Code of Etiquette - Harmonising Institutional Relationships

I would like to propose a code of etiquette by which all Chaitanya Vaisnavas should abide. I mean various rules by which members of particular institutions abide by when relating with members of other institutions. I haven't thought of everything but I know it's a good idea. Please consider my points below and please think of more. Try to make this a brainstorming topic.
Some examples:
* No-reinitiations
* Disciples should be supported to take siksa from more advanced vaisnavas in other institutions without fear of excommunication
*No canvassing followers from other institutions.
* No, 'My guru is the best guru' but rather keep your guru secret.
* No negative propaganda about other institutions
* Constructive criticism should be kept constructive

I'm sure there are heaps more points that could be considered but I can't think of any now. The advantages of having good relationships between the different gaudiya missions are vast. For example co-operation on festival days. That alone would be great. Above all I think just to have everyone coming together for maha kirtans would be awesome. And also it would be fantastic preaching that people could see that the different Gaudiya missions co-operate so well instead of fighting like kali wants us to. I am hoping you will all catch the flow of my thinking here and nourish this topic so that I can perhaps right an article on it.

yours sincerely
shab

Dear Bhaktashab,

One of your proposed points might pose a serious problem:

• No reinitiations

Some lineages offer entirely different mantras than others. And there are deep theological considerations behind the differences.

Besides, if a Westerner in the Nityananda-parivara comes to believe that he needs the brahma-gayatri mantra, or the dress of a tridandi-sannyasi, then how is he to fulfill his inner aspirations if there is a "no reinitiation" policy in effect between the different groups? Bhakti Pradip Tirtha of the Gaudiya Matha was "reinitiated" by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, and even Bhaktivedanta Swami had a previous initiation from an "orthodox" parivara -- are you prepared to acknowledge as a matter of policy that their initiations were somehow invalid or improper?

Additionally, what if someone comes to you from the Kripalu camp; he has previously received some initiation but your camp is concerned that this initiation does not meet the standards of guru, sadhu and shastra?

Instead of saying "no reinitiations," perhaps we mainly need some clarity on the proper etiquette for approaching a guru for initiation while one's previous guru is still present. And perhaps we also need some emphasis on how to respect a guru that one now considers a "former" or "vartma-pradarsaka rather than diksa" guru. If Bilvamanagala had chosen to demean Cintamani at every opportunity, he surely could not have advanced under the tutelage of his "new" guru. Similarly, there are many who can no longer in good conscience accept Bhaktivedanta Swami as "Prabhupada" or "the only way" but who will surely be stymied in spiritual advancement if they "reject" him instead of "accepting him in his proper place."

I believe that a couple of your other suggested points could work well to minimize the problem. For example, it is common today for some gurus to say "Don't you dare hear from that OTHER so-calld Vaishnava group; they are offenders and will poison you against the true teachings of our lineage." What if gurus instead said, "Before I give you initiation, I want you to attend lectures given by these other three or four groups, and I want you to offer obeisances to the leaders of those other groups, and I want you to understand how they differ from our lineage, rather than fear them as enemies" ? Far better for a devotee to know the difference between Nityananda-parivar and Advaita-parivar and GM and ISKCON and Sri-Vaishnavas and Kripalu, etc., BEFORE receiving mantras, instead of learning the differences AFTERWARD. To that end, I even think it could be very helpful if Western disciples in the differing orthodox parivars could get together and produce a booklet describing the differences between the different parivars, for the aid of brand-new contacts. Such a booklet would also need to include a section on the "Bhaktisiddhanta-parivar", describing this branch as respectfully and positively as possible (perhaps focusing on its unparalleled success in worldwide preaching, and on its origin as an attempt at "reforming" the tradition from perceived "abuses." This could be especially valuable as it would allow new contacts to evaluate for themselves whether those alleged "abuses" are present today in either the orthodox parivars or the Bhaktisiddhanta-parivar).

Regarding cooperation, I notice that one of your other points might prove difficult:

• co-operation on festival days

Some groups maintain festival calendars that are different from other groups' calendars. As long as ISKCON and the GM temple down the street (for example) observe the same festival on different days, the prospect of co-operating on festival days will be somewhat minimized.

Anyway, thank you for your thoughts. It would indeed be wonderful if we could do a better job of getting along with one another.

Oh yes, re-initiations. Perhaps we should instead change our attitude towards re-initiations. Instead of making it a very dramatic event and a royal offence, we might just view it as a part of the "free flow of faith" of the devotee, to paraphrase an expression Sridhar Maharaja often used.

As far as co-operation on festival days goes, aside the potential difficulties outlined by Adiyen, it is a fact that people have very different songs and styles of kirtan. For example, though I of course appreciate their enthusiasm and sincerity, I don't particularly enjoy participating in the crash-boom-bang-loud-as-hell-jump-around kirtans in vogue in many places in ISKCON. I prefer a more peaceful, artistic style of kirtan, which doesn't necessarily aim at exploding the junk of material life out of your head as much as it aims at invoking positive spiritual emotion in your heart.

Some recent events have led me to think of a way of solving disputes which span across different Gaudiya movements. Obviously they cannot be submitted to the jurisdiction of the leaders of any particular single movement, for otherwise discussions of partiality would immediately arise. Perhaps an utopian idea, but a council consisting of reasonable members from the various branches of our tradition, who'd preferably hold no posts of significance in their respective branches, would be a welcome addition to our shared mission which expands in all of its respective fronts. Are there any parallels to this among other religions out there?

Yes, the World Council of Churches http://www.wcc-coe.org/ Has its roots in the optimism of the 1960s, and was meant to reconcile not just the churches but all religions eventually.

The enthusiasm has died down, because people seem to prefer sectarianism, strangely enough, but the Council still carries some weight in discussing big disputes.

The problem with such groups is that they tend to want to impose elite values on everyone else, or to be captured by special interest groups who want to impose their agenda from above.

I think this is a very good and fantastic idea. Perhaps it could eventually be added to 'Raganuga.Org' site as some sort of 'deeper study' into the matter. In any case, a proper analysis of the differences between the traditional parivaras would be greatly helpful for 'brand new' learners such as myself.
Even more fantastic is the aside about how to respect the Bhaktisiddhanta-parivara. My recent experiences with them (Brajamohan? ) have not endeared me to them or done them any favours, however it would be beneficial to know how to respect them while acknowledging their success in preaching. This would also be a great diplomatic move; at least they will not be able to accuse the traditionalists of levelling slander, abuse, criticism, etc., against them.

A fantastic, fantastic idea. I'll give my full support to this.

A fine idea, but unfortunately not as easy as it sounds. The fact is that just as there is no unified tradition called "Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition", but it includes a great deal of diversity, so it is with the different parivars. The practices and emphasis you may find among some devotees from the Nityananda-branch at Radha Kund may be radically different from what you find somewhere in Bengal.

The idea is excellent, though a bit laborious. We would have to pin down most of the main branches, get in touch with them and interview them. However, I believe it will materialize in due course of time.

All the more reason to value such an effort if/when it can be completed. Just think of the positive message it would send, that devotees from widely differing traditions can honor and respect one another as legitimate heirs of the authentic traditions established by Mahaprabhu's first followers. Quite the antithesis of the common sectarian/cult mindset that so many equate with Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

Of course, there would need to be some complex distinctions drawn, as surely there are a few branches even within the "orthodox" traditions that either say "our way is the only way" or "certain other 'orthodox' traditions are bogus, in our estimation." A false front of kumbaya-optimism won't be helpful if indeed one goal is to help sadhakas understand, from the start, which branches are more "inclusive" than others and which have particular distinctives that cause them to remain aloof or disapproving of others.

