Download this in PDF format here:
BOYCOTT THE SAHAJIYA BABAJIS
Reflections on a lecture by Sri Narayana
Maharaja
compiled by Atul Krishna Dasa
On June 10, 2001, in Den Haag, Holland, Sri
Narayana Maharaja of the Gaudiya
Vedanta Samiti addressed his audience in
strong words, which were later transcribed and
widely published under the title “Boycott the
Sahajiya Babajis”. In this essay, we shall
review the allegations Sri Narayana Maharaja
presented to the public, and weigh their
validity on the basis of the evidence at our
disposal.
Let us open the presentation with the opening
sentences of Sri Narayana Maharaja:
>>I want to explain something so that
you will be very careful. I am receiving questions
about the books published by the babajis of Vraja. They accept Sri
Caitanya Mahaprabhu,
Sri Nityananda Prabhu, and Sri Sri
Radha-Krishna Conjugal. They have not written their
own books. They only take books like Stava-mala by Srila Rupa
Gosvami, Stavavali and Vilapa Kusumanjali by Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami, Radharasa-
sudhanidhi by Sri Prabhodananda Sarasvati, and other
Gosvami books.<<
To begin with, we should recognize the active
concern of Sri Narayana Maharaja. In his
lecture, he does not refer to the aggregate
literal production of the Babajis of Vraja. His
main concern appears to be on the titles
written by Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji of
Radhakunda. It should be obvious, since Stavavali, Vilapa Kusumanjali and Radha-rasasudhanidhi
are available in English with the
commentaries of Sri Ananta Dasa Baba,
and many devotees have asked questions
particularly on his literatures. Needless to say,
they are popular among devotees inclined to
the path of raganuga, being the only
available English editions with elaborate
commentaries.
1.
Let us now review the allegations of Sri
Narayana Maharaja and the actual teachings of
Sri Ananta Dasa Pandita along with our
remarks. Sri Narayana Maharaja states:
>>First of all they don’t accept that
the Gaudiya Vaisnava
Sampradaya is one of the sakhas, branches, of
the
Brahma-Madhva Sampradaya, although this fact
has been clearly explained by Sri Kavi
Karnipura,
Srila Jiva Gosvami, and then by Sri Baladeva
Vidyabhusana Prabhu.<<
45
It is a fact that Sri Kavi Karnapura in his
Gaura -ganoddesa-dipika, as well as Baladeva
Vidyabhusana in his Prameya-ratnavali, have
presented a disciplic succession linked with
the lineage of Sri Madhva Acarya. It is a historical
fact beyond challenge that Sri
Madhavendra Puri, the paramaguru of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu
and the guru of Sri
Nityananda Prabhu and Sri Advaita Prabhu, was
a disciple of Sri Laksmipati Tirtha, who
came from the Madhva lineage. Certainly
everyone accepts this as an established fact.
The question is on the nature of this
connection – whether it is one of substance or one of
form only. What is the particular
significance of the Madhvite process of worship on the
vidhi-marga in the raganuga-bhajana of the Gaudiyas? Where is the eternal connection
of internal servitude between the Gaudiyas
and the early acaryas
of the Madhva
line?
The fact is that most Gaudiyas are not even
conversant with the lives and the writings of
the acaryas in the line of Madhva.
Though much of the Madhvite philosophy was
incorporated into the doctrines of the
Gaudiyas, it is beyond argument that the
concepts of upasana
(the process of
worship)
and upasya (the object of worship) of the two are different.
The Madhvites practice
upasana on the vidhi-marga, filled with aisvarya, whereas the Gaudiyas’ worship is one of
raga-marga, where madhurya predominates. The Madhvites worship Nartaka-Gopala
alone, whereas the Gaudiyas never desire to
serve Sri Krishna without Sri Radhaji.
Baladeva Vidyabhusana has recognized certain
differences of opinion with
the teachings of the Madhva sampradaya in his
commentary on Tattvasandarbha:
bhaktanam vipranam eva moksah, devah bhaktesu
mukhyah, virincasyaiva sayujyam,
laksmya jiva-kotitvam ity evam matavisesah
daksinadi-deseti tena gaude ’pi
madhavendradayas tad upasisyah katicid
babhuvur ity arthah.
