One thought on “Śrī Rūpa & Sanātana – bootlickers of the mleccha crown or custodians of the bhāgavata-dharma?

  1. Addendum to the above essay —

    In the above main article, following correction should be made while reading — The right quote is not CC 2.19.169, but, CC 2.19.69; not CC 216.262-264 but CC 2.16.262-264.

    A) To date, there is a convention prevalent in the Śṛṅgeri Śāradā Mutt of wearing the said crown by the incumbent Śaṅkarācārya(s) heading that seat/pīṭham and at least once, annually, the said crown is worn.

    B) In medieval Bhārata, there was no lack of gold and wealth and the taxes paid to the government were, partially, used as compensations given to the royal employees and bureaucrats of the highest rank. If this is considered as an example of theft, maybe, the then prevalent tax system is under question mark. Moreover, the possibility of Hindu kings usurping riches from their subjects cannot be ruled out either. Additionally, all the riches that even Muslim kings collected in Bhārata – remained in Bhārata only (and not exported to Saudi Arabia or Iran unlike in case of the Britishers exporting the Indian riches to Britain on a regular basis) and were not used in promotion of Islam (except in case of Alamgir Aurangzeb), but were utilized for enhancing and strengthening their empire – as the missionary thought of spread did not exist prior to the injection of East India Company in Bhārata. In those days, riches were not needed for the spread of Islam as the tyrannical rulers were imposing the strength of sword in its spread and not the riches. Also, no indication is found in any biographical works depicting the account of Nawab Hussain Shah giving rise to the aggressive spread of Islam under his rule – for if so, he would not have appreciated Caitanyadeva’s arrival to his kingdom and would not have considered Caitanyadeva to be the incarnation of prophet as recorded in Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.1.169-170. It seems that for the most part, Nawab was interested, only, in strengthening his kingdom through amassment of wealth and invasions onto other kingdoms. But, did even Hindu kings not attack each other for expanding their kingdoms? Again, this is not to justify the Mohameddan rule on Bharata, but to just point out certain practicalities overlooked.

    C) One additional point is that if Hindu/Brahmin ministers and counselors would not have continued to encircle and guide the Mohameddan rulers, then those mleccha monarchs would have, whimsically, started to destroy the Hindu values and interests guided by their vidharmi minds. Only due to the counsel and persuasions allotted by their Hindu ministers, these vidharmi kings, often, did not pursue the instigation of their barbarous minds. One example of this is found in Caitanya-caritamrta wherein, the instance of Srila Rupa Gosvami (then known as Dabir-e-khas) – the Personal Secretary to Nawab and that of Keshava Chatri – an assistant officer of Nawab — both gave such counsel to Nawab as to make him realize the innocence/importance of Caitanyadeva and thus, withdraw from his mind any negative thoughts which might arise upon obtaining the news of a Hindu sannyasi influentially wandering through his kingdom. Evidence is found in Caitanya-caritamrta 2.1.171-2.1.181.

