Prabhupada Srila Saraswati Thakur

[raga]

 

In regard to the fact that Bipin Bihari published an article in 1919 declaring that he had rejected Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur as his disciple, what then is the status within the Gaudiya Sampradya of Lalit Prashad?

 

How do the followers of Lalit Prashad reconcile this fact? Did Lalit Prashad reject Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur's instruction that Mayapura is the birthplace of Mahaprabhu? If so, how can Lalit Prashad and his disciples claim to be true followers of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur?

 

If Lalit Prashad's connection to the Gaudiya Sampradaya throgh Bhaktivinode Thakur is broken, then wouldn't this automatically mean Lalit Prashad was also ousted from the Sampradaya.

 

 

That's an interesting point. No idea. I forwarded your notes to a friend and will be replying whenever I get a reply from him.

 

This actually doesn't apply to Lalita Prasad only, but to all diksa-initiates of Bhaktivinoda, if we pursue this line of thought.

 

On the subject matter of Sri Sampradaya, it looks like Bhaktisiddhanta drew much inspiration from how things were implemented there. Also his tridandi sannyasa style comes from Sri Sampradaya.

[raga]

 

In regard to the fact that Bipin Bihari published an article in 1919 declaring that he had rejected Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur as his disciple, what then is the status within the Gaudiya Sampradya of Lalit Prashad?

 

 

Some thoughts from Jagadananda in this regard.

 

 

<font color="blue">Posted: Oct. 19 2002,19:42

 

 

Madhava asked me some time back, as a result of reading the article Bhaktivinoda Thakur’s relationship with Bipin Bihari Goswami, how one coming in Bhaktivinoda's line should feel as a result of the apparent break in the lineage coming from Bipin Bihari's displeasure with the Thakur's work.

 

I would like to speak to this more exhaustively later, when I have a little more time. In a sense, I have already spoken to it in a general way when I brokered the concept of "forgiving the guru." This is a rather radical point that seems to contradict all that we have learned about seeing the spiritual master as God, etc., but I think that it is essential in order to come to a human understanding of spiritual life.

 

Bipin Bihari worked together with Bhaktivinoda and the two had a mutually fruitful relationship throughout more than thirty years of preaching, etc. Their relationship is no doubt going on beyond this world and whatever imperfections existed in it are being purified there. The fact remains that the spirit of devotion, the knowledge of sambandha, etc., have come to us as a result of their living relationship.

 

I suppose that people will take sides based on the question of whether they think Bhaktivinoda or Bipin Bihari Goswami was right on the Janma Sthan issue. In my article I have clearly taken the position that I believe Bhaktivinoda did some questionable things, thus giving credit to Bipin Bihari. Evidently, wherever Bhaktivinoda Thakur is today, he has to come to terms with this issue to right himself vis à vis his guru.

 

In the meantime, we are confident that Bhaktivinoda Thakur has given us so much despite this blemish that we do not despise him for it. Nor do we believe that his guru truly despised him, but rather posthumously warned him and his followers that falsehood has no place in the spiritual endeavor. Militancy in religion is bad enough in itself; when bolstered by falsehood, it becomes doubly bad. Let us be forewarned.

 

Jagat

 

 

http://www.raganuga.com/cgi-bin/raga/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=2;t=292;st=0#entry2586

 

</font color>

 

 

[muralidhar]

I will not make any comment about this now.

 

This is a very serious statement indeed that Jagat has made.

 

Srila Jagannatha das Babaji Maharaj had the transcendental vision to see Sri Mayapur manifest at the Yoga-pitha, and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur also felt that Mahaprabhu's birthplace was there in Mayapur.

 

Muralidhar das

[muralidhar]

SRI DASA-VIDHA NAMAPARADHA

The Ten Offences to the Holy Name

(to be carefully avoided by the devotee)

 

hari-nama mahamantra sarvva-mantra-sara

yadera karunabale jagate pracara

sei nama-parayana sadhu, mahajana

tahhadera ninda na kariha kadacana [1]

 

Hare Krishna Mahamantra -

of all mantras the best,

Throughout the world is preached

by saints with divine potent grace;

Such saints are to the Name devoted,

such saints are pure souls great:

Never dare offend them -

dare not show them hate.

vrajendranandana krishna sarvvesvaresvara

mahesvara adi tara sevana-tatpara

nama chintamani krishna-chaitanya-svarupa

bheda-jnana na karibe lila-guna-rupa [2]

Lord Krishna, son of Nanda,

of all lords the Leader -

The great Siva and all the gods

serve His feet forever;

The touchstone of the Name

is Krishna incarnate -

His Pastimes, Nature, Form also

never think of them as separate.

