Authenticity of the Sva-likhita-jivani

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Sanjay Dadlani wrote:

> The evidence comes from 'Svalikitha Jivani,' an

> autobiographical text written by Srila Bhaktivinoda

> Thakura in the form of a letter to his seventh son,

> Srila Lalita Prasada Thakura.

>

> I suspected that it may be a spurious and/or invented

> text, but it seems that this text is rather authentic

> and has been used for consultation by Rupa-vilas das,

> who wrote the 'Seventh Goswami' bioraphy of Srila

> Bhaktivinoda Thakura.

 

 

Yes, I'm doubtful about this book too, as are others. However,

that a few (dubious) devotees cite it doesn't necessarily make it authentic.

I wonder about it especially because Sukavakdasa's 1999 book, A Hindu

Encounter with Modernity (possibly the most extensive, popular English

study) doesn't supply very reliable manuscript details. Sukavak accepts the

Sva-likhita-jivani because he feels it's (allegedly) original manuscript

looks like the handwriting in Bhaktivinoda Thakura's authenticated works

(1999: 9). However, he also notes that SLJ was published only after

Bhaktivinoda Thakura's disappearance, mostly for Lalitaprasada Thakura's

friends and followers, by Lalitaprasada Thakura himself, and that it

remains largely unknown even now (1999: 9-10).

 

Consequently, we simply have to rely on the subjective assertions

of either Sukavak or Lalitaprasada Thakura, whose authority is doubtful for

various reasons. Of course, there nmay be further proof of it's authenticity,

but I haven't seen it.

 

It is probably of interest to ISKCON devotees that, like Rupavilasa

dasa, Sukavak dasa too left ISKCON many years ago. However, even longer

ago, Lalitaprasada Thakura's views were rejected by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati Thakura. Perhaps that might help to explain why, as Sukavak

admits, the SLJ remains "largely unknown."

 

This may or may not obviate the need to address your theoretical

question about Bhaktivinoda Thakura's alleged activities could be accomodated

within Srila Prabhupada's teachings. However, rare and unorthodox behavior

among great liberated souls isn't entirely unheard of. It can't be imitated,

though, nor is it intended to be.

 

I hope this is of some help. Hare Krsna!

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

I think it's also problematic to reject sva-likhita-jivani out of hand just

because it comes through Lalita-prasad Thakura. It was apparently written

for him by Bhaktivinoda Thakur at Lalita-prasad's request. BVT also

cautioned against wide dissemination of the letters because it may spawn

just the sort of misunderstandings that we have at hand. To the extent that

it's authentic (and Shukavak has researched this more extensively than

anyone else I'm aware of), the document was written for Lalita-prasad's

consumption and no one else's.

 

The nature of Bhativinoda Thakura's life before beginning to preach

Bhagavat-dharma should not be a great concern to disciples. His behavior

was naturally congruent with the time and place of his appearance. We don't

discuss Namacharya Haridas Thakura's life before adopting nama-dharma, nor

do we discuss what it meant practically that Rupa and Sanatan associated

intimately with the civil society of their time, which was dominated by

Muslims. Our real concern is the gift they left for the world in the form

of their examples as sadhakas, and in the case of the gosvamis and

Bhaktivinoda, the literatures they gave for establishing Krishna

consciousness all over the world and for all time. Also especially

significant for us is Bhaktivinoda's future-looking vision, which is

Shukavak's book examines in some detail.

 

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

achintya, "M. Tandy" <mpt@u...> wrote:

 

>> However, he also notes that SLJ was published only after

Bhaktivinoda Thakura's disappearance, mostly for Lalitaprasada

Thakura's friends and followers, by Lalitaprasada Thakura himself,

and that it remains largely unknown even now (1999: 9-10). <<

 

Thats an interesting point. Is it possible that the Svalikhita Jivani

itself is a fictitious work, possibly authored by Lalita Prasada

Thakura himself?

 

>> It is probably of interest to ISKCON devotees that, like

Rupavilasa dasa, Sukavak dasa too left ISKCON many years ago.

However, even longer ago, Lalitaprasada Thakura's views were rejected

by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. Perhaps that might help

to explain why, as Sukavak admits, the SLJ remains "largely unknown."

<<

 

Could you tell me why LPT's views were rejected by Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta? I also came across a part in a book where even our

own Srila Prabhupada seemed to have an "objection" to LPT, even

though they maintained firnedly relations because LPT owned the land

of Srila Bhaktivinoda and Srila Prabhupada wanted to buy this land

and turn it into a preaching centre. Srila Prabhupada's objection

seems to be about LPT's views concerning himself; that he (LPT) is a

far more confidential associate of Krishna and the Gopis than the

previous Acharyas, and that he is under the impression that his own

authority is higher. This is according to my memory from 'A

Transcendental Diary' by Hari-sauri das. I can give you the exact

quote if you like.

 

>> However, rare and unorthodox behavior among great liberated souls

isn't entirely unheard of. It can't be imitated, though, nor is it

intended to be. <<

 

Are there any other examples of meat-eating and/or similar vices in

the life histories of other liberated souls?

