Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Well, it could not have happened much before 1919. It might have happened in
1918 or in the first few months of 1919, but I maintain my doubts, because:
1. With only one temple in Calcutta and a few followers, having taken
sannyas just in 1918, would he really wanted to have called himself an
Acarya with a reputation to protect? It is more likely that the incident
actually happened in a later year when the Thakur was more prominent, but
instead there was a different caste goswami who made the statement, and the
name of Bipin Bihari Goswami got substituted by someone who didn't know that
Bipin Bihari had disappeared in 1919.
2. 1919 seems a bit early for riding in motorcars also, both in terms of
availability and the means to obtain one, whereas in the 30's they would
have been much more available and affordable.
3. How does Bipin Bihari Goswami appear in Radha Kund? His home was in
Baghnapara, West Bengal. Of course he could have been visiting Radha Kund,
but then there would have to be the coincidence of the two of them visiting
at the same time. The brief biography I have does not describe him as doing
any travelling or living for any length of time in any other place.
"One pollutes his own intelligence and exhibits severe weakness of character
when he rejetcs his own spiritual master. Indeed, such a person has already
rejected the Supreme Lord, Hari."
Brahma-vaivarta PurANa [reference: SB 11.3.48]
"Any person who has once accepted a bonafide spiritual master and then, due to
illusion, gives him up, that lowest person falls into hell for ten million
3
(If I'm not mistaken, the word pacyate means "he is cooked" --- not a very
pleasant situation to be in. Better to stick with your guru.)
BTW, would someone please send me the text that I wrote about the guru taking
the karma of his disciple? I seem to have lost it.
ys pcd
(Text COM:2420758) -----------------------------------------
position to know about his relationship with Bipin Bihari Goswami than we
are.
In this regard there is another very instructive story which was narrated by
HH Jayapataka Maharaja and sent to me by HG Vidvan Gauranga prabhu. I am
reproducing it beneath. Once it already made its way to the Katha
conference, but I hope repeating it again won't be redundant or irrelevant.
Your servant,
Madana-mohana das
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
PAMHO. AGTSP. AGTSGG. About two years back Srila Jayapataka Swami
Maharaja had asked me to send the following text to a few GBC members
who had wanted it.
Srila Jayapataka Swami Maharaja had shown me the text from a famous
Bengali Vaisnava encyclopedia Gaudiya Vaisnava Abhidhana (by a Gaudiya
Vaisnava named Haridasa dasa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Jayagopala from Gaudiya Vaisnava Abhidhana (Khanda 3):
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jayagopala was a kayastha from the village Kandra in Bengal. Having
transgressed the mercy of his spiritual master, he was ostracized by
Sri Virabhadra Gosvami from the Vaisnava society.
Jaya Gopala dasa has transgressed My mercy. This has also become
known to the world. Therefore, in this matter, I have forbidden
all of My men to talk with him and so on. Similarly, Your Grace
may also not talk with him and so on. [2]
Who does not cry on seeing the qualities of Sri Virabhadra Prabhu?
He ostracized the sinful Jaya Gopala. Everyone came to know about
this and no one would ever speak to him and so on. [3]
You have attempted to supply for the benefit of the learned members of these
conferences some supposed "historical evidences" which you claim "prove the
actual position of Bipin Bihari Goswami". Ajamila Prabhu has commented on
your text by stating that the information you have supplied was
"well-researched" and "very useful". I respectfully submit that your
information is not at all well-researched, and is not only of questionable
usefulness but also misleading and possibly dangerous. Devotees should be
very careful in discussing historical matters concerning departed vaisnavas
in writing and in public forums, as there is always the possibility that if
the information is not presented properly or accurately it will result in
8
vaisnava aparadha and ruin one's own or one's readers' spiritual life!
But to give you the benefit of the doubt, you have made what is a common
mistake -- you have believed something because it was in writing in a fancy
hardbound book with nice graphics and it was grouped together with some
quite authentic, accurate, and useful statements. Especially in this day and
age we should be cautious about repeating anything without making sure our
sources are accurate.
The first point to note about your "historical evidence" is that it consists
99% of verbatim quotes from the book "The Authorized Sri Caitanya Saraswata
Parampara" by HH BG Narasingha Maharaja, formerly with ISKCON but now having
his own preaching institution. (Or it may be quotes from the advance
publication Narasingha Maharaja distributed earlier on the internet.) Not
only have you quoted from a questionable source, but you have failed to
inform your readers where you have taken the information from and have
attempted to pass it off as the results of your own learned research. You
haven't even cared to paraphrase what is written in that book, but have
directly and extensively used Narasingha Maharaja's words without quoting
him. This is very poor practice if you actually intend to benefit those who
will read your writing.
