Pañcatattva Mantra, Gopī-bhartu, dāsānudās position, madhura sakhās and more...

Bhakta: "This mantra śrī kṛṣṇa caitanya prabhu nityānanda hare kṛṣṇa hare rāma śrī rādhe govinda, what is wrong with that?"

Advaitadas: "Nothing wrong with it so much, other than that it tries to worship both Rādhā Krṣṇa and Nitāi Gaura. Actually, the Hare Krṣṇa Mantra is already there for Radha-Krṣṇa and it should have been complemented with some full Panca Tattva mantra instead. This mantra has different strokes for different folks. The Panca Tattva mantra is for invoking their mercy for attaining and successfully worshipping Rādhā-Krṣṇa. There is nothing really wrong or offensive about this hare kṛṣṇa hare rāma mantra, but it seems to serve no special purpose."

Bhakta: "Is it not rasābhāsa?"

Advaitadas: "People use words like rasābhāsa, māyāvādī and sahajiya indiscriminately without knowing the meaning of these words, blindly taking over hearsay from other ignorant persons.  rasābhāsa is a whole intricate science - Rūpa Gosvāmī has explained it briefly in the final 41 verses of Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu. I see no grounds on which the above mantra should be called rasābhāsa, unless it can be pointed out on the base of Rūpa Gosvāmī's definitions."

Bhakta: "Is it true that if you introduce a mantra yourself that is Guru-aparādha?"

Advaitadas: "Yes it is, but note that this mantra (śrī kṛṣṇa caitanya prabhu nityānanda hare kṛṣṇa hare rāma śrī rādhe govinda) is not a mantra in the strict sense of the dīkṣā mantras which are in the 4th, dative, case and have a bīja and an ending like namaḥ or svāhā. Such mantras are secret. Hare Krṣṇa and the above mantra are in the 8th case, and are thus public. But on the whole, yes, if you add or change things that is Guru aparādha."

Bhakta: "There is this Caitanya Sahasra Nāma - is that not rasābhāsa? All names are mixed up there, of Krṣṇa and Mahāprabhu. It is said to be written by Rūpa Gosvāmī. There is a whole range of aiśvarya and mādhurya names there, all mixed up with each other - names of Gaura, Krṣṇa and Viṣṇu.."

Advaitadas: "There are 3 such sahasra nāmas - one is by Kavi Karṇapura, verse 2 in it says it was recited by Brahma Haridās to Rūpa Gosvāmī in front of Kavi Karṇapura (obviously in Puri). Such a mix up of aiśvarya and mādhurya is quite common for such Sahasra Nāma Stotras. As for mixing names of Gaura and Krṣṇa in one writing, it is done also by Rūpa Gosvāmī himself in his Caitanyāṣṭakams. That is done to preach to the public that Mahāprabhu is Krṣṇa only. Most of the names actually apply to all three (Gaura, Krṣṇa and Viṣṇu)."

Bhakta: 'This verse Mahāprabhu chanted, 'gopī bhartur pādakamalayor dāsa-dāsānudāsa - does it mean its higher to be a servant of the servant of the servant of Rādhārāṇī than to be somewhere in Viśākhā or Lalitā's camp?"

Advaitadas: "First of all this verse has nothing to do with gopī bhāva, it has to do with the superiority of bhakti over varṇāśrama. Krṣṇa happens to be called Gopī bhartu here, He might as well have been called Nanda-Nandana or so. It applies to cowherd boys just as well. Secondly, servants of Rādhārāṇī are usually either in Lalitā's or Viśākhā's camp."

Bhakta: "What I mean is, isn't it better to be the servant of the servant of the servant, instead of being so far up, so close to Rādhā-Krṣṇa?"

Advaitadas: "It is a universal verse which is both philosophical and devotional. Being the servant of the servant of the servant doesn't mean you are at the end of the line, some 25 miles distance from Rādhā-Krṣṇa. It means you are right there, massaging Their feet during the most intimate pastimes. Being the servant of the servant of the servant means just that you are always aware of your servanthood of the servants of Rādhikā - Guru Mañjarī serves under her Guru Mañjarī etc etc all the way up to Viśākhā devī. It is a statement of humility and service attitude only. It does not create even a micrometer geographical distance between you and Śrī Rādhikā. Servant of the servant means your Guru gave you the service of massaging Rādhārāṇī's feet, and he/she him/herself is right by your side, fanning Her. Servant of the servant means you never stop serving the Guru, unlike the māyāvādīs, who serve Guru up to the stage of mukti. In the liberated state Guru becomes Mañjarī and you become Mañjarī and the master-servant relationship continues from there, eternally."

Bhakta: "I think only a few people can go to Krṣṇaloka because otherwise it would have to expand so much."

Advaitadas: "Indeed, attainment of Krṣṇa-loka is very rare, but don't worry - there is place enough for everyone. Either way, both the material world and spiritual world are unlimited. Plenty of space. There is one Rādhā-Krṣṇa for each liberated soul."

Bhakta: "Perhaps only in our meditations."

Advaitadas: "In Krṣṇa-loka too, as far as we can call it a location. jīvanmukta stage means you are liberated within the body and this has a devotional purport, too. Srila Rūpa Gosvāmī says:

iha yasya harer dāsye karmanā manasā girā

nikhilāsv apy avasthāsu jīvan-muktaḥ sa ucyate

"Whoever is serving Lord Hari in all circumstances, with works, the mind and speech, is called a liberated soul in this body." (Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu 1.2.187)"

Bhakta: "So if the spiritual sky expands like that, everything will be Vṛndāvana and there is no more material world?"

Advaitadas: "We discussed this before. Both the material and the spiritual worlds are limitless."

Bhakta: "I heard that Subal and other cowherd boys also have mādhurya bhāva, and thus their sakhya bhāva is higher than vātsalya."

Advaitadas: "That is correct. A small group of cowherd boys have thus superseded the devotees of vātsalya rasa, although normally vātsalya rasa is consired higher than sakhya rasa. A few members of vātsalya rasa also have access to mādhurya, though, like Mukharā and Paurṇamāsī, who, like Subal and other priya narma sakhās, also assist indirectly in mādhurya līlā as supporters. At Śyāmakuṇḍa, the eight chief sakhās are under the command of the eight chief sakhīs. Madhumangal is under the command of Lalitā, although in the līlā they quarrel so much. (Govinda Līlāmṛta 7.111-117) A boy is more likely to confide in his intimate affairs with his boyfriends than with his parents."

Bhakta: "Is it possible that while practising Mañjarī sādhana one comes to realize that my sthāyi bhāva is actually Rām bhakti or so? All types of bhakti are welcomed by Śrīman Mahāprabhu...."

Advaitadas: "Attraction can not be forced. Even Mahāprabhu, God Himself, could not dissuade Murāri Guptā from Rām-bhakti. If you would have no attraction to Mañjarī bhāva I can see no reason why you would take initiation into it. This is a purely theoretical question, but attraction overrides all theories. Attraction to the feelings of the Vrajabāsīs gives access to rāgānugā bhakti. na ca śāstraṁ na yuktiṁ ca (Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu) - "śāstra and logic do not give access to rāgānugā bhakti." The only reason why one might become attracted to a lower rasa is offences committed to Krṣṇa or His devotees -

bhāvo'py abhāvam āyāti kṛṣṇa-preṣṭhāparādhataḥ; 

ābhāsatāṁ ca shanakair nyūna-jātīyatām api (Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu 1.3.54)

(To be continued.....)

Suicide at Govardhan, murmura, and more Gaura-questions

Bhakta: "It is said that Raghunāth Dās Goswāmī wanted to jump off Govardhan Hill to commit suicide, and that it is a custom to commit suicide like this, but I don't see it high enough anywhere to jump to death from."

Advaitadas : "Towards Pucchari its pretty high, but even there there's no steep cliff. You could break a leg or get a concussion at best there. He could have drowned himself in Yamunā or Rādhākund as well, but that's not the point. The point is he was feeling intense grief. In the end he never committed suicide, also not when Rūpa and Sanātana Goswāmīs disappeared. Mahāprabhu had already forbidden Sanātan Goswāmī to commit suicide."

Bhakta: "In the Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Caritāmṛta Murari Gupta says that Lakṣmī-priyā was an Apsarā banished from heaven, but in the end she would be redeemed by marrying Nārāyan [Mahāprabhu]. "

Advaitadas: "There is no need for confusion. In Gaur Gaṇoddeśa Dīpika Kavi Karṇapur describes multiple swarūpas for one person and one swarūpa for multiple persons too. It is all possible. The gopīs also were Devis, Upaniṣads, sages, and the nitya siddhas. Droṇa and Dharā merged into the nitya siddha Nanda and Yaśodā, too. Murāri Guptā is Hanumān, so his authority cannot be ignored or disbelieved."

Bhakta: "There is this nice verse from Rūpa Goswāmī's Padyāvalī (361) :

asyās tāpam ahaṁ mukunda kathayāmy eṇī-dṛśas te kathaṁ

padminyāḥ sa-rasaṁ dalaṁ vinihitaṁ yasyāḥ sa-tāpe hṛdi

ādau śuṣyati saṅkucaty anu tataś cūrṇatvam āpadyate

paśCān murmuratāṁ dadhad dahati ca śvāsāvadhūtaṁ śikhī

"O Mukunda, how will I describe the sufferings of this doe-eyed girl? Her sighs constantly fan the flames of Her suffering. When a beautiful lotus petal is placed on Her burning breast it first become dried, then shriveled, then turns to powder, and then becomes a blazing dust-fire."

