The True History of Bhaktisiddhanta

In this blog, you will learn about: -How Gaura Kishore Dasa Babaji never actually
gave diksa to Bhaktisiddhanta and thus ISKCON-Gaudiya Math's parampara is
not bonafide -Mayapur is not the real birthplace of Caitanya Mahaprabhu and
how Bhaktivinode was rejected by his guru Bipin Bihari Goswami for falsifying
evidence in relation to this -How offensive Bhaktisiddhanta was towards the
Gaudiya Vaisnavas of Vrindavan -Bhaktivinode Thakur was eating meat and fish
-Comments made by Lalita Prasad Thakur about his brother Bhaktisiddhanta
(Lalita Prasad Thakur was the older brother of Bhaktisiddhanta. They were both
sons of Bhaktivinode Thakur).
Why a real unbroken diksa guru-parampara is absolutely necessary
Why is a Guru-parampara Indispensable?
A guru parampara is an uninterrupted succession of devotees who have
surrendered to
their guru. Without such surrender there is no Krsna -
yasya prasadad bhagavatprasado yasyaprasadan na gatih kutopi
(Gurvastakam 8)
Krsna cannot be approached directly; Krsna will not accept anyone unless he
accepts the
attitude of a servant of His devotee in the form of the guru.
The Srimad Bhagavata (10.14.29) states:
athapi te deva padambujadvayaprasadalesanugrhita eva hi
janati tattvam bhagavanmahimno na canya ekopi ciram vicinvan
[Moreover, Lord, one who has been blessed with a tiny bit of the mercy of your
lotus feet
knows the truth of the your greatness, O Blessed One. Not some other one
pondering it
over for a long time. -Ed.]
and
diksa-kale bhakta kore atma-samarpana
At the time of initiation the devotee surrenders himself.(C.c., Antya, 4.184)
Srila Rupa Gosvami teaches in the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.2.74) that the first of
the 64
means of devotion is sriguru-padasraya, surrender to a bona fide guru, as well as
krsnadiksadisiksanam,
initiation and teaching in Krsna-bhakti.
The Bhagavata (11.21.15) states mantrasya ca parijanam the mantra is
purified by the
right knowledge. A mantra without explanation is powerless, and Sri Visvanatha
Cakravarti writes in his commentary on this verse that one cannot just take
mantras or
their purports from books to reach the same effect -
sadgurumukhat yathavat parijanam mantrasuddhih
The mantra is really pure when it emanates from the mouth of a bona-fide
guru.
guruvaktrad visnumantro yasya karne visatyayam
tam vaisnavam mahaputam pravadanti manisinah
(Brahmavaivarta Purana, Krsnajanma-khanda, 83.34)
74
The wise call those persons in whose ears the Visnu-mantra enters, as it
emanated from
the gurus mouth, greatly sanctified Vaisnavas.
Sri Narahari Cakravarti writes about Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhus receiving diksa
mantra
from Sri Isvara Puri:
nija diksa mantra tare karnete kohiya
loilena mantra bhumi pori pranamiya || (Bhaktiratnakara, 5.2103)
Sri Isvara Puri spoke his own diksa mantra into the ear of Nimai, who then fell on
the
ground in obeisance.
Furthermore, in verse 2109 of the same chapter it is said:
sampradaya-nivista hoile karya siddhi hoy
anyatra diksita mantra nisphala niscoy
Success is achieved after entering a sampradaya (official tradition), otherwise
the mantra
in which one is initiated certainly wont bear fruit.
Success cannot be had by practising a mantra attained from a book. Such
accumulation of
book knowledge is an offence to the guru (guror avaja), which is the third
offence to the
chanting of the holy name. Thus people who consider initiation unnecessary
cannot get
the full benefit of chanting Hare Krsna. It is also an insult to the vaisnava
pariprasnena
sevaya (Gita, 4.34). One should accumulate knowledge through submissive
inquiry from
the saints and by serving them, otherwise Krsna will never be pleased. Hence the
mantra
should also be received in an uninterrupted diksa-parampara, which is at the
same time
an unbroken siksa-parampara. The argument the holy name is transcendental
and
therefore not dependent on all these external rituals will not work, for on the
path of
bhakti everything depends on a service attitude, particularly towards the guru.
The
argument that only the siksa parampara or bhagavata parampara matters is
also invalid,
for Haribhakti-vilasa (2.4) quotes this statement of Lord Siva from theVisnu-
yamala:
adiksitasya vamoru krtam sarvam nirarthakam
pasuyonim avapnoti diksavirahito janah
All activities of a non-initiated person are in vain. A person who is without
initiation will
take birth as an animal.
The Brahmavaivarta Purana, (Krsnajanma-khanda, 93.79) states:
na gurur mantradat parah -
No guru is greater than the mantra-guru.
75
Sri Advaita Prabhu told His son Krsna Misra Gosvami in Advaita Prakasa (21.153-
154):
vaisnavera madhye yei sampradaya hine sampradayi madhye yei gauraga na
mane
krsna bahirmukha sei korimu niryasa
Again, amongst the Vaisnavas, I consider those who have no sampradaya
(and those who
do have a sampradaya but do not recognise Gauranga) averse to Sri Krsna and
I will oust
them.
76
Comment
October 2, 2014
An ex-ISKCON devotees personal experience in embracing true
Gaudiya Vaisnavism
Download this in PDF format here:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/e3717aola66h1d8/True_History_of_Bhaktisiddha
nta.pdf
MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
by
Radhapada Das
Jaya Radhe!
My name is Radhapada Das, formerly known as Rati Das. After spending 20
years in
ISKCON (more or less, in good times and bad) I received diksa from the
Mahanta of
Radhakunda, Baba Sri Ananta Das Pandit.
One may ask what prompted me to do it? Basically, I did it because I didnt see
any light
coming from the end of the ISKCON tunnel. In other words, I didnt see even a
ray of
hope for discovering my spiritual identity (spiritual svarupa), nor did I get any
guidence
in geniune raganuga-bhakti.
(Bhakti that takes as its model the passionate love for Krsna of the people of
Vraja, that is, the close
servants, friends, parents, and lovers of his youthful days in the land of Vraja)
Now, some may say, and especially those who knew me as Rati Das, that I was
too
impatient. I should have given it more time. More than anything, I should get
more strict
and serious about spiritual life as given to devotees in ISKCON by Srila
Prabhupada. In
answer to them I say that I gave it plenty of time. Second there are those a
thousand
times more serious and strict than me in ISKCON, whom I dont see as having
attained
any profound level of spiritual advancement or as being able to teach the
techniques of
1. raganugabhajana. Dont get me wrong, there are advanced devotees in
ISKCON, but only
64
by ISKCON standards. There are many who have a taste for chanting the Holy
Name in
kirtan or in japa and others that can give great talks on the philosophy and the
pastimes.
There are many who can perform austerities like nirjal ekadashis and relish deity
worship, and also there are devotees who simply like to talk about Krsna Of
course, we
cannot forget the great souls who have taken the message of Krsna a to the
farthest and
most remote regions of the world. Certainly they all are worthy of my deepest
respect and
veneration. Yes, there are quite a few dedicated devotees serving in a selfless
manner.
However, I really dont believe that there are devotees of this institution or of the
Gaudiya Mataha that are having revelations like those described in the
biographies of the
great siddha-s and in the Goswami grantha-s [writings]. In my own personal life, I
have
felt a vivid transformation of consciousness after taking diksa from my Gurudeva
in
Radha Kunda. It is said that diksa is the process by which transcendental
knowledge is
transmitted into the heart and obstacles are destroyed. I can honestly say that
this was
what I experienced after diksa. The many years of hearing and chanting the
songs and
teachings of Narottama Dasa Thakura and Bhaktivinoda finally cystalized in my
consciousness. No longer were these teachings some mysterious puzzle that I
would solve
only after death. They were manifesting themselves to me directly. These
teachings were
slowly being unpacked out of the mystery box and becoming tools for bhajan
[personal
worship]. The teachings of the Goswamis were becoming more meaningful to
me. In
addition, it became more and more apparent that what I had been practicing
before was
not the real bhakti-sadhana [the practice of bhakti] of a follower of Sriman
Mahaprabhus sampradaya [community].
I must admit that after twenty years of hearing Vaisnava aparadha [offensive
language or
behavior directed at Vaisnavas] of the devotees of true sampradaya-s, I was a
little
skeptical about the authencity of the Gaudiya Vaisnava guru-pranali [lineage
of teachers],
known to most devotees in ISKCON as the Babajis. When I first used to visit
Radhakunda during the month of Kartik, I had no connection with what was
going on
there, other than hoping that one day, I would attain some krpa [mercy] from Sri
Radha
by bathing there at Sri Kunda, doing parikrama [circumambulation] and
listening to
Krsna lila [pastime] lectures by an ISKCON sannyasis [renunciant] there. The
world of
the Gaudiya Vaisnava-s seemed alien to me. I could not relate to the austere
appearances
of the devotees and places there, especially when I had been hearing for years
that
everyone there is a dreaded sahajiya However, just before and after my wife
and I
became truly initiated, as we began to become familiar with the Vaisnavas and
the
environment, we began to discover a richness there undescribable by words,
but available
through experience. Behind the hard, austere appearances of the devotees
that we met,
we noticed very blissful personalities among them. Sometimes they appeared to
me to
possess intoxicated feelings of inner bliss that I had not seen in ISKCON or
Gaudiya
Matha devotees. My experience in ISKCON was that despite the opulent
surroundings of
devotees, many appear morose, uptight or anxious. After some time in ISKCON, I
began
to seriously consider that I joined a religious society that promised to free one
from the
problems of life, viz. birth, death, old age and disease, but that failed to give to
many even
65
basic satisfaction or peace of mind. Moreover, the lives of many of these
devotees were
plagued with the ongoing, tumultuous problems raging within the ISKCON
society itself.
My wife and I became acquainted with a German lady named Anuradha
initiated by
Prana Krishna Baba of Radhakunda. We would visit her often in her humble
room in
front of Radhakunda. One day, when we came to visit her, there was a devotee
there
from Switzerland whom I knew from before, who had just received diksa from
Ananta
Das Pandit. When she announced that he received diksa, something came over
me. I had
this incredible urge to take diksa also and I began to ask what is being offered
there
regarding spiritual life. They explained to me:
siddha-pranali, (This is the same as guru-pranali, the lineage of ones gurus going
back to the
immediate associates of Sri Caitanya, except that one is taught their siddha or
eternal names and
identities in Krsnas sport).
manjari-svarupa (Manjari-svarupa Is the most common identity adopted by the
members of the
Caitanya tradition. It is the identity of a younger female friend of Radha. The
manjari combines
feelings of friendship and desire for service towards Radha. They thus often have
access to the most
confidential interactions between Radha and Krsna).
and manasi seva (This is service performed, or rather visualized, in the mind. This
is the major
method of learning and cultivating the identity of the manjari in Caitanya
Vaisnavism).
Then I began to consider things more carefully. I knew about these things
before, having
read books by O.B.L. Kapoor and Bhaktivinoda Thakura, but now I had
encountered
devotees who were practicing it. In a few days we were introduced to Ananta
Das Pandit
and we began to visit him regularly and ask many questions. I was encouraged
to read his
translated commentary on Ragavartma-candrika by Srila Visvanatha
Cakravartipada,
which when I began reading I couldnt put down. I was blown away by the
combination of
the deep philosophy of Visvanatha and Ananta Das Pandits explanation of the
verses
regarding raganuga-bhakti. I was convinced. My wife also read the book and
she was
eager to take diksa, too.
At that time, I was not so sure about the break in the disciplic succession of
ISKCON/GM. I had heard something previously, but it was not clear to me. I was
not
very interested in the subject either. My main concern was to step up into higher
education and become specialized in learning about manjari-bhava
upasana [the
method of worshiping with the feelings of a manjari], which I was convinced one
cannot
get in ISKCON/GM. I had had enough of the work now samadhi [realization]
later
philosophy. My membership in ISKCON was already casual. I had lost faith in
gurus/GBCs and the teachings that went with them. Going back home, back
to
Godhead by becoming a dedicated ISKCON career member had lost its
appeal for me
years ago. In the temple where my wife was from in Slovenia, the leading book
distributer
once gave a Srimad Bhagavata lecture and said that a person who chanted
the Holy
Name all day was a sahajiya. I even heard that in one kirtan there, while a
devotee was
singing the names of Sri Radha, another devotee plugged his ears with his
fingers and
sung out: Jaya Visnupada, Jaya Visnupada (the name of his guru back then).
So I had
66
had enough of the un-Gaudiya Vaisnava, offensive environment of ISKCON. I
was
hoping deep in my heart for something better to come my way. However, the
issue about
leaving my ISKCON guru still disturbed me a bit. I even remember crying one
night
before I took diksa. Still, I felt that moving on was the proper thing to do. And
you know
something, after I did it, I never ever regreted it!
One problem we faced was that my wife and I were working as Gurukula
teachers in the
ISKCON temple in Vrindaban. Our main concern was how we were going to
receive
diksa without letting anyone know. We wanted to stay in Vrindaban, and I liked
teaching;
we didnt want to get kicked out. So the solution was dont tell anybody. We
were
undercover for over two years. Then slowly, slowly, we started letting our guard
down, till
eventually we were discovered. We saw it as Sri Radharanis krpa telling us it is
time to
move on, to be true to ourselves, and to stop hiding.
In the recent year I have come to terms with the Bhaktisiddhanta issue, that is,
his not
getting diksa from Gaurakisora Das Baba. I must admit it was depressing to have
the big
bubble pop regarding the things we were taught about Bhaktisiddhanta,
Bhaktivedanta
Swami, ISKCON/GM. I felt misled. Discovering that one had spent twenty years
living
and telling others about things that were not a part of real Gaudiya Vaisnavism
can be
disheartening. On the other hand, if it were not for ISKCON, I would never have
heard
about Sri Caitanya, Radha-Krsna, Vraja Dhama, the Goswamis, and so forth. So I
owe
ISKCON a great deal for pointing me in the right direction. I think that I was
probably
not ready for real bhajan back then, that I needed the institutional teachings
and facilities
to prepare me for the path of following the Goswamis.
Sometime ago someone presented me with this premise: Try to stretch your
imagination.
What if a manjari from the spiritual world, Nayana Manjari (supposedly the
manjari
svarupa of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati) decided to come down to this world and
start
his/her own lineage? Could it be possible? The first problem with that idea is
why would
a nitya-siddha, an eternal associate from Vraja Dhama, descend to this world
without the
Lords association?
se saba sangir sange je kaila vilasa
se-sanga na paiya kande narottama dasa
Being unable to obtain the association of Lord Gauranga, accompanied by all
of these
devotees in whose association He performed His pastimes, Narottama Das
simply weeps.
It is generally observed that the nitya-siddha-s accompany the Lord when He
descends to
enact pastimes. If a parsada (eternal associate) of the Lord did descend after
God had
wound-up his pastimes in this world, then for what purpose? Surely, it would be
to teach
something to the world, especially to the devotees of the Lord. It would be
greatly
appreciated, glorified, and remembered for all time to come by the Vaisnava
community.
67
However, from a historical point of view, that was not the case with
Bhaktisiddhanta
Saraswati. Except for among his followers, he was not accepted within the
mainstream of
Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Furthermore, he heavily critized the Babajis and caste
Goswamis,
the standard followers of Mahaprabhu. At least in my opinion, it doesnt seem
likely that
an eternal associate of God, who embodies transcendental emotions and
sattvika
qualities [qualities of peacefulness and goodness] would start a war with other
devotees
of the Lord.
This was one of the issues I had sorted out regarding my previous connection
with
ISKCON/Gaudiya Math. I became convinced, after objectively analyzing the
evidence
available, that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati did not take diksa from Gaurakisora
Dasa
Babaji, as claimed by ISKCON/GM. The result is a spiritual practice within these
institutions that does not empower its followers to relish and experience the
topmost
spiritual flavors of the Vrajabhakti that Sriman Mahaprabhu has kindly brought
down
into this world, as documented and savoured by the Lords confidential
associates
themselves, the Goswamis of Vraja. When we speak of a follower of
Mahaprabhu it
means a loyal adherent to the teachings and conclusions written down by the
revered
Goswamis. It is mentioned in Caitanya-caritamrta that Sriman Mahaprabhu
praised the
writings of Rupa Goswami, and He therefore blessed him and asked all the other
associates to bless Rupa Goswami with the power to describe bhakti. Similarly,
the Lord
blessed Sanatana Goswami, Raghunatha Das Goswami and so forth. There is no
entrance into the kingdom of madhurya-rasa [the experience of sweetness or
erotic love
for Krsna] in Vraja without accepting their teachings, because they are Sriman
Mahaprabhus instruments for the propagation of bhakti. Sriman Mahaprabhu is
the
combined form of Sri Sri Radha-Krsna in Vraja. Their confidantes, the manjaris,
descended in male forms as the Six Goswamis of Vraja.
As I mentioned earlier, I was discovered in ISKCON Vrindaban to have taken
initiation
from Ananta Das Pandita Baba. This was one reason for our leaving our service
as
teachers there, although we were not kicked out. Actually, the administrative
heads there
were very kind to us throughout our service there, as well as when our inner life
and
connection with the Radhakunda Vaisnavas was discovered. Our main
consideration for
leaving was financial. It is tough to live in Vrindaban as grhastha [householder]
foreigners. We also anticipicated some trouble from diehards within ISKCON.
That was
another reason for our leaving. I have probably disrupted relationships with
devotees in
ISKCON and lost my status as an older devotee and kirtan singer in the society.
However, I gained other friends, and especially the merciful glances of some of
the
Gaudiya Vaisnava residents of Radhakunda. I did lose opportunities to lead
kirtan in
ISKCON, but I got the opportunity to lead them with the Gaudiya Vaisnavas
near Sri
Radhas Lake. In addition, I received a very deep bhajan process, techniques in
remembering and worshiping Radha-Krsna. It is a genuinely fulfilling and real
internal
experience. This bhajan is not dependent on a hierarchical system of
managerial leaders
who may acknowledge your contributions or not, or on enjoying the thrill of big
festivals.
68
It is the path of a life spent inwardly cultivating your loving relationship with Sri
Radha-
Krsna, guided mercifully by a true guru.
My humble advice is this for those who are hesitant to traverse the path of
bhajanas
taught by the Goswamis, starting with diksa in a bona-fide sampradaya: put
aside the
deep-rooted misconceptions implanted by the ISKCON/GM teachings against
Babajis,
the siddha-pranali, smarana, etc., and with a sincere heart, see if you really
want to be a
true follower of the great Mahajans [saints]. Spend some time reading the
Goswami
grantha-s [books] and associate with devotees who have taken diksa in the
authentic
Gaudiya Vaisnava lines.
Jaya Sri Radhe!
Comment
September 27, 2014
Short Biography of Radhakunds Krishnadasa Babaji (Madrasi Baba)
Download this in PDF format here:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/e3717aola66h1d8/True_History_of_Bhaktisiddha
nta.pdf
SRI RADHAKUNDS 108 SRI KRISHNADAS BABA
(Madrasi Baba)
by
Karunamayidas
Many westerners know 108 Sri Krishna das Babaji (Madrasi Baba), as he selflessly
guided
thousands of them to the main shrines around Srimati Radharanis sacred pond,
Sri
Radhakund. My first encounter with him occurred in November of 1978, and by
his
kindness I was able to remain for 5 months at Radhakund. He lived there for 36
years,
from the time he received the:
diksa-mantra (This is an initiation rite in which a disciple receives the set of
mantra that
form the basis of meditation on and worship of Sri Caitanya, Radha-Krsna, and
their
main associates.)
and siddha-pranali (The eternal names and identities of the members of ones
initiation
lineage. These are the names they have in the eternal sport of Radha and
Krsna).
initiation from Siddha Sri Sakhicharan das Babaji who was a parivara [a member
of the
lineage] of Sri Narottama.
His most memorable trait was his attitude of service which was expressed by a
constant
disposition to render any type of service, in particular toward the residents of
Radhakund, but also toward anyone else he met. He was cestotkuntha
always alert to
serve just for the sake of serving. Of course there are many persons endowed
with such a
spirit of disinterested service in so many different fields, but Babas spirit of
service was
prompted by an uncommon loving force which didnt belong to this world.
Although it
was evident that his entire being was floating in this magic bliss-giving love
divine, I
wasnt yet ready at that time to accept him as a guide. I was entrapped,
sentimentally,
intellectually, mentally and physically, in the strong grip of numerous erroneous
conceptions about the nature of Gaudiya Vaisnavism (and Vaisnavism in
general),
especially concerning its practice and the system of parampara or disciplic
succession.
Unfortunately, I refused to recognize two correlative points: the uninterrupted
succession
of masters and disciples and the transcendental revelation of Bhaktidevi
through that
system and the idea that the internal practice of Gaudiya Vaisnavism
(lilasmarana and
manasi seva) applied not only to the jivanmukta level (the souls state of spiritual
emancipation), but also to the conditioned one before that. Although aware of
my
misconceptions, Baba still gave me shelter, located a place for me to stay, fed
me, and
even nursed me during a period of sickness.
I remember that once we stood on the road just near Sri Radharamana Mandir,
and
though I was harshly opposing him in some matter, a strong outburst of his
transcendental emotions hit my inner being. At that moment, much to my
surprise, I
61
spontaneously told myself: He is my guru. This thought rejoiced my heart, but
just for a
moment, because my invasive, stained reason refused to accept it. Despite
such a
handicap, a transcendental loving relationship ran between us, and I was
always very
happy to be in his company. He was like the good father and I was like the bad
son, but
we were still linked to each other by bonds of affection. By his mercy, Sri
Radhakund,
and all the different, lovely places surrounding it, always remained deeply
impressed in
my heart, even after I had left it.
Nine years later I came back motivated by an eager desire to render service to
Baba and
learn something more about manjari-bhava-sadhana. Kartik month was in full
swing,
hundreds of pilgrims had arrived from Bengal to celebrate it and the main
program was
to go and listen to the 3 daily lectures of Pandit Sri Ananta das Babaji which
Baba always
recorded and translated for us in the evening. It was very hot as usual during this
period
of the year, and most of the devotees in the audience including myself didnt
wear shirts.
After a few days, during one patha [reading/lecture] I suddenly noticed that I
was the
only one wearing a brahmin thread among all those swanlike, saintly devotees,
and this
made me feel very embarrassed. Over the following days my uneasiness
increased to such
an extent that my reason dictated to me that I should give up that brahmin
thread. I
thought to myself: After all, I wasnt born in a Brahmin family; so why should I
wear its
insignia?
One morning, after having passed through the sanga, I halted in front of Sri
Bankebihariji Mandir, bowed down to Sri Radhakund, sprinkled the usual 3 drops
of
water in my mouth, and then deposited my brahmin thread as a offering to Sri
Radhakund. After that I felt the heavy load of my false pride related to that
thread stop
haunting me like a ghost. The power of Sri Radhakund, Baba, and the
assembled
Vaisnava saints had exorcised from me an infernal spirit. The next day Baba
conveyed
to me Pandit Sri Anantadas Babajis congratulations for my act. As I used to sit
not far
from him during his patha, he noticed that my false brahmins pride was
absent from
my chest.
I didnt have any intention of receiving diksa-mantra initiation from Baba,
because I still
mistakenly thought of myself as already initiated by another guru. Nevertheless I
felt like
surrendering to him, serving him closely, and learning from him the things related
to
manjari-bhava-sadhana. Though I didnt tell him anything of my intentions,
somehow he
understood them, and one day to my surprise and great satisfaction, he asked
me to assist
him in accompanying him to the toilet during the night and in drawing water
from the
well for his wash afterwards. To my even greater satisfaction he told me that I
could sleep
on the floor in his room.
Although I came now so close to Baba, I was feeling somehow disconnected
with him.
Despite our mutual affection and the compatibility of our characters, I sensed
that
something was missing, something necessary for there to be a real, complete
relationship
62
with him. Although his two other disciples were not as intimate with him, I
noticed the
presence of a very special, supernaturally personal link between them and
Baba, which I
didnt have and which intrigued me.
At one point, feeling more and more the presence of this inexplicable gulf that
separated
us, I approached Baba and asked him if he would give me a new japa-mala
after first
blessing it by chanting Harinama on it. His reply was a categorical no. He
pointed out
that as I already had received Harinama from another guru, it wasnt necessary
that he
should also give it to me. Although I insisted, Baba didnt change his mind,
leaving me
without words and in complete despair.
Few days later, Pandit Sri Anantadas Babaji was about to start his usual reading
in the Sri
Radharaman. temple. Before sitting down in the midst of the audience, I hung
my rosary
bag on the washing line above my head, after completing the round I was
chanting. When
the patha was over, I stood up to take my rosary bag, but to my great surprise it
was
empty; my rosary had disappeared. Puzzled, I searched everywhere in the
courtyard, but
without success. I immediately excluded the possibility that someone from the
assembly
had taken it, because, firstly, I didnt believe that a devotee would be interested
in
stealing the mala of an other devotee and, secondly, I had been sitting under it.
If
someone had taken it I would have noticed. Rather than upsetting me,
however, this
incident pleased me, because now I had a good reason to ask Baba for a new
mala. So I
told him what had happened and said: You see Baba! Now you should give
me a new
mala and bless it by chanting on it. Otherwise how can I continue my
Harinama? In this
way Baba gave me a new mala. His mercy didnt stop there, however. Some
time later,
during a morning parikrama [circumambulation] of Sri Radhakund, he stopped
and told
me, with tears of transcendental ecstasy in the eyes: I was looking for a name
for you,
and the name karunyaghanavigraha came to my mind. It is a name of Srimati
Radharani
which means that she is the personification of condensed mercy. She is so
merciful! In his
Astottara-satanamastotra, Sri Raghunathadasa Gosvamin has named Her
Karunavidravaddeha or one whose body melts out of compassion. So
henceforth you
can have the name Karunyaghanavigraha Dasa. Due to the length of this
name Baba
later changed it to Karunamayiyasa which basically means the same thing.
Babas mercy
didnt end there either, and towards the end of Niyamaseva (Kartik-vrata), he
announced
to my great surprise that if I consented he would give me diksa-mantra initiation.
I was
moved, although I still thought of myself as a disciple of another who was both
my
vartma-pradarsaka and Harinama guru. I still also wrongly believed him to be
my diksa
guru. My opposition to the idea was only fleeting, because after seeing that
Baba was so
enthusiastic to give me initiation, I readily agreed, not wanting to hurt his feelings
by
refusing. So at a moment chosen as auspicious, the morning of the 5th of
November,
Baba gave me the krsna-diksa-mantra together with the other diksa mantra. He
also
explained to me their different meanings and how to conduct worship of Sriman
Mahaprabhu and Sri Sri Radha and Krsna. Obviously, he also revealed to me the
names
of the uninterrupted line of gurus going back to Sri Narottama, together with
their
63
spiritual identities, both in the world of Gaura and in the world of Sri Sri Radha
and
Krsna. I was then officially and spiritually affiliated with that great lineage.
I have to confess that only after initiation by Baba, did I begin to understand
that proper
initiation into a bona fide line of diksa-mantra transmission was not just a
formality. It is
Gods created system, widely prevalent in India, through which Sadhana-
bhaktidevi
[bhakti as cultivation] makes Her appearance in a candidate for prema-bhakti
[divine
love].
Later Babas mercy extended to the point of revealing to me the details of my
own
siddha-svarupa (the manjari-ekadasa-bhava or the eleven details of the manjari
identity).
He also taught me his gurudevas gutika or manual for the practice of
remembering Sri
Sri Gaura-govindas transcendental pastimes and the nature of my own service
to them in
a mentally conceived siddha-deha [eternal body/identity]. The next step is to
advance
through the different stages of this practice and ultimately to transcend this
mundane
world through the blessing of manjari-bhava-prema-bhakti (the Love Divine of a
gopimanjari).
Comment
September 22, 2014
Narayana Maharajas false teachings about Gaudiya Vaisnavism
Download this in PDF format here:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/e3717aola66h1d8/True_History_of_Bhaktisiddha
nta.pdf
BOYCOTT THE SAHAJIYA BABAJIS
Reflections on a lecture by Sri Narayana Maharaja
compiled by Atul Krishna Dasa
On June 10, 2001, in Den Haag, Holland, Sri Narayana Maharaja of the Gaudiya
Vedanta Samiti addressed his audience in strong words, which were later
transcribed and
widely published under the title Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis. In this essay, we
shall
review the allegations Sri Narayana Maharaja presented to the public, and
weigh their
validity on the basis of the evidence at our disposal.
Let us open the presentation with the opening sentences of Sri Narayana
Maharaja:
>>I want to explain something so that you will be very careful. I am receiving
questions
about the books published by the babajis of Vraja. They accept Sri Caitanya
Mahaprabhu,
Sri Nityananda Prabhu, and Sri Sri Radha-Krishna Conjugal. They have not written
their
own books. They only take books like Stava-mala by Srila Rupa
Gosvami, Stavavali and Vilapa Kusumanjali by Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami,
Radharasa-
sudhanidhi by Sri Prabhodananda Sarasvati, and other Gosvami books.<<
To begin with, we should recognize the active concern of Sri Narayana
Maharaja. In his
lecture, he does not refer to the aggregate literal production of the Babajis of
Vraja. His
main concern appears to be on the titles written by Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji of
Radhakunda. It should be obvious, since Stavavali, Vilapa Kusumanjali and
Radha-rasasudhanidhi
are available in English with the commentaries of Sri Ananta Dasa Baba,
and many devotees have asked questions particularly on his literatures.
Needless to say,
they are popular among devotees inclined to the path of raganuga, being the
only
available English editions with elaborate commentaries.
Let us now review the allegations of Sri Narayana Maharaja and the actual
teachings of
Sri Ananta Dasa Pandita along with our remarks. Sri Narayana Maharaja states:
>>First of all they dont accept that the Gaudiya Vaisnava
Sampradaya is one of the sakhas, branches, of the
Brahma-Madhva Sampradaya, although this fact
has been clearly explained by Sri Kavi Karnipura,
Srila Jiva Gosvami, and then by Sri Baladeva
Vidyabhusana Prabhu.<<
45
It is a fact that Sri Kavi Karnapura in his Gaura -ganoddesa-dipika, as well as
Baladeva
Vidyabhusana in his Prameya-ratnavali, have presented a disciplic succession
linked with
the lineage of Sri Madhva Acarya. It is a historical fact beyond challenge that Sri
Madhavendra Puri, the paramaguru of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the guru
of Sri
Nityananda Prabhu and Sri Advaita Prabhu, was a disciple of Sri Laksmipati
Tirtha, who
came from the Madhva lineage. Certainly everyone accepts this as an
established fact.
The question is on the nature of this connection whether it is one of substance
or one of
form only. What is the particular significance of the Madhvite process of worship
on the
vidhi-marga in the raganuga-bhajana of the Gaudiyas? Where is the eternal
connection
of internal servitude between the Gaudiyas and the early acaryas of the
Madhva line?
The fact is that most Gaudiyas are not even conversant with the lives and the
writings of
the acaryas in the line of Madhva.
Though much of the Madhvite philosophy was incorporated into the doctrines
of the
Gaudiyas, it is beyond argument that the concepts of upasana (the process of
worship)
and upasya (the object of worship) of the two are different. The Madhvites
practice
upasana on the vidhi-marga, filled with aisvarya, whereas the Gaudiyas
worship is one of
raga-marga, where madhurya predominates. The Madhvites worship Nartaka-
Gopala
alone, whereas the Gaudiyas never desire to serve Sri Krishna without Sri Radhaji.
Baladeva Vidyabhusana has recognized certain differences of opinion with
the teachings of the Madhva sampradaya in his commentary on
Tattvasandarbha:
bhaktanam vipranam eva moksah, devah bhaktesu mukhyah, virincasyaiva
sayujyam,
laksmya jiva-kotitvam ity evam matavisesah daksinadi-deseti tena gaude pi
madhavendradayas tad upasisyah katicid babhuvur ity arthah.
Only a brahmana devotee is eligible for liberation, the demigods are
foremost among devotees, Brahma attains sayujya-mukti (merging
in Brahman), and Laksmidevi is included among the jivas these
are differences in opinion. Nevertheless Madhavendra Puri and
some others from Bengal became his followers.
Moreover, we find the following words spoken by Sriman Mahaprabhu
Himself to an acarya of the Madhva sampradaya in the Caitanya
Caritamrita (Madhya-lila, 9.273-276):
suni tattvacarya haila antare lajjita
prabhura vaisnavata dekhi, ha-ila vismita
acarya kahe tumi yei kaha, sei satya haya
sarva-sastre vaisnavera ei suniscaya
46
tathapi madhvacarya ye kariyache nirbandha
sei acariye sabe sampradaya-sambandha
prabhu kahe karmi, jnani, dui bhakti-hina
tomara sampradaye dekhi sei dui cihna
sabe, eka guna dekhi tomara sampradaye
satya-vigraha kari isvare karaha niscaye
Hearing these words of Sriman Mahapbrahu, the the acarya of the Tattvavada
sampradaya became ashamed, and was struck with wonder upon seeing His
degree of
The acarya said, Whatever you have told, that is the truth proclaimed in all
scriptures,
and the firm conviction of the Vaisnavas. However, whatever Madhva Acarya
has firmly
established, that we practice due to our sampradaya connection with him.
Prabhu said, Karmis and jnanis are both devoid of bhakti. In your sampradaya, I
can see
symptoms of both. All in all, the only qualification I see in your sampradaya is
your firm
acceptance of the truth of the Lords form.
Hence it should not be a surprise that a majority of the Gaudiyas have little
or no identification as members of the Madhva sampradaya.
>>Secondly, they think that Sri Prabhodananda Sarasvati and
Prakasananda Sarasvati are the same person, although there is so
much difference between them. This cannot be so. Will a person of
the Ramanuja sampradaya go down to become a mayavadi like
Prakasananda Sarasvati, and then again become Prabhodananda
Sarasvati, who was so exalted that he became the guru of Srila
Gopala Bhatta Gosvami? This idea is absurd. Prabhodananda
Sarasvati and Prakasananda Sarasvati were contemporaries. Will the
same person go back and forth, being a Vaisnava in South India,
then becoming a mayavadi, again becoming a Vaisnava in
Vrndavana, and again becoming a mayavadi?<<
Sri Narayana Maharaja presents a simplistic refutation with little evidence to
back up his
idea. His argument would be very strong if it was proven that the
Prabodhananda of
47
South India the uncle and guru of Gopala Bhatta was the same person as
the
Prabodhananda Sarasvati of Vrindavana, the author of Vrindavana
Mahimamrta. The
fact is that not much is known about Prabodhananda, or either of the
Prabodhanandas,
given that they are likely not the same individual.
There is no historical record of Prabodhanandas moving from South India to
Vrindavana. To the contrary, according to the Anuraga Valli (AD 1696) of
Manohara
Dasa, Gopala Bhatta left for Vrindavana after the death of Vyenkata Bhatta
and his two
brothers, one among whom was Prabodhananda. Hence it is clear that
according to this
account, Prabodhananda did not spend the later part of his life in Vrindavana.
Anyone may contest the authority of this scripture as well as that of the earlier
Prema
Vilasa, in which similar accounts are related, but the fact remains that there is no
evidence to prove that the Prabodhananda of South India and the
Prabodhananda of
Vrindavana were the same person.
The similarities between the lives of Prakasananda Sarasvati and
Prabodhananda
Sarasvati is yet another subject matter, but we shall not discuss it here, since it is
not
foundational to the argument of Sri Narayana Maharaja.
As his next concern, Sri Narayana Maharaja presents the following:
>>Thirdly, they dont give proper honor to Sri Jiva Gosvami, and
this is a very big blunder. This is a vital point. They say that Jiva
Gosvami is of svakiya-bhava, that he never supported parakiyabhava,
and that he is against parakiya-bhava. They say that in his
explanations of Srimad Bhagavatam and Brahma-samhita, in his
own books like Gopala Campu, and especially in his Sri Ujjvalanilamani
tika, he has written against parakiya-bhava. This is their
greatest blunder. We dont accept their statements at all.<<
In his commentary on Visvanathas Raga Vartma Candrika (2.7), Sri Ananta
Dasa Babaji
examines in depth the various statements of Sri Jiva Gosvami on the subject
matter of
svakiya and parakiya-vada, and concludes his analysis:
All the learned and wise devotees will admit without hesitation that
Sri Jiva Gosvamipada, who established the eternality of all of the
Lords pastimes in his Sri Bhagavat Sandarbha, could never have
described those most elevated pastimes that are filled with
extramarital love as being non-eternal. Therefore it can be easily
48
understood that when he ascertained the parakiyabhava-maya
pastimes as being non-eternal, he did not speak out his own philosophical
Therefore he wrote at the end of his commentary on the verse
laghutvani atra yat proktam of Sri Ujjvala Nilamanis Nayaka Bheda
Prakarana: svecchaya likhitam kincit kincit atra parecchaya. yat
purvapara sambandham tat purvamaparam param In this
commentary I write some things according to my own wishes and
some things according to the wishes of others. Any conclusion that is
filled with consistency from the beginning to the end is written
according to my own wish, and that which is not filled with
consistency from beginning to end is written according to the wish of
others. Thus it is to be known.
Hence the teachings of Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji should not be an object of
concern for Sri
Narayana Maharaja in this regard. Perhaps Sri Narayana Maharaja has
misunderstood
something Panditji has written, or perhaps he aims to boycott some other
babajis,
although he mentions the writings of Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji in the beginning of
his
Sri Narayana Maharaja goes on to state:
>>For some unqualified persons he [Jiva] has written in that other
way, but the babajis of Vraja cannot reconcile this. They are ignorant
persons. They became opposed to Srila Jiva Gosvami and took the
side of Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, even though in fact
there is no dispute between Jiva Gosvami and Visvanatha Cakravarti
Thakura.<<
Perhaps Sri Narayana Maharaja may now feel some peace in his heart, since
we have
demonstrated that there is at least one babaji in Vraja who agrees with him in
this regard.
Baba, like Sri Narayana Maharaja, also states, Thus it is thought by those who
cannot
understand the deepest purport of Sri Gopala Campu.
Sri Narayana Maharaja then returns to the issue of the Gaudiyas doctrinal
connection with the Madhva tradition:
>>The babajis say that we are not a branch of the line of
49
Madhvacarya. They say Madhvacarya is of a different opinion than
the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. But this is quite wrong. We have so many
specialties that are there in the line of Madhvacarya.<<
If Sri Madhvacarya and the Gaudiyas were of one opinion, where would there
have been
a need for Baladeva to compile the Govinda Bhasya as the Gaudiya
commentary on the
Vedanta in the famous meeting at Jaipur? Why did the commentary of Madhva
not
suffice, if the Gaudiyas were one in opinion? Certainly there is much in common
in the
doctrines of Madhva and the Gaudiyas, and there are also numerous parallel
conceptions
with the teachings of the other sampradaya-acaryas. However, this does not
make the Gaudiyas completely one in opinion with acarya Madhva.
As we have mentioned, there are significant differences between the two
lineages in their
conceptions on the process of upasana and on the object of upasana. Sri
Narayana
Maharaja himself admits in his Prabandha Pancakam (3.5):
>>Although there is some slight difference of opinion between
Gaudiya Vaisnavas and Sri Madhva in regard to Brahman, jiva and
jagat, this simple difference of opinion is not the cause of a
difference of sampradaya. The difference between Vaisnava
sampradayas has been created on the basis of a difference in
upasya-tattva (the object of worship) or on the basis of gradations
of excellence between aspects of para-tattva. Even if there is some
slight difference in regard to sadhya, sadhana and sadhaka-tattva,
this is rarely considered to be the cause of a difference of
1. sampradaya. Actually, it is the difference in realisation of paratattva
or upasya-tattva (the worshipful Supreme Truth) which is
the main cause of distinct sampradayas.<<
Nevertheless, Sri Narayana Maharaja then goes on to quote the following
passage from
the Sriman Mahaprabhur Siksa by Sri Bhaktivinoda Thakura:
There is a technical difference between the philosophical ideas
which the previous Vaisnava acaryas have propagated because there
some slight incompleteness in those philosophical ideas. The
difference in sampradaya is due to this technical difference.
