Hermeneutic Circle - Is there a Gaudiya 'Theology'?

I've taken Braja's response to some of my posts and started a new topic on it here, where we might mull it over without distraction.

First here's his post:

Braja:
One of the topics at hand was whether the theology of BSST differed from the Goswamis. Are you saying that that topic--or any discussion of differences--is Western/Christian in nature? Or does it only become Western/Christian when it stretches to non-Gaudiya schools or questions anyones personal beliefs?

Mahaprabhu's analysis of the faults of the sad-darsana, Sankara, Buddhism, etc. isn't Western/Christian. Neither is Krishna's calling people mudhas or the Bhagavatam's calling them asses. So where exactly does the Western/Christian fault arise? Obviously it cannot be in aggression or delineation. Is it when a Westerner comments on any Hindu beliefs, even when using other Hindu beliefs as the basis of those comments?

You have me very confused. Frankly, I would need to see Mahaprabhu's teachings in a radical new light in order to accept teachings that are the antithesis of that which he and his followers taught. Can you give some examples where Mahaprabhu even hinted at such a mentality? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here, compounding my lack of understanding?

If your point is to allow others to worship as their heart pleases, sure, all power to them. Everyone walks on Krishna's path and he supplies their faith. If we are talking philosophy though, that's another matter. In my Western/Christian approach, I for one cannot see how anyone who has come in contact with the brilliance of the Goswamis, Visvanatha Ch., etc. can accept someone who allowed themselves to be seen as an avatara of Krishna and Mahaprabhu. Again, as a personal belief, that is wonderful. But if we are to compare the philosophy...

India has the greatest philosophical tradition of any country--nyaya, digvijay panditas, rival schools, elaborate commentaries and refutations--so why is it suddenly sacrosanct to not challenge anything? To accept all as equal? What happened to Hinduism?

QUOTE
Hermeneutic circle


Well, that depends on what you consider the whole. If you accept a whole defined by (and as) Krishna, the parts and the trap are very different from a whole that is undefined. A non-absolute whole leaves you with the challenge of needing to make sense of disparate parts and an ever changing whole...or is that 'hole'?

Yes, I am saying that at this moment we are only glimpsing Gaudiyaism 'through a glass darkly'.

Yes, I would say that most discussions in English language are western/christian, invoking those categories, and thus only tangentially related to Gaudiyaism, while undoubtedly central to us who are trying to approach the topic from our inevitable limitations.

The interesting thing is that an ex-Christian will select exactly those aspects of Krishnaism you drew attention to, while a Hindu might not notice them at all.

In what way are these selections we are making privileged over the Hindu ones?

Again, you think you have read Chaitanya Charitamrita. The Bengalis I have heard from say, 'It is untranslateable!' So much for our certainties. No doubt there are many reasons why they say this, not all reasonable. Yet what authority do we have to contradict them?

A detailed parallel example exists in the enormous controversy between Americans and Bengalis about the book 'Kali's Child' written by the American Jeffrey Kripal. About Ramakrishna actually.

Really, is there a Gaudiya 'theology' at all? I 'm not sure yet. This may well confuse you. I understand. I would right now say that Gaudiyaism is an elaborate body of praxis, based on certain beliefs (which I'm not sure I understand, even after 30 years of trying!) deeply rooted in Bengali culture, and that non-Bengalis have little access to it.

Those who are marginal in modern Bengali culture, the westernised middle-class, those of indeterminate caste, may have their own syncretisms. But these are not Gaudiyaism as such. They are attempts at mixing it with other elements, especially western influence. That is where I would place BSST.

This sounds very dogmatic. It's just meant as an introductory summary of the way I see things, based on my experience, which you can take or leave, but I can give more details. I'm just a bit short of time right now. More later-

Brajamohanji, how would you regard the Sat-sandarbhas of Jiva Gosvami, out of curiosity?

Where they present philosophical argument, don't they just basically argue that Bhagavatam is ultimate authority?

And this is all predicated with assertion that evidence of senses is not authority?

A theology must be systematic and free of contradictions. It is a western term for a western thing. In western terms the above is not adequate to establish a theology.

