muralidhar_das

Disruption in the Gaudiya Math had taken place since the beginning of the 1930’s and different wings were fighting each other. But from January 1, 1937, when BSST passed away, the disagreements came out in the open. The trouble began when KVV insisted upon continuing as the new acharya in Gaudiya Math. KVV maintained that BSST had appinted him as acharya in verbal instructions. However BSST’s verbal instructions given on December 23, 1936 (eight days before his demise) to the monks assembled in Bagbazar Math did not mention this. The instructions were written down immediately and the wording is rendered in several books. One author writes:

 

On 31st Dec. 1937 [misspelling should be 1936], the day previous to his disappearance Srila Prabhupad [=BSST] called for all his important disciple by his side and advised them to note down the following instructions for their Guiding Principles in future: Form a Governing Body of 10 to 12 persons for management of Mission work but Kunja Babu [=KVV] will manage as long as he lives. Kunja Babu’s sympathy for me brought me in connection with so many persons. His intelligence excelled all. His sympathy for me knows no bounds. I advise you (Kunja Babu) to be courageous and callous as I am callous to all. This should be your guiding principle. I told the other day and again I say Kunja Babu should be respected as long as he lives. Do not quarrel with one another. Vasudeva [=Ananta Basudev Basu-APBB] should engage himself in writing something and he should help the Professor (Nishi Kanta Sanyal) and Sundarananda in this respect.

According to APBB, KVV was appointed as leader of mission activities not as math acharya. And also according to APBB, BSST never wanted KVV as acharya simply because he was a grihastha, not a monk. Another reason was that APBB considered KVV to be a subordinate, a secretary, who in his eagerness to advance tried to bypass the board.

Since the post was denied KVV, he left the Bagbazar Math and accompanied by 31 of the assembled samnyasins. According to one informant:

 

'The samnyasins thought that if they followed KVV they would have to obey his order and he is very strict...but he was not as strict as this person [APBB].

 

31^st December, 1936

Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakura:

"Form a Governing body of 10 to 12 persons for management of Mission work but Kunja Babu will manage so long as he lives.

Kunja Babu’s sympathy for me brought me in connection with so many persons. His intelligence excelled all. His sympathy for me knows no bound.

I advise you (Kunja Babu) to be courageous and callous (?) as I am callous to all. This should be your guiding principle.

I told the other day and again I say Kunja Babu should be respected by all as long as he lives.

Not to quarrel with one another.

Vasudev should write something. Sundarananda and Proffessor Babu should also help him in this regard."

third paragraph

Each member of the board had his own field of responsibility. APBB was in charge of the properties plus he was chief editor for all of Gaudiya Mission’s publishing businesses. This was quite a job since there were so many magazines, books and papers in different languages. ISKCON’s Ravindra Svarupa once described APBB as a man who remembered - i.e., a man who would remember everything he saw and read. He had very high demands on himself as well as on others, and this was the reason why everybody thought of him as quite a tough person. KVV was in charge of all movable property plus he had staff functions. As to his tasks, KVV had contact with many temple devotees daily and was considered less coarse than APBB. KVV was answerable to the acharya and to the three members of the trustee board - not the other way around.

Kunja Babu (KVV) or (Bhakti Vilasa Tirtha Maharaj) was far more than a manager within the Gaudiya Math.

This misunderstanding of the position of Kunja Baju is quite surprising.

Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakura Prabhupada had this written on the surface of the temple about him

"The secretary of the Sri Gaudiya Math, Sripada Kunjabihari Vidyabhusasa is

• 
  
• The main pillar in the great temple of the Sri Gaudiya Math.
  
• The life-breath of the Sri Gaudiya Math’s institution of Service and the main cause for its flourishment.
  
• The original architect in the Sri Gaudiya Math’s creation.
  
• The principal minister for the awakening and development of Sri Jagabandhu’s service attitude.
  
• The central jewel in the Sri Gaudiya Math’s jewelled necklace of devotees.
  
• The very personification of Sri Guru-seva (serving temper) and the prestha-murtti of (dearest to) Sri Guru.
  
• The main pillar to fulfill the wish of Sri Guru.
  
• The foremost teacher of service to Sri Guru and the most tolerant servitor.
  
• The servitor of the servitors of Sri guru, who invites the world for service to Sri Hari and Sri guru.
  
• The greatest friend of the Gaudiyas."