 

Jay.

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Jay wrote:

> achintya, "M. Tandy" <mpt@u...> wrote:

> >> However, he also notes that SLJ was published only after

> Bhaktivinoda Thakura's disappearance, mostly for Lalitaprasada

> Thakura's friends and followers, by Lalitaprasada Thakura himself,

> and that it remains largely unknown even now (1999: 9-10). <<

>

> Thats an interesting point. Is it possible that the Svalikhita Jivani

> itself is a fictitious work, possibly authored by Lalita Prasada

> Thakura himself?

 

There are any number of possibilities. Honestly, I don't know

enough about SLJ to draw conclusions yet, so I've only mentioned a few

facts that should be taken into consideration. However, I'm generally

doubtful about it, since one would expect Srila Prabhupada (and his guru

maharaja) to have utilized such a potentially valuable source of

biographical data--were it in fact either authoritative or pertinent for

Bhaktivinoda Thakura's followers. Again, maybe they actually did mention

it somewhere; again, however, I haven't seen it. Certainly neither of

them has stressed it to the extent Sukavak does.

 

 

 

 

> Could you tell me why LPT's views were rejected by Srila

> Bhaktisiddhanta?

 

No thank you, but I'm sure there are others who will, especially

as you're now researching the babaji/caste gosvami perceptions of the

Gaudiya Sarasvata parampara. Unlike those fairly esoteric views, which in

my experience are adopted mainly by those whose Krsna consciousness was

also first awakened through ISKCON (i.e., Srila Prabhupada), the line and

teachings of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura have been spread--by

Mahaprabhu's design and grace--all over the world, for our benefit. I

think that's indicative of what Krsna desires, for us. Of course, that's

just my personal opinion, but I think it's strong logically too, all

things considered.

 

 

 

 

> Are there any other examples of meat-eating and/or similar vices in

> the life histories of other liberated souls?

 

Certainly there are some, though under the circumstances I wouldn't

classify them as "vices." One of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's contemporaries,

Srila Vamsidasa Babaji, used to scatter fishbones around his bhajana-kutir,

just to sabotage his own reputation. Jagannathadasa Babaji strategically

adopted similar behaviors in order to keep insincere sychophants away.

Some of the greatest Vaisnavas were previously sinful criminals; Valmiki

and Mrgari are examples. So I don't see why this should really even pose

a big dilemma for anyone; it isn't like such unorthodox behavior is wholly

unprecedented among those whose Krsna consciousness has factually transcended

the conditional norms of worldly life. Even Krsna Himself appears to have

been sinful, though He and His confidential associates are always nitya-mukta.

I think that's the important point here; of course, it also presupposes the

kind of faith mentioned in Bhagavata 11.17.27, Svetasvataropanisad 6.23,

Gurvastakam 7, and a host of other standard references.

 

 

Without presupposing faith, though, even if the background of such

great souls appears to be sinful by mundane calculation, we still have to

be very careful how we regard them--especially those whose character was

always spotless, like Srila Prabhupada. This is the kind of eitiquette

that practically distinguishes Vedic culture, in general, from most others.

It's also characteristic of the many godly qualities that develop as if

automatically in those who sincerely call out to the Lord, every single day,

in humility. Such dharma is our immediate need, as hinted in Siksastaka

3. It's always consequential too. This is partly why I consider it more

important than discussing the particulars on which the truly exalted

Vaisnavas can sometimes disagree.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Bill Reed wrote:

> To the extent that it's authentic (and Shukavak has researched this more

> extensively than anyone else I'm aware of), the document was written for

> Lalita-prasad's consumption and no one else's.

 

That's a good point. It's also worth noting that since Sukavak's

book (which was basically his PhD dissertation) is written from an

academic point of view, it wasn't necessarily even intended to be a

devotional account. One might wonder why he published it, given what

you've observed above; I think it's healthy to consider that too, but

doing so would seem to involve addressing more than just the SLJ.

 

Sukavak feels that Bhaktivinoda Thakura's life and teachings

can help Vaisnavas who must also reconcile the often opposed forces of

Vaisnava tradition and secular modernity. However, he theorizes that

Bhaktivinoda Thakura (BVT) priveleged a novel epistemological approach

called "adhunika-vada" (which amounts to modern rationalism), as a

valid and Vaisnava pramana; he implies this to be a preferred means, even

in our context. Since Sukavak bases this mainly on two of BVT's earliest

work (written before BVT's initiation), I find his theory rather doubtful.

This is especially so because as far as I've seen, neither Sukavak's own

theory, nor his two chief sources, nor the "adhunika-vada" notion he

relies on--are discussed anywhere in Srila Prabhupada's books. Morever,

Sukavak's theory also introduces an epistemological practice radically

different (or even opposed) to that which is consistly encountered all

throughout Srila Prabhupada's books, lectures, and personal instructions.

This is part of why I suggested that ISKCON devotees might want to scrutinize

Sukavak's ideas carefully. There are definitely other reasons to doubt

his ideas, but since the above seems like enough I don't want to belabor

it any further.

 

MDd