Unsubscribing to a dangerous misconception - by Sudhir Goswami Maharaj

Someone asked me today if I was the same person as Hiranyagarbha Das of Iskcon. Out of curiosity I Googled "Hiranyagarbha Das" and amidst all the German articles about the Hiranyagarbha, I found the following, which seemed pertinent to discussions that have been going on about revelation, loyalty to guru and such things.

I emailed Tripurari Maharaj and asked him whether these two articles by Sudhir Maharaj had affected his own mission at all in any way and he answered, "I felt their attacks had no negative consequences on my preaching. Their faithful already agreed with their conclusions, whereas others were mostly alienated from them rather than myself."

So I figured, I would post them here, but mainly because he calls me "the leader of the western world Sahajiyas"! I could not resist. Sudhir is quite a clever writer, so it's entertaining at least.

What's curious about this document is not his idea that one person's revelation is valid, but that it is valid and authoritative for everyone.


"All the devotees condemned Ramachandra Puri’s finding fault with Mahaprabhu, 'This sinful wretch has taken our life and soul.'

"Actually, we should not criticize others, but I have to say something against him because he is breaking our hearts.” — Paramananda Puri [Uddhava].

Prakrta Sahajiyas: The Next Generation, only on this voyage these guys have colluded to violate the prime directive (guru aparadha), and now channel the dark side of the force (prakrta rasa). A tenable explanation? Birds of a feather flock together (sadhau sangah svato vare).

Srila Sridhar Maharaja had to deal with similar fellows in his day. One of his Godbrothers also approached him, in fact, he was one of the original proponents of the same arguments. He was Ananta Vasudev Prabhu, the later, fallen acharya of Gaudiya Math. When his offenses reached the stage of guru aparadha he began questioning the legitimacy of Saraswati Thakur’s conceptions.

Remember Krishna consciousness means: conceptual. The bhakti lata bija (seed of devotion, Krishna-prema) is a spiritual conception transmitted from the heart of a Vaishnava into the heart of the aspiring disciple. Spiritually speaking, conception is substantial. That is why we are advised not to hear the Krishna conception from
anyone and everyone (avaishnava mukhodgirnam putam hari-kathamrtam sravanam naiva kartavyam): What to speak of the highest Krishna conception, the intimate affairs of Radha-Krishna, and Mahaprabhu's, Radha-bhava (radha bhava dyuti suvalitam naumi krsna swarupam).

Vasudev Prabhu approached Srila Sridhar Maharaja and tried to break his faith in Srila Saraswati Thakur. The crux of his argument was that Saraswati Thakur’s innovations were not Vedic. He offered evidence: The 108 sannyas names. Knowing Srila Sridhar Maharaja to be a Bhattacharya and Vedic Brahmin, he appealed to his samskar (background) by describing them as non-Vedic and challenged their authenticity. Srila Sridhar Maharaja responded by referencing a Vedic text. Then Vasudev Prabhu, the insider, revealed: “You don't know, we hired some pundits, Prabhupada dictated, they couched his concepts in Vedic language, and we published that book as Veda.”

At this point a man without guru nistha (inexorable faith) would collapse. Without hesitation Srila Sridhar Maharaja replied: What is Veda? And what comprises Veda? It is Divine revelation that has descended in the inspiration of the rishis. Sruti, is what has been heard—Divine Sound. The recorded realizations of those who have heard (conceived) the divine sound is transmitted as scripture. It is revealed truth, inaccessible to the mind, senses and intellect (scholarship) (avan manasa gochara, na bhaved grahyam indriyaih).

Revealed to whom? Rishis, saints, devotees, gurus (tattva drsi—tattva darshinah).
Those who are seeing and experiencing the Absolute Truth. Their recorded realization, in written form is known as scripture. Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and his paribar (spiritual family line), lead by Srila Saraswati Thakur et al., are the Vedic Rishis of the modern day. What they reveal through their divine inspiration and record in written form is no less valuable than the original Vedas themselves. Simplified, Vedas are: The words of God from the mouths of Rishis. Whether you transmit that aurally, write it down, or record it in any media, it is Veda.

In this way Srila Sridhar Maharaja established the validity and equality of the writings of Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Saraswati Thakur with Veda. But then something dramatic, even more divine descended. Srila Sridhar Maharaja revealed that the statements of Srila Saraswati Thakur and Bhaktivinode Thakur are even more valuable than the Vedas. At this point we might conjecture, every disciple sees his gurudeva like that, “My Guru is Jagat Guru!” (mat guru si jagat guru). The difference is Srila Sridhar Maharaja proved it.

What are the realizations of the Vedic Rishis? We are told in the Mahapurana Srimad Bhagavatam the Absolute Truth is known as Brahman, Paramatman and Bhagavan, The Vedas, Upanishads, mainly deal with Brahman, developing gradually toward Paramatman with a hint of Bhagavan, what to speak of aprakrta lila of Sri Krishna and the channah avatara of Krishna as Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (anarpita carim cirat, ujjvala rasam, radha bhava).

The conception of God as Bhagavan, Krishna with his potency (hladini shakti), develops from Narayan of Vaikuntha, to Ramachandra of Ayodhya, Krishna of Dwaraka, Mathura, Vrindavan, Govardhan, and Radha Kunda, with Srimati Radharani expanding at every step along the way to accommodate the transcendental desires of Swayam Bhagavan Krishna (tabhir ya eva nija-rupataya kalabhih). And in his most extraordinary manifestation, Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the Supreme entity Krishna is eclipsed, utterly overwhelmed by his potency, and converted into a devotee himself. It is the supreme triumph of devotion — Radha's heart defeats Krishna (radha bhava dyuti suvalitam naumi krsna swarupam).

Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Saraswati Thakur reveal this full-fledged theistic conception of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, and in so doing not only equal, but surpass Vedic revelation (mahatmya sima na tat). And no less than the Vedas themselves concur (Sruti Gana, Sruti Stuti, srutibhir vimrgyam). Having witnessed and participated in and Krishna’s rasa lila, they fell to the ground wailing, “Please forgive us! We did not know that the You (the Absolute Truth personified), possessed such, beauty, charm and sweetness (akhila rasamrta murti, achintya guna swarupam, raso vai sah). What we have described as Divine was rather an offense!”

The Vedas themselves admit to the superiority of the Krishna conception of Divinity. That sweetness (madhurya) with the added element of magnanimous distribution (audarya) is flowing as an infinite spring of nectar from the lotus feet of Gauranga (yatha yatha gaura padaravinde, yadi gaura na hoita tabe ki hoita kemane dharitam de). This is the inconceivable, ever increasing dynamic, sweetness and beauty of Krishna consciousness (krsna lilamrta sara, nava yauvana etc.).

