The List of 32 BY: ROCANA DASA

[Beggar 0]

 

 

The List of 32

BY: ROCANA DASA

 

Dec 5, CANADA (SUN) — [Revised]

The following comments were recently written in response to a devotee who posed several questions about my position on Srila Prabhupada as Sampradaya Acarya. I present my reply here, in hopes that it will provide further clarification on the "list of 32" Sampradaya Acaryas. I wrote:

 

"One of the big differences between you and I, obviously, is that you have had past association with Gour Govinda Maharaja that has resulted in your deep appreciation for him, while I have never even met him. There's not much I can really say on the matter of his qualifications or personal circumstances in relationship to ISKCON. While I hope to do so in the future, I have not yet heard any of his lectures, nor read much that he has written. Perhaps you could point me to the most essential instructions he gave, so I can tune in.

 

Your main concern is centered around "the list of 32". First of all, the term Sampradaya Acarya is the terminology I use to refer to those on the list. While that terminology is most commonly used to refer to the heads of the four main Vaisnava sampradayas, I don't believe that's the sole and only appropriate use of the term. As noted in my

Sampradaya Acarya

paper, Srila Prabhupada used the term numerous times, and not always specifically referring to the four main Sampradaya Acaryas. I have attempted to qualify the meaning of the term as I use it, and have written a fair bit on that very topic.

 

In terms of whether or not someone on the list is not actually nitya-siddha, I personally don't believe the nitya-siddha designation is necessarily a pre-qualification for being on the list. The list itself, of course, was composed not by Srila Prabhupada, but by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. Srila Prabhupada obviously put himself on the list after his Guru Maharaja, and never, ever mentioned that anyone else, including his Godbrothers, should or could also be included on that list.

 

Srila Prabhupada didn't go into an elaborate explanation of the origination of the list, other than the fact that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati shocked the Vaisnava community of his day by presenting the list, because everyone at that time was steeped in the diksa lineage mentality, and this list obviously did not depict the usual diksa lineage as it was commonly accepted at that time.

 

I've also mentioned in previous writings that I'm not saying this list includes ALL the great nitya-siddhas or maha-bhagavata preachers in our sampradaya. I am saying that those on the list are personalities who surcharged the Sampradaya, usually by their writings, and of course by their pastimes as well. Predominately the surcharge came by way of their philosophical writings or discourses, which form the essence of our teachings.

 

The most recent manifestation are, of course, the biggest concern for those of us today - namely, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur, Jagannath das Babaji, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, Gaura Kishora das Babaji, and A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. These personalities are what might be called the most contemporary or up-to-date members. Personally, I have concluded that they were, in a sense, part of a lila extension of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu's own pastimes in the sense that he predicted the spreading of Krsna consciousness all over the planet. These great acaryas were sent so that the prediction would be fulfilled. It required three successive nitya-siddhas.

 

Of course in this whole equation, one cannot forget the inclusion of Jagannath das Babaji and Gaura Kishora das Babaji, who don't fit into the conception of a Sampradaya Acarya that I've described above in the sense that they weren't great writers, and weren't known as great scholars or preachers of the siddhanta. They did, however, personify one of the principle aspects of our teachings in the sense that on one hand, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur had a siksa relationship with Jagannath das Babaji, and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati had a diksa relationship with Gaura Kishora das Babaji. They were representing a diksa lineage that still survived from the time of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu and as such, we can trace our lineage even along the diksa line. By doing so, we satisfy a lot of skeptics and critics.

 

Because the great Acaryas chose not to explain exactly what the reasoning was, we're left to conclude or decide for ourselves as to why Jagannath das Babaji and Gaura Kishora das Babaji were included on the list of 32. I've come to my own conclusion, as stated above, but am certainly open to hearing explanations from others.

 

Now the big question in your mind, and in the minds of so many other descended disciples, is whether or not their guru should be included after Srila Prabhupada. For those who have gone to the Gaudiya Matha, I think it is even more difficult to understand who the devotees should include on the list, and why. For example, I'm sure that Tripurari Swami includes Sridhar Maharaja on his list, just as those who go to Narayana Maharaja include he and his Spiritual Master on the list. They put Srila Prabhupada somewhere on the list as well, as they speculate who should be on it. So this list has become a significant point of controversy. In fact one of my Godbrothers, Danavir Goswami, puts all ISKCON gurus at the end of his list.

