PDA

View Full Version : vaishnab culture



uttam
27 November 2011, 05:56 AM
I have the opinion that the vaishnab dharma practised by iskon and other gaudya math is not on the line what mahapravu wishes. I see every person in this forum quote from the writings of Bhakti vinod thakur and his son Bhakti sidhanta saraswati and their followers like A C pravupada. I mean to say that there is vaishnab culture/vaishnab dharma out side these pravupadas.I know they are critical of other vaishnabs.Bhakti vinod thakur , Bhakti sidhanta saraswati and their followers like A C pravupada are rich and organised.I request members of this forum to gather some idea of the vaishnab out side Bhakti vinod thakur, Bhakti sidhanta saraswati and their followers like A C pravupada.we should know that mahaprabhu was not born in Mayapur. Mayapur is made birth place of mahaprabhu by Bhakti vinod thakur and his son Bhakti sidhanta saraswati forcefully with the help of money and muscle.

Kismet
27 November 2011, 07:31 PM
Mayapur is made birth place of mahaprabhu by Bhakti vinod thakur and his son Bhakti sidhanta saraswati forcefully with the help of money and muscle.

:o News to me!

I'm all ears. :Cool:

saidevo
27 November 2011, 11:02 PM
namaste.

Some links to know about other vaiShNava traditions:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8843101/Srivaishnavam-FAQ
http://www.archive.org/details/earlyhistoryofva00aiyauoft
http://srimatham.com/srimatham/teachings/introtopancaratra.pdf
http://www.archive.org/download/vaishnaviterefor00rajarich/vaishnaviterefor00rajarich.pdf

uttam
28 November 2011, 09:38 AM
saidevoji pranam. thanks for the links. but by " vaishnab out side Bhakti vinod thakur, Bhakti sidhanta saraswati and their followers like A C pravupada" I do not mean Ramanuj sampradaya,Madva sampradaya,kathiababa sampradaya etc. I would like to clear that in Navadwip it self there are number of vaishnab who follow mahapravu in a different way from so called gaudiya that is Bhakti vinod thakur, Bhakti sidhanta saraswati and their followers like A C pravupada .
you see what mahaprabhu taught through his lila as we find in chaitanya charitamrita and what these prabhupadas taught is just opposit of each other ,in near future we will see AC bhakti vedanta replaces mahaprabhu in iskon temple and respective prabhupadas in their respective gaudiya maths.Their very intention hurt me when i find how Mianpur become Mayapur and then birth place of mahaprabhu.Just think if they truely love mahaprabhu then how can they establish a false place as birth place of mahaprabhu. I have a collection which has been published with the financial assistance received from Deptt of culture,Govt of India in which the full details is given how Mayapur become Mahaprabhu's birth place
1. in 1894,Kedarnath Dutta retires from the then Govt service and became known as srila bhakti vinod thakur.
2. in the same year Kedarnath Dutta establish " sri nabadipdham pracharini sabha" and starts spreading Mianpur coastal area as Mayapur.
3.in 1914,Kedarnath Dutta passes away and his son Vimala prasad Dutta -sadhan name srila Bhakti sidhant saraswati,completes father's unfinished task.
In any of the biographies of chaitanya mahaprabhu, there is no word like 'Mayapur'. I do not think these prabhupadas are honest in their business.

anadi
29 November 2011, 03:46 AM
I see every person in this forum quote from the writings of Bhakti vinod thakurand his son Bhakti sidhanta saraswati and their followers like A C pravupada. Imean to say that there is vaishnab culture/vaishnab dharma out side these pravupadas.Iknow they are critical of other vaishnabs .Bhakti vinod thakur , Bhakti sidhantasaraswati and their followers like A C pravupada are rich and organised.

Bhakti Vinoda Thakur was not critical to the (traditional) Vaishnavas of Gaudiya Sampradaya as his son Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswasti and his followers (Iskcon andGaudiya Math branches) were, as the latest didn't (don't) follow the tradition anymore.

BhaktiVinoda Thakur was a traditional Gaudiya Vaishnav who took initiation from Bipin Bihari Goswami. You can read more under:

http://www.gaudiya.com/pdf/Bhaktivinoda_Thakur_and_Bipin_Bihari_Goswami.pdf (http://www.gaudiya.com/pdf/Bhaktivinoda_Thakur_and_Bipin_Bihari_Goswami.pdf)

Which organisation did Bhakti Vinod Thakur belong to?

anadi
29 November 2011, 11:33 AM
we should know that mahaprabhu was not born in Mayapur.
Sri Caitanya was born in Mayapur. It seems that at the time of Sri Caitanya, Mayapur was on the other side of the nowadays Ganges. The follower of the traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism consider the place of Birth of Gaura (Sri Caitanya) as being not in the nowadays Mayapur but on the other side of the Ganges, in the Old Mayapur (Prachin Mayapur).

uttam
29 November 2011, 09:02 PM
Anadiji ,the prominent chaitanya writers like murari gupta,kabi karnopur,brindaban das,lochandas,jayananda,krishnadas kabiraj does never mention any word like mayapur in relation to chaitanya mahapravu. Bhakti Vinod thakur I mean kedarnath dutta was administrator of the area and using his administrative power he managed to incorporate in the revenue records mayapur by replacing mianpur which was muslim dominated area. amongst the vaishnab writers It was Narhari chakraborty who for the first time described mayapur as sri gauranga's birth place.before this there was no such word like mayapur in relation to chaitanya.Narhari chakraborty created this confusion when he was describing nabadipmandal at the instance of mathuramandal.It is a imaginary place coined by narhari chakraborty and kedarnath dutta took the opportunity to establish himself by incorporating it in revenue record through fraudulent way.you just imagine why there was no dispute for mahaprabhu's birth place among vaishnab writers of the period before this kedarnath dutta alias bhakti vinod thakur .how ambitious these people are ! bhakti vinode thakur betrayed his guru bipin goswami then AC bhakti vedanta betrayed his guru bhakti sidhanta saraswati and establishes iskon for himself and there is a history of betrayal in the kingdom of gaudiya math/mission established by bhakri sidhanta saraswati .now the question is why these pravupradas separates them selves from their gurus and establish own kingdom. is this the sign of true vaishnab as described by mahaprabhu.actually these people wants money power and what not to enjoy in the name of sri krishna and mahaprabhu. I condemn them for their misdeeds in the name of vaishnab dharma. bhakti vinod thakur is the first in the clan so he started organising people under his umbrella by doing some small organisation,samity etc but the present shape of the organisation started by his son sidhanta saraswati

sm78
30 November 2011, 06:30 AM
Dear Uttam, why don't you provide a skech of traditional gaudiya vaishnavism outside gaudiya matha to help those interested about these bhakti movement. You can also perhaves draw attention to external weblinks which deal with the matter, but I believe - internet is dominated only by prabhupada versions, and other traditional followers don't have much internet space. You can perhaves also suggest books which deal gaudiya vaishnava history. I don't have interest in vaishnava dharma and philosophy, but an authentic scholarly historical narrative of this powerful movement since 14th century and its effect on hindu culture in east and north-east would be most interesting for me too. Culture is always an interesting subject.

uttam
30 November 2011, 11:58 AM
yes sm78 you are 100% correct .traditional followers of chaitanya mahaprabhu are not interested in preaching their version through internet.actually they are very much simple in their life style not even interested in people getting interacted with them . they want to remain in their state of affairs that is enjoying 'madhurya ras'.what you want me to do will take some time because most of the materials are in bengali language which is to be translated and you know translation is not a easy job at all.therefore i am in search of a good English translation . regarding chaitanya's birth place i have some English publications definitely i will try to suggest them in my coming threads.

sm78
30 November 2011, 12:33 PM
You can refer me names of bengali publications (since I am bengali ;) ) and I will collect some of them when I am in Kolkata next time (which will be in a few weeks). I am also more interested in bengali works that english and I don't believe in this subject much work has been done through english language. From what I have heard from you the vaishnavism you are talking about is very different, but not surprising at all, given the historical and regional context. Bengal has never been a place of ritualistic excesses, vegetarian crusade or religious rules. Though I am not a vaishnava one cannot ever deny the reality of hladini shakti and rasa in krishna prema, and vaishnavism is the window to this power. But it only work for me when the religiosity (which you refer is vidhi dharma) is taken out.

uttam
01 December 2011, 06:50 PM
ok at present i am suggesting you two books.you know these are mainly research work. probably these writers are not vaishnab. there must be difference of writing on bhagaban between a bhakta writer and a scholar's writing.in scholar's work emotional element of bhakta-bhagaban relation will be missing.but if writer is himself a bhakta then that relation is enjoyed.here you have to find out that bhakta-bhagaban element in a scholer's work.still these are outstanding writings to realize sri chaitanya. i shall provide you much more later on.