How shall all of this be described or written about? Actually, only Krishna can properly describe and reveal himself. Kaviraja Goswami says, “To say I have written Chaitanya Charitamrta is false. I am like a wooden doll with Divine current passing through me by the mercy of the Lord and his devotees (‘ami likhi’,——eha mithya”). Sanatan Goswami Prabhu reveals previously unknown confidential conversations (su-gopyam) of Jaimini and Janamejaya, quoting Parikit to his mother Uttara, as the basis of Brhad Bhagavatamrta. To the empiric fact that he was not on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, Samjaya reveals, "By the mercy of Vyas I have heard Bhagavad Gita" (vyasa-prasadac chrutavan). And Ramananda Raya, who compares himself to a sitar being played by Mahaprabhu, says, “At the beginning of our conversation you said whatever I say must be supported with a quote from scripture, but I feel something in my heart that is not in scripture, yet goes even deeper.” He began to sing his own inconceivable song, with Mahaprabhu placing his palm over his mouth.

In fact, if we deny Divine revelation coming through his agency, Sri Guru, by choosing to focus on the background, the humanness, we commit offense and become the cause of our own misfortune. Even in the presence of Divine revelation, it becomes opaque and inaccessible. In Nyaya, logic, this is the fallacy of nagna matrka nyaya: Logic of the Naked Mother: Although she is in fact, mother, she is meditated upon as the naked girl she once was. In the Light of the Bhagawat, Srila Prabhupada takes it one step further: When the sky is clouded you can distinguish between the clouded section and the unclouded section (nitya baddha, nitya siddha). But just as when the clouds vanish there is no distinction, the sky is seen equally, when the clouds of illusion vanish, you can no longer impose mundane distinction upon a liberated soul, what to speak of those whom have descended from the supreme abode of Krishna on his Divine order.

Srila Sridhar Maharaja: "When we consider the extent of the spiritual wealth of Bhaktivinode Thakur, we can only conclude that it was not acquired in this lifetime and that he descended from the highest plane of spiritual reality".

What to speak of the works of Srila Saraswati Thakur and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, there are those who challenge the authenticity of the Brahma Samhita, saying it so much supports his conception, that it must have been written by Mahaprabhu Himself. In Srila Sridhar Maharaja's opinion, if that be the case, its value has increased infinitely! But to comprehend this requires faith, association, (adau sraddha, tatah sadhu sangha, etc.) The fundamental priniciples—the very foundation of Krishna consciousness.

Why did Srila Saraswati Thakur have his sannyasis read from Prahlad Charit and Upadesamrta at the divide of Radha and Syama Kunda? Poor water on the root of the Krishna conception of divinity and the fruit will automatically appear (nigama kalpa-taror galitam phalam). Devotion, and Chastity to the lotus feet of Sri Guru will deliver everything (etat sarvam gurau bhaktya purusho hy añjasa jayet). You will not be neglected under the ever watchful eye of Yogamaya.

This is why Srila Saraswati Thakur bestowed the name Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar, as he is the premier representative of his followers, who protects the rupanuga sampradaya from opposition, identifies apasiddhantic deviation, and carries with dignity the current of Sri Rupa Goswami. This is why this fallen soul, humbly rendered that title: Guardian of Devotion, which was happily accepted by Srila Guru Maharaja as appropriate and perfect.

Additionally, it is written by Srila Bhakti Sundar Govinda Dev Goswami Maharaja on the walls of Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math, Seva Kuñj, Vrindavan. There Srila Guru Maharaja sits on his rightful siddhantic throne beneath the umbrella of the lotus feet of Srila Rupa Goswami (Radha Damodar Mandir, Sri Rupa's samadhi and bhajan kutir).

I once asked Srila Sridhar Maharaja what was Vasudev Prabhu’s answer? He said his response was, “If he is siddha.” In other words, he had lost his faith in Srila Saraswati Thakur and come under the influence of scholarship and sahajiyaism. Scholars like Brzezinski prefer to frame the debate outside of the realm of faith, in the world of measurement — physical, mental, intellectual and historical assessment — but actually faith is our only access to the reality of that world (sraddha mayoyam loka, vaikunthera prthivyadi sakala cinmaya).

Herein lies the crux of the issue, it is always and exclusively a matter of faith — never empiric evidence. Faith means to the exclusion of all other considerations (krsna bhakti koile sarva karma krta haya). Srila Saraswati Thakur, (Surya Siddhanta Saraswati), the supreme jyotishi, astrologer, of his time took this point so seriously, that he deferred to the inferior, somewhat inaccurate calculations, of P.N. Bagchi over his own, because Bagchi's Pañjika (calendar) was followed by Bhaktivinode Thakur. Chastity to Sri Guru trumps empiric evidence.

Srila Saraswati Thakur also revealed "the pastimes of Krishna are not historical occurrences" (aprakrta lila). Spiritual life, belief in the Krishna conception of Divinity, is solely a matter of faith. Faith in Sri Guru is the foundation of spiritual life. And faith in the modern day Krishna consciousness movement must include Bhaktivinode Thakur, Srila Saraswati Thakur and his followers, our guru varga. Once our faith in guru becomes relativized and qualified, we impose mundane conceptions upon the Absolute, beginning with his devotee Sri Guru, then He goes far away. He will never consent to reveal himself (nayam atma pravachanena labhyo etc.).

After all Krishna says that He Himself is the guru (acharyam mam vijaniyam). The inspired side of the Vaishnava is guru. Krishna maintains his composure up to this point in Bhagavad Gita and then condemns those, who challenge his decent in human form, as "Fools! Asses! (avajananti mam mudha manusim tanum asritam). Krishna happily takes shelter in the inspired hearts, and jewel-like vision of his qualified devotees making himself accessible to the sincere souls of this world (hari vasana nayanam).

While Brzezinski pleads with us to adopt, what shastra calls "a hellish mentality", and consider the “humanness”—read: mundane imperfections—of Bhaktivinode Thakur, and our guru varga, in fact. Divine revelation as a concept, he too easily omits his own humanness and the failings of the scholarly method to ascertain divinity (jnane prayasam udapasya). Of this, our gurus have warned us all too well. There is also a certain amount of irony in the fact that these are among the very things we heard by the mercy of Srila Prabhupada from the first day we all joined His Divine Grace's mission, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

Let us never forget, we are all children of ISKCON and wouldn't have a clue about any of these things, if it were not for the mercy of Srila Prabhupada and his disciples. How is it that we have left the safety of his sangha (society) and become skeptical scholars, doubting Thomases, lying money manjaris, and mischievous monkeys—such a misguided group of gullible goons? By doubting the authenticity of Divine revelation as descended in the srauta pantha—disciplic succession.

bhrama, pramada, vipralipsa, karanapatava
arsha-vijña-vakye nahi dosa ei saba

“The inspired speech and writings of realized souls is not misconstrued truth, illusion, counterfeited substance or misconception.” —Sri Chaitanya Charitamrta.

