BRVF & its connection to Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya & Sanātana Vaidika Dharma
(Link — https://goo.gl/gvtO08)
The praṇāma-mantrams of Bhakti Rasa Vedānta Foundation (to be chanted by all prospective candidates of initiation/dīkṣa by BRVF’s Bhaktirasavedāntapīṭhādhīśvara Gauḍīyarāddhāntapīṭhādhīśvara Gurupādācārya Svāmī) –
नम ॐ व्यासपादाय रूपप्रेष्ठाय भूतले । श्रीभक्तिरसाम्नायवाचस्पतिरिति नामिने ॥१॥
षड्गोस्वामिपादोपदेशानामतिप्रयत्नतः । पुनरुत्थापनाय व्यग्रो नित्यं यस्य मानसः ॥२॥
राधानाथसमारम्भां गौरचन्द्रार्यमध्यमाम् । गुरुपादार्य्यपर्य्यंतां वन्दे गुरुपरम्पराम् ॥३॥
nama oṁ vyāsa-pādāya rūpa-preṣṭhāya bhūtale / śrī-bhakti-rasāmnāya-vācaspatiriti nāmine //1//
ṣaḍ-gosvāmi-pādopadeśānām-ati-prayatnataḥ / punar utthāpanāya vyagro nityaṁ yasya mānasaḥ //2//
rādhā-nātha-samārambhāṁ gaura-candrārya-madhyamām / gurupādārya-paryyantāṁ vande guru-paramparām //3//
“Obeisance unto Bhakti-rasa-vedānta-pīṭhādhipati Āmnāya-vacaspati, who is most dear to Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmīpāda on this mortal plane by having taking recourse of the Lotus-like feet of Śrī Vyāsa-maharṣi and whose heart remains forever, anxiously, engaged in the laborious rejuvenation of the theological gospels of the Six Gosvāmīs, the contemporaneous associates of Caitanyadeva. We bow down to the celebrated ācārya-paramparā commencing from Rādhānātha Nanda-nandana and passing through Śrī Gaurasundara which descends to our current Gurupādācārya Svāmī.”
अचिन्त्यभेदाभेदवेदान्तपरिपोषकगौडवैष्णववैदिकसम्प्रदायानुस्यूताद्वैताचार्यशाखीयैः सद्गुरुदेवप्रपूज्यपादैः श्रीमद्राममूर्त्तिस्वामिमहाभागैः भक्तिरसवेदान्तपीठाभिषिक्तानां गुरुपादाचार्याणां प्रामाण्यमाम्नायावाप्तमिति स्थिते (“राधानाथसमारम्भां गौरचन्द्रार्यमध्यमाम् । अस्मदाचार्यपर्यन्तां वन्दे गुरुपरम्पराम् ।।“) ‘स्वयम्मन्य’ इति विपक्षकृदध्यारोपात्मकविशेषणपदमपास्तम् । भक्तिरसवेदान्तपीठाधिपतीनां दृष्टौ तु भक्तिरसवेदान्तादिसामष्टिकपदार्थानामधिष्ठातृत्वेनाखण्डमण्डलाकारित्वेन सङ्कीर्णप्रज्ञात्मकब्रह्मरुद्रादिदेवगणैरभ्यर्थितभगवन्नरायणावतारत्वेन नैकानेकावान्तरसम्प्रदायोपशाखाप्रशाखादिसमन्विताखिलसनातनधर्मस्य शिखामणिजगद्गुरुत्वेन च भगवत्कृष्णद्वैपायनबादरायणसात्यवतेयवेदव्यासा: महर्षय: केवलेनैव विराजन्ते तत्पदप्रतियोग्यभावात्स्कान्दवचनलब्धप्रामाण्यादपि च –“व्यासचित्तस्थिताकाशादवच्छिन्नानि कानिचित् । अन्ये व्यवहरन्त्येतान्युरीकृत्यगृहादिव ।।“ इति । अपि च भक्तिरसवेदान्तादिपदार्थवैयष्टिकांशानां नित्यसिद्धभगवत्पार्षदात्मिकया सिद्धगुरुप्रणाल्या सञ्चारात्स्वस्मिनेवास्माकं भक्तिरसवेदान्तपीठाधिपेत्याख्या निखिलसनातनधर्माप्रतिमजगद्गुरूवर्यैः प्रतिस्पर्धिराहित्यात्मकैः बदर्यारण्यविहारिभिः साकं निर्दुष्टसहावस्थानाच्छिद्ररहितेति स्मृता । तत्रैव समष्टिव्यष्टीतिप्रत्ययानां पारस्परिकविरोधाभावात्काऽपि विसङ्गतिर्नाशङ्कनीया । अतोऽस्माकमुपाधिः परम्परासुसङ्गत्वेन निर्णीत: ।
Theological lineage contemporaneous & post Caitanyadeva + Six Gosvāmīs (most illustrious personalities only)
1) Śrī Caitanyadeva (Śrī Nanda-nandana) + Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu (Śrī Balarāma) + Śrīla Gadādhara Paṇḍita Gosvāmī (Śrī Rādhā) & Śrī Locanadāsa Thakkura + Śrīla Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī (Tuṅgavidyā Sakhī) + Śrī Hari-rāma Vyāsa + Śrī Narahari Sarakāra + Śrī Rāya Rāmānanda + Śrī Svarūpa-dāmodara Gosvāmī + Śrī Dāsa Murāri-gupta
2) Śrīla Kavikarṇapūra Gosvāmī (Guṇacūdā Sakhī), Śrīla Gopālaguru Gosvāmī, Śrī Dhyānacandra Gosvāmī & Śrī Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa Gosvāmī (Nārada Muni) + Śrī Vṛndāvanadāsa Thakkura
3) Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī (Kastūrī Mañjarī) & Prabhu-traya + Śrī Gadādhara Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī + Śrī Rasikottaṁsa Gosvāmī (author of Prema-pattanam) + Śrī Rādhākṛṣṇadāsa Gosvāmī (Sādhana-dīpikā-kāraḥ)
4) Śrīla Kavīśvara/Kavirāja Rūpadāsa Gosvāmī (Ratna Mañjarī), Śrīla Mukundadāsa Gosvāmī (Modā Mañjarī), Śrīlā Viṣṇudāsa Gosvāmī & Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravarttī Thakkura (certain Vedic varṇāśrama related views not on par with Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmipāda discounted) + Śrī Śrīnātha Cakravarttī + Śrī Lokānandācārya & Locanānandācārya
5) Prasthāna-trayi-bhāṣyakāra Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa aka Ekānti-govinda-dāsa-gosvāmī ‘Vairāgī’ + Śrī Kṛsṇadeva Sārvabhauma (author of many works) + Śrī Uddhavadāsa (Siddhānta-darpaṇa Commentator) + Śrī Rādhāmohanadāsa Gosvāmī Bhaṭṭācārya (Tattva-sandarbha Commentator)+ Śrī Rādhāramaṇadāsa Gosvāmī (Dipīnī-vyākhyākāra) + Śrī Gaurakiśora Gosvāmī Vedāntatīrtha (Viṣṇupriyā Parivāra) – the Tattva-sandarbha Commentator + Śrī Harekṛṣṇācārya – Bālatoṣiṇī-ṭīkākāra & Amṛtāsvādinī-ṭīkākāraḥ on Harināmāmṛta-vyākaraṇam
(Modern Period – Scholars whose views are accepted by BRVF, partially, on occasions)
6) Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Thakkura (only included as namesake for special reasons analysed below) & many other contemporaries + Śrī Viśvaṁbharānandadeva Gosvāmī (Śyāmānanda Parivāra – compiler of Āstika-darśanam) + Śrī Madhusūdanadāsa Gosvāmipāda Sārvabhauma + Prabhupāda Rādhāramaṇa Gosvāmī Vedāntabhūṣaṇa (Navadvīpā – Advaitācārya Parivāra) – the Introduction composer to Śrī Rūpa Kavīśvara’s Sāra-saṅgraha + Śrī Siddha Kṛṣṇadāsa-tātpāda + Śrī Rāmanārāyaṇa Vidyāratna + Śrī Rasikamohana Vidyābhūṣaṇa + Śrī Kānuprīya Gosvāmī + Śrī Rādhāgovinda Nātha+ Śrī Gaura-govindānanda Svāmī Bhāgavatapāda + Śrī Rādhikānātha Gosvāmī (Advaitācārya Parivāra) + Śrī Vipinavihārī Gosvāmī (Jāhnavā Parivāra)
7) Siddha Paṇḍita Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇadāsa ‘Vairāgī’ (Gadādhara Parivāra) + Śrīla Ānandagopāladāsa Śāstrī ‘Utkalīya’ (Śyāmānanda-parivāra – Śrīdhāma Rādhākuṇḍa) – the Rasikānanda-bhāṣyakāra on Brahma-sūtram & Sanskrit commentator on Ṣaṭ-sandarbhas’ Sarva-samvādinī + Rādhākunḍā Mahanta Śrī Anantadāsa Vairāgī (author of many Bangla commentaries on classical Sanskrit/Bangla rasa-granthas of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism) + Śrī Kuñjavihārīdāsa Vairāgī – the author of Mañjarī-svarūpa-nirūpaṇam & Mañjarī-bhāva-sādhanā (Nityānanda Parivāra – Rādhākuṇḍa) + Śrī Haridāsa Śāstrī Vairāgī (Gadādhara Parivāra) + Mahānta Śrī Satyanārāyaṇadāsa ‘Vairāgī’ (Gadādhara Parivāra – JIVA Institute) + Śrī Śyāmadāsa (Harinam Press – Vrindavanam) + Śrī Nityānanda Bhaṭṭa & Śrī Acyutalāla Bhaṭṭa (Gadādhara-bhaṭṭa Parivāra) + Śrī Premadāsa Śāstrī Vairāgī (Suramā Kuñja – Vrindavanam) + Dr. O.B.L. Kapoor + Śrī Haripriyadāsa – Author of Kumata-kālānala + Śrī Atulakṛṣṇa Gosvāmī & Śrī Śrīvatsa Gosvāmī (Rādhāmramaṇa Parivāra) + Śrī Rādhānātha Kābāsī – author of Bṛhad-bhakti-tattva-sāraḥ + Śrī Bhakti-śrīrūpa-siddhāntī + Śrī Bhakti-siddhānta-sarasvatī + Śrī Anantavāsudeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa & Śrī Sundarānanda Vidyāvinoda + Śrī Haridāsadāsa (Navadvīpa) & Śrī Kṛṣṇadāsa Vairāgī (Kusuma-sarovara) + Mahākavi Śrī Vanamālidāsa Śāstrī ‘Vairāgī’ – editors, translators and publishers of numerous rare and famous Sanskrit and Bangla classical Gauḍīya works in the 20th Century.