Theoretically, logical arguments must be free of circularity, eg:

'Senses are not authority'
-Then what is?
'Scripture'
-Why?
'Because it comes from God'
-How do you know?
'Because Scripture says so'
-Why should we accept scripture's word?
'Because it comes from God'
-How do you know?.........ad infinitum...

Does Bhagavatam present one complete theology without contradiction?

I love most of the SB. But what about the part of Uddhava-siksha in 11th Canto, where Krishna sings 'The Song of the Prostitute' (I think). And he's not joking? I have trouble taking this seriously as anything but a silly editor's interpolation, honestly.

I think Sat sandarbhas otherwise are elaborations of Gaudiya Practices and Doctrine, and are thus highly useful. This seems to be how Panditji uses them, for example.

David Hume elaborated the 'senses are not authority' philosophy to its greatest known degree, which he used I think to support Theological Deism, an Enlightenment era belief which is the same as Madhvaite Dualism.

But the philosophical systems of India are part of a self-contained culture.

Are you saying that you could just walk into a formal debate between the Tattva-vadis and the Shankarites and throw in a few comments in English? Even if you thought you knew a couple of slokas? Or even the entire Gita?

Wouldn't you just be laughed at, and rightly so?

Don't you see that they would just say, "This is the product of centuries of tradition which you do not understand, even if you think you do. If you want to participate you will have to study with us and learn our ways. Book learning will not be enough."

When did Hindus ever challenge each other's beliefs?

Except in the highly formalised, narrowly defined meeting points between just 2 or 3 traditions, which occurred very rarely: tattvavadis vs shankarites, or vs Ramanujites. The Tattvavadis seem to be rather unusual in this. Debates with Buddhists were perhaps more frequent (but what were the results?).

And the traditional councils, where sectarian rights were settled by disputing between Pandits. Were these philosophical enquiries into reality, or in fact diplomatic meetings where accomodation was sought?

You seem to be under the impression that Socratic Academies existed in India. If so, this was only amongst Buddhists. Other than that the nearest western analogy would be to meetings of Bishops and Abbots to define dogma.

Let's start with this.

1. If Mahaprabhu is considered a Hindu, at least in terms of being situated in the socio-religious milieu of Bengal, are there any examples of him challenging other's beliefs?

I have mentioned several occassions already, and several more can be mentioned. Indeed, there is even the instance where he confronts teachings outside Hinduism--viz. his discussion with Chand Kazi--and offers an explanation from within the teachings of that foreign culture, despite not being a part of that culture.

Yad-yad acarati....{hopefully that verse spoken by the Lord of Universe can convey something close to its intended meaning} If his "preaching" or "argumentative" actions are explained away as being the actions of God, why would only those actions be rejected as not-to-be-imitated, yet we take part in everything from sankirtana to manjari-seva based on his actions.

2. Jiva also refutes Sankarite doctrines in TS.

And what of the purva-paksha type dialectic used by many Vaisnava acaryas? They are often presenting and then refuting existing Hindu doctrines.

I'm yet to see any Hindu universalism being promoted by any Vaisnava acarya that I have read.

3. It is my conjecture that modern Hinduism (say, the past two centuries) has adopted that reputation at least partially for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, e.g. national unity, political expedience, intellectual "equality" with the West, etc.

The condescension and ridicule shown by many of the early European indologists in concert with the influx of Christian and scientific ideas must understandably have created pressure to make Hinduism more coherent and unified than it was.

Forces such as these in combination with Sankara's teachings allowed for a popular definition of Hinduism to arise. "Unity where there was diversity"

4. You mention Hume, saying he expounded on senses-as-authority "to its greatest known degree," and I couldn't but help remember my Hinduism professor excitedly stating: "Look. It is here in Hinduism centuries before Hume." He gave the same excited speech each time he related some point of Hinduism to a related concept in Western thought. The point I'll make in this regard is that Hinduism is a conglomerate of diverse, sometimes interweaving doctrines, that are so broad as to cover many of those known to mankind, so how can anyone, whether part of that culture (whatever that means) or not, propose that they have a consistent or thorough view? How is anyone not alien to some part of the whole, regardless of the language they speak?

