Srila Narayana Maharaja and the Gaudiya Math - question

Dear Vaishnavas.
Jay Sri Radhe.

please forgive me my neophyte questions, but trouble in the mind should be clarified in sadhu-sanga, so i thought maybe you could help me.

i was initiated by Srila Narayana Maharaja in 2000 and i felt good in my spiritual life until i found out, that some of his followers were slandering other Vaishnavas.
also, i came in contact with the glorious books of Srila Ananta das Babaji. so there i was, in the middle.
one guru says do not listen to the other guru, one says the other´s line is not "bona-fide".
actually, i felt very good reading books from both and hearing from both, still considering myself a disciple of SNM.
but so many bad things roam around about both Vaisnavas, and sometimes i find myself in the nowhere of spiritual life.
the problem is that i still feel thankful for SNM although i read so much about his lineage not being bona-fide.
i also wote Srila Ananta das Babaji and he somehow confirmed the "un-bona-fide-ness" of the GM-lineage.
so how to reconcile? i already put away the picture of SNM from my altar only to bring it back the other time, but i feel that this is also not the right thing to do, since i sincerely asked him for initiation.

could some of you experienced Vaishnavas give me some valuable advice without slandering?

thank you so much for hearing me
Tarunji

Jai Radhe!

Dear Tarun Kisor Dasji,

I understand your problem, because I have been in a similar situation. In 1992 I received Hari Nama from Sri B S Govinda Maharaj, and in 1994 I also received the diksa-mantras from one of his ritviks in London. But when I went to Nabadwip Dham the same year I met several Vaishnavas who gave me a lot of information about the philosophy and practice that I hadn´t heard before. For example, a follower of Sri Radharamancaran das Babaji told me about siddha pranali and said that it is very important if one wants to perform raganuga sadhana. I heard the same thing when I went to Madan Gopal Mandir and talked to the acarya´s son Sri Nitya Gopal Goswami. They are in Sri Nityananda Vamsa. In 1994 I also met Sri Gadadhara Prana Prabhu, my diksa guru. He used to be in ISKCON in the 70´s, but later received diksa from Sri Lalita Prasada Thakura. He made everything clear to me, especially the whole issue of raganuga sadhana and siddha pranali. I had read in Jaiva Dharma and Harinama Chintamani about ekadasa bhava when I was with the GM, and I also knew the opinion of Sridhar and Govinda Maharaj about siddha pranali. The conception of Sri Bhaktivinoda Thakura (and the rest of Gaudiya sampradaya) was not the same as that of Gaudiya Math. Gadadhara Prana Prabhu´s explanations were a great relief for me, because he accepted B V Thakura´s conceptions wholeheartedly. GP Prabhu also explained the importance of a continuous diksa guru parampara and expressed his doubts about the continuity of the GM´s parampara. He said that the proper guru parampara is also a parampara of manjaris. The gurus in the parampara have all realized their eternal identities as manjari maidservants of Sri Radha. After hearing all this I decided to leave the Gaudiya Math.
I received initiation from G P Prabhu in 1995. But about a year after I had some periods of doubt and almost went back to Gaudiya Math again. But now it is impossible for me to ever return to that branch again.
Now I don´t keep any picture of my GM guru on the altar, only pictures of G P Prabhu, Lalita Prasada and Bhaktivinoda. They are my gurus, my spiritual family. At the same time I don´t disrespect Govinda Maharaj. He is also a Vaishnava, but I can´t follow his mood wholehartedly. I offer my respects to him from a distance.

I don´t know what you should do in the situation you´re in. It is up to you. When I decided to leave GM (but I hadn´t received diksha) I just chanted Hari Nama on my japa mala until I received initiation from G P Prabhu. You said that SNM´s followers slander other Vaishnavas, but SNM himself also uses words like "sahajiya babajis" when speaking about the babajis in Vrindavan. I also heard that he has copied many things from the books of Sri Ananta das Babaji, without giving him any credit. Is this true?

Dear Tarun Kishor Das Ji,

I'm sure you know my personal history and the path I took. Instead of relating my story again, I'd like to study the issue from a doctrinal point of view. Let us have a look from three angles:

1) The instructions of Jiva Gosvami
2) The instructions of Narayan Maharaja
3) The instructions of Ananta Das Pandit

---

---

1) THE INSTRUCTIONS OF JIVA GOSVAMI

(Bhakti Sandarbha, Anuccheda 238.3-6, Anuccheda 207)

---

yaH prathamaM zAbde pare ca niSNAtaM [BhP 11.3.21] ity Ady ukta-lakSaNaM guruM nAzritavAn tAdRza-guroz ca matsarAdito mahAbhAgavata-satkArAdAv anumatiM na labhate sa prathamata eva tyakta-zAstro na vicAryate | ubhaya-saGkaTa-pAto hi tasmin bhavaty eva | 3 |

A guru who does not embody the qualities of proficiency in scripture and the Supreme and so forth (BhP 11.3.21), who is envious and so forth of devotees of the highest order, not allowing others to offer tribute to them, for one to renounce him is not in disobedience of the scripture. If such association is maintained, both of them will fall down.

evam-AdikAbhiprAyeNaiva –

yo vakti nyAya-rahitam anyAyena zRNoti yaH |
tAv ubhau narakaM ghoraM vrajataH kAlam akSayam ||
iti nArada-paJcarAtre | 4 |
The Narada Pancaratra says: “One who speaks without logic, and the other who hears him, both of them will go to a terrible hell until endless time.”

ata eva dUrata evArAdhyas tAdRzo guruH | vaiSNava-vidveSI cet parityAjya eva |

guror apy avaliptasya kAryAkAryam ajAnataH |
utpatha pratipannasya kAryaM bhavati zAsanam ||
[Mbh 5.178.24] iti smaraNAt | 5 |
Such a guru should be worshiped from a distance. One who has hatred for vaishnavas should certainly be rejected. As described in the smrti:

“A guru who is arrogant and does not know what is to be done and what is not to be done, who is overcome by deviation from the path, he is to be punished.”

tasya vaiSNava-bhAva-rAhityeNAvaiSNavatayA avaiSNavopadiSTenety Adi-vacana-viSayatvAc ca | yathokta-lakSaNasya guror avidyamAnAyAM tu tasyaiva mahA-bhAgavatasyaikasya nitya-sevanaM parama-zreyaH | sa ca zrI-guruvat samavAsanaH svasmin kRpAlu-cittaz ca grAhyaH | 6 |

Since he is without the feelings of a vaishnava, he is an avaishnava, as in the saying “avaisnavopadistena” and so on. If the guru has the aforementioned characteristics, then a devotee of the highest order is to be constantly served for one’s ultimate good. This Sri Guru should be equipoised and have his heart full of compassion.