Lineage of initiation or mantra-dīkṣā –
From Lord Govinda to Śrī Brahmā to Śrī Nārada to Maharṣi Bādarāyaṇa Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana Vedavyasa etc.
1) Śrī Mādhavendra Purī (the vraja-prema-kalpa-vṛkṣa of nitya-vraja-līlā)
2) Śrīmad Advaītācārya Prabhu (Mahāviṣṇu and Sadāśiva conjoined incarnate)
3) Śrī Kṛṣṇa Miśṛa Prabhu (formerly Kārttikeya Svāmī – the eldest son of Lord Śiva and now appearing as the second son of Advaitācārya ) & many medieval mantra-gurus in the seminal sequence of Advaita-vaṁśa
(Modern Period – bypassing a long list of numerous seminal line gurus falling in between)
4) Śrī Nandakiśora Gosvāmī Prabhupāda (in the seminal line of Śrī Kṛṣna Miśra Prabhu)
5) Śrīla Gaurakiśoradāsa Mahārāja aka Vaṁśīvādanānanda
6) Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī (Founder of Gaudiya Mission) (only included as namesake for special reasons analysed below)
7) Śrī Abhayacaraṇāravinda Bhaktivedānta Svāmī (Founder of ISKCON) (only included as namesake for special reasons analysed below)
8) Śrī Rāmamūrttidāsa Vanacārī Maharaja – Founder of BRVF & an ideological dissident from the neo-Gaudiya order
9) Caitanya-gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava-sampradāyī Advaita-parivārāntargata Bhaktirasavedāntapīṭhādhīśvara Gurupādācārya Svāmī ‘Āmnāya Vācasapti’ (Spiritual Mentor & First President of BRVF)
Special reasons for the consideration of neo-Gauḍīya masters (BVT + BSST + ACBSP) as existing only ‘namesake’ in the śikṣā and dīkṣā lineages of BRVF analysed –
BSST’s side-lining/dismissal of the dīkṣā-paramparā does not translate into the absence of such dīkṣā-pranālī! Just as if a child refuses to accept his parents/grand-parents etc., it does not mean that his parents etc. loose their parental status for a child. As he took dīkṣā from GKDB, the preceding dīkṣā-paramparā of GKDB (consisting of Śrī Nandakiśora Gosvāmī Prabhu – the seminal descendant of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Miśra Prabhu – the direct disciple and 2nd son of Śrī Advaitācārya) doesn’t loose its existence and neither it needs an acceptance or rejection certificate from BSST. (A written proof that BSST is officially connected to Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya via dīkṣā/initiation is found in the introduction to the book ‘Āstikya-darśanam’ by the 19th-20th Century Śrīla Viśvambharānandadeva Gosvāmī hailing in the seminal and dīkṣā lineage of Śrīla Rasikānandadeva of Śyāmānanda Parivāra. In that work, Viśvambharānanda Gosvāmī recognizes BSST as one of the current leaders of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism; this could not have been possible if BSST was not connected to the Sampradāya through dīkṣā lineage – it is another matter as to how much BSST remained, ideologically, aligned with the classical teachings of Sampradāya in regards to rāga-bhakti and vaidika varṇāśrama concepts etc. All hearsays and rumours spread by anti-BSST camps — who are keen on showing the inauthenticity of BSST not much on philosophical platform but by using non-verifiable incidences lacking independent proofs – regarding the no dikṣā evidence of BSST – are non-verifiable allegations up to the date.)
