The Controversial Teachings Of Bhaktivinoda - Examining the objections

[ This topic was split off from the "About the Principles of..." thread to keep it on topic. - Admin ]

Baktivinode had diksa but his siksa is full of speculations.
So it is useless, more or less. Guru is confidential.

Personally I think you become useless by this comment. His "specualtions" and his interpretations of the same philosophy you interpret differently.

I am useless, nobody argues against that, but I do not write books on
siddhanta and write nonsense on the nature of the origin of the jiva, or the nature
of relatioship of jiva and internal potency, nature of pure name and namabhasa, ect I am simply trying to imbibe the siddhanta from the guru and I do not mislead
anybody. From whom did he study sastra? He payed some brahmana to teach him sanskrt and then he took sastra and wrote, wrote and wrote...I don't
want to use the right word for that, the one that begins with S.
So let us be humble and first understand and realize and then preach and write books.

Would you mind listing some of the speculations, aside the varnashrama-issue? Preferably in a separate thread, to keep this one on topic.

He stated in Jaiva Dharma that jiva comes from Brahman, or tatashta region.
He said in Harinama Cinatmani that there are 3 stages of chanting the Name,
pure, namabasa and offencive. Namabhasa cannot be sadhana chanting.
He said, I forgot where, that jiva has predefined rasa with Krsna and that it is present within the jiva. Just watering this seed will bring about the sadhya.
And so on and so on, catur sloki Bhagavatam inherent in jiva, jiva sat cit ananda.... Bhatisiddhanta studing under BVT is useless when
BVT didn't sudy under anybody. It is true that Gaudiya Math hasn't been established to slander other Vaisnavas but it was one of conscious endeavors to
establish that other Gurus are useless. This is clear.

According to his ISKCON biography, which in turn is based on GM biographies, BVT studied under a minimum of two siksa-gurus (both babajis) before he even met Vipin Vihari Gosvami (diksa-guru) or Jagannatha das Babaji (3rd siksa-guru).


I must admit that I was disturbed by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's commentary on Caitanya-bhagavata 1.1.1.

Your guru may interpret the sastra differently. What is his name? Does he know that you publicly criticise these saints? Does he teach you to do that? It would not surprise me if your understanding of these points differs slightly from others on this forum who are not in the succession of BVT. By your own admission you are useless. Leave it at that. You are in no position to vilify BVT by saying that his only purpose was to criticise Vaisnavas. You ask who BVT learned sastra from. Read his biography. I guess Jagannatha dasa babji's siksa is not good enough for you. As I predicted earlier. . . .

He didn't listen sastra from Jagannatha DB as far as I know. And if he did then
he didn't understand properly. I shouldn't slander these "saints", you are right.
My guru definitely does not support this arrogance. But he also doesn't take this
nonsense that there are bilion interpretations of the same basic truts, like from where jiva comes, or other things that I mentioned.

Again, who is your guru? I bet I can guess if you don't tell. Perhaps you do not want him and his teaching to be subject to public scrutiny. Do you think that Jagannatha dasa babaji taught BVT something other than what is in the sastra? Really now. Give up your arrogance.

My Guru's teaching is not for this forum. If you want details write to
catcher108@rogers.com

BVT did not listen sastra from JDB. He may got some siksa but he didn't receive
systematic training. Prove that he did. Did he listened Sandarbhas from him?
Why did he then contradicted Sandarbhas in so many places?

If your guru's teaching is not for this forum I suggest you have no place here either. But you are here and making many proud statements so show us systematically with all the relevant quotations how BVT contradicts Sat-sandabha.

BTW, Gaura Kishore dasa babaji was illiterate. Perhaps it is better we not listen to him either. He encouraged BSST to preach from Sat-sandabha. I understand BSST published and edition of Bhakti-sandarbha. Have you seen it?

Incidentally, are you familiar with the Car Sampradaya institue of Vrindavana and some of the things they have published about certain scholars of Vrindavana.

Radhe Radhe!

Dear Catch, could you kindly make some qoutations from Gaudiya granthas, that prove opposite point of view to BVT teaching on this matter?
It was my opinion, that jiva is tatastha-sakti... I can't say, frome what region does it come, but it it will be only natural to come frome tatastha region, being a tatastha-sakti. I remember the description of genesis process in Brahma Samhita, but it still retains a vast field for speculations...