Advaitadas: "I had not noticed this verse before. It is clear that it must have inspired Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda to compose the verses about Śrī Rādhikā's unguents drying to a crisp:

gehāgatāṁ virahiṇīṁ nava-puṣpa-talpe

tvāṁ śāyayāni parataḥ kila murmurābhāt

tasmāt paratra śayanaṁ visa-punja-klṛptam

adhyāśayāni vidhu-candana-panka-liptām

"When you return home in the afternoon I will lay You to rest on a fresh bed of flowers, which I will anoint with unguents like vertiver, camphor and sandal that will cool off your afflicted body, which burns in the fire of separation from Kṛṣṇa in such a way that it makes the bed smoulder like a chaff-fire in no time." (Sankalpa Kalpadruma - 72) This verse even contains the same word for it, murmura.

tad ālīnāṁ pālyā samucita saparyyākula dhiyāṁ

dravaiḥ paunaḥ puṇyān malayaja-bhavai lipta vapuñaḥ

stṛtāyāś cābhīkṣṇaṁ visa kisalayaiḥ saindhava-rasaiḥ

"Although Her sakhīs served Her with anxious hearts as was proper by repeatedly anointing Her body with sandal paste, lotus pollen and camphor, the heat of Her afflicted body (that burned in the fire of separation from Hari) made these substances dry up (at once) and then they had to apply them again." (Kṛṣṇa Bhāvanāmṛta 16.3)

Bhakta: " When Mahāprabhu met Lakṣmī-priyā (Caitanya Caritāmṛta Adi 14.66) He told Her to worship Him as Maheśvara. Sometimes that's translated as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but prof. Dimock says it means Śiva."

Advaitadas: "In this case prof. Dimock is right. Young maidens worship Śiva to get a good husband. That is why Mahāprabhu told her He is Śiva."

Bhakta:"In Caitanya Caritāmṛta Adi 11.28, Prof. Dimock says Purandarācārya floated in the ocean of prema like a croc."

Advaitadas: "Here he is wrong. The verse says premārṇava madhye phire yaichana mandara - 'He rotated [phire means rotating, not floating] like the Mandara mountain (which also rotated, on Kūrma-deva's back)."

Bhakta: "In Caitanya Caritāmṛta Adi 10.15 Gadādhara Paṇḍit is called Lakṣmī rūpā. Some say that means he's as beautiful as Lakṣmī, others say he is the Lord's pleasure potency. Which one is right?"

Advaitadas: "They both are. In Bengali the word 'rūpa' also means beauty. It seems strange this is ascribed to a male person, but Gadādhar Paṇḍit is śakti-tattva in Gaura-līlā, an aṁśa of Smt. Rādhārāṇī."

Yogapīṭh, Gaura Līlā, Sādhu Saṅga and Nityānanda Trayodaśī

Yogapīṭh, Gaura Līlā, Sādhu Saṅga and Nityānanda Trayodaśī

Bhakta: 'What is Yogapīṭh practise?"

Advaitadas: "It means the sacred meeting place of Rādhā Kṛṣṇa. It is not a concoction, it is mentioned in Govinda Līlāmṛta (21.94, with reference to the Vedas) and in Sankalpa Kalpadruma (51) by Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda. It is a ritual diagram in the shape of an 8-petalled lotus flower. It has been developed into an elaborate ritual, involving two diagrams, one of Navadvīpa and one of Vṛndāvana, in which you have to offer so many articles like sandal pulp and flowers to so many characters inside the diagram. In the whorl of the lotus are Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, and each of the petals houses one sakhī; under each sakhi serves again one main mañjarī. There is a mirror-model of Navadvīpa, where Mahāprabhu stands in the whorl, surrounded by all His associates. The practise has been elaborated upon by Gopal Guru Goswāmī and Dhyānacandra Goswāmī of the Vakreśvara Paṇḍit parivāra."

Bhakta: "But in your parivāra you don't practise the Navadvīpa-yogapīṭha, right?"

Advaitadas: "We don't practise either of them; it has not been given by Advaita Prabhu and we will not add things ourselves."

Bhakta: "In Nārada Pañcarātra there is a description of all kinds of circles existing around Lord Nārāyan in Vaikuṇṭha. Is there some sort of parallel there?"

Advaitadas: "Yes, that may be the text that is referred to in that Govinda Līlāmṛta verse (21.94) I quoted just now. The Goswāmīs presented us with a rasik version of these ancient tāntrik rituals (tantra here means Vedic ritual, not the sexual practises)."

Bhakta: "But we are not in circles around Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, right?"

Advaitadas: "If your Guru gives you this Yogapīṭh practise then you must take your position within the diagram, at least during the time of pūjā. As I said, it is mentioned in śāstra - in chapter 7 of Govinda Līlāmṛta you find a description of the 8 sakhīs' groves around Rādhākuṇḍa, each in a fixed corner of the kuṇḍa. They have exactly the same position in the Yogapīṭh in Vṛndāvana (situated roughly where the Govinda Mandir is, in the north of town). Its current form is a pretty recent practise."

Bhakta: "I heard that if you don't practise Yogapīṭh you cannot attain Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa or realize your mañjarī svarūpa."

Advaitadas: "I have not seen that in śāstra or heard it from my Guru. It's hard enough as it is - there are 10 offences to the name, 32 offences in service and 6 offences to the Vaiṣṇavas - that is 48 hurdles already. That should be enough."

Bhakta: "Professor Dimock, in his presentation of Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta, says: "Kṛṣṇa did not have the experience of Rādhā to the full. For a while He was with Rādhā, but He did not experience fully what She was experiencing, so He became Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa in a single body, etc." That does not sound correct."

Advaitadas: "No that is not correct and that is why Sādhu Bābā cautioned against reading Kṛṣṇa-kathā from non devotees. They cannot understand due to a lack of spiritual insight which is only gotten through bhakti practise - bhajatāṁ prīti pūrvakaṁ dadāmi buddhi yogam tam (Bhagavad Gītā 10.10) "I give buddhi yoga (spiritual intelligence) to those who do my bhajan with love." This buddhi is different from mundane intellect. It is expanded consciousness. They have no dīkṣā and perform no sādhana, without which it is simply impossible to understand these things. bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvan yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ (Bhagavad Gītā 18.55) Kṛṣṇa was not with Rādhā for a while. Swarūp Dāmodar has given three reasons for Mahāprabhu's descent - succinctly it boils down to one - wanting to understand Rādhā's feelings for that. Was there any conclusion to that? Is it written at the end of Caitanya Caritāmṛta, 'Yes, now He understood it!'? No. If Kṛṣṇa were able to understand Rādhā's love then Gaura-līlā would be temporary, a once-only mission. Yet all pastimes of the Lord are eternal, including Gaura līlā. He tries to understand, but cannot, eternally so. Otherwise what would be the use of Gaura-līlā "

Bhakta: "Prof. Dimock concludes that two become one in Mahāprabhu, Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa."

Advaitadas: "Not only he, even most Vaiṣṇavas have that mistaken understanding. Mahāprabhu is Kṛṣṇa, accepting the feelings of Rādhā. That is quite something else from a merger. Look at it like this - your father is English, your mother is English, so genetically you are 100% English, yet for many years you have accepted the feelings and culture of India. So now are you English or Indian? You are English, accepting the mood of an Indian. If one of your parents were Indian and the other English, you would be a half-breed, as what Dimock and many Vaiṣṇavas misunderstand about Gaura. Gaura is Kṛṣṇa, cent percent, but He accepts the feeling of Rādhā. rādhā bhāva dyuti subalitaṁ naumi kṛṣṇa svarūpam. Returning to the topic of intellectuals vs devotees, devotee association is crucial. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī says ādau śraddhā tathā sādhu saṅga'tha bhajana kriyā  First there must be faith, then association with sādhus and only then one can commence bhajan. Furthermore, in his commentary on these verses Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī says that even before that faith occurs one requires association with devotees. Without devotee-association there is neither the commencement of bhakti nor its continuation or survival. You can distribute millions of books but they can only give a first prompt to a candidate. The candidate will have to seek out a personal explanation from a living devotee in order to understand the philosophy."

Bhakta: "Did Advaita Prabhu offer Tulasī-leaves to His Śālagram Śilā to invoke the advent of Śrīman Mahāprabhu?"

Advaitadas: "tulasī dala mātrena jalasya culukena vā - He offered water and Tulasī yes, but not to a Śālagrām. Not a single biography of Advaita Prabhu mentions Him having a Śālagrām. He had dual deities of Rādhā-Madangopāl only."

Bhakta: "One Vaiṣṇava told me that there is difference between the historical dates of a scripture and the content."

Advaitadas: "Transcendental devotional stories are not always historical facts, nor do they need to be. They are in fact far far superior to matters or events that fit in time- and space-frames. They are meant to give us meditation on Kṛṣṇa, and attraction to Him. In many cases, especially hagiographies, like those of Advaita Ācārya and Śrīnivāsācārya (in the beginning of Bhakti Ratnākara) it is very clear that they are impossible to fit into a chronological sequence. This does not mean that the stories are not true or that they are fabricated or made up. Same thing with hagiographies of Gurus and sādhus."

Bhakta: "How to break fast after Dvādaśī if the next day is Nityānanda Trayodaśī?"

Advaitadas: "The whole complication has been created because people have introduced the advent days of Adwaita Prabhu and Nityananda Prabhu as vrata (fasting-) days, which they are not according to the Haribhakti Vilāsa. That includes Rādhāṣṭamī too. If one would not fast on Nityānanda's day you could easily break the Dvādaśī-fast that often precedes it. Ekādaśī prevails over non-śāstric vratas, no doubt."

Reconstructing tradition (4)

This is the 4th and final part of my book review of Mrs. Rebecca Manring's book 'Reconstructing tradition', dealing with the life of Śrī Advaita Prabhu.