This is Mahaprabhu's defense of the very same attack on Srila Vyasadeva—“his Truth is a counterfeit”—“he has misread his own book.” This is an old argument indeed. It was perfected by Shankaracharya, under Divine order, to bewilder the fallen souls, keep them faithless, and bound by illusion. Our sampradayas repeatedly takes a stand to fight this myth, recognizing it in all of its recurring forms—like a multi-headed, mutating hydra—and demolishes it (kaliya damana).

Brzezinski’s defense, “I'm just applying the scholarly method” has some merit. It's part of the answer, which is part of the problem. But the Bhagavatam says if you apply the scholarly method you will come up empty handed (nanyad yatha sthula-tusavaghatinam). Through the scholarly method one will "realize that God does not exist and that religion, albeit interesting, is a fantasy, a product of the human imagination." Therefore Srila Sridhar Maharaja condemns: "Scholarship is poison!"

karma-kanda jnana-kanda, kebala bishera bhandha,
amrta baliya jeba khaya

Remember, the Superhighway to hell is paved by scholarly construction. Krishna is very independent and will not submit himself to scholarly inspection. He exists "For Himself—By Himself"—“All Rights reserved” (abhijñah swarat, naham prakasha sarvasya yogamaya samavrtah).

Om—God Exists! Om—God Exists! Om—God Exists! Om

What we are searching for exists! But where? He is hiding in the heart of his devotees—mahajanas (nihitam guhayam). Real religion is in the hearts of his devotees and that will be verified in your own heart (hrdayena’ bhyanujñato). And the highest conception of Krishna is hidden within the heart of the highest devotee of Krishna. What is within her heart is so wonderful and inconceivably valuable that

Sukadeva Goswami shuddered in ecstasy and withheld her name from an assembly of the greatest sages in the universe, fearing that divulging such secrets, he would offend the lotus feet of Sri Guru (anayaradhito nunam, bhagavan harir ishvarah). And what is within her divine heart is known as Krishna consciousness. It attracts Krishna to her (sri krsna karsini ca sa). Krishna is her sole possession. She alone can reveal Krishna. How? By faith. In the words of Srila Guru Maharaja, "Faith is the halo of Radharani—the light by which others may understand Krishna." Srimati Radharani's Divine devotional mood illumines the entire spiritual domain as well as reveals Krishna within this world. Our guru varga is her serving group. Krishna cannot resist or refuse their sweet request to mercifully manifest within our hearts. If we offend his devotee, what to speak of the highest devotee—Sri Guru, we will lose our belief in God, what to speak of achieving the proper conception of Krishna and His Divine service (Radha Dasyam). The incessant dialectic of inner dialogue, the constant companion of a progressive devotee, intuits the necessity to advance in Krishna consciousness.

The dynamics of the Krishna conception demand that we reassess, re-conceive, take a stand and move forward. Srila Sridhar Maharaja gives the example of riding a bicycle: it necessitates forward movement or the rider goes down. But many good men, out of frustration with their Godbrothers, bewildered by societal concerns and politics, as a final act of desperation, think scholarship may bring some relief to their tortured souls, provide insight into the truth, and catapult them forward. But Krishna is not like that. His domain lies far beyond the reach of the senses, mind and intellect (Krishna nama, rupa guna lila—na bhaved grahyam indriyaih). Rather, Brzezinski’s intellectualism took him far away from Krishna and his actual devotees.

As Srila Govinda Maharaja says, “A good man and a good devotee are two different things.” Offenses to his Guru and Godbrothers took Vasudev Prabhu, a good man, away from the shining lotus feet of Srila Saraswati Thakur (mahad adbhuta pavana sakti padam, pranamami sada prabhupada padam). Finally, in the name of guru bhakti, the arrogance simmering in his scholarly ego boiled over: “I challenge Maya, can she take me from the lotus feet of Prabhupada!”

Abandoning his acharya chair, sannyas and his guru, he returned to his Sahajiya roots. He began pursuing “mañjari bhava” (the code word of prakrta sahajiyas), á la Swami and others. He went to Vrindavan, where so-called babajis and matajis, believe their sexy sadhana—rutting rati, lends insight to madhura rasa and parakiya bhava. An improperly administered cure only inflames the disease (vikriditam vraja-vadhubhir, tad eva hy amayam dravyam na punati cikitsitam). Nitroglycerine may be effectively used to treat heart disease (hrd rogam) but only when prescribed and administered by an expert physician. The liquid, rasa katha, is infinitely potent, yet volatile in the hands of the inept and inexperienced (piyusha-viprut-sakrd-adana-vidhuta-dvandva-dharma vinashtah).

Sound far-fetched? Srila Guru Maharaja tells the story of the Babaji and the mataji. One of the Radha Kunda babajis, whose reputation was spotless, passed away. For some of the babajis, his reluctance to transgress the regulative principles and “relish paramour love” was indicative of vidhi marga influence and a lack of raga marga penetration (parakiya bhava). Consequently, at his funeral one mataji began to lament, “He did not reach Goloka!” When suddenly, another mataji came forward indignantly, “What do you say? I know he reached Goloka, and I know it for sure!”

This is the pitiable destination for those who prematurely ejaculate the seed concepts: raga marga, bhavollasa rati, manjari bhava, etc. Srila Sridhar Maharaja would shake his head in disgust, “Wallowing in the mud of misconception, they think they are swimming in the divine waters of Radha Kunda.”

Paradoxically, Brzezinski is apoplectic. While he has no qualms about working with Swami, regarding the legitimacy and authenticity of the works of Bhaktivinode Thakur he is indignant: “How can a religion that needs lies to spread its message make any claims to be the truth?” Yudhisthir could have raised the same objection to Sri Krishna Himself. Someone is definitely lying—but who? That he and Swami should unite is entirely apposite, as well as revealing. Remember, Brzezinski is “troubled” by Bhaktivinode Thakur’s “ethics,” although he does not condescend and “despise him”. In the world we seek admission, the currency bears the imprint, “In Bhaktivinode We Trust.” But we will all be saved from Bhaktivinode Thakur's "counterfeit" substance, as Brzezinski and Swami etch their egos upon the glass surface of the jar of honey and produce the real thing: genuine spiritual literature (nanyad yatha sthula-tusavaghatinam).

When Srila Sridhar Maharaja says, "Hiranyagarbha [Brzezinski]—that sahajiya..." Swami renews his subscription to GBC Logic and counters, "Sridhar Maharaja is misinformed," like Vyas, he has misconceived and misspoken. Sridhar Maharaja's original response still applies: "I have got my own eyes and do not have to see things through yours!"

