So-called Proof of Bipin Bihari Goswami's position

[Guest guest]

Dear Nayana Ranjan Prabhu,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

You have attempted to supply for the benefit of the learned members of these

conferences some supposed "historical evidences" which you claim "prove the

actual position of Bipin Bihari Goswami". Ajamila Prabhu has commented on

your text by stating that the information you have supplied was

"well-researched" and "very useful". I respectfully submit that your

information is not at all well-researched, and is not only of questionable

usefulness but also misleading and possibly dangerous. Devotees should be

very careful in discussing historical matters concerning departed vaisnavas

in writing and in public forums, as there is always the possibility that if

the information is not presented properly or accurately it will result in

vaisnava aparadha and ruin one's own or one's readers' spiritual life!

 

But to give you the benefit of the doubt, you have made what is a common

mistake -- you have believed something because it was in writing in a fancy

hardbound book with nice graphics and it was grouped together with some

quite authentic, accurate, and useful statements. Especially in this day and

age we should be cautious about repeating anything without making sure our

sources are accurate.

 

The first point to note about your "historical evidence" is that it consists

99% of verbatim quotes from the book "The Authorized Sri Caitanya Saraswata

Parampara" by HH BG Narasingha Maharaja, formerly with ISKCON but now having

his own preaching institution. (Or it may be quotes from the advance

publication Narasingha Maharaja distributed earlier on the internet.) Not

only have you quoted from a questionable source, but you have failed to

inform your readers where you have taken the information from and have

attempted to pass it off as the results of your own learned research. You

haven't even cared to paraphrase what is written in that book, but have

directly and extensively used Narasingha Maharaja's words without quoting

him. This is very poor practice if you actually intend to benefit those who

will read your writing.

 

But in any case, you have chosen this book as your source. I have studied

that book carefully and there are several points to be mentioned. Although I

appreciate Maharaja's noble intentions in writing the book, he could have

served his stated purpose quite well without even mentioning any of the

controversies surrounding Bipin Bihari Goswami. For the benefit of the

readers I will offer some brief explanation of this crucial point:

 

There are members of other Gaudiya Vaisnava camps who sometimes attempt to

lure inexperienced devotees away from ISKCON and the various Gaudiya Maths

with "evidence" of how Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur is not

actually coming in a bonafide line of disciplic succession. I will not go

into the details of their contrived arguments here, but they often include

with their evidence, stories about the relationship between Saraswati Thakur

and Bipin Bihari Goswami. Based upon these stories they somehow conclude

that therefore Bhaktivinode Thakur rejected Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati

Thakur, thus breaking the disciplic succession and leaving ISKCON without a

connection to Sri Krishna.

 

Now, the purpose of Narasingha Maharaja's book is to refute all of the

arguments of these other camps, and he does a reasonably good job of

presenting the correct arguments. But unfortunately he offers some

additional arguments about Bipin Bihari Goswami, even though it does nothing

to help establish his case that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur is bonafide.

The detractors trace their line in another way to Bhaktivinode Thakur, and

then to Bipin Bihari Goswami, his diksa guru. Narasingha Maharaja attempts

to prove that Bhaktivinode Thakur's relationship with Bipin Bihari Goswami

was broken, thus the detractors' spiritual ancestry cannot be traced. It is

in this context that he makes so many points about Bipin Bihari Goswami.

 

But the learned readers should note that logically if one wants to prove

that one's own line is bonafide there is no profit in establishing that

another person's line is unbonafide. In this way we should carefully note

that to defeat the arguments of these detractors we gain nothing by

criticizing Bipin Bihari Goswami. Rather, any mud we try to splash on him

will also serve to muddy us up a bit as well, as, after all, he is the diksa

guru of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur.

 

Thus, we should not feel shy to examine more closely the relationship

between Bipin Bihari Goswami and Bhaktivinode Thakur. Sometimes we think

that we have to criticize Bipin Bihari Goswami in order to prove ourselves

as loyal followers of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. There is no

substantial basis for this.

