[This article
was first published in the Journal of Vaisnava Studies, Winter
1996. It was not originally intended for an audience of devotees, though
devotees may find it interesting. Some new comments have been added in
this edition. It contains a broad overview of a great number of issues
and no one issue is analyzed in full detail. It should be added that the
original article was written in 1993 and only the slightest of
adjustments have been made to bring it up to date. For these lacunae, my
humble apologies.]
Great
philosophers could not reach the end of your glories, oh Lord,
even if they should think on them with increasing joy for æons.
For, in the form of the intelligence within and the teacher without,
you destroy all inauspiciousness and reveal the way to attain you.(1)
One of the
primary areas of concern in scholarly work surrounding new religious
movements in the last decade has been that of succession. Since most new
religions are centred about charismatic religious leaders, the death of
a founder presents his or her followers with a crisis which is crucial
for the survival of the sect he or she has created. In the context of
those religions which have South Asian origin, the charismastic leader
is given particular emphasis as the guru, who is often, as David Miller
says,
... at
the centre of sacredness. Sacred texts and the worship of deities are
secondary matters compared with the centrality of the guru whose
interpretations of the texts are often looked upon as more sacred than
the texts themselves.(2)
In the
Indian tradition, great importance is placed on the personal search for
a guru; it is the divine mission of a seeker to encounter a knower of
the truth.(3)
Each individual guru is an institution in himself, whether he
establishes one temple or monastery or many, and is obliged at the time
of his death to seek some kind of continuity. Because of the
individualistic nature of the guru/disciple interface, however, the
tendency of Hinduism is to ever-increasing splintering of sectarian
groups. This process has been characterized by David Miller as 'the core
of living, ever-changing and ever-evolving Hinduism.'(4)
Though each
guru or teacher in a tradition is technically independent, they usually
claim loyalty to a particular sampradaya or spiritual family, to whose
founder they are linked through initiation (diksa) or 'ordination'.
Neo-Hindu gurus like Aurobindo, Rajneesh, Sai Baba or Sri Chinmoy place
less emphasis on such ordination, claiming the independence of their own
realization, but such gurus are far less common than those who adhere to
a specific line of disciplic succession. Though they may be
individualistic, they generally adhere to and indeed claim complete
loyalty to the teachings of their line. Initiation is the ritual
legitimization of a disciple and qualifies him to carry on the tradition.
Though there is generally no over-arching institutional authority or
Church to discipline diverging religious opinions, sampradayas formed by
an individual do have a theological coherence and a clear control of
orthodoxy. Thus those gurus who would diverge from the orthodox line to
form their own subsect are rarely so free from the weight of tradition
that they can claim their own religious experience to be entirely
independent of it. Injunctions to remain completely loyal to the
teaching of the guru militate against wanton innovation in matters of
doctrine.
In this paper
I would like to examine the evolution of one branch of one Hindu
tradition, that of Caitanya Vaisnavism or Gaudiya Vaisnavism, known to
the western world through the institution of the International Society
for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), by looking at the history of its
disciplic succession. Controversies which arose in the aftermath of the
death of the founder of ISKCON, Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada, have
their preshadowing in the problems of succession which followed the
death of his guru Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati who, though claiming
adherence to the doctrine of Caitanya, made a trenchant break with the
contemporary institutions of that tradition to form his own organization,
the Gaudiya Math. This innovation within the Caitanyaite tradition has
possible ramifications for the future of ISKCON and we look at it as an
interesting case study.
In a
volume of papers discussing the future of new religious movements in
1987, the question of ISKCON's future centred to a great extent around
the problems of succession to Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada, who had
died in 1977. Rodney Stark, whose introduction set the parameters for
much of the discussion, questioned the future ISKCON's ability to
maintain coherency or unity. On the basis of earlier research by Larry
J. Shinn, probably the foremost scholarly authority on ISKCON in North
America, he concluded that 'for the Hare Krishnas, guru authority
systems are inimical to effective organization and are subject to
constant fission and schism, since members are committed to a particular
guru, not to a larger organization.'(5)
In an
article in the same volume, however, Shinn interestingly seems to have
changed his opinion. Referring to the consolidation of the
administrative power of ISKCON's leadership over the possibly anarchic
forces of individual guruship, he concluded with the somewhat triumphal
sounding sentence, 'To use Max Weber's categories, the charisma of the
founder had been institutionalized.'(6)
No doubt a
milestone of significance had been reached. Shinn's earlier view had
been based on an interesting analysis of ISKCON in which he discerned an
individualism in the spiritual life emphasizing private ritualistic
practices such as chanting, etc., which in turn led to a prioritizing of
a vertical relationship with the guru over the horizontal relationship
with fellow practitioners. The first schism by one of the successor
gurus Jayatirtha, who had left with a number of loyal disciples, seemed
to give support to this opinion.
By 1987,
however, Jayatirtha's defection had failed disastrously and many of his
supporters, including his own wife, had returned to the parent body, and
furthermore, the institutional body known as the GBC (Governing Board
Commission) had asserted its authority as the highest ecclesiastical
body over and above those amongst them who had specifically been
entrusted by Prabhupada as initiating gurus.(7)
Discontent with the dominance of the eleven original gurus, caused by
their premature appropriation of the trappings of charismatic leadership
'the guru is to be worshipped as God himself' even amongst their peers,
and their monopolization of the initiating function, had been defused by
democratizing the institution, allowing all of Prabhupada's disciples to
become initiating gurus (diksaguru) if they lived up to the criteria of
the society.
In the
intervening years, ISKCON's institutional strength has apparently
increased as the enlarged GBC has consolidated its centralizing powers
in the absence of the founder Prabhupada. To a great extent it was
helped by the weakness of the original 11 gurus, at least 6 of whom fell
away from ISKCON's ranks, leaving behind them numbers of confused
disciples. The resolutions of the 1993 annual meeting of the GBC show
the complete control that it has over matters of initiation, etc. Every
stage of development, from initiation to samnyasa to guruship is subject
to GBC approval. The guru-disciple relationship may develop naturally
and autonomously, but is subjected to numerous controls by higher or
equal authorities.
Thus,
the centrifugal forces which Prabhupada had apparently set into motion
by appointing 11 initiating gurus at the time of his departure, as well
as by establishing an autonomous and independent temple management
structure,(8)
have been brought into harness by the strong central authority. The
vertical relationship between guru and disciple, to which Shinn gave
prominence in his first article have not proved to be stronger than the
horizontal networks formed amongst god-brothers in a society dedicated
to the principles of their spiritual master. In sociological parlance,
ISKCON turns out to be more of an evangelical movement than an
introspective association of individualistic seekers. In ISKCON's terms,
it is a society of gosthyanandis (those who take pleasure in
association) rather than of bhajananandis (those who take
pleasure in individual spiritual practice).
One of
the developments of the period following Prabhupada's death was the
intellectual ferment which took place in ISKCON as devotees who were
accustomed to accepting decisions made for them by their spiritual
master were now forced to do some original thinking about and come to
acceptable conclusions in matters of doctrine. Few if any of the society's
leaders were equipped to understand the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition in
its source languages of Sanskrit and Bengali, as their preoccupations
had always been with management of the society and mobilization of its
members. Indeed, scholarly pursuits had for the most part been frowned
upon and Srila Prabhupada'swritings given unique and absolute authority.
Prabhupada himself restricted such scholarship of the original texts,
insisting to his disciples that he was their unique conduit to the
knowledge of the disciplic succession: 'Even if you read some books you
cannot understand unless you understand it from me. This is called
parampara system. You cannot jump over to the superior guru [parama-guru],
neglecting the next acarya, the immediate next acarya.'(9)
Prabhupada had furthermore discouraged all external association with
members of other Vaisnava groups in India: on the one hand, his own
spiritual master had divorced himself from the hereditary traditional
diksa-gurus and vairagi practitioners of the faith, and on the other,
there was friction between himself and the great majority of his
god-brothers. He had once stated, 'Not one of my god-brothers is fit to
be acarya.'(10)
Prabhupada was evidently somewhat apprehensive of potential attrition to
other groups. At the root of this potential attrition was the very fact
that he claimed to be the pure representative of a tradition for which
India had many pretenders, all of whom similarly claimed to belong to
the parampara.
In
general, Prabhupada's exclusivist rhetoric was accepted by his disciples.
When Prabhupada died, however, ISKCON devotees found themselves
immediately in need of guidance in the matter of burial rituals (samadhi)
for which they turned to Narayana Maharaja of the Kesava Gaudiya Math in
Mathura, who had been a priest at Prabhupada's samnyasa initiation.(11)
Not long afterward, leaders of the movement approached Prabhupada's
godbrother Bhaktiraksaka Sridhara of Nabadwip when the first questions
about the ritual treatment of the successor gurus arose. Sridhara
Maharaja had enjoyed a more cordial relationship with Prabhupada than
his other god-brothers and it appears that Prabhupada had allowed the
possiblity of his disciples seeking consultation with him after his
death.(12)
Sridhara Maharaja's answers, based on his own experience in the Gaudiya
Math, were sanguine about the possibilities of numerous acaryas working
cooperatively. Though he accepted the legitimacy of ritual worship of
the new gurus, he admitted that this could be a cause of friction. He
compared the guru-disciple relationship to a marriage. When one is
married one wants to live in one's own house or at least have a separate
room. ISKCON authorities found that this affirmation of the primacy of
the vertical relationship undermined the coherency of their institution
and rejected it. The schismatic tendencies of the Gaudiya Math had been
repeatedly condemned by Prabhupada and were not to be given any room to
develop. Once again, going to Prabhupada's godbrothers was discouraged.