---

avaiSNavopadiSTena mantreNa nirayaM vrajet |
punaz ca vidhinA samyag grAhayed vaiSNavAd guroH ||
"One who has learned a mantra from an avaishnava goes to hell. Again he should be initiated according to the proper method by a vaishnava guru."

---

2) THE INSTRUCTIONS OF NARAYAN MAHARAJA

(collected from various lectures)

---

Pay respect to your guru even if he is madhyama and doesn't know so much, even if he is not helping so much - but he is favorable. However, if he is not favorable and is always making obstruction, saying, "You should not attend darsana of any high-class guru. Only be with me and pay some daksina. You are my wealth, my property." then he should be rejected. If any guru considers that his disciples are his property, thinking, "I should enjoy that property." then he is a bogus guru, not a real guru. If you are within such a guru and disciple relationship, both you and that guru will go to hell.

Srila Jiva Gosvamipada has quoted from Mahabharata in his Bhakti Sandarbha. There

it is said, 'Gururapi avaliptasya'. If your guru is engaged in sense gratification, if he has no discrimination to think what is good and bad, and if he is criticizing or offending any high class of devotee, at once he should be given up. What should the disciple do next? He should search for an exhalted, realized guru, and this bogus guru should be given up. If you do not give him up and if you continue to have great affection for him, then you will go to hell and that bogus person will also go to hell - surely. We should know all these things.

Vaisnava hanti nindati vaidvesti. Your guru may know all kinds of sastra and he may be expert in quoting evidence from sastra, but if he is not detached from worldly desires and sense gratification, if he has no realization, and if he is therefore not giving proper respect to sincere devotees, then he is not even a Vaisnava. He is a vaisnava-aparadhi, an offender to Vaisnavas. At once we should give him up, and instead accept a Vaisnava guru. Avaisnavopeksa. Go to any very advanced guru who has all the transcendental qualities and therefore never has the chance to fall down.

You should take initiation again from such a bona fide guru. If you don't know any uttama guru, or you are not searching, or if you are unable to search for such a guru, at least you should be in the association of an advanced Vaisnava. Gradually he will help you. If you are not following this, then it will be very hard no progress even in thousands and thousands of years.

(Salt Spring Island, Canada, April 21, 2001)

---

There can only be one diksa-guru, although there may be so many siksa-gurus, and both types of gurus should be self-realized. Later in Jaiva Dharma, in chapter 20, Vijaya Kumara asked the question, "Sastra states that the diksa-guru should not be changed or not given up. If one has taken diksa from a guru who is not qualified to give krsna-tattva or krsna-bhakti, what should he do? If the guru cannot help the disciple, what should that disciple do?

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains through the reply of Paramahamsa Premadasa Babaji who quoted the verses:

yo vyaktir nyaya-rahitam anyayena srinoti yah
tav ubhau narakam ghoram vrajatah kalam aksayam

"He who poses as an acarya, but gives false instructions that are opposed to the sattvata-sastras, will reside in a terrible hell for an unlimited period of time, and so will the misguided disciple who mistakenly listens to such a false guru." Hari-bhakti-vilasa (1.62)

guror apy avaliptasya karyakaryam ajanatah
utpatha-pratipannasya parityago vidhiyate

It is one's duty to give up a guru who cannot teach the disciple what he should do and what he should not do, and who takes the wrong path, either because of bad association or because he is opposed to Vaisnavas."

Mahabharata Udyoga-parva (179.25) and Narada-pancaratra (1.10.20)

avaisnavopadistena mantrena nirayam vrajet
punas ca vidhina samyag grahayed vaisnavad guroh

"One goes to hell if he accepts mantras from an avaisnava-guru, that is, one who is associating with women, and who is devoid of krisna-bhakti. Therefore, according to the rules of sastra, one should take mantras again from a Vaisnava guru." Hari-bhakti-vilasa (4.144)

Premadasa Babaji explained, "When you first select a guru, you should try to do pariksya. You should examine him to see whether or not he can give you krsna-bhakti, whether or not he will fall down, whether or not he is practicing bhakti-yoga properly, and whether or not he is actually following his gurudeva or not? Is he chanting one lakh of nama or not? Is he doing arcana or not? Does he have all the symptoms given by Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura in Gurvastakam? 'Saksad haritvena' means that all the qualities of Hari should be in him. If one has not examined and does not know the answer to these queries, and somehow he took initiation but afterwards he saw that this guru is not qualified in the abovementioned
r>areas, he can give up that guru who is not actually bona fide.

One can change or give up that guru under two conditions or circumstances. At the time of selecting a guru and taking diksa, the sisya may not have examined him. He may have become overwhelmed and taken initiation at once, and afterward he may have heard so many things, from books like Srimad-Bhagavatam and from superiors, that this guru cannot actually help him. He may now think, "I took diksa fifteen years ago but there has been no advancement." He can quickly give up that guru. I know so many gurus who never chant. They say to others, "You should chant," but they have no time to chant. They are always talking on telephones, with one phone on each ear. They are absorbed in management, and they attend many meetings that bring no solution to anyone's problems. If the disciple later on understands this, he should give up that guru, and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has quoted so many slokas in this regard.

