Authenticity of Sva-likhita-jivani

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Jan Brzezinski wrote:

> I was rather surprised to see Mukunda Datta doubt the

> authenticity of the Sva-likhita-jivani.

 

In light of the advice of Srila Narottamadasa Thakura

(guru-mukha-padma-vakya, cittete kariya aikya, ara na kariha mane

asa) and Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura (on Gita 2.41), I try to be

careful about hearing anything that Srila Prabhupada hasn't clearly

taught us; I know his distinct presentation of Krsna consciousness

was as deliberate as it was fruitful. He also personally instilled a

sense of this siddhanta especially in his closest disciples, whose

good association I've also somehow been fortunate enough to keep

(please see Bhagavata, 4.9.11). Hopefully, some of that has rubbed

off on me.

 

 

 

 

> This book was

> published by the Gaudiya Math, if my memory serves me,

> while Siddhanta Saraswati was still alive, though it

> may have been shortly thereafter.

 

Accha. Thank you for sharing this information; as I said before,

I don't know much about the SLJ, while Srila Prabhupada also seems not to

have mentioned it. Can you share the bibliodata for that Gaudiya Matha

edition?

 

 

 

 

The suggestion that Lalita Prasad Thakur may have

falsified this manuscript is not logical. What

possible gain could LPT have gotten out of falsifying

a manuscript that says his guru ate meat at one time?

 

Whether BVT ever ate meat or not isn't the only issue here, so

it is logical to question whether LPT falsified the one manuscript he

alone revealed to the rest of us. I indicated before that caste

gosvamis in particular--or rather, those hoping to become caste

gosvamis--do this sort of thing all the time. It's unscrupulous, yes,

but it's also very well documented. I would be happy to share with

you specific instances of such occurances, but I'm sure you don't

question that this is a very common practice.

 

At any rate, I also accept your assertion that BSST or his

mission published the SLJ anyway.

 

 

 

 

> I have written about this before in relation to the

> controversy about the Prabhupada-lilamrita.

 

It's not like there is any noted "controversy" about the

Lilamrta, except perhaps in the minds of those inimical to Srila

Prabhupada himself, or maybe a few disgruntled ritviks. Maybe

we could try to avoid such impertinent innuendo.

 

 

 

 

> 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 kanistha adhikari

> stage. And this is really the answer to Sanjay's

> original question, which with the exception of Babhru,

> no one seems to have been willing to address.

 

There's truth in this, as I also suggested in connection with

Bilvamangala Thakura. Sorry if I wasn't explicit enough. However,

I would really like to see where the sastra tells us that it is "inspiring

and glorious" to see our guru as a human being, since I've only seen it

say quite the opposite.

 

Perhaps you could kindly share a few sastric references that so

explicitly support your ideas about the bonafide guru's "humanity," or

some references that similarly advise us (as you've suggested) to see

him in human terms rather than in terms of his intimate relationship

with Mukunda, Sri Krsna.

 

 

 

 

> It is ultimately the same question as that of guru

> omniscience and infallibility. There is much confused

> thinking on this issue and I am not up to date on what

> Iskcon's leaders are saying of late.

 

However, I don't think you'll assert that Prabhupada seems

confused in Los Angeles on 6/8/76, when he explained the matter as follows:

 

Bharadvaja: I understand, Srila Prabhupada, that the pure devotee can be

as pervasive as Supersoul?

 

Prabhupada: Hmm?

 

Bharadvaja: By the mercy of Supersoul, he can be present in many places at

once?

 

Prabhupada: Yes. By the grace of Krsna, a devotee can become anything.

 

Duryodhana-guru: So in other words that means the pure devotees can be

omniscient?

 

Prabhupada: Everything. God is omniscient, so a pure devotee can become

omniscient by the grace of God.

 

Radhavallabha: Srila Prabhupada explains that Varuna is omniscient.

 

Duryodhana-guru: Varuna?

 

Radhavallabha: It's in Fourth Canto.

 

Madhusudana: Srila Prabhupada, how come that in the sastra sometimes

there are verses that are slightly doubtful about...

 

Prabhupada: Whenever there is doubtful, go to your...

 

Madhusudana: Just like it will have something that has perhaps two

meanings, you can't...

 

Prabhupada: Huh? There cannot be two meanings. Tad-vijnanartha sa gurum

evabhigacchet. In order to understand, go to your guru.

 

 

Notably, Srila Prabhupada also stressed that in order to allay whatever

doubts one may have, a disciple must approach one's guru. I think the real

problem is that some very unfortunate fellows definitely seem confused about

to treat their gurus, if not also how to simply behave themselves as gentlemen.