This issue also is still unclear to me... I remember Madhavaji told me, that due to aparadhas sadhaka can change rasa to some lower one (madhurya to dasya, for example), but I still think, considering the nature of eternity, that in eternity we all already are in some active relations with Bhagavan, that hardly could be changed to another type. Thus, there must be predefined rasa with Krsna and it must be present within jiva. Naturally, I can be completely wrong about this, since the very nature of eternity is full with various kinds of paradoxes, and simple logic will no work fine with it... But still I'd like to see some evidences from Gaudiya granthas on this matter. Well known story of Gopa Kumara appears to prove BVT (and my) point of view...

If you wish to make a serious point about this, I urge you to start a new thread and present the relevant passages in which Bhaktivinoda says what you attribute to him. Then we can examine then and compare them with Gosvami-granthas.

There is so much hearsay. Even about what Bhaktisiddhanta said or taught.

The only group I've seen going out of their way to take objection to Bhaktivinoda is that of Haridas Shastri, which does not appear to look kindly upon anyone but their own line. Are you by chance affiliated with them?

I was affiliated with them (especially with Satya Narayana Prabhu) and they do not discuss on the internet forums, as much as I know.

with respect,

Yes, they generally don't, though on rare occasions one may spot a follower of theirs online.

Who is Haridas Shastri?

A scholar in Vrindavan, Raman Reti, belonging to Gadadhar-parivar. He has published a good number of Sanskrit works, and also translated much into Hindi. He does not speak English.

As Satyanarayana, a pandit and a former ISKCON-devotee, switched sides and joined their group, they have gathered some Western following over the past couple of years.

I am under the impression that they do not rate other Gaudiyas very high, whether Saraswata or otherwise. It is a somewhat closed group, to a great extent dedicated to the study of the Sandarbhas of Jiva.

They don't have much information online on the Vrindavan branch of their institute, which is involved on a grand variety of fields. You can read something at http://www.jiva.org/culture/welcome_peoplebehind.htm . The well-known Ayurvedic doctor, Partap Chauhan, brother of Satyanarayan, is in charge of their Ayurvedic treatments and education.

Yeah, I swapped a couple of emails with Satyanarayana das some time ago and I still do when I have a specific question. The problem with SNd is that he does not even have his own computer so his replies are often slow. I assume he must be going to a cybercafe there or something. Sometimes he has written back to me from someone else's laptop.

I also swapped a couple of emails with this "catch" person. Seems like a nice chap and ha some interesting ideas. I suspect that they don't really mind private chat but yes, they do not like chatting in public forums as far as I know.

For some reason I thought the India Divine website was run by a follower of Satyanarayan.

Madhava, I would like to protest against the behaviour here of adbhuta1.

"You are useless if you say that...

who is your guru, who is your guru? (so that I can attack him, or you through him, and thus silence you)".

This appears to me a clear-cut breach of standards of mutual respect which out to apply here.

If adbhuta does not want to hear critical discussion of Sri BVT, he does not have to read it, but he should not impose his censorship on those who genuinely want to find out the truth.

It may well be that in the future, a mob of such bullies will silence us all by such tactics. For decades I was prevented from hearing the full Gaudiya history and teachings in the West by the same type of censorship. Now, since we have been permitted a little leeway, let us hold on to it for as long as we can!

BVT's followers assert that he was a radical refomer. But when someone meekly suggests that he may have gone too far, they explode with indignation against the unbeliever. Surely they cannot have it both ways. Either he was a reformer or he was not. He departed from orthodoxy, or he did not. It is up to his followers to demonstrate that his innovations were justified. The rest of us are perfectly entitled to be sceptical.


********

I was surprised recently to find that all BVT's ideas about the 'Marketplace of the Holy Name' were central to the teachings of the Kartabhaja's, who were very much influenced by the economic revolution associated with Kalkutta in the 18th Century and called themselves 'Gharib Kampani' in contrast to the 'Sahib Kampani' or British East India Company which was the central feature of Kalkutta life of the time. If we want to understand Sri BVT, we need to study the Kartabhajas, and 2 recent books by Hugh Urban are very helpful, though I've only read summaries on the net so far.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subj...DE5NTEzOTAyWA==

A quote:

Made up of the poor lower classes laboring in the marketplaces and factories of Calcutta, the Kartabhajas represent "the underworld of the imperial city." Strikingly, Urban shows, their esoteric poetry and songs are saturated with the language of the marketplace and the bazaar, which becomes for them the key metaphor used to communicate secret knowledge and mystical teachings. Not only do they employ the imagery in the market of moneylending and brokering, and swindling and haggling, they even name their sect after the British East India Company, giving themselves the ironic title of the "Poor Company."