 

The next point about the above-mentioned book is that one will note that

there is practically no mention by Narasingha Maharaja as to what are the

sources of his information. I contacted Maharaja and asked him for his

sources. He told me that all of his conclusions were collected by hearing

them from HH Sridhara Maharaja and others in the various Gaudiya Math

institutions. I replied to him suggesting that it would be good if he could

present maybe even one piece of written evidence to substantiate his claims.

He replied that since he heard it from Sridhara Maharaja that was good

enough for him.

 

I respectfully submit that it may be good enough for the personal

realizations of Narasingha Maharaja, but it should not be good enough for us

to accept the book as the gospel truth. It is greatly significant to note

here that:

 

* In spite of all the things that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur is

reported to have said about Bipin Bihari Goswami, it should be marked that

not a single piece of written information is available. And there are

volumes and volumes of written information from Saraswati Thakur. Sometimes

teams of stenographers were engaged to carefully preserve every word he

spoke. Still, there is no criticism of Bipin Bihari Goswami anywhere there.

 

* Not only that, but there is not, to our knowledge, a single piece of

written information from any DISCIPLE of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati

Thakur reporting that he criticized Bipin Bihari Goswami, or even themselves

criticizing Bipin Bihari Goswami.

 

So, even if there was something to be critical of, still the last two (or

more) generations of vaisnavas have scrupulously avoided putting anything in

writing on this subject. It makes one wonder why Narasingha Maharaja has

seen fit to "improve" on the etiquette shown by his elders.

 

It also makes one wonder whether Narasingha Maharaja's recollections of his

discussions with Sridhara Maharaja haven't suffered over the years, what to

speak of whether he actually heard every detail from that source or whether

he just heard one or two things which were amplified by additional

discussions he had with other Gaudiya Math members.

 

Which brings me to another point. In ISKCON we are well trained up to avoid

leaving ISKCON to associate intimately with other Gaudiya Math sadhus or to

join other Gaudiya institutions. But in spite of this we immediately, quite

diligently, and very happily imbibe the conceptions/misconceptions commonly

found there, as if they must be automatically correct. I'll admit that all

of the points made by Narasingha Maharaja are common knowledge in Gaudiya

Math circles, but that doesn't make them true. The Bhagavatam strongly

advises us to be inquisitive and not to be blind followers. We may come

across something they say, and we may want to try to understand their

points, but we should always seek confirmation from guru, sastra, and the

previous acaryas. Blindly repeating whatever ANYONE says as truth is very

risky business.

 

Our learned readers may also be interested to hear some other statements

that Narasingha Maharaja makes in this very same book. After pointing out

what he considers to be some faults in ISKCON, including ongoing vaisnava

aparadha, he goes on to say, "This we feel is largely due as a result of the

ISKCON leaders having completely cut themselves off from the senior members

of the Gaudiya Math who are themselves living/realized representatives of

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur

Prabhupada." Thus it seems he considers himself qualified to judge who is

realized and who is not realized, and he has found all the realized to be in

his camp and only the non-realized in ISKCON. By making such a statement is

he really exemplifying proper vaisnava behavior? Has he learned this

mentality from his gurujanas? I think not.

 

Now for the substance of your text. Please note that below I do not attempt

to prove that your statements are wrong. They may be right or they may be

wrong. The real point is that whatever you have written is simply the

repetition of hearsay. I am not making any claims about Bipin Bihari

Goswami. I am simply advising caution before one concludes that he should be

criticized. If someone wants to criticize him that is his business, but

others should know that the statements are not substantiated. If any of

these statements can be substantiated then I would very much like to see

that evidence, which even Narasingha Maharaja is not aware of. Without such

evidence we should follow the example of our gurujanas and remain silent on

the issue.

