The Gaudiya Math Split Post 1937, Finn Madsen

[Vikram Ramsundar 0]

Dr. Madsen has provided this summary of Gaudiya Math history, which likely contains information that is new to many. The informants who are quoted here agreed to be interviewed under conditions of anonymity, which explains why they have not been named. You may comment on this article.

 

 

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.

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).

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.

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:<blockquote>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.</blockquote>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: <blockquote>'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].</blockquote>As mentioned APBB had been a tough editor. And he did not deal differently with persons of higher or lower status when they handed in texts too late. Generally, it is agreed that it is improper for a grihastha to scold a samnyasin, but APPB did and so he lost the support of the samnyasins in Kalkota. However he did have some very important samnysasin supporters, but they were at locations where he was not physically present. APPB remained in Bagbazar with the rest of the tyagins still in full control of the property as in BSST’s days and suddenly the samnyasins who had followed KVV were without roof over their heads. KVV could not provide for them.

Acccording to one informant the samnyasins who left with KVV had misunderstood his role in the administration. BSST and KVV had always worked close together establishing temples, etc., plus they had a lot of contact because of KVV’s staff function. Furthermore they had a close personal relationship. “Outsiders” could easily get the impression that APBB’s areas of competence were less important. Moreover, the monks were not aware of the division of labour on the legal level. They did not know that KVV’s had jurisdiction over only the movable property and had nothing to do with plots, buildings and cultivated farmland. They simply followed the person they looked upon as being in control because of his close friendship with BSST and because they thought he had administrative authority. But in fact APBB was the only official administrator.

In time, with the tensions between the APBB and KVV wings growing, an official partition became unavoidable. The monks and their brahmacharis gathered in the temples where the wing they personally favoured was in majority, and from 1937 to 1942 a number of lengthy lawsuits were initiated. Basically these lawsuits were about ownership to farmland and properties. KVV and individual samnyasins demanded parts of the estate. For example, a samnyasin would say: “This math was donated due to my missionary efforts, so now I want this math or land or some other value.”

However, during 1940, APBB applied to Bengali High Court to have the Gaudiya Math as a whole registrated under Societies Registration Act of 1860 with amendments. The essence of this law is that non-profit organizations are benefited with tax exemption. In return for registration the organization must abide with a rule that no single person or group can claim ownership to any properties of the organization. And quite a few Indian religious groups are recorded under this law today. By 1942 APBB’s application was accommodated with retrospective effect to 1940.

Seen from an organizational point of view this was a wise move. Because even though someone personally might have provided a temple for the Math through bhiksu, it was now impossible for an individual to claim property on leaving the Gaudiya Math because the property was no longer private. Only monks who wanted to continue operating temples could hope for a share of the properties and even this only through court cases. So by 1942 a row of new cases had started. The chief court case was between the KVV and APBB wings. Altogether it spread over 12 years. But an important compromise was agreed to on January 1948. One informant explained to me that APBB was shocked to see KVV leave the Gaudiya Math after being denied the acharya post, an eventuality for which he had not been prepared at all.

Before APBB’s application for registration of the Math to the Calcutta High Court had been acommodated, he left for Vrindavan but soon went on to the Gaudiya Math in Gaya where his wing was in majority. When he received the news from Bagbazar that registration had been approved, he immediately took samnyas from Rupavilasa Brahmachari with the sannyas name Bhakti Prasad Puri Goswami. On the very same day he telegraphed Bagbazar to inform them that now that he was on the correct ashram level he would return as acharya.

After the 1948 compromise it took another three years to divide the 66 temples between the two wings. APBB managed to get two thirds of the properties for his side, while KVV had to settle for the remainder. The procedure was that APBB had first choice. One informant explained: <blockquote>When the compromise was established, the other party [APBB] wanted the Bagbazar Math. It was a big math really and it was in Calcutta and it was widely renowned. So they wanted it. KVV said, “Let me have anything.” So he was given Chaitanya Math in Mayapur, but at that time the Chaitanya Math was not so well developed.</blockquote>The two new lines took the names Gaudiya Mission and Sri Chaitanya Math, respectively.