“Only a brahmana devotee is eligible for
liberation, the demigods are
foremost among devotees, Brahma attains sayujya-mukti (merging
in Brahman), and Laksmidevi is included among
the jivas – these
are differences in opinion. Nevertheless
Madhavendra Puri and
some others from Bengal became his
followers.”
Moreover, we find the following words spoken
by Sriman Mahaprabhu
Himself to an acarya of the Madhva sampradaya
in the Caitanya
Caritamrita (Madhya-lila, 9.273-276):
suni’ tattvacarya haila antare lajjita
prabhura vaisnavata dekhi, ha-ila vismita
acarya kahe – tumi yei kaha, sei satya haya
sarva-sastre vaisnavera ei suniscaya
46
tathapi madhvacarya ye kariyache nirbandha
sei acariye sabe sampradaya-sambandha
prabhu kahe karmi, jnani, dui bhakti-hina
tomara sampradaye dekhi sei dui cihna
sabe, eka guna dekhi tomara sampradaye
satya-vigraha kari’ isvare karaha niscaye
Hearing these words of Sriman Mahapbrahu, the
the acarya of the Tattvavada
sampradaya became ashamed, and was struck
with wonder upon seeing His degree of
Vaishnavism.
The acarya said, “Whatever you have told, that is the truth
proclaimed in all scriptures,
and the firm conviction of the Vaisnavas.
However, whatever Madhva Acarya has firmly
established, that we practice due to our sampradaya connection with him.”
Prabhu said, “Karmis and jnanis are
both devoid of bhakti. In your sampradaya, I can see
symptoms of both. All in all, the only
qualification I see in your sampradaya is your firm
acceptance of the truth of the Lord’s form.”
Hence it should not be a surprise that a
majority of the Gaudiyas have little
or no identification as members of the Madhva
sampradaya.
2.
>>Secondly, they think that Sri
Prabhodananda Sarasvati and
Prakasananda Sarasvati are the same person,
although there is so
much difference between them. This cannot be
so. Will a person of
the Ramanuja sampradaya go down to become a mayavadi like
Prakasananda Sarasvati, and then again become
Prabhodananda
Sarasvati, who was so exalted that he became
the guru of Srila
Gopala Bhatta Gosvami? This idea is absurd.
Prabhodananda
Sarasvati and Prakasananda Sarasvati were
contemporaries. Will the
same person go back and forth, being a
Vaisnava in South India,
then becoming a mayavadi, again becoming a Vaisnava
in
Vrndavana, and again becoming a mayavadi?<<
Sri Narayana Maharaja presents a simplistic
refutation with little evidence to back up his
idea. His argument would be very strong if it
was proven that the Prabodhananda of
47
South India – the uncle and guru of Gopala
Bhatta – was the same person as the
Prabodhananda Sarasvati of Vrindavana, the
author of Vrindavana Mahimamrta. The
fact is that not much is known about
Prabodhananda, or either of the Prabodhanandas,
given that they are likely not the same
individual.
There is no historical record of
Prabodhananda’s moving from South India to
Vrindavana. To the contrary, according to the
Anuraga Valli (AD 1696) of Manohara
Dasa, Gopala Bhatta left for Vrindavana after
the death of Vyenkata Bhatta and his two
brothers, one among whom was Prabodhananda.
Hence it is clear that according to this
account, Prabodhananda did not spend the
later part of his life in Vrindavana.
Anyone may contest the authority of this
scripture as well as that of the earlier Prema
Vilasa, in which similar accounts are
related, but the fact remains that there is no
evidence to prove that the Prabodhananda of
South India and the Prabodhananda of
Vrindavana were the same person.
The similarities between the lives of
Prakasananda Sarasvati and Prabodhananda
Sarasvati is yet another subject matter, but
we shall not discuss it here, since it is not
foundational to the argument of Sri Narayana
Maharaja.
3.