 

So although I am making no claims here which have to be proved, I will

suggest wherever possible, without proof, other interpretations than what is

presented by Narasingha Maharaja, for consideration by the readers:

 

You have written:

 

> I just want to put my two pennies in this discussion about Bipin Bihari

> Goswami. There are many historical evidences of a major strain in the

> relationship between Bhaktivinode Thakura & Bipin Bihari Goswami which can

> be considered as conclusive evidence of the Bipin Bihari Goswami's

> position. I will give a few:

 

You have not stated what is his position, you have only presented what you

call "conclusive evidence", but then you have left the conclusions to the

reader. Generally you should state your conclusions, although in this case

it is probably just as well that you haven't.

 

> (1) With the help of Jagannatha dasa Babaji, Bhaktivinode Thakura was able

> to discover the place of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's appearance.

> Simultaneously it was declared that the so-called Yogapitha at Navadvipa

> on the other side of the Ganges was false. Many caste goswamis objected to

> the site at Sri Mayapur being the original site. Bipin Bihari Goswami at

> that time rejected Bhaktivinoda's preaching in a small newspaper of his

> own called Gauranga-sevaka Patrika in 1919. One could say at this

> point-that at the very least they did not see eye to eye or that their

> feelings for placing distance in their relationship was mutual-indeed a

> difficult relationship to maintain between "guru and disciple." (The

> Gaurangasevaka Patrika and article available at Caitanya Research

> Institute, Calcutta)

 

After seeing this reference in Narasingha Maharaja's book I went to the

Caitanya Research Institute in Calcutta. They don't keep copies of any

issues of the Gaurangasevaka Patrika. When I confronted Narasingha Maharaja

with this point he referred me to a book recently published by a Bengali

scholar, Kananbihari Goswami, entitled "Baghnapara Sampradaya O Vaisnava

Sahitya" (The Caste Goswamis of Baghnapara and Vaisnava Literature) I bought

the book, and it does contain many points of interest. It also contradicts

many of Narasingha Maharaja's points [see below]. Dr. Goswami is related to

the family of caste goswamis who supervise the worship of Caitanya

Mahaprabhu at Pracina Mayapur, across the river from Mayapur. He appears to

be a firm believer that Pracina Mayapur is the actual birthsite of Sri

Caitanya Mahaprabhu, so how much we can accept his authority is

questionable. He does state that Bhaktivinode Thakur was rejected by his

guru, Bipin Bihari Goswami, for giving false information about the

birthsite, and he states as his proof the article published by Bipin Bihari

Goswami in 1919. He unfortunately does not give the text of this article.

 

Curiously, in his book, Dr. Goswami also describes Bhaktivinode Thakur as

the "dear disciple" of Bipin Bihari Goswami, and he also praises the

writings of Bhaktivinode Thakur, describing them as being part of the

literature of the Baghnapara Vaisnavas (Bipin Bihari Goswami's extended

family). If the Thakur was rejected, then how is his literature related?

 

One thing that is well known is that there was a lot of politics between

different groups of Gaudiya Vaishnavas over the location of the actual

birthsite of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, even before the Gaudiya Math was started.

After the disappearance of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur in 1914 these political

controversies became quite shrill, and there were nasty exchanges going on.

So five years after the disappearance of Bhaktivinode Thakur, Bipin Bihari

Goswami did perhaps criticize those who were supporting the Mayapur site,

but without seeing the original article it is difficult to say. Right now we

only have Dr. Goswami's word to go on. We are trying to track down the

article.

 

And the fact remains that Bipin Bihari Goswami was appointed as one of the

directors of the committee to oversee the worship of Sriman Mahaprabhu,

newly established at the yogapitha in Mayapur by Bhaktivinode Thakur. So

perhaps Bipin Bihari Goswami had a change of mind somewhere along the way,

which he certainly had a right to do.

 

> (2) We do not find any association of Bhaktivinode Thakura with Bipin

> Bihari Goswami except for short time in Narail, East Bengal and this does

> not include any reference to the latter instructing Bhaktivinode in the

> matter of pure devotional service.

 

What about the meeting in Krishnanagar to organize the yogapitha worship?

What about the fact that Bhaktivinode Thakur appointed Bipin Bihari Goswami

to be in charge of his printing press?

