Critique of the tradition / Cultural catharsis -

The grand majority of people who say bad things against others are quite sincere and quite misinformed. Most rank-and-file ISKCON/GM wallas quite sincerely believe their version of the Gaudiya history and regard their branch as the savior of the lost tradition.

Without wanting to dig into this too deeply, the propaganda of course does not find its origin in the innocent/ignorant rank-and-file, but in its leaders/founders. It has been my longstanding conviction that their anti raganuga propaganda is based on a fear that they will lose their active preachers, that will then become some sort of inactive, inner practitioner, "unproductive" to their organisations.

I started putting a reply together on another thread but perhaps it's now more fitting here. The thoughts are not really very well developed, but here goes:

I'm not a raganuga practitioner but the vehemance of the attacks against this line of sadhana intrigues me. It seems that if lila-smaranam and even manasa-seva (if only in the form of puja, e.g. when travelling) are accepted by the GM and ISKCON, what are the specific objections to raganuga practice? Contact with Krishna in his name, form, or pastimes purifies and is ultimate reality and it seems the only practical objection to engaging in any of those activities is if it has a negative effect on the practitioner--the lack of qualification argument.

And for that matter, if there is a wholesale objection to coming in contact with Krishna's pastimes due to the possibility of taking him as mundane, why isn't the maha-mantra or any song or verse mentioning Radha Krishna or arcana treated the same way? Implicit in that limit is a expectation/requirement that you must see the Name or Deity as different from Radha-Krishna.

My gut feeling (yeah, as if the gut is a good place for insights in a discussion with Vaisnavas) is that the strong words against raganuga practice are an attempt at avoiding dilution and familiarity, and especially perversion, viz the sahijiyas. They were made in response to a social situation, at a point in time, and do highlight a real danger...but have probably been used out of context since.

I'm probably trying too hard at a reconcilliatory take on the situatation but thought I'd put it out here anyway. (I'm also new here so obviously need to spend some time reading over the past posts in these topics.)

The problem with the theory of "response to contemporary social situation" is that the so-called sahajiya, such as Baul and the rest, had nothing to do with the tradition of bhajananandis in Vraja. It is like starting a campaign against the Latter-day Saints folks and going to Jerusalem to refute the pharisees for being Mormons.

Addressing the "propaganda" is not an easy task, given the fact that nobody seems to be quite certain about the exact arguments used for the propaganda. The principle is to shout like hell, but this shrilling scream in the wilderness seems to have no clearly defined content at all!

I'd love to see a point-by-point "what's the problem" document from some GM/ISKCON pundit, which would in a clear language enlist all the points making us so bad, sahajiya, agent of kali, malevolent gremlin and what not. Up to date I haven't seen one. The "Boycott the..." by Narayan Maharaj was a poor excuse for an attempt for refuting something, given that it consisted mainly of refuting positions which were misinformed to begin with.

I truly hope one day some eminent teacher will clarify this point. Yes, shouting and blaspheming each other leads to nowhere, both parties should present arguments based on the statements Vaishnava authorities. I hope someone will finally present some facts opposed to boring phrases like "bogus sahajiya babajis" or "envious Iskcon/GM" that we can see when reading "debates" between the two parties. What really made me confused is that in one article written by some GM teacher, in the same article I read two seemingly contradictory statements:

1. Siddha pranali practice is all concoction, none of the Goswamis ever gave this sadhana.
2. Siddha pranali is there in GM, BUT it is given only to highly advanced devotees, when their guru thinks they are mature enough to get it.

Now what?

That's exactly the problem you've got there, their critique is often self-contradictory. "Where this babaji idea comes from, all bogus." Still they have their Gaura Kisora Das Babaji and Jagannatha Das Babaji, and many of them are giving babaji to others. "Bogus siddha pranali, nowhere in Gosvami writings." Still some of them speak about something equivalent, giving it a different name such as "siksa in bhajan-pranali" or whatever. "Eminent personalities do not need introduction through parampara," they boast, yet they attack anyone who dares to question the parampara of their eminent personality.

When all of that is said, all they have left is declaring that we are invaders from hell because some of us think that Prabodhananda and Prakasananda were the same person.

Hmmm... Yesterday I was linked to this site from one of the Russian tantra forums as to "sahadjiya and related doctrines" site. Naturally, I answered, that this site reflects the original doctrine of Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu, through the lineage of six Gosvami and other His disciples... But the bare fact, that it has such reputation even among dissimilar lines, shows the power of ISKCON/GM influence at western countries.