 

As I stated in my recent article,

Connecting to the Sampradaya Through the Sampradaya Acarya

, in which I refer to 'horizontal and vertical' connections to the Sampradaya, I do believe that people have, over the eons of time, included their guru or even themselves on this list in a 'horizontal' way. In other words, they've attached themselves to a Sampradaya Acarya. The image of the tree is perfect because every tree has some big, big limbs, and in the case of our Sampradaya, the big limbs are the Sampradaya Acaryas. The secondary limbs, twigs and leaves can represent the many, many offshoots from the original Sampradaya Acaryas.

 

As I've also mentioned, for the most part these lineages have died out. Of course, one can't say 100% because no intense research has been done, but let's assume for the sake of argument that's a fact. One has to understand that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur got in touch with the eternal Sampradaya by reading the writings of the Sampradaya Acaryas. Nowhere have I seen that he gives full credit to Jagannath das Babaji. He began deep study of the books by the Six Goswamis and other pure Vaisnava literatures, and in this way he was connected to the previous Sampradaya Acaryas. It was through them that our Sampradaya was revived.

 

So consequently, whether Gour Govinda Maharaja should be considered a rightful Sampradaya Acarya, which I assume is what you're trying to get at here, that may or may not be true. Time will tell. Now that he's left his body, it's impossible to know beyond what we already know. I suppose it's up to you and his followers to keep that branch of the Sampradaya alive. I can't imagine it lasting for generations unless those who feel the same way you do become extremely advanced. Otherwise, a great deal of preaching and spiritual contribution to the sankirtana movement is undoubtedly made by those within your particular branch, and the temples contributed to by those in your branch may last for hundreds of years to come. Only time will tell.

 

In terms of Srila Prabhupada's contribution, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's contribution, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur's contribution, this is inconceivable. The writings, songs, poetry, pastimes, and lectures of these advanced personalities will be passed on for thousands of years, no question about it. It's our business to make sure that they are told properly, accurately, philosophically, without any deviations of siddhanta. If we do this, then I think we are sure to get potency, empowerment and credit from the Sampradaya in reciprocation for doing so. We should minimize our own personal contribution, or even the contributions of those on the level of Gour Govinda Maharaja. Of course, the western devotees have their big heroes, like Visnujnana and Jayananda, who have already been deified to a degree even though they didn't take disciples. The gurus who have passed away have become somewhat mythical due to their followers' remembrances and amplification of their qualities and pastimes. There's now even a murti of Tamal Krishna Goswami, and they're putting all sorts of samadhis in the Holy Dhama. When you consider the size of Srila Rupa Goswami's samadhi and all the samadhis that are found at the Radha Damodar temple, compared to what ISKCON is up to today, it's just insulting. I'm not questioning the size of the samadhis of the Sampradaya Acaryas, or course, because they represent purely the pastimes of Lord Caitanya. But in terms of whether or not Tamal Krishna or Sridhar Swami, or any of those people who have now been given samadhis in the Holy Dhama, I say this is not proper.

 

Whether or not ISKCON will include these departed devotees on the 'list of 32' is not really a big question mark. Anyone can take that list and stick their name on it, or their guru's name, that doesn't make any difference at all. Whether or not Sri Krsna accepts you on the list, and whether you are accepted by those who are undoubtedly qualified to be on the list, that's what matters. Whether great Sampradaya Acaryas who come in the future will conclude that Gour Govinda Maharaja, or any one of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers, or any ISKCON devotee, should be included on the list, remains to be seen. Obviously Srila Bhaktisiddhanta chose to exclude many very advanced devotees when he made up his list, but Srila Prabhupada will never be excluded by any future Sampradaya Acarya, and that's for sure. So in that regard, I feel very confident as a disciple of Srila Prabhupada's. It is my great good fortune to be his disciple but at the same time, unless I see who Srila Prabhupada really is, it could act as a doubled-edged sword. In other words, I believe that you can commit serious offenses by not appreciating someone of his stature as being a nitya-siddha, maha-bhagavavata.

 

If we take into consideration the siksa guru aspects recognized by way of the 'list of 32', then the tree is essentially very bushy because there are plenty of siksa gurus out there who are preaching and making devotees, inspiring people. This is the chain reaction that's continuing to spread Krsna consciousness around the world. Whether or not in future some of these siksa gurus could be considered more advance than many of the diksa gurus of today, and those who have already fallen into obscurity and disgrace, that's also mysterious. It appears that each individual has to sort these matters out for themselves. Whether or not they're spiritually potent enough to have others accept and follow their way of thinking, that's another matter. Time will also tell in that regard. But I think each individual devotee must come up with answers for themselves insofar as these questions about our Sampradaya and who is actually purely and fully connected to it."