Sampradaya Acarya

[Kulapavana]

Diksa should be taken only once. If one needs to hear the mantras from a different lineage, they may be heard from the right source, but that does not remove the first diksa.

 

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was a great visionary and a reformer of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but the value of some of the things he did or said is debatable. The 'discovery' of Caitanyopanishad and two other books is in that category. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was a visionary and a reformer as well, but his rejection of Bhaktivinoda's diksa lineage was not approved by his father. Towards the end of his life Bhaktivinoda was leaning far more towards the 'traditional' GV than people in Iskcon would like to believe. That spirit was continued by Lalita Prasada and even several prominent disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, including OBL Kapoor.

 

The combative attitude towards other Vaishnava groups seen among Iskcon and some GM devotees is actually quite unproductive and detrimental, clearly leading to creation of more and more divisions. The 'chopping technique' preaching as practiced by BST, SP, and many of their followers has very significant drawbacks and risks, including the tendency to breed false elitism, xenophobia, and offensive mentality in many devotees today.

[cbrahma]

 

Little did we know at that time that Lalita Prasada had convinced two of the most prominent, scholarly members in ISKCON at that time, Nitai and Hiranyagarbha, to renounce Srila Prabhupada, and of course BSST, and come over to his way of thinking. They took the fall and did so, and they're still preaching Lalita Prasada's position to this day. Although they both went onto become Sanskrit scholars, they are preaching against both Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Srila Prabhupada. In fact, Hiranyagarbha (Jagadananda dasa) has gone so far as to call Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur a fraud.

 

Not sure what the diksa statement is in response to. It makes no sense that Bhaktivinoda was 'traditional' or in line with Lalita Prasada, considering both Bhaktivinoda's clearly stated view on the 'traditional' and how Lalita Prasada turned people against him.

[Kulapavana]

 

It makes no sense that Bhaktivinoda was 'traditional' or in line with Lalita Prasada, considering both Bhaktivinoda's clearly stated view on the 'traditional' and how Lalita Prasada turned people against him.

 

 

LP never turned people against Bhaktivinoda but he opposed Bhaktisiddhanta on many issues, part of which might have been siblings rivalry... Bhaktivinoda even gave siddha pranali to LP, something for one reason or another he did not give to BST. That clearly means LP carries Bhaktivinoda's mood of devotion.

 

Most of what Rocana writes about sampradaya acharya is pure hype and wishful thinking on his behalf.

[cbrahma]

 

LP never turned people against Bhaktivinoda but he opposed Bhaktisiddhanta on many issues, part of which might have been siblings rivalry... Bhaktivinoda even gave siddha pranali to LP, something for one reason or another he did not give to BST. That clearly means LP carries Bhaktivinoda's mood of devotion.

 

Most of what Rocana writes about sampradaya acharya is pure hype and wishful thinking on his behalf.

Wishful thinking? Why would he need to fantasize on this subject? Apparently LP had some major influence on the ISKCON members because they blasphemed Bhaktivinoda. Logically Bhaktisiddhanta would be in the same mood as his spritual master, so it still makes no sense.

[Kulapavana]

 

Apparently LP had some major influence on the ISKCON members because they blasphemed Bhaktivinoda. Logically Bhaktisiddhanta would be in the same mood as his spritual master, so it still makes no sense.

 

How did they 'blaspheme' Bhaktivinoda?? By questioning the source of Caitanyopanishad or some other book he claimed to have discovered? To me this is a legitimate scepticism as the language of these supposedly ancient books is quite modern and Bhaktivinoda wrote several preaching manuscripts under an assumed name.

 

Are you claiming that Bhaktisiddhanta was in the same devotional mood as Srila Gaurakishora or Srila Bhaktivinoda? IMO he had a very unique mood of his own, one that Srila Prabhupada reflects very well.

[cbrahma]

 

How did they 'blaspheme' Bhaktivinoda?? By questioning the source of Caitanyopanishad or some other book he claimed to have discovered? To me this is a legitimate scepticism as the language of these supposedly ancient books is quite modern and Bhaktivinoda wrote several preaching manuscripts under an assumed name.

