08/05/98 - 1966

Monarchs of Mantra Diksa

India (VNN) - by Swami B.G. Narasingha gosai@gosai.com

"It so happens that from time to time over the centuries the movement of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has come under strong criticism and ridicule by those who are either uninformed about the actual practice of pure devotional service or by those who are envious of the Supreme Lord and His pure devotees - the anti-party." (quote from our article Siksa Parampara)

At present most of the criticisms of our parampara are being aimed at Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura for what his critics have labeled as "introducing concocted methods of devotional service." In the articles Siksa Parampara, Eternally Liberated, The Benign Authority, and Initiation Process we have answered some of the main criticisms against our parampara and shown that for reviving and propagating pure devotional service at the beginning of this century Saraswati Thakura was indeed empowered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and that all of his so-called innovations were actually supported by scripture and previous Vaisnava tradition.

Up to this point there remains only one outstanding criticism against the parampara of Saraswati Thakura which we have not yet mentioned. This last criticism is coming from certain individuals among the Brahmin and caste Goswami anti-party in India. I say, coming from certain individuals in this community, because not all caste Brahmanas or Goswamis objected to the organized preaching efforts of Saraswati Thakur. Indeed many of the Brahmanas and Goswamis in India greatly appreciated Saraswati Thakura who initiated thousands of sincere individuals into the process of Krsna consciousness.

Those who begrudged Saraswati Thakura for having accepted the position of Acarya and having spread Krsna consciousness on a wide scale faulted him in the following manner:

"A sannyasi should not initiate (give diksa)! Only the grhastha-brahmanas should be allowed to give diksa."

Here the anti-party makes this criticism of Saraswati Thakura with utter disregard for the instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya yei krsna-tattva-vetti, sei 'guru' haya

"Whether one is a brahmana, a sannyasi or a sudra - regardless of what he is - he can become a guru if he knows the science of Krishna." (CC Madhya-lila, 8.128)

Neglecting this instruction of Mahaprabhu that the qualification to become guru is that one should know the science of Krsna, the anti-party has concocted their own standard by which they say that only the grhasthas (householder devotees) can give mantra-diksa. Ignoring the above verse the anti-party tries to claim that as Mahaprabhu gave charge of sambanda jnana to Sanatana Goswami, and abidheya jnana and rasa-tattva to Rupa Goswami, he also gave exclusive rights over the initiation process to the brahmana grhastha community, by giving the following instruction to the Kurma Brahmana, a grhastha.

yare dekha, tare kaha 'krsna' upadesa amara ajnaya guru hana tara' ei desa



"Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Lord Sri Krsna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam. In this way become guru and try to liberate everyone in this land." (CC Madhya-lila 7.128)

Thus the anti-party concludes that the position of giving mantra-diksa is exclusively the right of a grhastha-brahmana. This verse however does not mention mantra-diksa at all. The verse actually states, "kaha 'krsna' upadesa", tell everyone you meet about 'krsna' upadesa, the instructions of Krsna. "Upadesa" means instructions and giving instruction means siksa. Thus the proper translation of this verse leads to the understanding that the parampara which Mahaprabhu Himself advocated was a siksa-parampara. The verse in no way gives the position of mantra-diksa exclusively to the grhastha-brahmana community.

There are several variations of this claim being made against the bona fide followers of Mahaprabhu. Some sections of the anti-party stress brahminism stating that one must be born a brahmana and be a grhastha in order to give mantra-diksa. Another section says that if one is not a grhastha and a brahmana by birth, one should first enter the renounced order before giving mantra-diksa. In case after case the anti parties differ from one another in their conclusions on such matters - this is so because not only are they envious of Saraswati Thakura and his mission but they are also envious of each other. Each anti-party seeks to establish itself as the exclusive monarchs of mantra-diksa.

To further try and support their claim against the sannyasis in the Gaudiya line for giving mantra-diksa the anti-party quotes the following verse from Srimad Bhagavatam:

na sisyan anubadhnita grathan naivabhyased bahun na vyakhyam upayunjita na rambhan arabhet kvacit

This verse (Bhag. 7.13.8) describes precautionary measures for a sannyasi. The anti-party stresses, "na sisyan - he should not make sisyas or disciples!" This they conclude means that only the grhasthas (householders) should initiate or give mantra-diksa.

However if we continue to understand this verse in the same way as the anti-party has understood the meaning of "na sisyan" then the second line would mean that the sannyasi should not read books (granthan na), and the third line of this verse would mean that a sannyasi should not talk or preach ( na vyakhyam). In this way the whole verse becomes massacred due to self motivated interpretation. A correct understanding of the verse, as given by our Acaryas is as follows:

"A sannyasi must not present allurements of material benefits to gather many disciples, nor should he unnecessarily read many books or give discourses as a means of livelihood. He must never attempt to increase material opulence unnecessarily."