 

And even if this statement were true it actually proves nothing.

Bhaktivinode Thakur was an important government official who was posted at

many distant places, and then later he was doing so many preaching works in

other distant places.

 

And as far as his instructions, doesn't giving vaisnava diksa fall in the

category of pure devotional service?

 

> (3) In 1911 there was an famous assembly of scholars held in Medinpur

> (Bengal) wherein the topic of debate was to be "Brahmana and Vaisnavas."

> Bipin Bihari Goswami was present at that assembly and, as already known,

> he would side with the brahmana community in the platform that brahmana

> Vaisnavas were automatically superior to non-brahmnana Vaisnavas, due to a

> brahmana being born in a higher caste. Bhaktivinode Thakura was also

> invited to attend that assembly. The conflict between he and Bipin Bihari

> was destined. Bhaktivinoda Thakura - not wanting to take a position of

> confronting & attempting to defeat his "diksha guru" in a public forum

> declined to attend the meeting on the pleaa of bad health. In his place he

> sent Sarasvati Thakura (age 37) to represent the Gaudiya Vaisnava

> Siddhanta in the line of Sri Rupa & Raghunatha dasa Goswami, as per the

> teachings of Mahaprabhu. We all know what happened in the meeting.

 

This appears to be a total fabrication. Of course the meeting was held and

it was a great victory for Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. To date the

only written information we have which states that Bipin Bihari Goswami was

present at this assembly is this same "Baghnapara Sampradaya" book referred

to above. Assuming that Narasingha Maharaja considers this book to be

authentic, Dr. Goswami makes the following interesting statement:

 

tini smaarta panditder saastra-vicaare haariye gaudiya vaishnava-dharmera

shresthatva pratipaadana koren

 

"He [bipin Bihari Goswami] defeated the scriptural considerations of the

smarta pandits and demonstrated the superiority of Gaudiya Vaishnava

dharma."

 

I don't know how this statement escaped the attention of Narasingha

Maharaja, as it was the sentence just preceding the description of Bipin

Bihari Goswami's relationship with Bhaktivinode Thakur, referred to above,

and it states exactly the opposite from what the Maharaja claims here.

 

It is amazing how rumors just get out of hand! They eventually end up

stating just the opposite of the actual facts, and then they get put in

writing, which makes them conclusive truth!

 

> (4) It is clear also in studying the life of Bhaktivinoda that he did not

> imbibe any of the conceptions of Bipin Bihari Goswami. BVT stressed on the

> chanting on the Holy Names in contrary to the stress on siddha-pranali

> given by BBG.

 

This is a totally ridiculous statement. Does Narasingha Maharaja know what

is the philosophy of Bipin Bihari Goswami? Do you? I certainly don't, as he

only wrote one book, in Bengali, which has not been translated. In what

context was he "stressing" siddha pranali? Have you read the writings of

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur? Does the Thakur ever mention siddha pranali?

 

And in any case, so many acaryas stress different things from their gurus.

Bhaktivinode Thakur was a pioneer of a great preaching movement. Naturally

there may be some shift in emphasis. A difference in emphasis does not at

all imply a difference of opinion. This again, even if it is true, proves

nothing.

 

> (5)In later years Sarasvati Thakura reinitiated (hari-nama, mantra-diksha

> & sannyasa) a prominent disciple of Bipin Bihari Goswami, who became known

> as Bhaktivivek Bharati Maharaja.

 

Please note that the subject matter of this discussion is the relationship

between Bipin Bihari Goswami and Bhaktivinode Thakur, and this information

may distract us from the main point, on which it has no direct bearing.

 

But it is also a very interesting topic to understand all the wonderful and

unprecedented things Srila Saraswati Thakur did to start his preaching

movement. But we should be careful to draw too many conclusions from his

reinitiation pastimes. He also reinitiated a disciple of Sri

Visvambharananda Dev Goswami, the mahanta of Gopivallabhpur who had been the

convenor of the Brahmana vs. Vaishnava debate at Midnapur referred to above.

