Srila Rupa Kavisvara Gosvamipada

Śrīla Rūpa Kavīśvara Gosvāmipāda

SVCT - 2

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravarttipāda

The test of historical time – who withstands – an institutional manager or a scholarly spiritual mentor/master? – Some strikingly unknown facts about the 17th-18th Century Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism revealed to the public eye for the very first time. (Only English version / केवल अङ्ग्रेजी/गुरुण्डा भाषा में)

The pens of the scholarly preceptors everlastingly prove much more potent than the temporal administrative lashes/swords whipped/struck by the managerial muscle powers as seen esp. in the history of religious denominations.

1) Śrīmatī Kṛṣṇapriyā Thākurāṇī – Narottamadāsa Thakkura Parivāra (originally Lokanātha Gosvāmī Parivāra)
Her account is explained briefly by Śrī Naraharidāsa Thakkura in this Bangla work viz., Narottama-vilāsa as follows –

“Śrīkṛṣṇacaitanya gave the Govardhana-śilā (which is also described in Caitanya-caritāmṛta’s Antya-līlā) into the care of Raghunāthadāsa Gosvāmī, who served it…..At the demise of Dāsa Gosvāmī, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī became absorbed in it, and when he died, Mukundadāsa Gosvāmī served it with tears of prema. Narottama Thakkura was the beloved (pupil) of Lokanātha Gosvāmī, and his pupil was Gaṅgānārāyaṇa Cakravarttī. Gaṅgānārāyaṇa had two daughters, Viṣṇupriyā….and Kṛṣṇapriyā, who was Bhaktidevī personified……..He entrusted the Śilā to Kṛṣnapriyā Thākurāṇī.”

2) Śrī Viśvānātha Cakravarttī Thakkura alias Śrī Harivallabhadāsa Gosvāmī (Vairāgī) – Narottamadāsa Thakkura Parivāra (originally Lokanātha Gosvāmī Parivāra) –

Śikṣā-guru and bhajana-guru of Prasthāna-trayī-bhāṣyakāra Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa alias Śrī Ekāntigovindadāsa Gosvāmī (Vairāgī) and Śrī Kṛṣṇadeva Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya. Disciple of Śrī Rādhāramaṇa Cakravarttī and author of 22 illustrious works in the history of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism. SVCT doesn’t need much introduction in the Gauḍīya Vaiṣnavism.

3) Śrī Svāmī Manoharadāsa Kavirāja (Vairāgī) – Śrīnivāsa Ācārya Parivāra (originally Gopālabhaṭṭa Gosvāmī Parivāra) –
Śrīnivāsa Ācārya Prabhu’s disciple was Śrī Rāmacaraṇa Cakravarttī and his disciple was Śrī Rāmaśaraṇa Caṭṭarāja. Rāmaśaraṇa Cattarāja’s disciple was Svāmī Manoharadāsa. He is the mantra-guru of Śrī Priyādāsa Jī who compiled the historically first classical Commentary on ‘Rāmānandī’ Nābhādāsa Jī’s celebrated Bhaktamāla (in Avadhī Hindi dialect) – known as Bhaktirasabodhinī Tīkā. Svāmī Manoharadāsa Kavirāja wrote a book in Bangla called ‘Anurāga-vallī’ and a book in Vraja-bhāṣā known as ‘Śrī Rādhāramaṇa-rasa-sāgara’ – both in Vṛndāvana.

4) Śrī Rūpa Kavīśvara Gosvāmī (Vairāgī) – Śrī Kṛṣnadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī Parivāra (originally Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī Parivāra) –

Disciple of Śrīla Mukundadāsa Gosvāmī (who is Modā-mañjarī in the nitya-vraja-līlā and who is the second classical Sanskrit commentator on Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī) and grand-disciple of Śrīla Kṛṣnadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī Prabhuvara – the author of Caitanya-caritāmṛta (the Kastūrī-mañjarī of the nitya-vraja-līlā). Śrīla Rūpa Kavīśvara Gosvāmī (whose identity in the nitya-līla is that of Ratna-mañjarī) – was the mantra-guru of Śrī Kṛṣnavallabha Gosvāmi (Vairāgī) – the Kumkuma-mañjarī. Śrīla Rūpa Kavīśvara was the uncle (in blood relation) of Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravarttī and the latter learned Śrīmad-bhāgavatam from him only. Śrīla Kavīśvara Gosvāmī revolutionized the controversy of parakīyā and svakī by establishing the parakīyā as the final intention of Śrīla Rūpa and Śrī Jīva Gosvāmīs. Viśvanātha Cakravarttī followed in his footsteps by writing — ‘Parakīyātva-nirāsaḥ svakīyātva-pratipādanam’ – a subject which was, already, discussed in the Vrajabhaktirasasārasaṅgraha. Śrī Kavīśvara Gosvāmī (son of Mahādeva Paṇdīta and blood-uncle of Viśvanātha Cakravarttī) wrote two illustriously unprecedented books in Sanskrit – a) Vrajabhaktirasasārasaṅgraha (shortly known as Sāra-saṅgraha) and b) Rāgānugā-vivṛtti. His śikṣā-guru was Śrī Kṛsṇacaraṇa Cakravarttī – the parama-guru of Viśvanātha Cakravarttī.