Maybe, it'd be a good thing to make some statements about this confusion at the site and forum in pinned topic. Do you remember one of my first questions here about 'Vivarta-vilasa'?:-) I knew definitely, that it's a sahajiya work, and wanted to know your attitude to it, exactly to determine how close are people here to sahajiya...:-)

Yes, exaggeration and over-compensation is a human trait, e.g. post 9-11 USA, McCarthyism, etc. Of course, you're not meant to see the guru or param-guru as human! At the moment I'm reading Advaitadasji's translation 'Sri Suka Katha' and the fundamental nature of the guru-disciple relationship, with its inherent submission and acceptance is...I hate to say it...unnerving. Acceptance of the guru's teachings is the foundation of bhakti, so it is understandable that anyone in the GM/ISKCON would have trouble examining this dilemma objectively. How do you do it without contravening the foundational principle of guru padasraya? Those who by force of their own nature--you value "truth" over guru--or by force of circumstance--you are somehow outside mainstream GM/ISKCON anyway--venture into the realm of eclecticism, the opposite (?) of guru padasraya. That eclectic acceptance of various truths or practices may by snythetic in nature--you adopt a positive mood toward disparate points of view--or it may be more scarred, or even scared. Then the option seems to be donning a scholastic hat, distancing yourself from the need to make a positive judgement on any particular point, and also avoiding the issue of accepting any one person or branch as an absolute authority. Something that doesn't seem to be supported in Vaisnava canon.

Phew. Catharsis.

Catharsis indeed, Brajaji!

In Iskcon in 1982, I feel I was fortunate to meet and marry a Hindu. Immediately we were alone she said to me, 'These westerners are too extreme, too obsessive, Indians don't do this'. In our marriage we followed our own rules, not the Temple President's. The dichotomy led me eventually to leave Iskcon, on a long search for authenticity. Since then I have tried to comprehend this. How to understand a living breathing culture mostly through its literature? What effect do your own, our your culture's assumptions have on your ability to understand another culture?

'Guru-padasraya': many Indians, when asked why westerners were abused by Indian gurus (eg Muktananda), have said, 'When a guru tells you something, you take it at a practical level, to the extent you are able.' Or even 'We all say "Yes, guruji" in his presence, and then go away and do what we like'. (The abusive 'Sai Baba' cult seem to contradict this claim).

One thing with westerners is that they want to be 'better' than Hindus. But do they even understand what that 'better' is? Are the texts the true authorities? This is actually a profound issue.

I think Indians instinctively follow this 'eclectic' path you are searching for, but what if one does not have this instinct? (Are we doomed to be always outsiders? Many Hindus believe we will have to take a Hindu birth to acquire these instincts!)

Now can I say that following my wife's way, we stuck to the path on our own for 2 decades, but we changed and adapted. At first she was not for strictness (She introduced me to tea drinking and cooking with garlic, among other things). Now she is more strict than most devotees (She can chant 64 rounds most days!). Now as we get older, when we get closer to death, greater surrender is appropriate. When we were young it was unpleasant, forced. many young devotees could not maintain. Now the life/death issue is becoming clear. So it is time to get serious, in the normal course of the life cycle. Of course the fanatics scorn this utilitarianism, but in the long term I find it is more effective, because it is not forced.

I now have an authentic traditional Gaudiya Guru, who I love more than anyone. My wife has just taken diksha also from him, and feels the same. But some instructions he gives me, I find I cannot follow. For example he wrote a small note and gave it to me, this is usually very special, a patra. But it says that I must always wash with mud, 27 times according to a precise formula (front so many, back so many, left hand, right hand..., I heard all this in Mayapur 20 years ago). It is impossible. I shower with soap.

But I am a westerner. Shouldn't I just follow everything he says, to the absolute letter, for fear of going astray? Otherwise what resources do I have for understanding this in context, as an Indian would? Well I can consult with my wife, who has become very close to my Guru, but is also very close to the Braj culture because her ancestors were from there. So I am lucky.

How does a westerner without my resources cope? I have no idea. The Guru may say something, a senior disciple may say something else (as we recently found on another thread).

Fortunately we do have a large diverse literature... Thoughts anyone?

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Adiyen. I've often played the "reductionist Westerner" card, just never thought to apply it to myself.

I once started writing a piece on Srila Prabhupada's statement that he wanted simply to be known as someone who transplanted Tulasi from the East to the West. Taking his statement out of context, I took the analogy in another way (simulataneously fulfilling my own position as a complex Westerner). In many temples I've visited in several different countries, Tulasi requires a greenhouse, heating, sprays or soaps for countering mites, someone collecting money to pay for the heat, another person for maintaining her... Transplanting and translating is no easy task.

As for the difference in approach viz. Hindus: I recall reading--I think in the Lonely Planet Guide--how if you are looking for directions in India you must not ask "Is is this way?" pointing in the direction you are heading, but instead, "Which way is ...?" The reasoning being that a person may not want to disappoint you so will reply in the affirmative, seeing as you have already been walking that way. Or, in a similar vein, I knew someone who was quite involved in the Narayana Maharaja "controversy" in ISKCON. Having lived in India, he could understand Narayana Maharaja's denial that he was reinitiating people already initiated in ISKCON. There was a very flexible or fluid standard to "truth"--and to initiation.