1. vaishnab-ras-prakash by Dr Khudiram Das, (Dey's publishing)

2. Sri Chaitanyadev O Samakalin Nabadwip by Jogyeswar Choudhury -
( publisher- Nabadwip Puratattwa parishad, Nabadwip, Nadia )

3. Jugshrashtha Sri Chaitanya by Jogyeswar Choudhury -
( publisher- Nabadwip Puratattwa parishad, Nabadwip, Nadia )

sm78
02 December 2011, 12:01 AM
Thank you very much

anadi
02 December 2011, 03:45 AM
Bhakti Vinod thakur I mean kedarnath dutta was administrator of the area and using his administrative power he managed to incorporate in the revenue records mayapur by replacing mianpur which was muslim dominated area. ...
Narhari chakraborty created this confusion when he was describing nabadipmandal at the instance of mathuramandal.It is a imaginary place coined by narhari chakraborty and kedarnath dutta took the opportunity to establish himself by incorporating it in revenue record through fraudulent way.

Hare Krishna uttam,
1. could you please give the source of these informations?
2. which fraud did Bhakti Vinod commit?
3. At the time of Narahari Cakrabarty, in the 18-th century, Mayapur existed, it was not invented by him

It is recorded that during the governorship of Warren Hastings (1772-85), Dewan (finance secretary) Ganga-govinda Singh got a map of newly formed Nadia District prepared, which was kept in the Collectorate at Krishnanagar till late in the British Period.
The most significant feature of the map was the location of Mayapura by the North Eeast of the confluence point of the Ganga and the Jalangi.

Kedarnath Datta (Bhaktivinoda) as Deputy Magistrate and Collector of Krishnanagar Sub-division came across this map in 1887 and decided to search out the exact location of the place (Chatterjee 1915).

Before Ganga-govinda got this map prepared, Narahari Cakravarti's (18th century) Navadvipas and Mayapura referred to in Bhakti-ratnakara gained wide fame and popularity. Kedarnath used this map and the desription in Bhakti-ratnakara to prepare a map of the Nava-dvipas a few years later, which had a transitional layout of rivers in between Rennell's map (first picture -right side) and Smythe's map (second picture).

First systematic surveyed maps of Bengal were published by J.Rennell (1778-80). The Nuddeah (Nadia) area in Map No. 42/XI (picture below right) gives clearly the layout of the rivers in late 18th Century and, the location of a few villages, road and Kishenagur (Krishnanagar) town as the headquarters of the newly constituted (1772) District of Neddia (Nadia). Most significant is the location of the small nucleus of the new Nuddeah (Navadvipa) town on the west bank (where is located the nowadays Navadwipa) of the heavily meandering Hoogly (Ganga) river.

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/2218/nadia1760rennellmap.jpg

Even a hundred years after Sri Caitanya, the sketch map of Van den Brouck (1660) showed Neddia near the confluence of the Ganges (Ganga) and the Galganse (Jalangi), but to the east of the Ganga and north of the Jalangi (picture above left). As it is not a surveyed map, the distances and river forms (meanders) are not reliable. Yet the fact remains that the saw Nadia by the east of the Ganga (where nowadys Mayapur is) and plotted it as such is acceptable.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/3594/nabadwiparevenuesurvey1.jpg

As far as the dvipas are concerned, this map is nothing but a conjecture, but the rivers and place layouts are more or less correct and it is cartographically sound. Dhubulia, Bamanpukur, Ballaldighi, Mayapur, Ganganagar, Rudrapara, Ramachandrapur etc. have been shown.

Kedarnath's map has been modified by the present author (Mukherjee 1981) and is presented here with an inset guide map (picture below) to give an idea of Kedarnath's Navadvipa-dhama.

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4123/nabadwipabhaktivinoda.jpg

Source from
A Study for Sri Chaitanya's Birthplace
by Prof. K. N. Mukerjee

(Retired head of the Dept. of Geography, City College, Calcutta, retired lecturer of the Dept. of Geography, University of Calcutta, Secretary of ILEE and Director of the Research Cell of Sri Caitanya Research Institute, Calcutta)

See details under:
http://s28546.gridserver.com/chaitanya/pilgrimages/mayapur/adbhuta-mandira/sri-chaitanyas-birthplace.html (http://s28546.gridserver.com/chaitanya/pilgrimages/mayapur/adbhuta-mandira/sri-chaitanyas-birthplace.html)

uttam
03 December 2011, 10:07 AM
Dear Anadibabu,I am grateful to you cause you are compelling me to go inside of the story. but you have got your materials very easily from the net whereas my materials remain in the book. right from the beginning bhakti vinod thakur and his men are very much active to prove themselves they don't leave any platform untouched.but my side always remain quiet and giving the space free to them. now come to the point :

1. if you are interested to know the real version of the story you have to collect books written by Jajneswar Choudhuri and the name of the book is " Sri Chaitanyadev O Samakalin Nabadwip" ( A critical study on the Birth place of Lord Sri Chaitanya). obviously the book is in bengali language published from Nabadwip Puratatta Parishad, Nabadwip, Nadia.
reply of your remaining two question will be found in the story of Prof K N Mukerjee. I quote
"It may be mentioned here that although both the groups are claiming that Mayapura area old Navadvipa-dhama was the birthplace of Sri Caitanya, there was no reference to Mayapura of Nava (nine) Dvipas (islands) either in any contemporary (15th-16th Century) literature or in any of the Puranas (old Sanskrit tales). Only Narahari Cakravarti in his poetical work Bhakti-ratnakara in early 18th Century named and described for the first time the Nava Dvipas and mentioned Mayapura in Antardvipa as the birthplaces of Sri Caitanya (Das 1973, Banerjee 1966)."

so it is clear before Narahari there was no mayapur in this world of sri chaitanya.

now please see how Narahari chakraborty names the nine dwipas ,these are Antardvipa, Simantadvipa, Godrumadvipa and Madhyadvipa Koladvipa, Rtudvipa, Jahnudvipa, Modrumadvipa and Rtudvipa.

No vaishnab writers before Narahari Chakraborty mentioned such name of any earthly place comprising Nabadwip. these are one and only. now you have to compare to which earthly place of that area match these heavenly names.Brindaban das in his chaitanya bhagavat mention just local name like kulia,padpur,simulia,jannu nagar,vidya nagar,
gadigacha,majida. Even Murari Gupta,Kabikornapur,Churamani das,Jayananda,Lochan das,Nityananda das and Krishna das kabiraj do not describe such "not local" names of places.

Criticism of Prof K N Mukerjee's story " A study for sri chaitanya's birth place" is already in the market but you are unable to read them because you search everything in net.please search for book also. Now if I mention them it will be another long story.However some of them are :

1. sri jiva goswami has published the list of all the writings of Rup goswami where he has not mentioned any such Navadvipastakam (eight Sanskrit couplets describing the glory of Navadvipa/1541? which Mr Mukerjee refered to .Besides,when Rupa goswami came to Nabadwip, no contemporary vaishnab writer mentioned it in their writings not even sri krishnadas kabiraj. therefore Mr Mukerjee's claim " Rup goswami was a man of the locality who saw contemporary Nabadwip" is bogus claim because first Rup goswami's coming to Nabadwip is to be proved.

2.Quote "There is also a very large mound, in the Bamunpukur mauza at a straight distance of about a kilometre to the north-east from Ballal Dighi, which is popularly known from long time past as Ballal Dhipi (dhipi - large mound) (Figs. 5 and 7). The Archaeological Survey of India has recently partly excavated Ballal Dhipi and huge structures with massive walls have been exposed. Initially, there is a suggestion that the structure may partly be a Buddhist stupa of Pala dynasty,

3. Mr Mukerjee claims " During Kazi's rule Nabadwip and environs were part of Bagwan pargana" - the truth is during the period of Hussain Shah there was no paraganas. Actually under Pathan and Mugal rule Nabadwip was not included under Bagwan paragana.

4."The Kazi's tomb is lying near present Bamunpukur Bazar on which a massive swinging Krishna Champa or pagoda (Michelia Champaka) flower tree has grown." whereas Jagannath Mishra's house found after digging the earth . How ?

5. "During pre-sanyas living in Navadvipa (1486-1510) Sri Caitanya was known as Nimai or Nimai Pandita (pandita - Sanskrit scholar cum teacher). At around that time Maulana Serajuddin or Chand was the Kazi or Governor of thee Bagwan Pargana and his seat was at Kazipara (para - locality) of Navadvipa city" - No historical or literary proof is given to show that Maulana Serajuddin and Chand Kazi is same person. Where Mr Mukerjee has found the name of the kazi said to have encountered with chaitanya is Maulana Serajuddin.