Rather than an admonishment to sannyasis who accept disciples in the course of their preaching Krsna consciousness, this verse is a chastizement to anyone (sannyasis or otherwise) who allure disciples by material means, read many books to become famous as a scholar, or maintain a livelihood by speaking the Bhagavatan (bhagavat-sapta or bhagavat-katha).

The words vyakhyam upayunjita refer to maintaining one's livelihood by speaking the Bhagavatam. This is strictly prohibited in this verse, na vyakhyam upayunjita - na means not. One should not maintain a livelihood by such means.

The fact is that Gaudiya sannyasis do not speak the Bhagavatam as a way to maintain their livelihood. In particular His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (a leading disciple of Saraswati Thakura) who spread Krisna consciousness around the world underwent such hardships to speak and spread the messages of Srimad Bhagavatam that he would sometimes go without food or even a proper place to sleep at night. It can hardly be said that he preached Bhagavatam as a livelihood. It is also true that such great personalities as Gaura Kishor dasa Babaji Maharaja, the guru of Saraswati Thakur, completely despised the professional recitation of Bhagavatam.

Once when the Bhagavatam was recited by a professional speaker near the cottage of Gaura Kishor, Babaji Maharaja requested his servant to go there and purify the place with cow dung. The servant replied that since the Bhagavatam had been recited at that spot what need was there to again purify the place with cow dung? Babaji Maharaja replied, "Oh, you have heard the Bhagavatam? I could not hear the Bhagavatam - I only heard that man say, 'Rupee, rupee, rupee'.

Among the sannyasis in the Gaudiya line we do not find any instance where one is speaking the Bhagavatam simply to earn a livelihood. On the other hand there are many so-called followers of Mahaprabhu among the brahmana and grhastha communities who speak Bhagavatam in the public - collect donations, and after returning home spend those donations for family maintenance or even for sinful activities like smoking, drinking and maintaining prostitutes.

For an authentication of the policy of a Vaishnava-sannyasi giving mantra-diksa, one can cite the examples of Sri Ramanuja Acarya and Sri Madva Acarya who were both sannyasis and who both gave mantra-diksa. However, it is a well known fact that the main spokesman for the anti-party claims that Ramanuja and Madva were hypocrites for initiating as sannyasis. Indeed this attitude alone demonstrates the ignorance of the anti-party.

>From the Gaudiya Vaisnava-sampradaya there are many examples of a sannyasi giving mantra-diksa - these occur even before the time of Saraswati Thakura. A foremost example is that of Madhavendra Puri (a sannyasi) who initiated Sri Advaita Acarya.

tanra thani mantra laila yatana karina calila daksine puri tanre diksa dina

"Sri Advaita Acarya begged to be initiated by Madhavendra Puri. After initiating Him, Madhavendra Puri started for South India." (CC Madhya-lila, 10. 139)

It should be noted here that Advaita Acarya was a brahmana by birth and a householder - what to speak of His being the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Maha Vishnu, yet He received mantra-diksa from Madhavendra, a sannyasi.

We also find in Caitanya-caritamrta that Madhavendra Puri initiated brahmanas (Vrajabhasis) at Govardhan Hill.

sakala brahmane puri vaishnava karila sei sei seva-madhye saba niyojila

"All the brahmanas present on that occasion were initiated by Madhavendra Puri into the Vaisnava cult, and Madhavendra Puri engaged them in different types of service." (CC Madhya-lila, 4.87)

In order to elevate those Brahmanas to the status of Vaisnavas, Madhavendra Puri initiated them into Vaisnava-mantra. It should be pointed out here that not only did Madhavendra Puri initiate as a sannyasi but he initiated brahmanas who were residents of Vrindavana and by his giving them initiation they became Vaisnavas. This is quite significant. According to the Padma Purana one cannot become a Vaisnava without being initiated into a Vaisnava-mantra.

grhita visnudiksako visnu-pujaparo narah vaisnavo 'bhihito 'bhijnairitaro 'smadavaisnavah

"One who is initiated into the Vaisnava mantra and who is devoted to worshipping Lord Visnu is a Vaisnava. One who is devoid of these practices is not a Vaisnava." (Hari-bhakti-vilasa,11. quoted from Padma Purana)

Similarly, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu also received mantra-diksa from Sri Isvara Puri who was a sannyasi. About Isvara Puri, Mahaprabhu has said:

prabhu kahe - isvara haya parama svatantra isvarera krpa nahe veda-paratantra

"Both the Supreme Personality of Godhead and Isvara Puri are completely independent. Therefore the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and Isvara Puri is not subject to any Vedic rules and regulations." (CC Madhya-lila, 10.137)

This is indeed a most profound statement. If one is a qualified spiritual master he is certainly qualified to give mercy. In the opinion of Mahaprabhu the bona fide spiritual master is not subject to any Vedic rules and regulations. Mahaprabhu made this statement to Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya in relation to Isvara Puri having accepted a disciple who was a sudra by caste.