Even if a "first edition" could only discuss the following lineages:

• Radha-ramana Temple Goswamis
• Kisorikisorananda Das Babaji
• Ananta Das Babaji
• Lalita Prasad Thakur

...this might give a substantial "flavor" of at least a little bit of the diversity within the orthodox traditions (and by including Lalita Prasad Thakur would provide an entreé into discussing the Bhaktisiddhanta-parivar in as gentle and positive, though frank, manner as is possible). Or perhaps if one devotee (he says, hinting to Madhava ) were to compile a list of questions for the www.raganuga.com members to answer about their own lineages, you might add a couple more lineages to the above list, and fairly quickly come up with at least a basic overview of the different assumptions that each lineage makes about sadhana, ontology, etc.

What I am about to say may sound really "out there," but:

What say another 'Kheturi' is held?

A bit premature for now. Let's say a "Western Kheturi" might become a relevant idea in a decade or two when the various branches of the tradition are better rooted in the West. Whether it be known as the "Chicago festival of 2025" or the "Brussel festival of 2038", that remains to be seen. Then, again, it may be that the branch-pattern evolution of the tradition will only become further emphasized as it grows outside its original soil, and the mere thought of unifying the branches becomes an oxymoron.

Yes I agree with you here. My friend suggested that instead of no re-initiations limit it to no-reinitations on the same level so to speak. For example if a devotee receives diksa mantras from one guru it would be offensive to receive a similar initiation again from another guru. However were he to take sanyasa or babaji vesa then this should be acceptable. What do you think?

ys shab

This really is the sort of thing that different missions need to compromise on. Firstly can anyone tell me why are the same festivals held on different days? Surely the advantages of cooperation out weigh the sentiments of holding the festival on the day we want to just because that's the way we do it in our group etc... ?

ys shab

Madhava,

Being a musician I can't stand the crash bang, everyone just grab an instrument even if you can't play it, style kirtans that I have heard within Iskcon also. The other style kirtan that annoys me is the "I'm the senior devotee therefore I'm going to lead the kirtan even though I can't sing half as well as some others present nor do I have any concept of musical form." This is actually a problem within Iskcon and yes I agree that it is a tall order to expect other Gaudiyas to come and participate. But I do believe that this needs to be part of the reform within Iskcon anyway. Still I have to mention there are good examples of Iskcon kirtans - take Aindra dasa and the 24 hour kirtan group at the Krsna Balarama Mandir.

One of the problems I face as a musician is that it is very difficult to find other good musicians with whom to perform kirtan with. This problem would be eased somewhat if there was no problem associating cross camp with other good musicians. Personally I feel that in the area of Kirtan/Bhajan there needs to be more emphasis on the traditional styles so that the culture can shine through. Real kirtan is impressive but there needs to be a general acceptance among devotees that those who are musically talented should be encouraged to lead kirtans. If Krsna would not want this then why empower people with musical talent in the first place?

ys shab.

I don't think there is any major controversy involved with taking sannyasa or vesa from someone else but the diksa-guru. This is, in fact, more or less the way it goes.

However, as far as receiving diksa-mantras again is concerned, if we are to not accept re-initiations, how do we deal with the fact that there is a great diversity among the methods of worship, both bhajana and arcana, out there, and engagement in a particular method commonly involves adopting certain mantras for the worship.

It should be of interest that for example Sri Kunja Bihari Das Babaji received Gopal-mantra and Kama-gayatri from his diksa-guru, Sri Gopalcandra Goswami, in his youth, and later on received a whole bunch of additional mantras from his siksa-guru, Sri Krishnacaitanya Das Babaji. I inquired from Sri Ananta Das Babaji about this, and he explained that only Gopal-mantra and Kama-gayatri are the actual diksa-mantras, and the rest are additional mantras for worship. Thus, even if different mantras are received from different gurus, the one who has given Gopal-mantra and Kama-gayatri is considered the diksa-guru.

Aside different mantras, one issue to look at is that some lineages do not reveal the guru-pranali (succession of diksa-gurus) to the initiate, while others consider knowledge of the same an absolute necessity for bhajana. If a devotee becomes eager to embrace the traditional method of bhajan, should he have received diksa in ISKCON or Gaudiya Math, who are not concerned with diksa-parampara, he would require re-initiation to be linked to a diksa-guru lineage, which is an essential aspect in his bhajana.

The issue of two different conceptions of parampara is at the core of the re-initiation matter. Perhaps the gurus of those who wish to "switch sides" just need to adopt a more tolerant attitude in this regard -- instead of taking it as the mad elephant offence, considering it a step forward in the devotee's spiritual life, which he pursues in accordance with his inclinations.

I'm afraid some of the theological issues between GM/ISKCON and the rest of the tradition are an abyss too big to fill with the sand of compromise, and we just have to content ourselves with building bridges wherever possible. Definitely no-one should not be burning the bridges.

They have different methods of calculating the tithis. I recall once a Western GM sannyasi was trying to persuade an old GM astrology pundit to have a look at ISKCON's Vcal program for calculating the panjika, but he met with no success. They have their old ways, and they are not willing to change them. I believe this is a common pattern among many movements, they are content with what they are, and are unwilling to change, since change is perceived as a threat and a compromise, and they insist that one should not compromise with the principles of the predecessors.

Aside this, suspicion is a great threshold to cross. It appears that among the classical tradition, various Goswamis and Babajis along with their followers come along quite well, attend each others' classes and participate in each others' festivals. However, when it comes to ISKCON/GM, the atmosphere is much more reserved, given their historical clash and defiance of the mainstream tradition. That being said, if some sort of harmony is to be expected, it is they who are the one to make the bigger adjustments, given the fact that they make up roughly estimating 5% or less of the entire tradition, and they have been the ones to introduce many novelties which have created division to begin with. It appears almost as if they'd wished to sever their connection with the tradition and start anew.

I might want to add the Nityananda-vamsa descending through Prana Gopal Goswami. Prana Krishna Das Baba, initiated in their guru-badi, is well known among the Westerners, and recently Prema Gopal Goswami of Navadvip has also initiated a Western devotee, in addition to their being a place where many Westerners, particularly disciples of PKDB, visit for siksa.

Let us not also forget the Advaita-vamsa in which Advaitadas was initiated, to add to the variety.

Oh yes, and Karunamayi das from Narottama Parivar.

The code of etiquette you have proposed is already there and has been for centuries. There have historically been no institutions per se, just various branches of the main paramparAs. Bhaktisiddhanta and his followers conceived of the institutional approach to preaching, but prior to him it did not really exist as such.

As far as the matter of reinitiations, those only came up because of ISKCON/GM's questionable paramparA. That, however is not techically reinitiation but just initiation in the absence of getting it from a disciplic succession that can be substantiated. That is really just getting initated in a paramparA that can demonstrate its historical accuracy over one that cannot do so. Those reinitiations by ISKCON people that defected to Gaudiya Math are another issue altogether, and those of us without any affiliation with those groups have no interest in such matters.

At any rate, the subject of etiquette is an important one and should not be ignored, especially in the context of relations between Caitanyaites.