6. The biggest lie I quote "Hunter in his report clearly mentioned Mayapura (with correct spelling and diction) as Blochmann noted, "The little town of Mayapura (near Bardwan boundary), where I am told the tomb exists of one Maulana Serajuddin who is said to have been the teacher of Hosain Shah, king of Bengal (1494-1552)." It is well known that Serajuddin was Chand kazi and Blochmann's Mayapura was extending from the Ganga (Bardwan boundary) covering on the other side the entire Bamunpukur village i.e. it was the same as old Navadvipa city. Ramachandrapur was not yet shown anywhere. Moreover, Kedarnath Datta was not in the picture at all at that time. Blochmann's observation might have given him the idea later."
(a) the statement of Blochmann is incomplete which created confusion.The complete statement is " Naira seems to be a mistake of Baira, a large pargana in Hugli District adjacent to Bhursut.To Baira belongs the little town of Mayapur ( near the Burdwan boundary) where I am told the tomb exists of one Maulana Sirajuddin who is said to have been the teacher of Hussain Shah,king of Bengal(1494-1522)" Here it is to be noted that Blochmann's Mayapur is in the Hugli District under Arambag PS, situated at least 40 kms west from ganges/bhagirathi river and this people intentionally left two three lines of Blochmann's statement and linked the Mayapur of Hugli to Chaitanya's birth place. this is fraud.
(b) According to Blochmann the tomb of Maulana Sirajuddin Mayapur of Hugli whereas Mr Mukerjee and team claims to have found the tomb of Maulana in Bamunpukur.

What more Anadaji ? Above all , Mr Mukerjee is totally biased to Bhakti vinod thakur. his writing is acknowledged by Gaudiya math . To him the opponent is "The second group consisted of some virakta Vaisnavas, a few of them having cultured and educated background. The first venture to counter the increasing popularity of Mayapura was initiated by one of the second group, Sri Vraja-mohana Dasa (Babaji), who was a retired overseer."
I request you to collect books please.

anadi
03 December 2011, 01:33 PM
Dear Anadibabu,
...

1. if you are interested to know the real version of the story you have to collect books written by Jajneswar Choudhuri...

Dear uttam,

my dandavat pranams,
please forgive me for my questions, and allegations

1. How do you know that the real version of the story is in the book of Jajneswar Choudhuri?
2. For me would be important that you present the evidence, the author Jajneswar Choudhuri uses in his book, when he states that Mayapur was an imaginary place coined by narhari chakraborty, as you stated in a previous post.
Please take into account that regarding Mayapur, Prof K N Mukerjee doesn’t say such thing, for remembering, he said only: … “Narahari Cakravarti … mentioned Mayapura in Antardvipa as the birthplaces of Sri Caitanya”.

So Narahari Cakravarti didn’t coin Mayapur. He only “mentioned Mayapura in Antardvipa as the birthplaces of Sri Caitanya”. Mayapur existed already in the 18th century as presented by Prof K N Mukerjee
“Before Ganga-govinda got this map prepared, Narahari Cakravarti's (18th century) Navadvipas and Mayapura referred to (not invented) in Bhakti-ratnakara gained wide fame and popularity.”

In my opinion is not quite well to blame Srila Narahari Cakravarti, who was worshiped by his contemporaries as an example of ascetic life and a Ragamarga sadhaka, by stating, he would invented an imaginary place called Mayapur.

It might be possible that he saw by the power of his asceticism and Ragamarga meditation that the Mayapur of his time was the Navadvipa of the time of Sri Caitanya.

Please forgive me for my questions, and allegations.

uttam
03 December 2011, 08:27 PM
Anadiji Please don't say like this.this is not a question of forgiveness and why should I. you are well versed with vaishnab literature and spend time to know more. I appreciate your efforts.

I never dare to criticise Sri Narahari Chakravorty who was a great vaishnab The fact is writings of such a great vaishnab should not be used to capitalize one's own interest. ' Bhakti-ratnakara' was written after 260 years of Mahaprabhu's birth. As expert says the main purpose of the book was to glorify Sri Nivas Acharya ,Narottam thakur and Shyamananda just like sri chaitanya,Nityananda and Adaitya Acharya.from the point of view of historical geography ' Bhakti-ratnakara' is not dependable.

In the words of Dr Khudiram Das, " Mayapur is a imagination of bhakta and true to that context only but not true from the point of view of history and geography. In the eyes of bhakta, as gaur-brigraha is chinmoy and so sridham nabadwip and Mayapur is the symbol of that chinmoy.but nabadwip is maypur and mayapur is nabadwip is not correct from the point of view of history and geography. Before ' Bhakti-ratnakara' is written by narahari chakraborty ,no other vaishnab literary works mentioned Mayapur as prabhu's birth place". As you say It might be possible that he saw by the power of his asceticism and Ragamarga meditation

The fact of the matter is the very word Mayapur indicating a place where Mahaprabhu is born can be found nowhere in the writings of vaishnab literature nor in the history /geography of Nabadwip before ' Bhakti-ratnakara' by narahari chakraborty .

as far as real version of the story is in the book of Jajneswar Choudhuri is concerned , sri choudhuri mentions 106 reference books in this context .do you feel the need of the names of those refrence books ,if so I can provide.

Lastly I once again appreciate you for your interest to go into the depth of the vaishnab dharma of chaitanya mahaprabhu.

anadi
04 December 2011, 10:43 AM
Dear uttam,

my humble dandavat pranams,
please forgive me for my statements. I am painstakingly correct in investigating statements which don’t fit with my actual state of knowledge.

You said:

In the words of Dr Khudiram Das, " Mayapur is a imagination of bhakta ...

I cannot agree with this statement of Dr Khudiram Das, because the reality contradicts his statement.
Mayapur is not an imagination of somebody, but a reality since the time of Narahari Cakravarti.
This should be true, because at the time of Narahari Cakravarti, Mayapur is described as having gained wide fame and popularity, see my previous post - 02 December 2011, 03:45 AM.

You said:
nabadwip is maypur and mayapur is nabadwip is not correct from the point of view of history and geography.
I would agree with your statement, if you can prove that the sketch map of Van den Brouck (1660) is a fake. This map shows Neddia (Nadia) near the confluence of the Ganges (Ganga) and the Galganse (Jalangi), but to the east of the Ganga and north of the Jalangi (picture above left), the place of the nowadays Mayapur.

You said:

Before ' Bhakti-ratnakara' is written by narahari chakraborty ,no other vaishnab literary works mentioned Mayapur as prabhu's birth place".
As long as at 1660 there was no Maypur it is very probable that before Narahari Cakravarti no other vaishnav could write about it. Visvanatha must have been one of the first Vaishnavas who experienced the shift of the Ganges, and the first who wrote about Mayapur, as being the old Navadvip, and as such the birth place of Gauranga. Although the scholars cannot agree about Narahari Cakravartis birth year as well as his death year, it is certain that he completed Sararthadarsini in 1704 (Christian counting) (1626 Saka), which he himself states at the conclusion of the book.
Most probably he lived between 1626-1708; and this might be why no other Vaishnav wrote about Mayapur before him.

You said:

Lastly I once again appreciate you for your interest to go into the depth of the vaishnab dharma of chaitanya mahaprabhu.Thank you for appreciation. I would like to meet you.

anadi
06 December 2011, 08:48 AM
Dear uttam,

Dandavats pranam,
Please excuse my daring to continue writing on this subject.

You wrote,


What more Anadaji ? Above all , Mr Mukerjee is totally biased to Bhakti vinod thakur. his writing is acknowledged by Gaudiya math . To him the opponent is "The second group consisted of some virakta Vaisnavas, a few of them having cultured and educated background. The first venture to counter the increasing popularity of Mayapura was initiated by one of the second group, Sri Vraja-mohana Dasa (Babaji), who was a retired overseer."
I request you to collect books please.



From the quote you gave,

"The second group consisted of some virakta Vaisnavas, a few of them having cultured and educated background. The first venture to counter the increasing popularity of Mayapura was initiated by one of the second group, Sri Vraja-mohana Dasa (Babaji), who was a retired overseer."

it is not directly to draw such conclusion:
“Mr. Mukerjee has been biased towards Bhakti vinod thakur.”
One should not forget that the first who said Mayapur would be the birthplace of Gaura was another Vaishanva, which obviously nobody can say, he would have an interest on it.

The idea would be that Mr. Mukerjee being a cultured and educated person on the material plane, seems to give less credit to the less educated Vaishnavas on the material level, which is obviously a big mistake.
But against this idea, is that Mr. Mukerjee shows great respect to Vraja-mohana Dasa, naming him Sri Vraja-mohana Dasa (Babaji), also acknowledging he is an overseer.

Above all material considerations of the problem, the biggest question is that such high Vaishnava personalities made contradictory statements regarding the birthplace of Gaura (Sri Caitanya).