(By now you've probably realized that I'm aiming for the submission-by-14-points technique, well known in Gaudiya Vaisnavism.)

5. How can a culture be self-contained? It interacts with outside entities, its own outer entities may become its inner entities, etc. Historical India has its Aryan invaders, Islamic invaders, the English, St Thomas (perhaps), Jesus (sure). It has borders: Nagaland, Bhutan, Nepal, Manipura, etc. It has revolutions, wars, natural disasters, etc. Jatasya hi dhruvam mrtyu. There is no static culture. If there is no static culture, where is the possibility of knowing something in completeness?

Subject to your ability to know, at a point in time, you may partially know that which is available for you to know. From that limited perspective, how could you claim that another could not know as they do not have the same viewpoint? Isn't there a Hindu teaching about blind people measuring an elephant? If one of those blind men happens to be deaf, is his measurement less than that of the others?

6. Charakas, Wandering Teachers:

"They were the real educators of thought. These bands of wandering scholars went through the country...and engaged in disputes and discussions....calling out the timid to a disputation. Seized with fear the Brahmins of the northern people challenged him to a disputation on spiritual matters....Such discussions were also encouraged and organized by the more intellectual and spritually-minded kings."

Radha Mookerji Ancient Indian Education
Sources quoted in this section were from Satapatha Brahmana and Brihadaranyaka.

Mookerji goes on to explain "Debating Circles and Parishads (Academies)" and "Conferences" again using Upanishadic references and characters.

Later, when describing Sutra Literature, Mookeri states that debate is the traditional method of Indian education, with only the Yoga school adhering to acceptance of authority as the sole means of evidence.

7. Requiring a theology to be systematic and free of contradictions presupposes both a rational absolute and a dead religion. Does Christianity have a theology? Catholicism? I doubt that any doctrine lives up to that standard, even Theologianism itself

Perhaps "a sense of cohesiveness" would be better than "systematic and free of contradictions"? And how about replacing the definition altogether with something like, "a common set of beliefs, practices and scriptures of a religious nature"? That would be a better model to work from, IMO. With a looser definition it becomes clear that a Gaudiya theology can be presented, and that this theology can be shown to both differ from other theologies and to be representable to those outside that theology in a consistent manner.

I am tending to Braja II here, but I suspect Braja I has a larger point.

I know that Anangaji started an earlier thread that touches on some of these matters, but it was back in the deadball era.

Certainly, the opportunity is being given to us, as Westerners, to interact with the Gaudiya tradition. Now the question is, what are we going to do with it? There are likely many answers, broadly represented by the various Gaudiya factions already existing in the West.

I think that any Gaudiya theology has to start with Radha and Krishna, rather than Krishna himself. But this may be considered radical.

Yeah, he does, certainly. I'm just being a bit facetious in my responses and "sniping" at a few words and terms. But seeing as I can get more "points," I'll try to enumerate some of them also:

8. Humility is a Good Thing (and the doorway to knowledge: viz. Krishna's use of amanitvam and adambhitvam in Gita 13.8)

9. Gaudiya Vaisnavism should be studied in the light of its own history (It doesn't need to morph into a Christian-like religion, far removed--literally or figuratively--from its roots, nor should it become a philosophy of surburban platitudes for the Western palate. Although my objection to morphing probably goes against earlier arguments to the contrary.)

10. Access to primary sources, both textual and living, is a key factor in understanding a tradition

11. Knowing the language(s) of a tradition is helpful in gaining access, especially to connotations, subtleties, or texts outside the mainstream. (Or if a subset of a tradition has used poorly translated texts to bolster arguments).



As hinted at above, I think one of the first things that needs to be done, especially as far as ISKCON is concerned, is that the Gaudiya theology and history needs to be studied and taught. For that matter, Prabhupada's books need to be studied and taught. Not as weapons or chores, but so as to....(almost broke out a number here) bring about an interest in sastra, acquaint/reacquaint members with the (potentially, joyful) process of sravana-kirtanam, etc. Distanced from that tradition and those practices, I don't know what its future is. But after walking in the dusts of Vraja, under the magnanimous gaze of Giri-Govardhana, I don't think it would be easy to equate sankirtana with selling oil paintings. Whoops. I better desist. To paraphrase the words of the philosopher: "They have their acaryas and gurus. We have ours. That's the only difference. Bas!"