Even after doing this, the learned mahanta remained a staunch supporter of

Saraswati Thakur and his preaching mission. Thus there are many factors here

which need to be considered.

 

> (6) There are some points which may not be proved directly like for

> instance it is known that Bipin Bihari mixed very freely with the degraded

> sections of Bengal society and associated with anti-Vedic philosophers

> like the Brahma Samaja. Even after his return to Vaisnavism he continued

> bad habits like smoking etc. - thus Sarasvati Thakura, who was himself

> very strict in this principles, saw this as a sign of lower Vaisnava

> adhikari (kanishtha adhikari), although Bhaktivinoda Thakura remained

> unspoken on the issue.

 

Where has Srila Saraswati Thakur proclaimed that Bipin Bihari Goswami was a

kanistha adhikari? What will you conclude upon hearing that Srila Vamsidas

Babaji smoked marijuana? Srila Saraswati Thakur said that he was a

maha-bhagavat.

 

But even Narasingha Maharaja here admits that Bhaktivinode Thakur did not

find any fault with his diksa guru over these issues. In general, though, we

would like to see any evidence anyone has to support any of the claims made

here.

 

> (7) Bhaktivinoda Thakura did for sometime show formal respect to Bipin

> Bihari Goswami. But when the Goswami disrespected Srila Raghunatha dasa

> Goswami by thinking that he can give blessings to Raghunatha dasa, the

> prayojana-acarya, because Raghunatha dasa was from a "lower caste", the

> Thakura distanced himself more from Bipin Bihari Goswami.

 

The evidence for this supposed statement by Bipin Bihari Goswami about

Raghunath Das Goswami is also missing. There is evidence, however, for a

statement of this type being made by one disciple of Bipin Bihari Goswami, a

young zamindar by the name of Choudhary Jadabendranandan. Perhaps this got

twisted into a rumor, which has now become a "fact" due to being put in

writing. Since Bipin Bihari Goswami spoke strongly at the Midnapur debate

that vaisnavas were superior than brahmanas, this supposed statement becomes

even more doubtful.

 

So now you may judge for your self. My humble suggestion is that you follow

our previous acaryas and not actively criticize Bipin Bihari Goswami.

 

One final point I would like to make here. There is a subtle implication in

this relegation of Bipin Bihari Goswami to some sort of lower status or even

outright rejection. That is, someone may conclude that since Srila

Bhaktivinode Thakur rejected or distanced himself from his diksa guru, it is

therefore proven that a vaishnava may reject or distance himself from his

diksa guru who is found to be of a "lesser standard". It was just such an

implication drawn by an innocent reader of Narasingha Maharaja's book and

posted on a public COM conference that began this whole discussion. But this

conclusion is nowhere supported by guru, sadhu or sastra. Rather, sastra

never sanctions distancing oneself from or rejecting a diksa guru unless the

guru is seriously fallen or has become a non-vaisnava. The GBC reinitiation

papers clearly state this.

 

In conclusion, I will repeat here the most conclusive evidence about the

relationship in question, which is the only evidence we have in writing,

from the Thakur himself. He offers heartfelt prayers to Bipin Bihari Goswami

in some of his publications and also prays in Kalyana Kalpataru (3.10) for

the association of Srimati Ananga Manjari in the spiritual world. Ananga

Manjari appeared as Jahnava Mata, the original preceptor of the diksa

parampara of which Bipin Bihari Goswami was a member.

 

This is his specific prayer in his Amrta Pravaha Bhasya:

 

bipina-bih€r… hari t€'ra akti avat€ri

bipina bih€r… prabhu-bara

r… guru gosv€m… r™pe dekhi more bhavak™pe

uddharila €pana ki‰kara

 

"The eminent Bipin Bihari Prabhu, who is the manifestation of the

transcendental energy of Lord Hari, Who sports in the forests of Vraja, has

descended in the form of the spiritual preceptor. Seeing me in the dark well

of worldly existence, he has delivered this humble servant of his."

 

Hoping you are well.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das