Bhaktisiddhanta and Gaurakishora

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Here is something from Brahma Das on the topic. It was posted to another list, but I thought it was kind of interesting.

 

Below is some interesting info that may help shed light on your question.

 

From my own liberal viewpoint (that has been noted and rejected by Puru das and others on this forum) I can conceive that although Bhaktisiddanta may have criticized many people during his preaching some of these devotees he criticized may still be saints or at least saintly from the Absolute point of view.

 

I believe I can say this because we find in the recent history of our own movement that SP was at times very critical of his Godbrothers and once said we should not even read the books of his own spiritual master. He criticized in particular my own siksa Guru in one letter as well as other Godbrothers that we now know he still considered saints. Also we find Sridhar M criticized Kesava M on occasion and visa versa and we even find that NM criticized SM once in writing but still says he considers SM one of his siksa gurus. So criticism may have its place but does not necessarily disqualify one from the essence of Krishna Consciousness. SP also once said that his criticism of his Godbrothers was superficial.

 

So considering all this opens one to the possibility of a broader non-sectarian view of GV in general. A view that does not accept that criticism or disagreements between one particular branch necessarily disqualifies the other branch that may disagree.

 

Anyway here is some history for your consideration.

 

When Gaurakishore Babaji passed away, it was Kunja Babu (Srila Bhakti Vilasa Tirtha Maharaj) who brought the news to Srila Saraswati Thakur, and together they crossed the Ganges in a boat and went to get the body of Srila Gaurkishore Babaji and to bury him.

 

„h Srila Saraswati Thakur took the divine body of Gaurakishore and buried him on the bank of the Ganges. He took the body away from the assembled people who had were in possession of the body and who were planning to make a samadhi for Gaurakishore Babaji so they could collect money from the pilgrims who would come to visit his tomb.

 

„h * If there was any substance to the claim that Srila Saraswati Thakur was not a disciple of Srila Gaurakishore Babaji, then certainly those who were wanting to bury Gaurakishore Babaji would have raised this matter at the time. But they didn't.

 

„h * This opinion that Gaurakishore Babaji did not initiate Srila Saraswati Thakur has originated from a group of babajis in Vrindavan. Those babajis claim that Srila Saraswati Thakur revealed the fact that he was not initiated when he met with some baba from their group while he was visiting Vrindavana. „h „h But consider this: The initiation took place in 1900. Srila Saraswati Thakur told everyone openly that he was a disciple of Gaurakishore Babaji in the years from 1900 to 1915. When Srila Gaurakishore Babaji passed away; no-one anywhere said he wasn't his disciple in the fifteen year period, and both Srila Gaurkishore Babaji, Lalit Prashad and Srila Saraswati Thakur were all living in the same place: Nabadwip Dham.

 

„h * Lalit Prashad certainly heard Srila Saraswati Thakur telling people he was an initiated disciple of Srila Gaurakishore Babaji. Lalit Prashad was also present in Mayapura in the period between 1900 and 1915. If there was any doubt in his mind about the authenticity of Srila Saraswati Thakur's claim to be a disciple of the Babaji Maharaj then surely he would have looked into the matter and approached Srila Gaurakishore Babaji or Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur. Nothing of the kind happened. On the contrary, Lalit Prashad worked with Srila Saraswati Thakur until 1919, and in that time Srila Saraswati Thakur was initiating disciples and telling everyone he was a disciple of Srila Gaurakishore Babaji and Thakur Bhaktivinode.

 

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaj said that Lalit Prashad broke from Srila Saraswati Thakur because he did not like his style of preaching.

 

„h Quite recently a new rumor has been spread around for the purpose of defaming Srila Saraswati Thakur. This rumor is that somewhere in the diary or in a letter of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, he says that "a demon" or "an evil yogi" took birth as Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati with the intention of destroying the sampradaya of Mahaprabhu. But when Srila Sridhar Maharaja was asked about this (12 November 1982) he said that in 55 years of constant connection to the Mission he had never before heard this story about the "yogi" or "demon". Nobody ever made mention of this story in all those years.

 

And no one has come forth with any written evidence to support this story.

 

In the time of Srila Saraswati Thakur, he and his disciples created a separate community of devotees. There were numerous times when Srila Saraswati Thakur directly challenged his detractors in open meetings. In all those open forums, nobody ever suggested that Srila Saraswati Thakur was not a disciple of Srila Gaurakishore Babaji Maharaj or that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur was displeased with him. On the contrary, Srila Saraswati Thakur was a strong preacher who carried the message of Bhaktivinode Thakur all over India.

 

In his time, Srila Saraswati Thakur had many quarrels with various communities of Vaisnavas. There was the time, for example, when Srila Saraswati Thakur went on pilgrimage in Vrindavana with hundreds of his disciples in the late 1930's and had a dispute with one of the brahmin Goswamis at Radha Kunda. The issue of dispute was the statement by the Goswami that he, as a brahmin, was a higher type of devotee than Srila Raghunath Das Goswami, who was born in a kayastha family. Many prominent disciples of Srila Saraswati Thakur including Srila Sridhar Maharaj and Srila A C Bhaktivedanta Swami were there at the time. Because of the insulting remarks made by the Goswami, the entire assembly of devotees of the Gaudiya Math started fasting. They were fasting until the Goswami made an apology. The situation was very tense. If anyone had any evidence that they could bring against Srila Saraswati Thakur to defame him then surely they would have taken that opportunity to defame him in front of his hundreds of disciples. (say for instance, if anyone had any evidence that Srila Saraswati Thakur was not a disciple of Srila Gaurakishore Babaji). But as it worked out, the Goswami made an apology and admitted he was wrong.

