cbrahma

Those who imitate an uttama-adhikari by flaunting a sense of oneness or fellowship but who behave on the bodily platform are actually false philanthropists. - Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 6, Purport

They take the dress of the renounced order of life and engage in all nonsense in that dress. Actually there are so many restrictions for one who has renounced this world. The demons, however, do not care for such restrictions. - Bhagavad-Gita 16.17, Purport

THE SO-CALLED ACHARYAS OF THE AGE OF KALI ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH EXPLOITING THE RESOURCES OF THEIR FOLLOWERS THAN MITIGATING THEIR MISERIES. - Chaitanya Charitamrita, Adi 3.98, Purport

 

I thought he was talking about how it's not possible to love but you have to love your elf. But if the self doesn't exist how do you love yourself?

I don't know. But yeah you're right, he seems like a total mayavadi.

He says all love is love of self - but since the self doesn't really exist - that's what we mean when we say we love - I love myself - so I can be 'there' - exist. But there's no there there, just some vaccuous universal Love thing. It's really utter nonsense. His wife goes around hugging people and they feel the 'electricity'. LOL. He's very popular right now, all over the world, including India. But Westerners are suckers for this kind of thing - now India because its' culture has degenerated into Western values.

Darwin didn't really invent Darwinism. That is something that was spun off of his theory of the origin of the species.

The conclusions that all life comes from matter, really wasn't exactly his. His idea was the evolution of the species, not the evolution of individuals.

So all life forms evolved - from so-called lower life forms, unicellular probalby marine organisms.

The evidence for this is flimsy at best. The big hole is the lack of transitional forms.

Darwinism is a paradoxical blend of vedanta and demonic ignorance.

Evolution is a fact of embodied consciousness. Propelled by its karma, the jiva migrates through the three worlds, heavenly, earthly and hellish throughout the lifetime of the particular cosmic manifestation; the wheel of birth and death, samsara.

Of course, the jiva can seek mukti and ascend to Brahman, the static state of pure consciousness, only to fall down at some future cosmic manifestation. Optimally the jiva can reach Vaikuntha and even Goloka Vrindavan in a particular rasa with Krsna.

That is the vedic part.

The demonic part is the determinism, that life came from matter, that strife is the father of all things.

It is truth cominated with a lie - the worst kind.

BY: HDG SRILA BHAKTIVINODA THAKUR <CENTER>

HDG Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur </CENTER>

 

 

Jun 14, CANADA (SUN) — "The Bhagavata teaches us that God gives us truth as He gave it to Vyasa: when we earnestly seek for it.

 

Truth is eternal and unexhausted. The soul receives a revelation when anxious for it. The souls of the great thinkers of the bygone ages, who now live spiritually, often approach our inquiring spirit and assist in its development. Thus Vyasa was assisted by Narada and Brahma.

 

Our Shastras, or in other words, books of thought, do not contain all that we could get from the infinite Father.

No book is without its errors.

 

God's revelation is absolute truth, but it is scarcely received and preserved in its natural purity. We have been advised in the 14th Chapter of 11th Skandha of the Bhagavata to believe that truth when revealed is absolute, but it gets the tincture of the nature of the receiver in course of time and is converted into error by continual exchange of hands from age to age. New revelations, therefore, are continually necessary in order to keep truth in its original purity. We are thus warned to be careful in our studies of old authors, however wise they are reputed to be.

 

Here we have full liberty to reject the wrong idea, which is not sanctioned by the peace of conscience. Vyasa was not satisfied with what he collected in the Vedas, arranged in the Puranas and composed in the Mahabharata. The peace of his conscience did not sanction his labors. It told him from within, "No, Vyasa! You cannot rest contented with the erroneous picture of truth which was necessarily presented to you by the sages of bygone days. You must yourself knock at the door of the inexhaustible store of truth from which the former ages drew their wealth. Go, go up to the fountainhead of truth, where no pilgrim meets with disappointment of any kind." Vyasa did it and obtained what he wanted. We have been all advised to do so.

