Response to ‘Guru Book Rebuttal’ by Nanda Kumar Prabhu
Posted on April 19, 2015 · Posted in Guru

RESPONSE TO ‘GURU BOOK REBUTTAL’ BY NANDA KUMAR PRABHU

In Vedic civilization when one finds a scripturally authentic Guru and takes initiation from him, switching or relinquishing that Guru is called an unforgiveable offense. Prior to becoming B.G. Narasingha Maharaja, B.G. Narasingha Maharaja was a disciple of Srila Prabhupada and his name was Jagad Guru Swami. Although he took three initiations from Srila Prabhupada, he still relinquished him and took reinitiation from Srila Sridhar Maharaja of the Chaitanya Saraswat Math, who gave him this name B.G. Narasingha Maharaja. As per Vedic standard, a chaste disciple who does not relinquish the Guru is called sincere. But the situation of those who change their Guru is like that of an unchaste lady seeking shelter of another man, and this is an offense. The Sarasvata Parampara is a very recent creation. The arguments presented by the disciple of B.G. Narasingha Maharaja are in the Bengali language and are mistranslated into English. One should carefully note that only those books written in Sanskrit by Srila Vyasadeva are called scriptures and thus they are the authorities.

* * *

THE SARASVATA PARAMPARA AND THE CASTE-BRAHMANA GURU

by Tridandi Svami Bhakti Vijnana Giri
(disciple of Srila B.G. Narasingha Maharaja)
Mr. Giri is a disciple of an American born Caucasian Guru)

Recently our attention was drawn to a small pamphlet entitled ‘Guru Nirnaya Dipika’ written by Mahant Krsna Balarama Svami, who considers himself to be a disciple of His Divine Grace Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada. In ‘Guru Nirnaya Dipika’ the author has strongly advocated that only a Vaisnava born in a brahmana family has the right to initiate disciples and confer diksa-mantras to them. Coincidentally, the author just happens to be born in a brahmana family.

The author has gone to great lengths to prove his theory that the brahmana caste has a monopoly on imparting spiritual knowledge and has sifted through many sastras, extracting those particular verses that help substantiate his philosophy. However, despite his creating a facade of erudition, his essay is fraught with serious philosophical errors that are not in harmony with the opinions of the previous acaryas of our sampradaya.

Eighty-two years ago, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada was requested by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura to address an assembly of panditas in Midnapura to prove the superiority of the Vaisnava over the brahmana. His caste-brahmana opposition claimed that even an uttama adhikari Vaisnava, if he is not born in a brahmana family, is not qualified to perform the duties of an acarya. Srila Sarasvati Thakura spoke for two hours and utterly silenced the opposing party (he later wrote an essay based on his lecture called ‘Brahmana o Vaisnaver Taratamya Visayaka Siddhanta’ which we have referred to in this essay to address the various points of contention found below.)

Unfortunately the bombastic boastings of the caste brahmanas and their mundane beliefs have again appeared to plague the world of Gaudiya Vaisnavism and it is somewhat ironic that this time they have seeped into the very line of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura..

In truth, it takes a great deal of tolerance to sit and write refutations to such conceited statements and gross misconceptions the likes of which are found in ‘guru nirnaya dipika.’ Nonetheless, since we have been instructed by the senior Vaisnavas to do so we have responded to some of the points in ‘guru nirnaya dipika’ below:

POINT 1.) Only such perfect traditionally born qualified brahmanas can act as gurus for human society.

REFUTATION: Firstly one should ask, what is a ‘perfect traditionally born brahmana’? ‘Traditionally born’ implies that the garbhadana-samskara (ritual of impregnation) has been performed. This is one of the most important rites for a brahmana to ensure pure progeny. However, in this day and age, we see that most people born in brahmana families do not follow scriptural injunctions strictly, nor do they perform the duties of a brahmana (such as sandhya-vandana, tarpana, agnihotra etc). Added to this, the fact that many brahmanas tend to take up low-class professions such as clerks and salesmen, would seem to suggest that most brahmanas today do not perform the garbhadana-samskara anymore. Indeed, some who have been born into brahmana families even take the sudras occupation of a chowkidhar (night watchman) for the sake of money. However, when such fallen brahmanas discover that the occupation of a guru is more financially lucrative, they again turn to their so-called brahmanism with great fervor.

Whether one is a night-watchman (ratri-jagrakan), government servant (raja-sevakan), a salaried teacher, (bhrtakadhyapakan), a bank-clerk (vanijakan), a doctor (cikitisikan) or a computer programmer or is involved in any other kind of technology (yantra-vidyakan), all of these professions fall under the category of sudra-karma. A brahmana never takes employment (thus becoming dependant) from anyone (especially from those who are sudras and lower). A brahmana must be independent. This is explained in the Kurma Purana –

go-raksakan vanijakan tatha karuka-silinah
presyan vardhusikams caiva vipran sudra-vad acaret

“Those brahmanas who make a living from protecting cows, engage in trade, become artists, take the occupation of servants, and loan money on interest are no better than sudras.” In the case of an emergency then Srimad Bhagavatam (11.17.47) explains that a brahmana may perform another occupation –

sidan vipro vanig-vrttya panyair evapadam taret
khadgena vapadakranto na sva-vrttya kathancana

“If a brahmana cannot support himself through his regular duties and is thus suffering, he may adopt the occupation of a merchant and overcome his destitute condition by buying and selling material things. If he continues to suffer extreme poverty even as a merchant, then he may adopt the occupation of a ksatriya, taking sword in hand. But he cannot in any circumstances become like a dog, accepting an ordinary master.” In other words, a brahmana may take up the occupations of the ksatriyas and vaisyas, but never that of the sudra. So, if one takes his birth in a brahmana family, and takes up the occupation of, for example, a night-watchman, then according to the scriptures, he loses his brahmanatva (brahminical status) and becomes a sudra. But if such a person later takes initiation from a bona-fide guru, he may again become a brahmana through the purifying process of initiation.

yatha kancanatam yati kamsyam rasa-vidhanatah
tatha-diksa-vidhanena dvijatvam jayate nrnam

“Just as bell-metal is transformed into gold by alchemy, a common man is transformed into a twice-born (brahmana) by diksa from a bona-fide guru.” (Tattva-sagara, quoted in Hari Bhakti-vilasa 2.12).

In his Dig-darsini-tika to this verse, Srila Sanatana Gosvamipada has clearly stated thus:

nrnam sarvesam eva dvijatvam viprata

“Any person of any status (nrnam-sarvesam), if properly initiated with the correct mantras, can become a brahmana (viprata).” So, if a fallen brahmana can again become a twice-born through the process of diksa, why not one who was not initially born into a brahmana family?

It is stated in the Skanda Purana, ‘kalau sudra sambhavah’ – in Kali-yuga everyone is basically a sudra. It is only by brahminical qualifications and acceptance of panca-samskara diksa from Sri Guru that one can actually attain the status of a brahmana in the age of Kali. Therefore, the Mahabharata states:

na yonir napi samskaro na srutam na ca santatih
karanani dvijatvasya vrttam eva tu karanam

“Neither birth, nor samskaras, nor learning, nor progeny are the qualifications to be a brahmana. Only brahminical conduct is the basis for brahminical status.” (Anusasana-parva 143.50) Mere birth in a particular caste does not entitle one to be called a brahmana and the right to disseminate divine knowledge to others is not transferred through the gross medium of sexual intercourse. If the author of ‘guru nirnaya dipika’ believes that brahmanatva is only by birth, then let him successfully trace his familial line all the way back to Lord Brahma to prove his pedigree; let him also confirm that all his descendents never wavered from brahminical behavior and constantly engaged in brahminical activities throughout their entire lives. According to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura it is practically impossible to ascertain if a person has descended in a thoroughly pure line of brahmanas:

“It is especially difficult to ascertain whether a given person is born from a brahmana, ksatriya, or other caste father. Other than trusting a person’s words there is no way to investigate his caste. The caste of those belonging to brahmana and other caste dynasties coming from Lord Brahma and said to be purely descending to the present day cannot be known in truth without definitely validating every person in the line. Sri Nilakantha, the commentator on the Mahabharata, quotes from the Vedas as follows:

na caitad vidmo brahmanah smo vayam abrahmana veti

“We do not know whether we are brahmanas or non-brahmanas” Such doubts arose in the hearts of the truthful sages.” (brahmana o vaisnaver taratamya visayaka siddhanta)

Furthermore, Srila Sarasvati Thakura writes:

“Similar to the prakrta-sahajiya sect, who, while claiming themselves to be the followers of Sri Rupa Gosvami, amass heaps of offences at the holy feet of Sripada Jiva Prabhu, are some modern caste Gosvami-type sahajiyas who proudly proclaim themselves to be the followers of Cakravarti Thakura. Yet they actually go to hell by using humiliating expressions in regard to the commentator (Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhu) on the strength of their prakrta sahajika conceptions. Such pseudo-brahamanas try to conceal the statement of the smrti: yo’nadhitya dvijo vedam anyatra kurute sramam sa jivan eva sudratvam asu gacchati sanvayah

“A brahmana who instead of studying the Vedas engages himself in any other pursuits (being keen for honors, money and worldly advantages), becomes a sudra together with his whole family in this very life”. (Manu-smrti 2.168) Such seminal pseudo-brahmanas of dim understanding strive to be acknowledged as (pseudo-) brahmanas and claim that if one is born in anything other than a pseudo-brahmana lineage, he can never become a Vaisnava acarya, bear the title of ‘vidyabhusana’ or study the sruti and other sastras. Their lack of awareness of the historical facts is extremely deplorable.

Vidyabhusana Mahasaya was himself the person who smashed to pieces their speculative arguments. It is from vrtta-brahmanas (brahmanas by aspiration and engagement) that the lineage of seminal brahmanas sprang, who accepted the smarta-dharma established by Manu and other rsis.

The Gita has taken a stand for the vrtta determination of varna against the above concoctions. Lacking in a working knowledge of the relevant portions of Mahabharata, Srimad Bhagavatam, the accompanying Gosvami literature, Agama-pramanya, Narada and other Pancaratras, Ramarcana-candrika and other paddhati literature, the Smartas of Bengal became an obstacle to the path of transcendental revealed sound. (srauta-pantha). Sri Thakura Narottama, Sri Raghunatha Dasa Gosvami, Sri Haridasa Thakura and other great acaryas have broken the elephant tusk-like form of the dry argumentative approach (tarka-pantha) of the empiricists. Srauta-pantha is another name for the path of devotion (Bhakti-patha). Tarka-pantha takes its birth in the appetites of unsurrendered atheists. Having obtained a clear understanding of all these truths, a reader of the Gita can easily traverse along the path leading to the highest goal of life. (Introduction to Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s Bhagavad-gita commentary by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada)

Birth in a brahmana family is not a major qualification to take up the responsibilities of a spiritual master. The actual prerequisites to such are thus explained by Srila Rupa Gosvami Prabhupada:

vaco vegam manasah krodha vegam
jihvah vegam udaropastha vegam
etan vegan yo visaheta dhirah
sarvam apiman prthivih sa sisyat

“A sober person who can control the urge to speak, the mind, the urges of anger, the tongue, belly, and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.” (Upadesamrta verse 1)

Only a Vaisnava who is dhirah (sense-controlled) is qualified to become a spiritual master. Nowhere in this verse does it mention that he must be born in a particular family or caste. In other words, any qualified brahmana can act as a guru for human society, whether he is a brahmana by birth (saukra-brahmana) or a brahmana by diksa (daiksa-brahmana). This is the opinion of the Gosvamis and their true followers.

POINT 2.) The conversion of non-brahmanas into the brahmana order began in the early twentieth century by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Thakura to encourage everyone to take to spiritual life. Even though such conversions are accepted by the scriptures to allow one to advance in spiritual life, it does not allow converted brahmanas to function as gurus.

REFUTATION: It is wrong to assume that the conversion of non-brahmanas into brahmanas only began in the early Twentieth Century with Srila Sarasvati Thakura. Throughout history, many personalities who came from non-brahmana backgrounds became brahmanas and functioned as gurus. The following is a list of personalities who were born in non-brahmana families who became qualified brahmanas and acaryas due to their qualities.

The famous sage Visvamitra was previously known as Maharaja Gadhi of the Candra-vamsa, but became a brahmana through the strength of his austerities. This is explained in Mahabharata, Adi-parva 174:

ksatriyo’ham bhavan vipras tapah-svadhyayah-sadhanah
sva-dharmam na prahasyami nesyami ca balena gam
dhig balam ksatriya-balam brahma-tejo-balam balam
balabalam viniscitya tapa eva param balam
tatapa sarvan diptaujah brahmanatvam avaptavan

“Visvamitra said to Vasistha: You are a brahmana, endowed with the qualities of austerity and Vedic knowledge. I am a ksatriya, so on the basis of my nature I will forcibly take this cow (Nandini).