The dam was
broken, however, and Sridhara became a charismatic source of attraction
to many who were impressed by his scholarship and who felt the need for
further guidance. Later, the aforementioned Jayatirtha went to Sridhara
for guidance with a number of his own disciples. Though his own
association with him was brief, numbers of his disciples sought
initiation with Sridhara after Jayatirtha's apostasy and a further group
of dissatisfied ISKCON devotees came to him seeking samnyasa. Some of
these samnyasins and other disciples of Sridhara have continued to work
in cooperation with Sridhara Maharaj's other disciples, while some have
formed their own society called the Gaudiya Vaisnava Society. As the
name reveals, these individuals feel themselves to be somewhat closer in
spirit to the traditions of the Gaudya Math than is ISKCON itself. They
still consider themselves to be disciples of Prabhupada, but in general,
their relations with ISKCON are distant.
Since Sridhara
Maharaja passed away in 1992, a number of ISKCON devotees and other
Westerners have turned to one of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's few
surviving samnyasin disciples, Bhaktipramoda Puri, who is now 100 years
old. Others have turned for leadership and guidance to the
aforementioned Narayana Maharaja.
Other
attrition from ISKCON took place to the vairagi community. These persons
were primarily those whose interest in the esoteric aspects of Krsna
devotion led them to seek instruction in those aspects of Gaudiya
Vaisnava scripture. Many of these have gone on to life as academics,
others are continuing on as practitioners, such as Gadadhara Prana Dasa,
who lives in Mayapura, and Advaita Dasa who lives and publishes books on
raganuga bhakti in Holland. Gadadhara Prana is one of a number of
devotees who took initiation from Bhaktivinoda Thakura's son, Lalita
Prasada Thakura. But others have been attracted to some of the learned
individuals amongst the babajis and hereditary gosvamis also.(13)
Advaita Dasa is a disciple of Nikuñja Gopala Gosvami, a hereditary
gosvami of the Advaita family.
Each of these
groups can be said to represent a historical moment in the disciplic
chain, and those Western devotees who engaged in a research of Gaudiya
Vaisnava tradition found themselves pushing back one, two or three steps
along the disciplic line Prabhupada had presented to them in order to
find a different version of the Caitanyaite vision of truth. It is these
distinct visions of the disciplic succession which are the subject
matter of this article. But before we go on in this direction, let us
examine one attempt at solving the 'guru problem' which arose within
ISKCON itself.
Though
they were by no means the only dissenters within ISKCON in the 1980's,
Rupavilasa Dasa and Karnamrta Dasa were amongst the most original and
articulate in their ideas. These were primarily elaborated between 1985
and 1990 in a number of articles which were published in the Vaisnava
Journal, and later in the Vedic Village Review, both
short-lived publications.(14)
Their ideas developed in the fermenting period of difficulties when the
new order of ISKCON gurus was trying to establish itself. As Karnananda
Dasa wrote:
By
1986 it had become clear to the majority of the elder members of the
International Society for Krishna Consciousness that the system meant
to perpetuate the disciplic succession as it was formulated in 1978
had gone seriously awry. We found ourselves with an elite group of
initiating gurus, a majority of whom claimed to be the sole dispensers
of initiation into the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya, who claimed
vast tracts of the earth as their exclusive domains, who thought it
appropriate that they be worshipped on a par with the maha-bhagavata
Srila Prabhupada, and who did all they could to prevent their
disgruntled brethren from tampering with the status quo.(15)
If the
aggressive domination of ISKCON's initiating spiritual masters were not
enough, the inability of a number of them to maintain the high standard
of orthopraxy required by the society confirmed the doubts of the
dissenters. A large number of disciples of lapsed spiritual masters were
thrown into confusion. Pressure was placed on these disciples to enter
the camp of one of the other leaders. The situation was further
complicated by a number of individuals who had taken a first initiation
(Harinama) from Prabhupada and then a second (often called brahmana or
gayatri)(16)
initiation from one of his disciples.
The
first point which these dissenters wished to emphasize was that
initiation or diksa was a function which could only be carried out by
someone who had attained a fairly high stage of spiritual realization.
Though it was commonly accepted in ISKCON that the task of guru is taken
up by someone in the middle stage of realization, a madhyama adhikari,(17)
Rupa Vilasa and Karnamrta followed the works of Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati to give a very high status to this stage, equating it with
nistha. They concluded, '...there is a type of siksa guru who is not
liberated, but who can aid the aspirant in his advancement. However, no
mention is made anywhere of an initiating guru who is not liberated....'(18)
ISKCON
leaders felt that the order to become guru was universally incumbent
upon them. They had all been given the order to preach and consequently
to initiate.(19)
But Karnamrta and Rupa Vilasa's original proposal was to relegate the
diksa function of the new gurus to a more ceremonial status and to
stress the siksa or teaching of Srila Prabhupada and the predecessor
acaryas.
If we
consider that Srila Prabhupada was aiming for his books to give
spiritual guidance for the next 10,000 years... [he] may be seen to
assume his position as instructing spiritual master for all Vaisnavas
who in the next 10,000 years read his books and thus become his
disciples... As the Brahma- Madhva- Gaudiya- sampradaya continues, it
is not unreasonable to assume that, beginning with Srila Prabhupada,
it will be known as the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-Bhaktivedanta-sampradaya.(20)
In the
course of their research, Karnamrta et al made an important discovery
about the nature of ISKCON's disciplic succession which to them
confirmed this priority of siksa over diksa. Prabhupada's predecessor
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati had bequeathed to him a parampara consisting
of a number of disparate individuals, each of whom had made important
historical contributions to Caitanya Vaisnavism but who had no relation
of initiation
(See Chart I).
This was given the name of a siksa-sampradaya.(21)
Sridhara
Maharaja explains this as follows: 'In the disciplic succession, only
the great stalwarts in our line are considered important.' He compares
it to the historical development of science through Copernicus, Galileo,
Newton, Einstein: 'If their contributions are taken into account, then
the whole thing is taken into account and lesser scientists may be
omitted.'(22)
This was no
doubt a great revelation to many of the devotees in ISKCON who had been
led to believe that a more direct relationship existed between the
various individuals in the ISKCON parampara. In the collection of
Prabhupada's printed statements on the disciplic succession, The
Spiritual Master and the Disciple, there is not a word anywhere
defending the concept of a siksa-sampradaya, even though, as
shall be shown later, it had been a matter of controversy in the period
following Bhaktisiddhanta's disappearance. In his books, Prabhupada
invariably confirmed the primacy of the initiatory relationship:
The
relationship [with Krsna] is established by connecting oneself with
the bonafide spiritual master who is the direct representative of
Krsna in disciplic succession... The connection with the spiritual
master is called initiation. From the date of initiation by the
spiritual master, the connection between Krsna and a person
cultivating Krsna consciousness is established. Without initiation by
a bonafide spiritual master, the actual connection with Krsna is never
performed.(23)
Though
Prabhupada did speak of the possibility of spiritual perfection without
initiation, he nonetheless frequently quoted a verse from the
Gautamiya-tantra and found in Baladeva Vidyabhusana's
Prameya-ratnavali, which states unequivocally that unless one is
initiated by a bonafide spiritual master in the disciplic succession,
the received mantra is without effect.(24)
Karnamrta et al held that since none of the ISKCON gurus could claim to
be a stalwart like the others in the sampradaya, they should rather sit
back and either wait for a 'self-effulgent acarya' to come forth, and
act as siksa gurus or `monitor gurus' in the meantime.(25)
This early understanding later developed into the rtvik doctrine, or
what one opponent called 'the Christianization of ISKCON.'(26)
Based on Prabhupada's so called 'appointment tapes', it was contested
that he had ever intended for his chief disciples to be independent
gurus, but rather that they should be officiating priests or rtviks,
initiating disciples on his behalf even after his death.(27)
Prabhupada's English was never entirely unambiguous, and his broken
sentences answering questions fired at him simultaneously by two
different people while he was on his deathbed were susceptible to
creative hermeneutics by these dissenters. Even so, the new
interpretation of Prabhupada's deathbed instructions found an eager
group of listeners.
The
rtvik theory seemed completely out of line with what had been taught to
ISKCON all along, however, and despite the attractiveness of the
doctrine-- it would superficially eliminate need for a perfected devotee,
the absence of which was painfully felt by all, including ISKCON's
leaders-- it could not take root in the society. It was too much of an
innovation to find success in a society which claimed faithful adherence
to a long tradition. The traditional process of devotional service
called for a guru/disciple relationship which needed ritual
sanctification in initiation. Furthermore, ISKCON's leaders felt that
sufficient practical improvements in the political situation had been
reached through reforms which democratized initiation and eliminated the
artificial zonal guru system. The rtvik-vadis, for their part, felt by
this time that increasing the number of gurus merely compounded the
problem if no one was authorized to initiate, making more unqualified
initiator gurus was just making a bad situation worse.(28)
The net
result of this disturbance in ISKCON dogma was that initiation was
confirmed as the legitimizing principle of the disciplic succession.
