Ananta Vasudeva-The 1st False Guru of Gaudiya Matha

Letter PAMHO:6157670 (11 lines) From: Date: To: Bir Krishna das Goswami 02-Nov-02 06:27 +0530 (19:57 -0500) Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN) [28276]

Comment: Text PAMHO:6158557 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN) Subject: question -----------------------------------------------------------Dear Bhakta Rupa Prabhu,

Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I was just speaking to Guru Prasad Swami and he told me that there was another version to the Ananta Vasudeva story that you had told him. It sounded interesting

Could you fill me in on the details?

Your servant, Bir Krishna das Goswami (Text PAMHO:6157670) ---------------------------------------

Letter PAMHO:6158557 (156 lines) From: Date: To: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN) 02-Nov-02 12:07 +0530 Bir Krishna das Goswami

Reference: Text PAMHO:6157670 by Bir Krishna das Goswami Comment: Text PAMHO:6160117 by Bir Krishna das Goswami Subject: question -----------------------------------------------------------> I was just speaking to Guru Prasad Swami and he told me that there was > another version to the Ananta Vasudeva story that you had told him. It > sounded interesting > > Could you fill me in on the details?

Happily.

I have had the good fortune for the last 6 years to have the association of one Dr. Fakir Mohan Das, a retired professor of Sanskrit and Oriya at the local Utkal University, a naistiki brahmacari, and foremost authority on Gaudiya Vaishnavism in Orissa. He left home as a teenager and joined the Bagh Bazar group, "Gaudiya Mission", and had much close association with Sri Ananta Vasudeva Prabhu, as well as Sri Sundarananda Vidyavinode, Sri Bhaktipradip Tirtha Maharaj, Sri Audolomi Maharaja, and Sri Haridas Das Babaji Maharaja. He also had close association with Sri BR Sridhar Maharaj and is known and respected by many different groups of Gaudiyas, including those as diverse as Sri BV Puri Maharaja and Sri Yati Maharaja.

Fakir Mohan Prabhu took harinam from Ananta Vasudeva Prabhu and resided with him for some time during his grhastha ashram in Varanasi, assisting with the book publication work that was going on there. Later Fakir Mohan took diksa from Sri Kanupriya Goswami of Nabadwip. He has no affiliation with any Gaudiya institution other than ISKCON (which is due to the encouragement of Sri Gour Govinda Maharaj) so he doesn't seem to have any institutional motivation in the matter.

During the course of my association with Fakir Mohan Prabhu I began to hear bits and pieces of the Ananta Vasudev story from him and was a bit taken

aback, as it seemed so different from the general ISKCON understanding. But I continued to hear, maintaining a healthy dose of scepticism. After some time I realized that the whole story he was telling was not internally inconsistent, and it also allowed for how others, such as our worshipable Srila Prabhupada, might have made the statements that they made. I also realized that it wasn't really an important issue for my individual spiritual life(!) and I resolved to follow "hanachena haibena prabhur jata das" and maintain a respectful attitude toward all servants of Lord Caitanya that may have appeared in the past or may appear in the future.

However, there are some interesting historical lessons if the story is, indeed, true. Therefore there is no harm in discussing the history in carefully controlled circumstances. I have not explicitly verified every aspect of his story, but I have heard enough confirmation from other sources that I am quite convinced that the contra-story that we hear in ISKCON was manufactured out of personal motivation by some individuals close to the Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti and/or some followers of Sridhar Maharaja. Perhaps Srila Prabhupada also heard that story in the course of his dealings with those two institutions -- enough that he chose to use the story upon occasion while giving particular instructions to his disciples.

And how a story so completely wrong could have such a wide following? I think we have enough experience with wild stories spreading in ISKCON that we can see that it is certainly a possibility. And it is also interesting to note that outside of the institutions of Kesava Maharaj and Sridhar Maharaja there don't seem to be many believers in the story. Since ISKCON received quite of bit of historical cross-fertilization over the years from these two institutions, we have imbibed their understandings on this subject. Other than vox populi, though, there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence supporting the contrastory. Ananta Vasudeva Prabhu still has legions of loyal followers, strictly following our same process, who are fully faithful in him as well as to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. How could this be if he were such a sexual deviant and blatant guru-tyagi?

