Scholarship versus divine revelation - Narasingha maharaja about Jagat

I just received new Krishna Talk.I have thought it may be interesting to post it for all the devotees and especially Jagat to give their respected opinions.






Scholarship vs Divine Revelation

By
Swami B.G. Narasingha


KRSNA TALK 41
---------------------------------------------------------

Question: I have read an article by a scholar (Mr. Jan Brzezinski, aka. Jagadananda Dasa/ Jagat) in which he suggests that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has counterfeited three books; Caitanya-upanisad, Prema-vivarta and Navadvipa-satakam. My question is: How much attention or credit should a practicing devotee give to the opinions of scholars. (See Appendix at the end of this article for the quote by Brzezinski)

Narasingha Maharaja: Scholarship, in and of itself, is no qualification for understanding Divinity or Revelation. Those who go by the name 'scholar' are simply licking the jar of nectar from the outside. Thus they have no capacity to understand Divine Revelation.

All too often scholars want to study some books and through the acquisition of knowledge they want to be recognized as an authority of a particular spiritual tradition. However, without actually following spiritual principles they cannot do so. In particular the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition mandates that one take shelter of the spiritual master and remain under his instruction. This is an indispensable instruction for those who want to become successful in spiritual life.

guru-pada-asraya-astasmat, krsna-diksadi-siksanam
visrambhena guroh seva, sadhu-vartmanu-varttanam

"Submissively taking shelter of the feet of the guru, receiving initiation and spiritual training regarding Krsna, serving the guru with affection and zeal, and following in the path of sadhus (saints). These are indispensable parts of Bhakti." (Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, txt 74)

Neglecting this instruction and simply becoming a scholar will not make one spiritually advanced. Scholarship alone is but a fruitless glory.

Divine Revelation is a subjective experience and unless one is steadfast under the shelter (asraya) of guru, Divine Revelation does not descend. One must have full faith in the guru before one can understand the truth. This is concurred by all acaryas and throughout the Vedic literature, Upanisads, Puranas and so forth.

yasya deve para bhaktir, yatha-deve tatha gurau
tasyaite kathita hy arthah, prakasante mahatmanah

"Only unto those great souls who have complete faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master are all the imports of Vedic knowledge automatically revealed." (Svetasvatara-upanisad, 6.38)

What the Vaisnavas call Divine Revelation the scholars, like Mr. Brzezinski, prefer to call "counterfeiting." Counterfeiting suggests cheating, which is certainly a material defect, or a "human failing" as Brzezinski points out. But what Brzezinski seems to have failed to understand, despite his studies, is that the pure devotee of Krsna is above the material defects of bhrama, pramada, vipra-lipsa, karanapatava (mistake, illusion, cheating and defective perception).

bhrama, pramada, vipra-lipsa, karanapatava
arsa-vijna-vakye nahi dosa ei saba

"Mistakes, illusions, cheating and defective perception do not occur in the words of the authoritative sages." (Cc, Adi. 2.86)

There are indeed many defects in this material world. Certainly the material bodies of all living beings are defective. Even the pure devotee has to pass stool. However, because the pure devotee is fully surrendered to the lotus feet of the Supreme Lord all his apparent defects are ignored and the Supreme Lord accepts him as His very own. Indeed, the Supreme Lord even embraces the so-called material body (even diseased body) of his pure devotee. Such was the case with Sanatana Gosvami who was embraced by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

more na chuniha, prabhu, padon tomara paya
eke nica-jati adhama, ara knadu-rasa gaya

"My Lord, please do not touch me. I fall at your lotus feet. I am the lowest of men, having been born of a low caste. Besides that, I have infections on my body." (Cc, Antya. 4.20)

balatkare prabhu tanre alingana kaila
kandu-kleda mahaprabhu sri-ange lagila

"Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, however, embraced Sanatana Goswami by force. Thus the moisture oozing from the itching sores touched the transcendental body of Sri Caitanya." (Cc, Antya. 4.21)

prabhu kahe, -"vaisnava-deha 'prakrta' kabhu naya
'aprakrta' deha bhaktera 'cid-ananda-maya'

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, "The body of a devotee is never material. It is considered to be transcendental. Full of spiritual bliss." (Cc, Antya. 4.191)

diksa-kale bhakta kare atma-samarpana
sei-kale krsna tare kare atma-sama

Mahaprabhu continued, "At the time of initiation, when a devotee fully surrenders unto the service of the Lord, Krsna accepts him to be as good as Himself." (Cc, Antya. 4.192

The Supreme Lord can ignore the apparent defects of the pure devotee and embrace him to His heart but the scholars, because they lack faith in God, cannot do so.

Perfection cannot be found in the objective study of this material world or in the objective study of the pure devotee or the Supreme Lord. When seen with the eye of empirical knowledge even God Himself is seen to have so many 'failings.' Therefore, perfection can only be seen with the subjective eye or with subjective knowledge. As Srila Prabhupada used to say, "Don't see the tree, see Krsna."

To the scholar this may appear as a type of self-imposed hypnosis, but in reality it is the scholar who is under the hypnosis of the material energy and it is the pure devotee who is able to see the truth, by the grace of Hari, Guru, and Vaisnava.

If one considers the pure devotee (or guru) as an ordinary mortal, all his endeavors to know the truth are a useless waste of time. This is the main defect in the scholars.

kim ca satyam bhuyasyam api bhaktau, gurau manusya-buddhitve sarvam eva vyarthan  bhavatity-aha yasyeti. saksad bhagavati bhagavad-amsa-buddhir api gurau na karyeti bhavah.

"It is most important to understand that even if someone performs intense devotional practices to the Lord, it is a useless waste of time if he considers his guru to be an ordinary mortal. This is pointed out in this verse. The words saksad-bhagavati clearly means that the spiritual master must be considered to be the Supreme Lord Himself and not even a mere expansion of Him." (Srila Visvanatha Cakravartipada in his commentary to the Bhagavatam 7.15.26)

However, scholars do not like to admit that there is actually anyone who is above their own misgivings. To the scholars, spirituality is more or less an intellectual exercise. And sraddha or faith (the very foundation of spiritual life) is considered by scholars to be a mental conjecture. Being the victims of a poor fund of knowledge the scholars do not know that sraddha (faith) is a spiritual substance more real than all their empirical knowledge and research combined.

Mr. Brzezinski states that he thinks that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has counterfeited three books: Caitanya-upanisad, Prema-vivarta and Navadvipa-satakam. As evidence Brzezinski says that the falsity of the books is obvious in that they were "found by chance in mysterious circumstances only to disappear again" and that "the text contains elements of language and content that not only point to a modern origin, but to the very person who claims to have found the manuscript."

That Brzezinski finds fault with the "mysterious circumstances" surrounding Bhaktivinoda's discovery seems in itself a strange complaint for one who has supposedly studied Indian spiritual traditions. Indeed, 'mysterious' is a circumstance that surrounds almost all Divine occurrences in India or for that matter all Divine occurrences throughout the whole world.