Liberty then is the principle which we must consider as the most valuable gift of God. We must not allow ourselves to be led by those who lived and thought before us. We must think for ourselves and try to get further truths which are still undiscovered. In the Bhagavata we have been advised to take the spirit of the Shastras and not the words. The Bhagavata is therefore a religion of liberty, unmixed truth and absolute love."

Bhaktivinode's mood is so different from many Gaudiya-Vaisnava proponents I've encountered from ISKCON, GM and on this forum. It lacks even the slightest strain of dogmatism.

Yes Jagananda goes by Jagat and no that story in not in his Parampara article, I was only suggesting you read the entire article you quoted from as it contains a wealth of information on Gaudiya Math history. I'm not sure if it is any of his works, although I can ask him. These stories came from Lalita Prasad himself who told devotess who came to him and took diksha, several whom I know personally.

 

Just because you can't find a reference on-line does not mean it did not occur, in fact I know it was discussed on Gaudiya Discussions, the old istagosthi and on VNN forums back in the day (all no longer on line) regardless I would not limit your reserach in GV to what you can locate on line.

 

namaskar,

 

jijaji

With all the infighting that seems endemic to these maths, especially when something non-traditional is being promoted, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that this is what happened. It puts Prabhhupada's diksa succession in question from the traditional standpoint, and I'm perfectly fine with that, since Prabhupad so obviously broke with tradition.

I have a similar approach with regard to honoring all my spiritual teachers while disagreeing with them on some minor points. Without that deep respect and appreciation for a guru such disagreements can easily turn into offensive mentality.

 

The stories of disagreements between Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta are quite well sourced, directly and indirectly. What to make of them is a real question. I think that Vaishnavism needs both currents: the militant proselytizing current of Bhaktisiddhanta, and the reflective, private bhajana current of traditional GV parivars and Lalita Prasad.

 

I hope the war hatchets will be buried and both sides will realize that they really need each other to carry on with Mahaprabhu's legacy.

Right. So many links about how Bhaktisiddhanta didn't really get diksa initiation.

I could honestly not understand what he was talking about. I did not catch his point. What was it?

 

Also, he's not God. I wasn't attracted to him.

He begins by saying 'the self does not really exist'. I presume that means we don't have to listen to him because he really doesn't exist...

His philosophy is pure Mayavadi.

If by Jagat jijaji means Jagadananda Das, who BTW is aligned with Lalita Prasad, then that Jagat gives no clue in his paper "The Parampara Institution In Gaudiya Vaisnavism" that Bhaktisiddhanta was 'kicked out' by his father. In fact my on line searches don't reveal a single such reference.

• He reasons ill who tells that Vaishnavas die
  When thou art living still in sound
  The Vaishnavas die to live and living try
  To spread the holy name around!
  (from Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur's poem “Thakura Haridasa”)

 

Pretty flimsy spelling. The fact is that if these two quotations--the only record of his using that term--are analyzed critically (that means with discernment), it's clear that he tells us just whom he means by that term (which is what an appositive does). (I used to teach this kind of thing in colleges and universities for a living.) And the fact that he never even hinted that he was starting a new sampradaya, and, more to the point, asserted that his qualification is that he's serving one of the four sampradayas, show that this whole business is simply speculation, and flimsy (or, worse, filmsly) speculation at that. After all, no one can call himself a muni unless he has his own philosophy. You've bought in so solidly that you can't hear another point of view.

Desperately grasping at typos I see. You simply posit that you are analyzing critically. But critical means at least logical and the logic is hardly obvious.

I know what appositive means, but just because a phrase follows another it doesn't automatically have that sense. It could be a list.

It certainly isn't deductively obvious.

