Sundarananda Das (Vidyavinoda)

[Ed]

Thank you, Nitai, this is good to know, these aren't just any old timers but actual heavy weights. I also believe Sundarananda's case is strong, I like this essay so far, yet at the same time not having seen other counter arguments than those presented by him, and seeing the present situation, I can't help but wonder about what those could be. I'm not sure about dismissing this account all together, there're probably some elements of truth in there, but not having access to more direct sources I think this is a dead end for me. I've read that the edition of the Caitanya Caritamrta with the commentary of Prangopal Goswami is one the best regarded, I've never seen it quoted anywhere, so I'm very curious, perhaps in the future you may find something interesting to share from it here.

That adi-sankirtana is interesting, I didn't know about it, I've never seen that name before, the musical instrument is the sarangi I think, but I was looking at some definitions available online, which included Radhagovinda Natha's definitions: www.wisdomlib.org/definition/saranga. According to this, among other definitions, there's a Raga by that name, and it was also apparently used for different animals in poetry, including the peacock and other kind of birds. The site also quotes the Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu:

स्वनेन, यथा —
दूराद् विद्रावयन् निद्रा-मरालीर् गोप-सुभ्रुवाम् ।
सारङ्ग-रङ्गदं रेजे वेणु-वारिद-गर्जितम् ॥२.४.१९०॥

svanena, yathā —
dūrād vidrāvayan nidrā-marālīr gopa-subhruvām |
sāraṅga-raṅgadaṃ reje veṇu-vārida-garjitam ||2.4.190||


There's a memory that stuck with me from the time I read Dr. Kapoor's The Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya, while retelling the classic story of Mahaprabhu he narrates an account of when he first did Sankirtan with his students after returning from Gaya and finding himself unable to continue teaching them, in my mind up until this point this was the closest to an "original" kirtana:

[Nitaidas]

The Hari Haraye song is there in the Caitanya-bhagavata, too, many times, but it is never referred to as the Adi-sankirtana. I am not sure why the tuya carane song is considered the original or first sankirtana song. Perhaps it has more to do with its meaning (Let me fix my mind on your lotus feet). There is another nice song, also from the Cb:

Say Hari, o ignorant folks,
Say Hari, Hari. There is no
danger of punishment
in saying the holy name. (Cb, 2.23.269)

The Bengali is:

hari bala mugdha loka, hari hari bala re|
nāmābhāse nāhi raẏa śamana-bhaẏa re||\\

That is a lovely verse from the Brs: Krsna chases away the goose-like sleep of the gopis with the sound of his flute. Among the forty some meanings of saranga is peacock. Perhaps it is a reference to Krsna who wears a peacock feather in his hair (saranga-dhara).

Anyway, it is worth remembering that Sundarananda Das will come back to this topic in his massive book on the holy name. My sense from a quick glance is that he changes his view, but I might be wrong about that. As far as I am concerned, I see no problem with a tradition changing over time. It is those who try to impose absolutes (no you cannot do it that way, you must do it this way) who are killers of a tradition. A living tradition must grow and change, keeping its essential core, but not fanatically insisting on outer forms.

Shubha Radhastami yuvakam bhavatu!

[Ed]

Radhe Radhe!

Yes, that is a very lovely verse. The peacock reference also stood up for me, I wonder why Radhagovinda Nath chose to go with those meanings. Thank you for these verses and translations from the Caitanya Bhagavata, like I said before, I've never read it nor do I know of any good translation out there, I'd like to try and add them for kirtana at home. Looking forward to your next update of this text. 

Considering the day it is, I wanted to share one of my favorite kirtan videos: I don't really know anything about the Goswami singing, apart from the fact that he deeply impressed me, Jagadish seems to remember his name was Nityananda Goswami and thinks he's no longer with us. In any case I'm thankful that I found him:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tILtTEbhZy4

[Nitaidas]

Thanks for that wonderful kirtan video. That was delightful. I have never seen that kirtaniya before. It was good to listen to on Radhika's day.

