Did Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura eat meat?

[Vaishnava_das108]

Haribol.

 

I've recently come across a text that suggest that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura may have eaten meat at some point in his life.

 

The "evidence" comes from 'Svalikitha Jivani,' an autobiographical text written by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura in the form of a letter to his seventh son, Srila Lalita Prasada Thakura.

 

I suspected that it may be a spurious and/or invented text, but it seems that this text is rather authentic and has been used for consultation by Rupa-vilas das, who wrote the 'Seventh Goswami' bioraphy of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura.

 

Below are the relavant verses:

 

"225. Everyone in Chapra became my friends. The lawyer, Kesab Babu, always supported my point of view. The Judge Saheb also was favourable towards me. The people of Chapra made many kinds of pickle. A certain type of vinegar pickle was the best. I began to make it. [Their] mustard oil pickle had a pleasant taste and I began to make that also. At that time I ate a lot of fish and meat. I had known that killing animals was bad for a long time, but I had a strong desire to enjoy fish and meat."

 

"226. I ate a lot of fish in Chapra, but it was not very good. Therefore, I ate more goat meat. After the prolonged eating of food of this kind combined with red chillies and mustard seed pickle, I developed a bleeding ulcer. The first [attack] occurred on a full moon day. Gradually I got pains every new moon and full moon day. It took 5 to 7 days from the day the pain started for it to go away. So much suffering! When the pain [started] I automatically suffered from vomiting and diarrhea for 10 to 17 hours. At first I

went to the doctor, and a close friend, Manohar Babu, gave me medical treatment. Thereafter, I tried Moslem natural medicine. Finally, Mahendra Mama brought some Ayur Vedic herbs from the jungle and a local Vaidya made a little medicine."

 

I looked long and hard, and was finally able to find

an online copy of this text at:

 

http://www.raganuga.com/cgi-bin/raga/ikonboard.cgi?s=e0a27f7006aa6efd5de9664095b\76403;act=ST;f=8;t=375;st=0

 

So if it is true that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura ate meat, how does this fit in with the perception of a liberated soul as being nitya-siddha according to A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada's teachings?

 

Or nitya-siddhas in general?

 

Any thoughts?

[Jagat]

I think that we should be extremely indebted to Bhaktivinoda for having pierced the hagiographical balloon so that we can surmount the superficial understanding of guru-tattva and nitya-siddha and all the rest of the terms that we bandy about in order to blind ourselves to possible flaws in our guru vargas.

 

I have written about this before in relation to the controversy over the Prabhupada-lilamrita. How much more inspiring and glorious it is to have a human guru who has shown the way by struggling with the negative aspects of material entanglement and succeeding! This is, as far as I am concerned, a crucial point of transcending the kanishtha adhikari stage.

 

It is really the same question as that of guru omniscience and infallibility. There is much confused thinking on this issue and I am not up to date on what Iskcon's leaders are saying of late. The arch-conservative and reactionary side tries to discredit the Svalikhita-jivani itself. These people readily accept statements from this book when it suits their purposes, but refuse to accept those that contradict their idealized image of Bhaktivinoda Thakur. Even so, the SLJ is still the primary source of information on BVT's life as we know it--including Rupavilasa's book and all other Gaudiya Math publications on his life--with the appropriate expurgations, of course.

 

I take a much more liberal and, I believe, enlightened view that attempts to reconcile the humanity of the guru with his divinity rather than obliterate his humanity altogether in a cloud of mystification.

 

Your servant,

 

Jagadananda Das.

[theist]

I once mentioned that I had always thought of AC Bhaktivedanta as a sadhana-siddha. You would have thought I had called him a foul name by the reaction.

 

Now it seems everyones guru is some manjari that descended from Goloka just to pick them up.I don't know. The whole subject is far over my head.

 

Anyway Bhaktivinode appears to have eatten meat in his early life. Doesn't bother me in the least. I mean does it lessen the beauty of Jaiva Dharma in some way?