KṚṢṆA MIŚRA
Next, a controversy is discussed about the maternity of Kṛṣṇa Miśra Goswāmī – it seems only Advaita Prakāśa (though it is my family’s main digest) claims that he is the son of Sītā-devi (but given for adoption to Śrī-devī), while all other biographies of Advaita Prabhu seem to claim he is the only son of Śrī-devī. This may require some further investigation. Mrs. Manring suggests that Īśāna wrote this because ‘The son of a secondary wife like Śrī-devī usually is considered to have a less legitimate claim to inheritance than his half-brothers by the chief wife. Only householders can inherit, however, and four of Advaita’s six sons had chosen monastic lives.’ From Advaita Prakāśa it’s clear that, of the two only gṛhastha-sons of Advaita, Kṛṣṇa Miśra inherited the deity worship and Balarām Miśra inherited financially. Mrs. Manring: “That second son (Kṛṣṇa Miśra), according to Advaita Prakāśa, though generally recognized as the only son of Śrī-devī, is actually the son of Lakṣmī (Sītā) and Mahāviṣṇu. Śrī-devī, generally understood to be Kṛṣṇa Miśra's mother, is identified with Lakṣmī only secondarily, by association with her sister Sītā, who, Īśāna had already told us, was found in a lotus in a marsh by her father when she was a child. That is, Sītā IS the goddess Lakṣmī.  Obviously the torchbearer of Advaita Acarya’s lineage is Sītā-Lakṣmī, not the more obscure Śrī-devī. Īśāna needs to make Sītā Kṛṣṇa Miśra’s mother….to help bolster his position that Advaita Ācārya was actually the most significant member of Navadvīpa Līlā.” I find this largely unfounded speculation, especially the last assumption.

Finally, Premavilāsa, Advaita Prakāśa and Narottam Vilās all indicate that mother and sons were initially at odds but eventually reconciled. Ramākānta Cakravartī suggests that Advaita Ācārya’s following split into at least three rival groups following the leader’s death – one led by Sītā, one by Acyuta and the third by the younger sons and Kāmadeva. According to the Prem-vilāsa and the Sītā Caritra the rift between Sītā-devī and Kṛṣṇa Miśra as mended through the efforts of Īśāna and Jānu at a kīrtan-festival. Mrs. Manring suggests that Raghunāth and Dol Govinda, Kṛṣṇa Miśra's two sons, were named reincarnations of Gaura-Nitāi in an attempt to reunite the sampradāya. Mrs. Manring also suggests they appeared to console Advaita Prabhu, who suffered the pangs of separation from Gaura-Nitāi so much.

Goswāmīs in Śāntipur insist that Sītā devi fought against the tendency among Sītānātha’s followers (which, if true, could have only been associates of her own children) to elevate Advaita Prabhu to the position of the Supreme Lord himself, thereby bypassing Śrīman Mahāprabhu.

A golden saying in this book I find ‘The saint is a human being, but one possessed of superhuman qualities” (p.219)

EPILOGUE
In the epilogue Mrs. Manring quotes a Bengali devotee saying (rightly) about the many contradictions between the biographies: ‘There is no way of knowing which one is right or wrong. Scholars of the tradition seem to have no more interest than the academic in establishing the accuracy of one account and the error of all the others. Rather they viewed each text as its author’s paean to Advaita Ācārya, testimonies to the devotion of their creators.” Personally I would follow what the Guru has told me and what makes obvious sense. On the age of the biographies, Mrs. Manring says that ‘the grammar of the middle Bengali of the Advaita Maṅgal, Advaita Prakāśa and the Sītā Carita appears to be consistent with the grammar of the language of the late 16th century……”, though “a good modern scholar of Bengali could certainly reproduce the earlier forms of the language in his own compositions…..scribes have been known to ‘correct’ texts as they copied them.” The old system of hand-copying texts of course left room for both error and interpolation, but there’s no reason to believe that the bulk of books like Advaita Prakāśa especially is not genuine biography. Nowhere in this book is a death-blow given to either sceptics or believers of the biographies. On p. 242 Mrs. Manring again suggests the Advaita Prakāśa could have been written around 1896 only, but if that were so, whence all the details about Advaita Prabhu’s life – how could they have been known so many centuries later? Mrs. Manring writes (p.243): “Acyuta-caran (Chaudhari) writes in his introduction to the Balya lila sutra that after Advaita’s death his then-elderly former household servant Īśāna Dās went to Lāuḍa to propound Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism and write a book about Advaita’s life at Sītā Devī’s request. Īśāna took (apparently the sole exemplar of) the BLS along with him far to the east to use as a reference for details of the early portions of Advaita’s life that he himself had not witnessed. Thus….the BLS remained hidden in Lāuḍa until it came to his (Acyuta Caran’s) attention in the late 19th century.” On page 248 Mrs. Manring reminds us that Lāuḍa (NE Bangladesh) was and is a remote place, so most devotees had simply never heard of the Bālya Līlā Sūtra.

At the end of the day, it is the faith and devotion that counts. Opponents of the Gauḍīya Maṭh do not believe that Prem Vivarta was written by Jagadānanda Pandit but by Bhaktivinode or his followers, while opponents of the traditional Vaiṣṇavas claim that Advaita Prakāśa is not genuine. Ultimately it is the devotional boost one gets from such books that counts, not the scholarly and historical nitty-gritty (though I insist that the unique detail and quantity of the Advaita Prakāśa-narrations establish it as a genuine scripture).

Apart from a unique insight in rare books on Advaita Prabhu, Mrs. Manring also treats us on a report of her field trip to the actual birthplace of Sītānāth, in Sylhet (Śrī Haṭṭa, NE Bangladesh), towards the end of the book (p.230), at the base of the distant mountains of India’s Meghālaya. Apparently the place is lost and the village of Navagrām is now divided by one of the many constantly shifting rivers of the Bengali delta, though there is still a small temple at the birthplace where service is going on (at least in 1994). The place is just a small village with mud- and cow dung huts near a bamboo jungle and a beach – it sounds like the same rustic sweetness as rural Vraja. It is extremely hard to find and to reach and no Vaiṣṇava pilgrims go there. Some simple worship is still going on there, though, and the locals have not forgotten Prabhu Sītānāth. Earlier, Mrs. Manring described Sītānāth’s home in Śāntipur, Bāblā, as ‘no longer on the riverbank, but a small tributary still flows next to it. The place is especially beautiful, with mango- and other trees hanging very low and small boys herding their cows and goats around them. One almost expects to see Kṛṣṇa Himself dance out from behind one of the trees, playing His flute.” Yours truly can confirm the place is as beautiful – I was there once in October 2003.

On page 247, Mrs. Manring defends Advaita Prakāśa against doubts raised by her colleague B.B. Majumdar, that it has so many detailed birth dates, while this is not the custom in Vaiṣṇava hagiography, and that, therefore, it could be a later work than is claimed. Mrs. Manring: “However, the culture displays an intense interest in dates for ritual and astrological purposes, so, while an abundance of dates in an Indian text may be unusual, it is not entirely surprising that an influential family would keep track of the dates of birth of its sons. The AP purports to have been written at the request of Sītā Devī some thirty years after Caitanya’s death…five years after Advaita’s death, by which time concern of succession and legitimacy were beginning to arise within the Gaudiya Vaiṣṇava community. The dates, especially of the births of Advaita Ācārya’s sons, would have helped to establish rights of sectarian succession. Other texts in the Advaita corpus also mention dates……Although, as Majumdar points out, this interest in historical precision is unusual in South Asia, it seems to have been important to members of Advaita’s branch of the community.”

This article is now also posted on madangopal.com at the link-tab ‘Articles’

Reconstructing tradition (3)

Reconstructing tradition Part 3-

A common misunderstanding among worldly scholars is that there was some kind of feud between Nityānanda Prabhu and Advaita Prabhu. Mrs. Manring shares this opinion, writing that Īśāna Nāgar “….throughout this episode…puts seemingly mean-spirited words in Nityānanda’s mouth and conciliation in Advaita’s”. However, in ch.15 and 16 I can find only one such exchange in each, neither of them showing any other exchange than one of mutual love. The Bengali text of Advaita Prakāśa rather speaks of Advaita’s Premera Roṣa (loving anger). Throughout the manifest pastimes of Mahāprabhu Nitāi and Sītānātha were confirmed the best of friends, it is clear from all the scriptures on Mahāprabhu.

Another common misunderstanding among the scholars, Mrs. Manring included (she suggests so several times in this book), is that Advaita Prabhu was an actual advaita-vādī (non-dualist), although it is said in all the devotional scriptures that He only preached advaita-vāda or jñāna vāda to get a loving punishment from Mahāprabhu. Apparently the academics see this as a devotional embellishment of the actual truth instead of an actual devotional truth. In her description of the passing away of Nityānanda, at the end of Advaita Prakāśa, Mrs. Manring blunders again by suggesting that Vīrabhadra was humiliated by having to serve the leaders of Nityānanda’s group during the viraha utsava. She calls it a ‘subtle attack’ (by Īśāna on the Nityānanda followers), perhaps not understanding that in Vaiṣṇavism service is a privilege and not a humiliation. Her idea is contradicted almost immediately hereafter by the narration of Vīrabhadra Prabhu asking initiation from Advaita Prabhu, and Advaita sending him back to his own mother, Jāhnavā, for dīkṣā instead.

Mrs. Manring also accuses Īśāna Nāgara of making Advaita instead of Mahāprabhu the instigator of the bhakti cult but this is not fair – in all other scriptures, like Caitanya Bhāgavat and Caitanya Caritāmṛta, Advaita is also described as being an active bhakti-preacher before Mahāprabhu’s advent – if He were not so, why would He even have bothered to invoke Mahāprabhu’s advent in the first place? Her claim that some, like Īśāna, have presented Advaita Prabhu as superior to Mahāprabhu in every sense needs to be seen in the context of bhāvollāsa, wherein a devotee develops greater love for an associate of the Lord than for the Lord itself. Several times in her book, Mrs. Manring suggests there is a kind of gender discrimination in that mostly males are allowed to do mañjarī practises, but this is pertinently untrue.

