Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Bhaktivinoda Thakur's appearance day


I did not post anything on Radharani's appearance day, and indeed I have been amiss in posting much of late. But I would like to offer my humble obeisances to my parama gurudeva and renew my commitment to what I see as the two poles of his contribution to Vaishnavism:

1. The conviction that the Goswamis' teachings have a place in the modern world, with its accent on rationality.

2. And the Goswami's teachings ultimate goal is Radha dasya.

So basically, the mission statement is, "To make Radha-dasya meaningful."

Jai Satchidananda Bhaktivinoda Thakur ki jai.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting this. Personally, I have never seen so many Bhaktivinoda parivaras as in Gaudiya Vaishnavism today, especially in ISKCON, GM and their offspring clans.

Gosh, everyone seems to be a direct successor to BVT, a rightful heir or whatever else. It seems it's in popular demand today -- BVT is quoted for any reason, and for no reason at all. As everyone pleases. It seems he justifies both people's conscience and lack of it.

And yet, inexplicably, there almost isn't a more dogmatic, literalist and fundamentalist group like Gaudiya Vaishnavism. If you find a person there you can talk to openly and without pre-supposed guilt, you're one darn lucky one.

Jagat said...

It is to be expected that Bhaktivinoda Thakur's vision would be interpreted differently by different people.

One problem is the contrast between the broadness of the interpretive vision -- how to make bhakti accessible and meaningful to the greatest number of people, and the apparent narrowness of the ultimate goal -- Radha-dasya.

It is funny that people want credit for being both the most liberal and the most exclusive.

Anonymous said...

..how to make bhakti accessible and meaningful to the greatest number of people, and the apparent narrowness of the ultimate goal -- Radha-dasya.
It is funny that people want credit for being both the most liberal and the most exclusive.


I don't understand this. Can you please explain why the ultimate goal must be so 'narrow'? 'Narrow' in what terms? Is that 'narrowness' something that goal imposes, or it is what people presuppose about the goal?

Why the liberal ideas automatically deny the possibility they can lead to such a great goal? Why wouldn't such a goal be the most liberal of them all? On which basis it claims its greatness, then? Or, what is its greatness then?

I'm not sure if these are your conclusions here, or you're just juggling with some ideas for a moment, but I find it wanting. Can you please elaborate further?