But in any case, you have chosen this book as your source. I have studied
that book carefully and there are several points to be mentioned. Although I
appreciate Maharaja's noble intentions in writing the book, he could have
served his stated purpose quite well without even mentioning any of the
controversies surrounding Bipin Bihari Goswami. For the benefit of the
readers I will offer some brief explanation of this crucial point:
There are members of other Gaudiya Vaisnava camps who sometimes attempt to
lure inexperienced devotees away from ISKCON and the various Gaudiya Maths
with "evidence" of how Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur is not
actually coming in a bonafide line of disciplic succession. I will not go
into the details of their contrived arguments here, but they often include
with their evidence, stories about the relationship between Saraswati Thakur
and Bipin Bihari Goswami. Based upon these stories they somehow conclude
that therefore Bhaktivinode Thakur rejected Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati
Thakur, thus breaking the disciplic succession and leaving ISKCON without a
connection to Sri Krishna.
But the learned readers should note that logically if one wants to prove
that one's own line is bonafide there is no profit in establishing that
another person's line is unbonafide. In this way we should carefully note
that to defeat the arguments of these detractors we gain nothing by
criticizing Bipin Bihari Goswami. Rather, any mud we try to splash on him
will also serve to muddy us up a bit as well, as, after all, he is the diksa
guru of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur.
Thus, we should not feel shy to examine more closely the relationship
between Bipin Bihari Goswami and Bhaktivinode Thakur. Sometimes we think
that we have to criticize Bipin Bihari Goswami in order to prove ourselves
as loyal followers of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. There is no
substantial basis for this.
The next point about the above-mentioned book is that one will note that
there is practically no mention by Narasingha Maharaja as to what are the
sources of his information. I contacted Maharaja and asked him for his
sources. He told me that all of his conclusions were collected by hearing
them from HH Sridhara Maharaja and others in the various Gaudiya Math
institutions. I replied to him suggesting that it would be good if he could
present maybe even one piece of written evidence to substantiate his claims.
He replied that since he heard it from Sridhara Maharaja that was good
enough for him.
* Not only that, but there is not, to our knowledge, a single piece of
written information from any DISCIPLE of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati
Thakur reporting that he criticized Bipin Bihari Goswami, or even themselves
criticizing Bipin Bihari Goswami.
So, even if there was something to be critical of, still the last two (or
more) generations of vaisnavas have scrupulously avoided putting anything in
writing on this subject. It makes one wonder why Narasingha Maharaja has
seen fit to "improve" on the etiquette shown by his elders.
Our learned readers may also be interested to hear some other statements
that Narasingha Maharaja makes in this very same book. After pointing out
what he considers to be some faults in ISKCON, including ongoing vaisnava
aparadha, he goes on to say, "This we feel is largely due as a result of the
ISKCON leaders having completely cut themselves off from the senior members
of the Gaudiya Math who are themselves living/realized representatives of
Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur
Prabhupada." Thus it seems he considers himself qualified to judge who is
realized and who is not realized, and he has found all the realized to be in
his camp and only the non-realized in ISKCON. By making such a statement is
he really exemplifying proper vaisnava behavior? Has he learned this
mentality from his gurujanas? I think not.
Now for the substance of your text. Please note that below I do not attempt
to prove that your statements are wrong. They may be right or they may be
wrong. The real point is that whatever you have written is simply the
repetition of hearsay. I am not making any claims about Bipin Bihari
Goswami. I am simply advising caution before one concludes that he should be
criticized. If someone wants to criticize him that is his business, but
others should know that the statements are not substantiated. If any of
these statements can be substantiated then I would very much like to see
that evidence, which even Narasingha Maharaja is not aware of. Without such
evidence we should follow the example of our gurujanas and remain silent on
the issue.
> I just want to put my two pennies in this discussion about Bipin Bihari
> Goswami. There are many historical evidences of a major strain in the
> relationship between Bhaktivinode Thakura & Bipin Bihari Goswami which can
11
You have not stated what is his position, you have only presented what you
call "conclusive evidence", but then you have left the conclusions to the
reader. Generally you should state your conclusions, although in this case
it is probably just as well that you haven't.
> (1) With the help of Jagannatha dasa Babaji, Bhaktivinode Thakura was able
> to discover the place of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's appearance.
> Simultaneously it was declared that the so-called Yogapitha at Navadvipa
> on the other side of the Ganges was false. Many caste goswamis objected to
> the site at Sri Mayapur being the original site. Bipin Bihari Goswami at
> that time rejected Bhaktivinoda's preaching in a small newspaper of his
> own called Gauranga-sevaka Patrika in 1919. One could say at this
> point-that at the very least they did not see eye to eye or that their
> feelings for placing distance in their relationship was mutual-indeed a
> difficult relationship to maintain between "guru and disciple." (The
> Gaurangasevaka Patrika and article available at Caitanya Research
> Institute, Calcutta)
One thing that is well known is that there was a lot of politics between
different groups of Gaudiya Vaishnavas over the location of the actual
birthsite of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, even before the Gaudiya Math was started.