 

"guru krishna-rupa han sastrera pramane

guru-rupe krishna kripa kare bhagyavane"

se gurute marttya-buddhi avajnadi tyaji

ista-labha kara, nirantara nama bhaji [3]

"Guru's a form of Krishna-

the Scriptures corroborate;

In the form of Guru,

Krishna blesses the fortunate."

Never offend that Guru

by thinking him mere mortal;

Gain your highest objective -

serve the Name for time eternal.

 

sruti, sruti-mata saha satvata purana

sri-nama-charana-padma kare nirajana

sei sruti-sastra yeba karaye nindana

se aparadhira sanga karibe varjjana [4]

The Vedas with Mother Gayattri

and Srimad-Bhagavatam

Illuminate the Lotus Feet

of Sri Hari's Name;

Whoever vilifies

those Holy Vedic Scriptures -

Never keep their company,

know them as offenders.

namera mahima sarvva-sastrete vakhane

atistuti, hena kabhu na bhaviha mane

agastya, ananta, brahma, sivadi satata

ye nama-mahima-gatha sankirttana rata

se nama-mahima-sindhu ke paibe para?

ati-stuti bole yei-sei duracara [5]

The Glories of the Name -

all Scriptures praise with exaltation;

Dare not think their praise

to be exaggeration,

Agastya, Ananta, Brahma,

Siva, etc., ever

Sing the Glories of that Name

with full-hearted fervour.

Who can cross the ocean

of the Glories of that Name?

Whoever says the glories of Sri Nama are 'exaggerated'

have their sin to blame.

 

krishna-namavali nitya golokera dhana

kalpita, prakrita, bhave - apardhi-jana [6]

The Holy Names of Krishna -

eternal wealth of Goloka:

Whoever thinks those Names imaginary,

mundane, - he is an offender.

name sarvva-papa-ksaya sarvva-sastre kaya

sara-dina papa kari sei bharasaya -

emata durbbuddhi yara sei aparadhi

maya-pravañcita, duhkha bhuñje niravadhi [7]

All Scriptures say the Name

all sin it can destroy,

But those who spend their time in sin

making it a ploy -

Such a wicked attitude

is that of an offender

Deceived by illusion,

perpetually they will suffer.

atulya sri-krishna-nama purna-rasa-nidhi

tara sama na bhaviha subha-karmma adi [8]

Incomparable Name of Krishna -

the treasure of ecstasy:

Never dare compare it with

auspicious piety.

name sraddha-hina-jana - vidhata-vañchita

tare nama dane aparadha suniscita [9]

Those who are faithless toward the Name -

deceived by Providence:

Giving them the Holy Name

surely is an offence.

suniyao krishna-nama-mahatmya apara

ye priti-rahita, sei naradhama chara

ahamta mamata yara antare bahire

suddha krishna-nama tara kabhu nahi sphure [10]

Despite them hearing of the infinite

Glories of Krishna's Name,

Those whose hearts don't melt in love

are rascals of ill fame;

Only pride and avarice

their thoughts and words do yield

The Pure Name of Krishna

to them is never revealed.

ei dasa-aparddha kariya varjjana

ye sujana kare hari-nama sankirttana

apurvva sri-krishna-prema labhya tara haya

nama-prabhu tara hride nitya vilasaya [11]

Casting off these ten offences, leaving no exception,

Those pure souls who chant the Name

in Holy Congregation -

The miracle of Love for Krishna

they will surely taste,

The Name Divine Himself will shine forever

within their hearts, pure and chaste.

 

<hr>

Tridandi-bhiksu Sri Bhakti Sundar Govinda

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math,

Kolergañj, Nabadwip, Nadia

2nd April, 1989

[raga]

 

I will not make any comment about this now.

 

This is a very serious statement indeed that Jagat has made.

 

 

Whenever you choose to comment on it, I suggest that instead of taking the way of attributing faults to him in his capacity of a devotee (with aparadha, as you consider it, and so), try to approach the issue perceiving him as a historian who has thoroughly examined the subject matter. Perhaps in that way we can all gain something from the discussion.

 

For the information of whoever is wondering what the controversy over Sri Caitanya's Janmasthan is all about, I am posting a relevant excerpt from Jagadananda's article.

 

 

<font color="darkslateblue">Another rather more significant and troubling claim is that Bipin Bihari Goswami rejected Bhaktivinoda because of preaching lies about the birthplace of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

Bipin Bihari was one of the first directors of the committee to oversee the worship of Sriman Mahaprabhu, newly established at the Yogapith in Mayapur by Bhaktivinoda Thakur in 1891. However, a few years later, the site of Mahaprabhu’s birthplace again became controversial when a disciple of Ram Das Babaji, an engineer, declared that the so-called Yogapith in Mayapur was false and that the real Yogapith was in Ranichora, a suburb of Nabadwip that had recently been reclaimed from the receding Ganges.(note 15)

 