However, charisma had to be routinized through a formal initiation
process which allowed the organization to take precedence. Though
technically Rupa Vilasa et al were correct in assessing the heterodox
nature of the parampara instituted by Bhaktisiddhanta, they were unable
to convince others that the society could function around a principle of
siksa-parampara. On the other hand, their arguments about the importance
of Prabhupada to the society confirmed a trend which has never been
reversed: Prabhupada is the unique anchor of the movement. Prabhupada's
consistent denial of the existence of qualified spiritual masters other
than himself coupled with the necessity for political consolidation of
the world-wide organization, meant that Prabhupada's books were
enshrined as the only canonical authority for the society. ISKCON's
publication house, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT) and the
Bhaktivedanta Archives have seen to the publication of all of
Prabhupada's lectures, letters, etc. Thus, in a recent theological
controversy over the original ontological status of the soul,
Prabhupada's writings were considered to be the highest authority over
the theological works of Jiva Gosvamin, etc., who were founding members
of the sampradaya, who are named in Bhaktisiddhanta's siksa-sampradaya
and whose works are universally accepted by Gaudiya Vaisnavas of all
sects as canonical.(29)
ISKCON's
disciplic line, which we have here called a siksa-sampradaya,(30)
is traced through Bhaktivedanta Swami to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, then
to Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji and then to Bhaktivinoda Thakura.
Bhaktivinoda (which is the title given to Kedarnath Datta, d. 1917) was
the natural father of Bhaktisiddhanta, whose original name was Bimala
Prasad Datt. In the disciplic line which was proned by Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati, Bhaktivinoda Thakura's spiritual master was Jagannatha Dasa
Babaji. It is known from Bhaktivinoda's own writings,(31)
however, that he was initiated by Vipina-vihari Goswami, a descendant of
Ramacandra, the adopted son of Jahnava and founder of a dynasty of
initiating gurus based in Baghna Para, a village about 20 kilometres
southwest of Nabadwip.(32)
One of Bhaktivinoda's eight sons, Lalita Prasada, took initiation from
him and preserved the disciplic line which Vipina-vihari Goswami passed
on to Bhaktivinoda
(See Chart II).
According to
Rupa Vilasa, the initiative for the rejection of the diksa sampradaya
came from Bhaktivinoda himself, who became dissatisfied with
Vipina-vihari Goswami and rejected him in favour of Jagannatha Dasa
Babaji, another great contemporary renunciate, universally respected in
the Vaisnava community. One accusation levelled at Vipina-vihari Gosvami
is that he did not accept the idea that a Vaisnava of any caste is
spiritually superior to a brahmana, which in Bhaktisiddhanta's eyes made
him unworthy.(33)
This was vehemently denied by Bhaktivinoda's son and disciple Lalita
Prasada(34)
who held that Bhaktivinoda's respect for Jagannatha Dasa as a
bhajana-siksa-guru in no way implied a diminished respect for
Vipina-vihari as mantra-diksa-guru.
Bhaktisiddhanta was a reformer who felt that the monopoly on the guru
institution held by hereditary disciplic lines disturbed the flow of
religious experience, was socially undemocratic and led to corruption.
Not a brahmana himself, he led a determined crusade to break this
monopoly. Through the Gaudiya Math he wished to transform the entire
sociological face of Caitanyaite religion through what he called
daiva-varnasrama and the symbol of his break with contemporary
Gaudiya Vaisnavism was the new understanding of the meaning of
parampara. One Gaudiya Math tradition thus holds that Bhaktisiddhanta
did not wish to take initiation from his own father despite his belief
in his worthiness because this would have contravened his principled
stand against such family connections. This led him to seek initiation
from Gaura Kisora Dasa, a renunciate of great reputation in the Vaisnava
world, living in Nabadwip at the time.
Whatever
personal reasons may have contributed to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's
rejection of Vipina-vihari Gosvami, he and his followers found other
reasons to diminish the value of his disciplic succession. This is
explained by Bhakti-raksaka Sridhara:
We
have to follow the spirit; otherwise after Jahnava devi, the wife of
Lord Nityananda, up to Vipina [Vihari] Gosvami, from whom Bhaktivinoda
Thakura took initiation, there are so many unknown lady gurus. Through
them, the mantra came to Vipina Gosvami, and from him Bhaktivinoda
Thakura received the mantra. We accept Bhaktivinoda Thakura, but
should we count all those ladies in our disciplic succession? What was
their realization?(35)
On the other
side of the argument, Lalita Prasada claimed that Bhaktivinoda
disapproved of Bhaktisiddhanta's militant attitude against senior
Vaisnavas such as his own guru and in particular was angered by his show
of disrespect to Vipina-vihari. He further denied that any formal mantra
initiation was ever given by Gaura Kisora Dasa to Bhaktisiddhanta. In
any case, even if such an initiation ever did take place,
Bhaktisiddhanta did not recognize the disciplic succession into which
Gaura Kisora Dasa had himself been given diksa (perhaps because this too
was a line of caste gurus), for he never shared it with his disciples
and as such it remains completely unknown to them.
The
understanding of the siksa-sampradaya as current in the branches of the
Gaudiya Math is thus summarized by Sridhara Maharaja as follows:
The
very gist of the guru-parampara, the disciplic succession, is siksa,
the spiritual teaching, and wherever it is to be traced, there is
guru.... One who possesses knowledge of absolute divine love in purity
he is guru. Otherwise the guru-parampara is only a body parampara: a
succession of bodies. Then the caste brahmanas, the caste gosvamis,
will continue with their trade, because body after body, they are
getting the mantra. But their mantra is dead. We are after a living
mantra, and wherever we can trace the living tendency for a higher
type of devotional service, we shall find that there is our guru.(36)
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati left a council of three governors to handle
the affairs of the Math, Ananta Vasudeva, Paramananda and Kuñjavihari,
without designating any of them as acarya. All three were brahmacaris,
and with the presence of a sizable contingent of samnyasins, it does not
seem that his intention was that this was anything other than an ad hoc
group meant to handle the management of the properties and the continued
publication of books. Nevertheless, Kuñjavihari (who upon taking
samnyasa in 1948 became Bhaktivilasa Tirtha) and Ananta Vasudeva (who in
1943 became Bhaktiprasada Puri) had their individual charisma and each
had his own group of dedicated followers. In an election that was held
some time after Sarasvati's death in 1937, Ananta Vasudeva was made
acarya, but this was considered by Kuñja Vihari's followers to be
contrary to the will of Sarasvati who had seemingly given priority to
Kuñja in his last statements and was familiarly called guru-prestha
('most dear to the guru'). Lawsuits, etc., followed and the disciples of
Sarasvati either fell into the camp of one of these two or left in
disgust to strike out independently. Sridhar Maharaja, Kesava Maharaja,
Madhava Maharaja, Gosvami Maharaja, Bharati Maharaj, etc., all founded
their own maths in the 1940's and 50's.
Puri
Maharaja, or Puri Das as he later called himself, and his close
associate Sundarananda Vidyavinoda took up a spirited regimen of
scholarly criticism of their own movement. They abandoned secondary
literature and concentrated on the primary works of the six Gosvamins of
Vrndavana. Puri Maharaj was particularly unhappy about the proselytizing
work of the Gaudiya Math which he considered to have been overly zealous
and ill-informed, offensive and against the true spirit of Vaisnavism.
To a great extent these two leaders of the organization were
disillusioned by the rapaciousness of Puri Maharaja's opponents in the
math succession battles, which they came to attribute to the very nature
of the math institution itself. Yukta-vairagya was a difficult
discipline, indeed; the vices associated with wealth, reputation and
power were not the monopoly of any religious school. Puri Maharaja
gradually came to accept the necessity for initiation in an accredited
disciplic line and advised all of his disciples to seek diksa from such
gurus.(37)
The position formulated on the basis of early writings of Caitanya's
followers was expounded in Sundarananda's treatise, 'The characteristics
of the guru according to Vaisnava theology' (Vaisnava-siddhante
Sri-guru-svarupa).(38)
Though
Sundarananda's work is exhaustive in its critique of Gaudiya Math
deviations from scripture and tradition (without ever once mentioning it
or its founder by name), perhaps the most important problem underlined
by him in his research is the need for the connection to the guru in
order to engage in the service of Radha and Krsna in a spiritual
identity. According to Jiva Gosvamin, at the time of initiation, the
guru reveals this relationship along with the mantra.(39)
This information is given the name of siddha-pranali, or
otherwise as ekadasa-bhava. Bhaktivinoda himself wrote about this
in several places in his works and there is little doubt that he adhered
to this aspect of the tradition. The traditions of the renunciate
Gaudiya community in Braj and Radha Kund hold that historically devotees
would seek initiation from a family spiritual master from whom they
would receive this siddha-pranali. Only then were they eligible
to engage in the practice of raganuga bhakti. Legends which
confirm the necessity of a bona-fide initiation to enter into the
esoteric aspects of the religious life are many, such as the case of
Madhusudana Dasa Babaji, who tried to commit suicide because he had not
received siddha-pranali from his initiating guru and was thus
refused instruction by the leading teachers of Braj,(40)
and that of Jayakrsna Dasa Babaji who sent a disciple back to Bengal to
seek this data from his spiritual master, etc.(41)
Followers of
the Gaudiya Math hold that the siddha-pranali tradition is not to
be found in the earliest texts of the school. They have a very different
idea of the practice of raganuga bhakti. The spiritual identity
is something which comes out of one's inner being as a result of
purification through spiritual practice and not through formal
instruction. This implication is present in the following statement by
Sridhara Maharaja:
To get
the mantra from a sad-guru, a genuine guru, means to get the internal
good will or real conception about the Lord.(42)
The seed of a banyan tree may be a small seed, but the great big
banyan tree will come out of that seed. The will with which the
particular sound is given by the guru to the disciple is all-important.
