Gaudiya Vaishnavism queries and discussion thread.

[kalyan]

Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu never rejected Sannyasa, ever!

see my previous post where he quotes from brahma vaivarta purana rejecting sanyasa, you have not still explained why he broke his brahmin sacred thread, that itself is an insult to vaishnavas and in violation of varna-ashrama-dharma! Krushna says those which comes with birth needs to be practiced and by breaking his thread, he rejected the karma that came with this body and must be in narakas himself for denouncing the word of Shree Krushna

chaitany himself has said that in the Age of Kali there is no prescription for sannyasa citing as evidence the Brahma-vaivarta Purana
asvamedham gavlambham sannyasam palapaitrikam |
devarena sutotpattim kalau pañca vivarjayet || (1.17.7)

 

[निताइ dasa]

also chaitanya has said that this (sannyasa) is also to be rejected.
chaitany himself has said that in the Age of Kali there is no prescription for sannyasa citing as evidence the Brahma-vaivarta Purana: (how laughable first to quote BVP and second to reject it )

asvamedham gavlambham sannyasam palapaitrikam |
devarena sutotpattim kalau pañca vivarjayet || (1.17.7)

Dude, I think you are just copying and pasting these weak arguements from this Anti-Gaudiya website.That site is so wrong, they have no evidence to back claims. If you read the commentary on that verse afterwards, Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu explains that this Sannayasa refers to Karma Sannayasa. Our response, (by Srila Bhaktirakshaka Sridhara Maharaj) is as follows:

"The interpretation is this: in this present age, sannyasa in the strict sense of karma-sannyasa is forbidden. Karma-sannyasa means that you leave everything, and that type of sannyasa is not possible in this present age. It is described in the sastras that in Satya-yuga, as long as a man’s bones exist, that is how long he will live. Along with the longevity of the bones, the life will be there. In Treta-yuga, life may be maintained by the nervous system; but it is stated that in kali-yuga ‘kalav-annagatah pranah’ – one’s longevity depends on food. Therefore sannyasa in the strict sense is not possible in kali-yuga.

Previously, Valmiki was engaged in tapasya for so many years that the insects captured his whole body and reduced his flesh into earth, yet he remained present within his bones. Then later, by the help of some spiritual miracle his whole body was restored. But in this present age, without food it is not possible to live. All penances have been especially adjusted for kali-yuga,and the only continuous fast allowed in this present age is for twenty-four hours - not more than that. In other ages, at least twelve days fasting was generally done. If a person had done anything wrong, then according to the smrti-sastra, twelve days fasting was the standard punishment for any sins. But in kali-yuga, twenty-four hours fasting is the maximum because without food a man cannot survive.

If he were to take karma-sannyasa while being so extremely dependent on material giving and taking, then he wouldn’t be able to maintain his existence. But the life of Vaisnava tridandi-sannyasa, which is not very extreme – take prasadam, do service – is a sort of modified form based on yuktahara viharas ca, and one living according to this principle can take sannyasa.

Mahaprabhu took sannyasa, Sankaracarya, Ramanuja – all the pioneers of the differentsampradayas took sannyasa. That (in the verse) has been interpreted as karma-sannyasa, but still, sannyasa is of several kinds. There is also vidvat-sannaysa, which is considered by the salvationist section to be the highest. Their idea is that when one has fully realized that his connection with this material realm is a negative one, he will finish his material encasement and enter into the spiritual sphere. When he is fully established in this firm consciousness that ‘my connection with the material world will be injurious to me,’ he will then relinquish his body and go away to the spiritual sky. That is vidvat-sannyasa.

There is also narottama-sannyasa:

yah svakat parato veha
jata-nirveda atmavan
hrdi krtva harim geyat
pravrajet sa narottamah

In the narottama system of sannyasa, one has realized the presence of or existence of God within his heart, and thinking of Him, he leaves his present engagement and duties of the household and remains outside, anywhere and everywhere – under a tree or in a cave or wherever – careless of his physical needs. He does not immediately relinquish his body, but he takes whatever food he gets and when he does not get any food he fasts, and in this way he goes on. He leaves his household for good; that is narotttama-sannyasa.

And there are also different stages of sannyasa mentioned in the sastra: kuticaka, bahudaka, hamsa and paramahamsa progressively. But tridandi-sannyasa is when the sannyasi engages himself in the service of Godhead by spreading His message and doing some good to the public, and that characteristic is different. It is categorically different. The tridandi-sannyasi is not adopting an attitude or tactic of leaving all the engagements of this world as a result of becoming disgusted with its many temptations. Rather, he is engaging himself in the higher duty of the upper world through an agent, so his body has got utility. Remaining here, maintaining connection here, he is drawing some higher thing from above and distributing that in the environment. That is another conception of sannyasa, and it has positive value.

This is a similar engagement to that performed by the Lord’s closest associates. When an incarnation of God comes down, His favorite parsadas, His friends and servitors, are also sent by Him to come down to do some service to help Him. There are also sub-agents who have received some engagement from the higher agent, and by moving within this world in that capacity, they can earn more spiritual wealth than those who are very eager to disconnect completely from this material plane. They want to try to utilize their connection with this mundane plane to earn some substantial wealth of the upper house. So like the Lord’s parsadas, the tridandi-sannyasis want to work as God’s agents.”

Although members of the anti-devotional parties and their unwitting dupes attempt to condemn the sannyasa-asrama by using the verse from the Brahma-vaivarta Purana, the following verse from the same Purana has conveniently escaped their attention.

dandam kamandalum rakta-vastram matranca dharayet
nityam pravasi naikatra sa sannyasiti kirttitah

“A sannyasi accepts only a danda, water-pot, and saffron-cloth and resides near a village – this is the wealth of the sannyasa asrama.”(Brahma-vaivarta Purana 2.36.9)

In fact, throughout the vast body of Vedic literature, only one verse can be found wherein the sannyasa order is apparently forbidden in the age of kali. In all the other sastras that were written for the people of this present age a man is repeatedly urged to take up sannyasa." - BR Sridhara Maharaj

Also Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu never broke his thread.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Also I notice, Nitai, you have not participated in any other thread except singing praises of Sri Nityananda. Is this not proselytization which I do not think is accepted in Religious Forum. On internet it is very difficult to know who is who. Are you from the staff or the 'Tridandi' swami himself? With all the Asarams, Nithiyanandas, Ramlals, proliferating in India, we tend to be careful.

 

[kalyan]

Also Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu never broke his thread.

numerous references of his life story said he did and even one hare krishna site mentioned it, but gave some junk reason for him doing so,

 

[निताइ dasa]

numerous references of his life story said he did and even one hare krishna site mentioned it, but gave some junk reason for him doing so,

link please? Lord Chaitanya had three main biographies; Chaitanya Charitamrta, Chaitanya Bhagavata and Chaitanya Mangala, so a quote from them should be enough.

 

[kalyan]

link please? Lord Chaitanya had three main biographies; Chaitanya Charitamrta, Chaitanya Bhagavata and Chaitanya Mangala, so a quote from them should be enough.

I will post soon, your post on types of sanyasis is good, I accept it , I have nothing against you but that does not shield away the absolute truth that there is huge holes in the life stories of gaudiyas and many many broken links which makes me to think, that it was invented to milk money and the stuff i posted about bhaktivinod thakur is right, i will do more research and will get back to you as why this gaudiyas spread only from the 18th century.
Injection of chaitanya name in bhAgawatham is slanderous, take an authentic book from any sri vaishnava and read the commentaries, there are ZERO mentions of any character called chaitanya and this is from past and present.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I will post soon, your post on types of sanyasis is good, I accept it , I have nothing against you but that does not shield away the absolute truth that there is huge holes in the life stories of gaudiyas and many many broken links which makes me to think, that it was invented to milk money and the stuff i posted about bhaktivinod thakur is right, i will do more research and will get back to you as why this gaudiyas spread only from the 18th century.
Injection of chaitanya name in bhAgawatham is slanderous, take an authentic book from any sri vaishnava and read the commentaries, there are ZERO mentions of any character called chaitanya and this is from past and present.

I am happy to debate on the basis of evidence, scriptural or otherwise. I would like to see the stuff about Bhaktivinoda Thakura because I am sure its wrong.Unless these evidence-less accusations are retracted I cannot debate with you, as you have otherwise commited Vaishnav aparadha.

Just like you do not accept the verses quoted by our Goswamis (from various Puranas), we do not have to accept or refer to any Sri Vaishnav commentary on that basis. That only seems fair.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Kalyan ji

The philosophy of Vaishnavism is diametrically opposed to the twisted
impostions of Gaudiya Math's self-made "god men".
Gaudiya Math/Iskcon simply does not have any Pratishtha, nor authentic devotional service parampara

again I am merly quoting an old and settled argument , .....