I personally consider that any Gaudiya Vaishanva can choose one place or the other, as one wishes, according ones consciousness - attraction.
I personally prefer the place from Prachin Mayapur (old Mayapur) on the west side of nowadays Ganges, ruled by traditional Vaishnavas.

anadi
10 December 2011, 11:20 AM
Bhakti Vinod thakur I mean kedarnath dutta was administrator of the area and using his administrative power he managed to incorporate in the revenue records mayapur by replacing mianpur which was muslim dominated area. ...
... kedarnath dutta took the opportunity to establish himself by incorporating it in revenue record through fraudulent way.

dandavat pranam uttamji,

do you know the story about the fraudulent way Bhakti Vinod thakur incorporated Maypur "in revenue record(s)"?

I don't think he was really concernd about any revenues.

[/URL] (http://spirituality.forumup.de/posting.php?mode=quote&p=4298&mforum=spirituality) [URL="http://spirituality.forumup.de/modcp.php?mode=ip&p=4298&t=1015&sid=f4de4cbc5fa1053aeb9ab81a41d4df47"] (http://spirituality.forumup.de/posting.php?mode=delete&p=4298&sid=f4de4cbc5fa1053aeb9ab81a41d4df47&mforum=spirituality)In his introduction to an
edition of Krishna Karnamrita (6) in 1898 and in Bhagavatarka-marichi-mala in 1901,
one of the Thakur’s last works, he writes,

sri-krsna-caitanya-krpa-patra-sri-bilvamangalaya namah
guror hareH padaM dhyAtvA zrI-vipina-vihAriNaH
kRSNa-karNAmRtasyeyaM bhASA-vyAkhyA viracyate

I offer respectful obeisance to Sri Bilvamangala Thakur, the recipient of Lord
Krishna Chaitanya’s mercy. Meditating on the holy feet of my guru Sri Bipina Bihari
and Lord Hari, I am writing this Bengali translation and explanation of the Krishna
Karnamritam.

The two texts from Giti-mala are particularly interesting, as they indicate the siddha
name of Bipin Bihari, which is Vilasa Manjari,

"When will Vilasa Manjari and Ananga Manjari [Jahnava Mata] see me and, being
merciful, speak the follow essential words?
O Vilasa Manjari, Ananga Manjari and Rupa Manjari, please notice me and accept me
at your feet, bestowing on me the essence of all perfection."

In both of these songs, Bhaktivinoda follows the classical tradition established by
Narottam Das of praying to his spiritual master in his siddha form as a Manjari. It is
thus clear that Bhaktivinoda had not only taken initiation, but had also received
siddha-pranali from his guru.

Shukavak Das has argued in his work on Bhaktivinoda
that he followed the Rasa-raja concept of worship that had been developed in the
early days of the Baghna Para line.

This still has to be demonstrated, as the exact nature of the Rasaraja
concept as distinct from the doctrines of Rupa and Jiva Goswamis has yet to be
analyzed.
The Nabadvip concept of Rasa-raja sees Gauranga as the lover of the young damsels of Nadia, as presented in Locan dasa's Dhamali.

vipina-vihArI prabhu mama prabhu-vara
zrI-vaMzI-vadanAnanda-vaMza-zazadhara

"My exalted spiritual master, Vipina-vihari Prabhu, is the brilliant moon in the
family of Sri Vamsi Vadanananda."

anadi
10 December 2011, 11:37 AM
In Kalyana-kalpa-taru, Bhaktivinoda Thakur also offers heartfelt prayers for the
association of Srimati Ananga Manjari in the spiritual world, further showing a
strong affinity for Jahnava Mata, the original preceptor in Bipin Bihari Goswami's
line.Cooperation between Bhaktivinoda Thakur and his spiritual master continued on
other levels to the very end of the former’s active career as a writer and preacher,
which may be said to have come about in around 1907, the date of his last published
work and after which his health began to deteriorate considerably.

Most notably, Bipin Bihari participated in the meeting of dignitaries in Krishnagar
in 1893, helping Bhaktivinoda Thakur to launch the great project of establishing
Chaitanya’s birthplace in Mayapur. Bipin Bihari's magnum opus, Dasa-mula-rasa,
written in 1898, not only quotes a verse written by Bhaktivinoda in 1896, but seems
to have been inspired by it. (in GaurAGga-smaraNa-maGgala-stotra, 75.)

anadi
13 December 2011, 03:38 AM
Dear uttamji,

dandavat pranam

and forgive me that I continuie to comment your statements.

You said:


...how ambitious these people are ! bhakti vinode thakur betrayed his guru bipin goswami ...

I cannot agree with this statement.
In his autobiographical notes to that work, Bipin Bihari proudly mentions
Kedarnath Datta as his disciple. All indications are that
from 1880 up until at least 1901, the two worked harmoniously. Nowhere has
anyone been able to demonstrate that Bhaktivinoda Thakur ever said anything
negative or dismissive about Bipin Bihari Gosvami.

Some, like Bhakti Gaurava Narasingha Maharaj ((so called) Sri
Chaitanya Saraswati Parampara. Bangalore: Gosai Publishers, 1998), say that Bhaktivinoda "did not
imbibe any of the conceptions of Bipin Bihari Goswami."

He argues that Bhaktivinoda placed central importance on the chanting of the Holy Names "in
contrast to the stress on siddha-pranali given by Bipin Bihari Goswami."

This of course is nonsense, for on the one hand Bipin Bihari Goswami's first book was
written in glorification of the Holy Name (Harinamamrita-sindhu), and on the other,
Bhaktivinoda himself stressed the siddha-pranali method of bhajan in at least three
of his books: Jaiva-dharma, Chaitanya-sikshamrita and Harinama-chintamani.
Bhaktivinoda followed the siddha pranali system himself and passed it
on to his son Lalita Prasad, to whom he gave initiation.

He did not agree with the inventions of his other son, known later as the
famous Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, the founder of Gaudiya Math, who not
even had a guru, what to say about siddha pranali and following of raganuga bhakti.

uttam
15 December 2011, 09:46 AM
Anadiji namaskar i am sorry i was absent for some days because of my personal problems.now ok. i have gone through your post. i remember one of your post on 29/11/2011 where you mentioned a site of bhakti vinod thakur. There I find a story titled 'Bhakti vinoda thakur's relationship with Bipin Bihari goswami' written by Jagadananda Das. Have you read the story. I think all your questions to me could be answered from that story.

it is said that from 1880 up until at least 1901, the two ( Bhakti vinod and Bipin Bihari) worked harmoniously. problem starts after this period.Rupa Vilasa Dasa in his biography of BhaktivinodaThakur, The Seventh Goswami:
"Bipin Bihari Goswami initially enjoyed a very sweet relationship with the Thakur,but later he is said to have been neglected by the Thakur due to a disagreement about the position of Raghunath Das Goswami." In the following paragraph you will see how the son has refused to include father's guru in their dicsiplic succession and at the same time both father and son begin to give importance to Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji than Bipin bihari goswami.they consider Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji has better understanding than Bipin bihari goswami.

The brahmin vaishnab of nabadwip never accepts kedarnath dutta as a vaishnab mahanta and this is proved from the fact of what happens in famous Balighai meeting that took place on Bhadra 22, 1318 (i.e., September 1911). (12) . in following paragraphs. Some how Jagadananda Das has tried to establish that Bhakti vinod thakur has not rejected his guru Bipin bihari goswami.now comes the important part of the story. Anadi sir please read paragraphs carefully. I am quoting from the story itself.

"Did Bipin Bihari Goswami reject Bhaktivinoda Thakur?More significant and troubling for disciples in the line of Bhaktivinoda is evidence that Bipin Bihari Goswami rejected Bhaktivinoda because of "preaching untruths"about the birthplace of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.As mentioned above, Bipin Bihari was one of the first directors of the committee to oversee the worship of Sriman Mahaprabhu, newly established at the Yogapith in Mayapur by Bhaktivinoda Thakur in 1891. However, though many significant personalities in the Vaishnava world participated in these events, not everyone accepted this as the true birthplace of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu."

"After the disappearance of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur in 1914 these controversies became quite shrill, and nasty exchanges went on between the followers of Saraswati Thakur and the Nabadwip adherents. This time, however, Bipin Bihari Goswami sided with the Nabadwip Goswamis and in 1919 rejected the claims of Bhaktivinoda and his son in a small newspaper of his own called Gauranga-sevakaPatrika.Unhappy with the Miapur controversy. In order to show his commitment to the Nabadwip, held a festival in honor of Vamsivadanananda Thakur in Kuliya in 1919. He disappeared the same year. (K. B. Goswami, 542) (17)Since this rejection took place after Bhaktivinoda’s disappearance, it may well be that Saraswati and his disciples’ heavy-handed approach to the debate contributed to Bipin Bihari’s making a break of this sort. However, it is not unlikely that he became convinced that Bhaktivinoda had wilfully fabricated evidence to promotethe Mayapur birthsite."