We may not trace that at present, but in time, if a favorable
environment is there, it will express itself and develop into
something great.(43)
Having already
resumed far too much history in far too brief a space, I find that my
task is not yet complete. Another brief look at an even lengthier chunk
of history must be me made before we can take a quick glance at the
earliest texts of the tradition to see whether any light can be cast on
the issues involved in this conflict between ideas on the nature of
disciplic succession. Only then will we be able to make some conclusions
about the possible ramifications for the future of ISKCON.
The word
parampara, generally translated as 'disciplic succession', is found in
the Bhagavad-gita (4.3), where Krsna says evam parampara-praptam imam
rajarsayo viduh: 'This knowledge of yoga was passed down in
disciplic succession and in this way the seer-kings knew it.' There
Krsna reveals that the knowledge of the Gita being spoken to Arjuna is
the same as that which he himself had taught to Vivasvant, who had told
it to Manu, who had told it to Iksvaku the first human in the line. In
the course of time the message had been lost and he had become incarnate
specifically to reestablish this knowledge by speaking it to Arjuna.
Though the
great majority of Hindus today revere the Bhagavadgita, there are none
who claim to be in a disciplic succession of teachers who have their
origin in this conversation between Krsna and Arjuna. However, the
principle itself is seen as being of imperative importance in the great
majority of traditionalist Hindu groups. Most Puranas claim a rough
disciplic succession for themselves. Their structure is nearly always in
the manner of a dialogue in which the speaker answering inquiries by
citing a higher authority, in the manner of, 'Interesting question. I
heard Siva say the following about that to Parvati,' etc. In both these
examples, disciplic succession is clearly one of a transmission of
teaching, not of mantra.
The Gaudiya
Vaisnavas, and I speak here specifically of the school which traces its
origins to Caitanya in all its manifestations including ISKCON, claim a
disciplic succession which can be roughly divided into three or four
historical periods as the name Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-sampradaya
partially indicates. The first is the mythological period of succession
which begins with the creator god Brahma's introduction of the teachings
into the world of matter. The second is the historical period of
succession which begins with the South Indian Madhvacarya. The third
begins with the life and teaching of Caitanya. The fourth period, only
accepted by the Gaudiya Math and its branches, is that begun in the
modern period by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.
The succession
has mythical beginnings in the Bhagavata Purana. There Visnu speaks the
catuh-sloki Bhagavata to the creator God Brahma. He in turn speaks a
more elaborate version to his son, the sage Narada. Narada teaches Vyasa,
who writes the Bhagavata down. His son Suka is his disciple and the
speaker of the Bhagavata. This is clearly not a diksa succession, but
one based simply on the transmission of knowledge.
Ananda Tirtha
or Madhvacarya (d. 1300) claimed to be the direct disciple of Vyasa,
receiving the Vedanta teachings from him. Once again, his relationship
with Vyasa is nowhere stated to be one of initiation. His initiation is
described as having come from the Sankara line. Madhva established a
monastery in Udipi in modern Karnatak, where a rigid system of
succession is in place.
Though
it would appear at first that the third phase of the succession begins
with Caitanya, it in fact starts with Madhavendra Puri, who initiated
several of Caitanya's associates such as Advaita and Nityananda, as well
as Caitanya's own guru, Isvara Puri. Caitanya did not himself formally
initiate anyone, and indeed it is stated by Sanatana that, as an
incarnation, he would not so do.(44)
At some
point in history, the followers of Caitanya became identified with the
Madhva line. This identification has been contested by many, and for
many reasons. Arguments have been put forth by various scholars, and
there is little time to go into this here.(45)
Certainly, there is little direct connection with Madhva teaching, nor
any by initiation, for the mantras given in the Madhva line are
different from those which were given by Madhavendra Puri and his
disciples. Indeed it seems more likely that these mantras and a great
deal of the ritual came from the Nimbarka sampradaya's Kramadipika,
much of which has been incorporated by Gopala Bhatta into
Hari-bhakti-vilasa.(46)
Even a connection through samThe Parampara Institution in Gaudiya
Vaisnavismnyasa initiation seems impossible since the Tirtha title is
the only one used in the Madhva line and samnyasa is limited to only a
few select individuals. This apparent absence of any real connection
with the Madhva line leads many to conclude that an affiliation was
artificially constructed for convenience's sake. There does indeed
appear to have been pressure in the 18th century for the followers of
Caitanya to be affiliated with one of the four major Vaisnava sects, the
cari sampradaya: those of Nimbarka, Madhva, Ramanuja and
Visnusvami. A number of works dated to this period tie the Gaudiyas to
Madhva, especially Baladeva Vidyabhusana's Prameya-ratnavali,
which also tries to draw a doctrinal connection to Ananda Tirtha.(47)
Baladeva was known to have had connection with the Madhva line in his
youth, coming to the doctrinal position of the Gaudiyas only later in
his life. However, it is difficult to prove that certain passages in the
text of Karnapura's Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika or Harirama Vyasa's
Nava-ratna are interpolated as is suspected by many, including this
author. We will thus leave the argument here.
Subsequent to Caitanya, initiation in Bengali Vaisnavism was more or
less a monopoly controlled by those whom Bhaktisiddhanta disparagingly
called jati gosañi. These were members of brahmana, or less
frequently vaidya or other families, who traced their lineage to direct
associates of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Chief amongst these was the family of
Nityananda, who according to the Nityananda-vamsa-vistara was
instructed by Caitanya himself to marry and establish a family precisely
as an institutionalization of the succession. This tradition holds that
this took place when Caitanya established Nityananda's preaching mission,
otherwise what was the need of Nityananda to get married?(48)
The charismatic Nityananda is generally accepted as adi-guru in
the Caitanya-bhagavata and Caitanya-caritamrta. His wife
Jahnava continued the work of initiating after his death, and her
stepson Virabhadra and adopted son Ramacandra became her disciples and
established temples and spiritual dynasties.(49)
In none of these lines is any parampara line prior to Caitanya
considered to have any importance; not even Madhavendra Puri or his
disciple, Caitanya's guru Isvara Puri, are counted as part of the
disciplic line.
It should be
emphasized that this method of continuing the disciplic succession was
the only one in vogue in the post-Caitanya period. Those in the
renounced order such as the Six Gosvamis did not take many disciples in
keeping with the injunction found in BhP vii.13.8 and stressed by Rupa
Gosvami in Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (i.2.110). Where they
established temples, they assured the continued service to the deities
by turning them over to householders who were expected to maintain them
through the generations. These families, centred around the great
temples, also became important initiating spiritual masters of the
sampradaya. Other Vaisnavas who never married but were engaged in
preaching work, such as Gadadhar Pandit, Narottama Das, Ramacandra
Gosvami of Baghna Para, etc., similarly established spiritual dynasties
through their own householder disciples or through family members. There
are very few examples of disciplic lines which consist wholly of
renunciates.
To summarize,
it would appear that wherever a major change in the disciplic succession
exists, i.e., with Madhva, Caitanya and Bhaktisiddhanta, teaching is
given precedence over initiation. Madhva rejects monistic teaching and
establishes a new line on the basis of dualism. Madhavendra, apparently
externally accepting Sankara samnyasa, as did Caitanya, adheres to an
emotional bhakti of the Alvar type. His antecedents are not properly
known, and with the appearance of the highly charismatic Caitanya and
Nityananda, no one really cares until social pressure requires the
legitimacy of adherence to one of the four accepted Vaisnava lines. Even
then, expediency demands adherence to the Madhva line, for Madhavendra
Puri's disciplic line is lost. With Bhaktisiddhanta, the institutional
superstructure already in place (and accepted, at least tacitly by his
father, Bhaktivinoda) to maintain the teaching is rejected for having
become corrupt. Each of these charismatic reformers nominally accepts an
initiation, but functionally they and their descendants act
independently of their antecedents. The question of diksa and disciplic
succession, though written large in the tradition, appears to be
superseded by charisma, i.e., spiritual power. As we would expect, each
revolution is followed by a new institutionalization which includes a
system of initiation, but the disciplic line is for all intents and
purposes a new one, its initial point being the charismatic founder.
It will come
as no surprise that each of these charismatic founders is awarded a
superior ontological status: Madhva is said to be an incarnation of Vayu,
Caitanya and his followers to be Krsna himself and his associates, and
Bhaktisiddhanta, 'a ray of Visnu.'
Before
arriving at any conclusions, only one further area must be examined.
What does scripture say? Gaudiya Vaisnavas pride themselves on having a
rich written tradition based on revealed sources such as the Bhagavata.
Can any answers to the questions which have been raised in the preceding
pages be found in the writings of the six Gosvamis, the primary
theological authorities for all Gaudiya Vaisnavas?
Rupa
Gosvami makes it clear that surrendering to a spiritual master and
taking initiation from him are the first steps in devotional practice.(50)
Jiva goes into the matter in greater detail in his Bhakti-sandarbha,(51)
his treatise on the practice of devotional service as a means to
perfection (sadhana-bhakti). Neither of these authorities
explicitly discuss the concept of a disciplic succession in their works.
