Battlefield Fancy by Danavir Goswami

[theist 1]

I couldn't understand these differences or gradations on my own. I would need each point flushed out for me. Not only the depth of realization is past my grasp but I don't have a clue on the rules of grammer etc.

 

Oh well. I'll just have to wait and work on what is right in front of me.

[Gaurasundara 0]

 

My reading of Umapati Swami's statement is that he sees his role, and the role of Dipika, as a forum for ISKCON insiders, where they can read articles that relate to issues within ISKCON.

 

 

That may be so, but I don't recall hearing that Tripurari Maharaja deliberately published his edition of BG to antagonise ISKCON or their followers. Umapati Maharaja made his point that Tripurari Maharaja is not connected with ISKCON and that Srila Prabhupada desired people not to go out of ISKCON to see instruction, and rightly said that there was no valid reason why Danavir Maharaja should have been reading the text in the first place

 

However I did find Umapati Maharaja's statements very alarming. "Here is what I will turn away: just about anything else, including examples of previous acaryas if these examples cannot be corroborated by proof from Srila Prabhupada, any other kind of proof that is not corroborated by Srila Prabhupada.

 

I'll have to agree with Madhava in this matter. I would love to make an individual contribution but I notice that everyone else has already said what I wanted to say, so repetition of these points will not be of any use.

[stonehearted 0]

No Vraja-bhakti in Bhagavad-gita? A Response to Danavir Goswami

by Babhru das

 

In “Battlefield Fancy,” Danavir Goswami asserts that Swami B.V. Tripurari’s commentary, Bhagavad-gita: Its Feeling and Philosophy, should be avoided because it has eight flaws: Gita Opportunism, Impertinent Over-Stepping, Sahajiya, Tenth Canto Opportunism, Infidelity, Misinterpretation, Rasabhasa, and Mayavada. His main point is that it is wrong to describe Bhagavad-gita in terms of Vraja-bhakti. In this response, I will address some preliminary objections, establish the precedent for drawing Vraja-bhakti from certain verses of the Bhagavad-gita, document quotations from Srila Prabhupada that explain Vraja-bhakti in terms of Gita verses, address Tripurari Maharaja’s mood in writing his Gita commentary and the propriety of writing another commentary on Bhagavad-gita, give a brief refutation of each of Danavir Goswami’s eight main points, and show the praise that Tripurari Maharaja’s edition has received from ISKCON leaders.

 

My familiarity with Swami Tripurari’s commentary is due to my having been one of the book’s editors. I believe I have a reputation as a cautious devotee and that I’m still considered a member in good standing in ISKCON, as I have been since 1969. At the time I worked on this book, I was deeply involved in a variety of activities in support of an ISKCON center. Nevertheless, I was impressed by Tripurari Maharaja’s dedication to spreading Krishna consciousness, despite the fact that his circumstances required that he work outside ISKCON.

 

Objections to the Form of Danavir Goswami’s Critique

Although I am more concerned about the substance of the critique, several overarching shortcomings need to be touched on before the main allegations are addressed. Danavir Goswami’s essay is largely a collection of quotations, mostly from Srila Prabhupada, pasted together with comments from Danavir Maharaja asserting that these quotations themselves condemn Tripurari Maharaja’s Gita. However, they don’t support Danavir Goswami’s claims; rather, they apply to pseudo-devotees and nondevotees, who are offenders against the Lord and the spiritual master. He doesn’t give solid evidence from Tripurari Maharaja’s Gita to support that the book does what the quotes condemn.

 

The paucity of quotations from the book Danavir Goswami was reviewing was astounding. In an almost nine thousand words, he includes only five brief quotations from Bhagavad-gita: Its Feeling and Philosophy. This guarantees that he makes assertions without supporting them with evidence from the text he is criticizing. This blunder is shocking from someone of his position, especially when the charges are as serious as those made against Tripurari Maharaja.

 

Further, Danavir Goswami misquotes the book. An example of this comes in the second paragraph of the critique, wherein he states, “For example, in chapter 10 verse 9, Lord Krishna uses the word ramanti meaning, according to Bhagavad-gita As It Is, ‘enjoy transcendental bliss’ but in the Vraja translation ramanti means ‘conjugal love.’” In the synonyms of the Its Feeling and Philosophy edition, we find that ramanti is translated not as “conjugal love” but rather as “they rejoice.” The verse itself is translated as “Those whose minds are fixed on me and whose lives are absorbed in me derive satisfaction and delight from enlightening one another and always speaking of me.” The commentary to this verse does cite Madhusudana Sarasvati (who Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura often cites in his own commentary) who translates, following Sankara himself, ramanti as “the delight of love that a young girl feels for a young boy, as the gopis felt for Krishna.” As will be discussed later in this paper, Srila Prabhupada himself says close to the same thing in the last sentence of his purport to 10.9.

 

Perhaps more troubling than the lack of quotes from the Its Feeling and Philosophy edition, however, is the tone of Danavir Goswami’s critique. A prominent feature of what little text Maharaja has actually composed is the repetition of “Vraja version” in some form. Since his primary complaint about Tripurari Maharaja’s book is that it attempts to “screw out” of Bhagavad-gita an obscure philosophy of Vraja-bhakti concocted from Tripurari Maharaja’s mind, it’s clear that he intends to use this phrase and its variants in a pejorative way. Because he does so no less than forty-one times, it comes across as a sneering motif.

 

This repetition of “Vraja version” appears to be part of a scare tactic to associate the book with inappropriate preoccupation with intimate lilas. The tactic is further employed by Danavir Goswami when he claims that the book has “shallow preoccupation with gopi bhava” and endeavors to remake the Gita into “a discussion about the gopis of Vrindavana.” One comes away from Danavir Maharaja’s article with the impression that most of the purports try to show gopi bhava. This is absurd. In reality fewer than a dozen purports out of the text’s seven hundred verses even mention the gopis, and that in the context of what has been said by previous acharyas. As will be shown later in this article, Srila Prabhupada also uses several of these verses in books and conversations to illustrate Vraja-bhakti.

 

Precedent for Finding Vraja-bhakti in the Gita

Danavir Maharaja begins his critique by saying that “the Vraja version claims itself to be within the Gaudiya line, yet there are significant reasons to doubt its authenticity.” Later he asserts that the book “oversteps all the previous acharyas who never ventured into describing Bhagavad-gita in terms of Vraja-bhakti.” This assertion is a crucial premise of his argument because if previous acharyas did explain verses from the Gita in terms of Vraja-bhakti, then most of Danavir Goswami’s eight assertions lose any meaning, unless he would call those commentators opportunistic, sahajiya, rasabhasa, and misinterpretors. It would also show that many of Danavir Goswami’s quotations of Srila Prabhupada are out of context. Thus before addressing any other points, I will begin by quoting commentaries of previous acharyas to show that Tripurari Maharaja is not the first to explain verses from the Gita in terms of Vraja-bhakti and that a major premise of Danavir Maharaja’s article is therefore incorrect. These quotations are only a sampling.

 

Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakurawas the first in the Gaudiya lineage to write an entire commentary on the Gita. He gives the idea that verses 8-11 of Chapter 10 can be considered the chatuh-sloki of Bhagavad-gita, the four essential verses that unlock the meaning of the book. In his commentary on verse 9, one of the four essential verses, Chakravarti Thakura says, “Sri Bhagavan’s above statements describe raganuga bhakti only.” As we know, raganuga bhakti is found exclusively in Vraja. Therefore, from the very first Gaudiya commentary, we find that Vraja-bhakti is discussed. It is interesting to note that Chakravarti Thakura says not only that Vraja-bhakti can be drawn from the verse but that it is the only explanation.

 

Following Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura’s line of thinking, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura comments similarly on this same verse: “The character of those whose minds are exclusively devoted is as follows: By completely offering their minds and lives unto me, they mutually exchange their bhavas and remain engaged in glorifying my lilas and so forth. In this way, by sravanam and kirtanam, they attain the happiness of bhakti. In their sadhya stage, that is after attaining pure prema, which is accessible only through raga-marg, they experience the pleasure of enjoying with me within vraja rasa, culminating in the bhava of madhura-rasa.” In this commentary, we see that Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura’s insight (that the verse refers to Vraja-bhakti) has been extended by Bhaktivinoda Thakurato clarify that the culmination of Vraja-bhakti is madhurya-rasa. Next we will see that Srila B. R. Sridhara Maharaja continues developing this insight. Keep this development (disciplic succession) in mind later in this article, where I discuss Danavir Maharaja’s assertion of impertinent over-stepping.