Sorry for the long intro. Here is the story as I understand it:

Just before he disappeared, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur was making plans to give formal organizational structure to the Gaudiya Maths and Mission, including a governing board of his senior disciples. Kunja Babu was to manage and Ananta Vasudev was to be the acarya, giving initiations and resolving philosophical matters. This could not be completed before his

disappearance. But a few months later there was a meeting of all the senior disciples and they unanimously elected Ananta Vasudev as the acarya. Papers were signed to this effect. This did not last long, as Kunja Babu started the first case within the year. The case was over quickly as the judge dismissed it for having no basis. After getting the judgement, Ananta Vasudev went to Kunja Babu with a list of all the maths and told him to pick the ones he wanted, except for Bagh Bazar. Kunja pick about half, and the matter was settled up. No more cases were ever filed between these two initial branches. All the long-standing cases Srila Prabhupada talks about were between subgroups within Kunja Babu's faction.

As acarya, Ananta Vasudev Prabhu, who became Bhaktiprasad Puri, had a difficult task. You can imagine trying to be the sole arbiter of policy and sole initiator amongst hundreds of godbrothers! The first difficulty were the large numbers of godbrothers who were itching to initiate, especially the sannyasis. To solve that problem he gave them all blanket permission to leave and start their own institutions where they could be gurus. Many did, but some stayed.

The next major difficulty were those who didn't want to leave but who wanted to enjoy the facilities of the math. For example, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta used to eat at the homes of visayis for preaching, and he would take some disciples with him. Later, math residents would also freely accept invitations from visayis, not understanding the risks of eating their food without the explicit instructions of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and their minds became affected as they did so with an enjoying spirit. This kind of imitative activity was strictly forbidden, and as a result of Ananta Vasudev's strictures many objected to having their sense-gratification cut off.

Another example is his explanation that we are not part of the Madhva sampradaya. He said that this was a technique adopted by Srila Baladev Vidyabhusan to save the worship of Radha Govinda in Jaipur, and adopted by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta to counter similar arguments about a supposed lack of connection with the four vaishnava sampradayas, but he pointed out that none of the six goswamis ever mention any connection with Madhva and that we have many philosophical differences with Madhva.

Ultimately many left the mission because of such so-called "policy changes". Because Ananta Vasudev did not want to encourage imitation of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and because he was not afraid to differ with the prevailing understandings of some of his godbrothers, it was said by his critics that he had rejected Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. But there is no proof of any such

rejection. (Sometimes we all are accused of "rejection" of Srila Prabhupada, when all we have done is rejected someone else's interpretation of Srila Prabhupada's teachings. So this rings a bell.)

Then, even after the departure of these types, there remained many in the math who were perhaps basically cooperative, but who were not progressing in spiritual life because of artificially repressed material desires. (We see this phenomenon quite a bit in our Indian centers.) To get married would be too much embarrassment after leaving home and joining the math, but they were not happy as brahmacaris either. This phenomenon weighed heavily on the consciousness of the math, and, as acarya, Ananta Vasudev would tell them to leave and get married and prosecute spiritual life at home, but they would not obey his instructions. He would say, "I did not ask for this position of acarya, and it is only a botheration if the devotees don't care to follow." After threatening to leave for some time, he eventually did leave the acaryaship, installed his elder brother, Bhakti Pradip Tirtha (disciple of Bhaktivinode Thakur) as acarya, stopped dressing as a sannyasi, and lived in Vrindaban doing bhajan. But still the math residents would not leave him alone. They continued to come to Vrindaban to beg him to return to the math. And the problems in the math continued unabated -- the artificial renunciates would not leave to return to their houses.