[Guest guest]

Mukunda Datta wrote the following about this:

 

> The evidence comes from 'Svalikitha Jivani,' an

> autobiographical text written by Srila Bhaktivinoda

> Thakura in the form of a letter to his seventh son,

> Srila Lalita Prasada Thakura.

>

> I suspected that it may be a spurious and/or invented

> text, but it seems that this text is rather authentic

> and has been used for consultation by Rupa-vilas das,

> who wrote the 'Seventh Goswami' bioraphy of Srila

> Bhaktivinoda Thakura.

 

 

Yes, I'm doubtful about this book too, as are others. However,

that a few (dubious) devotees cite it doesn't necessarily make it authentic.

I wonder about it especially because Sukavakdasa's 1999 book, A Hindu

Encounter with Modernity (possibly the most extensive, popular English

study) doesn't supply very reliable manuscript details. Sukavak accepts the

Sva-likhita-jivani because he feels it's (allegedly) original manuscript

looks like the handwriting in Bhaktivinoda Thakura's authenticated works

(1999: 9). However, he also notes that SLJ was published only after

Bhaktivinoda Thakura's disappearance, mostly for Lalitaprasada Thakura's

friends and followers, by Lalitaprasada Thakura himself, and that it

remains largely unknown even now (1999: 9-10).

 

Consequently, we simply have to rely on the subjective assertions

of either Sukavak or Lalitaprasada Thakura, whose authority is doubtful for

various reasons. Of course, there nmay be further proof of it's authenticity,

but I haven't seen it.

 

It is probably of interest to ISKCON devotees that, like Rupavilasa

dasa, Sukavak dasa too left ISKCON many years ago. However, even longer

ago, Lalitaprasada Thakura's views were rejected by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati Thakura. Perhaps that might help to explain why, as Sukavak

admits, the SLJ remains "largely unknown."

 

This may or may not obviate the need to address your theoretical

question about Bhaktivinoda Thakura's alleged activities could be accomodated

within Srila Prabhupada's teachings. However, rare and unorthodox behavior

among great liberated souls isn't entirely unheard of. It can't be imitated,

though, nor is it intended to be.

 

I hope this is of some help. Hare Krsna!

 

MDd

 

[theist]

What could possibly be gained by Lalitprasada by fabricating this testimony from his father? Now if the document stated something like "Only you Lalita are qualified to carry on my lineage" I might be more suspect. But as it is I can see no advantage.

[Guest guest]

Again by MD:

 

On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Sanjay Dadlani wrote:

> The evidence comes from 'Svalikitha Jivani,' an

> autobiographical text written by Srila Bhaktivinoda

> Thakura in the form of a letter to his seventh son,

> Srila Lalita Prasada Thakura.

>

> I suspected that it may be a spurious and/or invented

> text, but it seems that this text is rather authentic

> and has been used for consultation by Rupa-vilas das,

> who wrote the 'Seventh Goswami' bioraphy of Srila

> Bhaktivinoda Thakura.

 

 

Yes, I'm doubtful about this book too, as are others. However,

that a few (dubious) devotees cite it doesn't necessarily make it authentic.

I wonder about it especially because Sukavakdasa's 1999 book, A Hindu

Encounter with Modernity (possibly the most extensive, popular English

study) doesn't supply very reliable manuscript details. Sukavak accepts the

Sva-likhita-jivani because he feels it's (allegedly) original manuscript

looks like the handwriting in Bhaktivinoda Thakura's authenticated works

(1999: 9). However, he also notes that SLJ was published only after

Bhaktivinoda Thakura's disappearance, mostly for Lalitaprasada Thakura's

friends and followers, by Lalitaprasada Thakura himself, and that it

remains largely unknown even now (1999: 9-10).

 

Consequently, we simply have to rely on the subjective assertions

of either Sukavak or Lalitaprasada Thakura, whose authority is doubtful for

various reasons. Of course, there nmay be further proof of it's authenticity,

but I haven't seen it.

