Guruvani

Bhaktivinoda (the Bhagavat) In the words of Bhaktivinoda we can here see that he personally attributes his the study of the CC and some other books of the Goswamis as having really brought him into Vaishnavism.

Well, I am most familiar with the biography as described by B.V. Tirtha Maharaja, one of the most intimate disciples of Srila Saraswati Thakur and who presented the biography of Bhaktivinoda in a way that he understood it from Srila Saraswati Thakur. Srila Saraswati Thakur knew the quintessential Bhaktivinode and the Bhaktivinoda of the final proof. According to B.V. Tirtha Maharaja, Srila Bhaktivinoda really came to know the personality of Mahaprabhu after coming to Dinajpur and becomign encouraged by the prominent Vaishnavas there to make a study of Sri Chaitanya Caritamrita. Really, before that Bhaktivinoda himself writes in the "Bhagavat" that before he read Sri Caitanya Caritamrita that he had very bad impression of the Gaudiyas and a bad opinion of Srimad Bhagavatam. I will find that reference and post it to show you where Bhaktivinoda confesses that before he read Sri Chaitanya Charitamarita he was actually quite against the Gaudiya people.

What we do know is what Srila Bhaktsiddhanta Saraswati Thakur wanted the Saraswata Parivar to understand about the mood and the feelings of Bhaktivinoda Thakur. What we do know is what the most elevated and learned disciples of Srila Saraswati Thakur have expressed about the true inner feelings of Bhaktivinoda in regards to raga-marga and his Jagannatha das Babaji. In the system of parampara we are supposed to understand Bhaktivinoda in the way that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur and then his disciples, our gurus, have told us to understand. We can't step over their heads and think we can understand Bhaktivinoda differently than he has been portrayed by Srila Saraswati Thakur and then his most intimate disciples. The Saraswata parampara does not recognize Vipina Bihari Goswami as within the lineage. That is a well-known fact. Maybe a couple of branches of Gaudiya Matha present Vipina Bihari Goswami as in the parampara, but I don't follow any of those branches. I follow a branch of the Saraswata parivar that doesn't recognize Vipina Bihari Goswami as within the actual spiritual current of the lineage. Srila Sridhar Maharaja and Srila Prabhupada neither one recognized Vipina Bihari Goswami as within the Saraswata parivar. Srila Saraswati Thakur took diksha from Gaura-kisora babaji. The diksha line of the Saraswata parivar does not include Vipina Bihari Goswami. Neither do they give any position to Vipina Bihari Goswami as being any sort of architect of or contributor to the Bhaktivinoda spiritual dynasty.

Well, hey, I guess I am a shock jock of the forums. I guess that makes up for the fact that my daily life if just so much boredom, routine and mundane affairs of making money to pay bills and keep up with a small slice of Florida jungle. In reality, I am the least fanatic of all you people. I never wear Hare Krishna clothes, shave my head or put mud on my forehead. I am just mundane person that is amazed at how shallow and superficial so many "Hare Krishnas" can be. However, in response to your comment, I would like to respond that neither does the bad behaviour if ISKCON gurus and GBC men or fools on the fringe like me, reflect at all on how deep, how pure and how significant are the teachings and the mission of Srila Prabhupada. I don't consider the teachings of Srila Prabhupada to be any less or any lower than what "traditional parivars" are promoting, especially the leaders of the siddha-pranali cult that are playing with something that is way beyond their possibilities considering that none of them are as renounced and austere as a any true siddha would have to be. Srila Prabhupada taught a practical ideology. He didn't promote some artificial form of sadhana that made sahajiyas out of devotees by tempting them with false and artifical promises and delusions of grandeur. What is "pure and pristine" to one person is cheap and imitative to another. Personally, I don't know of any contemporary acharya as inspired and empowed as Srila Prabhupada or any system of Bhakti more useful and effective than the Yoga System promulgated by Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada was siddha bhakta. I think that is well established in his writings and teachings. Siddhas like Srila Prabhupada are not dime-a-dozen. Being and old Gaudiya sannyasi doesn't make one a siddha. I prefer to get my information from the siddha. If someone else wants to put all their faith in a sadhaka, then that is their choice. I will continue to study the teachings of the siddha.