I don't think the reinitiation issue is restricted to ISKCON+GM / others alone. I believe there are several occasions where a hereditary goswami has reinitiated a diksa-disciple of a babaji, probably on the grounds of the babaji's not being a brahmin, as recommended (or according to some, ordered) by Hari-bhakti-vilasa.

Dear Ananga,
I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make here. If the Sarasvata parampara is questionable, as you say, then what do you suppose are the true implications of this?

ys shab

The parampara-issue is at the core of the division. It is not an matter of attitudes, it is a matter of theology. By presenting their doctrine of siksa-parampara or bhagavata-parampara, they have broken off from the tradition, and moreover taken a rather militant stand against those who have chosen to question the validity of their idea. This has raised and is maintaining high walls between the tradition and most of GM/ISKCON.

For a person who is acquainted with the traditional approach to parampara, diksa and raganuga-sadhana, following the Saraswata-way would require a tremendous leap of faith, a leap of faith in the founder of their branch. That is why responsible representatives of GM/ISKCON ought to inform prospective initiates to study such matters prior to receiving initiation, for discovering such matters afterwards often results in a serious crisis of faith. The step to follow the siksa-parampara tradition should be a mature and informed choice. People should know the options before choosing one of them.

I agree that responsible representatives of the Sarasvata line should at least explain our perspective clearly to candidates for initiation. That would include a presentation of the more traditional perspective as well. A few years ago, I wrote a review of Tripruari Maharaja's booklet on this subject in which I suggested that ISKCON/GM leaders at least study his booklet--which I feel is one of the more open and less confrontational arguments for our perspective--if not make it mandatory reading for prospective initiates. It may be better for those with faith in Mahaprabhu to confront this before making such a profound commitment. They should at least know that so much of Gaudiya vaishnavism accepts only the traditional diksa lines and that Bhaktisiddhanta's approach is controversial in many cirlces. Finding out about this after initiation, especially if there's no one competent to help them sort out the issues, only causes disruption in the devotees' faith.

I know that many here may feel this doesn't go far enough, that perhaps they should hear directly from other parties as well. Some devotees may feel inclined to do so after hearing about this, and I would probably be inclined to let them follow their hearts. However, if they were to read Narasingha Maharaja's book and Nitai's essays, it's hard to see how inexperienced devotees might sort through everything. My hope is that some day the walls between the parties can be dismantled (Tear down the walls!) and that as devotees from all parties, especially those of us from Western backgrounds, actually advance in Krishna consciousness, it may be possible for us to appreciate each others' contributions. Maybe I'm naive.

I took the liberty to add the quote-box to your post to make the quoted passage more distinct from what you wrote.

Thanks, Madhava. I guess I'll eventually get this Web stuff figured out.

I also had (and I still have) problems like you, Babhru Das. I hope that one day, i will became good with my PC knowledge and web stuff.

All the best,

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada broke with the tradition in order to preach Gaudiya Vaisnavism in a form that would be acceptable to a greater number of people. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami caught the spirit of his guru maharaja's preaching style and managed to do something that no Gaudiya Vaisnava had ever done before - establish the worship of Sri Sri Radha-Krsna and Gauranga Mahaprabhu on every continent of the Earth. I can understand that unfortunately some of the feelings of the traditional Gaudiya Vaisnavas were hurt but to question the validity of the Sarasvata parampara really seems to be an irrational response. Why do I say this? Because what are the reasons the validity of this parampara should be questioned? Should we worry that we will not be able to achieve vraja bhakti because we have taken diksa in this lineage? Should we deny the status of great titans such as Sridhara Deva Goswami, A.C. Bhaktivedanta, Pramode Puri Goswami, Gour Govinda Swami? To do so would be ridiculous and offensive. I am really open to the teachings of traditional Gaudiya Vaisnavism and I hope to take the association of sadhus of those various mathas; but the charge that the Sarasvata parampara is invalid is the same as slapping Caitanya Mahaprabhu in the face. Please renounce this mode of thinking it is so horrible and reeks of envy. I am not using this as an excuse for members of the Sarasvata parampara to criticise traditionalists, but also traditionalists should not criticise Sarasvata bhaktas for their bad behaviour. Please everyone transcend this duality and see how all sides are the different hands of Caitanya Mahaprabhu reaching out to capture the conditioned souls and give them prema. Please also don't think I am naive as I understand that various methods of sadhana practiced within branches of the sarasvata parampara will not directly give you vraja bhakti; for many this process will take more than one lifetime. Forgive me if I have offended anyone.

ys shab

You might like to check out this older thread. I find that it makes some very interesting points.

I am not qualified to harmonise this debate about diksa vs siksa parampara. There are those who assume a right to charge the sarasvata parampara with invalidity and when arguments are presented to the contrary they take this as a direct threat to the sanctity of their own diksa lineages. I sense this mood, "We have the unbroken diksa parampara, therefore we are better than you." Until the traditionalists renounce this mood there will be no chance of a Western Kheturi. On the other side there are those in the sarasvata parampara who equate babaji vesa and siddha pranali with sahajyaism and are also seemingly unwilling to compromise on this false understanding. All I can say is that Kali is doing an expert job. Where is the love bhaktas? I am going to take the advice of Narada and desist from any further argumentative debate.

Yours sincerely shab

I really don't think that the change in the theology of parampara had anything to do with this. What it did manage to do is to make GM unacceptable to most of the tradition. As for the audience of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami in the 1960's and 70's, many of them still seem to think that they are connected to an uninterrupted diksa-parampara, and hearing of the revision of the parampara-theology just leaves them flabbergasted.



Well, it is a clear theological breach from the tradition. Oh yes, and aside the parampara-issue, the approach to the matter of raganuga-bhajana is significantly altered from what it's been for centuries. This, however, would merit a whole separate thread to be fairly examined.



There you have it, the one main key word which is at the core of the schism. The O-word. The lack of understanding of the subjectivity of spiritual experience leads one to expect that everyone should accept his predecessors as great and unquestionable as he himself does, and non-compliance with this merits an offence.

See, many of these great titans have directly defied the merit and realization of many of our great titans, and therefore we find it hard to accept their majestic status in the same way you do.



And there's the other key-word for the schism, the E-word. This is a theological issue, not a matter of sentiments, and ought to be treated as such.

Yes, some may do this, but I don't think that's the general mood you will find in these forums.



I don't think a Vaishnava will very easily adopt such a mood, given all the lessons we are given on humility. The attitude you'll meet is more likely, "Our approach is in harmony with the tradition, therefore we cannot agree with your claims to the contrary."



I hope we didn't scare you off with this discussion. These are the issues one will have to face, with patience and broadmindedness, if the points you presented in the beginning of this thread are to be taken anywhere beyond a theoretical level, at least as far as it comes to ISKCON+GM / others.

I think the point has been made on a number of occasions already, but there is no reason for a black-and-white thinking such as assuming that something is "totally useless and ineffective" because of certain anomalies. I do not recall having read such a thing proposed by those who take objection to the anomalies in the Saraswata-line, but nevertheless sometimes such an attitude is attributed to us.