 

It is probably of interest to ISKCON devotees that, like Rupavilasa

dasa, Sukavak dasa too left ISKCON many years ago. However, even longer

ago, Lalitaprasada Thakura's views were rejected by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati Thakura. Perhaps that might help to explain why, as Sukavak

admits, the SLJ remains "largely unknown."

 

This may or may not obviate the need to address your theoretical

question about Bhaktivinoda Thakura's alleged activities could be accomodated

within Srila Prabhupada's teachings. However, rare and unorthodox behavior

among great liberated souls isn't entirely unheard of. It can't be imitated,

though, nor is it intended to be.

 

I hope this is of some help. Hare Krsna!

 

MDd

 

[Guest guest]

oops, that is a mistake. I double posted. Here is the correct one by MD:

 

> >> However, he also notes that SLJ was published only after

> Bhaktivinoda Thakura's disappearance, mostly for Lalitaprasada

> Thakura's friends and followers, by Lalitaprasada Thakura himself,

> and that it remains largely unknown even now (1999: 9-10). <<

>

> Thats an interesting point. Is it possible that the Svalikhita Jivani

> itself is a fictitious work, possibly authored by Lalita Prasada

> Thakura himself?

 

There are any number of possibilities. Honestly, I don't know

enough about SLJ to draw conclusions yet, so I've only mentioned a few

facts that should be taken into consideration. However, I'm generally

doubtful about it, since one would expect Srila Prabhupada (and his guru

maharaja) to have utilized such a potentially valuable source of

biographical data--were it in fact either authoritative or pertinent for

Bhaktivinoda Thakura's followers. Again, maybe they actually did mention

it somewhere; again, however, I haven't seen it. Certainly neither of

them has stressed it to the extent Sukavak does.

 

 

 

 

> Could you tell me why LPT's views were rejected by Srila

> Bhaktisiddhanta?

 

No thank you, but I'm sure there are others who will, especially

as you're now researching the babaji/caste gosvami perceptions of the

Gaudiya Sarasvata parampara. Unlike those fairly esoteric views, which in

my experience are adopted mainly by those whose Krsna consciousness was

also first awakened through ISKCON (i.e., Srila Prabhupada), the line and

teachings of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura have been spread--by

Mahaprabhu's design and grace--all over the world, for our benefit. I

think that's indicative of what Krsna desires, for us. Of course, that's

just my personal opinion, but I think it's strong logically too, all

things considered.

 

 

 

 

> Are there any other examples of meat-eating and/or similar vices in

> the life histories of other liberated souls?

 

Certainly there are some, though under the circumstances I wouldn't

classify them as "vices." One of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's contemporaries,

Srila Vamsidasa Babaji, used to scatter fishbones around his bhajana-kutir,

just to sabotage his own reputation. Jagannathadasa Babaji strategically

adopted similar behaviors in order to keep insincere sychophants away.

Some of the greatest Vaisnavas were previously sinful criminals; Valmiki

and Mrgari are examples. So I don't see why this should really even pose

a big dilemma for anyone; it isn't like such unorthodox behavior is wholly

unprecedented among those whose Krsna consciousness has factually transcended

the conditional norms of worldly life. Even Krsna Himself appears to have

been sinful, though He and His confidential associates are always nitya-mukta.

I think that's the important point here; of course, it also presupposes the

kind of faith mentioned in Bhagavata 11.17.27, Svetasvataropanisad 6.23,

Gurvastakam 7, and a host of other standard references.

 

 

Without presupposing faith, though, even if the background of such

great souls appears to be sinful by mundane calculation, we still have to

be very careful how we regard them--especially those whose character was

always spotless, like Srila Prabhupada. This is the kind of eitiquette

that practically distinguishes Vedic culture, in general, from most others.

It's also characteristic of the many godly qualities that develop as if

automatically in those who sincerely call out to the Lord, every single day,

in humility. Such dharma is our immediate need, as hinted in Siksastaka

3. It's always consequential too. This is partly why I consider it more

important than discussing the particulars on which the truly exalted

Vaisnavas can sometimes disagree.