    D) The Muslim rule in North India (and even in Southern India, to much extent) did not end till the victories made by Marathas, the Sikhs, the Jats and the simultaneous arrival of British in the mid-18th Century. This means that for 250 years more after the meeting of Sri Caitanya and the Rupa and Sanatana Gosvamis (the said meeting happened in early 16th century), the Muslim rule continued in North India and Bengal. The Muslim rule continued in North India, mainly, because of the unconditional support of the Rajput rulers of Rajasthan (except for Udaipur royal house of Mewad) given to the Delhi Mughal Sultanate since the time of Akbar (16th Century). Only after the tyrannical barbarous acts of Alamgir Aurangzeb brought about in the early 18th century (The biggest political and administrative mistake Aurangzeb did was the attack on the Hindu sacred shrines — mainly the Gaudiya Vaishnava shrines established by 6 Gosvamis – in Mathura region and after this shocking incidence, all Rajput rulers including Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh I of Amer/Jaipur — started to withdraw their support to the Delhi Sultanate — this has been recorded by supplying ample proofs in a book – The History and Literature of The Gaudiya Vaishnavas and Their Relation to other Medieval Vaishnava Schools – by its Bengali author Dr. Sambidananda Das in London in 1934. When the Muslim Fauzdar of Mathura was ordered by Aurangzeb to destroy the Hindu shrines of Vraja, many Rajput and Jat rulers of Rajasthan of the areas surrounding Vraja felt greatly insulted not just on the religious grounds, but also, due to the fact that any Mughal commander was not given authority to carry out any military acts in that region without the consult of the Hindu Rajput and Jat rulers and this was for the first time that any Mughal ruler i.e. Aurangzeb – ignored taking consultation from the Jaipur, Alwar and Bharatpur royal houses of Rajputana/Rajasthan and issued direct orders for a purely religious based military attacks on Mathura. Whilst in the region of Mathura and surrounding areas as well as in whole North India, practically speaking, the official language of government tasks was continued to be executed either in Farsi/Persian/Iranian or in Urdu — unlike in South Indian Deccan Muslim kingdoms where Urdu and Farsi were not able to prevail much due to the strong Dravidian and Southern influence — so many contrasts in the settings of North and Southern India and they cannot be discounted. Urdu and Farsi were continued to be used in all the government related official and legal tasks in Mathura (as well as in all of North India and Bengal region till 26th January 1950 – when the new Indian constitution was adopted declaring the Repulic Day of Bharata — and Urdu/Farsi were abolished from North Indian official/legal/govt. related tasks and were replaced by Hindi/English/and regional Indigenous languages particular to every Indian state/province — So, heavy was the influence of the Muslim and Mughal rule in North – not at all comparable with South.), the Rajput rulers started to withdraw their support to the Mughal Sultanate, but in a gradual and very tactful way — thus, bringing the downfall of the powerful Mughal dynasty and giving the rise to Hindu valiant dynasties like the Marathas, Jats and Sikhs to pave their way in to usurp the remains of the erstwhile Mughal Empire. Are, for all this political unity and discord occurring between the Delhi Sultanate and Rajput rulers — Rupa and Sanatana Gosvamis responsible? We don’t think that a powerfully political nexus which had been formed by the coalition of the Hindu kings of North with the Muslim invaders due to various selfish interests — could have been changed even by the efforts of the great smartta brahmins like Madhavacharya/Vidyaranya and Sayanacharya! Did any South Indian Hindu Kshatriya King of the Rashtrakuta, Chola, Pandya and other dynasties ever give their daughters as brides to the Muslim rulers? If not, the Hindu Kshatriya rulers of North were tied to the Muslim kings even through the marriage relations. The situations were lot different than in the South. To oppose one Muslim kingdom in North meant to oppose more than tonnes of Hindu kingdoms supporting that Muslim regime. The political situations in North were quite different than in the south, where, in North, the converted and the invader – both type of Muslim population was much more than in Deccan and the Hindu rulers were supporting the Mughals and other Muslim dynasties. After all, even the Nawab of Bengal was a proxy of the rulers of Delhi — everything interlinked. Grand-disciples of Vidyaranya, if did something commendable for Vedic culture, are certainly commendable. But, it has to be remembered that the Deccan Muslim rulers of South like Tipu and Hyder happened to rule during the arrival of the East India Company/Britishers in India and not during the 15-17th century medieval era. Additionally, the political situations in India had changed by the weakening of the Mughal Sultanate of Delhi after the demise of Alamgir Aurangzeb and it cannot be ruled out that Tipu and Hyder who came after the demise of Aurangzeb — felt that the radical Islamist method of rule in India will not meet long-lasting consequences by the seeing the recently occurred downfall of the Mughal dynasty and these were the reasons why they heeded to the advise of the brahmin followers of Vidyaranya. The last point is that why to single out only the Gaudiya Gosvamis like Sri Rupa and Sanatana – as far as the ‘rigid patriotic’ concerns are there? Did the staunch Advaitin Madhusudana Sarasvati ever tried to wipe away the rule of Akbar? Rather, he felt very honoured when Akbar summoned him to his royal court in Delhi for a religious discussion? Did Keshav Kashmiri Bhattacharya Digvijayi (who was defeated in a debate by Nimai Pandit/Caitanyadeva and upon Whose order, who joined the Nimbarka Vaishnava Sampradaya) – the author of the Vedanta-kaustubha-prabha-vrtti – a great exposition on the svabhavika-dvaita-advaita-vedanta and the bold acharya who showed the Muslim magistrate of Mathura his limits by showing supernatural powers when the Muslims where harassing the Hindu tirtha-yatris visiting the Vishram-ghata of the Yamuna River in Mathura — ever tried to wipe away the Muslim rule from Mathura? Did Jagadguru Adya Ramanandacharya (born in a Kanyakubja brahmin family in Prayaga/Allahabad in 14th Century) – the most popular acharya in the history of the Sanatana-dharma in North India known for his social reformations, spread of the Rama-bhakti movement and for his great resistance against the Islamic oppression in Varanasi/Kashi/Benares — ever tried to wipe away the Muslim rule thoroughly despite possessing many supernatural powers? Did akhanda-bhumandala-acharya shuddha-advaita-vedanta-pravartaka pusthi-marga-samsthapaka Jagadguru Vallabhacharya engaged himself, politically, in such patriotic tasks? (All these personalities were recent contemporaries or the proper contemporaries to the Gaudiya Gosvamis.) If no, why the Gaudiya Gosvamis are singled out! Certainly, Gaudiya Gosvamis were not in the role of Chanakya Pandit Vishnugupta Kautilya. Their focus was the spread of the highest form of vraja-bhakti and so they remained focused on their tasks.