Thankyou for your empathy tinysoul.
In regards to your quote this is the sort of thing that I am talking about. So many devotees have been drenched by the current of Sri Caitanya's mercy that has flowed down from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his disciples. Surely all of these combined testimonies cannot be invalid? I simply cannot see the logic of questioning the validity of this parampara. To say, 'the sarasvata parampara is invalid' is the same as saying everyone following in that line is bogus and are actually barred from receiving the mercy of Gauranga Mahaprabhu. I know of so many sincere devotees who are in this line. The logic of this charge simply does not compute within the subjective realm of my own experience. So therefore of course I'm going to assume it's offensive to think this way. I am sitting here shaking my head in utter disbelief about the whole thing. How can we even consider that A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami did not receive the mercy of Krishna because his guru parampara was invalid? This is simply ridiculous.

wishing everyone a wonderful kartika
shab

If not "totally useless and ineffective" does that make it "somewhat useless and ineffective" or "slightly useless and ineffective"? I hate feeling myself in an argumentative state of mind. I find it difficult to be dispassionate about this. I really don't believe that the validity of the sarasvata paramapara should be at all questioned. It just has to be seen in its proper place. All the Gaudiya Vaisnava institutions are playing their part in the continuous infolding of Gaura lila.

ys shab

I find myself rather discomifted by shab's rhetoric. To call any critical look at our parampara or the approach our guru varga has given us to ragauga bhakti offensive and due only to envy will not accomplish anything other than shutting down productive discussion. Those of us whose faith is tender are naturally unable to examine our own tradition critically. That's one way Bhaktivinoda Thakura described the kanishtha adhikari. This is probably not a good forum for those who would feel so threatened. Those who are more experienced and whose faith is more deeply developed may find their participation in such discussions fruitful, both for themselves and for their interlocutors.

Re: The proposed validity of the Sarasvata 'paramparA'

If the followers of the line started by Bhaktisiddhanta are really looking for validation by the other Vaishnavas, then they should be expected to demonstrate that what they are teaching and practicing meets the standards of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. I think the first question is whether or not they are actually seeking validation from other Vaishnavas. It would seem that they in fact don't really care about establishing validity as a branch of the Caitanya tree, and in fact they consider themselves as self-validated. The whole basis for their arguments to support their self-validated status is the proposition that their charismatic leaders are somehow empowered. 'Preaching according to time and circumstances' is their standard rationalization for their various departures from the norms established over five centuries of the movement started by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. What makes their approach even more problematic is that their followers are prohibited from studying directly the teachings of the six Goswamis and are instead required to learn of those teachings indirectly through the various purports written by their self-proclaimed acharyas. In the case of Bhaktivinode, he did not depart radically from the tradition, as had his son Bhaktisiddhanta. On the other hand, he remained an obscure and relatively unknown author during his lifetime. Even today, his name is not very well known in the Vaishnava community. The other son of Bhaktivinode (Lalita Prasad Thakur), who was not willing to take the same departure from the tradition that his own father represented, rejected Bhaktisiddhanta's mission as invalid. If Bhaktivinode's own writings are any indication, then he also would not have approved of Bhaktisiddhanta's approach.

So where does that leave us? I think we can assess the teachings and practices of Gaudiya Math and ISKCON and see where they meet the standards and where they do not. If they expect validation, then they would need to make up for whatever deficiencies there are with respect to such standards. As long as they do that, then there is absolutely no reason they would be rejected by the Vaishnava community, which is merely looking for the same level of conformity that they are expected to maintain themselves. If those wayward institutions are willing to accept guidance from the traditional Vaishnava community, in order to learn what standards they need to meet, and then take appropriate measures to raise the bar for themselves, then they could achieve the goal of acceptance. As long as they are unwilling to accept instruction outside of their own isolated group, then that is not going to happen. The fact that many of them are reading the English books published by Pandit Ananta Das Babaji indicates a trend in the direction of getting some shiksha from outside.

I do not think that the Caitanyaite orthodoxy has any problem with innovative approaches to preaching and practices, particularly with respect to presenting our tradition to a Western audience. The problem is when certain tenets, such as establishment of a neo-Vedic varnashram system that runs counter to the egalitarian spirit of Mahaprabhu's movement, which was essentally anti-caste, become part of that preaching agenda. There are also other problems with certain approaches, such as encouraging all participants to become instant vairagis and to take sannyasa at the earliest opportunity, whether they are actually at that stage in their development or not. If it is just a matter of utilizing rock'n'roll music to attract people to chanting, as George Harrison and others have done, then that is not something we have any problem with. On the other hand, we do have a problem with any proposals for a shiksha-paramparA that is somehow superior to the diksha-paramparAs that we have become affiliated with.

What would actually infuse ISKCON with new vitality would be their reforming of their initiation policy to allow members to seek initiation from people such as Ananta Das Baba without fear of reprisals or expulsion from their organization. Their members should be allowed to choose a guru for themselves, and as long as that guru is following the tradition faithfully and is behaving properly according to the norms of our tradition, then they should be allowed to accept shiksha and/or diksha from such a guru. If they could adopt such a measure and revamp their doctrines and practices to conform with our tradition, then that would be something that would break down the walls that currently keep them apart from the rest of the Vaishnava community.

Wisely spoken, Babhru. I suppose I should add a disclaimer somewhere in the forums as a word of caution for those who are new to Gaudiya Vaishnavism and strongly profess the doctrines of the Saraswata tradition.

This is a central problem with the issue. Passion. Discussions on controversial topics *must* be dispassionately conducted, if we are to expect any fruitful outcome from them. Discussions where someone is "on the defense" rarely serve their purpose.

Certainly hope is not naive, though in this case it may be hope against all odds.

Tearing down the walls is a wild dream, though. A good first step to take is to learn the issues which are not openly discussed in inter-Caitanyaite meetings. This necessarily means that one must become acquainted both with the controversies of one's own branch as well as those of others.

In my opinion, it is possible to set aside theological issues, and the different parties can agree to disagree. However, perhaps more troubling than issues of theology are deep-rooted attitudes. To give you an example, here is an encounter with Siddha Ramakrishna Das Pandit Baba and Bhaktiprajnan Kesava of Gaudiya Math (related by Muralidhar das in Audarya Forums):


I just don't know what to make of stories like this.

Apparently some, like Tripurari Swami, are willing to try to somehow get around them, such as was seen in regards to Sridhar Maharaja's comments on Tinkudi Goswami. However, there is a limit to how far one can "rephrase" or otherwise "tweak" such statements. Babhru, do you have any insights in this regard? How to deal with the predecessors' statements which seem to serve no purpose aside widening and deepening the abyss between the different Gaudiya groups?

In fact, I'm researching this premise right now. I am reading Shukavak's study of Bhaktivinoda as well as Bhaktivinoda's books themselves.

I am slowly, but surely, coming to the realization that it was Bhaktivinoda who was responsible for all of the "reforms" that the GM/ISKCON highly praise today. As far as the "eligibility for raganuga-bhakti" and the "introduction of varnasrama" issues go, these bucks seem to stop at Bhaktivinoda's door. As far as the concept of "siksa-parampara" goes that seems to be firmly at Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's door.

I feel that this brings a new angle to the issue. Here is Bhaktivinoda openly advocating the reforms to Gaudiya tradition that were eventually carried out by Bhaktisiddhanta. What Bhaktivinoda wrote in theory, Bhaktisiddhanta carried out in practice. Bhaktivinoda himself was an initiated member of the Nityananda-parivara; he practised raganuga-bhakti with its ancillary items of siddha-pranali and ekadasa-bhava, yet openly advocated reforms that, at first glance, do not seem to be in line with the traditionalist perspective.
Of course I am in the middle of researching this so it would be a premature time to come to any firm conclusions, but the points that I've described above seem to be fairly well-established.

Very interesting.

For the record, I'm an "in-betweener" too at the present moment.