If neo-Gaudiya leaders like BSST etc. formed a different ideology than their conventional predecessors, their such act of heterodoxy gives their succeeding disciples an automatic prerogative to disregard their (neo-Gauḍīya gurus’) authenticity to keep regarding the authenticity of their neo-Gauḍīya gurus’ classical predecessors — for history repeats itself and thus, if neo-Gauḍīya leaders are privileged to defy the ideology of their classical predecessors, then, the successors of such neo-Gauḍīya leaders are, too, privileged to defy the ideology of their immediate neo-Gauḍīya gurus and revert back to the classics — while still keep respecting the neo-Gauḍīya masters for the namesake — as how an honest son who sees his father disregarding the orders of his grandfather/ancestors — takes a firm stand by disobeying the order of his immediate parents and thereby, fulfilling the commands given by his grand-ancestors — while still accepting his disobedient father in the role of a father. This is the BRVF’s course of thought and approach with its immediate neo-Gauḍīya masters.
To clarify more, BRVF has been established/founded by a Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava guru who, though connected with the neo-Gauḍīya mentors in his preceding dīkṣā lineage, discarded their (such neo-Gauḍīya mentors’) ideological authenticity wherever they misalign with their predecessors’ views. Such personality, after establishing BRVF, placed us as its (this organizations’) first Pīthādhipatiḥ/pontiff. Hence, BRVF is, ideologically, not connected with any neo-Gauḍīya institution nor with the thinking of any neo-Gauḍīya master. The philosophical image of this organization is that of a conventional classical Gauḍīya.
Another question might arise as to what need is to keep continuing the ideologically heterodox masters even for namesake in the BRVF’s dīkṣā-paramparā? The answer is — to solely and constantly, remind such neo-Gauḍīya recent masters and their neo-Gauḍīya recent followers of the fact that the cent-percent, ideologically, loyalist followers of the Six Gauḍīya Gosvāmīs (the theological founders of Caitanyaite Vaiṣṇavism) won’t become ungrateful even to their namesake masters — as opposed to how such namesake masters turned ungrateful to their actual masters (the conventional Gauḍīya gurus of Advaita-ācārya Parivāra) by putting into oblivion the names of their conventional masters. Loyalist followers of Six Gosvāmīs do not work in the same style of ungratefulness as how the neo-Gauḍīyas operate.
If the incumbent master of BRVF is perceived as — a mere ‘sādhaka’ or even a pre-sādhaka who is, yet, to reach the stage of perfection — by the skeptics — and therefore, if they necessitate BRVF’s current master (us – Bhaktirasavedāntapīthādhīśvara Gurupādācārya Svāmī) to undergo a new shelter (a new guru-pādāśraya) from a conventional Gauḍīya master whose preceding dīkṣā-paramparā excludes the presence of any neo-Gauḍīya master, then, let us inform them (such skeptics) that when you (the skeptical flock), on the first hand, are not accepting the ‘perfected’ status of the incumbent master of BRVF (us), your role of thinking about his spiritual welfare is not required as there are certain entities appointed by God to perform special tasks (officers on special duty) and they do not require a typical treatment – for, even Śrī Jīva comments in his Durgama-saṅgamanī Sanskrit commentary on Bhakti-rasa-amṛta-sindhuḥ 1.4.15-16 as –“tatra bahuṣv api krameṣu satsu prāyikam ekam kramam āha” — which denotes the existence of many exceptional options/ways in contrast to the most widely common general process of advancement on the path of bhakti. And let the rest qualification of the incumbent master of BRVF be expressed through his ideological contribution to the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism as based on the logic of — ‘result shows its cause’ – “phalena paricīyata iti nyāyaḥ“.
In an alternate scenario, if the incumbent master of BRVF is perceived as a ‘siddha’ by the assessment makers, then also, such a perfected master doesn’t need to take another live shelter from some conventional Gauḍīya guru not having any neo-Gauḍīya guru in his preceding lineage. Why? Because, if he is already deemed as perfect, he doesn’t need to alter his namesake immediate lineage of neo-Gauḍīya masters, especially, if the ultimate lineage is connected with the conventional masters of the classical era. A perfect has, already, reached the objective and doesn’t require any reformation.
Furthermore, by remaining, formally (not fervently), connected with an immediate parenthood (an immediate parenthood which is disobedient to its ancestral parentage — in our case, the neo-Gauḍīya masters) through dīkṣā lineage and by, concurrently, promoting a vehemently inspired ever-increasing, ideologically, defiant irresistible backlash against such a namesake immediate parenthood, the divine jubilation which is felt by the cent-percent ideological loyalists of Six Gosvāmīs — is unfathomable and would be unobtainable by altering such namesake immediate parenthood and by seeking a new, conventionally, Gauḍīya parentage – for the act of King Madranareśa Śalya (in Mahābhārata’s war) proved great loyalty to the camp of Pāṇḍavas + great loss to the Kaurava flock — despite having to remain on the side of the Kauravas. This Śalya’s case can be partially compared to the BRVF scenario.