The second parastiti (condition) is as follows: Suppose at the time of taking diksa, one's gurudeva was really following the Vaisnava line, he was a madhyama-adhikari, and he knew many tattvas like krsna-tattva, and maya-tattva. Then, after some time, he began to take the association of a mayavadi, sahajiya, or materialist. He stopped chanting, and after that he began to criticize Vaisnavas, no longer accepting the guru-parampara. The sisya should at once give him up, as one passes stool. When one gives up stool, he becomes very happy and he feels fresh. Similarly, upon giving up all these 'kan-gurus', the aspiring devotee will be extremely happy.

On the other hand, if the guru is following all the principles of bhakti, if he is in the line of his gurudeva, if he is chanting and remembering but he is not learned enough to give you krsna-tattva, then don't give him up. With honor for him, take his permission, and go with his permission to associate with exalted Vaisnavas. And, if he does not give permission, you can consider that he is also among the kan-gurus meant for being given up. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has explained all this in chapter 20 of Jaiva Dharma, and I request you all to read this right away.

(Murwillumbah, Australia: Feb. 15, 2002, Evening, Part 1)

---

If a guru is doing like this, thinking that, "Oh, this devotee is my enemy, and you should beat him, insult him, and do offensive things, no harm." And if the devotee will think that, "Oh, my guru has ordered like this. I should obey my guru otherwise I will go to hell." Then the guru and disciple are both like blind persons, together they will go to a very special kind of hell forever, and their bhakti will go. No bhakti at all.

So Krsna has given us intelligence and it is given in sastra, so we should try to realize all these things. If a guru is like this, at once quickly we should give up these gurus, bogus gurus, and we should try to be initiated by other high class of devotees. Everywhere in sastra it has been written. In Hari-bhakti-vilasa Sanatana Gosvami has written, in Srimad-Bhagavata it has been written, in Caitanya-caritamrta, everywhere. So we should try to realize this.

If you have done [taken initiation] when you knew nothing about bhakti, in ignorance you accepted a guru like this. But after that, hearing from here and there you realized that, "Oh, this guru cannot give Krsna-prema," at once quickly give up. And if he cannot give prema, but he's favorable, not making offenses and other things, then he should be respected and by his consent [take siksa from another], "O Gurudeva, I want to associate with him, please give me your permission." Then if guru is not giving order [consent], then you should think that, "Oh, this guru is also bogus. We should give him up." And if he is guru and he is telling that, "Oh, I don't know all these things. You can go and you can associate. And also tell to me what he's telling." Then respect that guru, and you can associate and thin

king him like, "He's also my guru, and this is my siksa-guru."

(Virginia, USA, June 12, 1999, pm)

---

3) THE INSTRUCTIONS OF ANANTA DAS PANDIT

(Guru Tattva Vijnana, pages 13-14)

---

Sri Bhagavan's grance descends in two forms -- Sri Guru and Sri Vaishnava. Services of Guru and Vaishnava are both direct service to the Lord's grace. If the one is not there, the other remains incomplete. If Guru is served but there is no eagerness to serve the Vaishnavas, then the service of Guru is not complete, and when the Vaishnavas are served, but there is no eagerness to serve the Guru, then there is also no full service to the Vaishnavas. Therefore the bona fide Guru offers his surrendered disciple at the feet of the Sri Vaishnavas and orders him to be blessed with the association and the service of the Vaishnavas, and the bona fide Vaishnava also orders the devotee who surrenders unto him to become blessed by engaging in the service of Sri Guru's lotusfeet.

If the Guru is so envious to forbid his disciple to associate with the Maha-Bhagavata Vaishnava or to engage in his service, then the disciple should think that Sri Gurudeva is testing his devotion to the Vaishnavas, and should surrender to the lotusfeet of Sri Guru, anxiously praying to him to revoke that order. If the Guru nevertheless continues to give this order, then the disciple should consider this his own bad luck and worship this Guru from a distance, taking shelter of the Lord's lotusfect. However, he should not abandon such a Guru or act in an unfavorable way towards him. And if the Guru becomes openly hostile towards the Vaishnava , then such a Guru must be given up, knowing him to be an avaishnava (non-Vaishnava), and one must take shelter of (lie lotusfeet of a Vaishnava Guru again according to the rules. Srimat Jiva Gosvamipada has outlined this very clearly in his Sri Bhakti Sandarbha:

yo vakti nyAya-rahitam anyAyena zRNoti yaH |
tAv ubhau narakaM ghoraM vrajataH kAlam akSayam ||
iti nArada-paJcarAtre |
ata eva dUrata evArAdhyas tAdRzo guruH | vaiSNava-vidveSI cet parityAjya eva |

guror apy avaliptasya kAryAkAryam ajAnataH |
utpatha pratipannasya kAryaM bhavati zAsanam ||
iti smaraNAt |
tasya vaiSNava-bhAva-rAhityeNAvaiSNavatayA avaiSNavopadiSTenety Adi-vacana-viSayatvAc ca |

A person who speaks contrary to the morale enunciated by the Vaishnava-sastras, and the person who hears such immoral teachings will both live in a foul hell for eternity. If an instruction of Sri Gurudeva is contrary to the sastras, then the association of such a Guru should be given up and he should be worshipped from a distance. If the Guru is an enemy of the Vaishnavas, it is most auspicious to give him up altogether. The word dvesa (hatred) also stands for ninda (slander) - nindApi dveza samaH. This vaishava vidvesa, or slander, should be known to include the six kinds of vaishnava-aparadha.* Therefore an offender to the Vaishnavas is not qualified to be a Guru, and he must be abandoned. A Guru who is attached to sense gratification, who does not know what is to be done and what is not to be done, or who acts contrary to the bhakti sastras must be abandoned. He has no Vaishnava-feelings, therefore he is an avaishnava (non-devotee). The scriptural saying "A mantra received from an avaishvava will drag one to hell" also shows that an avaishnava guru is to be abandoned.

