Authenticity of Sva-likhita-jivani

[Guest guest]

This response to the question comes a day late. My

excuses:

 

I was rather surprised to see Mukunda Datta doubt the

authenticity of the Sva-likhita-jivani. 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. Sundarananda was the

editor, as he was for so many Gaudiya Math

publications of the period. I have never seen anyone

in the Gaudiya Math doubt its bona fides.

 

Indeed, it is completely erroneous to think that it

has never been used in the Gaudiya Math, as it is the

_only_ source of information about Bhaktivinoda's

earlier life. It is thus the basis for _all_

biographies of Bhaktivinoda including "The Seventh

Goswami."

 

Shukavak's confirmation of the manuscript's

authenticity should not be taken lightly. He is a

scholar with a PhD from the University of Toronto with

knowledge of Bengali and Sanskrit, who had the

opportunity to peruse Bhaktivinoda Thakur's personal

writings and could make an educated statement about

the handwriting and the age of the paper, etc. The

manuscript details are sufficient: it is kept at

Dvadash Mandir, BVT's birthplace. This is not a great

library with a barcoded collection, so what further

details are needed? The subtle inference that because

he left Iskcon his credibility as a scholar is somehow

in question is inappropriate.

 

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?

Especially if, as the reference to Harisauri's memoirs

proposes, he claimed to be the unique representative

of BVT?

 

On the whole, 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 about 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 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.

 

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. I know that

Narasingha Maharaj (who was cited as saying the SLJ is

a forgery) is on the arch-conservative and reactionary

side, while 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 with a cloud of

mystification.

 

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.

 

Your servant,

 

Jagadananda Das.

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.