Philosophical Significance of Allegations Made Against Narayana

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees,

 

The following is my second attempt to bring back to this discussion a sense of

the philosophical issues involved.

 

Some allegations have been made against H.H. Naaraayana Maharaaja which we

unfortunately cannot confirm or deny here. Neither does it seem that his

followers on this forum have made any attempt to deny them. Therefore, for the

time being, we must remember that they are still allegations. Be that as it

may, we should be aware of their ramifications before making any decision as

to who we accept as our guru and what paramparaa we claim to represent. It is

certainly the case that we deserve clarification on some of these issues if

they affect who we are requested to take shiksha or diiksha from. In going

over these issues, I will not go out of my way to prove the correctness of

Shriila A.C. Bhaktivedaanta Swaamii Prabhupaada's comments on the basis of

shaastra, because everyone here claims to be in disciplic succession from His

Divine Grace. Thus, there should not be any question of the correctness of

Shriila Prabhupaada's teachings, and so I will evaluate only those arguments

which are contradicted by, or contradict Shriila Prabhupaada's understanding.

 

The first allegation concerns the Bhaktivedaanta purport to the Iishopanishad

invocation. Here it is just for your benefit:

 

o.m puurNamadaH puurNamida.m puurNaat puurNamudachyate |

puurNasya puurNamaadaaya puurNamevaavashiShyate || I ||

 

o.m - the Complete Whole; puurNam - perfectly complete; adaH - that; puurNam -

perfectly complete; idam - this phenomenal world; puurNaat - from the

all-perfect; puurNam - complete unit; udachyate - is produced; puurNasya - of

the Complete Whole; puurNam - completely, all; aadaaya - having been taken

away; puurNam - the complete balance; eva - even; avashiShyate - is remaining.

 

The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is

completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world,

are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the

Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole,

even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete

balance (iishopaniShad - invocation).

 

Shriila A.C. Bhaktivedaanta Swaamii Prabhupaada has commented on this verse as

indicating that the complete units emanating from the Supreme are to be known

as the material universes and the jiivas, and that the complete Supreme Lord

remains complete even though so many complete units emanate from Him. As

indicated by Shriila Prabhupaada's commentary, the material universe is

complete because it contains everything necessary for its maintenance and the

subsistence of the living entities. The jiivas are complete because they have

all facility to realize the Complete Whole. Furthermore, when the jiiva

attains a human body, he has complete consciousness for realizing the Supreme

Lord, and any distress on his part is due to incomplete knowledge of the Lord.

 

 

Now it has been alleged that H.H. Naaraayana Mahaaraaja, who claims that

Shriila A.C. Bhaktivedaanta Swaamii is his shiksha guru, has given a different

understanding of this invocation mantra. Naaraayana Mahaaraaja allegedly

comments on the invocation as indicating that the complete units emanating

from the complete whole are the various expansions of Lord Krishna such as

Balaraama, Naaraayana, the Chatur-Vyuha, and so on. This is certainly a very

interesting and sensible understanding. In fact, it is actually consistent

with the commentary of Shrii Madhvaachaarya who gives an almost identical

commentary. However, we must evaluate H.H. Naaraayana Mahaaraaja's commentary

in relation to that of Shriila Prabhupaada's commentary since the latter is

supposedly the shiksha guru of the former.

 

First of all, the commentary given by Shriila Prabhupaada is clearly more

consistent with context. The "ida.m" referred to in the invocation mantra must

be the material universes and their contents, and not the Vishnu-tattva

expansions. In the very first mantra we have "iShaavaasya.m ida.m sarva.m yat

ki~ncha jagatyaa.m jagat" which indicates that all this within the universe

belongs to the Lord. There is no reason to think that this "idam" is different

from the "idam" mentioned in the invocation. If "idam" here means "all this

within the jagat," then the "idam" in the invocation must mean something

similar, such as the material universes and the jiivas, and not the

Vishnu-tattva expansions. Thus, while Naaraayana Mahaaraaja's alleged comments

are not philosophically incorrect, they are simply harder to accept as the

actual meaning of the invocation mantra.

 

Secondly, we must come to terms with the fact that the alleged comments about

Iishopanishad invocation are irreconciably different from those given by

Shriila Prabhupaada. Perhaps we could forgive His Holiness for differing from

Shriila Prabhupaada, even though they both are representing the Gaudiiya

Vaishnava sampradaaya. However, the claim that is being made, and that we are

being asked to believe, is that His Holiness is a shiksha disciple of Shriila

Prabhupaada. Therefore, if we expect that the understanding of a given mantra

should be identical between different commentators within the same

sampradaaya, we should especially expect this between a guru and his disciple!