“Later, when Visvamitra was defeated, he declared that the strength of the ksatriya was inferior to that of the brahmanas. He thus decided that the performance of austerities was the only way to empower one with superior strength.

“The greatly effulgent Visvamitra thus performed all kinds of austerities and attained the position of a brahmana.”

It is well known that Visvamitra was a brahmana by conversion, yet he was also a guru with many disciples. Amongst his most famous disciples who received mantra from him were Lord Sri Ramacandra and His brother Sri Laksmana, Sunasepha, and Galava. At present many brahmana families in India trace their gotra (lineage) to Visvamitra. Furthermore, Visvamitra is the rsi (seer) of many mantras of the Rg Veda including the brahma-gayatri which is chanted by all brahmanas thrice daily.

In Chapter 30 of the Anusasana-parva of Mahabharata, the story is given of Maharaja Vitahavya who was originally a ksatriya king who became a brahmana by the mercy of Bhrgu Muni. His son, Grtsamada became a brahmacari and a brahmana sage who was equal to Brhaspati. Suceta, the son of Grtsamada, also became a brahmana. In this dynasty was born the sage Pramiti and Saunaka Rsi. Saunaka wrote many works on the Rg Veda and also wrote the Brhad-devata. He was also the guru of Sage Asvalayana. Asvalayana’s disciple was Katyayana, and his disciple was Patanjali Muni.

The caste of Satyakama Jabala was unknown, yet his guru Gautama Rsi accepted him as a brahmana simply due to his truthful nature. Satyakama went on to initiate many disciples, out of which Upakosala was the most prominent.

Agnivesya Muni was born as the son of the king Devadatta, and the brahminical dynasty known as the Agnivesyayana sakha appeared from him.

Both Medhatithi and Kanva Muni were born in the ksatriya dynasty of Puru.

The sage Citramukha was born a vaisya, yet he became a brahmarsi with many disciples.

There were also other great personalities in Vedic history that were not born in brahmana families, but acted as gurus. In the Padma Purana, the original brahmana, Lord Brahma says:

sac-chrotriya-kule jato akriyo naiva pujitah
asat-kstrakule pujyo vyasa-vaibhandukay yatha
ksatriyanam kule jato visvamitro’sti matsamah
kesyaputro vasisthas ca anye siddha dvijatayah
yasya tasya kule jato gunavaneva tairgunaih
saksad brahmamayo viprah pujiyah prayatnatah

“If one is born in a family of brahmanas who are absorbed in hearing divine sound, but has bad character and behavior, he is not worshipable as a brahmana. On the other hand, Vyasa and Vaibhandaka Muni were born in unclean circumstances, but they are worshipable. In the same way, Visvamitra Muni was born a ksatriya, but he became a brahmana by his qualities and activities. Vasistha was born of a prostitute. Many other great personalities who manifested the qualities of first-class brahmanas also took birth in similar humble circumstances, but they are also called perfect. The place where one takes birth is of no importance in determining whether one is a brahmana. Those who have the qualities of brahmanas are recognized everywhere as brahmanas, and those who have such qualities are worshipable by everyone.” (Padma Purana, Srsthi-kanda 43.321,322, Gautamiya-samskarana)

A similar verse is found in the Vajrasucika Upanisad of the Sama Veda:

tarhi jatir brahmana iti cet tan na tatra jatyantara-jantusu aneka-jati-sambhava maharsayo bahavah santi rsyasrngo mrgah kasuikah kusat jambuko jambukat valmiko valmikat vyasah kaivarta-kanyayam sasa-prsthat gautamah vasisthah urvasyam agastyah kalase jata iti srutatvat etesam jatya vinapyagre jnana-pratipadita rsayo bahavah santi tasman na jatih brahmana iti

“Does birth make a brahmana? No, this is also not the case. Many great sages have been born of other living entities. Rsyasrnga was born from a deer, Kausika was born from kusa grass, Jambuka was born from a jackal, Valmiki was born from an ant-hill, Vyasadeva was born from a fisherman’s daughter, Gautama was born from the back of a rabbit, Vasistha was born from Urvasi and Agastya was born from a pot. Apart from these personalities, there are many other wise persons born from other castes who became sages. Therefore birth does not make a brahmana.” All the great historical personages mentioned above were not born brahmanas or had mixed parentage, yet they acted as spiritual masters to thousands of disciples.

In more recent times, many Gaudiya Vaisnava acaryas who were not born in brahmana families have accepted the role of guru. These personalities include Srila Gadadhara Dasa Thakura, Sri Mukunda Dasa, Srila Narottama Dasa Thakura, Srila Syamananda Gosvami, Srila Rasikananda Prabhu, Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Uddharana Datta Thakura, Srila Jagannatha Dasa Babaji Maharaja, Srila Gaura-kisora Dasa Babaji Maharaja, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. Amongst the many disciples of Srila Sarasvati Thakura who were not born in brahmana families, but who acted as acaryas are such personalities as Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada, Srila Bhakti Pradipa Tirtha Maharaja, Srila Bhakti Vilasa Tirtha Maharaja, Srila Bhakti Kevala Audulomi Maharaja, Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Maharaja and Srila Bhakti Kumuda Santa Maharaja.

However, at least two stalwart disciples of Srila Sarasvati Thakura, namely Srila Bhakti Pramoda Puri Gosvami Maharaja and Srila Bhakti Dayita Madhava Maharaja were both born in illustrious brahmana families, yet they gave the power of succession to two of their senior disciples who were not born brahmanas, namely Sripada Bhakti Vibudha Bodhayana Maharaja and Sripada Bhakti Vallabha Tirtha Maharaja.

It is also interesting to note that according to the memoirs of Sri Paramananda Vidyaratna Prabhu in Sarasvati Jayasri, (the first official biography of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura written during his lifetime), Srila Sarasvati Thakura visited the sripata of Srila Narahari Sarakara Thakura in 1912 and learned that upanayana and other samskaras were being performed since ancient times for vaidyas (ayurvedic doctors). Vaidyas were considered as sudras yet the descendents of Srila Narahari still initiated them with gayatri etc. This information was given to Srila Sarasvati Thakura by the mahanta of Sri Khanda, Sriyukta Radhikananda Mahasaya. It is also noteworthy that Srila Narahari Sarakara Thakura himself was not a brahmana, yet he gave initiation to Srila Locana Dasa Thakura who was born in a brahmana family.

Of course, we expect the author of ‘guru nirnaya dipika’ will attempt to refute all the above evidence by claiming that all these personalities were extraordinary and such devotees cannot be found in this day and age. Nonetheless, these great personalities have set the precedence and we find none of them speaking to the contrary. As Sri Krsna has stated in Bhagavad-gita (3:21):

yad yad acarati sresthas tad tad evetaro janah
sa yat pramanam kurute lokas tad anuvartate

“Whatever a great man does, the world follows. Whatever standards he may set, the world follows in his footsteps.”

Thus the conjecture that converted brahmanas cannot function as acaryas has no basis in pauranika history or in the history of our sampradaya and thus the idea should be rejected.

POINT 3) Actually, our guru maharaja (A.C. Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada) appeared in the chain of the Brahma-kayastha family in the Dalabhya dynasty. I know this after learning of his father’s last name and gotra. In Vedic civilization the Brahma-kayastha caste is equal to brahmana in every way.

REFUTATION: If we accept the words of Srila Prabhupada (the guru of the author of ‘guru nirnaya dipika’ ) then we can only conclude from the above statement that the author of ‘guru nirnaya dipika’ is a victim of misinformation, or that he has deliberately fabricated evidence in support of his own theory.

Srila Prabhupada has stated in various places that his family belonged to the suvarna-vanik community who were gold-merchants. Furthermore, his family gotra was Gautama and not Dalabhya and his father’s surname was De, a prominent name amongst the mercantile class of Bengal.

“Our family gotra, or original genealogical line, is the Gautama-gotra, or line of disciples of Gautama Muni, and our surname is De. But due to their accepting the posts of zamindars in the Muslim government, they received the title Mullik.” (Caitanya-caritamrta, purport to Adi-lila 10.84)

“Calcutta was developed under British rule by the influential mercantile community, and especially by the suvarna-vanik community who came down from Saptagrama to establish their businesses and homes all over Calcutta. They were known as the Saptagrami mercantile community of Calcutta, and most of them belonged to the Mullik and Sil families. More than half of Calcutta belonged to this community, as did Srila Uddharana Thakura. Our paternal family also came from this district and belonged to the same community. The Mulliks of Calcutta are divided into two families, namely the Sil family and De family. All the Mulliks of the De family originally belong to the same family and gotra. We also formerly belonged to the branch of the De family whose members, intimately connected with the Muslim rulers, received the title Mullik.” (Caitanya-caritamrta, purport to Adi-lila11.41)

It should also be noted that Srila Prabhupada’s spiritual master, Srila Sarasvati Thakura and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura both appeared in the kayastha community which in Bengal is considered to be a sudra caste.

“It is said that the Bengali kayasthas were originally engaged as servants of brahmanas who came from North India to Bengal. Later, the clerical class became the kayasthas in Bengal. Now there are many mixed classes known as kayastha. Sometimes it is said in Bengal that those who cannot claim any particular class belong to the kayastha class.”(Caitanya-caritamrta. Purport, Madhya 7.64)

In his autobiography Svalikhita Jivani, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura gives his family lineage and nowhere does he mention that his family belongs to the brahmana-kayastha caste:

“I was born a descendent of Purusottama Datta, a Kanyakubja kayastha. Among the five kayasthas who came to the Gauda region on the invitation of Maharaja Adisura, namely Makaranda Ghosa, Dasaratha Vasu, Kalidasa Mitra, Dasaratha Guha and Purusottama Datta, Purusottama Datta was the foremost.” Datta is a standard kayastha surname in Bengal and certainly not the title of a brahmana. If indeed Bhaktivinoda was a brahmana-kayastha, why does he not mention it in his autobiography. Why is there no reference to his upanayana ceremony in his autobiography, and how is it that we do not see him wearing a sacred-thread in any photograph?

Due to the fact that Srila Siddhanta Sarasvati gave mantra-diksa, especially to those born in brahmana families, many smarta-brahmanas and Vaisnava brahmana gurus in Bengal became outraged to the point that they hired gundas to physically attack members of the Gaudiya Matha on several occasions and even made attempts to assassinate Srila Sarasvati Thakura. If we are to accept the author’s opinion in ‘guru nirnaya dipika’ , then we must also accept that Srila Narottama Dasa Thakura, Srila Syamananda Gosvami, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Srila Sarasvati Thakura were ineligible to initiate since they all came from a so-called sudra class. Thus, according to the logic presented in ‘guru nirnaya dipika,’ our whole parampara becomes faulty and invalid thus also implying that it’s authors initiation into our parampara via Srila Prabhupada is also ineffectual. Thus the author of ‘guru nirnaya dipika’ has in effect, ‘shot himself in the foot.’

POINT 4) The translations and purports of my Guru Maharaja were dictated on a dictaphone, unless the tapes are produced, we must believe that the purports have been altered making it look as if anyone can become guru… English was his second language, and to understand his exact meaning one would have to refer back with him. The message given in these books is altered because of this lack of communication between the author and the editors.