Additionally, BRVF believes in the notion that preaching of bhakti is not required if such preaching is going to breach the set norms, principles, maryādās and conventions of Vedic samskṛti and if such preaching distorts the higher theology of its own Sampradāya. Better to perform bhakti according to scriptures and tradition — even if, by doing so, no mass preaching is possible. What is the use of preaching if it is going to dismantle the tradition and belittle the classical philosophy of scriptures? No need of such speculative preaching causing mere spiritual disturbance in the eye of loyalist orthodoxy. But, if once the rise of such ‘paramparā-viruddha aśāstrīya-dharma-pracāra’ (religious preaching not in accordance with scriptures and tradition) is marked, it should be given a doubled counter-reaction by the orthodoxy with full rational aggression. In it, no mercy and no hesitation should be exhibited, in the least, for the loyal traditionalists of Sanātana-dharma believe that ‘a revolution is not a revolution, irrespective of how much apparently charismatic it is, if it goes in contravention with the tradition and scriptures’ — for even Bhagavān Buddha, though an incarnation of Lord Nārāyaṇa, is respected, but not followed by the followers of the staunch Sanātana-dharma orthodoxy — as made, clearly, evident both in Purāṇas and in his Tattva-sandarbhaḥ by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmipāda.
We do not believe in any sort of blind sentimental fanaticism. Persons and events are not that important to us. Rather, ideology is of the foremost significance. If not so, Śrī Sugata Buddha wouldn’t have been, only, respected by Sanātana-dharmīs as a bhagavad-avatāra, but ideologically, followed too! For us, no ācārya (no matter how much nitya-siddha or śuddha-buddha-mukta-svabhāva he is or is claimed to be as such) or even bhagavad-avatāra (like even Bhagavān Dattātreya’s instructions not in conformity with the Vedic path have been advised rejection by the strict Vedic propagators) is to be, ideologically, adopted if he/He contravenes the scriptures. Therefore, Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa has proclaimed His verdict as such in Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā 16.23-24. Scriptures are the central ruling authority. Neither God nor the saints/masters (though scriptures have emanated from God and though, the saints and masters interpret such scriptures) – if they contravene the scriptural conclusions for any reason, whatsoever.
Therefore, we believe in the unquestionable and, fully, autonomous authority of the original and trans-human eternal (apauruṣeya) vaidika scriptures of Sanātana-dahrma. For us, original scriptures ascertain the identity of Sanātana-dharma. And all Sampradāyas, no matter how old or influential they are + irrespective of their mutual ideological and praxis related differences, they all are required to be, ideologically, loyal to the Sanātana-dharma as its concomitants and loyal to its (Sanātana-dharma’s) original scriptures, as well. Sāmpradāyika-granthas can never go astray from the ideology of the mūla-śāstras of Sanātana-dharma. If they go astray, their validity is diminished on spot. Likewise, all gurus/ācāryas are required to, ideologically, align with their pūrva-gurus and sāmpradāyaika-granthas, if their pūrva-gurus/sāmpradāyaika-granthas are, ideologically and pragmatically, aligned with the mūla-śāstras of Sanātana-dharma. Hence, gurus are liable to their pūrva-gurus and to the sāmpradāyika-granthas; whereas, pūrva-gurus and sāmpradāyika-granthas are liable/responsible towards the overall foundational Sanātana and its mūla-śāstras. Such is the ideal structure.
Remember that when the highest transcendentalists (vidhi-niśedha-atīta nirapekṣa paramahaṁsa-gaṇa) — “vaiṣṇvera kriyā mudra vijñeha na bujhaya” – Gauḍīya belief) who are not worried about loka-saṅgraha (setting a precedent for the common mass) do not abide by any regulations of the tradition, nevertheless, even on such occasions — they never inspire the common mass to follow their perfect and exceptional stand. (If they inspire the common mass to act in contravention with the scriptures, their inspiration is to be rejected.) And in one sense, their such transcendental position is, governed, by scriptures as well, for they are the scriptures, solely, which authenticate such transcendental position of the paramahaṁsas who have gone beyond scriptural injunctions. If scriptures wouldn’t have authenticated their stand, such transcendentalists would have, immediately taken as imposters/pāṣaṇḍīs.
