Post by lal on Oct 30, 2015 17:40:16 GMT -5
There have been some discussions recently from various senior bhaktas on the relevance of Hindu or Vedic social artifacts, customs, and traditions in relation to Gaudiya bhakti. That appears to have been caused by and focused as a response to how Hridayanada Goswami conducts his Krishna West mission. Which is as far as I can tell focused on the preaching of ISKCON philosophy, minus the external Hindu social artifacts, customs, and traditions found in ISKCON proper, to whatever degree they do not promote them.
The discussions seem to have been resolved with some in favor of all the current Hindu and traditional aspects of Gaudiya bhakti as being somehow intrinsically part of Gaudiya bhakti, and due to the connection of Hindu or Vedic culture with Krishna, therefore of great and indispensable value for the development of prema in raganuga bhakti, e.g. Krishna's culture is Vedic culture, therefore by immersing in Vedic culture that can aid in raganuga bhakti (Satyanarayana das Babaji's position). That seems to have been accepted by most, but not all.
I have several problems with that ideology. First off is the most obvious - nowhere in the teachings of acharyas is importance given to anything cultural for the development of bhava and prema. That concept was introduced when the tradition left India in modern times by Srila Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada. It was part of his plan for exporting the tradition as completely as he saw possible to cultures outside of the Hindu world. He said that ISKCON wasn't just a religious or bhakti yoga movement, he intended it as a cultural movement as well. Does that necessarily mean that the cultural aspect is indispensable for raganuga or any type of sadhana? It could be argued that Prabhupada saw the cultural aspect as a means of preaching, as a means of attracting people to practice bhakti. He said as much, often mentioning how the food or the clothes or the art is used to get people to be attracted to hear the philosophy and take up bhakti.
So that is the origin of the idea of the importance of Hindu culture to bhakti in Gaudiya history. Previously, the practitioners of bhakti were all living in Hindu culture, so there was no reason to mention it as something that was needed or helpful for bhakti. Vedic culture was spoken about of course as superior to other cultures, for various reasons, but that seems mainly to be in response to what was perceived as the lower qualities, the lower class aspects, and the lack of the Vedic religion of other cultures.
Another problem I have with the idea of all the cultural aspects being necessarily helpful for the development of raganuga bhakti - I think they can be a hindrance as a distraction. Why is it that Jiva Goswami and others made such a point of saying that raganuga bhaktas shouldn't be judged if they are seen to not be following the Vedic traditions and customs, and rules and regulations of vaidhi bhakti? To me that means that raganuga is something beyond cultural rules or traditions. The reason I see a problem with the idea of Hindu culture or Vedic culture, or the religious traditions surrounding them being necessarily important for raganuga is because all of those external factors are antithetical to the process of raganuga sadhana - which is based on the development of a purely internal transformation.
I do think the external factors are an aid in vaidhi-sadhana, they can help create a mood of devotion to Krishna and so on. But for a raganuga practitioner, all external factors are or should be unimportant for raganuga-sadhana, in fact they can be a distraction to what is important, i.e. focusing on relating to Krishna within ourselves and all around (through others and through everything else) and developing our bhava in relation to him in that way. External customs, rules, traditions, or cultures are irrelevant to that, and can simply be a distraction to that all encompassing practise.
Therefore we see acharyas like Jiva Goswami saying raganuga bhaktas shouldn't be judged, because the rules and regulations for everyone else are not applicable - he wrote that they only exist in the first place to get people to the stage of raganuga. The only thing important is focusing on our direct and immediate constant relationship with Krishna, who is always with us and all around us. From Bhakti Sandarbha Anuccheda 312.21:
I've seen some people interpret this to mean that Jiva Goswami means there are "no quotas" for those things like there is for vaidhi sadhana. But I believe if Jiva Goswami meant that then what prevented him from saying that? So we must take him by what he actually chose instead of what you may think he left out but leaves it to our interpretive digging out.