There is an example in the Sri-sampradaya of the loss of and then the later rediscovery of the 4000 verses of the Prabandhams written by the Alvars in ancient times, which is certainly mysterious. All but ten verses of the 4000 Prabandhams (the Tamil Veda) had been lost for many centuries. One day in the village of Kattumannar Koil, the celebrated Vaishnava, Nathamuni heard a group of devotees chanting ten beautiful hymns in Tamil. As he listened, he discovered that the name of the author was Satakopa (Nammalvar) and that the ten verses that the devotees recited were only a part of the original 1000 stanzas.

Nathamuni then questioned the devotees but they knew virtually nothing, except that if he went to the town of Tirukurugur maybe someone there could help him.

On reaching Tirukurugur, Nathamuni went door-to-door inquiring from all the inhabitants of that place, but to no avail. Finally one man told him that he should question a local mendicant whose name was Parankusa Dasar. Prostrating before Parankusa Dasar, Nathamuni told him of his mission and asked him for help. Parankusa Dasar explained that the hymns were known as the Prabandhams and had been composed by great devotees centuries before, but in time they had become lost. In order to retrieve them, Nathamuni was told by Parankusa Dasar to recite the prayers of Madhurakavi praising Nammalvar 20,000 times. Parankusa Dasar had procured a copy of these ancient hymns and he readily gave them to Nathamuni with the further instruction that he should recite them under Nammalvar's tamarind tree in Tirunagari.

Nathamuni performed this penance and on completion he was blessed with the vision of Nammalvar.  The Alvar inquired why Nathamuni was engaging in such austerities. Nathamuni answered, "You who opened the inner-eye of Madhurakavi! You who gave the essence of the Vedas in Tamil! You who are called Satakopan! Please bless me by revealing these 1000 hymns." Nammalvar informed Nathamuni that there were in fact 4000 hymns, not 1000, and went on to teach him all the Prabandhams of the Alvars, along with their esoteric meanings.

After learning the Prabandhams, Nathamuni went on to codify them into four sections and put them to music according to the instructions of Nammalvar. (Note: Nammalvar had been deceased for about 4000 years by the time of Nathamuni)

This short story from Sri Vaisnava tradition, is certainly mysterious. The fact is that there is no empirical evidence that such a revelation ever occurred to Nathamuni or that the Alwars actually composed the Prabandhams in the first place. Verifiable or not, the 4000 verses of the Prabandhams currently exist and they are accepted by all Sri Vaisnavas as having been written by the Alvars.

If maintaining the original document of any given literature were necessary proof of origin then where is the proof that Vyasadeva wrote the Vedas, Puranas, Mahabharata, and so on? Unfortunately, the original manuscripts of Vyasadeva do not exist, yet only a 'doubting Thomas' has reservations about who actually wrote the Vedas.

It seems that the scholars should have realized by now that the people in India (especially in the past) were not at all concerned with preserving original materials other than the Deity. What they were concerned with however, and which is far more lasting, is the tradition of the guru-disciple succession - that being a living thing.

It is doubtful that Srila Bhaktivinoda found the original Caitanya-upanisad written by the hand of Vyasadeva. If so it would have been close to 5000 years old. In all likelihood the text that Bhaktivinoda received must have been very old and in poor condition. Considering this as a possibility, after its publication the original document may well have been consecrated to the ocean or the Ganga as was the practice in India for thousands of years or the text may even have been returned to its original owner. Have the scholars taken the time and trouble to find out or are they simply being carried away by their assumptions?

What we do know is that it is mentioned by the biographers of Bhaktivinoda Thakura that, "Thakura Bhaktivinoda of village Chotimangalpura in Kendrapara District, Orissa, also collected the Sri Caitanya Upanisad of the Paippalada branch from Pandita Madhusudana Dasa of Sambalpura, Orissa, publishing it in 1887 (the same year as its discovery).

It is peculiar why Brzezinski has suggested that the Caitanya-upanisad contains elements of language that point to a modern origin when in fact the text of the Caitanya-upanisad is written in classical Sanskrit with "svara"(only taught in South India), which is not practiced even in Bengal. We have shown the text of Caitanya-upanisad to several Sanskrit scholars at the Sanskrta-Sansodhana-Samsat Academy of Sanskrit Research in South India and their comments were the same, "The text is in perfect Vedic Sanskrit and the 'svara' shows its origin to be from antiquity."

It is also interesting to note that Bhaktivinoda Thakura himself had only a modest knowledge, no formal training, of Sanskrit. Bhaktivinoda received some tutoring in Sanskrit from Isvarachandra Vidyasagara and Satyendranatha Tagore in Calcutta in 1874 and then began some writings in Sanskrit. So it is unlikely, given his limited experience in Sanskrit, that Bhaktivinode would ever have written such a classical Sanskrit text 'with svara' as Caitanya-upanisad.

That the Prema-vivarta has elements of the Bengali of Bhaktivinoda's time is also not surprising. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura published his books for the benefit of the devotees at large and could easily have changed some of the grammar to suit his audience. This is called editing, not cheating or lying as Brzezinski suggests. The same is true of Navadvipa-satakam, written in Sanskrit of the Bengali style.

In any case we are happy with the conclusion of many senior Vaisnavas that Bhaktivinoda received many of his writings via Divine Revelation.

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was a highly qualified acarya and as such, nothing to date has been substantially shown to stain his spotless record. Only the limited ability of the scholars to understand Divine Revelation seems to be the real issue at hand (the "masi bindu" is on the scholars).

In this regard one may be interested to hear what Sarasvati Thakura had to say regarding Divine Revelation, as opposed to the comparative study of religion by modern scholars.

Sarasvati Thakura: "Sri Krsna Caitanya insists on the transcendence of the worship of Godhead with an emphasis that distinguishes His teaching from that of all the prophets and teachers of religion. The mystery of the worship of Sri Sri Radha-Krsna, taught and practiced by Him and His followers, is unapproachable by any mundane contrivance. It is for overlooking this fundamental consideration that the comparative study of religion by modern scholars has so utterly failed to produce unanimity of conviction. It is high time to pay our best attention to the proper method of approaching the transcendence which is part and parcel of the revelations." (The Harmonist, Statement of Purpose, Sept. 9, 1935)

Furthermore one may be interested to hear what Srila B.R. Sridhara Maharaja had to say about this matter.

Sridhara Maharaja: "That (Caitanya-upanisad) may not be found anywhere. This detail also, Brahma-samhita is not to be found, it is taken by Caitanyadeva. It is written by Caitanyadeva? Bhaktivinoda Thakura has written and we do not find any book by Caitanyadeva. If Brahma-samhita comes from Him, then we are very much proud and we are satisfied that He has left at least one book. But Jiva Gosvami has shown, written, that there was really Brahma-samhita, with one hundred chapters and this is one chapter out of that."

Devotee: "Prema-vivarta was written by Bhaktivinoda, somebody told, not Jagadananda."

Sridhara Maharaja: "If we can think that the teachings of Sri Caitanyadeva are the highest, full-fledged theism as told by Prabhupada and Bhagavat is the highest development, then that has got reality, that is true, that cannot but be true. Whatever is felt, any more, any single division, that is generally bona-fide."