5) Śrī Rāmacandra Ghosh Thākura – history unknown but seems to be a prominent Vaiṣṇava of the early 18th Century.

6) Śrīmatī Govindapriyā Thākurāṇī – history unknown but seems to be a prominent Vaiṣṇavī of that period.

7) Śrī Manohara Rai – history unknown but seems to be a prominent Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava of that time.

8) Śrī Antarāma Pujārī – history unknown but seems to be a prominent Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava of that time.

All these great Vaiṣṇava ācāryas/vaiṣṇavas/vaiṣṇavīs/vidvāns were ostracized from Śrīdhāma Rādhākuṇḍa by the joint orders issued by the local Vrajavāsī landlords of Āriṭa-gaon alias Ariṣṭa-grāma alias Rādhākuṇḍa. But, more surprisingly, as explained in that historical document produced below (written in Vrajabhāṣā/Devanāgarī script in 1770 Vaikramīya Samvat corresponding to 1713 AD), the clear hand of the followers/disciples of Śrī Gadādhara Paṇḍita Parivāra was behind this incident.

As mentioned in the document itself, Śrīla Raghunāthadāsa Gosvāmī made Pāṇḍita Śrī Haridāsa Gosāñī ‘Vairāgī’ (who is mentioned in the Ādi-līlā of Caitanya-caritāmṛta; he was in the apostolic succession of Gadādhara Paṇḍita and was the Head Pujārī of Govindadeva Temple established by Rūpa Gosvāmī in Vṛndāvana. He had requested Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī to compose CC. And his disciples of the Gadādhara Paṇḍita Parivāra were managing the Temples of Govindadeva both in Vṛndāvana and Jaipur at that time) the successor Pontiff of his ‘pīṭham’ or seat of Rādhākūṇda. The grand and great-grand disciples of Paṇḍita Haridāsa Gosvāmī (who were all Bengali vaiṣṇavas) who were managing the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava temples and ‘pīṭham’ (holy seat) of Rādhākuṇda joined their hands with the local Vrajavāsī landlords and expelled all these 8 personalities from the sacred village of Rādhākūṇḍa – the most venerable spot of worship for the Caitanyaites.

But, even though these illustrious saintly personalities were ousted by the envious efforts of the then administrators of the Gauḍīya Sampradāya by using their muscle powers, the passing of time showed that such administrative whips didn’t last for long and contrastingly, the names of scholarly innovative mentors, philosophers and theologians like Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravarttī and Śrīla Rūpa Kavīśvara Gosvāmī esp. were written in golden letters in the history of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism and those envious administrators of the Sampradāya were forgotten forever! Hence, it is proved for once and for all that managerial whips/sanctions in religious institutions which are imposed on saintly and scholarly charismatic personalities are not worth anything in the long term.

The reason why some administrators of Govindadeva Jī Temple (established in Vṛndāvana by Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmipāda) hailing from Gadādhara Paṇḍita’s Parivāra conspired against some prominent figures of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism in early 18th Century – has been, commonly, mentioned in the Uttara-kāṇḍam of Vālmīkīya Rāmāyaṇam wherein, the fifteen faults of opulence have been depicted and the administrators of religious functionaries have been warned to keep distance with those natural flaws incurring from the amassing of mundane opulence. The incident of a dog and a Maṭhāḍhīśa Sannyāsī approaching Lord Rāmacandra for obtaining justice has been depicted to describe these natural flaws of kañcana (opulence).

