Download this in PDF format here:
DID BHAKTISIDDHANTA SARASVATI RECEIVED DHIKSA
FROM GAURKISORA DASA BABAJI ?
by
Madhavanada das
2002
Let me make it very clear that I am not
interested in an intense back-and-forth knee-jerk
stubborn quarrel over anything mentioned in
the thread topic title. I am also not trying to
convert anyone to anything, just in case
somebody was going to say that. I am interested
in the historical facts surrounding the
initiation of Bhaktisiddhanta. I trust our intelligent
audience can understand this.
Here are my notes on the subject matter of
the initiation of Bhaktisiddhanta:
a) Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was in the habit
of visiting Ramakrishna Dasa Pandita
Babaji during his visits to Vrindavana since
he was without a doubt one of the most
40
respected of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas of the
1920s and 1930s. On one occasion Sarasvati
was highly praising Gaura Kishora Babaji in
Pandita Baba's presence. Pandita Baba asked
him if he had re-ceived initiation from him.
Sarasvati said he had received it in a dream.
Pandita Babaji said that that was fine, but
he should receive it in the flesh since that is the
only type of initiation accepted in the
Caitanya tradition. Bhaktisiddhanta said he would
and ended the visit. Years later Sarasvati
returned to Vrindavana as the acarya of the
Gaudiya Matha, a famous man. He visited
Pandita Babaji and was asked again if he
had gotten initiation from Gaura Kishora Dasa
Baba. His answer was the same, at which
point Pandita Baba got extremely angry with
him for making disciples without proper
initiation. This incident was witnessed by
Sri Kisori Mohana Gosvami, Sri Kisori Dasa
Babaji and Advaita Dasa Babaji of Govardhan.
b) There is no indication of Sarasvati's
being initiated by Babaji Maharaja in any of his
objective biographies, objective meaning
compiled by anyone who would not be bound
out of prejudice to accept the statement of
Sarasvati, being a follower of his. The brother
of Sarasvati, Lalita Prasada Thakura, denies
Sarasvati's receiving diksa from Babaji
Maharaja. The pujari and other residents of
Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji's bhajana kutira
knew of only four disciples of Babaji, but
Sarasvati was not among them.
c) Sarasvati did not reveal the parampara of
Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji to his followers.
In fact, even the name of Babaji Maharaja´s
diksa-guru was not revealed by Sarasvati.
Now, why would a disciple not reveal the
diksa-parampara of his guru? It is a common
practice that at the time of diksa the guru
reveals his guru-pranali, or the succession of
gurus back to the time of Sriman Mahaprabhu
and His associates.
d) According to Hari Bhakti Vilasa (2.8.5),
at the time of diksa the guru bestows the
specific sectarian signs he carries unto the
disciple: sampradayika
mudradi bhusitam tam
krtanjalim In his commentary on this verse, Sri Sanatana
Gosvami explains:
sampradayikam guru-paramparasiddham, "This sampradayika
refers to the guruparampara,"
and mudra tilaka maladi, "And mudra refers to tilaka and strings
of beads."
Consequently the recognized parivaras, like
Nityananda-parivara, Advaita-parivara,
Narottama-parivara and Syamananda-parivara,
have their specific tilaka-svarupa. If
Sarasvati received diksa, why is it that he
and his followers have adopted a tilaka which
was not worn by his diksa-guru, who must have
at the time of diksa given a specific tilakasvarupa
to Sarasvati?
e) Wherefrom did Sarasvati receive the sacred
thread and the brahmagayatri, which he
passed on to his disciples? Certainly not from
Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji, who was a
vaisya by birth, and did not chant the
brahma-gayatri, nor wear a sacred thread.
f) What is the origin of the specific set of
mantras given in the line of Sarasvati? Hari
Bhakti Vilasa mentions Gopala Mantra and
Kama-gayatri as diksa-mantras. The
paddhatis of Gopala Guru and Dhyanacandra
give an elaborate list of mantras for
41
raganuga-sadhana, but the guru-mantra
and guru-gayatri given by Sarasvati are
different from the ones given in these paddhatis.