REFUTATION: Here, the author of ‘Guru Nirnaya Dipika’ makes a very unique assumption suggesting that from the very beginning of Iskcon there was a conspiracy by Srila Prabhupada’s western disciples to change any reference to brahmana-gurus in his books in order that they could become spiritual masters themselves later. Even if, for arguments sake, we entertain such an absurd idea, there are recorded lectures, room conversations and morning walks with Srila Prabhupada wherein he makes exactly the same points on brahmanism that he does in his books. All of Srila Prabhupada’s book dictations on cassette, his original letters and other resources are readily available at the BBT archives in North Carolina, U.S.A. for anyone to review, or will the author also claim that Prabhupada’s recorded lectures and conversations have also been tampered with by ambitious disciples? Below are a few examples of lectures and letters of His Divine Grace speaking on the qualification to be a guru:

“If a man from the sva-pacah family, or the candala family, he becomes a Vaisnava, strictly according to the orders, then he can become guru, but not a brahmana if he’s not a Vaisnava. This is the stricture. Even one is born in the family of a brahmana, and he’s not only born, he’s qualified, sat-karma-nipuno… Nipuno means qualified.” (Bhagavad-gita lecture, London July 28th 1973)

“Generally, a qualified brahmana becomes guru. That is natural. Brahmana is the head of the society. So he is… And without becoming brahmana, nobody can become guru. That is also fact. Because brahmana means brahma janatiti brahmanah. One who knows Brahman, Brahman. So guru must be a brahmana, mean a qualified brahmana, not born-brahmana, so-called brahmana. Qualified brahmana.” (Bhagavad-gita lecture, Ahmedabad Dec.7th 1970)

“Anyone who is qualified with Krsna consciousness, he can become guru. It doesn’t matter where he is born, what is his family and identification. It doesn’t matter. He must know the science. It is very practical. Just like when you go to consult an engineer or a medical man or some lawyer, you do not ask him whether he’s a brahmana or a sudra. If he’s qualified, if he can help you in the particular subject matter, you consult with him, you take his help. That is practical. So similarly, in the spiritual matter it doesn’t matter what he is. If he knows Krsna, then he can become guru. It doesn’t matter.” (Srimad Bhagavatam lecture, Bombay Nov. 7th 1974)

“So one may be very illiterate, no education, or no scholarship, may not be born in brahmana family, or may not be a sannyasi. There are so many qualification. But one may not have all these qualifications. He may be rascal number one, but still, he can become spiritual master. How? Amara ajnaya. As Krsna says, as Caitanya Mahaprabhu says, if you follow, then you become spiritual master. One may be rascal number one from material estimation, but if he simply strictly follows whatever is said by Caitanya Mahaprabhu or His representative spiritual master, then he becomes a guru.” (Vyasa-puja address, London, August 1973)

“So at the present moment, because these purificatory processes are not accepted, even in India… Accepted, they’re unable. Everything has topsy-turvied. Therefore the sastra says that: “Accept everyone as sudra.” Kalau sudrah sambhava. There is no more brahmana, ksatriya or vaisya. All sudras. We have to accept. Because no Vedic culture, no Garbhadhana samskara. They are born like cats and dogs. So where is this division? There cannot be. Therefore, accept them as sudra. Varna-sankara is less than sudra. So at least, sudra they should be. So there is no Vaidic diksa. For sudra, there is no diksa, there is no initiation. Initiation is meant for the persons who are born in brahmana family, ksatriya family, or vaisya family. The sudra has no initiation. So in India there are professional gurus. They initiate sudras, but do not eat foodstuff touched by the disciple. So there are so many things, that if he’s initiated, how he can remain sudra? But they keep him sudra; at the same time, they become guru. Sanatana Gosvami gives direction in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa that:

tatha diksa-vidhanena dvijatvam jayate nrnam.

If properly initiated, he becomes immediately brahmana. Dvijatvam. Dvija means second birth. Yatha kancanatam yati kamsyah rasa-vidhanatah. There is a chemical process that kamsya, bell metal, can be turned into gold by mixing with proportionately mercury. Now here is a hint of chemistry. If anyone can prepare gold… But it is very difficult to mix mercury. As soon as there is little heat, immediately the mercury’s finished. So there is a process. Everything has process. Many yogis know how to make gold from copper. Actually, chemically, copper, tin and mercury, if you mix proportionately, it will be gold. So Sanatana Gosvami gives this example. As the copper and tin, these two metals, mixed with mercury, there can be production of gold, similarly, by proper initiation, by the proper spiritual master, one sudra, even though he’s a sudra, less than sudra, varna-sankara, or candala, he can become dvija, brahmana. So our process is to make dvija. Pancaratrika vidhi. Pancaratrika vidhi. That is recommended.”(Bhagavad-gita lecture, London, July 28th 1973)

“Sei guru. Who can become guru? Generally a brahmana, a sannyasi, that is, that is, they are forced. Brahmana is the guru of other varnas, and sannyasi is the guru for all varnasrama. This is… But Caitanya Mahaprabhu says that is social system. If there is a brahmana, if there is a sannyasi, one should accept, give preference to him, to accept guru. But Caitanya Mahaprabhu says, “That is not the criterion. One must be well expert, experienced, well aware of the science of Krsna. He shall be guru.” (Srimad Bhagavatam lecture, Vrndavana, Oct.30th 1976)

“Regarding the validity of the brahminical status as we accept it, because in the present age there is no observance of the Garbhadhana ceremony, even a person born in brahmana family is not considered a brahmana, he is called dvija-bandhu or unqualified son of a brahmana. Under the circumstances, the conclusion is that the whole population is now sudra, as it is stated kalau sudra sambhava. So for sudras there is no initiation according to the Vedic system, but according to the pancaratrika system initiation is offered to a person who is inclined to take Krsna consciousness. During my Guru Maharaja’s time, even a person was coming from a brahmana family, he was initiated according to the pancaratrika system taking him to be a sudra. So the birthright brahmanism is not applicable at the present moment. The sacred thread inaugurated by my Guru Maharaja according to pancaratrika system and Hari-bhakti-vilasa by Srila Sanatana Goswami must continue. It does not matter whether the priestly class accepts it or not. When my Guru Maharaja Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Prabhupada introduced this system, it was protested even by His inner circle of Godbrothers or friends. Of course He had actually no Godbrothers, but there were many disciples of Bhaktivinode Thakura who were considered as Godbrothers who protested against this action of my Guru Maharaja, but He didn’t care for it.” (Letter to Acyutananda, 14th Nov. 1970)

We will now see what the author of ‘Guru Nirnaya Dipika’ has to say about the following verse:

kiba vipra kiba nyasi sudra kene naya
yei krsna-tattva vetta sei guru haya

“Whether one is a brahmana, a sannyasi, or a sudra, one who knows the science of Krsna is to be accepted as guru.” (Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 8.128)

POINT 5) This verse (kiba vipra kiba nyasi…) is written in Bengali language. Sanskrit is the timeless, changeless, language of God. Nowhere in Sanskrit literatures is such a statement written pertaining to the initiating guru.

REFUTATION: We must emphatically state that indeed Bengali is the language of God! Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu Himself spoke Bengali and Bengali is spoken in the eternal Navadwip. The Caitanya-caritamrta written by Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvamipada, the incarnation of Sri Kasturi Manjari, the intimate associate of Sri Rupa Manjari and Srimati Radharani, was written in Bengali. Any literature written by such an exalted personality, in whatever language, should be considered on par with the Vedas. To denigrate such a transcendental literature merely because it was not written in Sanskrit certainly betrays a lack of faith in the previous acaryas and in Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

Sanskrit is indeed an important language but it must be remembered that in the Goloka Vrindavana Krsna does not speak Sanskrit. Krsna speaks Braja-bhasa.

The author of ‘Guru Nirnaya Dipika’ is of the opinion that Srila Prabhupada’s purport to this verse (kiba vipra kiba nyasi sudra kene naya) has been hijacked by his unscrupulous and ambitious disciples. However, what the author does not seem to understand is that Srila Prabhupada’s purport, like most of his purports to his books, is simply a summary of his Guru Maharaja’s purport to the same verse. Herein we are presenting both the purports of Srila Sarasvati Thakura and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura below in both Bengali and English to confirm that Srila Prabhupada’s purport is in harmony to that of his guru-varga.

Varne brahmani huna va ksatriya-vasiya-sudra-huna, asrame sannyasi huna
va brahmacari-vanaprastha-grhasthi huna, ye kona varne va ye kona
asramei avasthita huna, krsna-tattva-vettai guru arthat vartma-pradasaka,
diksa-guru u siksa-guru haite paren. Gurur yogyata kevalamatra
krsna-tattva-jnatara upari nirbhara kare – varna va asramer upara nirbhara kare na.
Sri Mahaprabhura ei adesa sastriya adesera viruddha nahe. Ei
tatparyanusare Sri vVsvambhara Mahaprabhu Sri Isvara Puri-sannyasira nikata,
Sri Nityananda Prabhu Madhavendra Puri Gosvami (matantare Srimad Laksmipati Tirtha) sannyasira nikata,
Sri Advaita Acarya ei Sri Madhavendra Puri sannyasira nikati diksita hayachilen.
Sri Rasikananda srotrabrahmane tarakulodbhuta Sri Syamanandera nikata,
Sri Ganga-narayana Cakravarti u Sri Ramakrsna Bhattacarya srotrabrahmanetara kulodbhava Srila Narottama Thakurera nikata,
katoyara Sri Yadunandana Cakravarti Sri Dasa Gadadharera nikata pancaratrika diksaya hana.
Dharma-vyadhadi anekarata siksa-guru haybara vyaghata chila na.
Mahabharatera spasta adesasamuha evam Srimad Bhagavate saptam-skandha ekadasa adhyaya 32 sloke –
“yasya yal laksanam proktath pumso varna bhiv yanjakam, yadan yatrapi dris yeta tattenaiva vinirdiset”
Ei vakye vidhilikh prayoge vaisnava-visvasanugamane krsna-tattva-vettara vrtta-brahmanatai svabhavika,
sutaram kalipracalita srotra-sambandha vyatita brahmanata yekhane haite pare na,
tat-sthale krsna-tattva-vitta haile srotra-sudra u sastriya brahmanata labha
kariya guru haite paren – ihai Sri Mahaprabhu suksmabhave bujhaiya
dilen. Ye sakala krsna-tattva-vita vaidika vajasaneya sakhaurgata katyayana
grha-sutrakta savitrya-samskara grhana karena na, tahara –
ekayana-sakhi daiksya-brahmana matra. Kintu nirboddha lokera tahardig ke aneka
samaya ‘acyuta-brahman’ baliya bujhite na pariya nirayagami haya; tajjanya
Rasikananda Prabhura vamsa, Srikhander Sri Mukunda Daser vamsa,
Navanihodera vamsa savitrya-brahmana-samskara evam
srotra-vipra-sisya-sampradayera acarya-karya avahaman-kala caliya asiteche. Bhajanandi
vaisnava-gana savitriya-samskara grhana karena nai boliya ye ekamatra vidhi haibe,
ekrupa nahe. Vaisnava-gana laksana-dvara varna nirnaya kariya thaken,
kintu nirboddha-gana adrsa laksana dvara varna karate asamarta baliya
Sri Mahaprabhu spstabhavei sastra-tatparya bujhiya dilen.
Hari-bhakti-vilase samgrhita siddhanta Sri Mahaprabhura nija adarsacara u upadesera
sahita eka haile u nirboddhera vicare bhinna boliya pratita haya. Ei
sankhyadhrta ‘guru’ sabdetita tahara vicare sravana-guru, va
bhajana-siksa-gurui udista. Diksa va mantra-data guru udista hana nai; kena na tahara
mate vamsa-paricaya arthat rakta va sukrai divya-jnana-datara adhikara
nirnaya u paricaya pradana kare. Sutaram suddhatma-vrtti krsna-bhati
tahara mate nirapeksa nahe; visesatah diksa-guru va mantra-datara
sresthatva u mahatmya tahara murkhatanusare ‘sravana- guru’ athava
‘bhajana-siksa-guru’ apeksa adhikatara! E-sambandhe adhi, 9m p. 41 sankhyara
anubhasya visesabhave alocya. Vastutah eirupa dharana tahadera
aksajajnanajanita aparadhera phala-matra.

“Let him be a brahmana by caste, or let him be a ksatriya, vaisya or sudra; let him be a sannyasi according to his asrama or a brahmacari, vanaprastha or grhastha; let him be situated in any caste or stage of life – he who has understood the science of Krsna can become a guru, i.e. a vartmana-pradarsaka-guru, a siksa-guru or a diksa-guru. The qualification to be a guru rests only upon the knowledge of the science of Krsna – it does not rest upon caste or varna; this direction of Sriman Mahaprabhu is not opposed to the scriptural injunctions. By following the purport of this Sri Visvambhara Mahaprabhu was initiated by the sannyasi Sri Isvara Puri. Sri Nityananda Prabhu was initiated by the sannyasi Sri Madhavendra Puri Gosvami (by Srimad Laksmipati Tirtha according to another opinion) and Sri Advaita Acarya was initiated by the sannyasi Sri Madhavendra Puri. Sri Rasikananda took pancaratrika diksa from Sri Syamananda who appeared in a family who were not seminal brahmanas, Sri Ganganarayana Cakravarti and Sri Ramakrsna Bhattacarya (both seminal brahmanas) were initiated by Sri Narottama Thakura who appeared in a family who were not seminal brahmanas, and Katwa’s Sri Yadunandana Cakravarti was initiated by Sri Dasa Gadadhara. Even being a religious-minded hunter etc. was not even an obstacle for many personalities to become instructing gurus. This is considered to be the proper application of the Mahabharata’s clear injunctions in pursuance of the Vaisnava faith and by the utterance in Srimad Bhagavatam’s Seventh Canto, Eleventh Chapter, 32nd verse

yasya yal laksanam proktath
pumso varna bhiv yanjakam
yadan yatrapi dris yeta
tattenaiva vinirdiset

“The qualities that divide mankind into castes have been described, wherever those qualities are observed then the appropriate caste will be ascertained there accordingly. (Caste will not be ascertained by birth alone).”

