Interesting question. The term is not listed in regular Sanskrit dictionaries as a compound with some literature reference. That might indicate it wasn't used in the classical literature.
Of course, the meaning is quite clear: Sanskrit vartman, neuter noun: track, path, road, way, course; in compounds it becomes vartma-;
Sanskrit pradarśaka, either mfn.: showing, indicating, proclaiming, foretelling, teaching, expounding; or m. noun: a teacher;
So a vartma-pradarśaka is one who shows the way, a person who points in a certain direction;

But what is the origin in ISKCON doctrine?
Interestingly the term is NOT listed in the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-Abhidhāna, which means it wasn't used by the six gosvamins or earlier writers.
I found it in Caitanya-Caritāmṛta Madhya-līlā 8.128,

where Prabhupada quotes Siddhanta Sarasvati in his purport:

"Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura also states that although one is situated as a brahmana, kshatriya, vaisya, sudra, brahmacari, vanaprastha, grihastha or sannyasi, if he is conversant in the science of Krishna he can become a spiritual master as vartma-pradarsaka-guru, diksha-guru or siksha-guru."

And sure enough, this is more or less what Siddhanata Sarasvati says (in the GM edition of the CC this comes at Madhya 8.127):
ye-kona varṇa vā ye-kona āśramei avasthita haūna, kṛṣṇa-tattvavettāi guru arthāt vartmapradarśaka, dīkṣāguru o śikṣāguru haite pārena.

So the originator of the term might well have been Siddhanta Sarasvati himself . . .

Thanks for that Ep. It was a question I asked back when I was a Gaudiya pundit-imitater .. I never found this term anywhere in my readings of Gosvami literature etc., and the answers I got was that it was a pure invention of BR Sridhar.

Although I suspected that the term might have originated with Siddhanta Sarasvati, it is nice to get that confirmation. So not only is this yet another of Sarasvati's curious inventions but It wasn't the only thing Sridhar invented too.

I wonder if you could clarify this for me, I don't quite understand what you're saying.

Oh sorry. I meant that when I was researching the origin of the term vartma-pradarśaka guru, I never found any evidence of its usage in any of the Gosvami writings or those of the succeeding major acharyas (Narottama, Visvanatha, etc). When I enquired further, I was told that it looked like the earliest use of the term was somewhere in Sridhar Mharaj's books and thus he was the inventor of the term. Now, thanks to Epitau, it looks like it originated with Sarasvati himself. A redundant term, I feel, since the job-specification of a vartma-pradarśaka is adequately covered by a śikṣa-guru.

Given the well-known habit of the Sarasvata-parampara to innovate and redefine things from matters trivial to matters big (such as siddha-praṇāli-dīkṣa etc), I didn't think any further of it. I heard of some other inventions later on, this time invented by Sridhar himself. As you may or may not know, I was an enthusiastic Gaura-bhakta and had a special attraction for him. When I was looking through Sridhar's writings about Mahaprabhu (Golden Volcano, etc), although I can't remember where exactly I found it now there was one place where he made a point of Mahaprabhu's "stealing" Gadadhara's bhava. The idea was that since Mahaprabhu was himself the embodiment of Radha-bhava, and Gadadhara was supposed to be a type of incarnation of Radha, Mahaprabhu "stole" his bhava and left Gadadhara devoid of any bhava. The trouble was, where was this idea enunciated anywhere in the works of the previous Acharyas?

I suppose his disciples could argue that this was Sridhar's personal realisation, but then again aren't realisations supposed to be in consonance with general siddhanta? It's been a long time since I considered these matters and generally I don't these days, but I suppose it'll be interesting if anyone with an in-depth knowledge of the Gaura-literature (CC, CB, CM, CCMK etc) could show where this idea originated in the Gaudiya corpus.

After I read Tulsidas' Ramayana I became seriously interested in bhakti, so later Tulsidas Goswami-ji was called my vartma-pradarśaka guru because he showed me the way to bhakti. That's all, it's not exactly like a śikṣa-guru, it just the creative use of Sanskrit, a neologism if you will.

I see.

I feel it is important that people learn to make some distinction between Maharaja's writings, and his talks.

'Golden Volcano', like those other books published by Sudhir Goswami, are transcriptions of informal talks given on Maharaja's veranda, that he once playfully referred to as Goswami Maharaja's books.

His personal writings are another matter.

However, I believe these are the spoken quotes you appear to take issue with:

Gadadhara Das represents the halo of Radharani, but Gadadhara Pandit represents Her mood, Her nature--Her heart. It is as if Mahaprabhu has taken away Gadadhara Pandit's soul, and the body is still standing! That is the position of Gadadhara Pandit; he is quite empty, and following Mahaprabhu. He is not full in himself. Something, the most important thing, his heart, has been taken by Mahaprabhu, so he has no other alternative but to follow Him. He is wholly given up to Mahaprabhu. Gadadhara Pandit's position, the part he played, was something like that of Radharani, Her heart stolen by Krishna, the empty body still standing. Radha-bhava-dyuti-subalitam naumi Krsna-svarupam: He was fully engrossed in the conception of Sri Gauranga. Gauranga has taken everything from him, so he had no other alternative; he was fully engrossed, captured completely by Him.

We find his activity throughout his whole life was like this. Of the other devotees, some were ordered to go to Vrndavan, and some were allowed to go there, but though Gadadhara Pandit wanted to visit Vrndavan with Mahaprabhu Himself, he was denied: "No, you won't go." When Jagadananda Pandit asked to go there, Mahaprabhu, with hesitation, granted him permission, "Yes, go there, but move always under the guidance of Rupa and Sanatana." He also gave him some special instructions: "Do this, and this, and don't do that." But Gadadhara Pandit was not allowed to go there.