I accept Babhrus observations on this matter. I noticed that in the purport to SB 4.22.4 Srila Prabhupada uses the term sampradaya acarya's ...plural. To assume he was only talking only about the heads of different sampradayas or the most prominent I don't think would be correct. Prithu was consulting acaryas in disciplic succession meaning he was not performing his duties as a ksatriya whimically but under proper guidance.

 

I would think the term could also be used for the originator of a sampradaya but I have never heard it used that way. It does seem clear to me that the sampradaya acarya for the GV's would be Lord Caitanya Himself. Personally it is my feeling that Lord Caitanya did start a fifth Sampradaya but what do I know that is only my own uneducated feeling on the matter.

 

Prabhupada's hope was that his disciples would all surpass him tenfold in preaching accomplishments. That is the nature of the pure envy free soul. Jesus Christ wanted the same thing from His disciples. The devotee wants to see expotential growth in service to Krishna not that they want to be considered number one throught history. To think like that seems to be offensive to the nature of Srila Prabhupada instead of honoring him because it implies he was thinking like a materialist instead of a pure devotee of Krishna.

The quote "Our Indian spiritual life is guided by the acaryas, sampradaya acarya, the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka. There is... Whole Indian spiritual culture is dependent on the guidance of these acarya. And in the Bhagavad-gita also, in the Thirteenth Chapter, it is advised, acarya upasanam: "One should follow the instruction of the acarya." That is our Vedic civilization"

You'll notice that acarya has been used in the plural.

Who said it was discussed on this board?

Mainly on Gaudiya Discussions and here long before you came really.

Besides any proof I give you won't accept, we both know that.

 

I been around the block a bit on these issues and don't waste time anymore with people like you. Kula and mr 3 of spades can if they like.

 

namaskar,

 

jijaji

 

Of course, common knowledge. Not being interested in the GM, I would be going there all the time.

I suggest if you can't make yourself clear and logical you are definitely wasting your time and would advise you to stop responding to 'people like me'.

This story is complete Gaudiya Math fabrication (not the only one either I may add), water under the bridge really, these things have been discussed and rehashed so many times ad nauseum I can't believe I'm even here talking about it.

 

I don't have to give you proof, you will stumble upon it yourself eventually if you keep digging, as many of us did decades ago.

 

(big yawn)

I've been on this forum for years and have never seen this issue discussed.

And it is hardly a settled issue just because you say so. Apparently there are number of people who are not convinced.

No doubt you know all about it, but if you're going to post a refutation you can do the courtesy of pointing to some sort of proof instead of making some dismissive bored comment.

If the truth is that Bhaktisiddhanta was kicked out - then what is the advantage of claiming he criticized BBG when he did not?

This story is false and was made up by Gaudiya Math. The truth is Bhaktisiddhanta was kicked out of his fathers house after he offended Bepin Behari Gosvami in the same way Bhaktivinode made him leave Puri after he had offended Radharaman Charana dev. Sorry for stating such a harsh truth here, for all you wet behind the ears.

 

namaskar,

 

jijaji

Which story was false? If you are going to use demonstrative adjectives like 'this' you really ought to quote what you are refering to.

If you are going to claim something is false - you really need to provide some sort of proof. It's the least you can do.

If you ignore the context for those two quotations, you'll miss the point Srila Prabhupada makes. Here's the first one, with the context that has been conveniently omitted in cbrahma's post: "So a human life should be engaged inquiring about the Absolute Truth, and he should inquire from a person who, who has heard about the Absolute Truth from a realized person. There is a.... Therefore it is called sruti, parampara, disciplic succession. One... Just like Vyasadeva is hearing from Narada. Narada is authorized. He has heard from Brahma. Brahma has heard from Krsna. So this is the parampara system, disciplic succession. So there are four parampara systems. They are known as, at the present moment, Ramanuja-sampradaya, Brahma-sampra..., Brahma-samprada..., yes, Madhva-sampradaya, Brahma-sampradaya, Madhva-sampradaya, the same, and Rudra-sampradaya and Sri-samp..., Sri, Rama, Kumara-sampradaya. These is four sampradayas. So we should hear from the sampradaya-acarya by disciplic succession. As Krsna recommends in this Bhagavad-gita: evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh."