One who is conversant with the science of Krsna naturally has the character of a brahmana. Therefore, wherever it is said that anything apart from ‘seminal brahmanism’ is lower (a concept which has only been introduced in the age of Kali) will not do, Mahaprabhu has carefully given us the understanding that even a ‘seminal sudra’ who knows the science of Krsna is able to become a guru because he has attained scriptural brahmanism. Those acquainted with the science of Krsna who do not accept the savitra-samskara (the ceremony of acceptance of the sacred thread), which is mentioned in the Katyayana Grhya-sutra within the Vedic Vajasaneya section, are actually all brahmanas initiated in the ekayana system. However, most of the time, some foolish people cannot understand that these Vaisnavas are infallible brahmanas (acyuta brahmanas) and thus such fools become condemned to hell. It is for this reason that the sacred thread ceremony and the function of acting as acaryas even for seminal brahmana sects has been going on since the very beginning in Rasikananda Prabhu’s family, in Navani Hoda’s family and in Mukunda Dasa’s family of Khetari. It is not that because the bhajanandi vaisnavas have not accepted the savitra-samskara that this is the only system. Vaisnavas ascertain caste by characteristics. But, as foolish people are unable to ascertain caste in that manner, Sri Mahaprabhu has clearly given the understanding of the purport of the scriptures. Even though the compiled conclusions of the Hari Bhakti-vilasa are in conjunction with Mahaprabhu’s exemplary behavior and instructions, some people, due to their foolish judgment, are under the belief that they differ. By their judgment the quoted word ‘guru’ only alludes to the sravana-guru or to the bhajana-guru and does not refer to the initiating or mantra-giving guru, since, in their opinion, the fitness to be the bestower of divine knowledge can only be ascertained and introduced by family reputation, that is, by blood or semen. Therefore, by their opinion, devotion to Krsna, the propensity of the pure soul, is not independent. Moreover, according to their foolishness, they believe that the diksa-guru is superior to the sravana-guru and the instructing guru on bhajana. Factually, the only result of this idea which is born from sensory knowledge is spiritual offence.” (Anubhasya of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura)

Sri Hari-bhakti-vilase uccharane yogya-purusa thakete, hina0varna
vyaktira nikata haite krsna-mantra loya ucita naya – erupa ye katha acche,
taha lokapeksa-vaisnavapara; arthat samsare yahara pracalita-vidhimate
kathanchita paramarthera uddesa karate iccha Karen, tahadera pakse.
Parantu yahara vaidhi u raganuga-bhaktira tatparya janiya visuddha
krsna-bhakti paite iccha Karen, tahadera sambandhe upayukta krsna-tattva-vetta
ye kon varne va ye kon asramei pauya yauika na kena, tahakei ‘guru’
baliya varana karai vidhi. Sri Hari-bhakti-vilasa-dhrta Padma Purana
vacana –
na sudrah bhagavad bhaktasthe’pi bhagavatottamah sarva varnesu te sudra
ye na bhaktah janardane sat karma nipuno vipro mantra tantra visradah
avaisnavo gurur na syad vaisnavah svapaco guruh
maha kulaprasuto’pi sarva yajnesu diksitah sahasra sakha dhyayi ca na
guruh syada vaisnavah vipra ksatriya vaisyas ca guravah sudra janmanam
sudras ca guravas tesam trayanam bhagavat priyah”

“When it is mentioned in the Hari Bhakti-vilasa that if there is a fit person of a high caste present then it is improper to accept Krsna-mantra from a person of a lower caste, then this should be understood to be vaisnavism relative to society. In other words, it is for those who practice family life by the customary rules and who have somewhat of a desire for spirituality. But for those people who know the import of vaidhi and raganuga bhakti and who wish to get pure devotion for Krsna, the rule for them is that in whatever caste or stage of life the suitable knower of the truth of Krsna may be in, he should be respectfully accepted as guru. In the words of the Padma Purana quoted in the Sri Hari Bhakti-vilasa:

na sudrah bhagavad bhaktasthe’pi bhagavatottamah
sarva varnesu te sudra ye na bhaktah janardane
sat karma nipuno vipro mantra tantra visradah
avaisnavo gurur na syad vaisnavah svapaco guruh
maha kulaprasuto’pi sarva yajnesu diksitah
sahasra sakha dhyayi ca na guruh syada vaisnavah
vipra ksatriya vaisyas ca guravah sudra janmanam
sudras ca guravas tesam trayanam bhagavat priyah

“Those who have taken recourse to the devotion of Krsna are never to be considered as sudras but they are to be glorified as bhagavatas. Amongst all castes, those people who are devoid of devotion to Lord Janardana are sudras. A brahmana who is expert in the six works and also in mantras and the tantra should not be selected as a guru if he is a non-vaisnava. If someone from a dog-eater family is a vaisnava he may be accepted as a guru. Even if one is born in the best of families, even if one is initiated in all the sacrifices and is learned in all the branches of the Vedas, if he is a non-vaisnava he is unable to become a guru. Generally, brahmanas, ksatriyas and vaisyas should be the gurus of sudras but even sudras can be the gurus of these three castes if they are dear to God.” (Amrta-pravaha Bhasya of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura)

It is clear from the words of Srila Bhaktivinoda and Srila Sarasvati Thakura that any Vaisnava, irrespective of his birth and caste, is eligible to become guru if he has the necessary adhikara. The transcendental diksa-mantras are not the sole property of a particular class of men. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has said that anyone who knows the science of Krsna is qualified to be guru. If one says that it is imperative that the guru must be born in a brahmana family, he has clearly not understood the science of Krsna consciousness and is therefore unqualified to initiate disciples.

CONCLUSION:
1) According to the sastras and the previous acaryas, anyone who is a qualified brahmana, by birth or by initiation, may take up the responsibility of acarya.
2) There are numerous examples in history of persons appearing in non-brahmana families and converting into brahmanas, including Srila Prabhupada and other members of our sampradaya. Such personalities are qualified to accept disciples.
3) According to the Anubhasya of Srila Sarasvati Thakura, any person, whatever his birth, can become a diksa-guru if he is conversant with the science of Krsna-consciouness. The word ‘guru’ does not necessarily mean that a non-brahmana can only function as a siksa-guru.
4) Those scriptural verses which indicate that one should take diksa only from a person born in a brahmana family should be understood to be promoting Vaisnavism relative to mundane society. Those who desire pure bhakti may accept diksa from any advanced Vaisnava no matter what his caste may be. This is the conclusion of Srila Thakura Bhaktivinoda.

* * *

THE VEDIC TRUTH PERTAINING TO BRAHMANA GURU

By Nanda Kumar
Disciple of Mahamandaleshwar Sri Mahant Krsna Balaram Swamiji Maharaja

I just came upon Svami Bhakti Vijnana Giri’s article refuting a paperback book by Mahamandaleshwar Sri Mahant Krsna Balaram Swamiji entitled, “Guru Nirnaya Dipika-The Scriptural decision on Who can Become Guru and Who Cannot,” and decided to clear Giri’s misrepresentations. First of all Swamiji is a Sanskrit scholar and cannot be fooled by his or anyone else’s novice translations. I would be surprised if Giri even knows Sanskrit, because if he did, while scrutinizing the “Guru Nirnaya Dipika” he would have noticed that under Krsna Balaram Swamij’s photo, written in Sanskrit, in the front of the book that his birth dynasty is descended directly from Kasyapa Muni, one of the seven sages born from Lord Brahma’s mind. On the other hand, one can only imagine what less than brahminical linage Giri has decended from. An intelligent person, not in need of food and shelter would not follow such a person.

Svami Bhakti Vijnana Giri is uninformed of the respect Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakura had for Brahmanas. If Srila Sarasvati Goswami was against Brahmanas, why did he handwrite a letter to Visvambhra Goswami of Radha Raman Temple in Vrindaban, paying his homage at his lotus feet, that Krsna Balaram Swamiji himself saw and it can be seen even today by contacting his son, Padmanabha Goswami? Giri has the audacity to equate his mleccha birth with that of a Brahmana who reclaims his birthrite. Giri is unaware that even a Brahmana cannot accept the position of Guru if he has ever drank wine or eaten meat, what to speak of a mleccha, by from their own past karma their parents fed them meat as a child. As the original Sridhar Swami (from the fourteenth century), the original commenter of Srimad Bhagavatam confirms in his commentary on the first canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, “Anyone that even once drank wine cannot occupy the post of Guru.” If any disciple thinks for even one moment that any of the mleccha born gurus never drank wine in their lives is fool number one. Either Giri is bogus, or the original Sridhar Swami, who is even glorified by Lord Sri Chaitanya Himself (appeared in 15th century), is bogus. Let the innocent seeker decide.

Many of Giri’s misrepresentations are irrelevant as they refer to “practically”, meaning there are exceptions, which the writer did not consider or wish to elaborate on. Where Giri used the word “most” in his refutation to point 1, he forgot to consider the inner meaning of the word indicates that there are some pure Brahmanas that still exist who do follow all the Vedic rites, laws and Samskaras, such as Krsna Balaram Swamiji, who he offensively insults. Where Giri reflects that Brahmanas have re-found their religion for personal gain, he actually discredits his own Guru’s converted brahmana status, as he accepts disciples and donations to maintain himself, which is so vividly explained through the language of God, Devanagri, is against scriptures. Giri demotes Devanagri to mortal languages to support his views. I cannot fathom where Giri gets his information from, but indeed God speaks all languages. It states in Srimad Bhagavatam that Lord Krsna spoke with birds and animals, so of course Lord Krsna spoke Vrajabasi and Lord Chaitanya spoke Bengali. But Devanagri is the Lord’s own language. Deva means God and nagari means language. Devanagari is synonymous to Sanskrit, which means pure and uncontaminated. If Lord Chaitanya’s own language was Bengali as Giri implies, why did Lord Chaitanya write his Siksastakam in Sanskrit? Why did He tell His disciple Rupa Goswami to write in Sanskrit? And why did He speak and correct Keshava Kasmiri in Sanskrit? For those who do not know, a disciple does not initiate while their Guru is present on Earth. Lord Chaitanya was Guru of Rupa Goswami, Rupa Goswami was Guru of Jiva Goswami, and Jiva Goswami was Guru of Krsnadas Kaviraja Goswami (born in 16th century), therefore Krsnadas Kaviraja Goswami was the great-grand disciple of Lord Chaitanya. There was a long time period between the time Lord Chaitanya was present on Earth and the time Krsnadas Kaviraj Goswami wrote Chaitanya Charitamrta. Giri’s deductive reasoning is not the Vedic process. And how Giri conjured that Bengali is spoken in the eternal Navadwip, only he knows.

Again where Giri quotes the Skanda Purana, ‘kalau sudra sambhavah’ – “in Kali-yuga everyone is basically a sudra” also implies that there are still some authentic Brahmana’s left. To the learned eye Giri clearly expresses himself as a heretic twisting the meaning of the Scriptures. This Giri ignores the fact that Brahmana birth is the Lord’s sign indicating that such a person was a devotee in their last life, has already performed many purificatory functions and therefore is authorized to be Guru. Just as we would not trust someone who was previously deceitful to us until they proved themselves trustworthy, similarly the Lord makes us prove our devotion by living out our life devotionally, before favoring us above a proven devotee (Brahmana). Please see Bhagavad Gita 6-41 thru 6-44 for more details.

Giri quotes the Mahabharta, not knowing it is a secondary scripture meant for less intelligent people and that primary scriptures (Srimad Bhagavatam) supercede it, yet he still mistranslates them. For example he states, “We do not know whether we are brahmanas or non-brahmanas” The correct translation is, “There are those who say that we are non-brahmanas, although we know that we are Brahmanas.” Giri’s Sanskrit translations are shameful. In his translation from the Anusasana- parva 143.50, where he states, Neither birth, nor samskaras, nor learning, nor progeny are the qualifications to be a brahmana. Only brahminical conduct is the basis for brahminical status.” He misplaces the word “only” in the second sentence, instead of placing it in the first sentence, thereby largely changing the meaning. It should read, “Neither birth, nor samskaras, nor learning, nor progeny are “alone” the qualifications to be a Brahmana. Brahminical conduct must also be had for brahminical status.” One need only inquire from an accredited un-bias translator to determine the correct meaning.