A new controversy for me is the Śrī Advaita Abhiśāpa, ‘Śrī Advaita’s curse’, a booklet written by one Kiran-chand Daraveśa (sounds sahajīya to me), saying that Advaita Prabhu cursed Mahāprabhu for not staying in Nadiya after taking sannyāsa and thus hurting his loved ones. He would have to be born again to satisfy Advaita’s desire for his company. Because He spent 10 days at His (Advaita’s) place after taking sannyāsa in Katwa He would get a ten-generation grace period, and then He (Mahāprabhu) would have to take birth in Advaita’s family. This is a prediction of the advent of Vijay Kṛṣṇa Gosvami, who was born in Advaita Prabhu’s 10th generation. Mahāprabhu, according to this booklet, graciously accepts the curse, saying He can never be without Nityānanda and Advaita and that He will appear in a large form wearing dreadlocks (exactly fitting Vijaya’s description). This story does not appear in any other scripture and could be understood as a glorification of Vijay Kṛṣṇa Gosvami only.

About amplification or ‘accretion’ of the hagiographies, Mrs. Manring writes (p. 200) something interesting:

“Gaudiya Vaiṣṇavas often view such textual accretions not as extraneous padding and certainly not as anything suspect, but as further elaboration of the truth contained in a given work. This elaboration may include exaggeration or even downright creative license to make the author’s point about the stature and status of his protagonist. Such textual accretions are not regarded as dishonest but as reflections of the author’s wholehearted devotion to his subject. Further, the actual author stands to accrue some karmic benefit by contributing to the good reputation of his subject – and by doing so in a way that is clearly not designed to garner that author any fame or other benefit.”

I applaud this but would like to add the condition of rasābhāsa and viruddha siddhānta to it – additions and elaborations are all right as long as they do not contain bogus philosophies or perverted flavors.

SĪTĀ CARITRA

Next Mrs. Manring starts reviewing Sītā Caritra, by Lokanath Das (not the famous Lokanath Gosvami), which is intriguing, because I searched for this booklet for long in India without ever finding it. It is filled with anecdotes rather than with a chronological biography, and is a newer text, since it mentions Caitanya Caritāmṛta. In chapter 2 of this booklet Sītā Devī crosses the river to Navadvīpa to visit the newborn Nimāi. She casts a spell over mother Śacī so that she can speak with the baby out of his mother’s hearing. The baby reaches out to Sītā, calling out ‘Rādhā!’ Sītā immediately understands that the infant is actually Kṛṣṇa, but also that he thinks he is in a different time and place, back in the cowherd village of Gokula. Sītā tells Him that she is not Rādhā but the brahmin wife of Advaita, and that He (Kṛṣṇa) is now born in Navadvīpa with a golden body….Nimāi then claims that Sītā is Yogamāyā who precedes Him in each birth (which is more on the mark). Sītā protests, reiterating that she is not the divine Rādhā but simply someone who wants to serve Rādhā’s feet. Chapter three deals with Nimāi’s studies at Advaita’s school and chapter 4 deals with the relationship between Nimāi and Acyuta, Adwaita’s eldest son. Here the story in Advaita Prakāśa is repeated, that Acyuta eats some food which had been meant for offering to Nimāi, but instead of bananas (as in Advaita Prakāśa) here it is cream. In chapter 5 Nimāi leaves Advaita’s home after completing His studies there, and Kṛṣṇa Mishra announces that Nimāi will eventually take sannyāsa and who will be His sannyāsa Guru. Chapter 6 describes how Mahāprabhu, after His disappearance, appears to Sītā Devī and consoles Her. Chapter 7 deals with Nandinī and Jangalī, Sītā-devī’s two male disciples who had a mystical gender change to qualify for dīkṣā from Her. Sakhī-bhekhī-groups try to incorporate Sītā and Advaita into their group by quoting this instance as proof that they are doing the right thing, but of course this is just a special pastime and a special mercy of Sītā devi upon Nandaram and Yajnesvara, men who would otherwise not qualify as Her disciples. It does not set a standard or create a precedent; indeed the practise of cross-dressing has never again occurred in Advaita Prabhu’s lineage. Mrs. Manring writes (p. 204): “When Sītā reminds the pair of the gender requirement for discipleship, the two disappear, returning a short time later dressed as cowherd girls, with braided hair, anklets, bangles, skirts and bodices. They announce that the practise of Rādhā-mantra has affected a sex-change in them. To prove that they are no longer male they disrobe and Sītā sees that they are, indeed, female. So great was their devotion to Her that they were ready to give up their male gender for Her.”

Chapters 7 and 8 are controversial because they conflict with the teachings of Sādhu Bābā that we did not receive Rādhā- Gaura- or Guru-mantras from Advaita Prabhu, while in these chapters Sītā devī is described as bestowing them upon Nandarām and Yajñesvara. Whether this was an exceptional situation, an interpolation or just falsehood that invalidates (this part of) the book is unclear. Later on in the book, perhaps somewhere in chapter 12, a very young girl gives birth to a boy of which she says it is Nandinī’s son, which is strange since Nandinī is supposed to have had a mystical gender change. Afterwards, the boy is never mentioned again, nor is this mysterious story to be found in any other biography of Sītā and Advaita.

In the final chapter of the Sītā Carita we learn of Jaṅgalī’s similar, though even more puzzling experiences. “The local governor… has come to investigate the reports he has heard about this strange woman. Jangali warns the governor that if he touches her he will die. He ignores the warning and commands his attendant to remove the woman’s garment. Jaṅgalī prays to Sītā and then, no matter how much cloth the attendant unwinds from her body, still more remains. Jaṅgalī, good disciple that she is, keeps her mind focused on Sītā’s feet and Sītā, in the form of Jaṅgalī’s garment, protects her disciple… Jaṅgalī’s death-curse then takes effect on the governor – blood flowed from his mouth and his strength drained out of him. He fell to his feet and begged forgiveness and even asks his erstwhile victim to punish him.” Mrs Manring here suggests the governor is a European but I fail to see how this could be, since the British only arrived in India some 200 years later. The final chapter of Sītā Caritra is really undermining its credibility as it apparently gives credence to superstitious myths on the Sundarbans and its ‘protecting deities’ Dakhin Ray and Boner Bibi, that protect travellers against ferocious tigers in the forest. In the story Dakhin teams up with his Muslim enemy Boro Khan Gazi with an army of fakirs to test Jangali and Sītā is supposed to be Devī who rides a tiger (that much is true). Of course this final chapter may have been added to the book later by others. Three chapters are dedicated to Īśāna, who sees Kṛṣṇa in baby Nimāi and wonders what his (Īśāna’s) role could be in Gaura līlā, since Kṛṣṇa had Himself brought all His friends and relatives along to Bengal. Īśāna explains that in Kṛṣṇa-līlā he had been Radhika’s maternal grandmother (Mukherā), who somehow got entangled with all of Kṛṣṇa’s naughty pastimes with the gopīs. Then, when Nimāi takes sannyāsa, he asks Īśāna to take care of His elderly mother and His young wife. So I suppose this is the other Īśāna, the personal servant of Śacī-mātā, and not the servant of Advaita Prabhu. It’s confusing really – were there two Īśānas in Advaita Prabhu’s household then, the servant of Śacī-mātā as well as the Īśāna adopted earlier by Advaita Prabhu, who wrote the Advaita Prakāśa? Or is there only one? Anyway, according to this account, Śacī-mātā and Viṣṇupriyā pass away shortly after Mahāprabhu and Īśāna then turns to Advaita Prabhu and offers his services to Him. He gets ‘bugs’, possibly lice, on his head, that start feeding on his blood, and very much like the leper Vāsudeva, places each of them back on his head if they fall off, afraid they will run out of food. Out of compassion Sītā Devī then places her hand on his head, making all the bugs instantly disappear.

In the following chapter (11) Advaita’s family travels to Nīlāmbara’s house for a celebration with the entire Vaiṣṇava community. Four disciples, including Īśāna and his friend Jānu Rāy, carry Sītā in a palanquin on their shoulders. Jānu wants the two to carry Sītā by themselves so they can get all the credit and Īśāna agrees, though he knows they should not do this. Jānu thinks he will one day be rewarded for the pious deed, but Sītā understands what is going on, gets out of the palanquin, rebukes him and rejects him ‘for contemplating God’s awesome majesty instead of having a more personal relationship with the divine’ (?). Sītā says Jānu’s family will always remain attached to karma kāṇḍa and never achieve pure bhakti. Mrs. Manring suggests that Sītā’s order to Īśāna to marry (again, which Īśāna is this?) is perhaps like a punitive order. As a last act, Īśāna reconciles Kṛṣṇa Miśra with his mother (although the cause of their conflict is not mentioned).

(to be continued........)

Reconstructing tradition (2)

This is the 2nd part of a 3-part series on Rebecca Manring's book on Advaita Prabhu and the Advaita Parivāra, called 'Reconstructing tradition', posted to coincide with the Advent Day of Advaita Prabhu. Today 4 subjects: Songs about Advaita Prabhu, various small booklets, some more details on Vijay Kṛṣṇa Gosvāmī and the Advaita Bālya Līlā Sūtra.

PADĀVALI
Padāvalī means ‘series of songs’ and is a very important and popular bhakti-experience, especially in Bengali Vaiṣṇavism. Mrs. Manring quotes a sample or two in her book, and notes that most of the songs about Advaita Prabhu were not written by His own followers, members of His lineage. There are very few songs about Advaita Prabhu’s pastimes other than those that specifically deal with Mahāprabhu’s pastimes in which Advaita might have played a role. This one (her translation) is about Advaita Prabhu’s advent, written by Ghanaśyām Dās:

On the seventh day of the bright fortnight of the month of Magh,

The ocean of great bliss burst forth.

That moon Advaita descended from Labha’s blessed womb at the auspicious moment.

(His father) Kubera Pandit was thrilled,

And gave various gifts to brahmins and the poor

He raced into the childbirth-room and sw his son’s face

And his heart rejoiced

All the people of Navagram came running, and told each other

They had never seen a child like this.

Mishra in his old age, as the result of his good deeds,

Got a jewel of a son like this.