Although the logic of presentation in Sri Narayana Maharajas works remains
veiled to us
due to our poor fund of understanding, we nevertheless deducted the main
cause of
distinction between the sampradayas from his own statement as follows:
A difference of conception in upasya-tattva, the worshipful
Supreme Truth, is the main cause of distinction between the
50
1. sampradayas.
Also, we understand the following from what Sri Narayana Maharaja said:
The difference between Vaisnava sampradayas has been created on
the basis of gradations of excellence between aspects of paratattva.
Hence it is certainly clear that there is a distinction between the Gaudiya
sampradaya and
the Madhva sampradaya, since the Gaudiyas regard Sri Sri Radha-Krishna
Yugala of
Vraja as their upasya, whereas the Madhvites regard Sri Aisvarya Krishna as their
upasya.
In regards to whether they are the same upasya or not, Sri Laghu-
bhagavatamrta
(1.5.461) states:
krsna nyo yadu-sambhuto yah purnah so sty atah parah
vrndavanam parityajya sa kvacin naiva gacchati
The Krishna who appeared in the Yadu-dynasty is different from
the Krishna who never goes away from Vrindavana.
If anyone was to argue that the difference in upasya is not so specific, it is only a
consideration
in terms of tattva, not of rasa, then for this argument Sri Bhakti-rasamrtasindhu
(1.2.59) states:
siddhantatas tv abhede pi srisa-krsna-svarupayoh
rasenotkrsyate krsna-rupam esa rasa-sthitih
In terms of philosophical consideration, Visnu and Krishna are
nondifferent in nature, but in terms of rasa the form of Sri Krishna,
the reservoir of rasa, is superior.
Thus Sri Narayana Maharaja would have to accept all the Vaisnava
sampradayas as one
sampradaya, since they all worship Visnu-tattva. Indeed, the members of
Nimbarka
sampradaya even worship Radha- Krishna, yet we still regard them as a
separate
sampradaya due to slight differences in sadhya, sadhana and sadhaka-
tattva.
We shall not delve into the numerous philosophical differences between Sri
Madhva and
the Gaudiyas in fear of making this document too lengthy. Some of them have
already
been described in the first section of this document. Let it suffice that Madhva
taught the
concept of dvaita, or absolute duality, whereas Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu
presented the
refined concept of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, the doctrine of simultaneous
oneness and
51
Sri Narayana Maharaja then presents another allegation:
>>Also, they say that because Caitanya Mahaprabhu took sannyasa
from Kesava Bharati, a mayavadi, He, Himself, must be a
1. mayavadi. We dont accept this. Mahaprabhus actual guru was
Isvara Puripada, He only took vesa, red cloth, from Kesava Bharati,
and there is no harm in this. Madhvacarya also did this, and
Ramanujacarya as well. Sannyasa can be taken in this way.
However, Mahaprabhu took gopala-mantra and other mantras
from Isvara Puripada.<<
Firstly, we would appreciate if Sri Narayana Maharaja would specify who says
and
where says, since after all, he presents several allegations, which add up to his
designating these babajis as avaisnavas in the latter half of the lecture. It should
not be
the habit of a senior spiritual leader to make blanket statements on spiritual
communities
or their representatives. Nevertheless, for some reason Sri Narayana Maharaja
tends to
generalize his allegations, which in turn leads to numerous false accusations, as
will be
shown in this document.
It would be interesting to know which are the other mantras Sriman
Mahaprabhu
received from Sri Isvara Puripada, since the kama-gayatri is not given in the
Madhva-line.
Sri Narayana Maharaja proceeds with the case:
>>Another point is that the babajis dont accept that Srila Baladeva
Vidyabhusana is in the Gaudiya Vaisnava line. They are vehemently
opposed to this understanding. However, if Baladeva Vidyabhusana
Prabhu is out of our Gaudiya sampradaya, then who is our savior?
He went to Galta Gaddi in Jaipura and defeated the Sri Vaisnavas.
He told them that Srimati Radhika should be on the left of Krishna.
He wrote a commentary on Vedanta-sutra called Govinda-bhasya,
and that commentary has been accepted as the Gaudiya-bhasya
(commentary representing the Gaudiya Sampradaya). If Baladeva
Vidyabhusana Prabhu is not in our sampradaya, then what
52
sampradaya is He in? All his commentaries are in the line of Srila
Rupa Gosvami and our Gaudiya Vaisnava acaryas. If Baladeva
Prabhu is out of our sampradaya, everything will be finished. This is
a vital point.<<
We shall now proceed to quote the words of Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji from his
commentary on the Prema-bhakti-candrika, in regards to how he views the
position of
Baladeva, who wrote the Vedanta-bhasya of the Gaudiyas to establish the
authenticity of
the Gaudiya-sampradaya.
I will constantly study the commentaries on the Bhagavata, like
Vaisnava-tosani and Krama-sandarbha, plus the series Six
Sandarbhas that explain the purport of the Bhagavata, plus the
commentaries by the Gosvamis followers Srila Visvanatha
Cakravartipada and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Mahodaya.
(Sudha-kanika-vyakhya commentary on verse 11)
Moreover, Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji states in his commentary on the 94th verse of
Vilapa
Kusumanjali:
According to Gaudiya Vaishnava acaryas like Srila Jiva Gosvami
and Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana, bhakti means attachment or
constant attraction to God.
Thus Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana is accepted as a follower of the Gosvamis in
the
Gaudiya sampradaya. In addition to the statement above, anyone who studies
the works
of Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji, may discover how he quotes the authoritative
statements of
Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana on numerous occasions.
We request Sri Narayana Maharaja to specify the babajis who are vehemently
opposed to
Baladevas being in the Gaudiya line. Otherwise the public may misunderstand
this vital
>>Also, these babajis say that if anyone wears the saffron cloth of
sannyasa, he is not in the Gaudiya Vaisnava line. They have no
correct idea. It is stated in Caitanya Caritamrta:
kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya
yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei guru haya
53
[It does not matter whether a person is a vipra (learned scholar in
Vedic wisdom) or is born in a lower family, or is in the renounced
order of life. If he is master in the science of Krishna, he is the
perfect and bona fide spiritual master. (Madhya-lila 8-128)]
Krishna dasa Kaviraja Gosvami has written kiba nyasi. Nyasi
means sannyasi. Isvara Puripada, Madhavendra Puripada, and all
renunciates in their line were sannyasis in saffron cloth. There are
so many associates of Caitanya Mahaprabhu who wore saffron cloth.
Svarupa Damodara also wore saffron cloth. What harm was there?
Saffron cloth is the sign of renunciation. It is the color of anuraga,
attachment for Krishna. Because it is a color, it is worn by sadhvis.
Sadhvi means a married lady, a lady who is not a widow. Married
means having Krishna as ones beloved. We are not widows, but
those who wear white cloths are widows.<<
Sri Narayana Maharaja gives numerous examples of Gaudiya sannyasis
contemporary to
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, but he fails to present any follower of the Gosvamis
who
would have adopted saffron cloth and tridanda. Indeed, all of the examples he
gives are
of ekadandi-sannyasis, not tridandi-sannyasis as is the custom among the
followers of
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu ordered the Gosvamis to establish the Vaisnava
sadacara for
the future times to come, and we are to follow the codes of behavior they set
for us to
follow .
The Hari-bhakti-vilasa (4.147 & 152) states in lucid language in regards to the
Gaudiyas
dress:
nagno dviguna-vastrah syan nagno raktapatas tatha
Wearing red cloth is like walking naked.
sukla vasa bhaven nityam raktam caiva vivarjayet
Always wear white and give up red cloth.
Even if anyone was to argue that rakta-vastra means only the red cloth of
mayavadisannyasis,
it should be noted that the very cloth Sriman Mahaprabhu wore was a
raktavastra,
and so were those of His sannyasi associates. At their time, the Hari Bhakti Vilasa
was not yet written. Besides, sukla vasa bhaven nityam, wear white cloth at all
times, is a
strong positive injunction for the future times.
54
Moreover, there are no positive injunctions for accepting saffron cloth and
tridanda in
the writings of the Gosvamis. Hence some have disapproved of the newly
founded
sannyasa tradition. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the customs of sannyasa
embraced
by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his followers were largely adopted from the
Ramanuja
sampradaya, not from the Madhva sampradaya they claim to follow and
certainly not
from the Sankara sampradaya in which the associates of Sriman Mahaprabhu
mentioned
by Sri Narayana Maharaja accepted sannyasa.
Should there be exceptions to the rule, it does not in itself justify the
establishment of a
new rule.
Sri Narayana Maharaja then proceeds to question the term babaji:
>>From where has this word babaji come in our line? From whom
has it come? Isvara Puripada, Madhavendra Puripada, Sri Caitanya
Mahaprabhu, Nityananda Prabhu, and after Him, Sri Rupa Gosvami,
Sri Sanatana Gosvami, Srila Raghunatha Bhatta Gosvami, Sri Jiva
Gosvami, Sri Gopala Bhatta Gosvami, and Sri Raghunatha dasa
Gosvami. After them, Krishna dasa Kaviraja Gosvami and
Vrndavana dasa Thakura, and then Narottama dasa Thakura,
Syamananda dasa, Srinivasa Acarya, and Visvanatha Cakravarti
Thakura. Where is the word babaji? Was anyone known as babaji?
From where did this word babaji come? The babajis have no reply.
These Vaisnavas were all paramahamsa, not babaji.<<
According to Sri Narayana Maharaja, the Jaiva Dharma of Sri Bhaktivinoda
Thakura is
not a fictive book, but a historical account, as he stated on a lecture on
September 21,
2001, in Mathura:
In Jaiva Dharma he presented tattva in such an interesting way
that it appears like a novel. It is not a novel, however. Everything in
it is true history.
Anyone who is acquainted with this title knows that practically every renunciate
saint
there carries the title babaji after their name. The events of the title date back
to the
times of Gopala Guru Gosvami, which is soon after the disappearance of Sriman
Mahaprabhu. Thus it appears that the concept babaji is not a novelty at all.
But where
did the term come from? Sri Narayana Maharaja himself explains on this very
same
lecture:
55
>>In Vraja, the Vrajabasis all used to call Sanatana Gosvami baba.
They called Sanatana Gosvami bara-baba, elder sadhu, and Rupa
Gosvami chota-baba, younger sadhu. After them, others in their line
took white cloth; but then, after the time of Visvanatha Cakravarti
Thakura, they deviated. Some, like Jagannatha dasa Babaji,
Madhusudana dasa Babaji, and Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, took this
babaji name out of humility, and everyone used to call them that.<<
Thus it is evident that the term babaji has been an affectionate address for
ascetics
dedicated to a life of devotion at least since the time of the Gosvamis. In the
course of
time, the term babaji has naturally evolved into a concept applied to the
renunciates of
the Gaudiya tradition. This should not be a reason to boycott anyone
particularly not so
because even in the Gaudiya Matha babaji-vesa is given.
Then Sri Narayana Maharaja descends from the realm of philosophical
discussion into
the realm of generalized personal attacks:
>>Presently, those who are bogus persons, but were previously in
the Gaudiya Matha, have become lusty and have thus been kicked
out from the Gaudiya Matha. Now they have become babajis.<<
We invite Sri Narayana Maharaja to prove his theory valid by presenting several
practical
examples, for otherwise his claim is not a valid principle, but rather meaningless
namecalling
based on isolated incidents.
Then Sri Narayana Maharaja levels yet another unfounded allegation:
>>The babajis especially criticize Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura,
saying that he didnt have a guru. This is a bogus idea. Srila
Bhaktivinoda Thakura preached the name and the glories of Sri
Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya to the
whole world. He wrote hundreds of books. Still, the babajis say he
did not have a proper guru, and that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati
Prabhupada also had no proper guru.<<
56
To the best of our knowledge, the only one to discredit the guru-parivara of Sri
Bhaktivinoda Thakura was his son Bimal Prasad, or Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, as
he was
later known, who refused to recognize the authenticity of Bhaktivinodas diksa-
guru Sri
Vipina Vihari Gosvami despite Bhaktivinodas praise of the same in his
voluminous
writings. Indeed, in his autobiography Svalikhita-jivani, Bhaktivinoda relates how
Prabhu
Gaura Himself led him to the Gosvami.
Also, it is unknown to us that anyone would have challenged the authenticity of
Sri Gaura
Kisora Dasa Baba. The question is in regards to whether Sri Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati
received diksa or not, and consequently whether he was authorized to initiate in
turn or
not. The reasons for concern are as follows:
1. In the presence of several witnesses, Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati
himself admitted to Pandita Ramakrishna Dasa Babaji having only received
initiation in dream from Gaura Kisora Baba.
2. There is no mention of Sarasvatis receiving initiation from Gaura Kisora
Baba in any of the Babas authorized, objective biographies, nor do others
outside the Gaudiya Matha related with the Baba know of this. Also the
brother of Sarasvati, Sri Lalita Prasada Thakura, denies his having received
3. Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati did not reveal the diksa-parampara of Sri
Gaura Kisora Baba. In fact, even the name of Babas diksa-guru was not
revealed by Sarasvati to his followers. Traditionally a guru reveals his
parampara to the disciples. Instead, Sarasvati created a parampara of his
own design, which he entitled bhagavat-parampara.
4. At the time of initiation, the guru gives the disciple the specific tilaka
markings of the parivara he represents. Baba came in the Advaita
parivara, which has a very distinctive tilaka-svarupa among the various
Gaudiya parivaras. If Sarasvati indeed received diksa from the Baba, why
did he not adopt the external signs of lineage accordingly, but instead
applied a tilaka of his own design?
Onwards to the next allegation:
57
>>Those in the babaji line say that our Guru Maharaja, Srila Bhakti
Prajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja, and even Srila Bhaktivedanta
Swami Maharaja, were not in the proper disciplic line, and that they
have no guru-parampara. But it is actually the babajis who are not
in the guru -parampara.<<
Here Sri Narayana Maharaja presents a reversed counter-argument with
noactual
substance. Will he now demonstrate to us how the babajis are not inthe guru-
parampara?
Will he first specify which babaji he means? Thenwe could see whether this
particular
babaji belongs to a certain unbroken diksa lineage dating back to the
associates of Sri
Caitanya Mahaprabhu or not, and whether his teachings are in allegiance to
the
sampradayas precepts.
Sri Narayana Maharaja then presents us with a piece of fabricated history:
>>I saw in France that so many devotees have given up Srila
Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, and they have become babajis.
They took babaji-vesa, dor-kaupin and so on. Then, after two years,
they fell down with mataji-babajis. They accepted and lived with
divorced ladies.<<
On a lecture in Germany, dated December 14th 2001, Sri Narayana Maharaja
supplied us
with more details on this incident:
Some of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharajas disciples once came
to me asking, Please help us! Please give us siddha-pranali. I
replied, I cannot help myself. How can I help you? These disciples
then went to the sahajiya babajis at Radha Kunda. Those sahajiya
babajis then gave them siddha pranali for five anna paisa, although
they never knew the meaning of siddha-pranali. Real siddhapranali
has been explained by Bhaktivinoda Thakura. I was
searching for these new babajis, and I have now heard that they are
married.
Nevertheless, the historical fact is that only one disciple of Sri Bhaktivedanta
Swami has
ever accepted babaji-vesa and dor-kaupina at Radhakunda in the 1980s. He
indeed left
the life of an ascetic, but he has never met Sri Narayana Maharaja. Thus it is
unclear to
us why Sri Narayana Maharaja relates such obscure, imaginary stories to an
innocent
58
Sri Narayana Maharaja then labels the babajis whom he boycotts:
>>If you read their books this poison may come.
avaisnava-mukhodgirnam putam hari-kathamrtam
sravanam naiva kartavyam sarpocchistam yatha payah
(Padma Purana)
[One should not hear anything about Krishna from a non-vaisnava.
Milk touched by the lips of a serpent has poisonous effects. Similarly,
talks about Krishna given by a non-vaisnava are also poisonous.]
Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvamis Vilapa Kusumanjali, and other
books like Krishna Bhavanamrta, Radha-rasa-sudhanidhi, and
Stava-vali are all good books. They are amrta, nectar. However, you
should not hear them from non-vaisnavas; otherwise the bogus
ideas of such non-vaisnavas will come, and you will be deviated. Be
very careful about this.<<
In other words, after presenting a vast number of invalid accusations, he now
designates
the unspecified babajis as non-vaisnavas, from whom the poison of deviation
emanates.
Needless to say, even if he boycotts a particular individual to whom his strong
criticism
may apply, the public will misunderstand the object of his critique, because he
keeps
mentioning titles by Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji, to whom his allegations do not
apply, as we
have clearly demonstrated.
There is yet another allegation Sri Narayana Maharaja has in store, a popular
one:
>>Another point is regarding bhajana-pranali. Instead of giving the
proper process to the appropriate persons, without giving proper
training, without considering whether a person is qualified or not,
these babajis give their own version of bhajana-pranali. Their socalled
disciples do not know who is Krishna or what is bhajana. They
dont know any definition of bhakti, and they dont even know how
to clean themselves after passing stool. They dont know anything.
What will become of them?<<
We wonder whether Sri Narayana Maharaja has actually acquainted himself
with the
59
standards and procedures of the unnamed babajis whom he boycotts, or does
he simply
say whatever he likes, based on hearsay? We request him to present to us the
babajis who
give siddha-pranali to people who do not know how to wash their hands after
passing
stool. Moreover, we request him to present to us the babajis who give siddha-
pranali to
people who are not conversant with the basic truths of Gaudiya siddhanta. On
the day
when he does this, we will ask him whether they are the same people who
publish the
books he boycotts.
Then Sri Narayana Maharaja goes on to present the final tale of victory :
>>About ten years ago I went on Vraja Mandala Parikrama with
Pujyapada Janardana Maharaja. We went to Radha-Kunda, and
there we challenged the babajis. We had a discussion for three
hours, but no one came. I have also challenged those babajis in my
book, Five Essential Essays, but no one responded. After reading
that book they wanted to take us to court, and I challenged them,
Yes, we will see you in court. But they never came. Their lawyers
had advised them not to go to court, as they would have lost
everything.<<
It is beyond our imagination how one can have a discussion for three hours
without
having anyone to speak with, and then claim to have successfully and
victoriously
challenged someone. Perhaps it would be good for Sri Narayana Maharaja to
remember
how he refused to address the questions of this humble self, because he saw
that the
inquirer was not in a fully submissive state, and consequently unable to
comprehend the
answers he would have given.
Onwards to the concluding sentence of Sri Narayana Maharaja:
>>I have come to tell you these things only to make you all careful.
Dont be bewildered. Try to be very strong, knowing all these
points.<<
Indeed, we became careful as a result of attending this speech, and moreover,
by studying
the transcript of the same. In fact, we even became fearful over what would
happen to our
devotional lives, should we continue to wholeheartedly adopt the abundantly
unfounded
criticism cast forth by Sri Narayana Maharaja and his followers.
Comment
September 17, 2014
Gaurkisora dasa Babaji never gave diksa to Bhaktisiddhanta
Download this in PDF format here:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/e3717aola66h1d8/True_History_of_Bhaktisiddha
nta.pdf
DID BHAKTISIDDHANTA SARASVATI RECEIVED DHIKSA
FROM GAURKISORA DASA BABAJI ?
by
Madhavanada das
2002
Let me make it very clear that I am not interested in an intense back-and-forth
knee-jerk
stubborn quarrel over anything mentioned in the thread topic title. I am also not
trying to
convert anyone to anything, just in case somebody was going to say that. I am
interested
in the historical facts surrounding the initiation of Bhaktisiddhanta. I trust our
intelligent
audience can understand this.
Here are my notes on the subject matter of the initiation of Bhaktisiddhanta:
a) Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was in the habit of visiting Ramakrishna Dasa
Pandita
Babaji during his visits to Vrindavana since he was without a doubt one of the
most
40
respected of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas of the 1920s and 1930s. On one occasion
Sarasvati
was highly praising Gaura Kishora Babaji in Pandita Babas presence. Pandita
Baba asked
him if he had re-ceived initiation from him. Sarasvati said he had received it in a
dream.
Pandita Babaji said that that was fine, but he should receive it in the flesh since
that is the
only type of initiation accepted in the Caitanya tradition. Bhaktisiddhanta said
he would
and ended the visit. Years later Sarasvati returned to Vrindavana as the acarya
of the
Gaudiya Matha, a famous man. He visited Pandita Babaji and was asked again
if he
had gotten initiation from Gaura Kishora Dasa Baba. His answer was the same,
at which
point Pandita Baba got extremely angry with him for making disciples without
proper
initiation. This incident was witnessed by Sri Kisori Mohana Gosvami, Sri Kisori Dasa
Babaji and Advaita Dasa Babaji of Govardhan.
b) There is no indication of Sarasvatis being initiated by Babaji Maharaja in any
of his
objective biographies, objective meaning compiled by anyone who would not
be bound
out of prejudice to accept the statement of Sarasvati, being a follower of his.
The brother
of Sarasvati, Lalita Prasada Thakura, denies Sarasvatis receiving diksa from
Babaji
Maharaja. The pujari and other residents of Gaura Kisora Dasa Babajis bhajana
kutira
knew of only four disciples of Babaji, but Sarasvati was not among them.
c) Sarasvati did not reveal the parampara of Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji to his
followers.
In fact, even the name of Babaji Maharajas diksa-guru was not revealed by
Sarasvati.
Now, why would a disciple not reveal the diksa-parampara of his guru? It is a
common
practice that at the time of diksa the guru reveals his guru-pranali, or the
succession of
gurus back to the time of Sriman Mahaprabhu and His associates.
d) According to Hari Bhakti Vilasa (2.8.5), at the time of diksa the guru bestows
the
specific sectarian signs he carries unto the disciple: sampradayika mudradi
bhusitam tam
krtanjalim In his commentary on this verse, Sri Sanatana Gosvami explains:
sampradayikam guru-paramparasiddham, This sampradayika refers to the
guruparampara,
and mudra tilaka maladi, And mudra refers to tilaka and strings of beads.
Consequently the recognized parivaras, like Nityananda-parivara, Advaita-
parivara,
Narottama-parivara and Syamananda-parivara, have their specific tilaka-
svarupa. If
Sarasvati received diksa, why is it that he and his followers have adopted a
tilaka which
was not worn by his diksa-guru, who must have at the time of diksa given a
specific tilakasvarupa
to Sarasvati?
e) Wherefrom did Sarasvati receive the sacred thread and the brahmagayatri,
which he
passed on to his disciples? Certainly not from Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji, who
was a
vaisya by birth, and did not chant the brahma-gayatri, nor wear a sacred
thread.
f) What is the origin of the specific set of mantras given in the line of Sarasvati?
Hari
Bhakti Vilasa mentions Gopala Mantra and Kama-gayatri as diksa-mantras. The
paddhatis of Gopala Guru and Dhyanacandra give an elaborate list of mantras
for
41
raganuga-sadhana, but the guru-mantra
and guru-gayatri given by Sarasvati are different from the ones given in these
paddhatis.
Then let us turn to some of the source material I have at hand. I find the
following
statement of Bhakti Vikash Swami of ISKCON, who is compiling a biography on
Bhaktisiddhanta, very interresting:
In 1932 Visvambharananda dasa Babaji, on behalf of many babajis and caste
Goswamis
in Vrndavana, published a book opposing Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his
Mission,
citing extensively from sastra to support his arguments. He challenged that the
line of
parampara traced from Jagannatha dasa Babaji through Bhaktivinoda Thakura
to Gaura
Kisora dasa Babaji and then to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was unauthorized.
Visvambharananda claimed that although Sarasvati Thakura was supposed to
be the
disciple of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, he was disqualified in several ways. First,
Sarasvati
Thakura did not accept as bona fide the recognized lineage of Gaura Kisora
dasa Babaji,
whose guru was in the Advaita-parivara. Furthermore, since Gaura Kisora dasa
Babaji
had never used a japa-mala, and had not given one to Sarasvati Thakura at the
time of
initiation but had simply placed some Navadvipa dust into his hand,
Visvambharananda
argued that such an initiation was not bona fide. The implication was that
Sarasvati
Thakura had not actually received pancaratrika-diksa from Gaura Kisora dasa
Babaji, so
how could he confer it upon others? Nor had Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji worn a
brahmana
thread, so on what authority did Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati wear one? Moreover,
Visvambharananda argued, Sarasvati Thakura claimed to be a follower of
Bhaktivinoda
Thakura, who was initiated by the caste Goswami Bipina Bihari. Why then did
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati not accept guru-parampara by seminal descent?
Bhaktivinoda
Thakura had given him a Nrsimha mantra for worshiping the Deity, yet Sarasvati
Thakura was giving a Radha-Krsna mantra for this purpose. Wherefrom did he
derive
this mantra, and on whose authority did he distribute it? Visvambharananda
further
objected that since Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was a sannyasi without a
sannyasa guru,
how could he give sannyasa to others? Sarasvati Thakura responded by
explaining the
concept of bhagavataparampara, or siksa-parampara. He maintained that the
essence of
parampara lies in the transmission of transcendental knowledge, not merely in a
list of
contiguous names. The life of the parampara is maintained by the maha-
bhagavatas, who
embody the essence of scriptural knowledge. Therefore, to trace the
parampara through
such maha-bhagavatas truly represents parampara. He said, Bhaktivinoda
Thakura is
Kamala Manjari, a personal associate of Radharani. He ordered me to establish
daivavarnasrama.
I must obey his order. The acarya is not under the sastra. The acarya can
make sastra. Bhaktivinoda Thakura, the acarya, has inspired me in various ways.
By his
mercy and that of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja and the previous
acaryas we are
going on, not caring for the precise technicalities of smartas. Although this
concept of
bhagavata-parampara appears to be new, it is based on the essential
understanding of the
scriptures. Something new given by an acarya but based on sastra is called
vaisistya
(a special characteristic). Acaryas Ramanuja and Madhva both apparently
introduced
42
something new, but because their teachings were based on sastra they came
to be
accepted. Phalena pariciyate: An action should be understood by its result.
My
commitment to devotional service and my preaching activities speak for
themselves. Owllike
persons cannot see this, but those who are honest will accept it. Bhakti Vikash
Maharaj relates, It [the quote from BSST] is almost certainly not verbatim,
especially as
it was originally spoken or written in Bengali. It is as told to me by the late Jati
Shekhar
Prabhu, a disciple of SBST.
I find it significant that even an insider will admit that a traditional pancaratrika-
diksa most
likely never took place, although a kind of initiation was there, which they
experience as
The following statement is given in a biography, compiled by Bhakti Kusum
Sraman
Maharaja:
With the permission of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, Srila Sarasvati Thakura
accepted
Bhagavati initiation from Srila Babaji Maharaja in the month of Magha (January-
February) 1900 A.D.
It is unknown to me what the Bhagavati initiation means. Perhaps it means a
kind of
informal initiation, in the spirit of Bhagavata parampara. The BBT printing of
Brahma
Samhita states:
In 1905, following the advice of his father, Siddhanta Saraswati accepted
spiritual
initiation from Gaurakisora dasa Babaji.
It is obvious that the authority of this statement is questionable, given the five-
year error in
the date compared to the Gaudiya Matha edition, which I recall draws the time
from
Bhaktisiddhantas own writings in The Harmonist.
Then I have some accounts related by Nitai Das on record, from the time when
he began
to study the issue:
The eyewitnesses I know of and from whom I heard were eyewitness to
Bhaktisiddhantas
admission before Pandita Ramakrsna Das Baba that he had not received
initiation from
Gaura Kishora Das Babaji.
Bhaktisiddhanta was in the habit of visiting Pandita Babaji during his visits to
Vrindaban
since he was without a doubt the most respected of the Caitanya Vaishnavas of
the 1920s
and 1930s. On one occasion Bhaktisiddhanta was highly praising Gaura Kishora
Das in
Pandita Babas presence. Pandita Baba asked him if he had received initiation
from him.
Bhaktisiddhanta said he had received it in a dream. Pandita Babaji said that
that was fine,
but he should receive it in the flesh since that is the only type of initiation
accepted in the
Caitanya tradition. Bhaktisiddhanta said he would and ended the visit. A few
years later
Siddhanta returned to Vrindaban, now the acharya of the Gaudiya Math, a
famous man.
He visited Pandita Babaji and was asked again if he had gotten initiation from
Gaura
43
Kishora Das Baba. His answer was the same, at which point Pandita Baba got
extremely
angry with him for making disciples without proper initiation. Pandita Babaji
threw him
out of the ashrama and Bhaktisiddhanta, fearing damage to his reputation,
began his
calumny of the Vrindaban babas and forbade his disciples from associating with
them.
This account was given to me by Advaita Das Baba (Im unsure if this is the
correct name
of this baba after all these years) in Govardhan who said he was witness to the
admission.
. . . . . . . . . .
In addition, I did a little research on my own. During one of my visits to
Nabadwip I
visited the bhajana kutir/mandira of Gaura Kishora Das Babaji and spoke with
the pujari
there. I asked him if he knew whether Gaura Kishora Das Babaji had any
initiated
disciples. His answer, after consulting with some of the other elders of the
compound,
was that, as far as he knew, there were only four, a married couple of modest
means and
two others, agriculturalists, none of whom were Bhaktisiddhanta. How he knew
this and
how reliable his testimony is, I dont know. The diksa-connection between
Bhaktisiddhanta and Gaura Kishor Dasa Babaji was also denied by Sri Lalita
Prasad
Thakur, his brother, who certainly was around and well informed of the incidents
surrounding Bhaktisiddhanta. He also expressed how Bhaktivinoda was
dissatisfied with
Bhaktisiddhantas attitude towards Vipin Vihari Gosvami and several other senior
Vaishnavas, and therefore refused to personally initiate Bhaktisiddhanta, despite
bestowing pancaratrika-diksa and siddha-pranali to Lalita Prasad and some
other
disciples of his.
The following statement was given by a western sannyasi of the Gaudiya Matha:
There were witnesses to the initiation. Because there was a witness to the
initiation of
Saraswati Thakura, even after 100 years the opposition has not been able to
make much
of that rumor. Now of course the witness is also dead, but one of his relatives still
lives in
Vrindavana and knows something of the event.
I would tend to conclude based on the considerations above that
Bhaktisiddhanta did not
receive pancaratrika-diksa as it appears in the Hari Bhakti Vilasa, though there
certainly
was a kind of guru-disciple relationship between him and Gaura Kisora Babaji,
and some
kind of event of acceptance of disciplehood may have taken place. The
crucial question at
hand is whether diksa-mantras were given.
Comment
September 12, 2014
Sannyasa is bogus for real Gaudiya Vaisnavas
Download this in PDF format here:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/e3717aola66h1d8/True_History_of_Bhaktisiddha
nta.pdf
GAUDIA VAISNAVA DHARMA
AND
SANNYASA
by
Dr. Radhagovinda Nath
(From the Appendix to his edition of the
Caitanya-caritamrta of Krsnadasa Kaviraja)
translation by
Neal Delmonico (Nitai Das)
Some people ask about the place of the institution of sannyasa (formal
renunciation) in
the religious tradition of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Therefore, a little reflection on this
topic
will be done here. In what condition is taking sannyasa appropriate? That is the
first thing
that should be considered. The Maitreyi Upanisad says:
yada manasi vairgyam jatam sarvesu vastusu |
tadaiva sannyased vidvan anyatha patito bhaved ||(2.19)
When detachment to all things is born in the mind, then one should renounce.
Otherwise one would become fallen.
That Upanisad also says:
dravyartham anna-vastrrtham yah pratiharthameva va |
sannyased ubhaya-bhrastah sa muktim naptum arhati || (2.20)
For things, for food and clothing, or for power, one who renounces for any of
those
things is fallen both now and in the future and does not deserve liberation.
But Mahaprabhu himself has said that in the Age of Kali there is no prescription
for
sannyasa citing as evidence the Brahma-vaivarta Purana:
asvamedham gavlambham sannyasam palapaitrikam |
devarena sutotpattim kalau paca vivarjayet || (1.17.7)
The asvamedha sacrifice, cow-killing (in the Madhuparka rite), renunciation,
offering
meat to the forefathers (?), begetting sons by means of the husbands younger
brother;
these five are to be rejected in the Age of Kali.
36
From this it is understood that even for one who has the qualification specified in
the
sruti cited above sannyasa is not recommended in the Age of Kali.
In Varanasa, after listening to the primary meaning of the Vedanta-sutra from
Mahaprabhu at the house of the Maharastrian brahmana, one of Prakasnanda
Sarasvatis
chief disciples sitting in the ashram thinking about the Lords explanation of
Vedanta
said:
I consider the statements
of Sri Krsnacaitanya
to be completely true.
In the Age of Kali
we do not overcome
the cycle of rebirth by sannyasa. (C.c., Madhya, 25.27)
From this, too, it is understood that in the Age of Kali sannyasa is without utility.
What has been said above, however, is only the general rule. Let us see whether
there is
any specific rule mentioned in the statements of Mahaprabhu or not.
In Varanasi, in the context of describing that which is to be conveyed
(abhidheya-tattva,
ie. bhakti) to Sanatana Gosvamin, on the topic the behavior of Vaisnavas, Sri
Mahaprabhu said:
Giving up association with the unholy,
this is the practice of Vaisnavas.
One who associates with women is one;
the other is the unholy non-devotee of Krsna.
Rejecting all these and varnasrama-dharma,
without possessions one should find
ones only shelter in Krsna. (C.c., Madhya, 22.49-50)
This instruction of Mahaprabhu is about the rejection of varnasrama-dharma for
1. Varnasrama-dharma means the caste system and system of stages of life.
In
scripture is found the prescription for four stages of life the student stage of
celibacy,
the householder stage of marriage, the stage of the hermit, and the stage of
renunciation
(sannyasa). Renunciation is the fourth stage of life. For those who practice the
path of
bhakti, Mahaprabhu has said that this (sannyasa) is also to be rejected.
Rejection of the
system of castes and stages is counted as one of the
practices of Vaisnavas.
In the context of the sixty-four limbs of bhakti as means (sadhana-bhakti), the
Lord has
37
not given any instruction for sannyasa. Instead he has said: knowledge and
renunciation
are never parts of bhakti. (C.c., Madhya, 22.82)
The Gosvamin headed by Rupa, who follow the footsteps of Sri Mahaprabhu,
have
established the example of worship in the Vaisnava tradition and have
published books,
such as the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu showing the path of worship. In their books,
an
instruction for the practice of sannyasa is not found anywhere. Also, none of
them took
sannyasa. They only wore the cloth of those without possessions (niskicana). Sri
Sanatana Gosvamin received one piece of an old cloth from Tapana Misra at
Varanasi
and with that made a kaupin and outer cloth. This is the dress of one without
possessions.
When Sri Jagadananda went to Vrindaban, he one day invited Sanatana
Gosvamin for
food. A sannyasi by the name of Mukunda Sarasvati gave Sanatana an outer
cloth.
Sanatana tied that outer cloth on his head and went to keep
Jagadanandas invitation. Then:
Seeing the reddish cloth, the Pandita
became overwhelmed with love.
Thinking it the remnant of
Mahaprabhu, he questioned him:
Where did you get this reddish cloth?
Mukunda Sarasvati gave it, replied Sanatana.
Hearing that, sadness arose in the Panditas mind.
Taking up the rice pot, he came to hit him. (C.c., Antya.13.51-53)
Sanatana was embarrassed. Seeing that, Jagadananda Pandita placed the
pot on the stove
and said to Sanatana:
You are the chief of the associates of Mahaprabhu;
There is no other as dear to Mahaprabhu as you.
You wear another sannyasis cloth on your head.
When something like this happens, how can one tolerate it?
(C.c., Antya, 13.55-6)
Then Sanatana said:
Right! Pandita Mahasaya!
No one is as dear to Caitanya as you.
This kind of unwavering faith in Caitanya is suitable in you.
If you did not show me, how would I learn this?
To see that, this cloth was tied on my head;
Unprecedented love have I seen before my very eyes.
38
It is not fitting for a Vaisnava to wear reddish cloth.
I will give it to some visitor; what need have I with it?
(C.c., Antya, 13. 57-60)
Here Sanatana has said: It is not fitting for a Vaisnava to wear reddish cloth.
Here this
is not a reddened cloth or a red-colored cloth. This is the color of cloth that
Mahaprabhu
used as an outer cloth (saffron), because Jagadananda Pandita mistook it for a
remnant
of Mahaprabhu. This was the outer cloth of a sannyasi named Mukunda
Sarasvati. This
was the color of cloth that sannyasis used as outer cloths. Reddened (rakta)
means dyed
or colored cloth. From Sri Sanatanas statement it is understood that far from
taking
sannyasa, Vaisnavas should not even wear cloth colored like that of sannyasis.
Someone is
perhaps able to say that the Ramanuja Sampradya or the Madhva
Sampradaya is
Vaisnava, but in these communities sannyasi are found. In answer to this it is said
that the
practices of each community of practitioners is in accordance with attainment
of that
communitys desired goals. The objective of the Ramanuja Sampradaya or of
the Madhva
Sampradaya is not the same as that of the Gaudiya Sampradaya. The object of
worship of
those two communities is the Lord of the Supreme Heaven, Narayana; the
object of
worship of the Gaudiya community is Sri Krsna, the son of leader of Vraja in
Vraja. The
mood of those two communities is the mood of godliness in Vaikuntha; the
mood of the
Gaudiya community is the mood of pure sweetness free of knowledge of
godliness in
Vraja. The desired objective of those two communities is the liberations headed
by
sharing of a world (salokya), etc.; the desired objective of the Gaudiya
community is
service (seva) whose purpose is only the happiness of Krsna in Vraja. Desire for
liberation is contrary to the mood of the Gaudiya community, contrary to
worship
(bhajana). For this community:
Obstacles to Krsna-bhakti
are all auspicious and inauspicious works.
That is one living beings
trait of the darkness of ignorance. (C.c., Adi, 1.52)
The darkness of ignorance
is called the fraudulent (kaitava):
All desire for piety, wealth,
sensuality, liberation, and so forth. (C.c, Adi, 1.50)
The Bhagavatas highest religion free from fraud is the religion to be practiced
by the
Gaudiya community. The observance of varnasrama-dharma is favorable to the
attainment of the liberations headed by sharing a world. For this reason, those
who desire
liberation observe varnasrama-dharma.
The Tattvavadi teacher who followed Sri Madhvacarya said to Mahaprabhu in
connection
with his communitys means and goal:
39
Offering varnasrama-dharma to Krsna,
this is the highest means for the devotee of Krsna.
Attaining the five kinds of liberation and going to Vaikuntha,
this is the highest objective according to scripture.
(C.c., Madhya, 9.238-9)
Sri Ramanujacarya, too, in his commentary on the Brahma-sutra and on the Gita
has
talked about the observance of varnasrama-dharma.