 

On Bg. 10.8, the first of the four essential verses of Bhagavad-gita, Srila Sridhara comments, “Radha-dasyam, the servitorship of Srimati Radharani, is indicated here. Only those who are blessed with divine intelligence will be able to appreciate this, and not persons with self-acquired intelligence from this mayika quarter, the world of misconception.” Thus we see a development from Vraja-bhakti (Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakur), to madhurya-rasa (Bhaktivinoda Thakur), to Radha-dasyam (Srila Sridhara Maharaja) within the Gita commentaries of previous acharyas.

 

Srila Prabhupada on Vraja-bhakti and the Gita

Why then, one may ask, didn’t Srila Prabhupada make a connection to Vraja-bhakti in his commentary on the chatuh-sloki? The answer is that he did. In his purport to verse 10.9, Srila Prabhupada says, “In the spiritual sky also that plant grows more and more until it reaches the highest planet, which is called Goloka Vrindavana, the supreme planet of Krishna.” In the last paragraph of the purport, Srila Prabhupada compares the mood of realized souls to a conjugal sentiment: “Thus the realized souls in Krishna consciousness take continual pleasure in hearing such transcendental literatures, just as a young boy and girl take pleasure in association.” As was previously noted, this statement is very close to one in Madhusudana Saraswati’s commentary on the same verse, who, following the lead of Sankara, says the verse implies the delight of love that a young girl feels for a young boy, as the gopis felt for Krishna.” Srila Prabhupada had this translation of Sankara when he was writing his commentary.

 

One might assert that these quotations from Srila Prabhupada’s Gita do not explicitly connect Vraja and the Gita. Certainly the quotes from other acharyas are more specific. Fortunately, we do not have to guess how Srila Prabhupada would respond to these commentaries because his reaction to Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s Gita is recounted in Sermons of the Guardian of Devotion. There Srila Sridhara Maharaja describes how he was living with Srila Prabhupada when they were both writing their commentaries on Bhagavad-gita. He relates how he shared his commentary on the chatuh-sloki of Bhagavad-gita and how Srila Prabhupada responded:

 

Yena mam upayanti te (Bg. 10.10). Unconditional service: they are ready for any service demanded of them. They are ready to sacrifice their lives for any form of service, and that peculiar group is in Vrindavana. I mentioned to Sripada A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja that in Gita, after ramanti (10.9) comes buddhi-yoga and then upayanti (10.10); according to me, the meaning is that ramanti or divine service in madhura-rasa progresses through buddhi-yoga or yoga-maya, up to upa-yanti, or the highest plane of service in Vrindavana. Sripada Swami Maharaja [srila Prabhupada] responded, “What more could it mean than this!”

 

Thus it is clear that, far from thinking that Vraja-bhakti cannot be found in the Gita, Srila Prabhupada appreciated the understanding. In addition, Srila Prabhupada often used verses from the Gita to explain Vraja-bhakti. For example:

 

Lecture Bg. 18.67

This is the idea. Similarly, if you want to go to the Supreme Planet, yad gatva na nivartante, the abode of the Supreme Lord, Goloka Vrindavana or Vaikunthaloka, you can go. So if we want actually promotion of life, I mean to say, established life, eternal life, and eternal body, sac-cid-ananda, and eternal blissful life of knowledge, then you must worship Krishna. That is the verdict.

 

Therefore Krishna says, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja. This is the mission of Bhagavad-gita. The best chance. And Krishna comes here to give you the idea what is the function of the Krishnaloka. That He displays in Vrindavana here. Radha-madhava kunja-vihari. That is His business, simple life, village life. They're all young boys and girls, the gopis and the cowherds boy. They're enjoying, dancing.

 

Lecture SB 3.25.18

So Krishna was insisting that "You must fight." So how Arjuna could take impious activities? Because Krishna's service is above these pious and impious activities. That is called sarva-dharman parityajya. Just like the gopis. The gopis went to Krishna at midnight, by simply hearing the flute of Krishna. So young girl, going to Krishna at midnight, this is impious activities. According to sastra, according to moral, it is impious activities. But because it was done for Krishna, it is understood as the most pious…. So, although it looks apparently that gopis went to Krishna to dance with Him, that is not very moral, but Chaitanya Mahaprabhu recommends that is the highest method of worshiping Krishna.

 

Lecture SB 2.3.14-15

In the Bhagavad-gita you'll find. Tusyanti ca ramanti ca. We require some satisfaction and some enjoyment, because that is our nature. Anandamayo 'bhyasat. Spirit soul. God is also blissful, and we part and parcel of God, we are also blissful. We want simply ananda, pleasure. That is our nature. But that ananda, pleasure, you cannot enjoy independently. That is not possible. You must enjoy with Krishna. That is called rasa-lila. Krishna and the gopis, they assemble together.

 

 

Lecture SB 6.1.37

Just like gopis are going to Krishna at dead of night, at midnight. And how they're going? Krishna is playing the flute, and gopis are running, giving up all their engagement in the family. Somebody was lying with her husband, somebody was engaged in the kitchen, somebody was taking care of the children, so on, so on. But they left everything and went to Krishna. This is transcendental. When we go to Krishna consciousness, giving up everything, that is transcendental platform. Sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja.

 

Krishna Book, “The Killing of Kamsa”

The gopis give a perfect example of how one can execute Krishna consciousness even if he is in different types of material engagement. By constantly being absorbed in the thought of Krishna, one cannot be affected by the contamination of material activities. The gopis are, therefore, perfectly in trance, samadhi, the highest perfectional stage of mystic power. In the Bhagavad-gita, it is confirmed that one who is constantly thinking of Krishna is a first-class yogi among all kinds of yogis.

 

Conversation 3.13.75 Tehran

"Only Krishna should be satisfied." That is Krishna consciousness. But that is not very easy job. But one can do if he likes, everything for Krishna. Krishna says also, sarva-dharman parityajya. Gopis did not care for social, for religious or family and nothing. Sarva-dharman parityajya. They went: "Krishna now is calling. Let us go." This is the typical example of sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam.

 

Proper Mood

The introduction of Tripurari Maharaja’s Gita also shows that far from the spirit of “one-upmanship” and ambition to use the Gita as a cover for his own philosophy, Tripurari Maharaja undertook his commentary in a mood of service to the previous acharyas. There he writes, “Perhaps Gaudiya commentators appear to go out on a limb more than anywhere else when they find Vraja Krishna speaking in the Gita. According to Gaudiya theology, the dhira-prasanta Krishna of the Gita is not preoccupied with Vraja and the love of the gopis. As much as the dhira-lalita Krishna of Vraja is in no mood for a Upanisadic discourse, dhira-prasanta Krishna of Dwaraka is not typically in the mood of Vraja-bhakti.” As Danavir Maharaja’s article demonstrates, it is easy for someone to question how the Gaudiyas find Vraja Krishna in the Gita. Although previous commentators have drawn this connection, they do not give philosophical support for it in their commentaries. Tripurari Maharaja therefore gives philosophical, scriptural, and historical support for their interpretations by cross referencing the entire corpus of Gaudiya scripture, citing scriptures such as Brihad-bhagavatamrita, Padyavali, and so on, wherein Dwarakesha Krishna is found to be thinking of his Vraja-lila with the gopis. He effectively locates Krishna in the context of his entire lila in a way that sheds light on the fact that in spite of his being on the battlefield, it is clear that his battlefield lila is not entirely divorced from his pastoral lila. All of this is done with great care and attention in consideration of tattva and rasa vicara.

