BVT 11 :: Srila Bhaktivinoda and Sampradaya/Parampara

The four sampradayas. P.C. "My Krishna Our Krishna."

The principle of Guru-tattva is a cornerstone of the Hindu, and certainly of the Vaishnava, tradition. Rupa Goswami's enumeration of the 64 limbs of bhakti begins with taking shelter of a guru, followed by learning about Krishna from him and then taking initiation:

guru-padāśrayas tasmāt kṛṣṇa-dīkṣādi-śikṣaṇam
viśrambhena guroḥ sevā sādhu-vartmānuvartanam
"First take shelter of a spiritual master, then take initiation in the Krishna mantra and instruction about Krishna from him. Then serve the spiritual master with confidence and trust and follow the path established by previous saints." (BRS 1.2.74)

It is not our purpose here to argue for the necessity of taking a guru, which I assume every one of my readers will accept. Bhaktivinoda Thakur himself writes on the subject often, and never deviates from the injunctions of the Upaniṣads, Gītā or Bhāgavatam in this matter.

In Daśa-mūla, or the ten root principles of the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradāya -- which has the purpose of perpetuating the teachings of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and which in turn represents a tradition that begins with the advent of the living entity in creation -- he writes,

yadā bhrāmaṁ bhrāmaṁ hari-rasa-galad-vaiṣṇava-janaṁ

kadācit saṁpaśyaṁs tad-anugamane syād ruci-yutaḥ |

tadā kṛṣṇāvṛttyā tyajati śanakair māyika-daśāṁ

svarūpaṁ bibhrāṇo vimala-rasa-bhogaṁ sa kurute ||82||

"After wandering through birth after birth in this material world, when one somehow or other comes into contact with a Vaishnava who has melted into Hari-rasa and develops a taste for following him, then he rapidly gives up his illusory situation in the material world by constantly repeating the Holy Name and, in his eternal spiritual identity, relishes the pure taste of prema-bhakti." (Gaurāṅga-smaraṇa-maṅgala-stotram, 82)

The word anu-gamana, like anugati, means "following, imitation." It is a synonym of anu-vartanam in the above-cited verse by Rupa Goswami, "follow the path established by previous saints" (sādhu-vartmānuvartanam). The word is often employed in the context of guru-tattva (see Bhakti-sandarbha 206). And indeed, one often hears it said that bhajan, or the spiritual path, is ānugatya-maya, i.e., essentially consisting of obedience to the guru and the tradition.

The fact that books are more easily available and people are able to judge things for themselves makes the necessity of taking a Guru somewhat moot. But this goes against the general principle of spiritual life, ānugatya. Therefore one proverb says,

pustaka-pratyayādhītaṁ nādhītaṁ guru-sannidhau |
sabhā-madhye na śobheta jāra-garbhā iva striyaḥ ||
"The learning taken from books according to one's own impressions, but not from a guru, is unfit for the public space, like a woman who is pregnant with an illegitimate child."

Another synonym is anusaraṇa, which is used by Rupa Goswami in verses defining rāgānugā bhakti,

virājantīm abhivyaktāṁ vraja-vāsi-janādiṣu
rāgātmikām anusṛtā yā sā rāgānugocyate
"Rāgātmikā bhakti or devotion in spontaneous love is vividly expressed and manifested by the inhabitants of Vrindavan. The devotion that follows the spontaneous rāgātmikā mood of love is called rāgānugā bhakti." (BRS 1.2.270; CC 2.22.154)

sevā sādhaka-rūpeṇa siddha-rūpeṇa cātra hi
tad-bhāva-lipsunā kāryā vraja-lokānusārataḥ

"The devotee desiring intensely to attain the rāgātmikā mood of one or the other Vrajavasi associate of Krishna should engage in service [to Krishna] in the external body as an aspirant and internally in his spiritual body, in both cases following a resident of Vraja." (BRS 1.2.295; CC 2.22.158)

Needless to say, the Gaudiya traditions upheld in Radha Kund and elsewhere maintain that this principle of obedience to the previous acharyas is enshrined in the "disciplic succession," which is often used as the English translation of both sampradāya and paramparā.  But a confusion of the two terms does not help us understand the particular historical significance of the institution of disciplic succession, as either dīkṣā-based or śikṣā-based traditions.