 

MDd

 

[muralidhar]

Bhimasena, the Pandava, ate meat nearly every day. Is he a Vaishnava? This is a rhetorical question my Guru, Srila Govinda Maharaj, asked us one evening, when we were honouring Jagannatha prashad on the evening after the ratha-yatra in Puri.

 

When we in turn asked Srila Govinda Maharaj, "Is Bhimasena a Vaishnava?", Maharaj just laughed and yelled out, "Jaya Jagannatha Prashad!"

 

The Pandavas ate meat. (though maybe not Arjuna).

 

Krishna himself became the charioteer for Arjuna, because he loved the Pandavas so much.

 

"No meat eating" is a rule we follow. Non violence towards animals is a principle we revere. But the rules that apply to me, a materialist, are not applicable to great devotees.

 

It is an offence to denigrate or abuse a great devotee such as Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura. Petty mindedness in this area is a stumbling block that will keep us bound up in the shackles of the material world. Haridas Thakura also, he was born in a Muslim family. Are Muslims vegetarians? Were the parents of Haridas Thakura who cooked his breakfast and dinner also vegetarians?

 

 

 

 

[Jagat]

My post above was a condensed version of a response to the discussion on Achintya list, where this discussion has also been started by Dark Knight, as it has on .... I deliberately excised all references to Mukunda Datta Prabhu's response and that of Krishna Susarla, who also expressed doubts about the Sva-likhita-jivani. I don't think it is altogether ethical to cross-post without the specific permission of an author, as some individuals often have very good reasons for avoiding certain forums and frequenting others. Mukunda is not present here to defend or respond to comments that his statements may provoke.

 

Having said that, I will post my response anyway. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

Square brackets = new additions.

 

Dear Prabhus,

 

I am rather surprised to see Mukunda Datta doubt the authenticity of the Sva-likhita-jivani. This book was also published by the Gaudiya Math, if my memory serves me, while Siddhanta Saraswati was still alive. Sundarananda was the editor. I have never seen anyone in the Gaudiya Math doubt its bona fides. [it may have been the published shortly after Saraswati Thakur's disappearance.]

 

I think that Shukavak's acceptance of its authenticity is further strong evidence. He had the opportunity to peruse Bhaktivinoda Thakur's personal writings and could make an educated statement about the handwriting and the age of the paper, etc. The manuscript details are sufficient: it is kept at Dvadash Mandir, BVT's birthplace. This is not a great library with a barcoded collection, so what further details do you need?

 

Why do you doubt Shukavak? Surely you don't think he has an ax to grind? Does leaving Iskcon somehow make one unable to learn the truth? Indeed, Iskcon, like so many other ideologically-driven and politically power-top-heavy organizations, has consistently attempted to suppress uncomfortable truth, as was most painfully evident in the Gurukula abuse issue. I tend to give more credence to statements about history, etc., to those who are free of Iskcon's ideological blinkers--[especially if they have the academic credentials of a Shukavak].

 

As someone who has taken up the academic life, Mukundaji, I find your preliminary doubt normal, but on the whole, your entire response to this question seems ideologically motivated rather than impartial. I can understand that there is suspicion in Iskcon circles about those who have found cause to leave their association, and I am glad to see that Krishna Susarlaji has spoken out against blind acceptance. ...

 

At the same time, other responses go further to make the ludicrous suggestion that Lalita Prasad Thakur may have falsified this manuscript. What possible gain could LPT get out of falsifying a manuscript that says his guru ate meat at one time? Especially if, as the reference to Harisauri's memoirs claims, he professed to be the unique representative of BVT?

 

(from here on already posted above)

 

[Guest guest]

From MD:

 

> In other words, he belongs to Nityananda Parivara, one of the orthodox

multi-branched unbroken diksa-lineages initiated by the associates of Sri

Gauracandra.>>>

 

This is the Nityananda-vamsa, one of the caste gosvami families

whose dubious ideas are criticized in the books and instructions of Srila

Prabhupada.