... practically staying in the mathas for 4 months. I visited five different mathgroups (six if you include ISKCON) originating from Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Thakura. All of them in Calcutta and Mayapur and all of them today members of wva-vvrs.org.

Finn Madsen should have looked into things a bit deeper than this.

WVA is a political group - they have given a stamp of approval to the Bagh Bazaar institution and other groups with sinful leaders. Why does Paramadvaiti Swami regard Anantavasudeva and his descendents as a proper sampradaya and not a sahajiya sampradaya?

I wish somebody could give me an answer to that.

Second paragraph

The management of the Gaudiya Math was organized as follows. BSST was the undisputed administrative and spiritual leader. Below him in the hierarchical structure was a trustee board with three members. By 1936, they were Jasodanandan Bhagavat Bhusana, Ananta Basudev Parabidya Basu (?) (APBB), and Paramananda Brahmachari. Furthermore there was a general secretary (Kunja Vihari Vidyabhusana, KVV) plus the secretary assistant (B. K. Audolomi).

Prabhupada had a will that Kunja Babu, Paramananda and Vasudeva Prabhu, these three will manage the property, will. And the last word he told, that they will form a governing body of ten or twelve.

 

Kunja Babu and Paramananda Vidyaratna were close friends. When the Gaudiya Math GBC was formed they were members of that GBC.

In the first meeting of the GBC, Kunja Babu said he should be Acharya. Not that he should be the only Acharya, but that Vasudeva could also be acharya. Kunja Babu was in favour of many acharyas. But Vasudeva and his supporters outnumbered Kunja Babu so he walked out. The Gaudiya Math GBC split in its first meeting and Kunja Babu, Bon Maharaj and Paramananda Vidyaratna went back to Mayapura from Kolkata.

Madhava Maharaj (Hayagriva Prabhu) was also a member of the GBC and he also believed there should be many acharyas (he wanted to become an Acharya himself and he did become a guru with a few years. But to keep peace he sided with the majority, and agreed to accept only Anantavasudeva as Guru.

My own Guru, Srila Sridhar Maharaj, was never a member of the Gaudiya Math GBC.

This is quite interesting you read Finn Madsen's article about the situation of the GM 1937 and come to the conclusion that Finn Madsen must be a Nazi like Hitler's right hand man Herman Goering? Please elaborate how you come to that conclusion?

I never intended to say that. What I will say is that if you agree to believe in lies, things that are clearly lies, if you believe in propaganda instead of what you know to be real, then you follow a similar path to what the Nazis followed. Many people in the Bagh Bazaar community refused to acknowledge that there was something wrong with "the institution". They stuck with the status-quo. In a totalitarian regime people go along with the Authority and they agree to speak the propaganda the Authority tells them to speak. They become slaves of the Status Quo. And the people who followed this path in life - they are Masden's chief source of information for this thing he wrote.

After Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur had passed on, Krishnadas Babaji (then a brahmacari) found the love letters of Anantavasudeva to his woman.

He took the letters to Srila Sridhar Maharaj who at first refused to believe they were genuine.

Then Srila Sridhar Maharaj, whom even Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja said was the leader of the sannyasis and brahmacaris, this Srila Sridhar Maharaj (my Guru) went to Anantavasudev and confronted him with the letters.

At that meeting Anantavasudev at first tried to defend himself. Then someone else (I will find the name later) quoted the Gita 9.30

"Even if a devotee engages in abominable behaviour he is considered venerable "

Srila Sridhar Maharaj said that this applies in the case of regular devotees - we must not criticize them - but an Acharya must not commit any abominable activities.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj and many, many others then left the Gaudiya Math.

I will search for the date for this event. But I believe it was in 1940.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj established Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math in Nabadwip in 1942, so 1940 sounds about right. I will check.

yes

First paragraph

The Split in the Gaudiya Math - Finn Madsen

 

Until January 1937 - when Bhakti Siddhanta Sarasvati Thakura (BSST) passed away - the Gaudiya Math, which was the name at that time, consisted of 64 Maths and centres which had been established by means of donated money. BSST’s sannyasins went out on bhikshu tours and sometimes returned with appointments with very rich people who wanted to donate. The most famous donation perhaps was the beautiful Bagbazar Math – marble temple, mansion and hall - which was all donated by one family. In other cases groups of families got together. One family would donate the building site, another the ground floor, a third family would donate the first floor; someone else would donate the painting work and someone else the movables. After donation, the buildings belonged to BSST. He was the owner of all property.