So he decided to get married himself. Then he would be criticized, for sure, but at least he would be left alone so that he could do his literary work and bhajan. Also, those in the math who had a desire to get married would think, "Acaryadev has gotten married, so I will also!" And the strategy worked. He got married and had one son, living an exemplary household life. But then there was a smallpox epidemic and he refused to vaccinate his son because the vaccine was made from eggs. The boy contracted smallpox and died. After this he gave up his household life and returned to Vrindaban for bhajan. During this final stage of his life he earned the high respect of all the Goswamis of Vrindaban for his exemplary conduct and prolific publication work. Many ancient literatures have been saved for our use because of his diligence in publication. He never became "reinitiated" during this period, as he is sometimes accused, although he did closely associate with advanced vaishnavas from other lines. Some also say he stopped chanting the mahamantra, saying it was only for nityaparikars, but this is also an unsupported allegation.

I hope this is satisfactory. Please let me know if I can be of any further service.

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das (Text PAMHO:6158557) ---------------------------------------


Reference: Text PAMHO:6158557 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN) Comment: Text PAMHO:6160858 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN) Subject: question -----------------------------------------------------------Dear Bhaktarupa Prabhu,

Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you very much for the information on Ananta Vasudeva.

The information that I had on Ananta Vasudeva comes from two sources: ISKCON and some babaji friends from Radha Kunda.

Of course the ISKCON source states that he fell down with a woman and later committed suicide due to her killing their son.

The Babaji source states that Ananta Vasudeva came to the conclusion that the parampara of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was not bonafide. After

he came to this conclusion, he decided to renounce his sannyasa and also his initiation from BSST. Sundarananda likewise did the same.

Sridhara Maharaja hints at this particular deviation in some of his talks. This seems similar to the deviation of Nitai.

Kanupriya Goswami is a member of the Nityananda Parivara which I believe does not accept BSST.

There is no doubt that he did a first class job of compiling Vaisnava literatures.

The question we need to ask is what was his attitude towards Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura's claim to be a diksa disciple of Gaura Kisore das Babaji Maharaja.

Also what does Fakir Mohan say about BSST's initiation?

Also there is some evidence that Ananta Vasudeva chanted "Bhaja Nitai Gaura Radhe Syama Hare Krishna Hare Rama. What does Fakir Mohan say about this?

I hope this meets you in good health. Your servant, Bir Krishna das Goswami (Text PAMHO:6160117) ---------------------------------------


Reference: Text PAMHO:6160117 by Bir Krishna das Goswami Subject: question -----------------------------------------------------------> The information that I had on Ananta Vasudeva comes from two sources: > ISKCON and some babaji friends from Radha Kunda.

> Of course the ISKCON source states that he fell down with a woman and > later committed suicide due to her killing their son.

"Fell down with a woman" is a common euphemism for illicit sex, but a former sannyasi getting married is in some quarters also described as a "fall down". Since Sri Nityananda Prabhu, Sri Syamananda Prabhu and Sri Rasikananda Prabhu also got properly married after being in the renounced order, I would not like to generalize and say that all renunciates who later got married have "fallen down".

The suicide and killing part seem to be total concoctions with no basis in fact.

> The Babaji source states that Ananta Vasudeva came to the conclusion that > the parampara of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was not bonafide. After > he came to this conclusion, he decided to renounce his sannyasa and also > his initiation from BSST. Sundarananda likewise did the same.

This rejection myth is propagated by both some Gaudiya Maths as well as some babaji and caste goswami groups. It suits both their agendas. For the former it allows them to denigrate AV, whereas they should have been cooperative and tried to work out their differences. For the latter it supports their criticism of BSST and allows them to claim AV as their own. One of the major proponents of the latter group is Sri Srivatsa Goswami who considers AV as the greatest scholar in Gaudiya Vaishnavism in the last 100 years. Madhavananda Prabhu spoke to him on one occasion and the topic came up. As expected, Srivatsa Goswami was propounding the rejection theory. But Madhavananda pressed him as to whether AV ever specifically stated that he had rejected BSST, and Srivatsa Goswami admitted that he never did so explicitly. We consider this to be quite telling.