In the same way, those disturbance creators on bhakti path (‘ucchṛṅkhala-gāmīs’) who, on the basis of scriptures propound that by taking the shelter of the Holy Name of God – all perfection is obtained and so, no need of studying scriptures anymore — such unscrupulous entities forget that they are the scriptures only which have depicted the validity of the bhagavan-nāma-mahimā. Due to the authority of scriptures, such bhagavan-nāma-mahimā is verified. Even bhagavan-nāma-mahimā is śāstra-sāpekṣā (dependent on scriptures). Guru-mahimā is, too, śāstra-sāpekṣā. Bhagavan-mahimā, bhakta-mahimā, bhakti-mahimā, dhāma-tīrtha-vrata-yajña-ādi-mahimā and even śāstra-mahimā — all are śāstra-sāpekṣā for proving their validity in the common eye because, only, the śāstras have eulogized the mahimā of guru, bhagavān, bhakta, bhakti, nāma etc.
In a Sampradāya, the theological founders are perceived as the foremost ācāryas in rank. All succeeding them might be carriers or expanders, but not the ideological starters. If there will not exist a particular ideology, what will the expanders do empty handed? Hence, philosophy’s originators viz., Caitanyadeva (His immediate contemporaries) + 6 Gosvāmīs, are of the foremost value in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism.
Blindly, irrational and sentimentally, fanatic person-centred (not ideology centred) non-scriptural + non-conventional institutionalized narrow-minded and perverted neo/pseudo-Gauḍīya faith not able to, rationally, confute the invincible opposite contentions lashed forth by the classical Gauḍīya orthodoxy – has no recourse/option left other than to fanatically, blabber about one’s so-called perfectionist surrender to, an ultimately, illogical and untenable doctrine and such flawed doctrine’s proponent neo-Gauḍīya masters – when, gravely, challenged on scriptural and conventional substratum of examination.
शास्त्रीय निर्देशों की अवहेलना करके अथवा उन शास्त्रवाक्यों से अपरिचित रहकर अथवा उन शास्त्रों का गलत अर्थघटन करते हुए धर्म व अध्यात्म का प्रचार करना कोई दुष्कर कार्य नहीं । अपितु प्राचीन परम्पराओं का निर्वहन करके शास्त्रीय मूल्यों की स्थापना करते हुए प्रचार करना वास्तव में ही पग पग पर चुनौती भरा अभियान है । प्रायः इस कलियुग में अशास्त्रीय धर्मप्रचार ही अधिक बाह्य विस्तार को प्राप्त करता है जनबल व धनबल को आकर्षित कर पा सकने के कारण । शास्त्रीय आदर्शों का पुनरुत्थान ही वास्तविकी क्रान्ति है । न कि स्वेच्छाचारिता या उछ्रींखलता ।
To propagate religious spirituality by transgressing the scriptural dictum or by remaining unaware of such scriptural knowledge or by misinterpretation of the scriptures – is not a tough task to be executed. However, to preach by maintaining the classical conventions by procuring scriptural values is, certainly, a task of extreme challenge cum difficulty faced at every step of treading. Generally, in this Kaliyuga, religious/spiritual propaganda in non-alignment with the scriptures and age-old norms obtains a greatly external expansion due to, easily, attracting the popular and financial resources. Factual revolution is that by which scriptural ideology finds rejuvenating boost. Its (factual preaching) never the haphazard whimsical ideology and perverted acts.
To assert that time/place/eligible related circumstantial adjustments (देश/काल/पात्र) are necessary to be injected into the classical convention as per the need of time – even if it goes in contravention with the scriptures and tradition — is a mutter of unscrupulous idiots containing a perverted mind. Any circumstantial adjustment turns heterodox if it contravenes scriptures and tradition — for the Vedic scriptures/sound are (apauruṣeya śabda-pramāṇa or āpta-vākya) eternal and trans-human (nitya + apauruṣeya) – thus the jurisdiction of scriptural dictum applies to all times, places, persons and circumstances. And if any circumstantial adjustment is necessary, only, the alternate options given in the perfect eternal scriptures should be adopted – no concoction at all required. Scriptures of Sanātana-dharma are eternal and perfect and God-given, hence, to consider them inapplicable at any venue or time — is an exposure of mental retardation.
Why BRVF is the sole solution, especially, for all ex-neo-Gauḍīya followers to, formally, surrender to both through dīkṣā & śikṣā? An unprecedented bold declaration.
Many points regarding the relevance of BRVF have been explained in the above essay. Those not covered therein, shall be dealt below, herewith.
1) It is very nice to behold that those neo-Gauḍīya followers have, perfectly, understood the philosophical defects found in all neo-Gauḍīya camps (Gaudiya Mutt + ISKCON + Krishna West + Ritviks etc. to name just a few) through remaining in constant ideological cyber association of BRVF since past few years.
2) However, we, likely, presume that yourselves have come to such awareness, solely, through the studies of many of our articles on this matter, intermittently, being posted in our BRVF cyber groups on various platforms & on our website brvf.org .