After the disappearance of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur in 1914 these political
controversies became quite shrill, and there were nasty exchanges going on.
So five years after the disappearance of Bhaktivinode Thakur, Bipin Bihari
12
Goswami did perhaps criticize those who were supporting the Mayapur site,
but without seeing the original article it is difficult to say. Right now we
only have Dr. Goswami's word to go on. We are trying to track down the
article.
And the fact remains that Bipin Bihari Goswami was appointed as one of the
directors of the committee to oversee the worship of Sriman Mahaprabhu,
newly established at the yogapitha in Mayapur by Bhaktivinode Thakur. So
perhaps Bipin Bihari Goswami had a change of mind somewhere along the way,
which he certainly had a right to do.
> (2) We do not find any association of Bhaktivinode Thakura with Bipin
> Bihari Goswami except for short time in Narail, East Bengal and this does
> not include any reference to the latter instructing Bhaktivinode in the
> matter of pure devotional service.
And as far as his instructions, doesn't giving vaisnava diksa fall in the
category of pure devotional service?
> (3) In 1911 there was an famous assembly of scholars held in Medinpur
> (Bengal) wherein the topic of debate was to be "Brahmana and Vaisnavas."
> Bipin Bihari Goswami was present at that assembly and, as already known,
> he would side with the brahmana community in the platform that brahmana
> Vaisnavas were automatically superior to non-brahmnana Vaisnavas, due to a
> brahmana being born in a higher caste. Bhaktivinode Thakura was also
> invited to attend that assembly. The conflict between he and Bipin Bihari
> was destined. Bhaktivinoda Thakura - not wanting to take a position of
> confronting & attempting to defeat his "diksha guru" in a public forum
> declined to attend the meeting on the pleaa of bad health. In his place he
> sent Sarasvati Thakura (age 37) to represent the Gaudiya Vaisnava
> Siddhanta in the line of Sri Rupa & Raghunatha dasa Goswami, as per the
> teachings of Mahaprabhu. We all know what happened in the meeting.
This appears to be a total fabrication. Of course the meeting was held and
it was a great victory for Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. To date the
only written information we have which states that Bipin Bihari Goswami was
present at this assembly is this same "Baghnapara Sampradaya" book referred
to above. Assuming that Narasingha Maharaja considers this book to be
authentic, Dr. Goswami makes the following interesting statement:
It is amazing how rumors just get out of hand! They eventually end up
stating just the opposite of the actual facts, and then they get put in
writing, which makes them conclusive truth!
> (4) It is clear also in studying the life of Bhaktivinoda that he did not
> imbibe any of the conceptions of Bipin Bihari Goswami. BVT stressed on the
> chanting on the Holy Names in contrary to the stress on siddha-pranali
> given by BBG.
And in any case, so many acaryas stress different things from their gurus.
Bhaktivinode Thakur was a pioneer of a great preaching movement. Naturally
there may be some shift in emphasis. A difference in emphasis does not at
all imply a difference of opinion. This again, even if it is true, proves
nothing.
Please note that the subject matter of this discussion is the relationship
between Bipin Bihari Goswami and Bhaktivinode Thakur, and this information
may distract us from the main point, on which it has no direct bearing.
But it is also a very interesting topic to understand all the wonderful and
unprecedented things Srila Saraswati Thakur did to start his preaching
movement. But we should be careful to draw too many conclusions from his
reinitiation pastimes. He also reinitiated a disciple of Sri
Visvambharananda Dev Goswami, the mahanta of Gopivallabhpur who had been the
convenor of the Brahmana vs. Vaishnava debate at Midnapur referred to above.
Even after doing this, the learned mahanta remained a staunch supporter of
Saraswati Thakur and his preaching mission. Thus there are many factors here
which need to be considered.
14
> (6) There are some points which may not be proved directly like for
> instance it is known that Bipin Bihari mixed very freely with the degraded
> sections of Bengal society and associated with anti-Vedic philosophers
> like the Brahma Samaja. Even after his return to Vaisnavism he continued
> bad habits like smoking etc. - thus Sarasvati Thakura, who was himself
> very strict in this principles, saw this as a sign of lower Vaisnava
> adhikari (kanishtha adhikari), although Bhaktivinoda Thakura remained
> unspoken on the issue.
Where has Srila Saraswati Thakur proclaimed that Bipin Bihari Goswami was a
kanistha adhikari? What will you conclude upon hearing that Srila Vamsidas
Babaji smoked marijuana? Srila Saraswati Thakur said that he was a
maha-bhagavat.