Monier-Williams gives the following meanings for the two words, showing where the semantic fields intersect and diverge. Surprisingly "tradition" is the only translation that is given for both.

• param-parā : [lit. "one after another., successive"] (1) an uninterrupted, unbroken line, row or series, (2) order, (3) succession, (4) continuation, (5) mediation, (6) tradition, (7) regular succession.
• sampradāya : [lit. "bestower, gift"] (1) tradition, (2) established doctrine transmitted from one teacher to another, (3) traditional belief or usage, (4) any peculiar or sectarian system of religious teaching, (5) sect.

Though the lexical field of the two Sanskrit terms do cross, the best distinction we can make in the present context is that the latter is more general as a sect or church, and the former as the more specific disciplic succession. Indeed, in practical usage the word dīkṣā- is more often compounded with paramparā, and śikṣā- with sampradāya, indicating that mantra is related to the former rather than the latter.

Another term, which is a little less ambiguous in usage is praṇālī, or "channel." It is often compounded as guru-praṇālī or siddha-praṇālī, which in Bhaktivinoda Thakur's usage does not always appear in connection with the siddha-deha. He also uses the compound sampradāya-praṇālī. We also see the word dhārā, which has a very similar usage, "stream or current of water... continuous line or series."

As an example of blurring of the two terms, we see the word paramparā appear in the Gītā (4.2):

evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ |
sa kāleneha mahatā yogo naṣṭaḥ parantapa ||
The word is often translated here as "disciplic succession." But very clearly it applies here to the transmission of teachings from one to another rather than to a mantra alone, as already indicated in 4.1. Radhakrishnan just uses "from one to another." Ramanuja here writes sampradāya-paramparayā prāptam, which confirms that the words can be used interchangeably. Shankara has evaṁ kṣatriya-paramparā-prāptam, "obtained through the kshatriya tradition." Madhusudan Saraswati has guru-śiṣya-paramparayā and is followed by Baladeva. But in the subsequent verse, the commentaries use the expression vicchinna-sampradāya appears, indicating the difficulty in distinguishing between the two terms. Madhusudan adds, adhikāry-abhāvād vicchinna-sampradāya, "the sampradāya was broken due to the absence of qualified persons."

So from this it appears that the process of transmitting information from guru to disciple in a historical and continual fashion grows into a sampradāya, which over time comes to consist of multiple paramparās as multiple subgroups develop within the system. Both a sampradāya, and a paramparā would thus have a common source, but whereas the sampradāya as a whole might have certain major figures from different paramparās making a contribution to the overall "church" or "religion", while paramparās would be the more specific succession of gurus and disciples, even where one might not be particularly influential or have made a major contribution. This is acknowledged by Bhaktivinoda Thakur, who himself states, "Here and there the major names of the most important acharyas are remembered in the list of names known as the "channel" (praṇāli) [or the perfected channel (siddha-praṇāli). (Jaiva Dharma 214) This is evidently an acknowledgement that for most disciples, the list of gurus may grow longer than might reasonably expected to be learned by heart. This is indeed the custom in many Indian schools. For example, one sees the following formulaic verse being used by many different sampradāyas:

sadā-śiva-samārambhāṁ śaṅkarācārya-madhyamām | 

asmad-ācārya-paryantāṁ vande guru-paramparām ||

"I bow down to the guru-paramparā, beginning with Sadashiva, with Shankaracharya in the middle, and leading up to our acharya."