"Did Bhaktivinoda Thakur fabricate evidence to promote the Mayapur birth site? I cannot answer the question where the historical and geographical evidence is concerned. However, I am seriously disturbed by the evidence that BhaktivinodaThakur manufactured literary evidence to support the validity of Chaitanya asavatar and the nine-islands theory of Nabadwip, which in turn is meant to promote the Mayapur birthplace"

" The Gaudiya Math and others who believe in the divine status of Bhaktivinoda take this work as literal "truth," but to those who do not share in the vision of a Nabadwip which has its center in Mayapur, it is a gratuitous fabrication."

" However, three books that the Thakur published as ancient works were almost certainly composed by him. These three -- CaitanyopaniSad (1887), Prema-vivarta(1906) and Navadvipa-satakam (n.d.) have certain common characteristics – they were all connected to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the glorification of his birthplace.The motives are fairly clear: the Thakur was trying to promote Mahaprabhu’s birthplace and he did it in a fashion time-honored in India. He simply wrote the material he needed and attributed it to someone who had historical credibility.Rather than attributing his works to Vyasa or Narottam Das Thakur as did the counterfeiters of the past, he used the names of Jagadananda Pandit and Prabodhananda Saraswati. (18)" -- what are these Anadiji ?

Bhaktivinoda Thakur did in fact publish many rare manuscripts of genuine
Vaishnava literature, such as Sri Krishna Vijaya, many padyAvalis, etc. He was not the only one in his time who yielded to the temptation of counterfeiting. Nevertheless, I personally find it problematic that someone who contributed so much to the Vaishnava religion, who worked so hard to instill a spirit of morality and honesty into Vaishnavism, whose life was in general a monument of commitment to service to Mahaprabhu and His principles, who in his worldly life was a justice and so presumably knew a thing or two about ethics and the law, saw fit to take such a chance."

Andiji this is the character who you want to keep out side criticism . I do not think Jagadananda Das is a enemy of bhakti vinod thaku rather he tries to justify vakti vinod thakur.the more is yet to come ,sir

" Furthermore, in view of his familiarity with scholarly historical method, it is hard to understand how he thought that he could get away with it. Perhaps he thought his personal probity put him above suspicion. But did he really think that a single manuscript found by chance in mysterious circumstances only to disappear again after its publication would not cause people to examine the published text more carefully? And if that text contains elements of language and content that not only point to a modern origin, but to the very person who claims to have found the manuscript, will our suspicions not be confirmed?"

" I can only say that in his enthusiasm to see Mahaprabhu’s birthplace be glorified and become a center of pilgrimage – as it has indeed become – the Thakur took a chance with his personal reputation and that of his religion. He succeeded inmaking Mayapur a magnet for pilgrims from around the world. His disciples, grand disciples and great-grand-disciples have succeeded in creating an environment that is quite extraordinary. Nevertheless, one cannot help but wonder at the masi-bindu that stains his otherwise sparkling white cloth. Can we not expect people to ask thequestion that naturally arises: How can a religion that needs lies to spread its message make any claims to be the truth?"

I consider it that just to take a revenge on brahmin vaishnab of nabadwip bhakti vinod thakur establishes mayapur as his centre of activity. the climax is coming now sir. just read what Jagadananda goes on to say :

" It does not give me pleasure to remind us, who are accustomed to thinking negatively of Bipin Bihari Goswami as someone who was rejected for his caste consciousness and bad habits like tobacco smoking, t[B]hat he publicly renounced Bhaktivinoda Thakur as his disciple shortly before dying in 1919. The reason he gave for this drastic act was precisely for "preaching falsehoods" connected to the birth place of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. It is easy to condemn Bipin Bihari Prabhu for having some self-interest in this matter, but the doubts that have been brought up in this article tend to give justification to the Goswami."

Then Jagadananda tries to establish how bhakti vinod thakur shows due respect to his guru in his writtings etc. but he forgets that this respect and humbleness to his guru was before 1901. so this does not hold good to say that bhakti vinod thakur was loyal to his guru all through his life. This is the character of bhakti vinode thakur and his son bhakti sidhanta saraswati.you have quoted from that story to justify bhakti vinode thakur but i do not understand why you miss these paragraphs . please read the story again and try to feel the truth.

anadi
15 December 2011, 02:22 PM
Dear uttamji,

dandavat pranam

and forgive me that I continuie to comment your statements.

You said:


...it is said that from 1880 up until at least 1901, the two ( Bhakti vinod and Bipin Bihari) worked harmoniously. problem starts after this period.Rupa Vilasa Dasa in his biography of BhaktivinodaThakur, The Seventh Goswami:
"Bipin Bihari Goswami initially enjoyed a very sweet relationship with the Thakur,but later he is said to have been neglected by the Thakur due to a disagreement about the position of Raghunath Das Goswami."

Answer:
This "is said" means Gaudiya Math says.

The Raghunath Das Goswami Issue I

A more significant claim coming from the Gaudiya Math is that Bhaktivinoda
Thakur rejected Bipin Bihari because he had taken an unsavory stance on the
Raghunath Das Goswami issue. Little can truly be ascertained here, but we shall
examine it briefly anyway. The setting of this incident is the famous Balighai
meeting that took place on Bhadra 22, 1318 (i.e., September 1911).
(Goswami, 528. Sources of the information are not given.)

Here is the summary of this position as expressed by Narasingha Maharaj (Gaudiya Math):

"In 1911 there was an famous assembly of scholars held in Medinipur (Bengal)
wherein the topic of debate was to be on "Brahmin and Vaishnavas." Bipin Bihari
Goswami was present at that assembly and, as was already known, he would side
with the brahmana community on the platform that brahmana Vaishnavas were
automatically superior to non-Brahmin Vaishnavas, due to a brahmana being born
in a higher caste.

Bhaktivinode Thakura was also invited to attend that assembly.
The conflict between he (sic) and Bipin Bihari was destined. Bhaktivinoda Thakur--
not wanting to take a position of confronting and attempting to defeat his "diksha
guru" in a public forum declined to attend the meeting on the plea of bad health.

In
his place he sent Saraswati Thakur (age 37) to represent the Gaudiya Vaishnava
Siddhanta in the line of Sri Rupa and Raghunath Das Goswami, as per the teachings
of Mahaprabhu. We all know what happened in the meeting."

In his book on the history of the Baghna Pada Vaishnavas, Kanan Bihari Goswami
makes the following interesting statement: "He [B]defeated the
scriptural considerations of the Smarta pandits and demonstrated the superiority of
Gaudiya Vaishnavism."

(It is obvious that Gaudiya Math tried and tries to discredit Bipin Bihari Goswami,
thier policy being to be against the born brahmanas.)

Gaudiya Math pretend:
Bhaktivinoda Thakura did for sometime show formal respect to Bipin Bihari
Goswami. But when the Goswami disrespected Srila Raghunath Das Goswami by
thinking that he can give blessings to Raghunath Das, the prayojana-acarya, because
Raghunath Das was from a "lower caste," the Thakur distanced himself more from
Bipin Bihari Goswami.

Since Bipin Bihari
Goswami spoke strongly at the Midnapur debate that Vaishnavas were superior to
Brahmins, this accusation becomes very doubtful and seems likely to be the
result of some "misunderstanding".

anadi
15 December 2011, 02:43 PM
The Raghunath Das Goswami Issue II

Gaudiya Vaishnavism historically did not interfere with the social
status quo. Siddhanta Saraswati’s daiva-varnashram ideas were radically opposed to
this vision, as he tried to democratize the Brahminical function and open it, so to
speak, to people from all castes and races.

Narasingha Maharaj also repeats the received Gaudiya Math tradition, no doubt
heard from Saraswati himself, that Bipin Bihari arrogantly claimed that he, as a
Brahmin, was in a position to bless Raghunath, a Shudra. This kind of statement is
obviously inflammatory. All evidence indicates that Raghunath, as a humble
Vaishnava, would have observed the social protocol of the time and would have
offered due respects to any Brahmin. He was a kAyastha, which according to the strict conventions of Bengal society
made him a Shudra.

There is external protocol and inner
spiritual achievement. The external protocol is based on social position, not on
inner worth. Hari Das Thakur observed the protocols of Jagannath Puri: despite
being universally recognized as a man who was as holy if not more so than the
Brahmins who served Jagannath, he never attempted to enter the temple there.
Sanatan also respected the Puri Brahmins' ritual purity out of extreme humility and
avoided coming in contact with them.

