Bhaktivinoda Thakur – A Vaishnava Pioneer

Bhaktivinoda Thakur (1838-1914)

About 500 years ago, in the Nadia district of West Bengal, the ascetic named Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had founded a new branch of the Vaishnava tradition. This Gaudiya-Vaishnava branch became an unseparated part of Bengali spiritual culture. in western countries it is a common mistake to assume this branch (which is now often referred to as "Hare-Krishna" in the west) as some sort of a new-age western movement, when in fact it's roots goes way back into Indian culture.
The spreading of Gaudia-Vaishnavism into the west became known through the street chanting of the Hare-Krishna mantra brought to New-York in the 60's. But not many know that the spreading of Gaudiya-Vaishnavism has history back to the 19th century.
The Sankirtan movement of Chaitanya-Mahaprabhu was meant by him to spread world wide, "in every town and village" in his words. This movement, who was leter developed by Mahaprabhu's deciples, "the Goswamis", prospered through the 16th and 17th century. Then came a decline. A hand few of bonafied Vaishnavas were buried under so many bogus ones and the main writings of this branch became rear items. But then, at the second half of the 19th century, Gaudiya-Vaishnavism spread like never before, all thanks to the foundations settled by one grate scholar name Bhaktivinoda Thakur.
Bhaktivinoda Thakur was born in 1838 at the district of Nadia, the very same land where Mahaprabhu's movement started. But be may so, his family were not Vaishnavas and some of them were not even sympathizers of the Vaishnava branch. Bhaktivinoda was received with a modern education in English schools. Later, as a young student in Calcutta, he showed grate interest in western culture as shown in his book "The Poriade", the story of Porus meeting with Alexander the grate. In a later period of his life he even founded the first English school in the state of Orrisa.
The 19th century in this area of India, under British occupation, was also the time of the Bengali Renaissance, when many Hindu scholars and spiritual leaders were influenced by western values. Scholars such as Swami Vivekananda, disciple of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, who presented a modern neo-hinduist philosophy influenced by admiration of British culture. Bhaktivinoda was also influenced by western theology at the time. As a young student, being under the impression that Hinduism revolves around the notion of Adveita-Vedantic "all is one" perception, he thought the Christian bible to be more suitable, as it shows a conception of God as a person. This admiration of Bhaktivinoda to the Bible never went away and is shown in his later articles.
Eventually, after investigating all the philosophies common in the area, Bhaktivinoda came to a conclusion that out of all the philosophies developed in west Bengal, only the branch of Chaitanya-Mahaprabhu is genuine. Later he became a disciple of Jaganath das Babaji, a guru in the line of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

The temple Bhaktivinoda and his son Bhaktisidhanta lived in

Nadia district - West-Bengal

In 1961 Bhaktivinoda accepted the post of deputy magistrate of West-Bengal. In this service for a long period lasted most of his life he fought against corruption and injustice through the country. A verry famous tale told by his disciples is how he brought to justice a bogus guru from the area of Orrisa who claimed to be God and used his authority to molest young girls. All through his service in his government post, Bhaktivinoda, a family man, did not neglected his study of theology and Vaishnava philosophy. He searched for rear copies of writings by the Goswamis and written many poems, books and articles, many of them in English. While many misrepresenting ideas about vedic philosophy were spreading through the west, Bhaktivinoda published English translations to scriptures and sent them to western universities. He wrought many books representing Indian philosophy, such as his book Jiva-Dharma, written as a novel. He wrought English books explaining the philosophy of Mahaprabhu, such as "Caitanya Manaprabhu, His life and precepts". This was all done in the attempt to do the bidding of Mahaprabhu himself, spreading Vaishnava philosophy all through the world. Along with his guru, Jaganath das Babaji, Bhaktivinoda founded the Yoga-Pith temple in Mayapur, stating the birth place of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

Yoga-Pith, birth place of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu

Through his life, Bhaktivinoda was a family man and served his duties for the public in his government post. And then, in the last few years of his life he decided to retire. 6 years before his death he took initiation as a Babaji, an ascetic hermit. And then, at 1914, Bhaktivinoda Thakur entered an eternal Samadhi as he finally left his body. Bhaktivinoda's son, Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvati, latter continued in his fathers spirit when he established the Gaudiya-Math society, the first Gaudiya-Vaishnava organization to ever actually spread it's teaching in the west and make western disciples. This attempt to spread this philosophy in the beginning of the 20th century had later inspired organizations such as ISKCON, founded by Bhaktivedhanta Swami in New York during the 60's, and Chaitanya Sarasvati Math, founded by B.S Govinda Maharaj, and many other disciples of Bhaktisidhanta who did the same. Every westerner who is inspired by Vaishnava philosophy and the chanting of Hare-Krishna, should pay his gratitude to Bhaktivinoda Thakur. Bhaktivinoda was indeed a Vaishnava Pioneer.

