Reflections on Guru Issues
[I have been working on the introduction to Bhaktivinoda Thakur's autobiography for the longest time and still haven't finished fine tuning it. On a couple of threads on Facebook I dashed off a few of my considered thoughts. I also went back and looked at an early article I wrote on the subject, which might still prove useful, The Parampara Institution in Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
Not so long ago I wrote an article "All this parampara business, why do I bother? Those same thoughts come over me again. After all, isn't the human race about to go extinct, so what is the point on what appears to be a trivial matter and a personal obsession? What can I say? I am working on Bhaktivinoda Thakur now and so it is preeminent in my mind. So I shall continue reflecting on it until I am liberated from it.]
Someone suggested that Jagannath Das Babaji gave initiation to Bhaktivinoda Thakur, as would appear to be the case of the Gaudiya Math paramparā, but of course there is no possibility of that. The fact that anyone thinks this at all -- i.e, that the Thakur renounced his dīkṣā guru -- is an indication that one has any understanding how a Vaishnava would respect shastra or the prior traditions and custom. There is no possibility of this being the case with the Thakur himself, as any study of the evidence will reveal.
Bhaktivinoda Thakur took dīkṣā from Bipin Bihari Goswami in 1880, at the age of 42, after becoming expert enough in śāstra to give Bhagavatam classes in Jagannath Puri, at Jagannath Vallabha and on the temple grounds in the Kurma Bedha. According to his own testimony he studied Bipin Bihari Goswami's character and siddhānta and found them to be sufficient to happily take initiation from him.
If you want to study Bipin Bihari Goswami's philosophy, you can read his books. I have read a great deal of his Daśa-mūla-rasa o Baiṣṇaba Jībana and find it very good, both from the literary and philosophical point of view. Bipin Bihari was an excellent poet and a rasika. He had studied the Gaudiya Vaishnava shastras for nine years from Bhagavan Das Babaj of Kalna, who is still revered as a siddha in Vaishnava history (such as Haridas Das's Gauḍīẏa Baiṣṇaba Jībana), though unknown to the Gaudiya Math. I do not find any point in Bipin Bihari Goswami's writing that I could say would be a disagreement with Bhaktivinoda Thakur, except possibly that he is somewhat more inclined to talk about rasika subjects. Perhaps I will be able to share some of his writing with the devotees in the future.
For instance, it is sometimes heard that Bipin Bihari Goswami disdained Raghunath Das Goswami. After translating Raghunath Das's Premāmbhoja-marandākhya-stavarāja, he writes:
It is for reasons like this that I find it a major problem that Bipin Bihari Goswami has been so cavalierly rejected by the neo-Vaishnava holders of the fanatical anti-caste-Goswami and anti-Babaji doctrine. There ultimate appears to have been no real necessity for it. Especially since Bipin Bihari also appears to have been strongly against sexual misconduct in the name of madhura-rasa.
The custom in the sampradāya has been for grihasthas to take initiation from the ācārya-santānas (which is a nicer term for Jati Goswami), and then bhajana-śikṣā and veśa from a vairāgī guru. Vairāgī gurus, as a point of principle, did not get bogged down in making disciples.
It is not possible to have an unbroken disciplic succession when it comes through śikṣā because generally there is no direct connection between the individuals involved, as in the Gaudiya Math "paramparā." If you do away with the personal connection, well, you have missed a huge portion of the principle of guru succession. Why not "jump over" and go straight to Rupa and Raghunath if one needs no intermediaries or if everything depends on subjectivity alone? Legitimacy is about applying objective criteria to matters of authority, even if those criteria (taṭastha lakṣaṇa) are secondary to the principal criteria of spirituality, which are indeed subjective, both in the authority and in the one recognizing it.
You will recognize that there are mixed signals in the way that Srila Prabhupada presents the topic of an "unbroken disciplic succession." The idea that the guru names his successor, for instance, would be irrelevant in such an arbitrary paramparā. And anyone might claim discipleship without any personal relationship with a guru. This isolates the theoretical from the personal and therefore suspect.
The concept of śikṣā-sampradāya is not false, but it is genaral, non-specific. The teaching (śikṣā) is to take initiation, so that is the particular or specific tradition.
What ties the Gaudiya sampradāya together in a unique way is the belief in Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's avatar, that those who were his companions were eternal associates who also had an identity in Braj, and that the mantra that one receives in dīkṣā paramparā connects one spiritually with that specific associate of Mahaprabhu. Far from restricting you in following the teachings of Rupa and Raghunath, it should inspire you to do so by giving you the sense of belonging and participation.
As to whether Bhaktivinoda Thakur took veśa from Jagannath Das Babaji, if he did so, he did not do it in person. From what I have heard, he had in his possession a kaupin and bahirvas that had belonged to Jagannath Das and he donned them and made his vows. For me, this kind of independent action does not represent a major problem for the individual, though in today's Radha Kund and Braj, it would not be recognized as legitimate.
The problem comes when someone appoints himself guru. When you want to become guru, you normally have to present your credentials, one of which is having taken initiation in a disciplic succession descending from the nitya-pārṣads of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
If your line has other great personalities in it, that is wonderful. In my line, we have not only Lalita Prasad Thakur, Bhaktivinoda Thakur, and Bipin Bihari Goswami, but Rajballabh Goswami, Ramachandra Goswami, Jahnava Mata, Nityananda Prabhu, Vamshivadanananda Thakur, Vishnupriya Devi (the last two not exactly by dīkṣā). It is a family connection that is accompanied by mamatā (love in the sense of belonging and ownership) for not just one's own guru, but all the way through to line to the direct associates of the Lord. That is why there is a siddha-praṇāli, because you are being connected directly to the avatar generation, who are also residents of Braj.
So, fine, Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur broke with tradition. The Holy Name is not dependent on initiation. But there is an aparādha called guror avajñā. There is a darkness surrounding the truth and the reasoning behind Saraswati Thakur's decision to reject Bipin Bihari Goswami. Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that this would have met with the Thakur's approval and no doubt he would have rejected any application for mantra initiation from anyone who was not willing to offer the same or greater reverence to his guru. We have verbal testimony confirming this from Lalita Prasad Thakur, but it is not necessary. We know by studying Bhaktivinoda Thakur's autobiography that he did not reject the traditions connected to dīkṣā in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradāya, but confirmed them in numerous places, especially in connection to siddha-praṇāli.
But whatever the truth and whatever the reasoning behind Saraswati Thakur's decision to make a break with tradition (i.e., paramparā, sampradāya), there can be no justifiable reason for rejecting Bhaktivinoda Thakur's Guru, when he took initiation as a mature man of 42, who already possessed vast knowledge and understanding of the Gaudiya shastras, possessed of incredible intelligence and critical ability, having seen the existential situation of the Gaudiya Vaishnava world, with the multiplicity of sects and subsects, and a general looseness in terms of siddhānta and ācāra and thus well aware of defects in the caste Goswami and kula-guru system as it was in his time.
Are you going to second-guess this man's choice?
Not so long ago I wrote an article "All this parampara business, why do I bother? Those same thoughts come over me again. After all, isn't the human race about to go extinct, so what is the point on what appears to be a trivial matter and a personal obsession? What can I say? I am working on Bhaktivinoda Thakur now and so it is preeminent in my mind. So I shall continue reflecting on it until I am liberated from it.]
Someone suggested that Jagannath Das Babaji gave initiation to Bhaktivinoda Thakur, as would appear to be the case of the Gaudiya Math paramparā, but of course there is no possibility of that. The fact that anyone thinks this at all -- i.e, that the Thakur renounced his dīkṣā guru -- is an indication that one has any understanding how a Vaishnava would respect shastra or the prior traditions and custom. There is no possibility of this being the case with the Thakur himself, as any study of the evidence will reveal.
Bhaktivinoda Thakur took dīkṣā from Bipin Bihari Goswami in 1880, at the age of 42, after becoming expert enough in śāstra to give Bhagavatam classes in Jagannath Puri, at Jagannath Vallabha and on the temple grounds in the Kurma Bedha. According to his own testimony he studied Bipin Bihari Goswami's character and siddhānta and found them to be sufficient to happily take initiation from him.
If you want to study Bipin Bihari Goswami's philosophy, you can read his books. I have read a great deal of his Daśa-mūla-rasa o Baiṣṇaba Jībana and find it very good, both from the literary and philosophical point of view. Bipin Bihari was an excellent poet and a rasika. He had studied the Gaudiya Vaishnava shastras for nine years from Bhagavan Das Babaj of Kalna, who is still revered as a siddha in Vaishnava history (such as Haridas Das's Gauḍīẏa Baiṣṇaba Jībana), though unknown to the Gaudiya Math. I do not find any point in Bipin Bihari Goswami's writing that I could say would be a disagreement with Bhaktivinoda Thakur, except possibly that he is somewhat more inclined to talk about rasika subjects. Perhaps I will be able to share some of his writing with the devotees in the future.