AV and Sundarananda found some inconsistency between some of the public explanations of BSST and the teachings of the six goswamis. While these public explanations were quite useful for introducing the general public to the most sublime concepts of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's special mercy for this particular kaliyuga as well as for responding to criticisms from other sampradayas, they were not appreciated by the closer cousins within the babaji and jatigosai groups due to a bit of fudging on the philosophy. They wanted to defend the honor of BSST before these groups also, as these groups were becoming increasingly critical and were causing doubts in the minds of the math members. They felt that the senior members of the mission should understand where and why BSST had glossed over things so that in their practical dealings they could respond to the criticisms, thus they began to write clarifications of how our line is fully in accordance with the traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava literature. Those with personal motivations chose to interpret these writings as a rejection of SBSST, as on some points they appeared superficially to be directly opposed to how BSST had explained.

If you don't mind me drawing a parallel here to more recent history, in 1994 I heard criticism of HH Gour Govinda Maharaja that he had rejected Srila Prabhupada. The reason given: a difference of opinion on the jiva issue. In actuality, Maharaja was only trying to relate his understanding of our Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, and whether his understand was right or wrong is not the issue here. The point is that it was not at all a rejection. Similarly, whether AV or Sundarananda were right or wrong in their interpretations is not the issue. Anyone who says they rejected BSST without a categorical statement to that effect is engaged in politics.

> Sridhara Maharaja hints at this particular deviation in some of his talks. > This seems similar to the deviation of Nitai.

Nitai is, as far as I understand, a guru-tyagi, directly rejecting Srila Prabhupada.

> Kanupriya Goswami is a member of the Nityananda Parivara which I believe > does not accept BSST.

If someone is saying like this, what do they mean? That he was not properly initiated? How can a whole parivara have such an opinion? Maybe some members say. BSST disliked some of the preaching of some of the caste goswamis, as it was too restrictive and tended to limit the spreading of Krishna consciousness. Therefore he made many statements against "jati gosais". But he remained respectful to many individual caste goswamis as bonafide vaishnavas, and many also accepted him as a bonafide vaishnava. Unfortunately, some of BSST's disciples over-generalized the jati gosai thing and imagined all sorts of things, such as BVT's supposed rejection of Bipin Bihari Goswami. BSST had respectful dealings with Visvambharanandadev Goswami of Gopivallabhapur, even after he had reinitiated one of the Goswami's disciples! Kanupriya Goswami's father was the personal physician of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, and Kanupriya Goswami also treated the Thakur at the last stage of his life. BSST retained respectful dealings with that particular family.

> There is no doubt that he did a first class job of compiling Vaisnava > literatures. > > The question we need to ask is what was his attitude towards > Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura's claim to be a diksa disciple of Gaura > Kisore das Babaji Maharaja. >

> Also what does Fakir Mohan say about BSST's initiation?

We asked him that question point blank some time back. His response was to become angry, "Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur says that he was initiated like that." Discussion over.

They may say so many things, but is it possible to prove otherwise?

> Also there is some evidence that Ananta Vasudeva chanted "Bhaja Nitai > Gaura Radhe Syama Hare Krishna Hare Rama. What does Fakir Mohan say about > this?

There is one group here in Bhubaneswar headed by a disciple of AV which has renounced the chanting of Hare Krishna mahamantra and instead chants "sri krsna caitanya sacisuta gaura guna dhama", which is an adaptation of one verse in the CC chanted by Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya. They claim that AV taught them like that. Fakir Mohan Prabhu says that AV did chant this mantra for some time, but it is a misunderstanding for his followers to chant it in place of the mahamantra.

Fakir Mohan Prabhu is respectful of the vaishnavas who chant this "bhaja nitai gaura ..." (from a distance) but I have never heard him talk about AV chanting it. Maybe he did.