Then let us turn to some of the source
material I have at hand. I find the following
statement of Bhakti Vikash Swami of ISKCON,
who is compiling a biography on
Bhaktisiddhanta, very interresting:
In 1932 Visvambharananda dasa Babaji, on
behalf of many babajis and caste Goswamis
in Vrndavana, published a book opposing
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his Mission,
citing extensively from sastra to support his
arguments. He challenged that the line of
parampara traced from Jagannatha dasa Babaji
through Bhaktivinoda Thakura to Gaura
Kisora dasa Babaji and then to
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was unauthorized.
Visvambharananda claimed that although
Sarasvati Thakura was supposed to be the
disciple of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, he was
disqualified in several ways. First, Sarasvati
Thakura did not accept as bona fide the
recognized lineage of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji,
whose guru was in the Advaita-parivara.
Furthermore, since Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji
had never used a japa-mala, and had not given
one to Sarasvati Thakura at the time of
initiation but had simply placed some
Navadvipa dust into his hand, Visvambharananda
argued that such an initiation was not bona
fide. The implication was that Sarasvati
Thakura had not actually received
pancaratrika-diksa from Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, so
how could he confer it upon others? Nor had
Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji worn a brahmana
thread, so on what authority did
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati wear one? Moreover,
Visvambharananda argued, Sarasvati Thakura
claimed to be a follower of Bhaktivinoda
Thakura, who was initiated by the caste
Goswami Bipina Bihari. Why then did
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati not accept
guru-parampara by seminal descent? Bhaktivinoda
Thakura had given him a Nrsimha mantra for
worshiping the Deity, yet Sarasvati
Thakura was giving a Radha-Krsna mantra for
this purpose. Wherefrom did he derive
this mantra, and on whose authority did he
distribute it? Visvambharananda further
objected that since Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati
was a sannyasi without a sannyasa guru,
how could he give sannyasa to others?
Sarasvati Thakura responded by explaining the
concept of bhagavataparampara, or
siksa-parampara. He maintained that the essence of
parampara lies in the transmission of
transcendental knowledge, not merely in a list of
contiguous names. The life of the parampara
is maintained by the maha-bhagavatas, who
embody the essence of scriptural knowledge.
Therefore, to trace the parampara through
such maha-bhagavatas truly represents
parampara. He said, "Bhaktivinoda Thakura is
Kamala Manjari, a personal associate of
Radharani. He ordered me to establish daivavarnasrama.
I must obey his order. The acarya is not
under the sastra. The acarya can
make sastra. Bhaktivinoda Thakura, the
acarya, has inspired me in various ways. By his
mercy and that of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji
Maharaja and the previous acaryas we are
going on, not caring for the precise
technicalities of smartas. "Although this concept of
bhagavata-parampara appears to be new, it is
based on the essential understanding of the
scriptures. Something new given by an acarya
but based on sastra is called vaisistya
(a special characteristic). Acaryas Ramanuja
and Madhva both apparently introduced
42
something new, but because their teachings
were based on sastra they came to be
accepted. Phalena pariciyate: 'An action
should be understood by its result.' My
commitment to devotional service and my
preaching activities speak for themselves. Owllike
persons cannot see this, but those who are
honest will accept it." Bhakti Vikash
Maharaj relates, "It [the quote from
BSST] is almost certainly not verbatim, especially as
it was originally spoken or written in
Bengali. It is as told to me by the late Jati Shekhar
Prabhu, a disciple of SBST."
I find it significant that even an insider
will admit that a traditional pancaratrika-diksa most
likely never took place, although a kind of
initiation was there, which they experience as
sufficient.
The following statement is given in a
biography, compiled by Bhakti Kusum Sraman
Maharaja:
"With the permission of Srila
Bhaktivinode Thakura, Srila Sarasvati Thakura accepted
Bhagavati initiation from Srila Babaji
Maharaja in the month of Magha (January-
February) 1900 A.D."