Has “the most expert of all our sellers” been sold a false bill of goods? Has the man responsible for the con in ISKCON been conned? It seems a bizarre, nightmarish farce, but that a once stalwart follower of Srila Prabhupada, has become the dupe of a group of Prabhupada tyagis is tragic. Therefore, we have been warned by Mahaprabhu, as echoed in our entire guru varga: asat sanga tyaga—ei vaishnava achara. That the presiding guru of a website known a Sangha (Association), should fail to grasp this point, the very foundation of spiritual life, is as ironic as it is pathetic. His Internet presence is insidious: it’s like watching someone morph into a sahajiya, in real time, through unsolicited email. I hereby "unsubscribe" to Swami and his duSangha Spamkirtan.

To launch into a litany of quotes about not seeing the guru as a man, the scriptures as mundane creations of men, avoiding bad association, specifically sahajiyas, what to speak of those whom have rejected your guru, would be futile. It's a little late for that. Swami may be so bewildered that he can no longer distinguish between spiritual substance and its antithesis (karyakaryam ajanatah). [Cf. Lost in a Masquerade]

Srila Sridhar Maharaja deplored “dollars diplomacy and despotism, in the name of devotion, dedication and divinity”. To appropriate his name and associate it with something he so despised, is spiritually unethical. That Swami masquerades as a intimate associate and follower of Srila Sridhar Maharaja, and drags his divine name through the mud of his misconceived, marketed, sahajiya-styled, “mañjari-bhava”, while his buddy Brzezinski vilifies Bhaktivinode Thakur, is ludicrous, repugnant, intolerable, and an offense to the lotus feet of Rupa Goswami.


Regarding the writings of Jan Brzezinski, [AKA, Hiranyagarbha, Jagadananda, Jagat] with specific reference to his internet posts featuring—Swami.

Without Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Saraswati Thakur, we are clay. What are the gifts of Bhaktivinode Thakur?

gurudam granthadam gaura
dhamadam namadam muda
bhaktidam bhuridam bande
bhaktivinodadam sada

— Srila Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar Dev Goswami

Everything! He has revealed the abode of Gauranga Mahaprabhu: Mayapur and Nabadwip Dham Mahatmya. He has given all of our scriptures and songs. He has given the Holy Name of Krishna. He gives devotion to Krishna and service to the holy feet of Srimati Radharani (Radha Dasyam) And he has given guru—Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur and associates (parshads). According to Srila Sridhar Maharaja, Srila Saraswati Thakur conceived of Bhaktivinode Thakur as Gadadhar Pundit and Srimati Radharani. Without our guru-varga we are nothing. Guru is the water, sisya the lotus, Krishna the sun. Without the water, the Krishna-sun burns the lotus.

It does not surprise me, however, that a follower of Lalita Prasad should have a mundane conception of Bhaktivinode Thakur. After all, Lalita Prasad himself viewed Thakur Bhaktivinode from a relative position. That Swami does not take issue with Brzezinski’s mundane conceptions regarding our guru varga is disturbing. Although, by his own admission, he is thoroughly acquainted with Brzezinski’s contentions, he prefers to suppress evidence while he recommends” him and vouches for Brzezinski’s “integrity”.

This reminds me of a Bengali saying regarding an Ojha (exorcist): An Ojha exorcizes ghosts by throwing mustard seeds while chanting mantras. But as the saying goes, “What can you do when the ghost is in the mustard seeds?” This is not your father’s Swami. His fissure with the strict line of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur widens under the slow poison of Brzezinski’s association and influence. He no longer finds Brzezinski’s opinions regarding Saraswati Thakur and Bhaktivinode Thakur offensive. Bhaktivinode Thakur is a "counterfeiting liar" etc. Saraswati Thakur is "illegitimate" and worse. For Swami these are isolated remarks. They can be explained. They are only “construed as offensive by fanatics” and are too “simplistic” to base judgment, “life and people are more complex.” The fanatics, the followers (apparently, there is little distinction) of Saraswati Thakur, he avoids, but Brzezinski, who has no faith in Srila Prabhupada, Saraswati Thakur, or Bhaktivinode Thakur, is a “friend” whose association is desirable, “one of the most valuable people… both in terms of knowledge and heart. Try to get to know him better...” etc. Sounds sensitive and insightful. But what is that knowledge? And what does he believe in his heart?

Swami’s advice, in the guise of loving exchange, is dangerous and directly against the instructions of Rupa Goswami and our guru-varga. When the so-called siddha purush, Advaita Das Babaji came to visit Thakur Bhaktivinode, the baba saw Saraswati Thakur offering his dandabats to Bhaktivinode from afar and was perplexed. Bhaktivinode Thakur offered an explanation: “This boy has vowed that he will not come within 100 yards of a sahajiya, and he saw you.” We worship this mood. But Swami considers this sort of "fanaticism” reactionary. “There is too much disparity between Mahaprabhu's followers today.” But it is Mahaprabhu himself who advised: asat-sanga-tyaga,—ei vaishnava-achara. Swami considers himself exempt. According to Srila Sridhar Maharaja, Sahajiyaism is the greatest enemy of devotion. But according to Swami, we should, “Try to find common ground with others and build relationships from there.”

Regarding sahajiya association, Swami writes: “[Bhakti Sudhir Goswami] thinks I cannot attain nistha or more, because of my association with [Brzezinski], and this betrays his lack of understanding in general. Indeed, it is ludicrous to him, for anyone to think that our cooperation [Bhagavad Gita etc.] can produce anything spiritual.”

Yes, together, with the leader of the western world Sahajiyas, Brzezinski, Swami will plagiarize spiritual literature and achieve name and fame among the ignorant. Actually, Swami and Brzezinski are the counterfeiters, illegitimately appropriating the works of our guru varga for their debased purpose. It is not, as Swami says, that by his association, Brzezinski is developing newfound appreciation for Srila Saraswati Thakur. This is a ruse. Unfortunately, just the opposite has occurred.

Remember, this is the same man whose “divine revelation” was to introduce “the changeup”. He confused preaching, with conning people at LAX into giving him $20 bills. I fear for him everything is a con. Swami is still using his cheating airport techniques. It has just reached a new level of sophistication. But now the stakes are higher. People are being asked to give their faith, their lives, their souls. In return, they are promised the purity of the Krishna conception of Saraswati Thakur and his followers, but are getting changed-up in the process. He now confounds purity with fanaticism. Those who emphasize difference and gradation, “have an agenda”. Those who uncover sahajiyaism are “sectarian”, “fanatics” who need to mellow out and get “balanced.” Truth is no longer the standard—rather, balance, eliminating differences, equilibrium—read, non-differentiation. His so-called preaching is beginning to sound like a litany of the New Age hokum found in the directory, Common Ground: “passionate love,” “expressing feelings,” “building relationships,” “achieving balance”, “meaningful sex,” ad nauseam.