Actually one is not qualified to become a guru based on caste or any other material designation. The proper conclusion is that one becomes qualified to give mantra-diksa if one knows the science of Krsna. Mahaprabhu has said:

kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya yei krsna-tattva-vetti, sei 'guru' haya

"Whether one is a brahmana, a sannyasi or a sudra - regardless of what he is - he can become a guru if he knows the science of Krsna." (CC Madhya-lila, 8.128)

This verse was directly spoken by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and as such it can be taken as the ultimate authority to defeat the anti-party propaganda that only a grhastha can give mantra-diksa. Nonetheless we have also cited some other interesting evidence for the satisfaction of our readers.

In a last ditch-effort to confuse the modern day followers of Saraswati Thakura the anti-party spokesmen often make reference to the incident of a man called Ananta Vasudeva. In his early career Ananta Vasudeva was a very close disciple of Saraswati Thakura. After the disappearance of Saraswati Thakura this Ananta Vasudeva took sannyasa and became a leading Acarya in the Gaudiya Math. After sometime, however, Ananta Vasudeva rejected his sannyasa and his diksa connection with Saraswati Thakura. Accompanied by another scholarly devotee named Sundarananda Vidyavinode, these two left the Gaudiya Math.

After leaving the Gaudiya Math Ananta Vasudeva declared that Saraswati Thakura was a conditioned soul who had simply concocted unauthorized means of devotional service. Ananta Vasudeva went to Vrndavana where he and Sundarananda Vidyavinode traded their connection with Saraswati Thakura for siddha-pranali diksa which they took from a certain member of the caste Goswami families. The anti-party likes to state this as their crowning evidence against Saraswati Thakura and his mission, to show that even his own disciples realized it was bogus. It so happens that not less than three different anti-party factions in Vrndavana claim that Ananta Vasudeva rejected Saraswati Thakura for siddha-pranali in their line. Each of these anti-party factions likes to claim that Ananta Vasudeva took siddha-pranali in their camp because they consider him to be a great trophy - trophy or symbol of shamelessness?

What the anti-party does not like to state however is the immoral character of Ananta Vasudeva both before and after he had departed from the Gaudiya Math. As an Acarya Ananta Vasudeva had become proud of his position (as did the infamous Romaharsan Suta of the Bhagavatam) and he began to lord it over his fellow Godbrothers causing them many unnecessary inconveniences and troubles. This resulted in vaisnava-aparadha which led to Ananta Vasudeva even criticising his own Guru and eventually engaging in illicit activities. These illicit activities led to the birth of an illigitimate child from a local prostitute. It was at this point, after his moral character and deviations from the siddhanta of Saraswati Thakura were exposed, that he decided to leave the Gaudiya Math.

Ananta Vasudeva then associated with certain Goswamis and babajis at Vrndavana who do not consider illicit sex or even homosex as an impediment to Krsna consciousness. It is shocking but many groups of babajis and Goswamis consided sex life, in whatever form, to be the same as passing stool or urine - therefore they do not consider it an impediment. They consider it a normal and harmless bodily function. Thus they sometimes engage in sex life as frequently as they pass stool. No mere wonder then that the anti-party lack sufficient brain substance to understand siddhanta.

Ananta Vasudeva had come to Vrndavana with his prostitute and thus he found the association of those babajis and Goswamis encouraging. In such association he could continue his attachment to illicit life, something which was not possible for him in the Gaudiya Math.

The anti-party with whom Ananta Vasudeva joined had previously been throughly defeated by the Gaudiya Math in the time of Saraswati Thakura. But now with Ananta Vasudeva among their ranks the anti-party found renewed strength to propagate their old arguments. This attempt to divert the flow of the Caitanya Saraswat-parampara, however, failed miserably because the sincere disciples of Saraswati Thakur, like their illustrious guru, were fully conversant with the conclusions of sastra and they could not be shaken in their guru-nistha.

Nonetheless the anti-party published three books in which they attempted to refute the siddhanta of Saraswati Thakur. This attempt was indeed formidable due to the scholarly mode of presentation but the publications, referred to as the "Tridant Against Gaudiya Math", only bolstered the already existing misconceptions of the anti-party members - dispite their scholarship and determination the anti-party could not penetrate with their misconceptions to the heart of Gaudiya Math.

After some years Ananta Vasudeva met an inauspicious end in life by committing suicide. As for Sundarananda Vidyavinode he simply vanished into the shadows.

