Why did Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati give sannyasa to himself?

And why did he take sannyasa at all when there are no precedents in the Gaudiya sampradaya?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Question. Why did Islam Bhaktistan’s Suhetakur take sannyas if there were no precedents for taking sannyas in the Gaudiya Sampradaya? And even if he had to take sannyas why did he do the extraordinary thing of like giving sannyas to himself? Answer.
It is not that there were no precedents for taking sannyas in the Gaudiya Sampradaya. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu himself took sannyas so there is no question of not taking sannyas per se and now Chaitanya Mahaprabhu took sannyas primarily for the sake of utilizing the respectability that the sannyasa ashram had for sharing Krishna consciousness with the world. Now thereafter if we look at the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism the main intellectual and institutional successors of Gaudiya Chaitanya Mahaprabhu were different.
The intellectual successors were the Goswamis who lived in Vrindavan and because all of the Goswamis had been born in respectable Brahmin families but because they had to convert to Islam under the pressure of Nawab Hussain Shah who threatened to torture the Vaishnav community if they did not convert and serve him. So they had consented and because at that time the traditional Indian society was quite orthodox so Allah Chaitanya Mahaprabhu accepted them as devotees of the highest caliber. When they renounced the world they did not take sannyas because of the past background.
There they felt that whatever reasons Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not insist and the Goswamis basically preferred not to take sannyas. In fact Rupan Sanathan Goswami themselves did not even initiate disciples because that would have been a little questionable in the tradition at that time for somebody who had the caste system was very orthodox and stratified and rigid at that time. So they accepted what is called as Babaji Vesh and actually speaking over a period of time within the Gaudiya Sampradaya as well as in general among those who are associated Vaishnavas the Babaji Vesh came to be recognized as higher than sannyas because the sannyas is the ashram is the highest within Varanashram whereas Babajis are those who have transcended Varanashram.
So the Goswamis had completely rejected everything material is insignificant and they were absorbed in love for Krishna in the mood of separation of Vrindavan. So they were far beyond Varanashram they were far far elevated and in that sense the Babaji Vesh was considered to be higher than Varanashram’s climax that is sannyas. But over a period of time the Babaji Vesh was abused by many sahajiyas who started claiming the advanced ease of devotion for themselves without having the purity and the qualification.
So in the advanced stages of devotion one contemplates on the intimate pastimes of Radha and Krishna they would not only contemplate on those pastimes but because of their inadequate purity of the heart they would even imitate those pastimes and because of that by the time Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was from 1486 to 1524 and then the Goswamis there were then the 16th century and by the time two centuries later by the 18th century whether it was in Vrindavan or in Bengal the Babaji Vesh because of the presence of the Apasampradayas, the deviant sahajiya groups who cheaply imitated the exalted pastimes of Radha Krishna, Gauravakshanavism has started being seen as disreputable and morally reprobate. So the Babajis were not at all considered moral respectable although within Vaishnavism they might have had some nominal respect but within the Bhadraloka, the Bhadraloka were the educated young Indians who had got employment in the British government and they were at the vortex at the center of the transition of traditional India to modern India. So they strongly looked down upon the Babaji Vesh as the symbol of the immorality and the corruption in the name of religion that had pervaded Hindu society at that time.
So at the same time there were several Mayavadis who had taken sannyas and they had started preaching vigorously and they had by their preaching brought respectability for Maya for sannyas ashram not just among the traditional circles where the respectability was already there but even in the eyes of the Bhadraloka and even among the Christians, Christian missionaries were very active at that time and they also had many celibates among their preachers. So celibacy had a lot of respect morally and religiously in the society at that time. So now Bhaktisiddhanta Sri Thakur when he decided that he wanted to dedicate his life to carrying on the mission of his spiritual predecessors, the mission of his father and the Goswamis and Lord Shaitanya Mahaprabhu and Lord Krishna, then he felt he was all alone.
In 1914 and 1916 his father and spiritual master both had departed and now he was all alone. So he felt that he needed a respectable order for effectively sharing Krishna consciousness in his times. So in a sense he did two things.