Objection noted, and I agree. Henceforth I will be more diligent and shift contributors who intimidate others under the "moderated members" category. Their posts will be previewed by the moderators before they appear online.

If you would like to suggest members who need to be moderated, please send me a private message.

Just wanted to make a point in here about "controversial teachings."

It seems that only the Bhaktisiddhanta-group follows such teachings. Other groups such as those headed by Lalita Prasada Thakura and Bhakti Tirtha Thakura follow Bhaktivinoda in the traditional way of his raganuga-bhajana.

Indeed for the Bhaktitirtha line, in the Sauri-prapannasrama one will find the pictures of their guru-parampara on the altar; Bhaktitirtha - Bhaktivinoda - Vipin Vihari.

Most interesting.

What is the history of Bhaktitirtha?
Is he the one that took diksa from BVT and sannyas from BSST?

Previously when we were discussing Bhaktivinoda's views on hell and heaven, it was suggested by Bhaktivinoda that the Bhagavatam contains a warning "somewhere in the book, not to accept them as real facts, but as inventions to overawe the wicked and to improve the simple and the ignorant.. All poetic inventions.. have been described as statements borrowed from other works in the way of preservation of old traditions in the book which superseded them and put an end to the necessity of their storage."

When asked where exactly in the Bhagavatam such a reference is contained, certain members submitted SB 1.5.10-11 and 11.3.44 as evidence. Subsequent discussion showed that both these references were ill-equipped to deal with the query in question. Also, in spite of claiming that hell/heaven are not to be found in a permanent geographical location, SB 5.26.4-5 shows the exact opposite.

Anyway, I decided to give Bhaktivinoda's famous 'Bhagavata' a read on some unrelated point and I found the following:


Just for reference, here are the verses pertaining:

SB 11.14.3: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: By the influence of time, the transcendental sound of Vedic knowledge was lost at the time of annihilation. Therefore, when the subsequent creation took place, I spoke the Vedic knowledge to Brahmā because I Myself am the religious principles enunciated in the Vedas.

SB 11.14.4: Lord Brahmā spoke this Vedic knowledge to his eldest son, Manu, and the seven great sages headed by Bhṛgu Muni then accepted the same knowledge from Manu.

SB 11.14.5-7: From the forefathers headed by Bhṛgu Muni and other sons of Brahmā appeared many children and descendants, who assumed different forms as demigods, demons, human beings, Guhyakas, Siddhas, Gandharvas, Vidyādharas, Cāraṇas, Kindevas, Kinnaras, Nāgas, Kimpuruṣas, and so on. All of the many universal species, along with their respective leaders, appeared with different natures and desires generated from the three modes of material nature. Therefore, because of the different characteristics of the living entities within the universe, there are a great many Vedic rituals, mantras and rewards.

SB 11.14.8: Thus, due to the great variety of desires and natures among human beings, there are many different theistic philosophies of life, which are handed down through tradition, custom and disciplic succession. There are other teachers who directly support atheistic viewpoints.

SB 11.14.9: O best among men, the intelligence of human beings is bewildered by My illusory potency, and thus, according to their own activities and whims, they speak in innumerable ways about what is actually good for people.

Is it possible that Bhaktivinoda was using SB 11.14.3-9 to backup his view? In any case, even these verses do not seem to confirm one way or another as to the existence of hell or heaven.

At the end of the day this famous 'Bhagavata' lecture is as good an example of time-place-circumstance preaching as any other, therefore I do not tend to be very keen about holding this lecture up as "proof" that hell and heaven do not exist. At the very least it tells us that Bhaktivinoda is entitled to his own opinion.

As far as I know, Bhaktitirtha Thakura is a diksa-disciple of Bhaktivinoda who followed him in the matter of traditional raganuga-sadhana, and traces his guru-parampara through Vipin Vihari Gosvami accordingly. He is not the same person who was connected with Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.

I understand that his present-day followers can be found at the Sauri-prappanasrama. I got all this information from Shukavak's book. There is not much else to know about him, at least not from that book.

I recall reading of Bhaktirtha Thakur somewhere before, and not in Shukavak's books. I can't remember where I read of him. However, I got the distinct impression that he is very different from Bhakti Pradip Tirtha. I might have even seen a photo. Does anyone know anything further on his identity, or remember who's written of him? Perhaps Jagat has mentioned him somewhere.