"That is the only truth. That the revealed truth means that thousands and thousands of years back it was revealed in some rsi and that the revelation cannot come at present. I don't think like that. Any time the revelation may come to support this highest form of theism, whatever the revelation. I also told that this Jaiva Dharma, it is fictitious, but I think that these things actually must have been true, found in the creation. When it has come in the consciousness of Bhaktivinoda Thakura, it is not contradictory. It is floating and sometimes appearing and sometimes disappearing. It is all eternal truth. Hare Krsna. Gaura Haribol. Nitai-Gaura." (Darsana, Sri Caitanya Sarasvata Matha, July 20, 1983)

Devotee: "That deals more philosophically. He deals philosophically in that book, Prema-vivarta."

Sridhara Maharaja: "Yes, many things in the name of Gauranga, association mentioned there which helps much for the propaganda of Gaudiya Matha. So a particular section, the opposition camp of Gaudiya Matha they say that in the name of Jagadananda this is written by Bhaktivinoda Thakura. Their opinion is such because that book supports Gaudiya Matha decision very well. Just as the sahajiya section they think that when we live in Puri, the maha-prasada, no observance of Ekadasi necessary. In Caitanya-caritamrta it is found. So when there is maha-prasada, even Ekadasi day we should not fast, take maha-prasada. But in Jagadananda Pandita's Prema-vivarta it is clearly written that Mahaprabhu was offered maha-prasadam, but He touched it on His head and He kept it respectfully and the whole day and night chanted sankirtana, then after that He took that prasadam. It is mentioned there."

"Similarly many things which are very helpful for the preachers of the Gaudiya Matha - it is found there (Prema-vivarta) proof positive. So one Professor Majumdar, one scholar he was university professor. Perhaps he came from the sahajiya family or so. At least he accepted something of Mahaprabhu but he could not tolerate the criticism of the sahajiya section from Gaudiya Matha. So he has written a book and there he has mentioned carefully, very cleverly, who has written this book (Prema-vivarta) is not clearly known, but what the Gaudiya Matha people they preach, they have got full support from this book (Prema-vivarta)."  (Darsana, Sri Caitanya Sarasvata Matha, Feb. 11,1982)

Historically it looks like the sahajiya section was the first to lodge a complaint against the authorship of Prema-vivarta and the scholars simply picked up on the argument later on.

However, Srila Sridhara Maharaja fully supported the idea that Bhaktivinoda Thakura received many of his writings via Divine Revelation and not by the process of speculation, intellectual achievement, or mental conjecture. What Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote throughout his books exists in eternity and Bhaktivinoda has received that through Divine Revelation.

We accept the opinion of Srila Sridhara Maharaja as regards the Divine Revelation of Bhaktivinoda Thakura because we feel that Srila Sridhara Maharaja's opinion has its roots in higher realization. The realizations of Srila Sridhara Maharaja were, in fact many times confirmed in the presence of his guru and in later years by senior Vaisnavas. Should we accept the opinions of conditioned souls (scholars) or should we accept the opinions of the tattva-darsis, (Bg. 4.34) those who have seen the truth? Our choice is obvious - we accept the tattva-darsis.

Some scholars conjecture that although Kaviraja Gosvami narrates in his Caitanya-caritamrta that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu found the text of Brahma-samhita being recited at the Adi Kesava temple in the remote village of Tiruvattar, near Kanya Kumari, that it was actually Sri Caitanya who wrote the Brahma-samhita in order to give support to His own conception of Krsna. This view is commonly held among modern scholars.

Thus according to scholars the revered Kaviraja Gosvami was also a liar as Brzezinski suggests of Bhaktivinoda. One might wonder if Brzezinski would agree with his fellow scholars that the integrity of Kaviraja Gosvami was also not above suspicion. Indeed, Brzezinski does think exactly that. In another of his articles "Prabodhananda Sarasvati - From Banaras to Braj" on the identity of Prabodananda and Prakasananda, Brzezinski states that the story of the conversion of Prakasananda as told by Kaviraja Gosvami  "cannot be accepted as entirely true."

Thus Brzezinski joins hands with a host of mundane scholars and ridicules the most revered biographer of the pastimes of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Not only does Brzezinski belittle Kaviraja Gosvami, but he indirectly belittles the Supreme Lord for it is the admission of Kaviraja Gosvami that he does not write Caitanya-caritamrta. Kaviraja Gosvami says that Caitanya-caritamrta is the dictation of Sri Madana Mohana.

ei grantha lekhaya more 'madana-mohana'
amara likhana yena sukera pathana

"Actually Sri Caitanya-caritamrta is not my writing but the dictation of Sri Madana-mohana. My writing is like the repetition of a parrot."

What we find lacking in some scholars, rather than lacking in our acaryas, is their own integrity. Are the scholars unbiased souls in search of truth or do they have some agenda, such as to destroy the very fiber of Divinity, the very fiber of the Gaudiya-sampradaya? My suspicion is that their motives are something other than pure.

It is interesting to note that many of the arguments that Brzezinski presents against the Gaudiya Matha and Iskcon sampradayas are almost identical to those found in an essay written by the scholar Sundarananda Vidyavinoda. This scholar was a disciple of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, but he later rejected his guru and vilified the Gaudiya Matha and its founder. One might wonder if Brzezinski has taken his arguments directly from Sundarananda Vidyavinoda or whether he was tutored by someone who was familiar with such arguments?

The various complaints that Brzezinski makes in his articles against Gaudiya Matha and Iskcon, such as; Yoga-pitha not being the real birth site of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, sannyasa not being authorized for Kali-yuga, whether or not Sarasvati Thakura was actually initiated by Gaura Kishora Dasa Babaji, Bhaktivinoda having presented false literature, the Gaudiya-sampradaya not having an actual link with the Madhva-sampradaya and more, are for the most part all reiterations of arguments made against the Gaudiya Matha almost 60 years ago by Sundarananda Vidyavinoda. By comparison it begins to look like Brzezinski is the reincarnation of Sundarananda Vidyavinoda.

Indeed, in more ways than one Brzezinski is in a position quite like that of Sundarananda. Unfortunately in the same way as Sundarananda rejected his guru (Srila Bhaktisiddhanta) so Brzezinski (once Hiranyagarbha Dasa) also rejected his guru (Srila Prabhupada). Brzezinski rejected his guru shortly after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada. Having rejected Srila Prabhupada, Brzezinski took initiation from Lalita Prasada. Brzezinski took babaji-vesa and siddha-pranali from Lalita Prasada but later gave that up to become a family man and a scholar. And now it seems that Brzezinski is also rejecting Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, the guru of Lalita Prasada.