As a side point here, Fakir Mohan Prabhu has related an explanation of the grammatical meaning of the hare krishna mahamantra that he heard from his gurujanas in which that meaning is different when chanted by Srimati Radharani or Sriman Mahaprabhu than when it is chanted by sadhakas. "Hare" is the vocative form of "Hari" when chanted by Them and is the vocative form of "Hara" when chanted by us. These kinds of explanations in the hands of neophytes can lead to so many misunderstandings and ultimately to apasampradayas.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these topics. They are actually quite important for ISKCON's long-term institutional health.



Comment: Text PAMHO:6167012 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN) Subject: ? -----------------------------------------------------------Here is the version given by a neutral scholar. I am inclined to think this one is the real version. ============================================== ==================

Maharaj,

Dandavats. This version is the one you will hear from devotees in the Gaudiya Mission, the part of the Gaudiya Math that AV was the first acarya of (after BST, that is). The rationale for this version is rather delicate: they have to somehow explain how everything he did was bonafide, and how he is a predecessor acarya even though he gave up his position. The below story is probably

based on a book on Ananta Vasudeva published in Godruma recently. I will give my comments below. here are basically three versions: this, that of rival GMs and ISKCON, and that of the Babajis at Radhakund.

> Just before he disappeared, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur was making plans > to give formal organizational structure to the Gaudiya Maths and Mission, > including a governing board of his senior disciples. Kunja Babu was to > manage and Ananta Vasudev was to be the acarya, giving initiations and > resolving philosophical matters. This could not be completed before his > disappearance.

These two persons were indeed the top men of the Gaudiya Math, one was general secretary (KB) and the other (AV) personal secretary to BST. From Bon Maharaj's letters from England it is obvious that they were considered the top brass, after BST. It is not clear what BST wanted after his death, but the above version seems to have received much support. AV was greatly learned and a renunced brahmacari. KB was a very capable manager and extremely dear to BST, who always wanted him in his company.

> But a few months later there was a meeting of all the > senior > disciples and they unanimously elected Ananta Vasudev as the acarya.

That is not true: eight voted for him, five for KB. But KB and his supporters initially agreed to honour AV as the acarya and took part in his "coronation". Within a few months it became clear that the cooperation could not last, and KB and some others left. In the beginning, practically all sided with AV, Prabhupada also.

> The case was over quickly as the judge > dismissed it for having no basis. After getting the judgement, Ananta > Vasudev went to Kunja Babu with a list of all the maths and told him to > pick the ones he wanted, except for Bagh Bazar. Kunja pick about half, and > the matter was settled up.

This is also (obviously) not true. It is true that initially AV won all cases (by KB, Parvat Maharaj and others), but eventually he was forced to agree to a deal (brokered by Sridhar Maharaj). The deal was that one side got Baghbazaar (in all respects the crownjewel Math) and the other all other Maths in Bengal, and the others were divided 50%/ 50%. All of this took many years.

> No more cases were ever filed between these two > initial branches. All the long-standing cases Srila Prabhupada talks about > were between sub-groups within Kunja Babu's faction.

Not true. KB's faction became Caitanya Math, and remained unfractioned until his death. Practically all other Maths came out of the Gaudiya Mission (Puri Maharajas, Madhava Maharaj, Sridhar Maharaj etc).

> As acarya, Ananta Vasudev Prabhu, who became Bhaktiprasad Puri, had a > difficult task. You can imagine trying to be the sole arbiter of policy > and sole initiator amongst hundreds of godbrothers! The first difficulty > were the large numbers of godbrothers who were itching to initiate, > especially > the sannyasis. To solve that problem he gave them all blanket

> permission > to > leave and start their own institutions where they could be gurus. Many > did, but some stayed.

Most actually left after the events mentioned below. Others were demonised. AV was considered the only bona fide acarya.

> But there is no proof of any > such > rejection [of BST].

It appears that he never explicitly stated that he did so (but perhaps to his close circle of disciples), but obviously he disagreed with many of BST's teachings. If he had explicitly said so, I do not think that the Gaudiya Mission would be able to say that he just withdrew from his acharyahood to do bhajana without becoming unbonafide. As an acharya, he instituted several changes, most of which I think are minor and within the rights of an acharya to do.