He was the representation of Srimati Radharani Herself, yet his peculiar position was such: the Queen of Vrndavan, but now transferred to Nabadwip. His position had become just the opposite; he could not enter Vrndavan! He prayed for permission, but Mahaprabhu did not give it. He said, "No, stay and live here." And he had to do so. Sri Gadadhara Pandit represents the predominated moiety of the Whole. The Whole consists of predominating and predominated moieties, and he represents the predominated half. He is one half of the Absolute Truth. “

Gadadhara Pandita, Radharani and Rukmini, they are of the same line, and that was represented by Gadadhara Pandita in Gaura-lila. In Gaura-lila the bhava, the sentiment, the mood, the emotion of Radharani was taken by Mahaprabhu Himself, Krishna Himself. So, Gadadhara Pandita, Radharani, was emptied. His everything is drawn from him, and he holds a shadowlike position in Gaura-lila. And Rukmini's characteristic was maintained there. Sober, considerate, patient; all these things, all these qualities remained there in him and so sometimes it is told that he is the Rukmini avatar, the avatar of Rukmini. But really, his position was that of Radharani.

Just like a shadow he cannot leave Sri Gauranga. Wherever Sri Gauranga is going, he is following from a distance. He does not know anything but Gauranga. But still, he is not seen to come forward. Always in the background. Krsna and Radharani are born in the middle of the new moon and the full moon. But Mahaprabhu took his birth in the full moon. Gadadhara Pandita appeared during the new moon. New moon means no moon. The full moon was taken by Mahaprabhu, and new moon, or no moon was taken by Gadadhara Pandita. Gadadhara is master of everything, but still here he has given everything to his master, and he is empty. He is empty, he is playing in such a way his part, Gadadhara Pandita. His is the highest position of sacrifice.

Nimai Pandita showed his character as an aggressor, impertinent, and an extraordinary genius. Gadadhara Pandita was just the opposite. He had some natural inclination, submission towards Nimai Pandita. And Nimai Pandita also had some special attraction for Gadadhara Pandita. But Gadadhara Pandita could not face Nimai Pandita directly. Some sort of shyness he felt about Nimai Pandita. So, this is what we know about Gadadhara Pandita. Gadadhara Pandita had very intimate relationship with Mahaprabhu, in which the acaryas, Swarupa Damodara, Rupa, Sanatana, Kaviraja Goswami, Raghunatha Dasa, all of them, could see Radharani and Rukmini both in his personality, and according to that we can try to understand him.


In closing, I should add that I do not hold with the idea of a closed canon.

Fresh insight is wholly consonant with a school that has made its covenant with the Dynamic Absolute.

Right, it's a neologism. IGM-followers would be surprised by how many shades of meaning and practice can be covered by śikṣa. Perhaps that is why the teachings of the original traditional Caitanyite Vaishnavism appealed to me much more than the innovative ways of IGM, mainly because they seemed to have struck the optimal balance between accomodating fresh insight while maintaining a high degree of fidelity to the living tradition. Tulsidas was a wonderful writer.

Aran, okay, so it may have come from Sridhar's informal talks. Thanks for posting those quotes. By the way, the Caitanya-Bhagavata hints several times at a future reincarnation of Vyasa who will document the fullness of Mahaprabhu's pastimes, so there is scope for fresh understandings. Still, I don't think Sridhar's understandings would sit well with the followers of the Gadadhar-parivar, who view Gadadhar as the "Original Guru" in much the same way as the Nityananda-parivar view Nityananda and as the Advaita-parivar view Advaita. But then again, you know what sectarian quibblings are like, and they don't mean much to the likes of us these days. It was a sannyasi-disciple of BK Santa Maharaj who informed me about this discrepancy of Sridhar's, so it was interesting to see these tensions in the GM and how they secretly disagree with each other.

They certainly do disagree, and not always so secretly neither.

Long ago, I was really incensed to find out the Saraswati line of G.V. innovated/concocted so many things. That a lot of what I'd been told was authentic and unchanged from teacher to student, teacher to student, teacher to student, was actually startlingly recent, and quite controversial. This was after I gave up K.C., by the way, that I really accepted that I believed Saraswati and his followers were some sort of "rogues." (I resisted it strongly when I was a devotee and happened upon the writings of Jagadananda and Nitai.) I think my strong reaction was due to the fact that I was very disappointed to know such inventions took place in a society that insists on its authenticity, antiquity, and honesty. I felt this was painfully hypocritical and uncomfortably shady.

Now, when I think of it, I wonder if it is really that meaningful that Saraswati "innovated" so many things. Chaitanya Vaishnavism is itself only a little over 500 years old, and is ultimately based in some very obscure, terribly vague passages that may or may not lend it any shastric basis. (Unless you believe the Caitanyopanisad or something like the Bhavishya-purana are legitimate, which I do not.) It introduced a whole new way of looking at tattva and rasa that was not immediately apparent from the scriptures, and instituted brand new methods of worship and practice based on these new philosophies. Moreover, the new Chaitanyite doctrines were not even written down by Chaitanya--he entrusted the explanation to the Goswamis, who were not considered God-incarnations and thus do not have the same inherent "authority" as Chaitanya did to innovate.

Since its founding, C./G.V. has been an ongoing process of interpretation and innovation--just think about the Kheturi meeting, where it was openly acknowledged that everybody was diverging on the philosophy and that it needed clarified and synthesized. Creative interpretations of shastra have been offered by numerous devotees and acharyas, and poetic/dramatic works that offer completely unprecedented descriptions of rasika activities are accepted as authoritative. In these contexts, I don't see it as so shocking that Siddhanta Saraswati was such a revolutionary (or rogue).