What I can say is this, that Bhaktivinoda was first converted to the following of Mahaprabhu at about the age of 30 when he was appointed the Deputy Magistrate at Dinajpura under the patronage of Raya Saheb Kamala Lochana, the Zamindar of Dinajpura and who was a descendent of Ramananda Vasu - a great devotee of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. At Dinajpur Bhaktivinoda came into the association of some of the prominent local Vaishnavas and was fortunate to thus acquire a copy of Sri Chaitanya Caritamrita and a Bengali translation of Srimad Bhagavatam as well as a copy of Bhakta-mala. Upon his first reading of Sri Chaitanya Caritamrita he was converted to the Gaudiya theology and accepted Mahaprabhu as his Lord and master. At Dinajpur Bhaktivinoda regularly associated with the Vaishnavas there and shared religious sentiments with the Vaishnavas. He also did some comparitive study of Brahmoism, Christianity and Islam. He found his own faith to be irreversibly reposed in Mahaprabhu and the Gaudiya theology. After a short transfer to Champran he was then posted at Puri. His two favorite books at that time were Sri Chaitanya Caritamrita and Srimad Bhagavatam. He studied them profusely and entered into a deep understanding of the Gaudiya history and tradition. At Puri, Bhaktivinoda undertook an exhaustive study of the Bhagavat and the commentary by Sridhar Swami with the assistance of Gopinatha Pandita. It is said that two other prominent scholars named Harihara das and Markendeya Mahapatra who were scholars of Nyaya and Vedanta also joined with Bhaktivinoda in study of the Bhagavat. Bhaktivinode had already studied Sanskrit in college under Isvara Chandra Vidyasagar and Dwijendranatha Tagore and others and he continued his Sanskrit studies all along. After completing his study of the Bhagavatam, Bhaktivinoda studied Jiva Goswami's Satsandarbha, Baladeva Vidyabhusana's Govinda-bhasya, Rupa Goswami's Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu and many other Gaudiya literatures that were available from the library of the Raja of Puri. At this point, Bhaktivinoda had "mastered" the Gaudiya philosophy. All BEFORE he had ever taken formal initiation from Vipina-bihari Goswami. It's obvious Bhaktivinoda was primarily a "book man" whose conversion to the Gaudiya sampradaya was effected by the reading of the classic Gaudiya literatures. Bhaktivinoda had become so well educated and dedicated to the movement of Mahaprabhu and the theology of the Bhagavat that he started a preaching program he styled as "Bhagavat Samsat" that was regularly held at the Jagannatha Vallabha Garden of the Temple of Lord Jagannatha. He also started another study group styled as "Vidvat Sabha" where he lectured on the teachings of the prominent Bhakti literature of the Gaudiya sampradaya. During that period Bhaktivinoda came in contact with a great ascetic devotee name Svarupa das that he had very high regard for. So, Bhaktivinoda Thakur had plenty of connection and association with Vaishnavas that he had at least been informally intiated through hearing from genuine devotees in the lineage of Mahaprabhu. While at Puri, Bhaktivinoda write Sri Krishna Samhita. By commenting on the Vaishnava scriptures in this way, it is obvious that Bhaktivinoda had attained very high realizations and the symptoms of a siddha-bhakta. After about 5 years at Puri Bhaktivinoda was re-assigned to duty in Bengal. In Bengal Bhaktivinoda pilgrimaged all the important places associated with the pastimes of Mahaprabhu. Bhaktivinoda was highly respected and highly regarded by many of the local Vaishnavas for his great learning and devotion. Sometimes local kirtan singers would like to come and perform for Bhaktivinoda. Around this time he published Sri Krishna Samhita which was highly praised by such notable figures as Sir Reinhold Reist of the India Office, London. It was sometime after that when Bhaktivinoda came in contact with Vipina Vihari Goswami and took formal diksha from him. So, looking at the actual situation and the life of Bhaktivinoda, it's quite obvious that Bhaktivinoda's spiritual advancement and cultivation had already attained a very high level before he ever took formal initiation from Vipina Bihari goswami. After formal diksha Bhaktivinoda adopted more of the external signs and symptoms of a Gaudiya Vaishnava and enhanced his reputation as an orthodox Gaudiya. Bhaktivinoda was a writer and a preacher. His acceptance of formal initiation certainly boosted his image and his reputation in Bengal and aided him in his mission to revive and restore the Gaudiya society to the dignified and splendid stature it deserved. How significant was the formal initiation of Bhaktivinoda in regards to his actual spiritual development in Bhakti Dharma is certainly up for question when we really understand that Bhaktivinoda was already a liberated soul before he every received formal initiation.