This must be considered about the Guru that is to be abandoned - if a Guru performs sinful or reproachable activities, meaning that he hates the Vaishnavas or does not act like a Vaishnava, or that he proclaims himself to be God, or is averse to hearing and chanting the topics of Sri Krishna's attributes, he does not experience the bliss arising from hearing and chanting Sri Krishna. Again, out of false pride he becomes intoxicated by the praises

offered to him by the people, and becomes contaminated day after day. One should give up such a Guru and take shelter of a qualified Guru.

---

* hanti nindati vai dveSTi vaiSNavAn Abhinandati |
 krodhyate yAti no harSaM darzane patanAni Sat ||
(Skandha Purana)
"To kill a Vaishnava, to slander him, to be envious of him, to not praise him, to become angry at him, and to not be happy when seeing him -- such are six offences towards the Vaishnavas."

---

That should do for the doctrinal part of it. Ultimately, of course, it boils down to our personal views on who is an advanced Vaishnava and whose association is favorable for us. For understanding that, we have to take shelter of harinama and pray for the most auspicious direction to be revealed to us.

Narayan Maharaja gave Vilapa Kusumanjali lectures in English during 1991-1993 to some senior ISKCON people, which are presently being compiled into a book. NM draws much of the lectures' content from the commentaries of Ananta Das Babaji and Ananda Gopal Gosvami.

Please dear gentle Vaishnavas, when you continue with this topic, dont forget that whatever anyone may have said or done, we should not sling the mud and call anyone names, or cast forth any curses or unfounded allegations. Rather we should respect everyone for the good things they taught us.

If anyone feels like pointing out any particular controversial conclusion, please do it dispassionately and with adequate evidence, that is, (1) guru-sadhu-sastra-siddhanta, and (2) evidence of anyone's presenting a contrary conclusion, which is then analyzed for its validity in the light of evidence (1).

Surely we are in good hands when we have such nice help from Premananda and Raga. Thank you both for the above. I would suggest, dear Tarun, that the thing is to remain open and hopeful. And always ready to learn something new, as long as it's not a 'drain inspector's report'. The path is positive and leads upward and outward. We should be feeling closer to all devotees as we grow. Why not just spend time getting to know more of the devotees of Braj Dham? I think in this way you will tend to see Srila Narayan Maharaj more in his context as part of a whole universe of pure devotees, but perhaps not as central to that universe as his followers want him to be. Take your time. Don't set 'mental traps' for yourself (either/or, absolute dichotomies).

A friend just spent time in Braj. They loved the devotees and the mood in Shyamananda's Temple where women seemed to have more status than in some other temples. Then they stumbled by accident into Jagannathdas's Sadbhuj temple, surprised to find a whole ashram of male and female devotees living there chanting with Gaudiya bead bags. Who are these devotees? (Language prevented us finding out). The Iskcon guidebook is silent. Why? Perhaps they are the direct disciplic descendents of Jagannathdas. But they all wear white- they are not GM. What would this suggest about the appropriateness of Iskcon/GM having Jagannathdas's picture on their altars? Are these wonderful devotees being written out of (some people's) history because some find their existence embarrassing?

But surely we want to embrace them all as long as they are sincerely trying to follow Sri Chaitanya? So I would suggest opening your heart to love and understand all the Gaudiya devotees as an important positive step to get out of this difficult stage. And isn't remaining hopeful one of the requirements for a devotee? Don't worry, there are wonderful devotees 'out there'. Bliss awaits you.
With respect,
Adi.

May I also say as an outsider who has closely read a lot of the literature published by and about Srila Narayan Maharaj that I feel his current followers, in trying to emphasise his unique status, are not listening carefully to what he is saying?

First, I find SNM explains that he has reached his views by study, by reasoning, above all by reading. He said this to Satsvarup Maharaj, 'I had a desire to read the books of our acharyas, and one lifemember donated such books'. He does not say that his insights were clearly derived from his Guru Varga (Though he tries to find some basis there, rather weakly and vaguely in comparison to his other strong arguments). In the Preface to his Venugita he argues strongly against the view, 'propounded by some', that Siddhi will come spontaneously by chanting Harinam. He invokes the clear statements of Vishvanath to support this view. Who is he arguing with? Who says that Harinam alone will give Prem? Surely it is the foundational views of the Gaudiya Math which he is addressing? No-one else in GM makes such a strong case against the GM! And clearly he got this understanding by directly reading the teachings of the Goswamis and Vishvanath.

But the case SNM is making is the one traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas have held to all along, and which GM used to criticise them for. The case for 'Radha-Krishna guna smriti'.

The difference is that traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not rely only on books. They also inherit the many subtle aspects of a tradition which can only be passed on intimately, indeed within families. In the colonial era (when the GM reforms began) it seemed natural that modernity would overcome caste and family lineages in India. Now we are not so sure. Harvard professors recently pointed out that the Rig Veda oral tradition (within Brahmin families) is more accurate than books! There is a strength in Hindu family traditions which has been ignored till now, seen as 'corrupt'. It is time the alternate positive view of Indian family traditions was examined.

I am not passing my own judgement on any devotees here, and I apologise if I am mistaken. But I invite you to read carefully the logical underpinning of Srila Narayan Maharaja's views, to see that it puts him in quite an extraordinary position of 'reforming' but in fact negating, the GM reform.

Because of his institutional loyalties, though, SNM cannot take the next step. This step was, however, taken over half-century ago by the greatest Gaudiya Math preacher after SBSS: Srila Bhakti Prasad Puri Maharaj.

The next step is to humbly approach the traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas who are the custodians of the tradition. This is what SNM's preaching is directing us towards.