The discussions seem to have been resolved with some in favor of all the current Hindu and traditional aspects of Gaudiya bhakti as being somehow intrinsically part of Gaudiya bhakti, and due to the connection of Hindu or Vedic culture with Krishna, therefore of great and indispensable value for the development of prema in raganuga bhakti, e.g. Krishna's culture is Vedic culture, therefore by immersing in Vedic culture that can aid in raganuga bhakti (Satyanarayana das Babaji's position). That seems to have been accepted by most, but not all.
I have several problems with that ideology. First off is the most obvious - nowhere in the teachings of acharyas is importance given to anything cultural for the development of bhava and prema. That concept was introduced when the tradition left India in modern times by Srila Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada. It was part of his plan for exporting the tradition as completely as he saw possible to cultures outside of the Hindu world. He said that ISKCON wasn't just a religious or bhakti yoga movement, he intended it as a cultural movement as well. Does that necessarily mean that the cultural aspect is indispensable for raganuga or any type of sadhana? It could be argued that Prabhupada saw the cultural aspect as a means of preaching, as a means of attracting people to practice bhakti. He said as much, often mentioning how the food or the clothes or the art is used to get people to be attracted to hear the philosophy and take up bhakti.
So that is the origin of the idea of the importance of Hindu culture to bhakti in Gaudiya history. Previously, the practitioners of bhakti were all living in Hindu culture, so there was no reason to mention it as something that was needed or helpful for bhakti. Vedic culture was spoken about of course as superior to other cultures, for various reasons, but that seems mainly to be in response to what was perceived as the lower qualities, the lower class aspects, and the lack of the Vedic religion of other cultures.
Another problem I have with the idea of all the cultural aspects being necessarily helpful for the development of raganuga bhakti - I think they can be a hindrance as a distraction. Why is it that Jiva Goswami and others made such a point of saying that raganuga bhaktas shouldn't be judged if they are seen to not be following the Vedic traditions and customs, and rules and regulations of vaidhi bhakti? To me that means that raganuga is something beyond cultural rules or traditions. The reason I see a problem with the idea of Hindu culture or Vedic culture, or the religious traditions surrounding them being necessarily important for raganuga is because all of those external factors are antithetical to the process of raganuga sadhana - which is based on the development of a purely internal transformation.
I do think the external factors are an aid in vaidhi-sadhana, they can help create a mood of devotion to Krishna and so on. But for a raganuga practitioner, all external factors are or should be unimportant for raganuga-sadhana, in fact they can be a distraction to what is important, i.e. focusing on relating to Krishna within ourselves and all around (through others and through everything else) and developing our bhava in relation to him in that way. External customs, rules, traditions, or cultures are irrelevant to that, and can simply be a distraction to that all encompassing practise.
Therefore we see acharyas like Jiva Goswami saying raganuga bhaktas shouldn't be judged, because the rules and regulations for everyone else are not applicable - he wrote that they only exist in the first place to get people to the stage of raganuga. The only thing important is focusing on our direct and immediate constant relationship with Krishna, who is always with us and all around us. From Bhakti Sandarbha Anuccheda 312.21:
na japo nArcanaM naiva dhyAnaM nApi vidhi-kramaH
kevalaM santataM kRSNa-caraNAmbhoja-bhAvinAm
There is no japa, no deity worship, no meditation and no traditional customs or rules. There is only uninterrupted existence/immersion/attachment and enjoyment of Krishna’s feet
kevalaM santataM kRSNa-caraNAmbhoja-bhAvinAm
There is no japa, no deity worship, no meditation and no traditional customs or rules. There is only uninterrupted existence/immersion/attachment and enjoyment of Krishna’s feet
I've seen some people interpret this to mean that Jiva Goswami means there are "no quotas" for those things like there is for vaidhi sadhana. But I believe if Jiva Goswami meant that then what prevented him from saying that? So we must take him by what he actually chose instead of what you may think he left out but leaves it to our interpretive digging out.