It is mentioned in the Puranas and also stated by Sri Jiva Gosvami that one who rejects his guru is as good as an atheist.

bodhah kalusitas tena, dauratmyam prakati-krtam
gurur yena parityaktas, tena tyaktah pura harih

"One pollutes his own intelligence and exhibits severe weakness of character when he rejects his own spiritual master. Indeed, such a person has factually already rejected Lord Hari." (Bhakti-sandarbha, Annucheda 207 quoting Brahma-vaivarta Purana)

Our humble thinking is that only the opinions of pure devotees (acaryas) and the opinions of the faithful disciples of such acaryas are of any value to the practicing devotees. Let the so-called scholars first surrender to the lotus feet of Sri Guru and Krsna. Then we may give some attention and credit to their opinions - otherwise not.

Appendix:
(quote from Jan Brzezinski, "Bhaktivinode's Relationship With Bipin Bihari Goswami," www.granthamandira.org/~jagat/articles/)
"However, three books that the Thakur published as ancient works were almost certainly composed by him. These three -- Caitanyopanisad (1887), Prema-vivarta (1906) and Navadvipa-satakam (n.d.) have certain common characteristics - they were all connected to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the glorification of his birthplace. The motives are fairly clear: the Thakur was trying to promote Mahaprabhu's birthplace and he did it in a fashion time-honored in India. He simply wrote the material he needed and attributed it to someone who had historical credibility. Rather than attributing his works to Vyasa or Narottam Das Thakur as did the counterfeiters of the past, he used the names of Jagadananda Pandit and Prabodhananda Saraswati.
"Bhaktivinoda Thakur did in fact publish many rare manuscripts of genuine Vaishnava literature, such as Sri Krishna Vijaya, many padyavalis, etc. He was not the only one in his time who yielded to the temptation of counterfeiting. Nevertheless, I personally find it problematic that someone who contributed so much to the Vaishnava religion, who worked so hard to instill a spirit of morality and honesty into Vaishnavism, whose life was in general a monument of commitment to service to Mahaprabhu and His principles, who in his worldly life was a justice and so presumably knew a thing or two about ethics and the law, saw fit to take such a chance.
"Furthermore, in view of his familiarity with scholarly historical method, it is hard to understand how he thought that he could get away with it. Perhaps he thought his personal probity put him above suspicion. But did he really think that a single manuscript found by chance in mysterious circumstances only to disappear again after its publication would not cause people to examine the published text more carefully? And if that text contains elements of language and content that not only point to a modern origin, but to the very person who claims to have found the manuscript, will our suspicions not be confirmed?
"I can only say that in his enthusiasm to see Mahaprabhu's birthplace be glorified and become a center of pilgrimage - as it has indeed become - the Thakur took a chance with his personal reputation and that of his religion. He succeeded in making Mayapur a magnet for pilgrims from around the world. His disciples, grand-disciples and great-grand-disciples have succeeded in creating an environment that is quite extraordinary. Nevertheless, one cannot help but wonder at the masi-bindu that stains his otherwise sparkling white cloth. Can we not expect people to ask the question that naturally arises: How can a religion that needs lies to spread its message make any claims to be the truth.
"It does not give me pleasure to remind us, who are accustomed to thinking negatively of Bipin Bihari Goswami as someone who was rejected for his caste consciousness and bad habits like tobacco smoking, that he publicly renounced Bhaktivinoda Thakur as his disciple shortly before dying in 1919. The reason he gave for this drastic act was precisely for 'preaching falsehoods' connected to the birthplace of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. It is easy to condemn Bipin Bihari Prabhu for having some self-interest in this matter, but the doubts that have been brought up in this article tend to give justification to the Goswami.
"I find it rather painful to bring the matter up, and I do so in the full expectation of being heartily condemned, but I would like to see those who love the Holy Name and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu face this problem head on, much in the way that Roman Catholics have decided to accept the terrible things in their history - things which are many times worse than those we have mentioned here - and still find a way to justify their faith.
"Faith has to be honest to be genuine, and such honesty has to extend to our forefathers, even those to whom we have attributed the highest spiritual perfection. It is a shock to accept that our divinities may have had human failings, but I think this is a necessary step in facing our own failings.
"Human psychology is such that we often compensate for our own human frailties by placing faith in someone else. We say, I am not perfect, but my guru is. I have no personal qualifications, but this does not matter because the parampara is perfect. This is a psychological trick and results in ego-inflation. By identifying with the guru and the parampara, we appropriate their perfection and their authority for ourselves. Unfortunately, this expands into the kind of distorted personal psychology that is not only historically present in Iskcon, but in many of the interactions between devotees who are otherwise sincere."

Thank you for posting that, Tamala Baran. I have been getting a lot of flak already from the Gaudiya Math as a result of this lecture. So I suppose I will have to respond to it in detail.

"Incarnation of Sundarananda Vidyavinoda"! What flattery!

It's obvious that he has never read Sundarananda Vidyavinoda, for I have not knowingly followed any of his arguments, though I may have cited him here or there.

It's kind of cool that he posts all that by Sridhar Maharaj, which is as much as an admission that it was written by Bhaktivinoda Thakur. At least it seems that he is well aware that it fits BVT's siddhanta very well!

All those miraculous occurrences!

Who, then, is the re-incarnation of Ananta Vasudeva? The infamous Nitai Das, the former Sanskrit secretary of Bhaktivedanta? That would sound reasonable indeed. And where do I fit in?

Shifting to a different angle of view, I would like to examine several interesting characteristics in the writings of people who come out arguing in favor of divine revelation and the position of an acharya of theirs.

Almost invariably such people have a poor fund of knowledge of Sanskrit, and they depend on often poor and questionable translations for their insight on siddhanta. This is evident from the numerous spelling mistakes in the Sanskrit text which have crept in their text, as well as from the inaccurate translations which often read more to the original text that there is to it. Anyone who attempts to make an argument by quoting a verse should produce a very stripped-down and verbatim translation of the same.

Speaking of translations, it is also a popular trend to claim, whenever anyone presents a verbatim translation of a text from the Gosvami granthas in showing that someone has mistaken on the subject matter of siddhanta, that only the pure devotee has access to the scripture, and only his rendition can be accepted as a valid translation true to the original meaning of the text, on account of his unique insight and direct channel of communication with the Lord within.

Speaking of subjectivity, it is commonly observed that authors in this category consistently refer to the teachings of their own immediate authorities to establish the authenticity of those very same persons. A classical example would be to quote the words of Sridhar Maharaja to establish the precepts of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Of course this may be fine for those inside their own institutional framework, but adapting circular evidence to prove one's thesis is a worthless waste of time if the intention is to address people outside one's own group.

It's an age old ploy of Gaudiya Math/ISKCON to put down scholars of the bhakti tradition as having no spiritual qualification for understanding the teachings of their institutions. They discourage devotees from learning too much because it becomes 'dangerous'. They use the term 'jumping over the head of the Guru' for someone who dares to look into subjects matters outside of their control.

QUOTE(B.R. Sridhar @ quoted in the article)

Any time the revelation may come to support this highest form of theism, whatever the revelation. I also told that this Jaiva Dharma, it is fictitious, but I think that these things actually must have been true, found in the creation. When it has come in the consciousness of Bhaktivinoda Thakura, it is not contradictory. It is floating and sometimes appearing and sometimes disappearing. It is all eternal truth.

