Tags
bhakti, bhakti-yoga, diksha, guru, history, initiation, parampara, raganuga, sampradaya, self realization, shiksha
This first is a reply to a comment from Cacofonix, after that is a reply to a comment from Michael Schenk, both are comments to The Fall of the House of the Usher post.
He wrote:
just want to confirm if I fully understand what you are saying. Hence I am taking liberty of phrasing it in my own words.
Fact 1: Most sampradhaya have a diksha driven chain of links. However they portray only the prominent acharyas. It is not necessarily a complete historical record.The way we understand the “missing links” is by falling back to see if Siksha holds tight.
Fact 2: Baladeva Vidhyabhushana did two things to establish Gaudiya as a Sampradhaya. Wrote Vedanta Sutra commentary called Govindhha Bhasya. Traced the links of the “new sampradhya” to brahma-Madhva sampradhaya.
Going by these facts, what we are saying is that Lord Chaitanya’s (for those who don’t believe that he is a reincarnation of Krishna and for sake of preaching) teachings are not some new age philosophy. It is grounded in sastra and have this sampradhaya link.
Once that is established, then the emphasis is on Sikhsha and not diksha part.
Please let me know if I got it right.
a) Diksha is not an important part of Gaudiya Sampradhaya. Siksha is what is emphasized
b) The link to Madha sampradhaya is done to establish it as a bonafide.
Note: Not that we are lying or anything about it. It is just that once the link is establish in a “unifying” sense, then we diverge to bring out the “different” take or interpretation of Sastra as per the Lord’s teachings.
Note: None of this is important for self realization. This is more a ordering of reality and hence a scholarly question and borne out of curiosity.
Like I said in my previous post, Baladeva Vidyabhusana specifically wrote a commentary on the Vedanta-sutra in order to establish the Gaudiya sampradaya as a serious school of Vedanta. There is a famous story on how that happened, you can read that story here. I believe he created that parampara list for the same purpose, seeing as it was a concern at the time in order to keep royal and other patronage for Gaudiya acharyas and temples in the face of jealous criticism from competing sampradayas. The accuracy of that list has been disputed by people in other Gaudiya parivars and in other sampradayas, and it has been defended and expanded upon in detail by various Gaudiya Math gurus. Although they stress the importance of pancaratrika diksha (ritual initiation) as well.
I don’t know about the importance of an unbroken parampara (succession of gurus) in other sampradayas, nor do I know if they have a concept similar to the siksa sampradaya. I’ve never investigated their beliefs in any depth in that regard. In the Gaudiya sampradaya there are many different parivars (guru sanghas or organizations) and vamshas (family lineages) e.g. the many offshoots of the Gaudiya Math: like ISKCON, Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math, Vrinda, Sri Chaitanya Math, etc. Then there are the various babajis in Vrindavana and or Nabadvip, each with their own sanga; there are Goswami descendants; and descendants of other founders of Gaudiya Vaishnavaism ( Nityananda parivar, Gadadhara parivar, Advaita parivar, Narottama parivar) plus others. Many or probably most of those who are seriously devoted to sadhana-bhakti take an unbroken parampara very seriously. It’s more the norm for most of those outside of the Gaudiya Math offshoots to believe that without proper diksha into a guru pranali (line of gurus) that your sadhana will only take you so far (i.e. not far enough), that in order for it to have full potency you absolutely need proper diksha into a proper parampara.
ISKCON and the other Gaudiya Math offshoots vary on their regard or preaching about the importance of diksha, running the gamut from teaching it’s absolutely essential, to teaching it’s not all that important. As you can imagine, the initiating gurus insist on it’s absolute necessity. As a consequence, their followers who see them as enlightened masters, also parrot those beliefs. The current siksa sampradaya conception was innovated by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, possibly with instigation from his father (different histories are given by different sources). As far as I know I don’t think he called it that, maybe the name came later from his disciples. The conception had always been present since the beginning of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, e.g. Sri Chaitanya didn’t give diksha as far as anyone can prove, the entire sampradaya is based upon his teachings. But over time diksha became all-important, some of Bhaktisiddhanta’s followers say that he wanted to challenge that ideology, that he wanted to bring back that original spirit of self-realization being dependent on self-realization, and not upon rituals or mystical charms of any type.