After the disappearance of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur in 1914 these political controversies became quite shrill, and here were nasty exchanges going on between the followers of Saraswati Thakur and the Nabadwip adherents. This time Bipin Bihari Goswami sided with the Nabadwip Goswamis and in 1919 rejected the claims of Bhaktivinoda and his son, Saraswati Thakur in a small newspaper of his own called Gauranga-sevaka Patrika.<blockquote>Unhappy with the Miapur controversy. In order to show his commitment to the Nabadwip, he held a festival in honor of Vamsivadanananda Thakur in Kuliya. 1919. He disappeared the same year. (K. B. Goswami, 542)</blockquote>Since this rejection took place after Bhaktivinoda’s disappearance, it may well be that Saraswati and his disciples’ heavy-handed approach to the debate contributed to Bipin Bihari’s making a break of this sort. However, it is not unlikely that he became convinced that Bhaktivinoda had wilfully fabricated evidence to promote the Mayapur birthsite.</font color>

 

<hr>

<font color="maroon">(Note 15) With modern methods, it should be possible to trace the history of the Ganges bed, on which both sides of this argument hinge. It seems to my layman’s eyes that the Ganges has tended to move eastward over the past several centuries, making the more westerly birthplace more likely. See Shukavak Das, p. 107-108, particularly the note on page 108. See also Chakravarti, 396.

 

Here is some more information, based on Carita-sudhA, volume 4, pp. 65-71. The original temple on Mahaprabhu's birthplace was built by Bir Hambir of Vishnupur, who ruled from approximately 1586-1621. This small shrine was claimed by the Ganges. Gaur Govinda Singh, the diwan of the East India Company temple, was an important Vaishnava. He built a second temple on the site in 1780-5, a sixty foot high building with nine pinnacles in red sandstone. This building was submerged in floods in 1876. Clearly, then, Bhaktivinoda Thakur must have been exaggerating somewhat when he said that nobody had any idea where the birthplace had been.

 

As a result, a few years after Bhaktivinoda established the Mayapur site, in 1304 Bangabda (1897), Sashibhushan Bandyopadhyaya wrote in Pallivasi Patrika the first article claiming that the Janmasthan was somewhere in Ramchandrapur. This started the Janmasthan wars. The Mayapur faction started a court case, which ultimately refused to reject the Mayapur claim, but did conclude that Gaura Govidna Singh's temple had indeed been built on the site of Mahaprabhu's birthplace and if anyone could find the ruins of that temple, that would be the deciding factor in establishing the birthsite.

 

Premananda Bharati, well-known as the first preacher of Vaishnavism in the West, took up the cause in the early 20th century, enlisting the aid of the leaders of the various Vaishnava communities both in Vrindavan and Gauda Desh. Finally, these Vaishnavas decided to find a qualified person to establish the exact site. They engaged Vraja Mohan Das Babaji, who in his householder life had been a government engineer and had recently taken responsibility for rebuilding the steps around Radha Kund and Shyam Kund.

 

Vraja Mohan Dasji started his research in 1916. He walked all over the Dham as well as investigating the available records, including the British survey maps that had been conducted from 1757 onwards. Apparently, he was on one occasion beaten up, his sikha cut off, his mala cut and thrown naked into the Ganges by the Mayapur faction. This probably when he entered the Mayapur compound. I have myself seen the vitriolic literature written by Paramananda Brahmachari at around this time, accusing Vraja Mohan Dasji and his backers of all manner of licentiousness in an effort to discredit his efforts. This evidently did not help Bhaktivinoda Thakur's cause with Bipin Bihari Goswami.

 

At any rate, through his research Vraja Mohan pinpointed the Ramachandra Chora land as the likeliest site of Gaur Govinda Singh's temple. He proceeded to dig more than 700 holes in the ground there before finding a large piece of red sandstone that had been a part of it. He exhibited the piece of stone to an assembly of Vaishnavas and work was begun building a new temple there.

 

Even so, the effort had exhausted him and he died not long after, turning the temple service over to Charan Das's sakhibhekhi disciple Radhavinodini Dasi. The area was officially named Prachin Mayapur in 1928. The temple was turned over to Ramdas Babaji in 1953.

 

Clearly, the timing of the Prachin Mayapur birthsite roughly coincides with Bipin Bihari's rejection of Bhaktivinoda, so it is not unlikely that the two are related.</font color>

 

 

Aside this, I would be curious to know of any early references about Jagannatha Das Babaji's confirming the Janmasthan founded by Bhaktivinoda. I cannot avoid the thought that this story was fabricated later on, just as many other stories have been fabricated. Haridas Dasji does not mention this incident in Gaudiya Vaishnava Abhidhana, nor do I remember it being mentioned in O.B.L. Kapoor's "Saints of Bengal" (I don't have the book at hand right now). Perhaps Bhaktivinoda has published something about this in his Sajjana Toshani?

