 years ago, in a way that He had not done for millions upon millions of years, and in a way not fully anticipated by the shastras that were in circulation at His advent. If we are too narrow in our understanding, don't we risk looking about as silly as any number of the sects today who have a living "God-man" or "God-woman" as their "Supreme-Divinity-Living-On-Earth-Now-In-Contradiction-To-Shastra"? Yet if we are too broad, how do we avoid a simple-minded "It's all one, and it's just a question of your personal taste and the relationship God intends for you to have with Him" approach? Does the acintya-bhedabheda philosophy allow for multiple valid strands of Caitanya Vaishnavism, and perhaps even for open and harmonious relations with the followers of Vallabha, Shakaracharya, Kabir, etc. etc.? Or once we think we have found "the right" parivara, must we accept the notion that "my parivara is the only right one, and all you other guys are somehow misled, less advanced, or just not as fortunate as I am?"

I hope the above ramblings don't cause you all to think of me either as a heretic or as an idiot -- I'm simply trying to wrap my limited mind around some pretty big questions, and I'll look forward to whatever comments or corrections the devotees here may offer.

Thanks for your contribution here, Vamsiji, but I would question this.

Before Sri Bhaktisiddhanta, no Gaudiya would confront a non-Bengali with this claim. Even Bhaktisiddhanta was really just matching the fervour of the followers of Ramakrishna, who made a claim of avatarhood for him, I believe. And read how circumspect Bhaktisiddhanta's claims are! One would hardly understand them without background knowledge. In fact it is only the International Society... which makes bold audacious claims never heard before in the history of Gaudiyaism, at least not publically. Where did this style come from?

Claims of Avatarhood are quite common in Bengal as all here surely know. They are not singular. It is not at all audacious, in fact it is rather standard, in context. But when we take this belief, this culture, out of its context, that's when we get all sorts of 'fireworks'.

Has anyone read accounts of Sri Chaitanya published by the Ramakrishna Mission, or the Divine Life Society of Swamiji Shivananda? They are very positive accounts. It strikes me that if we had heard of Mahaprabhu from these sources we might still have found our seperate ways to Braj to inquire further, but we would not be having this particular discussion about exclusive sectarian claims. The notion would not have entered our heads!

We need to re-think. In a sense, I am saying that we have inherited a crock, a mixed and confused jumble of ideas, from the groups who first told us about Mahaprabhu. Some self-Deprogramming is necessary! For one thing, westerners have a Messiah complex. They are searching for The One! Indeed they may yearn to be 'recognised' as The One themselves (ie a Super Guru) just like Keanu Reaves! Bhaktivinoda meant well, but misled us somewhat with his talk of 'our Eastern Messiah', but note that even this is a pluralistic notion. 'Our Messiah', 'Your Messiah'...India is the land of polytheistic messiahs, and multiple 'Truths'. In the west, rival messiahs compete for the top position, rival Truths must fight till only One is left!

If I told Panditji that I was going to the other Hindus and demanding that they worship Mahaprabhu, the One True God, he would initially admire the audacity of this, as he does Iskcon, for who is not happy to see their Istadeva praised so highly? But I suspect that he would then urge me not to do it, because it would alienate people, and actually bring infamy upon Mahaprabhu. It is not the traditional way.

Traditional preaching in Bengal usually consists of persuading those born in Vaishnava families to eschew materialism and take up religion. That is why the Islamic leaders of Bangladesh do not mind the Orthodox Vaishnav preachers even now, while they certainly would object if there was conversion across communities. There are in fact millions of Bengalis and Manipuris whose families are traditionally GV in some form. So preaching to these people is a never ending task, but closer to a shepherd tending the flock.

Note well that the only Indian Gaudiya who presently is known for the highly argumentative assertive style of 'preaching' is not a Bengali

Rather he is Sri Bhaktivedanta Narayan, from a Bihari Brahmin background.

***

A final assertion, Mahaprabhu's Godhood was never the central issue. Instead the bliss one experiences as His follower is meant to be the decider, and if you don't feel it, maybe it's not for you!

How do we avoid this? Actually, we don't! Nothing is more foreign to Indic tradition than to claim 'No-one comes to God except thru our Guru/Lineage...'

It depends. It depends both on the parivara and on the individual. Some parivaras do claim for being the one and only. While others don't, their fanatic followers may nevertheless claim so. I do not personally endorse such views.



Would you mind giving an example of a contradiction between an "objective" and a historical truth to help us better grasp the point you are making?

Regarding my clumsy attempt to distinguish between scientific and aesthetic truths, let's start with an old favorite: the Fifth Canto of the Bhagavatam, with its descriptions of hellish planets and its astronomical observations that seem to diverge from plainly observable measurements.