I have been thinking about the materials I am working on at present, mostly the quotations from the Caitanya-bhagavata in Sundarananda. I have not gotten through all the various kirtana songs recorded in the text and claimed to be songs sung by Mahaprabhu and his companions in various private and nagara-sankirtans. But even looking ahead, I have noticed that none of them mention Radha and the gopis. They are all directed to Krsna and his various incarnations or expansions. Strange, isn't it? Not only that, but there does not seem to be any recognition of the distinction that will later become one of the hallmark traits of CV, the distinction between aisvarya and madhurya. Yadava is there right beside Krsna and Madhusudana next to Gopala. I am starting to hatch a theory that these distinctions and the rise to prominence of the Gopis is a gradual and later development in the Caitanya movement. Now, I have not examined the early texts completely (by early I mean Murari Gupta's Sanskrit text [1520?], the Vrndavana Das's Caitanya-bhagavata [1560?], his earlier work in Sanskrit [1540], Locana Das's Caitanya-mangala [1550?], basically anything before the Caitanya-caritamrta of Krsnadas Kaviraj [1612]) I am wondering when the Gopis begin to appear in the kirtan songs of the early movement and when aisvarya and madhurya became distinguished theologically. Is this the contribution of the Vrndavana Goswamis in their adaptation of the rasa theory to CV? Were other views shouted down? If so, what were they? There is, of course, that verse by Sri Nath Cakravartin at the beginning of his commentary on the Bhagavata in which the Gopis are distinguished as the best lovers of Krsna. Was the use of these non-Gopi songs just a public face of the early movement or was it really the starting point in the development of Caitanyite thinking? These are some of the questions flooding my mind as I read Sundarananda's book.

[Nitaidas]

One other thing to think about today. I have been receiving emails from an ISKCON lady, Ananta-sarovara Devi Dasi, who is a Sanskritist working for the International wing of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. She wrote me years ago when she was working on her PhD at BHU on bhakti-rasa. She completed her degree and has been living in Mayapur and working on various BBT projects. Apparently, they are about to bring out their own edition/translation of the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu.

Anyway, she recently sent me a link I would like to share with other readers here. It is an interesting peek into the operations of the GM and the fantasy life lived by one of its now deceased big leaders, Sridhara Maharaja. Ananatavasudeva (who later left GM and became Puridas) also plays a role here as someone concerned with promoting the truth whereas Sridhara Maharaja is more concerned with validating fiction up to and no doubt including the fiction of Bhaktisiddhanta's membership in a lineage of the CV tradition. He is of course also trying to make a place for the authenticity and acceptance of his own works. It is comparable to our own current president who is severely fact-challenged and who enjoys proclaiming that the press is full of "fake-news." I wonder what some of the others here think about this viewpoint.

Here is the link.

[Ed]

Sept 8, 2019 10:40:27 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Thanks for that wonderful kirtan video. That was delightful. I have never seen that kirtaniya before. It was good to listen to on Radhika's day.

I have been thinking about the materials I am working on at present, mostly the quotations from the Caitanya-bhagavata in Sundarananda. I have not gotten through all the various kirtana songs recorded in the text and claimed to be songs sung by Mahaprabhu and his companions in various private and nagara-sankirtans. But even looking ahead, I have noticed that none of them mention Radha and the gopis. They are all directed to Krsna and his various incarnations or expansions. Strange, isn't it? Not only that, but there does not seem to be any recognition of the distinction that will later become one of the hallmark traits of CV, the distinction between aisvarya and madhurya. Yadava is there right beside Krsna and Madhusudana next to Gopala. I am starting to hatch a theory that these distinctions and the rise to prominence of the Gopis is a gradual and later development in the Caitanya movement. Now, I have not examined the early texts completely (by early I mean Murari Gupta's Sanskrit text [1520?], the Vrndavana Das's Caitanya-bhagavata [1560?], his earlier work in Sanskrit [1540], Locana Das's Caitanya-mangala [1550?], basically anything before the Caitanya-caritamrta of Krsnadas Kaviraj [1612]) I am wondering when the Gopis begin to appear in the kirtan songs of the early movement and when aisvarya and madhurya became distinguished theologically. Is this the contribution of the Vrndavana Goswamis in their adaptation of the rasa theory to CV? Were other views shouted down? If so, what were they? There is, of course, that verse by Sri Nath Cakravartin at the beginning of his commentary on the Bhagavata in which the Gopis are distinguished as the best lovers of Krsna. Was the use of these non-Gopi songs just a public face of the early movement or was it really the starting point in the development of Caitanyite thinking? These are some of the questions flooding my mind as I read Sundarananda's book.

This is very interesting, lately I’ve been reading S.K.De and he seems to think that the Radha bhava of Mahaprabhu along with the whole Vraja lore is hinted at poetically in the songs of the early pada composers and in the early hagiographies, as well as in the salutary poems to Caitanya by the Goswamis. But references to Krsna-lila aren’t always indicators of the same theological conclusions, do you think that a consistent position from the early days of the tradition is seeing Krsna as the source of all other avatars, and Mahaprabhu as identical with Krsna, or at least as his bhakta avatar?. S.K. De sees the poetical suggestions for the idea of the dual incarnation in both the early writings of the bhaktas of the Navadvip circle and the Vrindavan circle, as he calls them. For him, these early suggestions were trying to explain the ecstatic nature of Mahaprabhu and his devine madness, as well as trying to account for this Krsna’s golden complexion.