[Guest guest]

Another group that doesnt have an unbroken diksa connection. You joined the wrong club.

[muralidhar]

Yes Madhava,

 

I must approach this matter from an objective "historical" standpoint. I am determined to deal with this matter.

 

Many attacks have been made against Prabhupada Srila Saraswati Thakur and also against the Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur.

 

I intend to make a reply to the facts of history that we know about. But I don't think I could ever change the opinions of someone involved in publishing criticizism of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur. Certainly I will never quote anything written by any offender against Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur in any document I ever put together.

 

Murali

[muralidhar]

Yes,

They have no sampradaya at all. None.

 

[muralidhar]

Madhava,

 

I read the extract you presented and the mention of the "large piece of red sandstone" that was found.

 

Tell me, what proof is there that this "large piece of red sandstone" is from a temple built in commemoration of the birthplace of Sri Chaitanyadeva?

 

Someone goes and digs 700 holes in the ground in Nabadwip. In one hole he finds a large piece of stone. Then "an assembly of Vaishnavas" decide the stone is part of the old temple built at the birthplace of Mahaprabhu.

 

Ha ha ha!!!

 

What a joke!!!

 

Most of the temples in Nabadwip town are temples of the Goddess.

 

There was no evidence or proof that this "large piece of red sandstone" is part of the old temple of Mahaprabhu.

 

Madhava says I should look at the real historical facts. But the lack of objectivity in the psuedo-archeological investigation by Vraja Mohan and his allies is laughable. One stone does not make a temple. Or prove the existence of a temple.

 

Murali

[muralidhar]

Madhava said:

Aside this, I would be curious to know of any early references about Jagannatha Das Babaji's confirming the Janmasthan founded by Bhaktivinoda. I cannot avoid the thought that this story was fabricated later on, just as many other stories have been fabricated. Haridas Dasji does not mention this incident in Gaudiya Vaishnava Abhidhana, nor do I remember it being mentioned in O.B.L. Kapoor's "Saints of Bengal" (I don't have the book at hand right now). Perhaps Bhaktivinoda has published something about this in his Sajjana Toshani?

<hr>

 

Your question is based on the premise that our Gurus are liars who fabricate falsehoods. Who is being objective here, and who is prejudiced?

 

In regard to O.B.L. Kapoor, I would point out that he is not an honest person or a man of good character. If you take a look at Nitai's web site you will see that it was O.B.L. Kapoor who first influenced Nitai to have doubts about Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Yet at the exact same time, O.B.L. Kapoor was hanging around the temple of Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and trying to get some material support so he could publish his books and promote his books, etc..

 

O.B.L. Kapoor involved himself in deception and cheating when he did this. He is not a pure Vaishnava. If he were a genuine Vaishnava then he would have been honest and straightforward in his dealings with Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

 

Murali

 

 

 

[muralidhar]

From Nitai's web site

http://www.bhajankutir.net/third-issue.html

 

<hr>

Nitai wrote:

ISKCON and its parent organizations are something like loud noise makers, attracting the attention of the people of the world and drawing them nearer to the world of Caitanya Vaisnavism. Once those people are in orbit around Mahaprabhu it would be easy for some small percentage of them to make the transition into association with Mahaprabhu's authentic followers. If this thesis is correct, then making this transition, though important for some, is not for everybody. Some must remain locked out in the outer realm, at least for a few more lifetimes, in order that the process may go on, the siren may continue. This seems to be what has happened and is continuing to happen.

 

Maybe something like the understanding outlined above was in Dr. Kapoor's mind when he shattered my safe little ISKCON world by informing me of the absence of initiation in ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math. He himself had taken re-initiation already from Gauranga Das Baba and I recall quite clearly his emotional description of the day on which he met his initiating guru (Baba). He and his wife were overwhelmed by tears of joy. They were literally drenched by their own tears. They recognized him immediately as their guru at their first meeting and he them. Dr. Kapoor's suggestion for me was that I take initiation secretly and remain within ISKCON. This was apparently what he had done, since he had kept up his relationships with his old Gaudiya Math god-brothers.

 

<hr>

Dr. Kapoor was not an honest man.

[muralidhar]

Perhaps we might consider whether deception and dishonesty has also been perpetrated by Lalit Prashad and his followers.

 

Lalit Prashad's Guru, Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, was "rejected" by Bipin Bihari Goswami, and thus Lalit Prashad was cut off from the Gaudiya Sampradaya(if you believe the line that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur's connection is through Bipin Bihari). Yet Lalit Prashad and his followers claim that they are a genuine diksa-parampara sampradaya, coming from Bipin Bihari Goswami to Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and then to Lalit Prashad.

 

Why do these people such as Premananda attack Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati as "a bogus guru" when they themselves are the ones who are cut off from the sampradaya? Dishonesty. Cheating and dishonesty.