 

 

 

 

> . . . it is known that Das Gosvami did not initiate any disciples

himself>>>

 

In fact, none of the caste gosvami factions that later claimed

Gaudiya affiliation actually have any intact seminal succession, either

from the Lord, or needless to say from the six gosvamis. The Advaita and

Nityananda lines are the two chief caste gosvami lines. They originated in

Bengal; in fact, the latter consists of the descendants of Advaitacarya's

sons who gave up Krsna consciousness. In India it is quite common for

families to make a living off of their alleged religious affiliations, and

to seek prestige similarly, regardless of their sincerity. One has to be

wary of such duplicity, which the Bhagavatam calls "kaitava-dharma."

 

 

 

 

>. . . peractically all of the Gaudiya tradition outside the followers of

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati are at odds with them in this regard, not

accepting their conception of parampara. This is an age-old issue, on

which there will likely never be agreement.>>>

 

Good point. Actually, all over India, the caste gosvami position

is just as resilient as is casteism itself. Nothing new. It represents a

fairly universal human urge much more than it represents Lord Caitanya.

 

Suffice it say here that theologically, the caste/babaji alliance

and the Gaudiya Sarasvata paramparas are roughly comparable to the Catholic

and Protestant traditions of Christianity.

 

 

 

 

> Let me remind you that while we certainly honor the contributions of

Bhaktisiddhanta and his followers, we do not take their precepts as

authoritative when they are in contrast with the scripture (including the

writings of the Gosvamis) and the stand of the larger Gaudiya Vaishnava

samaja (of which Gaudiya Math and its branches I'd estimate are roughly

around 5% altogether).>>>

 

However, it is a false substantiation to cite percentages here, as

if vox populi had any relevence.

 

If it is a numbers game, though, I would agree with Bhaktivinoda

Thakura himself, who said that Vaisnavas could be assessed by how many

other Vaisnavas they create. This is especially noteworthy if such

Vaisnavas were previously mlecchas. Not all of those claiming to be

Bhaktivinoda Thakura's followers can really afford to recognize this,

for reasons that are pretty obvious.

 

Moreover, whether something is "in contrast with scripture" rests

mostly on the interpretations postulated by those who won't likely admit

that these are very easily overturned. By nature, scriptural debate is

practically endless in this way ("tarko 'pratistha . . .," etc.), so the

real truth is that which the mahajanas advocate.

 

Such mahajanas are most easily identified by the criterion given

by Bhaktivinoda Thakura himself, as mentioned above. Thus, like his guru

maharaja, Srila Prabhupada practically applied this policy, and humbly

taught his own followers to do likewise. Since no one can spread Krsna

consciousness without being specifically empowered by the Lord's own sakti

(cf. Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 13.1 and Antya-lila, 7.11, etc.), I

think their tremendous accomplishments speak for their preeminent authority.

 

MDd

 

[Jagat]

I am rather disheartened by Mukunda Datta's rather superficial understanding of things. I have hoped that some rapprochement among devotees would be possible through the impartial study of history.

 

Jagat

 

[raga]

Each post in the Achintya-list comes along with a disclaimer:

 

<hr>

"DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior approval by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of the Gaudiiya school. "

 

<hr>

 

I did not give my approval to Mukunda Datta for posting excerpts from my writings here. However, since he did it, let me post my response along with excerpts from what he wrote. I trust he has no objection to that, since he decided to duplicate our dialogue here to begin with.

 

[raga]

Mukunda Dattaji, it appears that your study of the broader Gaudiya tradition never went much beyond the walls of what you read in ISKCON. This is very apparent from what you write. Now, allow me to shed some light on some bits of history you need to reconsider.

 

 

>>> This is the Nityananda-vamsa, one of the caste gosvami families whose dubious ideas are criticized in the books and instructions of Srila Prabhupada. <<<

 

To begin with, Nityananda Parivara and Nityananda Vamsa are very different. The word parivara is used for a particular disciplic lineage, while the word vamsa is used for a family lineage. Thus someone belonging to Nityananda Parivara belongs to a disciplic succession descending from Nityananda, and someone belonging to Nityananda Vamsa belongs to a family lineage descending from the sons of Nityananda. While the descendants of Nityananda generally are also initiated in a disciplic succession started by Nityananda, this is not a rule in itself.