As the
Vaishnava is supposed to be indifferent to Varnashram, elevation to Brahminical
duties through his religious activities or spiritual achievements is clearly
counterindicated.

uttam
15 December 2011, 09:06 PM
Anadiji , you are not doing right thing by confusing the facts. firstly you have to remember the story is narrated by people who are in favour of bhakti vinod thakur and his son saraswati. still they are unable to cover up the truth.you are defending bhakti vinod thakur on raghunath das issue . just follow my points :

1. The unsavory stance on Raghunath das goswami by Bipin bihari for which bhakti vinode thakur rejected his guru is "little can truly be ascertained", still that little truth also being examined. see how.

2."In 1911 there was an famous assembly of scholars held in Medinipur (Bengal)wherein the topic of debate was to be on "Brahmin and Vaishnavas." Bipin Bihari Goswami was present at that assembly and, as was already known, he would side with the brahmana community on the platform that brahmana Vaishnavas were automatically superior to non-Brahmin Vaishnavas, Bhaktivinode Thakura was also invited to attend that assembly.Bhaktivinoda Thakur--not wanting to take a position of confronting and attempting to defeat his "dikshaguru" in a public forum declined to attend the meeting and sent Saraswati Thakur (age 37) to represent the Gaudiya Vaishnava Siddhanta .what happened in the meeting."In his book on the history of the Baghna Pada Vaishnavas, Kanan Bihari Goswamimakes the following interesting statement: "He [Bipin Bihari Goswami] defeated the scriptural considerations of the Smarta pandits and demonstrated the superiority of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.Bhaktivinoda Thakura did for sometime show formal respect to Bipin Bihari Goswami. But when the Goswami disrespected Srila Raghunath Das Goswami by thinking that he can give blessings to Raghunath Das, because Raghunath Das was from a "lower caste," the Thakur distanced himself more from Bipin Bihari Goswami.(13)I have heard, though I have not been able to get it confirmed, that a statement ofthis type was made by one of Bipin Bihari Goswami's more zealous disciples, a young zamindar by the name of Choudhary Jadabendranandan. This then was attributed toBipin Bihari, but once this attribution became tradition it has been established a"fact" though no real evidence can be found to substantiate it. Since Bipin Bihari Goswami spoke strongly at the Midnapur debate that Vaishnavas were superior to Brahmins, this accusation becomes even more doubtful and seems likely to be the result of some misunderstanding"
Therefore it is clear that the so called unsavory stance of bipin bihari goswami on raghnath das goswami is false ,fabricated and this is done by no other than saraswati the great son of bhakti vinod thakur becasue the whole issue as Narasingha Maharaj repeats the received Gaudiya Math tradition, no doubt heard from Saraswati himself, that Bipin Bihari arrogantly claimed that he, as a Brahmin, was in a position to bless Raghunath, a Shudra. This kind of statement is obviously inflammatory."

but the fact is there was no such statement at all by bipin bihari goswami. this is a accusation.

Anadiji i would like to say that the rejection of bipin bihari goswami by bhakti vinod thakur and his son saraswati on the issue of raghunath das goswami can not be justified because they distanced from bipin bihari on the ground that bipin bihari's thinking that he can give blessing .........is totally unthinkable for how could they know thinking of bipin bihari actually they took the chance of some misunderstanding which could have been cleared . but i think this so called misunderstanding has not developed in one day that is on the day of debate .is this a correct behavior on the part of disciple towards their guru. Now they teach their followers to consider guru as sri krishna. did they do the same to their own guru bipin bihari goswami. what a hypocracy ! in the above debate bipin bihari defended gaudiya vaishnabism for which saraswati was sent there by his father.where is the point of difference ?

but i would like to draw your kind attention to other aspect of story. the kind of fabrication of old scriptures by bhakti vinode and his son and above all how his guru bipin bihari goswami renounced bhakti vinod thakur on the ground of preaching falsehoods connected to the birth place of sri chaitanya. I do n't know what makes you so imperative that you like to defend bhakti vinod thakur . they talk of great vaishnabs in their writings .they talk of vaishnab tradition in their writings . you should note that great vaishnab always surrender him self to his guru and never do any thing which goes against guru what so ever the cause. because the disciple is not authorised to judge the actiions of his guru. a vaishnab is compared to grass (trina). Anadiji you are welcome to continue to comment on this issue . I shall not mind at all. I shall try my best to make you understand that bhakti vinod thakur and his son sidhanta saraswati shall never be justified for their falsehoods in connection with birth place of mahaprabhu being mayapur.

uttam
16 December 2011, 02:24 AM
one more thing bhakti vinod did not attend the debate for he was not wanting to confront and defeat his diksa guru bipin bihari goswami so he sent his son saraswati to represent gaudiya sidhanta. but the did not take place between saraswati and bipin bihari goswami neither any one recorded that in that debate bipin bihari was defeated by saraswati. instead of that we see that bipin bihari defended gaudiya vaishnabism for which saraswati was sent . no one even talking whether saraswati participated in that debate or not .what it is all about . It is a willful rejection of bipin bihari by his disciple bhakti vinod thakur . and at the end of the day the guru bipin bihari was so dissatisfied with his disciple bhakti vinod thakur that he renounced bhakti vinod thakur as his disciple before his death. just imagine how much pain bhakti vinod thakur and his son saraswati caused to their guru . yet you think they are great !

anadi
16 December 2011, 02:42 AM
Dear uttamji,

dandavat pranam
and forgive me that I continuie to comment your statements.
You said:


Anadiji , you are not doing right thing by confusing the facts. ... just follow my points :

1. The unsavory stance on Raghunath das goswami by Bipin bihari for which bhakti vinode thakur rejected his guru is "little can truly be ascertained", still that little truth also being examined. see how.

Ok. I follow your points.
My understanding of the statement "little can truly be ascertained" made by Jagadananda is that the whole story has no reliable sources:

1. The claim that Bhaktivinoda Thakur rejected Bipin Bihari comes from the Gaudiya Math
2. The Source of the information about this incident in the famous Balighai
meeting that took place on Bhadra 22, 1318 are not given.

anadi
16 December 2011, 02:51 AM
Dear uttamji,

I follow further your points:



2."In 1911 there was an famous assembly of scholars held in Medinipur (Bengal)wherein the topic of debate was to be on "Brahmin and Vaishnavas." Bipin Bihari Goswami was present at that assembly and, as was already known, he would side with the brahmana community on the platform that brahmana Vaishnavas were automatically superior to non-Brahmin Vaishnavas, Bhaktivinode Thakura was also invited to attend that assembly.Bhaktivinoda Thakur--not wanting to take a position of confronting and attempting to defeat his "dikshaguru" in a public forum declined to attend the meeting and sent Saraswati Thakur (age 37) to represent the Gaudiya Vaishnava Siddhanta .

This is the position as expressed by Narasingha Maharaj (Gaudiya Math).
This is only a story to praise Bhaktisidhanta Saraswati, and discredit the so called "smarta brahmanas".
There are no sources given for this allegations.

anadi
16 December 2011, 02:59 AM
Dear uttamji,

I follow further your points:

what happened in the meeting."In his book on the history of the Baghna Pada Vaishnavas, Kanan Bihari Goswami makes the following interesting statement: "He [Bipin Bihari Goswami] defeated the scriptural considerations of the Smarta pandits and demonstrated the superiority of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

Here is given another source, Kanan Bihari Goswami, who didn't belong to Gaudiya Math, and as you see
1. [Bipin Bihari Goswami] defeated the scriptural considerations of the Smarta pandits, which in the version of Gaudiya Math would have been the work of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati.
2. Bipin Bihari Goswami demonstrated the superiority of Gaudiya Vaishnavism (not of the brahmanas).

anadi
16 December 2011, 03:13 AM
Dear uttamji,

I follow further your points:


Bhaktivinoda Thakura did for sometime show formal respect to Bipin Bihari Goswami. But when the Goswami disrespected Srila Raghunath Das Goswami by thinking that he can give blessings to Raghunath Das, because Raghunath Das was from a "lower caste," the Thakur distanced himself more from Bipin Bihari Goswami.(13)

1. This allegations are the work of the same school - Gaudiya Math - who did and does its very best to discredit born brahmanas, in this case Bipin Bihari Goswami, and make their own brahamans.
2. They give no source of information for such accusations.

3. Bipin Bihari Goswami couldn't say that, as long as Kanan Bihari Goswami, who didn't belong to Gaudiya Math, writes that:

- [B] defeated the scriptural considerations of the Smarta pandits, which in the version of Gaudiya Math would have been the work of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati.
- Bipin Bihari Goswami demonstrated the superiority of Gaudiya Vaishnavism (not of the brahmanas).

anadi
16 December 2011, 03:31 AM
Dear uttamji,

I follow further your points:


I have heard, though I have not been able to get it confirmed, that a statement of this type was made by one of Bipin Bihari Goswami's more zealous disciples, a young zamindar by the name of Choudhary Jadabendranandan. This then was attributed toBipin Bihari, but once this attribution became tradition it has been established a"fact" though no real evidence can be found to substantiate it. .