The gods rained flowers down upon them,

There has never been anything like it

The sound ‘victory! victory!’ filled the world

Ghanasyam proclaims this great glory

MISCELLANEOUS ADVAITA-BOOKLETS

Mrs. Manring then continues in chapter 3 of her book with reviewing other booklets about Advaita Prabhu, starting with the Advaitoddeśa Dīpikā, written by Devakīnandan Das, said to be a śiṣya of Kṛṣṇa Miśra Prabhu. He claims that Advaita Prabhu is the cowherd boy Ujjvala, Śrī Kṛṣṇa as the son of Vasudev, Viśākhā (we follow him in that), Sampūrṇa Mañjarī (that was also claimed in Advaita Mangal) and Sadāśiva (we follow him in that too). This is quite a different picture from what Sādhu Bābā had given me - he said Advaita Prabhu is Madhumangal (instead of Ujjval) in sakhya rasa, Mahāviṣṇu (instead of pūrṇatara (2nd class) Kṛṣṇa in Mathura, though perhaps Devakīnandan and Haricaraṇa see them as one and the same), and Rati Mañjarī (instead of Sampūrṇa Mañjarī, which would make no sense. If Advaita Prabhu is so prominent in Gaur-līlā, how could he be a totally unknown and unmentioned mañjarī named Sampūrṇa instead of the famous and foremost Rati Mañjarī?) Mrs. Manring tries to reconcile Advaita being equated with Kṛṣṇa in Mathurā by making the point that Yogamāyā (Sītā devī) appeared along with Kṛṣṇa in Mathurā in Kaṁsa's dungeon. Interesting in any case is that Sītā and Advaita did appear historically before Mahāprabhu, as Yogamāyā always appears before the Lord Himself does. In our branch of the family Sītā and Advaita are considered one tattva and are thus both Yogamāyā. In both Advaitoddeśa Dīpikā and Advaita Mangal Sītā devī is called Kanaka Sundarī, which Mrs. Manring attempts to explain as follows: 'This Golden Beauty is not one of the mañjarīs, but she is instrumental in facilitating the love play of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa....In Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Abhidhāna Haridās Dās describes her simply as Rādhā's maidservant." It may be just another aspect or name of Yogamāyā. In the end of her review of the Dīpikā, Mrs. Manring reveals that Devakīnandan is actually a son of Balarām Gosāi's third wife, though he claims allegiance to both Kṛṣṇa Miśra and Balarām Miśra. Balarām became the head of a branch which claimed Advaita Himself was actually the Supreme Lord (rather than Mahāprabhu. This is called advaita-pāramya vāda), whereas Kṛṣṇa Miśra (from whom Sādhu Bābā descends) accepted Mahāprabhu as supreme. The advaita-pāramya vādīs seem to have moved to Assam, but they are now extinct.

The booklet Advaita Svarūpāmṛta, by Kānudeva Goswāmī, confirms the svarūpas that were ascribed to Advaita Prabhu in Advaita Mangal and Advaitoddeśa Dīpikā, but nonetheless, equating Sītādevī with Rādhā is clearly off the tracks, even if it is done so in three separate books by three separate authors. For starters, if Advaita would be Kṛṣṇa in Mathurā,  how would He match with Rādhā in Vraja? I wonder if there was any relation between Haricaraṇa, Devakīnandan and Kānudeva, in dīkṣā, śikṣā or genetically. Kānudeva does confirm the equation of Sītā and Paurṇamāsī, which we also maintain.

Mrs. Manring reminds us that the Sanatkumāra Saṁhitā, quoted by many a bābājī as an authoritative text, has actually only a few chapters left in existence (which makes one wonder if the remaining text ever existed), which happen to be the ones about rāgānugā bhakti and aṣṭakāliya līlā.

Advaitācārya has also not been spared by the sahajīyas - like all others in Gaura līlā, illicit sexual practises have been falsely ascribed to Him too, particularly in a booklet named Advaita Sūtra Korcā, in which they claim Mādhavendra Purīpāda personally instructed him in the sexual rites with other men's wives - too sick to elaborate on, of course. Mrs. Manring suggests, probably rightly so, that the sahajīyas hijack each associate of Mahāprabhu, projecting and ascribing their perversions on them to gain respect and credibility, a 'political ploy'. Fortunately such booklets are totally unavailable and only respectable literature on Sītānātha remains on the market.

There are two books named Advaita Vilāsa, one by Vīreśvar Prāmāṇik, a compilation from 1899, apparently compiled on Bijay Kṛṣṇa Goswami's request, and an older one by an unknown Narahari Dās, which is not considered authoritative by Haridās Dāsjī. It more or less gives the regular stories on Sītānāth. There is even a booklet about Sītānāth for children, named Advaitācārya, written by Amiya Kānti Datta from Śrī-haṭṭa (Sītānāth's birth region where he may still be popular). At the end of the book Mrs. Manring learns that Prāmāṇik might have edited the books afterwards. Advaita Acarya has also been the source of inspiration for many a padakartā (Bengali songwriter) like Balarām Dās, Locan Dās, Ghanaśyām Dās, and Mrs. Manring provides nice English translations of the songs.

VIJAY KṚṢṆA GOSWAMI
On page 111 Mrs. Manring starts discussing Advaita Prabhu's most famous descendent, Bijoy Kṛṣṇa Gosvami (see my blogs of May 23, 2007 and April 19, 2006) adding more details to his biography, for me at least. So it is described (quoting from Viṣṇu Caran Dāsa’s ‘Life of Vijay Kṛṣṇa') that when his mother Swarṇamayī Devī was pregnant with him she had wondrous dreams. She was in the backyard when the time for his birth approached. She fainted as her labor began, awakening to find the child in her arms and the placenta nearby on the ground. Later, when Vijay studied in Kolkata, his room-mate ripped him off so badly that he had to hit the streets begging for food, and later took another room with that same fellow after he (the roommate) had lost all the stolen money by gambling. It is then that he joined the Brahmo Samaj in 1866 (aged 25). Interestingly, Mrs. Manring claims (p.113): "…..if Vijay Kṛṣṇa is to be held up as a model Vaiṣṇava, then he must of course be dualistic in his religious approach. His hagiographers are all admirers if not disciples. They use this portion (of non-dualistic practise) of (his) life to demonstrate the seductiviness of monism. None directly criticizes this approach, but all are clearly more interested in their subject's return to his family's religious origins (of bhakti)." And, on the following page, "Many of Vijay's hagiographers describe his involvement with the Brahmo Samaj as a necessary step back to the devotional practises of his earlier days...."
Vijay’s seven commandments, which he preached from Gandaria Ashram in Dhākā, are listed on page 117:

1. Never indulge in self-praise
2. Never speak ill of others
3. Nonviolence is a great virtue
4. Have compassion for all
5. Place implicit reliance on the scriptures and the holy men
6. Avoid, like poison, what is incompatible with the tenets of the scriptures and the saints
7. Egoism is the worst enemy

About the time that Vijay Kṛṣṇa lived in Bāblā (his beautiful abode outside of Śāntipur) Mrs. Manring provides the following anecdotes (p.118): “Villagers would often hear beautiful devotional music at this spot but could never find the people who were singing. Vijay Kṛṣṇa said the music was echoing from Caitanya’s time.” And: “One day as he meditated here at Bāblā, Vijay Kṛṣṇa noticed a dog’s unusually persistent interest in one particular spot. Curious, Vijay began digging at the same place, and found a pair of wooden sandals and a set of brass pots used for worship. When he saw ‘Kamalākṣa’ (Advaita Prabhu’s birthname) carved on the sandals he realized they were Advaita Ācārya’s own belongings. To sanctify the place and commemorate the important discovery, he had a small temple built, elevated so that worshipers must climb a flight of stairs to enter. The artifacts have been enshrined beneath the temple images….Vijay Kṛṣṇa suggested to the dog that he now give up his body, since his life’s work was done. The next morning people found the animal’s corpse on the riverbank.” Towards the end of his life Vijay Kṛṣṇa Goswāmī instructed his disciple Gopālchandra Goswāmī to ask Vīreśvara Prāmāṇik to compose a work on the life of Advaita Ācārya, and he produced the Advaita Vilāsa, which (I haven't read it myself) appears to be a regular compilation taken from the major Advaita-biographies, with the exception that it claims that Lābhā Devi committed Satī after her husband Kuber Paṇḍit passed away.

ADVAITA BĀLYA LĪLĀ SŪTRA
In chapter 5 of the book Mrs. Manring casts some doubts on Lauḍīya Kṛṣṇa dās’ Advaita Bālya līlā Sūtra, saying that the Sanskrit verses are sometimes out of metre and wonders why the book is never quoted elsewhere. I think the logical response to that would be, ‘Caitanya Bhāgavat and Caitanya Caritāmṛta focused on Mahāprabhu – there was simply no place there for digressions into Advaita’s personal pastimes.’ To the Sanskrit issue I would reply that perhaps Lauḍīya Kṛṣṇadas (King Divyasiṁha) was not really a Sanskrit-crack, so he might have made mistakes here and there. Later on, Mrs. Manring acknowledges that the Advaita Bālya Līlā Sūtra is mentioned in the Advaita Prakāśa (sanskṛte racilā prabhura bālya-līlā-sūtra, 3rd verse before last of the 6th chapter). Not only that, most if not all material of the Bālya līlā Sūtra has been covered by Advaita Prakāśa, which makes it the best hagiography available about Advaita Prabhu, both in quality and in quantity. After the razing of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhyā in December 1992, Muslims in Bangladesh retaliated by razing the major library in Sylhet (Śrīhaṭṭa, the birthplace of Advaita Prabhu in current Bangladesh), thereby destroying the – possibly – only leftover copies of Bālya līlā Sūtra and Sītā Caritra.

After Advaita Prabhu’s disappearance, Iśāna Nāgara returned to East Bengal, got married and had children (though he was already 70 years old). He passed away shortly afterwards, but not before making many disciples. His eldest son Puruṣottama also made many disciples. The family became known as Nāgara-Advaitas (not to be confused with Gaura Nāgarīs) and were considered part of Sītā-Advaita’s family. On page 166, while reviewing Advaita Prakāśa, Mrs. Manring tells us that Sītānātha’s original Madangopāl-deity, which he found under the bushes at Vṛndāvana’s Advaita Vat, is actually in the Madangopāl temple in Śāntipur but is locked up in storage because it is too old and worn to be worshipped.