I also believe that some of his introductions to Vaishnava life and philosophy were sociopolitical in nature (i.e., giving "brahmin" initiation to overcome the arbitrary authority given to brahmins and to prove that a Vaishnava is de facto qualified to be one, etc.) or even just practical. I'm not sure they are horrible distortions. Even the more substantive ones, like the bhagavat-parampara, seem less troubling when I consider the deep, intricate, and ongoing semantic debates over what siksa and diksa actually are, and who they come from.

Ultimately, I think Saraswati was following in the footsteps of his father, who I truly believe fabricated most, if not all, of the "evidence" that gets cited for Chaitanya's godhood. Does that mean I think Bhaktivinode, then, was the evil rogue? Not really--I'm not sure there is one. I think Bhaktivinode's creations are shady, sure; but I am also aware that he was seeking to establish public legitimacy for his tradition. I don't agree with his method of accomplishing that, but I think he was feeling the pressure of a long history of appeals to parampara and shastric authority in Indian religions. In the end, whether he had written those tracts or not is pretty much inconsequential, as Chaitanya Vaishnavism has always been intuitive, intimate, personalized, revolutionary, and subject to unique artistic and ideological interpretation--no matter how much its representatives will argue against me on that point.

What to speak of all the considerations in that "Same River Twice" thread.

ZVS,

Apart from it being discussed in Bhakta Jim's memoir thread, (Hope you don't mind, Bhakta Jim) I found a lot of what you wrote to be very enlightening.

My own opinion of Bhaktivinode is along the same line. If you read Jaiva Dharma, you can see how cleverly he establishes Vaishnava philosophy through "hook and crook." It is written with the slickness of a lawyer establishing his point of view. Knowing that professionally, Bhaktivinode was a Judge who sat at a bench listening to lawyers make their cases for years, we can be pretty confident about the fact that he knew how to 'establish truth.' I wonder to what degree he used the skills garnered on the bench as a judge when he wrote a lot of literature expounding the Vaishnava truth.

Bhaktivinode was a free-thinking philosopher before he returned to Vaishnavism. When I read his biography, it felt like after being a generalist free-thinking philosopher dabbling in many Western philosophies, he returned back to his roots in Bengal. He seemed to decide to to specialize in Gaudia Vaishnavism, and took all his experience, scholarliness and intellectual might in solidifying Gaudia Vaishnavism in the way that you described.

Now there's a word I'd never have attached to Thakur Bhaktivinoda, or indeed Jaiva Dharma.



And do you imagine that he then proceeded to rub his hands together, throw back his head, and let forth a wicked, knowing laugh?

Here's a link to the whole book
if anybody is interested.
golden volcano


Bhakta Jim
I plan on reading more this weekend.

On another note
I'd love to read
the thesis that ePITau wrote.
I've searched the net for both of them
to no avail

Aran,

Is that how you see it? I see it more as a philosophical warrior doing what he needs to, in order to establish Vaishnavism in the strong footing that he wanted to see it. Vaishnava sites and scripture were disarrayed before Bhaktivinode brought it all togethor.

In many ways, I feel that Bhaktivinode did for Vaishnavism what St Augustine did for Christianity.

"Augustine developed his own approach to philosophy and theology, accommodating a variety of methods and different perspectives.[7] He believed that the grace of Christ was indispensable to human freedom, and he framed the concepts of original sin and just war."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

No, not at all.

But I did begin to wonder if, perhaps, you saw it like that...

Your comparison to Augustine is most insightful.

And who was or will be the Thomas of Aquino of Vaishnavism?

And does this mean that the development of Vaishnavism is 800 years behind the development of Christianity?

Since I brought this up, I feel I should note that I diverge here. I don't think for a second that Bhaktivinode rubbed his hands, threw back his head, and laughed as Aran described. But I also don't want to say that I laud his efforts. My point was that "fabrication" or "innovation" (depending on the sourness of the speaker, I suppose) is endemic to Vaishnavism, despite vehement claims to the contrary; Indic religion has been a constantly developing and increasingly variegated body of ideas that was not, by any means, encapsulated purely at the start and simply passed down since. Everything about Chaitanya Vaishnavism, Vaishnavism in general, and indeed Personalism (Madhva-ism) itself, has been introduced at some point along the timeline, either through novel interpretation of existing scripture or pure invention of new ones. In this context, I do not find that Bhaktisiddhanta's or Bhaktivinoda's actions are particularly egregious; additionally, I'm aware that these "inventors" have most likely had the best intentions. That does not mean, however, that I wish to ascribe heroic status to anybody.

I also was attempting to establish that it is rather unfair for B.S.S. to get the brunt of all this criticism when, really, he is just a slightly more prominent example of an ongoing pattern.

Naturally I don't think much of the innovations these days, but the ire of the traditionalists (which was pretty mild overall) was mainly in response to an arrogant upstart (Bhaktisiddhanta started quite young) who had the audacity to declare everyone else was wrong and only he was right. When historical research is undertaken, it becomes pretty clear that the majority of attacks came from Bhaktisiddhanta's side. But apart from that, I feel a certain sympathy for modern Iskconians/GM followers who genuinely believet they are following 'true' spiritual path when in reality they are following a highly adulterated version of it. But then again, schisms are as schisms do... One can say the same thing about Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Sunnis vs. Shia, etc.....

On the other hand I've always found it a curiosity that innovative traditions are arguably more successful than the 'pure' traditions. Protestantism is arguably more successful than Catholicism (in liberating the Bible and other things), the Sunnis are the majority in Islam than the 'traditionalist' Shias, the Sarasvatas somehow succeeded in getting Caitanya's message to the world than the traditionalists ever did, etc....