 

Are you claiming that Bhaktisiddhanta was in the same devotional mood as Srila Gaurakishora or Srila Bhaktivinoda? IMO he had a very unique mood of his own, one that Srila Prabhupada reflects very well.

If you read the quote, they said he was a fraud. That the disciple of Bhaktivinode Thakur would be in such a different mood that the spiritual master seems unlikely. That casts aspersions on Bhaktisiddhanta.

[♣♣♣]

Kulapavana,

 

This cbrahma clearly does not know the history at all, what he says is just uninformed mumbo jumbo, I have friends who are direct disciples of Lalita Prasad, I met him myself in 1974, he has no clue about this history, why waste time with this person, he has some major wires crossed.

[♣♣♣]

Bhaktivinoda was a disciple of Vipin Bihari Gosvami, not of Jagannath das Babaji.

 

Though it is beyond doubt that Bhaktivinoda derived inspiration from Jagannatha Das Babaji, he wrote the following about his diksa-guru Vipin Vihari Gosvami.

 

Bhagavat-arka-marici-mala: vipina-vihari prabhu mama prabhu-vara | sri-vamsi-vadanananda-vamsa-sasadhara || -- "Vipina-vihari Prabhu, the greatest of my masters, is the brilliant moon in the family of Sri Vamsi Vadanananda."

 

Amrita-pravaha-bhasya: vipina-vihari hari, tara sakti avatari | vipina-vihari prabhu-vara || sri-guru-goswami-rupe, dekhi more bhava-kupe | uddharilo apana kinkara || -- "The eminent Vipina-vihari Prabhu, an avatara of the sakti of Lord Hari Who sports in the forests of Vraja, has descended in the form of the Gosvami spiritual preceptor. Seeing me in the dark well of worldly existence, he has delivered this humble servant of his."

 

In the end of his Gita-mala (Siddhi-lalasa), Bhaktivinoda praises his diksa-guru in his manjari-svarupa alongside with Ananga Manjari and Rupa Manjari, submitting his eternal dependence on them.

[Kulapavana]

 

... I have friends who are direct disciples of Lalita Prasad' date=' I met him myself in 1974...[/quote']

 

You are very fortunate. I wish I could have met him too. Any idea where I can find any of his writings? I think they could have shed some light on the true relationship between Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta, especially towards the end of Bhaktivinoda's life.

 

As I get older, this militant style preaching interests me less and less.

[Kulapavana]

 

If you read the quote, they said he was a fraud.

 

I doubt very much that they considered Bhaktivinoda a 'fraud'. They may be questioning the authenticity of books he claimed to have discovered, or the authenticity of the Mahaprabhu's yoga-pitha he claims to have re-discovered (a fairly serious issue that surfaced after Bhaktivinoda's departure from this world), but they do not have any doubts that his bhakti and bhajana were genuine and of the highest caliber.

[♣♣♣]

In this connection, it is also in place to mention that Gaurakisora Das Baba received diksa from Nandakisora Gosvami of Shantipura (Advaita Sampradaya), and later on bheka from Bhagavata Das Baba. Gaurakisora in turn gave the bheka of an ascetic to Bhaktivinoda.

[cbrahma]

 

I doubt very much that they considered Bhaktivinoda a 'fraud'. They may be questioning the authenticity of books he claimed to have discovered, or the authenticity of the Mahaprabhu's yoga-pitha he claims to have re-discovered (a fairly serious issue that surfaced after Bhaktivinoda's departure from this world), but they do not have any doubts that his bhakti and bhajana were genuine and of the highest caliber.

I don't doubt. Rocana wouldn't lie. It comes down once again to your claims against his and so far he has more credibility, considering your cavalier attirude toward the GV acaryas like Bhaktisiddhanta and Prabhupada.

Now if I made claims, and believe me I have evidence to do so, about NM or Sridar Maharaj in the same dismissive mood, you would be incensed.