There’s a verse that reminded me of the question about the distinction, it occurs during Mahaprabhu’s instructions to Sanatana:

aiśvarya kahite prabhura kṛṣṇa-sphūrti haila
mādhurye majila mana, eka śloka paḍila

yan martya-līlaupayikaṁ sva-yoga-
māyā-balaṁ darśayatā gṛhītam
vismāpanaṁ svasya ca saubhagardheḥ
paraṁ padaṁ bhūṣaṇa-bhūṣaṇāṅgam

kṛṣṇera yateka khelā, sarvottama nara-līlā,
nara-vapu tāhāra svarūpa
gopa-veśa, veṇu-kara, nava-kiśora, naṭa-vara,
nara-līlāra haya anurūpa


They in turn reminded me of other verses from the Bhagavata as well, such as those in the Gopi Gita episode:

viṣa-jalāpyayād vyāla-rākṣasād
 varṣa-mārutād vaidyutānalāt
vṛṣa-mayātmajād viśvato bhayād
 ṛṣabha te vayaṁ rakṣitā muhuḥ

na khalu gopīkā-nandano bhavān
 akhila-dehinām antarātma-dṛk
vikhanasārthito viśva-guptaye
 sakha udeyivān sātvatāṁ kule

viracitābhayaṁ vṛṣṇi-dhūrya te
 caraṇam īyuṣāṁ saṁsṛter bhayāt
kara-saroruhaṁ kānta kāma-daṁ
 śirasi dhehi naḥ śrī-kara-graham

vraja-janārti-han vīra yoṣitāṁ
 nija-jana-smaya-dhvaṁsana-smita
bhaja sakhe bhavat-kiṅkarīḥ sma no
 jalaruhānanaṁ cāru darśaya

And also after the episodes of the lifting of Govardhan

ity addhā māṁ samādiśya
 garge ca sva-gṛhaṁ gate
manye nārāyaṇasyāṁśaṁ
 kṛṣṇam akliṣṭa-kāriṇam

iti nanda-vacaḥ śrutvā
 garga-gītaṁ taṁ vrajaukasaḥ
muditā nandam ānarcuḥ
 kṛṣṇaṁ ca gata-vismayāḥ


Anyway, it may be the case that they were doing things differently in private. There's that story in Kavi Karnapura's work about the performance of a play using the theme of the Dana-lila in Navadvip, wasn't that done in private? I'm curious now if there are differences in the descriptions of the intimate kirtanas vs the ones done in public, but it would be great to check those early song composers that S.K.De mentions like Narahari and Vasudeva who probably wrote what they experienced and see what sort of kirtanas they make Mahaprabhu sing.

[Nitaidas]

Interesting reflections, Eduardo. My problem with S.K. De, especially in this discussion, is that I think he has the timeline all wrong. He assumes that Vasudeva Ghosh wrote his songs as soon as he joined the sankirtans of Mahaprabhu after his return from Gaya. The same with Narahari. I think these writers probably composed their songs long after their early kirtan days, quite likely after Mahaprabhu's departure. I doubt that any of their songs about Mahaprabhu were used in kirtans that he participated in. They are kirtans meant to invoke the memory of Mahaprabhu in his absence for those who knew him and missed him and for those who never knew him. Indeed, there were the earlier songs of Jayadeva, Candidas, Vidyapati, and others which featured the gopis and Radhika as lovers of Krsna, but we have no indication in the early biographies that Sri Caitanya favored them. The only reference to them and Mahaprabhu's relishing them come from Krsnadas Kaviraja. Moreover, the Goswami works are all post-departure. Their influence could not have been exerted until Srinivasa, Narottama, and the other younger generation returned to Bengal with the books of the Goswamis. There is one exception Sanatana Goswami's Sri Krsna-lila-stava which appears to be dated to early in his stay in Vraja (1517-8?). He refers to Sri Caitanya as a devotee, but not necessarily as Krsna. This doesn't mean he didn't think that; he may have, but it is not a part of his public discourse. Here are the relevant verses from the end of his book:

And which [compassion] also took me from
that bad association to association with your dearest one,
as well as to association with
Śrī Caitanyadeva in Nilacala, (421)

to the pleasure of seeing
your beautiful face on the chariot,
and again to this Vrndavana,
the place of your various sports; (422)

I am not sure who the "dearest one" is in the first verse. It is possible that it refers of Sri Caitanya (same case ending), but the construction of the sentence (tatha ... tatha) suggests that it is someone besides Mahaprabhu. Haridas Das in his commentary simply cites a verse from the Uddhava-gita (11.14.15) in which Krsna says that no one is more dear to him than Uddhava, a bhakta.