Bagh Bazaar and the temple at the Yogapitha were both paid for by one person. Sakhicaran Raya

Sakhicaran Raya paid for numerous other temples of significance including the Imlitala temple of Bhakti Saranga Goswami at Seva Kunja in Vrindaban, and the original land purchase for Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math in Nabadwip.

The biggest mistakes in Masden's "history" are that he doesn't mention many of the key people in the Gaudiya Math, he doesn't note the significance of some of the key events that happened, and he speaks of "monks" in the Math as materialistic men who were only interested in retaining the property donated by gullible donors. Masden is ignorant of the spiritual depth of many senior devotees in the Gaudiya Math. He speaks of them as if they were all money-grubbing materialists. Masden got some second hand information from a few sources, but he is really only presenting the Bagh Bazaar Math's version of "history", with a few trivial exceptions. According to the Bagh Bazaar view, anybody who didn't follow Anantavasudev was a fool.

The people who believed in Anantavasudev even after he stated that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was not a siddha-mahapurusha, they were the true fools. Anantavasudev admitted he had been involved in illicit sexual relations, and still the fools followed him: "If our gurudev has a girlfriend... we will still follow him."

There have been several works of fiction floating around. I don't see how people can see their fictions as service. Some reveal the spoof in the end, but some just let it ooze into the world to drag down the gullible neophytes. Is this treatise real or fantasy? I don't know, but somehow I don't feel compelled to read a word.

Well said

Others who follow your lead are very sensible.

Vikram Ramsundar, I've read the information you've given about yourself. I cannot help but think you are somebody other than who you say you are. The internet enables us to assume false identities very easily doesn't it?

Fact is, I went through years of disturbance and unhappiness, feeling great anguish because of the lies being broadcast on the internet about Sarawati Thakura that were spoken by Lalita Prashad.

Lalita Prashad's lies were told with the cunning intention of trying to seduce people like Gadadhara Prana, Subala and Jagat to come and follow LP.

Look at the fruit of Lalita Prashad's parampara:

Subala meditates on his "manjari" form and also eats beef steak. He likes sex with boys too.

Jagat openly states that he is a sahajiya, not a regular Gaudiya Vaishnava.

Gadadhara Prana seeks sex with young girls, and his wife won't allow him to be with the daughter.

...

On another topic, I saw Finn Madsen's "history of the Gaudiya Math" a few years ago and it is a seriouly flawed document full of historical errors and unsubstantiated assertions. His research was badly flawed; if I were marking his work I would have strongly critiqued what he wrote.

I haven't marked any essays for many years. But if you want to post his dissertation I will be happy to cut his work to pieces and expose all the rotten bits to everyone.

Bon Maharaj gave diksa to Sadananda as a ritvik in London, before Sadananda went to India. The Ritvik procedure was utilized by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarawati Thakura. 300 years earlier, Syamananda Thakura gave initiation through ritvik representativs. Syamananda Thakur had over 250,000 disciples.

Bhakti Saranga Goswami, also in London in the late 1930's, gave diksa to one disciple.

Bon Maharaj was authorised to be a ritvik. Bhakti Saranga Goswami was told by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarawati Thakura that he could give diksa.

This leela is described in detail in Sri Garga Samhita

The birth of Giriraj Govardhana and other pastimes are also given there.

Sri Garga Samhita says that when the flood came Sesa Naga wrapped himself around the bottom of Govardhana and stopped the waters from washing people away. Sudarshana stayed on top of Govardhana and burned up all the water and ice sent by Indra into steam. So Govardhana was not struck by any bad forces.

As to JDB, do you even know anything about his teachings?

Oh a quiz!

This will be fun!

ya draupadi paritrane, ya gajendrasya moksane

mayy arte karuna-murte, sa tvara kva gate hare

Jagannathasya

 

The devotee who needs immediate protection has full faith that the Lord will come to his aid -

"O compassion incarnate, now I am in danger. O Lord Hari, where is that urgency You showed in delivering Draupadi and liberating Gajendra?"

Jagannatha

 

Sri Krishna Chaitanya Prabhu Nityananda

Sri Advaita Gadadhara Sribasadi Gaurabhakta Brnda

 

And as far as his teachings go, it is a fact that in his later years he did not worship the Lord as "Krishna" but as Gaura.