Previously it was said that sannyasa is a part of varnasrama-dharma. Since the
Ramanuja
community and the Madhva community, both desirous of liberation, observe
varnasramadharma,
taking sannyasa is not prohibited for them. This for them is a specific rule. But
the Gaudiya community is not desirous of liberation; varnasrama-dharma and
the
sannyasa that is included in it is not suitable to their form of worship. The
sannyasa that
is found in Vedic scriptures is the sannyasa of varnasrama-dharma. Other forms
of
sannyasa are not found in Vedic scriptures. The sannyasa that was started in the
Buddhist
community, which is inimical to the Vedas, is not the sannyasa that is approved
by the
Vedic scriptures. The community of sannyasi of ten names was started by Sri
Sankaracarya, to many in imitation of the Buddhists. Whether the titles of the
ten-named
sannyasi, Giri, Puri, Vana, Bharati, and so forth, were in use among the sannyasi
who
followed the Vedic scriptures is not known. In later times many accepted the
form of
sannyasa in imitation of Sri Sankara, but did not take the titles of the Sankara
tradition.
Whether their sannyasa is the sannyasa endorsed by the Vedic scriptures or not
is a
subject for the consideration of scholars.
Comment
September 7, 2014
Escape from the Hall of Mirrors (ISKCON) by Nitai Das, Parts 1 and 2
Download this in PDF format here:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/e3717aola66h1d8/True_History_of_Bhaktisiddha
nta.pdf
ESCAPE FROM THE HALL OF MIRRORS
Part 1
Nitai Das
2005
In the last issue, I said I would describe my departure from ISKCON and some of
my
experiences both before and after leaving. The beginning of the end occurred
when Dr.
Kapoor dropped his bombshell on me, informing me that Bhaktisiddhanta was
not
properly initiated. When, after several days, the shock finally subsided
somewhat, I began
to consider my options. I had by then left Prabhupads traveling entourage
where I had
for almost three years been the Sanskrit editor, and had settled in Vrindaban. In
addition, I was then serving as the head pujari for the Krishna-Balarama Mandir.
Krishna
and Balarama are particularly beautiful images and it was a great pleasure to
serve them.
I got to live in a nice room in the new guest house, eat good prasada, teach
some of the
evening classes, attempt to educate the Gurukula kids in Sanskrit, and take my
two-hour
turns in the twenty-four hour kirtan.
I was a respected, senior member of the community. Living in Vrindaban was
great for
someone with even a little facility with the languages. In the afternoons, when
the rest of
the bhaktas were coming out of their siestas, I would occasionally sneak out and
attend a
class on the Harinamamrta-vyakarana, the Sanskrit grammar composed entirely
of the
names of Krsna written by Sri Jiva Goswami, at Haridas Shastris ashrama not far
from
the temple. Haridasa Shastri was a wonderfully learned Vaisnava with nine
tirthas after
his name, each tirtha representing an above average expertise in an area of
Sanskrit
philosophy and literature. A Bengali educated in the traditional system (the
Pathsala or
Tol system) in Benares, he apparently had assisted Krsnadas Baba of
Kusumasarovara in
his efforts to edit and publish all of the major works of the Gaudiya tradition. He
had also
been a siksa disciple of the great Vaisnava scholar and saint, Pandit Ramkrishna
Das
Baba. At the time that I began attending his classed he was engaged in
reprinting all of
the works previously published by Krsnadas Baba and some others besides. In
the
afternoon, he offered free classes on any of the Goswami works to anyone who
showed
up. There were usually a half a dozen men young and old, probably from
various
surrounding ashramas, there to study with him. Unfortunately, my Hindi and
Bengali
27
were not at that time strong enough for me to make much of his detailed
explanations of
the text, so I was an infrequent student.
Occasionally I succeeded in sneaking out in the evenings, usually when
someone boring
like the then temple president, Aksayananda Maharaja, or some other foolish
visiting
sannyasi gave the evening lecture. Instead I went to hear the enthralling
Nrsimha
Vallabha Goswami read and elaborate one of Visvanatha Cakravartins short
poems. His
lectures were then being given in the Radhadamodara Temple. There I sat
among the
white-clad little old ladies and men listening as the great Goswami teased out
the rasa of
every line, sometimes of every word, of Visvanathas beautiful Prema-samputa.
His
language, though Bengali, was so Sanskritic that even I could follow it. What a
master! I
will never forget how on one particular evening, in a particularly emotionally
charged
part of the text, I heard a loud honk and a thud a couple of rows behind me. A
bhakta
had keeled over in a faint and one of the neighboring ladies was fanning him.
Goswami
looked up, paused for a bit to be sure that the man was alright or at least being
cared for,
and then continued reading. Such eruptions of bhava were not uncommon at
the readings
in Vrindaban and they happened fairly frequently in Nrisimha Vallabhas
readings. All in
all things were pretty good. The place was brimming with interesting people and
it was
Still, I could not get past the disappointment. I felt like I had been scammed. It
was as if I
had been sold something very valuable and suddenly it turned out to be a fake.
All those
years we had been told, and in turn told others, that ISKCON was the only real
descendent of the religious movement of Sri Caitanya, and that turned out to
be a lie. I
had given up everything and devoted myself to following and serving
Prabhupad in
whatever way I was able. My family had cut itself off from me and I from it; my
father had
even pronounced me dead; and for what? I really felt cheated and angry. I
decided that I
had come too far to give up then, and besides, although living in Vrindaban
was
wonderful, there were some irritants that came along with living in the ISKCON
complex.
I had developed a desire to chant 64 rounds of Hari-nama and it was hard to
find time to
do that in the temple context, especially in a culture that did not value such
practices. I
was constantly subjected to suspicion because of that and because of my
excursions into
the town in the evening to hear readings. Eventually, I was told that I was no
longer
allowed to visit the town in the evenings. Worse, however, was the sense of
spinning my
wheels that I felt at the Krsna-Balarama temple. I had the feeling that none of us
were
making any advancement. There was something corrupt and corrupting in the
atmosphere and I couldnt quite put my finger on what it was. I could tell a
couple of
stories that would illustrate this corruption, but that would carry us too far afield.
Suffice
it to say that I felt a disease while staying there.
The next time I visited Dr. Kapoor I expressed a desire to get properly initiated. I
may
have even asked him if he would initiate me. He had already told of his
emotional
meeting with Gauranga Das Baba. He politely declined and recommended
instead, and
28
in extraordinary terms, a baba who lived way out in the bush, He said this baba
was a
siddha-mahapurus. a, a great one who had realized Krsna-preman, one of only
a few alive
in the holy abode at that time. Dr. Kapoor said that this baba was known by
different
names, Maunibaba because he observed periodic vows of silence, Bangali
Baba because
he was a Bengali, Tinkudi Baba from his nickname as a child, but that his
initiation name
was Kisori-kisorananda Baba. He also told me that this baba was quite unusual
because,
although he came from a highly respected family of caste Gowsamis tracing
back to
Nityananda Prabhu, he had left family life behind and had adopted a life of
deprivation
and solitary worship. He warned me that getting initiation from him would be
difficult,
because he led an extremely austere life, living out in the wildest parts of the
Vrajamandala
where few people dared to go. Dr. Kapoor spoke of others, too, who occupied
very high places in the climb towards Krsna-rati. He mentioned, in particular,
Krsnacarana Das Baba, who eventually became the guru of my friend and
colleague,
Jagannath Das.
The name Tinkudi Baba operated like a powerful mantra in my mind. It kept
returning
to me again and again. I had no idea where he was and how I would ever
meet him,
though. My only choice was to wait. I dont recall how I met them, but I had
become
friends with a couple of Vrajavasis, a young man name Parimal Bishwas and his
grandmother Vinaparni. They had settled in Vrindaban and lived in a small
rented house
near the Ranganath temple. Occasionally, I visited them and joined them for
dinner.
Vinaparni was an excellent cook and I knew them both to be Vaisnavas. It was
perhaps
only a couple of days after first hearing the name of Tinkudi Baba from Dr.
Kapoor that I
asked Parimal about this Baba. He looked up with surprise on his face and
blurted out:
He is my guru! How did you hear about him? I told him about my
conversations with
Dr. Kapoor and repeated the good doctors praise for the baba. I also asked
him what he
knew about the initiation of Bhaktisiddhanta. Parimal was the first of those I
talked with
about it to confirm it. He had learned of it from his grandmother, who it turned
out had
formerly been a disciple of the Gaudiya Math, and who was among those who
left
somewhat after the time of Puridas. When I asked her later, she, too, confirmed
Dr.
Kapoors statement. She had been closely connected with Haridas Sarma who
had acted
as Puridass secretary towards the end of his life. Haridas Sarma had helped
Puridas
publish the later volumes of the wonderful set of editions of the Gaudiya
Vaisnava texts
that Puridas is famous for. Haridass name is given as the publisher of the Puridas
editions beginning sometime in the 1950s.
I asked Parimal if he would help me meet the baba. He responded with an
enthusiastic
affirmative and a few days later came to tell me that Baba was in Cakleswar on
the bank
of the Manasasarovar near Govardhan. He was there to celebrate the
ceremony of the
feeding of the sixty-four saints (cau-sasti mahant seva) to honor a great
Vaisnava who had
just passed away. Parimal agreed to take me there and introduce me. A few
days later I
was on a bus to Mathura and from Mathura out to Cakleswar with Parimal by
my side.
29
When I first met Baba, tears did not begin flowing from my eyes like Dr. Kapoors
did
when he and his wife met their guru, Gauranga Das Baba. I didnt feel like I had
met an
old friend again after a very long time. Instead, I was a bit surprised at Babas
appearance. It was only slowly, after watching him move about giving
directions to his
disciples and others on how to celebrate the entrance of a fellow devotee of
Krsna into
eternal sport that I began to get a sense of who he was. I first noticed the way
he dressed.
He wore only a kaupin or loincloth over his genitals and a cloth over his
shoulders and his
hair was long, stringy, and uncombed, hanging down to his shoulders. Around
his neck
were some of the largest tulsi beads I had ever seen and on his forehead was
the tilak
(sectarian mark) typical of Nityananda-paribar (associates of Nityananda),
made not out
of the white, powdery gopi-candana that was typical of ISKCON and Gaudiya
Math, but
out of the dark, thick, greyish mud which, as I later found out, came from
Radhakunda.
Except for the tilak, he looked more like a Sakta than a Vaisnava. I suddenly
realized that
I had seen his picture a year or two before in a tiny stall in one of the markets of
Navadwip where I had gone to buy a copy of the classic book on the Holy
Name (Sri Sri
Nama-cintmani by Kanupriya Goswami. The stall owner, after bringing out the
book,
brought out a picture of Tinkudi Baba thinking I would also want one of those. I
took one
look at the picture and thought to myself why does he think I want a picture of
that mad
tantric? I had no idea who I was looking at at that time.
As I watched him I began notice how genuinely jovial he was and how humble.
He
seemed thoroughly happy. He had next to nothing and yet he was happy. All of
his
clothes were made of burlap. Even his slippers were made of burlap. Apart from
that he
had nothing else but his beads. I couldnt imagine Prabhupad walking on such
cloth with
his bare feet even once, let alone wearing it constantly. What a difference there
was
between the really humble, simple lifestyle of this poor servant of Krsna, who
depended
for everything on Krsna, and that of Prabhupad, who lived like a king wearing silk
and
gold and complained if his food wasnt prepared just right. It was as if at some
point
Krsna had offered these two devotees of his a choice. Prabhupad had chosen
Krsnas
wealth, his army so to speak, and Baba had chosen Krsna himself. A whole new
world of
Vaisnavism began to open up before me in the presence of Tinkudi Baba, a
world strange
and beautiful and, truth be told, also somewhat terrifying, especially to
someone like me
who had not fully surrendered to the will of Krsna. How much easier it appeared
to be to
be a Prabhupad and sit on a fancy lion-throne surrounded by thousands of
doting and
adulating disciples. Bba sat out in a lonely kutir in the distant reaches of Vraja,
wild
snake-infested places where few people dared to go. He ate whatever could
be begged
from the local villagers, and if they gave nothing, that is what he had.
Reflecting back on my first experience of Baba a couple of things stand out. The
first is
the realization that part of the shock of my first meeting with Baba was
contributed by
the sense of having come face to face with something very ancient in India. His
nakedness, his simplicity, his possessionlessness, his austerity, and as I later
discovered
later his ecstatic madnesses, all point to a kind of religious lifestyle and
experience that is
30
quite ancient in India. One need only recall the naked philosophers that
Alexander the
Great encountered when he came to India, three centuries before the
common era. One
of these gymnosophists accompanied Alexander back to Greece and
displaced Aristotle
as the conquerors teacher. Even in the time of Alexander, however, such
asceticism was
ancient. The hymn of the Rig Veda called The Long-hair (10.136) indicates
similar
practices at least seven centuries before Alexander. The second verse of that
hymn reads:
The ascetics, swathed in wind, put dirty red rags on.
When gods enter them, they ride with the rush of the wind.
(OFlaherty, p. 137)
Certainly much has changed in the intervening thirty centuries. Then it was
Rudra; now it
is Radha and Krsna. Still, much remained the same. I felt like I had arrived in the
company of Rupa and Sanatana. Certainly, they lived much like this.
The second thing is that in Baba I am reminded of the belief in the righteous
man in
the Jewish mystical tradition called Kabbalah. The righteous man or tsaddiq is
like a
pillar that extends to heaven and upholds the entire world. It is said in the
tradition: the
righteous one is the foundation of the world. If it weakens, the world cannot
endure. If
the world contains just one righteous person, that person sustains the world.
(Matt, p. 78)
I wonder if it is similar with the siddha- mahapurus. a, that they are the
foundation of the
world. Without them the world would collapse. The other thing about the
tsaddiq is that
often it is impossible to recognize one. There is a wonderful story from the Zohar
called
The old man and the ravishing maiden in which the righteous one appears as
an old
donkey driver who seems rather cracked. Similarly, I wonder if the siddha is often
to be
found in unlikely places. Perhaps, he is not to be found on the simhasana in front
of the
lights and cameras, but out in the darkness lit up only by the dim glow of a
kerosene
latern and perhaps it is only because of him that Krsna has not smashed the
whole world.
ESCAPE FROM THE HALL OF MIRRORS
Part 2
Nitai Das
2005
After I met Tinkudi Baba, sometime in 1975, the world seemed like a different
place
altogether. The despair I felt when I discovered the absence of authentic
initiation in
ISKCON turned into hope. I was filled with a new enthusiasm. I went back to my
normal
life at the Krsna Balarama temple in Vrindaban where I had settled after leaving
Prabhupadas traveling party.
For about two years I had travelled with Prabhupada as his Sanskrit Secretary.
During
31
that time we circled the earth at least four times. I had joined the party in 1973
because
the editors at the Press were worried about a slow down in the pace at which
my
predecessor, Pradyumna Prabhu, was working. At that time Prabhupada was
translating
the Bhagavata Purana, Cantos Four, Five, and Six. It was the Sanskrit Secretarys
job to
collect the tapes that Prabhupada made each morning, get them typed,
check them over
for typos or uncertainties, add the diacritics to the transliterated Sanskrit verses
and
quotations (sometimes hunt for those quotations, too), and make any minor
editing
changes that were needed. If there was any question about a translation or
citation, the
editor went straight to Prabhupada to ask about it. Pradyumna had travelled
with
Prabhupada for about a year or two, but after a while he began to lapse into
periods of
inaction or at best ineffective action during which the typed manuscripts, hot off
the holy
Dictaphone, so to speak, began to pile up. Eventually even Prabhupada
became
frustrated. He once affectionately referred to Pradyumna Prabhu as a dead
horse and
pointed out that it was useless to try to beat a dead horse into action. At last,
Prabhupada
agreed to adding another member to the party to help Pradyumna get caught
up. At that
time I was the head of the Sanskrit Editing Department at the Press which was
then in
Brooklyn and, well, I jumped at the opportunity to travel with Prabhupada.
Naturally,
neither my wife at the time, Rastrapalika, nor my chief assistant, Jagannatha
Das, were
very pleased, my wife, because of the separation involved, and Jagannatha
because he felt
it should have been him, since he had no family ties. Perhaps he was right.
My time traveling with Prabhupada was a magical time. At first Pradyumna and
I
travelled together with Prabhupada working jointly to diminish the backlog. Then
at
some point Pradyumna dropped off the travelling party for a while, I forget why.
That left
me to handle the editing alone. At some points I was the only traveling
secretary,
handling the duties of all the others in the traveling party: cooking for
Prabhupada, giving
him his daily massages, seeing to his laundry, and helping him with
correspondence, and
editing his manuscripts. Perhaps in a later installment I will recount some of my
experiences as one of Prabhupadas traveling secretaries. For now, however,
suffice it to
say that after nearly nearly two years of nearly ceaseless wandering around the
globe with
Prabhupada, I was happy to settle down in Vrindaban, edit the tail end of the
Bhagavata
backlog, teach Sanskrit to the new Gurukula students (Gurukula was the name
of the
ISKCON school in Vrindaban) and, at Prabhupadas request, work on a
curriculum for
the Gurukula that would get the school accredited by the government of India.
Those
were the tasks I returned to, somewhat reluctantly, after meeting Baba.
Working on the Gurukula curriculum was fun and interesting, however. My plan
of action
was to find a curriculum that was already accredited by the government of
India and
reproduce it, but using books from within Caitanya Vaisnava tradition. I decided
to check
into the traditional Sanskrit school system to see what they used as a curriculum.
I visited
some of the local Vrindaban Pathasalas (schools) and even enrolled in one for a
time.
Working from a copy of the curriculum they used, which was established and
supported
by the respected Sampurnananda Samskrta Visvavidyalaya in Benares, the
primary
32
Sanskrit institution in India, I began replacing the texts with comparable ones
belonging
to the Caitanya tradition. I visited several of the leading Caitanya Vaisnava
scholars in
Vrindaban to ask for advice on texts to incorporate in the curriculum. I visited Sri
Nrisimha Vallabha Goswami, Dr. Achyut Lal Bhatt Goswami, Haridas Shastri,
Vanamali
Das Shastri, Dr. O.B.L. Kapoor and many others who were learned in the
Caitanya tradition. Based on their advice I created a curriculum that had
everything the
traditional curriculum had, except that most of the texts were written by the
great
Vaisnava teachers in the tradition of Mahaprabhu. The areas of study included
in the
traditional curriculum were Sanskrit grammar (vyakarana), literary criticism
(alankarasastra),
ritual (smrti), philosophy (darsana), literature (sahitya), astrology/astronomy
(jyotisa), arithmetic/ mathematics (ganita), and an optional choice of modern
languages
(Hindi, Bengali, English, etc). The course of study generally lasted eight years and
concluded with the bestowing of the degree or title Sastri on those who
successfully
passed the exams. The first set of exams, one in each of the eight areas, was
administered
after three years, the second set after another three years, and the degree
exams two
years after that. There were higher degrees like Acarya and Vidyavaridhi
comparable to
the Masters and Doctoral degrees, but I didnt worry about those then. Those
generally
required an original piece of research. There were a few texts from outside the
Caitanya
tradition that my informants thought were so fundamental that they
recommended they
be part of any Vaisnavas education. These were texts like the Vedanta-sara of
Sadananda, the Vedanta paribhasa of Dharmaraja Adhvarindra, the
Tarkasangraha of
Annambhatta, and a few others. The curriculum I developed then has more or
less
become the basis for the curriculum of the Caitanya Sanskrit Tol currently
operating
through Nitais Bhajan Kutir.
Apart from my work on the curriculum, editing, and teaching in the Gurukula, I
would
often go in the afternoons to visit Dr. Kapoor. He would offer me some prasadi
(offered)
sweets from his household deities and we would talk for hours about points of
philosophy
and practice. Dr. Kapoor was very kind to me and took some risks with me that I
hope he
never came to regret. As we sat together in the small sitting room of his house
which was
part of the compound of the Radharamana Temple, his hand was always in his
bead bag
and the Mahamantra was always being repreated just beneath his breath. He
told me
much about his own religious life, his conversion, as a young philosophy
professor, from
the aridity of monistic Vedanta to Caitanya theism at the hands of
Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati, his first meeting, much later, with Gauranga Das Baba, the power of
the line of
Bodo Baba (Sri Radharamana Carana Dasa Baba) who was the guru of the
guru of Sri
Gauranga Das Baba, the wonderful ability of both Bodo Baba and Ram Das
Baba
(Gauranga Das Babas guru) to create kirtans spontaneously that answered
unspoken
questions in the minds of those who happened to be listening. He explained a
great deal
about the meaning and power of the famous chant that has become the
trademark kirtan
of the tradition following Bodo Baba:
33
bhaja nitai gaura radhe syama
japa hare krsna hare rama
Worship Nitai and Gaura (Caitanya),
Radha and Syama.
Utter Hare Krsna Hare Rama
Dr. Kapoor claimed that the short Bhaja Nitai Gaura chant compressed the
whole of
Caitanya Vaisnava practice into a few sweet and rhythmic words, easy to
remember and
easy to chant. He said it had extraordinary powers, that apart from inducing
powerful
religous ecstasy it could cure the sick and even raise the dead. He also told me
of how at
various times in his life when he was in some kind of difficulty or confusion, Bodo
Baba
himself had appeared to him in his dreams and shown him his mercy by giving
him help
and guidance. Since the first of those experiences the Bhaja Nitai Gaura chant
had been
a source of solace, protection, joy for him. Though Dr. Kapoor didnt tell me
about how
this chant came about during those talks, I recently looked up the account of
how it was
revealed in the biography of Bodo Baba called Nectar of the Acts [of Bodo
Baba]
(Carita-sudha) compiled by Ram Das Baba. Here is a paraphrase of the
biographys
account of that event.
This extraordinary chant was revealed by Bodo Baba in the midst of an intense
kirtan he
led during a prolonged stay in Krishnagar. While singing a particular kirtan song
Bodo
Baba went into a deep trance. Tears began to flow from his eyes in streams and
his body
was covered with goose-bumps. An instant later his body shook violently like a
tree in a
powerful wind and he fell unconscious on the ground. The devotees surrounded
him and
began to chant the Holy Name. Seeing in his body the rising and falling of
waves of
powerful emotions, the devotees became astonished. When he became
paralyzed with
emotion, it seemed as if his body was devoid of life. Then in an instant he would
laugh, in
the next moment he would cry, a moment later he would shiver and a moment
after that
he would be covered with goosebumps. After a while he came halfway to
consciousness
and stutteringly uttered:
bhaja nitai gaura pabe radhe syama
japa hare krsna hare rama
The meaning here is a little different from the form above:
Worship Nitai and Gaura (Caitanya)
and you will get Radha and Syama.
Recite Hare Krsna Hare Rama
Some of the devotees who surrounded him began to sing these words and that
grew into a
kirtan that lasted long into the night. One group would sing the first line and
another
34
group would respond with the second, each group seemingly trying to
overpower the
other. Some time later during the kirtan Bodo Baba, leaning against a wall, his
eyes half
open, his body drenched in tears and covered with goose-flesh, a smile on his
face, raised
the pointing finger of his right hand and swayed back and forth in intense
emotion. At
some point, too, a wonderful, mind-attracting aroma filled the place, but none
of the
devotees could find its source. Around about midnight, the kirtan began to wind
down,
but Bodo Baba continued to be overwhelmed with feeling.
At the time that Bodo Baba fell into his ecstasy, he was singing a song which
apparently
he composed. The short Bhaja Nitai Gaura chant seems to have condensed out
of that
longer song as its essential meaning. As such, the longer song is a kind of
commentary on
the short one. That longer song is this:
Nitai and Gaura dance like Radha and Krsna
Everyone sings hare krsna hare rama.
If you really want this Gauranga,
become a servant of Nityananda.
Even one who says only with his mouth:
I am a servant of Nityananda
will perceive the true form of Gaura.
The love of the gopi as in the Bhagavata
one will get only from Nityananda in this world.
Nityananda is the giver of love;
Gauranga is his greatest treasure.
In the pleasure of the Rasa dance,
one will meet Sri Radharamana.
Climbing aboard the boat hare krsna hare rama,
cross over the ocean of rebirth to Vrndavana.
My Nitai frolics, my Nitai plays,
All who are maddened with love he makes his own.
Here my Nitai dances, overwhelmed with emotion.
Whomever he finds, even a Candala, he takes on his lap.
Dr. Kapoor told me that contrary to the misinterpretations of various ISKCON and
GM
members, the juxtaposition of Nitai-Gaura and Radhe- Syama is not meant to
imply the
identification of Nityananda with Radha. Such an identification is never made in
the line
of Bodo Baba. Only someone completely ignorant of the history and meaning of
the song
would make such a claim. This song is clearly about the power of Nityananda as
the one
who can conduct one to the feet of Gauranga who is in turn the joined form of
Radha
and Krsna. The power and influence of Nityananda is so much a part of the
teaching of
Bodo Baba that those who knew him and those who are initiated in his line
consider him
to be a saktyavesa avatara or empowered incarnation of Nityananda. The idea
that one
must approach Mahaprabhu through Nityananda is not an uncommon one in
the
35
Caitanya tradition.
Comment
September 3, 2014
More Reflections on Initiation by Nitai Das, Parts 1, 2, and 3
Download this in PDF format here:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/e3717aola66h1d8/True_History_of_Bhaktisiddha
nta.pdf
MORE REFLECTIONS ON INITIATION:
Critique of Tripuraris little tan book
Part 1
Nitai Das
September 15, 1999
This month I thought that I would take a look at some of the issues raised in the
little tan
book by Tripurari Maharaj (TM) called Sri Guru-parampara (Mill Valley, CA:
Harmonist
Publishers, 1998; no ISBN). Some of you may recall that it was one of the stimuli
that
started this series of essays of mine. One senses that TM tried in this book to take
an
open-minded and accommodating approach to the topic and for that he is to
be
14
congratulated. Why I myself am even cited in the text! That is generosity indeed.
I will try
in what follows to maintain that atmosphere of generosity. Unfortunately, the
understanding presented in the book is profoundly flawed. To try and examine
all of the
failings of the book would require another book of equal or greater length and
that is way
beyond my intentions. Therefore, I want to focus on only three major issues: the
question
of the siddha-pranali, the question of the siksa-parampara, and the myth of the
fall of the
Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition in the 19th century.
Lets begin with the question of the siddha-pranali. TM unfortunately
misunderstands
what the siddha-pranali is and I am afraid that I might be at least partially to
blame for
that. In the first place, the siddha-pranali is not a separate rite or diksa that is
received
later than the mantra diksa. It is an expansion of the mantra diksa. In some of my
previous writings I may have given the impression that it is a separate rite apart
from the
primary rite of initiation. For that I apologize. The single most important rite in
Gaudiya
Vaisnavism is mantra diksa. At that time one is accepted into a line of gurus
going back to
Sri Caitanya or his immediate followers. This is called the guru-parampara and is
very
important because it is the channel through which Mahaprabhus mercy comes
to one.
The mantras one receives then are empowered by every member of that line
and knowing
who they are is very important. That is why in the Gaudiya tradition one is given
their
names in a list like the one on this web-site. One should offer obeisance to every
member
of that chain each day and before doing any devotional practice. It is by their
grace that
one succeeds. Not doing so would be like sitting out on the end of a branch of
a tree
while sawing it off at the trunk. That is the chain that one has to catch hold of if
one
wishes to be pulled out of the ocean of repeated birth and death and each link
is
In the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition outside of ISKCON one receives sixteen
mantra and
gayatri. These are the gurumantra and gayatri, caitanya-mantra and gayatri,
nityanandamantra
and gayatri, advaitacarya-mantra and gayatri, gopala-mantra and kama-
gayatri,
radha-mantra and gayatri, gadadhara-mantra and gayatri, and srivasa-mantra
and gayatri.
There may be some variations in these mantra in the different lines of the
tradition, but
these are the mantra I received from Tinkudi Baba and the ones others said they
too
received. Each mantra and gayatri of course is preceded by the one syllable
seed
appropriate to that mantra or gayatri. Without these mantra and gayatri one is
not
qualified to do any higher service like puja, arati, or smarana. Note that there is
no suryagayatri
(aka brahma-gayatri: om bhur bhuvah svar tat savitur ..) As far as I know this
mantra has nothing to do with Gaudiya Vaisnavism or with the worship of
Radha-Krsna.
It is the mantra given to brahmin boys during the upanayana initiation which
marks their
entry into the study of the Veda. Its introduction into the mantra diksa appears
to be one
of the many fabrications of Bhaktisiddanta and we will return to some of those
later.
Chanting the Holy Name of course does not depend on proper initiation. There
is no
required initiation rite for the Holy Name in this tradition.
15
One is transformed during the mantra initiation from a pravartaka (beginner) to
a
sadhaka (practitioner). As a practitioner one has a number of choices open to
one for
devotional service most of which do not require the siddhapranali. If one has a
strong
desire to do raganuga sadhana-bhakti, however, and that desire is the chief
qualification
for such a practice, one needs the siddha-pranali. The siddha-pranali is nothing
more
than the siddha or manjari names and descriptions of that same line of gurus
that one
received at initiation. Each is believed to be a participant in the eternal sport of
Govinda.
One learns ones own siddha name, color, service, and so forth as well as the
guruss from
the guru at that time as well. One can then use that information to visualize
ones self as a
manjari assistant to the guru-manjari and his guru-manjaris as they serve Radha
and
Krsna. This visualization is at the core of the practice called remembering the
sports of
Radha and Krsna during the eight periods of the day (asta-kaliya-lila-smarana).
If one
does not have the desire to do this form of mental service, and many dont, one
does not
need the siddha-pranali. Thus, it is not a separate diksa and for many it is not
strictly
speaking necessary. What one cannot do without, though, is the mantra diksa
and the
guru-parampara. Thus, when TM says: All opposition to Bhaktisiddhanta
contends that
he did not receive the siddha-pranali initiation to the esoteric worship of Radha
and
Krsna from either Bhaktivinoda or Gaura Kisora (p. 3), he is simply wrong. The
contention is that Bhaktisiddhanta did not get mantra diksa and guru-
parampara.
Without mantra diksa and guru-parampara there is no question of receiving a
siddhapranali.
When I left ISKCON it was not because I wanted some siddha-pranali-diksa, it
was
because I became convinced (and I am even more convinced today) that
Bhaktisiddhanta
did not receive mantra diksa and guru-parampara from anybody. To return to
an earlier
analogy, I became convinced that the chain or rope that I was holding onto in
hope of
being pulled out of the ocean of becoming was tied to absolutely nothing. TM
tacitly
recognizes this when he says: Bhaktisiddhanta did not teach his followers to
worship the
diksa guru of Gaura Kisora Das Babaji .. (p. 3). The reason Bhaktisiddhanta
didnt was
that he didnt know who the diksa guru of Gaura Kisora Das Babaji was. Neither
does
TM or anyone in the Gaudiya Math and ISKCON. My contention is (based on an
eyewitness
account of his own admission before Pandit Ramakrsna Das Baba) that
Bhaktisiddhanta didnt know who his parama-guru was because he never
received diksa
and guru-parampara from Gaura Kisora Das Babaji. On the other hand, Gaura
Kisora
Das Babaji was notoriously difficult to get initiation from (he once accused an
initiation
hopeful quite crudely of wanting to butt-fuck him) and even when one of his
disciples
asked about guru-parampara he was, according to Haridas Dass account,
tremendously
evasive telling him instead to chant the Holy Name. He emphasized the Holy
Name over
everything and did not recommend lila-smarana. Nevertheless, it is highly
unlikely that
Gaura Kisora Das Babaji, who was not a brahmin and who cared nothing for the
caste
system, would have given Bhaktisiddhanta the surya-gayatri in initiation. (See
Gaura
Kisora Das Babajs jivani in Sri Sri Gaudiya Vaisnava Jivana, dvitiya khanda, by
Haridas
Das. 3rd printing, Gaurabda 489 [1975], pp. 39-52. Haridas Dass account of
Gaura
16
Kisora Das Baba is quite interesting. What is most interesting about it, though, is
that
there is no mention of Bhaktisiddhanta at all. Bhaktivinoda is mentioned, but
mostly in
the context of Gaura Kisoras pleasure at having eluded him by hiding out in a
whore
house. I dont think that there was any great enmity between Haridas Das and
either
Bhaktivinoda or Bhaktisiddhanta, apart from the usual dissatisfaction Navadvipa
Vaisnavas felt toward them for claiming Mayapura was on the other side of the
river. It is
strange that an important person like Bhaktisiddhanta would not be mentioned,
though.
Perhaps the diksa-seeker whom Gaura Kisora Das Babaji accused of wanting to
butt-fuck
him and later beat up with an umbrella was Bhaktisiddhanta. In Haridas Dass
account,
that person is never named, but was from a place called Noakhali. I have no
idea where
that place is. Gaura Kisora Das Baba, however, ends by giving that person the
Holy
Name and tells him if he chants for one year without fail he will meet the Lord
and if not
he should come back to Gaura Kisora Das Babaji. If this is Bhaktisiddanta,
perhaps his
name was not mentioned out of regard for his reputation and the feelings of his
followers.)
What I received from Tinkudi Baba (who lived out in lonely places like Prema-
sarovara,
not Radhakunda as TM claims) was mantra diksa and guru-parampara and,
because I
asked for it, thinking I would like to practice lila-smarana at some point, he also
gave me
the siddha-pranali. I have not as of yet begun the practice of lila-smarana, but it
is
comforting to know that I could if I wanted to. And I may yet want to. Now,
however, I
am certain that the rope I cling to when I sit to do my mantra is attached firmly
to the
ocean-liner of Sri Caitanya and that I am being dragged, for the most part
unwillingly I
must admit, toward the distant shore of Goloka.
It is interesting to note that TM mentions Ananta Vasudeva and Sundarananda
Vidyavinoda in his book without clearly saying who they were. Ananta
Vasudeva was also
known as Puri Maharaja and was not only learned, but was the man chosen by
Bhaktisiddhanta to replace him after his death. Sundarananda Vidyavinoda
was one of
the leading writers and thinkers of the Gaudiya Math and the editor of the
Maths
monthly journal for years. A few years after Bhaktisiddhantas passing, for some
reason
the year 1941 sticks in my memory, Puri Maharaja and Sundarananda
Vidyavinoda left
the Gaudiya Math, but not alone. A number of followers left with them and
settled in
various places around Vraja to do bhajana, i.e. hari-nama and lila-smarana. I
heard the
following from one of them, then an old baba in Govardhan. When Puri
Maharaja
discovered the lack of initiation in the Gaudiya Math lineage, he called all of
the leading
sannyasi in the Math organization together and informed them of his discovery.
He
advised them: You all may as well go home and get married. Continuing this
charade is
useless. (It has never been clear to me what charade Puri Maharaj had in mind,
the
Vaisnava charade or the sannyasa charade. Judging from his later actions he
probably
meant both) He then took his own advice taking off his saffron robe and
heading to
Vrindaban where he at first hid from the anger of his former god-brothers (this
part
sounds quite familiar to me). When he arrived in Vrindaban he was given shelter
by
17
Vishvambhar Goswami, one of the Radharaman Goswamis. Shortly thereafter
he publicly
renounced the Gaudiya Math and apologized for all of the offenses he
committed as a
prominent member and leader of it. He later married and settled in Vrindaban
producing
over the years one of the finest collections (more than fifty volumes) of Gaudiya
scripture
ever to be produced. This hardly sounds like someone who had lost his sakti-
sancara
(empowerment by Krsna).
The departure of Puri Maharaja strikes me as an incredibly courageous and
honest thing
to do. Here Puri Maharaja was in the highest seat of power in the Gaudiya Math,
appointed by the founding acarya himself and himself therefore the acarya of
the
institution at the time. He could very well have covered up the flaw and carried
on.
Instead, at great risk to himself and at great loss, he informed his god-brothers
and set
out to put himself back on the correct path. Many of his god-brothers, however,
split off
into their own factions, struggling for control of the institution or to establish their
own
institutions, and tried to cover up the truth, labelling Puri Maharaja as fallen and
claiming that he ran off with a woman. They fought each other for years for
pieces of the
juicy Gaudiya Math pie. After that time the Gaudiya Math and its offshoots were
firmly
founded on greed and deceit. The books the Math and its family produced
afterwards
were with few exceptions poorly edited and filled with errors. None of them
match up to
anything like the quality of the work produced by either Puri Dasa (no longer a
sannyasi)
or Sundarananda Vidyavinoda after they left the Math.
Well, here I am at the end of an installment having said much and yet with so
much more
to say. Experienced writers know (not that I am one) that they can never quite
tell where
they will end up when they sit down to write. I have only scratched the surface
of one of
the three issues that I wished to discuss in this essay and I am afraid I have also
let
generosity slip out the door. Havent I just called the leaders of Gaudiya Math
after Puri
Maharaja greedy and deceitful? Let me try and usher some generosity back in
by pointing
out that though the leaders of the Math may have been crooked and deceitful,
the rank
and file members probably had no idea of what was going on. Prabhupada,
who was still
being a chemist in Allahabad, probably only heard that Puri Maharaja had
fallen down
with a woman, shrugged, and turned back to selling shaving cream and
toothpaste. The
followers no doubt remained sincere.
We need to dig more deeply into the siddha-pranali question. Where did the
practice
come from? Who originated it? Why is it important to the Gaudiya tradition?
Who
should practice it and when? These are all important issues as are the related
questions
of the siksa-parampara and the supposed fall of the Gaudiya tradition in the
19th
century. I will turn to these things in the next installment. Look for that in a few
days
rather than a month, since I am bursting with ideas.
18
MORE REFLECTIONS ON INITIATION:
Critique of Tripuraris little tan book
Part 2
Nitai Das
October 21, 1999
Throughout my life it seems I have repeatedly found myself in the position of the
critic. It
is not a role that I particularly love, since it is invariably unpleasant to criticize
anothers
work, but a role that seems to be constantly thrust upon me. Indeed, over the
years I have
lost a number of friends because of it. It seems to be my sad fate to be the
gadfly. There
seems to be nothing I can do about, however, because it still irritates me when I
see
stupidity passed off as wisdom. Tripuraris book is bursting at the seams with
stupidity and
I just cannot resist lancing it like the infected boil it is. My friend (I havent
criticized him
yet, you see) Minaketana Rama Das forwarded a piece of a conversation
between
Prabhupada and some of his devotees about me after I left ISKCON. Since it
gets straight
to the point of this essay I want to cite a bit of it here:
Hari-sauri: That was one thing that Nitai put in his letter, that the teachings of
ISKCON
are completely opposite or contradictory to what is actually in the Sastra.
Prabhupada: Now he has become tiger. He wants to kill that philosophy. When
he did not
know anything he came to us. Now he has become learned, he wants to
criticize. The
same philosophy. You have made me tiger, now I can see you are my
eatable. (laughs)
He could not find out any other eatable. I shall eat you. The rascal. What can
be done?
(end)
(Roarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Time for a little lunch!) What I said years ago in my parting letter
to Prabhupada is unfortunately still true today. ISKCON has got it exactly
backwards,
could not possibly get it more backwards than it has and Tripuraris little book is
a superb
example of that.
An example of what I shall call the ass-backwards principle is found on page 8
of TMs
book where, quoting Bhaktisiddhanta, he says First maranam (ego death) then
smaranam. Not only is this completely contrary to scripture, this is straight from
the
mouth of the big bird himself. No wonder the Gaudiya Math and ISKCON went
astray.
Smarana of which siddha-pranali is an important part is a variety of sadhana
bhakti, that
is to say practical bhakti that is a means to attaining the goal of preman. It is not
sadhya
bhakti, that is bhakti as the final result or goal. It is not the end result of practice,
but the
means towards achieving that end result. Rupa Goswami describes smarana as
part of
raganuga bhakti in the second wave of the eastern division of his Bhakti-
rasamrta-sindhu
in which he is concerned exclusively with sadhana. Bhava-bhakti and prema-
bhakti make
19
up the third and fourth waves of the eastern division respectively. Those are the
results of
sadhana. In the section on bhava-bhakti Rupa describes the arising of krsna-rati,
love of
Krsna, and in the chapter on prema-bhakti he describes that love when it
becomes more
condensed and is experienced or relished by the devotee. To put it more clearly
in the
words used here: smaranam leads to maranam, not maranam to smaranam.