I have encountered some devotees who have had the fortune to be attracted to the concepts of raganuga bhajan, i.e. siddha pranali, lila smaranam, manjari bhava, but who are hesitant to make the step forward in taking a Guru who can 'deliver the goods'. In their cases they seem to have a fear of leaving their present Guru of non-Gaudiya sampradayic tradition to take diksa from one who is. They feel a sense of loyality towards their Guru for having given them the first bases of their understanding of devotion to Krsna. I understand this, so could many of us. However, if I was to have maintained this thread of loyality towards my non-traditional Gaudiya Guru I would not have known about and begin to relish the treasures raganuga bhakti.

If feeling loyal towards ones unsampradayic spiritual teacher is the real spiritual issue to consider as opposed to actually taking shelter of a sat Guru in disciplic succession, then, why not take it a step further? Maybe I should have remained loyal to the Catholic priests and nuns who first taught me about God, religion, the kingdom of God, ect, and just should have stick it out with them. Perhaps God would have revealed everything I needed through them. Or, maybe I should have remained loyal to the author of a yoga book I read  whose teachings I followed before I ever knew about the teachings of the Bhagavata. This author taught me some concepts of bhakti, lol and beyold, even chanting Hare Krsna. It was through this book that I had my first transcendental experiences. Should I have remained loyal to these teachings? which were quite shallow compared to what I later came across in books like Bhagavad Gita and Krsna book. Do you see my point?

Yes, they are our teachers and they have all played a part in our spiritual development. But then it comes time to leave the primary school and enter high school. Then from there to college to get your degree. Then when your finished with college you have your profession. Do you see my point?

Yes, I understand your point. It is not an "offence" to learn and realize more from another more advanced soul than you would have if you had remained "loyal" to your previous guru(s). The main thing is that the honest seeker always remains focused on the goal - attainment of service to Sri Sri Radha-Krishna in a particular mood. Whoever can connect one with the eternal, divine service is the preferable Guru. Aparadha refers to that which leads one away from worship. Abandonment of a lesser guru who doesn´t have the capacity to lead his disciples properly becomes a necessity for somebody who is eager to draw himself closer to the Divine Couple and Their servants....It is certainly not an aparadha, rather the opposite.
:0

RadheShyam!

Dear Tarun Kishor das,

Please accept my humble obeisances. I hope what I say will be useful in some way. I pray that the Vaisnavas will forgive me for my ignorance and arrogance.  I am dependent on your mercy...

If two people do not accept eachother's beliefs, this does not make them enemies.  Let's say, for example, that  someone lacks faith in my lineage. I can't hold it against them if they have doubts. At worst, I should consider such a person unfortunate for not being able to distinguish truth from untruth. To slander such a person, on the other hand, would certainly be sadhu-ninda.

Even an ill-behaved or sinful person is considered a sadhu if he has taken taken shelter of the Lord. Thus, disrespecting even a sinful devotee is considered sadhu-ninda. (see Madhurya Kadambini, Third Shower, Paragraphs 4-6) As illustrated in the posting of Raga (June 10 2002,19:26); "One who has hatred for vaishnavas should certainly be rejected." "The word dvesa (hatred) also stands for ninda (slander) - nindApi dveza samaH." "Therefore an offender to the Vaishnavas is not qualified to be a Guru, and he must be abandoned."  So, a guru who slanders Vaisnavas, is fit to be rejected.

You said that "so many bad things roam around about both Vaisnavas".  Do you mean, "so many bad things are 'spoken about' both Vaisnavas"?  It's not so much what hear "about" some person, as it is what we hear "from" that person that we should use to judge them.  I am not very experienced, but I don't see Pandit Ananta Das Babaji speaking ill of anyone.  From reading his books, it seems that Ananta Das Babaji shows great respect to all devotees. It may be true (as you cited from a letter he wrote you) that he "somehow confirmed the "un-bona-fide-ness" of the GM-lineage", but to have doubt in one line of teaching and certainty in another is not slander. As far as I know, Pandit Sri Ananta Das Babaji does not show disrespect to anyone. He teaches that we should offer our obeisances to the feet of everyone.  I assume that he does as he says.

trnad api...

Dear Devotees,
Jay Sri Radhe.

thank you all so much for your very encouraging and inspiring words. a bewildered soul needs that kind of mercy.

actually i never heard Srila Ananta das Babaji speaking ill of anyone, neither in his books, neither in his pathas.
i actually thought that finally i met a real Vaishnava of ideal profile when i read his wonderful books and when i heard him speak.
but after i wrote to SNM about reading his books (Panditji´s),
a leading disciple of SNM went on blaspheming like mad.

so i stopped being a disciple of SNM after he personally forbade me to read Srila Ananta das Babajis books.

i was then very often confused by the following:
on one side one should always pay respect to one´s guru, even  if he seems to be acting not according to Vaishnava-etiquette and on the other side its said one should give up such a guru.
now much became clearer.

could someone of you please explain to me in a nutshell what are the basic differences in the teachings of the GM-lineage and for example the lineage of Srila Ananta das Babaji, which seems to me after reading your comment the authentical lineage down from Sri Caitanya. what are the relevant points?

i would again like to thank you all
best thing to do is to take shelter of the Holy Name and pray for the right way.
best thing also to do is to meet Srila Ananta das Babaji in person

thanks
Tarunji  

There are certainly multiple authentic lines descending from Sri Caitanya, and there is plurality among their practices.

In regards to GM, there are heaps of nitty-gritty issues, but I'll just focuse on that which is related with methods of sadhana and related issues:

(1) There is a different conception of sampradaya. Traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas draw their disciplic lineages according to diksa-gurus, whereas GM has invented a novel lineage called "siksa-parampara" and included acaryas who do not recognize this lineage in their line. For instance, Visvanatha and Narottama are very clear about their disciplic line in their writings (Sankalpa Kalpadruma, Prema Bhakti Candrika). They do not trace their disciplic line according to the GM's conception. Additionally, the parampara presented by GM consists to some extent of persons who never met each other. For instance, Narottama never met Visvanatha, for they lived a good while apart, and neither Visvanatha or Baladeva met Jagannatha Das Babaji.