 

Writing a Commentary on a Book One’s Guru Has Commented On

Danavir Maharaja’s charge of impertinence may be examined from another angle as well. I know he is not alone in questioning the need for—even the propriety of—Tripurari Maharaja’s effort to present another edition of Bhagavad-gita, when Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Isis clearly a definitive Gaudiya edition of Bhagavad-gita. However, a quick look at the history of our sampradaya shows that commenting on scriptures your own guru has commented on is neither uncommon nor unseemly. We know that, although Sanatana Gosvami wrote a commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam, his student Jiva wrote a different one. Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura wrote a commentary on Bhagavad-gita; his student Baladeva Vidyabhushana also wrote one later. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote a Bengali commentary on Sri Chaitanya-caritamrita, as did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Later, Srila Prabhupada wrote his own English commentary rather than simply translate either of theirs.

 

A conversation with Srila Prabhupada, recounted in Bhurijana das’s overview of the Bhagavad-gita, demonstrates the fallacy that there should be no more commentaries on the Bhagavad-gita:

 

Once, however, when asked what he would translate after the Srimad-Bhagavatam, Srila Prabhupada responded, “Oh, maybe Jiva Gosvami’s Sat-sandarbha or Vedanta-sutra—there are so many—or Bhagavad-gita.”

A devotee spoke up, “Srila Prabhupada, you’ve already done the Bhagavad-gita.”

 

Srila Prabhupada replied, “We did Bhagavad-gita, but there are so many commentaries. Srila Ramanujacharya, Srila Madhvacharya—everyone has given his Gita. We could do many Gitas, not just one.” (Incident related by Pradyumna Dasa on a “Memories of Srila Prabhupada” video)

 

Tripurari Maharaja writes in his introduction that his book developed out of an intense immersion in study of Bhagavad-gita. As his appreciation for this scripture grew, so did his desire to share that with others. He did not write this book to show up our spiritual master. Rather, it grew organically out of that deep study. If the book encourages surrender in devotional service, how is it impertinent to publish it? Further, Tripurari Maharaja writes in the preface that he drew inspiration from the very first words that Srila Prabhupada spoke to him: “One who explains this supreme secret to my devotees engages in the highest devotion to me.”

 

In the morning walk in which Srila Prabhupada spoke these words, he later encourages everyone to write and distribute books. Someone replied, “We are simply your puppets, Srila Prabhupada. You’re giving us the books.” Not satisfied, Srila Prabhupada said, “No. We are all puppets of Krishna. I am also a puppet. This is disciplic succession.” It is clear from this that Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to write books as puppets of Krishna. Three other quotes of Srila Prabhupada echo this sentiment, in which the guru likes to see his disciple do as he has done, if not do more, to further the distribution of Krishna consciousness:

 

Similarly, if one is true to Gaura-Nitai's service in the disciplic succession, he can even excel Nityananda Prabhu's service. This is the process of disciplic succession. Nityananda Prabhu delivered Jagai and Madhai, but a servant of Nityananda Prabhu, by His grace, can deliver many thousands of Jagai's and Madhai's. That is the special benediction of the disciplic succession.

 

When a disciple becomes perfect in spiritual advancement, the spiritual master feels very, very happy, that "I am a nonsense, but this boy, he has followed my instruction and he has achieved the success. That is my success." This is the spiritual master's ambition. Just like a father. This is the relationship.

 

The Vedic fruit which is mature and ripe in knowledge is spoken through the lips of Srila Sukadeva Gosvami, who is compared to the parrot not for his ability to recite the Bhagavatam exactly as he heard it from his learned father, but for his ability to present the work in a manner that would appeal to all classes of men. (purport to SB 1.1.3)

 

The last quotation is especially important. Are we to take only the four original verses of the Bhagavatam? Only those spoken by Sukadeva? Those retold by Suta Goswami? No, with each edition, the fruit of the Bhagavatam becomes sweeter. This is disciplic succession. As Srila Prabhupada says later in the purport, the fruit is not dropped all of a sudden from Goloka Vrindavana, but rather it comes down carefully through the chain of disciplic succession. Tripurari Maharaja is not the first disciple of Srila Prabhupada to churn the nectar of Bhagavad-gita As It Isand present his realization in this form of a new commentary. At least two other disciples have done so before him, one of whom finds references in the Gita to the gopis. As Krishna is unlimited, how can any edition be the final word on the topic? As the Chaitanya-caritamrita says, “If Ganesa, Lord Siva's son and the expert scribe of the demigods, tried for millions of millenniums to fully describe one day of the Lord's pastimes, he would be unable to find their limit.”

 

As stated previously, Tripurari Maharaja did not see his edition as an attempt to “surpass the exalted acharyas of disciplic succession by declaring its new imaginative Vraja-bhakti interpretation of Bhagavad-gita to be deeper and higher than the accepted understanding.” Rather, he sought to serve the disciplic succession by taking the remnants that they left out of their mercy—he gathered drops of the nectar of Vraja-bhakti that these acharyas relished and put into their commentaries and then he expanded on them to reveal their ramifications. This concept is explained by Srila Prabhupada in the following conversation with Visnujana Swami:

 

Visnujana: Srila Prabhupada, what did Bhaktivinoda Thakura mean when he said, "I am going, my work unfinished"?

Prabhupada: Hmm?

Visnujana: When Bhaktivinoda Thakura stated that he was leaving this planet with his work unfinished.

Prabhupada: Then let us finish. We are descendant of Bhaktivinoda Thakura. So he kept unfinished so that we shall get the chance to finish it. That is his mercy. He could have finished immediately. He is Vaishnava, he is all-powerful. But he gave us chance that "You foolish people, you all also work." That is his mercy. So we should pray to Bhaktivinoda Thakura that "We are your grandchildren, great-grandchildren, so we have got some right to beg some mercy from you. The grandchildren get some indulgence from the grandfather. So I pray like that." It is Bhaktivinoda Thakura's mercy. . . . So we should always pray to Bhaktivinoda Thakura to be merciful upon us so that we can execute his unfinished task. That should be our. . . . And never we should think that "What Bhaktivinoda Thakura could not finish, I have finished." Don't think like that. It is not like that.

 

The last attitude, “what Bhaktivinoda Thakura could not finish, I have finished,” is the mood that Vallabhacharya showed in regard to his Bhagavatam commentary: “It is better than that of Sridhara Swami.” As Danavir Maharaja has stated, this mood was not tolerated by Mahaprabhu and therefore the commentary was rejected. But where does Tripurari Maharaja show this mood? Where does he say that his understanding is higher, better? Nowhere. Rather he says that he means to serve the previous acharyas by bringing together their statements in various books in support of the contention that Vraja-bhakti can be found in the Gita.

 

Gita Opportunism

In this and other sections of his article, Danavir Goswami attacks the very motive of Tripurari Maharaja, identifying him with “ambitious, unqualified persons” who write commentaries on the Gita as “a cover for promoting their own philosophies.” Certainly there are people who are so motivated, taking advantage of the Gita’s popularity to promote something other than what the Gita teaches.

Quoting Prabhupada, Danavir Goswami cites a number of examples. However, all of the examples are of those whose Gita commentaries do not reach a Vaishnava conclusion. Swami Tripurari’s edition promotes the Gaudiya Vaishnava conclusion that devotional service to Radha-Krishna in Vrindavana is ultimately what the Gita stresses. How can this be considered a cover for promoting one’s own philosophy or “smoking ganja through another man’s hand to avoid the discoloration and bad smell adhering to one’s own hand”?

 

Srila Prabhupada writes the one who is qualified to write a commentary on the Gita must have “full confidence in the previous acharyas.” Swami Tripurari’s edition cites the previous acharyas throughout, and in his introduction he defers to them and explains that he is writing to give further support to their conclusions. Srila Prabhupada also says that one qualified to write a commentary “must realize the subject matter so nicely that he can present the matter for the particular time and circumstance in a suitable manner.” Implicit in these statements is the idea that the Gita can be represented as time goes on in consideration of time and circumstances.

 

Swami Tripurari’s edition is written in contemporary language and in consideration of the fact that Gaudiya commentaries on the Gita have been criticized for “screwing out an obscure meaning.” Scholars have criticized Prabhupada’s Gita in particular because it takes every verse to be an advocacy for the teachings of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, who came to this world to give Vraja-bhakti. But Danavir Goswami asks, “Since the Gaudiya commentary has already been written in the form of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, what need is there for another?”