 

This makes it clear just who he means by sampradaya-acharyas: those acharyas accepted as the heads of the four sampradayas. That's even more clearly stated in the second quotation cited, where, in the appositive phrase Srila Prabhupada defines the term: "the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka."

 

These are the only two instances you'll find in the VedaBase where Srila Prabhupada uses that term. He never says, or even implies, or even obliquely hints, that he is a sampradaya acharya. He never says that he's starting a new sampradaya. He would never have said such a thing. The point he makes in these two places is that one must hear from an acharya who comes in one of these four disciplic successions. He said more times than can be easily counted that this is how he's genuine: he is following one of these four acharyas.

 

On the other hand, one could make a case that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu started His own sampradaya. But he didn't make that case Himself.

 

I'm afraid that this idea of calling Srila Prabhupada a Sampradaya Acharya has no basis in what we've learned from Srila Prabhupada. It's based, no doubt, on a nice sentiment, but one which, left to get out of hand, leads to something like the kartabhajas' worship of the guru as God.

Pretty filmsly logic.

1. Prabhupada names the heads of the paramparas and the names of paramparas and then uses the term sampradya acarya, ergo only they are the sampradaya acaryas .

2. Prabhupada didn't call himself a sampradaya acarya, therefore he is not.

BBG rejected Bhaktivinoda Thakura only several years after BVT passing from this world, when the issue of book authenticity came into light. There is no record of such 'distancing' during the lifetime of BVT, even over the issue of giving blessings to Raghunatha dasa Goswami, an incident much overblown by the Saraswatas.

It is obvious that Bhaktivinode Thakur and BBG had a serious difference of opinon in any case. Such was the perception of Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja at least and he should have known, because he defnitely rejected BBG.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati took to the defense of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and chastised the offending Bipin Bihari Gosvami: "Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has instructed about Hari-Nama as follows. 'O jivas, do nothing but Kirtana, and do it all along. But Kirtana is not done well unless the chanter is humbler than even a blade of grass, is free from the arrogance of the sense of his own respect and is the giver of respect to others. Do not remain maddened with the thoughts that you are a great expert and very intelligent.' I have tried to adopt this instruction from Sri Gaurasundara. If anyone attacks me, then I should put up with it and chant Hari-nama; I should know that God has thus given me a chance to be lower than a blade of grass; knowing this, I should be all the more encouraged to take to Hari-nama more vigorously than ever. But when somebody speaks or acts disrespectfully about a true Vaisnava, my Guru-deva, then my lowliness as that of a blade of grass should consist in at once giving him proper teaching with as much vigour as ever. In the karma-kanda section of the Vedas there is no true lowliness as that of a blade of grass, there is only insincere cringing before others in order to secure their favour." (Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, Sri Caitanya's Teachings, p.236) Therefore Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati publicly chastised Bipin Gosvami and made it appear that two exalted pure devotees, father and son, had a difference of opinion. In fact each was demonstrating how a devotee acts according to time and circumstances.

I can't trace out the exact history of all such things such as who formally initiated who let alone the nature of their association and all these things. But fortunately since I know beyond a shadow of a doubt from Srila Prabhupada's books and letters and confirmed by BR Sridhar Maharaja that this is a siksa line. So that question is solved for me personally. Others who may be infatuated with idea of a "traditional" line coming through family members irregardless of realization I believe are misguided. It is a position that makes no sense to me. To think that pure bhakti is handed down in the genetic code orsomething is gross IMO but all I can do is state my position and let the chips fall where they may. It is Caitya gurus position to enlighten them and not mine. Can't get worked up over it.

