Sundarananda Das (Vidyavinoda)

[Nitaidas]

Here is a taste of the text called Mahamantra by Sundarananda Das that I am working on. It was published in 1947 when he was still in the GM. He still apparently believed that Bhaktisiddanta was genuine and was genuinely a disciple of Sri Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji. That changed in a few short years (by 1955?). Anyway, what he has to say about the Mahamantra is interesting, thought-provoking, and based on an intimate knowledge of all the important texts.

You can download it here.


I will update this periodically as I complete more.

I have uploaded a more complete version (4-27-2019). It is still not finished, but I am working on it regularly.

[Nitaidas]

Jul 12, 2009 17:03:52 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Here is a taste of the text called Mahamantra by Sundarananda Das that I am working on. It was published in 1947 when he was still in the GM. He still apparently believed that Bhaktisiddanta was genuine and was genuinely a disciple of Sri Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji. That changed in a few short years (by 1955?). Anyway, what he has to say about the Mahamantra is interesting, thought-provoking, and based on an intimate knowledge of all the important texts.

You can download it here.


I will update this periodically as I complete more.

I have uploaded a more complete version (4-27-2019). It is still not finished, but I am working on it regularly.

I have updated the Mahamantra text. Check it out by hitting the link above. (8-14-2019) It stops mid-sentence. Sorry. I will finish that sentence and a few more and post it again in the next few days.

[Ed]

Well, he's very compelling in his arguments, Nitai, I'm liking it a lot, and it does remind me of Sri Bodo Baba and his tradition, but was it a commonly accepted conclusion within CV at the time? This book makes me think that perhaps it wasn't all that popular, but I imagine this is not very different from what Sri Kanupriya Goswami would have to say so I do wonder about how some of their contemporaries reacted to it. In any case, I don't have any version of the Caitanya Bhagavata, so I'll have to wait to see what Mahaprabhu was going to say.

[Nitaidas]

Aug 22, 2019 15:04:14 GMT -6 Ed said:

Well, he's very compelling in his arguments, Nitai, I'm liking it a lot, and it does remind me of Sri Bodo Baba and his tradition, but was it a commonly accepted conclusion within CV at the time? This book makes me think that perhaps it wasn't all that popular, but I imagine this is not very different from what Sri Kanupriya Goswami would have to say so I do wonder about how some of their contemporaries reacted to it. In any case, I don't have any version of the Caitanya Bhagavata, so I'll have to wait to see what Mahaprabhu was going to say.

This is the second time I am writing a response to your questions here, Ed. Somehow I lost the first before I could save it. Not sure how that happened, but I find it extremely unsettling to have worked on something for nearly a half an hour and then have it suddenly disappear. I am coming not to trust this site. Anyway, I will try to replicate what I said before and not lose it this time. That will certainly fail, because I am not the same person I was a few minutes ago. Some of those thoughts are lost.

These are good questions, Ed. The short answer is that I don't know how this essay was received by Sundarananda's colleagues in the GM at the time. The essay was published by the GM and was available at Mayapur. Towards the end of the essay Sundarananda mildly criticizes Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivinoda for encouraging sankirtana using the Mahamantra. He also asks some old-timers about practices in the past. Their response was that the Mahamantra was not used in kirtan until recently. It is important to remember, however, that this is a snapshot of Sundarananda's views on the matter. He discusses the question in more detail in his final work on the Holy Name called Hari-nama-cintamani-kirana-kanika. I have not studied that carefully, but my current impression is that he changes his view by then. This change may have been a result of the influence of Kanupriya Goswami with whom he became close after his departure from GM . So the story is not complete yet. I will try to finish this essay and move on to his later views after that. All I can say at this point is stay tuned.