There are many fabrications in Giri’s Point 2, where he states many devotees were not Brahmana. For example Visvamitra did not initiate anyone, yet Giri claims he is the Guru of Lord Rama! Lord Rama’s Guru was Vasistha Muni. By scrutinizing Giri’s statements, he does not know that Vasisitha born from Urvasi is a different Vasistha. He absurdly claims that Vasistha Muni was born of a prostitute! How offensive! Lord Rama’s Guru, Vasistha Muni, is one of the seven sages born from Lord Brahma’s mind. Hypothetically, even if one believes that Visvamitra Muni became Brahmana and initiated people, where is there a converted Brahmana in this Kaliyuga that can create a heaven and send a living person in their material body there, as Visvamitra did for Trishanku (found in Srimad Bhagavatam)?

Although the histories Giri quotes from are from Satyayuga, the Ksatriya kings he mentions were impregnated with Brahminical qualities by great sages, which is why the word Brahmanatvam (which means Brahminical qualities were established in them, but it does not mean they were turned into actual Brahmanas. The only way to become an actual Brahmana is to have been a devotee in one’s past life. See Bhagavad Gita purport 6.41) is used in Mahabharata. It is not stated in the Anusasana-parva of Mahabharata that any of the personalities he mentions initiated anyone or started any disciplic succession. Giri is a Machiavelli imitator, he is simply trying to dupe people to believe he is learned by his impertinence and long windedness.

Giri implies that if a practicing Brahmana becomes a merchant to care for his family he looses his devotional connection to the Lord, but this is simply conjecture. As it is stated in the Niti Sastra, “Gold buried is stool does not become stool. It can easily be washed and wore around the neck.” We must accept that the associates of Lord Chaitanya were not ordinary, they were all eternally liberated souls. As stated in the song sung by Srila Prabhupada, gaurangera sangigane nitya siddha kari mane, “The associates of Lord Chaitanya must be understood to be eternally liberated (Nitya Siddha), descended from the spiritual world to participate in His pastimes. Therefore the names Giri quoted referring to Lord Chaitanya’s original tradition is taken lightly. Srila Prabhupada was Kayastha Brahmana, it was his friend who was suvarnavanik (gold merchant). It is well known that Prabhupada worked with pharmaceuticals, not as a gold merchant. Vaisnavas originating from De and Dutta surnames signifies those persons have come from a Kayastha family (Prabhupada, Siddhanta Saraswati, and his father Bhaktivinode Thakura are from Brahma-Kayastha). Kayastha do not need to wear the scared thread. After the demise of Bhaktivinode Thakura, his son Siddhanta Saraswati gave the sacred thread to non-Brahmana devotees to encourage them. Therefore Bhaktivinode Thakura is not seen wearing a sacred thread. Hence the Gaudiya sampradaya’s parampara is unbroken.

Where Giri mistranslates, “Just as bell-metal is transformed into gold by alchemy, a common man is transformed into a twice-born (brahmana) by diksa from a bona-fide guru.” (Tattva-sagara, quoted in Hari Bhakti-vilasa 2.12). In his Dig-darsini-tika to this verse, Srila Sanatana Gosvamipada has clearly stated thus:

nrnam sarvesam eva dvijatvam viprata

“Any person of any status (nrnam-sarvesam), if properly initiated with the correct mantras, can become a brahmana (viprata),” is incorrect! Mr. Giri could not differentiate the meaning DVIJATVAM (Brahmana like) from DVIJA (Brahmana) and VIPRATA (like that of a brahmana) from VIPRA (Brahmana). He needs to go to school to understand the difference between gold and golden. Swamiji told me that Mr. Giri personally came to Swamiji asking for initiation and when Swamiji did not agree to initiate, he took initiation from his present Guru. In Giri’s point 4, he states that it is an absurd idea that Prabhupada’s western disciples conspired to change any reference to brahmana-gurus in his books. Is it really absurd? It is well documented that Prabhupada’s earliest disciples tried to publish Prabhupada’s Bhagavad Gita in their own names, and there is a tape circulating that His leading disciples poisoned him, where Prabhupada himself says, “I have been poisoned.” Is it really that hard to believe that mlecchas off the street just coming to Krsna consciousness were deceptive people? The real import of Prabhupada’s books lies in his dictated tapes. We had tried to get the dictated tapes from the archives, but were told they were not available. Bhakti Tirtha had once said he was in charge of destroying the dictated tapes, and after they were transcribed they were destroyed. Let Giri produce them, then we will see.

As far as Giri’s quoting Prabhupada’s lectures, an intelligent person will understand that Prabhupada was teaching wild mlecchas off the street and came down to their level to help them, hence he used various means to attract the ignorant. Prabhupada had once said to speak anything, but not to put such things in writing, because they then become a document. But to vilify an Acharya like Prabhupada on his preaching method, who spread Lord Krsna’s name all over the world to help the fallen, is preposterous.

The long Bengali writing that Giri states are from purports from Saraswati Goswami and Bhaktivinode Thakura proves the point that the learned Brahmana should be accepted as Guru, thus:

Sri Hari-bhakti-vilase uccharane yogya-purusa thakete, hina0varna
vyaktira nikata haite krsna-mantra loya ucita naya – erupa ye katha acche,

“When it is mentioned in the Hari Bhakti-vilasa, if there is a fit person of a high caste present, it is improper to accept Krsna-mantra from a person from a lower caste born Guru.”

Below is another misrepresentation from Giri referring to the Bengali.

Sri Mahaprabhura ei adesa sastriya adesera viruddha nahe. Ei
tatparyanusare Sri vVsvambhara Mahaprabhu Sri Isvara Puri-sannyasira nikata,
Sri Nityananda Prabhu Madhavendra Puri Gosvami (matantare Srimad
Laksmipati Tirtha) sannyasira nikata, Sri Advaita Acarya ei Sri Madhavendra
Puri sannyasira nikati diksita hayachilen.

“Sriman Mahaprabhu is not opposed to the scriptural injunctions. Adhering to the scriptures, Sri Visvambhara Mahaprabhu (Lord Chaitanya) accepted initiation from the sannyasi Sri Isvara Puri, and Sri Nityananda Prabhu was initiated by the sannyasi, Sri Madhavendra Puri Gosvami (others say Lord Nityananda accepted initiation from Srimad Laksmipati Tirtha, but both are Brahmana born Gurus), and Sri Advaita Acarya accepted initiation from the sannyasi Sri Madhavendra Puri.” These are all Brahmana born devotees.

In conclusion, if anyone and everyone can become initiating Guru, then why did Lord Chaitanya, Nityananda, Gadadhara, Srivasa and everyone listed in our Guru Parampara take initiation from Brahmana born Gurus? What to speak of taking initiation from a Brahmana born Guru, Lord Chaitanya would not even eat or drink in the home of a non brahmana born devotee. The example is found in the Chaitanya Charitamrta where while visiting Varanasi, Lord Chaitanya stayed in the home of a non Brahmana born devotee, but ate only in the home of a Brahmana born devotee. Even while traveling, Lord Chaitanaya Mahaprabhu would not take a servant who was not born into a Brahmana family with him. This is all because Brahmana born devotees were devotees in their last life, having then developed a relationship with the Lord. Only the uninformed can be persuaded by Giri’s attempt to diminish the authenticity of innumerable Devanagri verses through the use of a few Bengali quotes. Swamiji emphatically says that unless a Brahmana born devotee is truly a surrendered devotee of the Lord, he cannot occupy the post of an initiating Guru.

The “Guru Nirnaya Dipika” can be found on our website (www.krsna.org) on the left side of the homepage, to reference the verses that Giri refutes. The Devanagri is in the printed book and is available on our website.

Jai Sri Radhe.
Nanda Kumar

* * *

LETTERS

Reply from Maadhav

The varnas are defined by guna and karma, not by birth, says krishna in gita. a gunatita person however as above any caste. gunatitias are very rare though. jai sri krishna! -maadhav

“yuddhAya krita nischaya…” –Krishna

* * *

Reply from Barney

All these writings are a waste because the truth here is simple. God picked non vaisnavas to do his work of spreading Sanadhna dharma. The truth here is that the man who compiled the great epic Maha Baratham and Bhagavad Gita was born to a fisherwoman who was seduced by a rishi while ferrying him across the river in her boat. So The great Vyasa was not a Brahmin by birth . So was Valimiki who wrote the Ramayana. He was a highway bandit and today he is honored for his work. In later centuries some vaishnava pundits misinterpreted the sastras for selfish reason. There is no one born as brahmana. Only through ones coice of profession one is known. If I have mastered the whole spcriptures and sastras than I would become a acharaya and wear the string to identify myself as a brahamana. So, do not waste time on this stupid topic.

* * *

Reply from anonymous

i do not think it is right… the world vaishnava is never used to define the belonging to a sect a caste or a cathegory.. vaishnava is simply one who realize vishnu

so we can say that god picked real vaishnavas even if they were out of the religious establishment and cathegorization

if one’s not a vaishnava, he cannot be picked by vishnu, or if he’s picked, he’s automatically a vaishnava, a real vaishnava (=not one who poses as vaishnava)

,,

very often we use also the world brahmana to define a caste, religion or cathegory… and actually it is wrong.. brahmana is one who fully realizes brahman (=that we are spirit and not matter) and because this status is reached by sincerity and god’s mercy, it is perfectly possible that a brahmana by caste is not a real brahmana and a sudra, a mleccha, an untouchable is a real brahmana living in transcendence

..

these are the truths of this messages… that vaishnava is one who realizes vishnu, not someone belonging to some “vaishnava” caste or group

The Vedic truth pertaining to Brahmana Guru

By Nanda Kumar
Disciple of Mahamandaleshwar Sri Mahant Krsna Balaram Swamiji Maharaja

Mr. Barney, I am simply trying to present the ancient Vedic truth as it is, nothing else. No malice intended. I do not know whether you are initiated or not, and if you are who your Guru is, but did you read the purport from A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s Gita 6-42, where Prabhupada wrote that he is born from a family of learned transcendentalists? The purports states: “It is especially the case in the acharya or gosvami families. Such families are very learned and devoted by tradition and training, and thus they become spiritual masters. In India there are many such acharya families, but they have now denigrated due to insufficient education and training. By the grace of the Lord, there are still families that foster transcendentalists generation after generation. It is certainly very fortunate to take birth in such families, fortunately both our spiritual master, Om Visnupada Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddanta Saraswati Goswami Maharaja, and our humble self, had the opportunity to take birth in such families, by the grace of the Lord, and both of us were trained in devotional service of the Lord from the very beginning of our lives. Later on we met by the order of the transcendental system.” I am surprised the ISKCON editors left this in their books. It is our luck that they left this valuable piece of information in so that we can know who is Guru. My Guru, Mahamandaleshwar Sri Mahant Krsna Balaram Swamiji Maharaja is also from such a family. Prabhupada even used to call Swamiji `Guru’ because he was raised is such a family. When you state, “There had been many none vaishnava Gurus in the south who had attained saint hood and have been accepted by millions of devotees and mandrams{Hindu organizations} and I do not see why only Vaishnavas must be selected to be Gurus. Times are changing and what was meant for a period may not be necessarily applied in a later period as all things go through revolution to adapt present situation so are the sastras.”, do you realize you are proposing prorogating an Upa-sampradaya. To establish a new standard breaks the age-old spiritual tradition and creates a man made sect or an artificial religion (Upa-sampradaya). Every spiritual teacher establishes a spiritual practice on the basis of Vedic scriptures and the previous great teachers. Even the Lord descending as the devotee Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not deviate from the previous great teachers. It is the disciple’s duty to be disciplined in his Guru’s teachings and not create anything new which will bring his or her Guru an unwanted reputation. This is the standard for the age of Kaliyuga, nothing less. Pure Vaisnavas are accepted to be Guru because they are close to Lord Visnu, and are found in the 4 Vaisnavas Sampradayas, namely Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka and Visnusvami, but not from Mayavadis organizations. The ancient scriptures of India do not consider mayavadis to be Guru because they themselves claim to be equal to Visnu, but they have yet displayed Virat Svarupa (the Universal Form of the Lord). The Padma Purana states the following verses in relation to non vaisnava Guru thus:

Avaisnava mukhod girnam putam hari kathamrtam
Sravanam naiva kartavyam sarpocchista yatha payah

“One should never hear the nectarine narration of the Supreme Lord Hari from the mouth of a non vaisnava. Because if such narration is heard, it results in spiritual death to the listener, like death by drinking milk touched by the lips of a serpent.”