 

 

>>> In fact, none of the caste gosvami factions that later claimed Gaudiya affiliation actually have any intact seminal succession, either from the Lord, or needless to say from the six gosvamis. The Advaita and Nityananda lines are the two chief caste gosvami lines. They originated in Bengal; in fact, the latter consists of the descendants of Advaitacarya's sons who gave up Krsna consciousness. <<<

 

The biggest vamsa (family lineage) was started by Krishna Mishra Gosvami. What makes you propose that there is no intact seminal succession there? Have you ever examined any geneological line of Advaita Vamsa? I believe you haven't. Nevertheless you speak as if you had seen the farther shore of the Gaudiya history. I do know people initiated in the Gosvami Vamsas coming from Nitai and Advaita.

 

 

>>> Suffice it say here that theologically, the caste/babaji alliance and the Gaudiya Sarasvata paramparas are roughly comparable to the Catholic and Protestant traditions of Christianity. <<<

 

If such a rough comparison was to be made, I would more likely see the Gosvami traditions akin to the Catholic tradition and the Babaji traditions akin to the Orthodox tradition. Among the Protestant traditions, I am best familiar with the Lutherian tradition, and among the newcomers, I am acquainted with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Perhaps a blend of the three come close to an adequate equivalent for the Sarasvata lineage.

 

 

>>> However, it is a false substantiation to cite percentages here, as if vox populi had any relevence.

 

If it is a numbers game, though, I would agree with Bhaktivinoda Thakura himself, who said that Vaisnavas could be assessed by how many other Vaisnavas they create. <<<

 

Now, you are proposing that numbers are irrelevant, and at the same time are the best criterion for assessing Vaishnavas. That is somewhat of an oxymoron I think. You should first make up your mind and then make your point.

 

 

Regards,

 

Madhava

[raga]

>> The biggest vamsa (family lineage) was started by Krishna Mishra Gosvami. <<

 

This means among the Advaita Vamsa. In general, Nityananda Vamsa is more prominent.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

I did not give my approval to Mukunda Datta for posting excerpts from my writings here. However, since he did it...

 

 

I don't think it is him. Someone else has posted his message here. He does have an acount here, but he rarely posts, and the last time was probably six months ago or so.

 

I doubt he even reads these forums that often.

[Vaishnava_das108]

Not to mention the fact that we are getting off-topic here.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

I think that we should be extremely indebted to Bhaktivinoda for having pierced the hagiographical balloon so that we can surmount the superficial understanding of guru-tattva and nitya-siddha and all the rest of the terms that we bandy about in order to blind ourselves to possible flaws in our guru vargas.

 

I have written about this before in relation to the controversy over the Prabhupada-lilamrita. How much more inspiring and glorious it is to have a human guru who has shown the way by struggling with the negative aspects of material entanglement and succeeding! This is, as far as I am concerned, a crucial point of transcending the kanishtha adhikari stage...

 

...I take a much more liberal and, I believe, enlightened view that attempts to reconcile the humanity of the guru with his divinity rather than obliterate his humanity altogether in a cloud of mystification.

 

 

Haribol, Jagat.

 

arcye visnau sila-dhir gurusu nara-matir vaisnave jati-buddhir

visnau sarvesvarese tad-itara-sama-dhir yasya va naraki sah

 

"One who considers the arca-nuti (the worshippable Deity of Lord Visnu) to be stone; the spiritual master to be an ordinary human being, a Vaisnava to belong to a particular creed, or Lord Visnu, who is the supreme controller, as equal to the demigods is posessed of hellish intelligence." [Padma Purana]

 

How do you reconcile your views with the above sastric sloka?

 

Vaishnava das.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

What could possibly be gained by Lalitprasada by fabricating this testimony from his father? Now if the document stated something like "Only you Lalita are qualified to carry on my lineage" I might be more suspect. But as it is I can see no advantage.

