Nityananda Caritamrta

[Guest guest]

> This book Nityananda-caritamrta has been around in Bengali for long time,

 

There is no evidence that it has been around a long time. Even if it were,

that does not mean it is authorized or accepted by our acaryas.

 

> and it is definitely (as I mentioned before), not a product of Nityananda

> Parivara.

 

This is only your assertation, not a proven fact.

 

>It is quite unfortunate that due to sectarianism, vaisnavas

> would often discard an authentic scripture. There are several branches of

> Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Nitynananda Prabhu's tree. Each of those branches

> surely have its own heritages of scriptural guidance.

 

They surely do, but our acarya, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura,

came to cut away the rupanuga-viruddha-apasiddhantas that flourish in what

he called unauthorized lines.

 

> There may be some

> disagreement that Lord Nityananda did not have seminal lineage as

> Virabhadra Prabhu did not marry. But it is a fact there is a Nityananda

> Vat in Vrindavana, whose sevakas are purportedly the descendants of Lord

> Nityananda. Has there been anybody to disprove this fact?

 

Please see CC Adi 11.8 purport. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura

clarifies that Nityananda Prabhu has no seminal descendants after Virabhadra

Gosai, but that three disciples of the latter are accepted as his sons.

Nityanda-vamsis, however, claim direct seminal descent from Nitai. However,

the heart of the contention with the jata-gosais is not over whether or not

Nitai had sons, but that certain jata-gosais claim themselves as gurus by

birthright.

 

> "kali yuge aneka vaisnava hoibe tattave na yani naraka ku yibe" that "In

> Kali yuga many people may become Vaisnava but without knowing the tattva,

> they will go to hell"

>

 

Exactly.

 

> Nowadays, Vaisnavas are unwilling to digest information that may be

> somewhat different from what they might heard from their immediate

> authorities.

 

That's good. Why accept an authority if you don't accept his statements as

authoritative? Of course, no-one can be an authority without following the

previous authorities. That is the parampara system. And that is why our

acaryas have warned us about infiltrations from non-bona fide paramparas who

do not follow the standard authorities of guru, sadhu, and sastra, but

concoct for their own sense gratification.

 

> Even people who heard from the same guru have difference of

> opinions as what the conclusions of the sastras are. All the disciples of

> Srila Bhaktissidhanta definitely have different opinions as to what are

> his teachings and instructions. If not why do we see different branches of

> Gaudiya Matha today.

 

In my experience, their disagreements are mostly personal, and not on points

of siddhanta.

 

> Similarly all disciples of Srila Prabhupada do not

> have the same opinion as the understanding of Srila Prabhupada's teachings

> and instructions are.

 

Are you inferring that any opinion is as good as another? That everyone

should have their own opinion and do as they like? This is not the teaching

of sastra. Please see Bg. 16.23.

 

> Otherwise ISKCON will be a united organisation

> today. Just because you don't beleive that Lord Nityananda had a

> descendant, and I beleive so, does that make me an offender. We should use

> mature intelligence on in deliberating on these points.

>

 

Mature intelligence is insufficient. Everything must be based on guru,

sadhu, and sastra. Particularly, we have to follow the words of our acarya.

And they are very clear on the point that Nityananda-vamsa are bogus

inasmuch as they claim to be seminal descendants of Nityananda Prabhu, and

that their claims to be gurus on that basis are also bogus.

 

> > The facts remain that (a) although ascribed to Vrindavan das, the

> > authorship is dubious; and (b) the last 3 chapters are in particular

> > questionable.

>

> In this case you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the authorship

> is not Srila Vrindavana dasa Thakura.

 

Rather, you should explain why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura never

mentioned this book, although it was his policy to list the works of major

followers of Lord Caitanya.

 

> Apart from the line cited in the

> verse of the 11th chapter, you have to prove line by line what is

> questionable in those last three chapters. You are saying that someone

> impersonated Vrindavana Dasa Thakura, to enhance the glories of

> Nityananda-vamsa, this I completely disagree with you.

>

 

Maybe you should learn more about the history of our parampara and not be so

naive. The jata-gosais attacked Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and

his followers during Navadvip Dham parikrama, and wanted to murder Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. These are historical facts. The whole

ruse of the corrupt jata-gosais is to appear saintly so as to cheat people.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura exposed that and brought out the

true colors of those rogues. Not necessarily that all jata-gosais are so

bad, but the point is that people can do many things to maintain personal

interests.

 

Printing a fabricated book in the name of a great acarya is certainly not

beyond the doings of certain unscrupulous people. Indeed, it appears that in

the late 19th and early 20th centuries, several such phony books were

published with the deliberate intention of lending false credulity to

various apasampradayas operating for pecuniary and self-aggrandizary

motives. Their trick is to present something apparently devotional, and

shrewdly insert their apasiddhanta along with it. Such books may be

apparently devotional, but are actually as fraudulent as Putana.

 

Considering the history, we should not accept any book simply because it

appears devotional, or is ascribed to a great acarya. To do so risks

falling into the trap set by charlatans. Therefore, before publishing any

book, we should first ascertain if it is accepted as bona fide by our

acaryas. (Even many books that are adored by our acaryas are not approved by

them for indiscriminate distribution. This especially refers to esoteric

works of intimate pastimes. But that is another discussion.)

 

We have to be careful. Something may look good but not be. Even the Nitai

Gaur Radhe Shyam group have done many good things (such as restoring and

maintaining holy places) and much of what is in their books is not

incorrect. But what is wrong about them is so wrong that Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura thoroughly denounced them.

 

> I am publishing works left

> behind by previous mahajanas especially the followers of Lord Caitanya

> Mahaprabhu. These works were not created for materialistic intentions.

 

That is my whole contention. It is not clear that "Nityananda Caritamrta" is

written by Srila Vrindavan dasa Thakura. Several scholars suspect it may

have been created with materialistic intentions. There are certainly grounds

for doubt.

 

> So

> how could you say these words were ascribed by materialist people?

 

I am not saying that, just expressing a valid doubt that you have not

answered. Our acaryas have taken such matters very seriously and we should

also.

 

> We

> should study an issue much more thouroughly before making our own

> judgements.

 

Again, I have not made a judgement, just expressed a doubt. Certainly we

should investigate very thoroughly and only when we are certain that a book

is authorized by our acaryas should we publish it.

 

> As of this writing, I have not heard from any ISKCON schorlars expressing

> their objections to this book. I have been instead be getting lots of

> praise and encouragement for publishing this book. When I initially asked

> Mahanidhi Swami about whether I should publish the book or not due to this

> very issue, he at once gave me the encouragement to publish it. In making

> the decision of the publication, I had to use Franklin method of making

> decisions. The decision to publish it far outweigh the decision not to

> publish it, therefore I went ahead with the publication, and it has been

> quite appreciated by the majority of devotees.

 

That many people may like it is not the criterion. The criterion is, is it

authorized by our acaryas? There may be many scholars and great devotees but

not all may be so expert as to discern the subtleties of deviation. In this

regard, please see CC Antya Ch. 15 for a description of how most of Lord

Caitanya's internal associates did not recognize the Mayavada of a poet from

Bengal. Only Svarupa Damodara could find the fault. From this pastime,

enacted under the yogamaya potency of the Lord, we learn that maya may

deviously present herself as bhakti, and that only certain devotees are

empowered to deeply understand and present the siddhantas and refute

apa-siddhantas. Being thus warned, we should be careful to follow the path

of our acaryas and not be swayed by the dangerous enemy of populism.