Bhaktivinoda is the first Gaudiya Vaishnava to initiate a program of preaching the belief to westerners. This is probably beyond dispute. Yet Premananda Bharati was active at almost the same time, so there may have been others.

But there is nothing in Bhaktivinoda's books or teaching which clashes with or contradicts mainsteam traditional Gaudiyaism, Vaishnavaji. If you have found something, that would be interesting.

When Sukavak wrote that book his understanding of Gaudiyaism was evolving from Iskcon beliefs. So the things he finds surprising are more an indication of his limits at that time. His scholar reviewers even wondered what was 'modern' in the book. Srila Bhaktivinoda was no more modern than the liberal and evangelical Victorian christians he mixed with, considerably less in some ways. As Peter Schmidt has pointed out, liberal evangelical christianity was also an important environmental factor for Bhaktivedanta Swami in his student days. In Bhaktivinoda's time, no Indian had dared to contradict western culture, which was seen as overwhelming. By Bhaktivedant Swami's time there had been Vivekananda, Premanda Bharati, various nationalists and Marxists, and especially Gandhi. Curiously, large numbers of Bengalis abandoned Gandhi in 1920, just when the Gaudiya Math was taking off. Several of Bhaktisiddhanta's disciples had indeed been Gandhians (not just Bhaktivedanta Swami).

Sukavak's book should really be called 'A Hindu Encounters Victorian Modernity'.

The one thing Sukavak makes an issue of, negotiations with the Guru over siddha deha ascriptions, is in fact perfectly consistent with the extremely personal and subjective nature of the relationship between Guru and disciple in traditional Gaudiyaism.

I think Sukavak imagines the guru as some kind of aloof abstract authoritarian figure, which is just not the case.

Madhava has pointed out to me that Bhaktivinoda's teachings on Varnashram in his Sri Chaitanya Sikshamrita are an innovation in the Gaudiya tradition.

I did think about this when I said such things did not clash with traditional Gaudiyaism. I thought it could be seen as a harmonious development, a graded interface with mainstream Hinduism. I may be wrong and Bhaktivinoda's views on Varnashram may indeed contradict traditional Gaudiya beliefs.

Keep in mind that the Sikshamrita was written in Bengali for the Bhadralok, and was apparently quite popular with them.

In Jaiva Dharma Bhaktivinoda makes clear that he would not consider someone not born in a Brahmin caste as able to act as a Brahmin, even if they are Vaishnava and thus 'higher'. Specifically they are not fit to marry into a high caste.

This is not an arbitrary choice. The vast majority of Gaudiyas in Bhaktivinoda's time were of low caste, so-called Jat Vaishnavas, who even now are amongst the poorer Hindus of Bangladesh. The elite Bhadralok did not want to identify themselves with these Jat-Vaishnavas in any way. So in making his appeal to Bhadralok to became Vaishnav, he had to distinguish this clearly from what the lower castes were doing. Hence, Varnashram became of central importance.

Again, keep in mind that the Kayastha caste, to which Bhaktivinoda, Vivekananda, and our Bhaktivedanta Swamiji belonged, was of indeterminate status. They were scribes, traditionally a sudra category, yet for generations their worked placed them with the elites, so they believed, very reasonably, that they were in fact Brahmins. But this was controversial, so expect a certain amount of ambiguity about just who the 'high' castes are.

What's more, if I was the son of a Kayastha, and my father had worked his whole life to further a cause, but that work was later criticised and diminished after his death by the born elites, my 'betters', who pointed to my father's flaws with the implicit scorn, 'What can you expect from a Kayastha upstart?', then I would probably be very angry, and if I was more capable (which I'm not) I would start a big campaign to clear his name and put those smug elites in their place!

Isn't it all perfectly understandable?

(Hey! I did it!) I haven't worked out anything to my complete satsifaction, especially for dealing the more traditional lines mostly represented here. Shoot--it's hard enough dealing with problems among different groups descending from Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Perhaps the best I can do is try to try to share some of my thinking with regard to these matters. I'm sure the positions I express will satisfy neither the traditionalists nor my fellow followers of Sarasvati Thakura. Please know that I join you in that; this thinking is a work in progress.

I need to work on this for a bit offline. It will be good for me to tease out my thinking and put it into writing (this is, after all, what I try to teach my students). However, it will take me a little time to get it down. I'm working on a defense of Tripurari Maharaja's presentation of Bhagavad-gita, which has been attacked by in ISKCON leader, largely because it reflects some strong infuence by Srila B. R. Sridhar Maharaja, whose comments were strongly infuenced by Visvanatha and Baladeva. I hope that my remarks won't seem untimely if it takes me a few days to get this done. (I also have stacks of papers to grade and planning to do for the rest of the semester, as well as work on a new course I'm designing.) I expect my remarks to address your question, as well as issues raised by Minaketana Ramdas and Vaishnava das.

I don't see why the walls should be broken down. Who will it benefit and how? The secrets of the diksa mantras, yogapith meditation, lila smaranam, Sri Murti seva, the specific meditation of the holy name, the siddha deha, ect. is reserved for those initiated within that particular line as given by Sri Gurudeva. No faithful sadhaka will impart these items to outsiders, meaning those who are not initiated.

There is a statement I read some years ago attributed to Siddhanta Saraswati where he says something like 'the sahajiyas have taken the astakalina lila and it is up to us (the Gaudiya Math) to get it back.' I find it strange why the Siddhanta Saraswati followers have to take back something which should have been their right in the first place? Unless, they never had it. And if they don't have it, should they take it by force? I sometimes get this impression with some of the members that come on board here who want to get some information from the followers of the orthodox tradition, but then get hostile when they are confronted with their own contraversal status as a tradition. The walls will not be broken by those who want to come in and plunder from the sadhus their knowledge, to later get a kick by a boot (being called sahajias) and claiming the information received as though it was the result of their own realizations. It will not happen, unless one changes the attitude and becomes submissive.

Radhapada, since you refer to taking down walls, I assume you're responding to me. And I'm afraid you have seriously misread me. You like walls, I'd guess, beause you're territorial. You think you have something I want? Nope. I want the company of those who appreciate Mahaprabhu's mood. They're the ones who have some sense of the extent of His magnanimity--that He would give the most valuable commodity to those who are least qualified. I have no interest in your secrets, nor in anything you may consider yours. Keep them, along with your self-righteous sense of superiority.

I'm here in part because I wasn't afraid of becoming contaminated by some sort of "sahajiya" spirit. I thought I might find some essence-seekers. Perhaps I am naive indeed. I came to explore what we may have in common, secure enough in my spiritual life to not feel threatened by discussing the differences. I have only posted here a very few times, and I think you may have a hard time showing the hostility or defensiveness you complain of in my notes. In fact, on another forum, I suggested that some devotees may be more suited to

If folks here are infected with the same sectarian party spirit they accuse others of, and have no interest in communication with others, I've clearly come to the wrong place. I do fear that disease. The hostility I feel in your post makes me think twice about sharing my mind here at all, so I have to consider carefully whether it makes any sense to respond more fully to the question Madhava posed earlier.

And time is something rarer even than money to me; I have very little to spend frivolously. See you later. Perhaps I need to look elsewhere for saragrahis.

Where do you read this in Radhapad's post?

We are the victims defending ourselves, haven't you caught that?

The real tragedy is that a large group of people have spent perhaps 30, or even 50 or 80 years 'trying to catch Mahaprabhu's mood', meanwhile kicking Mahaprabhus followers. 'Essence' indeed!