 

 

 

Over 100 years ago, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura challenged the religionists of his day, which he identified as Caste Goswamis, Smarta Brahmins, mundane intellectuals, western scholars, and even those purporting to be in direct disciplic succession to associates of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura introduced the relevance, significance and importance of the siksa guru as a bonafide initiator into our Sampradaya. His own brother, Lalita prasad, sided with the representatives of traditional diksa lines that traced their linage clear back to the Caitanya Lila. These "Goswami lineage" successions claimed that initiation through them was the only possible way to link to Lord Caitanya’s Sampradaya. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati dismissed this self-serving concept, stating that regardless of one's spiritual genealogy, the prerequisite qualifications for successfully linking up to the Sampradaya are achieved wholly and solely upon the genuine advancement in Krsna consciousness by contacting a genuine Sampradaya Acarya. As such, he included Jagannatha dasa Babaji and Gaura Kisora das Babaji as qualified members of the Sampradaya, and he excluded all the established diksa lines who traced themselves back to the Caitanya Mahaprabhu lila period.

Rocana dasa

 

[Kulapavana]

 

I don't doubt. Rocana wouldn't lie. It comes again to your claims against his and so far he has more credibility, considering your cavalier attirude toward the GV acaryas like Bhaktisiddhanta and Prabhupada.

 

Yes, to people like you and Rocana anybody that dares to have their own opinion on the activities of the previous acharyas is an 'aparadhi' or at least 'displays a cavalier atitude'. The thing is: these acharyas were very, very critical of others, usually for a good reason, so they would have no problem if others looked critically at them as well. However, their pansy disciples cry faul every time anybody attempts to shed a critical light on these devotees.

[cbrahma]

 

Yes, to people like you and Rocana anybody that dares to have their own opinion on the activities of the previous acharyas is an 'aparadhi' or at least 'displays a cavalier atitude'. The thing is: these acharyas were very, very critical of others, usually for a good reason, so they would have no problem if others looked critically at them as well. However, their pansy disciples cry faul every time anybody attempts to shed a critical light on these devotees.

No. There is a double standard. I don't dare venture to even insinuate negative criticisms of the GM gurus, because 'people like you' will do what you are saying - shout apharadi! Or just dismiss me or anybody else who makes such statements as not knowing what they are talking about.

 

The break from the traditional caste gurus came from Bhaktivinode, exactly the doctirne that Lalita Prasad was criticizing Bhaktisiddhanta about.

 

 

According to Rupa Vilasa, the initiative for the rejection of the diksa sampradaya came from Bhaktivinoda himself, who became dissatisfied with Bipin Bihari Goswami and rejected him in favour of Jagannath Das Babaji, another great contemporary renunciate, universally respected in the Vaishnava community

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:B30U_MmFQ2cJ:www.gaudiya.com/pdf/The_Parampara_Institution_In_Gaudiya_Vaisnavism.pdf+%22lalita+prasad%22+bhaktivinoda+narayana+maharaj&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

 

[♣♣♣]

This is getting more comical by the minute, this last quote from cbrahma is from Jagats article, 'The Parampara Institution in Gaudiya Vaishnavism', Jagat is not agreeing with Rupa Vilasa, he is only saying that is what he claims..LOLOLOL

 

Talk about taking things out of context, this cbrahma, has a bit of catching up to do with this detective story, I recommend he start by reading the entire article by Jagat.

 

HA HA!

 

[cbrahma]

One can also quote Sridhara Maharaj on this same subject

 

 

 

The following is a quote from the Guardian of Devotion Srila Sridhar Deva Goswami supporting the above statements on accepting the essence and not simply the form:

"The very gist of the guru-parampara, the disciplic succession, is siksa, the spiritul teaching, and wherever it is to be traced, there is guru. One who has the transcendental eye, the divine eye, will recognize the guru wherever he appears. One who possesses knowledge of absolute divine love in purity he is guru. Otherwise the guru parampara is only a body parampara: a succession of bodies. Then the caste brahmanas, the caste gosvamis, will continue with their trade, because body after body, they are getting the mantra. But their mantra is dead. We are after a living manra, and wherever we can trace the living tendency for a higher type of devotional service, we shall find that there is our guru. One who has that sort of vision awakened will be able to recognize the guru wherever he may appear."

(

Sri Guru and His Grace

, p22.)

 

 

 

[cbrahma]

 

I (Rocana dasa) assert that the “traditionalist” exponents who are emphatic about the prerequisite for a sincere truth seeker to search out and surrender to a “living” diksa guru should be looked upon with a high degree of suspicion. More than likely, they can be accurately identified as being one of a combination of the following: a religionist, a cultist in the guise of a disciple, less intelligent, and/or any of a variety of types of suppressionists.