He only chanted this Gauranga Mahamantra - Sri Krishna Chaitanya Prabhu Nityananda Sri Advaita Gadadhara Sribasadi Gaurabhakta Brnda

But, Mahabharata has always been classified as Itihasa which is most usually translated as "history" and which literally means "that which happened".

 

So, now we are supposed to believe that Mahabharata is not history but an allegorical fable?

 

this allegorical insanity is for the birds.

 

Mahabharata is a history, not mythology.

 

Somebody needs to get all his marbles in one bag.

In the introduction to Sri Krishna Samhita:

The people of India and other countries can be divided into two categories—the asslike and the swanlike. Among these two, the asslike are in the majority. The swanlike are in the minority. Swanlike people abstract the purport of the scriptures for their own advancement and thus benefit themselves. That is why the real purport of Shrimad Bhagavatam has not yet been clearly revealed. I had a great desire to translate Shrimad Bhagavatam in this proper swanlike way, but I have no time to translate this huge work. For this reason I am now extracting the main purport of this great literature and presenting it in the form of this Shri Krishna-samhita. As I was not satisfied after writing the verses of this book, I translated them into Bengali. I hope learned people will always scrutinizingly discuss this book in order to ascertain the spiritual subject matters.

An interesting section in the Jivani (life story of Bhaktivinode Thakura)

When I published Krsna Samhita the people of this country had many opinions about it. Some said that this book was a new point of view. Others said it was good. The younger, educated people said the book was good. But no one could understand the essence of the book. The purpose of this book was to show that Krsna-tattva was transcendental. Some people thought that the entire matter of the book was psychological, but they were altogether wrong.

There is a subtle difference between aprakrita [transcendental] and adhyatmika [psychological] that generally no one can grasp. Aprakrita has as its basis the absence of speculative knowledge. Kalyana Kalpataru was mostly received with affection and its many verses were sung.

While I was living in Narail I took diksha along with my wife. I had been searching for a suitable guru for a long time but I did not find one. I was very unhappy on that account. I had done much anxious thinking, and in a dream Prabhu diminished my unhappiness.

In the dream I got a hint. That day I became happy. One or two days later Gurudeva wrote to me saying, "I will come quickly and give you diksha." Gurudeva came and diksha was given. My mind was satisfied. From that very day the sinful reaction from meat eating went from my heart and mercy arose in me towards the jivas.

The problem with this jivani is that it is edited by Lalita Prasad and maybe other people living in that house.

I'm very skeptical of anything coming from Lalita Prasad. Very skeptical. The man is a proven liar - not white lies, but big black ones.

I posted Bhaktivinoda's verses praising BBG in a very elevated way. Now it is your turn to present Bhaktivinoda's verses showing JDG as his siksa guru.

 

Good luck.

Hmmm...

Here is one verse that has come from Jagannatha das Babaji to Bhaktivinode to Saraswati Thakura to us.

It is Jagannatha das Babaji's own "mahamantra"

sri krishna chaitanya prabhu nityananda

sri advaita gadadhara sribasadi gaura bhakta brnda.

 

Based on his own autobiography, Bhaktivinoda's first direct contact with Vaishnavism was through a Karta-bhaja guru

Hmm... is that reference to the Karta-bhaja in that biography that was "edited" by Lalita Prashad?

The theory that leela never happend physically here on earth is nothing new - it was not invented by Bhaktivinoda but has been around for many, many centuries. For centuries many Mayavadis preached for example that Battle of Kurukshetra never actually took place, that it is simply a metaphor, etc. ALL four Vaishnava sampradayas held an opposing view and these debates are well documented in the writings of Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, and Vishnusvami, thus any concept that denies leela actually happened in our physical world is completely bogus and constitutes an apasiddhanta. Prabhupada spoke about it more than once or twice.

Professor Sanyal goes to great pain to explain in detail the difference between Leela and history.

I started typing out some sections but it will take me hours and I don't have the time. By the way, this is from Volume 2 of Sri Krishna Chaitanya (I have Volume 1 as a text file).

Professor Sanyal raised the issue that when Mahaprabhu publicly revealed he is Visnu the first manifestation he displayed was as Varahadeva. This avatara, Sanyal explains, is considered with disdain by brahmins and their disregard for a "pig" because of their own "pure" status makes them unable to realize that God is not just "transcendence" but that he is, indeed, every thing.

Sanyal:

Hiranyaksa means literally 'one whose eyes are made of gold'. He sees everything through the medium of gold.