I did finally come across a kirtan pada that makes clear reference to the gopis in Sundarananda's essay. Guess where it came from: good old Krsnadas Kaviraj. Here is the passage:

“What can I say, friend?
Today he had his pleasure.
Every day at my Mādhava's house.”
Having this song sung he danced in joy:\\
perspiring, trembling, covered\\
with goosebumps, with tears, shouts, and howls.(C.c., 2.3.114-5)

ki kahiba re sakhi! ājuka ānanda ora|
ciradina mādhava mandire mora||
ei pada gāoẏāiẏā harṣe nartana|
sveda-kampa-pulakāśru-huṅkāra-garjana||

I don't think the aisvarya-madhurya distinction was there in the beginning. Nor were the Gopis so central. The question is: when did it become so? And how? As far as I can tell at this point, Murari Gupta and Vrndavana Das regarded Mahaprabhu as a strait incarnation of Krsna/Visnu. It took some theological sophistication to separate them and turn Mahaprabhu into a female, at least in part (Radha-bhava-dyuti). And don't forget poor Radha. She got turned into Gadadhara Pandit (what was left of her). I think about that when I do the Gadadhara mantra Baba gave me.

[Nitaidas]

Sept 8, 2019 11:18:29 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

One other thing to think about today. I have been receiving emails from an ISKCON lady, Ananta-sarovara Devi Dasi, who is a Sanskritist working for the International wing of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. She wrote me years ago when she was working on her PhD at BHU on bhakti-rasa. She completed her degree and has been living in Mayapur and working on various BBT projects. Apparently, they are about to bring out their own edition/translation of the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu.

Anyway, she recently sent me a link I would like to share with other readers here. It is an interesting peek into the operations of the GM and the fantasy life lived by one of its now deceased big leaders, Sridhara Maharaja. Ananatavasudeva (who later left GM and became Puridas) also plays a role here as someone concerned with promoting the truth whereas Sridhara Maharaja is more concerned with validating fiction up to and no doubt including the fiction of Bhaktisiddhanta's membership in a lineage of the CV tradition. He is of course also trying to make a place for the authenticity and acceptance of his own works. It is comparable to our own current president who is severely fact-challenged and who enjoys proclaiming that the press is full of "fake-news." I wonder what some of the others here think about this viewpoint.

Here is the link.

No one wants to comment on this? Here is what I think of it. At first it confirms what I always suspected about the publishing operations of GM. Here Ananta Vasudeva confirms that they had a pandita write some verses and then they published them as part of the Ananta-samhita. Bhaktivinoda was known to have fabricated at least three texts as Jagat has shown in an essay for Rosen's journal. Why should we expect anything different from the GM? The amazing thing for me is that even when he is told this by one who knew about it, Sridhar Maharaj refuses to believe it!

Now I have had problems with Sridhar before. Somewhere here in the catacombs of the Caitanya Symposium you can find a quotation from another piece of his writing in which he reveals himself to be not only a misogynist, but also an outspoken Vaisnava aparadhi. He basically says our mantras are dead and claims that a diksa lineage cannot come through a woman. Here he exhibits an abundant amount of his natural dummkopfery by refusing to believe in what Ananta Vasudeva told him and promoting something he calls "full-fledged" theism, by which he means he gets to choose who is a conduit of truth and who isn't. How is that? Well, who can say who is a real full-fledged theist? Is it someone with tilak all over his or her body or a sikha coming out of the back of his head? These are purely external signs of bhakta-hood. What is going on inside a person cannot be known. I am sure that a some points in my residence in Vraja I rubbed shoulders with a real siddha bhakta and I knew nothing of it. To me he or she looked like a poor ragged beggar. Of course, Sridhar wants us to believe he is himself a full-fledged theist so his works are also better than the Vedas and the Upanisads. But what does he mean by "full-fledged?" I think he means someone who has no truck with that vague brahman stuff which is what one finds in the Vedas, Upanisads, and even in the Bhagavata (if one wishes to tell the truth). This is an attitude typical of most everyone in IGM and even, sadly, many among traditional CVs.

It is often forgotten that we are a BhedAbheda tradition. That means we accept both dualism and non-dualism. The non-dual often gets simply shoved aside in favor of dualism. That is Shridhar's full-fledged theism. For me full-fledged theism means recognizing the fullness of the dual and the non-dual existing together with neither one overpowering the other. It is the equal power of these two opposite realities that creates the acintyatva that characterizes our philosophy. Maybe it should be thought of as a philosophical anti-philosophy, since one of the fundamental laws of philosophy since Aristotle has been the law of non-contradiction. It is, I think, an extraordinarily powerful insight into the nature of reality and may well be fully supported by physical science as it continues to fill in the gaps in our knowledge of the world.