For the most part, the devotees from western countries do not know all these unpleasant stories in detail. Therefore the anti-party tries to mislead them by using the example of Ananta Vasudeva - stating that Ananta Vasudeva was a highly qualified Vaisnava and that he rejected the institution of sannyasa because he realized that sannyasa and the siddhanta of Saraswati Thakura were bogus. But really what is bogus is the story that the anti-party tells.

In 1959 our Guru Maharaja, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada wrote a prayer (Sri Viraha Astakam) on the anniversary of the disappearance of Srila Saraswati Thakura wherein we find a reference to the disciples who had rejected their Guru. Srila Prabhupada wrote: "One of your closest disciples whose cup you lovingly filled to the brim with the deathless nectar of your instructions has ungratefully thrown away that chalice. And his regrettable preference for infectious poison has resulted in an epidemic of sahajiyaism. It seems that the prize valiantly acquired by the triumphant lion has at present been unscrupulously stolen by the jackal. The oppressive forces of nescience have reduced everyone to tears. And it appears that each of the young lions is again becoming a mouse".

The sad events surrounding Ananta Vasudeva and Sundarananda Vidyavinode indeed brought tears to the eyes of many of the dedicated disciples of Saraswati Thakura - but it did not deter them in their own faithful service to their Divine Master. The grace of the guru always flows to the sincere and dedicated disciple. Saraswati Thakura had many sincere and highly qualified disciples; Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Srila B.R. Sridhar Maharaja, Srila B.P. Puri Maharaja, Srila B.D. Madhava Maharaja, Srila B.S. Goswami Maharaja, and Srila B.P. Keshava Maharaja, just to name a few.

(The devotees in the west, often think and speak of Gaudiya Math as a complete failure but this is not a fact. There were indeed troubled times after the disappearance of Saraswati Thakura but his sincere disciples struggled through those times and in the end gloriously spread Krsna consciousness around the world and continue to do so up to the present moment. We see that the coverings of maya also enveloped many leading disciples in ISKCON after the dissapearance of our Guru Maharaja, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. In due course of time we see that some of those individuals have hatefully rejected the instructions of Srila Prabhupada, others have sunk to the lowest levels of immorality, while others have even ended their lives in a most inauspicious way. Maya takes advantage of the disappearance of great personalities and tries to again cover the path shown by the previous Acarya - but indeed the sincere disciples again manifest the path of pure devotional service. An institution can go astray at any moment, be it ISKCON, Gaudiya Math, or whatever - we are not concerned with the relativity of the parampara, the institution or society, we are to concern ourselves with the substance, the Absolute, the siddhanta. It is this parampara that continues decade after decade, century after century, and millinium after millinium - the bhagavat-parampara.)

Devotees should not become discouraged thinking that there are many criticisms against our parampara. In fact it may be said that these criticisms are a kind of recognition of our preaching success. Like the Srimad Bhagavatam the preaching mission of Saraswati Thakura was started to create a revolution in the minds and hearts of misguided and unfortunate people of Kali Yuga.

tad-vag-visargo janatagha-viplavo yasmin prati-slokam abaddhavaty api namny anantasya yaso 'nkitani yat srnvanti gayanti-grnanti sadhavah

"On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes, etc., of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the impious lives of this world's misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung, and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest." (Bhag. 1.5.11)

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura was indeed a powerful personality and it is historical fact that in his life no one was ever able to defeat his sound sastric evidence supporting the activities of the Gaudiya Math. His power was in his purity - not in word jugglery or wealth or any such things of this world. He spoke with such conviction backed by sastric reference that his critics were afraid to stand before him. For the most part the envious persons who opposed Saraswati Thakura simply barked from the back - they had no courage to oppose him directly. The kirtan of Saraswati Thakura was so grand that the sounds of the barking dogs were simply drowned in an ocean of ecstacy.

In the absence of Saraswati Thakura and his stalwart disciples the barking sounds of the anti-party can again be heard. But those who are intelligent and pious will embrace the missionary spirit of totalitarian war against illusion started by the senapati, great general among Vaisnavas, Srila Saraswati Thakura, and join in his illustrious line which is sanctioned by the Supreme Lord and by Srimad Bhagavatam.

Revolution means opposition or controversy and it is this controversy that helps us to increase our faith and attachment for Krsna.

siddhanta baliya citte na kara alasa iha ha-iti krsne lage sudrdha manasa

"A sincere student should not neglect the discussions of such conclusions, considering them controversial, for such discussions strengthen the mind. Thus one's mind becomes attracted to Sri Krsna." (CC Adi-lila, 2.117)

This series of articles, of which this is the fifth, along with other powerful articles by prominent acaryas, will soon be printed in a book entitled, "The Authorized Chaitanya-Saraswat Parampara." Look for information on our web sites:

gosai@gosai.com
http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/
http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/ Our Magazine on Line: Coming Soon!!