I did a lot of research on Bhaktivinoda back in the GD days. What I found is that whatever he said in his books, he himself was a 100% pure traditionalist in his own spiritual practice. He may have regarded Jagannath das Babaji as a śikṣa-guru, for example, but it was nowhere near as important as the GM makes out. He was devoted to his dīkṣa-guru Bipin Bihari Gosvami until the end of his life in spite of being rejected later on as a disciple. He practiced siddha-praṇāli, aṣṭakalīya-līlā, all of it. There are disciplic lines descending from him that still carry on these 'pure' practices in his parampara. This is all very odd if he had such innovative ideas and wrote them down in books. Why didn't he practice what he preached? This gave rise to the malicious (?) rumour that Bhaktisiddhanta himself authored these books and put them in his father's mouth to claim legitimacy. I don't know if that is true but we can never know until we get hold of Bhaktivinoda's original manuscripts, that are kept under lock and key by the present generation of his biological family. Conveniently, all we know of "Bhaktivinoda's books" were all published by the GM.

(Perhaps we should split this thread off?)

This is something I feel pretty acutely myself, as when it came across my horizon, it was something like having the Earth disappear beneath me. I (and so many others) was told that I was part of a 5,000-year-old tradition, a major and well-respected Indian religion, etc. ACBS's books made it seem so black-and-white and clear; obviously, there was a rift between personalism and advaitism, but Krishna's godhood, Chaitanya's godhood, the authenticity of the texts, etc., seemed completely established and reasonable.

To then find:
(1) that advaitism is and has been much more accepted;
(2) that, among personalists, Vaishnavas are only one group;
(3) that, among Vaishnavas, only select factions believe Krishna is God;
(4) that, among those who believe in Krishna, a very small handful accept Chaitanya; and
(5) that, among those who accept Chaitanya, ISKCON and Gaudiya Math are considered rogue organizations;
was pretty shattering. Suddenly I wasn't part of anything very certain at all. And the more I learned, the less secure it all seemed. I truly believe it is unconscionable to indoctrinate new devotees into that kind of security and keep this information from them.



Absolutely agree with you on this.



And this.

Brainiac, your insulting description of Saravati Thakur, (particularly on line two) in your post above, I find intolerable.

Is this sort of slander permitted on GR?

If this is the accepted standard these days, then please - and I mean it - close my membership.

This is an unbalanced, unfair representation of history; but then I'm one of those poor, ignorant GM folk, worthy of Brainiac's compassion what do I know.

Aran, please don't be oversensitive. This is neither slander nor an unfair representation of history. With respect, have you researched this fully? We spent years debating and arguing these topics on the erstwhile Gaudiya Discussions forum. The conclusion every time was pretty much what I said: Bhaktisiddhanta invoked the ire of the traditionalists on matters of parampara (siksa vs. diksa), innovative practices (such as instituting sannyasa in a tradition that eschews sannyasa), not to mention verbal attacks at every opportunity, and many other things. He didn't earn the title 'Simha Guru' for nothing, you know. What exactly did you find slanderous? The term "arrogant upstart"? It is a fact that he started his mission at a fairly young age. If you care to research these matters, you're welcome to take a look through the Gaudiya Discussions archives. You'll find, for instance, that one of the prominent Vaishnavas of those days - Ramakrishna das Pandit Babaji - strongly chastised him for his claims.

I thought you knew all of this. There isn't anything to be gained from walking out.

Don't patronise me so.

I am aware of these discussions - and I've heard the arguments on both sides; I also know of the Ramakrishna das Babaji disputation.

We're not all as uneducated or as misled as you appear to think.

And yes, slighting Sarasvati Thakur as you have outlined above is, to my mind, slander.

But aren't we allowed to express our honest opinions & findings here? I mean, by nature, this place deals with sensitive subject matter, some of which inevitably will rub up uncomfortably against something that someone else cherishes. Maybe I'm the naive one around here--but I really believe it's possible to accept someone else's statement on their own terms. I don't think it's slander when it's honest and based on looking at things carefully. BSS or ACBS may still be cherished to some here, and that's fine, but if we can't speak honestly about religious figures, then what is the point of talking at all? Being able to apprehend and discuss these individuals without fearing the reaction of others has been monumental in helping me resolve and reconcile many issues in my life. Being able to look at them not as unassailable but rather as human beings who may or may not have been right has been critical.

I love the both of you and I am troubled to see these things, but I'm also troubled for myself... I feel like I shouldn't say anything anymore. These thoughts, I can't express them anywhere else, because they offend people. If they offend people here, then I have to shut up.

For many years, I gave public lectures both here in Scotland, and in Ireland.

It was not long before I learned that it is important to be sensitive to the beliefs of others who happen to be present.

You, ZVS, already possess this quality, whereas there are others who seem divest of even its existence.

Anyway, enough.

Goodnight.

I think you're onto something here.

I don't know if I speak for anyone but myself, but I was unaware that you were as sympathetic to, or engaged with, Gaudiya Math Vaishnavism as you appear to be.

Your past posts made it seem as if it was part of your development, something that you were no longer a part of, though it remained a part of you. And perhaps that was true. But I think I glean from your more recent posts that you have re-engaged substantially not only with Vaishnavism, but with B.R. Sridhar Goswami and B.S. Saraswati.

So, certainly it is important to be sensitive to who is present. But if you're mistaken as to the beliefs of one of those present individuals, you can't possibly take that into account. It seems to me that both Brainiac and I have been caught unawares by seeing your current feelings about all this, so perhaps insensitivity was not as conscious as it appears.