 

 

I have recently read the post of a certain devotee who claims to be in possession of a letter from Lalitaprasada Thakur. The letter itself is dated 30-5-76, typed on "Sri Bhaktivinoda Gosthi" letterhead and is addressed to a "Richard," and this devotee has given implicit permission for it to be published, since he himself has publicly published it. I shall repost it here, this letter by Lalitaprasada Thakura. Make up your own minds regarding LPT's conception of himself:

 

Dear Mr. Richard,

 

"I am glad to receive your letter of 29-4-76. I am a perfect devotee and follow the dictations of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as incalcated [sic] by Thakur Vaktivinode and as depicted in Srimad Bhagavat, Shri Chatanya [sic] Sikshamrita and the Bhajan dictations by other unalloyed pure devotees. People of Vrindaban always love me heart and soul. I am not in agreement with Gaudiya Math principles, that is not Gaudiya Vaisnaba Math and they are not approved by many Gaudiya Vaishnabas. I always stick to the Gaudiya Vaisnab Samaj and Shri Vaktivinode Gosthi in toto. So there is no enemy of mine and no difference of opinion with the principles which are accepted and followed in Vrindavan. When I went to Vrindaban last time I received warm reception from all there. The different principles which have been lately introduced by the indifferent [?] movement of my brother are not acceptable at all in toto. So also I am not in a position to agree with that [sic] principles followed by "ISKCON" at present and my attempt is to bring the other parties to follow the dictations of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as incalcated [sic] by my Guru Thakur Vaktivinode. So I live alone at the birth place of Thakur Vaktivinode who has been declared as the seventh Goswami by well renewed [sic] late Sri Radhikanatha Goswami and other unalloyed pure devotees.

 

So I stick to the Ragamarga and Bhajanmarga as expounded by

Sri-Rup-Sonatan-Bhatta Raghunath-Sri Jib-Gopal Bhatta-Das Raghunath. So I remain confined to the Bhajan teachings of Srila Raghunath Das Goswami.

 

If you have any differences of behaviour by any party I remain dumb and silent by seeing their fairy dance.

 

The questions you have raised are to be cleared when we meet. Charandas before his demise corrected his mistake by taking instructions and initiation from Thakur Vaktivinode for a year and half every day while the latter lived at "Bhaktikuteer" on the sea beach of Puri. Knowing the mistake which could not be easily corrected Charandas became mad and passed away at Jhanjpeta Math at Puri. His last remains is kept buried by the side of Haridas Thakur's Samadhi at sea-side in Puri and is adored by all because he corrected his mistake. You will find the account of Charandas in "Vaktivinode Charit" by Krishnadas-Junior. As regards my brother's affairs it is not good for me to meddle with and I am unable to explain at this moment. So kindly excuse me and if you are still anxious to know I can explain to you privately. I want to live secluded.

 

 

Sincerely yours,

 

L P Thakur 30.5-76 [this signature and date are in his own hand]

[Guest guest]

 

"Bhimasena, the Pandava, ate meat nearly every day. Is he a Vaishnava? This is a rhetorical question my Guru, Srila Govinda Maharaj, asked us one evening, when we were honouring Jagannatha prashad on the evening after the ratha-yatra in Puri.

 

When we in turn asked Srila Govinda Maharaj, "Is Bhimasena a Vaishnava?", Maharaj just laughed and yelled out, "Jaya Jagannatha Prashad!"

 

The Pandavas ate meat. (though maybe not Arjuna).

 

Krishna himself became the charioteer for Arjuna, because he loved the Pandavas so much.

 

"No meat eating" is a rule we follow. Non violence towards animals is a principle we revere. But the rules that apply to me, a materialist, are not applicable to great devotees.

 

It is an offence to denigrate or abuse a great devotee such as Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura. Petty mindedness in this area is a stumbling block that will keep us bound up in the shackles of the material world. Haridas Thakura also, he was born in a Muslim family. Are Muslims vegetarians? Were the parents of Haridas Thakura who cooked his breakfast and dinner also vegetarians?"

 

 

"Bhimasena, the Pandava, ate meat nearly every day."