 

Maryada Vyatikrama: Impertinent Over-Stepping

Danavir Goswami defines this term as “impertinently attempting to surpass a greater personality,” and claims that this is what Swami Tripurari has done: “The new Vraja Gita version seeks to surpass the exalted acharyas of the disciplic succession.” He says that Tripurari Maharaja has slighted Prabhupada’s edition in particular and oversteps all the previous acharyas “who never ventured to describe Bhagavad-gita in terms of Vraja-bhakti.” As has already been amply demonstrated in this article, many of the previous acharyas have explained that the essence of the Gita is about Vraja-bhakti. Swami Tripurari, rather than overstepping them, has given support to their conclusions.

 

Danavir Goswami says that a writer should never feel himself qualified to go beyond the realization of his predecessors. No doubt this is true, but this does not mean that successor acharyas do not shed more light on a text. Indeed, there is no point of writing a commentary on a text unless one has something more to offer than what has been written in previous commentaries. Given the nature of the subject, there is always more to be said. Thus the mere fact that something new is found in a Gita commentary does not render its author an offender of his predecessors. If the author thinks that his contribution is possible only by the grace of his predecessors, then his commentary is an example of their mercy working through him. This is clearly the tenor of Swami Tripurari’s commentary.

Interestingly, Srila Prabhupada’s caution about maryada vyatikrama speaks explicitly about flaunting one’s learning in the presence of one’s guru. After the departure of one’s guru, it is incumbent upon the disciple to offer all that he has learned to his guru in the form of representing that knowledge in consideration of time, circumstances, and realization. As Srila Prabhupada liked to stress, Rama took pleasure in Hanuman’s leap to Lanka, while he himself had to go by bridge. Srila Prabhupada has cited this example to illustrate that the guru takes pleasure in seeing the disciple do more than himself, while the disciple appropriately thinks that whatever he does is by the grace of his guru. Nonetheless, Swami Tripurari never claims to have done more than Srila Prabhupada. Therefore there is no question of applying the term maryada vyatikrama to him.

 

In this section Danavir Goswami misquotes Swami Tripurari when he says that his commentary announces that besides the general meaning of the Gita’s verse, the verses have “an esoteric meaning relative to Krishna’s devotees in Vraja and the gopis in particular.” In fact, Swami Tripurari says this only in relation to the chatur sloki of the Gita, and his explanation of these slokas is full of quotations from previous acharyas.

 

Lastly, Danavir Goswami claims that the offense of maryada vaytikrama is “especially prominent in the Vraja Gita’s word meanings, translation, and commentary.” One might ask where else would it be? That aside, Danavir Goswami seems to be saying that because the word meanings, translation, and commentary are different from Srila Prabhupada’s, this in itself is powerful evidence for maryada vyatikrama, a claim that clearly demonstrates Danavir Goswami’s misunderstanding of the term.

 

Sahajiya

Danavir Goswami says that the Bhagavad-gita is the preliminary study of spiritual life, and thus any attempt to remake it into a discussion about the gopis of Vrindavana is the work of sahajiyas. Although it is true that the Gita is for the most part a preliminary study of spiritual life, Gaudiya acharyas, including Srila Prabhupada, have cited its verses again and again in such a way that it is clear that they also hear Krishna speaking something more than entry-level spiritual instructions. For example, in his purports to Sri Chaitanya-caritamrita, Srila Prabhupada explains Bg.18.66 to be Krishna speaking about the standard of the gopis’ love. Elsewhere he says, “this is the typical explanation.”

Other Gaudiya acharyas have done this as well, especially with regard to the chatur sloki, the Gita’s essence. In doing so, they are implicitly saying that on a deeper level they can hear Krishna speaking about Vraja in the Gita. Even an ordinary person can speak one meaning to the general public and another meaning to an inner circle with the same sentence. Certainly Krishna can and does do the same throughout scripture. Srila Prabhupada stresses that verses should not be understood by only one angle of vision: "I am very much stressing nowadays that my students shall increase their reading of my books and try to understand them from different angles of vision. Each sloka can be seen from many, many angles of vision, so become practiced in seeing things like this" (Letter to: Tribhuvanatha, Los Angeles 16 June, 1972).

 

Hardly does Swami Tripurari “deceptively reject the true Bhagavad-gita and replace it with a concocted interpretation of rasa-lila.” This certainly sounds frightening, but it exists only in Danavir Goswami’s mind. He feels that Swami Tripurari’s edition “may be the most dangerous attempt of sahajiyaism to date because it uses the authoritative Vedic literature, Bhagavad-gita, to substantiate its unauthorized, notorious misconceptions.” Again, those misconceptions are that there are different levels of meaning to be found in the verses of the Gita, and some of them can be understood to be speaking of the highest ideal of the devotional service exhibited by the inhabitants of Vrindavana.

 

Danavir Goswami’s claim is that because Swami Tripurari’s commentary is saturated with talk of the gopis, its actual message is drowned out. Thus it fulfills the sahajiya criteria of aversion to the Bhagavad-gita. However, this is not the experience of the many ISKCON leaders who have actually read the book, as the quotations cited later in this article illustrate; nor is it the experience of the many devotees who are not members of ISKCON; nor is the book saturated with talk of the gopis.

 

Danavir Goswami claims that Swami Tripurari’s edition “invents what Krishna is thinking and transmits this as if it were higher esoteric realizations.” What he fails to understand, however, is that in most instances “what Krishna is thinking” is based on what Visvanatha Chakravarti and Baladeva Vidyabhusana have already stated in their commentaries. It is also quite possible that in positing what Krishna is thinking, the author is sharing his own realization with his readers or the way in which the text affects him personally. As long as this insight falls within the parameters of Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy, it is an ornament rather than a fault. It is hardly and example of sahajiyaism.

 

Tenth Canto Opportunism

This charge identifies Swami Tripurari with those who, although unqualified, speak only on the tenth canto of the Bhagavatam, ignoring the other nine cantos before it and the two that follow it. Such persons do not stress all that is involved in attaining the ideal of devotion discussed in the tenth canto. They do not stress the philosophical underpinning of Krishna lila, and thus they open the door for their listeners to misunderstand the Godhood of Krishna and take his lila cheaply.

 

In fact, Swami Tripurari’s edition pays considerable attention to underscoring all that it means to be a devotee and just how high and distant the Vraja-lila is. He makes it very clear that the goal of Gaudiya Vaisnavism is to attain admittance into Krishna’s Vrindavana lila, yet at the same time he labors to emphasize all that this involves. An excerpt form Swami Tripurari’s commentary to the last verse of chapter six illustrates this well:

 

The perfectly integrated person that Krishna has been teaching Arjuna about is his devotee. He is dutiful and responsible in all his actions. His actions are informed by higher knowledge, and he has realized the fruit of this detached action in the form of inner wisdom. His action is integrated with knowledge, and thus he is renounced even while acting. He is absorbed in meditation on God, and his heart swells with love for God and love for all beings. He has realized the cessation of material suffering, and he knows God as Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan. Arjuna is spellbound at what it means to be Krishna’s devotee!

 

Throughout his edition, Swami Tripurari emphasizes the philosophy that underlies Krishna’s supremacy. Indeed, it would be difficult not to, as this is the emphasis of the Gita itself. What we find in Swami Tripurari’s edition is a tasteful balance between all that underlies Krishna’s Vrindavana lila and just how high it is—so high that it captivates Krishna’s own mind and has the power to distract him even when he is outwardly otherwise preoccupied.

 

Infidelity

This category seems redundant and should have been included under Maryada Vyatikrama.

 

Misinterpretation

Here Danavir Goswami states that because Bhagavad-gita As It Isaccurately presents the “true conversation and meaning between Lord Krishna and His friend Arjuna, there is no need for a divergent interpretation.” He states that the Gita “is forever meant to indicate what Krishna intended.” Again, “the intended meaning is accurately communicated in Bhagavad-gita As It Is. New translations or commentaries disagreeing with the As It Isedition are faulty and misleading.” Danavir Goswami wrongly concludes that Swami Tripurari’s edition is divergent, as Swami Tripurari reaches exactly the same conclusion that Srila Prabhupada does—selfless devotion to Krishna.