In his Hari-bhakti-vilasa, on the other hand, Gopala Bhatta Gosvami uses
word amnayagata ('coming in sacred tradition') in connection to
the guru, which Sanatana glosses as kula-kramagata ('coming in a
family line') or veda-vihita ('ordained by the scripture').(52)
Gopala Bhatta also says that at the time of initiation the guru bestows
the tilaka of the school upon the disciple, using the word
sampradayika which Sanatana glosses parampara-siddham, 'authorized
by the line of spiritual masters.'(53)
Hari-bhakti-vilasa also requires other qualities such as that the
guru be a brahmana handsome, a family man, and a number of other things
which are customarily ignored as they are considered secondary to the
essential qualities described in the Bhagavata-purana: sabde pare ca
nisnatam brahmany upasamasrayam: the guru should be fully
versed in the Vaisnava scriptures which present the highest truth and
himself have direct experience of the Supreme Truth, having ended all
attachment to sensuality for its own sake.(54)
It remains to be proved whether being a member of a disciplic succession
(diksa-sampradaya) can be considered a secondary and optional
requirement. Needless to say, the above scriptures are taken seriously
by the householder gurus or prabhu-santanas, especially in view
of the corollary prohibition for renunciates to take many disciples.
Like
Rupa, Jiva places association with devotees (sadhu-sanga) prior
to the commencement of devotional practice (bhajana-kriya).
Taking shelter of a guru is the beginning point of such a practice. Jiva
Gosvamin states that the highest standard of perfection must be sought
in the teaching spiritual master, whom he calls the sravana-guru,
for realization of the scriptural meaning is only possible through him.
This individual generally becomes the bhajana-siksa-guru. There
may be a multitude of such gurus.(55)
If one is unable to find such a guru, he may approach many teachers out
of a desire to know the different logical arguments (yukti-bheda):
'Firm and clear knowledge cannot be had from one teacher alone. The
supreme truth is one, but is described by the seers in many ways.'(56)
Thus the
siksa-guru is essential, but nonetheless, Jiva stresses that the
mantra-guru is even more so (ato mantra-guror avasyakatvam
sutaram). The mantra-guru is only one in contrast to the many
siksa-gurus allowed above. Problems arise if one abandons this guru. If
one is unsatisfied with this guru for some reason and takes mantra from
another individual, then by definition the first one has been abandoned
or rejected.(57)
However, Jiva does point out that if one has been initiated by a
non-Vaisnava, one 'goes to hell' and that rather than suffer such a fate,
one should take initiation from a Vaisnava according to the proper rites.(58)
He also points out that when one finds the paramarthika-guru, one
has no more need for other, functional authority figures (vyavaharika-guru)
such as parents, teachers, etc. These verses have customarily been used
in the Gaudiya Math to persuade people initiated by family gurus to
abandon them and retake intiation from its own leaders. In this spirit
of competition, the family gurus, even when belonging to a long and
venerable tradition, might well be called non-Vaisnavas or
vyavaharika-gurus because of any number of deviations from the Math's
own ascetic standards. On the other hand, failure to adhere to the
disciplic succession renders Gaudiya Math disciples non-Vaisnavas to
those who do, citing Gopala Bhatta's minimum definition of a
non-Vaisnava as one who has not taken initiation in the Visnu mantra.(59)
As a result, both groups generally require reinitiation for those who
wish to fully participate in their activities.
When
writing of the benefits which accrue from service to the guru (either
siksa or diksa), Jiva stipulates another criterion which permits the
radical step of abandoning the guru. The initiating guru should not
interfere with the disciple's association with other advanced Vaisnavas
since such association is an essential part of his spiritual life. And
although it is better if one should serve other Vaisnavas with the
permission of the guru in such a way that one's service to him is not
adversely affected,(60)
certain considerations must be taken.
One
who has taken shelter of a guru who does not possess the qualities
described in the verse sabde pare ca nisnatam, etc., and then
cannot get permission from him to serve great devotees due to his
enviousness (matsaradi), is not considered in this injunction
because he had abandoned scripture to begin with. The disciple will be
caught in a dilemma, incurring fault both by acting against the wishes
of his guru and by not serving great devotees. This is the meaning of
the scripture, 'Both the guru and the disciple whose relationship is
based on dishonesty are destined for hell.' Therefore such a guru
should be worshipped from a distance. But if he is a hater of devotees
then he should definitely be rejected. Due to his lack of Vaisnava
character, he is not to be considered a Vaisnava. As stated in the
previously quoted verse from Narada-pañcaratra: 'The mantra
received from a non-Vaisnava will lead one to hell. One should
therefore take the mantra again from a Vaisnava guru, according to the
proper rites.'(61)
The
statement 'worshipped from a distance' (ata eva durata evaradhyas
tadrso guruh) is significant and reminds one of Jiva's earlier line
about dissatisfaction with his guru: if the guru interferes with one's
advancement in devotional life then he is not to be renounced, but one
should simply distance himself from him and continue to associate with
advanced devotees.(62)
This is true even when the guru is possessed of unpleasant qualities
such as enviousness. The Puranas and popular literature abound with
warnings about abandoning gurus possessed of failings; it is apparent
that in principle Jiva is in agreement with them though he has avoided
quoting them.(63)
Thus, although it is generally allowed that only a Vaisnava who has
attained direct experience of the Supreme Truth should initiate, one who
is not so advanced could legitimately initiate a disciple as long as he
recognizes that such a disciple needs to seek out the association of
Vaisnavas on a higher stage of realization in order to perfect himself.
This in fact is the current sadacara in Vrndavana, where there is
a large community of Gaudiya Vaisnava renunciates. I have met
individuals amongst these vairagis who have a feeling that their
initiating spiritual master is not necessarily a very advanced devotee,
but they nevertheless continue to give him the respect he is due, even
while placing a higher practical emphasis on their association with
siksa-gurus in the renounced community.
Jiva discusses
the act of initiation itself in several places. Having already discussed
the sovereign importance of the holy names of Krsna, for which
initiation is not necessary, in the spiritual life of a devotee, he
considers the possibility that initiation in the mantra is not necessary
either:
Now
consider the following: the mantra itself consists of names of the
Lord. Added to that are words indicating submission such as namah or
svaha, etc., through which the Lord and the seers have endowed the
mantra with some special potency. Furthermore they are capable of
awakening a specific personal relationship with the Lord. [Of all
these ingredients] in the mantra, the names of the Lord alone are
capable of independently giving its reciter the supreme goal of life
[i.e., prema]. Thus we find that in the mantras there is an even
greater power than can be found in the name alone. In view of all
these considerations, why then is there any necessity for initiation?
The answer is as follows: there is no fundamental necessity for
initiation. Nevertheless, because people are generally by nature
caught up in bad habits and are unable to concentrate due to bodily
associations, etc., the great seers and others have on occasion
established some fundamental regulations here and there calling for
the performance of worship of the deity (arcana-marga) in order
to reduce such bad habits and lack of concentration. For this reason,
the scriptures call for the performance of penances as an atonement
for the non-performance of such deity worship. Where neither of these
faults (bodily and mental aberrations) are not prominent, there is no
need for initiation. The regulations spoken of are found in the
following verse from Brahma-yamala which states that exclusive
devotion to Hari which is independent of the injunctions of the
scriptures only causes a disturbance.(64)
Once again,
initiation from the guru is not given primary status by Jiva: it is not
a magical act like the sakti-pat of the Kasmiri Saivas. It is
functional in that it opens the door to the performance of deity worship,
through which one can become purified and strengthen one's sense of
identity in relationship to the Lord. Jiva elaborates on this later on,
maintaining the same tension between the absolute powers of any
devotional act and the necessity of initiation and worship of the deity.
Even
though in the opinion of the Bhagavata there is no imperative for the
performance of deity worship, as there is in the Pañcaratra and other
systems, and that one can attain the supreme perfection of life
through the performance of any aspect of devotion beginning from
self-surrender (saranapatti), nevertheless those who follow in
the path of Sri Narada, etc., and who wish to establish a particular
relationship with the Lord bestowed by the guru through the process of
initiation, should certainly engage in deity worship once they have
thus been initiated.(65)
'Because it bestows divine knowledge and destroys sin, it is called
diksa by the learned scholars. Therefore one should humble himself
before the guru, offer him all one's wealth and take the Vaisnava
mantra from him through the authorized process of initiation.'(66)
The term 'divine knowledge' here refers to the knowledge of the
specific form of the Lord contained in the holy syllables of the
mantra and knowledge of a specific relationship with that Lord.(67)
The
significance of the idea of 'a specific relationship' (sambandha-visesa)
is confirmed in relation to the idea of 'purification of one's being' (bhuta-suddhi)
which is integral to deity worship.
The
purification of one's existence (bhuta-suddhi) indicates that
one should meditate according to convenience upon one's own spiritual
body as an associate of Krsna, suitable for the performance of a
service for which one has a personal desire. Thus, wherever it is
ordained that one should meditate on one's object of devotion, one
should also think of oneself in the form of an associate of that deity.(68)
The idea
of such a spiritual identity has special significance in the light of
another statement by Jiva that efforts to engage in devotional
activities can be dispensed with if one simply identifies strongly
enough as a servant of God; through such identification alone one can
attain perfection.(69)
Indeed, the whole idea of raganuga bhakti can be seen in terms of
developing this specific identity without which it is meaningless.