Well, Brajaji,

I don't find much to disagree with in what you say generally. I'm not going to argue with most of your points, they are all quite good. I wonder how it is that we agree in general but disagree on specifics.

Perhaps its really a matter of emphasis.

I support your implied assertion that we should all endeavour to learn more and more about Gaudiyaism.

I have one question for Jagat, though:


Jagatji,

Inevitably, we are trying to develop an inner feminine sensitivity in Raganuga. But what feminine characteristics will we be trying to model? Those of the women in our own culture? Or those of a generalised 'Indian' woman? Or a North Indian Brajabasi woman? Or a South Indian?

When we develop our meditation, details become all-important. My siksha-Gurudev, Gosvamiji in the line of Sri Pran Gopal Gosvami (you used to teach the boy english I believe) says that we must learn Bengali culture, 'otherwise how will you understand the interactions of Radha and Krishna?' I think he has a good point, a very controversial one for some of us, but it seems self-evident to me.

Hmm interesting. And funny too. Well, from such a point of view Rupa and Raghunatha are 'Bengalis' that inwardly assume the role of 'Vrajavasi girls'. Perhaps we should forget about our external experiences, close off our senses and just read Vilap Kusumanjali and Utkalika Vallari As They Are. And having said that, what about Prabodhananda? Was he Prakasananda, and if so, was he a Bengali? Or was he the South Indian saint? And are the family roots of Rupa Gosvami not in South India? etc. etc.
Narottama sang:
kobe vrishabhanu pure, ahiri gopera ghare,
tanaya hoiya janamibo

"Hari! Hari! When will I attain this condition? When will I be born as a daughter in the house of a cowherder in Vrishabhanu's town (Varsana)?"

yavate amara kobe, e pani grahana hobe,
vasati koribo kobe taya

When will I be married in Yavat and live there?"

Been in Yavat? The smallest village in the world, yet the whole universe fits in there.....

I think the Gosvamiji's point was that you can catch the subtle points of the philosophy and relish the rasa better if you know Bengali. He is damn right, whatever country you are from.

Thanks, Advaitaji, I appreciate your input. You know it amazes me that this is not more widely discussed. I tried to bring it up with Nitai, for example, who wants to have a western Raganuga. He just avoids this issue, I find.

In my 7 years in Iskcon, I first found it incredibly exotic, but after some time, I began to see the many subtle (and not), ways that Iskcon was Western. Even in kirtan, westerners have a different sense of rhythm entirely, which I was very conscious of because I had some musical background.

Even the paintings, 'windows to the spiritual world'? Maybe in a general sense, but after a while the BBT ones just look so western, Hollywood even. With some exceptions. Jadurani is still very good (see her recent one?), and the best painter east or west for me, is...Gadadhar-Pran. His work drips with Rasa for me. Vrindavan Das (disciple of Pandit Sri Ananta Das) is of course very nice too, but GP's painting combines east and west in an original and highly dynamic way.

No, I think Gosvamiji meant more than that. Indian women have gestures and ways which are unique. Even different ways of feeling and showing emotion, including anger. In fact, sometimes I have difficulty with reading about the Gopis, because it reminds me of my wife and mundane life. 'Oh yes, my wife does that.' Isn't that a predicament?

I completely agree with you on the paintings. The gopis in the western Iskcon - paintings look like assertive, 27-year old feminists that had a string of lovers behind them
Well you are a western man with an Indian wife, eh? When you married her you could not know you would end up yourself as an Indian girl in the end!
Understandably therefore, many Indian sadhakas will confuse the external with the internal. A friend of mine was pujari in Krishna Balram Mandir in the past and he overheard some Brijabasis, who were having darshan of the three altars, saying to each other, when they got to Gaur Nitai on the left: "Which Gods are They?" "Oh, They are the Bengal Gods." To which my pal replied with a broad grin: "Come and look over here (to Krishna Balarama)! These are the U.P. Gods!"

