‘Vilāpa-kusumānjali’ by Śivarāma Swāmi, introduction.

 Book review: ‘Vilāpa-kusumānjali’ by Śivarāma Swāmi, introduction.

Perhaps I should rename my blog into vilapakusumanjali-blogspot because Vilāpa-kusumānjali became the main theme of my blogs in the last few years.

Vilapa-kusumānjali-publications follow each other now in quick succession. ISKCON now joins the club too with Shivaram Swami's extensive deluxe edition, which, he says, will take until 2025 to complete, in 1000s of pages. Hopefully both the author and yours truly, considering our age, will be still around in 2025, to complete writing and reviewing this project. This blog is a review of Shivaram Swami's 72-page introduction only.

 

On page 13, on the 3rd page of his preface, Shivaram Swami gives a wrong translation of the important sevā sādhaka rūpena-śloka of Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu (1.2.295). The word 'advanced devotee' is not there in the śloka, nor 'self-realized position' - the verse appears in the sādhana bhakti chapter, not in the bhāva- or prema-bhakti chapters, which deal with the self-realized states of bhakti. rāgānuga-bhakti is a sādhana, that is clearly said earlier in Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu (2.1.5) - vaidhī rāgānugā ceti sā dvidhā sādhanābhidhā-  There are two types of sādhana – vaidhi and rāgānugā."

And the word rāgānugā does not mean ‘spontaneous’ but ‘passionate’. rāga means passion, anu means following, and ga means going. So devotion following one's divine passion. Vaidhi bhakti is spontaneous too. The residents of Vaikuṇṭha need not be woken up for mangalārati with a bucket of cold water either.

Throughout, Shivaram Swami uses the word 'conjugal' for Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa's love, but conjugal means married love, while Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa are not married. The proper word is 'amorous'.

Due to the ISKCON/Gauḍīya Math apasiddhānta that you have to be free from all material desires to do rāgānugā bhakti, many of their devotees are starved of rasa and it seems that it is to keep such devotees on board that Shivaram Swami is writing his books - to keep them from defecting to the bābājīs or to Nārāyan Mahārāja. Whether Shivaram Swami is himself a sincere rasika or not is impossible to say. His books could well be a deliberate GBC policy to keep the ISKCON flock from defecting. Shivaram Swami admits that much on page 14 of this first book -

"...it should stop new devotees from searching after elusive greener pastures" –

(Why elusive? Does he have proof that other gurus are all elusive?)

He repeats his motives on page 19 : "My whole purpose..............was to offer to devotees who are eager for kṛṣṇa kathā the opportunity to hear those topics in Śrīla Prabhupāda's line" , "I want to offer literature that will keep devotees in Śrīla Prabhupāda's fold..." and on p.28 "....the availability of rasika books and the temptations offered by teachers outside ISKCON"

In the preface the author explains he has been doing strict sādhana for 30 years which makes him qualified for reading and publishing Vilāpa-kusumānjali, but Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmīpāda says -

kṛṣṇa-bhakti-rasa-bhāvitā matiḥ

     krīyatāṁ yadi kuto 'pi labhyate

tatra laulyam api mūlyam ekalaṁ

     janma-koṭi-sukṛtair na labhyate

“Buy sensitivity for kṛṣṇa-bhakti-rasa if you can purchase it anywhere – the only price is greed. It is not attained with millions of lives of pure lifestyle (neatly chanting one's rounds and following the principles).”

kṛṣṇa-tad-bhakta-kāruṇya-mātra-lābhaika-hetukā
puṣṭi-mārgatayā kaiścid iyaṁ rāgānugocyate

 

"rāgānugā bhakti is only attained by the mercy of Kṛṣṇa and His devotees”

Many of Shivaram Swami's godbrothers have done sādhana for a longer time than him and they are not inclined towards Vilāpa-kusumānjali at all. That shows that greed for rāgānugā bhakti has nothing to do with a quantity or quality of sādhana at all.

On page 38 the author claims Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa wrote a commentary to Stavāvalī, but that is incorrect. It is Bangeśvara Vidyālaṅkāra.