Prabhupada never taught about it. He went in the opposite direction, pushing the importance of the diksa guru. But some of his godbrothers, and in turn their followers who teach a lot in India, and spend time in the wider Gaudiya community there, and who have been led to believe the extreme importance of diksha, they’re the ones who teach about the siksa sampradaya. But, they also press the importance of diksha. This may have to do with trying to convince that they’re part of a legitimate parampara in the face of criticism over the legitimacy of Bhaktisiddhanta’s diksha. They may not really understand what Bhaktisiddhanta was trying to teach. It seems many of them consider the siksa sampradaya (or Bhagavata parampara) as an ideology about the relative non-importance of a diksha guru pranali (unbroken chain of gurus), whereas I believe it was more simply about the nonessential nature of diksha, due to diksha having erroneously gained such prominence as the be-all and end-all of sadhana-bhakti. By Bhaktisiddhanta’s neglect of the importance of the diksha parampara, he’s implying that diksha itself isn’t very important, if it all. If the importance is in the siksa parampara, if self-realization is just about jnana and vijnana (gaining spiritual knowledge and experience) rather than a mystic ritual connection to a guru, then what need at all of that mystic diksha connection? Of course a lot of gurus and guru wannabes saw that implication, and didn’t like it, not one bit. Bhaktisiddhanta became heavily criticized and disliked by the wider Gaudiya community, even by his own brother Lalita Prasada, who called him a liar and a deviant.
I never heard about siksa sampradaya when I was in ISKCON, it goes against Prabhupada’s mood I think, although sometimes some people mention it, but in the conception of the non-essentiality of a strict guru-pranali, I doubt they mention it in the sense of diksha not being important, seeing as ISKCON culture is so heavily focused on being a place for worshiping ISKCON’s gurus. This article at Dandavats.com (ISKCON’s offical news and blogging outlet) http://www.dandavats.com/?p=817 is what I assume is the dominant attitude.
This is a reply to what Michael Schenk wrote in his comment, he wrote:
Your thoughtful posts have made me re-think my attitudes. You have helped me to make peace with my experiences with the Hare Krishnas and even reconsider chanting the maha-mantra.
I would like to ask though, what your thoughts are on chanting the mantra, the so-called “mystic potency” that virtually every Hindu believes their guru to possess, whether this guru thing is relevant or even necessary to sadhana practice and how/why? I would also like to know your thoughts on practicing bhakti and/or Krishna worship in the modern day, where just about every guru is wrong and every group of followers is hell bent on promoting silly ideas and wants to take your money.
Here are some posts where I write about japa meditation. Kirtan is different, having more to do with reciprocation from God than japa, although both do—it’s just that japa has other purposes as well.
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/mind-games/
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/black-or-white/
I’ve written a lot on guru-tattva (truth about gurus). Essentially, my view is that the pre-modern world was dependent on gurus for spiritual knowledge due to the lack of books, and the lack of an ability to read them, and therefore the scriptural and sage writings from that time on the role of a guru reflects that reality of people’s utter dependence on gurus for spiritual knowledge. Since gurus were the only source of spiritual knowledge for most people, they are very heavily promoted in the books from that world. In the modern world, with modern technology giving fairly easy access to most people the writings of the ancient gurus, scriptures, and brahmin sages, their personal association is no longer so relevant in order for you to become God conscious. But since the books were written when the opposite was true, and those books are sacrosanct for so many ever since, the idea of the guru as the singularly most indispensable aspect of your path to God has been continually promoted as an eternal truth, rather than a relative one, for rather obvious reasons:
1. Many religious people are afraid to neglect whatever is said in scripture regardless of what it says, or it’s original source in human history. They fear angering God and the angels, they fear losing out on salvation if they are anything but humble and submissive to the literal words of scriptures. We see this phenomena in all religions.
2. The gurus, priests, popes, mullahs, lamas, roshis, pastors—get to be the scripturally sanctioned receiver of your devotional attitude and service. So of course there is a strong incentive for many people to maintain whatever scriptures or past ideals taught about devotion to a guru, even if those teachings are no longer relevant in our time.
My thoughts on bhakti-yoga in the modern day is spelled out all through this blog and would take a long answer to be fully satisfactory—but essentially my view is based on the same original teachings as that which Gaudiya gurus and monks teach from. The difference with them is I believe in a more personal approach to bhakti yoga, rather than a one-size-fits-all attitude they present. People have different needs due to being on different levels of spiritual realization, different levels of faith, and different abilities, mental and physical. I also have disagreements with their interpretation of various philosophical and social teachings. But since we come from the same source, much is also the same, i.e. the need of sravanam, hearing, reading, learning spiritual knowledge presented from the Vedas, Puranas, Pancharatras, etc. for those who need to come close to God. Also chanting is good for you.
All the aspects of sadhana-bhakti are of great help for neophytes. As you gain more knowledge and experience your sadhana should change as well. Some things should be less important and others more so. For neophytes temple worship is very beneficial, for more advanced bhaktas it doesn’t really help or give you what you need to advance. Once you’re closer and more knowledgeable there are more intimate types of sadhana, having more to do with direct experience of yourself and your ontological relationship with God, rather than the schooling and worship needed by neophytes. Meditating on God within, trying to understand God’s presence and control all around you, and your potential relationship with God, that becomes the focus as you advance. As Jiva Goswami says in Bhakti Sandarbha:
In the Gautamiya Tantra it is said:
“For they who are always fallen in love with the lotus feet of Lord Krsna there is no japa, no Deity worship, no meditation, and no rules.”