<b>Gaudiya Mission</b>

At that time the Bagbazar Math was the most desired. And KVV had to settle for Yogapitha and Sri Chaitanya Math in Mayapur. Later, KVV built these places to the destination for pilgrimage we know today. Apparently Puri Goswami (APBB) thought he had now done his service. On March 1, 1951, he ordered the main gate of Bagbazar temple closed, and read aloud from the court documents that the division of property had now been concluded. Then, to everyone’s astonishment, he added that he wanted to retire. He appointed his brother Bhakti Pradip Tirtha Maharaja as his successor. However the post as acharya did not suit Tirtha Maharaja and by 1953 he wanted to stop. A delegation was sent to APBB who had moved to live in Allahabad (but not in Rupa Gaudiya Math since he had left his ashram). The delegation consisted of five persons: Aprema Dasa (?), secretary substitute Baba Bandashik Dasa, B. K. Audolomi Maharaj secretary Rupavilasa Brahmachari who later became Bhagavat Maharaja and acharya from 1982-1993, and Bhakti Pradip Tirtha Maharaja’s son Krishna Prasad Brahmachari. The delegation’s mandate was to request APBB to talk his brother into staying on as acharya in Bagbazar. However, Tirtha Maharaj passed away at the age of 76 before the delegation even reached Allahabad. When this became known APBB decided that B. K. Audolomi Maharaja - one of the very few persons who had taken samnyasa form BSST himself - should be appointed acharya in Baghbazar. He ordered Audolomi Maharaja to change his ochre samnyasa clothes to white ‘paramahamsa’ dress. As paramahamsa, B. K. Audolomi was acharya from 1953 to 1982. Gaudiya Mission today consists of about thirty Maths. Their homepage is HERE.

<b>Sri Chaitanya Math</b>

Immidiately after the loss of Bagbazar Math, KVV settled with his 31 samnyasins in Vrindavan and Mathura. Since income was scarce, the bhikshu trips got more frequent and several samnyasins left KVV for this reason. One by one they left KVV, but not to return to APBB. Rather they started their own organizations. However KVV did manage to get a big math going in Midnapur from where the samnyasins went on bhikshu tours in Bankura and Bishnupur. In the early 1940’s rooms vere rented in Lansdown, Calcutta, and later on Hazra Road and even later in the still existing Chetla Math. At about this time the financial pressure began to loosen up. But some of the sannyasins started to act as acharyas, and initiated disciples with diksha. One source says:<blockquote>KVV protested against these, saying that a math cannot have so many acharyas. Outraged maharajas left in protest and renounced the math, and individually built maths of their own. They already had good savings so finance was no problem.</blockquote>And this is the reason why there are so many little organisations today that go back to BSST.

KVV passed away in 1976 and new disputes broke out. This led to the division of Sri Chaitanya Math into northern (Mayapur/Kolkata) and southern (Madras) branches. KVV’s son and B.K. Sraman took over the southern temples and Bhakti Prajnan Yati Maharaja became acharya for the northern temples. By 1986 they joined forces only to separate again in the mid-nineties. At its height Sri Chaitanya Math reached a number of 35 temples.

If you want details about some of the minor groups you might not know I can suggest you to have a look at Swami B. A. Paramadvaita’s book Our Family the Gaudiya Math.

[Vikram Ramsundar 0]

I want to make it clear to everybody that I do not necessarily endorse the contents of Finn Madsen's essay. I came across this article whilst going through the archives of the now defunct Gaudiya Discussions forum. My purpose in posting it here is to foster further (civilised and restrained) debate and discussion, so that all participants can get additional insights into these important past matters from one another's contributions. Towards that end, I can only appeal to you all to comment critically but properly, in a manner that is both academically and socially acceptable.

 

My own views on this topic are subject to change as my knowledge of it increases, and that is basically my approach to everything in life - never to let my ideas become fossilized and redundant. There is ALWAYS something novel to be learned, and to me, this is a universal principle, applicable at any stage, whether conditioned or liberated.