Maranam is
the goal and smaranam is the means to that goal. Bhaktisiddhanta (shall I call
him BS for
short ?) has it ass-backwards.
Let us place this discussion in the context of Rupas nine stages in the
development of
bhakti. Those nine stages are, as everyone knows: faith (sraddha), association
with the
good (sadhu-sanga), activity of worship (bhajana-kriya), stopping of harmful
things
(anartha-nivrti), steadiness (nistha), taste (ruci), attachment (asakti), feeling
(bhava),
and love (preman) (Brs. 1.4.15-16). Where does smarana fit in this scheme?
Smarana is
an activity of worship as are all types of sadhana. It therefore is taken up in the
third
stage, activity of worship, before the stage of stopping of harmful or unhealthy
things.
There is an implied causality operating in this process. Through ones faith one
associates with the good. From the good one learns how to execute the
practice. As a
result of practice ones unwanted habits are gradually stopped. When ones
unwanted
habits cease one becomes unshakable in ones practice. Being unshakable or
unfailing in
practice leads to a taste for things related to Krsna. Taste leads to developing a
stronger
attachment. That strong attachment leads to the feeling of love for Krsna and
the
presence of that love for Krsna leads to the experience of bhakti-rasa or what I
call
sacred rapture which is also called preman. This is kindergartner stuff.
On the stage of bhajana-kriya there is a fork in the path. Some choose vaidhi-
bhakti as
their bhajana-kriya, others choose raganuga as their bhajana-kriya (see Brs.
1.3.269 and
1.3.292-3). Rupa makes it clear that these are two separate, but parallel paths
when he
distinguishes between the results of each in his chapter on bhava-bhakti. Those
who
follow the path of vaidhi develop one kind of bhava (see Brs. 1.3.7, 1.3.9 for an
example
of vaidhi-ja bhava) and those who follow raganuga-bhakti develop another
(see Brs.
1.3.14 for an example of raganuga-ja bhava). Different examples of preman are
given in
the chapter on prema-bhakti, too (see Brs. 1.4.6-7).
This view is consistent with the position of the Bhagavata Purana on the intimate
sports
of Krsna. At the end of the five chapters on Krsnas Rasa lila with the gopi, the
Purana
tells us:
anugrahaya bhutanam manusam dehamasritah
bhajate tadrsih krida yah srutva tat-paro bhavet (Bhag. 10.33.36)
He (Krsna) has taken this human form to show compassion to all beings and he
engages
in such sports, the hearing of which makes one intent on him.
20
And how does one benefit from hearing these intimate sports? The Bhagavata
says two
verses later:
vikriditam vrajavadhubhir idanca visnoh
sraddhanvito nusrnuyad atha varnayed yah |
bhaktim param bhagavati pratilabhya kamam
hrdrogam asvapahinotyacirena dhirah || (Bhag. 10.33.39)
One who with faith hears about this sport of Visnus with the gopi and who
describes it
quickly attains the highest devotion to the Lord and easily destroys that disease
of the
heart, lust.
These intimate sports of the lord with the gopi are a kind of medicine to cure the
disease
of lust. Whoever heard of waiting to take a medicine for a disease until the
disease is
cured? If one has a serious disease and has a medicine, but refuses to take it,
the disease
is never cured and one dies. This is the brilliant course Bhaktisiddhanta has
launched
Gaudiya Math and ISKCON on. This is ass-backwards. There may be more to this
than
mere buffoonery, however. There may be a more malicious dimension to it all. If
Krsna
has come into this world in order to attract the lost and suffering living beings
back to
him by pulling up the curtain and revealing the sweetness of his eternal activities
and if
someone else is trying to cover them back up and hide them away, discount
them, then
that person is actually interfering with and hindering the lords redemptive visit to
the
world. That person is undermining the work not only of Krsna and Caitanya
Mahaprabhu, but also of those who originated and promoted one of the most
powerful
and important practices in the Caitanya tradition, the practice of
smarana/siddha-pranali,
which is nothing more than remembering the sports of Krsna and Mahaprabhu
throughout the day and night. Who are those originators?
Before we explore that question, though, let me comment on a few of the
pieces of
support that TM rustles up for his position. He, for instance, notes that Radhakrsna
Goswami (17th cent.) recommends renunciation of household life as a
prerequisite for
smarana (p. 8). What Radhakrsna Goswami actually recommends is celibacy
(brahmacarya) as a qualification for the practice of raganuga-bhakti, which
means
essentially lila-smarana (Sd. 9.27). As evidence Goswami cites a verse from Rupa
Goswamis Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (Brs 1.4.7):
na patim kamayet kamcit brahmacaryasthita sada |
tam eva murtim dhyayanti candrakantir varanana || (Padma Purana ?)
Beautiful faced Candrakanti, meditating on that form alone, ever situated in
celibacy,
would not desire any husband.
21
So far this looks good; this young lady is definitely practicing celibacy. But wait!
Where
did you say that verse came from? Thats from the fourth wave of the eastern
division
where Rupa is describing preman, the ultimate result of practicing raganuga
bhakti. That
is the end result of the practice, not the qualification for starting the practice. It is
absurd to demand that one already have achieved the result of a practice
before one even
begins it. This is assbackwards. In this case it is the fault of Radhakrsna Goswami.
Why
would he have made such a mistake? His knowledge of scripture is far more
vast than
mine. Still, it is a mistake and, whatever caused the good Goswami to make it, it
must not
be taken as binding. Instead, the verse and Rupas use of the verse in his work
support the
point that I have been trying to make here. Smarana/siddha-pranali is a
practice that
leads one toward perfection and cannot therefore require perfection as a
prerequisite.
Moreover, since it has as one of its results the overcoming of sexual desire, it can
be, and
in fact should be undertaken by those who have not yet conquered sexual
desire.
Radhakrsna Goswami (9.29) points out one caveat in the practice of smarana
of the
confidential sports of Radha and Krsna, citing a passage from Jiva Goswamis
Bhaktisandarbha
(para. 338). This passage was surprisingly missed by TM in his vain attempt to
shore up his ass-backward position. He might have been able to twist this into
some
semblance of support for his point of view. TM, of course, cant read any of
these texts
unless someone translates it for him. He is as illiterate and as helpless as a baby.
Any way,
Jiva Goswami quotes the passage of the Bhagavata I cited above (vikriditam ..)
and gives
the following commentary on it:
one quickly gives up the disease of the heart, lust and so forth that are not
prone to sin
(?). While the superiority [of those sports with the gopi] is established in general,
among
them the worship (bhajana) of him sporting with his most dear lover Radha is the
highest
of all. That is self-evident. But that confidential sport is not to be worshiped by
those
whose senses possess human (or manly) transformations (i.e. penile erection or
other
forms of arousal) and by those whose feelings are those of the parents, sons, or
servants
because that is contrary to their own moods. Sometimes the confidentiality is
partial [as
with their kissing and embracing, etc.] and sometimes complete [as with their
sexual
union]. In other words one should not practice smarana of Radha and Krsnas
confidential sports if one gets sexually aroused by them. If one approaches
those sports
sincerely from the siddha identity of a manjari servant of Radha whose
responsibility it is
to facilitate their pleasure, not ones own, one can generally avoid this problem.
This is in
fact at the very core of the practice; one learns gradually to morph ones
sadhaka identity
into that siddha identity. To approach it in any other way is to collapse into
voyeurism. If
one is not able to remember the confidential sports of Radha and Krsna without
getting
aroused then perhaps one should not do the practice until one can.
Let us now return to the question of who were the originators of the practice of
smarana/siddha-pranali. TM quotes Bhaktivinoda Thakura who in his Jaiva-
dharma
traces it back to Mahaprabhu himself (p. 7). Mahaprabhu gave it to Vakresvara
Pandita,
22
his kirtana partner, who passed it on to Gopalaguru Goswami and Gopalaguru
to his
disciple Dhyanacandra Goswami. The later two wrote methods (paddhati) on
it. This
may well be true, but it ignores another important side of the practice.
Vakresvara
Pandita, Gopalaguru, and Dhyanacandra are relatively less well known
members of the
Caitanya tradition. This gives the mistaken impression that the practice of
smarana/siddhapranali developed among a peripheral group of followers and
is not
central to the Caitanya Vaisnava enterprise. The first time we hear of the idea of
a
siddha-deha which is at the core of the siddha-pranali in any Caitanya
Vaisnava text is in
Rupa Goswamis Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, in the famous seva sadhaka-rupena
verse (Brs.
1.2.295). The first time we hear of the manjari is perhaps in Raghunatha Dasas
Vilapakusumanjali
(tvam rupamanjari sakhi , verse 1) or perhaps in Kavikarnapuras
1. Gauraganoddesadipika. It is difficult to determine the relative age of
these works.
Nevertheless, it seems clear that the practice developed in the Vrndavana
circle of
Mahaprabhus followers and was particularly well suited to the simple and
sparse life of
Vraja. Gopalaguru settled in Vrndavana after the disappearance of Vakresvara
Pandita
and Kavi Karnapura also retired to Vrndavana. In fact, Raghunatha Dasas
address to
Rupamanjari at the beginning of his Vilapa-kusumanjali may well indicate that
Rupa
Goswami was already involved in the practice at the time.
Rupa was profoundly indebted to his elder brother whom he regarded as his
teacher.
Perhaps Sanatana had a hand in the development of the practice as well.
Vrndavana
insider Krsnadasa Kaviraja presents the teachings, including those on the siddha
deha, as
having all been given to Sanatana by Mahaprabhu (Cc. Madhya, chaps. 20-
24). Sanatana
in turn passes them on to his brother Rupa who records them in his books.
Sanatanas
own first book, Krsnalilastava, is an interesting precursor to the practice. It
combines the
holy names of Krsna suitable for the recounting of the first forty-five chapters of
the
Tenth Canto of the Bhagavata. Thus it is has both nama-kirtana and lila-smarana
combined with 108 acts of obeisance spread throughout it. In addition, in the
chapter in
Sanatanas Brhad-bhagavatamrta called Abhista-labha (2.6) in which
Gopakumara visits
Goloka, he presents Krsnas lila in a form that resembles to a high degree the
form that
the daily sports will take in the hands of Krsnadasa Kaviraja and Visvanatha
Cakravartin.
Another Vrndavana insider, though one somewhat more removed than
Krsnadasa
Kaviraja, our Radhakrsna Goswami in his Dasa-sloki-bhasya records the tradition
that it
was Rupa himself who revealed the practice primarily in the seva sadhaka-
rupena verse
and in various of his stotras, but because of its confidential nature he confined it
to his own followers and never wrote about it in an ordered, detailed way. When
his
followers encouraged him to do so, he was already very old and close to death.
One the
verge of death he taught it to Krsnadasa Kaviraja in detail and asked him to
publish it.
Krsnadasa Kaviraja honoring Rupas request wrote about it in great detail in the
enormous Govinda-lilamrta (Dasa-sloki-bhasya pp. 8-9, Haridasa Sastris edition).
The
seed of the daily sports of Radha and Krsna is contained in the Astakaliya-lila-
smaranamangala-
stotra which is often attributed to Rupa Goswami. This practice of
23
smarana/siddha-pranali is therefore one of the core practices of the Vrndavana
Goswami,
quite probably conceived by them and certainly expanded and expounded by
them. As
such it has found a place of centrality in all sectors of the Caitanya Vaisnava
tradition,
except in ISKCON, which as decided to place the cart before the horse instead
of the
other way around. Perhaps nobody says it better the Sri Rupa himself in his
Upadesamrta, verse 8:
A follower of someone
who is passionate for Him,
should pass ones time
living in Vraja,
gradually applying the mind and the tongue
to the remembering and chanting
of His names, forms, acts,
This is the essence of instruction.
This is the essence of instruction and it involves both remembering and chanting,
both
smarana and kirtana, not one or the other. Those who pretend to be followers of
Rupa
(rupanuga) should pay more attention to this teachin
MORE REFLECTIONS ON INITIATION:
Critique of Tripuraris little tan book
Part 3
Did You Say Siksa-parampara?
Nitai Das
March 14, 2000
Way back in October I promised that the next essay in this series would examine
the
question of siksa-parampara, the phony substitute for a real guru-parampara
invented by
Bhaktisiddhanta to camouflage the fact that he had no real guru-parampara.
Oops! That
just slipped out! Oh well. This I hope will be my last essay on TMs little book or
on anything else relating to the Gaudiya Math or ISKCON. Quite frankly, the line
of
thought and literature created by those organizations is so offensive to real
Vaisnavas that
even reading their works to critique them is disruptive of and harmful to the
cultivation
of bhakti. At the end of this essay I will suggest a couple of possible remedies to
this
problem, but I consider it highly unlikely that those remedies will ever be applied.
Instead
of dwelling on the flaws of those pseudo-Vaisnava institutions, I want to focus
future
essays on my own experiences at the feet of Sri Tinkudi Baba, the Vaisnava
siddha with
whom I found shelter after leaving ISKCON who was both a baba and a
hereditary
24
I wish to begin my discussion of siksa-parampara by pointing out that if those
opposed to
the idea of a siddhapranali wish to cast doubt on it as a genuine institution of
the
Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition because it appears only with the second or third
generation of
followers of Caitanya and even then among relatively minor members of the
Vrndavana
circle like Goplaguru Gosvamin, Vakresvara Pandita, and Dhyanacandra
Gosvamin, how
much more should one doubt the authenticity of the institution of siksa-
parampara which
only appeared the other day and again among an even more minor Vaisnava
community.
Moreover, if one wishes to argue that there is no scriptural support for the
institution of
siddha-pranali the argument applies with even greater force to siksa-
parampara for which
there is absolutely no scriptural support anywhere in the vast ocean of Gaudiya
texts, not
even in the works of Bhaktivinoda Thakura, the father of Bhaktisiddhanta. It is
pure
invention, the invention of Bhaktisiddhanta comparable to his invention of a
Gaudiya
form of sannyasa (see the accompanying article, Gaudiya Vaisnava Dharma
and
Sannyasa by Dr. Radhagovinda Nath). The siddha-pranali at least has some
support in
Rupa Gosvamins discussion of raganuga bhakti in the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu
(1.2.294-
96) and in Jiva Gosvamins discussion of initiation in the Bhakti-sandarbha (283)
where it
is said, quoting Agama, that initiation (diksa) bestows divine knowledge. Jiva
points out
that divine knowledge is knowledge of the true nature of the Lord in the mantra
and of
ones specific (visesa) relationship to Him. This specific relationship is, of course,
ones
true identity in relationship to the Lord, or in other words, ones siddha-deha
(there being
no difference in the spiritual realm between ones self and ones body). Here is
where the
nonsense of a siksa-parampara begins to unravel. What is
communicated at the core of initiation is knowledge. It is not just the giving of
mantra. In
addition, this knowledge is not any knowledge: the number of planet systems
there are in
the universe or the number of ocean rings there are or how many sections of the
spiritual
realm there are or whether living beings were once in Goloka or not. It is the
most
essential knowledge, knowledge of who one really is in relationship to the Lord.
Thus,
initiation or diksa IS siksa, the most essential and indispensable siksa one can
receive.
One can certainly get by without the rest of what counts as siksa, but one
cannot get by
without this siksa if one ever wishes to play under the skies of Goloka. To replace
the
guru-parampara with a siksa-parampara obscures and derails this fundamental
function
of initiation. But this is only the first of several idiocies that mix together to form
the idea
of siksa-parampara.
The second idiocy comes with the word parampara. A parampara is a lineage
or
succession and is meant to specify a list or a succession of singular things or
people. Thus,
it applies quite well to the situation of the initiating guru because a member of
the
tradition is only supposed to have one initiating or mantra guru. That Jiva
Gosvamin says
quite clearly in his Bhakti-sandarbha (207). After all, one only has one identity in
relationship to the Lord and that s learned from the mantra guru. Jiva says in the
previous section of the same work (206), however, that there can be many siksa
gurus.
25
They teach the methods of worship or the fundamentals of the philosophy or the
meanings of the various sacred texts. Different teachers may be expert in
different
aspects of the tradition. What sense does keeping track of a parampara make
in that
circumstance. A person may have three or four siksa gurus and each of those
may have
had three or four siksa gurus. One quickly loses the thread of the succession. In
fact, it is
impossible to construct a succession in such a circumstance. An older siksa guru
may take
siksa from the disciple of a disciple if that disciple has mastered some subject
from yet
another siksa guru. Then ones succession becomes an endless loop. The idea,
therefore,
of a siksa-parampara is sheer nonsense.
A third idiocy arises from what is implied by the imposition of a siksa-parampara.
Take
for instance what is implied by an early version of the siksa-parampara taken
from Jan
Brzezinskis excellent, but somewhat narrowly conceived (since when does
Gaudiya
Vaisnavism refer only or even primarily to the Gaudiya Math and ISKCON) essay
on this
subject called The Parampara Institution in Gaudiya Vaisnavism (Journal of
Vaisnava
Studies, vol. 5, no. 1).
Thelist is as follows (p. 152):
Caitanya (d. 1534)
Svarupa Damodara (d. 1540)
Sanatana Gosvamin (d. 1556)
Rupa Gosvamin (d. 1556)
Raghunatha Dasa Gosvamin (1586)
Krsnadasa Kaviraja (1612)
Narottama Dasa Thakura (ca. 1650)
Visvanatha Cakravartin (ca. 1710)
Baladeva Vidyabhusana (ca. 1725)
Jagannatha Dasa Baba (ca. 1911)
Bhaktivinoda Thakura (ca. 1917)
Gaurakisora Dasa Baba (1915)
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati (1937)
Bhaktivedanta Svami (1977)
This is the list found in Prabhupadas Bhagavad-gita As It Is (1972) and in the
introduction to Bhaktisiddhantas Anubhasya on the Caitanya-caritamrta (1956).
Where
is Jiva Gosvamin? Where is Gopala Bhatta Gosvamin? Where is Kavi Karnapura?
Jans
fifth note on this list mentions that even Baladeva was not included in
Bhaktisiddhantas
list (fn. p. 152). What about Ramananda Raya, Srinivasacarya, Prabodhananda,
Radhakrsna Gosvamin? How about Vrndavana Dasa, Locana Dasa, and Murari
Gupta?
Are none of these great Vaisnavas worthy of giving siksa? Are the traditions
greatest
theologian, greatest ritualist, and greatest Vedantin not worthy of being siksa
gurus? Did
those not on the list contribute nothing worthwhile to the enrichment of the
Gaudiya
26
Vaisnava tradition? This is patently ridiculous. On the other hand, if the
succession list is
not meant to be exclusive, then what on earth is it for? Here are those we should
learn
from, who have taught us something; the rest have not. The idea of a siksa
parampara is a
worthless concoction and one that implies something offensive. The fact is,
anyone can be
a source of siksa. The examples of this abound. A famous one is, of course, the
case of
Bilvamangalas being instructed by a prostitute named Cintamani, but Krsna
can and
does teach through anyone.
Comment
August 29, 2014
Reflections on Initiation by Nitai Das, Part 1, 2, and 3
Download this in PDF format here:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/e3717aola66h1d8/True_History_of_Bhaktisiddha
nta.pdf
REFLECTIONS ON INITIATION
Part 1
by
Nitai Das
June 13, 2005
Recently, among the many other projects I have started and not finished, I was
working
on Visvanatha Cakravartins Krsna-bhavanamrta, a delightful poem embodying
the
raganuga-bhakti practice of smaran. a or visualization. The very first verse of the
text
contains the word parampara, which, among other things, may be translated
disciplic
succession. The verse reads like this in my translation:
I surrender to the rain-cloud Krsna Caitanya, who instantly destroys the world of
darkness and refreshes the whole world through uninterrupted succession of
showers of
his beauty like the beauty of millions of gods of love. (Krsnabhavanamrta, 1.1)
It is a nice image. Caitanya is like a rain cloud pouring down his beauty like rain
on a
thirsty world. Imposed on this rather poetic, natural view is the word succession
(parampara). It seems from one angle to spoil everything. Rain clouds rain
indiscriminately, but in Visvanathas verse he has left the natural order behind
and
imposed the idea of succession on the image. Since it doesnt fit the image very
easily, he
must have had a very good reason for it. Or perhaps the image should be one
of lines or
bands of rain moving across the landscape the way one sometimes sees them
in the
summer, an intense, dark-blue downpour soaking a particular area, but leaving
the
surrounding areas dry. However one imagines it, the meaning seems clear:
Caitanyas
shower of beauty or light (kanti) is mediated through successions and for us in
the
Caitanya community this means disciplic successions. This verse reminded me
of an
insipid little book that was sent to me recently. Written by someone named
Tripurari
(what kind of a Vaisnava name is this, anyway), it was called Sri Guru
Parampara:
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, heir to the esoteric life of Kedarnatha
Bhaktivinoda.
The book is full of goofy errors, sophistry, and misunderstandings, but criticizing
that
silly little book is not the point of this essay. The author, however, claims that
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati had received diksa (initiation) in the Gaudiya
sampradaya and
this reminded me of my own parting of ways with ISKCON.
The main reason for my departure from ISKCON was that I came to believe (and
I still
do) that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati had never received proper initiation into the
sampradaya. This revelation absolutely shook my world to pieces. I remember
sitting on
the roof of ISKCONs Vrindaban guest house the following day sadly watching
the sun
come up. It seemed like a different sun and the world I saw was a strange and
frightening
one. For weeks I had no idea what I was going to do. The man who broke the
news to me
was Dr. OBL Kapoor, elder savant of the Caitanya Vaisnava tradition and former
member of the Gaudiya Math (his initiation name in the GM was Adikesava
Das). He
2
himself had found genuine initiation outside the organization of Bhaktisiddhanta,
from
the great bhakta, Sri Gauranga das Baba.
Even though I greatly respected Dr. Kapoor, I refused to accept what seemed
to me to be
extremely bad news on his word alone. I interviewed others and did my own
researc, but
every where I turned I found the course led to the same unbelievable
conclusion.
Bhaktisiddhanta had been refused initiation by Gaura Kisora Das Babaji and he
had
insulted his fathers guru, Bipin Bihari Goswami. His enormous ego and rather
sharp
tongue closed the doors of Krsnas realm to him and to those who have
depended on him.
When he was called on his lack of initiation by one of the Caitanya traditions
greatest
scholar-practitioners of the last century, Pandita Ramakrsna Das Baba, who was
universally respected and honored by Vaisnavas of all sampradayas, he turned
his venom
on the babas who were following the only recognized form of renunciation in
the
Caitanya tradition. This has had a profound effect on the functioning of
Gaudiya Math
and all its children, one among which is ISKCON. More will be said about this side
of the
problem in future installments of this essay.
Why did I come to believe that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was never initiated?
This was
almost universally the reason ex-members of the Gaudiya Math gave for their
own
departures from that organization. I had always been told that after the death
of
Bhaktisiddhanta in 1937, the Gaudiya Math gradually disintegrated as a result of
the
struggle for power and greed. The actual impetus I learned was more principled
than
that. It was the result of the discovery of the inauthenticity of Bhaktisiddhantas
initiation.
The man who began the fracture of the GM was Bhaktiprasada Puri Das
Goswami,
known before his renunciation as Anantavasudeva das, the leader of the GM
who was
hand-picked by Bhaktisiddhanta himself. His reason was precisely his own
discovery of
the fundamental flaw in the parampara of the Gaudiya Math.
After a four-month long series of lectures on the Bhakti-sandarbha of Sri Jiva
Gosvamin,
begun in Bengal and completed in Vrindaban, he called all the members of the
Math
together, especially the sannyasis, and announced his own departure from the
institution.
He also informed them that their own efforts were in vain. Without the proper
initiation
of their teacher, Bhaktisiddhanta, the mantras he gave them in initiation were
useless.
The institution of sannyasa, too, the renounced order of life according to the
system of
asramas or stages in a exemplary Hindu life, which was instituted by
Bhaktisiddhanta in
Caitanya Vaisnavism, was also groundless (since Bhaktisiddhanta had given it to
himself).
He advised all the sannyasis to go home and get married. Their pursuit of
sannyasa was a
sham and a waist of time. Most importantly of all he advised them that for their
own
spiritual good they get properly initiated from an authentic lineage within the
Caitanya
tradition. This I heard from several aged Vaisnavas in Vrindaban and Nabadwip
who
knew Puri Das personally and who left along with him or some time shortly
afterwards.
He called the members together, especially the sannyasis, and informed them
that their
efforts were in vain. Without the proper initiation of their teacher, the mantras he
gave
them were useless. He advised them to go home and get married. Their pursuit
of
3
sannyasa was a waist of time. Most of all he advised them that for their own
spiritual
good they go get properly initiated. This I heard from several aged Vaisnavas in
Vrindaban and Nabadvip who knew Puri Das and who left along with him or
some time
shortly afterwards.
In addition, I did a little research on my own. During one of my visits to
Nabadwip I
visited the bhajana kutir/mandira of Gaura Kishora Das Babaji and spoke with
the pujari
there. I asked him if he knew whether Gaura Kishora Das Babaji had any
initiated
disciples. His answer, after consulting with some of the other elders of the
compound,
was that, as far as he knew, there were only four, a married couple of modest
means and
two others, agriculturalists from neighboring villages, none of whom were
Bhaktisiddhanta. How he knew this and how reliable his testimony is, I dont
know, but
taken in conjunction with the other evidence it lends support to the thesis that all
that
Bhaktisiddhanta got from Gaura Kishora Das Babaji were his blessings in the form
of a
little dust of Nabadvip sprinkled on his head.
The third bit of evidence comes from an eyewitness account. Tripurari Maharaj
claims
that there were witnesses to Bhaktisiddhantas initiation (p. 37). He doesnt
mention who
they were or even how he knows there were witnesses. We are expected, I
suppose, to
accept it solely on his authority. His authority is useless, however, and unless he
has some
evidence, we can treat the witness claim with the doubt it deserves. The
eyewitnesses I
know of and from whom I heard were eyewitness to Bhaktisiddhantas admission
before
Pandita Ramakrsna Das Baba that he had not received initiation from
Gaurakisora Das
Babaji. Bhaktisiddhanta was in the habit of visiting Pandit Babaji during his visits
to
Vraja since he was without a doubt the most respected of the Caitanya
Vaisnnavas of the
early 20th century. On one occasion, certainly before 1914 when Gaurakisora
Das Baba
passed away, Bhaktisiddhanta highly praised Gaurakisora Das in Pandit Babas
presence.
Pandit Baba asked him if he had received initiation from him. Bhaktisiddhanta
said he
had received it in dream. Pandit Babaji said that that was fine, but he should
receive it in
the flesh as well since that is the only type of initiation accepted as authentic in
the
Caitanya tradition. Bhaktisiddhanta said he would and ended the visit.
A few years later, in 1917-18, Bhaktsiddhanta returned to Vrindaban, now the
acharya of
the Gaudiya Math, a famous man with many disciples. He visited Pandita Babaji
again.
Babaji was living at that time at the Bhagavata-nivasa asrama on Ramana Reti
Road. He
was ill and was there to recuperate. When Bhaktisiddanta visited him, Pandit
Baba asked
again if he had gotten initiation from Gaura Kishora Das Baba. His answered
that he did
not, at which point Pandita Baba got extremely angry with him for making
disciples
without proper initiation. Pandita Babaji threw him out of the ashrama and
Bhaktisiddhanta, fearing damage to his reputation, began his calumny of the
Vrindaban
babas and forbade his disciples from meeting with them. This account was
given to me by
Advaita Das Baba from Govardhan, who was the nephew of Puri Das Gosvami
and who
claimed he had heard it directly from Visnudas Baba who as a young lad had
been there
4
helping Pandit Baba during his stay at Bhagavata-nivasa. Visnudasa had been
in the room
during the meeting between Pandit Baba and Bhaktisiddanta and heard this
exchange
personally. Advaita Das Baba, then quite old. He was a siksa disciple of the
great
smarana teacher Manohar Das Baba of Govardhan. When I met him he was
the
mahanta(abbot) of Govinda-kunda, the asrama of Siddha Manohara das
Baba. I
expressed my anxiety about leaving ISKCON to Advaita das Baba. I knew I
would incur
Bhaktivedanta Swamis anger if I left ISKCON and sought shelter at the feet of
Kisorikisorananda
das Baba as I was thinking of doing. He laughed and assured me that I had
nothing to fear from Bhaktivedantas anger. His exact words were such anger is
powerless. I took my leap of faith shortly thereafter and have never looked
back with any
Does all this prove that Bhaktisiddhanta did not receive initiation?
It depends on what one means by proof. Some people set the bar so high for
proof that by
that standard nothing can be proved beyond a doubt. There are still some
twisted ones
who claim that the Holocaust did not happen because it has not been
definitively proven
to have happened. I think the preponderance of evidence falls against
Bhaktisiddhantas
having received authentic initiation. It is not just a matter of hearsay, as some
rather thick
and loud demagogues want to claim. The people how actually lived through
those events
were alive when I was faced my difficult choice and they shared with me their
experiences
and insights. Moreover, it is absurd to think that Bhaktiprasada Puri Goswami
would
have made such a momentous choice based on mere hearsay. He gave up the
highest and
most honored post in the GM to live a life of seclusion and service in Vrindaban.
His life
was put in danger because of it and had he not been hidden by some of the
Goswamis of
the Radharamana Temple in Vrindaban, some of the members of the GM would
have
killed him. Finally, there is the fact that the mainstream Vaisnava community
does not
regard ISKCON and GM (IGM) as authentic members of the Caitanya tradition.
This is
most dramatically demonstrated by the fact that main-streamers do not eat
with members
of IGM and as far as possible do not associate with them. Is this widespread
feeling of the
mainstream community towards IGM based simply on hearsay? I think not. It is
based on
the conviction that IGM is not part of the community of Vaisnavas who trace
their
tradition back to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. They are an apasampradaya,
renegade
My advice to ISKCON-men and women and to ex-ISKCON-men and women
and to non-
ISKCON-men and women is the same as that given to me many years ago by
Dr. Kapoor:
get yourselves properly initiated. There are several members of authentic
Vaisnava
parampara around whose lineages are undisputed.
5
REFLECTIONS ON INITIATION
Part 2
by
Nitai Das
June 14, 2005
In this installment we will have to grapple with the question of thesuccess of
ISKCON.
ISKCON-men will often cite the success of ISKCON as proof of the power and
authenticity of Srila Prabhupada. Viewed objectively, however, a strong
argument
can be made that ISKCON has not been all that successful and one might
extend that
argument to its mother organization in India, the Gaudiya Math. A lot, of course,
hinges
on what is considered success. It is possible to lower the thresh-hold of success so
low that
anything can be considered success; conversely it is possible to raise it so high
that
nothing can be considered successful. Obviously, however, some more or less
objective
standards are needed to evaluate success. I will try to find and apply such
standards in
three areas that are usually associated with success:
size and wealth of the organization,
level of advancement of its members, and
effect of the organization or its teachings on the awareness or
consciousness of the
If size and wealth are to be considered evidence of success, then ISKCON will
have
difficulty demonstrating its success. Compared to many other religious
organizations,
ISKCON has done no better and in several cases it has done worse. According
to several
sources, ISKCON had at its peak (mid-1970s ?) less than 5,000 full-time members
in the
United States (Melton, 1982), a number which has dropped to about 3,000
today. The
current list of centers provided on ISKCONs own home page has around 75
entries for
the United States. According to an independent source, ISKCON currently has
about a
million followers in the world with about 8,000 full-time followers among them
(Chryssides, 1999). Another independent source claims that there are 3,000 core
members and about 250,000 lay members in the United States (New Religious
Movements, University of Virginia, 1998). This might at first seem quite impressive,
but
how does this stack up with some of the other 20th century religious groups in
the United
States? Independent sources place the number of followers of the Unification
Church,
which was founded in 1954 by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, at between one to three
million
around the world (Chryssides, 1999) with some 10,000 full-time members in
theWest
(Bishop, 1987). Scientology has according to their own account eight million
followers,
but it turns out that the Scientologists claim as a member anyone who has ever
availed
themselves of their services (auditing, etc) since the founding of the Church of
Scientology in 1954. Dissident former members, however, claim that there are
less
than 700,000 in the United States. Somewhere between those two extremes lies
the actual
6
figure. The most recent estimate places the number of members at 5.6 million
worldwide
(Chryssides, 1999), but this again is dependent on church publications. Of those,
there
are around 11,370 full-time members according to the same estimate. The
numbers for
Transcendental Meditation vary from around 50,000 in the world (Melton, 1993)
to one
million in the United States and three million in the world (Occhiogrosso, 1996).
Obviously, it is hard to find reliable tallies of any of these groups. Nevertheless,
assuming
that these figures bear some resemblance to reality, ISKCON when compared
with its
peers has not turned in a very strong performance. In fact, it seems to have
lagged somewhat behind; all of the other religious groups cited here appear to
have done
better than ISKCON. Or, if one exercises a much warranted skepticism over the
figures
available, ISKCON has at least done as well but certainly no better. It must be
pointed
out, however, that the Unification Church and Scientology have been in
existence for at
least ten years longer than ISKCON and that the former, at least, still has its
leader. This
hardly amounts to the flooding of the world with preman predicted in the
Caitanyacaritamrta.
Nor is it a stunning display of the superiority of Prabhupadas potency and
authenticity. On the basis of the evidence such as it is, one would have to claim
at least as
much potency and authenticity for the Rev. Moon, L. Ron Hubbard, and the
Maharshi.
Perhaps this is not the way to recognize ISKCONs success, then. Followers,
centers, and
wealth could be merely a manifestation of good organizational skills and sound
business
sense, not empowerment.
Let us consider the advancement of the followers of ISKCON, then. Perhaps this
is where
the secret of ISKCONs success lies. But we are wandering into the middle of a
very
slippery quagmire here. How can one tell how advanced a devotee is? The
bhakti
scriptures give examples of symptoms to look for in advanced devotees, but do
any of the
ISKCONers manifest such symptoms and if so, are they genuine? These are
difficult
questions to answer. I remember how reassuring it was back when I was a
member of
ISKCON to think that someone in the society had really made visible
advancement. We
all believed that Yamuna Devi Dasi, of instance, had reached the level of
bhava. This
must have been a claim that had originated with Prabhupada. Who would dare
to
make up such a thing. I at least stood in awe of her when I finally met her years
later in
Brindaban. What a mind blowing experience then when one day during his
daily massage
Prabhupada turned to me and asked if I knew Yamuna Devi Dasi. I said that I
did and
waited expectantly for Prabhupada to praise her for how highly developed and
saintly she
was. Instead he said: She has spoiled many brahmacaris and sannyasis! What
an
earthquake! I felt like the ceiling had fallen down on my head. So much for past
greatness; is there any greatness among the current followers of ISKCON? I am
certainly
in no position to say since I have purposefully removed myself from all ISKCON
association. During the six years I spent as a member of the organization I met
no one
who I thought had advanced very far and worried a great deal about the rate
of my own advancement.
I remember the ludicrous spectacle of a Brahmananda Swami stealing
money, running off to whore houses in Africa for months, and then crawling
back on his
hands and knees to Prabhupadas feet begging for forgiveness. Brahmananda
was one of
7
Prabhupadas oldest disciples. Besides that he was bully. I have personal
experience of that. I need only mention the names Kirtanananda Swami,
Bhavananda Swami, and Hamsaduta Swami to provide other stunning
examples of ISKCONs failure. I suspect that not much has changed, that there
are still no devotees who have advanced beyond the even the lowest rungs of
sadhanabhakti. This, if true, is very sad thing and a very strange. One would think
that someone in the last forty years would have made some
advancement. The only devotees I have ever seen who were on high levels of
development were outside of both ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math. One
remembers, for instance, Sri Krsnacarana Das Baba who could no longer attend
readings of works on Krsna-lila because tears would start squirting from his eyes
uncontrollably, his hair would stand on end and slobber would run down his
chin. The other members of the audience would take more notice of him than
of the text being read. I never saw this happen to him, but this is how Dr. Kapoor
described him to me once. I also recall sleeping outside of Tinkudi Babas
(Kisorikisorananda Baba) room when I first joined him and waking early in the
morning to hear him laughing and talking enthusiastically in his room with
someone.
When I peeked in I saw that he was alone. Those around him told me that he
often did that and that he was talking with Radha and Krsna and the other
gopis. They in
addition claimed that Radha and Krsna were actually there with him. Those
around him
also claimed that they had at various times seen all of the eight sattvika-vikara
appear in
his body. Unfortunately, my Bengali was too poor at that time to understand
what he said
there in his room. Even in my profoundly covered state, however, I could sense
that
something powerful was going on within and around him.
Can ISKCON boast such advanced devotees? I doubt it. If there are some
similarly
advanced devotees I would be glad to learn of it. ISKCON doesnt even
recognize such
things as achievements, though. To ISKCON-men selling more books, building
more
temples, bringing in more money, making more disciples are the signs of
advancement.
This is all Prabhupada used to talk about. The wealth of the heart doesnt count
for much
in ISKCON. ISKCONs full attention is directed outside. My thesis is that this is
because
the path inside is blocked for ISKCONers and this is because it has no genuine
initiation.
Initiation opens an inner door and as Tinkudi Baba once said connects one with
the
powerhouse Krsna. If that inner path is blocked by worthless mantras, if that inner
door
is locked shut, ones attention is forced outside and one is stuck with judging
ones
success on the basis of external measures. As Baladeva Vidyabhusana has said
in his
Prameya-ratnavali, quoting the Padma Purana:
yad-uktam. padma-purane
sampradaya-vihina ye mantraste viphala matah
As it is said in the Padma Purana:
mantras that have no community of transmission (sampradaya) areconsidered
fruitless.
8
Community of transmission here means disciplic succession. Mantras that are not
received through disciplic succession are powerless. ISKCONs mantras have
proven
useless in transforming the hearts of its initiates. That is anyway how it appears to
outside
observers like me. Thus, neither from the point of view of material success nor
from the
point of view of advancement of followers does ISKCON appear to be in any
sense
What about ISKCONs influence in transforming the consciousness of the West?
Has not
ISKCON had a profound effect in transforming Western culture? Perhaps it is too
early
to draw any conclusions on this issue, but at present it looks like ISKCON and
indeed
several of the other religious movements of the latter twentieth century are
destined to
be mere footnotes to the religious life of the century. I have increasingly noticed
how, in
the classes I teach, fewer and fewer of the students have ever heard of the
Hare Krishna
movement. Those who have heard of the movement know next to nothing
about its
teachings and practices. If a student does know something, it is something
negative: that
the Hare Krishnas used to harass people in the airports and city streets, forcing
books
and incense on them and short-changing them whenever possible, or that they
were a cult
that brain-washed their follows. This is ISKCONs real legacy. Older people
associate
ISKCON with the kidnapping of kids and scandalous murder cases. Penetrating
studies
have been done on the psychological profiles of people who join such fringe
groups as
ISKCON, with the objective of getting such people help so that they will not do
such
things in the future. While much of this hype is based on a misunderstanding of
what
ISKCON stands for and a corresponding refusal to recognize that similar
psychological
weaknesses can be found in people who become members of any evangelical
or
fundamentalist religious group, it nevertheless contributes to the overall cultural
perception of ISKCON. Thus, ISKCON and the other groups like it have become
manifestations of the feared other. Very few Americans today would consider
it an
honor if their sons and daughters became members of ISKCON. In other words
ISKCON
has given Krsna a bad name in the West.
On the positive side, it can be said that groups like ISKCON have served to
strengthen
and to nourish the pluralism that exists today in American religion and indeed
increasingly in religion in other parts of the world. Thus, it can be said that
ISKCON has
indeed had an effect of the consciousness of the world, but perhaps not the
one it hoped
to have. The process has not ended yet. The current rise in fundamentalisms is a
reaction
to the increased strength and visibility of pluralism, to which ISKCON contributed,
and
may bring about the ultimate demise of pluralism. Who can guess what
repressive order
may replace it? (Bush?)