    E) While it is true that the 16th century works like Caitanya-caritamrta do not mention the title Nawab for Hussain Shah and that the usage of the Nawab title became frequent after the annexation of Bengal by British, nevertheless, Caitanya-caritamrta 1.17.195 mentions the term ‘pātasāha’ – a Bengali variant for the Farsi word ‘Badshah’.

    F) When we described whole of Assam under the Bengal Sultanate in our above essay, we had meant, only, the short-timed retention of the Assam into the Bengal Sultanate and the reason for such is the evidence found in the 1992 publication – ‘”Chapter II The Turko-Afghan Invasions – The Comprehensive History of Assam” by the Bengali historian Mr. J.N. Sarkar and in the 1980 publication — “Early History of the Vaisnava Faith and Movement in Assam” (printed in Delhi by Motilal Banarasidass or MLBD Publishers) by Mr. Neog M. There, on Pages 46-47 & Page 46, respectively, it is mentioned that — “The last of the Kamata (Assamese) kings, the Khens, were removed by Alauddin Hussain Shah in 1498. But Hussein Shah and subsequent rulers could not consolidate their rule in the Kamata kingdom, mainly due to the revolt by the Bhuyan chieftains.”. A third book by Bengali Historian Mr. Majumdar, R.C. – Year 2006 publication named ‘The Delhi Sultanat’ published from Mumbai by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Pages.215-20, states — “From 1499 to 1502, Husain Shah’s general Shah Ismail Ghazi led an expedition to the Kamata kingdom and annexed the territory up to Hajo. They took Nilambara, King of Kamata, as prisoner and pillaged the capital city. This was publicly recorded in an inscription at Malda.” Moreover, if the entry to Assam is considered to have been made by Hussain Shah from Western districts like Dhubri or Kokrajhar, then almost eight districts of Assam are covered reaching till the Kampup District (into which the city of Hajo falls). And if the southern most Assamese districts of Karimganj and Halakandi (bordering Bengal) are taken to have been the entry point of the Hussain Shah and forces, then, almost 7 Assamese districts fall in the way which would needed to be captured first before entering into Kamrup/Hajo. Just a short observation considering the map. — Hence, a short-timed retention of Assam was indicated by us.

    G) Without the guidance from brahmins who were the followers of Vedas and Vedic corollaries and who manifested from the head of the virata-purusa form of Sri Hari during the dawn of the cosmic creation as how the purusha-sukta hymns have suggested, the animalistic intelligent mleccha rulers could not have succeeded to keep their regimes even for a single day. Their martial support came from the Hindu kshatriya kings. In such a politically intricate scenario, the only choice the brahmins had was to keep on manipulating the decision-making mindset of the mleccha rulers so that the least harm could be made to the Vedic values of the Bharatavarsa.