 

I am not convinced of this term Sampradaya Acarya. If Krishna choose to speak His Katha to me through some devotee that had no formal disciples. wrote no books or was even illiterate, was blind and deformed etc. then that person would be my personal Sampradaya Acarya or in other words my connection to the flow of transcendental siksa that is the essence of the parampara system the River of Life.

 

I can't see the need for someone who has Bhaktisiddhanta as their guru to call Bhaktivedanta their 'Sampradaya Acarya', or someone who is a disciple of a disciple of Bhaktisiddahata even. Wouldn't that term best apply personally. One can have another particular person as their primary link to the parampara and still acknowledge the giganti contribution of Srila Bhativedanta Prabhupad. There is no competition for the title amongst genuine teachers. Only pretenders to the throne and their unfortunate disciples or kanistha disciples of a bone fide guru would think there was.

The term 'Sampradaya Acarya' does not just apply to every and any guru. One may have a siksa guru who is not a Sampradaya Acarya, but what makes the acarya a 'Sampradaya Acarya' is the standard of his teaching and realization. They are the siksa 'gold' standard.

 

 

 

 

Being a bonafide member or representative of the Sampradaya is distinctly different than being a Sampradaya Acarya. Sincere members of the Sampradaya make unfettered spiritual advancement when they dedicate their efforts to thoroughly comprehending the prominent Sampradaya Acarya’s teachings, pastimes, mission, and mood. Reinforced with such realized absolute knowledge, the sincere adherent can venture forth in search of the most advantageous transcendental association.

 

"So Prthu Maharaja was very respectful to the sampradaya-acaryas. As it is said by Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, “saksad-dharitvena samasta-sastraih”: a spiritual master, or the parampara-acarya, should be respected exactly like the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The word vidhivat is significant in this verse. This means that Prthu Maharaja also strictly followed the injunctions of the sastra in receiving a spiritual master, or acarya, of the transcendental disciplic succession."

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam 4:22:4 Purport

 

 

 

Rocana dasa

 

 

 

 

 

Also Prabhupada did himself use the term

 

 

"So we should hear from the

sampradaya-acarya

by disciplic succession. As Krsna recommends in this Bhagavad-gita: evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh."

 

la Prabhupada Lecture on Bhagavad-gita, 11-30-72, Hyderabad

 

 

 

 

 

"Our Indian spiritual life is guided by the acaryas,

sampradaya acarya

, the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka. There is... Whole Indian spiritual culture is dependent on the guidance of these acarya. And in the Bhagavad-gita also, in the Thirteenth Chapter, it is advised, acarya upasanam: "One should follow the instruction of the acarya." That is our Vedic civilization."

 

Srila Prabhupada Lecture to World Health Org., 06-06-74, Geneva

 

 

 

 

That does not change history or historical facts. You can understand who was Bhaktivinoda's guru by reading Bhaktivinoda's writings. Where in Bhaktivinoda's writings does he claim to be a disciple of anybody other than Bipin Bihari? Even the title of "Bhaktivinoda" was oficially and in writing bestowed to him by his guru, Bipin Bihari Goswami, who was very proud of such a qualified disciple. BVT referred to himself by using that title to his last days. It was something he clearly cherished. I doubt he would have appreciated his grand-grand-disciples belittling BBG.

The facts color depending on whom you read, but the following sounds more accurate

Bhaktivinode Thakur did for sometime show formal respect to Bipin Bihari Goswami but when the Goswami disrespected Raghunatha dasa Goswami, the Thakur distanced himself even more from Bipin Bihari. In essence the details of this incident show that like many cast Goswamis in Orissa, Bengal, Vrindavana and Radha Kunda - Bipin Bihari Goswami also thought that he could give blessings to Raghunatha dasa Goswami, the prayojana-acharya, because Das Goswami was from a "lower cast" or so he mistakenly thought. It appears that Lalit Prasad Thakur overlooked the stressful relation that had evolved between Bhaktivinode and Bipin Bihari over the issue of Yoga-Pitha being at Mayapur and also that of Ragunatha dasa Goswami in favor of the formal arangement of diksa. It does not appear, in spite of his vast learning, that he was able to catch the essence of the teachings of Bhaktivinode Thakur.