It seems to me that as a devotee I can take basically one of three positions, when physical evidence (e.g. astronomical measurements) and the Bhagavatam seem to disagree:

1) Trust that the Bhagavatam is right and my senses are wrong, and that I must reject any attempt to allegorize the Bhagavatam or reject portions of the text. If there appears to be a conflict between scientific observations and scriptural assertions, I must assume that there could be a way to view the Bhagavatam as scientifically correct if my senses were somehow purified. One modern devotee-scientist has done some rather impressive work that is more or less based on this premise.

2) Take the liberty to allegorize portions of the text, or suggest that some of its contents are undesirable interpolations or otherwise not pertaining to the eternal truths of the text. In effect, Ananda Tirtha apparently did this with portions of the Tenth Canto that he couldn't reconcile with his own understanding, just as Bhaktivinode appears to have done with portions of the Fifth Canto describing the hellish planets. Were they both wrong to do this? Was one right and one wrong?

3) Accept that while I cannot deny the plain evidence of my physical senses as relevant for my life in this world, I cannot "pick and choose" which portions of the Bhagavatam to accept or to treat as allegory. I must understand that the truth of the Bhagavatam is absolute, but that this truth resides in the aesthetic realm, rather than in the "Bhagavatam-as-substitute-for-astronomy-textbook" realm. In other words, even if it can be proven "wrong" in some aspect, it is still "right."

Perhaps as a parallel, I could point to how the gopis view the Divine Couple in Goloka Vrindavana. They do not see their beloved as the "Supreme Personality of Godhead" or even as God at all. They engage in demigod worship rather than worshipping God in their midst. Thus, the world they perceive is, in one sense, objectively "false" from an impartial scriptural perspective. But that "falseness" is in fact the working of yogamaya, and is actually the highest and most intimate truth. If you told one of the gopis that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, or caused her to view the Universal Form, she would be confused, hurt, or just non-comprehending of what she saw. Mother Yasoda certainly didn't see her son as some awe-inspiring Universal Form.

I thus wonder whether it is as silly to "force" the Bhagavatam to be a "science textbook" or even a "comprehensive guide to history and archaeology" as it would be to force one of the gopis to accept that her beloved cowherd boy is somehow associated with the almost-unfathomable Universal Form?

In fact, if we try to force the Bhagavatam to conform to our understanding of science, or try to force science to conform to our understanding of the Bhagavatam, aren't we forgetting one vital detail? We are several thousand years into Kali-yuga, and much of what we take for granted as "science" is almost certainly wrong, or at best provisional based on our limited and incomplete understandings. If we try to take the Bhagavatam as a "science book" or a "history book" aren't we almost guaranteed to misinterpret it, just as we are now surely misinterpreting science and history overall?

Aren't we on safer ground simply "letting the Bhagavatam be the Bhagavatam" -- an aid to our bhajan, and a text that helps us cultivate the sentiments of a resident of Vraja? Perhaps the Bhagavatam is "always literally true" for us in the same way that the statement "Krishna is my beloved; he's not some awe-inspiring Universal Form" would be true when spoken by a gopi, even though a jnani could "prove" her wrong.

Does that help you make sense of my point regarding aesthetic truths vs. scientific truths? If we see the Bhagavatam this way (and by extension, the writings of Mahaprabhu's associates and followers), perhaps there is room for us to get past false dichotomies of "right vs. wrong" and honor another devotee's doctrine and practice as "right for him, even if it's not right for me" as long as it can be accommodated broadly within our own understanding. With such an understanding, we would have fairly few differences that were truly worthy of schism.

Anangaji,

Please accept my apologies. I was trying to explore the "on topic" question, "Will a newcomer necessarily have to find himself a place on one side or the other of various schisms, or is there some overarching perspective that can help him keep a 'big picture' perspective that may not always be available to a devotee who has grown up among those schisms?"

Since adiyen and Madhava disagree about whether there even IS exclusivist pespective among the "orthodox" parivaras, I think there was some merit in my inquiry, as it may be that some groups disagree fundamentally on what constitutes schism, and whether "the other guy" is schismatic. I thought this would be a helpful topic for newcomers hoping to avoid schism wherever possible, and hoping to understand it better when inevitable.

I'm sorry if you found that to be "off topic." Anyway, answering Madhava's question required a further digression that plainly WAS "off topic." Sorry about that.

Anyway, I had no intention of "hijacking" your thread, and after this note of apology I will bow out. Sorry for the intrusion; I'll sit back now and hope that your topic will henceforward take a course more like what you originally intended. It should be interesting to read.