 

Murali

[raga]

 

I must approach this matter from an objective "historical" standpoint. I am determined to deal with this matter.

 

Many attacks have been made against Prabhupada Srila Saraswati Thakur and also against the Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur.

 

I intend to make a reply to the facts of history that we know about. But I don't think I could ever change the opinions of someone involved in publishing criticizism of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur. Certainly I will never quote anything written by any offender against Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur in any document I ever put together.

 

 

If someone presents a piece of history not fitting into your world, it becomes aparadha. What, then, is the meaning of the word history here? It is certainly not objective history you are capable of handling, but only points of choice you adopt to build your faith. The passion with which you comment on writings threatening your view of the world prove that you are incapable of handling anything which goes against that which you believe in. You feel a need to ridicule it and condemn it a priori to examining it, adding excessive exclamation marks to sentences. This is not very mature for public behavior.

 

 

 

Your question is based on the premise that our Gurus are liars who fabricate falsehoods.

 

 

This is yet another good example of your incapability of handling this. Please try to understand, whenever we examine an issue with two or more options, we are questioning the presentation of someone. Try to understand that almost invariably every fanatical follower will say the same of their gurus as you are presenting in your posts. But that does not facilitate dialogue with any reasonable person. I hope you can understand this.

 

If you read the entire article of Jagadananda, you will understand why there are good grounds for suspecting that indeed some evidence was fabricated. Read the section on "three books" for example.

 

Commenting on my text, somebody wrote:

 

 

Another group that doesnt have an unbroken diksa connection. You joined the wrong club.

 

 

I have no connection with Bhaktivinoda, Bhaktisiddhanta, Lalit Prasad or their followers, aside my knowing some of them. Whatever their status be, it has nothing to do with me.

[raga]

 

Perhaps we might consider whether deception and dishonesty has also been perpetrated by Lalit Prashad and his followers.

 

 

Oh yes, and offense is the best defense.

 

 

Lalit Prashad's Guru, Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, was "rejected" by Bipin Bihari Goswami, and thus Lalit Prashad was cut off from the Gaudiya Sampradaya(if you believe the line that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur's connection is through Bipin Bihari). Yet Lalit Prashad and his followers claim that they are a genuine diksa-parampara sampradaya, coming from Bipin Bihari Goswami to Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and then to Lalit Prashad.

 

 

Now, at least you got something to rant about. Please, travel the length and bredth of the world and declare it to everyone that it was Vipin Vihari Gosvami who rejected Bhaktivinoda and not the other way around, and therefore Bhaktivinoda and all of his diksa-disciples have no proper diksa-parampara.

[raga]

http://www.granthamandira.org/~jagat/articles/showarticle.php?id=14

 

<hr>

<font color="blue">Bhaktivinoda Thakur and the three books

 

Did Bhaktivinoda Thakur fabricate evidence to promote the Mayapur birthsite? I cannot answer the question where the historical and geographical evidence is concerned. However, I am seriously disturbed by the evidence that Bhaktivinoda Thakur manufactured literary evidence to support the validity of Chaitanya as avatar and the nine-islands theory of Nabadwip, which in turn is meant to promote the Mayapur birthplace.

 

In the 1890’s, the Thakur wrote a Bengali verse work, Nabadwip-dhama-mahatmya, which he published under his own name. This book is a pretty typical “Sthala Mahatmya” style of text. Most Sthala-puranas introduce many puranic or Vedic personalities and ascribe to them activities and words that glorify the place in question. The events described in Nabadwip-dhama-mahatmya are quite radical: Madhva and Ramanuja are not the only names that are dropped in this book – there are also demigods, Vedic rishis, and other historical figures like Jayadeva, all of whom spend time in Mahaprabhu’s Dham and have premonitions of His future appearance there.

 

Had Nabadwip-dhama-mahatmya been written in Puranic Sanskrit two or three hundred years earlier, it may have been insinuated into the Skanda Purana or Padma Purana and achieved canonical status. But as it is, the Thakur decided to publish it in Bengali and in his own name. This could only mean that he was either sufficiently confident of his own position as a “realized Vaishnava” who could claim to have mystic visions of this sort and be believed, or that he never intended for it to be taken literally as history, but as a fanciful work in glorification of Mahaprabhu. The Gaudiya Math and others who believe in the divine status of Bhaktivinoda take this work as literal “truth,” but those who do not share in the vision of a Nabadwip which has its center in Mayapur, it is a gratuitous fabrication.

 

The Vaishnavas no doubt believe that in some dimension or alternate reality these events were not only possible, but historically true, even if they were not necessarily so in our universe. In this sense, we can compare it to his other works like HarinAma-cintAmaNi, which Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote as a conversation between Haridas Thakur and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in Jagannath Puri, or Jaiva Dharma, which includes characters like Gopal Guru Goswami and Dhyana Chandra – a kind of historical fiction, as it were. There is a certain literary license that has been taken here and may be forgiven as long as we recognize the genre.