As his next concern, Sri Narayana Maharaja
presents the following:
>>Thirdly, they don’t give proper honor
to Sri Jiva Gosvami, and
this is a very big blunder. This is a vital
point. They say that Jiva
Gosvami is of svakiya-bhava, that he never supported parakiyabhava,
and that he is against parakiya-bhava. They say that in his
explanations of Srimad Bhagavatam and Brahma-samhita, in his
own books like Gopala Campu, and especially in his Sri Ujjvalanilamani
tika, he has written against parakiya-bhava. This is their
greatest blunder. We don’t accept their
statements at all.<<
In his commentary on Visvanatha’s Raga Vartma
Candrika (2.7), Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji
examines in depth the various statements of
Sri Jiva Gosvami on the subject matter of
svakiya and parakiya-vada, and concludes his analysis:
“All the learned and wise devotees will admit
without hesitation that
Sri Jiva Gosvamipada, who established the
eternality of all of the
Lord's pastimes in his Sri Bhagavat
Sandarbha, could never have
described those most elevated pastimes that
are filled with
extramarital love as being non-eternal.
Therefore it can be easily
48
understood that when he ascertained the
parakiyabhava-maya
pastimes as being non-eternal, he did not
speak out his own philosophical
conclusions.
Therefore he wrote at the end of his
commentary on the verse
laghutvani atra yat proktam of Sri Ujjvala
Nilamani's Nayaka Bheda
Prakarana: svecchaya likhitam kincit kincit atra
parecchaya. yat
purvapara sambandham tat purvamaparam param – ‘In this
commentary I write some things according to
my own wishes and
some things according to the wishes of
others. Any conclusion that is
filled with consistency from the beginning to
the end is written
according to my own wish, and that which is
not filled with
consistency from beginning to end is written
according to the wish of
others. Thus it is to be known.’”
Hence the teachings of Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji
should not be an object of concern for Sri
Narayana Maharaja in this regard. Perhaps Sri
Narayana Maharaja has misunderstood
something Panditji has written, or perhaps he
aims to boycott some other babajis,
although he mentions the writings of Sri
Ananta Dasa Babaji in the beginning of his
lecture.
Sri Narayana Maharaja goes on to state:
>>For some unqualified persons he
[Jiva] has written in that other
way, but the babajis of Vraja cannot reconcile this. They are ignorant
persons. They became opposed to Srila Jiva
Gosvami and took the
side of Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura,
even though in fact
there is no dispute between Jiva Gosvami and
Visvanatha Cakravarti
Thakura.<<
Perhaps Sri Narayana Maharaja may now feel
some peace in his heart, since we have
demonstrated that there is at least one babaji in Vraja who agrees with him
in this regard.
Baba, like Sri Narayana Maharaja, also
states, “Thus it is thought by those who cannot
understand the deepest purport of Sri Gopala
Campu.”
4.
Sri Narayana Maharaja then returns to the
issue of the Gaudiyas’ doctrinal
connection with the Madhva tradition:
>>The babajis say that we are not a branch of the line of
49
Madhvacarya. They say Madhvacarya is of a
different opinion than
the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. But this is quite
wrong. We have so many
specialties that are there in the line of
Madhvacarya.<<
If Sri Madhvacarya and the Gaudiyas were of
one opinion, where would there have been
a need for Baladeva to compile the Govinda
Bhasya as the Gaudiya commentary on the
Vedanta in the famous meeting at Jaipur? Why
did the commentary of Madhva not
suffice, if the Gaudiyas were one in opinion?
Certainly there is much in common in the
doctrines of Madhva and the Gaudiyas, and
there are also numerous parallel conceptions
with the teachings of the other sampradaya-acaryas. However, this does not
make the Gaudiyas completely one in opinion
with acarya Madhva.
As we have mentioned, there are significant
differences between the two lineages in their
conceptions on the process of upasana and on the object of upasana. Sri Narayana
Maharaja himself admits in his Prabandha
Pancakam (3.5):
>>Although there is some slight
difference of opinion between
Gaudiya Vaisnavas and Sri Madhva in regard to
Brahman, jiva and
jagat, this simple difference of opinion is not the cause
of a
difference of sampradaya. The difference between Vaisnava
sampradayas has been created on the basis of a difference
in
upasya-tattva (the object of worship) or on the basis of
gradations
of excellence between aspects of para-tattva. Even if there is some
slight difference in regard to sadhya, sadhana and sadhaka-tattva,
this is rarely considered to be the cause of
a difference of
sampradaya. Actually, it is the difference in realisation of paratattva
or upasya-tattva (the worshipful Supreme Truth) which is
the main cause of distinct sampradayas.<<
Nevertheless, Sri Narayana Maharaja then goes
on to quote the following passage from
the “Sriman Mahaprabhur Siksa” by Sri
Bhaktivinoda Thakura:
“There is a technical difference between the
philosophical ideas
which the previous Vaisnava acaryas have propagated because
there
some slight incompleteness in those
philosophical ideas. The
difference in sampradaya is due to this technical difference.”