[Ed]

My problem with S.K. De, especially in this discussion, is that I think he has the timeline all wrong. He assumes that Vasudeva Ghosh wrote his songs as soon as he joined the sankirtans of Mahaprabhu after his return from Gaya. The same with Narahari. I think these writers probably composed their songs long after their early kirtan days, quite likely after Mahaprabhu's departure. I doubt that any of their songs about Mahaprabhu were used in kirtans that he participated in. They are kirtans meant to invoke the memory of Mahaprabhu in his absence for those who knew him and missed him and for those who never knew him.

Thank you, Nitai. Yes, I tend to agree with you here about S.K De. I still go back and read him every once in a while because I find that the pros overpower the cons in the case of his research, and perhaps with each read I get a little more perspective on these two. 

I didn’t mean to imply that Mahaprabhu sang Vasudeva or Narahari’s compositions, I’m sorry that it came out like that, but do you differentiate them from the other bhaktas who were also writing in the post-Mahaprabhu era? (I mean this in regard to the historicity of their writings of course). The fact that they interacted with him directly and wrote descriptive songs about those days made me think that they may have had recorded some of the verses that Mahaprabhu sang with some level of accuracy, however I understand that this fact doesn’t guarantee that, however I feel that’s the case with most of these hagiographies. The various early communities of bhaktas seem to have developed their own slightly different version of the events, emphasising what they thought was important and relevant from their experiences for their own community, as the Khandavasis did, so I was curious to see what they made him sing, that’s of course assuming that they represented him singing anything specific at all. 

Moreover, the Goswami works are all post-departure. Their influence could not have been exerted until Srinivasa, Narottama, and the other younger generation returned to Bengal with the books of the Goswamis.

I agree, I think that whatever the Navadvip and Vrindavan followers had in common early on seem to have been inspired directly by their own personal reminiscences of their contact with Mahaprabhu. I also doubt that there was much contact between them before the second generation, except for the few exceptions in Puri I think. In this connection, perhaps the other thread uniting them was the Bhagavata, which to me would explain, at least to some extent, the eventual rising of the Gopis.

Indeed, there were the earlier songs of Jayadeva, Candidas, Vidyapati, and others which featured the gopis and Radhika as lovers of Krsna, but we have no indication in the early biographies that Sri Caitanya favored them. The only reference to them and Mahaprabhu's relishing them come from Krsnadas Kaviraja.

Yes. That’s the version that came to be accepted in time, that things changed again for Mahaprabhu (and for us) after his meeting with Ramananda Ray, and whatever may have been perhaps only a suggestion before (according again to S.K. De) became a reality after that point. That’s when Jayadeva, Candidas, Vidyapati and Lilasuka entered the picture I believe.

“What can I say, friend?
Today he had his pleasure.
Every day at my Mādhava's house.”
Having this song sung he danced in joy:\\
perspiring, trembling, covered\\
with goosebumps, with tears, shouts, and howls.(C.c., 2.3.114-5)

Wonderful, I imagine Sundarananda enjoying a lot while collecting these for his book. I feel lucky having access to it, thank you, Nitai.

I am not sure who the "dearest one" is in the first verse. It is possible that it refers of Sri Caitanya (same case ending), but the construction of the sentence (tatha ... tatha) suggests that it is someone besides Mahaprabhu. Haridas Das in his commentary simply cites a verse from the Uddhava-gita (11.14.15) in which Krsna says that no one is more dear to him than Uddhava, a bhakta.

Could it be a reference to his preceptor? that’s the impression I got. This is one of my favorites, I have your pdf translation, and I found a transliteration in the GGM site, I’d like to put those two together and see if I can make an attempt at singing it at home, hoping they will be kind enough to overlook my deficiencies during those attempts. Anyway, I agree with you, I also don’t think such distinction of aisvarya and madhurya was what we have come to think of it now, but not being able to survey the original works I feel I have reached the limits of my capacities for now.

When I though of Gadadhara Pandit while reading your last line I remembered your picture of Baba with Tota Gopinatha, I remember it often.

[Ed]

Sept 16, 2019 15:38:12 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

It is often forgotten that we are a BhedAbheda tradition. That means we accept both dualism and non-dualism. The non-dual often gets simply shoved aside in favor of dualism. That is Shridhar's full-fledged theism. For me full-fledged theism means recognizing the fullness of the dual and the non-dual existing together with neither one overpowering the other. It is the equal power of these two opposite realities that creates the acintyatva that characterizes our philosophy. Maybe it should be thought of as a philosophical anti-philosophy, since one of the fundamental laws of philosophy since Aristotle has been the law of non-contradiction. It is, I think, an extraordinarily powerful insight into the nature of reality and may well be fully supported by physical science as it continues to fill in the gaps in our knowledge of the world.