In a tradition in which the mantras for the esoteric worship are passed on from the guru to the disciple, and in which the disciple serves his diksa-guru and the guru's diksa-lineage in sadhaka-deha (guru pranali), and the corresponding lineage in siddha-deha (siddha pranali), the succession is naturally drawn according to diksa-connections to preserve the authentic pranalis required for worship. There is nothing wrong with having a siksa-parampara per se, but it is not the way of tracing out disciplic lineages in the Gaudiya tradition.

(2) Most people among the various branches of the Gaudiya Matha do not endorese the traditional practices of raganuga bhajana, and consider them either unfit for the modern age or deviant from the tradition. Apparently even the conception of panca-dasha of Bhaktivinoda (viz. HNC ch. 15, JD ch. 40 in "Translations") is either not accepted or otherwise deemed unfit for practicing, since sravana-dasha, the beginning of raganuga-bhajana, is a stage where the disciple approaches the guru for learning about his siddha identity.

(3) As we are all aware, all-exclusive sectarianism is a common problem among various branches of any religion. Unfortunately this phenomena is rather evident among several branches of GM, who consider the lineage descending through Bhaktisiddhanta to be the only orthodox representative of the Gaudiya tradition. This has its roots in the idea that Bhaktivinoda revived the orthodox tradition, which had become practically extinct at his time. I am highly doubtful whether Bhaktivinoda would himself agree with this conception.

At any rate, this attitude has often led both leaders and followers in Bhaktisiddhanta's lineage to unjustly disregard and criticize traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Some modern-day leaders of GM have even resorted to presenting unfounded allegations to persuade their followers to stay away from the traditional lineages. You may have seen a document I once compiled, which is an analysis of one such public campaign.

That's about the gist of it I guess. At any rate, they are doing good work in propagating the chanting of the holy name and the teacings of Sriman Mahaprabhu around the world. Let those who like it be happy with it, and let those who seek the classical ways o

f bhajan find their content among the traditional Gaudiya lineages.

[/]

When I was at Radha Kund this springtime, I discussed a number of topics with him. Once we were on an evening walk, and I asked about the concept of diksa-lineage. He confirmed that guru-pranali must be an unbroken diksa-lineage, and that a "bhagavat-parampara" will not do in the Gaudiya tradition.

Then Baba and Navadvipa Das began to ponder whether Gaudiya Math is a branch of ISKCON or the other way around. I was amused to note how unconcerned they had been with these two "rivals" all these years. They did arrive to the right conclusion in the end, though, of ISKCON's being a branch of the Gaudiya Math. Then Baba said with a voice of respect, "That Vedanti Maharaj [Bhaktivedanta Swami], very quickly he went and spread all over the world."

Though we have our differences of opinion, let us not neglect to respect others for the good they do. The more we contemplate on the bad in others, the worse we become. We keep brawling about how sectarian they are, and we are becoming equally sectarian. We keep making remarks about how so and so is attached to and proud about what he does, and how he does it to gain adoration and distinction -- and yet we never fail in doing the same. As wisely advised by the sages of the yore:

"Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye."

Let us try for change to think how nice everyone is, although different from us and our ways, and then we'll perhaps become very nice as well, and have some peace of mind for doing bhajan all day long.

[-B:]

My experience is that when I find faults with others then those faults appear in me.

When I started reading Narayana Maharaja's books while still a member of the institution it opened up within me a higher conception of bhakti, i.e. the gopis love for Krsna. Because of his contraversal position of presenting teachings that were different from the institution's I noticed that there were many opinions among the bhaktas of that institution. I was wondering at that time, why all the commotion? Afterall he is helping our bhakti.

After reading the Goswami literature with the commentaries of Ananta Das Pandit translated by Adwaitaji, and later coming into physical contact with raganuga bhaktas in Radha Kunda, as well as Baba himself, I again became acquainted with yet a higher level of bhakti conceptions than previously known. After I took diksa and began to practice bhajan the missing pieces of the puzzle began to fall into place. That is, a diksa connection with a bona lineage in the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition was what was missing.

Regarding differences in teachings, I got the impression from followers of Narayana Maharaja that the siddha deha is revealed by Krsna or the holy name of Krsna in the stage of bhava. It was never that clear to me, but it seemed that if one did bhajan aspiring for manjari bhava that Krsna would give it to one who qualified for it. However, techniques of smaranam bhajan as we have learnt in traditional raganuga bhajan are preached against. I also noticed that to some degree their idea of manasi seva is serving an external Deity of Krsna in the mind. I have learned in our tradition that the external Thakur (Deity of Radha and Krsna) is served externally with daily offerings of bath, incence, flowers, food, ect. ; whereas Radha and Krsna is served mentally with the siddha deha (manjari svarupa) while meditating on the eternal pastimes under the guidence of Guru Manjari and Rupa Manjari. As one practices this seva he/she will one day qualify for the direct seva through a transcendentally divine revelation by Radha-Krsna.

I have read in Ananta Das Pandit's Bhakti Tattva Vijnana that certainly association with an advance devotee who is free from the propensity to criticize others is very good for one's bhajan. However, more beneficial for our bhajan is the association of ordinary sadhus. Why? because they can see our mistakes and help us correct them. I mention this point, because it may sometimes seem that some of us don't cut any slack when it comes to certain philosophical issues and it may appear that we are being critical, but I think it is natural that such things have to be exposed for our benefit.

The relevant excerpt from the Bhakta Tattva Vijnana is as follows (page 10):

Those who see no faults in virtues, but make proper distinction between virtues and faults are called ordinary saints. In the eyes of the scriptures they neutrally distinguish between virtues and faults, and they are called sadacara bhaktas. ‘sangena sadhu bhaktanam’, ‘sadhur atra sadacarah’ (Bhakti Sandarbha - 201). With such devotees one must associate. Such saints are the greatest benefactors of a person like me, because they will distinguish between my virtues and the faults and tell me to give up the faults, then, when I don't accept their instructions they will bestow mercy upon me by punishing me. Those maha bhagavatas who consider even the fallen souls to be the topmost saints or consider themselves to be lower than blades of grass will not always bestow mercy upon a person like me. A person like me is not aware of the time or the circumstance in which such great souls bestow their mercy upon the living entities. Therefore it is the best thing if ordinary sadhakas associate with the above mentioned ordinary mahatmas.

