Guided Evolution in Gaudiya Vaishnavism - Future-proofing the tradition

Sri Dasanudasji has done it again! Making a point such as this just when I am ruminating over the issue myself.

I was thinking about how when a religious tradition is newly-formulated, what common measures are implemented in order to ensure that the tradition's theory and/or practice does not deviate or otherwise stray awa from the original intentions of the tradition's founder? This is, of course, not just applicable to Gaudiya Vaishnavism but to other movements and religions too. Minaketana Ramdasji has previously touched on this topic in the Schisms in Caitanyite Religion thread, but in light of Dasanudasji's statement above I got to wondering about the elasticity of developmental freedom that is available within specific traditions.

Keeping in mind the current topics elsewhere referring to the sakhi-bhekhi traditions as well as remembering the various Gaura-nagari topics we have discussed in the past (to name just two cases in point), one overwhelming issue that comes true is the relative doctrinal and philosophical unease that is felt by members who feel representative of the "true" concept. In other words, when pains are taken to establish that Mahaprabhu's sole mission on this earth was to freely give the rarest and most precious and previously-unattainable gift of manjari-bhava and that this is the undisputable theological conclusion of Mahaprabhu's philosophy, how can representatives of such a view properly evaluate the differences from the norm and relate with them?

While it is certainly true that different types of sadhakas can relate to Mahaprabhu and worship Him in different ways that are mututally exclusive of each other, what happens to the concept of unity and establishing a single party line to represent the tradition as a whole? We can talk forever about plurality and "different flowers in the garden", and we can also say "this has happened through the will of Mahaprabhu", but this sort of view is not a help in maintaining a unified vision. Especially in our Gaudiya tradition where we have views on some topics that are so markedly different from each other that there is no hope of them ever being reconciled, it may sometimes be the case that those who feel a part of the "true" tradition label the others as "deviants" or "fringies" and so on.

Regardless of whether such differences are actually deviations or not, there is no denying the developments that happened in order for those views to develop. So I am just interested in what measures are/can be taken and implemented in a fledgling tradition so that the tradition is "future-proofed" and developments off the beaten track do not take place? Are religious traditions hard-wired to evolve and develop in different directions, or can growth of the tradition be guided along a singular path and protected from straying?

In regards to Gaudiya Vaishnavism. What does everyone else think?

Well, in my rather uneducated opinion, I would assume much of this comes with the recognition of the 'founding fathers' of any religion. Once certain figures and their writings/commentaries are taken as 'speaking for the religion', there is then a basis on which to judge any future deviations - do they contradict writing X? Are they against what Sir Y said?

I think you would find that most major religions, those that move beyond charasmatic/cultic worship, go through some kind of refining procedure where orthodoxy is defined - what and who is accepted in the religion and what and who is rejected. Sometimes this results in a censure of the now unorthodox beliefs, and sometimes a schism. Christianity has examples of both; the 1st Council of Nicea rid the world of the 'heretics', defining the catholic view on Godhead, and the Diet of Worms defined the Church's response to Luther, and schismed the movement.

Jagat addresses the GV version of this process in his Keeping Faith with Kheturi article.

I would say this process is crucial in evolving a religion. The process indicates that the religion has gained enough followers such that a definition of orthodoxy is now required - a kind of critical mass of religious ideas has been reached, and a normalization must now take place. It must be a rather rough process on those that now find their cherished beliefs unorthodox, but it pushes a religion to recognize that it needs to clearly define its core beliefs or to hopelessly splinter.

I think you've made some great points there, Dharmacakraji. The refining phase that occurs after a founder's demise is indeed a common occurrence. Your last sentence exactly reflects my dilemma in the light of defining what is and what is not "orthodox" and then how to relate to the "fringies".

It seems that when such councils are held to discuss doctrinal matters, is there a possibility of it being a completely political event no matter how well-intentioned it is? In our own Gaudiya Vaishnavism, there appears to have been at least three of these councils that I know of. When a summit of the "top acharyas" of the time meet to discuss docrinal matters, it usually happens to avert or deal with a crisis. And the conclusions of these council are upheld by the vast majority of followers and obeyed.