Ultimately, of course, this has been a place for me to say things that are considered heresy in other circles, and find that, in return, I receive not only a marked lack of abuse--but a positive acceptance. I greatly value GR's ability to facilitate this kind of honest discussion. Will it intrude upon others' beliefs? Inevitably. But that can be done with mutual understanding--we've all been through some radical experiences, have processed them in different ways, and ended up in different places.

I guess what I'm saying is that we can be sensitive without being silent. But I apologize for any inadvertent insensitivity I may have expressed and/or inspired.

ZVS,

almost dawn here!

I take your points.

I have pretty much always defended the dignity of Sridhara Maharaj, and indeed any other saints.

I also don't like to hear people slighting devotees from the various Parivars.

My engagement with/in Vaisnavism was always there, but kept private; lately it is more intense.

I still worship Siva...

It's complicated.


Gotta go now...

Which thesis is that, Riff?
I occasionally get requests for "Unzipping the Purports", something® (possibly slanderous) I wrote about A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's purports in 1999.
Here is a brief list of other things I wrote (none of it recommended reading if you want to guard your creeper):

1. A mid-term paper about the frequency and distribution of compound words that cross yati (i.e. caesura) boundaries in the prosody of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (2001).
2. My BA thesis Mahidāsa Aitareya in the Work of Madhva (Stockholm University 2003).
3. Two articles in Bryant/Ekstrand (ed) The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant, Columbia University Press 2004:
   
   1. The Guru, Mayavadins, and Women: Tracing the Origins of Selected Polemical Statements in the Work of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami.
   2. Race, Monarchy, and Gender: Bhaktivedanta Swami's Social Experiment.
4. My MA thesis: Genuine Ancient Source, Deliberately Fabricated Material, or Divine Revelation? An analysis of selected quotes that Madhva ascribes to the Brahmatarka (Stockholm University 2005).
5. And finally I translated four chapters of the Harivaṃśa including a short intro about the age of the HV in: E. Bryant (ed) Krishna, A sourcebook Oxford University Press 2007).

MOD NOTE:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –– – – – – – – – – 
First, thanks to Dhyana for splitting this topic off from the Bhakta Jim thread.

Most importantly though, I also want to say it may be time for some cooling off to take place concerning anyone feeling offended or worried that they cannot express themselves freely on this forum without offending others. It is 4 am for me, so I presently don't have time to wrap my head around the posting heat that has surfaced concerning posts by Aran, ZVS and Brainiac, but we have to respect each other and try to communicate with each other fully why we feel what we do and see if we can work out a mutual understanding, even if in the end there is dissagreement due to personal beliefs and where we sit in our indiviudual lives at this time.

It is also important that we all feel free to express ourselves, even if topics are sensitive and considered philosophically critical. I feel and sense a maturity existing with all who have posted here in this thread due to our shared past experiences on this forum, so perhaps with some time to reflect and rest overnight, we can resume and work things out, like we have so many times before.

Looking forward to seeing where this discussion takes us all.

Take care all.

Gahhhh...


I am going to do something I normally very much avoid when moderating conflicts, as it risks polarizing them further. Instead of taking a day or two to seek consensus among moderators and discussing what we should say, I will be open about how frustrated I feel.

I have just gotten up on a Saturday after my first week of work in a new workplace. I was looking forward to re-reading and commenting on several of the texts in this thread, which I had enjoyed reading this week, by zvs, Aran and Brainiac.

What I find is... same old, same old. Someone calls a religious figure something unflattering, and another person takes objection and wants to leave.

I mean, really. [now I am biting my tongue to not say something that would result in offended gasps and thus several more hours of moderatorial work later on this weekend.]

GR forum rules speak of "respect for the rights of others to determine their own beliefs". This does not necessarily mean respect for the content of the belief. Neither does it mandate respect for the religious teachers who have expounded on these beliefs.

At the core of it, it simply means not attacking, ridiculing or shaming another member for believing what he does. Respect for the belief itself and for its sources may also be there, but it cannot be a requirement.

By and large we are following that rule pretty well, all sides of the religious / spiritual divide.

Some members have a gentle writing style that rarely upsets anyone. Others are more direct, they may use less nuance and stronger words. Some are careful to limit their criticism to the content of a belief, while others might call the spiritual leader something unflattering.

As far as I can see, this is all within the rules as we made them. If this freedom were curtailed, I would not want to be a moderator here, hardly even member.

I care more about people showing respect to living people, especially present people, than about showing respect to dead people, especially the dead people who made themselves a legitimate target of criticism by taking an authority role.

If Brainiac had called Aran an arrogant upstart, I would step in. But not Bhaktisiddhanta. No way. I see it as a legitimate opinion, and Brainiac did even argue for it based on facts.

I might step in if he called Bhaktisiddhanta an f*ing #¤%"/#. A label that has nothing to do with the person's real actions, expressed in a vulgar, gross language that does not belong in a civilized dialog.


A reflection. We make ourselves very vulnerable by depositing our own sense of honor and dignity in another person that we cannot control and who has no agency, instead of depositing it in ourselves.

If I choose to be offended and feel urged to protest each time someone says something unkind about, say, a controversial Polish writer, especially one who is already deceased, I will have my hands full of work and my heart full of pain.

It makes me think of some traditionalist families immigrated from the Middle East, where the men suffer greatly because their honor is deposited in the family women's hymen or in the gossip about their chastity or lack thereof. Something these men cannot control.

End rant.

Simulpost with Kalisurfer... Thank you for responding, Kali. I fully agree with you! Cool to see that someone else kept a calmer head about this when my own head decided to get hot!

Your head gets hot very rarely. Actually, you should do it more often! Dont be shy, Dhy.

I agree, very nice when you are mad Dhyana.


Aran, i think you need to protect cows more and learn to enjoy the word wise killing of "sacred cows", that is what GR is for!