 

Prove it. The Mahabharat you and your guru are referring to are either mistranslated or interpolated.

 

"This is a rhetorical question my Guru, Srila Govinda Maharaj, asked us one evening, when we were honouring Jagannatha prashad on the evening after the ratha-yatra in Puri."

 

Unfortunately, your Guru is probably wrong here.

 

"The Pandavas ate meat. (though maybe not Arjuna)."

 

Speculation again. None of the Pandava's ate meat, nor Krishna, EVER.

 

"It is an offence to denigrate or abuse a great devotee such as Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura. Petty mindedness in this area is a stumbling block that will keep us bound up in the shackles of the material world."

 

No one is offending Bhaktivinode by asking if he ate meat.

 

Thankyou.

[theist]

we admited that at some period in his life BVT ate meat? Would that cancel out all his beautiful writings? Damage our faith in what he revealed?

[leyh]

Jesus Christ ate fish, and Lord Shiva inhaled ganja. We can still worship them without trying to imitate them.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

we admited that at some period in his life BVT ate meat? Would that cancel out all his beautiful writings? Damage our faith in what he revealed?

 

 

I do not know. You tell me?

 

I was taught (or under the impression) that the Acharyas in the Madhva-Gaudiya line were nitya-siddhas. Even if they were somehow sadhana-siddha, they may not have eaten meat or indulged in other vices by virtue of their Indian birth?

 

I don't get it. Eating meat is a sin.

 

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura revealed in his Siddhi-lalasa that he was an eternally twelve-year-old manjari, Kamala Manjari by name.

 

How can a manjari eat meat?

 

Or is it that Srila Bhaktivinoda ate meat in his "material life," then performed his sadhana, realised his siddha-deha and thus becoming sadhana-siddha, and realised his eternal identity as Kamal Majari?

 

How do I think these thoughts without committing offense?? I am such a sinner, and there is no one who is knowledgeable to clarify the situation with.

 

The above conclusion only works if the Svalikhita-jivani is a authentic text. If it is a forgery and fabrication, then we do not have to accept it.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

Jesus Christ ate fish, and Lord Shiva inhaled ganja. We can still worship them without trying to imitate them.

 

 

With all due respect to Jesus Christ, he is not in the line of Madhva-Gaudiya, but is an acarya for the mlecchas. As such, he taught according to time, place and circumstance.

 

Besides that, there is no objective evidence to suggest that he ate fish.

 

As for Shiva, I simply do not know these things.

[leyh]

"We should always consider the position of the isvaras, or those who can actually control the movements of the sun and moon, as superior. Without such power, one cannot imitate the isvaras, who are superpowerful. Lord Siva drank poison to the extent of swallowing an ocean, but if any common man tries to drink even a fragment of such poison, he will be killed. There are many pseudo-devotees of Lord Siva who want to indulge in smoking ganja (marijuana) and similar intoxicating drugs, forgetting that by so imitating the acts of Lord Siva they are calling death very near." (From purport to Bhagavad-gita 3.24 by His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)

 

'Just like Lord Siva, he drank an ocean of poison and he kept it on the throat. He did not allow to go down. So therefore his name is Nilakantha. It became bluish. His neck is blue. But if somebody imitates Lord Siva and indulges intoxication, ganja, he'll go to hell. He is powerful. Somebody says "Well, Lord Siva is a smoker so we can also smoke." No. You cannot imitate. You can simply follow.' (Class on Bhagavad-gita 3.6-10 by Srila Prabhupada, 68/12/23 Los Angeles)

 

[Guest guest]

 

How can a manjari eat meat?

 

Or is it that Srila Bhaktivinoda ate meat in his "material life," then performed his sadhana, realised his siddha-deha and thus becoming sadhana-siddha, and realised his eternal identity as Kamal Majari?

 

 

 

 

He never said he ate meat with his manjari body.

 

He said he ate meat before he attained any lvl of spiritual realization. This is not suprising at all because any devotee born into a low family is bound to have a few faults before he loses them through devotional service. Anyway, I think your latter paragraph is correct.