But even Narasingha Maharaja here admits that Bhaktivinode Thakur did not
find any fault with his diksa guru over these issues. In general, though, we
would like to see any evidence anyone has to support any of the claims made
here.
> (7) Bhaktivinoda Thakura did for sometime show formal respect to Bipin
> Bihari Goswami. But when the Goswami disrespected Srila Raghunatha dasa
> Goswami by thinking that he can give blessings to Raghunatha dasa, the
> prayojana-acarya, because Raghunatha dasa was from a "lower caste", the
> Thakura distanced himself more from Bipin Bihari Goswami.
The evidence for this supposed statement by Bipin Bihari Goswami about
Raghunath Das Goswami is also missing. There is evidence, however, for a
statement of this type being made by one disciple of Bipin Bihari Goswami, a
young zamindar by the name of Choudhary Jadabendranandan. Perhaps this got
twisted into a rumor, which has now become a "fact" due to being put in
writing. Since Bipin Bihari Goswami spoke strongly at the Midnapur debate
that vaisnavas were superior than brahmanas, this supposed statement becomes
even more doubtful.
So now you may judge for your self. My humble suggestion is that you follow
our previous acaryas and not actively criticize Bipin Bihari Goswami.
One final point I would like to make here. There is a subtle implication in
this relegation of Bipin Bihari Goswami to some sort of lower status or even
outright rejection. That is, someone may conclude that since Srila
Bhaktivinode Thakur rejected or distanced himself from his diksa guru, it is
therefore proven that a vaishnava may reject or distance himself from his
diksa guru who is found to be of a "lesser standard". It was just such an
implication drawn by an innocent reader of Narasingha Maharaja's book and
posted on a public COM conference that began this whole discussion. But this
conclusion is nowhere supported by guru, sadhu or sastra. Rather, sastra
never sanctions distancing oneself from or rejecting a diksa guru unless the
guru is seriously fallen or has become a non-vaisnava. The GBC reinitiation
papers clearly state this.
15
In conclusion, I will repeat here the most conclusive evidence about the
relationship in question, which is the only evidence we have in writing,
from the Thakur himself. He offers heartfelt prayers to Bipin Bihari Goswami
in some of his publications and also prays in Kalyana Kalpataru (3.10) for
the association of Srimati Ananga Manjari in the spiritual world. Ananga
Manjari appeared as Jahnava Mata, the original preceptor of the diksa
parampara of which Bipin Bihari Goswami was a member.
I just want to put my two pennies in this discussion about Bipin Bihari
Goswami. There are many historical evidences of a major strain in the
relationship between Bhaktivinode Thakura & Bipin Bihari Goswami which can
be considered as conclusive evidence of the Bipin Bihari Goswami's position.
I will give a few:
(1) With the help of Jagannatha dasa Babaji, Bhaktivinode Thakura was able
to discover the place of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's appearance.
Simultaneously it was declared that the so-called Yogapitha at Navadvipa on
the other side of the Ganges was false. Many caste goswamis objected to the
site at Sri Mayapur being the original site. Bipin Bihari Goswami at that
time rejected Bhaktivinoda's preaching in a small newspaper of his own
called Gauranga-sevaka Patrika in 1919. One could say at this point-that at
the very least they did not see eye to eye or that their feelings for
placing distance in their relationship was mutual-indeed a difficult
relationship to maintain between "guru and disciple." (The Gaurangasevaka
Patrika and article available at Caitanya Research Institute, Calcutta)
(2) We do not find any association of Bhaktivinode Thakura with Bipin Bihari
Goswami except for short time in Narail, East Bengal and this does not
include any reference to the latter instructing Bhaktivinode in the matter
of pure devotional service.
(4) It is clear also in studying the life of Bhaktivinoda that he did not
imbibe any of the conceptions of Bipin Bihari Goswami. BVT stressed on the
chanting on the Holy Names in contrary to the stress on siddha-pranali given
by BBG.
(6) There are some points which may not be proved directly like for instance
it is known that Bipin Bihari mixed very freely with the degraded sections
of Bengal society and associated with anti-Vedic philosophers like the
Brahma Samaja. Even after his return to Vaisnavism he continued bad habits
17
like smoking etc. - thus Sarasvati Thakura, who was himself very strict in
this principles, saw this as a sign of lower Vaisnava adhikari (kanishtha
adhikari), although Bhaktivinoda Thakura remained unspoken on the issue.
(7) Bhaktivinoda Thakura did for sometime show formal respect to Bipin
Bihari Goswami. But when the Goswami disrespected Srila Raghunatha dasa
Goswami by thinking that he can give blessings to Raghunatha dasa, the
prayojana-acarya, because Raghunatha dasa was from a "lower caste", the
Thakura distanced himself more from Bipin Bihari Goswami.
Your servant,
Nayana-ranjana dasa
(Text COM:2377641) -----------------------------------------