 

The Sampradaya Acaryas have made their positions on this subject abundantly clear, but surprisingly, so many devotees have chosen to ignore their message. Initiation into our Sampradaya isn’t solely dependent upon taking diksa initiation.

In identifying the members of the Sampradaya, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura de-emphasized the traditional diksa guru parampara, which had been abused in many circumstances in the past. Instead, he stressed the Bhägavata or siksa-guru parampara. The Bhägavata succession is taken from the Srimad Bhagavatam, wherein Krsna enlightened Lord Brahma, who then spoke absolute truth to Narada Muni, who passed it on to Srila Vyasadeva. His son, Sukadeva Goswami, underwent no diksa but received the essence of Bhagavatam from Vyasa, who recited it, in seven days, to Pariksit Maharaja, Suta Goswami and others present during the recitation. All were fully enlightened but none were direct diksa disciples of Srila Sukadeva.

 

[Kulapavana]

 

According to Rupa Vilasa, the initiative for the rejection of the diksa sampradaya came from Bhaktivinoda himself, who became dissatisfied with Bipin Bihari Goswami and rejected him in favour of Jagannath Das Babaji, another great contemporary renunciate, universally respected in the Vaishnava community

 

 

That is a total fabrication. Bhaktivinoda never rejected his diksa guru. Some Iskcon ignoramuses claim that Bhaktivinoda rejected BBG over the issue of yoga-pitha of Mahaprabhu. That is totally wrong.

 

Actually, BBG initially supported Bhaktivinoda's location of yoga-pitha and in many ways looked up to Bhaktivinoda throughout Bhaktivinoda's life (he was several years younger than Bhaktivinoda). However, after Bhaktivinoda's passing some things came up to light that made many people question the authenticity of documents on which Bhaktivinoda based his localization of yoga-pitha. Many said that Bhaktivinoda wrote them himself, to support his position. Only then, in the light of this criticism, Bipin Bihari Goswami post humously rejected Bhaktivinoda as his disciple. That was one of the reasons which prompted BST to completely disregard the diksa line of Bhaktivinoda.

[cbrahma]

 

That is a total fabrication. Bhaktivinoda never rejected his diksa guru. Some Iskcon ignoramuses claim that Bhaktivinoda rejected BBG over the issue of yoga-pitha of Mahaprabhu. That is totally wrong.

 

Actually, BBG initially supported Bhaktivinoda's location of yoga-pitha and in many ways looked up to Bhaktivinoda throughout Bhaktivinoda's life (he was several years younger than Bhaktivinoda). However, after Bhaktivinoda's passing some things came up to light that made many people question the authenticity of documents on which Bhaktivinoda based his localization of yoga-pitha. Many said that Bhaktivinoda wrote them himself, to support his position. Only then, in the light of this criticism, Bipin Bihari Goswami post humously rejected Bhaktivinoda as his disciple. That was one of the reasons which prompted BST to completely disregard the diksa line of Bhaktivinoda.

The reference that you are objecting to is from Jagadananda das who befriended Lalita Prasad.

This is one of the points on which Jagadananda and Rocana dasa agree, and both have dissented from the ISKCON canon.

Nevertheless

Prabhupada never once taught that Bhaktivinoda Thakur was initiated by Bipin Bihari Goswami, nor that Bipin Bihari Goswami was the guru of Bhaktivinoda Thakur.

Curiouser and curiouser -

[suchandra]

 

Sucandra's responses are always so inoffensive, meek and humble even in the face of scurrilous attacks. I wish I could attain this wisdom of serpents and gentleness of doves.

Well thanks Cbrahma, thing is that cyberspace discussion boards are efficient within the limit of posting clear statements, e.g.

Prabhupada: If you have taken seriously Krsna consciousness, so something happening due to my past habit, you should not take care of it. It will subside.

Chandobhai: Ārambha.

Dr. Patel: Sarva-ārambha parityāgī.