[Ed]

Thank you, Nitai, this actually helps, I was under the wrong impression that this work had been influenced or inspired somehow by Prabhupad Kanupriya Goswami, but the fact that he wrote it previous to his departure from GM makes it even more interesting perhaps, as well the question of how it was received by his peers at the time. I remember long ago reading a story about Prabhupada Prangopal Goswami where he was represented as defending nagara sankirtana of the maha-mantra through one of his disciples at a debate about this very subject I believe, so what those old timers said to him checks out at least in the sense that there were clearly opposing parties on the matter within CV not too long ago. I'm looking forward to see the rest of his arguments and to see how these changed in time as well, so far I like his arguments, but it all seems to be based mainly on the tradition of following the examples of the great, even though he starts by establishing the position of the Maha mantra in relation to other mantras (I kinda expected that bit to be longer). So I'm curious to see how he wraps up this essay and to see his ideas more developed in his later book. 

Edit:

So, a correction to that story: it involved both Prabhupad Prangopal Goswamin and his son Prabhu Yadugopal Goswami, and it took place in the late 1920s. The story mentions some sort of National conference or gathering on the Holy Name in Vrindavan that took place under the supervision of a Amalakram Shastri who was acting as judge in the debates. But actually, the debate is reported to have been about the loud chanting of the maha-mantra, as it is commonly performed during street processions. This is closer to what I understood to be the position of Sri Bodo Baba and Srila Ramdas Babaji Maharaj, but I do wonder, is the reason behind the position of their tradition the same as the one Sundarananda describes in this essay? that is, the impossibility of counting during such kirtan occasions? I thought that Sri Bodo Baba's tradition objected to the loud chanting because they considered it a transgression of another rule related to diksa mantras (the one about not saying it out loud) but now I'm a little confused on this matter. Do you see three stands on this matter? Or am I misrepresenting Sri Bodo Baba's tradition? (I have the feeling that I am)

1. The most popular one in our times: loud chanting without counting
2. Sundarananda's: Loud chanting while counting
3. Bodo Baba's tradition: Just Japa, while doing loud chanting or kirtana of other verses composed of the Names as well (Nitai Gaur Radhe Syam Hare Krsna Hare Rama)

[Nityānanda dāsa]

Jai Nitai Gaur!

It seems to me that loud chanting in the form of sankirtan, i.e., congregational chanting, shouldn't be counted. That doesn't seem to make any sense at all. How can you count while holding a mridanga or karatalas? Or is there supposed to be a designated counter person for every sankirtan procession who gives all the participants the number of mantras that were sung once the procession is over?!

[Nitaidas]

Aug 31, 2019 8:41:22 GMT -6 Ed said:

Thank you, Nitai, this actually helps, I was under the wrong impression that this work had been influenced or inspired somehow by Prabhupad Kanupriya Goswami, but the fact that he wrote it previous to his departure from GM makes it even more interesting perhaps, as well the question of how it was received by his peers at the time. I remember long ago reading a story about Prabhupada Prangopal Goswami where he was represented as defending nagara sankirtana of the maha-mantra through one of his disciples at a debate about this very subject I believe, so what those old timers said to him checks out at least in the sense that there were clearly opposing parties on the matter within CV not too long ago. I'm looking forward to see the rest of his arguments and to see how these changed in time as well, so far I like his arguments, but it all seems to be based mainly on the tradition of following the examples of the great, even though he starts by establishing the position of the Maha mantra in relation to other mantras (I kinda expected that bit to be longer). So I'm curious to see how he wraps up this essay and to see his ideas more developed in his later book. 

Edit:

So, a correction to that story: it involved both Prabhupad Prangopal Goswamin and his son Prabhu Yadugopal Goswami, and it took place in the late 1920s. The story mentions some sort of National conference or gathering on the Holy Name in Vrindavan that took place under the supervision of a Amalakram Shastri who was acting as judge in the debates. But actually, the debate is reported to have been about the loud chanting of the maha-mantra, as it is commonly performed during street processions. This is closer to what I understood to be the position of Sri Bodo Baba and Srila Ramdas Babaji Maharaj, but I do wonder, is the reason behind the position of their tradition the same as the one Sundarananda describes in this essay? that is, the impossibility of counting during such kirtan occasions? I thought that Sri Bodo Baba's tradition objected to the loud chanting because they considered it a transgression of another rule related to diksa mantras (the one about not saying it out loud but within the mind) but now I'm a little confused on this matter. Do you see three stands on this matter? Or am I misrepresenting Sri Bodo Baba's tradition? (I have the feeling that I am)