Note –

Enclosed are the eight scanned images of handwritten documents (Devanāgarī script) – depicting the ostracization of Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravarttī, Śrīla Rūpa Kavīśvara and others from the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava assemblage of Rādhākuṇḍā {in case of Rūpa Kavīśvara – a permanent ban imposed on him and his classical works like Śrī-vraja-bhakti-rasa-sāra-saṅgraha and Rāgānugā-vivṛttiḥ etc. by falsely alleging (with the support of the King of Jaipur) them to be not in line with Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī’s teachings. According to the Bengali Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava biographical work named ‘Rūpa-caritāmṛta’ authored in the late mid-18th century by Mahātmā Kānudāsa Jī of Kṛṣṇadāsa-kavirāja-gosvāmī-parivāra, it is evident that Śrī Viśvanātha had, later, externally compromised with the managerial authorities of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism and was again allowed re-entry; whereas, Śrī Rūpa Kavīśvara never compromised his stand.}. Ironical part is that the heads of the historical temples of Caitanyaite Vaiṣṇavism in Vṛndāvana (and which were later shifted to Jaipur) were directly and indirectly involved in such nefarious acts of muscle power – which can be seen in the documents containing the sealed stamps of their temples. Most striking fact is that when Śrīla Rūpa Kavīśvara Gosvāmī was present on the planet (last phase of the 17th Century CE), he had visited the royal court of Jaipur and had debated with the svakīyāvādī  Nimbārkīs and others and had obtained the certificate of ‘Sūrī’ or ‘an invincible debater’. But, as soon as His Holiness left the mortal domain, his foes within the Gauḍiya Sampradāya united together against his followers and his branch (These foes united against RKGP included some prominent Gaudiya Vaishnava scholarly figures of the time like Srila Krsnadeva Bhattacharya ‘Sarvabhauma’ — the closest disciple of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana & the author of philosophical works like – ‘karma-jnana-bhakti-vivrittih’ etc. But, the ironical part is that Sri Baladeva refuted the views of his own disciple i.e. Krsnadeva Sarvabhauma in his commentary Govinda-bhashya. Sarvabhauma — under pressure of Jaipur King Sawai Jaisingh 1st — was of the view that nitya-naimittika shrauta and smartta karmas should be performed by raganugas at all times. Vidyabhushana considered them optional for parinisthita and prohibited for nirapekshas. Whilst, Rupa Kavisvara considered them prohibited for raganugas in general.). These documentaries authored in early 18th centuries along with the notes by Bhaktirasavedāntapīṭhādhiśvara. We have the physical hard copies of these documents with us, as well — procured with greatly painstaking endeavour as part of the research work undertaken by BRVF.

The so-called 13th Chapter from a Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Bangla hagiographical work known as ‘Narottama-vilāsa’ does not exist. All authentic versions of Narottama-vilāsa published so far in Bangla script are limited to 12 chapters, only.  From this non-existent 13th Ch. of Prema-vilāsa, a fraudulent tale is cited to defame Śrī Rūpa Kavirāja by involving Kṛṣṇapriyā Thākurāṇī and Hemalatā Thākurāṇī. Also, till now, the Suramā-pīṭham of Rūpa Kavirāja in Śrīdhāma Vṛndāvana (headed by Mahānta Śrī Premadāsa Śāstrī ‘Vairāgī’) continues to fast on all Ekādāśī days and has many Śālagrāma-śilās in that Pīṭham’s altar where they are worshipped daily. Followers of the Suramā-parivāra (of Gauḍīya Sampradāya) do not clad like Sakhībhekīs. So, all 5 allegations which Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravarttī has mentioned in his Bhakti-sāra-pradarśinī Commentary on Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (“vrajendra-subalādīnāṁ bhāva-mudrita-ceṣṭayā..” – BRS) by asserting—“iti sauramya-mataṁ nirastam” – does not apply to the Suramā-parivāra. Rather, ‘sauramya-mata’ means the ‘entertaining opinion’ held by the ostracized (from Gauḍīya lineage) offshoot established by Gosvāmī Hitaharivaṁśa. The Rādhāvallabhīyas are known for not fasting on Ekādaśī and not worshipping Śālagrāma etc. Their story is mentioned in Narahari Cakravarttī’s Bhakti-ratnākara – a Gauḍīya hagiographical Bangla work of 17th Century. Those five things including Ekadashi-vrata and Shalagrama-archanam are being done by Surama-kunja-pitham. VCT refers to Radhavallabhiyas. Their opinion is ‘su-ramya’ or entertaining for they abstain from doing tapasya like fasting. Surama-kunja -pitham of Rupa Kavisvara’s lineage is named as Surama due to two reasons. A) Suri title given to Rupa Kaviraja & 2) the surama kaajal collyrium being anointed by Lalitadevi Sakhi unto the blind eyes of Mukundadasa Gosvami.