QUOTE(B.G. Narasingha @ article)

What Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote throughout his books exists in eternity and Bhaktivinoda has received that through Divine Revelation. We accept the opinion of Srila Sridhara Maharaja as regards the Divine Revelation of Bhaktivinoda Thakura because we feel that Srila Sridhara Maharaja's opinion has its roots in higher realization.

These two paragraphs give you a license to channel down new information from the aggregate of existence. Do you follow the logic? Even if the title historically wasn't written by Jagadananda Pandit, still it is to be taken as truth because it already existed somewhere in the creation and floated down from the plane of higher realizations.

Since Bhagavan has unlimited forms and expansions, and since time immemorial His various aspects have been engaged in innumerable and infinite acts, therefore it is certain that sometime in the past or in the future in one of the infinite universes Rupa Gosvami has written a title called Siddhanta-sagara-bindu, and therein the following verse (3.2.15) is to be found:

dIkSA-praNalyAt susiddha-dIkSA-mantra prakAzyate |
bhAgavata-paramparA-vAdI tan nAdhigacchati ||
"Through the diksa-pranali, the greatly potent diksa-mantra is manifest. A follower of the bhagavata-parampara theory will not attain the same."

This verse was channeled from the aggregate of cosmic wisdom on a certain Thursday night in the month of Kesava. Anyone who has access to the divine plane of realization can confirm the discovery as an authentic statement of Rupa Gosvami's, although it has never been heard before during this day of Brahma.

If you erroneously perceive grammatical flaws in the revelation, you should know that various grammarians disagree on the fine details of declension and conjugation, and additionally the principles of Sanskrit grammar vary in different universes. Thus.

I suppose we need to respond to these attacks, and Jagadananda can hold his own in any such debates.  I personally prefer to avoid the endless dialogues with these types, which tend to just go around in circles.  They by and large lack the open mindedness to get past their preconceived notions and the doctrines that have been drilled into them.  It is unfortunate for them to be plagued by such high levels of xenophobia that prevent them from having contact with various Vaishnavas that they could learn a thing or two from.  At least the language of Bhaktivinode's English publications is high quality, as opposed to the ISKCON-speak as Nitai calls it.  We used to have this running joke in the Sanskrit Department at BBT about the warcry of the overzealous Prabhupada disciple - "Jai Bliss Nectar - Haribol!".  They sure love their buzzwords, don't they?

Well I wrote the article, so I gotta take my medicine. If people react, I have to do the honorable thing and respond.

Quotes from Brzezinski

Brzezinski criticizes Saraswati Thakura, suggesting that Saraswati Thakura was playing word games. The ramification of this statement is that Saraswati Thakura becomes an offender to Lalita Prasad when in fact Lalita Prasad was an imitationist:

“As far as the Lalita Prasad Thakur "baba, badha, radha" word game played by Saraswati Thakur is concerned, I find these things are best left to those two brothers, who are probably tearing each other's ghaghras somewhere by the eternal Radha Kund, even as we speak.” (Aug.13th 2002, http.www.istagosthi.org)

Brzezinski states in an article that it is doubtful that Saraswati Thakura ever received mantra-diksa from Gaura Kishore and that much time and effort has been wasted trying to establish that he did. The ramification of this statement is that all the disciples of Saraswati Thakur are not actually initiated because their guru was actually never initiated.

“Not surprisingly, bhagavati diksha is a concept unfamiliar to most people, even those within the Gaudiya Math, as the only kind of initiation current in Vaishnava circles has always been of the Pancharatrika type. The result is that many have wasted much time and effort unnecessarily trying to establish that Siddhanta Saraswati received Pancharatrika-type mantra initiation from Gaura Kishor Das. “ (http://granthamandira.org/~jagat/articles - Renewal in Gaudiya Vaishnavism Part I Charismatic renewal and institutionalization in the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the Gaudiya Math)

Brzezinski (in a confrontation with Sudhir Goswami) while defending Tin Kori Baba (who is rejected by Srila Sridhar Maharaja as a sahajiya) suggests that the name of Saraswati Thakura and the names of his disciples (all Gaudiya Math sannyasis) are not actually Vaisnava names. Your Guru Maharaja’s name heads the list.

“Your remarks about Tin Kori are really laughable. Saraswati Thakur gave out names like Puri, Bharati, Vana, Yayabar, Audulomi, and Gavastanemi -- all great Vaishnava names! Tripurari itself is hardly a great Gaudiya Vaishnava name immediately eliciting thoughts of Vrindavan. Nor for that matter is "Siddhanta Saraswati." "Bhakti" is only a little cosmetic addition.” (http.www.istagosthi.org,  Aug.13th 2002)

Brzezinski states that it is debatable that Saraswati Thakur ever intended to be the founder-acarya of Gaudiya Matha. The ramification of this is that the disciples of Saraswati Thakura have created this whole idea of one being a founder-acarya or the head of a mission.

“It is even debatable whether Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati originally intended to style himself 'founder-acharya' rather than as a facilitator.” (http://www.cs.rice.edu/~vivek/btg/archive/digest-btg_981014.html#7  October 14th 1998)

Brzezinski states that Saraswati Thakur modeled his mission after that of the Rama Krishna Mission following Vivekananda. Thus Gaudiya Math becomes just another Hindu mission without any Divine origin or inspiration.  

“The creation of an institution was Bhaktisiddhanta's work, probably on the model of Vivekananda's Ramkrishna Mission but the idea of an organization for preaching using modern methods is definitely following Vivekananda.” (http://www.cs.rice.edu/~vivek/btg/archive/digest-btg_981014.html#7
 October 14th 1998)

Brzezinski states that Saraswati Thakur had an unfortunate and limited vision of Mahaprabhu for rejecting Gauranga Nagari Bhava and suggests that Saraswati Thakura was wrong in doing so. He also emplies that Bhaktivinode Thakura was a Gauranga-nagari.

“Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati considers nagara-vada to be rasabhasa because, like Krishnadas Kaviraj, he accepts the mood of Rupa Gosvami as being primary. In this spirit, Mahaprabhu is in Radha-bhava, so how could he be a nagara? Unfortunately, this limited vision of Mahaprabhu does not account for the fact that so many of Mahaprabhu's Navadvip associates worshiped him in this mood. Unless there is someone out there who wants to condemn them.” (scriptorium.serveftp.com/Others/Jagadananda%20Das/)
(June 13th 2001)

“I don't believe I said that Rupa Gosvami ever condemned Gauranga Nagara bhava. It obviously wasn't his bag. To draw the conclusion that the mood never existed amongst Mahaprabhu's associates and that it should be rooted out in order to save the world from its nefarious effects is a long jump.” (scriptorium.serveftp.com/Others/Jagadananda%20Das/)
(June 13th 2001)

“A blanket condemnation of Gaura Nagara bhava does not do justice to this historical truth. In fact, Gadadhar Pran took inspiration from Bhaktivinoda Thakur's devotion to Gadai-Gauranga to enter his particular mood.” (scriptorium.serveftp.com/Others/Jagadananda%20Das/)
(June 13th 2001)

Brzezinski states that the well know sahajiya ‘Gadadhara Pran’ has the clearest vision of raganuga-sadhana that he knows.

