Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Narayana Maharaja's false teachings about Gaudiya Vaisnavism

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment