06/08/98 - 1853

Refutation of Swami Narasingha´s Twelve Statements

USA (VNN) - by Premananda Dasa

Sri Sri Guru-Gaurangau jayatah!

In the article 'Saraswati Prabhupada Parampara 2' Swami Narasingha mentions twelve statements that the 'anti-party' according to him hasn´t countered. Here´s my reply to the twelve statements. I don´t like to see our line being defamed and for this reason alone I write this article. First I want to say that I am not trying to defame or criticize any individual; I only want to refute what I and many other Gaudiya Vaisnavas believe are misconceptions about our Guru-parampara. If any devotee feels offended by this article, I beg your forgiveness. If my statements are not in harmony with the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition, Sadhu, Guru and Sastra, please inform me about my misconceptions. I will try to refute Swami Narasingha´s twelve statements as follows. Each point will be refuted, after quoting Swami Narasingha:

Swami Narasingha (SN): The anti-party has failed to demonstrate anything substantial - nor have they countered any of our statements in the previous article wherein we have shown; 1) that the parampara of Saraswati Thakur is indeed drawn from Bhaktivinode Thakur and Jagannatha Dasa Babaji not Bipin Bihari Goswami.

Premananda Dasa (PD): 1. According to the dictionary, the meaning of Parampara is 'continuous succession' or 'successive order'. You haven´t presented any evidence in support of your claim to be in the Parampara of Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur. The idea that you are in Srila Bhaktivinod´s line is of course related to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta´s conception of the 'Bhagavata-parampara'. But Parampara is always a Diksa-parampara by definition, in the Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya and all the other Vaisnava Sampradayas as well. In the Sri Sampradaya there is no such thing as a 'Bhagavata-parampara', Parampara always means Diksa-parampara. Only the Gaudiya Math branch of Gaudiya Vaisnavism has a 'Bhagavata-parampara'. If the Bhagavata-parampara is the original type of Parampara, then how come it didn´t exist before the time of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta in the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition? All previous Acaryas considered their Diksa-parampara to be essential (see my article 'Sankalpa-kalpadruma Nectar - illustrating the importance of Diksa-parampara'.). Srila Gaurakishora Babaji was not Srila Bhaktivinod´s disciple. That´s a fact. Nor was Srila Jagannath das Babaji Bhaktivinod´s Diksa Guru. Srila Gaurakisora Babaji´s Guru was in the Advaita-vamsa, from Santipur. All the Diksa disciples of Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur were initiated into the Parampara of Srimati Jahnava devi, descending through Srila Vipin Vihari Gosvami. He never gave anyone Diksa into some 'siksa-parampara'. Because at that time the siksa-parampara wasn´t invented. All paramparas were unbroken Diksa-paramparas, as they have been since Sri Caitanya´s time. Gaudiya Math may have a Diksa-parampara. But Srila Bhaktisiddhanta does not seem to have considered it to be important since he didn´t mention it as the succession of the Gaudiya Math. The mood of Srila Visvanath Cakravarti and other great Acaryas is different; in Sankalpa-kalpadruma he shows respect to and offers prayers to the whole Diksa-parampara first.

SN: 2) that Bhaktivinode Thakur took diksa, for decorum's sake only, from Bipin Bihari Goswami.

PD: 2. Srila Bhaktivinod doesn´t describe it like this. He had the association of many very advanced Vaishnavas prior to his diksha, but didn´t want to take initiation from any of them. He wanted the perfect Master. Srila Bhaktivinod writes in his autobiography that in a dream Mahaprabhu appeared and directed him to take diksa from Srila Vipin Vihari Gosvami. Srila Bhaktivinod describes his Guru as "the manifestation of the potency of Hari"! But Swami Narasingha obviously doesn´t agree with Mahaprabhu´s choice of Guru for Bhaktivinod! Srila Bhaktivinod writes:

vipina-vihari prabhu mama prabhu-vara sri vamshivadanananda-vamsha-shashadhara

"Vipina Vihari Prabhu, my exalted Master, is like a brilliant moon in Sri Vamshivadanananda´s family line." (from Bhagavat-arka-marichi-mala)

vipina-vihari hari tara shakti avatari vipina-vihari prabhu-vara sri-guru-gosvami-rupe dekhi more bhava-kupe uddharilo apana kinkara

"Vipina Vihari, my exalted Master is the manifestation of the potency of Hari, Who plays in Vraja´s forests. Seeing me in the dark hole of mundane existence, he appeared in the form a Guru Gosvami, to save this servant of his." (the commentary on Caitanya-caritamrita)

SN: 3) that Bipin Bihari Goswami did in fact reject Bhaktivinode Thakur (printed in Gaurangasevaka Patrika in 1919) for the reason that the Thakur had preached what the Goswami considered an untruth regarding the birth site of Mahaprabhu being at Mayapur and not at Navadwip.

PD: 3. The Swami mentions that the article was published in 1919, the year of Srila Vipin Vihari Gosvami´s disappearance. After the article was published, Srila Bhaktivinod and his Guru are supposed to have separated. How is that possible, considering that Srila Bhaktivinod left in 1914? It has not been proved that Srila Vipin Vihari Gosvami is the author of the article. It was not written in his name (at least that´s what I´ve heard; I haven´t read it myself), so the author could be some other person. There are reasons why many Gaudiya Vaisnavas didn´t accept the new janmasthan in Mayapur. Bhaktisiddhanta´s preaching was very aggressive and many Gaudiya Vaisnavas in Navadvip Dham were attacked by him. The Mayapur janmasthan became associated with Bhaktisiddhanta and his followers. For this reason Srila Vipin Vihari Gosvami´s relatives probably didn´t want to become associated with the Janmasthan that Srila Bhaktivinod found and therefore wrote the article in the Patrika. This is the only reasonable explanation. They didn´t want to become associated with Bhaktisiddhanta and his followers. Srila Vipin Vihari Gosvami would surely not reject Srila Bhaktivinod, who was a very dear disciple of his, practically at his deathbed and this five years after Bhaktivinod´s disappearance, only because Bhaktivinod claimed that another place was the actual Janmasthan.

SN: 4) that Bipin Bihari Goswami offended Raghunatha Das Goswami by considering him as born in a lower caste.

PD: 4. Srila Vipin Vihari never said this, Swami Narasingha makes it up. His idea is that Vipin Vihari Gosvami considered Brahmanas to be superior to Vaisnavas, which is not true. Here´s the evidence: By the way, it would appear from this same book, that the accusation of VVG (Vipin Vihari Gosvami) taking a stand against the superiority of the Vaisnava over the brahmana is without foundation. I translate (p.527-8): In 1909, he was elected to the position of president in the Sri-Sri-Krsna-Caitanya-tattva-pracarini-sabha, founded by Dr. Priyanath Nandi at 12 Upper Circular Road in Calcutta. With the help of the Gosvamis residing in Vrindavan, Navadvip, Santipur, Pabna, Vainci and Baghnapara, he edited a proposal for the reformation of Vaisnava society. On 22 Bhadra 1318 (Bengali = 1911 AD), he was present at a conference organized in Balighai in Mednipur district, presided over by Visvambharananda Gosvami, son of the Mahanta of Gopivallabhapur, Ramkrishnananda Gosvami, in which he argued for the supremacy of the Gaudiya Vaisnava religion, defeating Smarta Brahmana scholars.

SN: 5) that Saraswati Thakur defeated Bipin Bihari Goswami in the debate at Midinpur on Brahmins and Vaisnavas.

PD: 5. Not true. See my refutation of point 4 above.

SN: 6) that Bipin Bihari Goswami had the character of the lower Vaisnava-adhikari.

PD: 6. Where is the proof? He didn´t smoke, as SN claims. Even if he did: Can we judge the Maha Bhagavata, Srila Vipin Vihari, by his external behaviour? In Narasingha´s article there is a picture of Srila Vamshidas Babaji, who smoked tobacco and ate fish. Does that mean he "had the character of a lower Vaishnava-adhikari"?

SN: 7) that Saraswati Thakur reinitiated a leading disciple of Bipin Bihari Goswami thus showing his complete disregard for the idea that the Goswami was the guru of Bhaktivinode Thakur.

PD: 7. So? That means the disciple was ignorant. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta didn´t accept Srila Vipin Vihari, but Srila Bhaktivinod did, which I´ve already proved.

SN: 8) that Bhaktivinode was very pleased with the preaching of Saraswati Thakur and gave him his full blessings to defeat all types of philosophical misconception, to establish the birth site of Mahaprabhu at Mayapur and to establish the divine teachings of pure devotional service throughout the world (daiva-varanashram).

PD: 8. Not according to my Param Guru, Prabhupad Srila Lalita Prasad Thakur. It seems to be word against word on this point.

SN: 9) that ekadasa-bhava as practiced by the followers of Lalita Prasad Thakur is mental speculation.

PD: 9. And where is the evidence? It´s not mental speculation. The ekadasa-bhava as practiced by us comes through disciplic succession from the time of Mahaprabhu Himself. It is in complete harmony with the Teachings of Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur and Srila Gopal Guru Gosvami, as found in for example Harinama Chintamani, Sri Caitanya Siksamritam and Jaiva Dharma. Gaudiya Math´s (with the exception of Sripad Narayan Maharaj) and ISKCON´s rejection of siddha-pranali is not in harmony with Srila Bhaktivinod´s teachings though.

SN: 10) that hari-nama is a superior process to ekadasa-bhava as explained by Kaviraja Goswami in his commentary to Krsna-karanamrta.

PD: 10. Both are required. According to the person who Sriman Mahaprabhu instructed to write about Raganuga sadhana and ekadasha bhava, namely Srila Gopal Guru Goswami, ekadasha-bhava is an essential part of Raganuga Sadhana. But feel free to disagree with him if you don´t like the idea. It is not a question of whether Harinama is superior or not. Of course we admit the possibility, that one´s siddha-deha may be revealed by Harinama. But according to the authority Srila Gopal Guru siddha-pranali is given by the Guru. And Srila Bhaktivinod agrees with him, as is evident from his books.

SN: 11) that the siksa-parampara is the sat-guru-parampara and not simply the line of bodily succession (diksa-parampara).

PD: 11. Diksa-parampara doesn´t mean a succession of bodies in which 'dead mantras' are received, as Sridhar Maharaj put it once. Diksa means that divine knowledge, divyam jnanam is given to the disciple by the Guru. That divine knowledge is divided into two parts, knowledge about the Lord (which includes mantras that describe Him) and knowledge about the sadhaka´s specific relationship with the Lord (siddhapranali). Diksa-parampara is the line through which this divine knowledge is passed down. Therefore it is artificial to make a separate 'Siksa-parampara'. Diksa-parampara by definition includes Siksa-parampara, but the opposite may not be true.

SN: 12) that one receives entrance into the process of raganuga-bhakti at the time of initiation into the parampara of Saraswati Thakur.

12. That´s possible, but it´s not the same as the process of Raganuga sadhana bhakti that was taught and practiced by Srila Bhaktivinod, his disciple Srila Lalita Prasad Thakur, and is practiced by his followers. To be able to practice Raganuga-bhakti first of all a connection with the spiritual world in the form of Diksa-parampara is required. And that Parampara must be fully accepted by the devotee, otherwise he will not be connected with the divine service. This seems to be the generally accepted philosophy in the world of Gaudiya Vaisnavism.

The parampara of Gaudiya Math still is a big questionmark to most Gaudiya Vaisnavas. Since Bimala Prasad Thakur was initiated by Gaurakisora das Babaji, why didn´t he make known to his followers the Guru-parampara (as per diksa, which it by the way always is in all other Gaudiya or other Vaishnava lines) he was initiated into? (Which was the Advaita-parivara. Srila Gaurakisora´s Diksa-guru was Srila Nanda-kisor Gosvami of Santipur.) Did he not accept the Parampara? If he didn´t accept it, was the Parampara broken?

premananda@malmo.mail.telia.com