For instance, it is sometimes heard that Bipin Bihari Goswami disdained Raghunath Das Goswami. After translating Raghunath Das's Premāmbhoja-marandākhya-stavarāja, he writes:
premāmbhoja
marandākhya stabarāja ei
ye barṇilā śrī-rādhāra kṛpā-pātra sei |
sei kṛpā-pātra dekhi raghunātha dāsa
tāɱhāra kṛpāẏa mora pūrṇa abhilāṣa |
dhanya dhanya raghunātha
gosāñi saṁsāre
mahābhāba-rūpā rādhā jāni yāɱra
dbāre |
"He who composed this prayer is the beneficiary of Radharani's mercy. I see that this recipient of Radha's mercy is Raghunath Das, by whose blessings my desires are completely fulfilled. All glories, all glories to Radhunath Das Goswami, for it is through him that we can know Radha, the embodiment of the highest love for Krishna, in this world." (DMR 130)
It is for reasons like this that I find it a major problem that Bipin Bihari Goswami has been so cavalierly rejected by the neo-Vaishnava holders of the fanatical anti-caste-Goswami and anti-Babaji doctrine. There ultimate appears to have been no real necessity for it. Especially since Bipin Bihari also appears to have been strongly against sexual misconduct in the name of madhura-rasa.
The custom in the sampradāya has been for grihasthas to take initiation from the ācārya-santānas (which is a nicer term for Jati Goswami), and then bhajana-śikṣā and veśa from a vairāgī guru. Vairāgī gurus, as a point of principle, did not get bogged down in making disciples.
na śiṣyān anubadhnīta granthān naivābhyased bahūn |
na vyākhyām upayuñjīta nārambhān ārabhet kvacit ||113||
"One should not take [many] disciples, nor study many different books. One should not make a living from commenting on the scriptures, nor engage in great undertakings." (7.13.8)
You will recognize that there are mixed signals in the way that Srila Prabhupada presents the topic of an "unbroken disciplic succession." The idea that the guru names his successor, for instance, would be irrelevant in such an arbitrary paramparā. And anyone might claim discipleship without any personal relationship with a guru. This isolates the theoretical from the personal and therefore suspect.
The concept of śikṣā-sampradāya is not false, but it is genaral, non-specific. The teaching (śikṣā) is to take initiation, so that is the particular or specific tradition.
As to whether Bhaktivinoda Thakur took veśa from Jagannath Das Babaji, if he did so, he did not do it in person. From what I have heard, he had in his possession a kaupin and bahirvas that had belonged to Jagannath Das and he donned them and made his vows. For me, this kind of independent action does not represent a major problem for the individual, though in today's Radha Kund and Braj, it would not be recognized as legitimate.
The problem comes when someone appoints himself guru. When you want to become guru, you normally have to present your credentials, one of which is having taken initiation in a disciplic succession descending from the nitya-pārṣads of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
If your line has other great personalities in it, that is wonderful. In my line, we have not only Lalita Prasad Thakur, Bhaktivinoda Thakur, and Bipin Bihari Goswami, but Rajballabh Goswami, Ramachandra Goswami, Jahnava Mata, Nityananda Prabhu, Vamshivadanananda Thakur, Vishnupriya Devi (the last two not exactly by dīkṣā). It is a family connection that is accompanied by mamatā (love in the sense of belonging and ownership) for not just one's own guru, but all the way through to line to the direct associates of the Lord. That is why there is a siddha-praṇāli, because you are being connected directly to the avatar generation, who are also residents of Braj.
So, fine, Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur broke with tradition. The Holy Name is not dependent on initiation. But there is an aparādha called guror avajñā. There is a darkness surrounding the truth and the reasoning behind Saraswati Thakur's decision to reject Bipin Bihari Goswami. Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that this would have met with the Thakur's approval and no doubt he would have rejected any application for mantra initiation from anyone who was not willing to offer the same or greater reverence to his guru. We have verbal testimony confirming this from Lalita Prasad Thakur, but it is not necessary. We know by studying Bhaktivinoda Thakur's autobiography that he did not reject the traditions connected to dīkṣā in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradāya, but confirmed them in numerous places, especially in connection to siddha-praṇāli.
But whatever the truth and whatever the reasoning behind Saraswati Thakur's decision to make a break with tradition (i.e., paramparā, sampradāya), there can be no justifiable reason for rejecting Bhaktivinoda Thakur's Guru, when he took initiation as a mature man of 42, who already possessed vast knowledge and understanding of the Gaudiya shastras, possessed of incredible intelligence and critical ability, having seen the existential situation of the Gaudiya Vaishnava world, with the multiplicity of sects and subsects, and a general looseness in terms of siddhānta and ācāra and thus well aware of defects in the caste Goswami and kula-guru system as it was in his time.
Are you going to second-guess this man's choice?
Comments