 

A person possessed by a mentality like this will naturally hate a creature like a pig.

Why should any material resources, exclaims the economist, be wasted in the superstitious performance of the sacrifice which brings no sensuous gratification to man? Why should anything be offered to Godhead in the sense in which it should certainly be offered to man? Gold is very useful for man. Why should wealth of gold be offered to the sacrificial fire (yagneswara, visnu) to be senselessly destroyed? All wealth is intended by Providence for the use of man. Even the lower animals (pigs etc) are only objects of enjoyment of man.

...

 

Hiranyaksa could not refrain from contemptuous laughter when he was told that Visnu had appeared in the form of a Boar. He accosted the Divine Boar, when he at last had the supreme good fortune of meeting Him in mortal combat as 'the despised pig'. He thought that the vile form of their object of worship was in keeping with the unnatural folly of the performers of Vedic sacrifices, viz... the Brahmanas, Rishis, etc. He accordingly rejoiced in having the chance of disproving the ridiculous errors of the Vedic seers by making short work of the Despised Animal Whom they held to be superior to himself.

 

Hiranyaksa then is a person who tries to promote the philosophy of utilitarianism - everything in the world exists for man. Hiranyaksa felt he was doing humankind a favour by destroying superstious cult worship of Visnu and the process of Yajna.

Professor Sanyal goes on to say that this problem that Varaha faced was again faced by Sri Nimai Sundara. He also had to deal with the same "utilitarianism" and skepticism of "intellectuals" whose eyes see things from the viewpoint of "gold". I was an academic, a University lecturer, at one time. I believe most academics are primarily interested in the golden lifestyle they enjoy and that the matters they study are in most cases trivial pursuits in comparison to the main pursuit of their life - the experience of ENJOYMENT.

When Gaurasundara appeared on Earth all the avataras were within him, and in his pastimes the Varaha-leela was also manifest. But people can only appreciate that Varaha Leela was manifest again on earth 500 years ago if they have been given the eyes to see things properly.

Leela is not History.

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.

I agree with almost all of this.

The only thing I'm not sure about is the idea that his accepting of diksa from Bipin Bihari Goswami was a formality.

Vipina-vihari hari tara shakti avatari Vipina-vihari prabhu-vara, sri-guru-gosvami-rupe dekhi more bhava-kupe uddharilo apana kinkara

 

"Vipina-vihari, my exalted Master is the manifestation of the potency of Hari, Who plays in Vraja's forests. Seeing me in the dark hole of mundane existence, he appeared in the form of a Guru Gosvami, to save this servant of his." (Srila Bhaktivinoda's commentary on Caitanya-caritamrita)

 

vilasa manjari, ananga manjari, sri rupa manjari ara

amake tuliya, loha nija pade, deha more siddhi sara

 

"Vilasa Manjari (Srila Vipinavihari Gosvami's manjari name), Ananga Manjari and Sri Rupa Manjari, please uplift me and give me the shelter of your lotus feet. For by your mercy I shall be awarded the essence of all spiritual perfection." (Gita Mala)

 

Bhagavat-arka-marici-mala: vipina-vihari prabhu mama prabhu-vara | sri-vamsi-vadanananda-vamsa-sasadhara || -- "Vipina-vihari Prabhu, the greatest of my masters, is the brilliant moon in the family of Sri Vamsi Vadanananda."

 

Amrita-pravaha-bhasya: vipina-vihari hari, tara sakti avatari | vipina-vihari prabhu-vara || sri-guru-goswami-rupe, dekhi more bhava-kupe | uddharilo apana kinkara || -- "The eminent Vipina-vihari Prabhu, an avatara of the sakti of Lord Hari Who sports in the forests of Vraja, has descended in the form of the Gosvami spiritual preceptor. Seeing me in the dark well of worldly existence, he has delivered this humble servant of his."

 

My understanding is that he had great faith in Bipin Bihari initially but later realized that Bipin Bihari was compromising himself by supporting the anti-Mayapura brahmins from Prachin Mayapura.

Jagannatha das Babaji had envisaged the Yogapitha in his transcendental vision when he first came to Mayapura, and Bhaktivinode Thakur had faith in Jagannatha and in his own vision.