Just to put in my tuppence worth of rambling -

I personally see the history of innovaters as a really vital, life-giving necessary on-going process.
Yes there are going to be conflicts - this is the nature of life, of humans and of schools.
You may say it is a fairly challenging path to follow the line of Gaudiya Vaishnavism strictly, all the principles ( and even the interpretation of what these are is open to debate) and imbibing the ontology, the morphology and the theology of previous generations, but within what is often a severely conservative system, those who risked the disdain and repudiation of their peers took great risks for what they saw as the greater good.

So many people are still taking heart from Bhaktivinode Thakur's writing in lectures such as the Bhagavat - which reflect a broad and creative understanding of the individual search.

Things can become so stagnant when tradition is 'religiously' carried on without any real heart or creativity.
It bothers me not a whit that some of Saraswati Thakur's contemporaries were horrified by the innovations he carried out - he took great risks; without innovators we are lost - I doubt very much whether GV would have made much impact around the world without radicals.
I also see a future where to some extent many of the divergent schools can find ways to work together - concentrate more on what there is in common than what seperates them.

You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - William Blake

It has nothing to do with this or that poster, but it has become blatantly obvious to me that I don't belong here.

These days, time is very valuable to me; no point in wasting it.

As usual, there is much I could say - and none of it charged with the projected narcissism outlined by Dhyana - but really, why bother?

When I first read this I had an urge to try and convince you otherwise. There is much of value in your posts that would be hard to find elsewhere -- even if I do not often comment. And I like you as a person. You make me smile. (absolutely no sarcasm intended here) There aren't many people like you.

I would be sad and would miss your contribution if you stop writing completely. But there are no free lunches. If you find the environment here is such that you don't feel you belong, and we write things you in your heart find unacceptable, then of course, why would you continue to contribute.

I wish I could comment on all the texts that have flickered by in this forum these last couple of days. There was much food for thought. But that would be too big a project and hard to wade through all the writing. So instead, some general reflections.

Reading the quotes from Golden Volcano posted by Aran (on Gadadhar being "empty") made me reflect on the role of context. One may say this idea Sridhar Maharaja had about Gadadhara was a new invention; one can label it as an addition to the dotrine, unsupported by the earlier acaryas, and so on. There would be valid arguments. But when one reads it as expressed in his own words, in an informal talk, it all appears in a different light. The labels no longer fit. I saw it more as an experienced, devoted Vaisnava's own realization -- not in the sense of revelation from above, but in the sense of fusing his own personal frame of reference with what he has read and meditated upon. An interpretation. He may have had no thought in his mind of introducing anything to the canon, of arguing a point. He was just speaking his heart and mind. It's such an innocent thing.

Granted, it gets tricky when the audience are disciples and the talk is recorded, later permission given to publish it as a book.

Still, the bulk of responsibility for framing this realization of Sridhar as a doctrinal claim rests with the readers and their mindset where there is no space for recognizing and integrating subjectivity in spiritual matters. It it the readers' (disciples?) perception of what he said that has later opened up for criticism of this "claim" as an invention or concoction.

This ties in with the discussion on Bhaktivinode, Bhaktisiddhanta and the role of innovation. I will continue in next post.

Some of the contributors, most recently Adrija, have made the point that spirituality / religion needs innovators. I agree. (Let's put aside the question of whether religion as such is needed. It exists, it does fill a function. Let's leave it at that for now.)

As times change, the content of religious belief and practice also needs to change in order to appeal to people and fulfill its function for them. It needs innovators.

Yet, an important part of the religion's appeal is the followers' perception of it as something otherworldly, perfect and timeless -- a solid, unshakable given. If the same teaching were presented as tentative and subject to change, it wouldn't hold as much value for us, emotionally.

Therein lies a paradox. For religion to continue filling its function, it needs to keep changing, but without appearing to change. It makes me think of an observation made by one of the sociologists behind social constructionism, speaking on the role of etiquette and behavior codes in a society:

"It is important to know the rules. It is even more important to know the rules for breaking the rules."

Small incremental changes occurring in "organic" transmission on a local scale can perhaps fly under the radar, especially as long as people have no access to libraries, research and so on. By knowing too much, we make things harder for ourselves.

Bolder changes, like the ones made by Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta, are a tougher trick to pull off.

Whether the particular innovation will be beneficial or harmful can vary. It depends. Much of what Jesus introduced was a huge improvement over the old Judaism, for example. By castigating the innovators upon "detecting" them, by rejecting the innovated teachings on the grounds that they are not found in older sources, the followers of a religion saw off the branch they -- or the generations after them -- are sitting on.

But can one possibly view religion as I do above -- as something in need of recurrent change -- and still be religious? I wouldn't be able to. Others, maybe. As for the acaryas who have changed things, I really wonder how they managed this balance act in their own minds. There are different possibilities. Some are benign. Others involve seeing oneself as called to do the needful, do risky things, for the benefit of the masses. Explosive stuff. Lots to wonder about.

Dhyana,

as I've said before, I grew up in a Victorian tenement slum in Glasgow, during the late 50's to the mid-70's...

Most of the people we were surrounded by were rather crude in their chosen modes of expression, most significantly in relation to matters of religion. We and a few others on the block were exceptions to this.

This experience and the example of my parents has stayed with me throughout my life.

For myself, and many others, there's just too much harsh speech and deliberated insensitivity around matters of faith on here; probably no more than a modicum of tweaking could rectify this, and thus increase the membership profoundly.

Let me make it clear, I am not saying one shouldn't examine religious histories, but, in my opinion, remaining sensitive to the fact that there are other active members who differ considerably with one's own particular take on people and events does not hurt, and makes for a more peaceful, fruitful, and acommodating ambience.

