Nityananda Caritamrta

[Guest guest]

> The book has 27 chapters. The contents of the first 24

> chapters are already part of Caitanya Bhagavata, also authored by Srila

> Vrindavana dasa Thakura. Which means the authentication of

> Nityananda-caritamrta is unquestionable.

 

Sorry, I don't follow the logic here. The first 24 chapters being ok don't

authenticate the last 3 chapters.

 

We seem to be arguing at cross purposes. You are arguing for the

philosophical correctness of the book. My primary question is, is it

actually authored by Srila Vrindavan dasa Thakura? I have not stated that it

is non-bonafide, but that there are valid reasons for doubt of its

bonafidity.

 

> Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was in fact well aware of the book.

> According to my information, he infact approve the book for the disciples.

> In this case of course it is a question of which of the disciple of Srila

> Bhaktisiddhanta you want to accept as authority.

 

The disciple of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura who you previously

mentioned as having approved this book is later accepted Gauranga das Babaji

(of the Nitai Gaura Radhe Shyama group) as his siksa-guru. When I questioned

him about his habit of drinking tea, he told me that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati Thakura did not disapprove of it and that there is no scriptural

injunction against it. Although we may respect this person as a gentleman,

scholar, and devotee, it would be wise not to take his opinion as

necessarily authoritative.

 

> Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was compiling Gaudiya Vaisanava

> abhidana, but was not completed before he left the planet. So who is to

> tell whether Srila Bhaktisiddhanta would not have included the book in the

> Gaudiya Vaisnava abhidana?

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura published four volumes of the

Vaisnava-manjusa-samahrti, which was later expanded (including some

apa-sampradayik additions) by Haridas Das of Haribol Kutir in Navadvip, and

published as Gaudiya Vaisnava Abhidan. However, that Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati wrote about Vrindavan dasa Thakur, did not mention Nityananda

Caritamrta, but might have done later had he completed that work, is a weak

suggestion. It does not answer the question of why he did not mention it

previously, if the work is actually well-known and bona fide.

 

> Dina Bandhu finds it amusing that you are making a tirade on

> the book.

 

I'm not making a tirade, simply asking questions and rebutting weak replies.

I'm ready to accept that Vrindavan dasa Thakur wrote Nityananda Caritamrta,

if you give actual evidence. Let Dina Bandhu Prabhu laugh. This is a serious

matter.

 

I suggest that this discussion be terminated, at least on the Krsna katha

conference. I sent it here as it is a matter of public concern. Now it is

for each devotee who has followed this discussion to decide whether or not

they feel this book is sufficiently free from suspicion.