“One more word about Gadadhar Pranji. I have know him for 25 years and we were once close friends. Our relationship has been rocky at times, as we have not always approved of each other's choices in life and our personalities have not always been a perfect fit. But I would like to say this: Gadadhar is an artist and he has the clearest vision of his personal raganuga sadhana of any person I have ever met. Gadadhar is idiosyncratic. There are few who will ever appreciate what he is or what he does and has done. Call him crazy or whatever, but he is an extraordinary individual who has committed his life to Gaura Gadadhar like no one else I know.” (scriptorium.serveftp.com/Others/Jagadananda%20Das/)
(June 13th 2001)

Brzezinski supports Bipin Bihari Goswami as the guru of Srila Bhaktivnode Thakura and faults Gaudiya Math (Saraswati Thakura, your Guru Maharaja, my Guru Maharaja, and all others).

“This discussion of "being true to one's lineage" is interesting to me. One of the big, major points about the Gaudiya Math is that they are not true to their lineage. Bhaktivinoda Thakur took initiation from Bipin Bihari Goswami. Now, as far
as I can tell, BVT never rejected BBG. Yet the Gaudiya Math proudly tells us that he "abandoned" BBG to take siksha from Jagannath Das Babaji. In view of this, if an individual, say Premanandaji, were to continue his search after taking initiation to find a mood in bhajan that suited him more personally, can members of the Gaudiya Math criticize him for that, in view of what they claim in Bhaktivinoda Thakur's personal history?” (scriptorium.serveftp.com/Others/Jagadananda%20Das/)(June 13th 2001)

Brzezinski states that Saraswati Thakura and Bhaktivinode’s statements about the identity of Prabodhananda and Prakasananda are erroneous. Brzezinski thinks that his research is superior to that of our acaryas.

“For instance, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur and Bhaktivinoda Thakur made many statements about Vaishnava history, for instance, the identity of Prabodhananda Saraswati. They come to a particular conclusion that is shown very clearly by historical evidence to be erroneous. Are we allowed to examine the evidence and come to our own conclusions?”

“Or must we "ask submissively with respect" with the predetermined conclusion that whatever the "authority" says must be accepted as correct?  Am I allowed to say the following: "My spiritual master told me that things are like this. But he was not aware of the evidence that you have presented me. Looking at the evidence, I have to agree with you that his conclusion was erroneous."?”
(http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000474.html)
6th July 2001

Brzezinski states that Bhaktivinode Thakur lied about certain books in order to establish Mayapur as the birth site of Sri Caitanya Mahabrabhu.

“However, three books that the Thakur published as ancient works were almost certainly composed by him. These three -- CaitanyopaniSad (1887), Prema-vivarta (1906) and Navadvipa-satakam (n.d.) have certain common characteristics ñ they were all connected to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the glorification of his birthplace. The motives are fairly clear: the Thakur was trying to promote Mahaprabhuís birthplace and he did it in a fashion time-honored in India. He simply wrote the material he needed and attributed it to someone who had historical credibility. Rather than attributing his works to Vyasa or Narottam Das Thakur as did the counterfeiters of the past, he used the names of Jagadananda Pandit and Prabodhananda Saraswati.

Bhaktivinoda Thakur did in fact publish many rare manuscripts of genuine Vaishnava literature, such as Sri Krishna Vijaya, many padyAvalis, etc. He was not the only one in his time who yielded to the temptation of counterfeiting. Nevertheless, I personally find it problematic that someone who contributed so much to the Vaishnava religion, who worked so hard to instill a spirit of morality and honesty into Vaishnavism, whose life was in general a monument of commitment to service to Mahaprabhu and His principles, who in his worldly life was a justice and so presumably knew a thing or two about ethics and the law, saw fit to take such a chance.

Furthermore, in view of his familiarity with scholarly historical method, it is hard to understand how he thought that he could get away with it. Perhaps he thought his personal probity put him above suspicion. But did he really think that a single manuscript found by chance in mysterious circumstances only to disappear again after its publication would not cause people to examine the published text more carefully? And if that text contains elements of language and content that not only point to a modern origin, but to the very person who claims to have found the manuscript, will our suspicions not be confirmed?

I can only say that in his enthusiasm to see Mahaprabhuís birthplace be glorified and become a center of pilgrimage ñ as it has indeed become ñ the Thakur took a chance with his personal reputation and that of his religion. He succeeded in making Mayapur a magnet for pilgrims from around the world. His disciples, grand-disciples and great-grand-disciples have succeeded in creating an environment that is quite extraordinary. Nevertheless, one cannot help but wonder at the masi-bindu that stains his otherwise sparkling white cloth. Can we not expect people to ask the question that naturally arises: HOW CAN A RELIGION THAT NEEDS LIES TO SPREAD ITS MESSAGE MAKE ANY CLAIMS TO BE THE TRUTH?

It does not give me pleasure to remind us, who are accustomed to thinking negatively of Bipin Bihari Goswami as someone who was rejected for his caste consciousness and bad habits like tobacco smoking, that he publicly renounced Bhaktivinoda Thakur as his disciple shortly before dying in 1919. The reason he gave for this drastic act was precisely for ìpreaching falsehoodsî connected to the birthplace of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. It is easy to condemn Bipin Bihari Prabhu for having some self-interest in this matter, but the doubts that have been brought up in this article tend to give justification to the Goswami.

I find it rather painful to bring the matter up, and I do so in the full expectation of being heartily condemned, but I would like to see those who love the Holy Name and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu face this problem head on, much in the way that Roman Catholics have decided to accept the terrible things in their history ñ things which are many times worse than those we have mentioned here ñ and still find a way to justify their faith.

Faith has to be honest to be genuine, and such honesty has to extend to our forefathers, even those to whom we have attributed the highest spiritual perfection. It is a shock to accept that our divinities may have had human failings, but I think this is a necessary step in facing our own failings.
Human psychology is such that we often compensate for our own human frailties by placing faith in someone else. We say, ìI am not perfect, but my guru is. I have no personal qualifications, but this does not matter because the parampara is perfect.î This is a psychological trick and results in ego-inflation. By identifying with the guru and the parampara, we appropriate their perfection and their authority for ourselves. Unfortunately, this expands into the kind of distorted personal psychology that is not only historically present in Iskcon, but in many of the interactions between devotees who are otherwise sincere.”

(quote from Jan Brzezinski, "Bhaktivinode's Relationship With Bipin Bihari Goswami," www.granthamandira.org/~jagat/articles/ November 2002)

“Though the most charitable way of looking at this forgery is that Bhaktivinoda made the changes and then, in recognition of Prabodhananda’s original authorship, gave him credit for the composition, it is rather more likely that his intention was to enlist Prabodhananda’s name in support of the nine islands concept of Nabadwip, the name of Mayapur, etc., as a part of his attempt to promote the birthplace of Chaitanya in Miapore.”

http://www.granthamandira.org/ggm/ggm.php?action=file&id=27
(September 10th 2002)

Brzezinski states that sannyasa is forbidden in Kali-yuga and that it was just an innovation by Saraswati Thakura. This opinion is directly against the opinion of all of our Guardians. Jan politely makes our Guardians out to be fools.