For more information:
http://www.salagram.net/parishad116.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaktivinoda_Thakur

Religion VS A Higher Truth

A small Goddess shrine - New-Delhi

I often come across the dilemma weather Gaudiya-Vaishnavism (Krishna Consciousness, "Hare-Krishna") is a religion or not. Considering the fact that it revolves around God, our relationship with the supreme and meditation on God as a person, the common assumption is that this philosophy is a religion. It seems that once God is involved most people would consider the subject matter a religion. This assumption is clearly incorrect. Buddhism is a religion without god and so is Jainism. But from the other hand we cannot just define every mystic or spiritual persuasion as a religion. The first question should be: what is the definition of religion?
When we think of a religion we often think of a prophet talking to a large crowd of people, one such as Jesus or Moses talking to the people from a mountain top. Not so is the case with Vedic spiritual leaders such as Shankara, Ramanuja or Chaitanya. Though they are sometimes referred to as religious figures, they in fact show more of the symptoms of philosophers rather then prophets. If you look at the teachings of lord Chaitanya, as presented in writings such as the Chaitanya-Chaitamrita, you'll find him having deep conversations with other scholars such as Sarvabhoma Bhatacharya, presenting valid arguments and thus establishing his teachings. This is the standard presented by vedic scholars. Religious figures, on the other hand, present instructions that demands faith rather then logical proofs. Not that religious leader such as Moses and Jesus had philosophical base for their teachings and not that their scripture, if you take a second look at them, have no deeper spiritual meaning (usually discovered later by religious scholars). Though there is a class of educated theologians in every religion, the congregations of all religions consist mostly of masses of people who never considered deep philosophical questions.

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486-1534)

Founder of Gaudia-Vaishnavism ("Hare-Krishna)

For example: when I was in West-Bengal I've notices a picture of a local saint presented on stores, houses, taxi cabs and so on. When I asked who is this man, everyone know his name to tell me. But when I asked what did he do and why do you have his picture, all they could tell me is that he was a grate man. So is the case of all religions. Most Buddhists go to temples praying the Buddha and Buddhisatvas for material wealth, not showing much interest in the Buddhist teachings, which are in fact much deeper. So is the case for most Christians, Jews and Muslims and Hindus. It is also worth mentioning that there are also a grate deal of people in India who consider Gaudiya-Vaishnavism as their "religion", defining it as a branch of Hinduism.
To the spiritual aspirant there are no religions. To him there is only truth and the way to it. Also, if you look at the teachings of transcendentalists, such as lord Chaitanya, you'll find ouy not only that the activities they encouraged were on different level then religion, but that they also apposed organized religion in many ways. Offering an unorthodox interpretation of scriptures, reducing the emphasis on ritualism and apposing the cast system, those were principles spread by Chaitanya and others like him.
Is religion a bad thing? Not at all. It is simply one of the many branches of activity in our life. And like all of them, it two can become spiritualized. All religions have the everyday level as well as the higher levels. The everyday level includes material activities. The higher level is where the scriptures show us a higher purpose. One that will eventually shell free the aspirant from material bounds and let him gain enlightenment. At this level he is detached from all mundane things, including material forms of religion. As it said by lord Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita: (18.66) "Abandon all forms of drarma (religion, truth) and give in to me"

A Manifesto / A word to you, the reader

Why did I open this blog?
Once in a while I get an Idea. Could be at home, could be at work, could be in bed of while I'm reading. Could be while I'm going out for a minute for fresh air (get lot's of idea this way). I develop it in my head and if I won't write it down it may be lost forever. That's why I'm going to write here. And why is that? Becous an idea that was never expressed or exhibited is simply barren.
Through years of Art College I came to the conclusion that what makes an art piece what it is is its audience. A poem written and then put in the poet's pocket is might as well kept in his head and never written. There is really no difference between painting a picture on canvas and painting it in your imagination. Unless, of course, it is exhibited.
Hence my conclusion: you, the readers, are the ones who give life to my creation. I am merely a labor. A carrier bringing it to you. If it wasn’t for you, non of what you see here (or will see, depends on the point of time you are reading this entry) would ever come to existence. It would've remain nothing more then a thought. Then please: read and, if possible, comment.

Thenk you.