 

Danavir Goswami identifies Arjuna as the “recent link in disciplic succession.” Thus he concludes that we have to understand Bhagavad-gita as Arjuna did. This he says is the “critical point” of this section. “Arjuna never said that the Bhagavad-gita was a treatise on Krishna’s Vrindavanapastimes.” Coincidentally, neither does Swami Tripurari say this. He does, however, say that Krishna at Kuruksetra sometimes thinks of the gopis and speaks covertly about his love for them and their love for him. If Krishna does not think about the measure of the Vraja bhaktas love for him when speaking the chatur sloki of the Gita, how can he be speaking only of raganuga bhakti as stated by Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura? What of the fact that Baladeva Vidyabusana, his disciple, interprets this section differently? Is he, or better still, is Srila Prabhupada, who followed Sri Baladeva’s commentary in his own commentary, guilty of misinterpreting?

 

In light of the fact that Swami Tripurari’s Gita assigns “creative definitions with so-called deeper meanings to Krishna’s words,” Danavir Maharaja asks, “was Srila Prabhupada not able to understand those words in the deeper light of Krishna’s Vraja-lila?” First of all, we do not find “creative definitions” that fall outside of Sanskrit grammar and alankara in Swami Tripurari’s edition. Nor do any definitions fall outside of Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy. It is because of this that we can rest assured that they are not merely the imagination of the author as Danavir Goswami asserts.

 

Secondly, it is not necessary to speculate as Danavir Goswami has as to why Srila Prabhupada did not draw out these definitions. The fact that he did not in no way proves that they do not exist. Swami Tripurari has demonstrated from the language and Gaudiya philosophy with support from Gaudiya literature and historical consideration that these definitions do exist. Let us remember that Krishna’s Dwarka-lila is not disconnected from his Vrindavana-lila in that he fought outside of Vrindavana primarily in consideration of protecting its inhabitants. This is why Krishna left Vrindavana, lest after His killing Kamsa other demons might march into his village home and destroy it.

 

Rasabhasa

Danavir Maharaja’s claim that Swami Tripurari’s Gita commentary suffers from rasabhasa because it turns the battlefield of Kuruksetra into the rasa-lila is ironic. In fact, Swami Tripurari does nothing of the sort, but rather he has gone to great lengths to explain that the speaker of the Gita is Dvarakesa Parthasarati Krishna and not Vrajendra-nandana Krishna. He has helped the reader understand such subtle differences in consideration of rasa tattva—the difference between Dhira-lalita Krishna and Dhira-prasanta Krishna, their sentiments and their lilas. He has also shown with scriptural references the extent to which these two forms/personalities of Krishna overlap, and by doing so he has demonstrated the validity of the previous acharyas claims that Krishna of Kuruksetra at times speaks covertly about his love for the inhabitants of Vrindavana.

 

An example of this overlap of Vraja and Dwarkesa Krishna, cited by Swami Tripurari in the introduction, can be found in Sanatana Goswami’s Brihad-bhagavatamrita (BBT edition). There Rukmini admits, “Sometimes at night He says this and that in His sleep. Sometimes, in a most sweet voice, He utters names as if calling His cows. Sometimes he calls His girlfriends or some of the cowherd boys. And sometimes while asleep He acts as if He were placing His flute to His mouth and assumes His enchanting threefold-bending form.” Someone might argue that this example is not valid because Krishna is asleep, at which time one can be transported mentally to a different place. Yet Satyabhama confirms that “Even while active and awake, He seems to have His mind on something else, as if dreaming. Indeed, we are His wives only in name; His young cowherd maidservants are in fact more dear to Him than we are.” The commentary adds, “As Satyabhama and other queens witnessed, even in the middle of the day Krishna often acted as if His mind were in Vraja. He would call out to His cows, His friends, and His gopis, just as Rukmini testified He did in His sleep.”

 

The subtitle of Swami Tripurari’s book makes clear that the edition includes not only the feeling of the text (rasa vicara), but its philosophy (tattva vicara) as well. Thus the commentary looks at the text from both of these angles of vision. With regard to rasa vicara, the emphasis is appropriately sparse yet tasteful in comparison to the emphasis on tattva vicara, which makes up the greater balance of the book. Indeed, less than one dozen out of seven hundred of the Gita’s verses are commented on with reference to Vraja-bhakti.

 

Although in support of his charge of rasabhasa Danavir Maharaja makes much of Prabhupada’s insistence that a picture of Krishna in Vrindavana not be placed on the cover of the Gita, we do not find such a picture on the cover of Swami Tripurari’s edition. Appropriately, we find a picture of Krishna and Arjuna on Arjuna’s chariot. It is worth noting, however, that inside Bhagavad-gita As It Isthe Gita’s conclusion, man mana bhava mad bhaktah, has been pictorially rendered with a painting of Gopala Krishna of Vraja.

 

Mayavada

Here Danavir Goswami states that Swami Tripurari has cited the words of Mayavadis in order to support his idea that the Gita is about rasa-lila. He emphasizes that we do not need to go to Mayavadis to learn about Vraja-lila. What Swami Tripurari has done is stated in his introduction:

 

Also relevant to the present work is Adwaitin Madhusudana Saraswati’s Gudhartha-dipika commentary on Bhagavad-gita, which Visvanatha Chakravarti cites numerous times. In the interest of substantiating the plausibility of the Gaudiya understanding of the Gita, I have cited Madhusudana Saraswati’s commentary in places. As neo-Adwaitins may think the Gaudiya rendering forced in places, it will be useful for them to know that such a highly renowned scholar and guru of the Adwaita lineage is often supportive of the Gaudiya interpretations of the flow of Sri Gita’s verse and its emphasis on devotion.

 

Thus Swami Tripurari makes it clear that he cites, as has a previous acharya, a Mayavadi whenever his commentary supports the Gita’s emphasis on bhakti. This has nothing to do with Vraja-bhakti but everything to do with the fact that the Gaudiyas understand the Gita to place devotion over jnana. If even jnanis can be cited in support of this conclusion, all the better. From this it should also be clear that Swami Tripurari’s edition appropriately engages in exposing the philosophical shortcomings of Mayavada philosophy. One may ask what place defeating Mayavadi philosophy has in a commentary that is all about Krishna’s Vraja-lila. The answer is that that book is not merely about Krishna’s Vraja-lila.

 

Gita Appreciation

I believe that if Danavir Maharaja had more carefully read the book he pretends to review, or had read it at all, it would be apparent to him that there is nothing that contradicts Krishna’s ultimate instruction in Swami Tripurari’s Gita edition. He might then share the appreciation of the stalwart ISKCON preachers who have read this presentation of Bhagavad-gita and expressed their support. These include Ganapati Maharaja, Giriraja Maharaja, Gunagrahi Maharaja, Hridyananda Maharaja, Indradyumna Maharaja, Jayadvaita Maharaja, Sachinandana Maharaja, and Ranchor dasa.

 

Hridayananda Maharaja wrote, for example, “I think you have done an excellent job of explaining VCThakur's commentary on the Gita verse 10.9.” Gunagrahi Maharaja said, “I am relishing your Gita very much. I see that you have been utilizing your time extremely well over the years and am eager to reap the nectar you have acquired.” Ganapati Maharaja wrote, “I would like to sincerely commend and thank you for your work on Bhagavad-gita. No doubt Srila Prabhupada is smiling upon your endeavor. You have so masterfully highlighted Lord Krishna's 18th chapter finale as the incredible crescendo it really is.” Ranchor das had this to say:

 

I want to thank you for your edition of the Bhagavad-gita, which has been a superb guide and companion. . . . I found in every case your translations and commentaries were clear and illuminating, and along the way cleared up many of the points that had long puzzled me in Bhagavad-gita As It Is, in a way that was respectful to our Gurudeva and at the same time added to what he had written.

 

I acquired my copy from Tamal Krishna Goswami, who lent it me just before his last trip to India. It now belongs, along with the rest of his library, to the library at the Oxford Centre for Vaishnava and Hindu Studies.

 

In future I will always recommend your edition. I think it should become a standard companion to Srila Prabhupada's. And I hope the reprint comes soon so I can buy my own. I hope you write many more such books.