What's wrong with sectarianism?

You're at the wrong address, its the Sridhar Maharaj people who are (were?) worried about that, not us.

Bhaktivinoda may have wanted a non-sectarian Gaudiyaism. His followers have yet to establish that this is desireable.

Saragrahi? Read my post above, this was just code to make the Bhadralok feel good and to keep the poor Jat Gaudiyas apart. It sounds egalitarian to (some of) us, but it was meant to keep the upper classes smug in their social superiority. Now who are the elitists?

That's the case you have to make to us:
Why non-sectarian?

Discrete traditions preserve subtle and profound truths.
Big broad ideas are bland and impersonal, hostage to the lowest common denominator.
Small is beautiful!

Yes, essence-seeking, an enlightened soul ought to see the gold among the pebbles.

However, there is indeed a difference between essence-seeking and merging. People are divided into different groups, movements and religions in accordance with their shared aspirations to practice in a particular way. If we are to tear down the walls altogether, we will be tearing down the walls which provide an environment in which we can effectively pursue our individual approach to bhakti.

Of course, people ought to respect that which is on the other side of the wall, and if sometimes there is a spot where the wall is broken down, perhaps on that spot we may dance together. However, to tear down the entire wall is to dismantle our respective guesthouses of like-minded devotees.

This mutual respect is a goal we ought to seek to attain.

Take your time with this conversation, Babhru. It seems you are a bit spiced up with Danavir's rant over the "Vraja Gita" right now.

I'm on Swami Tripurari's side in that dispute.

By the way, this is certainly food for thought:



-Babhru on Mahaprabhu. Nicely put.

Adiyen:

In the complete lack of respect he shows to those he considers "outsiders." From the "NO TRESPASSING" sign he greeted me with, rather than a place to sit and a cup of water. What sign have I given that I pose any threat? What--submission means we have to put up with some sort of hazing ritual just to be invited for conversation?

When I wrote of tearing down walls, it was hyperbole. I understand the need for discrete communities. And I've been a small-is-beautiful guy for a very long time (since before Schumacher made the idea cool). I'm not comfortable in large crowds. And I'm smart enough to know where I'm not welcome. I'm accustomed enough to not fitting in that it doesn't bother me that much to excuse myself from the room.

Madhava:

I certainly agree with that.



I thought I came in a mood of respect for your traditions. That makes being met as an interloper a bit harder to accept with a smile.

Adiyen:

Thank you. How else would we explain Rupa's assertion that Mahaprabhu is the most munificent form of Krishna? He came to give what had never been given before, and to those least qualified.

patrapatra-vicara nahi, nahi sthanasthana
yei yanha paya, tanha kare prema-dana

In distributing love of Godhead, Caitanya Mahaprabhu and His associates did not consider who was a fit candidate and who was not, nor where such distribution should or should not take place. They made no conditions. Wherever they got the opportunity, the members of the Panca-tattva distributed love of Godhead.

I never directly said or implied that you came without a mood of respect. Did I?

At any rate, the community here is hardly on one side of the wall; we have quite a few walls built around here, too. What's that, divided we stand, united we fall?

Well, see? I should feel really comfortable here!

You're not aware of it, but in the way you talk, the terms you use, you belong to a familiar 'army' with a familiar mode of 'attack'.

Even the platoon Chaplain may come under fire. He has to understand its because he wears the uniform, too.

Of course that happens when you come in and surprise us. You may have been invited, but we thought it was a raid!

OK, settle in. We'll all calm down.

Back to the discussion, the magnanimity of Mahaprabhu is attractive, but the particularity of His tradition is even more so, for some of us. But this cultural particularity, a part of Bengali culture, simultaneously alienates all of us who are not Bengalis, traditionalists or otherwise.

I'll grant that the idea 'Saragrahi Vaishnava' is attractive, stripped of its historical baggage....

How far would you go? Wearing shoes while worshipping? Surely that's external?

Adiyen:

Well, I didn't exactly sneak in. How many traditionalists have a name like Babhru? I'm happy to prostrate myself, as that's perfectly appropriate in he company of sadhus, but I didn't know I needed to put my hands behind my head, too.



I've always liked a lot of the Bengali stuff.



Yeah, but I've already conceded that some discrimination is necessary, at least for folks like me who aren't uttama-bhagavatas. Shoes, no--but in California I had socks I wore. I've been too spoiled by too many years in Hawaii, and I never got used to those nasty San Diego winters. As I've said before, I think it's worth discussing what's essential and what's not. Some from my community would say shaved heads and sikhas are essential (that would probably be Danavir), but I don't buy that. I think it's a nice cultural sign for those who can do it that lets folks know something's going on. Most ISKCON/GM folks see the sacred thread as almost essential. I wear mine because my guru placed it on my body, and I see it as a reminder of my submission to him. I could certainly chant my mantras without it. And I have no problem with the traditionalists' casteless vaishnavism (except for the jati-gosais, I guess). And many devotees from Hawaii have a mood different from folks elsewhere (as many people from Hawaii have a differnt attitude about everything).

And then there's my old, dear friend Siddhasvarupananda, whom I love and respect, but who has little or no patience for the "brahminical BS," although I know there's no homogeneity among them on external signs. Some wear kanthi-mala, some don't; some use bed bags, and others don't. And I know some do wear dhotis, at least sometimes. (I've seen puctures to Tusta Krishna with dhoti and tilak.)

Anyway, I'd better think about getting back to my counter-rant.

Yes, well for those and other reasons, the old Iskconites used to call Siddhasvarupaji and Tusta Krishnaji 'sahajiyas' and now I know how that feels - it hurts! (Now Dhanavir's playing the 'sahajiya' card!)

Yet back then I always quietly thought that Siddha, if he was correctly reported by my Iskcon informants (probably not), had a point. Which is that he had read BRS about Raganuga Bhakti being 'spontaneous devotion' and he thought that that 'stage' must be reached eventually, or that externals were only for neophytes anyway.

The interesting thing we've found is that Raganuga as practiced is not 'spontaneous', its a sadhana. There was a misunderstanding. And yet, like most Indian things, the 'rules' are never as set in concrete as westerners think.

By alienating Bengali culture I mean the roles for men and women, the unbelievable obsession with forms of cleanliness, suspicion of foreigners, things like that. Some of these are external, others are essential to Raganuga, to an extent which I have not yet understood.

And the thing is that the Bengalis may not be able to help us to seperate the externals from the essentials, because they are so caught up in all the aspects of their culture, the preservation of traditions which we cannot understand. I mean, Greeks do the same thing. Cultures need to protect themselves, but where does that leave us outsiders?

This suspicion of foreigners, it is born out of sheer svarupa-avesh. Remember the story of Gopishvar Mahadev trying to enter the circle of rasa.

Siddha wasn't against sadhana, but he has a problem with externals that don't mean anything to the people he preaches to. He really is interested in finding the sar. His devotees' faith in the holy name is profound.

I like a lot of the Bengali focus on cleanliness, especially in the kitchen and surrounding worship. But during the work day, as clean as I must seem to others, I know I'm icky. My family pays very little attention to the roles for men and women. My wife, for example, always calls me by name. I don't mind, but I'd be happier if I had a cooler name.