This isn't to say that I haven't encountered many good people on GR; I indeed have. I've even developed friendships out of and beyond the forum.

However...

This one:
BA level thesis on ”Mahidasa Aitreya in the work of Madhva” on Tuesday 10 June 2003.
It's way over my head but extremely fascinating!

While I am not a mod, I do feel like I have a stake in this discussion in terms of what I originally wrote about respectful dialog here and what I know about this history of this topic of discussion.

I can recall early on in GR history I discouraged the whole Bhaktisiddhanta debate because it had been done to death on Gaudiya Discussions and always led to flame wars. It kind of amazes me that this historical schism in GV circles still arouses so much passion on both sides (even when one party no longer believes in God). In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

Religions change over time (as the overall culture changes) and I see no reason to disparage Bhaktisiddhanta simply for making changes. Don't like them? Think they are not truly Vaishnava? Don't practice them yourself. Simple enough, no?

But I see no reason for people to bitterly re-argue all of these issues since it's all been said over and over and over and I'm sure each time it gets told more distortions enter into the story (ever played "telephone?") and it's doubtful all the facts were ever known anyway. In my experience, any time there are two very different stories regarding who said and did what, the truth lies somewhere in between. Gaudiya Discussions has archives of the old discussions so why rehash it again? They had many a flame war over it all. Why fan the flames yet again?

Also early on in our history I wrote a piece about Prabhupada that applies to any and all gurus/teachers/saints/religious figures. I recognized early on that this would be a point of stress between members who revere such figures and those who wish to examine their words and actions. I felt like we needed a framework to help us respect the needs of those who still revere them as well as those who NEED to question and criticize them.

http://www.gaudiya-repercussions.com/index.php?showtopic=7 is the link if you would like to review it.

In general, I find it uncomfortable to read distorted versions of the names of the various gurus. I suppose people could have fun with my name too but I'd rather they simply address what I say or do that they find troublesome rather than take cheap shots like that. Think a title like Prabhupada is pretentious? It's fine to say so but essentially it's part of A.C. Bhaktivedanta's full name nevertheless, so it is polite to use it as such.

I also don't like seeing motives ascribed to others. We are not mind-readers and certainly not retroactive mind-readers going back to Bhaktivinode or Bhaktisiddhanta or the Goswamis. We can read their words but beyond that we don't know for sure what they were thinking.

We still have the completely unmoderated areas for anyone who just HAS to be completely irreverent and disrespectful.

The funny thing is that this all started because I was actually (subtly, reservedly, in my own way) defending BSS from what I perceive as unduly focused criticism, which I feel makes less sense when he is viewed in a greater context (even though that greater context is ultimately objectionable to me in one way or another).

But this is exactly what I meant when I made my first post on this forum ("Well hello there, I think I may be late")--I, for one, was not there for GD, or earlier GR times.... I spent many years barred from meaningfully discussing these things. I certainly don't mean to re-hash anything but, at the same time, how am I supposed to know what people are "done" with, when a topic may still be relevant to me? To me these things are fascinating historically, ethically, religiously, sociologically, philosophically, and personally. This brings me back to the fear I expressed earlier in this thread...maybe I shouldn't be saying anything at all? *insert awkward, uncomfortable face*

I'm not trying to shut down honest inquiries. Perhaps someone who knows can list specific links to the GD discussions so you can catch up and gain a framework for any further questions you have. I'll poke around when I have time.

I just hope that everyone involved in said discussion can keep in mind that some people here hold these men in high esteem and phrase things carefully. I haven't seen you do anything other than that so you're good to go.

Can I just say that for me it's simply a matter of recognising that this is not the time in my life for impassioned exchanges...

I wish to live quietly now, and am making my peace with the world.

The negative conjecture introduced by Brainiac is certainly not conducive to my wellbeing.

I've done all that stuff in live, face to face, debate years ago whilst younger and more strong.

Now, meaningful, gentlemanly, and respectful discussion is much more to my taste...

Topics at Gaudiya Discussions that related to ISKCON/Gaudiya Math issues vs. Traditional GV doctrine and practices in one way or another.


http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_2704.html

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_794.html

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_1538.html

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_1418.html

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_1239.html

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_1599.html

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_1511.html

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_949.html

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_973.html

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_1305.html

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_3042.html

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_2882.html

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_1571.html

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_2744.html

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_1897.html

more to be found here: http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/forum_42.html

I can relate.

Interesting that an off-the-cuff remark generates so much passion. No 'heat' from my side really, I'm actually quite stunned and a little perplexed by the overreaction as I thought that not only have many here left behind the GV period in their lives, but had also developed something of a thick skin in relation to controversies surrounding the same. There has been "blasphemous criticism" going on at GR since Day One. I joined this forum the very day after it was opened, and one of the very first discussions mainly consisted of members laughing at the size of Krishna's small penis, and another one wondering if Caitanya's associates were homosexuals. If I had raised a hue and cry, chances are I would have been unceremoniously shown the door. As it stood, the atmosphere did in fact get progressively worse (in terms of "blasphemous criticism") and I felt like I had to leave. Quietly. I was still a devotee then, and the discussions were painful to read. I didn't raise a fuss because from the very beginning I understood what this forum was about and why it was even created: to respect the right of members to air frank opinions in an arena specially created for that purpose when all others were unsuitable. History showed that certain individuals failed to understand this, and were unceremoniously shown the door. Others left of their own accord, of course.