The absence of a genuine initiation may account for the absence of real
empowerment in
ISKCON, but what about the power of the holy name? Surely that is a factor that
would
contribute to ISKCONs success. The holy name requires no initiation, knows no
rules or
limitations. The holy name and the holy named are one and the same and thus
the holy
9
name is always empowered. Since ISKCON practices and promotes the
chanting of the
holy name it must thereby have some connection with that powerhouse you
spoke of. If
ISKCON has had only moderate success, why hasnt the holy name changed
that? This is
indeed an interesting question and that will be the one I tackle next month.
Select Bibliography
Chryssides, George. Exploring New Religions. London, U.K.: Cassells (1999).
Melton, J. Gordon & Robert L. Moore. The Cult Experience: Responding to the
New Religious Pluralism. New York: The
Pilgrim Press (1984 [3rd printing; 1st printing 1982]).
Melton, J. Gordon, Encyclopedia of American Religions. 4th ed. Detroit: Gale
Research Inc. (1993).
New Religious Movements (University of Virginia) (1998) (web
site:http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~jkh8x/soc257/nrms/).
Occhiogrosso, Peter: The Joy of Sects: A Spirited Guide to the Worlds Religious
Traditions. NewYork: Doubleday (1996)
REFLECTIONS ON INITIATION
Part 3
by
Nitai Das
June 15, 2005
Last month I argued that if one examines the empirical evidence, there is no
support for
the contention that ISKCON and its mother organizations, the Gaudiya Math
and its
splinters, are empowered as one would expect them to be if they possessed a
genuine line
of initiation. I used three criteria: material wealth and followers, production of
advanced
followers, and influence on the consciousness of the time. One needs only to
look at the
beginnings of the Caitanya movement to see what empowerment looks like.
Vast numbers
of people became followers, temples were built to house the movements many
deities,
numerous followers showed signs of advancement on the path of bhakti, and
consciousness was profoundly transformed. Within a century a vast literature
was created
and the influence of that movement was exerted on Bengali literature for
several
centuries. As an example of the last criterion, one need only recall the huge
numbers of
songs and poems written in Sanskrit, Bengali, and Braj-bhasha about the love of
Radha
and Krsna. So profound and lasting was this transformation of consciousness that
centuries later it influenced perhaps Bengals greatest poet Rabindranath
Tagore who,
using (maybe the words adopting, adapting, or downright pilfering would be
better words
to use here) the figures and moods of bhakti poetry in his Gitanjali, won
recognition from
the world as Indias first and only Nobel prize winner. Perhaps that prize really
belongs to
Mahaprabhu and his many poet followers.
Since the big bang of those beginnings, however, not much of that
magnitude has
happened. The universe has continued to expand at a steady rate, but the only
major
milestone in the last five centuries seems to have been the expansion of the
movement
beyond the boundaries of India to the rest of the world. Credit for that only
partially rests
at the feet of Prabhupada (Bhaktivedanta Swami). Other representatives of the
Caitanya
10
tradition came West before him, learned and charismatic devotees like
Premananda
Bharati and Mahanamabrata Brahmacari preceded him by over a half a
century. Though
from our perspective at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries,
their
efforts seem to have failed, in actuality, during their times they met with a good
deal of
success in spreading the faith. They wrote books and dissertations, produced
journals,
established temples and asramas, and gave lectures to hundreds. Premananda
even made
numerous disciples whom he took to India with him and who carried on in their
own ways
after his untimely death. The Gaudiya Math, too, sent representatives like Swami
Bon to
try to establish the movement in Europe and boasted a few intelligent and high-
profile
disciples like Sadananda and Walter Eidlitz, author of several important studies of
Caitanya Vaisnavism. Prabhupadas success may well turn out to be no greater
than theirs
and more long-lasting.
Still, it is enticing to think that perhaps over the centuries the Caitanya
movement
became too complacent, too self-satisfied with the rich inner world it had been
given
access to. Having been given, by the grace of their living successions, the keys
to the inner
door in initiation, it became very hard to resist using those keys to enter into the
eternal
inner world of lila. Why indeed would one want to resist such a thing? Therefore,
perhaps
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, Bhaktivedanta Swami, and others like them are to be
seen as
unwitting instruments in the hands of Mahaprabhu, instruments capable of
doing things
for the spread of the movement that duly initiated members find very difficult to
do. If
the inner door is closed and locked, one is forced to live and work among the
externals,
amidst the money, the followers, the public relations, the publications, the land
deals, the
lawsuits and the temples. One is funnelled into a life of busy-ness (or business) if
the
inner eye remains shut. Thus, ISKCON and its parent organizations might be seen
as
something like loud noise makers, attracting the attention of the people of the
world with
a carnival-like atmosphere and drawing them to an awareness of the world of
Caitanya
Vaisnavism. Once those people have been put in orbit around Mahaprabhu it
would be
easy for some small percentage of them to make the transition into association
with
Mahaprabhus authentic followers. If this thesis is correct, then making this
transition,
though important for some, is not for everybody. Some must remain locked out
in the
external realm as part of the carnivale, at least for a few more lifetimes, in order
that the
process may go on and the sirens may continue their song. This seems to be
what has
happened and is continuing to happen with IGM (ISKCON/Gaudiya Math).
Maybe something like the scenario outlined above was in Dr. Kapoors mind
when he
shattered my safe little ISKCON world by informing me of the absence of
initiation in
ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math. He himself, as I mentioned before, had been
reinitiated
already by Gauranga Das Baba and I recall quite clearly his emotional
description of the day on which he met his initiating guru (Baba). Dr. Kapoors
suggestion for me was that I too take initiation secretly and remain within
ISKCON. This
was apparently what he had done, since he had kept up his relationships with
his old
Gaudiya Math god-brothers, kept his GM initiation name, and at least on the
surface
11
appeared to be no different from them. When I asked him for initiation, he wisely
declined. Instead he recommended Tinkudi Baba as the most advanced of the
bhaktas in
Braj at the time and as the best candidate for my initiating guru. He mentioned
other
possibilities as well, speaking highly of Krsnacarana Das Baba and others. That
was when
I began to visit Tinkudi Baba, meeting him for the first time at Cakleshar on the
banks of
the Manasasarovar near Govardhan. But that story is for another installment.
Somehow Dr. Kapoors advice didnt sit very well with me, however. I had just
had my
head chewed off a month earlier by Prabhupada in Mayapur over a plan I had
devised to
create an accredited guru-kula and that in front of many of the GBC. I can still
see the
smirks on their greasy, self-indulgent faces. His words still ring in my ears, too: Do
you
think the world needs more scholars?! No! It needs more devotees! I never
could accept
the idea that one could not be both a scholar and a devotee and, quite
frankly, I still
dont. I felt, therefore, out of place in ISKCON and I considered it somewhat
hypocritical to take initiation secretly from someone else and then pretend to
be
Prabhupadas disciple still. I began from that time to plan my departure, looking
for an
opportunity to slip away quietly and unnoticed into the morning mists of Braj. But
that
too is a story for another time.
Looking back at that time from the present I am convinced I did the right thing.
Sure, I
could have secretly helped correct ISKCONs impotence by bringing in an
authentic
initiation line. Perhaps others have done this and many of the mantra now
transmitted in
ISKCON have been brought to life. There were many rumors of various other
disciples of
Prabhupada receiving initiation from other Vaisnavas like Lalita Prasada Thakur.
My
own disciples, if ever I had any, would have been benefitted no doubt and
perhaps the
worship of that heart-guru (caittya-guru) accomplished in the first of the
inititation
mantras and gayatris given in genuine initiation would have helped me guide
ISKCON on
more wholesome paths. Still, there is a horrible flaw and obstacle at work in
ISKCON
and its parents that nothing short of complete separation can correct. This flaw
is also the
strongest evidence against the idea that the Gaudiya Math and ISKCON are
instruments
in Mahaprabhus plan. It is to that flaw that we must now turn.
Apart from ISKCONs impotence due to lack of initiation, it suffers from the
serious
commision of offense to the holy names. Repeating the holy name requires no
initiation
and has no limits in terms of proper place, time, or practitioner. Anyone can
utter or
repeat the holy names and reap the benefit of being in the presence of the
holy named,
Krsna, through his holy names. The only obstacle that can interrupt this positive
influence is committing an offense to the holy names. That is precisely what has
infected
the Gaudiya Math and its offshoots (ISKCON). This offense began with
Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati himself and is inherited by everyone who counts him or herself a
follower of his.
First of all in IGM there is the most obvious offense to the holy name, the first
listed on
the traditional list of ten offenses, blasphemy of the saintly (sadhuninda). This
began in
the Gaudiya Math after Bhaktisiddhanta was severely criticized by Pandit
Ramakrsna
12
Das Baba for not being authentically initiated by Gaurakisora Das Baba (see the
my first
essay). Sarasvatis egotistic response was to blast the babas one and all and
why he was at
it why not throw in the caste Goswamis, too. This offensive practice became
part of the
very institution of the Gaudiya Math and its offshoots. We heard it often enough
from
Prabhupada in person and in his writings. It became the basis of the instruction
to avoid
anyone claiming to be a Vaisnava outside of ISKCON. That extended even
Prabhupadas
own god-brothers from the GM. I understand that Prabhupada eventually
realized the
seriousness of this offense and for I hear that on his death bed, he called leading
members of the Vrindaban Vaisnava communitytogether, his god-brothers and
caste
Goswamis alike, and asked for their forgiveness. Too little, too late? Who knows.
Real
Vaisnava are a humble and forgiving bunch.
The really serious offense to the holy name, however, is one that few think
recognize. It
arises from neglect or disrespect of the guru (gurv-avajna), the third offense. Not
to take
proper initiation is to commit the offense of neglecting the guru and that, too, is
a
powerful obstacle to the holy name. The great commentator Visvanatha
Cakravartin gave
an interesting characterization of the way this offense works in his commentary
on the
Bhagavata Purana 6.2.9-10. He says:
Some people are always engaging their senses in the sense objects
like cows and asses and dont know, even in their dreams, who
is God, what is devotion, who is the guru. Such inoffensive persons
are saved even without a guru by repeating the holy name in
the manner of a semblance of holy name (namabhasa) like Ajamila
and others. Others, however, have discriminating knowledge: Hari
is to be worshipped, worship is the way to attain him, the guru is
the instructor of that, many people of the past have attained Hari
by means of the devotion taught by the guru, and yet, on the basis
of claims: initiation, good practice, and expiation are not needed;
the mere touch of this mantra, composed of the name of Krsna, on the tongue
brings the
result, and on the basis of those very examples
of Ajamila and others, they think: why should I go to the
trouble of finding a guru? By kirtana of the holy names alone I will
get the Lord. Because of this great offense of neglecting the guru,
they will not attain the Lord. However, when that offense becomes
eliminated, in that lifetime itself or in another lifetime , they, too,
will find shelter at the feet of a guru and reach the Lord.
From this it appears that in some ways it is better not to know about the
importance of
the guru than it is to know about importance of the guru and not to take shelter
of one. I
conjecture that this is exactly what Bhaktisiddhanta did. Perhaps he really
wanted to take
initiation from Gaurkisora Das Baba, but for some reason was unable to and
could not
find another who met his high standards. That is understandable and even
admirable. But
13
to start accepting disciples without have made that initial offering of oneself to
Krsna in
the moment of surrender to a guru, that is inexcusable. Moreover, those who
now believe
he was not properly initiated or who at least honestly doubt that he was properly
initiated
and yet are reluctant to get themselves properly initiated suffer from that same
offense.
The result is the same: the effectiveness of repeating the holy names is impeded.
Not
until after the offense is destroyed and one has found shelter with an authentic
guru does
one get Krsna.
In conclusion, where do we now find ourselves? Two results have been arrived at
concerning the Gaudiya Math and ISKCON: first, they are cut off from the
powerhouse
by the absence of proper initiation and second neglect of that absence is
offensive to the
holy name stopping even the holy name from acting to purify and perfect their
followers.
I noticed this second phenomenon quite dramatically toward the end of my
stay in
ISKCON. During my last days in ISKCON I was given the position of head pujari of
the
Krsna Balarama Temple in Vrindaban. I decided it would be a good opportunity
to do
more rounds of japa (chanting on beads). I specifically wanted to try to chant
one lakh
(100,000 names or 64 rounds on the beads) a day as the scriptures (Caitanya
bhagavata)
recommend. With practice I did reach the level of doing one lakh a day. The
result was
surprisingly unimpressive, however. I still had high hopes, but I didnt feel that
power and
that presence that I hoped I would. Later, after I took shelter with Tinkudi Baba,
far
away from anything ISKCON, and he made it my sole responsibility to chant
three lakhs
a day and extraordinary things began to happen. The holy name became
effective again.
At that time I had not received initiation from Baba yet, but the holy name was
having an
overwhelming effect on me. That effect or change of heart was indeed what
Baba was
waiting for before giving me initiation. The only explanation is that previously,
when I
chanted a lakh in ISKCON I was guilty of offense by association with offenders
and the
holy name acted only weakly for me. Only after I left that atmosphere did I
begin to feel
the great power of the holy name.
Comment
August 25, 2014
Bhaktivinode was eating meat and fish, and Bhaktisiddhanta as a young boy
also ate meat and fish
Download this in PDF format here:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/e3717aola66h1d8/True_History_of_Bhaktisiddha
nta.pdf
Bhaktivinode was eating meat and fish, and Bhaktisiddhanta as a young boy
also ate meat and fish
Bhaktivinoda Thakurs Meat Eating and Lalita Prasad Thakur
When I see a discussion starting that deals with questions I was deeply involved
in 10 or 20 years ago, or even more recently, I do not feel tempted to get
involved again. One moves on, I guess.
Rocana Prabhu has recently published an editorial on the Sampradaya
Sun wherein he struggles to make sense of Bhaktivinoda Thakurs avowal that he
engaged in meat eating. In the context of this article, he makes a few
disparaging comments about my diksha guru, Sri Lalita Prasad Thakur. It is
unfortunate that there is no one but me to currently come to the defense of my
guru, and for me to do so means exposing myself to involvement in
disagreeable disputes, which is certainly not appealing to me. Nevertheless, it
seems to me that I am under some obligation to say at least a few words.
Poor Rocana seems to have just discovered that Bhaktivinoda Thakur admitted
eating meat and fish in his memoirs. He worries about the potential this has to
disturb the minds of many readers, who would consider such practices
abhorrent. This is in fact the realization that this admission plays havoc with his
own idea of what it means to be a nitya-siddha or a sampradaya acharya.
Although he compliments Bhaktivinoda Thakur for his extreme honesty, he
does not seem to have grasped the real significance of such admissions.
Rocana bandies about with comparisons to Ramachandra and Bhimas meat-
eating and how they are different from us and that therefore the same
standards cannot apply. And woe be to those who compare their own sinful
pasts to the comparatively less objectionable, historically forgivable actions of
Bhaktivinoda Thakur.
But all this solves nothing and simply muddies the waters and reveals the general
confusion about Guru Tattva that is rampant in the Krishna consciousness
movement. A million quotes from Srila Prabhupadas books, unfortunately, do
little to clarify the issue. Rather, they go on urging us to erase the human aspects
of the Guru in order to see him as a God, and to sacrifice all capacity for
individual self-realization in submission to the gurus orders and guru-created
institutions.
I feel deeply that these kinds of exhortations have resulted in a huge imbalance
in emphasis in the general understanding of Krishna consciousness. They diminish
our humanity instead of lifting it to the heavens. How could this ever have been
the intention of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu?
The importance of the human aspect of the Guru
Though I have, as mentioned above, already written about these issues, it is
perhaps time to repeat myself again. Currently the Prema Prayojan site is closed
temporarily, so I cannot not refer to the numerous times I have gone over the
question. Indeed, the first time I publicly wrote on this subject was in letters to
Rocana on his Garuda listserve, at the very beginning of my internet
engagement with devotees. In connection with the Bhaktivinoda meat-eating
question, I wrote on Audarya forums in 2003:
I think that we should be extremely indebted to Bhaktivinoda for having pierced
the hagiographical balloon so that we can surmount the superficial
understanding of guru-tattva and nitya-siddha and all the rest of the terms that
we bandy about in order to blind ourselves to possible flaws in our guru vargas.
I have written about this before in relation to the controversy over
the Prabhupada-lilamrita. How much more inspiring and glorious it is to have a
human guru who has shown the way by struggling with the negative aspects of
material entanglement and succeeding! This is, as far as I am concerned, a
crucial point of transcending the kanishtha adhikari stage.
It is really the same question as that of guru omniscience and infallibility. There is
much confused thinking on this issue The arch-conservative and reactionary
side tries to discredit the Sva-likhita-jivani itself. These people readily accept
statements from this book when it suits their purposes, but refuse to accept those
that contradict their idealized image of Bhaktivinoda Thakur. Even so, the SLJ is
still the primary source of information on BVTs life as we know itincluding
Rupavilasas book and all other Gaudiya Math publications on his lifewith the
appropriate expurgations, of course.
I take a much more liberal and, I believe, enlightened view that attempts to
reconcile the humanity of the guru with his divinity rather than obliterate his
humanity altogether in a cloud of mystification.
While I was thinking about whether I would write this article or not, I had the
radio on and happened to hear an interview with Thomas
Merton scholar Michael Higgins. Higgins spoke of the source of Mertons appeal
and inspirational power as being anchored in his insistent search for truth and
holiness. This comes out especially in the collection of diaries that he kept
diligently and in which he spoke of things like a longstanding affair with a nurse
and other unsaintly activities.
But rather than diminishing his stature, and I hope that this is abundantly clear,
peoples appreciation for Mertons true worth only grows, to the point that
though he spoke emphatically and repeatedly against the cult of personality,
he has ironically become the subject of an entire Merton industry. Mahatma
Gandhi, in his Experiments with Truth, had the same modern approach to
saintliness.
None of this means that they are any the less saintly, but it is their saintly
ambition, it is their honest, self-examined determination to attain the impossible
goal of human perfection, that makes them admirable, and indeed worthy of
being followed.
As an aside, Satsvarupa Maharaj has been, I believe, influenced by Thomas
Merton to some extent and so he also approaches spiritual life quite openly.
Without entering into a critique of the degree of personal honesty, mystical or
theological profundity that goes into his writings, there is a certain modern
sensibility that is beyond the comprehension of the ordinary devotees and their
obsession with nitya-siddhas.
My reproach of Satsvarupa is rather that he lacks courage and has made
something of a career of retreating: He tempts fate by chanting extra rounds
(Japa Notebook) and then retreats; he visits Narayan Maharaj, and then
retreats; he has a sexual escapade, and then retreats; he decides to take face
questions about sexuality head on, and then retreatseach time caving in to
Iskcon criticism. No wonder the man is suffering so terribly from migraines!
If he could just once follow his instincts and break away from the terrible
subjection to the Institution that holds him in its gripa grip that is tattooed with
the words Iskcon acharya. With him, the problem is not so much a belief in the
value of honest self-reflection as the lack of courage to follow through on his
intuitions.
Recently I mentioned on these pages an interview with John Kain, who in a new
book called A Rare and Precious Thing talks about a number of spiritual
teachers in a variety of traditions. His opening statement was that all of these
teachers have in one way or another embraced the new paradigm. By this he
meant that these spiritual masters made no attempt to pass themselves off as
nitya siddhas, but nevertheless had a powerful and lasting effect on their
followers.
It is almost axiomatic to speak of todays spiritual leaders in Krishna
consciousness as flawed. We have been so conditioned to accepting that the
spiritual master must be a realized soul, which we associate with some kind of
unattainable superhuman status, that we end up absorbed in a kind of
faultfinding exercise that makes us incapable of acknowledging even the
considerable merits of another devotee except in the most begrudging manner.
Demonstrating that another person is imperfect is not a hard job: Ramachandra
Puri showed us all that it is possible to find fault even with Chaitanya
Mahaprabhu. So, is there any problem in finding fault with a sadhaka who
confesses his imperfections? The question here is: From whom can we, as
sadhakas ourselves, learn more? From the person who exhorts us to be
impossibly perfect while pretending to conform to this same, entirely corrupting
attitude, or from the one who sincerely admits his flaws and reveals his
strategies, etc., in dealing with them?
Evidently, adopting this kind of strategy will result in a sanguine attitude, even a
distrust, of personality cults of all kinds. George Orwell said saints should always
be judged guilty until they are proved innocent (in Reflections on Gandhi),
especially if they set themselves up as such. Of course, I am the first to admit
that the currents of hypocrisy run deep, and no public self-reflection is entirely
void of manipulative goals.
Nevertheless, let it be stated as an axiom, which like all axioms will seem bland
and obvious, that all people, including saints, are human beings. As such, they
are subject to all the flaws of humanityweakness and temptation, error and
illusion. It is not freedom from humanity that a saint achieves, nor even the
perfection of an ideal humanity; I would say rather that the saint is one who has
consecrated himself to the pursuit of holiness and has made that ideal real to
others. The acharya is someone who in the depths of his realization has found
jewels that are of inestimable value to other humans who seek lifes meaning in
God.
Those who are addicted to the idea that God speaks to the Acharya; his words
are therefore the words of God himself, patati patata, are missing several huge
points.
Lalita Prasada Thakur, my Prabhu
Of course, the paragraph in Rocanas article that really inspired me to write
anything at all was the following:
We also have to keep in mind that the Svalikhita-jivani is actually a long letter
written to his son, Lalita Prasada. As history tells it, in due course Lalita Prasada
became a real adversary to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. In fact, he started a
separate movement that is considered asiddhantic, and criticized Srila
Bhaktisiddhanta extensively. So we should consider how that plays into our
understanding this particular circumstance with Srila Bhaktivinodas meat
eating.
Who knows whether Srila Bhaktivinoda intended that his letter to his son be
published and made into a book? He might also have been trying to send a
direct message to Lalita Prasada, its hard to tell. Svalikhita-jivani is certainly a
very unusual, honest depiction of a great Sampradaya Acaryas early life. How
Lalita Prasada or any of us, for that matter choose to interpret this information
is of the utmost importance. After all, love is always tested. This candid written
narrative might simply have been designed by the father as a test for the
son. And as history shows, the son failed the test. Whether or not his publication
of this autobiographical letter was part of the failure, we cant know.
This paragraph is so full of half-truths, misunderstandings and plain nonsense that
it is hard to know where to begin. I have indeed already begun to do so above,
as the root of the error is in Rocanas magical idea of the Sampradaya
Acharya. It is furthermore an unworthy and cynical attempt to deflect the
problem onto a saintly person of whom Rocana knows nothing other than the
parampara propaganda he now so condescendingly perpetuates.
Rocanas concept arose at least in part from reflection on the now generally
well-known fact that Siddhanta Saraswati and Lalita Prasada Thakur were in
profound disagreement on the issue of diksha, the position of Bhaktivinoda
Thakurs diksha guru Bipin Bihari Goswami, raganuga bhakti practices, the
nature of Gaudiya Vaishnava institutions, sannyasa, and many of Saraswati
Thakurs innovations. I have written about these things at length and, I believe,
with a certain amount of detachment. However, if we can draw one conclusion
from the Sva-likhita-jivani, it is that Bipin Bihari Goswami played a significant role
in Bhaktivinoda Thakurs life, something that is a bit of an inconvenient truth with
most of Bhaktivinoda Thakurs putative followers.
And this lesson has a connection with the meat-eating issue. It is this: after taking
initiation from his guru, Bhaktivinoda Thakur stopped all flesh consumption.
Indeed, he highlights this as a miraculous result of being initiated. This in itself
shows the Thakurs appreciation of a significant transformation in his life as a
result of coming into connection with his guru. How does this square with those
who are on the right side of history and have consigned Bipin Bihari Prabhu to
the rubbish heap? This avowal by Bhaktivinoda Thakur on its own seems
sufficient truth to me to discard Saraswati Thakur and to follow Lalita Prasad
Thakur, everything else be damned!
Since Bhaktivinoda Thakur initiated Lalita Prasad and gave him the same pranali
that he received from Bipin Bihari. We may well ask what kind of test he was
giving Lalita Prasad in telling him these things about his guru and whether Lalita
Prasad failed that test or not. Certainly, in my eyes, since he stayed on this earth
long enough to pass this same pranali on to me when he was already 99 years
old, he did not. Through all that time he did not swerve in his commitment or his
determination to preserve Bhaktivinoda Thakurs heritage as he had received it.
If Saraswati Thakur did not receive the same gifts from his guru, or received other
ones, does this somehow put him on the right side of history? What kind of
discourse about history is this anyway?
It is easy to buy into the fallacy that so-called success and virtue are the same
thing when so clearly they are not. If there is anyone who should know this, it is
Rocana himself, since he, as an outsider, is engaged in a discourse of resistance
to a particular course of history. I am sure he thinks of himself on the side of truth
and history, but one day, if Iskcon does not find itself on that rubbish heap, it will
certainly throw him on it.
Rather than make rash comments about the fickle judgments of history, let us
seek the truth. Orwell summarized the cynical ideological manipulation of history
in 1984, He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the
past, controls the future. Fortunately for us, neither Rocana, nor Iskcon and the
Gaudiya Math and their followers, yet have complete control over the Gaudiya
Vaishnava worlds present, whatever illusions they may have. Lalita Prasad
Thakur will always be a hero of the resistance against those who have run
roughshod over the history of the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya.
Siddhanta and sadhana (Dogma and Ritual)
There are, if anything, two major contributions made by Bhaktivinoda Thakur to
the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, two contributions that blissfully stand in
apparent contradiction to one another.
The first of these, which we can place in the early part of his life, is the principal
message of Shukavaks milestone marking book. It is his work as a rational
analyst of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. It was as an inheritor of an aspect of the
Enlightenment, someone who had read European philosophers and was able to
come up with the concept of the saragrahi.
I cannot tell you how significant this concept is. Perhaps Rocana has a little
inkling of it, but only to a point, because he cannot exercise his rational function
when it comes to his so-called Sampradaya Acharyas. The whole point of being
a saragrahi, however, is that it must be applied to ones gurus themselves.
The sara element of the Guru is the Truth that he has been able to connect his
disciple to. That Truth is not the management directions of Iskcon, or the final
order of succession, or instructions about who to associate with and when.
The sara is Love Krishna and do whatever is necessary to attain that goal. He
may say, I have done such and such myself; these are my gurus, my tradition,
this is what they have done to get there, but I am only the door. Pass through
this door and into Goloka Vrindavan. Illuminated by this guiding light of identity
as a servant of Krishna, take the world I give you.
The Chaitanya Charitamrita tells us that Krishna is the Guru. He appears in the
form of the teacher and initiator, but he is also present in the heart. It is Krishna in
the heart who says yay or nay to his presence externally. When the truth
comes as a blinding light accompanied by the imperative to act in the service
of Krishna, that is Guru. But this does not mean that your relationship with God in
the Heart is finished. It simply means that the relation with the Soul of your soul is
mediated through a particular cultural and literary tradition, a symbol system, a
religious language, a history of ideas and archetypal models.
As such, we are not meant to blindly follow anyone or anything, but rather to
enter into the discourse that centers around this tradition, a discourse that
developed over the centuries and to which Bhaktivinoda Thakur,
Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Bhaktivedanta Swami have all made significant
contributions, but which none of them has thankfully terminated in some
Fukiyamian end of history.
The second aspect of Bhaktivinoda Thakurs contribution consists in his discovery,
approval, acceptance and continuation of the essential element of Gaudiya
Vaishnava teaching, namely manjari bhava. I had left this essay untouched for
several days until I saw a pretentious little article by Rasarani Devi called Poor
Bhagavat Das in which she mocks this practice and goal cherished by
Bhaktivinoda Thakur and then passed on to his son, through whom it has come
to a few other fortunate individuals.
I am afraid that the baby has gone out with the bathwater hereperhaps we
should go looking on the rubbish heap of history formanjari bhava as well, for it
seems that this is where these self-righteous judges of Gaudiya Vaishnava
history, looking through their narrow prism, have placed it.
Comment
August 21, 2014
Bhaktivinode Thakur falsified evidence in order to claim that Mayapur was the
real birthplace of Caitanya Mahaprabhu
Download this in PDF format here:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/e3717aola66h1d8/True_History_of_Bhaktisiddha
nta.pdf
Bhaktivinode Thakur falsified evidence in order to claim that Mayapur was the
real birthplace of Caitanya Mahaprabhu
He falsified the following three books- Chaitanya Upanishad, Navadvipa
Satakam and Prema Vivarta
An Analysis of Three Suspicious Texts
As requested, I am making this article available on the blog.
Some time ago, I wrote an article about Bipin Bihari Goswami and Bhaktivinoda
Thakur in which I alluded to three books, Chaitanya Upanishad, Navadvipa
Satakam and Prema Vivarta, and made the rather audacious claim that they
had been penned by Bhaktivinoda Thakur and ascribed by him to the Atharva
Veda, Prabodhananda Saraswati and Jagadananda Pandit respectively. This
has understandably resulted in much anger against me amongst those who love
Bhaktivinoda Thakur and feel forever indebted to him for their spiritual life. To
state that Bhaktivinoda may have been engaged in unethical practices seems
to be an insult against his spotless character. To all those who have been
offended by the manner in which I originally made this statement, I offer my
most sincere apologies. I consider myself the grand-disciple of Srila Bhaktivinoda
Thakur, and it is certainly not my intention to undermine the great work that he
or his disciplic descendants all over the world have done. Nevertheless, I think
that some important points are at issue here and so I am revisiting the subject in
this two-part article.
To begin with, I would like to go into some detail about why I suspected
Bhaktivinoda Thakur of writing these works in the first place. I think it is necessary
to illustrate in as clear as possible a way the evidence that favors such a
conclusion. In the second part of this article, I shall discuss to the best of my
ability what the implications of such an accusation, if true, are for those who
venerate him as their guru varga. I shall also clarify my motivations for doing so.
I consider it unjust of anyone to judge another simply on the basis of their
conclusions, without studying the reasons that lead them to making them. If I
receive my bank statement at the end of the month and find that I am
overdrawn, I should not immediately conclude that someone has stolen my
check book and debit card. I have to carefully look over the itemized list of
transactions and base my conclusion on that. An unpleasant conclusion is not
necessarily a wrong one.
Much of the reaction to what I have written comes of objections to my personal
life and the choices I have made. I am accustomed to being treated as a guru
tyagi and hearing this used as a fundamental argument to delegitimize
anything I may say. A snake only exudes poison, the argument goes, and so
should be avoided at all costs. One may be surprised to hear me say that this is
not altogether unreasonable, as all scholars try to remain alert for the biases of
those who hold any opinion. If a scientist paid by a petroleum company speaks
against the Kyoto Protocol, for example, then we naturally suspect the
impartiality of his findings.
Thus, if someone has a bias, it is perfectly legitimate to point it out, but only if it
can be shown that he manipulates data or evidence, or if his conclusions are
not justified by his proofs. If, on the other hand, you argue that because
someone has a bias, the data and evidence must inevitably have been
manipulated, you cross the line of impartiality and reveal your own irrational
prejudgements. Remember: we often arrive at our biases as the result of
examining the evidence. No one studies any evidence without wanting to arrive
at some conclusion. Those who are afraid of reaching an unpleasant conclusion
will avoid looking at the evidence.
Furthermore, if a conclusion drawn from evidence does not fit in with ones
theology, then it is the theology that must be brought into question. After all,
both theology and philosophy deal with the rational harmonization of
truth/reality with a global and meaningful vision of the world and God. If one
closes ones eye to truth because it comes from the gutter, then ones
philosophy is bound to be flawed. This all seems rather self evident to me.
One can see this kind of argument in relationship to the subject matter of this
article. Sripad Bhakti Gaurava Narasingha, a respected Gaudiya Math monk
and preacher, in his recent article, Scholarship vs Divine Revelation, quotes his
siksha guru, the late venerable Gaudiya Math sannyasi, Bhakti Rakshaka Sridhar
Maharaj, as follows:
Yes, there are many things [in Prema Vivarta] stated in the name of Gauranga
that support Gaudiya Math propaganda. So a particular section, those who are
opposed to the Gaudiya Math, says that Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote this book in
the name of Jagadananda. They hold this opinion simply because that book
supports the Gaudiya Math siddhantas very closely. For example, the Sahajiyas
think that when one lives in Puri, it is not necessary to observe the Ekadasi fast
because of the glory of maha prasad. It is said in the Chaitanya Charitamrita
that one should honor maha prasad as soon as it is given, so these people
believe that if maha prasad is given, one should not refuse it, even on the
Ekadasi day. In Jagadananda Panditas Prema Vivarta, however, it is clearly
written that when Mahaprabhu was offered maha prasad [on Ekadasi], He
touched it to His head respectfully and kept it for the next while He chanted
sankirtan the whole day and night. He then broke his fast with that prasadam on
the following morning.
There are many other things in Prema Vivarta that similarly give proof positive of
Gaudiya Math ideas and it is thus very helpful for our preachers. A certain
university professor [Biman Bihari] Majumdar wrote a book [Chaitanya Chariter
Upadan] in which he stated very cleverly that it is not clear who wrote Prema
Vivarta, but that it gives the Gaudiya Math people full support in their preaching
activity. Perhaps Professor Majumdar came from a sahajiya family. Thus though
he accepted something of Mahaprabhu he could not tolerate the Gaudiya
Maths criticism of the sahajiya section. (Darsana, Sri Caitanya Sarasvata Matha,
Feb. 11, 1982; [edited for facility of comprehension])
This statement has the goal of deflecting any possibility of unscrupulousness onto
Biman Bihari Majumdar by accusing him of harbouring prejudices against the
Gaudiya Math and allowing them to influence his impartial examination of the
facts. The late B. B. Majumdar was the first University of Calcutta student to write
his PhD dissertation in the Bengali language. In his thesis, published in 1935
as Chaitanya Chariter Upadan, he examined the various biographies of
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, analyzing the contradictions between differing
versions of His life, weighing their relative merits to determine which of them had
the most value historically. If he concluded that the Prema Vivarta was too
good to be true and dismissed it with only a few words, we should not take this
lightly.
Admittedly, Majumdar did not go into detail, so it may be argued that the
question is still open. The purpose of this article is to examine the authenticity of
the three books in question as impartially as possible on the basis of the
information available to usthe texts themselves.
Methodology
The kind of investigation I propose here is one that some readers may not be
familiar with. So I will just say a few words about how a philologist goes about
determining the authenticity of a particular text. The first question one must ask is
whether the text is known from any other source. Authors often cite other works,
some of which are unknown. Such references are favorable to the
establishment of a texts authority. Their absence is not conclusive, but troubling.
Of utmost importance in any authentification procedure is the original
manuscript itself. If one has the original manuscript, one can examine the paper
or palm leaves for their age, the handwriting for its style (styles change in
different times, so that handwriting from the 15th century can be clearly
differentiated from that of the 19th). Manuscripts are also often dated by the
scribe, which is useful information.
The three books in question are remarkable for the absence of any manuscripts,
either in the library of Bhaktivinoda Thakur or those of his families or disciples, or
indeed in any other manuscript library in the world, so we only have
Bhaktivinoda Thakurs word for it that they ever even existed.
Some people have suggested that damaged manuscripts were traditionally
consecrated to the Ganges if they were beyond repair. This may be true, but
here again there are questions. In the case of rare texts like these three, which
contain much material that would no doubt have been seen as controversial in
the Vaishnava or Hindu world of the time, the expectation is that the discoverer
would have made them available for verification. An editor who wants to
remain above suspicion does not throw away the only existing manuscript of a
rare and valuable text, no matter how badly damaged.
Furthermore, if, as we are led to believe in the case of the Prema Vivarta, the
discovered manuscript was in the handwriting of the author himself, it would
have been seen as a sacred relic and preserved religiously, irregardless of its
condition.
But the above suggestion is based on the proposition that a manuscript is in very
poor condition. It is not unheard of for valuable ancient manuscripts to be
discovered with missing pages, etc., and still be brought to publication. If a
manuscript was in a damaged state, then an editor in good faith indicates
missing pages or passagesan example that immediately comes to mind is the
famousSri Krishna kirtana of Badu Chandi Das. In the case of the three books in
question, however, the published texts show the contrary. Each of them appears
to have been perfectly preserved, indicating that the manuscripts must have
been in excellent condition. There are no missing words where weevils ate away
the pages or where water was spilled, running the ink, or where old pages had
crumbled or been torn. If a manuscript of this quality had been found, surely it
would not have needed consecrating to the Ganges or the ocean!
Next, in the absence of a manuscript, it is very important to have the text as it
was originally written. There are many clues to be had about the age of a text
from its orthography and language. There are many regionalisms and
dialectical differences in Bengali that can give us clues about the author of a
text. A text written by a Bengali who has lived a long time outside Bengal may
show traces of this, such as Krishna Das Kaviraj, whose Chaitanya Charitamrita
contains many words of Brajabhasha. In the case of our three books, the editor
has not notified us of any editorial decisions, so we must assume that the text
has been left unchanged.
Though the language of the Prema Vivarta has many similarities to the medieval
Bengali found in the other works of the time, there are also a number of modern
verb forms and locutions that rarely appear in these other texts. For
instance keGde rather than the expectedkAGdi, the Ti suffix, etc.
The third and most important source of information that can help us in assessing
whether a book is genuine or not is its content. How can this be done? The main
method is comparing it with other texts and known historical data and
scrutinizing it for anachronisms. If we have an idea of the presumed date of a
text, this should be quite revealing. We are bound, of course, to base our
conclusions on a linear perception of history. Though miraculous events are
sometimes said to be behind the discovery of ancient texts, these claims must
be treated with suspicion, as must texts that give detailed predictions of future
events. Thus if a text is said to have been written in the 1500s, we should not
expect another from the 1600s to be quoted, or other material from a later date
to be found in it.
Someone may ask, how can we tell who has borrowed from whom? Or whether
they have not borrowed from a common source? The questions that will help us
to solve these problems are the following: Is one of the texts better known than
the other? A well-known, widely disseminated text naturally has more credibility
than another, unknown and doubtful text. Does the later text acknowledge the
existence of the earlier one anywhere? What is the sequence of the borrowed
material? Is the borrowing wholesale or fragmented? Does it permeate one text
or the other? What about context of the borrowing?
There are other elements of content that may be anachronistic. We know that
certain controversies arose in the Gaudiya Vaishnava world at different times,
which may not have been discussed exhaustively in any of the early works of the
sampradaya. The very inchoateness of early evidence is often the reason for
later controversies. If adequate answers had been given in the beginning, there
would have been no later controversy. Thus most of the debates of the 19th
century are at least in part due to conflicting or incomplete evidence in the
early canonical texts. If an early text speaks too directly to a later controversy,
without any comparable contemporary discourse, then we must count this as a
point against its authenticity.
Lastly, it is the preponderence of such evidence that tips the balance. One or
two of the abovementioned anachronisms may be tolerated as coincidence,
but when a book purported to be from the 16th century is filled from beginning
to end with statements that support the specific theological positions of a 19th
century author, alarm bells go off. If it is too good to be true, it probably is.
Chaitanya Upanishad
According to the introduction to the first edition of the Chaitanya Upanishad,
Bhaktivinoda Thakur states that the manuscript was sent him by a friend,
Madhusudan Das, who also produced the Bengali verse translation that
appeared in the 1887 publication.
There does not appear to have been any kind of critical inquiry into the
authenticity of the text. No scholars were approached for an opinion. It was
accepted at face value, a commentary written, and it was published. No
information was given about what then happened to the original manuscript,
nor has any other manuscript older than 1887 (or newer for that matter) ever
been found elsewhere.