Although the logic of presentation in Sri
Narayana Maharaja’s works remains veiled to us
due to our poor fund of understanding, we
nevertheless deducted the main cause of
distinction between the sampradayas from his own statement as
follows:
“A difference of conception in upasya-tattva, the worshipful
Supreme Truth, is the main cause of
distinction between the
50
sampradayas.”
Also, we understand the following from what
Sri Narayana Maharaja said:
“The difference between Vaisnava sampradayas has been created on
the basis of gradations of excellence between
aspects of paratattva.”
Hence it is certainly clear that there is a
distinction between the Gaudiya sampradaya and
the Madhva sampradaya, since the Gaudiyas regard Sri Sri Radha-Krishna
Yugala of
Vraja as their upasya, whereas the Madhvites regard Sri Aisvarya Krishna
as their upasya.
In regards to whether they are the same upasya or not, Sri Laghu-bhagavatamrta
(1.5.461) states:
krsna ’nyo yadu-sambhuto yah purnah so ’sty
atah parah
vrndavanam parityajya sa kvacin naiva
gacchati
“The Krishna who appeared in the Yadu-dynasty
is different from
the Krishna who never goes away from
Vrindavana.”
If anyone was to argue that the difference in
upasya is not so specific, it is
only a consideration
in terms of tattva, not of rasa, then for this argument Sri Bhakti-rasamrtasindhu
(1.2.59) states:
siddhantatas tv abhede ’pi srisa-krsna-svarupayoh
rasenotkrsyate krsna-rupam esa rasa-sthitih
“In terms of philosophical consideration,
Visnu and Krishna are
nondifferent in nature, but in terms of rasa the form of Sri Krishna,
the reservoir of rasa, is superior.”
Thus Sri Narayana Maharaja would have to
accept all the Vaisnava sampradayas
as one
sampradaya, since they all worship Visnu-tattva. Indeed, the
members of Nimbarka
sampradaya even worship Radha- Krishna, yet we still
regard them as a separate
sampradaya – due to slight differences in sadhya, sadhana and sadhaka-tattva.
We shall not delve into the numerous
philosophical differences between Sri Madhva and
the Gaudiyas in fear of making this document
too lengthy. Some of them have already
been described in the first section of this
document. Let it suffice that Madhva taught the
concept of dvaita, or absolute duality, whereas Sri Caitanya
Mahaprabhu presented the
refined concept of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, the doctrine of
simultaneous oneness and
difference.
51
5.
Sri Narayana Maharaja then presents another
allegation:
>>Also, they say that because Caitanya
Mahaprabhu took sannyasa
from Kesava Bharati, a mayavadi, He, Himself, must be a
mayavadi. We don’t accept this. Mahaprabhu’s actual guru was
Isvara Puripada, He only took vesa, red cloth, from Kesava
Bharati,
and there is no harm in this. Madhvacarya
also did this, and
Ramanujacarya as well. Sannyasa can be taken in this way.
However, Mahaprabhu took gopala-mantra and other mantras
from Isvara Puripada.<<
Firstly, we would appreciate if Sri Narayana
Maharaja would specify “who says” and
“where says”, since after all, he presents
several allegations, which add up to his
designating these babajis as avaisnavas in the latter half of the
lecture. It should not be
the habit of a senior spiritual leader to
make blanket statements on spiritual communities
or their representatives. Nevertheless, for
some reason Sri Narayana Maharaja tends to
generalize his allegations, which in turn
leads to numerous false accusations, as will be
shown in this document.