It is unknown to me what the "Bhagavati
initiation" means.
Perhaps it means a kind of
informal initiation, in the spirit of "Bhagavata
parampara".
The BBT printing of Brahma
Samhita states:
"In 1905, following the advice of his
father, Siddhanta Saraswati accepted spiritual
initiation from Gaurakisora dasa
Babaji."
It is obvious that the authority of this
statement is questionable, given the five-year error in
the date compared to the Gaudiya Matha
edition, which I recall draws the time from
Bhaktisiddhanta's own writings in "The
Harmonist".
Then I have some accounts related by Nitai
Das on record, from the time when he began
to study the issue:
The eyewitnesses I know of and from whom I
heard were eyewitness to Bhaktisiddhanta's
admission before Pandita Ramakrsna Das Baba
that he had not received initiation from
Gaura Kishora Das Babaji.
Bhaktisiddhanta was in the habit of visiting
Pandita Babaji during his visits to Vrindaban
since he was without a doubt the most
respected of the Caitanya Vaishnavas of the 1920s
and 1930s. On one occasion Bhaktisiddhanta
was highly praising Gaura Kishora Das in
Pandita Baba's presence. Pandita Baba asked
him if he had received initiation from him.
Bhaktisiddhanta said he had received it in a
dream. Pandita Babaji said that that was fine,
but he should receive it in the flesh since
that is the only type of initiation accepted in the
Caitanya tradition. Bhaktisiddhanta said he
would and ended the visit. A few years later
Siddhanta returned to Vrindaban, now the
acharya of the Gaudiya Math, a famous man.
He visited Pandita Babaji and was asked again
if he had gotten initiation from Gaura
43
Kishora Das Baba. His answer was the same, at
which point Pandita Baba got extremely
angry with him for making disciples without
proper initiation. Pandita Babaji threw him
out of the ashrama and Bhaktisiddhanta,
fearing damage to his reputation, began his
calumny of the Vrindaban babas and forbade
his disciples from associating with them.
This account was given to me by Advaita Das
Baba (I'm unsure if this is the correct name
of this baba after all these years) in
Govardhan who said he was witness to the admission.
. . . . . . . . . .
In addition, I did a little research on my
own. During one of my visits to Nabadwip I
visited the bhajana kutir/mandira of Gaura
Kishora Das Babaji and spoke with the pujari
there. I asked him if he knew whether Gaura
Kishora Das Babaji had any initiated
disciples. His answer, after consulting with
some of the other elders of the compound,
was that, as far as he knew, there were only
four, a married couple of modest means and
two others, agriculturalists, none of whom
were Bhaktisiddhanta. How he knew this and
how reliable his testimony is, I don't know.
The diksa-connection between
Bhaktisiddhanta and Gaura Kishor Dasa Babaji
was also denied by Sri Lalita Prasad
Thakur, his brother, who certainly was around
and well informed of the incidents
surrounding Bhaktisiddhanta. He also
expressed how Bhaktivinoda was dissatisfied with
Bhaktisiddhanta's attitude towards Vipin
Vihari Gosvami and several other senior
Vaishnavas, and therefore refused to personally
initiate Bhaktisiddhanta, despite
bestowing pancaratrika-diksa and
siddha-pranali to Lalita Prasad and some other
disciples of his.
The following statement was given by a
western sannyasi of the Gaudiya Matha:
"There were witnesses to the initiation.
Because there was a witness to the initiation of
Saraswati Thakura, even after 100 years the
opposition has not been able to make much
of that rumor. Now of course the witness is
also dead, but one of his relatives still lives in
Vrindavana and knows something of the
event."
I would tend to conclude based on the
considerations above that Bhaktisiddhanta did not
receive pancaratrika-diksa as it appears in
the Hari Bhakti Vilasa, though there certainly
was a kind of guru-disciple relationship
between him and Gaura Kisora Babaji, and some
kind of event of acceptance of disciplehood
may have taken place. The crucial question at
hand is whether diksa-mantras were given.
No comments:
Post a Comment