On an evolving tradition - Preserving the essentials - Split from the Sane Vaishnavism topic

Stagnation is the number one enemy of any tradition. That Caitanyaism will undergo some sort of transformation is inevitable. That will happen because its adherents will cause it to happen to keep it alive and thriving. The transformative components that are viable will take hold because they will provide adaptability. Those that are not will not take hold.

In the end it is the people involved that will define the outcome.

Yes indeed, and I don't think that's under debate. However the eternal debate is over what can and what cannot change.

Radhe Radhe!

Just a quick thought… I would say the question is really divided into two areas:

1. Where does one draw the line between essential and non-essential in respects to scripture? One cannot simply dismiss what they consider peripheral aspects of sastra because it may seem unconnected to the very essence. Just as with cooking: a spice may be seen to be of an almost inconsequential amount but without it the entire flavor of the dish is lost or ruined. If one simply terms anything they lack faith in as inconsequential then it would seem that they wouldn’t have Gaudiya Vaisnavism rather a smattering of beliefs derived from Gaudiya influence.

So understanding what is the defining point between mere words or poetic license and what is an integral ingredient to the very sum and substance of our theology shouldn’t be approached in a dismissive manner. Who or what is guiding one in making such distinctions is a critical factor? If it isn’t defined and given by the Guru and/or the Sadhus then it seems like a disastrous direction.

2. What I see as almost the more critical aspect is how one approaches applying what they consider “sane” to the faith of others. Now if one is given direction by Guru and/or Sadhus which is firmly within the boundaries of the teaching given by the Gaudiya Acaryas then one has reason to feel such confidence in how they internally understand the faith of others. However without such guidance one is not only risking offense to Guru and our Acaryas by dismissing something as inconsequential without proper guidance but one would also risk making offenses to others in deeming their faith to be a fault. This would be compounded by making public statements about where others faith lies.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

Essential aspects, or aspects containing essence, sometimes get trivialized due to an individual's likes and dislikes. That's one of the major problems we face with attempts to revise the tradition.

And yes, sometimes there's an urge out there to change things before having even considered whether they need to be changed to begin with. Change is in vogue.

sAdhu-margAnugamanaH - Following the path of the earlier saints. One of the first aspects of devotional practice that should be paid particular attention to especially in the beginning of practice. It doesn't mean walking like them, and it doesn't mean sneezing your nose like them, but it does mean paying attention to the same ideals in behavior and practice.

How about starting by outlining the aspects that we might really need to change, instead of thinking about all the things we could change.

Well spoken Rasaraja. I am glad that there are (still) devotees here who realise the absolute and timeless nature of shastra, guru and sadhu's teaching.

This is one topic I wanted to bring up. Sadhus - how do we define the sadhu here? A practitioner with some controversial views is the sadhu of one, and may even be the guru of someone. Yes, and through the Gaudiya-tradition, there are sadhus with controversial views, though not as many whose controversies are related to modernizing and confronting Western influences.

Radhe Radhe!

I agree. I used Sadhu for the lack of a better word. All in all I was thinking in terms of how one approaches such issues when ones Guru has departed. It may be by seeking answers from a senior and respected disciple of ones Guru or someone whose mood and approach is similar to ones Guru. The essence of where I am going is that I would imagine any such departure would come with the advice and directions of ones Guru or a senior Vaisnava who is in line with the teachings of ones Guru verse simply assuming that one has embodied the Guru's teachings to such an extent that they need not consult with anyone.

Rasaraja dasa

I think we all (at least those who have studied for some time and have had the affiliations with traditional Caitanyaite lineages) have a good grasp of what is essential when it comes to practices. Some of the doctrinal issues are what tend to get debated from time to time, moreso than those of a practical nature. For example, whether or not one accepts that astrology is a real science may have little bearing upon their daily chanting and meditation. It could, however, influence their view of the operation of karma in the universe. If the nava-graha are not the agents of karma, then what are those agents? If it is not a real science, then does one really need precise calculations to determine what days of any given month one should observe ekadashi/mahadvadashi vratas? If it is not a real science, then is it absolutely necessary to bury the nine gemstones under the cornerstone of a new temple and to put them under the arcana-vigraha to be installed in that new temple? Would some braj-raj suffice in its place?

I suppose one can take the example of the late great Pope John Paul II. He presided over the controversial Vatican II council that "modernised" the Church and some of its practices, bureaucracy etc, yet the Pope himself did not budge an inch from his position on ethical issues such as abortion, homosexuality, contraception, and so on.

This leads me to think; what precisely are we discussing here when we speak of "modernising" or adapting the GauDIya tradition? It is not theological concepts as they are more or less set in stone. It is, rather, ethical and moral issues that are subject to changing attitudes over the course of time. How bhaktas need to deal with such ever-changing moral attitudes is something that needs to be considered as and when such issues arise. I suppose that if you can look your Thakur in the eye and sleep soundly at night, you're doing fine?

Just a point, I believe it was Pope John XXII that opened the council, and Pope Paul VI that closed it (1962 - 1965). I'm actually unsure how comfortable Pope John Paul II was with Vatican II.

That small triviality out of the way, I wonder if anyone can put forth how previous Acaryas actually have changed the tradition? Some solid examples of gurus that have attempted to make changes, and the conditions around these changes? Were the changes simply to bring (external) practice inline with social norms? Its a bit of a 'process' methodology, but examining past examples may lay bare at least what is open to change.

Given that, it seems to me that 'change' is just the word we give when we are in the midst of it all. With some temporal perspective, we may call them 'progressions'.