No More Sadhu-Ninda

[Guest guest]

On 14 Jul 1999, Sthita-dhi Muni wrote:

> > Concerning seniority, I have been told time and again that NM is a grand

disciple of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. If true, it is curious how now some wish to

prop some grand disciples as miles above all of Srila

> > Bhaktisiddhanta's other grand disciples.

 

Obviously, as a disciple of Srila Bhakti-Prajnana Maharaja, Narayan Maharaja

is not BY DIKSA, Prabhupada's godbrother. Our relationship with a superior

Vaisnava, however, is primarily determined by SIKSA not a straight DIKSA line.

Srila Bhakti-pradip Tirtha Maharaja was initiated as a diksa-disciple of

Bhaktivinode Thakura, but that didn't prevent him from becoming a

siksa-disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, who was much superior in

spiritual adhikara. The line of taking instruction or offering of respect is

determined more by SIKSA than DIKSA.

 

But to address the point you have made, anyone who speaks like this -- or

repeats it -- "time and time again" is simply out to unduly criticize

Maharaja, that's all. They don't understand spiritual *tattva*, the

"techniques of the transcendental science" (SB 3.4.26 purpt). Thus they are

guilty of the offense of *maryada-vyatikrama*, attempting to impertinently

minimize a greater personality, a superior Vaisnava. Why else would they speak

in this denigrating manner with the deliberate intention of "putting down"?

 

I implore to one and all to read the purport on this point (SB 3.4.26 as I

recall), because this is a serious offense. The parallels in Prabhupada's

purport are unmistakable. But after 20 years or more supposedly being engaged

in devotional service, some people still have no couth or shame. And yet they

consider themselves learned or wise.

 

Seniority is judged by a number of criteria: age, experience, culture,

position, knowledge, and ultimately of course, REALIZATION. Judging someone's

"realization" may be more of subtle and subjective than the others, but there

are also definite symptoms of spiritual advancement: renunciation, level of

engagement in Krsna's service, ability to show compassionate and influence

others to take up devotional service, expertise in speaking from scripture,

etc.

 

Seniority in age is an important consideration of itself in Vaisnava culture,

aside from other considerations. Part of one's *culture*, aside from being

born in a family of Vaisnavas (in India no less), is also having lifelong

association and relationship with great stalwarts in the Gaudiya Matha, among

whom his guru maharaja, Srila Bhakti-Prajnana Maharaja, was Prabhupada's

sannyasa guru.

 

Seniority in spiritual *adhikara* would speak for itself, but what can we say

to those who refuse to make any fair or honest inquiries before they speak ill

of a great soul?

 

At the very least, however, we should show a respectful deference to the

Maharaja simply by dint of Maharaja's *age* -- he was a sannyasi before most

of us were even born and is a full generation older than the eldest GBC man.

If we want to "follow" Prabhupada, then we should observe a modicum of

etiquette, otherwise we are not even gentlemen, what to speak of

bonafide *sadhakas*.

 

Mahanidhi wrote:

> Coming to this moment, there is the letter from Ravindra Svarupa

> prabhu where he, among other things, places his doubts on Narayana

> Maharaja's actually following the line of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

> Thakura:

 

To have doubts about someone we don't know personally is natural, especially

if there are controversial issues at stake. HOWEVER, to voice one's unverified

doubts publicly and propagate them into the minds of others is libelous, it is

slander and it is unconscionable for any respectable person. To defame great

souls in such an uncouth manner is spiritual treachery, SADHU-NINDA. To

repeat such *blasphemy* (irreverence) towards Vaisnavas also implicates one in

the offense, Mahandihi Prabhu, as you clearly have done. Bravo! Aren't you

proud of yourself!

 

By his own admission, Ravindra Svarupa has not associated extensively with

Narayan Maharaja and simply regurgitates HEARSAY. What is Ravindra's position

to offer sound trustworthy truth on this matter? Because he has an "official"

position as GBC man?

 

The fact is that he can only support his grave accusations (that NM is not a

bonafide Gaudiya Vaisnava) only with his speculations. Srila BP Puri

Maharaja, the seniormost living Vaisnava and disciple of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati has confirmed that Narayan Maharaja is bona fide *rasika* Vaisnava.

But our impertinent leaders, who think they know more than Vaisnavas twice

their age and adhikara, hold no shame in publicly decrying a truly qualified

Vaisnava.

 

> > >Narayana Maharaja as deviating from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

> > >Thakura Prabhupada

 

And ISKCON has shown an impeccable record in contrast, I suppose? Let

Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu clear the log out of his own camp before he speculates

about the splinters beyond the purview of his vision.

 

Ravindra's doubts, voiced so inappropriately, are all nothing less than

slander, coming from the mouth of an esteemed GBC leader, no less. And then

some of you wonder why we have little respect for GBC leaders? This is why. No

culture. A lack of good association.

 

Anyone who reads these words of Ravindra Svarupa's -- or yours by way of

repeating it -- loses his/her pious activities and will experience definite

obstacles to his or her advancement in devotional service -- that is, until by

the grace of a compassionate and empowered Vaisnava, they are cleared. At such

a time, crying and lamenting piteously, you will regret all these uncouth

words you have uttered in this discussion.

 

I hope that day will come soon.

 

Most sincerely,

As servant of the servant of the Vaisnavas,

 

Srila dasa