It would be interesting to know which are the
other mantras Sriman Mahaprabhu
received from Sri Isvara Puripada, since the kama-gayatri is not given in the
Madhva-line.
6.
Sri Narayana Maharaja proceeds with the case:
>>Another point is that the babajis don’t accept that Srila
Baladeva
Vidyabhusana is in the Gaudiya Vaisnava line.
They are vehemently
opposed to this understanding. However, if
Baladeva Vidyabhusana
Prabhu is out of our Gaudiya sampradaya, then who is our savior?
He went to Galta Gaddi in Jaipura and
defeated the Sri Vaisnavas.
He told them that Srimati Radhika should be
on the left of Krishna.
He wrote a commentary on Vedanta-sutra called Govinda-bhasya,
and that commentary has been accepted as the Gaudiya-bhasya
(commentary representing the Gaudiya
Sampradaya). If Baladeva
Vidyabhusana Prabhu is not in our sampradaya, then what
52
sampradaya is He in? All his commentaries are in the
line of Srila
Rupa Gosvami and our Gaudiya Vaisnava acaryas. If Baladeva
Prabhu is out of our sampradaya, everything will be
finished. This is
a vital point.<<
We shall now proceed to quote the words of
Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji from his
commentary on the Prema-bhakti-candrika, in regards to how he views
the position of
Baladeva, who wrote the Vedanta-bhasya of the
Gaudiyas to establish the authenticity of
the Gaudiya-sampradaya.
“I will constantly study the commentaries on
the Bhagavata, like
Vaisnava-tosani and Krama-sandarbha, plus the series ‘Six
Sandarbhas’ that explain the purport of the Bhagavata, plus the
commentaries by the Gosvamis’ followers Srila
Visvanatha
Cakravartipada and Srila Baladeva
Vidyabhusana Mahodaya.”
(Sudha-kanika-vyakhya commentary on verse 11)
Moreover, Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji states in
his commentary on the 94th
verse of Vilapa
Kusumanjali:
“According to Gaudiya Vaishnava acaryas like Srila Jiva Gosvami
and Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana, bhakti means attachment or
constant attraction to God.”
Thus Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana is accepted as
a follower of the Gosvamis in the
Gaudiya sampradaya. In addition to the statement above, anyone who
studies the works
of Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji, may discover how
he quotes the authoritative statements of
Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana on numerous occasions.
We request Sri Narayana Maharaja to specify
the babajis who are vehemently opposed
to
Baladeva’s being in the Gaudiya line.
Otherwise the public may misunderstand this vital
point.
7.
>>Also, these babajis say that if anyone wears the
saffron cloth of
sannyasa, he is not in the Gaudiya Vaisnava line. They have
no
correct idea. It is stated in Caitanya Caritamrta:
kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya
yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei ‘guru’ haya
53
[“It does not matter whether a person is a vipra (learned scholar in
Vedic wisdom) or is born in a lower family,
or is in the renounced
order of life. If he is master in the science
of Krishna, he is the
perfect and bona fide spiritual master.” (Madhya-lila 8-128)]
Krishna dasa Kaviraja Gosvami has written ‘kiba nyasi’. Nyasi
means sannyasi. Isvara Puripada, Madhavendra Puripada, and all
renunciates in their line were sannyasis in saffron cloth. There are
so many associates of Caitanya Mahaprabhu who
wore saffron cloth.
Svarupa Damodara also wore saffron cloth.
What harm was there?
Saffron cloth is the sign of renunciation. It
is the color of anuraga,
attachment for Krishna. Because it is a
color, it is worn by sadhvis.
Sadhvi means a married lady, a lady who is not a widow.
‘Married’
means having Krishna as one’s beloved. We are
not widows, but
those who wear white cloths are
widows.<<
Sri Narayana Maharaja gives numerous examples
of Gaudiya sannyasis
contemporary to
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, but he fails to
present any follower of the Gosvamis who
would have adopted saffron cloth and tridanda. Indeed, all of the
examples he gives are
of ekadandi-sannyasis, not tridandi-sannyasis as is the custom among the followers of
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu ordered the Gosvamis
to establish the Vaisnava sadacara for
the future times to come, and we are to
follow the codes of behavior they set for us to
follow .