(To be continued................)

Reconstructing tradition

Reconstructing tradition
By Rebecca Manring
Book Review

This review will coincide nicely with the annual Śītānāth Utsava, the festival commemmorating Śrī Advaita Prabhu's advent day, which commenced today in Sādhu Bābā’s āshram. When a friend offered to send me a copy of this book about Advaita Ācārya, my Pran Purush, I hesitated accepting the offer, as I had very bad experiences in the past with non-devotee intellectuals giving their regarded opinion on transcendental matters. The book was said to contain many details about the social and sectarean standing of Advaita Prabhu, though, so I could not resist. Now I'm glad that I accepted the offer because, though it is a non-devotee work, Mrs. Manring has done a more thorough reading of the Advaita-books than I was able to do.

In the introduction Mrs. Manring claims that Advaita Prakāśa was not written by Īśān Nāgar in 1568, but in the late 19th century by a descendent of Advaita Prabhu, Acyuta Caran Caudhuri Tattvanidhi. Oddly, whenever she quotes Advaita Prakāśa afterwards, she does ascribe it to Īśān Nāgar. The claim that Advaita Prakāśa is not written by Īśān is made by the mundane scholar B.B. Majumdar, though, who tried to reconcile differences between the book and the Caitanya Caritāmṛta (this has been dealt with in my essay 'In defense of the Advaita Vaṁśa' on my website). Mrs. Manring writes: 'Majumdar was operating from a historical positivist approach, that is, from the presupposition that the biographies were historical documents. This led him to believe that conflicting narrative accounts must represent deviations from truth." 

On page 125 Mrs. Manring reviews the Advaita Prakāśa and reiterates it is written by Īśān. The Bengali publisher Satishcandra Mitra, when he republished it in 1926, also vowed it was an authentic scripture, written by an eye-witness of Advaita Prabhu’s līlā for over 50 years, and it was written long before Caitanya Caritāmṛta. At the end of the book Mrs. Manring argues that the fact that Īśān Nagar’s name is not mentioned in major granthas like Caitanya Caritāmṛta may be because he was just a domestic servant and not a public figure, or a big preaching ācārya etc. Mrs. Manring notes that, though many books have been written about Advaita Prabhu, they are very rare, many of them destroyed by germs, India's heavy climate and sheer neglect. I noticed that because, apart from Advaita Prakāśa, which is widely available, I failed to get any book about Advaita Prabhu anywhere in India. Mrs. Manring suggests that the books on Advaita Prabhu were not quoted by other Vaiṣṇava ācāryas mostly because of their lack of availability.

Mrs. Manring sees Haricaraṇa's Advaita Mangal as presenting a rasa-continuum, with Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa first appearing as Sītā and Advaita and then later as Śrīman Mahāprabhu. She also sees an evolution of rasa in Gaura-līlā's historical sequence - Advaita (the first to appear) as Aiśvarya (which actually is not a rasa) Haridās Ṭhākur as Dāsya, Nityānanda as Sakhya, Sītā devī as Vātsalya and finally Mahāprabhu Himself as Mādhurya. This is interesting, but whether that was Haricaran Ṭhākur's intention or not is another question. It certainly is not explained like this by any major Gauḍīya ācārya.

Proudly I read on page 14 that, unlike other branches of the Gauḍīya Sampradāya, the Advaita Parivāra did not yield to the influence of the British Christians that made itself felt in Bengal in the 19th century (when a non devotee uses the word ‘orthodox’ my ears prick up and I get all interested, because it means something actually genuine is coming up!) Vijay Kṛṣṇa Gosvāmī, Sādhu Bābā's great-grand-uncle and great hero, was originally influenced by the neo-Christian Brāhma Samāj, but later returned to his Vaiṣṇava roots and settled in Śāntipur. He was a rock in the turbulent waters of colonial India.

On page 40 Mrs. Manring writes: “Nityānanda, the avadhūta, was a wild-eyed iconoclast with no respect for social convention. His devotion took a very different form than did Advaita's and he garnered, and still has, a tremendous following. Advaita was a caste-sensitive brāhmana, always careful to observe the relevant rules and restrictions.....in the first stage of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava movement the presence of an established and elderly scholar in the midst provided the group with some respectability. The loud ecstatic kīrtan processions Caitanya led through the streets of Navadvīpa....hardly seemed models of priestly decorum." Later, Mrs. Manring concedes: “However, it seems unlikely that a young Caitanya,.......lost in religious ecstasy........would have conceived the idea of of including his parents' elderly friend in his sankīrtan simply for political expedience."

Of course, at the time, including the honorable Advaita in the group might have socially benefited Mahāprabhu’s movement, whether it was done deliberately or not. Mrs. Manring's claim that only or especially Advaita Prabhu's followers are promoting orthodox brāhmanism, is inaccurate, however. In my essay 'Who is a brāhmin, Guru and Sannyāsī' I have provided ample evidence that Nityānanda Prabhu and Mahāprabhu Himself also held up the same standard.

There are quite a few inaccuracies in Mrs. Manring's book - in chapter 1 she contradicts herself by first saying that there are a disproportionate number of biographies of Advaita - compared to Nityānanda, but at the end of that chapter she says that there is so little about Advaita in Gauḍīya literature, and she opens chapter 2 by claiming that Haricaraṇa's Advaita Mangal is regarded in the Gauḍīya tradition as the authoritative biography of Advaita Ācārya, while in fact it is the least accepted of all the biographies.

ADVAITA MAṄGAL
Advaita Maṅgal describes how Vijay Puri, an elderly Godbrother of Mādhavendra Puri, and Śītānāth's maternal uncle, is sent to Navagrām by Madangopāl Himself to seek out the bhakta avatāra (Advaita) there. He appears to the newborn Advaita and tells him that Kṛṣṇa bhakti is not available anywhere, and that Madangopāl is waiting for Him in the bushes of Vṛndāvana. (Things I clearly overlooked when I studied Advaita Mangal to compose my book about Śītānāth) When Śītānāth arrives in Vṛndāvana in his youth, ten Vrajavāsī women alert Him of the whereabouts of Madangopāl one morning, and, after the unearthing of Madangopāl, Śītānāth teaches the local Vrajavāsīs of the supremacy of parakīya bhāva. He then proceeds in telling them in all detail how Paurṇamāsī initiated Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa into the kāma gāyatrī and how their pūrva rāga pastimes took place. Returning to Śāntipur, Advaita becomes a famous Guru who one day announces that Mādhavendra Purīpād appeared to Him in a dream and told Him he would come to Śāntipur the very same day if He summons him with an offering of rice balls. And events transpire just as Advaita had dreamed - Gurudeva appears in Śāntipur and gives him dīkṣā. A challenging scholar (Digvijayi) comes to town and, after being defeated by Śītānāth, is the first one to call him 'Advaita'.

I remember when I wrote the book I found the different books about Śītānāth rather hard to harmonize both in sequence and in mood - especially Advaita Mangal was hard for me to understand, but it appeals a bit more to me now. Haricharan claims to have been educated in Advaita's pastimes by Śrīnāth Ācārya, possibly Śrīnāth Cakravartī, the disciple of Śītānāth and Guru of Kavi Karṇapur.

When Advaita roared during his worship of mother Gaṅgā, performing tapasyā, the Apsarās came to disturb His penance, and eventually took Him to Swarg. When Indra there told Brahmā about Śītānātha's tapasyā, Brahmā decided to join Him in the Sankīrtan movement and took human birth there too (as Haridās Ṭhākur). Śyāmdās, who arranged and instigated Advaita Prabhu's marriage, also built Him a huge mansion with women's quarters.

Advaita Prabhu's tapasya and cries of love not only caused the descent of Śrīman Mahāprabhu, but also of all his eternal associates, like Śacī-mātā and Jagannātha Miśra, the Lord's parents.

Haricaraṇā Ṭhākur then narrates a story to show the non-difference between Śrīman Mahāprabhu and Śītānāth's eldest son Acyuta. After the two boys had gone swimming Acyuta had drunk all the milk meant for both the boys and Sītā devī slapped him for it, leaving a big mark. When the boys sit down to eat the mark is still there and Sītā devī asks Gaura who made the mark on His cheek. Gaura replies: "You did! Acyuta drank the milk and you hit him! Acyuta and I are non-different!" Mrs. Manring rounds out her description of Advaita Maṅgal by narrating how Sītā devī assumes as many forms as there are guests while serving a feast and suggesting that Śītānāth's refusal to any more accept the obeisances of young Nimāi is a part of an evolution from aiśvarya to mādhurya, which is not an uninteresting proposal actually.

In Advaita Maṅgal Advaita Prabhu shows a four-armed form to the Digvijayī, Haridās, Śyāmdās and twice to Gaurī dās. It becomes a lot more understandable now why Sādhu Bābā also gave me this book to translate when he first asked me to preach Śītānāth's glories in the west. It still does contain a lot of controversies, so I suppose Bābā expected me to select the interesting and credible parts from it only. I hope I did. Haricaraṇa’s equating Śītānāth with Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself remains, of course, far-fetched; perhaps something just to read over and turn a blind eye to; it could be seen as an extreme glorification perhaps.

(To be continued......)