Well Vikramji, maybe you need to polish your crystal ball a little. Your attempt at evaluating my own orientation and experience is a little off the mark. Actually, I had probably come and gone from ISKCON before you even knew what ISKCON was. I joined ISKCON in 1975 and before Srila Prabhupada had left I had recieved both Harinama and diksha. I left ISKCON in 1981 to join with Dhira Krishna Maharaja to start the first temple of Srila Sridhar Maharaja in the western world. I was the pujari and the cook. I was known in some ISKCON temples as a good cook and kitchen manager. So, I was amongst the very first ISKCON devotees to leave ISKCON and get involved with "Gaudiya Math" (SCSM). Even before that I was reading some Gaudiya Matha pulications like Jaiva Dharma, Brhat Bhagavatamritam and others. Before I became a Hare Krishna devotee I was into hatha-yoga and meditation and I read many books on yoga and Eastern Philosophy by Yogananda (Autobiography of a Yogi, which is the book that brought me into Eastern religion and philosophy), Swami Vishnudevananda, Maharishi, Swami Satchidananda, Theos Bernard, Christopher Isherwood and about every other Yogi or Eastern philosopher of that was popular in the Early 70's. I have most all the books every published by Sridhar Maharaja and some of the books by Govinda Maharaja. I was even into Harish Johari and I especially like his book "Dhanvantari". I was already a vegetarian and yogi before I ever heard of Hare Krishna. Basically, I been a follower of Eastern religion for about 35 yeas now and I am now 54 years old. So, I started my journey as a young man in the US Navy. My experience and research has taken well beyond the limits of ISKCON. I even dabbled in the forums of Madhavananda and Jagadanananda an have had plenty of experience in hearing about their "traditional" parivar etc. etc. I have also read quite a bit of Narayana Maharaja which has always been nice but with enough sand in the sweet rice that I couldn't take it. Right now on my desk I have a Gaudiya Matha version of Jaiva Dharma that was published under the auspices of B.V Tirtha Maharaja and translated by the combined efforts of Professor Haridas Maitra and then Bhakti Sadhaka Nishkinchana Maharaja and finally finished by Yati Maharaja. So, I was an ISKCON deviant before you even knew what ISKCON was. My studies and my knowledge extend far beyond ISKCON. I just happen to feel some tendency to try and defend the mission and the movement of Srila Prabhupada as I think it is important for the spiritual welfare of all the people of the western worlds. I have my own views about what is the best way to continue the mission of Srila Prabhupada and I have my own views on what was the thinking of Sridhar Maharaja when he appointed Govinda Maharaja as a ritvik. I have never really left my foundation in Krishna consciousness which is the books of Srila Prabhupada and I have really never yet found any books as nectarine and juicy as the books of Srila Prabhupada, so that is why I sometimes appear as an ISKCON man because I saw ISKCON in it's glory days and I remember well how wonderful and marvelous ISKCON was and still could be today if things were just done properly. I left ISKCON well over 20 years ago. But, I have never written off Srila Prabhupada and how important his mission was and I have never accepted that ISKCON had to become a disgrace and a disaster had the leadership of ISKCON actually conducted the society the right way. As far other groups, they all have their own failures and dirty little secrets and this idea that there is some pristine and pure "traditional" parivar out there that is superior to ISKCON is also a fraud and a hoax and based upon nothing but deception.

Bhaktivinode was preaching and giving lectures at the Jagannatha Vallabha Garden at Puri and writing Sri Krishna Samhita before he ever heard of Vipina-vihari Goswami, but when he moved to Mayapura he knew he would need formal diksha to get any sort of respectability in that part of India that was totally dominated by the smarta brahmanism. His relationship with Vipina-vihari "Goswami" was just a formality that Bhaktivinode used to his advantage until he met Jagannatha das Babaji and realized he shouldn't play that game anymore. Bhaktivinode was self-realized siddha before he ever heard the name of Vipina-vihari Goswami.

Vedic culture was a very rich culture with a religious system that was saturated with rites, rituals, sacrifices, formalities, art, science, philosophy and mysticism. Formal initiation is about cultural richness and religious rites. In previous ages these rites and rituals meant a lot more than they do in Kali-yuga and therefore there is really only ONE religious practice that is approved for the age of Kali and that is Sankirtan Yajna. The scriptures clearly state that the only sacrifice that really has any validity in Kali-Yuga is Harinama Sankirtan. The formal rituals are deeply rooted in Indian culture and the Goswamis of Vrindavan tried to present the sect of Mahaprabhu with some similarities to the smarta system that was prominent in India in their time. They did this as a time and circumstance necessity, but factually the movement of Mahaprabhu was totally independent of the Vedas and the smarta religious system that was prominent in India at that time. Vraja bhakti in the Vedas? Vraja bhakti in the Upanishads? Vraja bhakti in the Vedanta Sutra? Honestly, we are only fooling ourselves and playing the game when we try to present the movement of Mahaprabhu as some Vedic system that is akin to smarta-ism. The Goswamis introduced these smarta rituals into the movement as a trick tactic to minimize the opposition from the smarta community which was very pervasive in India at that time. It was a scheme. It was a trick. It was a farce in reality. There is only ONE Yuga Dharma and one genuine spiritual practice in this age and it is Harinama Sankirtan. All these rites and rituals are just carry-overs from a previous age and they really mean NOTHING in the age of Kali. Rites and rituals are a lovely social affair, but that is about the end of it. There is NOTHING but the Maha-mantra in this age. Everything else is playgames and profiling.