I did consider that Shukavak's points may be somewhat biased on account of what we may expect of an ISKCON background, but I have found that most of the points he establishes seems to be based on some good honest and objective research; both by analysing Bhaktivinoda's books as well as running around doing most of the research himself in Bengal, sifting through old court records in Government libraries and so on. He even managed to get a handwritten copy of Bhaktivinoda's diksa-patra from the latter's maternal home, as well as a photo of the altar at the Sauri Prapanna asrama featuring little photos of Vipina Vihari Gosvami, Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktitirtha Thakura (that particular parampara).

I notice that you say Madhava has informed you a bit about Bhaktivinoda's views on varnasrama, so I guess the raganuga-bhakti component will have to be dealt with. Aside from having potentially controversial views on varnasrama, I understand that he ordered Bhaktisiddhanta to go ahead and implement it in reality. I believe a letter exists to that effect. As I am currently transcribing that whole chapter in a Word document, please look out for it when I post a link to it after I have placed it on my website.

----

About Danavir's article, I received a few emails about it today. I didn't read the entire article, but I read some and skimmed through the rest of the article to realize that his critique has no substance. For a start, his "critique" entirely consists of Srila Prabhupada's statements; he himself hardly has anything to say except to agree with Srila Prabhupada or to clarify Prabhupada's points in some places. He doesn't even quote any parts of the "Vraja Gita" anyway, he presents concepts from it in his own words and the readers are expected to believe him.

Also, I was almost besides myself with amusement when I read his challenge to present a "rasika" commentary of BG that was presented by the past acharyas. Obviously he does not know of Srimad Visvanatha Cakravarti's commentary on BG.

Who else has presented rasika commentaries of BG?

----

About Babhruji's presence, I do not know him personally but I can say that he is not a controversy-stirrer or starter as far as I have seen from his activity on other discussion boards. I do believe his association is very nice and he can have some profound realisations to contribute.

Should there be a separate thread on Bhaktivinod? This thread will probably become quite cluttered if we try to conduct parallel discussions on BV and on the other topic (whatever it is).

Babhru

I made the point about breaking down the walls, not as a means to discourage your participation here--and besides, who am I, I am also here as a guest of Madhava--but rather, to point that unlikelihood of such an idealistic occurance to take place.

As a practioner of martial arts it is to my observation that deep-rooted Asian cultures have formented a protocol to keep secrets in techniqes and philosopy to those who are submissive members of the school. Gaudiya Vaisnava bhajan practices are the same. Sure, the general teachings about tattva, rasa, are available and easily shared. However, the practices whereupon one can actually enter, mantras, meditation techniques, ect., those secrets can never me revealled. That point should be made clear. So in that case, those walls will never be broken. Is it stinginess on the part of the sadhaka? Narottama Das Thakur writes in Prema Bhakti Candrika, 'one should not reveal ones realizations to everyone.'

Yes, I also like small crowds and likeminded association. Besides, these esoteric teachings of gopi bhava and raganuga bhakti cannot be understood or appreciated without the mercy of Mahaprabhu. Books and articles are out there, but the candidates are rare. That is not a fault of the lack of distributers, or the selfishness of the Vaisnava's mercy because the mercy of God is available to one and all. However, the mercy of God shines to the souls of this world via the mercy of the saints. That's why I made the point of the attitude. And that was not directed at you personally. It was a philosophical point for all. Attitude is important. If the attitude is tainted with disrespect towards the followers of the tradition then that mercy is blocked. That is my personal experience being a member of the ISKCON institution for many, many years. I had interest in these subjects for years, but the mercy was blocked because of so many years of hearing Vaisnava aparadha towards the Radha Kunda babaji Vaisnavas and Goswami castes brahamanas. As soon as one devotee, Anuradha dasi, Adwaita Dasji's wife, showered her mercy and kindness upon me, the doors of mercy opened. I was swept off my feet after that with the mercy of my Gurudeva. I say this emphatically:

IT IS THE MERCY OF RAGANUGA VAISNAVAS THAT BRING ONE TO THE PATH OF RAGANUGA BHAKTI. THERE IS NO OTHER CAUSE. THERE IS NO OTHER CAUSE. THERE IS NO OTHER CAUSE.

I read about raganuga bhajan from so many books, so many people talked about, but it was one who practiced it that gave me that mercy to enter into it.

Babhru Das,

If you know Siddhaswarupananda Das, late Tusta Krishna Das, and Gadaddhara Pran Das, then you must also know Turiya Das Mahasaya and B.G. Narasingha Maharaja previously known as Jagat Guru Swami?

Yes, obviously we must not share the secrets of our respective branches with others.

However, I believe there is much common ground to be shared, for example in the realms of book publication and elementary preaching. If there are no cordial relationships, all of that is virtually impossible.

Anyone, more ideas on practical common grounds?

Dear Radhapadaji,

Thank You for this amazing posting and for your last kind and encouraging letter.
I second to everything You have said. If i didn't have mercy of devotees like You and Madhava from this website,Sakhi Priya,Nitai Das, Advaita Das, Haricaran Das, Brajmohan Dasji, Dina Hari Das and some others i will be still floating.

Tomorrow i am starting work, my first day of training as customer manager in Bank, so i will be less on forum. I hope i will make it to India in March, to see Gurudeva,Radhakunda and Madhava.
I love You all, and all the best to all of You with kind and gentle devotee heart on this great Forum.
Yours sincerely,

Also inspiring post, as always from Madhavaji. I totally support that idea.

Spring in Vrindaban
and longing for Madhava
without Radhika -

Witness the deceit
of forgetting Svamini,
a maidservant weeps.

Touching and very nice.Thanks.

Dear Radhapada, thank you for your kind note. I agree with all the points you make there. I have for many, many years complained publicly about what I have called the culture of vaishnava aparadha in ISKCON. My participation here is partly driven by a desire to see what small things I might be able to do to increase the appreciation each "side" has for the other. I'm not here to spy, plunder, or any such thing. But more on that later when I can put together my response to Madhava's question.

Thanks again for taking the time to explain you earlier reposnse. I apologize for my nasty reply.

Perhaps you need a cup of Japanese green tea?

Tamal Baran:

Yes, I do. I consider Narasingha Maharaja a friend and an inspiration, although I am worried by the vigor of his preaching against those critical of the line from Bhaktisiddhanta. Turiya das is my old, dear friend. He introduced me to Krishna consciousness in May of 1969 and helped me along the way. I feel very indebted to him. I stay in touch with him and visit his place on Maui whenever I have some time and money (which,alas, is not often). He is an interesting case because he associates with babajis at Manasi Ganga. On parikram on year, he visited the Radha-Syamasundar temple at Chaklesvar, and the mahant, Tamal Krishna Babaji, who had previously been Tapomaya das in ISKCON, recognized Turiya das, and since then Turiya has become a trustee of that temple, where he stays when he visits Vrindavan.

Actually, the devotees in my line who are most influential for me these days are not in ISKCON. They are Tripurari Maharaj, Turiya das, Paramadvaiti Maharaj, and Narasingha Maharaj (despite my misgivings about his preaching against the babaji line).

Madhava:

Thanks, but only if it's decaffeinated. Because I've never liked caffeine, I never had the problem many Western devotees have had with coffee. Now, chocoate . . .

But I tell you what did settle me down, along with Radhapada's kind words--those haiku of yours. Thank you.

This Tamal Krishna Babaji, I take it that he is not a Westerner?