Avaisnavopadistena mantrena narakam vrajet
Punas ca vidhina rajan grahayed vaisnavad guro

“Those who become initiated by a non Vaisnava Guru and chant their given mantra reach hell. If they desire to be saved from going to hell, they should first atone (regret their mistake) and then following the proper scriptural rules take re-initiation from an authentic Vaisnava Guru.”

The Skanda Purana also states the following verse:

avaisnava mukhac chastram na srotavyam kadacana
suka sastram visesena na srotavyam avaisnavat

“One should not listen to scriptures from those who are not real devotees. Especially Srimad Bhagavatam should never be heard from a non devotee (non vaisnava).”

Now one may wonder how to know who is a real devotee? To this the Skanda Purana states the following:

avaisnavo’tra dvijo jneyo yo visnor mukham ucyate
vipretara-gatam sastram asastratvam prapadyate

“When a person is born in an unbroken Brahmana dynasty he is said to be the mouth of the Lord Himself. When such a person is initiated by a devotee Spiritual master descending in an unbroken chain of disciplic succession and lives by scriptural rules he is said to be Vaisnava. One should listen to Srimad Bhagavatam from such a Vaisnava. Besides listening from such a Vaisnava, listening to Bhagavatam from others does not bear enough result.”

It is further stated in the Skanda Purana:

vaktaram vaisnavam vipram visuddhobhaya vamsajam
sordhva pundram susilam ca kuryat krsna jana priyam

“Therefore the speaker of Srimad Bhagavatam should be born into an unbroken Brahmana dynasty connected to the Lord Himself and should be initiated by a devotee Spiritual Master coming in an unbroken chain from the Lord Himself. He must have a flame-like holy mark of Tilak on his forehead. If such devotee is found one should listen to Srimad Bhagavatam from him because such a devotee is very dear to the Lord, and the listener receives blessings from the Lord for listening from such a devotee.” Sir, the topic is who can be guru, Brahmarishi Vishvamitra did not initiate anyone. He is a very highly situated sage, but he did not initiate anyone. But I have to admit I mistakenly omitted, “Material Ocean of Birth and Death (Bhavasagara).” The verse should read, “A dog may be able to swim and capable of crossing the ocean (Bhavasagara). But if it thinks it can carry others across the ocean (Bhavasagara) or someone thinks they can cross the material ocean of birth and death (Bhavasagara) by holding the dog’s tail, they are hallucinating.” You did not defeat the Nyashastra, you merely pointed out my typographical error. The Guru is supposed to be Chaytya Guru, the external manifestation of Paramatama to guide the disciple. Do you really believe a person from a background of eating meat, intoxication, gambling, and illicit sex, or one from a mayavadi background is a manifestation of Paramatma? Many of them probably have done worse than their disciples because they conspired and misinterpret the scriptures to benefit themselves. When their disciples bow down to them, does anyone really think or believe they are bowing to Chaytya Guru? I sure don’t and I do not believe you do either in your heart, if you are from Indian decent. I never claim I am learned, I proudly claim my Guru is learned. I am simply repeating what I have learned from my Guru. What has the person you follow taught you? I have found misrepresentations in your statements. They do match the scriptures? Maybe you should reconsider who you accept information from.

Jai Sri Radhe
Nanda Kumar

Brahma Rishi Vishvamitra was ksatriya but yet attained the title of Brahmarishi and you should know how and why coz you are a learned person whereas I am simple soul.

There are many fabrications in Giri’s Point 2, where he states many devotees were not Brahmana. For example Visvamitra did not initiate anyone, yet Giri claims he is the Guru of Lord Rama! Lord Rama’s Guru was Vasistha Muni. By scrutinizing Giri’s statements, he does not know that Vasisitha born from Urvasi is a different Vasistha. He absurdly claims that Vasistha Muni was born of a prostitute! How offensive! Lord Rama’s Guru, Vasistha Muni, is one of the seven sages born from Lord Brahma’s mind. Hypothetically, even if one believes that Visvamitra Muni became Brahmana and initiated people, where is there a converted Brahmana in this Kaliyuga that can create a heaven and send a living person in their material body there, as Visvamitra did for Trishanku (found in Srimad Bhagavatam)?

Then type, you should have already learned this from your Guru, or you could ask my Guru .

You people keep coming off the topic of who can be guru.

Vaisnavas are from the 4 sampradayas, Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka and Visnusvami, but not from Mayavadis. mahamandaleshwara: swami hariharananda is a mayavadi.

reply from Barney

You have said it better and I would not argue on that. May be those who do not undrstand need to be thought.

By Nanda Kumar

Disciple of Mahamandaleshwar Sri Mahant Krsna Balaram Swamiji Maharaja

Many people have researched Swamiji’s book entitled “Guru Nirnaya Dipika-The Scriptural Decision on Who Can Become Guru and Who Cannot”, which was originally published in 1993 and has since been translated into 7 other languages, and yet no one has found any legitimate refutation to it. Keep in mind the book is not entitled, Who Can Become Vaisnava and Who Cannot. Anyone can become Vaisnava and become purified and reach the spiritual world, but to function as Guru, one should follow the example Lord Chaitanya gave when He ordered Kurma Brahmana to initiate. Lord Chaitanya did not order anyone other than Kurma Brahmana to function as initiating Guru. (Please see “Guru Nirnaya Dipika, Questions and Answers chapter at the end of the book. It can be found on our website www.krsna.org on the homepage at the left margin.)

The person Barney posted not to waste time on this stupid topic. He should know that selecting a Guru is the most important thing one can do in their lifetime! A person should make sure they are following someone more sincere then themselves. Imposters can put on a pretty good show for some time, but sooner or later they are exposed. I recently read on VNN.org that a western Guru paid his obeisance to his disciples and followers and begged pardon from them for his breaking regulative principles. An authentic Guru would never do such things because he is a self-realized soul, a representative of God, and beyond these things. If these people were really Vaisnavas they would be humble and strictly follow the scriptures, and be happy that they have found the proper path back to Godhead, and not dare accept karma from others, thereby gambling with their own liberation. Barney must not have read the “Guru Nirnaya Dipika” because the example of Vyasa is given in the Question and Answer section thus: “The history of Srila Vyasadava’s birth from the high quality Brahmana, Parasara Muni, and a boatman’s daughter is written in the Mahabharat. Parasara Muni, wanting to cross a river came upon a boatman’s daughter named Satyavati. She agreed to take him across the river, but while crossing Parasara Muni got attracted to the woman. She resisted saying you come from a high birth and I am Sudra born, this will not work. Parasara Muni told the woman not to worry, as a child coming from a high class Brahmana man will be a high class Brahma-kayastha. They agreed and Vyasadeva was conceived on the boat.” Hence, Vyasadeva is Brahma-kayastha. More information can be found about the Brahma-kayastha (Prabhupada’s birth) in the Questions and Answer section of the Guru Nirnaya Dipika. Barney further stated, “In later centuries some vaishnava pundits misinterpreted the sastras for selfish reason.” I question who these Vaisnava pundits are he refers to? Is he referring to the original Sridhara Swami, Srila Rupa Goswami, Srila Sanatana Goswami, Srila Jiva Goswami, Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti, Sri Baladeva or any of the other 88 authentic Acharyas and authorities Swamiji quotes is the Guru Nirnaya Dipika? It is our misfortune that these personalities have all passed from this world, but I get my information from Mahamandaleshwar Sri Mahant Krsna Balaram Swamiji Maharaja, who is recognized by the four Vaisnava Sampradayas to be learned and a qualified person to inquire Vedic knowledge from. I wonder from whom Barney inquires from? No one from the four Vaisnava Sampradayas, in a respected position, recognizes any non-brahmana gurus, they are only recognized by others in their own clique. And Valmiki did not initiate anyone; therefore he has no disciplic succession.

Maadhva also posts some good points referring to the Gita. According to the Gita it is true that Varna is defined by guna and karma, not by birth. Although Maadhva forgot to recognize that karma (work) is leaned and performed after one’s birth and guna (samskara or qualities) comes with a person from their performed karma from previous births, as air carries aroma. He also wrote:
“yuddhAya krita nischaya” which is answered through the following verse.

Yatra yogesvarah krsno yatra partho dhanurdharah
Tatra sri vijayo bhutir dhruva nitir matir mama–Krishna

The ancient scriptures are none different from Lord Krsna because they are His breathings and a scripturally authentic Guru is a pure devotee equal to Arjuna. We have both of them on our side (authentic Guru and scriptural evidence) ………………..

Some of the people who post write as if learned, but they should realize that the glow of their lamp of knowledge is irrelevant before the Sun like knowledge Swamiji presents. I noticed the word “ego” used in posts from people who have not sufficiently clarified their intention, could that be because they are not learned? If so, to make such statements is a show of false ego in itself. To become a Vaisnava one has to first learn to love the Lord from the heart. A show of such love is by following what the Lord states in the scriptures and not theorizing what He means. Such theorizing is false ego. A sign of one who has real ego is one who enthusiastically follows the scriptures and is not afraid to reveal the truth even though it is against popular opinion. Real Vaisnavas possess these qualities, but it takes millions of births of spiritual development and spiritual purity to become a realized Vaisnava, and only a realized Vaisnava is scripturally authorized to function as Guru to liberate the sincere souls. As Lord Krsna Himself states:

Kitesu koti-janmasu manusatvam
Tatrapi koti-janmasu brahmanatvam

Tatrapi koti-janmasu vaisnavatvam
Tatrapi koti-janmasu matparatvam

“After pasting millions of births in lower species a soul is given a human birth. After passing millions of human births in the different categories a soul is given a Brahmana’s birth. When the soul passes millions of Brahmana’s births practicing austerities it becomes a Vaisnava, and when it passes millions of Vaisnava births that pure soul realizes Me in truth and becomes Mine.”

In the western part of the world we are all born mleccha. We should only concentrate on how to reach the spiritual world. The Niti Sastra states, Apakaryam tatparyam, “One should first think of their own liberation.” The Nyasastra states, “A dog may be able to swim and capable of crossing the ocean. But if it thinks it can carry others across the ocean or someone thinks they can cross the material ocean by holding the dog’s tail, they are hallucinating.” In other words without properly following what Krsna says no one can cross or take others across the material ocean. Misrepresenting the Lord is a spiritual crime. Does anyone really want to wait till a non brahmana born Guru gets exposed before they admit to their selves they have been duped? This is not necessary because it is easy to see who can be Guru. It is a person born in a family of learned transcendentalists that has practiced devotional service their entire life (see Prabhupada’s Gita, purport 6-42).

Jai Sri Radhe
Nanda Kumar

Reply from Barney

The Nyasastra states, “A dog may be able to swim and capable of crossing the ocean. But if it thinks it can carry others across the ocean or someone thinks they can cross the material ocean by holding the dog’s tail, they are hallucinating.”

Well, the Nyasastsa has been proven wrong. Haven’t you read repored cases of dogs saving men from drowning. May be you do not read such news because it will upset your faith in your GURU. Sorry, I did not mean to be sarcastic but the truth is “THE TRUTH CoMES IN MANY FORM” and it is left to an individual how he perceives them. There had been many none vaishnava Gurus in the south who had attained saint hood and have been accepted by millions of devotees and mandrams{Hindu organisations} and I do not see why only Vaishnavas must be selected to be Gurus. Times are changing and what was meant for a period may not be necessarily applied in a later period as all things go through revolution to adapt present situation so are the sastras. There may be even more changes would come after the kali yug as believed what difference would it make if people realize that there a better ways to attain spritualism than stick to orthodox means. As they say paths are many but the goal is one, we must be reasdy to accept changes and not be stubborn like a child who fefuse to take the bitter medicine which in fact would cure its illness.

Brahma Rishi Vishvamitra was kastria but yet attained the title of Brahmarishi and you should know how and why coz you are a learned person whereas I am simple soul.

Reply from anonymous

There had been many none vaishnava Gurus in the south who had attained saint hood and have been accepted by millions of devotees

again you are using this word in a not proper way. Vaishnava is not a caste, vaishnava is the definition for who has really realized vishnu. So a vaishnava can come from any class, religion, sex, culture, job, nation, skin colour and so on and I do not see why only Vaishnavas must be selected to be Gurus. because if you want to see vishnu, you have to learn by one who has already seen him

Times are changing and what was meant for a period may not be necessarily applied in a later period as all things go through revolution to adapt present situation so are the sastras.

it is not up to you… sastras are not so dull to not offer by themselves the solution for kali yuga…. there’s no need to refuse them to have spiritual realization. Sastras are not different by vishnu, you cannot realize vishnu if you do not realize sastras As they say paths are many but the goal is one, we must be reasdy to accept changes and not be stubborn like a child who fefuse to take the bitter medicine which in fact would cure its illness. but these changes are not made by men, but are already stated by sastras themselves……………..