 

Jaya Radhe

[suchandra 1]

 

I want to make it clear to everybody that I do not necessarily endorse the contents of Finn Madsen's essay. I came across this article whilst going through the archives of the now defunct Gaudiya Discussions forum. My purpose in posting it here is to foster further (civilised and restrained) debate and discussion, so that all participants can get additional insights into these important past matters from one another's contributions. Towards that end, I can only appeal to you all to comment critically but properly, in a manner that is both academically and socially acceptable.

 

My own views on this topic are subject to change as my knowledge of it increases, and that is basically my approach to everything in life - never to let my ideas become fossilized and redundant. There is ALWAYS something novel to be learned, and to me, this is a universal principle, applicable at any stage, whether conditioned or liberated.

 

Jaya Radhe

Thanks for posting this report about the Gaudiya-Vaishnavas chronically problem of efficiently working together - although Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja made clear for everyone that a functioning GBC should endure a strong overall coherence of his global Sankirtan Movement.

This story will of course repeat itself whenever Krishna's plan differs from arrangements made by others.

The acharyas will be known by their own light and by their contribution to the spiritual happiness of this world; not by resolutions or cast votes, appointments or experiments.

Additionally, Krishna says in BG, that it is His greatest concern to personally check the 100% functioning of the parampara, and not that we have to tamper into Krishna's work.

What results in Vaishnava congregations to immediately fall appart.

Our work is to simply give the global Sankirtan Network a perfect frame of management to provide all the Vaishnavas the best supply of services a dynamic global organization can offer to its members to properly fullfill the most important welfare for human society - the spreading of chanting Hare Krishna.

Of course presently it looks just the opposite in global Vaishnavism: Just like in mundane politics only a very strong leader can manage to organize the different kind of obstinate people/camps in his state and as soon he leaves the whole state runs out of control into a state of anarchy/havoc.

To bring reason to bear and install a functioning GBC seems to be a foreign word in present Vaishnava dictionary - and the slogan of any materialistic society, "POWER RULES", as the only appilicable tool for organizing modern Vaishnavas to reach the goal of Lord Caitanya's vision:

prthivite ache yata nagaradi grama / sarvatra pracara haibe mora nama

“In every town and village of the world, the chanting of My name will be heard.” (Caitanya-bhagavata, Antya 4.126)

[gHari 0]

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.

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

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.

[muralidhar_das 0]

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."

[krsna 3]

 

First paragraph

 

 

 

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.

 

One of the biggest mistakes in Masden's "history" is that he doesn't mention many of the key people in the Gaudiya Math. Masden got some second hand information from a few sources, but he really only got the Bagh Bazaar Math's version of "history" which is kinda like getting Herman Goering's version of world history.

 

Masden got some second hand information from a few sources, but he really only got the Bagh Bazaar Math's version of "history" which is kinda like getting Herman Goering's version of world history.

 

Who was he? Was he a Nazi, right hand man to Hitler?

[muralidhar_das 0]

yes

[Guest guest]

Despite frequent objections from many sources, Gaudiya Vaishnavas are not immune to the laws of nature. Our organisations often follow very predictable patterns of development and suffer from typical ills affecting all religious groups. What is often disturbing to me is our persistent claims that this is not so. Thus we ofter refuse to learn from the mistakes of others, and even from our own mistakes, insisting that we are perfect.

 

As a result, we watch other religious groups grow and prosper, influencing the world in a major way, while we are barely noticed by people. We cover that FAILURE with all kinds of sour grapes fairytale excuses, refusing to accept reality.

[muralidhar_das 0]

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.

[suchandra 1]

 

Masden got some second hand information from a few sources, but he really only got the Bagh Bazaar Math's version of "history" which is kinda like getting Herman Goering's version of world history.

 

Who was he? Was he a Nazi, right hand man to Hitler?

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?

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

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.