''In a recent meeting, the senior-most leader of the Madhva sampradaya, H.H. Visvesa Tirtha Swami of Pejavara Matha, glorified Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, "just as Bhagiratha brought the Ganga to India, Swami Prabhupada brought the Bhakti-Ganga to the whole world." A video clip from this conversation, along with letters of appreciation from five prominent Madhva leaders may be found here''

We are rather perturbed to come across an article said to contain a statemant issued by Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha about Madhwa and Gaudiya Sampradayas.


We have been emphasizing time and again that even though there are certain difference in a few aspects of the two Sampradayas, there are many more common grounds and Gaudiya Sampradaya is a part of Madhwa Sampradaya. We have great regard for Prabhupada who has spread Vaisnava Bhakti Siddhanta throughout the world.


We have been admiring him on various occasions also. We are pained to find that the article denigrates Prabhupada and is against our opinion and philosophy.


The whole issue will be reviewed and in our capacity as the chancellor of Poornaprajna Vidyapeeta, a message will be shortly published to strengthen the mutual harmonious relationship between the Sampradayas.


Sri Sri Vishwesa Tirtha Swamiiji
​

The philosophy of Vaishnavism is diametrically opposed to the twisted
impostions of Gaudiya Math's self-made "god men".

not acording to the above letter ? .........'' Gaudiya Sampradaya is a part of Madhwa Sampradaya. We have great regard for Prabhupada who has spread Vaisnava Bhakti Siddhanta throughout the world. ''



this is one letter prabhu ji , ....one letter ! , there are many more do you want me to post more or will you stop this distructive and ofenceve behavior now ?

Sri H. H. Sri Vidyadisa Tirtha Swamiji
Car Street, Udupi
​

Sri Prabhupada has accepted Sri Madhwacharya as his "Acarya."
​

He has put manure and water to the seed sowed by Sri Madhwacharya. Sri Prabhupada is responsible for the spread of the branches of the tree of "Bhakti cult" all over India. It is the duty of all Madhwas to recognize the sadhana of Vaishnavite Sri Prabhupada.
​

It is true that there is a difference between "Chaitanya school" and "Madhwa school." In spite of the difference between the two schools of thought, one has to look into the similar thoughts that exist between the two. Therefore, the followers of these two cults should never blame each other nor envy each other.
​

One should not use bad words on the other. One should respect the other and vice-versa. All Madhwas should unite themselves.
​

Sri H. H. Sri Vidyadisa Tirtha Swamiji ​

"Thus you have no right to claim authentic disciplic succession of Vaishnava Parampara, nor impose, nor lie to anyone claiming that you are "authorized" or that there is any
credibility to your service as being "diksha parampara devotional service".

if Madhava Swamis can say this with such grace prehaps Kalyan ji can also become gracefull and acept as so sweetly put in the above letter that , .....''Sri Prabhupada is responsible for the spread of the branches of the tree of "Bhakti cult" all over India. It is the duty of all Madhwas to recognize the sadhana of Vaishnavite Sri Prabhupada. ''


and is is again so sweetly said , .......''One should not use bad words on the other. One should respect the other and vice-versa. All Madhwas should unite themselves. ''

so if Madhavas should unite , and show respect to oneanother , then equaly all Vaisnava should live with respect for eachothers sampradayas , ....there are many of these letters and each as sweet , ....let us also become sweet and glorify the acheivments of the previous Acharyas , ......

 

[Aupmanyav]

Just like you do not accept the verses quoted by our Goswamis (from various Puranas), we do not have to accept or refer to any Sri Vaishnav commentary on that basis. That only seems fair.

Oh yeah, Christians accept proof only from Bible and Muslims from Quran.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Hey guys.

This thread was brought to my attention and I just want to say this:

I think this topic is a worthwhile one to discuss, but we shouldn't divulge into attacks, ad homs, or quasi-proselytizing. Yes, Hinduism (even just Vaishnavism itself) is very vast and diverse; with differing philosophies, ontologies, world views and outlooks, rituals, saints, acharyas, avatars, and mantras. Even with all of these differences, we are still Vaishnavas and Hindus all the same. We are still a part of a very large Dharmic family tree, even if we (like a real family) don't always agree or get along.

So please, have friendly discussion on the differences and similarities between these samparadayas, but please let's keep it civil.

Adiyen and Hare Krishna.

