Jagat

Many people criticize and condemn religions and religious institutions because of the evil done in their name. This is often based on a predisposition to anti-religious sentiment. One should recognize that religion is a human institution and subject to the same frailties as all human institutions. Those who are in such institutions should recognize these frailties and take steps to control and counteract them. According to Patanjali's Yoga-sūtra (4.7), there are four kinds of people. Patanjali does try to estimate what percentage of human society fits into each category, no doubt since modern ways of enumerating populations was not yet devised. In any case, such percentages no doubt change as societies change. Patanjali divides people according to the kind of work they do in relation to the goal of enlightenment. The first three are (1) kṛṣṇa (black, or dark karmas), which are the actions performed by the evil; (2) śukla-kṛṣṇa or mixed karmas, which evidently are the kinds...

I got the sad news today that Joseph T. O'Connell, professor of South Asian Religions at St. Michael's College University of Toronto for more than 30 years, scholar of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, a long-time friend of mine, a well-wisher and supporter of the Hare Krishna movement since its arrival in Toronto, died last Friday in New York of a massive brain hemorrhage. Though I met Joe first in 1971 when a new Hare Krishna devotee, he became an especially good friend when I was doing my post-doc at UofT in 1992-1994. We were neighbors in the West Annex during that time, living just across the park from each other, and our families often broke bread together. He and his wife Kathy helped us make the transition to Toronto in many ways. Joseph was one of the earlier scholars to work on Chaitanya Vaishnavism at Harvard where he did his PhD in the 1950s on the social aspects of the Chaitanya movement. When Krishna consciousness came to Toronto in 1969, he was probably the only person in...

(Reprint. Originally posted on Gaudiya Discussions) We have become rather accustomed to seeing much quibbling about who genuinely represents Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. There are many points of contention, but the great symbolic distinction is found in the differing concepts of disciplic succession. It is my personal feeling that human experience is multi-faceted. Different historical situations give rise to different interpretations; different contexts to different responses. Is it not then possible that there is more than one way of looking at Chaitanya Vaishnavism? Furthermore, will not a more complete and nuanced view of Gaudiya Vaishnava history and doctrine not make those who hold Chaitanya Mahaprabhu dear more capable of adjusting to circumstances as they change? Gaudiya Vaishnavism evolved over 350 years after the disappearance of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. As with every human phenomenon, it was born, grew and developed in response to the social situation in which it found itself. Without...

Joshua Greene (Hofstra University) There is a theory that the Gaudiyas "went underground" in the post-Caitanya period, to avoid persecution by Muslim invaders. This idea would explain the reclusive nature of the community in the 16th and 17th centuries. I believe both David Haberman and Alan Entwistle have posited this idea. Does anyone have access to their writings on the subject. John Stratton Hawley (Professor and Chair, Department of Religion, Barnard College, Columbia University) I'd be very grateful to you for tracing out this "theory"--who says this? The very most important Gaudiya texts were produced in this period of time, evidently very publicly, and some of the most influential among them were produced by gentlemen who were apparently recruited by Chaitanya because of the expertise they brought to their tasks in part from having served in "Muslim" courts--Rupa and Sanatana. Furthermore, Akbar's patronage (with more than a little ...