A guru must teach his understanding to his disciple, and the disciple must

teach this understanding if he becomes a guru. How else can the disciple be

understood as a representative of his guru? Therefore, the difference of

commentary here calls into question the legitimacy of a shiksha link between

Naaraayana Maharaaja and Shriila Prabhupaada.

 

Now we may come across the following doubt. The puurva-pakshin may argue, "My

guru Shriila Naaraayana Maharaaja used to be a close associate of Shriila

Prabhupaada. He used to make chapatis together with Shriila Prabhupaada in

Raadha-Daamodara Mandir in Vrindaavan, India, before Shriila Prabhupaada left

India to preach Krishna-consciousness. Therefore, by this very expert

argument, I have now proven the irrefutable fact that Shriila Naaraayana

Mahaaraaja is the bona fide shishya of Shriila Prabhupaada."

 

To this I reply that this is not a very good argument. No amount of chapatis

made together makes one a disciple. It does not even matter if they also made

rotis, daal, or even gulab jamuns. Such speculative arguments need not be

called upon in order to convince us that a guru-disciple relationship existed.

The actual qualifications of a guru-disciple relationship are understood from

shaastra:

 

tad viddhi praNipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa |

upadekShyanti te j~naana.m j~naaninas tattva-darshinaH || giitaa 4.34 ||

 

tat - that knowledge of different sacrifices; viddhi - try to understand;

praNipaatena - by approaching a spiritual master; pariprashnena - by

submissive inquiries; sevayaa - by the rendering of service; upadekShyanti -

they will initiate; te - you; j~naanam - into knowledge; j~naaninaH - the

self-realized; tattva - of the truth; darshinaH -seers.

 

Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from

him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can

impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth (bhagavad-giitaa

4.34).

 

Here, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that he should inquire submissively *and*

render service. This is the duty of a disciple. And what does the guru do? He

will impart knowledge unto the disciple, because he has seen the truth

(tattva-darshinaH). Thus, if Naaraayana Mahaaraaja is indeed any sort of

disciple of Shriila Prabhupaada, he must not only have rendered service to him

(which we do not dispute) but also heard transcendental knowledge from him.

And he must transmit that transcendental knowledge unchanged from his guru.

That is the purport of "eva.m paramparaapraaptamima.m raajarShayo viduH."

 

Here another doubt may arise. Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu came in the line of

Madhvaachaarya, the exponent of tattvavaada. But Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu spoke

the philosophy of achintya-bedha-abedha-tattvavaada, and thus differed from

the early spiritual masters of His paramparaa on many important philosophical

points. Therefore, by this example we can understand that a disciple is

allowed to disagree with his guru and speak a different philosophy. However,

this is not a very sensible argument. Because while Mahaaprabhu's followers

claim disciplic succession from Madhva, none of them (including Mahaaprabhu

Himself) claim to be proponents of Tattvavaada. Yes, it is certainly the case

that exceptional aachaaryas might take initiation into one sampradaaya only to

propagate a totally different system of Vedaanta, as both Madhva and

Maadhavendra Puri did. But Naaraayana Mahaaraaja is certainly not claiming to

be the founder of a new sampradaaya, and his followers ask us to believe that

he actually knows the essence of Gaudiiya Vaishnava philosophy. So either His

Holiness must be fully in line with the teachings of his guru, and in this way

represent the Gaudiiya sampradaaya, or else he must renounce his alleged

shiksha connection to Shriila Prabhupaada, or else renounce entirely his

connection to the Gaudiiya Vaishnava sampradaaya.

 

In fact, the issue of unfaithfulness to the disciplic succession goes back

even further than Shriila A.C. Bhaktivedaanta Swaamii Prabhupaada. Shriila

Bhaktivinoda Thaakura gives a commentary on Iishopanishad invocation that is

exactly consistent with that of Shriila Prabhupaada. In his commentary on

Shrii Tattva-suutra, he writes as follows:

 

"In the next suutra the author reveals that the Supreme Lord does not increase

when He creates the universe. Neither does He become less when He destroys the

universe."

 

then:

 

sadaikaruupaH puurNatvaat || TS 9 ||

 

Because He is perfect and complete, His nature is always unchanged (shrii

tattva-suutra 9).