Due to bad association, Swami is losing his discrimination. Otherwise, how can he not realize the absurdity of his own statements: “While Jagadananda [Brzezinski] is not a card carrying member of the Gaudiya Saraswata Sampradaya...” Duh! This is like saying, “While Sishupal is not a card carrying member of the Sri Krishna Fan Club…” Or, “[Brzezinski’s] position on contentious issues at this date is very different from what it was 25 years ago when he [rejected Srila Prabhupada and] went to Lalit Prasad.” Yes, it is very different. He is even more offensive. What to speak of Saraswati Thakur, now he even rejects Thakur Bhaktivinode! But for Swami, this is merely a “comment or two on time place innovations... construed as offensive by fanatics.” Not to worry.

We can only conclude that he is trying to con us. He is deceitful. He is trying to trivialize things that are crucial—to take our minds off the money. He is still doing the changeup. Either knowingly or unknowingly, he has come under Brzezinski’s influence.

To be fair, Brzezinski does not represent himself as anything other than what he is—an enemy of our sampradaya. He lost his faith long ago. He may be a scholarly sahajiya, with a pleasant smile, gentle demeanor, sense of humor, and be thorough, thought provoking and considerate, an all around nice guy. He may even try his best to render acceptable, neutral translations.

His scholarship is attractive to many, like a jewel on the hood of a cobra. But he is a formidable opponent, who consistently leads the opposition to our guru-varga, challenging its veracity, and dismissing its legitimacy. His position remains unchanged. To his credit, he does not advertise himself differently. That Swami chooses to suppress this, becoming his patron, is an alarming development and deplorable.

But remember this: Brzezinski is not only a sahajiya, but a guru-tyagi as well. And with his scholarly ascent, the list of those whom he is willing to tyag grows—note the elimination of Bhaktivinode. That is why Srila Sridhar Maharaja said, this route, challenging the authenticity of our guru-parampara, “ends in atheism.” When your faith is broken in one, the rest topple like dominos.

Do not underestimate Brzezinski. By his association and patronage we can expect a similar result—the destruction of our faith. Swami entices us, come closer, “get to know him better.” But I beg you to carefully consider the following in your heart: If it is a hundred yards for Srila Saraswati Thakur, how far should it be for men like us?

You've got to love (prema rasa niryasa korite asvadan) those notes in brackets, amusing (ananda cinmaya hasya rasa pratibhavitabhis) like anything (anantam visvato mukham).

Don't you think this belongs under the Gaudiya Math section though?

Frankly I remain unaffected by his prakrit sahajiya paradigm for Radha Krishna -
that they are on par with the Yin/Yang, Shakti/Shaktiman,
Prakrit/Purush complementarity
that comprehends the ubiquitous Absolute.

I am neither dismayed nor swayed by such concepts.
I am curious where and how he arrives at this position.
To think that the lover of Brajendra is a Goddess!

He ejac, er, ennunciates quite well (A well? Oh, frogs. I've got a reference about frogs: somewhere.) His above average alliteration accentuates the innuendo, cliches, and recycled, context-less matter that pad out the basic "philosophical" points. Some of his statements misfire, perhaps:





As much as I appreciate the Swami's guru nishta and service, it is distasteful to witness this kind of grandiose diatribe--a single word from Sridhara Maharaja or an action performed in the past is enough to pigeon-hole someone for life. That's not faith but intellectual laziness and arrogance, two qualities which have unfortunately come to characterize much of Western Gaudiyism.

Interesting that BR Sridhar Maharaja did not reject the story of the hired hands manufacturing scriptures.

He must mean sajatiyasaya here rather than svato vare.
Or is he saying Jagat is more advanced than Swami? Or vice versa?

From my acquaintance with Sudhir Goswami I can tell you that these are not written articles, rather recorded speeches embellished with further quotes later, and some editing perhaps. When Sudhir speaks, everyone listens- and laughs. He speaks in such way that defines the audience, gives it identification, you know who you are and you feel good about it, because the others, the ones he speaks about look so bad. He is at his rhethoric best when exposing others. But that "best" then is way overdone.

Remember his diatribe against Tinkudi Goswami? The word plays there, and the utter avoidance of even the slightest respect for an other human being, let alone bhakta and siddha-mahatma... It is having had the sangha of Sridhar Maharaja which makes them speak like this. Sri B. R. Sridhar was such an impressively great personality (his opposition, nay enmity, to the radha-kund babajis, and to Sri Lalita Prasad ji, the "sahajiyas" in general aside) that they feel anything they do and say is done in service to him. They are blinded by that greatness, sadly, and undo their own by doing what they do. May God bless them.

Reminds to what the Catholic church called a heretic - usually they burned heretics on a stake. Until Martin Luther came and exposed the Catholics so perfectly that they had to accept him and let him start the Protestant church. Of course its a far fetched example. He wasnt alone, who backed him up? Melanchthon?

Luther was on Augustine monk who protested against the misuse of the Church to grant absolution of mortal sins for money (money instead of an obligatory pilgrimage to Rome). Originally he wanted to reform the church, as many other reformers too, e.g. Saint Francis of Assisi. Often the Church managed to integrate reformers, like they did with the latter. At Luther's time there was much political and social unrest in Germany, so it was not possible to contain him, especially by a Church in Rome that did not understand the trans-alpine situation. Luther was then excommunicated because he did not accept the authority of the Pope.

A lot of people died later also on stakes prepared by Lutherans, in the witch-hunt. Especially puritans need to malign others to establish their own sanctity.

I dont believe in numerology, but still its funny that you have a 666 for this post!

*nods* Without the kindness of a certain Mr Brzezinski so many beautiful books and other things would not be available to devotees and to the wider world for preaching.

What really bugs me about Sudhir, though, whether he's philosophically right or wrong, is his utter lack of respect for anyone. He's soooooo rude. Heck, it's like Gaudiya Vaisnava debating rule number one: if you're still civil and polite to someone, even if you hate their philosophy, they'll respect you at the end of it! (So will everyone else, and you might just change their minds...) Like others have said, he has missed something of what Srila Sridhara Maharaja respresented, sadly.

Another rude thing I don't appreciate - which I had not noticed until I re-read Sudhir's diatribe - was that although he is referring to Srila Tripurari Swami, he does not once refer to him by name, instead just calling him 'Swami'. The uninformed do not have a clue what this scholar is on about. (Oh, but he criticises scholars... strange!) I call him a scholar because these sanskrit slokas may be cute, but to those who don't know their meaning, worse than useless.

Swami is a title that is often used alone in polite reference.

The manipulation of names is a propaganda strategy. In Iskcon and its offspring, people tend to use the karmi names of those they believe to be "fallen." There is also a tendency now to use puns to mock those individuals.