There seems to be a Prapannashram listed among the various Gaudiya Mathas. It is not, however, the same as Sauri Prapannashram, which is located in Uddhavapura, Midnapore. See the following:



This is cited from a text by Sripad Bhakti Kusum Sraman Maharaj. Unfortunately the Mandala-site seems to be down, but you can still read it in here or in Google's cache.

Prapannasrama seems to be a very generic term Bhaktivinoda himself used for his namahatta-centers:


It is thus likely that the Prapannasrama of Gaudiya Math is different from that of Bhaktitirtha Mahasaya.

Seems to be that the teaching of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur became somehow or other popular on this forum. Congratulations!

They always were popular with a handful of the members. That does not represent the entire demographic, however. It is basically a melting pot, as are many cyber sangams. The best policy is to not try to characterize the membership as a group, but rather to consider each individual member and their personal views separately from the group. Otherwise, you will end up making blanket statements based on false generalizations.

Statistics and point of view of every particular member of society (forum) are naturally different things. As statistics doesn't have anything common with every particular point of view (it explains the tendency culculated from the sum of views), so any particular member can't explain the tendency.

But being the member of the particular forum I have right for my opinion that is neither statistics nor attempt for characterizing the tendency.

Radhe Radhe, everyone!

Is there any shastic evidence or Guru's quote, to support that objection : "I remember Madhavaji told me, that due to aparadhas sadhaka can change rasa to some lower one (madhurya to dasya, for example)".

Thanks!

You'll find it in the forums if you browse, there's the verse and a bit of explanation along with it, too. It's from BRS.

It does not speak of changing a rasa one has always had, of course, since that doctrine is yet to be established. However, due to aparadha one's taste may change.

For those who doubted, here is the picture of the guru-parampara on the altar of the Sauri Prapannasrama of Sri Bhaktitirtha Thakura. It is self-explanatory.

According to the footnote on p. 95 of Shukavak's book, "This is not the Bhaktitirtha associated with the Gaudiya Math, but a gentleman who was originally named Sitanath before he was initiated by Bhaktivinoda."

But then, we knew that already.


According to Shukavak, this Sauri-prappanasrama is located near Khargpur in southern Bengal. In his footnote on p. 96, Shukavak writes: "I obtained a book written in Bengali entitled PrabhupAda Zrila BhaktitIrtha-ThAkurer SaGkSipta-jIvanI [encoding mine] from the Shauri Prapanna Ashram. This book describes the life of Bhaktitirtha and details his relationship with Bhaktivinoda. It was compiled by Vasu Bhaktisagar in 1959 and includes many letters written by Bhaktivinoda to his disciple Bhaktitirtha. We find the Shauri Prapanna Ashrama following the same form of sAdhana, based on the rasa-rAja concept as Bhaktivinoda followed."

The name Sitanath and the prefix Prabhupada makes me think he was of Advaita-vamsa.

What is this rasa-raja concept? And the sadhana cited?

It's Gaura-nagari concept.

I'll have to check on that. The Rasaraja concept is described in RK Bannerjee's book, and I have Murali-vilasa, and to be honest with you, I still don't understand how it differs from the orthodox understanding as found in CC 2.8. But one of these days I'll have to read Murali-vilasa more carefully and see exactly what subtleties are going on.

Some people think that Rasaraja concept is something like Sahajiyaism.

Somehow I am under the impression that rasarAja-upAsana is not exactly the same as gaura-nAgarI. Is there a clear definition somewhere in the writings of the Baghnapada Gosains about their method and theory of worship?

Withdrew the post previously put here.

In his article Sri Madhusudana Gosvami Sarvabhauma (in ''Visnupriya Gauranga Journal ''-'Sri Sri-Visnupriya-Patrika' , 5.6. ) said that when Bhaktivinoda personally edited his monthly journal, Sajjanatosani , Nadia nagaris padas occasionally appeared there . After quoting those instances in his article , he concludes that since Srila Bhaktivinoda has personally selected these padas , he must also be counted amongst the supporters of these mellows.

Srila Bhaktivinoda's son and disciple , Sri Lalita Prasad Thakura , writes in his small book ''Sri Siddha-bhajana-pranali'' :

Ami ta ujjvala rase svabhAvata vratI , Apane AmAra gaura RasarAja mUrti.

''Because my vow follows the ujjvala rasa , My Gaura is a Rasaraja-murti''

With tilaka , he often wrote GorA on his chest.

with respect,