No, that's a clue.

There are hundreds of different permutations and combinations of female character types found in the Ujjvala-nilamani, esp. chapters 5 and 8.

Brajamohanji, could you expand on this please? What is meant by a "western raganuga" ?

'A western Raganuga' - a group of westerners practicing Raganuga based on the books of the Gosvamis and linked through western initiates to the Traditional Parivars, but with little or no contemporary contact with Indian Raganugiyas.

It's a developing project which Ramdasji often discusses here. They now have an initiation guidebook which can be downloaded from Nitai's Bhajan Kutir, which is very informative:

http://www.bhajankutir.net/initiation-path.pdf

That's on the page:

http://www.bhajankutir.net/TSB.html

Temple of the Sacred Bower.

Check out the neat pic of Ramdas!

I'll update this thread as a topic for renewed discussion:

I am trying to point out how dependent Gaudiya Vaishnavism is on Bengali culture. Here's an article in which Sri Bhakti Vikash Swami describes his personal experiences in Bangladesh amongst the large Bengali Gaudiya community there, and how much he believes that such a 'Bengali encounter' is necessary to more fully understand Gaudiyaism: http://www.hknet.org.nz/BVKS-Bengal.html

Gaudiyaism has, of course, been transplanted into different non-Bengali cultures. Orissa, Braja, Manipuri, and now the modern West and the rest of the world. The common element is acceptance of Sri Chaitanya as a divine intercessor with Sri Krishna the ultimate object of devotion. Yet amongst Bengalis there are a substantial number who seem to reverse this hierarchy by seeing Sri Chaitanya as the only or ultimate Godhead, and this belief dates back to Sri Chaitanya's own early followers. This uncertainity about the identity of God makes the question of a single Gaudiya theology problematic. Outside Bengal, the two types of believers still acknowledge each other as Gaudiyas, suggesting that the sharing of Bengali culture is more important than differences over theology. At the same time they also acknowledge Manipuris, with a completely different culture, as fellow Gaudiyas. All this can be observed at Radhakunda where the 3 groups co-exist in a complex North Indian environment dominated by local 'Brijbasis' who are generally not regarded as Gaudiyas.

If Gaudiyaism was a simple religious belief like Islam, with one book and a common set of practices, cultural differences would not matter. But Gaudiyaism becomes highly technical at its deeper levels, and many of the details are culturally specific like dress, food, dance, gesture, emotions, song, approaches to hygeine, as well as the scriptures in Bengali and Sanskrit.

Further, I believe that when outsiders attempt to adopt Gaudiyaism a form of cultural determination, even unconciously, comes into play, which can have a damaging or at least confusing effect on aspiring devotees. I regard the Hermeneutic philosophical tradition as having the best explanation of this process. A full explanation can be found here in this article: http://www.angelfire.com/biz/telospress/images/tate110.pdf.

Here's a quote: "Thus all interpretation involves a circular
process. It is impossible to escape one’s own “horizon” and conceive
the “truth” of the other entirely on its own terms. At the same time, the
identity and meaning of the “other” cannot be reduced entirely to one’s
own preconceptions without violating its integrity. So Gadamer refers to a
circular process of hermeneutic interpretation where meaning is always
negotiated between one’s own preconceptions and those within the horizon
of the other."

So I see a real challenge in all this for westerners aspiring to cultivate Gaudiyaism's deeper levels.

Thoughts anyone?

Jai Nitai.
What puzzles me always about immersion in India in general, în W.B. and Sri Nabadwip Dham esp., is the more I get to know the less I understand. In the long run a new understanding is forming which is aware of its inherent limitation, aware that there is so much more that I am missing. It is sort of throwing my hermeneutic cycle out of sync because I bring all my preconceptions to which a new info is added, which I need to integrate knowing that I miss a thousand other infos and cultural understandings. I feel there as though swimming in a pool of implicite knowledge which being explained to me bit by bit creates more of a confusion than anything else.