To
summarize: Though the idea of disciplic succession is not mentioned by
Jiva in his discussion of initiation, it would seem that a chain of
initiatory relations is a logical necessity. The statements of the
Hari-bhakti-vilasa, Gautamiya-tantra, Padma-purana, etc., in
this matter must be accepted as having a great deal of weight. On the
other hand, Jiva does admit the possibility of an exception to the rule
of initiation and deity worship in the case of some extraordinary
individuals. In the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition predating Bhaktisiddhanta
it was felt that one could attain perfection in this manner, but was not
then oneself permitted to initiate.(70)
As a result, in the view of the traditionalists, Bhaktisiddhanta's
unorthodox approach to initiation was a disruption in the path of
devotion (utpatayaiva kalpate). What was unusual in
Bhaktisiddhanta's approach was his claim to more accurately represent
the spirit of Caitanya and his followers than those who traditionally
did so in that he put the accent on proselytization. The promulgation of
the siksa-sampradaya idea, in which the spirit of the law takes
precedence over the letter may partially have been promulgated with the
goal of overcoming sectarianism within the Gaudiya school,(71)
but other innovations in the Gaudiya Math movement made such spiritual
unity difficult if not impossible. It appears rather more likely that
the rift between the Gaudiya Math and the rest of the Gaudiya Vaisnava
tradition was intentional and is probably irreparable. Those in the
Gaudiya Math tradition must therefore come to terms with this and
recognize the exceptional status of their founder and the fact that
their disciplic succession has taken a new beginning from him. It would
thus be historically more accurate to call this particular branch of
Vaisnavism(notwithstanding Rupa Vilasa's suggestion noted earlier) the
Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-Sarasvata-sampradaya, 'Sarasvata' being a
reference to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. If Bhaktisiddhanta's innovations
which to Caitanyaite traditionalists have a sacrilegious and disruptive
character, make Caitanya Vaisnavism more universally accessible and
acceptable, the continued flourishing of the various Gaudiya Math
branches will no doubt lead to the progressive marginalization of the
issues raised in this article. In the broader perspective of Hinduism
and free-market religiosity, success is the only measure of authenticity.
ISKCON's first well thought out 'heresy', the doctrine of
the rtvik (i.e., 'officiating priest, deputy', claimed that no disciple
of Prabhupada was qualified to handle the position of spiritual master
and that those who led the movement were mere caretakers or 'monitor
gurus' until the arrival of a qualified, 'self-effulgent' acarya. The
hold of this doctrine is strong, and even in the 1993 meeting, one
initiating master, Gaura Govinda Svami, denied officially any claims
ostensibly being made by his disciples that he was such a nitya
siddha uttama adhikari, 'superior guru', and that he was the
siksa-guru of all the rest of ISKCON.(72)
However,
though the 'monitor guru' and rtvik guru doctrine may have been
officially eliminated by ISKCON, it has, in a sense, been accepted
through undermining the traditional autonomy of the guru. Nevertheless,
the importance of guruism as an institution of Hinduism itself and its
decentralizing, destabilizing power, the importance of the myth of the
guru-relationship in the Hindu aspirant's spiritual life, the guru
archetype as a functioning psychological reality, would all indicate
that despite the evident strength of ISKCON, there will be a tendency to
fragmentation particularly in future generations, as individual styles
become more prominent. It is also likely that ISKCON itself will
gravitate towards the hegemony of a small group of powerful gurus, or
one individual.
It can be
stated with some confidence, however, that the following areas will be
sure to cause continued problems:
(i) Lack of
confidence in the level of spiritual achievements of the leaders the 'priests'
of the movement in Weber's terminology, who possess purely institutional
charisma. They may well be considered inadequate even from the point of
view of their priestly function, as their scholarship (which in a
text-rich tradition like Gaudiya Vaisnavism is not to be underestimated
in importance) is found lacking. The lack of raganuga bhakti
culture in ISKCON, though certainly not an immediate problem for its
younger members, is in the long run bound to create a vacuum for those
who are well-read in the works of the tradition. One cannot consistently
appeal to the members' commitment to evangelization without taking note
of their individual spiritual appetites, whetted by the cornucopia of
spiritual material lying outside the corpus bequeathed by Bhaktivedanta.
(ii) Problems
arising from the emphasis in Prabhupada's writings on disciplic
succession and the accent on initiation as the token of participation in
that succession, contrasted with the absence of such participation in
the current line. This will prove particularly important for those who
develop a desire for raganuga bhakti, who will come to seek the 'special
relationship' which is said to come through initiation.
(iii) If, as
in the Gaudiya Math, emphasis is made on the concept of the
siksa-sampradaya, those aspirants who have the courage will feel that
they are free to make the individual search and will be led outward
towards other sources of knowledge. The institution, seeking to protect
itself by preventing such association outside the parameters it sets
(i.e. extra ecclesiam nullum salus) will eventually lose
credibility for such aspirants. Building walls, as in Berlin, will
likely prove ineffectual and counter-productive in the long run.
For a large
number of Prabhupada's disciples, however, the rtvik option or
variations thereof will continue to be attractive. It continues to have
resilience amongst those disaffected by the current leadership and who
look back to the days of Prabhupada's presence as the golden age. ISKCON
itself is taking on more and more the form of a horizontally rather than
vertically-based society (to use Shinn's terminology). Those who have
found power within the structures of the movement have strengthened
horizontal relationships with their own disciples at the expense of
their relationships with their godbrothers. The ratio of original
Prabhupada disciples continues to diminish and many of these people are
left to their own devices: either to abandon devotional life altogether
or to seek succour in some other spiritual discipline or Vaisnava group.
The success of
the ISKCON institution itself depends to a great extent on charismatic
leaders who genuinely possess the characteristics expected of someone
advanced in spiritual life. If this quality can be achieved, even by a
few of its leaders, even in the face of the inevitable political
difficulties caused by the preeminence which will result from it,
inconsistencies in matters of doctrine can no doubt be overcome. In the
absence of such charisma, the inherent contradictions in the
guru-parampara issue will continue to confuse and weaken the movement.
Similarly, the
success of the rtviks and other splinter groups of Gaudiya Vaisnavism
which have arisen out of Bhaktivedanta's preaching efforts will depend
greatly on the charismatic powers of the individuals who lead them. In
the race between these groups, the initial lead is with the more
powerful and wealthy and still more cohesive society, ISKCON. Whether it
will be able to maintain this lead in the long run remains to be seen.
NOTES
(1) BhP xi.29.6.
(2) Miller, David. 'The Guru As the Centre of
Sacredness.' Studies in Religion/ Sciences Religieuses 6, no. 5
(1977), 528.
(3) tad-viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya |
upadeksyanti te jñanam jñaninas tattvadarsinah || Gita 4.11.
(4) op.cit., 530.
(5) Rodney Stark, 'How new religions succeed,' in
The Future of New Religious Movements, (ed.) David G. Bromley and
Phillip E. Hammond, Macon Ga: Mercer University Press, 1987; 16.
Reference is to Larry D. Shinn, 'Conflicting Networks: Guru and Friend
in ISKCON', Religious Movement: Genesis, Exodus and Numbers, edited
by Rodney Stark (New York: Rose of Sharon Press, 1984).
(6) Larry D. Shinn, 'The future of an old man's
vision: ISKCON in the 21st century'; 128. Shinn's discussion of Weber's
categories, see The Dark Lord (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1987), 39-40. See also, Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic
Organization, Translated by A. M Henderson and Talcott Parsons (Glencoe,
Ill.: Freee Press, 1947), 341-369. Also The Sociology of Religion,
Translated by Ephraim Fischoff (Boston: Beacon Press, 1963), 46ff.
(7) See Larry J. Shinn, The Dark Lord.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987. 54-60.
(8) ISKCON's temples operate as independent legal
entities and have no direct legal connection to the parent organization.
The parent organization has no proprietary rights over any individual
ISKCON branch, though it does have control in doctrinal matters, etc.
Each temple is controlled by a board which includes both local members
and GBC members who have wider powers. David Miller, in his above-cited
article, identifies the decentralization of associate mathas as a
characteristic of the Hindu sampradaya as compared with Christian and
Buddhist monasticism. Op. cit., 535.
(9) Lecture by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Svami, delivered
in Los Angeles, 12/8/73. Cited by Virabahu Dasa, The Guru and What
Prabhupada Said, 46. It should be noted that Prabhupada said other
things which are less strict on this point. Note the citations made by
Rupa Vilasa Dasa in the essay 'Jumping Over' in Living Still in Sound,
74-89. Nevertheless, the quote supplied above is one which reflects more
accurately what was generally considered to be Prabhupada's ruling on
the matter.
(10) Letter to Rupanuga Das, 5/28/1974.
(11) This was done with the prior approval
of Bhaktivedanta himself.
(12) Cf. B. B. Visnu, Our Affectionate
Guardians, Eugene, OR: Clarion Call Publishers, 1996.
(13) Charles R. Brooks states that 23
non-Iskcon Westerners were living in Vrindavan in 1985, but not all of
these were Vaisnavas. He does not seem to have looked outside the town
of Vrindavan to Radha Kund and other places frequented by Vaisnava
foreigners. The Hare Krishnas in India (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1989), 102. With the increase in the number of the
groups described above, this number has also doubtlessly increased.
(14) These articles have been compiled in
an anthology Living Still in Sound, Washington, MS: New Jaipur
Press, 1990. The official position of ISKCON vis-a-vis the arguments of
the rtvik-vadins is expressed in the ISKCON Journal, 1.1, specially
prepared for the Gaura Purnima pilgrimage of 1990. Two important ISKCON
publications which present the guru-doctrine according to Bhaktivedanta
Svami are The Spiritual Master and The Disciple, a compilation of
references to the issue from the published works of Bhaktivedanta,
compiled and edited by Subhananda dasa Brahmacari (Steven J. Geldberg),
(Bombay: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1990), and The Guru and What
Prabhupada Said, a compilation of relevant quotes from lectures,
informal conversations and letters of Bhaktivedanta Svami, by Virabahu
dasa (Marcos A. Zafarani), (Los Angeles: Fondo Editorial Bhaktivedanta,
1988). I would like to thank Steve Rosen (Satyaraj Das) for having made
these works available to me.