 

Prabhupada: This is the final conclusion of… Final conclusion, that if anyone has taken devotional service seriously, avyabhicariṇi, avyabhicariṇi. Avyabhicāriṇi means as instructed by the spiritual master. If one takes this business very seriously, and he’s executing that, then he’s guṇatita. That’s all.

Morning Walk Conversation

with His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

March 30, 1974, Bombay

 

 

As soon there's disagreement combined with ad hominem attack it goes beyond the scope of cyberspace discussion boards.

In order to find a solution to this deficiency I'm still in search for finding an answer.

 

[Kulapavana]

 

Prabhupada never once taught that Bhaktivinoda Thakur was initiated by Bipin Bihari Goswami, nor that Bipin Bihari Goswami was the guru of Bhaktivinoda Thakur.

 

That does not change history or historical facts. You can understand who was Bhaktivinoda's guru by reading Bhaktivinoda's writings. Where in Bhaktivinoda's writings does he claim to be a disciple of anybody other than Bipin Bihari? Even the title of "Bhaktivinoda" was oficially and in writing bestowed to him by his guru, Bipin Bihari Goswami, who was very proud of such a qualified disciple. BVT referred to himself by using that title to his last days. It was something he clearly cherished. I doubt he would have appreciated his grand-grand-disciples belittling BBG.

[theist]

I can't trace out the exact history of all such things such as who formally initiated who let alone the nature of their association and all these things. But fortunately since I know beyond a shadow of a doubt from Srila Prabhupada's books and letters and confirmed by BR Sridhar Maharaja that this is a siksa line. So that question is solved for me personally. Others who may be infatuated with idea of a "traditional" line coming through family members irregardless of realization I believe are misguided. It is a position that makes no sense to me. To think that pure bhakti is handed down in the genetic code orsomething is gross IMO but all I can do is state my position and let the chips fall where they may. It is Caitya gurus position to enlighten them and not mine. Can't get worked up over it.

 

I am not convinced of this term Sampradaya Acarya. If Krishna choose to speak His Katha to me through some devotee that had no formal disciples. wrote no books or was even illiterate, was blind and deformed etc. then that person would be my personal Sampradaya Acarya or in other words my connection to the flow of transcendental siksa that is the essence of the parampara system the River of Life.

 

I can't see the need for someone who has Bhaktisiddhanta as their guru to call Bhaktivedanta their 'Sampradaya Acarya', or someone who is a disciple of a disciple of Bhaktisiddahata even. Wouldn't that term best apply personally. One can have another particular person as their primary link to the parampara and still acknowledge the giganti contribution of Srila Bhativedanta Prabhupad. There is no competition for the title amongst genuine teachers. Only pretenders to the throne and their unfortunate disciples or kanistha disciples of a bone fide guru would think there was.

[cbrahma]

 

That does not change history or historical facts. You can understand who was Bhaktivinoda's guru by reading Bhaktivinoda's writings. Where in Bhaktivinoda's writings does he claim to be a disciple of anybody other than Bipin Bihari? Even the title of "Bhaktivinoda" was oficially and in writing bestowed to him by his guru, Bipin Bihari Goswami, who was very proud of such a qualified disciple. BVT referred to himself by using that title to his last days. It was something he clearly cherished. I doubt he would have appreciated his grand-grand-disciples belittling BBG.

The facts color depending on whom you read, but the following sounds more accurate

 

Bhaktivinode Thakur did for sometime show formal respect to Bipin Bihari Goswami but when the Goswami disrespected Raghunatha dasa Goswami, the Thakur distanced himself even more from Bipin Bihari. In essence the details of this incident show that like many cast Goswamis in Orissa, Bengal, Vrindavana and Radha Kunda - Bipin Bihari Goswami also thought that he could give blessings to Raghunatha dasa Goswami, the prayojana-acharya, because Das Goswami was from a "lower cast" or so he mistakenly thought. It appears that Lalit Prasad Thakur overlooked the stressful relation that had evolved between Bhaktivinode and Bipin Bihari over the issue of Yoga-Pitha being at Mayapur and also that of Ragunatha dasa Goswami in favor of the formal arangement of diksa. It does not appear, in spite of his vast learning, that he was able to catch the essence of the teachings of Bhaktivinode Thakur.