There are numerous catalogues of Sanskrit texts, including the Catalogus
Catalogorum, which attempts to include all manuscripts in all Indian libraries.
When I was in London I was able to peruse these catalogues in search of
the Chaitanya Upanishad, but without success.
Sadhale has published an index to the Upanishads in which he catalogues no
less than 223 titles, including the 108 standard texts named in the Muktaka
Upanishad. The Chaitanya Upanishad is nowhere to be found in this list. Nor has
it ever been named or quoted in any other text, such as those written by the six
Goswamis or later acharyas like Vishwanath or Baladeva. This preponderant
silence must be taken as damaging to any claims of the texts authenticity.
The Chaitanya Upanishad is a very short work. It contains only 19 sentences or
verses, of which two are verses taken directly from the Srimad Bhagavatam,
namely 11.5.33 and 34. These two verses have only been interpreted as refering
to Chaitanya by later acharyas, most particularly by Vishwanath Chakravarti
Thakur. To find them in an Upanishad about Chaitanya indicates that this work
was almost certainly written after the 18th century. Such glaring anchronisms are
what I call red flags. Another such red flag is the mention of the town of
Nabadwip (jAhnavI tIre navadvIpe).
Most of the other verses in this text are pastiches of Upanishadic verses with
Chaitanyas name inserted. Later upanishads like Gopala Tapani typically take
a few verses from the eleven oldest and most authoritative upanishads and
make a few changes or, in some cases, none at all.
All in all, these signs would clearly tell us that this upanishad was written very,
very late, certainly after Chaitanya Mahaprabhus disappearance and
probably long thereafter. The temptation to have Sruti evidence for strongly
held beliefs is the main reason that most of the 223 upanishads were written.
There is no reason to suppose that this is any different.
It has been said by some that the language of the Upanishads is difficult to
imitate and that this text in particular possesses characteristics, such as Vedic
accent (svara), that are proof of its ancient character. In fact, these
characteristics are not all that hard to imitate. Most of the late upanishads are
written in a very simple, formulaic language, using certain key expressions (e.g.,
sa hovAca), the formula of the disciple asking a question, usually in simple form
(ko vA devatA, ko vA mantraH). As already stated, many of these phrases are
borrowed directly or calqued from other upanishads, like Gopala Tapani (ya
enam rasayati bhajati dhyAyati). The svara is present in the few archaic phrases
like sa hovAca, etc. I dont see anywhere that this effect could not have been
produced by using earlier texts as models.
Did Bhaktivinoda write the Chaitanya Upanishad? In 1886, a year before its
publication, he wrote Dasopanishad Curnika, which shows that he had been
studying the Upanishads not long beforehand. This means the Upanishadic
mood and language were fresh in his mind. It is incorrect to argue that he did
not have the linguistic wherewithall to do so. He did publish it. He did comment
on it. He presented it unquestioningly as though bona fide, though in similar
circumstances most people would have been suspicious. He did not invite
impartial third parties to assess the manuscript. He did not preserve the
manuscript, though in 1887 Aufrecht was making his great researches into
Sanskrit manuscripts in eastern India, an exercise that was surely not unknown to
Bhaktivinoda.
Navadvipa Satakam (NS)
We have no information about the date of publication of NS. This work is
attributed to Prabodhananda Saraswati, but is almost definitely that of someone
else. No reputable scholar that I know of takes this work seriously as an original
composition by Prabodhananda.
Prabodhananda is a problematic author for numerous reasons and I have
written at length on him and his work, which I, like many other Gaudiya
Vaishnavas, have savoured with relish. It would not be unusual if this work had
never been mentioned by any other Gaudiya author, so an argument against its
authenticity ab silentio should not be taken as particularly meaningful. Even so,
no copies of this book have ever been found and none are listed in any
catalogue of Sanskrit manuscripts.
The most noticeable feature of NS is that nearly every verse is taken directly from
either Prabodhanandas Vrindavana-mahimamritam(VMA) or Caitanya-
candramritam (CCA). Only a few words in each verse have been changed to
make it relevant to Nabadwip. If indeed Prabodhananda had written NS, he
must have done so while in the East prior to establishing himself in Vrindavan. This
would mean that his VMS was written after NS. It is almost inconceivable that
any author would plunder his own previous work so ruthlessly and in such crass
fashion. Judging from the selective method in which VMA verses appear in NS, it
is clear to any impartial observer that NS has been created from the former, with
a few verses from CCA thrown in at the end.
No effort has been made to disguise the borrowing, which is wholesale and with
few exceptions follows the exact same verse order as found in what I believe to
be the original texts. A few verses appear to be original. I count 13 that are not
to be found in either CCA or VMA: 13, 76, 78-83, 98-99, and 102. In all, 74 verses
are from VMA (all from the 17th sataka), and 15 from CCA. For the full text of NS
with a concordance to VMS and CCA, see Navadvipa Satakam.
In my article on Prabodhananda, I have shown that he most likely did visit
Nabadwip. The town is mentioned in five verses of CCA: 1, 83, 100-102 (three of
which are found in NS as verses 85, 88 and 97). In CCA, Prabodhananda never
mentions the names of the nine islands, about which the Gaudiya Vaishnava
school is completely silent prior to Naraharis relatively late Bhakti-ratnakara.
In Navadvipa Satakam, however, Godrumadwip, where Bhaktivinoda Thakur
had his own residence, is named no less than ten times. Mayapur is similarly
named five times, and all the other islands at least once. Since the nine islands
theory of Nabadwip was particularly important to Bhaktivinoda Thakur, this must
be considered a particularly bright red flag.
The most charitable way of looking at NS is that the author made the changes
and then, in recognition of the preponderance of Prabodhanandas original
authorship, gave him credit for the composition. This is indeed the diplomatic
position taken by Haridas Das. Of the three books in question, this is the only one
he mentions in his Gaudiya Vaishnava Abhidhana. There he writes,
This book of 102 verses has been ascribed to Prabodhananda Saraswati. It
describes the glories of Nabadwip in a language and style almost exactly like
that of the Vrindavana-mahimamrita. In some places, a few verses have been
quoted from Chaitanya Chandramrita, with a few changes added. Though
Prabodhananda wrote a hundred centuries of verses in glorification of
Vrindavan, the flow of creativity knew no interruption. It is not easy to believe
that in writing a hundred verses about Nabadwip he would plunder his own
work, making only slight changes to suit the new subject matter. It is my
impression that some great personality who had deep feeling for the glories of
the land of Nabadwip adapted the language and mood of Prabodhanandas
hymn to write this new work and then attributed it to him. Unless we can see one
or two manuscripts of this work, it will be impossible for us to remove this doubt.
(page 1581)
A less charitable view is that the authors intent was to enlist Prabodhanandas
name in support of the nine islands concept of Nabadwip, the name of
Mayapur, etc.
It is impossible to say for certain whether Bhaktivinoda Thakur himself composed
NS, but the suspicion has to be strong. He published it. He did not preserve the
original manuscript. He gave no history of the MSs provenance. His ideas are
amply represented in the promotion and glorification of Nabadwips nine
islands.
There was no need of great Sanskrit knowledge to make the few changes to the
original verses, but of course Bhaktivinoda was amply equipped to do so.
Besides, the Thakur wrote numerous works in Sanskrit, which have much of the
flavor of Prabodhananda in them, such as Gauranga-smarana-mangala-stotra,
published in 1896. If Bhaktivinoda did not pen this work himself, he was still fully
complicit in its dissemination. Therefore, it is a moot point whether he actually
did or did not write it.
Prema Vivarta
Prema Vivarta, which was discovered and published by Bhaktivinoda Thakur
during his stay in Puri from 1900 to 1903, is a somewhat longer and more
complex work than the two discussed above. It is attributed to Jagadananda
Pandit, one of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhus prominent associates. According
to Bhaktivinodas first edition, he discovered this manuscript on the beach near
his Puri residence, Bhakti Kutir, which was situated just next door to Giridhari
Asan, where Jagadananda had lived and worshiped his Giridhari deity, which
interestingly enough was served by Siddhanta Saraswati for a short period during
this time.
The situation with the Prema Vivarta is similar to that of our two previous texts.
There are no manuscripts, no previous knowledge that any such text ever even
existed. The first mention of the Prema Vivarta is found in Bhaktivinoda Thakurs
own Amrita-pravaha-bhashya commentary to the Chaitanya Charitamrita,
written in 1894. There he proposes that the words prema-vivarta mentioned in
CC Antya 12.154 might be refering to a book. The verse goes as follows:
jagadAnandera prema-vivarta zune je jana
premera svarUpa jAne pAya prema dhana
Anyone who hears Jagadanandas prema-vivarta will understand the true
nature of divine love and attain the great treasure of prema.
Bhaktivinodas suggestion that this might be a book is only given as an
alternative to the primary meaning, which fits the context of Jagadanandas
pastimes described in the chapter and for which this verse serves as a
conclusion. The words prema-vivarta itself means the kind of contrarious or
refractory loving behaviour that Jagadananda was known for in his relation with
Chaitanya.
The ostensible date of the Prema Vivarta
Jagadananda states in chapter two of Prema Vivarta that he wrote it after
Chaitanyas disappearance, in Jagannath Puri, while Swarup Damodar was still
alive. Generally, prevailing opinion is that Swarup Damodar did not live very
much longer after Mahaprabhus disappearance. As such, the date of
authorship would have been somewhere between 1534 and 1544. At the very
beginning (2.5) the author writes that his intention was to write Mahaprabhus
lila, but to keep it ati sangopane or very secret. This could be taken as an
explanation for why the book was not widely distributed and pretty much
unknown.
Borrowings
Before going on to anything I else, I would immediately like to point out the most
obvious clues to the impossibility of the above dates forPrema Vivarta.
Chapter 20 contains 85 verses in glorification of the Holy Name. A quick
comparison with the 11th chapter of Hari Bhakti Vilasa shows that 84 of these
verses are there, with only two of them coming out of the order in which they
are found there. However, if one compares the two texts, it is clear that PV has
borrowed from HBV and not the other way around, as a selection has been
made, with certain verses being left out.
HBV is one of the earliest Goswami works, so it is conceivable that
Jagadananda knew of it by 1540, though he makes no mention of it in this
chapter. This is somewhat surprising, for though medieval authors were not
scrupulous about naming their sources, they usually recognized wholesale
indebtedness to other authors, especially if they had high authority in the
sampradaya, as was the case with Sanatan Goswami.
It should be pointed out that several of the verses quoted in this chapter are also
found in Bhaktivinodas Bhajana-rahasya, which was also written during the time
he spent in Jagannath Puri.
HBV 11.342 = PV 20.42 = BR 1.4
HBV 11.453 = PV 20.191 = BR 1.5
HBV 11.454 = PV 20.193 = BR 1.6
HBV 11.417 = PV 20.169 = BR 1.17
HBV 11.451 = PV 20.188 = BR 1.18
HBV 11.510 = PV 20.227 = BR 1.28
HBV 11.398 = PV 20.136 = BR 2.3
HBV 11.399 = PV 20.137 = BR 2.3
Chapter 19 is also interesting. It is an extensive discussion of the ten offenses to
the Holy Names. The offenses to the Holy Name are mentioned several times
prior to this (7.24, 8.89). It is well known that this subject is one that Bhaktivinoda
held dear to his heart, along with the analysis of the reflection of the Holy
Name.. These are also matters that we know preoccupied him during his stay in
Jagannath Puri. The Hari-nama-cintamani, written during this time, is almost
entirely based on an expanded discussion of the ten offenses. (It may also be
pointed out, as a matter of interest, that this book also involves the Jagannath
Puri historical settingMahaprabhu engaged in conversation with Hari Das
Thakur.)
O brother! You cannot chant the Holy Name in the association of non-devotees.
The sounds of the Holy Name may come out of your mouth, but it will not really
be the Name. It will sometimes be the Names reflection (nAmAbhAsa) and
sometimes offensive chanting (nAmAparAdha), but brother, you should know
that in either case, this kind of chanting interferes with the attainment of pure
devotion to Krishna. If you want to chant the Holy Names, then associate with
devotees and keep desires for sense enjoyment, liberation and yogic powers at
a distance. (Prema-vivarta, 7)
Another interesting fact is that the PV contains the full chapter of the Padma
Purana that contains the ten offenses. Coincidentally, the publication of Padma
Purana was another project in which Bhaktivinoda Thakur was engaged during
his time in Puri. The edition he published (1901) was significant precisely because
it contained this chapter, which is missing from most editions.
Even more conclusive is the large number of verses sprinkled throughout this
work that have been either quoted verbatim from Chaitanya Charitamrita or
are so close as to be unmistakable borrowings from that most influential work. In
this case, there is no chance whatsoever that Krishna Das borrowed from
Jagadananda, for he has clearly recognized his debt to Murari Gupta,
Vrindavan Das, Svarupa Damodar, Kavi Karnapur and Raghunath Das as the
main sources forhis work. If he had gone so far as to quote Jagadananda
verbatim, he would surely have mentioned it. As such, it is indisputable that
the Prema Vivarta was not written in the first half of the 16th century, for it is well
known that Krishna Das wrote the CC in 1612, after the death of Jiva Goswami.
To give all the instances of quotation would be too lengthy, but a few examples
will surely serve as sufficient evidence. Compare, for instance, the following
discussion of vairAgya, which quotes verbatim Mahaprabhus instructions to
Raghunath Das Goswami:
vairAgI karibe sadA nAma saGkIrtana |
mAgiyA khAJA kare jIvana rakSaNa ||
vairAgI haJA yebA kare parAkpekSA |
kArya siddhi nahe kRSNa karena upekSA ||
vairAgI haJA kare jihvAra lAlasa |
paramArtha yAya Ara haya rasera vaza ||
vairAgIra kRtya sadA nAma saGkIrtana |
zAka patra phala mUle udara bharaNa ||
jihvAra lAlase jebA iti uti dhAya |
ziznodaraparAyaNa kRSNa nAhi pAya ||
A renunciate should always be engaged in repeating the names of the Lord
and should keep his body and soul together through begging. Anyone who
takes the renounced order and then becomes dependent on others cannot
achieve his ends and Krishna will ignore him. One who becomes a renunciate
and then lusts for tasty foods will never attain his spiritual goal, and will simply
become the slave of his tastebuds. A vairagis duty is to always chant the names
of Lord Krishna and fill his belly with spinach leaves, fruits and roots. One who
runs here and there looking for good things to eat becomes attached to his sex
organs and his belly and will never attain Krishna. (Chaitanya Charitamrita
3.6.22-27)
From Prema Vivarta, chapter 16

vizuddha vairAgI kare nAma saGkIrtana |
mAgiyA khAiyA kare jIvana yApana ||57||
vairAgI haiyA yebA kare parAkpekSA |
kArya siddhi nahe kRSNa kare upekSA ||58||
vairAgI haiyA kare jihvAra lAlasa |
paramArtha yAya Ara haya rasera vaza ||59||
vairAgI karibe sadA nAma saGkirtana |
zAka patra phala mUle udara bharaNa ||60||
jihvAra lAlase jei samAje beDAya |
ziznodara-parAyaNa kRSNa nAhi pAya ||61||
Not only are the two sets of verses very similar, but they also come in the same
context, i.e., Chaitanya Mahaprabhus instructions to Raghunath Das. Perhaps
some believe that Mahaprabhus spoke to Raghunath in Bengali rhyming verse
and that this is an exact quote, but this would be misconception. These are
Krishna Das Kavirajs words and have no place in a work written approximately
seven decades earlier.
This one example should be sufficient, but there are moresome from this same
chapter of the Chaitanya Charitamrita. Compare:
(PV 7.10, 13, 14)
vairAgI bhAi grAmya kathA nA zunibe kAne
grAmya vArtA nA kahibe jabe milibe Ane
bhAla nA khAibe Ara bhAla nA paribe
hRdayete rAdhA kRSNa sarvadA sevibe
aSTa kAla rAdhA kRSNa sevibe kuJja vane
(CC 3.6.236-7)
vairAgI bhAi grAmya kathA nA zunibe kAne
bhAlo nA khAibe Ara bhAlo nA paribe
amAnI mAnada haJA kRSNanAma labe
vraje rAdhA kRSNa sevA mAnase karibe
o)0(o
(PV 11.16)
kibA varNI kibAzramI kibA varNAzrama hIna
kRSNa tattva vettA yei sei AcArya pravINa
(CC 2.8.128).
kibA vipra kibA nyAsI zUdra kene naya
jei kRSNa tattva vettA sei guru haya
o)0(o
(PV 10.2)
brAhmaNera sat kula nA haya bhajanera yogya |
zraddhavAn nIca jAti nahe bhajane ayogya ||
(CC 3.4.66)
nIca jAti nahe kRSNa bhajanera ayogya
sat kula vipra nahe bhajanera yogya
o)0(o
(PV 10.14)
dInere adhika dayA kare bhagavAn
abhimAna dainya nAhi rahe eka sthAna
(CC 3.4.68)
dInere adhika dayA kare bhagavAn
kulIna paNDita dhanIra baDa abhimAna
o)0(o
(PV 10.8)
tihoG ta prakRta bhakti sAdhaka madhyama |
ati zIghra kRSNa bale haibe uttama ||8||
(CC 2.22.67)
yAhAra komala zraddhA se kaniSTha jana |
krame krame teGho bhakta haibe uttama ||
o)0(o
(PV 7.6)
markaTa-vairAgya tyaja jAte deha raGga
(PV 9.18)
yathA yogya viSaya bhuJja anAsakta haJA
(CC 2.16.238)
markaTa vairAgya nA kara loka dekhAJA
yathA yogya viSaya bhuJjo anAsakta haJA
o)0(o
(PV 17.26)
indriyA carAJA bule prakRti bhulAiyA
(CC 3.2.120)
indriyA carAJA bule prakRti sambhASiyA
o)0(o
The descriptions of raganuga bhakti.
(PV 16.53)
bAhya dehe kRSNa nAma sarva kAla gAya |
antar dehe thAke rAdhA kRSNera sevAya
(CC 2.22.156-7)
bAhya abhyantara ihAra dui ta sAdhana
bAhye sAdhaka dehe kare zravaNa krtana
mane nija siddha deha kariyA bhAvana
rAtri dine kare vraje kRSNera sevana
This kind of detail about the bhakti process could only have come after Rupa
Goswami, but the language itself is similar to Chaitanya Charitamrita.
o)0(o
The description of the conditioned soul in chapter six can be seen as a
composite of the versions found in Madhya 19, 22, and 24.
(PV 6.4)
Ami siddha kRSNa dAsa ei kathA bhule
mAyAra naphara haJA cira dina bule
(CC 2.22.24)
kRSNa nitya dAsa jIva tAhA bhuli gela
ei doSe mAyA tAra galAya bAndhila
Besides these, there are also some verses that recall Narottam Das Prarthana
viSaya chADile zuddha habe tomAra Azaya (PV 10.11)
AhA prabhu nityAnanda kabe karibe dayA
abhimAna chADAJA more dibe pada chAyA (PV 10.16)
The above evidence shows the preponderence of the Chaitanya Charitamritas
influence on the Prema Vivarta, both in language and in subject matter. This
should be sufficient to convince any impartial observer that Jagadananda
Pandit could not have written the Prema Vivarta.
Jagadanandas life and personality in Prema Vivarta
Naturally, when an ancient book purporting to contain historical information is
discovered, one immediately makes comparisons with what one already knows.
There are numerous contradictions to be found in the differing biographies of
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, often involving tiny details, sometimes theological
issues. Indeed, one expects to find both confirmations and contradictions in any
newly discovered text. No two people give exactly the same version of a story;
indeed, if anyone sits down to write his or her version of a story, it is usually
because they have something specific to add or because they wish to
contradict popular misconceptions, or defend a particular vision of events.
Krishna Das, for instance, felt the need to promote a very specific vision of
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu that could not be found in the biography of Vrindavan
Das, whose agenda very much included promoting Nityananda Prabhu and
defending his reputation.
In this book, we do indeed find both new narrative material and biographical
tidbits, as well as interesting confirmations of other accounts, particularly those
of the Chaitanya Charitamrita.
We learn that Jagadananda was born in the same village as Sivananda Sena,
who took him to Nabadwip for an education, where he met Chaitanya (8.17).
Sivananda taught Jagadananda the Bhagavata and Gita when he was just a
boy (8.18); he learned to cook at Sivanandas house (8.20). In the same
passage, he speaks of Kavi Karnapur briefly, briefly confirming the Chaitanya
Charitamrita story about his composing Sanskrit verses at the age of seven.
Since we are already convinced that this work is by a later author, our way of
looking at this data is not as the genuine testimony of Jagadananda, but as the
work of a later authors imagination, in this case probably intended to provide a
few tidbits of novel information to lend credibility to the work. Interestingly,
despite the Gaudiya Maths acceptance of the authenticity of Prema Vivarta, I
have not seen this material included in any Gaudiya Math biographies of
Jagadananda! Could it be that there is some doubt even in those circles about
the historical value of this text?
According to the depiction in Chaitanya Charitamrita, Jagadananda had a
quarrelsome nature. Indeed, in the early part of CC (Adi 10.23), where Krishna
Das lists the numerous participants in Chaitanya lila, he specifically describes
Jagadananda as quarrelsome or argumentative (kondala).
In Prema Vivarta, the author describes himself by exactly the same word no less
than seven times (2.18, 2.25, 5.1, 5.9, 7.21, 9.35, 13.10), including chapter
signatures (7.21, 9.35).
prabhura kundale jagA kende kende bale
nAma bhaja nAma gAo bhakata sakala
Jagadananda, who is always arguing with his Lord, tearfully appeals to
everyone: O devotees! Worship the Holy Name. Sing the Holy Name.
Indeed, Jagadananda seems fairly proud of his argumentative nature through
such frequent references. At the very beginning of the book, he even tells a
story of a quarrel he had with Mahaprabhu during his student days (PV 2.18 ff).
Needless to say, this is rather unusual and somewhat unexpected. It is not often
that someone proudly boasts of an argumentative relationship with the person
he or she loves. Indeed, Jagadananda defends this relationship in language
again reminiscent of the Chaitanya Charitamrita
(PV 5.4)
bhAla tAra hauka sukha mora hauka cira duHkha
tAra sukhe habe mora sukha ||
It is all very well, as long as he is happy. I may be eternally distressed, but if he is
happy, then so am I.
(CC 3.20.52)
na gaNi Apana duHkha, sabe vAJchi tAGra sukha
tAGra sukha AmAra tAtparya
more yadi diyA duHkha, tAGra haila mahA sukha
sei duHkha mora sukhavarya
I dont mind the pain He gives Me. All that concerns Me is His pleasure. My
greatest joy is to see Krishna happy. If that happiness comes at the expense of
My suffering, that still gives Me joy. That pain is My greatest pleasure.
(PV 5.7)
bADAya AmAra roSa tAte tAra santoSa
tAra prasannatA mora iSTa ||
Sometimes I get angrier and angrier, but that only pleases him. My only goal is to
see him pleased.
(CC 3.20.54)
kAntA kRSNe kare roSa, kRSNa pAya santoSa
Sometimes Krishna gets pleasure when His mistresses are angry with Him, but He
enjoys being chastized and told off.
Even the books title indicates that its subject is to be the quarrelsome
relationship between Chaitanya and Jagadananda. However, conspicuous in
their absence are the very same stories that are recounted in detail in the
Chaitanya Charitamritai.e., the buying of fragrant oils for Chaitanya, which he
refused, etc. (5.5), Jagadanandas argument with Sanatan in Vrindavan (5.2),
his angry departure for Vrindavan (5.9), etc., all of which merit only passing
mention If PV had preceded CC and was the source for the CC account, then
we would expect to find the original story told in a more complete or detailed
fashion in PV, rather than the other way around. Indeed, this summary
presentation gives the impression that the author feels his readers will already
know these stories.
In CC (1.10.21, 3.7.142, 2.12.152) and Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika (51),
Jagadananda has been identified with Krishnas wife Satyabhama, whose
quarrelsome nature is depicted in the Harivamsa and other Puranic texts. In PV
(2.11-16), however, Jagadananda defends himself against such an attribution.
The Lord jokingly said to me one day, You are a powerful queen of Dwaraka. I
am just a beggar, so why do you serve me? There are hundreds of other
sannyasis like me. I answered, Stop joking with me. Why dont you tell me that I
am Srimati Radharanis maidservant? You have stolen Radharanis bodily color. I
will capture you and drag you back to Vrindavan, where you shall be punished
for your thievery. I would like you to throw me down at Radharanis lotus feet,
but instead you send me off to Dwaraka. You are just playing games with me. I
know all about your sannyasi tricks. You want to deceive me and serve
Radharani all by yourself.
I pay countless obeisances to Radharani, whose partial manifestation is
Satyabhama in Dwaraka. (PV 3.1)
rAdhA pada dAsI Ami rAdhA pada dAsI |
rAdhA dyuti suvalita rUpa bhAlovAsi ||
I am a servant of Radhas feet. I am a servant of Radhas feet. I love Krishna in
his form wrapped in Radhas effulgence. (using words directly from Svarupa
Damodars famous verse.) (1.54)
It is well known to historians that the influence of the Vrindavan school on Bengal
was decisive. It is very difficult to ascertain exactly what the devotees of
Chaitanya believed during his lifetime. Most of the early texts show an
adherence to the Bhagavata Purana and not to the kinds of raganuga
sadhana that dominates the work of the Goswamis and post-Narottam period in
Bengal. Chaitanya was recognized as God before the mood of Vrindavan was
recognized as above all other devotional moods. Thus many of his companions
were given identities as demigods, eternal associates from Dwaraka or other
Bhagavata pastimes. In the changing atmosphere following Narottams arrival
in the East, it became necessary to award multiple identities to some of these
associates to recognize their participation in the higher rasas. This took place
quickly in the Nityananda and Advaita vamsas, where disciples and followers
defended their interests, but Jagadananda had no such protectors. The author
of this book evidently took this duty upon himself.
Gaura Paramya and Gaura Gadadhar Bhava
An interesting aspect of Prema Vivarta is the view of Chaitanya that pervades it.
The work begins with the Swarup Damodara verse made famous in Chaitanya
Charitamrita, which defines Mahaprabhu as both a combined form of Krishna
and Radha, as well as Krishna imbued with the mood and bodily hue of Radha.
This is followed by a rather detailed explanation of this verse. The author uses the
term acintya-bhedAbheda (1.4) to explain this simultaneous oneness and
distinction. Needless to say, this term is not found anywhere prior to Jiva
Goswami.
(PV 1.28)
ata eva rAdhA kRSNa dui eka haJA
adhunA prakaTa mora caitanya gosAJA
(CC 1.4.56-7)
rAdhA kRSNa eka AtmA dui deha dhari
anyonye vilase rasa AsvAdana kari
sei dui eka ebe caitanya gosAJi
bhAva AsvAdite haila eka thANi
Chaitanya as teacher and exemplar of the devotional path are not absent from
this work, though most of the teachings are put in the mouth of Swarup
Damodar. Nevertheless, the teachings to Raghunath Das, portions of which
have been cited above as bearing almost exact identity with those found in
CC, are spoken by Chaitanya here as there.
Seemingly contradictory to the idea that Mahaprabhu is a combined form of
Radha and Krishna, is the decidedly nagara mood found inPrema Vivarta. The
use of the epithet gorA [go = Govinda, rA = Radha] are distinctive in this group
(rather than gaura). This spelling is not used even once in Chaitanya
Charitamrita, nor in Chaitanya Bhagavata. (Two instances of gorAcAnd) See
Vasudeva Ghosh, Govinda Ghosh, Narahari, Lochan Das, Govinda Das
Chakravarti, and others who are known as known as Gaura Nagara.
Bhaktivinoda himself shows a tendency to use this epithet, it is found especially
in Kalyana-kalpa-taru and Gitavali. The term kapaTa-nyasi(5.5) is also one
familiar to Nagara texts.
Similarly, Gaura Gadadhar themes are frequent, far more prominent than
anywhere in the contemporary literature, even in works like Chaitanya Mangal,
though present in the songs of Sivananda, Vasu Ghosh and other Nagara poets.
Though this tendency in Bhaktivinoda is not given much recognition much in the
Gaudiya Math, it is distinctly present in his song books. (For instance,
Bhaktivinodas personal deities were Gaura Gadadhar; Gaudiya Math temples
tend to have a single deity of Mahaprabhu with Radha Krishna, or Gaura Nitai.)
gadAi gaurAGga muJi rAdhA zyAma jAni
I know Gadai and Gauranga to be Radha and Shyama. (PV 2.44)
This Gaura Gadadhara mood is related to the glorification of Nabadwip in the
second chapter of Prema Vivarta. In Nabadwip, Gauranga tries to make a
parakeet say the names of Radha and Krishna, but the bird only says Gaura
Hari. A brief argument ensues, with the concluding exchange,
The parakeet said, Vrindavan has become Nabadwip, while Radha and
Krishna have become Gaura Hari. You are my Krishna and this Gadadharis my
Radha. Gaura Gadadhar and the lords of my life. I am incapable of saying
anything other than this. The Lord answered, I am a worshiper of Radha and
Krishna. It displeases me to hear anyone elses name glorified. So saying, he
took Gadadhars hand and returned to Mayapur, abandoning the parakeet
who said Sing whatever you like, I will go on worshiping as I always have. (PV
2.37-42)
Another interesting and anachronistic feature of PV exhortation to worship
Mahaprabhu in the ashta-kala-lila.
ore bhAi saba chADi baiso navadvIpa pure
gaurAGgera aSTa kAla bhaja duHkha yAbe dUre
O brother, give up everything and reside in the town of Nabadwip. Worship
Gauranga through the eight periods of the day and all your miseries will
disappear. Just as Krishna has eight different kinds of pastime according to the
eight periods of the day. If you worship these pastimes according to the mood
taught by Gauranga, you will be charmed. Anyone who is determined to
worship Krishna should also worship Krishna through the eight times of day in
Gauda (Sic). Someone who does not know the mood of Gauranga and wants
to worship Krishna will never realize the transcendental truth of Krishna. (PV 11.12-
15)
Though the Gaura-chandrika method of introducing Krishna lila likely became
current even before the 1570s through the writings of poets like Sivananda and
the Ghosh brothers, the idea of an ashta-kaliya-lila for Gauranga took much
more time to develop. Indeed, in 1895 Bhaktivinoda published a poem by an
unknown author written on the model of the Radha-krishna-lila-smarana-
mangala-stotra, glorifying Mahaprabhus pastimes over the eight periods of the
day. [There is another such stotra attributed to Vishwanath Chakravarti; some
verses are common to the two. Some investigation is needed.]
Nabadwip/Mayapur
The last two references bring us to the glorification of Nabadwip. The author of
PV starts this very early, stating in the first chapter that the joys of Vrindavan are
eclipsed by those of Nabadwip.
vrajera adhika sukha navadvIpa dhAme
pAila puraTa kRSNa Asi nija kAme
There is more pleasure to be had in Nabadwip than in Vraja, for the golden
Krishna has come here of his own volition. (PV 1.38)
navadvIpe nA pAila yei vRndAvana
vRthA se tArkika kena dharaya jIvana
The skeptic who does not recognize Vrindavan in Nabadwip is a useless skeptic
(PV 2.46)
As mentioned in relation to the Navadvipa Satakam above, one of
Bhaktivinodas concerns was to preach the town of Nabadwip according to the
conceptions he had formed in his researches related to the birthplace of
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. As such, we are not surprised to find frequent
references to Mayapur (1.18, 1.46, 2.41, 4.2, 11.16, 14.10). Though the theme
pervades the book, the eleventh chapter in particular reveals an interest in
describing Nabadwip as a dhama equal to Vrindavan in the following passage:
This planet is most glorious within the universe, and here it is the land of Gauda
that is most fortunate. In the land of Gauda, it is Nabadwip that is most glorious.
This land of sixteen kos is revered throughout the universe. Through it runs the
great flowing Ganges, and the confluence of the Ganges with the Yamuna and
Saraswati are also found there. On the eastern bank is Mayapur, which is equal
to the spiritual realm of Goloka, in the midst of which is the house of Sachi where
Gauranga appeared. (PV 11.13)
The passage reminds one of the beginning of Jaiva Dharma. The term sixteen
kos Nabadwip, found for the first time in Bhakti-ratnakara, is also mentioned
elsewhere in PV:
Sola-kroza navadvIpe vRndAvana mAni ||2.44||
I hold this sixteen kos Nabadwip to be Vrindavan.
In chapter 15, a completely original pastime describing youthful pastimes in
Nabadwip, contains the previously unheard story of Goradaha, a tank near
Gadigacha village. Gadigacha is present-day Swarup Ganj, which is part of
Godrumdwip, the portion of Nabadwip where Bhaktivinoda had a residence,
and which, as mentioned above, he often glorified in his own writing. The
pastime described there is a miraculous eventonly one of two in PVwhen
Mahaprabhu transforms an alligator (nakra) with the touch of his foot, revealing
that this being was a demigod who had been cursed by Durvasa to take birth in
this lower form, but showed the added kindness of blessing him with the promise
of liberation by the touch of Gaurangas foot. This story has obviously been
calqued on many similar puranic incidents In style and composition, it recalls
many of the anecdotes found in Bhaktivinodas own NavadvIpa-dhAma-
mAhAtmya, where it is not found. However, in the posthumously
published Godruma-candra-bhajanopadesa (verse 13), there is a reference to
this very story.
Other things
I believe that what has already been said is sufficient to support my thesis that
this book was not written by Jagadananda but by someone else, and that most
likely Bhaktivinoda Thakur. There is, in fact, a great deal more in Prema
Vivarta that could be said to point to Bhaktivinoda Thakurmany other
questions of subject matter, language and style.
One of the most important themes is, of course, purity and sincerity in devotional
practice. Bhaktivinoda detested hypocrisy and immorality in religious life and
fought against these things throughout his career. Some of the best and most
original verses in Prema Vivarta deal with this subject:
gorAra Ami gorAra Ami mukhe balile nA cale
gorAra AcAra gorAra pracAra laile phala phale
It is not enough to simply advertise repeatedly that one is a devotee of
Mahaprabhu, saying, I am Goras, I am Goras. The benefits of being the
Goras follower come for one who takes up the practices he taught as well as
preaching his mission. (PV 8.6)
Another favored theme frequently broached by Bhaktivinoda is that
ofzaraNAgati. Though zaraNAgati is mentioned in the Goswami literature and
Chaitanya Charitamrita, it is nowhere given the kind of centrality found in
Bhaktivinodas work. Lines like these (PV 18.20) are so similar to many lines in
Bhaktivinodas work it practically screams his name:
zuddha bhaktira anukUla kara angIkAra
zuddha bhaktira pratikUla kara asvIkAra
Another theme that we see in Bhaktivinoda Thakurs writing that comes up
in Prema Vivarta is the distinction between renounced and householder life,
especially in its favorable view of the latter.
gRha chADi bhikSA kare nA kare bhajana
vaiSNava baliyA tAre nA kara gaNana
One who has renounced householder life and begs for his livelihood, but does
not engage in bhajan should not be considered a Vaishnava. (PV 17.10)
gRhastha vaiSNava sadA nAmAparAdha rAkhi dUre
AnukUlya laya prAtikUlya tyAga kare
aikAntika nAmAzraya tAhAra mahimA
gRhastha vaiSNavera nAhi mAhAtmyera sImA
A householder Vaishnava should avoid offenses to the Holy Name. He should
accept everything favorable to spiritual life and reject everything unfavorable.
The glory of the householder is exclusive shelter of the Holy Name, and there is
no limit to the glories of a householder Vaishnava. (PV 17.17-18)
At the same time, the Prema Vivarta tackles the question of Sahajiyaism,
discussing some of the terms used by the Sahajiyas and adapting them to the
orthodox context. These terms are pIriti, Aropa, pravartaka, sAdhaka and
siddha.
lampaTa pApiSTha ApanAke kRSNa mAni
kRSNa lIlA anukRti kare dharma hAni
The sinful womanizer who thinks that he is Krishna and then imitates Krishnas lila
causes disruption in religious life. (PV 17.28)
It is almost certain that this well-developed Sahajiya terminology was not around
in Jagadanandas time, whereas it is well known that Bhaktivinoda Thakur was
much troubled by the well-developed and powerful influence of Sahajiyas in the
Vaishnava world of the late 19th century.
Conclusion
I feel that anyone who looks on this collection of evidence must be obliged to
come to the conclusion that Bhaktivinoda Thakur either wrote Prema Vivarta
himself, or colluded with someone else who wrote it. No one could seriously hold
that Mahaprabhus associate Jagadananda Pandit wrote this text prior to
Krishna Das Kavirajs Chaitanya Charitamrita, prior to the formulation of
Vaishnava Sahajiya doctrines, prior to Narottam Das and the cult of Nabadwip
Dham, etc.
If someone says it is impossible to prove that Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote this
book, I would say he is indeed correct. But the preponderence of circumstantial
evidence is so strong that most objective assessment would have to admit that
something is untoward.
I have gone to the trouble of summarizing this evidence here because of the
uproar that my previous article caused, where I did not detail my rationale for
making such radical and apparently offensive statements. I doubt seriously that
this will go far to convince those who reject even the possibility of any blemish
on Bhaktivinodas character. To those people I will remain a hateful offender
and the object of eternal opprobrium.
This is truly unfortunate. Even so, I would like to justify my actions and to defend
myself against the accusations of malicious intent, which is the usual charge
levied against me. I should also like to examine the alternatives available to us, if
we indeed accept the possibility that this evidence is true. This is a significant
question, because it is not necessarily unusual or impossible that those we
admire and respect, even as gurus, may be found to have engaged in acts that
are morally or ethically unacceptable. Where does this leave our faith?
Comment
August 17, 2014
Bhaktivinod was rejected by his guru Bipin Bihari Goswami for falsifying
evidence about Caitanya Mahaprabhus real birthplace
Download this in PDF format here:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/e3717aola66h1d8/True_History_of_Bhaktisiddha
nta.pdf

Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Bipin Bihari Goswami
No one can blame me for being a dishonest translator. Rocana has excerpted
my translation of Bhaktivinoda Thakurs life from Chaitanya and His Associates by
Bhakti Ballabha Tirtha. In that chapter, there is not one mention of Bipin Bihari
Goswami!
Is there not something wrong there, my friends? By any standard of truth, but
especially in a disciplic succession that promotes so avidly the concept of Guru,
that a writer should so cavalierly glorify ones own spiritual hero without
mentioning his gurus name, as though he never existed. Tell me if this is not a
classical case of ardha-kukku nyya? I have written on these matters several
times, including this article Bhaktivinoda Thakurs meat eating and Lalita Prasad
Thakur, which was also inspired by a similar type of distortion on Rocanas site.
So, for the occasion of Bhaktivinoda Thakurs appearance, and to thumb our
nose at those who would deny Bipin Bihari Goswamis role in the Thakurs life, I
include an article that was posted originally on-line on the now defunct
Gaudiya Discussions. I must have started writing this at around the time I was
translating the above-mentioned text.
I have just copied it here, unexpurgated. Some of the links dont work. Sorry
about that. Perhaps in some respects the article is inappropriate for
Bhaktivinoda Thakurs appearance day, because it is not unadulterated
hagiography, which is apparently the path we have to follow if we want to
attain spiritual perfection. I dont know, folks. Its a bee in my bonnet. It might
not be as big a bee in my bonnet as it was in my gurus, but I have to carry this
tiny banner for him, even if I do nothing else in my life.