Garga Saṁhitā and personal desires

I recently had these two interesting exchanges with Śrīpād Satya-nārāyan Dāsji

January 10, 2009
Revered Prabhuji
Please accept my Rādhe Rādhe
Hope this message reaches you in blissful Vṛndāvan Vāsa.
What is your opinion on the Garga Saṁhitā? It has some controversial passages about all the Kaurava demons coming from the heavens (5.30-31) and about Shiva getting a place in the Rāsa-dance (25.8), whereas Shiva is like a yogi who qualifies at best for aiśvarya bhakti. The book is never quoted by the Gosvāmīs in their books and is not mentioned either in the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Abhidhāna. Should we take this book seriously?
Thanks in advance
Advaitadas

Dear Advaita Prabhuji
Jai Sri Rādhe Shyāma
I think this book is good to tell stories to people in general. It is not for siddhānta. So do not take it seriously.
SND

Kṛṣṇadasji had this to add on the Garga Samhitā -
Dear Advaitaji,

I have not read the book but I think that it is a later work since the ācāryas do not mention it. However, it is difficult to know for sure only on the basis of absence of quotations. It does not seem to me to offer anything theologically because it does not feature in anyway in any serious piece of writing I have read.
KD

Then I asked Śrīpād Satya-nārāyan Dāsji the following :

20 january 2009
Revered Prabhuji
Please accept my Rādhe Śyām
In Ujjvala Nīlamaṇi, ch.14, it is said that consorts with samañjasā and sādhāraṇī rati have a certain amount of personal desires. But how is that possible? Can they live in the spiritual world with personal desires, while I have always thought that one cannot enter the spiritual world without giving up all personal desires? I have checked the ṭīkās of Śrī Jīva and Viśvanātha and they just confirm the meaning of the original verses of Śrī Rūpa Goswāmī. Can you explain this mystery please?
Advaitadas

Dear Advaita Prabhuji
Jai Śrī Rādhe Shyāma
A living being has the natural tendency to seek pleasure. The difference between spiritual and material life is on the basis of the desire to enjoy. In material life a person wants to enjoy independently from Kṛṣṇa, and in spiritual life with Śrī Kṛṣṇa. In spiritual life the enjoyment can come in two ways- either by seeking pleasure for oneself with Śrī Kṛṣṇa,  or by getting pleasure through giving pleasure (in other words, by not thinking of one's own pleasure at all, which is Vraja-bhakti or uttamā bhakti). Both of these are called 'not having personal desires' from the material point of view because there is no desire to enjoy independently at all.
There are various grades of devotees in Vaikuṇṭha, and their level is known by how much percentage of either of these two one has. śānta bhaktas are at the bottom because they are not interested in doing personal service and Gopīs are the topmost on the ladder because they even hate to sit and just meditate- they render only favorable service for the pleasure of Kṛṣṇa. Then there are devotees in between.
A sādhāraṇī-devotee has interest in having pleasure for oneself from Kṛṣṇa, not independently. Samañjasā is a khichari and samartha is pure love.
SND

Gaura is Kṛṣṇa, but is not a copy of Kṛṣṇa.

Bhakta: "Can one have svakīya or parakīya relations with Mahāprabhu? In Navadvīp He has one wife, who dies, then He has another wife.... Can He have more wives? Of course He is maryādā puruṣottama..."

Advaitadas: The fact that Mahāprabhu is Kṛṣṇa does not mean He is a copy of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is black, Gaura is golden, Kṛṣṇa is vaiśya, Gaura is brahmin, Kṛṣṇa lives in Braja, Gaura lives in Nadīya, Kṛṣṇa is a cowherd and Gaur is a teacher. Where are the cows in Navadvīp? Where is Mahāprabhu tending any cows? Mahāprabhu has only prakat līlā and this is repeated endlessly, with the two consecutive wives. Their svarūpas are mentioned in Gaura Gaṇoddeśa Dīpikā 45-47. They appear very briefly in Gaura-līlā yet they are eternally His spouses."

Bhakta: "What if someone is really attracted to Gaura-līlā and wants to participate in it eternally?"

Advaitadas: "When you are with God you are with God. You won't notice the difference between prakat līlā and nitya līlā when you're in the middle of it. prakat līlā is like an embassy of the spiritual world. When you enter the Indian Embassy in London you are officially on Indian soil, but still you are in the middle of the United Kingdom too. At any rate, we see Gaura-līlā as the academy of pure devotion rather than the goal in itself and it has been presented as such by the ācāryas too."

Bhakta: "Some say that all the Vaiṣṇava- temples in the material world are embassies of the spiritual world."

Advaitadas: "Only to an extent. The prakat līlā I mentioned before is for those devotees who have attained the first prema siddha, before moving on to rāga, anurāga, bhāva and mahābhāva, while the temples in the material world are filled with mostly neophyte devotees that are still largely under the spell of the material energy. They cannot fully represent the spiritual world as ambassadors."

Bhakta: 'I know someone who claims to have a married relationship with Gaura, like a svakīya Gaur Nāgarī bhāva."

Advaitadas: "Where does it end? Gaur Nāgarī bhāva is already at the other end of the imagination the way it is (parakīya) - now there is even svakīya Gaur Nāgarī bhāva as well! There is also a party that claims that Mahāprabhu's wives assist Him in His pastimes with other men's wives - too much! And none of this is rasābhāsa? As I said just earlier, Gaur is not an integral copy of Kṛṣṇa - Gaura has the attitude of a bhakta (āśray tattva), not of an enjoyer like Kṛṣṇa (biṣoy tattva). Next they will imagine themselves to be one of 16,108 wives of Mahāprabhu too, like Kṛṣṇa in Dwārakā. rasābhās hoy yadi siddhānta virodh, sohite na pāre prabhu mone hoy krodh (CC Antya līlā) - If there is rasābhāsa or bogus philosophy Mahāprabhu will not tolerate it but get angry instead." Besides, Mahāprabhu is the head of our sampradāya - depicting Him as a Nāgara would bring great disgrace upon our sampradāya. Mahāprabhu was so strict, following all the rules of a brāhmin and a sannyāsī, all the way to the end, when His pastimes became wildly ecstatic.

Bhakta: "You say Gaura is not a copy of Kṛṣṇa but I heard that all the places of Kṛṣṇa's pastimes are also in Navadvīp, such as Keśī Ghāt."

Advaitadas: "I have already shown in the beginning of this conversation that Gaura and Kṛṣṇa līlā are different in all respects. Now look at their abodes - does Braja consist of nine islands (like Navadvīp)? Does Navadvīp consist of 84 Krośa?"

Bhakta: "Couldn't there be an internal vision of Keśī Ghāt being in Navadvīp?"

Advaitadas: "If that were so, then where is the description of Mahāprabhu killing Keśī? Or Ariṣṭāsura, or Kaṁsa? Where are the cows in Navadvip, etc. etc.? "

Bhakta: "Mahāprabhu chanted Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa hey' so He seemed to be focused on Kṛṣṇa, but then He also chanted Rāma Rāghava Rāma Rāghava."

Advaitadas: "You need to see this in context. There are different levels of Mahāprabhu-līlā - a more conventional one and a more esoteric one. Roughly speaking, Navadvip līlā and the South India trip (during which Mahāprabhu chanted this) are the more conventional ones and Puri līlā the more esoteric one. Then also, in Caitanya Bhāgavata Mahāprabhu is Lord Nārāyaṇa and in Caitanya Caritāmṛta He is Kṛṣṇa in the mood of Rādhā. Not all of Mahāprabhu līlā is about rāgānugā bhakti and mañjarī bhāva. Returning to the differences between Gaura and Kṛṣṇa-līlās: Kṛṣṇa-līlā starts with the mādhurya (Vraja līlā) and turns into aiśvarya (Mathurā- and Dwārakā līlā), with Gaur the sequence is reverse - the earlier Navadvīp līlā is not showing the intensity and esoterics of the later Puri līlā (as far as the līlās are comparible at all). At the end Mahāprabhu would not even invite His devotees anymore to visit Him for the caturmāsya but would just relish Kṛṣṇa's madhura līlā with Rāma Rāy and Svarūp Dāmodar. There is no Rūpa Goswāmī and Svarūp Dāmodar in Navadvīp. They appear in Purī..."

Bhakta: "We discussed before about emanations and expansions. In Jaiva Dharma the verse Oṁ Pūrṇam adaḥ Pūrṇam idaṁ pūrṇāt purnam udacyate  from the Iśopaniṣad is translated as 'Even if the complete is subtracted from the complete it is still complete.' Who's crawling out here? I thought they were all eternal."

Advaitadas: "There is a deficiency in western languages, that were not made for such concepts of eternality and beginninglessness. For instance, the word avatārī can best be translated in English as 'origin of the descents', but that would at once create the impression that the avatāras emanated from the avatārīs, in historical sequence, but that is of course not the fact. All the forms of God, as well as all the jīvas, are eternal. kṛṣṇa bhūli sei jīva anādi bahirmukh (CC) - we forgot Kṛṣṇa, but not historically so, beginninglessly so. You need to scrap the time-factor in such philosophical statements. The pūrṇāt in pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate is indeed in the 5th case, which means 'From the full, the full is coming". This creates the illusion that there was some origin, some historical sequence."

Bhakta: "There seems to be some subtraction going on in this verse, like one thing comes from the other."

Advaitadas: "No. It looks like that but it is purely a philosophical statement. Just like the other Vedic statement 'eko'haṁ bahu syām' 'I was one, I became many'. That is not an historical event, but a philosophical statement only. Bhagavad Gītā's very first lesson shows us that the soul is beginningless and therefore never originally emanated from God - na tvevāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ na tvaṁ neme narādhipaḥ (Bhagavad Gītā 2.12). "Never was there a time when I (God) did not exist, nor you (the jīva) etc. " To those who may argue that the soul may have always been there, but originally was an integral part of Kṛṣṇa, I wish to quote another line in the Bhagavad Gītā (15.7) mamaivāṁśo jīvaloke jīva bhūta sanātanaḥ - the word sanātana indicates the soul is eternally a particle of Kṛṣṇa  Also, the Bhāgavata says time and again that the conditioning of the soul (and thus its separation from Kṛṣṇa) is beginningless. The point of the Īśopaniṣad verse is not that things emanate from God but that God is complete, eternally so. He can never be depleted."