 

Then in the commentary to suutra 9, Shriila Bhaktivinoda quotes the

Iishopanishad invocation, "puurNam adaH puuraNam idam" etc. Thus, he takes the

iishopanishad invocation as indicating that the Lord remains unchanged even

though He creates so many material universes. The fact that he is quoting this

to prove that the Lord remains unchanged in spite of the creation shows that

he accepts the complete units in the invocation to refer to the material

universes, just as Shriila Prabhupaada does. Therefore, Naaraayana Mahaaraaja

not only differs from Shriila Prabhupaada, but also with Shriila Bhaktivinod

Thaakur as far as this invocation is concerned.

 

Now, let us be generous for a moment. Let us say that someone, somewhere in

our paramparaa after Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu has given an explanation of

Iishopanishad invocation that resembles that of H.H. Naaraayana Maharaaja. I

have no evidence that anyone actually has, but taking into account my vast

ignorance of the great works of our puurvaachaaryas, it is quite possible that

such a statement is there and thus there is one or more valid, alternate

meetings to the invocation mantra. In that case, Naaraayana Mahaaraaja

differing with his guru and with Bhaktivinoda Thaakura is not so worrisome.

After all, he is simply picking an alternate meaning of the mantra, and it is

not as if he is saying that his guru's understanding is wrong.

 

Except that he *has* contradicted his guru in this regard, if we are to

believe the allegations. Not only does he give a different explanation of the

invocation mantra, but H.H. Naaraayana Mahaaraaja has been quoted as saying

that Shriila Prabhupaada's explanation is wrong. Specifically, His Holiness

does not accept that the material universes and the jiivas are complete, and

therefore Shriila Prabhupaada's explanation of the mantra is incorrect. And as

we have already demonstrated, this means that Naaraayana Mahaaraaja must also

take issue with Shriila Bhaktivinoda Thaakura.

 

Now we have shown that not only is Naaraayana Mahaaraaja unfaithful to Shriila

Bhaktivinoda Thaakura and Shriila A.C. Bhaktivedaanta Swaamii Prabhupaada, but

he is also openly contradicting both of them in regards to the meaning of the

Iishopanishad invocation. For any intelligent person, this should raise a

series of red flags in regards to his legitimacy as a Gaudiiya Vaishnava

aachaarya and a bona fide successor to the line of aachaaryas represented by

Shriila Prabhupaada. Of course, all this rests on assuming that the

allegations made against Naaraayana Mahaaraaja are true. In fact, we do not

yet know if they are true or not. We have the words of H.G. Raviindra-Svaruupa

Prabhu in this regard, and none of the followers of Naaraayana Mahaaraaja have

actually denied them. Whether or not Naaraayana Mahaaraaja said these comments

or not will not be addressed by me.

 

The point here, is that if His Holiness did say what Raviindra-svaruupa Prabhu

has claimed, then H.H. Naaraayana Mahaaraaja cannot be a bona fide

representative of Shriila Prabhupaada or Shriila Bhaktivinoda. It seems hard

to believe that an aachaarya can claim authority from two other aachaaryas

whom he contradicts quite openly. Therefore, those who are seeking a guru

should be mindful of this, and not make a choice based on sentiment or blind

faith. Instead, one should choose a guru who is faithful to Shriila

Prabhupaada in words and deeds.

 

Whatever H.H. Naaraayana Mahaaraaja has said in this regard, I wish him and

his followers no ill will. I am merely excercising my right to express my

doubt; please do not take this as some aparaadha on my apart. Even if he is

unfaithful to Shriila Prabhupaada, I believe His Holiness is doing a great

service by forcing us to think about what our philosophy is. If we do not

properly study Shriila Prabhupaada's books, then it goes without saying that

we will find the deviant doctrines being spread in his name as troublesome to

defeat. But if we know those books well, then we will know what is Gaudiiya

Vaishnava philosophy and what it is not. When Mahaaraaja Dhruva was about to

do battle with the Yaksha army who had slain his brother, the Yakshas were

quoted in Shriimad Bhaagavatam as admiring the prowess of Dhruva, even though

they were about to fight him to the death. Similarly, in this sense we can

appreciate Naaraayana Mahaaraaja in a very cultured way, as a worthy opponent

who will not allow us to be complacent in our understanding or our saadhana.

 

hare kR^iShNa!

 

yours,

 

S. HariKrishna

 

 

References:

 

Shrii Iishopanishad. His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedaanta Swaami Prabhupada.

Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

 

Shriimad Bhagavad-Giitaa. His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedaanta Swaamii

Prabhupaada. Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

 

Shriila Bhaktivinoda Thaakura's Shrii Tattva-suutra. Translated by Kushakratha

daasa.