The same is true when I go to the U.S., just on a less complex level. I do not have access to the basic cultural language which a native imbibes in the process of living and building an identity there. A simple thing, i do not really know what a Prom night is, I may hear a definition of it, a short description, but I still do not know what it all implies, and its cultural and personal significance. In India I do get the same kind of small indicators here and there about significance, but my integration capacity is limited subjectively (my limited functions) and objectively (by the limits of the process of understanding itself).

So I am really dependent on faith a lot there. Just allowing to happen whatever happens, not building up too much resistance to the invasion of sensual and subtle information. It certainly changes my being, pronounces my own cultural definitions. I have quit long ago trying to be a Bengali, and allow myself to be more who I am, aware that I am learning with each breath I take, and everyone can be my teacher, as well as me giving them feedback similarly, humbly if possible. But it is evident that as a foreigner I will never be one of them.

India is a holy land. I have an agnostic school-friend who said that long before I went there. Holiness cannot be understood, it can just be accepted with an open heart, with faith. I am happy to be able to open up to it, to accept the learning experience involved, each time a little more intensely.

Jai Sri Nityananda Ram, the support of the universe, the holy Dham.

Yes, that is the case about Gauranga-lila being primary because more complete than Radha-Krishna lila.

My own process in this is that I need to approach Vraj-lila to appreciate Nabadwip-lila more intensly. Given the reality that Bengalis have more clues to the former thru their up-bringing or early devotional practice, they can appreciate Gaur-lila more fully without giving that explicit regard to Vraj-lila. I think they are more able to see it like a caleidoscope where one lense mixes with the other, but one color or formation process is more predominant than the other, whereas I come from the details which make up the whole picture, and am in a constant intuition process which helps to make the picture whole from the few details that I see already.

Brajmohanji: You know that Gadamer got his theory on the hermeneutic cycle (his main work was called "Wahrheit und Methode", engl. "Truth and Method") on the basis of Edmund Husserl's Phenomenology. Husserl uses that interesting concept of epochä which is an attempt to preclude all available information on a subject to just look at it in its raw state of being to find what Kant's "thing in itself" might be.

In a way, the immersion process into a foreign cultural would ideally follow that path. It seems what the Goswamis prescribe about immersion in lila-smarana might be the same preclusion from all obstacles, which is not really possible to manipulate though.

Which makes me jump again to the pre-eminence of Gaur-lila: because it is seen as more magnanimous, and that preclusion of obstacles is difficult in Kali-yuga, Vraj-lila does not yield the results easily achieved through seva to Gaur-lila.

I think it is an uncertainty of the identity of God only to us. In love there is no uncertainty. I think there is certainty which also respects the other. Love taints ones view onto the world with rosey colors, and that includes others too. It is not just a matter of concepts, it is a matter of the heart which people in India, Bengalis esp., handle so well.

Joy Nitai

I believe that one of the most damaging "innovations", when Caitanyaite religion came west, was the introduction of the "brahmana initiation." Whatever helpful meaning and effect it may have among Indian-born sadhakas, I believe it has compounded several serious problems among most Western converts.

As soon as my consciousness is of "trying to be a brahmana," I will find myself trying to assimilate not just devotional qualities, but also particular social and cultural constructs that 1) may have little or nothing to do with Caitanya Vaishnavism, and 2) even if they are vital to actual brahmanas, may have little or nothing to do with me.

If I'm not "trying to be a brahmana," but instead accept myself as a low-born Westerner, won't that ultimately be the most helpful attitude in deepening my devotion? Obviously, our tradition has several examples of Mahaprabhu's associates who were born into or assimilated within the Muslim tradition, yet who upon entering the raganuga tradition were, by virtue of their devotion, far more "advanced" than most brahmanas. Yet we don't find Haridasa Thakur going around saying, "Because I'm a Vaishnava, I'm now higher than a brahmana!"

If we accept ourselves as low-born Westerners, and don't let ourselves feel "pressured" to artificially adopt customs and practices that we neither understand nor have internalized, and that do not really apply to us as low-born Westerners, then haven't we only then taken the first real step toward a "Western raganuga"? However much we might wish to interpret our Caitanyaism through the imagined lens of what we think is the worldview of a born Gaudiya, doesn't humility (trnad api sunicena...) require us to acknowledge our own limitations and cultural conditioning, and interpret our Caitanyaism through the accessible lens of our own experience?