3) Contrastingly, this Gurupādācārya Svāmī Jī hasn’t learned about all such neo-Gauḍīya deviance from any other exterior source besides his vast & prolonged contemplative self-studies (svādhyāyaḥ) of the Vedic & Gauḍīya classical literature by studying their original Sanskrit/Bangla versions and reading between the lines to derive hidden connotations (something not done even by 99% of traditional Gauḍīya scholars at present) – all possible due to pūrva-janma-prāpta saṁskāras and the grace of Ṣaḍ-gosvāmīs.
4) After Gurupādācārya Svāmī made many pragmatic excavations, he confirmed his understanding and realisations of varṇāśrama with the prevalent classical traditions in many staunch Vedic sects of Sanātana Dharma and he found his understanding and realisation to be correct. But, as far as higher theological aspects unique to Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism are concerned, since, there are no such traditional Gauḍīya scholars of high intellectual genre available at date, Gurupādācārya Svāmī has adhered to his, logically, backed unprecedented conclusions- till any other Gauḍīya scholar does not refute them with final polemical success (this is the honest way – or, it will turn into self-boasting perfectionism). Thus, the erudition of this Svāmī is not just a copy-cat one (unlike 99% Gauḍīya scholars/gurus out there in the commercialized religious market today), but an innovative one – while still adhering to the traditional Gauḍīya conventions and the orthodox Gauḍīya philosophy. Yourselves will not find innovative traditional Gauḍīya scholars today besides this Svāmī – at present – not to boast arrogantly, but a bitter ground-level fact not to be kept hidden for the well-wish of the sincere sādhakas and jijñāsus. All rest are mere parrot-like reiterators – till any new innovative personality does not emerge & whose supposed emergence would not remain concealed as just as it hasn’t in our case . To tell yourselves the plain truth, at least, we haven’t seen any other such illustrious personality existing at date. Two simple examples of innovativeness are here (not yet taking into account our so far released incomplete version of the most intricate and innovative kāma vs prema analysis released only till part 5) –
- b) https://brvf.org/2016/06/23/%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87-%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0-%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%81/
5) As the classical history of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism has substantiated, only, those acharyas have proved to be unique ideological contributors to the Sampradaya who were, highly, innovative in their thoughts, nonetheless, based on and in alignment to the then prevalent pre-existing traditional interpretation of Gauḍīya theology. Examples are given of Viśvanātha Cakravarttī, Rūpa Kavīśvara Gosvāmī, Rasikottaṁsa Gosvāmī, Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa Gosvāmī & Baladeva Viyābhūṣaṇapāda to name a few.
6) Otherwise, tonnes of gurus (though, mostly, authentic in their traditional Gauḍīya ideologies & either in virakti or in gṛhasthī – and in both genders) came in tonnes of branches of classical Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism in past 5 centuries who had no unique ideological or literary contributions to provide – a bitter fact.
7) Innovative ideological contributors to any Sampradāya are very rare in history and, especially, in this age when philosophical erudition has waned in comparison to the previous times. Such innovative philosophers are the true hallmark ācāryas to any Sampradāya. Also, even more rare are those who can, successfully, reconcile all unexplained philosophical differences/dilemmas/intricate subtleties prevalent in the existing philosophy of their Sampradāya. All such has been exemplified and fulfilled in the so far completed writings by us. Any unbiased sincere & intellectual seeker can experience that as many have done so far.
8) Why all this needs to be explained by us, directly, from our own pen is because when there is a general atmosphere prevalent where there is no one to tell and pinpoint to the fellow sādhakas regarding the difference between those ‘unique’ and those ‘common’ & those, ‘ideologically fraudulent’ & those ‘genuine’, and especially when even the discretion to discern ‘unique’ from ‘common’ goes extinct from the common minds, the ‘unique’ & ‘genuine’ have to stand up and proclaim that they are unique etc. This is not considered display of arrogance, but, a revelation of a so-far hidden fact for loka-hita — for if not so done, the faults of ‘vipralipsā’ & ‘jñāna-śāṭhyāpatti-dośa’ shall occur. Thus, the possibilities of ‘ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā’ & ‘tṛṇād api sunīcena’ are not applicable here, for, it is never ‘ahaṅkāra’ when somebody becomes unique due to special/exceptional appointment made by Caitanyadeva & it is not considered a breach of humility if bold declaration is aimed at ‘para-hita’.
9) For this reason, we have considered ourselves to be ‘an appointed officer on, an exceptionally, special duty’ — appointed by Caitanyadeva & Ṣaḍ-gosvāmipādas through intuition and the able personality given — and we have no remorse nor any jubilation in stating as such. Neither any arrogance nor any humility. Plain fact is just a fact without any emotions getting involved. Neither a self-eulogy nor an exaggeration nor a self-aggrandisement nor unsolicited marketing. The so-far achieved ideological contribution of ours & the rest in the upcoming time will corroborate our self-declaration, as we are certain of it. And if not, we are ready to be, publicly, disgraced due to a falter from our promise.