Do I really care any more? This is such an old battle that I can barely relate to it
emotionally any more. It sometimes seems that my position has shifted so far
from the conventional Vaishnava sampradaya attitudes that gave rise to the
controversy in the first place. I offer my respects to all these gurus because they
passed something of value on to me, but it is my unfortunate task to look at the
weaknesses they have left in the edifice of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. However
flawed I am, I was just made this way. So forgive me for bringing this all up
again.
A pox on everyone who pretends that Bipin Bihari Goswami played no role in the
rise of Gaudiya Vaishnavism in the world. After reading the article again, I stand
by my conclusions.
================
Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Bipin Bihari Goswami

Bhaktivinoda Thakurs relationship with Bipin Bihari Goswami
A name remarkable for its absence in the parampara given by Siddhanta
Saraswati is that of Bipin Bihari Goswami (1850-1919), the initiating spiritual master
of Kedarnath Datta, Bhaktivinoda Thakur.(1)
Born 3 Sravan 1850, Bipin Bihari was twelve years Bhaktivinodas junior. He was
born in the family of Goswamis whose seat is in Baghna Para, between Kalna
and Nabadwip in the Burdwan district. This is the seat of Ramachandra
Goswami, the grandson of Vamsivadanananda Thakur, an associate of
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, and the adopted son and disciple of Jahnava
Thakurani, the wife of Nityananda Prabhu.
Married at 13, Bipin Bihari moved to Hooghly district. He became closely
involved with the Brahmo Samaj, causing a reaction from other members of the
Baghna Para family, who insisted that he move back to Kalna. There he began
associating with the famous siddha, Bhagavan Das Babaji, one of the most
notable Vaishnavas of the time. He studied the Vaishnava scriptures with
Bhagavan Das for nine years. He also studied with another prominent
renounced Vaishnava, Nabadwips Chaitanya Das Babaji. He took initiation
from Yajneshwar Goswami in 1872.
He began writing articles almost immediately after initiation and submitted
articles on Gaudiya Vaishnavism to various magazines both in Bengali (Prema-
pracri, Savda-pra-candrodaya) and English (The Education Gazette).
He made his reputation in 1877-1880 by giving lectures on the Bhagavatam and
attracted the attention of the king of Burdwan, Mahatap Chand. Aftab Chand,
Mahatap Chands successor, also regularly invited Bipin Bihari to the Burdwan
palace.
Bipin Bihari Goswami wrote a number of books. The first, written in
Sanskrit, Harinmmta-sindhu, was published in 1879. His major work, Daa-
mla-rasa (1898), is over a thousand pages long and covers the gamut of
Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine and practice. Other works were Arcanmta-
sgara (1883), Madhura-milana, Sra-sagraha, Bhva-sagraha, Hari-bhakti-
taragin (1902) and a number of Sanskrit and Bengali poems and songs.
Kedarnath Datta and his wife both took initiation from Bipin Bihari Goswami in
1879, after three years of exchanging letters.(2)Bhaktivinoda Thakur himself
summarized his initiation from his guru in his autobiographical letter to his son
Lalita Prasad in 1896.
I had been searching for a suitable guru for a long time, but had not found one,
so I was feeling disturbed. Whenever I met someone in whom I could have a
little faith, when I studied his teachings and character, I would lose whatever
little faith I had. I was quite worried, but Prabhu eradicated these worries in a
dream. In that dream, I had a hint of what would happen and when morning
came, I felt joyful. A day or two later, Gurudeva wrote me a letter saying, I will
come soon and give you initiation. When he came and performed the initiation
rituals, I became cheerful. From that day on the sin of meat eating vanished
from my heart and I began to feel a little compassion toward all beings. (3)
In the period that followed, Bipin Bihari and Bhaktivinoda cooperated in the
publication of the periodical Sajjana-toa, which first appeared in 1882. Many
articles by Bipin Bihari appeared there, as well as his translation of Viu-sahasra-
nma. In January 1886, he arranged for his disciple to be given the title
Bhaktivinoda in Baghna Para itself in a ceremony at the Baladeva Krishna
temple. (4)
Bhaktivinoda mentions his spiritual masters name in several places in his own
writings to offer him respects, as is appropriate Vaishnava etiquette for an
author. These appear in works published in 1893 (Siddhi-llas of Gta-ml), at
the end of his commentary on the Caitanya-caritmta (1894) (5), in his
introduction to an edition ofKa-karmta, (6) in 1898 and in Bhgavatrka-
marci-ml in 1901, one of the Thakurs last works. (7)
The two texts from Giti-mala are particularly interesting, as they indicate
the siddha name of Bipin Bihari, which is Vilasa Manjari.
When will Vilasa Manjari and Ananga Manjari [Jahnava Mata] see me and,
being merciful, speak the follow essential words?
O Vilasa Manjari, Ananga Manjari and Rupa Manjari, please notice me and
accept me at your feet, bestowing on me the essence of all perfection?
In both of these songs, Bhaktivinoda follows the classical tradition established by
Narottam Das of praying to his spiritual master in hissiddha form as a Manjari. It is
thus clear that Bhaktivinoda had not only taken initiation, but had also
received siddha-prali from his guru. Shukavak Das has argued in his work on
Bhaktivinoda that he followed the Rasa-rja concept of worship that had been
developed in the early days of the Baghna Para line. (8)
In Kalya-kalpa-taru, Bhaktivinoda Thakur also offers heartfelt prayers for the
association of Srimati Ananga Manjari in the spiritual world, further showing a
strong affinity for Jahnava Mata, the original preceptor in Bipin Bihari Goswamis
line.
Cooperation between Bhaktivinoda Thakur and his spiritual master continued on
other levels to the very end of the formers active career as a writer and
preacher, which may be said to have come about in around 1907, the date of
his last published work and after which his health began to deteriorate
considerably.
Most notably, Bipin Bihari participated in the meeting of dignitaries in Krishnagar
in 1893, helping Bhaktivinoda Thakur to launch the great project of establishing
Chaitanyas birthplace in Mayapur. Bipin Biharis magnum opus, Daa-mla-
rasa, written in 1898, not only quotes a verse written by Bhaktivinoda in 1896, but
seems to have been inspired by it. (9) In his autobiographical notes to that work,
Bipin Bihari proudly mentions Kedarnath Datta as his disciple. All indications are
that from 1880 up until at least 1901, the two worked harmoniously. Nowhere has
anyone been able to demonstrate that Bhaktivinoda Thakur ever said anything
negative or dismissive about Bipin Bihari Gosvami.
Some, like Bhakti Gaurava Narasingha Maharaj(10), say that Bhaktivinoda did
not imbibe any of the conceptions of Bipin Bihari Goswami. He argues that
Bhaktivinoda placed central importance on the chanting of the Holy Names in
contrast to the stress on siddha-prali given by Bipin Bihari Goswami. This of
course is nonsense, for on the one hand Bipin Bihari Goswamis first book was
written in glorification of the Holy Name (Harinmmta-sindhu), and on the
other, Bhaktivinoda himself stressed the siddha-prali method of bhajan in at
least three of his books: Jaiva-dharma, Caitanya-ikmta and Harinma-
cintmai. Bhaktivinoda followed the siddha pranali system himself and passed
it on to his son Lalita Prasad, to whom he gave initiation.

Did Bhaktivinoda Thakur ever reject Bipin Bihari Goswami?
This would then appear to be the very image of a perfectly harmonious guru-
disciple relationship, were it not for a number of issues that were raised in the
years following the deaths of both Bhaktivinoda and Bipin Bihari. The classical
statement of this position is given by Rupa Vilasa Dasa in his biography of
Bhaktivinoda Thakur,The Seventh Goswami:
Bipin Bihari Goswami initially enjoyed a very sweet relationship with the Thakur,
but later he is said to have been neglected by the Thakur due to a
disagreement about the position of Raghunath Das Goswami. He also assisted
the Thakur in his preaching work, but his spiritual advancement was not on the
same level as the Commander-in-chief of the Vaishavas, as Srila Jagannatha
dasa Babaji came to be called (11)
This proposition is riddled with misconceptions, but arises as a result of a need to
explain why the initiating spiritual master of Bhaktivinoda Thakur is not a part of
Siddhanta Saraswatis disciplic succession. Siddhanta Saraswati may have felt it
necessary to reject Bipin Bihari Goswami, but how can this be explained if
Bhaktivinoda Thakur himself did not do so?
Saraswatis disciples have adopted his concept of prioritizing teaching (siksha)
over formal ordination (diksha) as a sign of relationship and a marker of disciplic
succession. They thus wish to establish that the renunciate bhajananandi
Jagannath Das was more significant in Bhaktivinoda Thakurs life than Bipin Bihari
Goswami, who represents the Gaudiya Maths bte noirethe householder
Vaishnava born in the traditional guru families.
At the time Bhaktivinoda was living, however, the siksha and diksha gurus would
have occupied complementary roles, not exclusive of one another. Even if
Bhaktivinoda had considered Jagannath to be more advanced than his own
initating spiritual master, a not at all unusual or offensive attitude, this would not
have affected his disciplic relationship with Bipin Bihari Goswami. Scripture is
clear: there can only be one initiating guru, who is not to be abandoned unless
there is a sign of complete destitution from the spiritual path. There appears to
be no evidence of this in the case of Bipin Bihari Goswami.
Some representatives of the Gaudiya Math such as Narasingha Maharaj try to
discredit Bipin Bihari by saying that he was engaged in less than exemplary
behavior such as smoking tobacco. On the one hand this is hearsay; on the
other, this in itself would probably not been considered sufficient criterion for
rejection. After all, would Bhaktivinoda Thakur not have been aware of this from
the very beginning of his relationship?
Other oft-heard statements linking Jagannath Das Babaji to Bhaktivinoda Thakur
as his real spiritual master are that he took vesh from him (another
misconception, by the way, for this was a unilateral act performed years after
the Babajis death), or because Jagannath helped him to discover the place of
Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhus appearance, or that Bhaktivinoda called him
Vaishnava-sarvabhauma. None of these, however, indicate that Bhaktivinoda
Thakur rejected his initiating spiritual master. It is evident from Bhaktivinodas
relationship with own son and disciple, Lalita Prasad, that he held the diksha
relationship to be paramount, at least when it came to the understanding of
initiation and disciplic succession.

The Raghunath Das Goswami Issue
A more significant claim coming from the Gaudiya Math is that Bhaktivinoda
Thakur rejected Bipin Bihari because he had taken an unsavory stance on the
Raghunath Das Goswami issue. Little can truly be ascertained here, but we shall
examine it briefly anyway. The setting of this incident is the famous Balighai
meeting that took place on Bhadra 22, 1318 (i.e., September 1911). (12)
Here is the summary of this position as expressed by Narasingha Maharaj:
In 1911 there was an famous assembly of scholars held in Medinipur (Bengal)
wherein the topic of debate was to be on Brahmin and Vaishnavas. Bipin
Bihari Goswami was present at that assembly and, as was already known, he
would side with the brahmana community on the platform that brahmana
Vaishnavas were automatically superior to non-Brahmin Vaishnavas, due to a
brahmana being born in a higher caste. Bhaktivinode Thakura was also invited
to attend that assembly. The conflict between he (sic) and Bipin Bihari was
destined. Bhaktivinoda Thakurnot wanting to take a position of confronting and
attempting to defeat his diksha guru in a public forum declined to attend the
meeting on the plea of bad health. In his place he sent Saraswati Thakur (age
37) to represent the Gaudiya Vaishnava Siddhanta in the line of Sri Rupa and
Raghunath Das Goswami, as per the teachings of Mahaprabhu. We all know
what happened in the meeting.
In his book on the history of the Baghna Pada Vaishnavas, Kanan Bihari
Goswami makes the following interesting statement: He [Bipin Bihari Goswami]
defeated the scriptural considerations of the Smarta pandits and demonstrated
the superiority of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Evidently, there seems to be some
misunderstanding: both traditions hold that their man was defending the same
position.
Bhaktivinoda Thakura did for sometime show formal respect to Bipin Bihari
Goswami. But when the Goswami disrespected Srila Raghunath Das Goswami
by thinking that he can give blessings to Raghunath Das, the prayojana-acarya,
because Raghunath Das was from a lower caste, the Thakur distanced himself
more from Bipin Bihari Goswami.(13)
I have heard, though I have not been able to get it confirmed, that a statement
of this type was made by one of Bipin Bihari Goswamis more zealous disciples, a
young zamindar by the name of Choudhary Jadabendranandan. This then was
attributed to Bipin Bihari, but once this attribution became tradition it has been
established a a fact though no real evidence can be found to substantiate it.
Since Bipin Bihari Goswami spoke strongly at the Midnapur debate that
Vaishnavas were superior to Brahmins, this accusation becomes even more
doubtful and seems likely to be the result of some misunderstanding.
All Vaishnavas are agreed that the Vaishnava is superior to a Brahmin in the
karma kanda. There are, however, some subtleties that have arisen in the course
of time that were objected to by reformers like Siddhanta Saraswati. These were
principally the incursion of caste conventions into Gaudiya Vaishnavism. This will
require something of a detour into other matters, but we will do so since they are
not without relevance to the subject at hand.
The debate around Raghunath Das arises from the fact that of the six Goswamis,
he was the only one who was not born in the Brahminical caste. He was also the
first person known to have worshiped the Giridhari shila, which was given to him
by Lord Chaitanya himself. The question asked by the Brahmin Vaishnavas is why
Mahaprabhu confided the worship of Giridhari in him rather than Shalagram, as
was worshiped by Rupa and Gopal Bhatta Goswamis? Some consider this to be
exemplary behavior on Mahaprabhus part, setting the standard of behavior for
non-Brahmin Vaishnavas, by putting Shalagram worship, like the Gayatri mantra
and sacred thread, out of their purview. As with the wearing of saffron cloth, the
standards of behavior of the associates of Mahaprabhu are considered law that
stands above scripture. Thus, though scripture approves the worship of
Shalagram by non-Brahmin Vaishnavas, the maryada followed by most
Gaudiyas not born in the Brahmin caste is that they do not do so.
The usual reference is found in Jiva Goswamis commentary to Srimad
Bhagavatam (3.33.6).(14) He there states that there is no need for a non-
Brahmin Vaishnava to perform the savana-yajna, even though the verse clearly
states there he is so so free from sin that he is eligible to do so. Jiva interprets
this to mean that a low-caste Vaishnava is more revered than a Brahmin, but
that this verse does not specifically permit him to act as a karma-kanda
Brahmin. The primary reason for this is that is such sacrifices are outside the
scope of a Vaishnavas duties or desires. Vishwanath Chakravarti (himself a
Brahmin) has elaborated further on this point to some degree, stating that since
such sacrificial activities are lower on the spiritual hierarchy than direct service to
Krishna, they are not to be taken up even by Brahmin Vaishnavas.
In other words, Gaudiya Vaishnavism historically did not interfere with the social
status quo. Siddhanta Saraswatis daiva-varnashramideas were radically
opposed to this vision, as he tried to democratize the Brahminical function and
open it, so to speak, to people from all castes and races.
Narasingha Maharaj also repeats the received Gaudiya Math tradition, no
doubt heard from Saraswati himself, that Bipin Bihari arrogantly claimed that he,
as a Brahmin, was in a position to bless Raghunath, a Shudra. This kind of
statement is obviously inflammatory. All evidence indicates that Raghunath, as
a humble Vaishnava, would have observed the social protocol of the time and
would have offered due respects to any Brahmin.(15) There is external protocol
and inner spiritual achievement. The external protocol is based on social
position, not on inner worth. Hari Das Thakur observed the protocols of
Jagannath Puri: despite being universally recognized as a man who was as holy
if not more so than the Brahmins who served Jagannath, he never attempted to
enter the temple there. Sanatan also respected the Puri Brahmins ritual purity
out of extreme humility and avoided coming in contact with them.
No doubt caste prestige and position are dangerous spiritually and also lead to
social abuse. From a Marxist perspective, the only way that the lower caste or
casteless Vaishnava could gain a modicum of social prestige was to become a
renunciate, in other words, to take himself completely out of society and forfeit
any worldly privileges. But such critiques are entirely separate and distinct from
those found in the scriptures, where the issue is only whether a lower caste Hindu
can enhance himself socially (and by extension his family) by becoming a
Vaishnava. As the Vaishnava is supposed to be indifferent to Varnashram,
elevation to Brahminical duties through his religious activities or spiritual
achievements is clearly counterindicated.
We are, of course, dealing with a feudal mentality that functions within the static
agrarian culture of the Indian middle ages. What transpired is to a great degree
the result of a clash of civilizationsegalitarian Western concepts had started to
be internalized in Bengali society through the reform or renaissance movements
that began with Ram Mohun Roy. Though some kind of spiritual egalitarianism
may have been inherent in Vaishnavism, I think it is not excessive to say that no
external transformation of social hierarchies ever took place in Gaudiya
Vaishnava, nor that it was ever intended. In the opinion of a Ramakanta
Chakravarty, it never was, though Bengali Vaishnavism did at least stop the
hemorrhaging of lower caste Hindus to the socially more egalitarian Muslims,
winning them back into accepting Brahminical leadership. With very few
exceptions, Mahaprabhus close associates were Brahmins and the non-
Brahmins amongst them were perhaps nothing more than representative
tokens.
Scriptures like the Hari-bhakti-vilasa, which suggest that where possible one
should take a guru who is a Brahmin, in the absence of which one should take a
guru who is in a higher caste than oneself, are marginalized by the Gaudiya
Math as a mere concession to the caste-conscious times. Nevertheless, their
very sanction in Gaudiya Vaishnava rulebooks would indicate that maintaining
existing Hindu caste conventions was not an aberration in Vaishnava society.
To summarize: It would appear that Bipin Bihari took the conventional position
held by orthodox Gaudiya Vaishnavas prior to Saraswati Thakur in holding that
though a Vaishnava was spiritually superior to a Brahmin, that did not accord a
Vaishnava any specific social rights. Saraswati strongly contested this social
conservatism and his Daiva Varnashram doctrine was a powerful element in his
preaching movement.
To establish Bipin Biharis position, however, we are on shaky territory, for we are
not in possession of any of his writings, nor do we have an objective account of
the Balighai meeting that could shed further light on these controversies. With
only a partisan account of these matters, we cannot make any conclusive
pronouncements. But, on the whole, since Bipin Biharis position at worst would
have been conventional, it does not seem that in itself it would have been
cause for Bhaktivinoda Thakur to reject him. And, of course, as stated, there is no
evidence that he did so.
Did Bipin Bihari Goswami reject Bhaktivinoda Thakur?
More significant and troubling for disciples in the line of Bhaktivinoda is evidence
that Bipin Bihari Goswami rejected Bhaktivinoda because of preaching
untruths about the birthplace of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
As mentioned above, Bipin Bihari was one of the first directors of the committee
to oversee the worship of Sriman Mahaprabhu, newly established at the
Yogapith in Mayapur by Bhaktivinoda Thakur in 1891. However, though many
significant personalities in the Vaishnava world participated in these events, not
everyone accepted this as the true birthplace of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
Not long afterward, controversy arose when a certain Vraja Mohan Das Babaji,
an engineer in his life before renunciation, declared that the so-called Yogapith
in Mayapur was false and that the real one was in Ranichora, a suburb of
Nabadwip that had recently been reclaimed from the receding Ganges. (16)
After the disappearance of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur in 1914 these controversies
became quite shrill, and nasty exchanges went on between the followers of
Saraswati Thakur and the Nabadwip adherents. This time, however, Bipin Bihari
Goswami sided with the Nabadwip Goswamis and in 1919 rejected the claims of
Bhaktivinoda and his son in a small newspaper of his own called Gauranga-
sevaka Patrika.
Unhappy with the Miapur controversy. In order to show his commitment to the
Nabadwip, [Bipin Bihari] held a festival in honor of Vamsivadanananda Thakur in
Kuliya in 1919. He disappeared the same year. (K. B. Goswami, 542) (17)
Since this rejection took place after Bhaktivinodas disappearance, it may well
be that Saraswati and his disciples heavy-handed approach to the debate
contributed to Bipin Biharis making a break of this sort. However, it is not unlikely
that he became convinced that Bhaktivinoda had wilfully fabricated evidence
to promote the Mayapur birthsite.
Bhaktivinoda Thakur and the three books
Did Bhaktivinoda Thakur fabricate evidence to promote the Mayapur birthsite? I
cannot answer the question where the historical and geographical evidence is
concerned. However, I am seriously disturbed by the evidence that
Bhaktivinoda Thakur manufactured literary evidence to support the validity of
Chaitanya as avatar and the nine-islands theory of Nabadwip, which in turn is
meant to promote the Mayapur birthplace.
In the 1890s, the Thakur wrote a Bengali verse work, Nabadwip-dhama-
mahatmya, which he published under his own name. This book is a pretty typical
Sthala Mahatmya style of text. Most Sthala-puranas introduce many puranic
or Vedic personalities and ascribe to them activities and words that glorify the
place in question. The events described in Nabadwip-dhama-mahatmya are
quite radical: Madhva and Ramanuja are not the only names that are dropped
in this book there are also demigods, Vedic rishis, and other historical figures
like Jayadeva, all of whom spend time in Mahaprabhus Dham and have
premonitions of His future appearance there.
Had Nabadwip-dhama-mahatmya been written in Puranic Sanskrit two or three
hundred years earlier, it may have been insinuated into the Skanda Purana or
Padma Purana and achieved canonical status. But as it is, the Thakur decided
to publish it in Bengali and in his own name. This could only mean that he was
either sufficiently confident of his own position as a realized Vaishnava who
could claim to have mystic visions of this sort and be believed, or that he never
intended for it to be taken literally as history, but as a fanciful work in glorification
of Mahaprabhu. The Gaudiya Math and others who believe in the divine status
of Bhaktivinoda take this work as literal truth, but to those who do not share in
the vision of a Nabadwip which has its center in Mayapur, it is a gratuitous
fabrication.
The Vaishnavas no doubt believe that in some dimension or alternate reality
these events were not only possible, but historically true, even if they were not
necessarily so in our universe. In this sense, we can compare it to his other works
like HarinAma-cintAmaNi, which Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote as a conversation
between Haridas Thakur and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in Jagannath Puri,
or Jaiva Dharma, which includes characters like Gopal Guru Goswami and
Dhyana Chandra a kind of historical fiction, as it were. There is a certain literary
license that has been taken here and is not problematic as long as we
recognize the genre.
However, three books that the Thakur published as ancient works were almost
certainly composed by him. These three CaitanyopaniSad (1887), Prema-
vivarta (1906) and Navadvipa-satakam (n.d.) have certain common
characteristics they were all connected to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the
glorification of his birthplace. The motives are fairly clear: the Thakur was trying
to promote Mahaprabhus birthplace and he did it in a fashion time-honored in
India. He simply wrote the material he needed and attributed it to someone
who had historical credibility. Rather than attributing his works to Vyasa or
Narottam Das Thakur as did the counterfeiters of the past, he used the names of
Jagadananda Pandit and Prabodhananda Saraswati. (18)
Bhaktivinoda Thakur did in fact publish many rare manuscripts of genuine
Vaishnava literature, such as Sri Krishna Vijaya, manypadyAvalis, etc. He was not
the only one in his time who yielded to the temptation of counterfeiting.
Nevertheless, I personally find it problematic that someone who contributed so
much to the Vaishnava religion, who worked so hard to instill a spirit of morality
and honesty into Vaishnavism, whose life was in general a monument of
commitment to service to Mahaprabhu and His principles, who in his worldly life
was a justice and so presumably knew a thing or two about ethics and the law,
saw fit to take such a chance.
Furthermore, in view of his familiarity with scholarly historical method, it is hard to
understand how he thought that he could get away with it. Perhaps he thought
his personal probity put him above suspicion. But did he really think that a single
manuscript found by chance in mysterious circumstances only to disappear
again after its publication would not cause people to examine the published
text more carefully? And if that text contains elements of language and content
that not only point to a modern origin, but to the very person who claims to
have found the manuscript, will our suspicions not be confirmed?
I can only say that in his enthusiasm to see Mahaprabhus birthplace be glorified
and become a center of pilgrimage as it has indeed become the Thakur
took a chance with his personal reputation and that of his religion. He
succeeded in making Mayapur a magnet for pilgrims from around the world. His
disciples, grand-disciples and great-grand-disciples have succeeded in creating
an environment that is quite extraordinary. Nevertheless, one cannot help but
wonder at the masi-bindu that stains his otherwise sparkling white cloth. Can we
not expect people to ask the question that naturally arises: How can a religion
that needs lies to spread its message make any claims to be the truth?
It does not give me pleasure to remind us, who are accustomed to thinking
negatively of Bipin Bihari Goswami as someone who was rejected for his caste
consciousness and bad habits like tobacco smoking, that he publicly
renounced Bhaktivinoda Thakur as his disciple shortly before dying in 1919. The
reason he gave for this drastic act was precisely for preaching falsehoods
connected to the birthplace of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. It is easy to condemn
Bipin Bihari Prabhu for having some self-interest in this matter, but the doubts that
have been brought up in this article tend to give justification to the Goswami.
I find it rather painful to bring the matter up, and I do so in the full expectation of
being heartily condemned, but I would like to see those who love the Holy
Name and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu face this problem head on, much in the
way that Roman Catholics have decided to accept the terrible things in their
history things which are many times worse than those we have mentioned here
and still find a way to justify their faith.
Faith has to be honest to be genuine, and such honesty has to extend to our
forefathers, even those to whom we have attributed the highest spiritual
perfection. It is a shock to accept that our divinities may have had human
failings, but I think this is a necessary step in facing our own failings.
Human psychology is such that we often compensate for our own human
frailties by placing faith in someone else. We say, I am not perfect, but my guru
is. I have no personal qualifications, but this does not matter because the
parampara is perfect. This is a psychological trick and results in ego-inflation. By
identifying with the guru and the parampara, we appropriate their perfection
and their authority for ourselves. Unfortunately, this expands into the kind of
distorted personal psychology that is not only historically present in Iskcon, but in
many of the interactions between devotees who are otherwise sincere.
NOTES
(1)The biographical information is taken from Kanana Bihari
Gosvami. Baghnapada Sampradaya o Vaishnava Sahitya. Calcutta: Rabindra
Bharati Vishwa-vidyalaya, pp. 526-32, 541-3.
(2) Bipin Bihari wrote some autobiographical notes in his Dasamula-rasa, where
he mentions his relationship with Bhaktivinoda Thakur. The complete text is given
in note 4 below.
(3) Jivani, 155-6. Translation by Shukavak Das, Hindu Encounter with Modernity,
p. 92.
(4) The following is taken from Daamla-rasa by Bipin Bihari Goswami (pp.1216-
1219):
The best and dearest of my disciples is Sri Bhaktivinoda Kedarnath Datta, who is
pleasing to everyone. He is the ornament of the Datta lineage and a true
devotee of the Lord. He has received many honors from those who are loyal to
the government. He wrote me from Jagannath Puri over a period of three years
telling me of his desire for devotion (bhaktylope ?). Then he and his wife took
initiation from me at his home in Narail. At the time he first took shelter, he was
Narails magistrate and was living there. His actual home was in Calcutta, the
capital city, at 181 Ram Bagan [Lane]. As a government servant he was making
a good living and he now has seven sons. Since taking mantra from me, he has
liberally supported me and defrayed all my household expenses. From that day,
I have had no further worries about my personal living costs, all thanks to the
devotion of this disciple. Yet although he has performed such extensive service,
he has never been satisfied and always expresses regret that he is not able to
do more to serve his guru. He quotes the scriptures sac-chiyair guru-nikti
Good disciples protect the spiritual master from all danger and says that he
has not been able to fulfill this command. I know it well that both he and his wife
often sincerely express regrets like this.
Bhagavati Devi is devoted to her husband-guru and engaged in his service with
an attitude of pure devotion, just like the goddess Sati is to Shiva. Just as
Kedarnath is a great devotee, his wife Bhagavati is also. When they saw the
extent of Kedarnaths devotion and knowledge, the Goswamis of Sripat
Baghnapara were very pleased and gave him the title Bhaktivinoda along
with a certificate. Everyone is aware of this because it was published in the
newspaper. Nevertheless, to bring satisfaction to everyone, I reproduce the text
of that document here:
zr-paa-baghnp-nivsibhir gosvmibhi r-kedrantha-dattya
bhaktya iyya kpay bhaktivinodopdhi pradatt |
iyasya rmata sdhor govinda-caraaiia |
kedrantha-dattasya jayo bhavatu sarvad ||1||
prabho caitanya-candrasya matasya cnuvartina |
pracrakasya str bhakti-mrga-pravartinm ||2||
r-rdh-ka-viay tava bhaktim anuttamm |
dv ko na vimuhyeta lokesmin vaiava-priya ||3||
y bhakti labhitu avad vcanti bhagavat-priy |
t bhakti hdaye dhtv dhanyosi priya-sevaka ||4||
jvasya jvanopya ek bhaktir garyas |
ato bhaktivinodkhya updhi pratighyatm ||5||
The Goswamis residing in the holy site of Baghna Para mercifully bestow the title
of Bhaktivinoda on the devotee and disciple Kedarnath Datta.
1. May you, our pious disciple Kedarnath Datta, who desire nothing but the lotus
feet of Govinda, be ever glorious.
2. You faithfully follows the doctrines taught by our Master, Chaitanya Chandra,
and you actively preach the scriptures that establish the path of devotional
service.
3. Seeing your unequalled devotion for Radha and Krishna, O you who are dear
to the Vaishnavas, what person in this world would not be enchanted?
4. The kind of devotion that the Lords dearest associates ever desire to attain is
held in your heart, so you are most fortunate, O beloved servant.
5. The supreme and only benefit for the living beings is devotion to Krishna.
Therefore, please accept this title of Bhaktivinoda.
The Goswamis of Baghnapara joyfully gave this honor to him in the month of
Magh in the 400th year after the birth of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
The many books that Kedar has written on the subject of bhakti are proof of his
vast learning in the subject. After much research into the matter, he discovered
the birthplace of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in Nabadwip Mayapur. Genuine
devotees always sing his glories and only the false renouncers and cheaters
criticize him. Because he is my disciple, I shall not go on and on, but have only
told the essential so that everyone knows [of our relationship]. I bless him that he,
his wife, children and grandchildren will all have long life and conduct their
affairs for the pleasure of Krishna. May he and his wife always be engaged in the
service of Krishans lotus feet.
The following is Bhaktivinodas note on the title from Sva-likhita-jvan (p. 176-177):
I forgot to write one thing. When the leaders of my spiritual masters family saw
the work I was doing publishing Vaishnava literature, they were pleased and
gave me the title Bhaktivinoda. Here is a copy of the certificate they gave me
on that occasion. (See above)
Signed: Sri Bipin Bihari Goswami, Sri Tinkori Goswami, Sri Gopal Chandra
Goswami, Sri Gaurachandra Goswami, Sri Ramachandra Goswami, Sri
Yajneshwar Goswami, Sri Binod Bihari Goswami, Sri Yadunath Goswami, Sri Binod
Bihari Goswami, Sri Yogendra Chandra Goswami, Sri Gopal Chandra Goswami,
Sri Hemachandra Goswami, Sri Chandra Bhushan Goswami, Sri Kanailal
Goswami, Sri Haradhan Goswami.
I responded to this honor by dedicated the following verses to the Goswamis of
my Guru Pat.
r-ka-caitanya-candrya nama
jayata r-rmakau bghnpall-vibhaau |
jhnav-vallabhau rmacandra-krti-svarpakau ||1||
vyghropi vaiava skt yat-prabhvd babhva tat |
bghnpllytmaka vande rpa gaua-pvanam ||2||
r-vavadannanda-prabhor vaa-pradpakn |
crynumatn sarvn mad-deika-varn prabhn ||3||
te prasda-leena jaopdhau gate mama |
bhaktivinoda-prakhytir dsasya vidyatedhun ||4||
ye kp-lavenpi bhitoham updhin |
te pda-saroje me sga-daavan-nati ||5||
r-rmapurata | ktjalir nivedanam etat te cira-sevakasya sarva-
vaiava-dsnudsasya bhaktivinodopdhikasya r-kedrantha-dattasya
1. I offer salutations to Sri Krishna Chaitanya Chandra. May Balaram and Krishna,
the jewels of Baghna Para, the beloved deities of Jahnavi Devi and the bringers
of fame to Sri Ramachandra Goswami, be ever glorious.
2. I worship the village of Baghna Para, which purifies the land of Gauda. Its
spiritual power is so great that it turned even a tiger into a devotee of Krishna.
3. I also worship all the descendants of Sri Vamsivadananda Thakur, my masters
and instructors in the spiritual path.
4. Through just a small fragment of their blessings, the identification of this servant
with his body has disappeared and henceforth he shall be known as
Bhaktivinoda.
5. By their mercy, I have been graced with this title and so I prostrate myself at
their lotus feet.
Signed at Sri Rampur by Kedarnath Datta, now entitled Bhaktivinoda, the
eternal servant of the descendants of Ramchandra Goswami and all the
Vaishnavas.
(5)
vipina-vihr hari tra akti avatari
vipina-vihr prabhu-vara
r-guru-gosvm-rpe dekhi more bhava-kpe
uddharila pana kikara
Krishna, known as Bipin Bihari, made his energy descend into this world as Bipin
Bihari Goswami, my lord. Seeing me, his humble servant, in the dark well of
worldly existence, he took the form of my spiritual master me delivered him.
(Amta-pravha-bhya, p. 1687)
(6)
ri-ka-caitanya-kpa-ptra-sri-bilvamagalya nama
guror hare pada dhytv zr-vipina-vihria
ka-karmtasyeya bh-vykhy viracyate
I offer respectful obeisance to Sri Bilvamangala Thakur, the recipient of Lord
Krishna Chaitanyas mercy. Meditating on the holy feet of my guru Sri Bipina
Bihari and Lord Hari, I am writing this Bengali translation and explanation of
the Ka-karmtam.
(7)
vipina-vihr prabhu mama prabhu-vara
r-va-vadannanda-vaa-aadhara
My exalted spiritual master, Bipina Bihari Prabhu, is the brilliant moon in the
family of Sri Vamsi Vadanananda.
(8) Page 93. This still has to be demonstrated, as the exact nature of the
Rasaraja concept as distinct from the doctrines of Rupa and Jiva Goswamis has
yet to be analyzed
(9) Gaurga-smaraa-magala-stotra, 75.
(10) All references to B. G. Narasingha Maharaj are to his book The Authorized Sri
Chaitanya Saraswata Parampara. Bangalore: Gosai Publishers, 1998.
(11) The Seventh Goswami (Washington, MS: New Jaipur Press, 1989), 142-4.
(12) Goswami, 528. Sources of the information are not given.
(13) We do have the Siddhanta Saraswati version that came out of this meeting,
Vaman Maharaj writes in the introduction that he made a statement (Nivedana,
page 1) about Raghunath Das Goswami, but no mention is made that
Raghunath was a Brhmaa o vaiava tratamya viayaka siddhnta.
NavadvIpa: r-Gauya-vednta-samiti, 1995. This is the third edition of this work.
The first two were published in 1920 (by the three trustees of the Chaitanya
Math) and 1934 (by the Viva-vaiava-rja-sabh), both during Saraswatis
lifetime.
(14) Also in the Durgama-sagaman commentary on Bhakti-rasmta-
sindhu 1.1.22 and Bhakti-sandarbha 128.
(15) He was a kyastha, which according to the strict conventions of Bengal
society made him a Shudra.
Comment
August 15, 2014
Mayapur is not the real birthplace of Caitanya Mahaprabhu
Mayapur is not the real birthplace of Caitanya Mahaprabhu
Download this in PDF format here:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/e3717aola66h1d8/True_History_of_Bhaktisiddha
nta.pdf
With modern methods, it should be possible to trace the history of the Ganges
bed, on which both sides of this argument hinge. It seems to my laymans eyes
that the Ganges has tended to move eastward over the past several centuries,
making the more westerly birthplace more likely. See Shukavak Das, p. 107-108,
particularly the note on page 108. See also Chakravarti, 396.
Here is some more information, based on Carita-sudh, volume 4, pp. 65-71. The
original temple on Mahaprabhus birthplace was built by Bir Hambir of
Vishnupur, who ruled from approximately 1586-1621. This small shrine was
claimed by the Ganges. Gaur Govinda Singh, the diwan of the East India
Company temple, was an important Vaishnava. He built a second temple on
the site in 1780-5, a sixty foot high building with nine pinnacles in red sandstone.
This building was submerged in floods in 1876. Clearly, then, Bhaktivinoda Thakur
must have been exaggerating somewhat when he said that nobody had any
idea where the birthplace had been.
As a result, a few years after Bhaktivinoda established the Mayapur site, in 1304
Bangabda (1897), Sashibhushan Bandyopadhyaya wrote in Pallivasi Patrika the
first article claiming that the Janmasthan was somewhere in Ramchandrapur.
This started the Janmasthan wars. The Mayapur faction started a court case,
which ultimately refused to reject the Mayapur claim, but did conclude that
Gaura Govidna Singhs temple had indeed been built on the site of
Mahaprabhus birthplace and if anyone could find the ruins of that temple, that
would be the deciding factor in establishing the birthsite.
Premananda Bharati, well-known as the first preacher of Vaishnavism in the
West, took up the cause in the early 20th century, enlisting the aid of the leaders
of the various Vaishnava communities both in Vrindavan and Gauda Desh.
Finally, these Vaishnavas decided to find a qualified person to establish the
exact site. They engaged Braja Mohan Das Babaji, who in his householder life
had been a government engineer and had recently taken responsibility for
rebuilding the steps around Radha Kund and Shyam Kund.
Vraja Mohan Dasji started his research in 1916. He walked all over the Dham as
well as investigating the available records, including the British survey maps that
had been conducted from 1757 onwards. Apparently, he was on one occasion
beaten up, his sikha cut off, his mala cut and thrown naked into the Ganges by
the Mayapur faction. This probably when he entered the Mayapur compound. I
have myself seen the vitriolic literature written by Paramananda Brahmachari at
around this time, accusing Braja Mohan Dasji and his backers of all manner of
licentiousness in an attempt to discredit his efforts. This evidently did not help
Bhaktivinoda Thakurs cause with Bipin Bihari Goswami.
At any rate, through his research Braja Mohan pinpointed the Ramachandra
Chora land as the likeliest site of Gaur Govinda Singhs temple. He proceeded
to dig more than 700 holes in the ground there before finding a large piece of
red sandstone which he claimed was a part of the original structure. He
exhibited the piece of stone to an assembly of Vaishnavas and work was begun
building a new temple there.
Even so, the effort had exhausted him and he died not long after, turning the
temple service over to Charan Dass sakhibhekhi disciple Radhavinodini Dasi.
The area was officially named Prachin Mayapur in 1928. The temple was turned
over to Ramdas Babaji in 1953.
Clearly, the discovery of the Prachin Mayapur birthsite roughly coincides with
Bipin Biharis rejection of Bhaktivinoda, so it is not unlikely that the two are
related.
Comment
August 14, 2014
Comments about Bhaktisiddhanta by his brother Lalita Prasad Thakur
Comments about Bhaktisiddhanta by his brother Lalita Prasad Thakur
Download this in PDF format here:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/e3717aola66h1d8/True_History_of_Bhaktisiddha
nta.pdf
The following comments give a history of Bhaktisiddhanta spoken by his brother
Lalita Prasad Thakur. I found these on one webpage that was discussing
ISKCON.
ex-ISKCONMarch 16, 2013 at 8:32 am | Permalink | Reply
Comments from Gaudiya Discussions dot com. Note that BP is Bimal Prasad aka
Bhaktisiddhanta. And LPT is Lalita Prasad Thakura, Bhaktisiddhantas brother:
(1) He went on to tell a story about Bhaktisiddhanta that blew my mind. He said
that Bhaktisiddhanta was actually the reincarnation of a fake guru by the name
of Bishikishan who Bhaktivinoda had incarcerated when he was the deputy
magistrate in Puri. Bhaktivinoda had this fellow, who was impersonating Krsna
and dancing the rasa dance with young women, arrested and imprisoned and
a few months later he died in prison (police brutality?). According to LPT,
Bishikishan swore on his dying breath that he would get even with Bhaktivinoda
and spoil his lifes work. According to LPT he was born as Bhaktivinodas son,
Bimala Prasada. At this point he produced a letter written by Bhaktivinoda to
him years later describing the horrible pains his mother experienced in giving
birth to BP, far worse than ordinary birth pains, and there may have been a
comment either by Bhaktivinoda or his wife (LPTs mother) about a great demon
residing in her womb.