On page 47 the author graciously mentions me as one of the translators of Vilāpa-kusumānjali, but I am NOT free from all material desires, as the author's Guru demands as qualification for rāgānugā bhakti. Should he quote translations by conditioned souls? His Guru, Swami Bhaktivedanta, writes in his book Nectar of Devotion, chapter 16, 'Eligibility for Spontaneous Devotional Service':

 

“We must always remember, however, that such eagerness to follow in the footsteps of the denizens of Vraja is not possible unless one is freed from material contamination." 

 

While Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu, which Nectar of Devotion is supposed to be a rendering of, says in verse 1.2.5 that rāgānugā is a sādhana, not a siddhi - Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu (2.1.5) - vaidhī rāgānugā ceti sā dvidhā sādhanābhidhā - "There are two types of sādhana – vaidhi and rāgānugā.

So Shivaram Swami graciously mentions me as one of the translators of Vilāpa-kusumānjali but I am not a member of ISKCON, while Shivaram Swami wrote a book prohibiting śikṣā outside of ISKCON. You cannot tell your followers to not take śikṣā outside of ISKCON and then do it yourself by reading the works of a non-ISKCON devotee. If you are an ācārya you must teach by example -

 

ācinoti yaḥ śāstrārtham ācāre sthāpayātyapi

svayam ācarate yasmād ācāryas tena kīrtitaḥ

 

“The ācārya is thus called because he has studied and understood the meaning of the scriptures, he establishes this meaning in the behavior of others and he practices what he preaches.” (Manu-Samhita, Vāyu Purāṇa)

 

On page 59, Shivaram Swami says that Kṛṣṇa in Braja is the essence of the Vedas and he quotes Bhagavad-Gītā 15.15. However that verse does not prove the superiority of Braja Kṛṣṇa at all.

On pages 61-62 the author quotes Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda's commentary to Śrīmad-bhāgavat’s verse 10.33.39 that is diametrically opposed to the teachings of his teachers in the ISKCON/Gauḍīya Math - Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda says there that it is foolish to doubt if prema (let alone rāgānugā sādhana) can appear in the heart that is still tainted by material lust.

On page 66-70 the author strikes the right note by pointing out that the sādhana and sādhya of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism is manjari bhāva, not cowherd boy or so, since all ācāryas in our sampradāya are manjarīs. On page 69 he quotes the most under-quoted verse in ISKCON/Gauḍīya Math, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmīpāda's anarpita cari-śloka, that proclaims that gopī-bhāva is the true gift of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

On pages 80-81 the author clearly took śikṣā outside of ISKCON by making the point that of the five types of sakhīs, the prāṇa sakhās and nitya sakhīs are maidservants, a point often taught by Ananta Das Bābājī in his commentary on Vilāpa-kusumānjali and other books. The same for page 82, where he quotes Ananta Das Bābājī who said that Mahāprabhu perceiving Radha Kṛṣṇa enjoying in a cave of Govardhana Hill is His relishing of manjari bhāva. Both these points are unique to the Radhakund bābājīs, who are outside of ISKCON.

On page 83, Shivaram Swami calls Bhaktivinode the ‘seventh goswami’. Bhaktivinode got the title seventh goswami from Mr. Shishir Kumar Gosh, a mundane Bengali nationalist who was not at all a pure devotee or liberated soul, out of friendship only.

On page 83-84 Shivaram Swami quotes Bhaktivinode, he says in the natural course of time of pure devotional service, the devotee attains the form of  a manjarī. That is bad propaganda for ISKCON because it means that very few of them do pure devotional service (phalena phala kāraṇam  anumīyate - know the tree by its fruits). After 56 years of ISKCON, most of them don't even KNOW what is manjari bhāva, let alone that they practise it.

 

On page 86, Shivaram Swami identifies Rati Manjari with Labanga Manjarī or Sanātan Goswāmī and this is suggested too in Kavi Karṇapūra's ‘Gaura Gaṇoddeśa Dīpikā, verses 181-182 -

 

yā rūpa-mañjarī-preṣṭhā purāsīd rati-mañjarī |

socyate nāma-bhedena lavaṅga-mañjarī budhaiḥ ||181||

sādya gaurābhinna-tanuḥ sarvārādhyaḥ sanātanaḥ |

tam eva prāviśat kāryān muni-ratnaḥ sanātanaḥ ||182||

 

“She who was Rati Mañjarī, dear to Rūpa Mañjarī, or according to some Lavaṅga Mañjarī, now became Sanātana Gosvāmī, worshipped by all, non-different from Gaurāṅga. The best of sages Sanātana (Kumāra) also entered him, to perform certain functions.”