[Guest guest]

More on Madsen in his own words

====================================================

 

Hello everybody.

 

Since my work on ISKCON was brought up in this forum, let me inform you about myself and my work.

 

During spring 1986 I finished my a-level at a night school and started out on a strange journey through the academic world, ending up as a Ph. D. in sociology of religion. During my time as a student I did what I was supposed to do: studied a Non-European language (sanskrit) for a couple of years, passed my exams etc. But although I had started out as a student of history of religion, I gave it up and switched over to sociology of religion, a study which in Copenhagen has its own little section situated at dept. of History of Religions. I had various reasons - professional as well as heartmatters for this change, but basically I was plainly disgusted with the tools and methods that were used to study religion at that particular department.

 

Right before I began working on my master thesis I did not have much knowledge of Indian religions. I had for instance retranslated parts of the manava-samhita or Manu’s book of laws, based on Kulluka Bhatta’s edition. But what sort of influence ideas like those of Manu’s could have on daily life in India I was not aware of and I could not imagine.

 

As regards my choice of subject for my master thesis I had decided to look into the Hindu caste system, and try to find out whether there were any possibilities for social mobility in Indian society specifically whether it would be possible to get through from one caste to another. I had read an article manuscript by Joseph O’Connell on Bengali Vaisnavas, and there appeared to be something that looked like what I was looking for. Although it was 1993 I was not aware of ISKCON and the teachings there, and went to Indian for the first time in my life with a handfull of addresses from O’Connell and various other sources. I was completely open as to what group I should research, and I never really considered ISKCON an option. During my first couple of weeks in Calcutta, my very effective supervisor, the late professor anthropologist Asok Kumar Ghosh from Science College in Calcutta, put me in contact with a number of Bengali Vaisnava groups, and during my initial contacts several of them simply did not understand what I was trying to study. And to be frank I was losing belief in my ideas too.

 

However by some fortunate chance I got contact with the leader of the Sri Chaitanya Research Institute at Kalighat metrostation. He is a retired professor of geography whose father as a mature man had retired from this world and taken samnyasa. He immediately saw the perspectives in my vague ideas, and helped me out to work in the mathas, eating, interviewing and 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. This means that I knew Gaudiya Matha before I got to know ISKCON which later turned out to be of great importance for my focus. Although caste was my subject, my thesis is not strict to the point regarding caste. I was distracted all the time because there were so many things to learn in the mathas. So the thesis became more of a description of the daily life of the mahantas in the matha.

 

Thesis finished I started out on a Ph. D. project on ISKCON. This was a natural followup subject after my little Gaudiya Matha study. And I looked forward to embark on the project in 1996. To do a Ph. D. here in Copenhagen technically you have to have a formal supervisor. My initial supervisor was supervisor - formally as well as in fact. Unfortunaltely she passed away spring 1996. That turned out to be a true setback, because my new supervisors quickly turned out not be interested in my subject at all, and they never really supported me. They were virtual supervisors, but after all signing formal papers.

 

How could I advance under these circumstances? Well - the lack of academic support was compensated for by the support I had from various ISKCON devotees. In 1996 Harikesa was practically the president of ISKCON in his own zone anyway (but please remember that he was chariman of both the GBC and BBT). Before he joined ISKCON he had done some studies on social science and he actually favoured my work. On the personal level he was very open to me, not that I met him very often, but still I mean very open. Things got a bit tighter when I started asking questions on BBT activities :-)

 

I ended up studying social development in ISKCON. That is to say the influence of economic factors (sankritana), the relationship between the two sexes, and social organisation around varna and asrama.

 

Although a few of Harikesas assistants took precautions to avoid me, I managed to do more than 130 interviews with devotees ISKCON and non-ISKCON. Besides Harikesa my sources amongst the more ‘senior’, ‘famous’ or plainly publicly outspoken ones were Ravindra Svarupa Dasa, Ekanatha Dasa, Tripurari Maharaja, Krpamoya Dasa, Rasamandala Dasa, Shaunika Rsi Dasa. But of the same importance are interviews with more than one hundred different ISKCON devotees from many countries that I interviewed during a period of five years about everydaylife within or outside of ISKCON-centres.