Well, that is the language that Krishnadas Kaviraja Goswami used. Whether or not that is the exact terminology used by Mahaprabhu is debatable.

Well, of couple others tried before Srila Prabhupada and spend three years in London but couldn't accomplish anything more than using up a substantial amount of Gaudiya Matha funds. So, I don't buy your argument that any of them could have done anything expect spend money and waste resources and time. It doesn't matter if they could have. They didn't do diddly-squat except surf on the wave ot the ISKCON Tsunami. Bell-ringers anyone?

Madness is relative. I am probably mad and your are probably mad as well, but on top of being mad you are obviously illiterate..

However, lest we not forget that a good number of "Gaudiya Matha" temples and gurus didn't thrive very good at all until Srila Prabhupada passed away and western devotees created through ISKCON efforts drifted into their Mathas and brought some western wealth and influence with them. Without benefitting from the preaching accomplishments of Srila Prabhupada, many of these "Gaudiya Matha" temples would be relatively poor and unsuccessful in missionary activities. For some of these "Gaudiya Mathas", there successes were actually just another ISKCON success only by extension. Srila Prabhupada's success even spilled over to some of his Godbrothers and their successors. Sometimes though they bit the hand that fed them.

I ask if you please not present distorted and false images that the Gaudiya theology is the invention of Prabhupada. Prabhupada exactly presented the same Gaudiya theology that has been presented by direct disciples of Sri Mahaprabhu, so please don't be rude and unfair and making false accusations that ISKCON follows something other than the same Gaudiya siddhanta that was promulgated by Sri Caitanyadeva.

I admire Indian people, but really when you go to debate and discuss Vedic theology you have to do better than coughing-up Hindu folk tales that are simply distorted remnants of Puranic lore. In the Gaudiya sect they are very particular that all theological arguments must be supported with proper and exacting reference from the authentic Vedic literatures. Needless to say that many distortions and misconceptions have been evolved over the centuries in India as many, many false gurus and acharyas have presented their confused understanding of Sanatan Dharma.

You are obviously ignorant about Vaishnavism if you think that Lord Siva is above Lord Vishnu. It's told in the sattvic Puranas that Lord Siva is a transformation of Lord Maha Vishnu. It is not ISKCON theology. It's Vaishnava theology that all forms of Vaishnavism advocate. It comes from sruti, smriti and Purana. It is not made up by ISKCON. Don't blame ISKCON for what all the most elevated Puranas teach. All the great Vaishnava acharyas know that Siva-tattva is a transformation of Vishnu-tattva in touch with Prakriti. Maybe you should study the shastra praman before you go making foolish accusations that make you look very foolish. In all Vaishnavism all over India Lord Vishnu is above Lord Siva. Otherwise, why did Lord Vishnu have to rescue Lord Siva from Vrkasura? How did Lord Vishnu bewilder Lord Siva in front of Parvati and cause him to lose control of his senses and become mad after Mohini-murti? Is is clear in the Puranas that Lord Siva had to be rescued by Lord Vishnu and that Lord Vishnu proved his greater power than Siva when he assumed the form of Mohini-murti and exposed the weakness of Lord Siva.

I have yet to date seen any documented evidence that Govinda Maharaja has denied being a ritvik of Sridhar Maharaja. What we do have is a number of Matha dwellers who reject his ritvik status and on their own authority have appointed Govinda Maharaja as diksha-guru and not ritvik. So unless and until I hear something from his own lips, I will just accept that he considers himself a ritvik of Sridhar Maharaja, as his loyalty to the orders of Sridhar Maharaja is not liable to change over the opinions of psychophants who have designs of their own when Govinda Maharaja has passed-on.

I am not going to boast about my years of austerity, penance and strict sadhana as a brahmacary. Why is apparent is that Vikram is a householder devotee whose only experience in Vaishnavism is as an armchair bhakta who is pre-occupied with broadcasting negative propaganda against the international Gaudiya mission that has spread the message of Mahaprabhu to all the countries of the world. His message is one of a diseased mis-informed outsider who really has no position to actually speak anything about the level of Gaudiya sadacar that is practiced in ISKCON. He has fashioned an evil ISKCON straw-man and is now dedicated to attacking this evil demon that he has given birth to in his own mind.