An interesting view which is, however, neither shared by the bābājīs nor by us.

 

On page 91, Shivaram Swami compares Rādhā with the Tulasī-plant and the manjarīs with the buds whose lives depend on that plant. An interesting comparison.

At the top of page 95 Shivaram Swami says when Mahāprabhu saw Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmī had matured in realisation he instructed him to write books, but fails to provide evidence for that.

On page 95, Shivaram Swami writes “The exoteric path of Vakreśvara Pandit is more suited to a restricted audience of brahminically qualified devotees..." – varṇāśrama, however, has nothing to do with vaiṣṇava sādhana at all.

On page 95, Shivaram Swami also speaks of goṣṭhyānandīs and bhajanānandis – such a subdivision of Vaiṣṇavas has, however, never been made by the six Goswāmīs.

On page 97, Shivaram Swami says ‘Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmī the sannyāsi’. This is wrong. There is no sannyāsa in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, and certainly not with red cloth. Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmī was a vairāgi instead.

On page 100, Shivaram Swami says Jīva Gosvāmī says that the shift from vaidhi to rāgānugā bhakti is generally not immediate, but gradual, but he provides no evidence for that.

The gopī-bhāva mantra for sannyāsīs Shivaram Swami mentions on p.101 is in no śāstra at all, nor is any Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sannyāsa mentioned in Haribhakti Vilāsa.

On page 110, Shivaram Swami says that sannyāsīs and brāhmaṇas will be inclined to gopī bhāva. First of all, westerners cannot be brāhmaṇas because they lack the birth for that, secondly social status or perceived purity or seniority in years or piety do not provide access to rāgānugā bhakti. Only sacred greed does, and it can appear in anyone.

On page 114, Shivaram Swami presents the widespread misconception, and not only from ISKCON or the Gauḍīya Math, that only at the stage of niṣṭhā one qualifies for rāgānugā bhakti. Although niṣṭhā is indeed still a part of sādhana bhakti, there is no evidence in Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu that niṣṭhā is a prerequisite for rāgānugā bhakti.

On pages 118-119, Shivaram Swami is pleasantly candid about the social and economic comfort that most ISKCON devotees are attached to that may prevent them from pursuing rāgānugā bhakti (what to speak of going to other non-ISKCON Gurus like Goswāmīs or bābājīs!). ISKCON is not just a spiritual shelter but a socio-economic haven as well, whose meal-ticket provision prevents spiritual advancement. Shivaram Swami then makes the right point that true devotees are very rare, quoting Bhagavad-Gītā 7.3 and Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu 1.1.35, which makes short work of the well-meant but still false propaganda to attract newcomers of easily going 'Back Home Back to Godhead'.

Despite all the above criticism I must commend Shivaram Swami for trying to correct the mISKCONception that rāgānugā bhakti is ‘sahajiya’ or only for liberated souls, which daily leads to massive vaiṣṇava-aparādha by ISKCON-devotees. He is unfortunately one of the few ISKCON devotees who understood that.

 

The following chapter of Shivarama Swami’s book, the biography of Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmī, is uncontroversial and alright, except for 3 points –

 

On page 131, Shivaram Swami says Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmī received service as Śrīla Svarūpa Dāmodar's secretary, as if he was some ISKCON bureaucrat sitting behind a desk keeping book distribution scores. Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmī was doing rāgānugā bhajan and tapasya and was taking spiritual guidance from Śrīla Svarūpa Dāmodar.

p.136 Does Shivarama Swami have evidence that Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmī himself cooked for Mahaprabhu? Or did he spend 8 kuris each time to buy mahā prasāda from the Jagannath Mandir?

p.139  Does Shivarama Swami have evidence that Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmī stayed first at Laghamohan Kund at Govardhan?