(2) According to Nitai das, Lalita Prasad produced evidence that Bhaksidhanta
Sarasvati might be a demon.
(3) We were fed this GM/ISKCON propaganda that Bhaktivinode did not give
Bhaktisiddhanta initiation because it was not according to protocol to get
initiated by ones own father. Then we later found out that this was not the case
and that Bhaktivinode gave initiation to Lalita Prasad. I think that is awfully
suspicious, to say the least.
ex-ISKCONMarch 16, 2013 at 9:20 am |
From Nitais Escape from the Hall of Mirrors:
Who are my sources? Dr. Kapoor and Lalita Prasad Thakur, Bhaktisiddhantas
own brother and duly initiated disciple of Bhaktivinod Thakur, and what I heard
from them was confirmed by everyone else I spoke with. Dont blow off hear-
say. Hear-say is sruti if it comes from authoritative sources. I heard the demon
story directly from Lalita Prasada Thakur who felt it had been confirmed by his
own mother who exclaimed during her pregnancy with Bimala Prasad that it felt
like a demon had entered her womb.
ex-ISKCONMarch 16, 2013 at 9:33 pm |
More from Gaudiya Discussions dot com:
I thought it would be appropriate to at least present what Bhaktisiddantas
devotee brother (Lalita Prasad Thakur) had to say about the family history.
According to him, Bhaktisiddhanta was believed to be a reincarnation of a yogi
that Bhaktivinode imprisoned for impersonating Vishnu (Bishika Sen or something
like that was his name). The story is that this yogi commited suicide and cursed
Bhaktivinode saying that he would take birth in his family and destroy his lifes
work. When Bhaktisiddhanta was in his mothers womb, she reportedly was
convinced that it was the yogi and that she felt like the unborn child was
burning inside of her and causing her great pain. The reason Bhaktisiddhanta
was denied diksha by his father, according to this side of the story, is that he
offended Bhaktivinodes guru, Bipin Bihari Goswami, both verbally and physically
by throwing a bucket of water on him. Bhaktivinode was so angry that he kicked
Bhaktisiddhanta out of the house.
ex-ISKCONMarch 17, 2013 at 11:27 pm |
A tradition of poison usefrom Gaudiya Discussions dot com. Note that
Bhimala is Bhaktisiddhanta:
(1) Regarding the poisoning of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, (I guess this
is a question to others also): did you come across that idea solely from Lalita
Prasad Thakura, or from other sources also?
(2) Regarding the poisoning, I only heard that from Lalita Prasad.
(3) I recall once reading a statement from AC Bhaktivedanta Swami, where he
suggests that someone also tried to poison Bhaktisiddhanta. I cant seem to
locate the reference at the moment.
(4) However, judging by the statements in Subaljis text, it is clear that some
suspected Bhaktisiddhanta of being poisoned though. Not least his own
brother.
(5) He saved his brother twice when he was poisoned by his disciple. The last
time, he was locked in a room so that he could not go to his brother. They also
tried to poison Lalita Prasad a couple of times unsuccessfully.
(6) The lives of Bhaktivinodes sons reads at times like an Agatha Christie
adventure with plotted poisonings and murders and that supposed letter that
Bhaktivinode wrote to Lalita Prasad that Bhimala was an incarnation of a
previous opponent of his
(7) Tirtha Maharaja tried poisoning his guru Bhaktisiddhanta a couple of times,
but Bhaktisiddhanta made it to Lalita Prasad who saved him. Finally, he was
poisoned and locked in his room so he couldnt go for help. It was the kind of
poison known as a Russian heart attack. He was taken from Calcutta to
Mayapur for cremation and burial to avoid an autopsy. A couple of
unsuccessful attempts were made on Lalita Prasads life also.
ex-ISKCONMarch 21, 2013 at 7:11 am |
From Gaudiya Discussions dot com:
(1) Remember, the principle was that we could do anything for Krishna. The
end justified the means. This resulted in fraud and con tactics, drug dealing,
murder and prostitution being used by some devotees. Now some argue
whether Bhaktivedanta was aware of these things going on or not. He certainly
was pleased with the devotees who brought money and wasnt concerned
with how they got it. The biggest wheeler dealers became the biggest ISKCON
leaders.
(2) According to Harikesh, Gurukrpa was giving money to Bhaktivedanta
Swami from drug traffic sales, much to Bhaktivedanta Swamis awareness, for
the financing of the Vrndavan Krsna-Balaram Mandir. In 1977 Gurukrpa was
arrested and thrown in jail in the Netherlands for some 5-7 years.
Some may want to shrug this off as not true or whatever. People get uptight
when I bring this up. It may not even have any relevance to some. It does to me.
I had two brothers that died in their early thirties from related drug addictions. It
is sad that a temple of God was financed on drug money, even more so, when
the principles we vowed on our supposed initiation was that we refrain from
intoxication.
It is even sadder to hear people rationalize this incident with the story of the
four mystics who plunderred people in South India to construct the Sri
Ranganath Mandir in South India. I hear people say, Prabhupada purified that
money.
I agree whole-heartedly with Subal I like to have some integrity in my life and
stand up for what is right for whatever it is worth. The seeds of deciet will remain
within our hearts till we uproot them, recognize and the value of virtue, being
honest with ourselves and others. Living in denial is self-deceit. It will not bring us
in touch with our souls.
ex-ISKCONMarch 23, 2013 at 11:06 pm |
From Nitais On Varnasrama:
The biggest mistake was this teaching on the varnasrama dharma. I dont think
he really understood what he was doing. It doesnt matter what you call it daiva
or asurika, it is nothing but an obstacle () Now instead of shifting our self
understanding from our physical identities, such as they are, to our spiritual
identities we have to pass through some caste identity? This is absurd. () This
only introduces another level of maya and another opportunity develop a false
sense of who we really are.
ex-ISKCONMarch 23, 2013 at 11:19 pm |

More from The Caitanya Symposium:
Deprogramming ourselves after exposure to those books is very hard. I have
been struggling with it for years and I am far from deprogrammed. Plus, where is
the counter-literature? I can read Bengali and Sanskrit so I have access to much
but for those who dont it is really tough.
ex-ISKCONMarch 28, 2013 at 7:32 am |
If the fruit is so thoroughly noxious what does that tell us about the tree?
I think I will concentrate on the Lalita Prasad Thakur question in this letter. Of
course Jan and Gadadhara Pran, who received initiation from LPT, are probably
better informed on many of these matters and may even have some of the
documents I will refer to. I had the good fortune to visit LPT in Birnagar at
Bhaktivinodes family estate and temple sometime in 1975 after I had left Iskcon
and been at least partially initiated by Tin Kudi Baba. By the way LPT is the
younger brother of Bhaktisiddhanta, not older. It was awe-inspiring being in the
presence of someone directly related to Bhaktivinoda, whose life and work I
have always been inspired by. LPT was quite old then and basically spent his
days in his room sitting or lying on his bed surrounded by books and manuscripts,
chanting the Holy Name. I believe he was chanting some five lakhs of Harinama
a day. That is 500,000. At my best I could only do one and a half lakhs a day and
it took me all day. All of his needs were being seen to by a middle-aged woman
who ran the asrama. She had his meals prepared and took care of everything.
LPT said that she was the reincarnation of his mother who had come back
specifically to care for him. He always called her Ma. She seemed very
peaceful and very efficient. LPT spoke to us (I think I was with a god-brother by
the name of Jagadananda Das) at length on the first day of our visit. His basic
point was that Bhaktisiddhanta was a usurper. His father, he said, had passed on
the responsibility of spreading Mahaprabhus religious tradition to him, not
Bhaktisiddhanta and he produced a letter from Bhaktivinode to him stating
something like that. (Whether it was genuine or not I cannot say.) He claimed
that Bhaktisiddhanta made the claim of carrying on his fathers work without
any authorization to do so. LPT stated quite bluntly that he had received
initiation from Bhaktivinoda, but that Bhaktivinoda refused to give it to
Bhaktisiddhanta. One has to wonder why.
He went on to tell a story about Bhaktisiddhanta that blew my mind. He said
that Bhaktisiddhanta was actually the reincarnation of a fake guru by the name
of Bishikishan who Bhaktivinoda had incarcerated when he was the deputy
magistrate in Puri. Bhaktivinoda had this fellow, who was impersonating Krsna
and dancing the rasa dance with young women, arrested and imprisoned and
a few months later he died in prison (police brutality?). According to LPT,
Bishikishan swore on his dying breath that he would get even with Bhaktivinoda
and spoil his lifes work. According to LPT he was born as Bhaktivinodas son,
Bimala Prasada. At this point he produced a letter written by Bhaktivinoda to
him years later describing the horrible pains his mother experienced in giving
birth to BP, far worse than ordinary birth pains, and there may have been a
comment either by Bhaktivinoda or his wife (LPTs mother) about a great demon
residing in her womb. The rest according to LPT fit this paradigm. BP insulted
Bhaktivinodas guru Bipin Bihari by calling him a fart breather. He went on to
teach and play the guru without any initiation, took over the organization that
Bhaktivinoda had founded and turned it into the Gaudiya Math. According to
LPT Bhaktivinoda became so disgusted that he retired to Puri early and went into
seclusion practicing the final astakaliya and harinama-bhajana with which he
ended his life.
After hearing this story, I remember wondering if this was merely the result of
sibling rivalry or something more substantial. At any rate, the documents to
support LPTs view of the situation were right there. That was one of the most
tantalizing parts of the visit. LPT showed me a couple of almira filled with
Bhaktivinods letters and manuscripts, some published and some
unpublished.There was a huge mass of literature there. I got the impression that
what had been published was only the tip of the iceberg, that there was so
much more of Bhaktivinodas realizations buried in those almira. I hope that
someone is trying to protect it and publish it. Another of LPTs claims was that
those things of Bhaktivinoda that had been published by the Gaudiya Math had
beenedited and changed. He said that the true position of Bhaktivinoda
would not be known until the works were restored from the original manuscripts.
All in all, it was an interesting couple of days. LPT passed away a year or two
later and I have no idea what has become of the mss or of the ancestral estate
of Bhaktivinod since then.
Steve Bohlert, a.k.a Subal was an initiate of A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami, founder
of iskcon.
The following excerpt is taken from Saffron, Subals autobiography. Here Subal
recounts a meeting with Lalita Prasad, the brother of Bhaktivedanta
Prabhupadas guru (Bhaktisiddhanta). Subal relates what Lalita Prasad told him
(emphasis added):
The line that your guru maharaja (A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami- Prabhupada)
listed in his Bhagavad Gita was made up by my brother Bhaktisiddhanta. He was
rejected by our father Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and his guru who was Bipin Bihari
Goswami. Bhaktisiddhanta spoke against Bipin Bihari from the stage of a large
public gathering in Calcutta. He called him a caste Goswami and a sahajiya (a
cheap cheater).
When our father heard about this, he said, You should keep out of religious
affairs. It would be better if you went and lived in Mayapur alone. Chant Hare
Krishna and pray for Lord Chaitanyas mercy.
But when our father Bhaktivinode Thakur died, I went to my brother and said,
Who will carry on our fathers teachings now that he is gone? You are the
oldest. I was working for the government like our father did, while he was doing
his spiritual practices and was a scholar. Youre the one to do it, I told him.
How can I do it when Ive been rejected by our father and his guru? was his
reply.
Youre smart. Make up a disciplic succession. Who will know? He did it. When
he went to Vrindaban to preach, the babajis there knew he had made it up. It
did not jive with known historical facts and relationships between the
personalities mentioned.
Gaura Kishore dasa Babaji never gave diksa to Bhaktisiddhanta
Gaura Kishore dasa Babaji never gave diksa to Bhaktisiddhanta
Why Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Never Received Initiation from Gaurakisora Dasa
Babaji
1 ) Sri Kisori Mohana Gosvami and Sri Kisori Das Babaji witnessed that
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, when asked by Siddha Sri Ramakrsna das Pandit
Baba in the early 1930s, declared that he was initiated in a dream. Based on
abhava pramana (evidence based on absence of counter evidence) I might
as well claim that I received a dream-initiation from Sri Rupa Gosvami. Who can
confirm or deny it? In this way the whole principle of initiation is undermined and
made into a laughing stock. In Sri Isana Nagaras Advaita Prakasa (8.118-122) it
is described how Sita-devi, the consort of Advaita Prabhu, received initiation in a
dream from Srila Madhavendra Puri, but that Advaita Prabhu still found it
necessary to give her a concrete, audible initiation.
sita kohe bahu bhagye toma painu dekha
dehatma sodhana koro diya mantra diksa
tabe puri sitare krsna mantra dila
jagi sita mata kohe kiba camatkare
svapnavese puriraja mantra dila more
acarye kohila sita sarva vivarana
tiho kohe bhagye tuya khandila bandhana
prabhu sei mantra puna vidhi anusare
subha ksane samarpila sva bharya sita re
Sita devi told Madhavendra Puri: I am very fortunate to meet you. Please
sanctify my body and soul by giving me mantra initiation. Then Madhavendra
Puri gave Sita krsna-mantra after which he vanished. When mother Sita awoke,
she said: How amazing! Madhavendra Puriraja gave me mantra in a visionary
dream! Sita devi told everything to Advaita Acarya, who said: You are so
fortunate that now all your bondage is destroyed. According to the rules, and
on an auspicious moment, Advaita Prabhu then gave His wife Sita that mantra
again.
2) How can you take sannyasa in March 1918 while your guru passed away in
November 1915? Gaudiya Matha chronicles admit that Bhaktisiddhanta took
sannyasa in his room from a photo. Sannyasa cannot be taken from a photo,
without physical permission of the person on the photograph, but from a living
sannyasi.
3) How can you wear saffron cloth while your would-be sannyasa guru wore
white? A parampara that starts with white cloth and then suddenly switches to
saffron cloth and brahmana-initiation is also not an uninterrupted siksa-
parampara. All colors of garment but white are forbidden for a Gaudiya
Vaisnava rakta-vastra vaisnavera podite na yuyay (Caitanya-caritamrta,
Antya 13.61) A Vaisnava should not wear red cloth. nagno dviguna-vastrah
syan nagno raktapatas tatha: Wearing red cloth is like walking naked, and
sukla-vasa bhaven nityam raktam caiva vivarjayet (both from Hari-bhakti-vilasa,
4.147,152): Always wear white and give up red cloth. raktam nilam adhautam
ca parakyam malinam patam paridhaya (Agamasastra quoted in Durgama-
sangamani by Sri Jiva Gosvami on Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, 1.2.120 ): Wearing
red, blue or unwashed garments is a sevaparadha. In Sri Dhyanacandra
Gosvamis Paddhati the guru is described as wearing white cloth (svetambaram
gaura-rucim sanatanam -He wears white cloth and his eternal form shines like
gold). And saffron dhotis do not exist at all, only saffron bahirvasas (outer cloth)
for Vedic eka-dandi (mayavadi) sannyasis and white dhotis for householders.
Grhasthas should not wear a kaupina (loincloth), and this is also not brahmana-
underwear. A kaupina is given during the ceremony of sannyasa for a lifelong
vow of celibacy. It drags anyone down to hell who takes it off to have sex.
Shaving the head is also only for sannyasis and not for others.
To say one is wearing saffron, not red, is a useless escape manoeuvre, because
there is also a positive injunction, namely suklavaso bhaven nityah, one should
always wear white and neither red nor saffron. This is also not a question of the
form (what does it matter what color your cloth is?) versus the substance. It is
not narrow-minded smarta-ism, because obedience is the substance. The
Gosvamis have ordered us to wear white and bhakti means that you obey the
orders of those who are both ordered and empowered by Mahaprabhu to lay
down the law. One Gaudiya Vaisnava acarya who may be an avadhuta may
wear burlap, but he did not tell his thousands of disciples to do so. He told them
all to wear white cotton. The Srimad Bhagavata verse (3.5.38) does not mean
that Gaudiya Vaisnavas can wear saffron or red cloth, there was no Gaudiya
sampradaya yet in the time of the Bhagavata, and, Srila Sanatana Gosvami
comments on this verse: yatibhir maha-prayatnena samsarasagaram
sribhagavadbhakta helayaiva sukham taranti, the ocean of samsara, which is
hard to cross by yatis (mayavadi sannyasis), is easily and blissfully crossed by the
Lords devotees. The verse rakta vastra vaisnavera porite na yuyay is not taken
out of context here. The story indeed is a personal question between
Jagadananda Pandita and Sanatana Gosvami, but the moral of the story,
expressed in the rakta vastra-verse, is an objective, absolute statement for all.
4) If Bhaktisiddhanta is Gaurakisora Das Babajis disciple, then why didnt he give
us Gaurakisoras guru-parampara, instead of saying that Gaurakisora Das Babaji
was the disciple of Bhaktivinoda? Rather, Bhaktivinoda worshipped Gaura Kisora
and approached him for bhekh. (Gaurakisora took bhekh from Bhagavat das
Baba, the bhekh-chela of Siddha Jagannatha das Baba). Regarding
Bhaktisiddhantas version of the rest of the guru-parampara:
Sanatana Gosvami was actually the disciple of Vidyavacaspati.
Rupa Gosvami was a disciple of Sanatana Gosvami.
Jiva Gosvami was a disciple of Rupa Gosvami.
Raghunatha das Gosvami was a disciple of Yadunandana Acarya.
Narottama Das Thakura was a disciple of Lokanatha Gosvami, not of Krsna das
Kaviraja.
Visvanatha Cakravarti was a disciple of Radha Ramana Cakravarti and never
met his would-be guru Narottama, for they lived a century apart.
Baladeva Vidyabhusana was a disciple of Radha Damodara Gosvami, not of
Visvanatha Cakravarti.
Jagannatha das Babaji lived 150 years after his would-be guru Baladeva
Vidyabhusana.
Bhaktivinoda was a disciple of Vipin Bihari Gosvami, not of Jagannath das
Babaji.
5) Why do all Gaudiya Matha-chronicles give different dates and places of
Bhaktisiddhantas supposed initiation, some saying that he received Nrsimha
mantra, as if Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji was a worshipper of Nrsimha?
6) Where did Bhaktisiddhanta get his brahmana-thread from? Gaura Kisora das
Babaji did not wear it (as the photos show), for he was born a vaisya. The proof
that brahmana-initiation does not exist in reality is that there is a separate 10-
syllable Gopala Mantra for brahmanas and an 18-syllable mantra for non-
brahmanas. This means that 2nd initiation is not the same as brahmana-
initiation. And if you do become a brahmana through such initiation, then why
not receive the 10-syllable mantra instead of the 18-syllable mantra they now
receive?
7) Then there is the argument: Ah, then you have an uninterrupted succession
with so many ladies, but what was their realisation? What were the realisations
of Jahnava Thakurani, Hemalata Thakurani, Krsnapriya Thakurani, Siddhesvari
Mata, etc.? The Gita proclaims that ladies can attain the Supreme Abode, but
those who do not follow the scriptures (be they men) can forget about it-
mam hi partha vyapasritya ye pi syuh papayonayah
striyo vaisyas tatha sudras te pi yanti param gatim
(Bhagavad Gita, 9.32)
O Partha, anyone who surrenders to Me, even low born women, merchants
and laborers, will reach the Supreme Abode.
Better a submissive lady than a wayward, independently operating pandit,
svami, etc. And even if these ladies did not have so many spiritual realisations
that is still no excuse for just fabricating a guru-parampara.
Gaudiya Matha preachers attract followers from family gurus (caste Gosvamis)
by pointing to Sri Jiva Gosvamis statement in Bhakti-sandarbha (210): tad etat
paramartha-gurvasrayo vyavaharika-gurvadi parityagenapi kartavyam, One
should give up a mundane guru and take a spiritual guru, but this mundane
guru refers to a village elder or parent, not to a family guru, for in Hari-bhakti-
vilasa (4.141) the Brahma-vaivarta Purana is quoted:
upadestaram amnayagatampariharanti ye
tan mrtan api kravyadahkrtaghnannopabhujate
Even the vultures will not eat the dead corpse of the ungrateful one who
abandons the amnayagatam guru.
In his commentary to this verse Srila Sanatana Gosvami writes: amnayagatam
kula-kramayatam: This amnayagata guru means a guru who has come in a
family succession.
8) What is the tilaka svarupa of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his followers? For
instance, the Nityananda parivara-initiates have a Nim-leaf on the nose, the
Advaita Parivara-initiates have a Banyan-leaf on the nose, the Syamananda
Parivara-initiates have an anklebell-form on the nose and so every bonafide
Gaudiya Vaisnava parampara has its own tilaka svarupa, which is revealed by
the guru and personally placed on the 12 parts of the disciples body by him at
the time of initiation. In Hari-bhakti-vilasa (2.85) it is quoted: sampradayika
mudradi bhusitam tam krtajalim, At the time of initiation the disciple receives
the sectarian signs from the guru. In the commentary to this verse Srila
Sanatana Gosvami writes: sampradayikam guru-paramparasiddham, This
sampradayika refers to the guru-parampara, and mudra tilaka maladi, And
mudra refers to tilaka and strings of beads. If Bhaktisiddhanta was a disciple of
Gaurakisora then why do they put on this gopicandana tilaka without any fixed
and distinct svarupa? Gaurakisora was initiated in the Advaita parivara. Why did
Bhaktisiddhanta not wear his gurus tilaka if he was really his disciple?
9) The guru-parampara is placed in the wrong order on Iskcon-altars. The guru is
seated on the disciples right side at the time of initiation and remains there
eternally. On Iskcon-altars the guru is on the left of the disciple. The latest guru
should be to the right and the earliest guru leftmost.
10) Who is a brahmana? a) In ISKCON/Gaudiya Matha we see everyone
ultimately receiving brahmana-initiation. But which varnasrama-society has only
brahmanas? Even from their viewpoint we judge people on their qualities and
not on their birth, most of Bhaktivedantas followers are not qualified
brahmanas. ISKCON/Gaudiya Math brahmana-women leave their husbands,
have children from different men (this is lower than a sweepers wife in India),
and, what to speak of knowing Sanskrit, the men dont even know Hindi or
Bengali, or even what the weather is like in India. No one knows even basic
sadacara, the practices of cleanliness and chastity. 90% of Iskcon members are
businessmen (qualified vaisyas perhaps?) Quality and birth are anyway non-
different: karanam gunasango sya sadasadyonijanmasu (Gita, 13.22). The
cause of birth in either a good or a bad species is ones attachment to a certain
psychological quality (culture, habit). The fact that most of Bhaktisiddhantas
Western followers are not even brahmana by quality, but there is still brahmana
initiation proves that their brahmana-campaign is motivated by envy. Sri
Caitanya Mahaprabhu has taught His followers trnad api sunicena One must
consider oneself lower than a blade of grass, not an ignorant mleccha
considering himself equal to a brahmana.
b) Envy is the cause of the mentality: Nowadays brahmanas are full of faults, so
now we will launch our own varnasrama-system. A human being can and
should not do that, for it is created by God Himself, and He is the highest
authority (caturvarnyam maya srstam The four castes are created by Me (God,
Krsna),) and not by the human being Bimal Prasad Datta. Religious principles
are created by God Himself (dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam, Srimad
Bhagavata, 6.3.19) Envy of brahmanas will cost you dearly, for Sri Krsna Himself
says in the Bhagavata (10.64.41-42):
vipram krtagasam api naiva druhyata mamakah
ghnantam bahusapantam va namaskuruta nityasah
yathaham praname vipran anukalam samahitah
tatha namata yuyam ca ye nyatha me sa danda-bhak
O My relatives! Do not harm a brahmana, even if he mistreats you! Even if he is
a sinner, you should still bow down to him. Even I bow down to the brahmanas.
Whoever acts otherwise is punishable by Me! The best example is Indra, who
had to suffer severely for killing the brahmana Vrtrasura, even though he was a
demon.
The Lord further tells Srideva in Srimad Bhagavata (10.86.53):
brahmano janmana sreyan sarvesam praninam iha
tapasa vidyaya tustya kim u mat kalaya yutah
The brahmana is superior to all living beings by birth, let alone when he is
austere, learned, content and devoted to Me.
duspraja aviditvaivam avajananty asuyavah
gurum mam vipram atmanam arccadavijyadrstayah (S.Bhag. 10.86.55)
Men of crooked understanding, who do not know this, disrespect a brahmana
and are envious of him, who is identical with Me and their very self.
c) The Bhagavata (7.11.13) declares that a brahmana must first be born in a
family that has always, throughout the generations, followed all the samskaras
for brahmanas.
d) The Vedas teach that a sannyasi renounces his brahmana-thread when he
takes sannyasa (sutra-sikha-tyaga, C.C.), but in Gaudiya Matha/Iskcon
sannyasis continue to wear the thread, even though they are not born as
brahmanas in the first place!
e) The brahma-sutra (thread) is only for practising the brahma gayatri, not for
the Vaisnava diksa-mantras like the gopala mantra and the kama Gayatri. Only
the last two are mentioned in Hari-bhakti-vilasa as Gaudiya Vaisnava diksa
mantras.
f) A brahmana is called dvija, or twice born. How can you have the second birth
(upanayana-samskara) without having had the first one (saukra or seminal
birth)? The brahma gayatri investment is done by the father of a brahmin boy
when he is 11 years old. The boy should not see the sun for many days (since the
brahma gayatri is a solar mantra) and is locked up in a room with the windows
shut and given only havisyanna (porridge without salt, spices or sugar) to eat.
Initiation into krsna-mantra is a separate initiation which is only given to active
Vaisnava brahmanas. This is called the brahmanas third birth (daiksa janma).
For instance, Mahaprabhu already wore His thread when He received krsna
mantra from Isvara Puri and Advaita Prabhu had been doing brahma gayatri for
decades when He received krsna mantra from Madhavendra Puri.
g) Sanatana Gosvami says in Brhad-bhagavatamrta (2.2.57):
esam yajaikanisthanam aikyenavasyake nije
jape ca sadguruddiste mandyam syad drstasatphale
The Maharsis offered Gopa Kumara the status of a brahmana, but he thought to
himself: If I accept the position of a brahmana, I will surely slacken in my
practise of the mantra that I received from the bonafide guru, and that is
certainly not good. brahmanas are only engaged in yajas and are not
engaged in other matters.
h) Introducing varnasrama dharma, which is an institution of karma-yoga, is a
namaparadha dharma-vrata-tyaga-hutadi-sarva-subhakriyasamyam: To
consider Hari Nama equal to any auspicious activity like (varnasrama) dharma,
vows (sannyasa), tyaga and sacrifices.
11) Who is a sannyasi? A Vaisnava tyagi is not called sannyasi. In India a
mayavadi is called sannyasi. In his Durgama-sangamani commentary on the
Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.2.113) Sri Jiva Gosvami sees a difference between a
sannyasi and a Vaisnava-nivrtta (tyagi): sisyan naivanubadhniyad ityadiko
yadyapi sannyasa-dharmas tathapi nivrttanam api bhaktanam upayujyata iti
bhavah Just as it is wrong for a sannyasi to take too many disciples, so it
counts also for renounced bhaktas.
12) There has never been a prohibition by the Gosvamis or the scriptures against
calling householder-acaryas Gosvami. On the contrary, Sri Narottama Thakura
Mahasaya sang: doya koro sitapati, advaita gosai addressing the householder
guru Advaita Prabhu with gosai. Advaita is also repeatedly called gosvami in
Kavi Karnapuras Caitanya-candrodaya Natakam. To see the Gosvamis as
different from the Lords Nityananda and Advaita who they directly descend
from in family line is an offence to Nityananda and Advaita, for the Vedas teach
us atma vai jayate putrah As father, so son, or: The child is the image of the
father. Saying that Sukracarya, the guru of the demons, refers to the caste
Gosvamis, (sukra meaning sperm), is not only very offensive but also
hypocritical, because Sri Bhaktivinoda Thakura is only famous due to glorification
by his own son Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.
Regarding family-succession, there is no reason that one should not be initiated
by ones parents: Hemalata Thakurani, guru of Yadunandana Thakura, took
initiation from her father Srinivasacarya, Krsna Misra took initiation from his
mother Sita-devi and Virabhadra Prabhu took intiation from his co-mother
Jahnavi Devi. Virabhadra was a son of Nityananda Prabhu, but according to
the Advaita Prakasa he went to Advaita Prabhu for diksa. Advaita Prabhu sent
him back to his own family to take diksa there, which confirms that it was the
wish of Nityananda and Advaita Prabhu that these family-guru paramparas
would be created.
13) It is also not true that a person cannot give initiation when his guru is still alive.
This practise is widespread throughout Gaudiya Vaisnava history. For instance,
Rasikananda gave initiation while his guru Syamananda Thakura was still alive.
14) Deviating from the sastras a) Is often apologised for with the argument: Yes,
Prabhupada/Bhaktisiddhanta was a pure devotee, therefore he was
empowered to introduce new injunctions. If that is so, then everyone can say
the same of their gurus, including the followers of Jayatirtha, who introduced the
use of hashish and LSD as a sadhana. A genuine pure devotee will surrender to
the sastras.
tasmacchastram pramanam te karyakaryavyavasthitau
jatva sastravidhanoktam karma kartum iharhasi (B.Gita, 16.24)
Therefore one should follow the scriptural authority in what is to be done and
what is not to be done. Once knowing the scriptural injunctions, one should act
accordingly.
b) Some say: Well, all that scriptural evidence is very nice, but Prabhupada is
beyond that. He is empowered by Krsna Himself, you can see that in these 208
temples in 184 countries, 25.000 followers, etc. etc. The answer lies in the well-
known saying: Religion without (scriptural) philosophy is sentimentalism and/or
fanaticism. Quantity does not prove quality. Rajneesh has millions of followers,
many more than Prabhupada, but does that make him an empowered pure
devotee?
yah sastravidhim utsrjya vartate kama karatah
na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham na param gatim (Bhagavad Gita, 16.23)
He who rejects scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims, will
not attain perfection, nor will he become happy or attain the Supreme Abode.
srutismrti mamaivaje yas tu ullanghya vartate
aja-cchedi mama dvesi madbhakto pi na vaisnavah
Sri Krsna says (quoted in Bhakti-sandarbha, para. 312): The Srutis and Smrtis are
My orders. Those who violate, disregard and disobey these orders are haters of
Me. Though they may be my devotees, they are still not Vaisnavas.
Disregarding the scriptures is the 4th offence to the holy name (sruti-sastra-
nindanam). Moreover, Srila Narottama Thakura Mahasaya says (in the Prema-
bhakti-candrika): sadhu-sastra guru vakya, hrdaye koriya aikya The words of
the guru must be compatible with the words of sadhu and sastra, just as the
words of sadhu must be compatible with guru and sastra and the words of
sastra must be confirmed by sadhu and guru. Not that the guru can say
whatever he wants merely on the strength of his large number of temples and
his large material success.
Throughout this essay it is shown that the followers of Bhaktisiddhanta distribute
namaparadha. The 1st (satam ninda, blanket-blasphemy of the non-Iskcon-
Vaisnavas), the 3rd (guroravaja not accepting guru parampara), the 4th (sruti-
sastra-nindanam, knowingly deviating from the scriptures), the 8th (considering
mundane piety other than the holy name, like their own varnasrama dharma, to
be alternative means of salvation), the 9th (asraddadhane vimukhe pyasrnvati
yas copadesah, preaching to the faithless, the averse and the unwilling, and the
11th (?) (aham mamadiparamo namni so pyaparadhakrt), chanting the holy
name with false ego (envy and ambition). Is their success then really so great?
All their followers are encouraged to commit and spread namaparadha.
15) Vaisnava ninda Even if there were any kind of parampara in Gaudiya
Math/Iskcon, their initiation must still be rejected on the basis of their systematic
and collective slander of the Vaisnavas, with most of whom they are not even
acquainted. Sri Jiva Gosvami quotes Narada Pacaratra in Paragraph 238 of
Bhakti-sandarbha:
yo vyakti nyayarahitam anyayena srnoti yah
tav ubhau narakam ghoram vrajatah kalam aksayam
iti naradapacaratre ataeva durata evaradhyas tadrso guruh vaisnava-vidvesi
cet parityajya eva guror apy avaliptasya karyakaryam ajanatah
utpathapratipannasya parityago vidhiyate iti smaranat tasya
vaisnavabhavarahityenavaisnavataya avaisnavopadistenah ityadi
vacanavisayac ca
A person who speaks contrary to the morale enunciated by the Vaisnava-
sastras, and the person who hears such immoral teachings will both live in a foul
hell for eternity. If an instruction of Sri Gurudeva is contrary to the sastras, then
association with such a guru should be given up and he should be worshipped
from a distance. If the guru is an enemy of the Vaisnavas, it is most auspicious to
give him up altogether. The word dvesa (hatred) also stands for ninda (slander)
(nindapi dvesasamah, Bhakti-sandarbhah). Therefore an offender to the
Vaisnavas is not qualified to be a guru, and he must be abandoned. A guru
who is attached to sense gratification, who does not know what is to be done
and what is not to be done, or who acts contrary to the bhakti sastras must be
abandoned. He has no Vaisnava-feelings, therefore he is an non-Vaisnava (non-
devotee). The scriptural saying A mantra received from a non-Vaisnava will
drag one to hell also shows that an non-Vaisnava guru is to be abandoned.
There is no justification whatsoever for slandering Vaisnavas, for Sri Krsna Himself
proclaims in Bhagavad-gita (9.30):
api cet suduracaro bhajate mam ananyabhak
sadhur eva sa mantavyah samyag-vyavasito hi sah
Even if he commits the most abominable activities, whoever exclusively
worships Me (without worshipping demigods or endeavouring for liberation
Visvanatha) is to be considered a saint, since he is on the right way.
Satam nindam paramam aparadham vitanute: Blaspheming the saints is the
first and foremost offence to the holy name.
In the Vrndavana-mahimamrta (17.83) Sri Prabodhananda Sarasvati has
written:
svananda sac cid ghana rupata matir yavan na vrndavana vasi jantusu
tavat pravistopi na tatra vindate tatoparadhat padavim paratparam
As long as one is so offensive as not to see all the creatures who live in
Vrndavana as transcendentally blissful and full of ecstatic love and
transcendental flavours, the supreme position of Radhas maidservant will
remain unattainable, even if one has already entered Vrndavana.
Unless one gives up the company of a slanderer one is sure to fall down. The
Srimad Bhagavata (10.74.40) confirms this:
nindam bhagavatah srnvan tat-parasya janasya va
tato napaiti yah so pi yatyadhah sukrtaccyutah
Anyone who hears the Lord or His devotee (tat-parasya janasya va)
blasphemed, and does not leave, will fall down.
b) Some call Radhakunda Narakakunda, and say there is not a single
rupanuga Vaisnava there. To this it can be replied yattirthabuddhih salile na
karhicit janesvabhijesu sa eva go-kharah (Srimad Bhagavata, 10.84.13)
Anyone who comes to a holy place (like Radhakunda) only to bathe without
meeting the learned persons there or recognising them, is like a cow or an ass.
If one wants to keep ones men for the preaching-mission for this is the only
reason why other Vaisnavas are systematically slandered then one may say
you are not qualified to associate with such deeply realised souls. Then one has
caught two flies in one blow one has glorified the Radhakunda Vaisnavas and
at the same time have kept ones money-machine erect.
c) Babajis are not sahajiyas, for sahajiyas are Saktas or Mayavadis who have
tantric sex with other mens wives, identifying themselves with Radha and Krsna.
Babajis dont do this. They do not imitate the Gosvamis, but follow them, by
wearing the dress Goswamis not only wore themselves, but also advised all other
Vaisnavas to wear in works like the Hari-bhakti-vilasa and Caitanya-caritamrta
(cited previously). Even if they are playing Vaisnava by falsely wearing the dress
it is said:
sadhu sangera alaukika apara sakti hoy
chale sad-vesa-dhari jiva jivanmukti pay (Advaita-prakasa 9.61)
The power of saintly association is so endless that even when one pretentiously
dresses as a saint, one will attain liberation.

1. "The fact that there are elaborate systems of sdhana
and entire societies built up around manjari bhva, and
none (that I know) around gopa bhva (of which there is
very scant scriptural description and virtually no social
support on the ground) should not be seen as
coincidence, but a clear sign that Mahprabhu really
wants us to practise this (manjari bhva)." 2. The entire
Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradya is initiated into the kma
gyatri, which is a mantra worshiping Krishna as the
transcendental youthful Cupid (Madana Gopla) of Vraja -
that is wholly incompatible with loving Krishna as a child or
a friend, is it not? Is any Gaudiya Vaishnava initiated with
a mantra worshipping Krishna as a child or a friend? 3.
The entire Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradya sings the
Gurvaakam by Shripda Visvantha Cakravarti, in
which he clearly depicts Gurudeva as an assistant of the
gopis to perfect the amorous pastimes of Sri-Sri Rdh-
Krishna - nikuja yuno rati-keli siddhyai y ylibhir yuktir
apekaya 4. In that same Gurvaakam, Sri
Vishvantha Cakravarti describes how the Guru is always
eager to relish the endless sweetness of the pastimes,
attributes, forms and names of Sri Rdhik and Mdhava,
not of Krishna with the cowherd boys or His parents - sri
rdhik mdhavayor apra mdhurya lil guna rpa
nmnm pratikasvdana lolupasya Bhakta 2: We
see in Caitanya Caritmrta that Srila Dsa Kavirja
Goswamipda has written, cri bhva diy prabhu
ncimu jagate, that Sriman Mahprabhu has given four
bhvas, cra-vidha braja-bhva, and with these He has
made the world dance. And you say Mahprabhu really
wants us to practise this manjari bhva, can you comment
please? Advaitadas: 1. Yes, in principle these four bhvas
are given, but practically you see huge systems having
been built around manjari bhva (Guik, siddha pral,
yogapha, maps, what have you) whereas none of these
things are in place for practising gopa bhva anywhere (to
my knowledge). 2. The Gaudya Vaishnava-scriptures are
predominantly about mdhurya rasa, to the extent that
Rpa Gosvmi, when coming to that subject in Bhakti
Rasmrta Qualification for rgnug bhakti 18
Sindhu, cut it short and referred to an entire separate book
he was to write about it, Ujjvala Nilamani, which is about
as big as the Bhakti Rasmrta Sindhu itself. 3. The
opening verse of Caitanya Caritmta (also composed by
Rpa Gosvmi), anarpita cari cirt karuay avatra
kalau samarpayitum unnatojjvala sva bhakti sriyam
reveals the predominance of mdhurya rasa (unnata
ujjvala rasa).
CONCLUSION: If you have read this far, you are
probably fully convinced by now that the parampara
created by Bhaktisiddhanta is wrong and thus useless,
and are convinced of the need to take diksa in a real
authentic Gaudiya Vaisnava parampara. You may ask,
where do I find such a real guru parampara? There are
plenty of bonafide Gaudiya Vaisnava gurus in Radha
Kund, and in Vrindavan, and also in Navadweep (NOT
Mayapur). I wish you all success and hope that you are
able to absorb yourself in Radha-Krishna lila meditations,
as that is the essence of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. JAI SRI
RADHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!