Allegations Made Against H.H. Narayana Maharaja

[Guest guest]

On 27 Sep 1999, Mundita Mastaka wrote:

> Rather, his

> presentation

> was directly from Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana's commentary on Sri

> Isopanisad.

 

First, I've heard this comment before, but have never seen it backed up. How

about providing the Sanskrit text for Srila Baladeva's Isopanisad commentary?

Note that it is _not_ sufficient to show his comments on the "oM pUrNam"

verse, since that verse also appears in a different context in another

Upanishad (bRhadAranyaka). In fact, when it appears in the bRhadAranyaka,

Srila Prabhupada himself takes the verse as referring to the avatAras of the

Lord (see CC Adi, 7th or 8th chapter). This proves that the verse (and its

explanation) needs to be seen in its full context.

 

Second, even if Srila Baladeva did comment as said, that is still not enough

for us to consider Srila Narayana Maharaj a shiksha disciple of Srila

Prabhupada. Perhaps some other shiksha parampara that includes Baladeva but

excludes Srila Bhaktivinoda and Srila Prabhupada?

 

Regards,

 

Vijay S. Pai