In current Bengali and Hindi parlance, sampradāyas, among other uses, has the overriding meaning of the global religion or community, like "Hindu" or "Muslim." Therefore the Sanskritic word for communalism or sectarianism, such as when Hindus and Muslims engage in communal violence, is sampradāyikatā; someone who puts his own community ahead of others is sampradāyin. Similarly, paramparā is taken more generally to mean "tradition" as in a woman's folk tradition, something that is done from a time immemorial without any beginning. In current usage, a definite negativity attaches itself to the first, the latter less so. There can be good or bad traditions.

In our case, however, I think we can take it as stated above, a sampradāya is the larger church, and paramparā means its subdivisions, like denominations thereof. The confusion comes when we translate "disciplic succession" for them both. Therefore we are more likely to hear the compounds śikṣā-sampradāya and guru-paramparā. Bearing all that in mind, as well as that these boundaries might be crossed, let us look at how the Thakur used these words.

The Thakur writes, "The benefit of entering a sampradāya is that one easily attains the company of saintly persons, one learns the proper standards of behavior, discussion of religious topics, and gradually, renunciation. To the extent that opposition to sampradāyas become stronger, people become more inclined to engage in endless debate without coming to any satisfying conclusion. Foolish people blame an entire sampradāya when they see one of its members acting self-interestedly and engaging in immoral activities. Intelligent people have the duty to enter the sampradāya and reform it from within. Some things are not found in a market and there is a lot of cheating going on. Seeing this one should seek to reform the market, not to eliminate the system of markets altogether because of the corruption. We do not have anything to say in favor of the persons who would attempt such a thing. The founding teachers of the sampradāyas created them in order to bring auspiciousness to the world." (Sampradāya-praṇālī, SJT 4|4)

He furthermore denies that one can be without a sampradāya of some sort, for as soon as one breaks with one teaching, one merely starts another. (See article, Sampradāya-praṇālī, Sajjana-toṣaṇī 4.4.)

As this shows, there is no doubt whatsoever that Bhaktivinoda Thakur was a believer in the institution of disciplic succession. He understood that accepting the Vaishnava shastras also meant that the concept of Guru-tattva had to be accepted, as well as the tradition (aitihya) that was in vogue at the time. He writes, "Tradition (paramparā) is extremely important and for that reason a holy disciplic succession (sampradāya) has been in existence since the beginning of time." (Jaiva Dharma, 214).

Indeed, it was Bhaktivinoda Thakur's belief that this disciplic succession beginning with the universal creator, Brahma, and that "in a short while there will remain but a single sampradāya, whose name is the Śrī-Brahma-sampradāya, and all other sampradāyas will merge into it." (Mahāprabhura Śikṣā, 17)

Bhaktivinoda held strongly to this idea of a disciplic succession that begins with the creator God, the Brahma-sampradāya, which historically is connected to the Madhva disciplic. The Thakur vociferously defended the somewhat controversial connection of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, especially in the second chapter of his 1886 work, Mahāprabhura Śikṣā, where he wrote:

"Can there be any doubt that those who accept the disciplic succession from Chaitanya Mahaprabhu but secretly do not accept the disciplic succession or the channel of perfection (siddha-praṇālī) are agents of Kali?" (Mahāprabhura Śikṣā, 17)

In the same chapter, he again condemns those who deny the connection to the Madhva sampradāya as "the greatest enemies of the followers of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu."

In fact, the idea of a dparamparā is something that in the Chaitanya Vaishnava sect really developed historically with Chaitanya himself and his associates, and in the Caritamrita it is only counted back to Ishwar Puri and Madhavendra Puri and not beyond. But as the sampradāya grew, naturally questions of legitimacy arose and methods of dealing with it arose in the more specific sense of the dīkṣā-guru-paramparā.