1. The most popular one in our times: loud chanting without counting
2. Sundarananda's: Loud chanting while counting
3. Bodo Baba's tradition: Just Japa, while doing loud chanting or kirtana of other verses composed of the Names as well (Nitai Gaur Radhe Syam Hare Krsna Hare Rama)

Again, good question, Eduardo. I see only two positions here:

1. kirtana with the mahamantra and other songs
2. japa with the mahamantra (counted japa with the mahamantra which may sometimes be loud as in the case of Haridas Thakur and the prostitute) and other diksa mantras (which must be counted and silent, although I have a recollection of reading something from Rupa or Sanatana about upamsu being natural and acceptable in chanting the diksa mantras) and kirtana only with other songs (not the mahamantra).

These positions are becoming more clear as I continue to work on the essay. Sorry I have not posted it more frequently. I am simultaneously working on the Mahamantra essay and Kanupriya Goswami's Hari-nama-cintamani. It is sometimes slow going. Anyway, I think the second position corresponds to Bodo Baba and his followers' practices and view and the first to the practices and view of IGM and others in the modern (20th century and later) Caitanya movement. For instance, we used to do kirtana of the Mahamantra with Tinkudi Baba. I spent many a long night on Ekadasi doing kirtan (sometimes by myself in the wee hours of the morning; everyone else had crawled off to sleep) with the Mahamantra. It was a common kirtan for us, however. We thought nothing of it. The evidence that Sundarananda is marshaling indicates that it was not this way for most of the history of the CV movement. The Mahamantra is considered a Vedic mantra since it is "revealed" in an upanisad, the Kali-santara Upanisad (decidedly a very late upanisad, probably written only yesterday, still it is regarded by the tradition as sruti). I know some Goswamis who won't give mantras to Westerners if those mantras are sruti (bye bye Gopala-mantra).

I have never heard of this meeting you describe. Is there more on this that you can post? There were plenty of meetings to debate the svakiya/parakiya question, but I did not know of meetings to debate this. Perhaps these debates are what prompted Sundarananda's interest in the question. I am anxious to know how the debate ended and which side won the day. Where is it described?

[Ed]

Thank you, Nitai, so to Bodo Baba's tradition the chanting of the maha mantra as described in the classical sources was to be done in japa and kirtan but not with musical instruments in song and without counting, for this other songs containing the names of Krsna should be used. Sundarananda is presenting some strong evidence for this position. In one of your Nitaizines you mentioned him and Dr. Radhagovinda Nath as two defenders of the first position, seeing that this conclusion was so commonly accepted in the different CV communities both in Navadvip and Vraja in recent times as you mentioned in your story with Tinkudi Baba, I really would like to know what happened? what changed, when and how? 

The source for that story I think is a little book on the life of Prabhupad Yadugopal Goswami and the Goswamis of his line, I read a short summary in an old website that no longer exists, however another devotee translated that summary into spanish and published it recently on her blog so I was able to read it again and edit my previous comment. However, I have a feeling that the narration from the book is probably more nuanced, the summary just states that Prabhu Yadugopal was declared the winner and the other side had to sign a document declaring their defeat and support for the winning cause. It represents the whole event as being about the loud singing in procession, so I think I misunderstood the whole point as being about the loudness and not about the keeping count, since it doesn't mention that specifically. Anyway, my friend has the book in english, so I asked her to take some photos of that episode in the book and send it to me to see what else it says. I'll keep you posted.

[Ed]

Sept 1, 2019 11:02:04 GMT -6 Nityānanda dāsa said:

Or is there supposed to be a designated counter person for every sankirtan procession who gives all the participants the number of mantras that were sung once the procession is over?!

Yes, I thought about that, but you would've probably read of such a person/ rol somewhere by now. So far, Sundarananda has presented evidence from the classical sources on the life of Mahaprabhu to prove that the maha-mantra was always chanted while counting, and that other songs were usually given for group musical processions. He has also presented evidence to say that loud chanting is better than soft recitation, but even this kirtan was done while counting, meaning that other names can be recited everywhere at anytime, but specifically the maha mantra is to be recited with the rule of counting. 

