Prior to writing the first article "Saraswati Prabhupada Parampara I" I was shown a correspondence from Premananda das to Aghraya Prabhu wherein the anti-party representative (Premananda das) made specific derogatory statements about Saraswati Thakur and his parampara. That is reproduced here as follows:

Premananda das wrote, "What is the connection between Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivinod Thakur that you speak about? Of course there was connection, they were father and son. But not Guru and disciple. Bimala Prasad did not respect Srila Bipin Bihari Goswami, and Srila Bhaktivinod was very unhappy about this show of disrespect. For this reason Bhaktivinod didn't give Bimala Prasad diksa. Bhaktivinod was also unhappy about Bimala Prasad's heavy critique of many Gaudiya Vaisnavas."

"You say that Srila Bhaktivinod found the leading Vaisnava in Srila Jagannath das Babaji and not in his diksa Guru. This is false!!... Jagannath das Babaji was his siksa guru, but that doesn't mean that his position was higher than the diksa guru. I happen to be initiated into the diksa-parampara of Srila Bhaktivinod, and therefore I know what the parampara is. Jagannath das Babaji is not included in it.....There is no such thing as 'siksa-parampara', as something that is independent of diksa. In the other Vaisnava sampradayas the unbroken line of diksa is the Guru-parampara. There is no 'bhagavata parampara' there. In the Gaudiya line you won't find support for it either (outside of Gaudiya Math, ISKCON etc.). But this might be difficult to accept if you want to be a follower of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's line." (see VNN discussion forum )

It was this statement written by the anti-party which first caught my attention and fueled the first article (Saraswati Prabhupada Parampara) as a response to their misconceptions. Rather than ignore the statements of the anti-party as simply being offensive to both Gaudiya Math and ISKCON, as one might normally do when confronting foolish persons, I decided to answer their questions, counter their arguments and expose their misconceptions with reference to sastra and certain important histories in this regard. Now that the topic has come out in the open on VNN we feel that it is necessary to continue to expose all the misconceptions of the anti-party. There are no doubt hundreds of misconceptions in the anti-party and therefore our work may not be completed in this article or even in this lifetime.

After our first article appeared here on VNN the representative of the followers of Lalita Prasad Thakur wrote a few words on the VNN forum rejecting our original article and then summed it up by stating, "With these words I have demonstrated the invalidity of Narasingha Swami's accusations and misconceptions." (see VNN discussion forum)

We will not so easily concede this argument. The anti-party has failed to demonstrate anything substantial - nor have they countered any of our statements in the previous article wherein we have shown; 1) that the parampara of Saraswati Thakur is indeed drawn from Bhaktivinode Thakur and Jagannatha Dasa Babaji not Bipin Bihari Goswami, 2) that Bhaktivinode Thakur took diksa, for decorum's sake only, from Bipin Bihari Goswami, 3) that Bipin Bihari Goswami did in fact reject Bhaktivinode Thakur (printed in Gaurangasevaka Patrika in 1919) for the reason that the Thakur had preached what the Goswami considered an untruth regarding the birth site of Mahaprabhu being at Mayapur and not at Navadwip, 4) that Bipin Bihari Goswami offended Raghunatha Das Goswami by considering him as born in a lower caste, 5) that Saraswati Thakur defeated Bipin Bihari Goswami in the debate at Midinpur on Brahmins and Vaisnavas, 6) that Bipin Bihari Goswami had the character of the lower Vaisnava-adhikari, 7) that Saraswati Thakur reinitiated a leading disciple of Bipin Bihari Goswami thus showing his complete disregard for the idea that the Goswami was the guru of Bhaktivinode Thakur, 8) that Bhaktivinode was very pleased with the preaching of Saraswati Thakur and gave him his full blessings to defeat all types of philosophical misconception, to establish the birth site of Mahaprabhu at Mayapur and to establish the divine teachings of pure devotional service throughout the world (daiva-varanashram), 9) that ekadasa-bhava as practiced by the followers of Lalita Prasad Thakur is mental speculation, 10) that hari-nama is a superior process to ekadasa-bhava as explained by Kaviraja Goswami in his commentary to Krsna-karanamrta, 11) that the siksa-parampara is the sat-guru-parampara and not simply the line of bodily succession (diksa-parampara), and 12) that one receives entrance into the process of raganuga-bhakti at the time of initiation into the parampara of Saraswati Thakur.

All these points were substantially made in our first article but the anti-party has failed to refute even one of them properly. Rather they have simply resorted to jumbling a few words here and there with the hope of saving face. Of course it is a hard lump for the anti-party to swallow but they have accepted an illusory parampara of bodies and dead mantras.

Parampara II Article continues

Return to Articles Index