“Iskcon reformers who criticize the guru institution should also seriously consider eliminating sannyasa as undesirable and even prohibited in the age of kali. There is a statement to that effect in the Puranas which is quoted in the Caitanya Caritamrita.”

“Hinduism in general never worships a god without his Sakti. This must be telling us something. There are many who will tell you that sannyas is something that only really came into Hinduism as a result of the Buddhist influence. Even in Gaudiya Vaisnavism, though Caitanya took sannyas, the movement was really a householder movement.”

“Sannyas is an innovation in Gaudiya Vaisnavism created by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati who was looking for committed monks like those in the Ramkrishna Mission.”

(http://mitglied.lycos.de/gbc/black/childabu.htm)

Brzezinski also states that Brahma-gayatri should not be given as part of Vaishnava initiation. Does this suggest that our Guardians did not know what they were doing when they gave us second initioation? Should we now adopt the system suggested by Brzezinski an infamous guru-tyagi?

“Be that as it may, I propose here that the monopoly granted by the movement to celibate monks to be the spiritual leaders is tremendously unproductive.  It is time to return to the pre-Gaudiya Math tradition of promoting householders as gurus.”

“Iskcon’s failure has been to place the Brahminical functions, i.e., the work of guru (varnanam brahmano guruh), almost exclusively in the hands of sannyasis, to the detriment of the entire development of a viable Varnashram society.”

“Siddhanta Saraswati’s strong criticism of householders making a living from devotional service is the crux of the matter.”

“A householder was not restricted in this way, therefore Nityananda Prabhu, Advaita Prabhu and Srinivasa Acharya all became householder gurus after leading lives of renunciation. Why not Vipramukhya?”

“If Brahma Gayatri and the sacred thread are signs of a Brahmin, they should not be given as a part of Vaishnava initiation, but in a separate upanayan ceremony that consecrates an individual who shows special qualifications as a Brahmin. I know that this calls for hierarchisation in what is essentially an egalitarian movement, but we already have that, with sannyasis, etc.”

http://granthamandira.org/~jagat/articles - (Vipramukhya Prabhu) 2002

Brzezinski states that he doubts that Kaviraja Goswami is telling us the truth in Caitanya-caritamrta.

“As it is difficult to confirm Prakashananda's existence from any other source, suspicions could be raised about the historical veracity of the story (Kaviraja Gosvami’s account of the conversion of Praksananda from Cc).”

“Though it is thus quite possible that Krishna Das was indeed writing of Prabodhananda when he described the conversion of Prakashananda, his account cannot be accepted as entirely true.”

http://granthamandira.org/~jagat/articles - Prabodhananda Saraswati: from Benares to Braj, 2002

Brzezinski has the vision to see the similarities between Madana and Sri Rupa but he does not have the eyes to see the Divinity of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

“As far as Madonna and other modern artists are concerned, can they be compared to Rupa Gosvami in any way? At the risk of being sacreligious, there are interesting parallels to be made.”

Brzezinski thinks that his sex enjoyment can be offered to Krishna. Of course there is grhastha ashram but that is not what he is talking about here. He is a sannyasi hater, but as I remember it your Guru Maharaja, Srila Puri Maharaja ,loved sannyasis and preached against all types of enjoyment what to speak of sex enjoyment. Sex enjoyment is the main cause of material bondage.

“Out of curiosity. In response to the anAsaktasya verse. Why, when we say that everything else in the material world can be devoted to Krishna, why is sexual pleasure not offerable?

DharmAviruddho bhUteSu kAmo'smi bharatarSabha.

In this last statement below Brzezinski is alluding to Tantric-sex rituals. Not at all a Vaisnava practice, although he would have us think so.

It would seem that the place that sexual pleasure has in the lila of Radha and Krishna makes consciousness of sexuality eminently dovetailable.”

http://www.cs.rice.edu/~vivek/btg/archive/...g_981014.html#7
(October 14th 1998)

They are actually really obsessed about you, Jagat. Going to every nook and corner of the internet, documenting everything you write. Almost akin to the degree to which GBC is obsessed about Narayan Maharaja. In their next lives, the GBC officers will take birth as Narayan Maharajas and Narasingha will take birth as Brzezinski. That will be their grand success.

They should also quote this one.

---

15 September, 1976

76-09-15

NOTE TO ALL GBC MEMBERS:

Please let it be known that Nitai has become a venomous serpent. Be careful of him.

Your ever well-wisher,

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

---

So watch out. This Jagat is a friend of Nitai, did you know it? Both are guru-tyagis and destined to the nether regions of the universe inhabited by man-eating goblins and voracious ruru-animals. Read all about it from the last chapter of the fifth canto of the Bhagavata.

When will your notes be together, Jagat?

QUOTE(Madhava @ Dec. 06 2002,20:03)

They should also quote this one.

---

15 September, 1976

76-09-15

NOTE TO ALL GBC MEMBERS:

Please let it be known that Nitai has become a venomous serpent. Be careful of him.

Your ever well-wisher,

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Now i know from where certain disciples of Bhaktivedanta Swami take inspiration.Is this really written by Bhaktivedanta Swami?
When i left my Iskcon guru,he wrote to me:If your family(my mum,sister and brother) is loyal to Srila Prabhupada,they will not associate with you and you are putting yourself in danger.The doors of Iskcon temples will be forever closed for you.And the best one was:Nothing but evil will come back to you.He is still guru and one of main GBC men in Iskcon,in despite of him publicly saying that he will take sannyasa and not take any more zonal assignments,he took even more, just 5 months after he said that.Of course,he never took sannyasa either.

My sisters (now is her ex-guru)guru asked her and my brother before few months why and where did i go after Iskcon.He refused to give her 2nd initiation for years,and now he had another excuse ,that i am influencing whole family with teachings which are coming outside of Iskcon.She was good for him while she was in gurukula in Sweden where she was collecting money for his studies.She was sending money for him on a regular basis.Now,she (if she wants 2nd,Iskcon initiation)has to write an essay about Brahmanas in the west.My sister and my mother decided before some time, after reading and studying books translated by Advaita das, to end all this and take, next time when they go to India initiation from guru in traditional lineage.My brother is still a bit inert,but he totally understands the whole situation,since he was in gurukula from his 7th year until he was 14.I am sorry if this sounds like gossip,but it just poured out of me after this what i have read, what was written about Nitai das.I am so happy that i made step and wrote to Nitai das and later to Advaita das.Without them,my whole family and me will be really forever in dark.