How many of us, even if we deny the need or value of a "brahmana thread," are to some degree trying to "be brahmanas" rather than to first and foremost be Caitanyaites? Caitanya Mahaprabhu made the highest intimacy with Divinity available to the lowest-born men and women. He didn't do that, however, by making brahmanas. Perhaps we must "get over" our cultural romance with India before we can truly immerse ourselves in the process of self-purification required of us as Caitanyaites.

How deeply ingrained is this, though, among the Navadvipa devotees? Is it really a question of being brought up and familiar with Bengali culture and thus having an affinity for Gaura-lila (As Nabadipji mentioned), or is it something else entirely? By something else I assume it may be due to differences in theological outlook vis-a-vis belonging to a different parampara?

I'll say one thing, the whole concept of this varnasrama-dharma fascinated me when I learnt of the "quality, not birth" concept. Naturally this turned over all my ideas and was the subject of many a lively discussion. However the topic soon became extremely boring because the subject matter is not all that relishable. Now that I am trying to learn about the traditionalist Gaudiyas, it seems that the topic takes on a new dimension since caste-consciousness has obviously been a big part of the tradition throughout its development. How to reconcile all of that with the "quality" idea, before first contemplating how to take it to the West?

To begin with, we must ask ourselves why we should bother with the casts, by birth or by qualification, to begin with. It is obvious that most of us are of none of them by birth, and even if we were by qualities, we would be better off doing something else than cultivating our caste consciousness.

I think that the main thing is that we should be aspiring to imbibe the qualities ascribed to a brahmin rather than those ascribed to kshatriyas, vaishyas or shudras. That does not mean we should be putting on sacred threads or performing sacrfices while chanting Vedic hymns. Those are externals and they certainly do not pertain to us as Caitanyaites (at least those of us not born into brahmin families to begin with).

Perhaps it has something to do with the necessity of work even while practising raganuga-sadhana. If we are supposed to serve like Rupa Gosvami in the sadhaka-deha, not all of us can go off to Vraja and chant lakhs of names a day and so on. In this connection it may be useful to analyse one's nature and engage in the work of the same, to allow us to have some form of occupation/livelihood.

Let me take the Vaisya model as an example. Living in Vraja and engaging in a dairy-oriented occupation may help to stimulate remembrance of Krishna's daily life, etc. I understand that Kholaveca Sridhara was a banana-seller in Navadvipa, would that be some sort of Vaisya too? Did he not provide a service to the residents of Navadvipa, not least Mahaprabhu Himself who used to have daily "fights" with him over the price?

You mean like BG 13.8-12 or BG 18.42?

I recently read in the papers here, that a railway network in India advertised for unskilled labour. Over five million people applied for these posts, a great many of them where highly skilled workers with degrees. In India life is changing fast and a 'brahmin' may often find that he has to go to a factory to work. In the west we have experienced that there is no longer the culture of a 'job for life'. This makes even attempting to follow the caste system more and more difficult. In my own experience I have most probably gone through the complete range of varnas.
I have seen friends who have come out of ISKCON trouble themselves over this issue, thinking that they now must become ksatriyas and the like.
Personally I am very happy considering myself outside of the varnas. I think that the only consideration for occupation is that it is ethical, that it should not conflit with our beliefs and hopefully provide some extra cash so that we may visit Radha Kunda from time to time.
Adiyen thanks for posting the link to Bhakti Vikash Swami's article. I went on a tour of Bangladesh in the eighties and it certainly changed everyone who was there. It was like stepping back in time 500 years. I think that you can witness the culture of Gaudiya Vaishnavism there, more than any other place.

For what little I know of this it probably has more to do with difference in diksha and shiksha handed down thru guru pranali. Obviously I have only a glimpse into the whole spectrum, but it seems natural that gaura-paramya-vad would be situated best in Sri Nabadwip Dham, in Sri Kanda or Bengal in general, rather than in Sri Vraja Dham. I was surprised to hear from adiyen again that some of them are also in Sri Radhakund, I have read that before in another thread on the Gaur-Vishnupriya line.