Swami B.G. Narasingha

 

The confusion of course is that Jagannatha dasa babaji is presented as Bhaktivinode Thakur's spiritual master and that the latter accepted him as such - which is maybe why there is this idea of a siksa-parampara, a concept I do not endorse.

There is evidence that Bipin Bihari Goswami did reject Bhaktivinode. There must have at least been a 'distancing'.

That is a total fabrication. Bhaktivinoda never rejected his diksa guru. Some Iskcon ignoramuses claim that Bhaktivinoda rejected BBG over the issue of yoga-pitha of Mahaprabhu. That is totally wrong.

 

Actually, BBG initially supported Bhaktivinoda's location of yoga-pitha and in many ways looked up to Bhaktivinoda throughout Bhaktivinoda's life (he was several years younger than Bhaktivinoda). However, after Bhaktivinoda's passing some things came up to light that made many people question the authenticity of documents on which Bhaktivinoda based his localization of yoga-pitha. Many said that Bhaktivinoda wrote them himself, to support his position. Only then, in the light of this criticism, Bipin Bihari Goswami post humously rejected Bhaktivinoda as his disciple. That was one of the reasons which prompted BST to completely disregard the diksa line of Bhaktivinoda.

The reference that you are objecting to is from Jagadananda das who befriended Lalita Prasad.

This is one of the points on which Jagadananda and Rocana dasa agree, and both have dissented from the ISKCON canon.

Nevertheless

Prabhupada never once taught that Bhaktivinoda Thakur was initiated by Bipin Bihari Goswami, nor that Bipin Bihari Goswami was the guru of Bhaktivinoda Thakur.

Curiouser and curiouser -

I (Rocana dasa) assert that the “traditionalist” exponents who are emphatic about the prerequisite for a sincere truth seeker to search out and surrender to a “living” diksa guru should be looked upon with a high degree of suspicion. More than likely, they can be accurately identified as being one of a combination of the following: a religionist, a cultist in the guise of a disciple, less intelligent, and/or any of a variety of types of suppressionists.

 

The Sampradaya Acaryas have made their positions on this subject abundantly clear, but surprisingly, so many devotees have chosen to ignore their message. Initiation into our Sampradaya isn’t solely dependent upon taking diksa initiation.

In identifying the members of the Sampradaya, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura de-emphasized the traditional diksa guru parampara, which had been abused in many circumstances in the past. Instead, he stressed the Bhägavata or siksa-guru parampara. The Bhägavata succession is taken from the Srimad Bhagavatam, wherein Krsna enlightened Lord Brahma, who then spoke absolute truth to Narada Muni, who passed it on to Srila Vyasadeva. His son, Sukadeva Goswami, underwent no diksa but received the essence of Bhagavatam from Vyasa, who recited it, in seven days, to Pariksit Maharaja, Suta Goswami and others present during the recitation. All were fully enlightened but none were direct diksa disciples of Srila Sukadeva.

 

One can also quote Sridhara Maharaj on this same subject

 

The following is a quote from the Guardian of Devotion Srila Sridhar Deva Goswami supporting the above statements on accepting the essence and not simply the form:

"The very gist of the guru-parampara, the disciplic succession, is siksa, the spiritul teaching, and wherever it is to be traced, there is guru. One who has the transcendental eye, the divine eye, will recognize the guru wherever he appears. One who possesses knowledge of absolute divine love in purity he is guru. Otherwise the guru parampara is only a body parampara: a succession of bodies. Then the caste brahmanas, the caste gosvamis, will continue with their trade, because body after body, they are getting the mantra. But their mantra is dead. We are after a living manra, and wherever we can trace the living tendency for a higher type of devotional service, we shall find that there is our guru. One who has that sort of vision awakened will be able to recognize the guru wherever he may appear."