To bring this conception to a practical level, I would like to hear your reflections on the following considerations:

1. We would certainly love to respect everyone as a saint and a mahatma.

2. There are many persons who believe their view is correct, and are keen to also correct others according to their view. However, it is observed that not everyone's view is always correct or most beneficial for others.

Any thoughts on this?


I'm sure we still agree that the propensity to criticize is not desirable. In BTV it is said, "they neutrally distinguish between virtues and faults". The concept "elevated devotees devoid of the propensity to criticize" is drawn from Upadesamrta 5, "nindAdi-zunya hRdam Ipsita saGga-labdhvAt", the association of one whose heart is free from ninda and so forth (blasphemy etc.) is to be obtained. "Ninda" is driven forth by the force of bitter emotion or other varieties of impetus which are hardly what we could call "neutrally distinguishing between virtues and faults".

Their conception is that the sadhaka absorbs himself in nama-bhajan, and eventually obtains revelations of his siddha-deha, which is then confirmed by the realized guru. They call it "bhajan pranali", and use a term attributed to Gopal Guru, "upAsaka pariSkRti", a refinement of the worshipper's conception. This looks to me like a fusion between the classical tradition and the Gaudiya Math line -- like many things there. Consequently, many of their conceptions are endorsed neither by the rest of the GM nor by the classical lineages. A strange kichari indeed.

I'll define the phrase 'not cutting any slack'. If a person does not cut any slack it means that they are being uncompromising about something.

Actually, to some extent the GVS are correct that revelation of what they regard as Siddha Deha is practised at senior levels throughout GM. For example if you read the sanskrit poems of BR Sridhar Maharaj about BSS you will find what I now recognise as something like Ekadasa Bhava of his Guru BSS, eg 'Seva: building the Bower for R&K'. And Sridhar Maharaj was regarded as having received 'entrance' to Nitya Lila from BSS (in his/her Gan) on his deathbed while singing 'Rupa Manjari Pada'. Again Keshav Maharaj received something too. And Vana (Bon) Maharaj. And there is a letter where BSS identifies Kunja Bihari/Tirtha Maharaj as his/her Gana by name. The problem as I see it is that far from being an egalitarian reform, supposedly away from 'caste restrictions', the GM was more elitist than Gaudiya Vaishnavism ever was. Quite Fascist in fact (I mean in the true sense of mystified hierarchical elitism). The contemporaneity of the rise of Fascist 'reform' in Europe and GM in India was not entirely coincidental. I know of one senior GM who was sympathetic to Nazism, as in fact were many Bengalis of that era. The emphasis on Varnashram comes in here.

The overemphasis on celibacy is also worrying and obviously leads to distortions. This and the whole hierarchy thing were said to have been major concerns of BP Puri Maharaj/ Srila Puri Das. All Glories to him for getting married at the height of his GM prowess, and telling his thousands of GM disciples to seek diksha from a traditional lineage!

But here's an example of strange kichari: It is said that BSS felt there must be some connection between Sikshashtakam and Ashtakaliya Lila. He had his disciples chant the eight verses at the various time periods thru the day, which was supposed to manifest the Lila in their hearts. No wonder they felt Brahma Gayatri contains Radha Dasyam too (and Rig Veda is actually Krishna Lila etc etc). It is a kind of  psychological disturbance which intellectuals are prone to: 'What if up is down? What if good is evil?' Thus Nietzsche went mad. Gurus who lead their followers thru such exercises, like Zen masters, ought to be aware that they are unleashing a dangerous power, making their followers prone to mental confusion if, like most they are not strong enough intellectually. Combine this with a mystical hierarchy and secret teachings and you have all the ingredients of Nazi extremes.

On the other hand, carefully reasoned, well-structured teaching in which the logic is easy to see and follow in a relaxed and natural way, such as that of Sri Anantadas Baba, ensures psychological health for the followers, quite apart from its obvious spiritual benefits. In current psychological terms, this 'gives ownership' to the disciple who can clearly understand or at least appreciate the teachings, whether a great mind (or great renunciant) or not, thus a true form of spiritual egalitarianism.
Adi.

I find that in institutional bhakti life devotees find it hard to think for themselves which leads to unhealthy pyschological development. Bhakti is a gradual development through the nine stages. External peer pressure has its limitations in fostering the natural growth or attainment of devotion. One has to do ones own work at ones own pace. The pace by which one moves by is determined by ones own realization and eagerness to attain the goal. Of course, one cannot do without the mercy of saints.

I just read the original posting again. It should certainly not be a problem if you feel thankful for anyone because of learning from him. In fact, it would be a problem if you would not be thankful to someone for receiving something from him. I just came across the following passage in Ananta Das Pandit's commentary on Madhurya Kadambini (end of fourth shower), where he elaborates on what Visvanatha speaks about nistha:

The second type of nistha, tad-anukula-vastu-visayini, refers to the qualities favourable to bhakti such as not desiring respect, respectfulness, friendliness, mercifulness, forgiveness, gratefulness, patience, and so on. The first two qualities increase humility in a devotee, thus nourishing his devotion. Being merciful and friendly to all living beings makes bhakti steady and free from obstacles. It is nothing but deception to ask forgiveness from the Lord when one cannot forgive others.

Gratitude is especially favourable to bhakti. Bhakti-devi does not appear in the heart of ungrateful persons. Even the Lord is full of the quality of gratefulness! He gives His own self to His devotee who offers water and Tulasi to Him. He even blessed the wicked witch Putana by giving her a position similar to a mother for merely imitating the behaviour of an affectionate mother. The greatness of a mahat is that he has the quality of gratefulness. An insignificant person is ungrateful, showing his pettiness. The more elevated one is, the more the heart is full of gratefulness. Bhakti-devi does not establish her seat in the heart of a narrow-minded and ungrateful person.