 

Concluding Words

 

I find it hard to understand why Danavir Goswami would so publicly denigrate a book whose only purpose is to glorify devotional service to Krishna. If he found a genuine mistake in the book and pointed it out constructively, it would be welcome. Instead, he has chosen to claim the whole book is mistaken with a handful of straw-man arguments. He then proceeds not only to question the author’s motive but, worse, to assert that the motive is other than what the author has explained it to be. He has “revealed” the sinister motives of Tripurari Maharaja. While he claims that Tripurari Maharaja imagines what was on the mind of Krishna when he spoke the Gita, it is Danavir Goswami who imagines what was on the mind of Tripurari Maharaja.

 

It seems irresponsible for someone in his position to go to such lengths to vilify not only Tripurari Maharaja, but also, by implication, the acharyas whose lead he followed in offering his understanding of what Krishna said. It would be one thing to write a carefully reasoned critique based on a careful reading, but Danavir Maharaja has given no evidence that he has read the book carefully, if at all. Rather, his purpose appears to be merely to denigrate Tripurari Maharaja’s preaching efforts simply because they take a different form from his own. I think this is particularly troubling in light of all the years of service Tripurari Maharaja has rendered. We all know how much Srila Prabhupada appreciated his efforts in increasing book distribution in the 1970s. I have seen that his dedication to spreading Krishna consciousness has not flagged since those days but rather has grown more intense. His efforts have added to the regard society has for Lord Chaitanya’s sankirtana movement. His books have been well received by the academic community, and devotees both inside and outside of ISKCON have found inspiration in his preaching, his character, and his dealings with others. And despite his changed circumstances with respect to ISKCON, he has also remained a supporter of Srila Prabhupada’s preaching institution. I have heard him advise his followers who are connected with ISKCON centers to maintain their service connection with their temples, and I know that he has maintained friendly, cooperative relationships with many of ISKCON’s leaders and with many members such as me.

 

Danavir Gosvami’s article appears to take the low road, making it difficult to take the high road in return. Articles of this nature do not further the cause of unity in diversity. They do not serve to foster the love and trust that Srila Prabhupada expected his mission to be governed by. A concern I have had for many years is what appears to me to be a culture of Vaishnava-aparadha pervading the Krishna consciousness movement. I waited some time to submit this for publication, hoping that ISKCON’s leadership would call on Danavir Maharaja to reconsider his remarks. If ISKCON allows such articles to be written by its gurus and leaders unchecked, the articles will be seen as representing their position, thus only serving to distance thoughtful members from participating in ISKCON. Is this pleasing to Srila Prabhupada?

 

 

[gHari 0]

inside Bhagavad-gita As It Isthe Gita’s

when Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Isis clearly a definitive

churn the nectar of Bhagavad-gita As It Isand present

because Bhagavad-gita As It Isaccurately presents

commentaries disagreeing with the As It Isedition are

inside Bhagavad-gita As It Isthe Gita’s conclusion

 

 

But a very beautiful response, Babhru Prabhu; one that likely no one else could have written. I thank you for your time which I know is very guarded now. We are now in the eye of the storm over the battlefield, at peace.

 

gHari

 

[stonehearted 0]

Thanks again.

[Guest guest]

Multiple Vaisnava commentaries deepen understanding of Bhagavad-gita

by Bhakta Ivar

 

Posted October 26, 2003

 

Editor's Note:

 

Recently, Danavir Goswami wrote an article, "Battlefield Fancy", posted on www.dipika.org, which reviewed a book written by Tripurari Swami. That reviwew was not submitted to Chakra, and would not have been published in any case, as it did not meet our editorial guidelines. The reviewer did not mention the name of the book or its author, and Umapati Swami, the editor of the Dipika site, writes, "I did not know the book was written by Tripurari Maharaja."

 

Umapati Maharaja contends that Danavir Maharaja properly concealed the name of the author from him, and from his readers, "because he was only interested in defeating a philosophical point of view that he fears may be creeping into ISKCON." Umapati Maharaja has offered devotees an opportunity to rebut Danavir Maharaja's analysis, though carefully delineating the terms of acceptable replies. Here is one such response from a Dutch devotee, also sent to Chakra:

 

 

 

--

 

Dear Umapati Maharaja,

 

Pranams. You wrote:

 

Here is what I will print: statements showing that the book does not encourage such mixing of rasas or proof that Srila Prabhupada did indeed allow it. Danavir Maharaja made two points: that the book encourages this mixing and that Srila Prabhupada was opposed to it. If you cannot refute either of these points, you have no valid objection.

 

I'm just a young bhakta, not interested in a debate. But when in 1997 I was working on a new Dutch translation of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, I started collecting different translations from different authors, among whom were Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura and others, such as the medieval Sridhara Swami and also Srila Prabhupada's godbrother Srila B.R. Sridhara Maharaja. In this period I learnt that it's possible to translate Bhagavad-gita in different ways, yet all within the boundaries of the Gaudiya Vaisnava conception.

 

Being a collector of Vaisnava Bhagavad-gita translations, I naturally also obtained a copy of Bhagavad-gita: Its Feeling and Philosophy, This book is not intended to replace Bhagavad-gita As It Is, just like the Gitamrta Reading by Purnacandra dasa was not intended as such. That reading, which is still available in many ISKCON shops, contains references to Krishna's feelings and relationship with the gopis.

 

Nor is Swami Tripurari's book trying to prove that Bhagavad-gita is only about Vraja-lila and not about yoga or the war of Kuruksetra. It simply invites us to consider the possible feelings behind the words, as indicated by those Acaryas of the past who had learnt to see Krishna's intimate love everywhere.

 

The term "mixing of rasas", if applied to the words of acaryas like Bhaktivinoda and Visvanatha Thakura, is of course offensive. Because the translation and commentary of Tripurari Maharaja's book are directly based on the insights of such highly regarded Gaudiya preachers, the term "mixing of rasas" should also not be used. In other words: the book does not engage in "the mixing of rasas." Whoever wants to conclude otherwise is unfortunately "overstepping" the previous Acaryas and therefore making a grave offence.

 

The second statement, namely that Srila Prabhupada was not opposed to mixing of rasas is meaningless. Yes, Srila Prabhupada was against mixing of rasas, but he was in favour of those translations and commentaries based on the insights of previous Acaryas. Since Bhagavad-gita, Its Feeling and Philosophy doesn't contain mixing of rasas, this issue need not be addressed further.

 

Why should we oppose the idea that Mother Sarasvati can inspire poets to express multiple meanings through a particular verse or poem? Why suggest that lord Sri Krishna cannot do so? Indeed, if Lord Sri Krishna found it necessary to again descend personally as Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu in order to propagate sankirtana in the mood of the gopis of Vrindavan (Siksastaka verses 7 & 8, or most of Caitanya-caritamrta madhya and antya lila), why wouldn't He have (indirectly) expressed this confidential abhideya and prayojana in Bhagavad-gita, the topmost yoga-sastra?

 

Your servant,

Bhakta Ivar

[gHari 0]

Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakurawas

 

been extended by Bhaktivinoda Thakurato clarify that

 

[3 NEW PARAGRAPHS?]

Interestingly, Srila Prabhupada’s caution about maryada vyatikrama

Other Gaudiya acharyas have done this as well

Quoting Prabhupada, Danavir Goswami cites a number

 

 

 

An excerpt form Swami Tripurari’s commentary

 

[No sure if you capitalize Krsna's pronouns or not] high that it captivates Krishna’s own mind and has the power to distract him even when he is outwardly

 

a treatise on Krishna’s Vrindavanapastimes.”

 

validity of the previous acharyas claims that Krishna [also follows another Krsna pronoun]

 

Sometimes he calls His girlfriends [i have not looked carefully at all 'He' 'His' 'Him' 'She' 'Her' 'They' 'Their' 'Them' 'Me' 'Mine' 'We' 'Our' 'Us' occurrences]

 

who lent it me just before his last trip

 

[Guest guest]

He gave us everything

by Swami B.V. Tripurari

 

Posted October 28, 2003

 

An address to members of ISKCON on the occasion of the tirobhava mahotsava of Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

 

I would like to speak to you from my heart about my realization of Srila Prabhupada, especially that which I learned over the last eighteen years that I have been serving him outside of the formal boundaries of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

 

I hope you will accept my appreciation of Srila Prabhupada, even though it may speak of a different vision of His Divine Grace than that which you are familiar with. After all, each and every atom of this world may be examined from many, many angles of vision, what then to speak of a person whose every atomic particle of existence is cent percent dedicated to the service of the Supreme Lord.

