I have read in some texts speculation that certain Saints or Siddhas in our lineage were possibly tantric or sahajiya practitioners (eg. Ramananda Raya & maybe Svarupa Damodara, who were said to be the only ones to know the innermost meaning of Chaitanya's descent and identity). I also read that the Kama Gayatri is historically a sahajiya mantra.
Sometimes it seems to me that there is a fine line between the esoteric practices of our lineage's Raganuga sadhana and that of the sahajiya lineage's Raganuga sadhana. I have read Gurumaharaja's Sri Guru Parampara several times, but still have some questions about the distinctions nevertheless. It also occurs to me that some practitioners who participated in Siddha Pranali initiation must have attained perfection via their sincere practice under the guidance of their guru. Is this so? Is the distinction between the sahajiya lineages and Bhaktisiddhanta's lineage truly so clear in terms of sadhana and siddhantic orthodoxy? Can anyone shed some additional light on this?
I have read in some texts speculation that certain Saints or Siddhas in our lineage were possibly tantric or sahajiya practitioners (eg. Ramananda Raya & maybe Svarupa Damodara, who were said to be the only ones to know the innermost meaning of Chaitanya's descent and identity). I also read that the Kama Gayatri is historically a sahajiya mantra.
Sometimes it seems to me that there is a fine line between the esoteric practices of our lineage's Raganuga sadhana and that of the sahajiya lineage's Raganuga sadhana. I have read Gurumaharaja's Sri Guru Parampara several times, but still have some questions about the distinctions nevertheless. It also occurs to me that some practitioners who participated in Siddha Pranali initiation must have attained perfection via their sincere practice under the guidance of their guru. Is this so? Is the distinction between the sahajiya lineages and Bhaktisiddhanta's lineage truly so clear in terms of sadhana and siddhantic orthodoxy? Can anyone shed some additional light on this?
anyone....anyone...anyon...anyo..any..an..a.........
Since you have read Guru Maharaja's book a couple of times through it would seem you would have a fairly good understanding of the basic differences between the lineage of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and the lineages that give siddha pranali. Guru Maharaja has also spoken about this on a number of sanga's and it may be worth your while to go through the sanga archives to see what he has said in addition to what he wrote in his little booklet on the subject.
I don't know where you have read that Ramananda Raya or Svarupa Damodara were sahajiya's or tantrics and that kama gayatri is originally a sahajiya mantra. Ramananda is said to be a sahaja in the sense that he is a 'natural devotee'. It's important to keep in mind the definitions and uses of words and in the case of sahajiya it has not always referred to the tantric external practices that are clearly not part of the heritage passed down to us by our Guru Varga or by the six Goswamis who are the arhitects of the sampradaya.
Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur recieved siddha pranali from his Guru, so obviously we don't consider it as something that is foreign to our lineage or that it is not part of our heritage. As you know from reading Guru Maharaja's book, the objection that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta voiced was that those who were unqualified were being given a false conception of and a counterfeit of the real esoteric divine lila. That is why the term sahajiya has come to be used to refer to those who think they can jump into the highest ontological position without being qualified for such. It is a very high thing and that is why we worship it. In our lineage we are taught that through sincerely chanting the holy name our own true spiritual svarupa will be revealed to us and our place in the lila will also be revealed as we become qualified for such revelations.
So, just to state it more plainly - the objection wasn't with siddha pranali itself, but rather with unqualified people giving it out to unqualified candidates and thereby trampling on the crest jewel of our lineage.
The other use of the term sahajiya has to do with tantric practices and enacting Krsna's lila of paramour love on the earthly platform - this is clearly a perversion and not at all supported by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his associates. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is well known to have been very strict in his moral conduct and it is very clear how he experienced rasa - and it is most decidedly not in line with sahajiya teachings. If anyone has suggested that Ramananda Raya or Svarupa Damodara were involved in this type of perversion they have no historical evidence to base such an assertion on - quite to the contrary.
Thanks Audarya Lila... that helps. Dimock suggests the possibility of Ramananda Raya & Svarupa Damodara being sahajiya... but maybe I read it wrong.