By Nanda Kumar

Disciple of Mahamandaleshwar Sri Mahant Krsna Balaram Swamiji Maharaja

Mr. Barney, I am simply trying to present the ancient Vedic truth as it is, nothing else. No malice intended. I do not know whether you are initiated or not, and if you are who your Guru is, but did you read the purport from A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s Gita 6-42, where Prabhupada wrote that he is born from a family of learned transcendentalists? The purports states: “It is especially the case in the acharya or gosvami families. Such families are very learned and devoted by tradition and training, and thus they become spiritual masters. In India there are many such acharya families, but they have now denigrated due to insufficient education and training. By the grace of the Lord, there are still families that foster transcendentalists generation after generation. It is certainly very fortunate to take birth in such families, fortunately both our spiritual master, Om Visnupada Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddanta Saraswati Goswami Maharaja, and our humble self, had the opportunity to take birth in such families, by the grace of the Lord, and both of us were trained in devotional service of the Lord from the very beginning of our lives. Later on we met by the order of the transcendental system.” I am surprised the ISKCON editors left this in their books. It is our luck that they left this valuable piece of information in so that we can know who is Guru. My Guru, Mahamandaleshwar Sri Mahant Krsna Balaram Swamiji Maharaja is also from such a family. Prabhupada even used to call Swamiji `Guru’ because he was raised is such a family.

When you state, “There had been many none vaishnava Gurus in the south who had attained saint hood and have been accepted by millions of devotees and mandrams{Hindu organizations} and I do not see why only Vaishnavas must be selected to be Gurus. Times are changing and what was meant for a period may not be necessarily applied in a later period as all things go through revolution to adapt present situation so are the sastras.”, do you realize you are proposing prorogating an Upa-sampradaya. To establish a new standard breaks the age-old spiritual tradition and creates a man made sect or an artificial religion (Upa-sampradaya). Every spiritual teacher establishes a spiritual practice on the basis of Vedic scriptures and the previous great teachers. Even the Lord descending as the devotee Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not deviate from the previous great teachers. It is the disciple’s duty to be disciplined in his Guru’s teachings and not create anything new which will bring his or her Guru an unwanted reputation. This is the standard for the age of Kaliyuga, nothing less. Pure Vaisnavas are accepted to be Guru because they are close to Lord Visnu, and are found in the 4 Vaisnavas Sampradayas, namely Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka and Visnusvami, but not from Mayavadis organizations. The ancient scriptures of India do not consider mayavadis to be Guru because they themselves claim to be equal to Visnu, but they have yet displayed Virat Svarupa (the Universal Form of the Lord). The Padma Purana states the following verses in relation to non vaisnava Guru thus:

Avaisnava mukhod girnam putam hari kathamrtam
Sravanam naiva kartavyam sarpocchista yatha payah

“One should never hear the nectarine narration of the Supreme Lord Hari from the mouth of a non vaisnava. Because if such narration is heard, it results in spiritual death to the listener, like death by drinking milk touched by the lips of a serpent.”

Avaisnavopadistena mantrena narakam vrajet
Punas ca vidhina rajan grahayed vaisnavad guro

“Those who become initiated by a non Vaisnava Guru and chant their given mantra reach hell. If they desire to be saved from going to hell, they should first atone (regret their mistake) and then following the proper scriptural rules take re-initiation from an authentic Vaisnava Guru.”

The Skanda Purana also states the following verse:

avaisnava mukhac chastram na srotavyam kadacana
suka sastram visesena na srotavyam avaisnavat

“One should not listen to scriptures from those who are not real devotees. Especially Srimad Bhagavatam should never be heard from a non devotee (non vaisnava).”

Now one may wonder how to know who is a real devotee? To this the Skanda Purana states the following:

avaisnavo’tra dvijo jneyo yo visnor mukham ucyate
vipretara-gatam sastram asastratvam prapadyate

“When a person is born in an unbroken Brahmana dynasty he is said to be the mouth of the Lord Himself. When such a person is initiated by a devotee Spiritual master descending in an unbroken chain of disciplic succession and lives by scriptural rules he is said to be Vaisnava. One should listen to Srimad Bhagavatam from such a Vaisnava. Besides listening from such a Vaisnava, listening to Bhagavatam from others does not bear enough result.”

It is further stated in the Skanda Purana:

vaktaram vaisnavam vipram visuddhobhaya vamsajam
sordhva pundram susilam ca kuryat krsna jana priyam

“Therefore the speaker of Srimad Bhagavatam should be born into an unbroken Brahmana dynasty connected to the Lord Himself and should be initiated by a devotee Spiritual Master coming in an unbroken chain from the Lord Himself. He must have a flame-like holy mark of Tilak on his forehead. If such devotee is found one should listen to Srimad Bhagavatam from him because such a devotee is very dear to the Lord, and the listener receives blessings from the Lord for listening from such a devotee.”

Sir, the topic is who can be guru, Brahmarishi Vishvamitra did not initiate anyone. He is a very highly situated sage, but he did not initiate anyone. But I have to admit I mistakenly omitted, “Material Ocean of Birth and Death (Bhavasagara).” The verse should read, “A dog may be able to swim and capable of crossing the ocean (Bhavasagara). But if it thinks it can carry others across the ocean (Bhavasagara) or someone thinks they can cross the material ocean of birth and death (Bhavasagara) by holding the dog’s tail, they are hallucinating.” You did not defeat the Nyashastra, you merely pointed out my typographical error. The Guru is supposed to be Chaytya Guru, the external manifestation of Paramatama to guide the disciple. Do you really believe a person from a background of eating meat, intoxication, gambling, and illicit sex, or one from a mayavadi background is a manifestation of Paramatma? Many of them probably have done worse than their disciples because they conspired and misinterpret the scriptures to benefit themselves. When their disciples bow down to them, does anyone really think or believe they are bowing to Chaytya Guru? I sure don’t and I do not believe you do either in your heart, if you are from Indian decent.

I never claim I am learned, I proudly claim my Guru is learned. I am simply repeating what I have learned from my Guru. What has the person you follow taught you? I have found misrepresentations in your statements. They do match the scriptures? Maybe you should reconsider who you accept information from.

Jai Sri Radhe
Nanda Kumar

Reply from anonymous
In reply to:

By Nanda Kumar
Disciple of Mahamandaleshwar Sri Mahant Krsna Balaram Swamiji Maharaja

Mr. Barney, I am simply trying to present the ancient Vedic truth as it is, nothing else. No malice intended. I do not know whether you are initiated or not, and if you are who your Guru is, but did you read the purport from A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s Gita 6-42, where Prabhupada wrote that he is born from a family of learned transcendentalists?

This is completely idiotic. Your guru is claiming that only one born into a brahmin family can become a guru. I have no problem with that. Yet your guru claims to be a disciple of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, a.k.a Abhay Charan De. “De” is not a brahmana name.

By your “guru’s” logic, he was initiated by a man who was not qualified to give dikSa. This would make your Krishna Balaram “Swami” an utter fraud!

In reply to:

This is completely idiotic. Your guru is claiming that only one born into a brahmin family can become a guru. I have no problem with that.

Yet your guru claims to be a disciple of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, a.k.a Abhay Charan De. “De” is not a brahmana name.

By your “guru’s” logic, he was initiated by a man who was not qualified to give dikSa. This would make your Krishna Balaram “Swami” an utter fraud!

Hmmm, no response to this. I take it that silence is complicity. So if he has no further response, then he admits his Krishna Balaram Swami is a fraud.

I think it is really quite stupid to say that only a brahmin-born individual can become a guru, when one’s guru is not himself born into a brahmin family.

Note that I don’t care one way or another. I am merely commenting on the stupidity of this iskcon-reject’s arguments.

By Nanda Kumar
Disciple of Mahamandaleshwar Sri Mahant Krsna Balaram Swamiji Maharaja

Dear Sir,

I don’t know who your Guru is as you hide in anonymity, but if you want to start your own spiritual sect, it is nice, because I assume you chant even though you don’t accept the statements of the ancient Vedic authorities. But why do people like you purpose you are following the original thing when it is in black and white that you are not?

It is explicitly explained in the “Guru Nirnaya Dipika” as well as my comments on this forum that A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada was born into a Brahma-Kayasta family and such birth is equal to authentic Vedic Brahmana. Whether or not you understand this, or you are simply too proud and arrogant, this is the real import of the scriptures.

Not following the scriptures is detrimental to our spiritual well being. As Lord Krsna states in the Gita:

Yah Sastra vidhim utsrjya vartate kama karatah
Na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham na param gatim

“But he who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination.”

It is also stated in the Bhakti rasamrta sindu:

Sruti smrti puranadi pancaratiki vidhim vina
Aikantiki harer Bhakti utpatayeva kalpate

“Any act pertaining to devotional service that ignores the Srutis (words of God), Smrutis (scriptures written about God) and the Narada Pancharatra etc., i.e. other ancient Vedic scriptures, is an act that is degrading to the self and is a disturbance for the human society.”

The ancient scriptures that are written in Sanskrit are said to be the breathings of the Lord and we accept them as authorities. I can lead the horse to water but cannot make him drink. Similarly I can only repeat what the scriptures state, but if you do not accept them and have desires to follow in another manner, so be it. But I shall not dignify any of your un-scriptural based arguments. I accept my utter defeat because I am unable to respond to your speculative unscriptural offensive dry argument. It is impossible to awake the person who is pretending to sleep. Thank you.

Jai Sri Radhe
Nanda Kumar

Reply from anonymous

Dear cult-follower-Nandak-who-likes-to-ignore-simple-facts-and-instead-knock-down-strawmen,

In reply to:

It is explicitly explained in the “Guru Nirnaya Dipika” as well as my comments on this forum that A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada was born into a Brahma-Kayasta family and such birth is equal to authentic Vedic Brahmana.

This is nothing more than an outright lie, and your “guru” has simply misled you.

De is not a brahmin family name. Everyone knows this. This means that Abhay Charan De was not a seminal brahmana.

Now, I for one don’t mind this. I can respect a Vaishnava’s good character regardless of what caste he is born into. It doesn’t bother me in the least bit. It is you and your “guru,” on the other hand, who have proposed the theory that a guru must be born into a brahmana family. I don’t care one way or another; I simply wish to point out that your beliefs are hypocritical, since your guru’s guru was NOT born into a brahmana family.

Merely claiming that Abhay Charan De was a brahmana by birth does not make it so. The facts are simple – Bengali brahmanas have names like Chatterji, Mukherji, etc but not De. De is a vaishya name as I recall, but it is definitely not a brahmana name. You should fess up to the fact that your guru, by his own teachings, is not qualified to be a guru on account of lack of initiation by a seminal brahmana. It really is quite dishonest to propose a standard you do not even follow.
By Nanda Kumar

Disciple of Mahamandaleshwar Sri Mahant Krsna Balaram Swamiji Maharaja

It is Vaisnava etiquette to properly introduce oneself before speaking. I am a Caucasian American, initiated disciple of Swamiji. I was never in ISKCON, although I had visited many ISKCON temples, gave donations, and listened to lectures by the “appointed gurus”, many of who have proven their impurity by falling down, until I met Swamiji. I could not take the western gurus serious and consider initiation because my conscience told me they are no better than me. The only difference I saw between them and me was their shaven heads and Indian robes. Something from within directed me to learn this foreign religion from a person traditionally born and raised in that culture, if I wished to learn the hidden secrets only the great Bhaktas know.

The verifiable scriptural evidence I have presented is from the knowledge I have learned from Swamiji during the last 15 years. I understand many people are perturbed by my presentation, as I was prior to hearing from Swamiji pertaining to this very topic. The knowledge I have learned from Swamiji has pierced my heart, which has brought me, and keeps me ahead of Maya’s demands. It is only from a realized Guru, who imparts real knowledge, that such an occurrence happens. It is in everyone’s best interest to seek out and find a real Guru, one who is beyond this world and fall down, and grab hold of his dhoti, because by so doing so the person will be dragged to the Spiritual world and see Lord Krsna face to face.