    H) The solidest reason for the fall of Vedic Hinduism (not the Hinduism allowing flesh consumption and all sorts of andha-tamasika worships) in areas of Bhārata like Bengal has remained the factor of ‘Bengali brotherhood’ – a notion which surpasses and supersedes all caste-related and religion-related barriers. Due to this reason, generally, liberal Hindu mindset – when transforms into a Bengali Hindu mindset, it overlooks the caste and religious barriers and gives emphasis to the ‘Bengali’ factor over all other factors. This is, more or less, same for the Bengali Muslims, too.

    In 1971, the Bengali Muslim majority country of East Pakistan (formerly, known as East Bengal and later known as People’s Republic of Bangladesh) chose to overthrow the common ‘Islamic/Muslim’ religion based factor that it shared with its West Pakistani counterpart (today’s Islamic Republic of Pakistan) and, rather, emphasized its common ‘Bengali’ factor on top of all other factors and thus, chose to pair up with India which contained another small portion from the overall undivided Bengal province of the British Raj.

    Moreover, after the medieval times were over, in past 3 and half centuries, Bengali Hindu community has sidelined the caste factors (of the four Vedic classes/varṇas) and even the religion based segregation and on the name of Bengali brotherhood, the Bangla status has proved to be more integrally vital to a typical Bengali (whether a Muslim or a Hindi and whether a resident of West Bengal state of India or of the country called Bangladesh).

    For this reason, any sort of pro-Islamic political and social groups/parties have so far been unsuccessful in gaining momentum in the Muslim majority Bangladesh. And the same applies to the Hindu majority Indian state of West Bengal, as well, where, after the political Independence and partition of India in 1947, no fundamentalist/right-wing Hindu socialist or religious group has been able to influence the mass at large. Rather, secularist political parties and the left-wing socialist atheistic communist parties were preferred choices of governments.

    In short, in the Indian state of West Bengal, at present. the ‘Hindu’ feeling of pride is almost nil and negligible and paralysed by the provincial Bengali factor. Such are the reasons why the Vedic culture saw its downfall in Bengal despite the ironical fact of Bengali Muslim women wearing sarees and not the garments of the Arabian culture.

    Moreover, in Mahābhārata, a certain passage describes how the Pāṇḍavas headed by Yudhīṣṭhira did not want to cross further interior into those parts of Bengal which laid on the eastern side of the Ganges – considering it to be a sinful place. For all such reasons, a strong pro-Vedic environment could not be, rationally, expected in Bengal as how it had a solid grip on the dākṣiṇātya or the dakṣīnāpatha i.e. Southern India and even in other parts of Northern India or uttarāpatha/audīcya.

    Due to this, Bengal and the adjacent Northeastern Bhārata became the strongholds of all sorts of deviant non-Vedic and sinful tāntrika practices along with a general spread of flesh consumption incorporated into the daily lifestyle of even a typical Bengali Hindu. Even in such a detrimental scenario, the pro-bhakti, pro-Vedic and pro-Vaiṣṇava influence spread by the apostles of Caitanyadeva remains to be saluted and not criticized for whatsoever reason speculated.

    I) Mr. R.C. Majumdar’s book published in the year 2006 and entitled as – ‘The Delhi Sultanate’ (published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan of Mumbai) mentions in pages 215-220 — “Husain Shah’s long reign of more than a quarter of a century was a period of peace and prosperity, which was strikingly contrast to the period that preceded it. The liberal attitude of Husain Shah towards his Hindu subjects is also an important feature of his reign.”. — To the Gaudiya eyes, it seems that there was no other factor besides Dabir-e-khas and Sakar Mallik – which worked as the factor behind that ‘liberal attitude of Hussain Shah towards his Hindu subjects’.