I think I will go through the Sri Guru Parampara booklet again to freshen up. I love it anyway. I was a bit tainted by Nitai Das.... I should not have emailed with him so much...bad association...I get it now. I just get tired of so much segregation in GV... but I can see that sometimes it is necessary. I will keep close to GM. I hope you are well. I miss you!
Ed Dimock may suggest any number of things we don't need to take seriously. His perspective was distorted by a lack of discrimination due to his addiction to a number of bad habits. My friend Tarun Kanti met Dimock years ago and was not impressed by his character, his scholarship in Bengali language notwithstanding. Nitai's poor behavior has also, as you suggest, tainted (although I suggest that's a euphemism) his perspective. I had a brief exchange with him a few years ago regarding his assessment of something GM wrote (perhaps Sri Guru-parampara--I don't remember any more). And I can tell you that his behavior was not that of a vaishnava. Our acaryas describe sadhu-sanga as associating with devotees who are more advanced than we, possessed of similar aspirations, and affectionately disposed. I have a hard time seeing how Dr. Delmonico is any of these.
Thanks Audarya Lila... that helps. Dimock suggests the possibility of Ramananda Raya & Svarupa Damodara being sahajiya... but maybe I read it wrong.
I think I will go through the Sri Guru Parampara booklet again to freshen up. I love it anyway. I was a bit tainted by Nitai Das.... I should not have emailed with him so much...bad association...I get it now. I just get tired of so much segregation in GV... but I can see that sometimes it is necessary. I will keep close to GM. I hope you are well. I miss you!
Doesn't sahajiya just mean natural or spontaneous. There is the reference in the CC about Ramananda Raya being sahajiya. Hence the distinction in the term prakrta-sahajiya.
Audarya Lila says: Ramananda is said to be a sahaja in the sense that he is a 'natural devotee'.
Audarya Lila says: Ramananda is said to be a sahaja in the sense that he is a 'natural devotee'.
Thanks. I missed that in his reply.
Doesn't sahajiya just mean natural or spontaneous. There is the reference in the CC about Ramananda Raya being sahajiya.
Here are the verses you may be referring to:
raya kahe,—“kaha sahaja-premera laksana“rupa-gosani kahe,—“sahajika prema-dharma“
Ramananda Raya further inquired, “What are the natural characteristics of awakening love of Godhead?”
Rupa Gosvami replied, “These are the natural characteristics of love of God:
Then Rupa cites a verse from Vidagdha Madhava:
“‘When one hears praise from his beloved, he outwardly remains neutral but feels pain within his heart. When he hears his beloved making accusations about him, he takes them to be jokes and enjoys pleasure. When he finds faults in his beloved, they do not diminish his love, nor do the beloved’s good qualities increase his spontaneous affection. Thus spontaneous love continues under all circumstances. That is how spontaneous love of Godhead acts within the heart.’
Dimock was the leading scholar on GV for years when GV was a relatively un-researched tradition. He took the position that Caitanya Vaisnavism had strong ties to the sahajiya lineages (prakrta sahajiya) based on the verse cited and a few other notions/references. However, another scholar from Canada, Joseph O'connel, eventually dismantled his ideas and they have since not resurfaced in the academic community. I believe that one of O'connel's essays on this topic was published in the Journal of Vaisnava Studies.
Here are the verses you may be referring to:Then Rupa cites a verse from Vidagdha Madhava:
Found this in the Sanga archives.
"Kavikarnapura has described Ramananda through the mouth of Sarvabhauma in his drama 'Caitanya-candrodaya-nataka' as a sahajya-vaisnava. However, when Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami relates this same historical instance in his Caitanya-caritamrta, he has Sarvabhauma call Ramananda a rasika-bhakta. Generically and in terms of the consistent use of the term throughout the Goswami literature, sahajiya means spontaneous, accomplished, natural, innate. Thus in the Goswami granthas, sahajiya-vaisnava and rasika-bhakta are synonymous. Furthermore, during the time of Mahaprabhu the Sahajiya cult was not referred to by that name. That was a later development."