Bhakta: There seems to be a book named Sanatkumār Saṁhitā, in which Sadāśiva explains the Aṣṭakāliya Līlā to Nārada Muni or Vṛndā devī. Is this a genuine scripture?"

Advaitadas: "One verse of it is quoted by Narottam Dās Thākur in his Prem Bhakti Candrikā, so at least that must be right. As for the entire book, I find it a bit hard to believe that this is an ancient scripture because if it was, the Gosvāmīs, who were always so eager to prove their points with scriptural quotations, would certainly have quoted it to prove the validity of Aṣṭakālīya līlā, but they didn't. This text would have been a dream come true for them. So I have my doubts about it. The same with so many verses from different Purāṇas and Upaniṣads, that are supposed to prove the Godhead of Mahāprabhu - if they were genuine, the Gosvāmīs would have gratefully used them to prove their point, but they didn't. "

Bhakta: "In chapter 39 of Jaiva Dharma, Bhaktivinode says that '...in your spiritual form your age begins at ten and, as you make advancement in service, increases up to the age of sixteen."

Advaitadas: "Hmm. He might speak about the prakat-līlā here. Rūpa Gosvāmī and Viśvanātha Cakravartī say that before you are elevated to Goloka you are first trained in the prakat-līlā of Kṛṣṇa and you take a regular birth there as a gopī in the womb of a gopī and grow up there, with parents etc., just like any other girl. It could not apply to the spiritual sky because the forms should be eternal there."

Bhakta: "Then, a little later, he says: You will be the follower of a certain sakhī. Her cottage at Rādhākuṇḍa will be your residence also."

Advaitadas: "That is the way I received it from Sādhu Bābā too. Some Vaiṣṇavas give a personal abode (kuñja) to each mañjarī sādhaka, to entertain Kṛṣṇa there but we don't do that because the mañjarī is not after her own personal enjoyment with Kṛṣṇa.  We serve in the cottage of Viśākhā-sakhī only, without our private space. Even ancient European queens' ladies-in-waiting did not have their private spaces - they slept in the queen's quarters only."

Bhakta: "So the service of the mañjarīs is ultimately service to Kṛṣṇa too?"

Advaitadas: "Yes, that is how Sādhu Bābā explained the verse jīvera svarūpa hoy kṛṣṇer nitya dās in the context of manjari bhava. Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa have no separate interests from each other, so serving one is serving the other - śakti śaktimator abhedaḥ - there is no difference between the energy and the energetic. rādhā snehādhika bhāva is, however, the highest relish in rasa. In Utkalika Vallari and Vilāpa Kusumāñjali there are descriptions that the mañjarīs kick Kṛṣṇa out of the kuñja and He can only come back with the goodwill of the mañjarīs themselves. All this seems like mistreatment of the Supreme Person but in fact it gives the highest relish to both Him and to us. Kṛṣṇa's active aggressive masculine nature gets challenged and that gives Him great relish."

Bhakta: "Does Candrāvalī have some awe and reverence? If so, then how is she in Vṛndāvana?"

Advaitadas: 'She has more awe for Kṛṣṇa than Rādhikā, but not that she thinks He is God or so. Her awe is called ghṛta sneha ('ghee-affection') in contrast to Rādhikā's madhu-sneha ('honey-affection') which causes Rādhikā to act more freely towards Kṛṣṇa. But in Vraja no one considers Kṛṣṇa to be God."

Bhakta: "Then, later, Bhaktivinode quotes Vraja Vilāsa Stava verse 29, to prove he/she serves under Lalitā."

Advaitadas: "That is correct. He was initiated by Bipin Bihāri Goswāmī, who was in Nityānanda Prabhu's family. They serve under Lalitā, while we in Advaita Prabhu's family serve under Viśākhā, like Raghunāth Dās Gosvāmī, who was a grand-disciple of Advaita Prabhu. In his Vilāpa Kusumāñjali (99) he offers a prayer only to Viśākhā, not to Lalitā. He offered prayers to both of them in Vraja Vilāsa Stava because that is a very generic stava, which offers praises to all of Kṛṣṇa's associates in Vraja, regardless of any personal relationship he/she may have with them."

aṣṭakāla arcanā and tri-sandhyā vs āhnika.

Phone sanga.

Bhakta: "Just as we chant Hare Kṛṣṇa for Rādhārāṇī's pleasure both when She is separated from Kṛṣṇa and when She is together with Him, do we perform deity worship similarly?"

Advaitadas: "In the mood, yes, in the mind, yes, but not that we separate the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa deities in the times of the day when Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are separated, ha ha ha. Deity worship is more formal and has its own rules. I do remember there was a doctor living close to Banki Bihāri temple (in Vṛndāvan), I used to visit him in 1988, he had deities in his chamber and not only that, he had an entire pavilion for the deities with all the items of Their aṣṭakāl līlā enjoyments in it - wine glasses (without real wine), a swimming pool (like Rādhākuṇḍa), swings, a table with the dice game, beds etc. etc. Of course he was so busy with his profession that he could not possibly move the deities from place to place in the pavilion, or to separate them in the proper time."

Bhakta: "But the devotee's chanting will be different according to times of separation and union, huh?"

Advaitadas: "Yes but that would require a very advanced and very absorbed devotee. In times of union the chanting becomes like accompanying music, music that accompanies the intimate pastimes, while in times of separation it is meant as support for the suffering Rādhārāṇī. Many sādhakas get the mañjarī-service of singing and in Stavāvali, Raghunāth Dās Goswāmī also prays to Viśākhā-devi that she can teach him/her how to sing."

Bhakta: "Gāyatrī is to be said three times a day. You practise that?"

Advaitadas: "As you may know, the inclusion of Brāhma Gāyatrī into Vaiṣṇava diksa is a recent development. Originally Vaiṣṇava dīkṣā means just the Kṛṣṇa dīkṣā-mantras. These mantras are practised once a day, hence the practise is called āhnika (daily), not tri-sandhyā, which means 'three times a day' and which is a Vedic brahminical practise, not a Vaiṣṇava practise. The principle is that one practises these mantras after showering, putting on clean clothes and practising ācamana. I have not seen that practised in places where this tri-sandhyā is being practised here in the west. They pull their brahmin threads out of their pants on the airport or on the parking lot, or at best in a bench in the park, without showering, changing clothes or doing ācamana. Also chanting Gāyatrī behind the steering wheel is popular in the west, like nāma japa. So tri-sandhyā is really very impractical, even if it were endorsed by scriptures at all for non-brahmins."

Prabhu Sītānātha's festival 2009

Thanks to modern technology I got even my annual invitation to Sītānāth's utsava by e-mail this year. (Special thanks to Subrata Adhikary, who visited Sādhu Bābā's āshram with his family)

My Guru sister Mālatī thought it a good idea to post it on the blog along with an English translation. The location of the utsava is Prācīn Māyāpur, just before the Bhajan Āshram, northern Navadvīp, at a stone's throw of the (Nitāi-Gaura Rādhe Śyām administered) Janmasthān Mandir. Here is the English translation of the Nimantran Patra -

Śrī-Śrī Rādhā Madan Gopālaḥ Śaraṇam

JAY PRABHU SĪTĀNĀTH

rādhā madana gopālādvaita prāṇaballabham

sītānāthaṁca tad bhṛtyaṁ vande gaurāvatārakam

sei navadvīpe boise vaiṣṇavāgragaṇya

advaitācārya nāma sarva loke dhanya

(Caitanya Bhāgavat ādi 2)

"In that Navadvīpa lived the foremost of Vaiṣṇavas, named Advaita Ācārya, who was blessed in all the worlds."

śrī-śrīman mahāprabhu pravarttita premabhakti patha pathikeṣu

To all those who tread the path of Prema Bhakti promulgated by Śrīman Mahāprabhu -

As in previous years, this year on Monday February 2, 2009,the auspicious advent day of the most merciful Prabhu Sitanath is celebrated on Makara Saptami day, so in front of Śrī-Śrī Rādhā Madan Gopāla, the beloved deity of Śrī-Śrī Sādhu Bābā, in Śrī Navadvīp Dhām's Rāmacandrapur district a great 5-day devotional festival will be held for His satisfaction, starting on Thursday January 29th. Items will include Pārāyan, discussions on devotional scripture and Kīrtan.

Please bless us by attending this festival. This is not an invitation, it is an anxious cry by Prabhu Sītānātha's servants to have their sensually polluted consciousness lifted into absorption into bhakti rasa. Petitioner -

Crown jewel of merciful Prabhu Sītānātha's family, engaged in nitya līlā -

PRABHUPĀDA ŚRĪ NIKUÑJA GOPĀL GOSWĀMĪ

On behalf of the fallen servants and maidservants of his lotus-feet,

Namitā Sāhā and Tulasī Sāhā

PROGRAMME -

Thursday 29 January 2009 in the evening Maṅgal Ghaṭ Sthāpan and Ādhivās

Friday 30 January and Saturday 31 January 2009, main program -

5-6 a.m. Nagar Saṅkīrtan

7-9 a.m. Bhakti Grantha Pārāyan

9-11 a.m. Śrī-Śrī Rādhā Madan Gopāla's Śṛṅgār Ārati

12-1 p.m. Śrī-Śrī Rādhā Madan Gopāla's Bhoga Rāga

3-5 p.m. Śrī Līlā Kīrtan

5-7 p.m. Discussion on Bhakti Granthas and glorification of Sītānāth.

7-8 p.m.Sandhyā Ārati Kīrtan

8-11 p.m Śrī-Śrī Līlā Kīrtan

Sunday 1 February 2009 24-hour Tārak Brahma Nāma (Hare kṛṣṇa) Kīrtan

Monday 2 February 2009 In the morning Śrī Nagar Saṅkīrtan, Prabhu Sītānāth's Abhiṣekha

Kīrtan of His birth pastimes and Prasād.

PS According to necessity the program may be altered.

Kīrtan Groups:

Servants and students of Śrī-Śrī Sādhu Bābā -

Śrī Śacīnandan Karmakār (Pākur, Bihār) and others.