(

Sri Guru and His Grace

, p22.)

 

 

 

Yes, to people like you and Rocana anybody that dares to have their own opinion on the activities of the previous acharyas is an 'aparadhi' or at least 'displays a cavalier atitude'. The thing is: these acharyas were very, very critical of others, usually for a good reason, so they would have no problem if others looked critically at them as well. However, their pansy disciples cry faul every time anybody attempts to shed a critical light on these devotees.

No. There is a double standard. I don't dare venture to even insinuate negative criticisms of the GM gurus, because 'people like you' will do what you are saying - shout apharadi! Or just dismiss me or anybody else who makes such statements as not knowing what they are talking about.

The break from the traditional caste gurus came from Bhaktivinode, exactly the doctirne that Lalita Prasad was criticizing Bhaktisiddhanta about.

According to Rupa Vilasa, the initiative for the rejection of the diksa sampradaya came from Bhaktivinoda himself, who became dissatisfied with Bipin Bihari Goswami and rejected him in favour of Jagannath Das Babaji, another great contemporary renunciate, universally respected in the Vaishnava community

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:B30U_MmFQ2cJ:www.gaudiya.com/pdf/The_Parampara_Institution_In_Gaudiya_Vaisnavism.pdf+%22lalita+prasad%22+bhaktivinoda+narayana+maharaj&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

 

I doubt very much that they considered Bhaktivinoda a 'fraud'. They may be questioning the authenticity of books he claimed to have discovered, or the authenticity of the Mahaprabhu's yoga-pitha he claims to have re-discovered (a fairly serious issue that surfaced after Bhaktivinoda's departure from this world), but they do not have any doubts that his bhakti and bhajana were genuine and of the highest caliber.

I don't doubt. Rocana wouldn't lie. It comes down once again to your claims against his and so far he has more credibility, considering your cavalier attirude toward the GV acaryas like Bhaktisiddhanta and Prabhupada.

Now if I made claims, and believe me I have evidence to do so, about NM or Sridar Maharaj in the same dismissive mood, you would be incensed.

 

Over 100 years ago, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura challenged the religionists of his day, which he identified as Caste Goswamis, Smarta Brahmins, mundane intellectuals, western scholars, and even those purporting to be in direct disciplic succession to associates of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura introduced the relevance, significance and importance of the siksa guru as a bonafide initiator into our Sampradaya. His own brother, Lalita prasad, sided with the representatives of traditional diksa lines that traced their linage clear back to the Caitanya Lila. These "Goswami lineage" successions claimed that initiation through them was the only possible way to link to Lord Caitanya’s Sampradaya. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati dismissed this self-serving concept, stating that regardless of one's spiritual genealogy, the prerequisite qualifications for successfully linking up to the Sampradaya are achieved wholly and solely upon the genuine advancement in Krsna consciousness by contacting a genuine Sampradaya Acarya. As such, he included Jagannatha dasa Babaji and Gaura Kisora das Babaji as qualified members of the Sampradaya, and he excluded all the established diksa lines who traced themselves back to the Caitanya Mahaprabhu lila period.

Rocana dasa

 

How did they 'blaspheme' Bhaktivinoda?? By questioning the source of Caitanyopanishad or some other book he claimed to have discovered? To me this is a legitimate scepticism as the language of these supposedly ancient books is quite modern and Bhaktivinoda wrote several preaching manuscripts under an assumed name.

 

Are you claiming that Bhaktisiddhanta was in the same devotional mood as Srila Gaurakishora or Srila Bhaktivinoda? IMO he had a very unique mood of his own, one that Srila Prabhupada reflects very well.

If you read the quote, they said he was a fraud. That the disciple of Bhaktivinode Thakur would be in such a different mood that the spiritual master seems unlikely. That casts aspersions on Bhaktisiddhanta.