It is interesting that the dominant idea in the Gaudiya Vaishnava community about disciplic succession and the spurious verses from the Padma-purāṇa that were used in promoting it (sampradāya-vihīnā ye mantrās te niṣphalā matāḥ, etc.) as well as the list of Tattvavadi acharyas said to precede Madhavendra Puri, only appears to have come into general consciousness at the time of Baladeva Vidyabhushana (early 18th century). It is certainly not emphasized to any great extent in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa or Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu or other fundamental texts on bhakti. Therefore it was generally taken that the Madhva sampradāya was a dīkṣā-guru-paramparā, or the same kind of tradition that had developed in the Gaudiya sampradāya historically.  But this presumes that the entire sampradāya consisted of a single dīkṣā-guru-paramparā, which is not the case.

Baladeva Vidyabhushana, in explanation of the Padma-purāṇa verses, makes remembering the names of the acharyas in disciplic succession (guru-paramparā) a part of the general tasks of a practicing aspirant to bhakti:

bhavati vicintyā viduṣāṁ niravakarā guru-paramparā
nityam ekāntitvaṁ siddhyati yayā, udayati yena hari-toṣaḥ
Learned Vaishnavas should constantly remember the pure line of spiritual masters (guru-paramparā), for by so doing, they will perfect the single-minded devotion that brings satisfaction to Lord Hari. (Prameya-ratnāvalī 1.4)

Here the compounding of guru, as here with paramparā, is not found with sampradāya. The Thakur himself states that it is not always necessary to remember all the names, but only the most important ones. "Here and there the major names of the most important acharyas are remembered in the list of names known as the "channel" (praṇālī) [or the perfected channel (siddha-praṇālī). (Jaiva Dharma 214)

Krishnadeva Vedānta-vāgīśa, who wrote the Kānti-mālā commentary to Baladeva's Prameya-ratnāvalī, also comments on the same verse ostensibly taken from the Padma-purāṇa :

śiṣṭānuśiṣṭa-gurūpadiṣṭo mārgaḥ sampradāyaḥ |
tad-upadiṣṭena pathā vinā mantra-śāstrād
upalabdhā viṣṇu-mantrā muktidā na bhavanti |
A sampradāya is the path instructed by a guru who was trained following someone who had previously been himself so trained. Unless one follows in such a path, all the Vishnu mantras taken from the scriptures will not bring about liberation.

According to this statement the concept of paramparā surrounds the mantra or initiation. As a general principle, Vaishnava doctrine holds that the mantra contains in seed form complete knowledge, sambandha, abhidheya and prayojana, the entire teaching that was set into motion with its original revelation. The history of a religious community is bound by the interpretations of that essential summary of all Vaishnava beliefs contained in seed form in the mantra. More than that, it provides an identity, both on the level of the sādhaka and siddha.

The path of grace is manifold, but its principal stream is in the transmission of the mantra. That is why the Bhāgavatam says, labdhvānugraha ācāryāt (11.3.48), “After obtaining the mercy of the acharya...” Jiva Goswami’s Krama-sandarbha and Bhakti-sandarbha 207: anugraho mantra-dīkṣā-rūpaḥ, “Mercy means in the form of mantra-dīkṣā.” Learning may be different and take many years, but the mantra, being the seed of all the knowledge is the same for all. There may be many śikṣā-gurus, but there can only be one dīkṣā-guru (mantra-gurus tv eka eva, Bhakti-sandarbha 207).

Therefore, in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the connection to Mahaprabhu’s grace, though it has been channeled through many processes, such as the Holy Name and the Bhāgavatam, etc., is primarily passed down from generation to generation through the initiation mantra. Bhaktivinoda Thakur therefore, even if only to set example, took initiation in the line of Jahnava Mata, through Ramachandra Goswami (Ramai Thakur) who established his Shripat in Baghna Para near Nabadwip.

But Bhaktivinoda Thakur's taking initiation from Bipin Bihari Goswami should not be thought of as mere loka-saṅgraha or setting of example, as suggested by some people. As already shown above, there are numerous evidences in Bhaktivinoda Thakur’s own writings of the affectionate relationship he had with his guru, as well as in the effusive testimonial of Bipin Bihari Goswami. Any attempt to discredit this relationship would never be pleasing to Bhaktivinoda Thakur himself. And it is therefore distasteful to us also, his followers.