The conclusion is that this story is also no real evidence.

uttam
16 December 2011, 08:21 AM
Anadiji your conclusion that this story is also no real evidence has made me upset because i am now confused why you have posted this story against my thread. do you mean that by giving some story ( false story ?) which has neither reliable source nor a real evidence the author a member of gaudiya family is trying to justify and at the same time glorify bhakti vinod thakur and his son bhakti sidhanta saraswati. do you mean bhakti vinod thakur and his son sidhanta saraswati were against of born brahman vaishnab , if so why bhakti vinod took diksha from bipin bihari goswami, a born brahman vaishnab ?
is there any such brahman vaishnab in the gaudiya math now ? how do you know kanan bihari goswami did not belong to gaudiya math ? do you mean Narasingha Maharaj (Gaudiya Math)is wanting to praise Bhakti sidhanta Saraswati, and discredit the so called "smarta brahmanas by giving false story and statements which has no reliable source ? i have not understood what you mean by "There are no sources given for this allegations." who are making allegation against whom and for what in the whole story ? ok i do not bother of this false story false allegation false attribution false accusations false glorification and every false of bhakti vinod thakur and his son but what i bother is that many false make some truth and the truth is that " he ( Bipin Bihari Goswami )publicly renounced Bhakti vinoda Thakur as his disciple shortly before dying in 1919. The reason he gave for this drastic act was precisely for "preaching falsehoods" connected to the birth place of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu " amongall these false i consider this is the only truth in the false story . this is my conclusion

anadi
16 December 2011, 08:22 AM
Dear uttamji,

I follow further your points

The conclusion that the previous story


I have heard, though I have not been able to get it confirmed, that a statement of this type was made by one of Bipin Bihari Goswami's more zealous disciples, a young zamindar by the name of Choudhary Jadabendranandan. This then was attributed toBipin Bihari, but once this attribution became tradition it has been established a"fact" though no real evidence can be found to substantiate it. .


has no real evidence,
as it is from your own subsquent quotes obvious:


Since Bipin Bihari Goswami spoke strongly at the Midnapur debate that Vaishnavas were superior to Brahmins, this accusation becomes even more doubtful and seems likely to be the result of some misunderstanding"
Therefore it is clear that the so called unsavory stance of bipin bihari goswami on raghnath das goswami is false ,fabricated and this is done by no other than saraswati the great son of bhakti vinod thakur becasue the whole issue as Narasingha Maharaj repeats the received Gaudiya Math tradition, no doubt heard from Saraswati himself, that Bipin Bihari arrogantly claimed that he, as a Brahmin, was in a position to bless Raghunath, a Shudra. This kind of statement is obviously inflammatory."

And your comment to this was:


but the fact is there was no such statement at all by bipin bihari goswami. this is a accusation.

So Bhaktivinod Thakur was never against the born brahmanas. Only his son Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, who tried to present his father as being on his side, by making up such stories.

anadi
16 December 2011, 09:02 AM
Dear uttamji,

I follow further your points:



Anadiji i would like to say that the rejection of bipin bihari goswami by bhakti vinod thakur and his son saraswati on the issue of raghunath das goswami can not be justified because they distanced from bipin bihari on the ground that bipin bihari's thinking that he can give blessing .........is totally unthinkable for how could they know thinking of bipin bihari actually they took the chance of some misunderstanding which could have been cleared .
1. There is no evidence that bhakti vinod thakur rejected bipin bihari goswami.
2. These made up stories were massively preached by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and his disciples, trying to present Bhaktivinod Thakur on their side.



.........is totally unthinkable for how could they know thinking of bipin bihari actually they took the chance of some misunderstanding which could have been cleared . but i think this so called misunderstanding has not developed in one day that is on the day of debate

There were no misunderstandings, as long as Bhaktivinod lived. They came after his death. The relation between Bipin bihari goswami and Bhaktivinod Thakur was so strong and intimate that Bipin bihari goswami didn't want to change his oppinion about Mahaprabhu's birth place until the death of Bhaktivinod.

anadi
16 December 2011, 09:18 AM
Dear uttamji,

I follow further your points:


.is this a correct behavior on the part of disciple towards their guru.

If you belive the made up stories of Bhaktisiddhanta, you can ask this question.
This question is in itself questionable as you aknowledge that the stories have no realiable independent source, even to make such commentaries that missunderstandings should have been cleared.
But as long as there were no misunderständings regarding the so called Raghunath Das Goswami Issue, there was nothing to be cleared.

anadi
16 December 2011, 09:43 AM
Dear uttamji,

I follow further your points:


is this a correct behavior on the part of disciple towards their guru. Now they teach their followers to consider guru as sri krishna. did they do the same to their own guru bipin bihari goswami. what a hypocracy !
Neither Bhaktivinod Thakur, nor his son Saraswati tought such things.
Neiter Gaudiya Math, nor Iskcon teach such things.
As much as I know only the so called prabhupadanugas claim that guru is only the founder of Iskcon - bhaktivedanta swami, and there is no need for any other guru.

anadi
16 December 2011, 10:02 AM
Dear uttamji,

I follow further your points

in the above debate bipin bihari defended gaudiya vaishnabism for which saraswati was sent there by his father.where is the point of difference ?

You mixed two different stories.
1. "bipin bihari defended gaudiya vaishnabism" comes from the independent source.
2. "saraswati was sent there by his father" comes from Saraswati himself, which is less reliable.

3. If saraswati was there, he must have come, due to his own decision, not because he would have been sent by his father, as long as Bhaktivinod Thakur was not against the born brahmanas, himself accepting such a brahmana as his guru.

anadi
18 December 2011, 12:34 PM
Dear uttamji,

I follow further your points



but i would like to draw your kind attention to other aspect of story. the kind of fabrication of old scriptures by bhakti vinode and his son and above all how his guru bipin bihari goswami renounced bhakti vinod thakur on the ground of preaching falsehoods connected to the birth place of sri chaitanya. .

Yes, this is alltogether another problem. Now you are perfectly right. Wether he was right or not, this fabrication shouldn't happen.

I know personally Jagat Prabhu (Jagadananda). He is a great scholar and devotee. He writes:

"Did Bhaktivinoda Thakur fabricate evidence to promote the Mayapur birthsite? I
cannot answer the question where the historical and geographical evidence is
concerned. However, I am seriously disturbed by the evidence that Bhaktivinoda
Thakur manufactured literary evidence to support the validity of Chaitanya as
avatar and the nine-islands theory of Nabadwip, which in turn is meant to promote
the Mayapur birthplace.

In the 1890’s, the Thakur wrote a Bengali verse work, Nabadwip-dhama-mahatmya,
which he published under his own name. This book is a pretty typical "Sthala
Mahatmya" style of text. Most Sthala-puranas introduce many puranic or Vedic
personalities and ascribe to them activities and words that glorify the place in
question. The events described in Nabadwip-dhama-mahatmya are quite radical:
Madhva and Ramanuja are not the only names that are dropped in this book – there
are also demigods, Vedic rishis, and other historical figures like Jayadeva, all of
whom spend time in Mahaprabhu’s Dham and have premonitions of His future
appearance there.

Had Nabadwip-dhama-mahatmya been written in Puranic Sanskrit two or three
hundred years earlier, it may have been insinuated into the Skanda Purana or
Padma Purana and achieved canonical status. But as it is, the Thakur decided to
publish it in Bengali and in his own name. This could only mean that he was either
sufficiently confident of his own position as a "realized Vaishnava" who could claim
to have mystic visions of this sort and be believed, or that he never intended for it
to be taken literally as history, but as a fanciful work in glorification of Mahaprabhu.

The Gaudiya Math and others who believe in the divine status of Bhaktivinoda take
this work as literal "truth," but to those who do not share in the vision of a
Nabadwip which has its center in Mayapur, it is a gratuitous fabrication."

Jagat Prabhu personally analysed these works (he has a Ph.D in sanskrit and knows also fluently
Bengali and Hindi) and came to the conclusion that the works which were atributed to Jagadananda Pandit and
Prabodhananda Saraswati are in fact the hand of Bhaktivinod.