(15) Karnamrta Dasa, 'The Diksha Guru: A
Pragmatic Definition', in Living Still in Sound. ed. Karnamrta Dasa.
Washington, MS: New Jaipur Press, 1990. 186.
(16) This two-tiered initiation process,
though in vogue elsewhere amongst Gaudiya Vaisnavas, appears to have
been formally institutionalized in the Gaudiya Matha and its sister
organizations. Generally, a disciple is expected to follow the
regulative principles of ISKCON for a period of at least six months
prior to receiving first initiation, at which time he is given a rosary
or japamala which has been chanted upon by his spiritual master and his
`spiritual' name. The second initiation comes after another year of
discipline. At this time he is given the seven mantras: the Vedic
Gayatri-mantra, guru-mantra, guru-gayatri, Gaura-mantra, Gaura-gayatri,
Krsna-mantra and Kama-gayatri. Male disciples are invested with the
sacred thread (yajñopavita). All those with the second initiation
become qualified to engage in deity worship, cook for the deities, etc.
In one article Karnamrta argues that the receipt of Harinama constitutes
real initiation in order to emphasize that those who had only taken
Harinama from Prabhupada were in fact his disciples and not those of the
guru who had given second initiation. ('Although others give help in
showing the way to beginners, the guru who first initiates one with the
mahamantra is to be known as the initiator.' CC. Adi 1.34, Prabhupada's
purport.). From the early Gaudiya authority Jiva Gosvamin's comments on
the issue, however, it appears that diksa refers specifically to the
mantra initiation. This is generally because even though Harinama is
best received from a pure soul, it is said to act independent of the
initiation process (Cf. Padyavali, 29, cited, CC Madhya 15.110).
(17) Cf. BhP xi.2.46 or Upadesamrta,
4.
(18) Karnamrta Dasa, op. cit., 192. The
steps of attainment are given by Rupa Gosvami in BRS i.4.10: sraddha
(faith), sadhu-sanga (association with pious persons, etc.),
bhajana-kriya (engagement in devotional acts), anartha-nivrtti
(cessation of unwanted involvements including sinful activity),
nistha (fixity), asakti (attachment to devotional activities),
ruci (a genuine taste for them), bhava (feeling),
preman (love).
(19) Prabhupada often quoted Caitanya's
instruction: yare dekho tare kaho krsna-upades | amar ajñaya guru hoi'
tarao ei des || 'Instruct whomever you see in [service to] Krsna. By
my order become a guru and save this land.' CCA, ii.7.128.
(20) Rupa Vilasa Dasa, 'Who is Guru?,' in
Living Still in Sound, 2-3.
(21) The parampara, though not explicitly
named as such, is listed in a poem at the beginning of Sarasvati's
Anubhasya on the Caitanyacaritamrta.
(22) The Guru and His Grace (San
Jose: Guardian of Devotion Press), 101.
(23) Nectar of Devotion (Los
Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1970). Cited, The Spiritual Master
and The Disciple, ed. Subhananda Dasa (Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta
Book Trust, 1978), 363. Literally hundreds of such references can be
found through Prabhupada's works, lectures and correspondence.
(24) Gautamiya-tantra 29.5.
sampradaya-vihina ye mantras te nisphala matah | Baladeva attributes
this line and several which follow it to the Padmapurana where
they cannot be found. Prameya-ratnavali, 1.5. For other
references from Prabhupada see The Spiritual Master and the Disciple,
242ff.
(25) The expression 'monitor guru' comes
from an isolated passage by Prabhupada: 'A candidate who has
successfully reached up to the twelfth stage can also become spiritual
master himself just as a student becomes the monitor in the class with a
limited number of disciples.' Easy Journey to Other Planets (Los
Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1969). The reference is to a
statement in BRS i.2.38 where Rupa Gosvamin cites the
Bhagavata-purana advising the aspiring devotee against taking too
many disciples. Prabhupada takes the verse in a positive sense rather
than as an absolute prohibition.
(26) Satyaraja Dasa, in The ISKCON
Journal, I.1. The reference is to the idea that the relation of each
individual throughout history is with the unique and never to be
equalled saviour, who like Christ is considered to be the sole source of
spiritual succour.
(27) Prabhupada had, from early on in the
history of ISKCON, authorized disciples to officiate at initiating
ceremonies on his behalf, in his absence. Those initiated at these
affairs were considered Prabhupada's own disciples. The term rtvik,
however, was introduced during Prabhupada's dying days, when he allowed
a number of his leading disciples to take full responsibily for all
aspects of the initiation with the same understanding, that those
initiated were his disciples. This procedure was one of Prabhupada's
many innovations. The term rtvik has no currency in the Gaudiya
tradition.
(28) Something similar to the rtvik theory
is in operation in other Hindu-based movements in North America. Current
leaders of the Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Society based in Val-Morin,
Quebec, do not initiate anyone as their own disciple, but as disciples
of Swami Vishnudevananda, their guru in the line of Sankara and founder
of the SYVC. They openly admit that they have not attained a level of
spiritual realization to take such a responsibility as 'one must realize
the mantra before giving it.' Devotees who have been so initiated seem
to have no problem with being the disciple of a person who they had
never met and indeed was dead before they had even heard of him.
(29)
(30) This idea of siksa-sampradaya should
not be confused with that which is prevalent in the sahajiya schools of
Vaisnavism, where diksa is identified with the exoteric aspects of
religious practice and siksa with esoteric and tantric practices which
were grafted onto the tradition. The siksa-sampradaya of the Sahajiyas
is normally traced through Kalacand Gosvami and back further to Rupa
Kaviraja. The siksa relationship here constitutes in fact a separate
initiation rather than a teaching as such, and the sampradaya consists
of a series of empiric personal relationships. In this siksa initiation,
the kama-gayatri and hamsa mantras (so'ham) are
given precedence.
(31) Brian Marvin, 'Bhaktivinoda Thakura,'
PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, 1996.
(32) Ramacandra was never married himself.
Like the Gosvamis of Vrindavan, he appointed a nephew to take charge of
the temple he founded and it is the descendents of that nephew who are
the current leaders of this much weakened line.
(33) The Seventh Goswami
(Washington, MS: New Jaipur Press, 1989), 142-4. 'Vipina-vihari Gosvami
initially enjoyed a very sweet relationship with the Thakura, but later
he is said to have been neglected by the Thakura due to a disagreement
about the position of Raghunatha dasa Gosvami. He also assisted the
Thakura in his preaching work, but his spiritual advancement was not on
the same level as the 'Commander-in-chief of the Vaisnavas,' as Srila
Jagannatha dasa Babaji came to be called...'
(34) With whom I had the chance of having
several personal interviews prior to his death in 1979. Although Lalita
Prasada wrote much about his differences with his brother, most of it
remains in manuscript form and is not available for citation.
(35) Op. cit., 23-24.
(36) The Guru and His Grace, 22.
(37) All this appears to have been
accompanied by personal problems. Ananta Vasudeva married one of his
disciples. He liberated all his disciples to take initiation elsewhere,
gave over the Gaudiya Mission to Bhaktikevala Audulomi Maharaja on the
condition that he dress in white rather than the saffron of the Gaudiya
Math samnyasins. He then left for Brindavan where he lived out the rest
of his life more or less as a recluse. Ex-disciples of Ananta Vasudeva
formed a large contingent of the renounced residents of Radha Kund and
Sri Krsna Caitanya Gaura gunadhama, the kirtana promulgated by Puri
Dasa can still be heard there. (Puri Dasa also came to accept that the
congregational chanting of the mahamantra was not authorized.) His
abandonment of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati made him an anathema in the
rest of the maths, and left many of his admirers particularly
disillusioned. Bhaktivedanta styled Tirtha as guru-bhogi, 'exploiter of
the guru,' and Puri as guru-tyagi, 'renouncer of the guru.'
(38) Calcutta: Karuna Dasa, Sripata-Paraga,
1964.
(39) Bhakti-sandarbha, 283: 'The
term "divine knowledge" here refers to the knowledge of the specific
form of the Lord contained in the holy syllables of the mantra and
knowledge of a specific relationship with that Lord.' divyam jñanam
hy atra srimati mantre bhagavat-svarupa-jñanam, tena bhagavata
sambandha-visesa-jñanam ca |
(40) See Sri-Sri-Gaudiya-vaisnava-jivana
(Nabadwip: Haribol Kutir, 1975), 195-7.
(41) Ibid., 128-130.
(42) An obvious reference to
sambandha-visesa-jñanam.
(43) Op. cit., 19.
(44) HBV, 2.1, commentary. saksat
tasyopadestrtvasambhave 'pi cittadhisthatrtvadina sarvesam api
parama-gurutayatmano 'pi sa eva guruh |
(45) See S. K. De, The Early History of
the Vaishnava Faith and Movement. Friedhelm Hardy, 'Madhavendra Puri',
JRAS, 1979. Sundarananda Vidyavinoda in particular points out
that the list of disciples given by Baladeva and Karnapura does not
match that given by the Udipi matha. Acintyabhedabheda (Calcutta:
Gaudiya Math, 1956), 86.