Though Bhaktivinoda Thakur did not apparently use the same kind of strong language to defend the disciplic succession post-Chaitanya, the same principle would no doubt hold for him as it did for contemporary Gaudiya Vaishnavas. It was the Madhva connection that he was defending because it was being doubted, the system post-Chaitanya was not in need of such a defense as it was already known and he had committed to it when he took initiation.

Srila Bhakti Promode Puri, a direct disciple of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, also writing about the connection to the Madhva sampradāya, has followed Bhaktivinoda Thakur in making similarly strong statements about those who "deny the disciplic succession," even though there is some irony there.

"Those who show an excess of zeal for glorifying Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu reject this connection, which has been accepted by the aforementioned great souls. Such contempt for the standards set by these great souls can only be seen as the offense of mahad-atikrama ('transgressing the great souls')." (Caitanya-vāṇī patrikā 14.7-8, August, September 1975)

To support this, he quotes from the Bhāgavatam,

āyuḥ śriyaṁ yaśo dharmaṁ lokān āśiṣa eva ca
hanti śreyāṁsi sarvāṇi puṁso mahad atikramaḥ
"My dear King, the result of transgressions against great souls is the destruction of life, fortune, reputation, duty, and blessings to the world--in short, all benedictions." (SB 10.4.46)

The question then remains: Can one state the necessity and benefits of the disciplic succession with such strong language and then deny the very person whom Bhaktivinoda Thakur repeatedly glorified with devotion as his own guru and with whom he spent over 30 years working cooperatively to preach the Holy Name and the teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his followers? Do these exhortations apply for one paramparā and not another? Does "excessive zeal" for the glories of Bhaktivinoda Thakur, i.e., claiming that he was beyond the need for taking a guru, justify rejecting the traditional disciplic line in which he took initiation?

Anyone who does not recognize the Guru of my Parama Gurudeva cannot be pleasing to my Parama Gurudeva. Anyone who tries to appropriate the gifts made by Bipin Bihari Goswami to his dearmost disciple while disregarding the giver of these gifts will be baffled in his attempts. As Siddhanta Saraswati himself said, “You can’t steal from the treasure house of love ” (bhāvera ghare curi). The process is ānugatya-maya.

---

Other articles in the introduction

BVT 1-2 : Invocation and Introduction to the Autobiography
BVT 3 :: Modern Scholarship on Bhaktivinoda Thakur
BVT 4 :: Bhaktivinoda Thaku and his thirst for knowledge.
BVT 5 :: Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Christianity
BVT 6 :: Bhaktivinoda Thakur in Jagannath Puri
BVT 7 :: Bhaktivinoda and the Meat-eating issue
BVT 8 :: Initiation from Bipin Bihari Goswami
BVT 9 :: Bipin Bihari Goswami in the Thakur's Writings
BVT 10 :: Lalita Prasad Thakur
BVT 11 :: Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Sampradaya
BVT 12 :: The Authenticity of the Autobiography

Other articles related to sampradaya history:

The parampara institution in Gaudiya Vaishhnavism (1)
The parampara institution in Gaudiya Vaishhnavism (2)
Keeping Faith with Kheturi (1)
Keeping Faith with Kheturi (2)
Charismatic Renewal in Gaudiya Vaishnavism (Part 1)
Charismatic Renewal in Gaudiya Vaishnavism (Part 2)
Charisma and legitimacy in Vaishnava sampradayas
Is the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya connected to the Madhva line?

Other articles inspired by the Autobiography:

A Bengali Zamindar's education in the 1840's
Bipin Bihari's testimonial to his best disciple Kedarnath Datta
Longfellow and Bhaktivinoda Thakur's poems

See also,

Hari-nama-cintamani related posts
Siddhi-lalasa