And a married Brahmin woman like Hemalata Thakurani can never touch the body of a Vairagi (to pull of the kunthi mala) even if that Vairagi be her disciple (vairagis were taking mantra-diksha from female gurus before taking virakta-vesha; after taking vesha, they would not associate with female guru as the example of Madhavi Mahiti and Chota Haridas set in CC). But, in Rupa Kaviraja’s case, his diksha and vesha-guru is Mukundadasa Gosvami. This is what the guru-pranali charts of Surama-kunja portray.

Also, the fraud allegation that Rupa Kaviraja disrespected Krishnapriya Thakurani! Now the question arises as to what is the contribution of Thakurani Ji to Gaudiya Vaishnavism in comparison to the illustrious rupanugatva propounded by Rupa Kavishvara’s works like Sara-sangraha and Raganuga-vivrittih? Even if Kavishvara would have chastised Thakurani Ji, he had all rights as he was a brilliant acharya and was a virakta. Full stop. Rumours and fraud stories were created to defame the lion. Why there was not an effort made by opponent Gaudiyas to demonstrate Rupa Kavishvara as, philosophically, in contravention with Sri Rupa, Jiva & Krishnadasa Kaviraja — his earlier authorities? Why wasn’t this effort made by citing his ‘mismatching’ views from his two works (Raganuga-vivrittih and Sara-sangrahah)? Why were these works banned, rather? This tells a lot about the conspiracy.

Jaipur Royal Court was (in late 17th Cetury CE) under heavy influence of Nimbarkis, Ramanujis, Ramanandis, Shuka-sampradayis and few Vallabhites (with less frequent support from Radhavallabhiyas and Rasik-sakhi-haridasis) and the opinions of various Gaudiya Mahantas was divided on many core issues related with Gaudiya Sampradaya like the one on svakiya-parakiya and whether Gaudiya Sampradaya is connected with Madhva lineage or not. This is proven by studying the catalogue (some scanned manuscript evidences given in this book) of Jaipur Royal Library prepared by the then late Raja-guru in 1975 AD which has signature of Late Rajamata Gayatridevi of Jaipur.

Deviant practices are where not in today’s Gaudiya Sampradaya (almost all branches)? Are not widowed and virgin sadhvis/bai living under same roof with vairagis in places (not in all Gaudiya ashramas, but many) like Radhakunda, Vrindavanam, Jagannatha Puri and Navadvipa? Why to, wrongly, allege some particular Gaudiya camp when most camps have this cancer nowadays? Does it have anything in particular with a great Brahmachari saint like Rupa Kavishvara? Kaliyuga prabhava. It’s not just Gaudiya Vaishnavism. All sampradayas, vaishnava or non-vaishnava have this cancer now. Tirthasthanams like Haridvara, Vrindavanam, Ayodhya, Citrakuta and Kashi can be visited for anyone interested in this matter. There is no single authority (legal and theological) in Gaudiya Sampradaya who can check any wrong occurrences/practices– especially, after Jiva Gosvamipada’s disappearance.

a) Catuḥ-devālaya’s (Rādhā-govindadeva Jī, Rādhā-gopīnatha Jī, Rādhā-madanamohana Jī and Rādhā-dāmodara Jīhistorical temples / seats of Caitanyaite Vaiṣṇavism) decree on Śrī Rūpa Kavīśvara Gosvāmipāda

b) Śrī Rādhā-gopīnātha Mandira’s decree on RKGP.

c) Rādhā-govindadeva Jī Temple’s decree on RKGP.

d) The Jaipur Royal Court Decree on RKGP.

e) Ostracization of Śrī Viśvanātha, Śrī Rūpa Kavīśvara and others from the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava assemblage of Rādhākuṇḍa – dated 1713 AD (the date in these documents are either according to Indigenous Vikrama Saṁvat or other Indigenous ways like Śālivāhana Saṁvat etc.).