Considering the heavyweight reliance on scripture that is characteristic of our Vedic inheritance, one would think that the opposition would accept the formulated and "shastrically correct" conclusions and return to the path of orthodoxy. Schisms appear to occur when they refuse to do so and continue with their ideas.

Although I am speaking as generally as possible, I think this is applicable to our Gaudiya tradition also. It's beginning to seem very much that religious traditions as a whole need to evolve to meet with new challenges that are brought up with the passag of time, and councils are a necessary measure to find a balance between the tradition's staying true to it's roots and the meeting of such challenges.

After blogging about it, I realised that I didn't make myself very clear. While we may accept that an evolving traditon may splinter according to circumstances, this doesn't address the nature of a defined movement or theology itself. Is it that a movement splinters because it is hard-wired to do so, is the doctrinal foundation not strong enough to prevent splintering from occurring in the first place?

When you say splinter, do you mean under a single monolithic umbrella, or that a religion contains just a single institution?

I would argue that any large scale religion has to contain various sects of one type or another. The Catholic Church contains a myriad of different groups, all focusing on different things in the canon. This allows for flexibility, as not everyone that is attracted to catholicism is neccessarily attracted to the Trappist llifestyle. There are charity arms, monastic arms and so on to the Church, all attracting different kinds of people. Still, they all acknowledge certain authorities and doctrines in common. Interestingly, each group can have its own teachings and rules of conduct without much conflict with the others.

Much of this diversity no doubt comes from the political and geographical distance covered by those joining the Church. And even the Church has to issue 'correctional' orders every now and then, ala 'Vatican II', which realign everyone to the same page.

How does this relate to GV? Well, its hard to imagine an institution that could govern all GV adherents. I woud say the basic idea of guru rather works against this. Any GV group that has attempted this approach has met with little success in maintaining the bureaucracy. When a devotee come into conflict with the bureaucratic structure and their guru, its natural to follow the guru. And the 'institution' is diminished every time this happens.

But GV adherents follow the teachings of Rupa Goswami and the other archaryas, and have their own guru as the 'living representative', some sense of uniformity is maintained - a guru may splinter off but be rejected by the bulk of GV adherents. Unfortunately, one consequence is that minor doctrinal issues between GV groups can often become gaps that can not be bridged.

Just my thoughts...

Thanks again for some great points!

The above para made me think more along those lines.. I was not thinking of an "institution" to control Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but was referring more to a mutually-accepted philosophical institution if you will. As you just said, GV adherents follow the the teachings of the Gosvamis; if that is so then why do splinters occur?

Another thoughtful point was about a splintering guru - who is to say that the guru is a splinter and/or is presenting a splintered philosophy? I've heard it said many a time on this forum how, when trying to understand the basics (and further stages) of raganuga-bhakti, we do not need to go beyond the teachings of the Gosvamis, Sri Narottama and Sri Cakravartipada. Obviously no one is going to argue against the authority of these eminent acharyas, but I am wondering why it is so that acharyas after Sri Cakravartipada are not mutually-accepted by most schools of GV? It seems that with the passage of time, so much innocent division has occurred and people seem to be reluctant to change? In other words, the above-mentioned Acharyas are mutually-accepted by all or most schools, but why are later Acharyas not extended the same courtesy despite their teachings being perfectly in tune with the previous ones?

What if a grand Acharya of the caliber of a Sri Narottama and a Sri Visvanatha were to manifest today, isn't it saddening to think that his authority would be relevant and applicable only to a small band of disciples rather than a richly-deserved universal respect and admiration? What factors come into play when faced with a situation such as this? How and why has the tradition evolved to this stage where a situation like this arises in the first place?

Gaudiya Vaishnavism is still a very young tradition.

A splinter group does not mean the rejection of basic philosophical contours. It more than of ten occurs because of difference in interpretation or perhaps difference in rasic expression or bhakti typology.