 

[kalyan]

there are 1000s of threads that need moderation is what I feel, why this thread is targeted where we are just trying to get the truths into perspective is beyond me!

 

[StarryNightshade]

there are 1000s of threads that need moderation is what I feel, why this thread is targeted where we are just trying to get the truths into perspective is beyond me!

This isn't moderation, it was just a reminder/extra perspective on this issue. Completely by my own admission.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Probably the topic is ready for 'Same faith debate' forum.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

If that is the case, then why do you put faith on the modern-day Advaitins who claim that Shankara was a Smartha, even though it may not be true?

Haven't we already settled this? Shankara was a Smartha because he was an Advaitin. Also, there is no evidence at all, that he claimed to be anything else - other than the Sri Vaishnava interpretation of what he may have been (based on his usage of Vasudeva, etc., none of which are in disagreement with Smartha-ism). Ask yourself which of the following is more reasonable -

1. Shankara advocated Advaita where Saguna Brahman is not permanent and was a Smartha (multiple forms, all equal) - a system that his followers have continued to this day.
2. He was not a Smartha, but his later followers successfully managed to cover up his actual views and switched to Smartha-ism, making it seem like Shankara was a Smartha and somehow the Sri-Vaishnavas uncovered the conspiracy.

It comes down to which of the above is more likely.

If you think the opinion of Gaudiyas is implausible because of all the evidence against it, then perhaps you should use the same logic when it comes to modern-day Advaitins and their opinion that Shankara was a Smartha.

The Gaudiya case is entirely different. Not sure how you are drawing a comparison with the above.

They are claiming evidence of Chaitanya in standard scripture that existed much before his time - scripture that has been referenced by people like Shankara, Madhva and Ramanuja - where *none* of them read any of these texts to mean the arrival of a future avatar. That is the crux of this discussion and I do not see how this relates to the Smartha matter?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I don't want anyone to leave the forum, but am pointing out the facts of this gaudiyas.....this guy, bhaktivinoda thakur is a clear fraud..

I will try to summarize my views on this topic. These accusations are hurtful to Gaudiya sentiments, but since this is a general discussion forum, I think it is pertinent to lay out facts. I must also add that this is no bearing on the Gaudiyas of this forum, who I believe are very serious about their beliefs.

1. Bhakti Vinoda Thakur wrote up a new Upanishad named Chaitanya Upanishad (in the Bengali language) which herald the coming of the future avatar Chaitanya. However, Bhakti Vinoda claimed that he discovered an existing Upanishad, which was part of the Rig Veda. Needless to say, there is no record of such an Upanishad prior to his time. Given the large number of bogus Upanishads in circulation in India, there shouldn't be any doubt that the Chaitanya Upanishad is a forgery.

2. He authored the Navadwipa Dham Mahatmya, where he fabricated stories of Chaitanya traveling back in time and appearing in the dreams of Madhva and Ramanuja! Chaitanya told them to worship him secretly - implying that Madhva and Ramanuja were Gaudiya Vaishnavas in private - even before the founding of the system, centuries later.

In general, this is what Kalyan is referring to. Completely unconvincing stories of hidden/covered avatars (Chaitanya), hidden/covered Goddesses (Radha), secret Gaudiya Vaishnavas (Madhva, Ramanuja) speak of dishonest methods to claim legitimacy. It is highly doubtful that any of these methods actually worked until Prabhupada went West where people did not have the means to verify these claims and simply accepted them on grounds of faith. Western devotees in general are ignorant of the Indian ways - where such avatars are a dime a dozen. Practically, every religious Guru of some repute is seen as an avatar by his followers.

It is a form of indoctrination, where people not only accept such claims without due verification, but also begin to believe in them deeply enough that they feel compelled to defend and propagate them. Hopefully, these discussions help in that at least some take a step back, put sentiment aside for a moment and re-examine their beliefs, instead of focusing on convincing others.

Again, I am not undermining any of the GVs on this forum. I just believe your sentiments (and fear) are preventing you from seeing and accepting the obvious. You can give up the bogus claims of Bhakti Vinoda Thakur, etc., and still be an avid Krishna/Radha worshiper. Do not fall for the threats of Aparadha - a system designed to prevent people from questioning and being objective.

Good luck.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I will try to summarize my views on this topic. These accusations are hurtful to Gaudiya sentiments, but since this is a general discussion forum, I think it is pertinent to lay out facts. I must also add that this is no bearing on the Gaudiyas of this forum, who I believe are very serious about their beliefs.