It is very nice to read all the cowardly responses by the nameless people to my previous posts, but I have yet to read even one scriptural rebuttal to my statements. If you wish to mislead people to believe Prabhupada was not born in a family of Brahma-Kayastha, who are equal to Brahmana, I can do nothing but present the scriptural facts proving he was, as I have done. It is a shame you all are spiritually too immature and proud to accept the rock solid scriptural evidence I have presented, and instead choose to hang on to a few lines Prabhupada said to keep his ignorant neophyte disciples from leaving him. Prabhupada was a strict follower of the scriptures, regardless of what you have made him out to be. Whether you know it or not or whether you believe the scriptural evidence I have presented or not, you are all being misled by the ISKCON hierarchy. But if you are too brainwashed to think for yourselves, you should at least know you are offending a pure devotee and should make amends in this life while there is still time. Mahamandaleshwar Sri Mahant Krsna Balaram Swamiji Maharaja was born in Vrindaban and hence he is a Vrijabasi. Vrijabasis are extra-special. In fact, Lord Krsna is their actual Guru, but to adhere to tradition, they accept a Guru, as Lord Krsna did. The scriptures state that Vrijabasi’s, regardless of their caste and occupation, are very dear pure devotees of Lord Krsna and can do no wrong in Krsna’s eyes. Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura, a recognized authority on Gaudiya Viasnavism, says that if you want to learn spiritual life perfectly, you should go to Vrindaban and learn from the Vrijabasis, the local residents.

One of Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabu’s favorite disciples, Srila Prabodhananda Sarasvati Thakura states in his Sri Vrindaban Mahimamrtam:

varnanam brahmano guru
brahmananam guru sannyasi
sannyasinam guru avinasi
avinasinam guru vrajavasi

“The Brahmana is the Guru of the four social orders (Brahmana, Ksatria, Vaisya, and Sudra); the Sanyasi is the Guru of the Brahmanas; the Imperishable Personality (God) is the Guru of the Sanyasis; and the Vrijavasi is the Guru of the Imperishable Personality.”

The axiom logic of the Nyaya Sastra states, andha hasti darsan nyaya, “A blind person’s attempting to see and realize what an elephant is,” is very pertinent. A blind person cannot realize what an elephant is and will not accept the reality presented to them about an elephant, even by a person with perfect eyesight. Similarly those who are blind by arrogance and pride cannot realize through their own perception what the scriptures actually mean, and if a learned person properly presents the scriptures to them, they adamantly resent.

Reply from anonymous

In reply to:

Merely claiming that Abhay Charan De was a brahmana by birth does not make it so. The facts are simple – Bengali brahmanas have names like Chatterji, Mukherji, etc but not De. De is a vaishya name as I recall, but it is definitely not a brahmana name.

You should fess up to the fact that your guru, by his own teachings, is not qualified to be a guru on account of lack of initiation by a seminal brahmana. It really is quite dishonest to propose a standard you do not even follow.

Hmm, still no response. I guess that’s what we can expect from certain disgruntled ex-iskcon washouts.
Jai Sri Radhe

By Nanda Kumar
Disciple of Mahamandaleshwar Sri Mahant Krsna Balaram Swamiji Maharaja

You must not be too bright or you have not read my prior posts, because you speak as if you do not understand what I have already written. Don’t you understand what a Brahma-Kyasta is? Secondly, for those born in Vrindaban, Lord Krsna is their Guru. What is not answered? If you do not believe that Srila Prabhupada was born into a Brahma-Kyasta family and the Brahma-Kyasta is scriptually authorized to be Guru, then you can know that Swamiji “is” scriptually authorized to initiate because he is a Vrijabasi, and Lord Krsna is also directly his Guru.

For the person who claims “every pure vaishnava is brijabasi,” for his information, brijabasi means a person that is born in Vrindaban, not elsewhere. And how can someone be a Vrijabasi after eating cows in their life?

Jai Sri Radhe

The following thread was downloaded from “Gaudiya Disscussions.com” and I replied but my post was immediately removed from the thread. Please read on together with my reply

lalit
Group: Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 11-July 04
Member No.: 338
Oct 2 2005, 09:21 PM
Post #1

what is the position of krishna balaram swami from vrindavana in gaudiya vaishnavism. is he just a iskcon/GM school or again something else on its own?

Madhava
Oct 2 2005, 10:34 PM
Post #2

Group: Administrators
Posts: 8558
Joined: 17-July 02
From: Helsinki
Member No.: 64

For what I know, he considers himself a follower of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. Yet, some of his concepts are markedly different from the general ISKCON / Gaudiya Math line of thought, for example with respect to the guru’s having to be a born brahmin, and so forth.

You can find his website at http://www.krsna.org/. See the “Downloads” -page for “Guru-nirnaya-dipika” for his thoughts on guru-tattva. Regrettably, while he attributes translations to texts, he doesn’t give any specific references, making the verification of the context etc. a rather arduous task.

dasanudas
Oct 2 2005, 11:32 PM
Post #3

Group: Full Member
Posts: 253
Joined: 25-November 04

For what I know, he considers himself a follower of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. Yet, some of his concepts are markedly different from the general ISKCON / Gaudiya Math line of thought, for example with respect to the guru’s having to be a born brahmin, and so forth.

You can find his website at http://www.krsna.org/. See the “Downloads” -page for “Guru-nirnaya-dipika” for his thoughts on guru-tattva. Regrettably, while he attributes translations to texts, he doesn’t give any specific references, making the verification of the context etc.

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

From: India, US
Member No.: 424

He has not given any information about his Guru Pranali and also the Vasihnava Calender in his site is marked different than any Gaudiya Vaishnava calender. It seems he is interested only in his brajabasi connection. Any thought?

Madhava
Oct 2 2005, 11:52 PM
Post #4

Group: Administrators
Posts: 8558
Joined: 17-July 02

He is, or at least was, a disciple of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, founder of ISKCON. He was also a member of ISKCON for a long time after Bhaktivedanta’s departure. His Ekadashi-book is well-known, and I believe was banned by the GBC at one point in time for containing an admixture of karma-kanda amidst Vaishnava-thought.

Thoughts on his Guru-nirnaya-dipika in a separate thread.

babu
Oct 3 2005, 12:56 AM
Post #5

Group: Full Member
Posts: 500
Joined: 19-August 04
From: nowhere
Member No.: 359

I read this on his site: “Krsna Balaram Swamiji was unanimously appointed to the position of “Mahamandalesvar” (which is on the level of Cardinal in Christianity) by all four Vaisnava Sampradayas, Mahamandalesvars, Sri Mahants, and Mahants from all over India”

Can someone explain this to me?

=========================================================
Madhava
Oct 3 2005, 01:13 AM
Post #6 Group: Administrators
Posts: 8558
Joined: 17-July 02
From: Helsinki
Member No.: 64

Looks like Kripaluji has a competitor! And if memory serves, Krishna Balaram Swami is just down the road from Kripalu’s place…

(To clarify: Their Vrindavan headquarters are very near each other.)

babu
Oct 3 2005, 09:06 PM
Post #13
Group: Full Member
Posts: 500
Joined: 19-August 04
From: nowhere
Member No.: 359

QUOTE(Madhava @ Oct 3 2005, 01:13 AM)

Looks like Kripaluji has a competitor!

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

I can’t say anything about any scandals – but I can say that my association with KB swami was always very inspiring. He was very successful at preaching to the indians in the community at Berkeley as well as in Malaysia. He has a very charming personality and is quite learned. He is definitely teaching something different from what his Guru taught, but he apparently still claims the affiliation.

Again, sorry about continuing the thread against your wishes Madhava, but since KB’s affiliation with Hansadutta was in question I thought I should at least set the record straight on that one.
From Nanda Kumar:

I posted the below post as answer to the above bias thread, but it was immediately removed. I later formed a new thread in the “Questions and Answers” area and posted it there, but it too was immediately removed.

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

Nanda Kumar, Disciple of Mahamandaleshwar Sri Mahant Krsna Balaram Swamiji Maharaja

A person e-mailed me informing me of unfounded prejudice against Krsna Balaram Swamiji here, which I thought didn’t warrant a response, but have since reconsidered and am now posting to bolster our supporters. Swamiji teaches his devotees to act like honeybees and go to flowers and extract nectar, and not to act like flies that cannot be kept from going to stool. But because some devotees from mleccha backgrounds are acting like flies, they have induced me to come down to their level to make them and others understand the real truth.

The Nyaya Sastra states:

Durjanasya ca sarpasya varam sarpo na durjanah
Sarpo damsati kalena durjanas tu pade pade

“If a person had to choose between a wicked person and a snake to associate with, they should choose the snake because the snake will bite only when the time to depart this world arrives, whereas a wicked person will repeatedly torture one with their bad behavior and abusive words at every step and every opportunity.” Some time ago I responded to a post on a forum on , rebutting unfounded statements by a devotee named Tridandi Svami Bhakti Vijnana Giri. At every point I used scriptural references, which caused them to remove the thread from the forum. You can imagine how undeniable and irrefutable the scriptural evidence is to have caused them to remove the thread? The truth is the ISKCON leaders are just jealous of Krsna Balaram Swamiji because he is born Brahmana in Vrindaban, in the dynasty of Kasyapa Muni and is very learned; whereas they are born mleccha (means a person who does not know their birth dynasty) and cannot get past their ambition to be gods and misunderstand the real meaning of the scriptures and thus propagate their misconceptions. I assume the Madhava who posts here is the same Madhava that posted on and is well aware of the thread about Krsna Balaram Swamiji there, but I haven’t seen a post from him alerting this forum of it. Even though he only knows things second hand he has the audacity to post those nonsense GBC resolutions as if they have any credibility outside ISKCON. (Is ISKCON that sectarian?) He is probably mleccha himself and unable to discern the scriptures, so he is either mislead by his commanders or purposely misguides others. All the people that ISKON hold as elevated devotees such as Hrdayananda, Tamal Krsna, Jayadvaita, Bhakti Tirtha, Bhavananda, Bhakti Charu, Jagadish, Brahnanada, Satsvarupa, Trivikram, Svarup Damodar, Rupanuga, Gopal Krsna, and other ISKCON hierarchy sat in earnest when Krsna Balaram Swamiji gave lectures. And many times when some of them gave lectures, they would ask Krsna Balaram Swamiji’s opinion on points they were unsure of for the scriptural answer. Many asked Swamiji’s opinion in private, but when Swamiji was asked to support an un-scriptural statement made by one of them before the open curtains of the Deities, Swamiji corrected them, which was the root of the animosity that developed between them. This could be taken as arrogance, or Swamiji’s unwillingness to support an untruth before the Deity. This brings the question to mind, “Did they really want to know the correct scriptural answer, or did they simply expect Swamiji’s support to prove to him and others in attendance they were the more authoritative person? Tamal Krsna even had Krsna Balaram Swamiji take his books to check for accuracy before printing. Think for yourself, “Why did these people turn on Swamiji so quickly?” ISKCON’s trouble with Swamiji stems from his scriptural statements about Guru, including referencing the original Sridhara Swami who states, “Anyone who has even once eaten meat or drank wine is not authorized by the scriptures to give Diksa.” It is ludicrous that Swamiji had any un-Vaisnava association with women, and this is well known by all of the ISKCON leaders who manufactured the whole episode. I was with Swamiji when these pack of lies supposedly happened, and Swamiji’s student at that time, Mahanidhi Swami, was also there and knew the same. Mahanidhi had introduced me to Swamiji and told me to give him a donation because he is a Vrijabasi and thus very close to Krsna, and it would be the best donation I could make. After Swamiji and ISKCON’s problem, I met Mahanidhi in Vrindaban and asked him why he did not support Swamiji regarding this falsehood, and he said it didn’t matter because Swamiji will get followers anyway. All these ISKCON leaders are in on the conspiracy, but it was a surprise to me that Mahanidhi turned on Swamiji because he was a strong supporter of his in ISKCON. Somehow the ISKCON leaders got to him. This thing about the woman is really transparent, you see the woman in question is Hrdayananda’s disciple and Saunaka’s wife, who was sent to create this problem. I was there, nothing happened. After Saunaka realized Hrdayananda was using him, he went to Swamiji asking forgiveness, but as far as I know Saunaka is on his own. Hrdayananda hates Swamiji because he was the one who began breaking the vyasasanas all over ISKCON back in the 1980’s, starting with Hrdayananda’s vyasasana in Miami, Florida.

The Valmiki Ramayana states:

Sulabha pususa rajan satatah priyavadinah
Apriyasya ca pathyas ca srota vakta ca durlabhah

“O king, there are many people that speak sweetly and please the mind, but it is very rare and difficult to find a person who frankly speaks the exact scriptural truth uncompromisingly. It is also difficult to find people to listen to such strict statements and maintain a peaceful mind.”

It is too bad we have to relive the past, but the truth is Swamiji tried to correct the ISKCON leaders after Prabhupada’s departure, but it was of no avail. Whoever wants to follow these hypocrites, it’s their karma, but if anyone wants details, let me know. This is Kaliyuga, so it should be no surprise mlecchas can be so evil, but still it amazes me how low these people will go!

Jai Sri Radhe

Nanda Kumar