What seriously disturbs me here is when people feel or are made to feel stifled in expressing their opinions, even feeling scared to do so. This takes me back to the days when devotees used to saunter in here and express horror at our making "aparadha". When the moon discussion was going on, I searched the forum to see what had been written previously on the topic. I came across this old thread: Membership changes re staunch devotees which was an interesting read. Presumably these guidlines are still in effect? I certainly hope so. It is blatantly obvious an aura of sensitivity surrounds certain topics where people have invested a large part of their emotions and/or lives. On account of this, perceived attacks are taken as personal attacks when they were never meant as such. They say two things should never be discussed - religion and politics - and here we are discussing both. Is it not possible at all to discuss in a dispassionate manner and stick to the facts, without feeling the need to object to every perceived slight and throw emotionally-charged accusations around? Sometimes research turns up disappointing results which people will have to find a way to stomach. And it is terribly redundant to remind that in a forum for former Vaishnavas, we (or at least I) are not obliged to offer inordinate respect to authority figures previously held in high esteem, especially when the bare facts of their lives are under discussion and unsavoury things come to light. And I won't be bullied into doing so. I'm not amused when people express fright to express opinions when a climate of fear is needlessly created.

However I have trodden on sensitivities, so please excuse me. I certainly don't believe in criticism for the sake of it but I do see the need to make critical observations where justified. Of course I no longer have an emotional stake in these issues (in the sense that I no longer care who was right or wrong), which perhaps makes it more easier for me to see the past histories with impartial eyes. I appreciate that this issue has been discussed previously and extensively in other forums (I was a participant in many of them) and agree there is no need for rehashing, I am only speaking of my own researches. To be honest, I thought I would get more blowback for what I said about Bhaktivinoda. Stick to the facts. For the record, I have no special admiration for Bhaktisiddhanta or any of his acolytes. I agree in toto with what several members have said about the need for religions to undergo change and reform; however I don't agree with Bhaktisiddhanta's reforms. Why not? That might make an interesting discussion if we ever get there ...

Me too. There was a sort of academic sociology study going around by Charles Brooks, that was later published as a book: The Hare Krishnas in India. It was in that book that I first heard the stories of Bhaktisiddhanta's lack of initiation by Gaurakishore. I had no idea to deal with this. I was a new devotee at the time, probably about a year or so into the practice, and suddenly my whole universe had come crashing down. It had taken so much persuading and a long journey to follow the Hare Krishnas in the first place, and here I find that they aren't even the real deal! I even remember the thought that went through my brain at that moment: If Bhaktisiddhanta wasn't initiated, it means my Prabhupada wasn't initiated! "My Prabhupada", that was how I felt about my beloved Prabhupada. When I collected my thoughts, I had to find a way to rationalise it with minimal discomfort. Thankfully(!) Brooks had made it clear that these were stories he heard while in Vrindavan. Ta-dah! There was my easy rationalisation, it was easy to dismiss it as envious village gossip by people who had nothing good to say about the success of ISKCON. Although, isn't it strange that "village gossip" should survive for so long? Bhaktisiddhanta was initiated far back in the 19th Century, wasn't he? I never thought of this then. There was other very good stuff in that book, I regret that I never read it fully.

Of course I discovered more discrepancies later, relating to earlier up the parampara. I similarly booted them out of my mind with rationalisations that were basically along the lines of: "These people are gurus, they wouldn't LIE fer Chrissakes!" How I laugh at myself now. I took it quite seriously then. The devastation I felt, it was as if I had been spiritually raped.

Yes, these guidelines are still valid, as far as I can tell.
Interesting, these guidelines were drawn up in early March 2008. Perhaps there is a pattern?
As we approach the vernal equinox sun activity might spur increased neural activity of a peculiar kind!

Yes of course that topic is still in effect--as is the post I wrote about speaking about Prabhupada et al. It is possible to offer criticism in a manner that focuses on the words and actions without name-calling, character assassination or attributing motives with no proof to offer. That's all we've ever asked.

The pendulum swings back and forth when it comes to which side happens to be offended at any given time. We keep making small course corrections so we don't get swept away by the currents, if I may mix my metaphors.

When two parties from the two opposed groups are unhappy, I like to think that they'll meet somewhere in the middle and help us keep the boat from taking on water.

But of course I'm not a mod; I'm speaking of our history in the hopes that everyone here will feel like they can speak up and be heard. I'm optimistic that each members' needs can be met.

That was an impressive list of links from Gaudiya Discussions, Tapati. It must have taken a while to assemble them?

For some of us this topic might be beating a dead horse. For others not. People come to GR and work out their issues, many of which will be the same issues we worked out years ago. Reading old topics is good, so it is good to have the list of links.

But not all will find their specific question there. Even if they do, there is a difference between reading others discuss, and formulating one's own ideas and getting feedback "live".

One reason I personally feel there may still be a need to discuss Gaudiya Matha at GR, is that most of those older discussions took place at our predecessor forum Gaudiya Discussions. It was a Vaisnava forum with a different aim and with more restrictive forum rules. I had to censor myself when writing there.


You have said this before and you have a point. I usually refrain from this kind of pranking, but I do it because of respect for you and not because of respect for ACBS. We who write here have different sensitivities and it is OK to express when something makes one uncomfortable (on either side of the divide: others' irreverence or others' demand for reverence). It is important to feel free to voice such concerns, if people are not to just quietly disappear into the night. We can appeal to one another to respect our feelings, all the while taking responsibility for these being just our subjective feelings. Where it gets difficult is when a person who feels uncomfortable argues that the discomfort-causing behavior is plain wrong and should be banned at GR. Here I would rather interpret our forum rules broadly and allow rather too much freedom than too little.


The same applies to ascribing motives to anyone, even people who are present here. I see no reason not to discuss others' possible motives, as long as we are aware we can only be guessing. And again, I would allow more leeway speculating on the motives of religious figures who have passed away, than on the motives of those who are alive and can get hurt.