 

Just as Krishna is like a bright jewel who shows himself to his devotee in whatever form he sees fit, so his pure devotee, Srila Prabhupada, is a multifaceted personality who shows himself to his followers in many wonderful and diverse ways at the same time.

 

Let us not limit him to our vision of His Divine Grace. Rather, on this occasion of his disappearance, we might do well to question whether any of us have as of yet ever seen him "as he is." Guru tattva is a vast subject, an elusive tattva. We are humbled in our attempt to say anything about him at all, and to do so requires his grace. Srila Rupa Goswami has said in Ujjvala-nilamani that love, like a snake, moves in a crooked way, aher iva gatih premnah svabhava-kutila bhavet. Hetor ahetos ca, with cause or without cause, sometimes in love differences arise. This is the nature of loving affairs.

 

Let us think, as on this occasion where there is considerable talk of unity, that the differences between Vaishnavas arise out of love and everything that is spoken is not the whole truth.

 

Srila Prabhupada said many things about his godbrothers, and they have often been quoted out of context to establish a policy that falls short of unifying all Gaudiya Vaishnavas, which he so desired.

 

In the last days of his manifest lila, I was present when Akincana Krishnadasa Babaji Maharaja and other of his godbrothers assembled at Srila Prabhupada's bedside. At that time, Srila Prabhupada asked for forgiveness for any offenses he may have committed. Babaji Maharaja was quick to reply, "All you have said was spoken in the service of preaching and in that there is no offense." Prabhupada replied, "Now the war is over. Please try to help them [his disciples]."

 

For the last eighteen years, I have been trying to realize this vision, an expanded vision of Srila Prabhupada's family. He was a maha-bhagavata; he loved all -- what to speak of his godbrothers -- even while he criticized them.

 

There is much to gain for all from unification. As far as it is possible, we should strive for it. It was something that Srila Prabhupada held dear. But in order to do so we must learn to be flexible, while at the same time resolute to remain within the philosophical parameters of our Gaudiya

 

We must broaden our outlook from that of a bhara-vahi Vaishnava to that of a saragrahi Vaishnava. We must become essential Vaishnavas and not merely formal Vaishnavas. We must move from the outer terrain of forms, titles, and corporate and geographical identification to the inner landscape that Vaishnavism is all about.

 

Where we are in terms of the Brahmanda, the Viraja, Brahmaloka, Vaikuntha, Ayodhya, Dvaraka, and ultimately Goloka, should be our only concern. In this inner world of realization we can find both gradation and the possiblity of unity.

 

We must leave the kanistha-adhikari conception of Vaishnavism and act as madhyama-adhikaris. We must question and learn to look deeply within ourselves. We must examine the scriptures and the words of our spiritual master in terms of essential meaning. We must become acquainted not merely with the outside, the vapu, of those instructions, but with the vani, or spirit, of the words.

 

In doing so we challenge our faith with our intellect and, at the risk of losing it, we can strengthen it. Shallow faith is hardly our ideal. No risk, no gain. With sincerity and good guidance our heart can come into harmony with our head resulting in well-reasoned faith, nistha. Proceeding along these lines with humility, tolerance and respect for all, we can arrive at kirtaniya sada hari, uninterrupted kirtana.

 

Srila Prabhupada was a great Vaishnava. The symptom of the highest devotee is that whoever sees him immediately begins to chant the Holy Name of Krishna. Srila Prabhupada was so great that whoever saw him, or whoever sees his disciples or grand disciples, shouts Hare Krishna. We may not be that kind of Vaishnava, but at least we can learn to appreciate, to smile when we see another Vaishnava, regardless of where he rests at night. Let us be careful, in shouting amar guru jagad-guru, my guru is the best guru, that we do not fall short in this glorification by putting, albeit unconsciously, greater emphasis on amar, "my," than on the jagad-guru. We may be glorifying only ourselves.

 

Let us remember that we are all moving in this world with our own realization of Srila Prabhupada; we have not captured him in our fist. And we cannot pound our limited realization of him into everyone else's head and expect to realize the desired unity. We must have a generous attitude with one another and with all those who claim their faith in our savior, Sri Caitanya. Love moves in a crooked way. Its ways are wonderful yet difficult to understand. We have gathered to glorify Srila Prabhupada, yet he is not alone. There is a land of Prabhupadas -- in the words of Srila Sridhara Maharaja, "a land of gurus." There we may find the likes of Uddhava, Brahma or Mahadeva in a grain of sand.

 

We are trying in our service to Srila Prabhupada to approach that plane, but we have no qualification. Our confidence of our success in this attempt should be derived not from our ability to practice but from our realization of the generous nature of that great welfare state. Our guru's generosity is like that of the mother who names her blind son "lotus-eyed." Realizing this generosity, we have some hope.

 

Let us position ourselves to realize this truth and thus realize Mahaprabhu's vision of humility and tolerance. When He said one should be more humble than a blade of grass, more tolerant than a tree, He was not merely making a poetic statement. When He saw the grass, when He saw the trees, this is what came to His mind. We are seeing grass every day and trees as well, yet we do not read the environment in this way. We must strive for this vision -- Caitanya darshana. We must learn to worship everything by drawing inspiration to serve God and our guru from even the so-called inanimate world, what then to speak of our godbrothers, godsisters, uncles, and cousins, our own family.

 

A man once told me, "Srila Prabhupada gave us everything. We don1t need anyone else." I replied, "Srila Prabhupada gave us everything; he gave us everyone else." On this I stake my activities for the last eighteen years outside of the formal institution of our gurudeva. And those whom I have met, those who are also part of Srila Prabhupada's family, whatever I have gathered from them I am using in His Divine Grace's service.

 

This to me is unity in diversity, acintya-bhedabheda. This to me glimpses at the heart of where unity may be found. And, in pursuing this vision, I hope that -- if not today, in some distant future -- you will accept me as your godbrother. By embracing this spirit, by showing our love for him through cooperation, my prayer is that together we will see Srila Prabhupada as he is for the first time in our eternal life.

 

[Radhakunda_das 0]

I think all the people on this forum agree Srila Prabhupada(the guru of Tripurari) does not approve of his Gita. That is all Dhanavir Goswami is saying. Is it wrong repeating guru's instructions or reminding godbrothers of those instructions.

In tripurari swami's introduction to his Bhagavad Gita he does imply that it is an improvement over Prabhupada's version. When he was osked in one of his question and answer postings on Swami.org to recommend a version of Bhagavad-Gita, he did not hesitate to recommend his on.

You decide what you think the swami thinks of Srila Prabhupada's position relative to his own.

I would like to know whom he refers to as kanistha and Madhyama devotees in hie address to ISKCON during His guru's vysapuja offering. For me I have no doubts.

Vrindavan dharm ki jaya!!!

[Guest guest]

Dear Radhakunda das,

 

Apparently you didn't read through this thread that you posted on very well. Most of the posters on this forum do not at all agree with your assessment. There is nothing wrong with repeating the instructions of one's Guru. The problem is with misusing those instructions and quoting them out of context in order to villify and denigrate the devotional efforts of one's god brother in the name of service. Danvir Goswami's article was shallow and offensive and was shown by Babhru to be seriously flawed due to it's revolving around the premise that Tripurari Swami's Gita presented some 'new' philosophy that isn't supported by any previous acharya.

 

There is no implication whatsoever in the introduction that this Gita is an 'improvement' over Prabhupada's version. Read the introduction again. Tripurari Swami is very clear as to why he wrote a commentary and what purpose he sees it filling. If you read it with an open heart you will find that it is a very good edition and it is a good suppliment to Srila Prabhupada's edition.