[Ed]

Well, my friend just sent me the photos, here's the episode as described there:

[Nityānanda dāsa]

Sept 1, 2019 14:21:01 GMT -6 Ed said:

Well, my friend just sent me the photos, here's the episode as described there:

Radhe Radhe!

What book is this???

:-)

[Ed]

Sept 1, 2019 19:13:42 GMT -6 Nityānanda dāsa said:

Sept 1, 2019 14:21:01 GMT -6 Ed said:

Well, my friend just sent me the photos, here's the episode as described there:

Radhe Radhe!

What book is this???

:-)

[Nitaidas]

Sept 1, 2019 14:21:01 GMT -6 Ed said:

Well, my friend just sent me the photos, here's the episode as described there:

View Attachment

I have to admit that I am more than a little skeptical of the description of the meeting and even of the actuality of the meeting itself. As I was reading this account my baloney meter was off the dial. There are several reasons for this. It seems clear from Sundarananda's text that there are plenty of scriptural evidences for the opposite view, that is, that the mahamantra should not be used in kirtana, but only in counted japa. Secondly, Yadugopal Goswami seems rather unaccomplished to have been playing the huge role as a great and triumphant scholar. What did he ever write or publish? What has he ever really done? His father was extraodinary, no doubt, but Yadugopal seems rather undistinguished. Perhaps, I am wrong about this. If so, I would like to know more about his great achievements. Thirdly, it seems strange to me that someone like Sundarananda das writing on the same topic some twenty years after this meeting does not mention it at all. He seems unaware of it. Nor do those elders in the community with whom he consulted mention it. This book is a clearly hagiography. Hagiographies are notorious for being loose with the facts. At any rate, until I find some other confirming evidence of such a meeting and, if possible, a good account of the actual evidences and arguments presented at the debate, I am going to remain a doubter.

[Ed]

Yes, I agree, it’s no historical record, however I find a few things interesting, although this are just my conjectures and the questions that this raised for me:

It’s not unlikely that some event of this kind took place regularly in those days, although I found no records of it, perhaps the name is just the author’s idea of a general translation for english readers of the original name, but in any case according to this account it’s clear that the conference wasn’t specifically about this issue with the maha-mantra. It seems to be one those events where different groups both from the neo and traditional hindu world at the time would engage in the politics of religious social life. So in the context of this conference perhaps Prabhu Prangopal Goswami saw an opportunity for self assertion and to defuse conflict, since previous to this the account mentions challenges and prohibitions from certain unnamed chief members of society that were responded by Prabhu Yadugopal Goswami with large kirtan processions.

I have somewhat of a hard time believing that members of Sri Bodo Baba’s community would actively seek to engage in these kind of debates, but apart from them who else specifically was upholding the opinion that Sundarananda expresses here? Do we have names and backgrounds for those old timers he mentions? Tension among groups professing to follow Caitanya at this time wasn’t uncommon, and it was more evident between the traditional brahminical Vaisnava community supported by the Bhadralok class against what they considered as transgressions to the Vaisnava acara in other communities. Goswamis like Bipin Bihari, Prangopal and Radhikanath seem to have been specially vocal in this sense. So, I still wonder, how recent was the introduction of the maha mantra in kirtanas? Did it somehow escape these Goswamis that this wasn’t the old way? and if not, were they consciously trying to introduce this change or at least normalise it? If we look at manuals from the previous generations, will we find any expressed prohibition? or was it a common knowledge that the compilers didn’t consider necessary to mention? Yet they even write about how to clean your teeth, wouldn’t they mention this when discussing the chanting of Harinam?. What I’m getting at is that they probably saw these arguments as coming from sources outside their communities and sought a public way to settle the matter and reassert their leadership since it would mean pressure on the other side to comply and refrain from more conflict. However, the lack of mention of this event in the writings of Sundarananda, as you’ve pointed out, makes me wonder about the extent of their outreach, though it may be that a survey of other contemporary sources could prove this wrong.

If these opposing arguments were indeed coming not just from traditional CV but from the influence of other traditional or neo hindu movements and other communities professing to be followers of Caitanya, then it’s not hard to believe that personalities like Prangopal Goswami would care to engage in these kind of debates.