Still he says:
"Nevertheless, I personally find it problematic that someone who contributed so much to the
Vaishnava religion, who worked so hard to instill a spirit of morality and honesty
into Vaishnavism, whose life was in general a monument of commitment to service
to Mahaprabhu and His principles, who in his worldly life was a justice and so
presumably knew a thing or two about ethics and the law, saw fit to take such a
chance. "

"Faith has to be honest to be genuine, and such honesty has to extend to our
forefathers, even those to whom we have attributed the highest spiritual perfection.
It is a shock to accept that our divinities may have had human failings, but I think
this is a necessary step in facing our own failings."

uttam
18 December 2011, 07:46 PM
Anadiji if you set aside everything still it should be acknowledged that either guru bipin bihar goswami rejected disciple vakti binod thakur or vice versa . in any case rejection by any one in vaishnab tradition is not praiseworthy from the point of a disciple and i believe disciple has no right to judge his guru.after all he is a guru. i also want you to review your remarks that bhakti vinod thakur bhakti sidhanta saraswati and gaudiya math family does not consider sri krishna him self is in guru i mean guru is to be considered as sri krishna to disciple. and also it is not clear to me that the story by Jagadananda das says "Bhaktivinode Thakura was also invited to attend that assembly.The conflict between he (sic) and Bipin Bihari was destined. Bhaktivinoda Thakur--not wanting to take a position of confronting and attempting to defeat his "dikshaguru" in a public forum declined to attend the meeting on the plea of bad health. In his place he sent Saraswati Thakur (age 37) to represent the Gaudiya Vaishnava Siddhanta". the story directly says this why we need any reliable source to belive but you say sidhanta saraswati went there on his own. i think you are not in the story. also the point to be noted is that the The conflict between he (sic) and Bipin Bihari was destined. so the heppenings developed long before that conflict. I am also curious to know why the son bhakti sidhanta was so against his father's guru. in common sense that should not be and we do'nt have any background given by Jagadananda das. it would not be sensible to consider that only bhakti sidhanta saraswati and his disciple did all the bad to bipin bihari goswami to bring his father by his side as you like to present. that was my point that they were ambitious enough to have separate recognition to rule to which aspect they were used to . if you know personally Jagadananda das you can clear doubt if sri das can help. you know we should not be biased so far facts are concerned. I agree that bhakti vinod was a great pandit on vaishnab tradition particularly gaudiya vaishnab .he used to keep him very much advance to his contemporaries so far vaishnab literature is concerned but for that i can not support his wrong doings.

uttam
18 December 2011, 08:18 PM
I also agree with Jagadananda das prabhu to his remark when he says in his story "He ( Bhakti Vinod Thakur ) succeeded in making Mayapur a magnet for pilgrims from around the world. His disciples, grand disciples and great-grand-disciples have succeeded in creating an environment that is quite extraordinary. Nevertheless, one cannot help but wonder at the masi-bindu that stains his otherwise sparkling white cloth"

anadi
23 December 2011, 08:39 AM
Dear uttamji,

dandavat pranam,

you wrote:
"Anadiji if you set aside everything still it should be acknowledged that either guru bipin bihar goswami rejected disciple vakti binod thakur or vice versa."


Well I thought the question is clear.
1. Bhakti Vinod Thakur never rejected bipin bihari gosvami.

2. Bipin bihari gosvami rejected Bhakti Vinod Thakur only after his disappearance and this only
on account of the issue regarding the birthplace of ChaitanyaMahaprabhu, not on account of some betrayal or else.
His decision might have been very much influenced by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati
and his disciples heavy propaganda on the issue of the birthplace of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

Bipin Bihari was one of the first directors of the committee to
oversee the worship of Sriman Mahaprabhu, newly established
at the Yogapith in Mayapur by Bhaktivinoda Thakur in 1891.

Below are some evidence which made Bipin bihari gosvami to change his oppinion, and in the end even to reject Bhaktivinod Thakur.

"Not long afterward, controversy arose when Vraja Mohan Das Babaji, an
engineer in his life before renunciation, declared that the so-called Yogapith in
Mayapur was false and that the real one was in Ranichora, a suburb of Nabadwip
that had recently been reclaimed from the receding Ganges.

Here is some more information, based on Carita-sudhA, volume 4, pp. 65-71. The
original temple on Mahaprabhu's birthplace was built by Bir Hambir of Vishnupur,
who ruled from approximately 1586-1621. This small shrine was claimed by the
Ganges. Gaur Govinda Singh, the diwan of the East India Company temple, was an
important Vaishnava. He built a second temple on the site in 1780-5, a sixty foot
high building with nine pinnacles in red sandstone. This building was submerged in
floods in 1876. Clearly, then, Bhaktivinoda Thakur must have been exaggerating
somewhat when he said that nobody had any idea where the birthplace had been.

As a result, a few years after Bhaktivinoda established the Mayapur site, in 1304
Bangabda (1897), Sashibhushan Bandyopadhyaya wrote in Pallivasi Patrika the first
article claiming that the Janmasthan was somewhere in Ramchandrapur. This
started the Janmasthan wars. The Mayapur faction started a court case, which
ultimately refused to reject the Mayapur claim, but did conclude that Gaura Govidna
Singh's temple had indeed been built on the site of Mahaprabhu's birthplace and if
anyone could find the ruins of that temple, that would be the deciding factor in
establishing the birthsite.

Vraja Mohan Dasji started his research in 1916. He walked all over the Dham as well
as investigating the available records, including the British survey maps that had
been conducted from 1757 onwards.

At any rate, through his research Vraja Mohan pinpointed the Ramachandra Chora
land as the likeliest site of Gaur Govinda Singh's temple. He proceeded to dig more
than 700 holes in the ground there before finding a large piece of red sandstone that had been a part of it.
He exhibited the piece of stone to an assembly of Vaishnavas
and work was begun building a new temple there.

Even so, the effort had exhausted him and he died not long after, turning the temple
service over to Charan Das's sakhibhekhi disciple Radhavinodini Dasi. The area was
officially named Prachin Mayapur in 1928. The temple was turned over to Ramdas
Babaji in 1953"
, see pics below:

http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/9288/1001379.jpg
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/4643/1001385p.jpg

uttam
23 December 2011, 12:57 PM
OK Anadiji . the fact is that the very place where mahaprabhu was born is no more on the earth. it has been taken away by ganga long before bhakti vinod thakur arrived in the scene. still if your version is taken into account it is seen that 'The area was officially named Prachin Mayapur in 1928.' I would like to request you to find out the name of the area in the revenue records before 1928 and in particular before Narahari chakraborty.Because as far as my knowledge goes there is no such goegraphical name for any place in the history of Nabadwip before Narahari chakraborty's 'Bhakti Ratnakar'. I always maintain that there was no Mayapur prachin or modern before Narahari chakraborty's 'Bhakti Ratnakar' which existed in the heart but not in the earth of nabadwip .Mianpur is made present day Mayappur.

anadi
25 December 2011, 05:53 AM
OK Anadiji . the fact is that the very place where mahaprabhu was born is no more on the earth. atit has been taken away by ganga long before bhakti vinod thakur arrived in the scene. still if your version is taken into account it is seen that 'The area was officially named Prachin Mayapur in 1928.' ...

Dear Uttamji,

in my opinion that`s not such an important issue, whatever Narhari Cakrabarti and later Bhaktivinod Thakur wrote.

As Sri Caitanya would say: eho bahya!
Most important are the special teachings of Sri Caitanya and His own madhur lila in His youth Gaura form
with His nagaris as revealed by some intimate parikars.
Deep in the night we shoud chant and meditate with closed eyes and
focused attention on this lilas and we will be there... more and more.

uttam
25 December 2011, 12:27 PM
yes Anadaji .i agree .let us move on .actually i am least interested in discussing about gaudiya math family . but the commercialization of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's vaishnab dharma by gaudiyas gives me pain.thats all. Anadiji in one of your posts you wrote that you are interested to find a guru who can teach raganuga sadhana bhakti in the mood of sakhi bhava . Have you found any such guru . if yes ,please let me know because i am very much interested to know which vaishnab sampradaya/akhra/school or individual are practising it these days and where.

anadi
26 December 2011, 10:46 AM
Anadiji in one of your posts you wrote that you are interested to find a guru who can teach raganuga sadhana bhakti in the mood of sakhi bhava . Have you found any such guru .
The one that I found, in the line of Jahnava Thakurani up to Lalita Prasada, the son of Bhaktivinod, which actually it should be a line of manjaris, from the point of view of his own character has failed.
:( negativ.

uttam
28 December 2011, 12:35 PM
I once had the opportunity to ask a Maharaj from Iskon that of the two ways of bhakti i.e baidhi and raganuga which is followed by them. the maharaj without hesitation told me that they follow baidhi bhakti. then I asked that Mahaprabhu wants us to follow raganuga bhakti instead of baidhi bhakti. so they are not correct. the maharaj then acknowledged that only their guru that is prabhupada AC Vakti Vedanta followed raganuga bhakti.and the rest not sure to have raganuga bhakti in this life .

I think every line of Chaitany charitamrita says to follow raganuga bhakti.we need to read it carefully to realize rag bhakti.