Of course, gratefulness to someone does not imply absolute, eternal obligation and obeyance to him. Nevertheless, gratefulness must be there.

I have a question about another ingredient in the GM "strange kichari," about which I haven't been able to get a straight answer from GM sources.

Long ago, I heard from Paramadvaiti Maharaja (a loyal GM man) that in the early days of GM, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati did not have his disciples wear saffron:  for a time they wore black, and for a time they wore green.  Later he settled on the same saffron as the Ramakrishna Mission.

Does anyone here have information on this curious detail, and whatever devotional or intellectual justification was given for the different colors and the changes between them?

Orthodox priests dress in black, Irish elves and Martians dress in green. Sounds very eccentric to say the least. Are you sure?

GiG, most of this is new to me but sounds feasible, because I have just seen an old photo in which BSS is dressed in robes walking with some British dignitary, but his followers, led by recognisable Keshav Maharaj (Guru of BVN) are dressed in a strange but very stylish getup: a Church Parson's black suit (with waistcoat and tailored trousers) and clerical collar, with a neat coloured turban on the head (b&w photo does not show colour of turban: green? saffron?). Hence they certainly experimented with dress and they did dress in black, albeit English dress. It looked to me that there was some attempt to impress that they were as good as the English parsons.

GM history portrays BSS in a vacuum but considering the impact of Vivekananda on Bengali society at turn-of-century, obviously BSS was aware of his creating an order of sannyas. Also sannyas had already been mythologised by Bhankim Chandra 50 years earlier in his novel 'Anand Math' about a group of dedicated sannyasis who save India. I have seen a picture of what looks like a Ramanujite Tridandi sannyasi in SriRangam. BSS studied South Indian Vaishnavism before creating GM.

The picture you are referring to is taken on the occasion of Bhaktisiddhanta's and Keshava Maharaja's meeting with Sir John Anderson, dating to January 1935. The dress style of GM was certainly established as saffron at that time, since Bhaktisiddhanta departed in the end of 1936, only two years after the occasion. Besides, Keshava Maharaja, or Vinode Bihari Kritiratna as he was known back then, was one of Bhaktisiddhanta's leading managers. I would count this as being his personal exception in style of dress.

The photo was published in a recent book. A very large album dedicated to BSS, I think. Sorry I can remember no more. It may be available thru Iskcon. The thing is it looked like BSS and the Governor were being accompanied by a group of young Anglican seminarians until I realised that the leader was a young Keshav Maharaj, all impeccably dressed and poised, and they were all wearing turbans, but neatly tailored turbans. Possibly even turban-shaped hats! They certainly achieve their aim of looking very 'respectable'. It is quite a photo. The suits may also have been a dark green for all we know, but parsons usually dress in black. Perhaps green suits would have distinguished them sufficiently from the Anglicans in their black, while the respectable dress showed that they were undoubtedly their 'equals'. It all makes sense to me, if you put yourself back in those times when Indians and especially Hindus were striving for self-esteem. Note even Vivekananda wore a suit when meeting Europeans.

Part of Gandhi's impact was that he just seemed not to care for European mores. He was just an Indian, a 'naked fakir', and the Europeans had to accept him as he was. This thrilled ordinary Indians who were identified as his followers by wearing Khadi. Gandhi was also influential in Bengal up til 1920, when they suddenly rejected him (over his support for conservative 'Khilafat' Islamists which alienated a lot of Hindus and others at that time). And that was also when many young Bengalis joined GM. Coincidence? Did Gandhi's example also influence the adoption of Indian robes by GM?
Adi.

Oh, OK. You got me there Ragaji. We cross-posted. A rarity on this site. But Keshavji was leading a group (at least 3) all dressed the same. It also looks 'choreographed' like a GM event. Was this the first time they dressed so? Note that in earlier days even Vivekananda would have routinely worn such an outfit with westerners and the example of Gandhi who was perhaps the first 'respectable' Indian who did not. Also GM preachers, notably Bon Maharaj, dressed like that when travelling overseas with BSS's approval. But I concede that this picture, because of the late date, does not support Paramadvaiti's contention as I thought it did. We are told, however, that BSS was both radical traditionalist, banning harmonium for example, and radical preacher, even prepared to serve meat in England to attract people to Krishna. He remains an enigma and variations in dress code are quite conceivable.

You can view the picture here. That's probably not the whole picture, I think NM's followers scanned it in from the other one and cropped for KM's biography.

The relevant aspects of Vaisnava doutrine is Bhagavat Kripa and so is the Guru Kripa. Both are the flows of different waves of Prema. In The BG we find " Absorb your mind and heart in Me, offer your obeisances to Me, and certaly you will come to Me.I make this promise to you because you are very dear to Me "
That is Sri Krishna 's promise and what He does to fufill this ? Perhaps only the Jiva and Sri Krishna Knows. That is the particular Marga that we all are destinated to expirience, the transcedental knowledge withing our heart. How it came to us that is the mistery ( mercy ),  after many life times we came in contact with Vaisnavas ( people looking for spiritual knowlegde )and restart our journey towards Love. But there is the modes of Nature, Maya, Ego, Mind and so on just there waiting for the oportunity to misguide  us and they are all very competent such a power they have that it is capable to stop our intense Lobha to serve The Divine couple and how it is possible? It is possible when we forget that in every stage of our spiritual life we gonna learn from different teachers and they are all good to us until a certain level and according to our Sukrit we gonna find others that will give us the right guide towards Prema Bhakti. That is what Sri Krishna promise in BG and Paramatma inside heart guides with the infalible help of our beloved Gurudeva for a better Bhajam. Plea

se Gurudeva let me be free of Vaisnava Aparadha and let the bee of my mind worship their Lotus feet.

Your servant
harisaran das