A Vaishnava can sometimes be more advanced than his Guru. As for example Sukadeva, who explained Bhagavatam in such a wonderful way that Narada (his param guru) and Vyasa (his Guru) found what he said had more sweetness (ananda) that what they themselves had experienced.

nigama-kalpa-taror galitaḿ phalaḿ

śuka-mukhād amṛta-drava-saḿyutam

pibata bhāgavataḿ rasam ālayaḿ

muhur aho rasikā bhuvi bhāvukāḥ

 

O expert and thoughtful men, relish Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the mature fruit of the desire tree of Vedic literatures. It emanated from the lips of Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī. Therefore this fruit has become even more tasteful, although its nectarean juice was already relishable for all, including liberated souls.

 

Amrita-pravaha-bhasya: vipina-vihari hari, tara sakti avatari | vipina-vihari prabhu-vara || sri-guru-goswami-rupe, dekhi more bhava-kupe | uddharilo apana kinkara || -- "The eminent Vipina-vihari Prabhu, an avatara of the sakti of Lord Hari Who sports in the forests of Vraja, has descended in the form of the Gosvami spiritual preceptor. Seeing me in the dark well of worldly existence, he has delivered this humble servant of his."

Thanks for those verses.

Do you know where this is written in Amrita pravaha bhasya? I have it here with me.

These quarrels of long ago dont interst me very much. Who did what to whom and why - so many angles, so many different opinions. There is for example no single evidence from Bhaktivinoda that he ever rejected Bipin B. Goswami as his guru as he wrote a very elevated verse in his praise shortly before his departure from this world.

What verse is that?

I once had an unpleasant quarrel with JNDas on this forum where JNDas said that Bipin BIhari was not the guru of Thakur Bhaktivinode, since it says this in the introduction to CC

"The direct disciple of Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami was Srila Narottama dasa Thakura, who accepted Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti as his servitor. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, who initiated Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn initiated Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, the spiritual master of Om Visnupada Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja, the divine master of our humble self."

Also:

one of the central ideas stemming from Bhaktivinoda's SKS is that leela is essentially imaginary on the physical plane, therefore you can imagine more leela and that becomes "shastra" if you are a "realized soul". Very few devotees currently in the Saraswata parivar would put it so bluntly but that is the gist of it.

The view that the Leela is not on the physical plane at all is explained in great detail (maybe 20 pages or more) in Sri Krishna Chaitanya by professor sanyal, with an introduction by Saraswati Thakura.

Fact is, Saraswati Thakur didn't preach the "literalist" view of stories in Puranas and shastra. He taught that you need to enter into the deeper view of Reality before you can appreciate divine Leela.

Well, that is the language that Krishnadas Kaviraja Goswami used.

Whether or not that is the exact terminology used by Mahaprabhu is debatable.

Let me get this right.

Do you suggest that Sri Chaitanya did not really say the words in Chaitanya Charitamrta that Kaviraj Gosai says he spoke?

None of the things Sri Chaitanya said in CC were really his actual words?

This is an interesting idea. Please elaborate on that for the stupid Hindus like me who cannot understand real philosophy.

Well, that is the language that Krishnadas Kaviraja Goswami used.

Whether or not that is the exact terminology used by Mahaprabhu is debatable.

OK, I will rephrase what I said.

Krishnadas Kaviraj said that the devotees in the sankirtan of Mahaprabhu are Hindus.

Lowborn you need to look more carefully at the real history of what happened. Lalita Prashad was proven to be "cunning and malicious". He knew that Bipin Bihari Goswami cut his connection with Bhaktivinode Thakura but nevertheless Lalita Prashad deceived people like Jagat and made them believe that he (LP) was linked through Bhaktivinode and Bipin Bihari to the parampara of Jahnava Mata. It was a trick. The man is like Kaliya.

As far as Saraswati Thakur's teachings go, what makes you think he didn't push the ideas in Sri Krishna Samhita? I've many books and articles of Saraswati Thakur and in those books I've seen him repeating the things said by Thakur Bhaktivinode in Sri Krishna Samhita. Practically every thing. And besides that, Saraswati Thakur printed Sri Krishna Samhita in two editions and promoted it to be studied amongst his disciples. Srila Sridhar Maharaj was THERE and he read Sri Krishna Samhita and told me to read it too.

Sivaya Subramaniyaswami pointed out that Srila Prabhupada had said that ISKCON is not Hindu. It is true. ISKCON is not a part of Hindu society.

But who is Hindu? In Sri Chaitanya Caritamrta http://vedabase.net/cc/adi/17/en you see that Sri Chaitanya Himself said his devotees are Hindus.