These are pretty much my feelings about this issue as well, Nitai, specially your last remark. 

I didn't read the article, I'm sorry. I'm somewhat familiar with him, and with the site it's on. But I'll be honest, nowadays I find little to no incentive to read things like this article, and when I do read them I find my self thinking and going over arguments in my head for days, even weeks. These thoughts intrude while I'm chanting on my mala, while reading, praying, and even during kirtana. They take away moments in my daily life that have come to mean a great deal to me, some of which are extremely rare in my short personal experience. I don't currently have the ability to separate things in a healthier way, or perhaps I'm just being selfish, but I'd like to spend whatever little time I dedicate to my practice in reading what you and others have made available for those of us who can't read the original and modern literature of the CV tradition.   

There's a secondary reason maybe: regardless of how I may feel inside, the fact is that externally and officially I wouldn't be recognised as part of the tradition. My personal and private opinions about this issue aside, I'd have very little to add of value for others in this general conversation to what you and others have already said much better with the authority of experience and research, and more importantly, with the grace of a Guru within the Caitanya Vaisnava Community. 

[Nitaidas]

Sept 16, 2019 20:03:17 GMT -6 Ed said:

I didn’t mean to imply that Mahaprabhu sang Vasudeva or Narahari’s compositions, I’m sorry that it came out like that, but do you differentiate them from the other bhaktas who were also writing in the post-Mahaprabhu era? (I mean this in regard to the historicity of their writings of course). The fact that they interacted with him directly and wrote descriptive songs about those days made me think that they may have had recorded some of the verses that Mahaprabhu sang with some level of accuracy, however I understand that this fact doesn’t guarantee that, however I feel that’s the case with most of these hagiographies. The various early communities of bhaktas seem to have developed their own slightly different version of the events, emphasising what they thought was important and relevant from their experiences for their own community, as the Khandavasis did, so I was curious to see what they made him sing, that’s of course assuming that they represented him singing anything specific at all. 

I see I misunderstood you. It is a good suggestion to look at the songs of contemporary songsters for descriptions of Mahaprabhu doing sankirtana. I started a translation of Govinda Das at one point using Biman Bihari Majumdar's excellent collection of his works. The first 30 pages or so are all about Gauranga. I have forgotten many of those songs, but perhaps they throw light on what sort of kirtans Mahaprabhu did. Plus I have a copy of Sri Gaurapada-tarangini compiled by Jagadbandhu Bhadra containing 330 pages filled with songs about Mahaprabhu. That would be a good resource to examine to see what song writers have to say about his sankirtana or kirtana habits and practices. Plus there is a 261 page introduction that is bound to throw some light on the question. Maybe too much light. It may become difficult to distinguish early from late. There are at least a hundred poets in the book and distinguishing them may become a problem. When a song is signed Narahari which Narahari is meant? Anyway, there is a lot of material to sift through.

[Nitaidas]

Here is the latest version of the Mahamantra essay by Sundarananda Das.

I still have about ten pages to go in the original. It goes slowly because I type in all the Bengali and Sanskrit citations. Naturally everything is still rough. If you spot errors or typos let me know. I hope to finish this over the next couple of weeks and return to Kanupriya Goswami's Sri Nama-cintamani.

All of the links in this thread will connect to the new version. But, here it is here in pdf form.

[Nitaidas]

Sept 16, 2019 21:02:55 GMT -6 Ed said:

These are pretty much my feelings about this issue as well, Nitai, specially your last remark. 

I didn't read the article, I'm sorry. I'm somewhat familiar with him, and with the site it's on. But I'll be honest, nowadays I find little to no incentive to read things like this article, and when I do read them I find my self thinking and going over arguments in my head for days, even weeks. These thoughts intrude while I'm chanting on my mala, while reading, praying, and even during kirtana. They take away moments in my daily life that have come to mean a great deal to me, some of which are extremely rare in my short personal experience. I don't currently have the ability to separate things in a healthier way, or perhaps I'm just being selfish, but I'd like to spend whatever little time I dedicate to my practice in reading what you and others have made available for those of us who can't read the original and modern literature of the CV tradition.   

There's a secondary reason maybe: regardless of how I may feel inside, the fact is that externally and officially I wouldn't be recognised as part of the tradition. My personal and private opinions about this issue aside, I'd have very little to add of value for others in this general conversation to what you and others have already said much better with the authority of experience and research, and more importantly, with the grace of a Guru within the Caitanya Vaisnava Community. 