Having said all that, there are areas where Hindus are fixed and literal where Westerners are not, e.g. divorce, appropriate work/casteism. To generalize, they don't seem eclectic in matters of society, only in religion. Generalizations aside, your statement:



raises an interesting issue. While the literature is diverse, there seems to be very little that deals with some of issues that we are discussing or which are relevant to the challenges the "modern" and/or Western Vaisnava faces. For instance, when ISKCON's guru system started crumbling, quotes from Narahari Sarkara were resurrected. The topic of fallen gurus is obscure in our literature but common in our lives. For that matter, there also seems to be very little that pertains directly to the sadhaka's battle, the "Pilgrim's Progress". The only concrete delineation (whoops, there's me, the Westerner, again) that I know of is Madhurya Kadambini. Apart from that, the general approach seems to be, "There's kama-krodha-lobhadi, give them up by worshipping Govinda." The prescription is simple but our lives/mentalities are not. Thus how can a Westerner be faulted for taking a simplistic or reductionist approach? Sans the culture you speak of, it is to be expected. (And I dare say, it has played a part in some of the abomination that has taken place over the years, e.g. how may gurukula teachers thought that by making a child attend mangal arati, chant the maha-mantra, avoid "bad" activities, etc. the desired effect, Krishna consciousness, would occur?)

Serendipitously I was meditating on the topic of morality recently, esp. in light of neo-Vaisnavism--I'll call it that rather than "Western" or ISKCON/GM, because there are so many sub-sects--and at the same time a Vaisnava friend was corresponding with a friend of his who is a priest. The priest, who is favorable, commented on the apparent lack of morality in our modern Vaisnava literature. (He wasn't referring to the activities of Krishna but the absence of a teachings that establish the means by which a devotee makes decisions.) I'll have to get back to this later, if anyone is interested, but I think it is relevant. I'm short-circuiting myself here with too many ideas flowing and am supposed to be doing something else. I shouldn't have started this reply but did want to let you know that I appreciated your feedback.

Can't stop! One final, related digression: I recently obtained a copy of Mahanamabrata Brahmacari's 'Vaisnava Vedanta' and am really enjoying its readability and philosophical distillation. He begins by saying that anubhava, experience, is the basis of Vedanta. I have only read a few pages but this seems like a great approach: affirming the identity, the soulfulness, the Godliness of the jiva as the means of entering an introspective and religious life, rather than the world of actions and results.

There are some profound insights in all this, Braja.

What the priest was really getting at is that for Hindus there is no single moral teaching. Rather each social group has its Dharma. Gaudiya Vaishnavism assumes this, as did Bhaktivinoda, so it offers little moral teaching. This was the insight with which SK De concludes his (in)famous survey of historical Gaidiyaism. In this, De was just echoing the British critics of is time.

We westerners do look for things like Dark Night of the Soul- descriptions of the aspirant's struggle, and concrete explicit moral guidance which applies to our particular experiences, which unfortunately (or otherwise?) are very different from those of the Indian founders of the religion.

And this has led us, in our cultural vacuum in the past, to set extreme 'standards' which few can follow, with none of the moderating and mediating factors developed over the eons by a traditional society.

I find the only historical parallel for this is Paul (in the bible) attempting to plant a Judaic religion amongst Gentiles. As, we know, Paul was successful, it would appear largely because he was such an extraordinary personality. Just read his letters to see the workings of his extraordinary mind- many say Paul actually is the founder of christianity.

Sri Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada had Paul-like qualities. He was also an extraordinary personality. Yet for some of us the discrepancies between what he taught and what the Gosvamis and Acharyas of Gaudiyaism taught have become irreconcilable, and we have chosen to place our faith in the Tradition itself. I guess this is like christians converting to traditional judaism. Even in that example, there is so much in judaism which only a born jew can understand, it is so much a response to historical contingencies, the flight from Egypt, the Holocaust, etc...

Quite right, Brajamohan, I also experienced this when I stepped over from the 'strict' Iskcon to the 'laxe' Hindus (no offence meant to my Gurubrothers and sisters - I do understand it now). When Vishnujan Swami of Iskcon asked his Guru, after reading the Choto Haridas drama, if a sannyasi who feels sex urge should commit suicide, Swamiji said 'Yes'. When later his disciples told Swamiji that Vishnujan Swami had disappeared (almost certainly having committed suicide, because in all these 27 years he never showed up anywhere) Swamiji was very upset and said: "Why did he do that?" It is typically Western - they take the Guru's order very seriously, in Vishnujan Swami's case a bit too seriously.

Excellent example!

***
BTW, for those readers who may be confused, I am Brajamohan Das, but I am not 'Braja' above.

When I stayed for a few weeks at Baba's temple in Nabadwip (Radha-Vallabhajiu), I noticed that attendance of mangal-arotik (or any other arotiks for that matter) was not mandatory. Someone was always attending, but it varied from just a handful to a huge crowd, depending on the time and day of the week and people's work schedules. One morning my alarm clock did not go off and I was awakened by the singing of the mangal-arotik songs. I thought that people would either get on my case or think that I was being offensive for not showing up on time, since I was staying in a little kutir just next to the temple, but it was really a non-event. Then I was told how some devotees had complained to Baba that some disciples were smoking tobacco. Baba asked, "In the temple?" Someone replied, "No Baba, outside in the street next to the temple.' Baba then said, "Oh, that is OK. As long as they are not smoking in the temple."

Right, you're the bewilder of Braja. Or should that be 'Braja', as if my existence was limited to quotations?