The Hari-bhakti-vilasa (4.147 & 152) states in lucid language in
regards to the Gaudiyas’
dress:
nagno dviguna-vastrah syan nagno raktapatas tatha
“Wearing red cloth is like walking naked.”
sukla vasa bhaven nityam raktam caiva
vivarjayet
“Always wear white and give up red cloth.”
Even if anyone was to argue that rakta-vastra means only the red cloth of mayavadisannyasis,
it should be noted that the very cloth Sriman
Mahaprabhu wore was a raktavastra,
and so were those of His sannyasi associates. At their time,
the Hari Bhakti Vilasa
was not yet written. Besides, sukla vasa bhaven nityam, wear white cloth at all
times, is a
strong positive injunction for the future
times.
54
Moreover, there are no positive injunctions
for accepting saffron cloth and tridanda in
the writings of the Gosvamis. Hence some have
disapproved of the newly founded
sannyasa tradition. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the
customs of sannyasa
embraced
by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his
followers were largely adopted from the Ramanuja
sampradaya, not from the Madhva sampradaya they claim to follow – and certainly not
from the Sankara sampradaya in which the associates of
Sriman Mahaprabhu mentioned
by Sri Narayana Maharaja accepted sannyasa.
Should there be exceptions to the rule, it
does not in itself justify the establishment of a
new rule.
8.
Sri Narayana Maharaja then proceeds to
question the term babaji:
>>From where has this word ‘babaji’ come in our line? From whom
has it come? Isvara Puripada, Madhavendra
Puripada, Sri Caitanya
Mahaprabhu, Nityananda Prabhu, and after Him,
Sri Rupa Gosvami,
Sri Sanatana Gosvami, Srila Raghunatha Bhatta
Gosvami, Sri Jiva
Gosvami, Sri Gopala Bhatta Gosvami, and Sri
Raghunatha dasa
Gosvami. After them, Krishna dasa Kaviraja
Gosvami and
Vrndavana dasa Thakura, and then Narottama
dasa Thakura,
Syamananda dasa, Srinivasa Acarya, and
Visvanatha Cakravarti
Thakura. Where is the word babaji? Was anyone known as babaji?
From where did this word babaji come? The babajis have no reply.
These Vaisnavas were all paramahamsa, not babaji.<<
According to Sri Narayana Maharaja, the Jaiva
Dharma of Sri Bhaktivinoda Thakura is
not a fictive book, but a historical account,
as he stated on a lecture on September 21,
2001, in Mathura:
“In Jaiva Dharma he presented tattva in such an interesting way
that it appears like a novel. It is not a
novel, however. Everything in
it is true history.”
Anyone who is acquainted with this title
knows that practically every renunciate saint
there carries the title “babaji” after their name. The
events of the title date back to the
times of Gopala Guru Gosvami, which is soon
after the disappearance of Sriman
Mahaprabhu. Thus it appears that the concept
“babaji” is not a novelty at all.
But where
did the term come from? Sri Narayana Maharaja
himself explains on this very same
lecture:
55
>>In Vraja, the Vrajabasis all used to
call Sanatana Gosvami ‘baba’.
They called Sanatana Gosvami bara-baba, elder sadhu, and Rupa
Gosvami chota-baba, younger sadhu. After them, others in their line
took white cloth; but then, after the time of
Visvanatha Cakravarti
Thakura, they deviated. Some, like Jagannatha
dasa Babaji,
Madhusudana dasa Babaji, and Gaura Kisora
dasa Babaji, took this
babaji name out of humility, and everyone used to call them
that.<<
Thus it is evident that the term “babaji” has been an affectionate
address for ascetics
dedicated to a life of devotion at least
since the time of the Gosvamis. In the course of
time, the term “babaji” has naturally evolved into
a concept applied to the renunciates of
the Gaudiya tradition. This should not be a
reason to boycott anyone – particularly not so
because even in the Gaudiya Matha babaji-vesa is given.
9.
Then Sri Narayana Maharaja descends from the
realm of philosophical discussion into
the realm of generalized personal attacks:
>>Presently, those who are bogus
persons, but were previously in
the Gaudiya Matha, have become lusty and have
thus been kicked
out from the Gaudiya Matha. Now they have
become babajis.<<
We invite Sri Narayana Maharaja to prove his
theory valid by presenting several practical
examples, for otherwise his claim is not a
valid principle, but rather meaningless namecalling
based on isolated incidents.