 

However, three books that the Thakur published as ancient works were almost certainly composed by him. These three -- CaitanyopaniSad (1887), Prema-vivarta (1906) and Navadvipa-satakam (n.d.) have certain common characteristics – they were all connected to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the glorification of his birthplace. The motives are fairly clear: the Thakur was trying to promote Mahaprabhu’s birthplace and he did it in a fashion time-honored in India. He simply wrote the material he needed and attributed it to someone who had historical credibility. Rather than attributing his works to Vyasa or Narottam Das Thakur as did the counterfeiters of the past, he used the names of Jagadananda Pandit and Prabodhananda Saraswati.(note 17)

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur did in fact publish many rare manuscripts of genuine Vaishnava literature, such as Sri Krishna Vijaya, many padyAvalis, etc. He was not the only one in his time who yielded to the temptation of counterfeiting. Nevertheless, I personally find it problematic that someone who contributed so much to the Vaishnava religion, who worked so hard to instill a spirit of morality and honesty into Vaishnavism, whose life was in general a monument of commitment to service to Mahaprabhu and His principles, who in his worldly life was a justice and so presumably knew a thing or two about ethics and the law, saw fit to take such a chance.

 

Furthermore, in view of his familiarity with scholarly historical method, it is hard to understand how he thought that he could get away with it. Perhaps he thought his personal probity put him above suspicion. But did he really think that a single manuscript found by chance in mysterious circumstances only to disappear again after its publication would not cause people to examine the published text more carefully? And if that text contains elements of language and content that not only point to a modern origin, but to the very person who claims to have found the manuscript, will our suspicions not be confirmed?

 

I can only say that in his enthusiasm to see Mahaprabhu’s birthplace be glorified and become a center of pilgrimage – as it has indeed become – the Thakur took a chance with his personal reputation and that of his religion. He succeeded in making Mayapur a magnet for pilgrims from around the world. His disciples, grand-disciples and great-grand- disciples have succeeded in creating an environment that is quite extraordinary. Nevertheless, one cannot help but wonder at the masi-bindu that stains his otherwise sparkling white cloth. Can we not expect people to ask the question that naturally arises: How can a religion that needs lies to spread its message make any claims to be the truth?</font color>

 

<hr>

<font color="red">It does not give me pleasure to remind us, who are accustomed to thinking negatively of Bipin Bihari Goswami as someone who was rejected for his caste consciousness and bad habits like tobacco smoking, that he publicly renounced Bhaktivinoda Thakur as his disciple shortly before dying in 1919. The reason he gave for this drastic act was precisely for “preaching falsehoods” connected to the birthplace of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. It is easy to condemn Bipin Bihari Prabhu for having some self-interest in this matter, but the doubts that have been brought up in this article tend to give justification to the Goswami.

 

I find it rather painful to bring the matter up, and I do so in the full expectation of being heartily condemned, but I would like to see those who love the Holy Name and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu face this problem head on, much in the way that Roman Catholics have decided to accept the terrible things in their history – things which are many times worse than those we have mentioned here – and still find a way to justify their faith.

 

Faith has to be honest to be genuine, and such honesty has to extend to our forefathers, even those to whom we have attributed the highest spiritual perfection. It is a shock to accept that our divinities may have had human failings, but I think this is a necessary step in facing our own failings.

 

Human psychology is such that we often compensate for our own human frailties by placing faith in someone else. We say, “I am not perfect, but my guru is. I have no personal qualifications, but this does not matter because the parampara is perfect.” This is a psychological trick and results in ego-inflation. By identifying with the guru and the parampara, we appropriate their perfection and their authority for ourselves. Unfortunately, this expands into the kind of distorted personal psychology that is not only historically present in Iskcon, but in many of the interactions between devotees who are otherwise sincere.

 

<hr></font color>

[muralidhar]

Madhava said:

If someone presents a piece of history not fitting into your world, it becomes aparadha.

<hr>

 

Nice ploy, Madhava.

 

Again and again I have seen abuse levelled at Prabhupada Srila Saraswati Thakur by persons such as Premananda, Minaketana Ramadas and Nitai. I also consider Jagat's article to be extremely offensive. Then if I say that these people are being offensive and abusive... I am dismissed as a fanatical follower who cannot look at objective facts and make objective judgements.

 

Nice ploy. But look at the shrill, hateful things Nitai says against those great devotees who have taken Krishna's name and distributed it to the people of the world. Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is attacked, and Srila Saraswati Thakur is attacked with hearsay stories that neither you nor Nitai can prove to be true. You yourself have quoted Nitai's stories. You don't seem to be bothered by the thought that it is an offence to criticize devotees who have dedicated their lives to spreading Harinama sankirtan around the world. But some other innocent people may read these stories spread by you, Jagat, Nitai and Premananda, and lose faith in Krishna because of what they read. And for all you know, Madhava, the stories of Nitai may be total lies.