 

There is no fault in Tripurari Swami recommending that someone read his edition. You are way off base to suggest that he thinks of himself as superior to Srila Prabhupada. That is not only completely false - it is extremely offensive. He is a very devout servant of Srila Prabhupada's and your suggesting that he thinks of himself as something other than that is simply wrong.

 

Read the Vyasapuja offering with an open heart and mind rather than trying to find fault and your doubts will be cleared. Otherwise, your vision of Tripurari Swami and his words will remain clouded by your obvious disregard for him as a faithful follower of Srila Prabhupada and a senior devotee.

 

Vrndavana Dhama is non-different from Krsna and so are his devotees. Glorification of the Dhama rings hollow when juxtiposed with villification of Krsna's devotee.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[stonehearted 0]

Radhakunda das: I think all the people on this forum agree Srila Prabhupada(the guru of Tripurari) does not approve of his Gita.

 

Well, Radhakunda prabhu, I'm afraid that's your personal fancy. It's clear that you are in a small minority, at least here. And you may find that you're in a small minority in ISKCON as well. My next post will be a letter from Krishna Kshetra das, who is a scholar in ISKCON and one of its officially recogized initiating gurus.

[stonehearted 0]

Dear Prabhu,

 

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

 

Thank you for sending me Babhru Prabhu's response to Danavir Goswami's

article. I chanced to read the latter's article just last week when a

devotee called my attention to it. What I read dismayed me to say the least,

and while musing over the attitude within some quarters of ISKCON that it

represents, Babhru Prabhu's very welcome response came to my attention

yesterday, giving me renewed hope for cultivating a favorable climate for

inquiry and reflection in our Society.

 

 

Danavir Goswami's article -- with its strident tone of condemnation armored

with a self-assured profusion of quotes from Srila Prabhupada, and its

embarassingly poorly constructed arguments -- is perhaps indicative of a

persistent sense of insecurity within our Society, a fear of any serious

reflection and expression of Krsna-bhakti which seems not to conform in all

respects with what one happens to believe Srila Prabhupada presented and

represented. To me the polemical nature of his response shows weakness

rather than strength, and an unwillingness to look at our tradition 'from

many angles of vision' that sooner repells intelligent people than attracts

them to Krsna consciousness.

 

 

What is worrisome is that such an attitude, combined with the wielding of

authority, can lead to freezing the tradition, which is tantamount to

killing it. In the name of preserving sacred tradition, some would strangle

it with their claims to authority untempered by broadminded use of

intelligence. My hope and prayer is that senior members of ISKCON will

recognize and make known that such a response as the article from Danavir

Goswami to a carefully and sincerely executed Gita commentary as that of

Swami Tripurari is a poor substitute for careful and appropriate critique

done with the aim of supporting and encouraging good writing and publishing

efforts by devotees.

 

 

Your servant

Krsna-ksetra dasa

[stonehearted 0]

I hasten to point out that this letter from Krishna-kshetra is not unique. I have received letters from other devotees recognized as leaders in ISKCON who have expressed disappointment at Danavir Maharaja's article and appreciation for Swami Tripurari's Gita and even for my response to DG's critique.

 

Babhru das

[Kulapavana 0]

That is good news indeed. I'm encouraged to see ISKCON devotees with excellent stature like Krishna-kshetra prabhu (whom I know and greatly respect since 1980) to publicly denounce Danavir Mah. attack on Tripurari Mah. Gita. It gives me hope that we can all move closer to cooperation of various Vashnava groups preaching in the West.

[Gaurasundara 0]

I have met Sri Krsna-ksetra das on several occasions. I am surprised to read his letter and also very happy.

[Krsnanatha 0]

Dandavat Pranams Prabhus!

It has been some time since I last took the time to post here.

I can’t help but feel compelled to offer some brief opinion regarding this subject.

I have always felt that the unification of the Vaishnava community should be one of the top priorities of all who have found the benediction and treasure of the Holy Names of the Supreme. To that end I beg all inclined to pick some quarrel within our fraternity to instead direct such energies in the opposite direction of canvassing those who have yet to come into contact with the Yuga Dharma of Sri Krsna Sankirtana.

I have known Sripada Tripuari Swami Maharaja for some years. He gave me my first book, a Bhagavad Gita in O’Hare airport in 1977. He performed the fire sacrifice at my initiation in ISKCON in 1983. And kindly engineered in concert with Sripada Swami Narasingha Maharaja my eventual connection with Srila Sridar Deva Goswami Maharaja after some tragedy had occurred with regards to my original diksha guru.

The strongest criticism I could level towards Sripada Tripuari Maharaja is that my legs would often cramp up during his lectures due to his inability to conclude his stream of Krsna Katha. I never found him inclined to discussed anything but Krsna or subjects relevant to the cause of Krsna Consciousness.

I will not suppose some qualification to grade who he is in terms of technical observation but I will say even from my humble post as a struggling jiva that this quality alone, the absolute tendency towards no other subjects but the Supreme Lord Sri Krsna, His expansions, His devotees and the collecting of other souls bereft of such information within this domain to be extraordinarily rare.

I find any tendency of anyone, who is possessed of even a casual connection to the teachings and precepts of Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada who despite such benediction remains inclined to criticize such a soul as Tripuari Maharaja to be figuratively strolling upon ice of the thinnest order.

I thus beg all the Vaishanava devotees of the Lord, for their own advantage and progress towards the Supreme to avoid doing so.

 

[Guest guest]

i don't think criticism in and of itself is a bad thing,

but there is constructive criticism and then there is criticism with an agenda other then for constructive purposes.

 

Danavir made his criticism with the attitude of destructivness, tearing down the walls of faith in Tripurari

seemingly with the purpose of discrediting Him as

an agent of Mahaprabhu, this can be seen in the

agressive style of condemnation He uses rather

then in the accepted critical format of showing

the specific instances of critical import.

 

Basically he uses the straw man argument, arguement against

not the supposed recipient of the criticism, but criticism

against an ideal or non entity other then the intended

target,creating a phantom target,and giving the phantom

or straw man the criticism in place of the actual

target,giving the criticism to the phantom target

and thereby giving the intended target the comeuppence

due to the phantom, in other words, He argues against

a book or type of book of his own imagining,not the actual book he claims to critique.

 

This is ususally employed by critics who desire to

portray their target as being the "other",not one of us,to be avoided as "outside the acceptable paradigm".

 

They do not argue against the actual target,doing so

they cannot succeed in their intent,whcih is to defame

the target, only by creating an impression of "otherness"

is their object obtained.

 

The real critique Danavir makes isn't against the book,

but the person who wrote the book, or others who might write

a book not in line with Danavir's conception of what

should or shouldn't or who should or shouldn't

have a voice to express whatever.

 

This is similar to the attack on Sridhar Maharaja in the past, and is probably motivated by the same exact mentality,

us versus them,the concept of competition for "authentic"

lineage and "authentic" entitlement for the position of

Acharya or teacher or Guru.

 

Sectarianism at it's most basic level, better to leave

these types of ideals and misguided motives to the past,

better to move on to a more inclusive attitude,it can only serve the interests you may try and protect with the

exclusive attitude, which will only be seen as egotistic

and small minded by those you may wish to convince,

some may accept that style, but the caliber of thought

of the higher class will reject it and be disinclined

to that style of self serving critique.

[Krsnanatha 0]

I agree Shiva Prabhu, constructive assessment is not bad. I in fact am guilty of such constructive expression in my post as I make some complaint towards persons inclined to speak negatively towards a well documented servant of Mahaprabhu.

If per chance we were made aware of a person who while donned in the clothes of a renunciate, was inclined to wandering about with a danda in one hand and a bottle of Merlot in his other hand, it would of course be a public service to warn others whose innocence might be exploited. This would be not blasphemy but well-grounded, well based concern, but this occasion is in my evaluation far from such a situation.

We have in Sripada Swami Tripuari Maharaja, a servant of Mahaprabhu, a disciple of Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada publishing a record of his realizations which are the result of Guru Kripa. I cannot fathom such a work manifesting otherwise.

Best for those not inclined to appreciate such expressions, as you have so suitably stated to “Leave well enough alone.”

To decide not place ones eyes upon such writings is not a crime.

To attack such expressions in the public province... no good can be gained.

Of this even my small brain is convinced.