10) On Vyāsa-pūrṇimā annual festivity, we have barred our own personal pūjā and have made the pūjā of Ṣaḍ-gosvāmipādas as exclusive & compulsory as per the set guidelines of BRVF. No other current guru belonging to any traditional or neo Gauḍīya sects till now, has taken such non-self-centered step. However, such move taken by us is not tantamount to Ritvikism in any way as we have undertaken the role of a full-fledged ācārya.
11) After making unique excavations in the Gauḍīya philosophy (We were connected to neo-Gauḍīya philosophy merely, on the insistence of the parental affiliation with the neo-Gauḍīya lineage. Their connection with the neo-Gauḍīya lineage started before our seminal birth). But, from the day 1 (even before that, too) of our incorporation in ISKCON through formal initiation– a neo-Gauḍīya cult — we had serious disagreements on many of the ISKCONite concepts and there are proofs of it ranging back to year 2005 AD) & thereby, exposing faults in the ideology of the neo-Gauḍīya institutions (and our philosophical objections gone unanswered by them) & after, formally, leaving such a heterodox institution (when we saw that our global dharma-pracāra-yātra is thwarted by the most top level administrative leaders/GBC – full with Yavanas/Mlecchas), we convinced our new mantra-dīkṣā-gurudeva (who is, now connected to neo-Gauḍīya gurus through diksha line, only & those neo-Gauḍīya gurus, again, are connected to classical gurus of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, only, in terms of dīkṣā and not in an ideological context of śikṣā – due to severe misalignments they have with the classical Gauḍīya philosophy) to, ideologically, be convinced of our stand and thus, discard the ISKCONite ideological previous affiliation. This is equivalent to, only in comparison of this particular concept, the change in ideological conviction brought about by Ānandatīrtha Pūrṇaprajña Madhvācārya into the mind of his guru Svāmī Acyutaprekṣatīrtha who turned Dvaitin from an Advaitin past. Nonetheless, Śrī Acyutapreksatīrtha never disconnected from any previous dīkṣā-paramparā of the Advaita-turned Sampradaya. Madhvācārya retained Acyutapreksātīrtha (whose ideological stand had been changed by Madhvācārya) as his guru for the whole life. (Much later, Vedavyāsa gave special mantram to Madhvācārya — but, Mādhva Sampradāya’s dīkṣā-paramparā, nonetheless, counts itself by including Acyutapreksātīrtha, only).
From Haṁsarūpa Nārāyaṇa, 15th guru downwards is Acyutaprekṣatīrtha & 16th is Madhvācārya. Vedavyāsa is not, officially, included in the Madhvaite lineage anywhere. Similarly, those asking for precedent historical evidence behind BRVF’s such move have been granted answer.
12) Just as staunch Advaitins of that time who were convinced by Dvaita philosophy (Madhvācārya’s contemporary period) did not argue in futile that – ‘why we have to surrender to Madhvācārya when even Madhvācārya’s precedent lineage was of Advaitins & that we can continue to be Dvaitins even after not, formally, surrendering to Madhvācārya (by not taking dīkṣā from him, again). Rather, all such defeated or ideologically changed Advaitins into Dvaitins, formally, took Madhvācārya’s shelter. Similarly, all those neo-Gauḍīya sādhakas connected to neo-Gauḍīya institutions through dīkṣā and śikṣā should, after renouncing neo-Gauḍīya śikṣā, also, renounce neo-Gauḍīya dīkṣā and, again, take formal shelter of BRVF’s Gurupādācārya Svāmī if their sole or main cause of rejecting neo-Gauḍīya-śikṣā is coming into acquaintance with the ideology of BRVF.
Not acting as such will tantamount to duplicity or ‘daurātmya/kuṭināṭiḥ’ — on part of the ideologically turned neo-Gauḍīya to traditional Gauḍīya sādhakas/jiñāsus.
13) As to the doubt by any neo-Gauḍīya turned ideologically traditional Gauḍīya sādhaka– ‘why can’t I remain an external neo-Gauḍīya by retaining my neo-Gauḍīa ideological dīkṣā-guru, yet simultaneously, an internal traditionalist Gauḍīya by accepting the philosophy of BRVF sans (minus) formal dīkṣā surrender to Gurupādācārya Svāmī’– our reply is as follows — ‘if such a sādhaka feels that his personality has such ability to discern right from wrong himself without being in an ideological association of Gurupādācārya Svāmī, only then, he shouldn’t, formally, surrender to us; or else, he should, for not doing so would make him an ungrateful jackal.’
— Bhaktirasavedāntapīthādhīśvara (Gauḍīyarāddhāntapīṭhādhīśvara) Gurupādācārya Svāmī
URL — https://goo.gl/gvtO08