Firstly by not taking Babaji vaish, he expressed his humility that actually the Babaji is aware, transcendental and his humility was expressing that I am not yet transcendental, I have not yet transcended Varanashram. So in that sense he by his actions retained the high pedestal for the Babaji vaish that was originally there within the Gaudiya Vaishnav culture and at the same time by not taking Babaji vaish he also ensured the misconceptions of immorality that were associated with the Babaji vaish during his times would not trouble him. He was impeccably moral but still accepting that Babaji vaish would just by association of that dress which was the normal way of renunciation at that time Gaudiya Vaishnavas were either Grahastas or Babajis.
So he decided that he would do what Shaitanya Mahaprabhu had done and that was take sannyas. So now there are precedents, definitely precedents for sannyas within the Vaishnava sampradaya. Ramacharya himself took sannyas and for all practical purposes when Ramacharya took sannyas he did so practically by himself.
You know he was very intense to go and meet his spiritual teacher Yamanacharya who was one of his spiritual masters. So he started off for that and so for all practical purposes the act of taking sannyas and also the act of taking sannyas oneself is not unprecedented but we can look at other historical circumstances why this has happened. So there’s a scholar Fernando Sardella, Pranava Prabhu who has done a doctorate thesis on Bhaktisthan Sri Thakur and he analyzes the social circumstances that were present at the time of Bhaktisthan Sri Thakur.
So because there were no sannyasis in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya at his time, so from within the Gaudiya sampradaya he could not take sannyas. Then there were sannyasis at his time in Bengal area and those sannyasis were prominently Mayavadis and taking sannyas from Mayavadis was out of question at that time because those Mayavadis were not only Mayavad itself is a deviation from the Vedic teachings but modern Mayavad focusing on humanitarian work was even greater a deviation and he wanted to counter that kind of misconception. So taking sannyas from Mayavadis was out of question.
Then the Vaishnava sannyasis were there in South India. So Sri Sampradaya and Madhya Sampradaya they did not have much activity in Bengal and moreover even in these sampradayas the caste system was very rigid and sannyas was given only to Brahmanas. So for Sri Chaitanya, for Bhaktisthan Sri Thakur had born in a Kayastha family.
The Kayasthas were by some people considered to be higher caste, by some to be lower caste. They were sort of middle, they were called as by some people as elite Shudras. So it is a paradoxical term but as far as sannyas was concerned none of the Vaishnava sampradayas would have given him sannyas.
So as within his own specific Gaudiya tradition sannyas was not possible. Sannyas, the facility itself was not there. Within the broad Vaishnava tradition he would not have been given sannyas and he did not want to take sannyas from the non-Vaishnava that is the more impersonal Mayavadi tradition.
So therefore he we can infer from these social circumstances that he decided on the inspiration of the heart, took the extraordinary step of giving sannyas to himself and the purpose of this was ultimately to dedicate himself. So just as he was already dedicated to the mission of Lord Chaitanya with his body, mind and words and he took Tirthandi sannyas that is a formalization of what he has done. So now this was not a sign of disrespect to the traditional way of taking sannyas.
It was just a circumstantial necessity and none of his disciples tried to imitate him. Nobody has tried to do that because that was it was recognized that that was an exceptional circumstance and in the Acharya s lives we always have to see that there is something for Anukarana and something for Anusarana. Anukarana means imitation, applying in our own lives.
So the zeal for outreach that was there in their heart that is something which we can apply in our own lives but the some of the specific actions like say giving sannyas to oneself is not something that is meant to be imitated but that is to be seen as an example of how the Acharyas can sometimes in order to continue the tradition have to set aside some of the rituals within the tradition so that they can actively pioneer the revival and the propagation of the tradition. So to summarize sannyas had precedence in the Vaishnav sampradaya and because sannyas at the time was more respectable than the Babaji way so he took sannyas and because no one was there to give him sannyas at that time that’s why he decided to do the sannyas for himself. Thank you.