The proper etiquette is to simply follow the individual's own usage. Tripurari Maharaj generally signs letters "Swami," so I don't think this is particularly offensive. However, Dhanurdhar Maharaj was critical of me for not having used the honorific Maharaj every single time I mentioned his name in the book review I did of Waves of Devotion. So there is some merit to Ramakeshava's point.

I personally find the use of my non-devotional name in the context above a deliberate attempt to neutralize any spiritual merit that my writings may have.

When I wrote about Bhaktivinoda Thakur, I considered the point made by Sridhar Maharaj above. But what I was facing overall is the huge problem that is at the center of most people's problems with faith. The whole question of authority--whether that of guru or of shastra--is one that is extremely troubling. The main problem, in my opinion, is through "my guru right or wrong" thinking we become locked into a sectarian attitude and deny the common experience of humankind.

If I insist that a snake is a rope because my guru told me, despite the universal insistence of others that it is not, ignoring the valid proofs that they provide, then I am not only cutting myself off from humanity in an artificial way, but I am also cutting myself off from Guru, because Guru is the "teller of the truth" no matter where it comes from.

We have to find an accomodation for both gurus and Guru, but this is not always easy. My solution is to follow the path of love and respect.

I think there is often a conflict of esoteric/exoteric relation, or internal monologue/external dialogue. I have my heartfelt relationship with my guru, and I am representing my connection to others. To expect the same respect from others that I am giving to guru, is not realistic. I think a similar polarity exists in relation to truth. I may accept everything as said by my guru, because it is based on my subjective plane of relationship; when I am relating to others, I am entering a different field of exchange.

People who take everything as absolute and mix the two spheres, take indeed the risk that Sridhar Maharaja names, of losing their faith altogether. (Sridhar Maharaja later developed his justification paradigm of "die to live", which could be translated to "accept the impossible, in order to receive the most wanted".)

I would actually be quite interested in seeing a coherent summary of Sridhar Maharaj's philosophy. I have several of his books, but I haven't studied them. Perhaps one of his disciples could be persuaded to write some kind of thesis, which isolates the novel elements that seem to permeate his writings and discourses.

It is clear to me that Sridhar Maharaj was in many ways the most original thinker in the Gaudiya Math. He was not stuck in a rut, thought-wise.

[quote]Do not underestimate Brzezinski. By his association and patronage we can expect a similar result—the destruction of our faith. Swami entices us, come closer, “get to know him better.” But I beg you to carefully consider the following in your heart: If it is a hundred yards for Srila Saraswati Thakur, how far should it be for men like us?
[/quote]

I seem to be unaffected by Jagats viral potency, my faith is not changed one iota from hearing His words. Methinks mayhaps a hyperbolic hysteria has happenstanced in his holiness's harangue ?


[quote]
Prakrta Sahajiyas: The Next Generation, only on this voyage these guys have colluded to violate the prime directive (guru aparadha), and now channel the dark side of the force (prakrta rasa). A tenable explanation? Birds of a feather flock together (sadhau sangah svato vare).
[/quote]

Is Guru aparadha defined as having a different opinion ?

I think we should reserve the "aparadha" to the realm of trying to inflict harm willfully or an attitude of pompous disrespect, simply disagreeing is not an aparadha, it doesn't matter what the disagreement is about, an "aparadha" is about attitude and intent, it is not about philosophical difference.

As far as "prakrta rasa", I really don't see any difference in what Jagat believes and what is believed by most other Gaudiyas, there may be some minor differences here and there, but in the end it is more or less the same final conception, don't the Sridhar Sanghites exalt manjari bhava ?


[quote]Remember Krishna consciousness means: conceptual. The bhakti lata bija (seed of devotion, Krishna-prema) is a spiritual conception transmitted from the heart of a Vaishnava into the heart of the aspiring disciple. Spiritually speaking, conception is substantial. That is why we are advised not to hear the Krishna conception from
anyone and everyone (avaishnava mukhodgirnam putam hari-kathamrtam sravanam naiva kartavyam): What to speak of the highest Krishna conception, the intimate affairs of Radha-Krishna, and Mahaprabhu's, Radha-bhava (radha bhava dyuti suvalitam naumi krsna swarupam). [/quote]

From what I have read from Jagat he has the same exact conception of Radha Krsna rasa lila as the Sridhar Sangha, unless I missed something don't both Sri Caitanya Saraswat followers teach manjari bhava under Sri Rupa as the highest conception as well as Jagat ?

It's the same conception, there may be differences in details on side issues, but here Sudhir is specifically mentioning Rasa lila, while they may disagree on details on what is acceptable to attain the highest realm, both sides have the exact same highest conception.

[quote]Vasudev Prabhu approached Srila Sridhar Maharaja and tried to break his faith in Srila Saraswati Thakur. The crux of his argument was that Saraswati Thakur’s innovations were not Vedic. He offered evidence: The 108 sannyas names. Knowing Srila Sridhar Maharaja to be a Bhattacharya and Vedic Brahmin, he appealed to his samskar (background) by describing them as non-Vedic and challenged their authenticity. Srila Sridhar Maharaja responded by referencing a Vedic text. Then Vasudev Prabhu, the insider, revealed: “You don't know, we hired some pundits, Prabhupada dictated, they couched his concepts in Vedic language, and we published that book as Veda.”

At this point a man without guru nistha (inexorable faith) would collapse. [/quote]

Collapse ? Did I miss something ? Uh...Bhaktisiddhanta dictated and professional theologians made it sound right for the intended audience. I don't feel faint...anyone else ?


[quote]What are the realizations of the Vedic Rishis? We are told in the Mahapurana Srimad Bhagavatam the Absolute Truth is known as Brahman, Paramatman and Bhagavan...[ long part about the validity of the gaudiya gurus] ..."By the mercy of Vyas I have heard Bhagavad Gita" (vyasa-prasadac chrutavan). And Ramananda Raya, who compares himself to a sitar being played by Mahaprabhu, says, “At the beginning of our conversation you said whatever I say must be supported with a quote from scripture, but I feel something in my heart that is not in scripture, yet goes even deeper.” He began to sing his own inconceivable song, with Mahaprabhu placing his palm over his mouth.

In fact, if we deny Divine revelation coming through his agency, Sri Guru, by choosing to focus on the background, the humanness, we commit offense and become the cause of our own misfortune. Even in the presence of Divine revelation, it becomes opaque and inaccessible.[/quote]

Isn't divine revelation in the eyes of the beholder ?

If divine revelation is to be accepted as a dogmatic set of official views and ideas then it is not revelation, it is dogma.

Divine revelation means something unseen is being brought to ones vision, if you are told what is divine revelation and then a demand is made that you accept that as divine revelation, that is not revelation. That is official dogma. Actual divine revelation means that a person has the truth of something revealed to him, if that person does not accept a dogma then that does not mean he rejects divine revelation, nobody rejects divine revelation, that is the nature of revelation, it is self evident, it reveals itself, it is not something that must be accepted as dogma.