 

<hr>

Madhava said:

(I) would be curious to know of any early references about Jagannatha Das Babaji's confirming the Janmasthan founded by Bhaktivinoda. I cannot avoid the thought that this story was fabricated later on, just as many other stories have been fabricated.

<hr>

 

Look again at Jagat's story about the "large piece of red sandstone" which is supposed to prove the existence of an old temple at "Prachin Mayapur". I really did laugh when I read the story. Someone dug 700 holes in the ground and found one "large piece of red sandstone". Then an "assembly of Vaishnavas" decided that this is undeniable proof that "Prachin Mayapur" is the real Mayapur. Next, they build a new temple on the site. This assembly of Vaishnavas had decided that the evidence was conclusive on the basis of finding... one piece of red stone. Why were they so eager to accept this flimsy bit of evidence as the conclusive "proof"? The answer to that question, we all understand.

 

If someone digs 700 holes in the ground and finds a piece of red stone it doesn't prove the red stone came from an old temple dedicated to Mahaprabhu. It doesn't prove the stone was part of any old temple at all. It could have come from a house. Moreover, in Nabadwip there are numerous Shaktas and even if the foundations of some old temple had been unearthed it wouldn't necessarily mean that the temple was a temple of Mahaprabhu. It could have been from some other Vishnu temple or a Shakta temple or Shiva temple. The red stone might even have come from the Red Fort in Delhi and fallen off a boat that was passing through Mayapur. Another possibility. A silly suggestion of course. But the idea that this find of a "red sandstone" is conclusive proof that Mayapur across the Ganga is not the real Mayapur is equally stupid. No archeologist trained as a proper scientist would ever accept this sort of evidence as definitive proof that "Prachin Mayapur" is the birthplace of Sri Gauranga.

 

Murali

[muralidhar]

Offence is the problem.

 

The real problem.

 

I get blamed for pointing out that Lalit Prashad's disciples have no sampradaya at all. But they have been saying we have no sampradaya for some years, and that is OK, isn't it Madhava? If I say that OBL Kapoor behaved in a duplicitious manner, I am right. We know OBL Kapoor pretended to be a friend of Srila Prabhupada so he could get some material assistance for publishing of his books. He guided Nitai to take initiation from some Baba, and advised Nitai to keep this "re-initiation" secret. Why? The likely answer is that if Prabhupada found out what part OBL Kapoor had played in Nitai's leaving ISKCON then Prabhupada would have disassociated himself from OBL Kapoor. And if that happened, Dr Kapoor wouln't be able to get any more assistance from Prabhupada.

 

Madhava, you doubt our Gurus are saints. But I look at the evidence and I consider OBL Kapoor to be no saint at all. Same for Lalit Prashad.

 

Murali

[Gauracandra]

Muralidhar,

 

Some very interesting points. I won't criticize Srila Lalita Prasad, as I believe he was very saintly. Besides thats all in the past. But it is curious that many of the most vicious attacks against Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur come from those who claim legitimacy through Lalita Prasad. If it is true that this line has no bonafide mantra diksa (as Jagat seems to confirm), then such individuals should stop their propaganda against the line of Sarasvati Thakur.

[muralidhar]

Gaurachandra,

 

this is exactly my point.

 

Murali

[raga]

 

Again and again I have seen abuse levelled at Prabhupada Srila Saraswati Thakur by persons such as Premananda, Minaketana Ramadas and Nitai. I also consider Jagat's article to be extremely offensive. Then if I say that these people are being offensive and abusive... I am dismissed as a fanatical follower who cannot look at objective facts and make objective judgements.

 

 

What do I care of what Premananda, Minaketana Ramadas and Nitai say. We are discussing this discussion, not their old discussions, and we are trying to be reasonable here and now. Which statements in Jagat's article do you consider offensive?

 

 

 

And for all you know, Madhava, the stories of Nitai may be total lies.

 

 

I told you already, I have the story from several sources independent of Nitai.

 

 

 

Look again at Jagat's story about the "large piece of red sandstone" which is supposed to prove the existence of an old temple at "Prachin Mayapur". I really did laugh when I read the story. Someone dug 700 holes in the ground and found one "large piece of red sandstone".

 

 

It is not Jagat's story. It is the outcome of his research on historical events. Apparently the stone was valid evidence for the local court back then, nevertheless, perhaps due to the very fact that the earlier temple had been built of red sandstone, which is otherwise not to be found in the Navadvipa area.

 

 

 

This assembly of Vaishnavas had decided that the evidence was conclusive on the basis of finding... one piece of red stone.