Jagat has been posting some excellent articles lately, including an in-depth examination of the three suspect texts. Check them out.

http://www.granthamandira.org/~jagat/articles/

I just want to add that it is of my opinion that divine revelation is not something that is reserved only to some very elevated gurus and acaryas. It is instead a kind of common thing that is a symptom of spiritual connection. If you are connected spiritually, and has purified yourself enough so that you can receive through that connection, the result is automatic spiritual revelation. The guru makes the connection, and the bhakti process makes the purification. Of course, if someone is deeply attached to material enjoyment, it is like hearing a whisper in a very noisy environment. You can't hear the spiritual revelation coming. So the material noise level has to be reduced, and one have to learn to interpret the revelation coming. If one is has too many materialistic ideas, the revelation will be misinterpreted, and take the quality of the materialistic ideas, and thus become contaminated.

Then when the revelation comes, it will still take form of one's understanding. It is like a shadow of a three dimensional object. It looses its colours and becomes only black. The shadow also get a different form depending on how the object is turned. So the same object can give different shadows, and it can be a little bit hard to see how the object really looks, when examining the shadow.

In the same way, when spiritual things gets shadowed into words, through revelation, the true colour disappears, and the shadow can take different form depending on how the spiritual thing described is turned. But despite this, it is a true shadow.

So it can easily be imagined how the spiritual truth can take different forms at the some time. How the words can get different. How silly a word-by-word comparision can be, or a trial to analyse the spiritual topic from a grammatic viewpint.

A spiritually advanced person can thus write down in words the spiritual revelation, and the words can become different from some other spiritual person writing down the same thing from spiritual revelation. The important thing is if the spiritual topic described is the same, it is identical. That is the true image that has to be seen through the shadow.

Revelation can further be classified into veiled revelation and pure revelation. As you pointed out, revelation is certainly not the privilege of any given individual. As the sadhaka approaches the Lord, in accordance with his desire to behold His pastimes He reveals Himself. Jiva speaks of svarasiki-dhyana. As the longing of the sadhaka increases, he gets to witness the pastimes he cherishes from closer and closer, beholding them clearer and clearer. A veil of fog gradually dissolves from before his vision.

I would not go so far as to state that the divine reality by default becomes stripped of its colors when it appears in the form of words. Rather the fog, or as you put it, "decolorization", takes place in relation to the purity of vision and desire. Nevertheless we can observe that the revelations of great souls differ. This is evident from works such as Gaura Ganoddesha Dipika of Kavi Karnapura, wherein the author openly presents differing views. Even Rupa Gosvamin does not hesitate to present this in his writings (such as Radha Krishna Ganoddesha Dipika).

It is evident from this that the Absolute Reality, the object of revelation, becomes manifest in infinite varieties in accordance with the longing of the premika devotees. Thus it is understood as an ever-expadinding ocean of joy. We are speaking of revelations of a dynamic object of contemplation, not a static object which is once observed and understood once and for all. Indeed, even in this world the scientists discover ever-new astonishing depths in the dynamics of this world. What to speak of the world beyond, then?

Yes it was, but you have to understand the circumstances in which it was written.

Is this true according to the teachings of raganuga-bhakti, and the acharyas such as Pandita Baba? Is is true that one does not necessarily have to be a "suddha bhakta" to receive some sort of revelation?

Or is it just as Madhavaji said? That a suddha-bhakta may receive "pure" revelation while a relatively impure bhakta may receive a "veiled" revelation?

Transcendental inspiration comes from beyond the senses, from beyond the external senses, and even from beyond the inner senses, the mind and the intelligence. Maybe that is quite natural? It is implied in "transcendental". Maybe it is just me who didn't understand that, when I was living in ISKCON.

Transcendental inspiration comes from the soul, the jiva. The jiva, meaning us, our true self, our true identity, is transcendentally situated, and by the bhakti process we shift our consciousness to the spiritual level more and more, and develop transcendental senses. By being aware of what we perceive on that level, and describing that, it is perceived as transcendental inspiration.

Since it is our natural state, it is also naturally something that we all have. It is symptom of spiritual advancement. And spiritual advancement is guaranteed to everyone who performs the bhakti process (properly). Actually, there has to be a faith that the bhakti process actually is working properly. That is important.

The only thing we need to advance in the bhakti process is desire to do that. Intense desire. A desire which is bigger than the desire to enjoy our external senses in the material world. If the desire for bhakti is bigger, everything goes automatically from that. And the stronger desire we have for bhakti, the faster the process goes.

Srila Prabhupada gave the minimum as the four regulative principles. Why? Because they are key symptom of desire to enjoy the material senses. If we can't refrain from those activities, out desire for sense enjoyment is too big for progress in the bhakti process. It makes advancement very slow, unfortunately. But then, desire for bhakti automatically reduces the desire to enjoy the material senses, and actually the regulative principles becomes easy to follow.

There are no actual rule, no "sin" to avoid. It is just a matter to shift consciousness from the material platorm to the transcendental platform, and inspiration comes automatically. It is a symptom of that.

In Gaudiya Vaisnavism itself,which is inspired and modeled on Caitanya's life,there is a great deal of intellectual subtlety.
But,it must not be forgotten that the significance of Caitanya's teaching lies not so much in his special interpretation of this or that text,but in the reality and force of his inner spiritual experience,which gave him an extraordinary power over the minds of men.For example,it seems that Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya was finally won over not so much by theological arguments as by the irresistible appeal of Caitanya's impassioned religious personality.(Cc,Madhya )

In my humble opinion the whole trend of Caitanya's life was against his being an exact scholar or thinker and his practice of a ''highly wrought emotionalism'' stood in the way of serious intellectual pursuits.On one occasion he confessed to Raghunatha dasa (Cc,Antya )that his follower Svarupa Damodara knew more about theology than he himself did.
When Caitanya closed his school ,after his return from Gaya,he said to his pupils that for him lessons were finished from that day.(C.Bh.Madhya)In after-years he hardly ever opened a book for serious study and hardly ever wrote anything.

In Govinda Karmakara's account (called 'Kadaca' ,I think...),Caitanya does not appear to be much interested in abstract discussion with Ramananda Raya and stops Ramananda with the exclamation ''Raya,I do not know anything about all this.Speak,speak about Krsna,of whom I should like to hear from you.Let this console my heart.''

Yet,Krsnadasa Kaviraja,who loves to depict Caitanya as a scholar and founder of school of theology,devotes a long and learned chapter of his biography to the detailed description of a systematic scholastic discourse between Ramananda and Caitanya on the whole theme of Bhakti!

Again, Murari-gupta,Vrndavana dasa and others from Navadvipa circle,enlarge more upon Caitanya's ecstatic devotion
etc...

Anyway, in my les-than-qualified opinion,the line between practitioner and scholar is not as distinct as one might at first suspect.Devotees and scholars can learn from each other,and encourage each other to achieve the goals of their respective endeavors.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to read my few words and excuse any offense in my post.

With respect,

I would think that a bhakti sadhaka's divine inspiration should be checked to see if it collaborates with the conclusions of the bhakti sastras, saints and Sri Guru. An example is Sri Narottama Das Thakur. He had a divine revelation of receiving a special seva from Sri Radhika personally. His Gurudeva, Sri Lokanath Goswami confirmed the revelation.