Swami B.G. Narasingha

 

The confusion of course is that Jagannatha dasa babaji is presented as Bhaktivinode Thakur's spiritual master and that the latter accepted him as such - which is maybe why there is this idea of a siksa-parampara, a concept I do not endorse.

There is evidence that Bipin Bihari Goswami did reject Bhaktivinode. There must have at least been a 'distancing'.

[cbrahma]

 

I can't trace out the exact history of all such things such as who formally initiated who let alone the nature of their association and all these things. But fortunately since I know beyond a shadow of a doubt from Srila Prabhupada's books and letters and confirmed by BR Sridhar Maharaja that this is a siksa line. So that question is solved for me personally. Others who may be infatuated with idea of a "traditional" line coming through family members irregardless of realization I believe are misguided. It is a position that makes no sense to me. To think that pure bhakti is handed down in the genetic code orsomething is gross IMO but all I can do is state my position and let the chips fall where they may. It is Caitya gurus position to enlighten them and not mine. Can't get worked up over it.

 

I am not convinced of this term Sampradaya Acarya. If Krishna choose to speak His Katha to me through some devotee that had no formal disciples. wrote no books or was even illiterate, was blind and deformed etc. then that person would be my personal Sampradaya Acarya or in other words my connection to the flow of transcendental siksa that is the essence of the parampara system the River of Life.

 

I can't see the need for someone who has Bhaktisiddhanta as their guru to call Bhaktivedanta their 'Sampradaya Acarya', or someone who is a disciple of a disciple of Bhaktisiddahata even. Wouldn't that term best apply personally. One can have another particular person as their primary link to the parampara and still acknowledge the giganti contribution of Srila Bhativedanta Prabhupad. There is no competition for the title amongst genuine teachers. Only pretenders to the throne and their unfortunate disciples or kanistha disciples of a bone fide guru would think there was.

The term 'Sampradaya Acarya' does not just apply to every and any guru. One may have a siksa guru who is not a Sampradaya Acarya, but what makes the acarya a 'Sampradaya Acarya' is the standard of his teaching and realization. They are the siksa 'gold' standard.

 

 

 

 

 

Being a bonafide member or representative of the Sampradaya is distinctly different than being a Sampradaya Acarya. Sincere members of the Sampradaya make unfettered spiritual advancement when they dedicate their efforts to thoroughly comprehending the prominent Sampradaya Acarya’s teachings, pastimes, mission, and mood. Reinforced with such realized absolute knowledge, the sincere adherent can venture forth in search of the most advantageous transcendental association.

 

"So Prthu Maharaja was very respectful to the sampradaya-acaryas. As it is said by Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, “saksad-dharitvena samasta-sastraih”: a spiritual master, or the parampara-acarya, should be respected exactly like the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The word vidhivat is significant in this verse. This means that Prthu Maharaja also strictly followed the injunctions of the sastra in receiving a spiritual master, or acarya, of the transcendental disciplic succession."

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam 4:22:4 Purport

 

 

 

Rocana dasa

 

 

 

 

 

Also Prabhupada did himself use the term

 

 

 

 

 

"So we should hear from the

sampradaya-acarya

by disciplic succession. As Krsna recommends in this Bhagavad-gita: evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh."

 

la Prabhupada Lecture on Bhagavad-gita, 11-30-72, Hyderabad

 

 

 

 

 

"Our Indian spiritual life is guided by the acaryas,

sampradaya acarya

, the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka. There is... Whole Indian spiritual culture is dependent on the guidance of these acarya. And in the Bhagavad-gita also, in the Thirteenth Chapter, it is advised, acarya upasanam: "One should follow the instruction of the acarya." That is our Vedic civilization."

 

Srila Prabhupada Lecture to World Health Org., 06-06-74, Geneva

 

 

 

 

[Kulapavana]

 

There is evidence that Bipin Bihari Goswami did reject Bhaktivinode. There must have at least been a 'distancing'.

 

BBG rejected Bhaktivinoda Thakura only several years after BVT passing from this world, when the issue of book authenticity came into light. There is no record of such 'distancing' during the lifetime of BVT, even over the issue of giving blessings to Raghunatha dasa Goswami, an incident much overblown by the Saraswatas.