Madhava:

No. He may be a Brijabasi; before meeting Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, he had been a student of another vaishnava gentleman. When things got too weird for him at Krishna-Balaram temple after our guru's departure, he went back to this vaishnava gentleman, who by that time was a babaji and mahant of this temple at Chaklesvar. I can't remember his name. When he retired as mahant, Tamal Krishna Babaji was appointed as mahant.

Do you know of his diksa, whether it's from Bhaktivedanta Swami or from before?

He accepted diksha from Bhaktivedanta Swami. I don't know anything specific about the time before he met our Swami Maharaja.

Interesting. I wonder how they have managed to reconcile the parampara-issue. This must be the first ISKCON-initiated mahant in a traditional mandir.

Where exactly is this mandir at Chakaleshvar?

Madhava,

There is another one, also in Indian body, his name is Murari Das Baba, and he has previously been disciple of Jayapataka Maharaja. He took initiation of Sri Tinkudi Goswami- Sri Kisorikisorananda Babaji Maharaja, which gave him Babaji vesa.

I was previously wondering where is Tapomaya Das. He was well known in Iskcon, as i remember.

Yes, but in this case, there was a re-initiation. I didn't get the impression that the same was the case with the mahant Babhru mentioned.

I'm not sure where it is. I've never been out there. Turiya was going to send me directions to forward to a friend who's in Vrindavan, but he ended up sending them directly.

If I remember correctly, their line descends from Shyamananda. As I said, I'm not sure whether Tamal Krishna Babaji took diksha from Shastraji Maharaj (still can't remember his real name) or just vesha.

Sorry.



I'm sorry, I don't see the logic of this statement. Perhaps you meant to say "To call every critical look..." In that case I would agree with you. Otherwise there are obviously many 'critical looks' upon our parampara that we can call offensive... In case anyone didn't notice I was being quite specific as to what I was calling offensive. It is the charge that the sarasvata parampara is 'completely invalid' or 'somewhat invalid' or 'slightly invalid'. All of the pieces of information I have heard to substantiate this charge can easily be catagorised as conjecture. I don't see why I should accept any of it as authoritative testimony. What I do accept as compelling evidence to the contrary are all the wonderful devotees I have met and have read about who served within the sarasvata parampara; what to speak of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati himself. When we meet or read about a person who displays so many symptoms of a pure devotee, despite what tradition - Gaudiya or otherwise, what should we do? The rational reponse is to fold our hands in humility and feel worship and respect for such a soul. I used A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami as an example because I felt that his achievements are so self evident giving proof of his status a suddha bhakta. How can anyone argue that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu did not use Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami as His most eminent servant for spreading Gaudiya Vaisnavism all over the planet? So what do we do when we read Prabhupada lilamrta? Pay our dandavats in utmost respect? Or dribble some excrement about his guru parampara being invalid in some way? Now please forgive me for taking poetic license in reviving some valid rhetoric but it is like slapping Caitanya Mahaprabhu in the face while saying, "Sri Caitanya, how could you use A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami to plant the bhakti lata bija within the hearts of thousands and leaving a world wide society that over time will do the same for hundreds of millions. Didn't you know his guru parampara was invalid?" Yes, I'm sorry I have to say this but, it is offensive to think this way and yes it does reek of envy. I am accepting great devotees wherever they appear as long as they have the symptoms. That's why I intend to take the association of great Vaisnavas within the traditional parivars. However I'm not going to pretend that in order to accept these Maha Bhagavatas for who they are I have to reject those Maha Bhagavatas in the sarasvata parampara or at least doubt the validity of their lineage. Cooperation will be founded upon respecting each others obvious claim as the heirs of Gauranga Mahaprabhu's mercy. Cooperation will never be truly found by some sentimental new age approach that suggests we should respect each others disrespectable opinions of each other that are based on gossip. Sometimes advanced devotees have arguments or disagreements with one another but this is none of my business to take as my own flag and wave it. It is simply another inconceivable ornament of the unlimited nature of personalism.

Tapamoya Das, originally from the Sundarbans of East Bengal? I have examined the picture on Srila Turiya Dasji's site. Yes, it is the Tapamoy/Tapomaya Das I know.

Dear friends, I do not want to malign anyone, but this person should be carefully avoided, especially if one is in female body.

Perhaps he is still linked with his old associate Nitai Chand Das, another Bengali of Iskcon fame, who now lives near the original Radha Krishna Mandir on the hill above Radhakunda.

Extreme caution recomended.

These two worked together with Sri Bhavananda Das when some very serious crimes were committed in Mayapur, and were implicated by witnesses. Tapomaya's first wife has made very serious allegations about his behaviour in the Iskcon Vrindavan Temple.

Even if they are now remorseful, I have heard that Nitai Chand is, and if, as it seems, they are trying to rectify themselves with the Lord, still current practise is not to place people who have committed such crimes in situations where they might again be tempted.

It does seem that the victims have forgone seeking justice. In India it would perhaps be usual to keep silent about such things.

I'm sure Jagat, who knows them both very well, will be quite surprised to hear that Tapomaya Das is a Govardhan Mahant.

Shab, if you want to go on about the parampara-issue, I suggest you start another thread. What you're writing we've all seen a hundred times before, and it has never led to a constructive dialogue. You have your view and you aren't going to change it, and all evidence there is against your view, you consider conjecture. All right, you won the debate. Let it rest now.

Gee sorry, I didn't realise I was off the original topic in this thread.

We are here to discuss the principles of reconciliation, not to accuse each other of committing offenses by holding certain opinions. Such an approach leads nowhere, many of us have seen it dozens of times. I would not like to see this discussion become another one of those to be filed into the wasted time - basket.

Indeed, very.

BTW, here's the website: http://www.harekrishnatemple.org/ . Scan down the left side menu and look for "Govardhan (India) Asrama". That's not directly at Chakaleshvar, you'll see it on the right side of the Manasi Ganga parikram marg during the last quarter (if you started from Chakaleshvar), if my memory doesn't fail.

Tapomoy was with Bon Maharaj when he was a small boy. He was also friends with the Maharaj who took over Haridaspur near Bongaon. Name slips my mind. All these guys are pretty practical from the initiation point of view--i.e., if it's practical, take it.

You mean re-initiation in this case?

Would you mind filling me in with the background of Bon Maharaj in this regard?

He's now in Puerto Rico, from what I've last heard.

I wrote a friendly message of caution for all newcomers.

My position is completely misrepresented by Babhru's analysis. But who cares.

shab:

Well, I care. I'll accept your correction from any to every, but even I, whose commitment to our guru varga has been beyond question for 34 years, found the tone a little shrill. And I guess I wasn't alone. If I misjudged the motive for your remarks, I apologize.

Yes sorry about that. I wasn't completely sincere as there was a certain amount of contrivance in my writing simply to see what sort of reaction I would get. This is the first time I have engaged in such a discussion on these sensitive topics. I would consider my style of argument a failure but something to learn from.

ys shab

For what it's worth, I don't think it was a failure at all. On the contrary, I think it is most probably the most mature and peaceful discussions on the controversial topics that I have seen so far.

And believe me, I've seen these arguments many times!

Amazing, ain't it, that we're still around after 34 years. This, for me, is the mystery that holds the truth.

I'm sure most of us on board have had our fair share of confrontative encounters until managing to find a constructive tone of voice. It's live and learn.

Oh, yeah! When you consider where I really come from (or is it apparently? I'm never quite sure.), there's something downright inconceivable about the mercy of Lord Chaitanya and Lord Nityananda. But then, that helps explain the maha-vadanya-avatar thing, don't it?