10.
Then Sri Narayana Maharaja levels yet another
unfounded allegation:
>>The babajis especially criticize Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura,
saying that he didn’t have a guru. This is a
bogus idea. Srila
Bhaktivinoda Thakura preached the name and
the glories of Sri
Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya to the
whole world. He wrote hundreds of books.
Still, the babajis
say he
did not have a proper guru, and that Srila
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati
Prabhupada also had no proper guru.<<
56
To the best of our knowledge, the only one to
discredit the guru-parivara
of Sri
Bhaktivinoda Thakura was his son Bimal
Prasad, or Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, as he was
later known, who refused to recognize the
authenticity of Bhaktivinoda’s diksa-guru Sri
Vipina Vihari Gosvami despite Bhaktivinoda’s
praise of the same in his voluminous
writings. Indeed, in his autobiography Svalikhita-jivani, Bhaktivinoda relates how
Prabhu
Gaura Himself led him to the Gosvami.
Also, it is unknown to us that anyone would
have challenged the authenticity of Sri Gaura
Kisora Dasa Baba. The question is in regards
to whether Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati
received diksa or not, and consequently whether he was authorized
to initiate in turn or
not. The reasons for concern are as follows:
1. In the presence of several witnesses, Sri
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati
himself admitted to Pandita Ramakrishna Dasa
Babaji having only received
initiation in dream from Gaura Kisora Baba.
2. There is no mention of Sarasvati’s
receiving initiation from Gaura Kisora
Baba in any of the Baba’s authorized,
objective biographies, nor do others
outside the Gaudiya Matha related with the
Baba know of this. Also the
brother of Sarasvati, Sri Lalita Prasada
Thakura, denies his having received
initiation.
3. Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati did not
reveal the diksa-parampara
of Sri
Gaura Kisora Baba. In fact, even the name of
Baba’s diksa-guru
was not
revealed by Sarasvati to his followers.
Traditionally a guru reveals his
parampara to the disciples. Instead, Sarasvati created a parampara of his
own design, which he entitled bhagavat-parampara.
4. At the time of initiation, the guru gives
the disciple the specific tilaka
markings of the parivara he represents. Baba came in
the Advaita
parivara, which has a very distinctive tilaka-svarupa among the various
Gaudiya parivaras. If Sarasvati indeed received diksa from the Baba, why
did he not adopt the external signs of
lineage accordingly, but instead
applied a tilaka of his own design?
11.
Onwards to the next allegation:
57
>>Those in the babaji line say that our Guru
Maharaja, Srila Bhakti
Prajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja, and even
Srila Bhaktivedanta
Swami Maharaja, were not in the proper
disciplic line, and that they
have no guru-parampara. But it is actually the babajis who are not
in the guru -parampara.<<
Here Sri Narayana Maharaja presents a
reversed counter-argument with noactual
substance. Will he now demonstrate to us how
the babajis are not inthe guru-parampara?
Will he first specify which babaji he means? Thenwe could see
whether this particular
babaji belongs to a certain unbroken diksa lineage dating back to the
associates of Sri
Caitanya Mahaprabhu or not, and whether his
teachings are in allegiance to the
sampradaya's precepts.
12.
Sri Narayana Maharaja then presents us with a
piece of fabricated history:
>>I saw in France that so many devotees
have given up Srila
Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, and they have
become babajis.
They took babaji-vesa, dor-kaupin and so on. Then, after two years,
they fell down with mataji-babajis. They accepted and lived
with
divorced ladies.<<
On a lecture in Germany, dated December 14th
2001, Sri Narayana Maharaja supplied us
with more details on this incident:
“Some of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja's
disciples once came
to me asking, “Please help us! Please give us
siddha-pranali.” I
replied, “I cannot help myself. How can I
help you?” These disciples
then went to the sahajiya babajis at Radha Kunda. Those sahajiya
babajis then gave them siddha pranali for five anna paisa, although
they never knew the meaning of siddha-pranali. Real siddhapranali
has been explained by Bhaktivinoda Thakura. I
was
searching for these new babajis, and I have now heard that
they are
married.”