> ...So he decided to get married himself. Then he would be criticized, for > sure, but at least he would be left alone so that he could do his literary > work and bhajan. Also, those in the math who had a desire to get married > would think, "Acaryadev has gotten married, so I will also!" And the > strategy worked.

This is a rationalisation, obviously. He was found out to have an affair (of some sort, perhaps not as gross as the term is seen here in the west) with a disciple. Some loveletters were apparently found. What I see is a person torn

between his duty, his feelings, his loyalty to BST and his doubts about the genuineness of BST. His followers in the GM call this his "divine marriage lila".

> He got married and had one son, living an exemplary household > life. > But then there was a smallpox epidemic and he refused to vaccinate his son > because the vaccine was made from eggs. The boy contracted smallpox and > died. After this he gave up his household life and returned to Vrindaban > for > bhajan.

This is perhaps true. There is another version about the death of his son, which you have probably heard, Maharaj. That one sounds rather too gross to be true.

> During this final stage of his life he earned the high respect > of > all the Goswamis of Vrindaban for his exemplary conduct and prolific > publication work. Many ancient literatures have been saved for our use > because of his diligence in publication. He never became "reinitiated" > during this period, as he is sometimes accused, although he did closely > associate with advanced vaishnavas from other lines.

This is true, especially the books. Many say he took reinitiation from them. Srivatsa Goswami of the Radha Raman temple told me in March that AV did take reinitiation from one Radha Raman Goswamin still living, but that he was

under oath forbidden to reveal the name until his death... Others say he took reinitiation from Advaita Dasa Babaji of Radhakunda.

> Some also say he > stopped chanting the mahamantra, saying it was only for nityaparikars, but > this is also an unsupported allegation.

Well, this is what his followers at Radhakund still do.

So basically I do not think this story is true. It does contain one good quality, and that is that is does not demonise AV as is often done. He was obviously a very charismatic person who did much good also. Have you ever told your disciples about how kanistha, madhyama and uttama can be graded into kanistha-kanistha, kanistha-madhyama, etc, Maharaj? Then you have also passed on a teaching from Ananta Vasudeva Paravidyabhushan Prabhu, one widely considered bona-fide regardless of the view of AV himself. (Text PAMHO:6164368) ---------------------------------------


Reference: Text PAMHO:6164368 by Bir Krishna das Goswami Subject: ? -----------------------------------------------------------> Here is the version given by a neutral scholar. I am inclined to think > this one is the real version.

Well, I was just relaying a composite of the bits and pieces I had picked up over the years and wasn't making any value judgements. Obviously a disciple is bound to have different understandings of facts than outside observers will. This is natural and it's not really so important. Let those who make their living as historians fight it out. The main point relevant for our lives, which it seems this neutral scholar would agree on, is that followers of Ananta Vasudev Prabhu that we happen upon in the course of our journey through this kaliyuga, or books we see prepared by him, or philosophical points made by him, should not be rejected offhand as wierd, but should be evaluated on their own merit.

Did you also show this neutral scholar my second text? He certainly knows many more details than I and I bow to his superior knowledge. I was giving only a rough picture as best I knew.

Some detailed comments below.

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

> ============================================== ================== > > Maharaj, > > Dandavats. This version is the one you will hear from devotees in the > Gaudiya Mission, the part of the Gaudiya Math that AV was the first acarya > of (after BST, that is). > The rationale for this version is rather delicate: they have to somehow > explain how everything he did was bonafide, and how he is a predecessor

> acarya even though he gave up his position. The below story is probably > based on a book on Ananta Vasudeva published in Godruma recently.

If he means "Preceptorial Line of Succession and Srila Acharyadeva" by Prof. Sasmal, we received a copy of that book from Jati Shekhar Prabhu's son. It is complete hype and I have no interest in reading it.

