More reflections on Guru-Tattva (II)

Anyway, the whole subject must be looked at in the context of the sociology of religion. Religions, like any other social phenomenon, go through periods of stagnation and reform. All reforms, which are usually carried out by charismatic individuals.

In the wake of a charismatic founder or reformer's death, the followers are bewildered because nobody can equal the divine messenger. So other lines of legitimacy have to be established.
The primary legitimacy usually is "the person who was closest to the divine messenger, his companion, the greatest recipient of his grace, etc."

In the first generation of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, this legitimacy was extended to ALL of Mahaprabhu's associates. That is the purpose of texts like Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā and the other Vaishnava vandanās and śākhā-nirṇaya type texts. gaurāṅgera saṅgi gaṇe nitya siddha kari māne.
And this legitimacy was extended to all their descendants.

But of course there is a caveat, and certainly BBG in his Daśa-mūla-rasa does not shy from saying that legitimacy by birth does not carry a great amount of significant weight per se. In his autobiographical remarks in the Daśa-mūla-rasa, Bipin Bihari even says very openly to his own children, "If you abandon Gauranga's dharma I will not touch your food." Which just goes to show that there is a certain power to the institutional discipline of family tradition, even with the usual kinds of passive aggressive attempts to influence children's behavior.

aiche tina madhye yadi kabhu kona jana
śrī gaurāṅga rāma kṛṣṇa haẏa bismaraṇa
tāra datta jala ādi mora grāhya naẏa
niścaẏa kariẏā ei bipina kahaẏa

"Of these three children if any should ever forget Gauranga or Krishna-Balaram, I will not drink their water if they give it me, so does this Bipin say with certainty." (DMR 1206)

For better or for worse, the family and family traditions are also among the many pre-modern traditions that globalization undermines. Family traditions are the first thing to go with the consumer society, increased individualism and globalization.

But one should not minimize the power of saṁskāras, such as that of birth. If one's birth is a source of inspiration to bhajan and to serve, such as I have seen in many members of the Nityananda vamsa, then it is the cherry on the icing, or as we say sonāẏa sohāga.

So, in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the standards of character and bhajan on the highest level of achievement according to our sampradaya's teachings, are the only real legitimacy. There are external and internal symptoms of such achievement, the internal (svarūpa-lakṣaṇa) are more important than the external (taṭastha-lakṣaṇa), which are more easily faked. Nevertheless, since the inner generally follows the outer, the discipline of a sādhaka is to accept the outer characteristics first, as a sādhanā. siddhasya lakṣaṇaṁ yat syāt sādhanaṁ sādhakasya tat.

The signs of sampradāya -- tilak, dress, name, etc., the pañca-saṁskāras -- are connected with dīkṣā. In the case of the Gaudiya Math, the Vaishnava orthodoxy considers them illegitimate. There are too many things to discuss here to get into the issue, but let us say it will take a while for the orthodoxy to accept saffron dress. It is an affront to what has been accepted as Vaishnava sad-ācāra from the time of Caitanya-caritāmṛta.

As a last point and in view of the above, the "descent" of a charismatic leader like Siddhanta Saraswati or Bhaktivedanta Swami cannot be discounted or rejected on the basis of external symptoms of legitimacy. That would not be the Hindu way. But to the extent possible, those who have made the greatest impact find ways to continue their legacy through a school or sampradāya, and normally it is impossible to be truly creative without having imbibed the cumulative knowledge of the past, as it evolved in a particular tradition. Even a breakaway sect is a part of the global tradition.

According to Bhaktivinoda Thakur, this kind of charismatic renewal is a necessity. So in principle we are not against Siddhanta Saraswati or Bhaktivedanta Swami because their innovations benefited us, who were in total ignorance. Siddhanta Saraswati's innovations had a rational basis, whose efficacy can be measured in his successes and those of his descendants.

But, in my view, after contemplating the issue from both sides for a long time now, the essential problem lies not in Saraswati Thakur's innovations, but in his break with maryādā by rejecting Bipin Bihari Goswami, for whatever reason. There is no acceptable reason. So I made my decision for better or for worse to correct a moral flaw in the historical record without rejecting the channel of mercy.

I would like to say that there is a general and a particular way of viewing the sampradāya. The particular way is the more intimate because it brings with it the sense of entering the ahistorical realm, which is the real goal of sādhana. The external keeps us confined within history, which ultimately holds us back. I will go into this more in the next article.