f) Ostracization of SVCT & others from the Gaudiya Vaisnava assemblage of Rādhākuṇḍa/Ariṣṭa-grāmaḥ/Āriṭa-gaon – Notes by Bhaktirasavedāntapīṭhādhīśvara

g) Sādhaka/siddha-guru-praṇālī of Śrīla Rūpa Kavīśvara – 1st version

h) Sādhaka/siddha-guru-praṇālī of Śrīla Rūpa Kavīśvara – 2nd version

Ending notes —

The classical biographical work dedicated to Shri Rupa Kaviraja Mahodaya alias Shrila Rupa Kavishvara Gosvamipada, a hi-profile victim of the, politically, motivated identity crisis in the Gaudiya Vaishnava history due to multiple factors not needed to be pondered over herein, is authored by Sri Kanudasa ‘Vairagi’ in the disciplic chain of this great personality. Said biographical work is printed and published in Bangla script and language for the very first time by Adi Brihat Suramya-kunja (the official pitham or holy seat for the pontiffs of his parampara) in Vrindavanam by the incumbent Pontiff of that lineage Mahanta Sri Premadasa Shastri ‘Vairagi’ (Bengal & Vrindavanam). This biographical work is known as ‘Sri Rupa-caritamrita’ and is authored almost 275 years back in the mid 18th Century CE.

Said Suramya-kunja is the place where the original handwritten manuscript copy of Caitanya-cariamrita, directly, hand-written by Shrila Krishnadasa Kaviraja Gosvamipada has been well preserved till date along with the divinely manifest deities of Sri Radha-Nayanananda which were manifest from Sri Radha’s heart and given to Sri Mukundadasa Gosvami ‘Vairagi’ at Radhakunda.

Shrila Raghunatha Bhatta Gosvamipada’s direct mantra-shishya was Shrila Krishnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami Prabhuvara – the celebrated author of the much famous classical Bangla biographical work Caitanya-caritamrita. His mantra-shishya was Sri Mukundadasa Gosvami- the author of the Artha-ratnalpa-dipika Sanskrit commentary on Shrila Rupa Gosvamipada’s world famous work Sri Bhaktirasamritasindhuh (unsuccessfully competed by a latter work ‘Bhagavad-bhakti-rasayanam’ of Svami Madhusudana Sarasvati ‘Advaita-siddhi-karah’ of Bengal/Benares). Shrila Krishnadasa Kaviraja’s second mantra-shishya was Shrila Vishnudasa Gosvami (all Vairagis and not Grihis) who wrote a very penetrating Sanskrit commentary on Shrila Rupa Gosvamipada’s Ujjvala-nilamanih.

The direct mantra-shishya of Sri Mukundadasa (originally, from the Multan City in Punjab province of what is now Pakistan) was our Sara-sangahah’s author Shrila Rupa Kavishvara (son of Mahadeva Pandita in his purvashrama and the blood uncle of Gaudiya Vaishnavacharya Shrila Vishvanatha Chakravarttipada aka Sri Harivallabhadasa Gosvami ‘Vairagi’ – the mantra-shishya of Sri Radharamana Chakravartti ‘Grihi’ of Narottama Thakkura’s Parivara).

Due to lot of internal politics prevailing within various factions of Gaudiya Sampradaya in late 17th Century in Vrindavanam and Jaipur (Rajputana) and due to lot of pressure (put forth by some other North Bharatiya Vaishnava sects and their leaders) on the then Maharaja of Amer/Jaipur His Highness Sawai Jaisingh 1st, a royal decree was issued to ban the study of the works of Sri Rupa Kaviraja — since, Rupa Kaviraja was the only lion 🦁 in Gaudiya Vaishnavism who could shut the mouths of other Sampradaya scholars in a debate and this had happened once in the royal court of Jaipur after which the title of Suri (champion) was bestowed on Rupa Kavishvara — but in a decade after that incident, religious-political nexus scenario had changed in the Jaipur Royal Court with different Gaudiya fractions fueling it.

Sara-sangrahah (Vraja-bhakti-rasa-siddhanta-sara-sangrahah) is the only philosophical work present in whole Gaudiya Vaishnavism till date which, successfully, establishes the par-excellence and pre-eminent supremacy of Shrila Rupa Gosvamipada’s views of parakiya-bhava and vraja-goloka-vailakshanyam (mentioned in Ujjvala-nilamanih and Laghu-bhagavatamritam) on the basis of Shrimad-bhagavata-mahapuranam and with an employment of heavy Navya-naiyayika styled dialectical philosophical polemics.

Peculiar Gaudiya doctrines of parakiya-bhava and vraja-goloka-vailakshanyam are thorns in the throats of most of the other Vraja-rasopasaka Vaishnava sects and in general, most Vaishnava sects.