When attraction (ruchi) is not yet manifested even the best raganuga bhakti is considered to be mixed with vaidhi bhakti. Even a devotee who has attraction (ruchi) for the Lord may, in order to benefit the people of the world, engage in raganuga bhakti mixed with vaidhi bhakti. Therefore, in some situations it is appropriate to practice raganuga bhakti mixed with vaidhi bhakti.
The Supreme Personality of Godhead declares (in Brahma-yamala, also quoted in texts 9 and 24 of this anuccheda):
“The Sruti and Smrti sastras are My commands. Therefore one who disobeys the scripture disobeys Me. Such a person hates Me. He may claim to be devoted to Me, but in truth he is not.”
These words do not apply to the devotees engaged in raganuga bhakti, for such devotees are already on the right path in spiritual life. Rather, this verse is addressed to they who follow the wrong paths, the paths of heretics and atheists like Buddha, Rsabhadeva, Dattatreya and others.
The scriptures declare:
“A heretic opposed to the religion of the Vedas may worship his own deity. However, he will go to hell until the time when the universe is destroyed by floods.”
Even though many Vedic rules are not followed in it, raganuga bhakti is not outside the path of the Vedas. Actually raganuga bhakti is the perfection of the religion described in the Vedas and the scriptures that explain the Vedas. This is so because raganuga bhakti makes one attracted (ruci) to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the Vedas are described many heretics and atheists, such as Buddha, who are opposed to the Vedas and thus are outside the sphere of Vedic religion. For example, in Srimad Bhagavatam (1.3.24) it is said:
“Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.”
Therefore raganuga bhakti is proper and correct. It is much better than vaidhi bhakti. The previously discussed rules of the scriptures are meant for [those who seek] merging into the existence of the Lord [to purify non-devotees].
Francisco said:
Are you saying like Krishnamuti and many others that it is not needed an organization, that religion and self realization it is only an individual question? And I am thinking of course in the same experience, which everyone agrees has to be done by oneself. But I wander if you mean that the institution of Guru-disciple it is not needed? Or it is just that because of your bad experience in Iskcom that you point out to the wrong interpretation, or misuse of it?.
Concerning the Sampradaya so it looks that the list and so the linage of Gaudiya comes from Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana through him and his commentary is established the relation with Caintanya, but there are others schools that can be as valid as the Gaudiya, not only those coming from Caintaya, but even from other sampradayas. That the Vedas rules do not applies to the Ranuga bhakti. Where in the Vedas is that? I think that it is only Caintaya and all the other that you mention including Iskcom are saying that. The point is that even The ranugabakti are saying another thing different from the Vedas. But one thing is for denying the Vedas goal and other is for improvement in that sense.
The Parabrahman has two aspects: material and spiritual (prakritic and atmic) in its functioning in this world. Some school are emphasizing the worship the prakriti aspects and other like vedantas schools only emphasizes the atmic aspect. From there comes the idea of Maya is illusion and this world does not exist, interpretation in the negative sense. Although iskcom and all similar schools know the suddha aspect or transcendental, always interpret the things in the sense of rejecting, throwing the baby with the water, that one must understand the progress in that direction. The trascendental includes both aspects and doesn’t mean to focus in one and throw away the other. The same formula applies Prabhupada for example in the interpretation of the Gita ( apart from changing the words say by Krishna and giving his own understanding) respect of mediation (dyana), he says that must be rejected because it sis said that the mind is difficult to control. But in the same Gita says that one can get control over it with abhyasa and varayga. It doesn’t say to throw away dyana and worse to replace it with interminable rules , and rites or mechanical repetitions of the of the so called Devotional service, that at the end becomes more complicated than meditation. ( but this another point ). For me Gaudiya and the similar still belongs to the Vedanta schools and with that carry some of their problems: Maya, this world is not exist, or it is full of suffering only, it is the focus of the preaching ( not full of transitory pleasure and transitory sufferings, that bind us in an evil circle) the same like Buddha and Sancaracharya that they say to oppose so much.
Vrajabhumi said:
Francisco
You wrote:
It depends on what you mean by organization. If you mean a group of people who maintain temples and or ashrams, then I say that is wanted and is needed for neophytes, and to a lesser degree for madhyama (mid-level) bhaktas. If you mean an organization like ISKCON that seeks to control people rather then simply provide facilities; and which tries to make people feel they are dependent on them for salvation, then no.
As for gurus, again it depends on what you mean by “the institution of Guru-disciple.” If you mean a person who teaches and may or may not provide some ritual initiation, then that is good and needed. If you mean gurus that seek to control people rather then simply provide instruction; and who try to make people feel they are dependent on them for salvation, then no.
You also said that it’s only from Chaitanya and his followers where we find the idea of the rules and regulations of the Vedas not being necessary for raganuga bhaktas. That isn’t true, for example in the Bhagavad Gita we can see that one of the important ideas it presents is that you don’t need to follow all sorts of Vedic dharma.