 

 

 

 

> while I take a much more liberal,

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura spoke eloquently on the

popularly abused notion of "liberality," but I gather you are probably

already familiar with the passage I'm thinking of, so if you don't want to

hear his instructions anymore, I'll just leave it for now.

 

 

 

 

> and I believe

> enlightened, view that attempts to reconcile the

> humanity of the guru with his divinity rather than

> obliterate his humanity altogether with a cloud of

> mystification.

 

This "cloud of mystification" sounds almost like the acintya

sakti. The guru's Divinity is well-attested throughout all sastras. His

"humanity" is also discussed--but it's in the references prohibiting us

from perceiving his Divine grace on such a mundane level. "Gurusu

nara-matih vaisnave jati-buddhih," and "na martyabudhyasuyeta" come to

mind; there are others. Maybe this principle is primarily a matter of

etiquette, but etiquette really does matter--quite a bit, in fact. Those

who have already fallen down would know.

 

 

 

 

> Please excuse my hubris in thinking my views are more

> enlightened, but in this case I am merely following

> the enlightened approach that Bhaktivinode Thakur

> himself was taking when he shared his human failings

> with his son and disciple.

 

But is it really for *us* to onsider them as such? I'm

afraid I have to agree more with Babhru prabhu on this. Thanks

for sharing your opinions just the same. Hare Krsna.

 

Your servant,

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Jan Brzezinski wrote:

 

> The subtle inference that because

> he left Iskcon his credibility as a scholar is somehow

> in question is inappropriate.

 

Not necessarily--it is common knowledge that every scholar has a

conscious or unconscious bias which may (and does) filter into his work.

Should Sukavak be regarded as exceptional in this regard? It's also only

reasonable to admit the very real possibility that any ex-ISKCON member

might have an independent ideological agenda to pursue, though I haven't

said this here partly because I don't see any real need. Otherwise, my

only doubt about Sukavak's exhaustive study is whatever I have already

discussed.

 

Since you mentioned apostasy, though, I don't think it is the

least bit irrelevent that--at least in the West--most of those who so

evangelically advocate "openmindedly" considering, say, the caste

gosvami and babaji ideas, are former ISKCON devotees, fallen sannyasis,

devotees who do not/cannot follow the regulative principles very strictly

(if at all), and who are generally too critical of the most accomplished

preachers in our recent history--including even those who saved them from

a hellish life of nearly total ignorance! It is not my pleasure to

underline this consistent phenomenon, but since it is true that one

result is derived from the culture of knowledge and that another result

altogether is derived from the culture of nescience (Isopanisad 10), it

would be helpful to accept it as germane.

 

This is supported by the fact that the sampradaya's most

productive servant of Mahaprabhu's preaching mandate (cf., Adi-lila, 9.41,

etc.), whose opinion should thus carry the most weight--namely, Srila

Prabhupada--pretty uniformly dismissed both of these groups as impure

cheaters that were simply envious. For example, in 1977, Prabhupada

told Tamala Krsna Gosvami that 90% of Vrndavana was sahajiya. Srila

Prabhupada thus advised his disciples not to associate with this

characteristically inimical and impure babaji class:

 

Los Angeles

7 June, 1976

76-06-07

Vrindaban

 

My dear Nitai das,

 

Please accept my blessings. I have received information that some of our

devotees are mixing with the babajis in Vrindaban. This has produced so

many problems amongst our men and women who visit Vrindaban. Here in Los

Angeles, we have found that there is a group of about 40 devotees who

privately meet to discuss the intimate pastimes artificially thinking that

they can enter into the understanding of the gopis prematurely. This will

create havoc in our society, and the result will be that if this is

allowed to go on, our preaching work will be greatly hampered. This

premature desire to understand the lila of Krishna is due to mundane

sex-life desire as we have seen amongst many of the babajis and sahajiyas

in Vrindaban. Our Jagannatha das came back from Vrindaban asking me that

he had heard some babaji speaking about siddha-deha and he also was

listening to these babajis. So I want this immediately stopped. If it

continues, this mixing with the babajis, then it will mean spoiling. In

many cases, these babajis keep 2 or 3 women. Asatsanga tyagi. Their

association is to be avoided and prohibited amongst all of our devotees

who visit Vrindaban.

 

I hope that this meets you in good health.

 

Your ever well-wisher,

 

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

 

 

Perhaps for some people, this direct instruction will seem confusing, but

for the less complicated, it is obvious that Srila Prabhupada thought very

little of the babajis in general. More importantly, Prabhupada also took

a dim view of those who fancy they're going to hear submissively from

such cheating impostors. Not without good reason, he even suggested

that the whole edifice of their "rasa-katha" is but a sublimation of their

own sex desire.