A brief overview of Rupa Kaviraja’s life and many 17th Century documented manuscript evidences have been collected and presented for the world view by us on our following website page —

https://brvf.org/2016/03/11/the-test-of-historical-time-who-withstands-an-institutional-manager-or-a-scholarly-spiritual-mentormaster-some-strikingly-unknown-facts-about-the-17th-18th-century-gau%E1%B8%8Diya-vai/

One thing to be added is that the first time in history printed version of Rupa-caritamrita has omitted a section (Sri Premadasa Shastri, deliberately, omitted it to not create any stir in Gaudiya Vaishnavism in regards to the great position enjoyed by Shri Vishvanatha Chakravartti) which described ‘neutral’ involvement of Vishvanatha Chakravartti in the matter of sidelining Shri Rupa Kavishvara — a bitter fact in the history. Anyways, all the past.

To give ‘maunam svikriti-lakshanam’ is the neutral involvement. If this silent no objection certificate would not have been given by VCT, the legal (not theological) administrators of Gaudiya Sampradaya (the then householder ‘grihi’ Pontiffs of the 5 main seats/Peethams known as Pancha-gaudiya-devalayas in Vrindavanam and Jaipur) would have, similarly, played diplomacy in the Jaipur Royal Court to sideline VCT as well.

There were many such documented pressures. However, the 🦁 Rupa Kavishvara opted for option of being sidelined, rather than succumb to the unjust demands of the legal administration of Gaudiya Sampradaya, ultimately, lobbied by the North Indian Vaishnava sects whose name we prefer not to disclose. In short, many Vaishnava Sampradayas in North India who advocate ‘svakiyavada’ in the lila and who recognise Goloka (above Mahavaikuntha as even accepted by Brahma-vaivartta-purana, Garga-samhita and Brahma-samhita) as the ultimate destination– were behind the whole historical plot being carried out against the most loyal Rupanuga camp headed by Rupa Kaviraja.

Namesake Gaudiyas driven by vested selfish motives can go up to the extent of labeling anyone considering parakiya-bhava, samartha-rati and mahabhava as topmost — as a non-rupanuga. If  the charge sheet framed against Rupa Kaviraja in the royal court of Jaipur having seals of the administrators of pancha-devalayas, is studied (it is annexed as one of the many scanned evidences enclosed with this essay), an investigator will see that considering parakiyabhava to be topmost has been labelled as against the wishes of Rupa Gosvami – a principle which no true Gaudiya of either today or of that time can ever accept. On such fabricated charges, the 🦁 was sidelined, unethically. Later, VCT (Shri Vishvanatha Chakravarttipada) wrote two Sanskrit works like Gopi-premamritam and Svakiyatva-nirasah parakiyatva-pratipadanam — all following the lead of Sara-sangrahah, but those works were not challenged due to diplomatic protection from the Gaudiya householder administrators of Devalayas.

1/3rd of Vrindavanam land (whole Vrindavanam land was given to Shrila Jiva Gosvami by Emperor Jalaluddin Mohamed Akbar Moghul and the legal order with Akbar’s seal is, still, preserved at Vrindavan Research Institute) had come to be occupied (their bhajana-kutiras and mutts were built due to large expansion of Rupa Kaviraja’s followers coming all the way from Assam and Mithila, Bihar & Nepal — not just Bengal and Odisha) by disciples of Mukundadasa Gosvami and Rupa Kaviraja. This was the actual reason why the legal administrators of Gaudiya Vaishnavism (all householder managers/pujaris/sevaites) felt that the Sampradaya had gone out from their hands. Thus they joined hands with the scholars and leaders of other North Indian Vaishnava sects whose views, certainly, did not align with the Gaudiya 6 Gosvamis.

We refer to the original Sara-sangraha copy printed by Calcutta University in 1949. The original printed book is in Sanskrit and Devanagari letters only. No translation. Also, we are planning to write our own Sanskrit commentary (गुरुपादीया व्याख्या/Gurupadiya exegesis) on this work and then give its Hindi/English translation.

WordPress blog link – https://goo.gl/XHVnkZ

Facebook link — https://goo.gl/iVHPtI

— Bhaktirasavedāntapīṭhādhīśvara Gurupādācārya Svāmī

(Anand, Gujarat, Bhārata / India & Modesto, Stanislaus County, California, USA)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s