 

 

Have another read of the text I quoted. It is not merely on the basis of a stone they discovered. Read again:

 

<font color="blue">"Vraja Mohan Dasji started his research in 1916. He walked all over the Dham as well as investigating the available records, including the British survey maps that had been conducted from 1757 onwards. ... At any rate, through his research Vraja Mohan pinpointed the Ramachandra Chora land as the likeliest site of Gaur Govinda Singh's temple. He proceeded to dig more than 700 holes in the ground there before finding a large piece of red sandstone that had been a part of it. He exhibited the piece of stone to an assembly of Vaishnavas and work was begun building a new temple there."</font color>

 

 

 

I get blamed for pointing out that Lalit Prashad's disciples have no sampradaya at all.

 

 

I never blamed you for that. I said, "interesting".

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Apparently the stone was valid evidence for the local court back then...

 

 

A local court in Navadvip? Now thats a valid authority. I can buy off our village's court for very little. Navadvipa is and was no different, especially where powerful families have sway in the villages.

[raga]

 

Apparently the stone was valid evidence for the local court back then...

 

<hr>

A local court in Navadvip? Now thats a valid authority. I can buy off our village's court for very little. Navadvipa is and was no different, especially where powerful families have sway in the villages.

 

 

Let us not forget it was the Mayapur party who filed the court case. It is they who sought for the verdict of this authority.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Let us not forget it was the Mayapur party who filed the court case. It is they who sought for the verdict of this authority.

 

 

I guess they didn't have enough money to buy off the judge, or they lacked the influential contacts they needed. The entire Navadvipa area was more or less religiously controlled by family gurus, and the Mayapur party would not have been very welcome amongst them.

[muralidhar]

Madhava,

 

Be reasonable.

 

One block of sandstone doesn't prove anything. And proving the matter in a local court in Nabadwip - what does that show? Nabadwip is famous throughout Bengal for the fact that goondas and dacoits control the place. If you want anything to happen in Nabadwip you pay a bribe, and this is not a new state of affairs. It was like that 100 years ago also. Now, in 2002, if you want to murder someone in Nabadwip it will cost you just 200 rupees to have the case shelved by the police.

 

In regard to Nitai and those stories, it really doesn't matter if many, many people are telling that story. Because a rumour is widespread it doesn't mean the rumou is TRUE. People with hatred for Srila Saraswati Thakur spread that rumour, and I intend to gather all the relevant information needed to dispel that rumour. But even then, the people who spread that rumour will not accept what I say because appreciation for Srila Saraswati Thakur will never manifest in the heart of a man who hates Srila Saraswati Thakur.

 

Anyhow, aside from all this garbage, let me tell you what I personally think about this entire subject of the Mayapura Janmasthan. I think that it doesn't matter where the birthplace of Mahaprabhu is located in any "geographical survey" at all. I think that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur had a vision of the birthplace at Mayapur and because he had that insight we disciples of Saraswati Goswami are worshipping at the Yoga Pitha shrine. Lalit Prashad and his students are not faithful to their master, it is only the descendents of Srila Saraswati Thakur who can say they are the faithful followers of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur. That is a fact. But aside from that, the ridiculous "sandstone" story is a good example of the eagerness of Bhaktivinode Thakur's opponents to establish an alternative temple where they could be boss.

 

In the end, what is the proof that Mahaprabhu was right when he revealed that small pool of water at the foot of Govardhana and said it was "Sri Radha Kunda". We feel we have received a gift of understanding from Mahaprabhu, who has revealed Sri Radha Kunda and so much else to us. And the disciples of Srila Saraswati Thakur know that they have found something wonderful through his instructions, and that is the real criteria of whether he is a genuine Guru. Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and Saraswati Goswami have come down to us from Goloka.

 

Murali

[raga]

 

One block of sandstone doesn't prove anything. And proving the matter in a local court in Nabadwip - what does that show?

 

 

What about the historical British survey maps and all other available records? I believe they were the most substantial factor of the research.

 

 

But aside from that, the ridiculous "sandstone" story is a good example of the eagerness of Bhaktivinode Thakur's opponents to establish an alternative temple where they could be boss.

 

 

Apparently the other side, opponents of the opponents if you may, the Mayapur fraction, was equally eager to maintain theirs, indeed so much so that they resorted to violence. From Jagadananda's article:

 

<font color="darkred">"Vraja Mohan Dasji started his research in 1916. He walked all over the Dham as well as investigating the available records, including the British survey maps that had been conducted from 1757 onwards. Apparently, he was on one occasion beaten up, his sikha cut off, his mala cut and thrown naked into the Ganges by the Mayapur faction. This probably when he entered the Mayapur compound. I have myself seen the vitriolic literature written by Paramananda Brahmachari at around this time, accusing Vraja Mohan Dasji and his backers of all manner of licentiousness in an effort to discredit his efforts."</font color>