 

Years later we find that our Prabhupad allowed Guru Kripa Swami and others to visit Lalit Prasad for siksa until Guru Kripa told Prabhupad LP began to criticize BSST. So eventually Prabhupad did not allow his disciples to see either LP or his Godbrothers.

 

But I question the idea that SP considered LP completely disqualified in every way for if he did why would he let his disciples go to him in the first place? Prabhupad knew the history and the controversies but still let some disciples go to him for siksa until LP began to criticize BSST. These I believe are all the true events of history, witnessed by hundreds of people.

 

In general BSST and Bhaktivinode were essence seekers and preached as such. BSST presented the essence of the teachings of Bhaktivinode and GK in a dynamic way. And he did not emphasize those things that Bhaktivinode called the ¡§heavy baggage of the sampradaya¡¨. There undoubtedly was much of this ¡§heavy baggage¡¨ in the line beyond GK so that may be one reason he did not refer much to that line in the way your question presented. In any case siksa is the essence of the line and so we are mostly concerned with siksa which by following will in turn give us the essence of what we seek.

 

I hope this is helpful. Brahma Das

 

[premananda]

Dear jndas,

 

Thanks for re-posting that posting by Brahma das ji. It does seem like Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati received initiation from Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji. SBSS presented himself as an initiated sisya of SGKDB. It does seem highly improbable that he would do so if he wasn´t actually initiated. I mean, anybody could have found out that he wasn´t, simply by asking the Babaji about it. This is a good argument to use against those who doubt whether he was initiated or not.

But, there is one thing I don´t agree with. SBSS didn´t present his line as Sri Advaita-parivara, which is the lineage of SGKDB and his diksa-guru Srila Nandakisora Dasa Gosvami. All Gaudiya Vaishnavas pass on the guru-parampara, and a chart of it is given to the initiated disciples. It seems a little disrespectful to neglect doing so. Therefore it seems like he for some reason didn´t accept the guru-parampara fully. Also, he didn´t use the tilaka of Advaita-parivara. It is an old tradition, that a sisya receives the tilaka of the guru-parampara from his guru.

 

I hope that I am wrong when I say that it seems like SBSS didn´t respect the line of diksa gurus. Perhaps he did. I haven´t seen any statements by him saying that he didn´t accept the guru-parampara of SGKDB.

 

If I have committed any vaishnava-aparadha, I hope that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati will accept my sincere apology so that I will get a chance to go where he probably is now, serving Sri Sri Radha-Krishna as Nayana-mani Manjari.

 

P D

 

[Gauracandra]

I've always been curious about the history of the photo of Srila Gaura Kishore Das Babaji. As far as I know thats the only one ever taken of him. And considering that cameras were not so readily available in the early 1900s and Srila Gaura Kishore Das Babaji was often difficult to get a hold of, I would be real curious if anyone knew the history of this photo.

 

Gauracandra

 

[This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 05-26-2001).]

[Guest guest]

>> SBSS didn´t present his line as Sri Advaita-parivara, which is the lineage of SGKDB and his diksa-guru Srila Nandakisora Dasa Gosvami. All Gaudiya Vaishnavas pass on the guru-parampara, and a chart of it is given to the initiated disciples.

 

Countless times we said to the cyber-babajis party the bhagavata-parampara is diksa and siksa-paramparas amalgamated. Amalgamated means completely mixed and impossible to be separated.

 

It would be an offense only to present pañcaratra-parampara and simply ignore sika-parampara also. Therefore, when establishing the line from where the main stream of bhava in his paribhar is coming from, sometimes Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati has mentioned a param-guru coming from pañcaratra-parampara and sometimes a param-guru coming from siksa-parapara. One should never understand, however, that when doing so Srila Bhaktisiddhanta has excluded someone from bhagavata-parampara.

 

In the case of Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta chose to mention his siksa-guru, Sri Bhagavata dasa Babaji who gave him vesa, and was a disciple of Sri Jagannatha dasa Babaji. But he never has excluded Sri Nandakisora dasa Goswami, or Sri Vipin Bihari Goswami and others that the opposite party always argue that he has done.

 

It is simply too complex and too much difficult to relate all diksa and siksa gurus in this line, and therefore, he only has traced the main line to represent all them. Everyone is included in bhagavata-parampara.

 

And why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta has opted to adopt Rupanuga-paribhara and not Advaita-paribhara is another question, that should be discussed apart of this topic.

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Maitreya]

premananda, concerning your post above; an open mind that is agile enough to change course when necessary is a beautiful thing.

 

It is a good example,rarely seen.

 

Please accept my respects.

 

YS MC

[premananda]

Dear Maitreya,

 

Thanks, and please accept my respects. If anybody can provide information which proves I am wrong, then I will accept that. I am not a fanatic.

 

P D

 

Originally posted by Maitreya:

premananda, concerning your post above; an open mind that is agile enough to change course when necessary is a beautiful thing.

 

It is a good example,rarely seen.

 

Please accept my respects.

 

YS MC