Don't let Vikram Babu encourage you in a bad, offensive mentality of classifying devotees as "ISKCON" and "NON-ISKCON" association. If you approach Vaishnavism as "ISKCON" and "NON-ISKCON" you are committing offense to many Vaishnavas that should not be held to blame for the out-of-control ISKCON bureaucracy. Some of the most wonderful Vaishnavas on Earth are "ISKCON" devotees, but certainly have nothing to do with the corperate quagmire that the ISKCON officials are entangled in. There are many wonderful Vaishnavas that are members of ISKCON. For example; Mahanidhi Swami, Pundarika Vidyanidhi das Brahamcary etc. etc. There are literally hundreds of very nice Vaishnavas in ISKCON. Of course the ISKCON bureaucracy has a difficult, thankless task but if you just write off ISKCON as not offering any wonderful Vaishnava association at all, then you have fallen into a very unfortunate condition that will prevent you from actually experiencing the essence of what the Gaudiya sampradaya offers. A few bureaucrats with narrow vision and personal agendas does not render all of ISKCON as useless and undesirable. Vikrama babu has very little qualification or experience with ISKCON to be making such negative remarks as "Today's ISKCON is a total no-no for most thinking persons who wish for sweet, genuine Vaisnava association". In fact, that exposes him as having a very offensive attitude towards so many wonderful devotees that are making the sacrifice of their life to help spread the mission of Mahaprabhu all over the world. Vikram is just an armchair devotee who really doen't have any history of practical service and sacrifice in the mission of Mahaprabhu, so he is not a good person to be taking advice from concerning the matter of Vaishnava assocation.

go this web page and you will find information on incarnations and expansions of the Lord. http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/avatars.htm

Maha-prasadam is the remnants of the food that comes directly off the plates that are offered on the altar of the deities of the Lord. Regular prasadam is the bulk of the prasadam that is transferred from the pots in the deities kitchen and distributed to the devotees, As far a scriptural quotes I will have to look around for that, but it is a very old tradition in Vaishnava temples that the remnants of food offerings that come off the plates of the deities is called Maha-prasada. The remants from the plate of the acharya are also sometimes referred to as Maha Prasadam. I will look for a proper reference on the expansions of the Lord. I don't know it right off the top of my head.

Sridhar Maharaja:

I never posted anything as Sridhar Maharaja's "will and testament". I posted something from his "declaration of spiritual succession" as it is described on the official website for the Matha. His "will and testament" is a legal document that the lawyer helped them draft in regards to his estate and the passing on of his property over to Govinda Maahraja. It was a seperate document from his "declaration of spiritual succession". "splendor of acharya"? You means that being a chaste disciple and acting as a transparent via-medium of the acharya is less splenderous than being an "acharya"? Why is being a diksha-guru any more splenderous than being a ritvik? If the acharya appoints you as ritvik, then there is nothing more splenderous than following the orders of the acharya. There is nothing splenderous about disobeying the acharya and becoming an imitation acharya.

You need to understand that the will was for legal purposes and for matters of inheritance, laws and governmental issues. The actual declaration of spiritual succession was given publicly to the devotees on a special occasion. Devotees dragged-out the legal will of estate to try and trump his declaration of spiritual succession, but it is a flimsy effort in face of his addressing all the devotees of the Matha with his specific spiritual instructions regarding his spiritual succession. The will was for legal matters. It was not for spiritual matters. His declaration of spiritual succession announced Govinda Maharaja as a ritvik, which was not necessary in the legal will and his passing on of properties in accordance with the laws of the state. What he announced in front of the devotees was that Govinda Maharaja was a ritvik. What he wrote in his legal documents is not reflective of the spiritual issues he addressed in his declaration of spiritual succession. The Will was for the state goverment. The declaration of spiritual succession was for the Vaishnava community and his followers. The legal Will is of no concern to the Vaishnava community. The Will was for the governmental matters. It had nothing to do with the spiritual issues.

Thats got nothing to do with ritvik. Kirtanananda was a rabid anti-ritvik. Srila Prabhupada and Sridhar Maharaja both used ritvik terminology and appointed ritviks. Srila Prabhupada appointed ritviks. Kirtanananda concoted all sorts of deviations. The ritvik concept was given by two great acharyas of the modern age. Don't try to confuse issues with smokescreen.