Eduardo, no matter how you feel you are definitely part of the community, more so in my view than anyone currently in IGM. You already know more than 90% of them because of your vast reading and thoughtful manana and you have a sincerity that none of them can match. They have neglected the most fundamental requirement for entry into the tradition: becoming properly initiated by an authentic guru. You know of this and are sincerely grooming yourself for initiation when your guru arrives. You have as much right to speak here as anyone else. Don't be discouraged. Nama Prabhu will hook you up.

I am having a little debate with Steve Rosen at present. He is writing about the idea of Rupanuga. It is a claim that in my view really does not surface until Bhaktivinode who claims to be Rupanuga, a follower of Rupa Goswami. IGM picked this up and now they busily pat each other on the back for being Rupanuga. It is a huge hoax and scam. What is the point of claiming to be Rupanuga? As opposed to what is someone claiming to be Rupanuga? Are there CVs who are not Rupanuga? We all love Rupa. None of us reject him. But to claim that one is Rupanuga is to suggest that one is more with Rupa than others and implies that other great teachers of the tradition like say Sanatana or Jiva or Kavikarnapura are not as important as Rupa. The actual truth is that IGM is less Rupanuga than any other other Caitanya Vaisnava community I know of. Rupa's very first limb of bhakti is guru-padasraya, taking shelter at the feet of a guru and the second is krsna-dikSadi-zikSana, becoming initiated into Krsna worship and learning how to do it right. Moreover, they don't know Rupa's works at all. No one has read him carefully in IGM. They think that vaidhi-bhakti is the stage before raganuga bhakti and that one has to pass through vaidhi before one gets to raganuga bhakti. This is nonsense. Rupa describes them as two separate paths with two separate results (Vaikuntha for vaidhi and Goloka for raganuga). Moreover, Rupa recommends cultivating the siddha-deha under the guidance of one's guru and IGM rails against this. Their whole program is pracara and they prevent members from engaging in smarana or bhajan. This is not Rupanuga, this is Rupapavada, arguing against Rupa. They have no clue what a siddha-pranali is, much less a real guru-parampara. There is no evidence that Rupanuga was ever a thing in the Caitanya tradition until Bhaktivinode came along or perhaps it was his son who turned it into a thing. It is just another way to puff themselves up and make them think they are better than the rest of us.

[Sorry about this latest rant. It doesn't really matter, does it? It is much more pleasant to think of other things like Kanupriya Goswami's teachings on the holy names. From now on in (or out) my focus will be on those things. IGM who? Never heard of 'em. ND]

[Ed]

I see I misunderstood you. It is a good suggestion to look at the songs of contemporary songsters for descriptions of Mahaprabhu doing sankirtana. I started a translation of Govinda Das at one point using Biman Bihari Majumdar's excellent collection of his works. The first 30 pages or so are all about Gauranga. I have forgotten many of those songs, but perhaps they throw light on what sort of kirtans Mahaprabhu did. Plus I have a copy of Sri Gaurapada-tarangini compiled by Jagadbandhu Bhadra containing 330 pages filled with songs about Mahaprabhu. That would be a good resource to examine to see what song writers have to say about his sankirtana or kirtana habits and practices. Plus there is a 261 page introduction that is bound to throw some light on the question. Maybe too much light. It may become difficult to distinguish early from late. There are at least a hundred poets in the book and distinguishing them may become a problem. When a song is signed Narahari which Narahari is meant? Anyway, there is a lot of material to sift through.

Yes, I really liked that translation by the way, the songs of Govinda Das, I was reading it a few days ago, but it is mostly what you’d expect: a few descriptions of him calling out the Names, no particular formula or verse/quote of a song, mostly things like:

In his lotus-like mouth
”Hari Hari!” is repeatedly told. (Song 5)

and

Calling loudly ”Hari Hari,”
his two long arms were raised up high (song 12)

Now, In song 17 he’s dancing, which implies music, but it could be that mid dance he simply shouted these names:

In dancing, brothers, he is engrossed. “Mukunda, Madhava, Govinda!” he calls.

Again, in song 30 there’s no indication that he was doing sankirtana

By what feeling, I do not know,
he has goosebumps from head to toe as he utters the name ”Shyam Shyam!”

But the closing line of that one is a good one and the idea is a familiar one:

Leaving aside their mothers’ breasts babes who are still nursing
 cry loudly ”Gora Gora!”

There are other interesting things about these songs but unrelated to this thread, as well as beautiful images that are very easy to visualise while singing. I think I see already elements of the Navadvip nitya-lila idea in development, but I’m not very familiar with the history of that idea, I thought that the practice of a Navadvip-lila smarana was developed by Siddha Krsnadas Babaji from Govardhana, but I might be wrong there. Anyway, the idea of the double incarnation is present here as well, with lots of descriptions of external emotional responses to the uttering of the Name, such as:

Intensely he cries; intensely he laughs.