    J) The most orthodox camp among the Vaidika smārttas and all vaiṣṇava schools – never accepts any interpretation of the Vedic granthas in a way supportive of the flesh consumption of any type. All such anomalies which were prevalent in the distortions of the Vedic dharma created by the bogus sects like vāma-mārgīs/kāpālikas/aghoras/andha-tāmasika śāktas/bhairavas/kālamukhas etc. were solidly attacked by Ādya Śaṅkara. All those passages in Mahābhārata and Vālmīkīya Rāmāyaṇam which are, supposedly, misinterpreted to indicate the flesh consumption done by the Pāṇḍavas and Śrī Raghuvara – have been defined in a totally different way by the smārtta commentator Nīlakaṇṭha and all the smārtta and vaiṣṇava commentators of the Vāmīkīya Rāmāyaṇam. All passages in Manu-smṛti and other smrtis allowing consumption of flesh are interpolations done in the later period for if not accepted so, Mahābhārata’s Anuśāsana Parva has a whole chapter dedicated on the emphasis of abstinence from flesh set as the most primary characteristic of Vedic dharma. Staunch Advaitins of 20th Century like Svāmī Karapātrī have refuted all charges which show Vedic dharma supportive of flesh consumption in any way – ritualistically sacrificial or any other.

    Of course, many Indian historians who acted as agents of Britishers rewrote the history to hide many things. But, the authentic biographical works of Gauḍīya Sampradāya are not such ‘paid’ works. And the character of Gauḍīya Gosvāmīs was so high that it has received utmost respect even from the smārtta community and celebrated Advaitins and thus, it surpasses all possibilities that Gauḍīya Gosvāmīs worked to weaken Vedic dharma.

    Glorification of mleccha rule on Bhāratavarṣa is never the intention. But, if blatant statements are muttered to show that Gauḍīya Gosvāmīs worked to weaken Vedic culture, all medieval political, social and historical situations will be analysed to prove vice versa.

    K) Certain social incidences which took place prior to the appointment of Dabir-e-khas and Sakar Mallik as ministers proved the expertise of the two brothers in the field of administration, social dealings and diplomacy. Considering these factors, the royal cleric had suggested their names to Hussain Shah.

    The type of bhakti practiced by Kumāradeva’s sons in the Bhaṭṭabādī before their conversion to nascent Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism is the bhakti propounded by Śrīmad-bhāgavatam – without adorned by a specific Gauḍīya tinge.

    Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.25.193 mentions how in the medieval times, Hindus were converted or humiliated by the vidharmīs using cheap methods like the sprinkling of water used from a pitcher. And the staunch dharmādhikārīs used to ostracize such victims from the brahminical community. Whereas, the Vedic smṛti texts have many provisions of purifying a victim in such situation – as far as karma-mārga is concerned. In bhakti-mārga, the powerful recitation of Lord’s Holy Name is the, sole, powerful way of rectification from impurities incurred.

    L) Animal sacrifice in yajñas as mentioned by Ādya Śaṅkara is a reiteration or ‘punarāvṛttiḥ’ of the misinterpreting view held by the jugupsita-dhārmikas or followers of Vedic dharma who misinterpret the Vedic statements and thus, follow the perverted form of the religion. Ādya Śaṅkara does not mean to support the view that Vedic sacrifices promote animal killing for animal flesh consumption for in the sāttvika veda-mārga, there is no provision of animal flesh consumption. Therefore, Śaṅkara’s citation is, merely, the view of the condemned religious actors (jugupsita-dhārmikas) being reiterated and not his sva-mata or own view. By the way, vaidika agnihotra sacrifice does not involve any animal sacrifice.

    The authentic form of classical and conventional Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism never promotes any mleccha faith on par with the Vedic Dharma and Gauḍīya-vedāntācārya Śrīla Baldeva Vidyābhūṣaṇapāda has, in his Siddhānta-darapaṇaḥ, asserted that atheism or non-Vedic theistic faiths are no theism and just another variant of atheism. ISKCON and such organizations are misrepresenting the classical Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism and hence, to cite their example is an act of foolishness.

    All allegations on Rūpa and Sanātana have been clarified and refuted in our analysis above and in further sub-comments made by us above and hence, no further treatment is needed on that issue.