Nevertheless, the historical fact is that
only one disciple of Sri Bhaktivedanta Swami has
ever accepted babaji-vesa and dor-kaupina at Radhakunda in the 1980’s. He indeed left
the life of an ascetic, but he has never met
Sri Narayana Maharaja. Thus it is unclear to
us why Sri Narayana Maharaja relates such
obscure, imaginary stories to an innocent
audience.
58
13.
Sri Narayana Maharaja then labels the babajis whom he boycotts:
>>If you read their books this poison
may come.
avaisnava-mukhodgirnam putam hari-kathamrtam
sravanam naiva kartavyam sarpocchistam yatha
payah
(Padma Purana)
[“One should not hear anything about Krishna
from a non-vaisnava.
Milk touched by the lips of a serpent has
poisonous effects. Similarly,
talks about Krishna given by a non-vaisnava are also poisonous.”]
Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami’s Vilapa Kusumanjali, and other
books like Krishna Bhavanamrta, Radha-rasa-sudhanidhi, and
Stava-vali are all good books. They are amrta, nectar. However, you
should not hear them from non-vaisnavas; otherwise the bogus
ideas of such non-vaisnavas will come, and you will be
deviated. Be
very careful about this.<<
In other words, after presenting a vast
number of invalid accusations, he now designates
the unspecified babajis as non-vaisnavas, from whom the poison of
deviation emanates.
Needless to say, even if he boycotts a
particular individual to whom his strong criticism
may apply, the public will misunderstand the
object of his critique, because he keeps
mentioning titles by Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji,
to whom his allegations do not apply, as we
have clearly demonstrated.
14.
There is yet another allegation Sri Narayana
Maharaja has in store, a popular one:
>>Another point is regarding bhajana-pranali. Instead of giving the
proper process to the appropriate persons,
without giving proper
training, without considering whether a
person is qualified or not,
these babajis give their own version of bhajana-pranali. Their socalled
disciples do not know who is Krishna or what
is bhajana. They
don’t know any definition of bhakti, and they don’t even know
how
to clean themselves after passing stool. They
don’t know anything.
What will become of them?<<
We wonder whether Sri Narayana Maharaja has
actually acquainted himself with the
59
standards and procedures of the unnamed babajis whom he boycotts, or does he
simply
say whatever he likes, based on hearsay? We
request him to present to us the babajis who
give siddha-pranali to people who do not know how to wash their hands
after passing
stool. Moreover, we request him to present to
us the babajis who give siddha-pranali to
people who are not conversant with the basic
truths of Gaudiya siddhanta. On the day
when he does this, we will ask him whether
they are the same people who publish the
books he boycotts.
15.
Then Sri Narayana Maharaja goes on to present
the final tale of victory :
>>About ten years ago I went on Vraja
Mandala Parikrama with
Pujyapada Janardana Maharaja. We went to
Radha-Kunda, and
there we challenged the babajis. We had a discussion for
three
hours, but no one came. I have also
challenged those babajis
in my
book, Five Essential Essays, but no one
responded. After reading
that book they wanted to take us to court,
and I challenged them,
“Yes, we will see you in court.” But they
never came. Their lawyers
had advised them not to go to court, as they
would have lost
everything.<<
It is beyond our imagination how one can have
a discussion for three hours without
having anyone to speak with, and then claim
to have successfully and victoriously
challenged someone. Perhaps it would be good
for Sri Narayana Maharaja to remember
how he refused to address the questions of
this humble self, because he saw that the
inquirer was not in a fully submissive state,
and consequently unable to comprehend the
answers he would have given.
Onwards to the concluding sentence of Sri
Narayana Maharaja:
>>I have come to tell you these things
only to make you all careful.
Don’t be bewildered. Try to be very strong,
knowing all these
points.<<
Indeed, we became careful as a result of
attending this speech, and moreover, by studying
the transcript of the same. In fact, we even
became fearful over what would happen to our
devotional lives, should we continue to
wholeheartedly adopt the abundantly unfounded
criticism cast forth by Sri Narayana Maharaja
and his followers.