 

Just to be unquestionably liberal here, I admit that the babaji

situation may have changed in the thirty or so years that have passed

since Srila Prabhupada often used to say this. However, the deliberate

anti-ISKCON rhetoric of critics like one popular Gaudiya sannyasi (which I

had the unfortunate experience of hearing directly from his own lips),

who is also someone known to have connections with the babaji class

(this I have from those who were associated closely with him), suggests

that merely associating with such asat-sangis can infect one's mind with

similar antagonism; this extrapolation may be extreme, but it seems less

so if we consider the fact that most of the abovementioned babaji/gosvami

advocates are just as vitriolic, in very similar ways, and that the

tendency is nothing new. This, though, raises many further doubts about

the personal character of such of persons.

 

As I mentioned above, it is usually seen that most of those

who have left ISKCON to join these babajis generally give up the high

standards of sadacara and exemplary behavior Srila Prabhupada trained his

disciples to observe. Not surprisingly, they rarely if ever remain for

very long doing "bhajana" at Radhakunda; as if they've realized that

it's spiritually superior to criticise the views of more accomplished

preachers, or to talk over their heads on the Internet instead. The

"bhajanakutir" site is an obvious example of this, though there are

enough others to validate this general impression. That's still not the

whole picture though.

 

Another notable fact in this regard is that those few devotees who

similarly left Gaudiya Matha--presumably due to "philosophical doubts," or

in search of "raganuga-bhakti," presented the very same behavioral pattern.

Almost all of them eventually either reduced or totally gave up both their

preaching work and their personal sadhana (if not also the basic sadacara

of a civil human being)--just as has been the predominant pattern among

such ISKCON apostates in more recent history. The so-called quest for

"raganuga-bhajana" among Gaudiya Matha apostates also eventually

manifested as subtle and gross illicit sex, blasphemy, gurv-aparadha, legal

battles, suicide, fistfights, murder, and a host of other deviations that

might surprise anyone, what to speak of the GBC.

 

It's almost as if these caste gosvami and babaji factions were

created in order to lend dubious support to a few very basic and fairly

universal forms of envy, in the name of Vaisnavism, and that anarthas that

reincarnate perenially in different persons.

 

So I suspect that in many cases, at least, this isn't really even

an issue of theology at all, though some try hard to create that veneer

and then hide behind it--thus giving themselves some perceived authority

among a few likeminded individuals.

 

Rather, I think it's really more about character, which some people

unfortunately don't often display. In every generation, there are a few

so-called "disciples" who simply lack humility, gratitude, discipline, and

a host of other essential virtues, because they are basically just impious.

Of course, discussing the Gaudiya philosophy may be of some help. But

using impure sophistry, irresolute people still very much on the mental

platform (cf. Gita, 2.44), who are capable of breaking their own regulative

principles, who can give up any number of gurus, who aren't really submissive

to anyone else either, and who may lack even the gratitude expressed by

Sri Prahlada (see Bhagavata, 7.9.28), often try to paint their own spiritual

dysfunction (the result of their severe aparadhas) as simply another brand

of Krsna consciousness, then even trying to sell this to others as "the

orthodoxy," or whatever--rather than humbly admitting their own failure

at anartha-nivrtti. Consequently, for effecting such a nuisance among

sincere devotees, they may even eventually come to believe such hardy

nonsense themselves.

 

I find it much more logical to conclude that such people are merely

rascals--plain and simple. As Krsna observes (Gita, 7.28), some sadhakas

do indeed end up ruined by their bad choices and therefore cannot persist

in devotional service; those who are also of lower births may especially

take note of this likelihood (cf. Gita, 7.3). I don't mean to be harsh or

uncompassionately denounce anyone, but it is a fact that those who will

bite the hand that feeds them can hardly be helped, because they are not

fortunate enough to appreciate the good advice offered those who can really

help them--such as their own guruvarga. As Srila Prabhupada succinctly

concluded, "Rascal. What can be done?"

 

So far from being "inappropriate," I think it's only honest to

consider all possible factors at play.

 

However, please keep in mind that I am definitely *not* targeting

Sukavakdasa (whom I have met and who has done laudable service) or any

particular Vaisnava here on Achintya. I also apologize if I have offended

anyone at all; that definitely isn't my intent. I'm sure you understand

this. Thank you for your patience. Hare Krsna.

 

Your servant,

 

MDd