    M) As far as we know, no classical Sanskrit work among any Sampradayas of Sanatana Vedic Dharma have criticized any Abrahamic faiths like the Christianity and Islam. The only attacks made were on Jainism, Buddhism and many perverted Hindu sects like the Kapalikas etc. Hence, to ‘segregatingly’ ask a question particularly to Gaudiyas as to whether Gaudiyas producing any work condemning Islam is a highly unethical and biased question. What Gaudiyas’ classical view is on all non-Vedic denominations is can be found in Baladeva Vidyabhushana’s Siddhanta-ratanam.

    N) Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Madhva represented by successive ācāryas of their lineages only criticized Indigenous non-Vedic paths like Buddhism, Jainism and others and not the Abrahamic faiths. In this, Gauḍīya Ācāryas were not any less. If anyone studies works like the Siddhānta-ratnam, Siddhānta-darpaṇam and Tattva-dīpikā by Śrīpāda Baladeva Vidyābhuṣaṇa – the Gauḍīya-vedāntācārya – he will understand the reality.

    Apostles of Caitanya were not appointed for the task of building or rebuilding Hindu-rāṣṭra. They had a very specific target to establish the acintya-bheda-abheda philosophy on Vedānta and the systematic unprecedented establishment of the bhakti-rasa-darśana-prasthāna based on Bhāgavata’s theology.

    O) Śrī Rūpa and Sanānata Gosvāmīs did serve the Muslim ruler as part of a very long tactical diplomatic game, ultimately, aimed at weakening the position of Hussain Shah when the latter needed most support from his right and left hand (the two brothers). To dispense away with the God given human life without achieving a special landmark purpose can be considered, at most, a sign of sheer insanity and not wisdom. The two brothers made use of their diplomacy by outwardly kept serving the Mohameddan ruler, keeping their God given human life continue to fulfil a very special purpose later in life, inwardly kept the Vedic brāhmaṇas and sādhus thriving at all the royal disposal which was available to them at hand, guiding Hussain Shah in such a way as to protect the Hindu values in his kingdom, and when felt that their mleccha ruler is in his weakest political, social and martial position, they, upon receiving commands from Caitanyadeva (Who until now was not letting the two brothers resign from their position as evident from the anecdote depicted in Caitanya-caritāmṛta and the famous Sanskrit verse that Caitanyadeva sent to the two brothers who were wanting to resign much earlier to not leave their position prematurely – refer to CC 2.1.211– “para-vyasaninī nārī vyagrāpi gṛha-karmasu / tad evāsvādayaty antar nava-sańga-rasāyanam //” meaning – “If a woman is attached to a man other than her husband, she will appear very busy in carrying out her household affairs, but within her heart she is always relishing feelings of association with her paramour.” – — In this way, it was Caitanyadeva’s desire that the two brothers should continue to, externally, render service to the Mohameddan regime and wait for His next command; this makes the whole scenario very clear in the sense that, only, due to the divine arrangement of the Bhagavatī Yogamāyā acting as per the wish of Caitanya Who is Nandanandana Himself – the two brothers were put in a role of the ministers of Hussain Shah.), thrusted a great psychological and administrative blow the Mohameddan ruler and this is verified by the following statements, tauntingly and frustratingly, pronounced by Hussain Shah himself in Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.19.24-25 to Sanātana Gosvāmī – “tabe kruddha hañā rājā kahe āra-bāra / tomāra ‘baḍa bhāi’ kare dasyu-vyavahāra // jīva-bahu māri’ kaila cāklā saba nāśa / ethā tumi kailā mora sarva kārya nāśa //” – meaning – “Becoming angry with Sanātana Gosvāmī, the Nawab said, “Your elder brother is acting just like a plunderer. By killing many living entities, your elder brother has ruined the province. Now here you are destroying all my plans.” The phrase – “…tumi kailā mora sarva kārya nāśa…” meaning “…you have ruined all my activities, ambitions and plans….” – is quite significant to be pondered over and this reflects that sheer crooked diplomacy that Śrī Sanātana used to weaken the power of Hussain Shah from within in a way where he (Sanātana) could not be held convictable for anything in the court.