His skin color changes; his speech turns sad.
He is like an ocean of love most deep.

And,

Sweat-nectar drop by drop condenses. Bouquets of ecstatic feelings appear.

This Bouquet reminded me of the Kilakincita in Rupa’s UN 11.44

garvābhilāṣa-rudita-smitāsūyā-bhaya-krudhām
saṅkarī-karaṇaṁ harṣād ucyate kilakiñcitam

The Sri Gaurapada tarangini surely will paint a wider picture, but as you said, that actually makes it a lot harder to survey. Thank you for updating the file, I’ll continue reading Sundarananda’s essay. 

[Ed]

Sept 19, 2019 0:32:35 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Sept 16, 2019 21:02:55 GMT -6 Ed said:

These are pretty much my feelings about this issue as well, Nitai, specially your last remark. 

I didn't read the article, I'm sorry. I'm somewhat familiar with him, and with the site it's on. But I'll be honest, nowadays I find little to no incentive to read things like this article, and when I do read them I find my self thinking and going over arguments in my head for days, even weeks. These thoughts intrude while I'm chanting on my mala, while reading, praying, and even during kirtana. They take away moments in my daily life that have come to mean a great deal to me, some of which are extremely rare in my short personal experience. I don't currently have the ability to separate things in a healthier way, or perhaps I'm just being selfish, but I'd like to spend whatever little time I dedicate to my practice in reading what you and others have made available for those of us who can't read the original and modern literature of the CV tradition.   

There's a secondary reason maybe: regardless of how I may feel inside, the fact is that externally and officially I wouldn't be recognised as part of the tradition. My personal and private opinions about this issue aside, I'd have very little to add of value for others in this general conversation to what you and others have already said much better with the authority of experience and research, and more importantly, with the grace of a Guru within the Caitanya Vaisnava Community. 

Eduardo, no matter how you feel you are definitely part of the community, more so in my view than anyone currently in IGM. You already know more than 90% of them because of your vast reading and thoughtful manana and you have a sincerity that none of them can match. They have neglected the most fundamental requirement for entry into the tradition: becoming properly initiated by an authentic guru. You know of this and are sincerely grooming yourself for initiation when your guru arrives. You have as much right to speak here as anyone else. Don't be discouraged. Nama Prabhu will hook you up.

I am having a little debate with Steve Rosen at present. He is writing about the idea of Rupanuga. It is a claim that in my view really does not surface until Bhaktivinode who claims to be Rupanuga, a follower of Rupa Goswami. IGM picked this up and now they busily pat each other on the back for being Rupanuga. It is a huge hoax and scam. What is the point of claiming to be Rupanuga? As opposed to what is someone claiming to be Rupanuga? Are there CVs who are not Rupanuga? We all love Rupa. None of us reject him. But to claim that one is Rupanuga is to suggest that one is more with Rupa than others and implies that other great teachers of the tradition like say Sanatana or Jiva or Kavikarnapura are not as important as Rupa. The actual truth is that IGM is less Rupanuga than any other other Caitanya Vaisnava community I know of. Rupa's very first limb of bhakti is guru-padasraya, taking shelter at the feet of a guru and the second is krsna-dikSadi-zikSana, becoming initiated into Krsna worship and learning how to do it right. Moreover, they don't know Rupa's works at all. No one has read him carefully in IGM. They think that vaidhi-bhakti is the stage before raganuga bhakti and that one has to pass through vaidhi before one gets to raganuga bhakti. This is nonsense. Rupa describes them as two separate paths with two separate results (Vaikuntha for vaidhi and Goloka for raganuga). Moreover, Rupa recommends cultivating the siddha-deha under the guidance of one's guru and IGM rails against this. Their whole program is pracara and they prevent members from engaging in smarana or bhajan. This is not Rupanuga, this is Rupapavada, arguing against Rupa. They have no clue what a siddha-pranali is, much less a real guru-parampara. There is no evidence that Rupanuga was ever a thing in the Caitanya tradition until Bhaktivinode came along or perhaps it was his son who turned it into a thing. It is just another way to puff themselves up and make them think they are better than the rest of us.

[Sorry about this latest rant. It doesn't really matter, does it? It is much more pleasant to think of other things like Kanupriya Goswami's teachings on the holy names. From now on in (or out) my focus will be on those things. IGM who? Never heard of 'em. ND]

Thank you, Nitai, I appreciate it. And I agree with your final note here, I believe there are more pressing matters at hand for us, matters that are meant to bring delight as well, such as Kanupriya Goswami’s book, or this discussion about the early kirtana songs.