 

If anyone is interested I could relatively easy make English summaries of the six chapters.

 

Any comments? Questions?

 

Yours sincerely Finn Madsen

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

If you want details about some of the minor groups you might not know I can suggest you to have a look at Swami B. A. Paramadvaita’s book Our Family the Gaudiya Math.

A far better, vastly larger, detailed history of the Gaudiya Math and its derivative organizations is found in, Swami B. A. Paramadvaita’s book Our Family the Gaudiya Math

[Shakti-Fan 0]

Point of clarification: Finn Madsen and Lowborn are the same person? How did you make the leap from academician to aspiring bhakta?

[muralidhar_das 0]

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.

[Guruvani 0]

Our Family the Gaudiya Math

subtitle:

Gramya Katha from the Peanut Gallery

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

... 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.

[Guest guest]

 

Point of clarification: Finn Madsen and Lowborn are the same person? How did you make the leap from academician to aspiring bhakta?

 

No! I just re-posted something Finn Madsen wrote on a differen forum

[Beggar 0]

 

Our Family the Gaudiya Math

subtitle:

Gramya Katha from the Peanut Gallery

 

It's a hard job, but somebody has to do it!

 

 

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

 

I have heard that Srila Sridhar Maharaj was the unofficial principle advisor to that GBC and at first when he was informed that the GBC appointed Ananta Vasudeva acarya, he refused to accept the decision. Then the GBC came to Srila Sridhar Maharaj and told him that if he did not accept their decision that the Non-Kunja Babu Gaudiya Math would breakup into at least two or more camps. It was only then that Srila Sridhar Maharaj reluctantly supported Ananta Vasudeva brahmacari as acarya, a decision that he would soon regret. It was this series of events including the falldown of Ananta Vasudeva that propelled Srila Sridhar Maharaj to go off on his own. I have also heard from different sources that Ananta Vasudeva "faked" his falldown in order to free himself from Gaudiya Math politics, but that's another story theory or propaganda.

[muralidhar_das 0]

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."

[Beggar 0]

 

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.

Once Maha Yogi Maharaj was doing some research and showed me several books that he had borrowed from The Gaudiya Mission's library coming through Vasudeva Prabhu. He had been sent there directly under the order of Srila Sridhar Maharaj. I said, "wow, why would he send you to a sahajiya math?" Mahayogi repied, "Oh, I had the same question too, for Srila Sridhar Maharaj". I said, "What did he say". Mahayogi said that Srila Sridhar Maharaj told that, he should not worry about bad association for, "they are gradually becoming rectified".

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

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."

 

[Guruvani 0]

This topic is very "Shiva-like".

 

We all are drinking poison with this topic.

 

The difference is, Lord Shiva is immune to poison.

 

The authoritative document on the break-up of the Gaudiya Math, this Finn Madsen rubbish, is like the National Enquirer version of the sampradaya.

 

It's rubbish as far as spiritual cultivation is concerned.

 

It's not much different than going to the Saraswata temples and scooping the stool out of the toilet and coming out and showing the world "look, just see what is going on in this temple"!

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

Once Maha Yogi Maharaj was doing some research and showed me several books that he had borrowed from The Gaudiya Mission's library coming through Vasudeva Prabhu. He had been sent there directly under the order of Srila Sridhar Maharaj. I said, "wow, why would he send you to a sahajiya math?" Mahayogi repied, "Oh, I had the same question too, for Srila Sridhar Maharaj". I said, "What did he say". Mahayogi said that Srila Sridhar Maharaj told that, he should not worry about bad association for, "they are gradually becoming rectified".

 

When I went there on Guru Maharaj's instruction, so I could have darshan of the room and bed where Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura breathed his last breath in this world, Guru Maharaj told me and my godbrother "you cannot offer incense at the alter there".

 

Why? Because Anantavasudeva's picture is on the alter