(46) In particular, Gopala Bhatta describes
the process of initiation according to Krama-dipika (HBV 2.2). In
Brahmasamhita, Brahma is said to have received diksa in
astadasaksara-mantra. Krsna-mantra is given him by Sarasvati and
then the Kamagayatri mantra is revealed to him through the sound of
Krsna's flute. Neitherr this book, nor Gopalatapani Upanisad
which also discusses these mantra, are anywhere in use in the Madhva
line. They both contain information about these mantras which are given
special status in the Caitanya line. See Guy L. Beck, 'The Divine Names
in the Gayatri Mantra,' Journal of Vaisnava Studies, 2.2, Spring
1994. 47-58.
(47) It is in this connection that the
above-cited verse about the mantra having no effect has been quoted. The
rest of the passage is as follows: atah kalau bhavisyanti catvarah
sampradayinah | sri-brahma-rudra-sanaka vaisnavah ksiti-pavanah ||
ramanujam srih svcakre madhvacaryam caturmukhah | sri- visnu-svaminam
rudro nimbadityam catuhsanah || Needless to say, these verses are
nowhere to be found in the Padma-purana from which they are cited,
nor are they referred to anywhere in the writings of Caitanya's
contemporaries. It is probable, however, that they had a currency in the
Vaisnava world in which Baladeva lived. They are followed in
Prameya-ratnavali by the disciplic succession of Madhva up to
Laksmipati Tirtha who is said to be the guru of Madhavendra Puri.
(48) Ramakanta Chakravarty, Vaisnavism
in Bengal, 1486-1900 (Calcutta: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, 1985) 150.
(49) Ramacandra did not in fact marry. His
nephew Rajavallabha, the author of Murali-vilasa, did have a
family and his descendants still maintain the temple of Krsna and
Balarama in Baghna Para.
(50) Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, i.2.74.
gurupadasrayas tasmat siksa-diksadi-sevanam|
(51) ed. Chinmayi Chatterjee, Calcutta:
Jadavpur University, 1980. Particularly sections 202-214 (pp. 104-8),
283-4 (pp. 144-7).
(52) upadestaram amnayagatam pariharanti
ye | tan mrtan api kravyadah krtaghnan nopabhuñjate || 'Even the
vultures will not eat the corpses of those ungrateful persons who
abandon the guru coming in disciplic succession as is ordained by
scripture.' HBV 4.363, quoted from Brahmavaivarta-purana (translation
based on Haridas Sastri's Hindi version). The word sampradayin, 'belonging
to a specific line of spiritual masters' as a characteristic of the guru
is found in Padmapurana, Patala-khanda, 51 (See
Vaisnava-siddhante Sri-guru-svarupa, 78).
(53) HBV 2.129.
sampradayika-mudradi-bhusitam tam krtañjalim | pañcanga-pramukhair
nyasaih kuryat sri-krsna-sac chisum || Thus each of the main
Vaisnava sampradayas has a distinctive tilaka. Sub-groups or families (parivaras)
of the Gaudiya sampradaya (such as Nityananda, Advaita, Narottama,
Gadadhara, Vakresvara, Syamananda, Srinivasa, etc.) also have their
distinctive markings. The tilaka markings of the Gaudiya Math resemble
most closely those of the Narottama-parivara.
(54) BhP xi.3.22. Quoted in
Bhaktisandarbha, 202.
(55) Ibid., 208
(56) BhP xi.9.31. na hy ekasmad guror
jñanam susthiram syat supuskalam | brahmaikam advitiyam vai
giyate bahudharsibhih ||
(57) Paras. 209-210.
(58) BhaktiS 207, quotation from
Narada-pañcaratra. avaisnavopadistena mantrena nirayam vrajet | punas ca
vidhina samyag grahayed vaisnavad guroh ||
(59) HBV 1.55. grhita-visnu-diksako
visnu-puja-paro narah | vaisnavo 'bhihito 'bhijñair itaro 'smad
avaisnavah ||
(60) BhaktiS., p. 122. sri-gurv-ajñaya
tat-sevanavirodhena canyesam api vaisnavanam sevanam sreyah. Anyatha
dosah syat.
(61) Para. 238, p.122.
(62) Ibid. yathokta-laksanasya guror
avidyamanayam tu tasyaiva maha-bhagavatasyaikasya nitya-sevanam
parama-sreyah |
(63) Gopala Bhatta quotes the
Aditya-purana at HBV 4.359. avidyo va savidyo va gurur eva
janardanah | margastho vapy amargastho guru eva sada gatih || 'Whether
ignorant or learned, the guru is Janardana. Whether situated on the path
or not, he is ever the goal.'
(64) BhaktiS 284: nanu
bhagavan-namatmaka eva mantrah, etc. Note that Jiva finishes this
section by quoting sruti-smrti-puranadi-pañcaratra-vidhim vina |
aikantiki harer bhaktir utpatayaiva kalpate ||(Brahma-yamala,
also quoted at Brs i.2.10).
(65) BhaktiS, 283.
(66) Ibid. Quoted from the Agamas,
also quoted in HBV, 2.9.
(67) Ibid.
(68) Ibid. 285 (p. 148).
(69) astu tavat tad-bhajana-prayasah,
kevala-tadrsatvabhimanenapi siddhir bhavati | (BhaktiS 304,
p. 159)
(70) The legend of Madhusudana Dasa Babaji,
siksa-guru of Jagannatha Dasa Babaji is often cited. Though he received
initiation from a spiritual master, he did not get siddha-pranali,
nor indeed did he know the identity of his guru. Later, he was given his
siddha identity in a dream, and though this was accepted by Govardhana's
Siddha Krsna Dasa Babaji, he was told not to make disciples himself. Cf.
Gaudiya Vaisnava Jivana, 197. By way of contrast, Hita Harivamsa
Gosvami, the founder of the Radhavallabha sampradaya, claimed to have
received mantra from Radha herself. Though there is reason to believe
that Harivamsa had a close connection to the Gaudiya sampradaya, he is
considered by the latter to be unorthodox primarily for this reason.
(71) It was with this goal that
Bhaktivinoda Thakur started the Visva-Vaisnava-raja-sabha ('The World
Council of Vaisnavas') which Bhaktisiddhanta maintained as his preaching
organization until he founded the Gaudiya Math.
(72) Resolution 56, Resolutions of the
Governing Body Commission, International Society for Krishna
Consciousness, Annual General Meeting, Feb. 7-21, 1993, Mayapur, India.
Gaura Govinda Svami, an Orissan, older than most of his ISKCON
counterparts, has attracted a number of Western and Indian disciples. He
is nevertheless greatly dependent on the society as a whole for
financial aid toward the construction of a major temple complex in
Bhuvaneshwar. Evidently, separation is not in his interest. His recent
death (1996) has defused the problem in some ways, in others, the 'holy'
circumstances of his passing away seem to have infused him with an aura
which may continue to cause a certain friction.
Disciplic
Succession
The
guruparampara of the Gaudiya Math
[The original
expression of this disciplic succession is found in Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati's introductory comments to Anubhasya, a commentary on
Caitanya Caritamrta, 5th edition, Sri Mayapur: Sri Caitanya Math,
1956 (Gaurabda 470), 1-3.] Bhaktivedanta Svami gives his list in the
introduction to Bhagavad-gita as it is. Los Angeles:
Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1972.
1. Caitanya (d.
1534)
2 Svarupa
Damodara (d. 1540)
[Sanatana
Gosvami (1556)
Rupa
Gosvami (1556)](a)
3.
Raghunatha Dasa Gosvami (1586)(b)
4. Krsnadasa
Kaviraja (1612)
5. Narottama
Dasa Thakura (ca. 1650
6. Visvanatha
Cakravarti (ca. 1710)
[Baladeva
Vidyabhusana (1725)](c)
7. Jagannatha
Dasa Babaji (1911)
8.
Bhaktivinoda Thakura (1917)
9.
Gaurakisora dasa Babaji (1915)(d)
10.
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati (1937)
11.
Bhaktivedanta Svami (1977)
------------------------------
(a) tar mitra rupa sanatana. Rupa
and Sanatana are not designated as disciples of Svarupa Damodara, but as
friends. Bhaktivedanta gives Rupa as the predominant disciple of
Caitanya and puts Svarupa Damodara and Sanatana in parentheses.
(b) Rupapriya mahajana. Priya,
though non-specific, is the usual designation of a disciple.
Bhaktivedanta adds Jiva Gosvami here.
(c) Given in brackets in Bhaktivedanta's
edition but not mentioned in Bhaktisiddhanta's introduction to
Anubhasya.
(d) Bhaktisiddhanta makes no overt claim
to discipleship to Gaurakisora here, including him simply as one amongst
many: ei sab harijan gauranger nijajan tader ucchiste jar kam. 'I
simply desire to take the remnants of all these devotees, who are the
intimates of Gauranga.'
The
gurupranali of Lalitaprasada Thakura
As presented
by Gadadhara Prana Dasa, 'Raganuga Bhajan'' In Gifts of Sacred Wonder,
edited by Neal Delmonico, Calcutta: Subarnarekha, 1985. 105.
1. (Nityananda
Prabhu) Jahnava Mata
2.
Ramacandra Gosvami
3
Rajavallabha Gosvami
4.
Kesavacandra Gosvami
5.
Rudresvara Gosvami
6. Dayarama
Gosvami
7. Mahesvari
Gosvamini
8.
Gunamañjari Gosvamin
9. Ramamani
Gosvamini
10.
Yajñesvara Gosvami
11. Vipina
Vihari Gosvami
12.
Bhaktivinoda Thakura (d. 1917)
13. Lalita
Prasada Thakura (1879-1980)
Guardiões
da Devoção