1. Bhakti Vinoda Thakur wrote up a new Upanishad named Chaitanya Upanishad (in the Bengali language) which herald the coming of the future avatar Chaitanya. However, Bhakti Vinoda claimed that he discovered an existing Upanishad, which was part of the Rig Veda. Needless to say, there is no record of such an Upanishad prior to his time. Given the large number of bogus Upanishads in circulation in India, there shouldn't be any doubt that the Chaitanya Upanishad is a forgery.

2. He authored the Navadwipa Dham Mahatmya, where he fabricated stories of Chaitanya traveling back in time and appearing in the dreams of Madhva and Ramanuja! Chaitanya told them to worship him secretly - implying that Madhva and Ramanuja were Gaudiya Vaishnavas in private - even before the founding of the system, centuries later.

In general, this is what Kalyan is referring to. Completely unconvincing stories of hidden/covered avatars (Chaitanya), hidden/covered Goddesses (Radha), secret Gaudiya Vaishnavas (Madhva, Ramanuja) speak of dishonest methods to claim legitimacy. It is highly doubtful that any of these methods actually worked until Prabhupada went West where people did not have the means to verify these claims and simply accepted them on grounds of faith. Western devotees in general are ignorant of the Indian ways - where such avatars are a dime a dozen. Practically, every religious Guru of some repute is seen as an avatar by his followers.

It is a form of indoctrination, where people not only accept such claims without due verification, but also begin to believe in them deeply enough that they feel compelled to defend and propagate them. Hopefully, these discussions help in that at least some take a step back, put sentiment aside for a moment and re-examine their beliefs, instead of focusing on convincing others.

Again, I am not undermining any of the GVs on this forum. I just believe your sentiments (and fear) are preventing you from seeing and accepting the obvious. You can give up the bogus claims of Bhakti Vinoda Thakur, etc., and still be an avid Krishna/Radha worshiper. Do not fall for the threats of Aparadha - a system designed to prevent people from questioning and being objective.

Good luck.

Thank you for your comments. I will briefly give our response.

1) Sri Chaitanya Upanisad was written in Sanskrit not Bengali. Bhaktivinoda Thakura never claimed to write it (as you have said), in-fact in Krsna Samhita, he asserts that after searching the length and breadth of Bengal he was able to find an original handwritten manuscript from Pandita Madhusudana Maharaja, of Sambala-Pura of this rare work. In our opinion Bhaktivinoda Thakura could not have written this work because the Sanskrit used in the Upanishad is very very different from the Sanskrit that Bhaktivinoda Thakura uses in his Sanskrit works like "Tattva Sutra"' Again, here we fundamentally differ, because we do not require previous references for a work to be authentic, as I have stated before. Considering Bhaktivinoda Thakura's spotless character, we understand that he would not lie about this. Furthermore He is an Acharaya, therefore we have great faith in His words.

2) Again Navadwipa Dham Mahatmya is a Gaudiya Shastra, and only holds weight for us, not for other Sampradayas. Obviously other Sampradayas would call it a fabrication, but we having faith in Thakura's vani understand these as a method why which the contradictions of the various Sampradayas are reconciled. Also the presence of the purva acharayas like Ramanuja and Madhavacharya in Gaura Lila are confirmed by the Gaura-ganoddesha-dipika of Kavi Karnapura. You may consider it a fabrication we do not. Authority of scripture varies from Sampradaya to Sampradaya and we are not asking you to conciser these Gaudiya Shastras written later.

The difference between you and I is that our evidence is drawn from the Vani of our acharayas. We conciser them to be authoritative and therefore accept their conclusions. These works are unconvincing to you because you do not share the same standard of proof as we do. You can call it "indoctrination" but that is fine, as far as I am concerned, everything in indoctrination in some way. Please understand this, we conciser the weight of previous mahajanas as the ultimate proof, and therefore are belief are based upon these, not Pratyuksha and Anumana. That is how Shabda pranam works. Otherwise all philosophies can be easily ripped apart by the logic of skepticism, as all are based upon an assumption in some way (even the Vedas). Our experiences fundamentally differ, and as a result we have placed different degrees of proof on different sources of knowledge. This is the essence of this argument. I am not trying to convert you, but I am asking that your respect our position and understand that from our point of view, why we conciser these claims as valid. Ultimately faith is the basis of all evidence. My experiences dictate my faith in Gaudiya Acharayas and yours do not, it is as simple as that.