[quote]Srila Sridhar Maharaja: "When we consider the extent of the spiritual wealth of Bhaktivinode Thakur, we can only conclude that it was not acquired in this lifetime and that he descended from the highest plane of spiritual reality".[/quote]

Should we condemn anyone who doesn't accept the words of all the acharyas within a spiritual lineage as being offenders ?

If this were the case then by taking this logic to it's ultimate conclusion we would not be a preaching mission, everybody who is not allready fully surrendered to our line of saints is automatically an offender, and by this calculation we cannot associate with them as their disbelief will destroy our ever so weak faith.

One man's divine revelation is another man's mystery. If you have had an actual divine revelation then your faith would be immovable and this entire line of reasoning would be moot.

[quote]Why did Srila Saraswati Thakur have his sannyasis read from Prahlad Charit and Upadesamrta at the divide of Radha and Syama Kunda? Poor water on the root of the Krishna conception of divinity and the fruit will automatically appear (nigama kalpa-taror galitam phalam). Devotion, and Chastity to the lotus feet of Sri Guru will deliver everything (etat sarvam gurau bhaktya purusho hy añjasa jayet). You will not be neglected under the ever watchful eye of Yogamaya.
[/quote]

Devotion means spontaneous willfull choice, if we attempt to force our conception on someone who has not had that "truth" revealed to him then we are not serving the mission of the Guru. Chastity to the Guru in the line of Sri Gauranga means the mood of magnanimity. If we attempt to force our "revealed truth" on someone who doesn't accept that, then reject that person as an offender, then we violate our oath of Chastity to Sri Guru. Is the mission of Sri Guru enforcement of dogma or is it the distribution of mercy unconditionally ? What was the mood of Sri Gauranga when attacked by Jagai and Madhai ? Did he reject their association ?

[quote]This is why Srila Saraswati Thakur bestowed the name Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar, as he is the premier representative of his followers, who protects the rupanuga sampradaya from opposition, identifies apasiddhantic deviation, and carries with dignity the current of Sri Rupa Goswami. This is why this fallen soul, humbly rendered that title: Guardian of Devotion, which was happily accepted by Srila Guru Maharaja as appropriate and perfect. [/quote]

The Rupanuga sampradaya needs no protection. It is ourselves that need protection from the enemies within, ego, pride, jealousy, desire for fame fortune and followers, etc. We need protection from the tendency to over rate our own understanding, we need protection from the tendency to cheat our selves into thinking we have aquired the highest thing and it is ours to give out when in fact we have never experienced the thing we preach about...Radha Krsna sangha.

[quote]Scholars like Brzezinski prefer to frame the debate outside of the realm of faith, in the world of measurement — physical, mental, intellectual and historical assessment — but actually faith is our only access to the reality of that world (sraddha mayoyam loka, vaikunthera prthivyadi sakala cinmaya).
[/quote]

Sanyassis like Murphy like to frame the debate using hyperbolic inflammatory rhetoric. From what I have seen Jagat frames his debates using both the intellectual and faith driven approach in his writings.

[quote]
Herein lies the crux of the issue, it is always and exclusively a matter of faith — never empiric evidence. Faith means to the exclusion of all other considerations (krsna bhakti koile sarva karma krta haya).[/quote]

What is faith based upon if not empiric evidence ?



Faith is strongest when based on empiric evidence. If faith is not based upon experience of revelation then that faith is easily changed. First he argues for acceptance of divine revelation then tells us that Faith alone sans experience or revelation is our exclusive path.

[quote]
Srila Saraswati Thakur, (Surya Siddhanta Saraswati), the supreme jyotishi, astrologer, of his time took this point so seriously, that he deferred to the inferior, somewhat inaccurate calculations, of P.N. Bagchi over his own, because Bagchi's Pañjika (calendar) was followed by Bhaktivinode Thakur. Chastity to Sri Guru trumps empiric evidence.
[/quote]

How does this example show that faith is exclusive to empiric evidence ?

If you admit to the inferior and inaccurate calculations of Bagchi aren't you guilty of that which you are condemning ? Empiric evidence over faith ? Shouldn't your faithfull vision be that Bagchi is correct and that your vision is inferior and inaccurate ? We see here a simple respect shown to a father or guru, not blind acceptance, there is a difference, the analogy is false.

[quote]Faith in Sri Guru is the foundation of spiritual life. And faith in the modern day Krishna consciousness movement must include Bhaktivinode Thakur, Srila Saraswati Thakur and his followers, our guru varga. [/quote]

Why is that ? Is Radha Krishna held hostage by them ?

Is God unable to enlighten anyone however s/he chooses ?

[quote]Once our faith in guru becomes relativized and qualified, we impose mundane conceptions upon the Absolute, beginning with his devotee Sri Guru, then He goes far away. He will never consent to reveal himself (nayam atma pravachanena labhyo etc.).
[/quote]

Is the mood of Sri Gauranga so demanding ? Should we see God as relative to our own understanding ? Without the ability to act in a way outside of our vision ?
Is Mahaprabhu restricted to our idea of what to do and how to do it ?

[quote]After all Krishna says that He Himself is the guru (acharyam mam vijaniyam). The inspired side of the Vaishnava is guru. Krishna maintains his composure up to this point in Bhagavad Gita and then condemns those, who challenge his decent in human form, as "Fools! Asses! (avajananti mam mudha manusim tanum asritam). Krishna happily takes shelter in the inspired hearts, and jewel-like vision of his qualified devotees making himself accessible to the sincere souls of this world (hari vasana nayanam). [/quote]

If I see the inspired part of someone and another person doesn't see that, what then ? When Krishna claims that those who reject him when he descends in human form are mudha's, this isn't the same as those who cannot appreciate the Guru in a vaisnava or his words, this is more hyperbole.

When Krishna descends he performs miraculous deeds, he is the acme of beauty and love and opulence and all good qualities and talents, it is simply arrogance to not see that Krishna is a special person, those people are compared to mudhas.

A Guru is in an altogether different category, a bona fide Guru may reveal that side to only one person, or one million, it is not the same as Krishna in all his glory.

It is subjective, even Sridhar Maharaja spoke on the subjective nature of Guru tattva. My godbrother may be seen as Guru by his disciple, I may see him as the object of a joke or prank, Guru tattva is subjective in that what may be specifically inspiring for one person may have no relevance for another.

If the inspired part of the devotee is Guru then that is purely subjective and personal, if that inspiration is revealed as such to you then that is Guru, to another it may not be.