> I will give my comments > below. > here are basically three versions: this, that of rival GMs and ISKCON, and > that of the Babajis at Radhakund. > > > Just before he disappeared, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur was making > > plans to give formal organizational structure to the Gaudiya Maths and > > Mission, including a governing board of his senior disciples. Kunja Babu > > was to manage and Ananta Vasudev was to be the acarya, giving > > initiations and resolving philosophical matters. This could not be > > completed before his disappearance. > > These two persons were indeed the top men of the Gaudiya Math, one was > general secretary (KB) and the other (AV) personal secretary to BST. From > Bon Maharaj's letters from England it is obvious that they were considered > the top brass, after BST. It is not clear what BST wanted after his death, > but the above version seems to have received much support. AV was greatly > learned and a renunced brahmacari. KB was a very capable manager and

> extremely dear to BST, who always wanted him in his company. > > > But a few months later there was a meeting of all the > > senior > > disciples and they unanimously elected Ananta Vasudev as the acarya. > > That is not true: eight voted for him, five for KB. But KB and his > supporters initially agreed to honour AV as the acarya and took part in > his "coronation".

This was my misunderstanding. The clarification is appreciated.

> Within a few months it became clear that the cooperation could not last, > and KB and some others left. In the beginning, practically all sided with > AV, Prabhupada also.

Yes. This was noted by Jati Shekhar Prabhu.

> > The case was over quickly as the judge > > dismissed it for having no basis. After getting the judgement, Ananta > > Vasudev went to Kunja Babu with a list of all the maths and told him to > > pick the ones he wanted, except for Bagh Bazar. Kunja pick about half, > > and the matter was settled up. >

> This is also (obviously) not true. It is true that initially AV won all > cases (by KB, Parvat Maharaj and others), but eventually he was forced to > agree to a deal (brokered by Sridhar Maharaj). The deal was that one side > got Baghbazaar (in all respects the crownjewel Math) and the other all > other Maths in Bengal, and the others were divided 50%/ 50%. All of this > took many years.

Whether or not Sridhar Maharaja brokered the deal or how long it took were details that I have not researched. They could certainly be right.

> > No more cases were ever filed between these two > > initial branches. All the long-standing cases Srila Prabhupada talks > > about were between sub-groups within Kunja Babu's faction. > > Not true. KB's faction became Caitanya Math, and remained unfractioned > until his death. Practically all other Maths came out of the Gaudiya > Mission (Puri Maharajas, Madhava Maharaj, Sridhar Maharaj etc).

Came out, yes, but as far as I know not through court battles. If there were no other cases in Caitanya Math until after BV Tirtha's demise (and I have no reason to doubt such a statement) then what was Srila Prabhupada referring to when he said that cases have been going on for 40 years without result?

> > As acarya, Ananta Vasudev Prabhu, who became Bhaktiprasad Puri, had a > > difficult task. You can imagine trying to be the sole arbiter of policy > > and sole initiator amongst hundreds of godbrothers! The first difficulty

> > were the large numbers of godbrothers who were itching to initiate, > > especially the sannyasis. To solve that problem he gave them all blanket > > permission to > > leave and start their own institutions where they could be gurus. Many > > did, but some stayed. > > Most actually left after the events mentioned below. Others were > demonised. AV was considered the only bona fide acarya.

OK. I was glossing details. Sounds like there are fanatics in every group. But I hope this neutral scholar is not lumping all AV followers in with the Godruma fanatic group.

> > But there is no proof of any > > such > > rejection [of BST]. > > It appears that he never explicitly stated that he did so (but perhaps to > his close circle of disciples), but obviously he disagreed with many of > BST's teachings.

I deal with this point somewhat more explicitly in my second text. "Disagreed with many of BST's teachings" is the kind of statement that should not be thrown around lightly. Did he say anything contrary to sastra? If so, what specifically? SBST was a revolutionary preacher who in the course of his preaching had to fudge some details. Our Srila Prabhupada also. Who is saying what were the actual teachings of SBST in full technicolor? It's a tricky thing to pin down. Sastra is the only anchor in such an ocean of opinions.