From what I hear in bhajans a lot in Nabadwip, they are directed toward Nitai-Gaur but with the inclusion to reach Radha-Krishna. That is also what I heard at Dhameshwar Mandir, where, as someone else said, they are into gaura-paramya-vad. There are different groups singing there though from day to day, and I can't tell who is who/what line.

Not sure I understand the question, Dasji, but aren't you being too abstract? Apply Occam's Principle. The simplest scenario first.

'I am born Bengali (Gujarati/Punjabi/Tamil/....) My language is the most beautiful. Sri Chaitanya was also born Bengali. He spoke my language. His words touch my heart...He is God born amongst the Bengalis, just as the Arabs have their God who spoke Arabic...'.

The same reasoning is perhaps seen amongst Gujaratis etc., who follow Swaminarayan (who by the way, have the most detailed but clear Varnashram system I've seen, with both hereditary Acharyas and a reformist Sannyasi movement - a good parallel study. See HT Dave, Life and Philosophy of Shree Swaminrayan, Allen & Unwin). And can you be a real Sri Vaishnava if you're not born speaking Tamil? Won't most of it be inaccessible otherwise?

Note, though, that Vaishnavas seem to hold a much higher position in Gujarati and Tamil society than they do in Bengal. The highest Bengali castes are Smartas who scorn Vaishnavas and doubt the claims of Gaudiya Brahmanas to equal status. Being Brahmana is important to 'caste Gosvamis', perhaps because it enables them to lead and guide the devotees without being challenged by (atheistic) Smartas, but far more important is descent from Lord Nityananda or some other asociate of the Lord. So this is not the typical 'caste system'. Again, some Nityananda Vamshis are great devotees, others are mediocre, yet others are not devotees at all and live mundane lives. Though we respect the latter from a distance, Gaudiyism would not want us to follow a non-devotee, even if born a 'high-caste' Vamshi. So quality is very important.

The mythical history of Bengal includes an era when there was 'confusion about caste' and the king summoned wise Brahmins to assign castes to everyone based on their qualities (!)

Here it is descibed:

http://www.purespeed.com/personal/mazumdar...gname-myth.html

Vamsi,
I appreciate your point, but I think the problem of (shall we call it) 'spiritual arrogance' may be more broad-based. There may also be some Raganugiyas who have a superiority complex, even without a Brahmin thread. I experienced something similar amongst followers of Maharishi Mahesh. It's also common amongst New Agers, eg note the 'inner Goddess' movement, and all those past-lifers who believe they were Pharoahs or Caesars.

Did you know that Gaudiya Math sannyasis in India serve prasad, even to women? In Radhakunda, Babajis serve prasad. Yes, they drag the pots around putting prasad on people's plates and asking everyone if they've had enough. This may be a caste/purity thing, but the servers are also usually very humble and eager to please, and definitely see it as performing Vaishnava-seva.

It is interesting to wonder where the western devotees got their sense of hierarchy, their mood of absolute awe and debasement before authority figures. This mood does exist in mundane Bengali society, but is more relaxed amongst Gaudiyas (who nonetheless are sometimes obsessed with the rules of sadachara much more than non-devotees, so it is a paradoxical freedom).

Varnashram Dharma also means jati-Dharma, which is sometimes denigrated as the 'caste system'. But an important aspect of jati-Dharma is the upbringing of children, according to the traditions of their ancestry.

In a recent article ( http://www.chakra.org/discussions/GurDec17_03.html ), an Indian devotee complains that devotees do not emphasise caring for children enough and argues that this is not Vedic.

He makes the point that the nuclear family, a feature of modern western culture and westernisation, increases the tendency to neglect children. The joint-family has been lost in many cultures, and may not be unambiguously safer for children, yet he has a good point.

I would add to his argument, though, that traditional western culture is not in itself causing child-abuse, any more than traditional Indian culture is. Rather it is when families radically alienate themselves from the culture of their birth that they acquire strange and damaging ideas about the care of children, and eg might put their children in the care of impersonal institutions where they are more at risk.