[quote]While Brzezinski pleads with us to adopt, what shastra calls "a hellish mentality", and consider the “humanness”—read: mundane imperfections—of Bhaktivinode Thakur, and our guru varga, in fact. Divine revelation as a concept, he too easily omits his own humanness and the failings of the scholarly method to ascertain divinity (jnane prayasam udapasya). Of this, our gurus have warned us all too well. There is also a certain amount of irony in the fact that these are among the very things we heard by the mercy of Srila Prabhupada from the first day we all joined His Divine Grace's mission, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.[/quote]

If the inspired part of the devotee is Sri Guru, what of the rest ? Are we to become idolators against our conscience in the name of faith ?

What meaning is there to "inspired part of the devotee" if there is no non inspired part ? Wouldn't every moment and action of the Guru be absolute in our view ?

If there is an inspired part or Guru tattva then automatically there has to be a non inspired part, the human side, the devotee side. If we need to believe that the devotee is absolute and beyond any error or imperfection in all things at all times then Guru tattva has no meaning. Then our faith is a bodily or mental affair, we see the body or mental aspect of the Guru as God and then there is no discrimination between the vaisnava acharya and God. The Guru becomes an idol, and if and when we see an imperfection in a word or action, the entire edifice of our faith crashes because we have our faith in the "perfection" of the vaisnavas body and mind instead of the inspired side, "Sri Guru".

[quote]Let us never forget, we are all children of ISKCON and wouldn't have a clue about any of these things, if it were not for the mercy of Srila Prabhupada and his disciples. How is it that we have left the safety of his sangha (society) and become skeptical scholars, doubting Thomases, lying money manjaris, and mischievous monkeys—such a misguided group of gullible goons? By doubting the authenticity of Divine revelation as descended in the srauta pantha—disciplic succession.
[/quote]

How about the millions of Indians who have not been introduced to gaudiya thought by Srila Prabhupada, are they free to behave like gullible goons ?

This logic means that anyone who did not come to Mahaprabhu by Srila Prabhupada is free and clear to be "deviant" while the rest of us are subject to some arcane allegiance. Is this what Sridhar Maharaja meant by the free flow of faith ? Is doubt a crime ? Can you enforce or punish someone for not having belief or faith or doubt ?

[quote]Brzezinski’s defense, “I'm just applying the scholarly method” has some merit. It's part of the answer, which is part of the problem. But the Bhagavatam says if you apply the scholarly method you will come up empty handed (nanyad yatha sthula-tusavaghatinam). Through the scholarly method one will "realize that God does not exist and that religion, albeit interesting, is a fantasy, a product of the human imagination." Therefore Srila Sridhar Maharaja condemns: "Scholarship is poison!"
[/quote]

This is some more hyperbole. Are we to understand that scholarship in and of itself is a bad thing by these words ?

What kind of scholarship is bad ?

Learning sanskrit or bengali ?

So then all of the Acharyas are poisoned ?

Doesn't he mean that the scholarly approach alone to sastra will lead to faithlessness ?

If we were to reject all scholarly endeavors then how would we be able to understand anything ? Don't we need to learn how to read ? Isn't that a scholarly endeavor ?

Isn't the real warning about trying to rely solely on the scholarly approach without application of the sadhana ?

Then when confronted by seemingly impossible or mystical revelatory dogma one will reject it due to not ever experiencing the potency of the teachings when applied in the way they are meant .

Not that a scholarly approach is bad in and of itself, just that by relying solely on the study of the path of Gaudiya bhakti you cannot appreciate the truth, without practicing what is in the teachings you will not have the truth revealed.

Jagat preaches no such thing as a solely scholarly approach sans practice.

[quote]Remember, the Superhighway to hell is paved by scholarly construction. Krishna is very independent and will not submit himself to scholarly inspection. He exists "For Himself—By Himself"—“All Rights reserved” (abhijñah swarat, naham prakasha sarvasya yogamaya samavrtah).
[/quote]

Remember what ? huh ? You will go to hell if you are a scholar ? Krishna rejects scholars inspections ? Why ? I thought Krishna wants to reclaim the conditioned souls. This exclusionary mood and taking oneself as the owner of Krishna is what Krishna rejects, not scholars.


I could go on, but it is too boring.

Clearly Sudhir is trying to use Jagat as a weapon to demolish peoples faith in Tripurari.

Maybe he has had a change of heart since ?

Can't we agree to diasgree without the attempt to denigrate the other as a fool ?

The result will be a denigration campaign coming back to us, this kind of volleyball of putdowns serves no ones interests.

We've come a long way, Dirty Hari.

Like I allready said I am not aligned with any group, I calls em like I seez em.

I know; you're right. However, to the casual onlooker it is obfuscating, and with so many "Swamis", it's rude to write such stuff and not point out who one is talking about. At least say it to the person's face, so to speak...

Yes, as all do all Gaudiyas - that's why srngara rasa is called madhurya, sweetest.

I liked your point about faith being empiric.

Yes, how is it that Sudhir Maharaja left the safety of his sangha to go to another Math?

Sudhir Gosw. was sent by Harikesh Swami in whose zone he was working (Northern, Central and Eastern Europe) to Sridhar Maharaja to get some questions answered. Through that he learnt about the special quality of Sridhar Maharaja. When the conflict between the visiting Iskcon GBCs and Sridhar Maharaja arose, Sudhir G. took the side of Sridhar Maharaja, which was quite a courageous thing, because he left wealth and position, and incurred the angry enmity of the GBC and its followers.

In Iskcon sannyasis have all the facility like wealthy people, whereas outside they had nothing. This is also true for all those bhaktas like Jagat and others who sacrificed the social net and facility of an international wealthy organization, for truth and higher realization, just to be ostracized and demonized by the previous sangha. If you have not gone through it you cannot fathom the dimension and heaviness of this experience. Just the lack of facility alone was a deterrent to some, to step out of the safety-net of an organization.

Sudhir wasn't alone. He had Brahma das [ money making expert ] and he had at the very beginning a lady collecting for him who was quite successfull at collecting large amounts of money daily [hundreds of $ per day I seem to remember], within a few months in San Jose he was taking in quite a bit of money from collectors and the Indian community which was quite large. A bit later when I introduced my "fringie" friends in southern california to the situation in San jose and Sridhar Maharaja's new sect, among them was a new devotee whose father was worth close to half a billion dollars, [his sisters became vaisnavas and his parents were favorable] and last I heard of Him he had gone up to San Jose then went on to get initiated by Sridhar Maharaja. They had no shortage of income potential.

I wasn't talking about the Sudhir Gosw. of San Jose, really, but the Dhira Krsna Swami of Eastern Europe. What was later is a different story. and I'd like to point to all the others, because the larger topic is: "why and how could they leave the safety-nets of a big organisation"... B. Caru e.g. never left (the org), even though he took everything from Sridhar Maharaj. He could not sacrifice the facility for truth and realization.

Decisions are perhaps a little more complex. Many who remained in Iskcon did so out of loyalty or genuine conviction. After all, not everybody was a sannyasi or guru.

In this case it was said to have been only a question of facility.