"dekhiya na dekhe yata abhaktera gana
uluke na dekhe yena suryera kirana"

"The non-devotees cannot see what the devotees see, just as an owl cannot see or accept the presence of the sun" (Chaitanya Charitamrta)

 

[निताइ dasa]

The way I see it, as we individuals grow up, the environment and culture around us forms our world-view (how we explain the phenomenon around us). Due to the variety in human experience, we place different degrees of faith upon different sources of knowledge whether that be scientific theory orscripture (or going down to the bare basis; the senses or another authority, as various sampradayas). Our experiences can either reaffirm or contradict that world-view. That is why people have different standards of proof. Although the Truth can only be one, it is quite impossible to completely establish it universally. To prove a claim (or refute a claim for that matter) to someone who has a different standard of proof is impossible. That being said, in a group who share a common standard of proof (whether that be the scientific community, or a religious community, or even different Sampradayas and Sects), certain claims can be established among those specific communities are accepted as fact or truth. Everyone has a reason, a justification for what they believe. We humans are made up of our beliefs, they dictate our very actions, they direct our very lives. To move into a debate and attack a belief system with ones own standard of proof never works, nor is it valid as the other party fundamentally differ. I did not want to move into this line of logical debate, but I think it is important for those people who jump to call other beliefs wrong on the basis of personal standards alone.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

The way I see it, as we individuals grow up, the environment and culture around us forms our world-view (how we explain the phenomenon around us). Due to the variety in human experience, we place different degrees of faith upon different sources of knowledge whether that be scientific theory orscripture (or going down to the bare basis; the senses or another authority, as various sampradayas). Our experiences can either reaffirm or contradict that world-view. That is why people have different standards of proof. Although the Truth can only be one, it is quite impossible to completely establish it universally. To prove a claim (or refute a claim for that matter) to someone who has a different standard of proof is impossible. That being said, in a group who share a common standard of proof (whether that be the scientific community, or a religious community, or even different Sampradayas and Sects), certain claims can be established among those specific communities are accepted as fact or truth. Everyone has a reason, a justification for what they believe. We humans are made up of our beliefs, they dictate our very actions, they direct our very lives. To move into a debate and attack a belief system with ones own standard of proof never works, nor is it valid as the other party fundamentally differ. I did not want to move into this line of logical debate, but I think it is important for those people who jump to call other beliefs wrong on the basis of personal standards alone.

Fact vs. Truth. We can discuss facts and prove the other wrong. Very difficult to do so, if we discuss Truth.

I think we both have made our positions clear. Beyond this point, we will only be repeating ourselves. Thank you for keeping the discussion objective.

Wishing you and everyone else here a happy 2016!

 

[निताइ dasa]

Fact vs. Truth. We can discuss facts and prove the other wrong. Very difficult to do so, if we discuss Truth.

I think we both have made our positions clear. Beyond this point, we will only be repeating ourselves. Thank you for keeping the discussion objective.

Wishing you and everyone else here a happy 2016!

Yes I agree, and even what is considered fact may differ, specifically when discussing spiritual matters. I thank you for your understanding. I pray that Lord Nitai keep His blessings over you for this new year too.

 

[kalyan]

Bhaktivinoda Thakura could not have written this work because the Sanskrit used in the Upanishad is very very different from the Sanskrit that Bhaktivinoda Thakura uses in his Sanskrit works like "Tattva Sutra"

weakest argument like ever. Second, Bhaktivinoda Thakur also hunted for Chaitanya Upanishad as per this link and this link:
http://www.krishna.com/sri-chaitanya-Vedas
https://back2krishna.wordpress.com/tag/chaitanya-upanishad/

It is laughable that why one ex muncipal officer has to be that much needy to invent some things other than milking money + politics, it is pretty much clear to me that this is complete fraud to fool people and such Avaidik acts trying to bypass vedam and the veda vani acharyas like Shankara, Ramanuja and madhva (who only ordained that only 14 upanishads needs to be taken as authentic from their commentaries) would result in rouravAdi narakas......

all these now kept me thinking that whether a character called 'nitai' existed in first place or its a fabrication to account for this new faith to milk money and who knows what just like shirdi sai baba gang. A lot depends on who we worship, worshipping a fake thing will give you fake things only ofcourse after death of body. One just need to look closer at things to know the facts about them, you just have to look hard is all.

Sri Krushna would tear down these fakes when the time comes just like he tore the mouth of bakasura which represents hamsa doing fake meditation!