It’s a long way from the stories of bhaktas scorning debate or argument and happily signing their defeat just so people would leave them alone to continue with their bhajan. Actually, when I read the whole story and saw that the opposite side didn’t even argue I thought “well, that’s very vaisnava of them”.

About Sri Yadugopal Goswami’s achievements, well, you can see the sources we have in english at the moment. However, like S.K. De would say, the pious mind of the author invests him with the traditional signs of a virtuous childhood, said to be a natural pandit and that he had an extraordinary memory since a very early age. Actually, he seems to have been a well respected pathak in his day, but was predisposed against preaching because he didn’t want to be away from his household deity. It is said there that he was also a well trained musician in various instruments. Apparently, his father noticed his attachment for the Thakurs since an early age and was happy that he wanted to devote himself to their seva. Later on he got some extra land and became a farmer for the Thakurs. I never got the sense that he wanted any exposure or made any efforts to that effect, so it’s no wonder we haven’t read much from him. Do Dr. Kapoor or Haridas Das Baba mention him at all? I really regret having left The Saints of Bengal, definitely should’ve taken it with me.

Anyway, this particular book seems to be an offering probably by westerners to Srila Prankrsna Das Baba, there are other bengali hagiographies about their family line that could provide some more details (and probably invite more questions) and expand upon these stories, but those are out of my reach.

Here's a pic of Prabhu Yadugopal Goswami giving a discourse:

[Nitaidas]

Good response, Eduardo. I don't mean to be unkind to Yadugopal Goswami. I am sure he was a fine lecturer and an upstanding member of the CV community. He himself would perhaps be shocked by his representation in this story. "What did I do? I said what?" Yadugopal Goswami is not mentioned in either Haridas Das or in Kapoor, though Prangopal Goswami is mentioned in the latter. I don't see Prangopal Goswami in Haridas Das, however.

Anyway, I suspect that not using the Mahamantra in kirtana was not just the common practice of the followers of Bodo Baba, but that is was the practice of the tradition itself until just recently. You asked who Sundarananda consulted with. He gives the names of Vanamali Lal Goswami of Vrndavana, and Atulkrsna Goswami and Rasikamohan Vidyabhusana and others in Bengal. They confirmed his view that uncounted Mahamantra kirtan was not seen or heard of until recently. This does not mean that previously the mahamantra was always counted and heard in kirtana. I think it simply means that no one did kirtan with the mahamantra at all. There were plenty of other songs for kirtan. I am barely two-thirds of the way through Sundarananda's text and the songs keep coming. Vrndabana Das Thakur even identifies Mahaprabhu's "original" or first sankirtana song:

“O I place my mind on your feet.
O Holder of the Sāraṅga!
I place my mind on your feet" (Caitanya-bhagavata, 2.23.241)

The Bengali is:

tuẏā caraṇe mana lāgahuঁ re
sāraṅga-dhara, tuẏā caraṇe mana lāgahuঁ re

I am not sure what sāraṅga means. I assume it means the musical instrument. But I could be wrong about that. Radhagovinda Nath thinks it means "lotus, conch shell, or bow."

The upshot is that I never knew there was an "original sankirtana" (ādi-saংkīrtana) and there are plenty of well attested kirtana songs that are not the mahamantra. Whenever Mahaprabhu is represented as doing kirtana or sankirtana, he is represented as singing those songs not the mahamantra.

My major point here is that we do not have to believe everything we read. Manana is an important part of the learning process. It does appear at this point that Sundarananda is making a strong case. The earliest texts on Mahaprabhu (Caitanya-bhagavata, Murarigupta's Caitanya-caritamrta-mahakavya, Locanadas's text all seem to confirm the idea that Mahaprabhu never sang or encouraged the singing of the mahamantra in kirtan. I will put up the latest version of Sundarananda's text in a couple of days so you can see for yourselves.

One more note, I did find something that Yadugopal Goswami did. He published his father's edition of the Caitanya-caritamrta, a really fine edition. I was given a copy of the first volume of that work by his son Madhugopal Goswami and I am very grateful.