> If he had explicitly said so, I do not think that the Gaudiya > Mission would be able to say that he just withdrew from his acharyahood to > do bhajana without becoming unbonafide.

OK, but it's not proof that he did reject.

> As an acharya, he instituted several > changes, most of which I think are minor and within the rights of an > acharya to do.

Yes. Nice observation.

> > ...So he decided to get married himself. Then he would be criticized, > > for sure, but at least he would be left alone so that he could do his > > literary work and bhajan. Also, those in the math who had a desire to > > get married would think, "Acaryadev has gotten married, so I will also!" > > And the strategy worked. > > This is a rationalisation, obviously. He was found out to have an affair > (of some sort, perhaps not as gross as the term is seen here in the west) > with a disciple. Some loveletters were apparently found. What I see is a > person torn between his duty, his feelings, his loyalty to BST and his > doubts about the genuineness of BST. His followers in the GM call this his

> "divine marriage lila".

Could be like this. Are the loveletters available for inspection? If not, and considering the level of institutional politics that has been involved in this debate for the last 60 years, then I would be reluctant to accept either story.

> > He got married and had one son, living an exemplary household life. > > But then there was a smallpox epidemic and he refused to vaccinate his > > son because the vaccine was made from eggs. The boy contracted smallpox > > and died. After this he gave up his household life and returned to > > Vrindaban for > > bhajan. > > This is perhaps true. There is another version about the death of his son, > which you have probably heard, Maharaj. That one sounds rather too gross > to be true. > > > During this final stage of his life he earned the high respect of all > > the Goswamis of Vrindaban for his exemplary conduct and prolific > > publication work. Many ancient literatures have been saved for our use > > because of his diligence in publication. He never became "reinitiated" > > during this period, as he is sometimes accused, although he did closely > > associate with advanced vaishnavas from other lines. > > This is true, especially the books. Many say he took reinitiation from

> them. Srivatsa Goswami of the Radha Raman temple told me in March that AV > did take reinitiation from one Radha Raman Goswamin still living, but that > he was under oath forbidden to reveal the name until his death...

Interesting. Until whose death?

And we will believe Srivatsa Goswami without a shread of evidence from AV himself?

> Others say he took > reinitiation from Advaita Dasa Babaji of Radhakunda.

Any proof available?

> > Some also say he > > stopped chanting the mahamantra, saying it was only for nityaparikars, > > but this is also an unsupported allegation. > > Well, this is what his followers at Radhakund still do.

I clarified with Madhavananda Prabhu, who heard from Fakir Mohan Prabhu on this one, and he corrected that Fakir Mohan said that AV did stop chanting the mahamantra for a while, but later he resumed. I will try to get more details from Fakir Mohan when I get the chance. Let's keep this open for now.

> So basically I do not think this story is true. It does contain one good

> quality, and that is that is does not demonise AV as is often done. He was > obviously a very charismatic person who did much good also. Have you ever > told your disciples about how kanistha, madhyama and uttama can be graded > into kanistha-kanistha, kanistha-madhyama, etc, Maharaj? Then you have > also passed on a teaching from Ananta Vasudeva Paravidyabhushan Prabhu, > one widely considered bona-fide regardless of the view of AV himself.

He is also the author of all the pranam mantras we chant for all our acharyas back to Srila Jagannath Das Babaji Maharaja, including our regular, "nama om visnu padaya". That's why you will notice in Sridhar Maharaja's math they have a completely different set of mantras. He also wrote many of the tunes we sing in our kirtans. There are some devotees in Gaudiya Math (Madhava Maharaja and others) who consider SBST's siddha-deha to be Nayana Manjari. This comes from a dream AV had which he related to SBST. SBST made no comment on the dream and no attempt to correct AV.


Ananta Vasudeva-The 1st False Guru of Gaudiya Matha

Documents

Transcript of Ananta Vasudeva-The 1st False Guru of Gaudiya Matha