    All these tactics used by the two brothers prove that they were expert karma-yogīs who, cleverly, made usage of their royal positions to promote the Vedic culture and when saw the appropriate time, dealt with a severe administrative and psychological blow to the mleccha ruler. Moreover, it proves that they were ardent guru-bhaktas who did not act, whimsically, by prematurely retiring from their positions, but chose to wait for the final command of Caitanyadeva. And to make their lives later used in the service of Caitanyadeva, they chose to not wash away from their life without fulfilling the goal of their life by inviting the unpredictable wrath of a whimsical Mohameddan ruler. This shows their deep regard for the human life which was meant to fulfil a landmark historical purpose of spreading the rāga-bhakti, excavation of the pārakīya unnata-ujjavala-rasa from the text of Śrīmad-bhāgavatam, establishment of the acintya-bheda-abheda-vedānta, vraja-lupta-bhagaval-līlā-sthalī-uddhāra and rādha-vrajendrasuta-yugalopāsanā-sthāpanam along with the vaiṣṇava-sadācāra-nirūpaṇātmika-smṛti-āviṣkāraḥ.

    Queen Padmāvatī gave her life up to save her chastity from being disrupted by the lusty touch of a mleccha aggressor. Whereas, Śrī Rūpa and Sanātana retained their lives for fulfilling a very higher purpose in life – not able to be competed by Advaitins till date so far as the domain of bhakti-rasa-darśanam is concerned. Whereas, the two brothers retained their lives and continued to serve the Muslim ruler to, ultimately, give a severe blow to him. Whereas, the two brothers continued in that position upon the command of their guru viz., Caitanyadeva.

    Though a warrior’s sacrifice of live is glorified if it is meant for protecting the borders of his nation; juxtapositionally, the lives of the head of state and all his ministers are protected at the highest level. Why? Because of the much more higher important vital role that the statesmen play in the country and society – in comparison to a soldier. In the same way, Śrī Rūpa and Sanātana are the most respected entities of the World Council of the Universal Vaiṣṇvas or ‘viśva-vaiṣṇava-sabhājana-bhājana’ as how Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī puts it acknowledging their contribution.

    In the most authentic publication of Madhusūdana Sarasvatī’s classical text Bhagavad-bhakti-rasāyanam edited, translated and commented upon by an Advaitin scholar Janardan Shastri Pandeya and published by the most authentic Indigenous publishers of North India viz., the Vidyābhavan Prācya-vidyā-grantha-māla – 91st Volume from Chowkhamba Vidyabhavan in Vārāṇasī/Kāśī/Benares (1998 – 3rd Edition), the anecdote that Madhusūdana Sarasvatī was invited in the court of Akabar to settle the varṇa related complicated case of his minister Todarmal is described. This incidence is described in the commentaries to the famous Hindi classical work ‘Bhakta-māla’ by Nābhāsvāmī, too.

    It seems that Śṛṇgerī Mutt was, only, interested in flattering Tipu Sultan and making use of the political ties to gain for the Mutt – for all the recorded history of Tipu Sultan and even Hyder Ali – prove that they were tyrannical barbarous rulers who continued to commit damage to Hindu shrines all over South India. Following are the sites containing all evidences –

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysorean_invasion_of_Kerala
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus – Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan section should be referred on this web page.

    Considering all the facts, it is concluded that Tipu gave support to Śṛṅgerī Mutt from the onslaught of Hindu Marathas as part of his political tactics to split the Hindus among Marathas and the Kannadas and to, thus, continue to be in control of the Kingdom by later showing sympathy to certain Hindu Mutts – while destroying many Hindu shrines earlier. All part of the diplomatic strategy. Not love for Hinduism or Hindu shrines. And the most probable reason why Marathas made up their mind to take hold of the Śṛṅgerī Mutt must have remained the Mutt’s support to the anti-Hindu Tipu Sultan. Corrupt Muttadhipatīs have done great harm in the past by aligning with many negative forces. Otherwise, Marathas considering Chatrapati Shivaji as their ideal – have remained very loyal to go and brāhmaṇas. Whatever the actual history of the Tipu Sultan etc. may be, but the case of Gauḍīya Gosvāmīs has been explained removing all unwanted allegations lashed upon them.

    — Gurupādācārya Svāmī

    Liked by 1 person

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