Bipin Bihari Goswami's position

Bipin Bihari Goswami's position

This story appears to be allegorical. Bipin Bihari Goswami disappeared in 1919, just about the same year that Saraswati Thakur was starting his preaching mission from a single temple in Calcutta with a few followers. From looking through the biographies we have of Saraswati Thakur it doesn't appear that he went to Vrindaban in a car as an acarya before 1926, the year he established his first temple in Vrindaban.

This does seem to be conjecture on your part Bhakta Rupa prabhu. I understood that BSST began his preaching mission a couple of years before 1919. And don't forget that BSST was staying in Bhaktivinoda Thakur's house in Vrindavan way before then, so some kind of incident like this could have happened during the presence of Bipin Bihari.

Of course, we can't really comment on the veracity of BR Sridhara's statements, but at least he was a direct disciple of BSST and in a better position to know about his relationship with Bipin Bihari Goswami than we are.

Well, it could not have happened much before 1919. It might have happened in 1918 or in the first few months of 1919, but I maintain my doubts, because:

1. With only one temple in Calcutta and a few followers, having taken sannyas just in 1918, would he really wanted to have called himself an Acarya with a reputation to protect? It is more likely that the incident actually happened in a later year when the Thakur was more prominent, but instead there was a different caste goswami who made the statement, and the name of Bipin Bihari Goswami got substituted by someone who didn't know that Bipin Bihari had disappeared in 1919.

2. 1919 seems a bit early for riding in motorcars also, both in terms of availability and the means to obtain one, whereas in the 30's they would have been much more available and affordable.

3. How does Bipin Bihari Goswami appear in Radha Kund? His home was in Baghnapara, West Bengal. Of course he could have been visiting Radha Kund, but then there would have to be the coincidence of the two of them visiting at the same time. The brief biography I have does not describe him as doing any travelling or living for any length of time in any other place.

4. When Saraswati Thakur was staying in Vrindaban in his earlier years he would not have been with Kunja Babu and would not have had any kind of a acarya profile that he would be worried to protect. By the way, I heard that there is a verse saying that if one takes reinitiation although his guru is in good standing, he goes to hell because he has rejected Visnu.

Somebody knows the reference?

Here are a couple more quotes:

bodhah kalusitas tena dauratmyam prakati-krtam gurur yena parityaktas tena tyaktah pura harih

"One pollutes his own intelligence and exhibits severe weakness of character when he rejetcs his own spiritual master. Indeed, such a person has already rejected the Supreme Lord, Hari." Brahma-vaivarta PurANa [reference: SB 11.3.48]

pratipadya gurum tastu mohadvi prati padyate sa kalpa kotim narake pacyate purusa dhamah

"Any person who has once accepted a bonafide spiritual master and then, due to illusion, gives him up, that lowest person falls into hell for ten million kalpas." (one kalpa is 1000 yugas) Hari-bhakti-vilas 4.365 (also from Brahma-vaivarta PurANa)

(If I'm not mistaken, the word pacyate means "he is cooked" --- not a very pleasant situation to be in. Better to stick with your guru.)

BTW, would someone please send me the text that I wrote about the guru taking the karma of his disciple? I seem to have lost it.

In this regard there is another very instructive story which was narrated by HH Jayapataka Maharaja and sent to me by HG Vidvan Gauranga prabhu. I am reproducing it beneath. Once it already made its way to the Katha conference, but I hope repeating it again won't be redundant or irrelevant.

Subject: Proof of Bipin Bihari Goswami's position ------------------------------------------------------------ > If there was any other evidence of a strain in the relationship, then this > could be taken as further evidence, but by itself it really tells us > nothing conclusively.

I just want to put my two pennies in this discussion about Bipin Bihari Goswami. There are many historical evidences of a major strain in the relationship between Bhaktivinode Thakura & Bipin Bihari Goswami which can be considered as conclusive evidence of the Bipin Bihari Goswami's position. I will give a few:

(1) With the help of Jagannatha dasa Babaji, Bhaktivinode Thakura was able to discover the place of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's appearance. Simultaneously it was declared that the so-called Yogapitha at Navadvipa on the other side of the Ganges was false. Many caste goswamis objected to the site at Sri Mayapur being the original site. Bipin Bihari Goswami at that time rejected Bhaktivinoda's preaching in a small newspaper of his own called Gauranga-sevaka Patrika in 1919. One could say at this point-that at the very least they did not see eye to eye or that their feelings for placing distance in their relationship was mutual-indeed a difficult relationship to maintain between "guru and disciple." (The Gaurangasevaka Patrika and article available at Caitanya Research Institute, Calcutta)

(2) We do not find any association of Bhaktivinode Thakura with Bipin Bihari Goswami except for short time in Narail, East Bengal and this does not include any reference to the latter instructing Bhaktivinode in the matter of pure devotional service.

(3) In 1911 there was an famous assembly of scholars held in Medinpur (Bengal) wherein the topic of debate was to be "Brahmana and Vaisnavas." Bipin Bihari Goswami was present at that assembly and, as already known, he would side with the brahmana community in the platform that brahmana Vaisnavas were automatically superior to non-brahmnana Vaisnavas, due to a brahmana being born in a higher caste. Bhaktivinode Thakura was also invited to attend that assembly. The conflict between he and Bipin Bihari was destined. Bhaktivinoda Thakura - not wanting to take a position of confronting & attempting to defeat his "diksha guru" in a public forum declined to attend the meeting on the pleaa of bad health. In his place he sent Sarasvati Thakura (age 37) to represent the Gaudiya Vaisnava Siddhanta in the line of Sri Rupa & Raghunatha dasa Goswami, as per the teachings of Mahaprabhu. We all know what happened in the meeting.

(4) It is clear also in studying the life of Bhaktivinoda that he did not imbibe any of the conceptions of Bipin Bihari Goswami. BVT stressed on the chanting on the Holy Names in contrary to the stress on siddha-pranali given by BBG.

(5)In later years Sarasvati Thakura reinitiated (hari-nama, mantra-diksha & sannyasa) a prominent disciple of Bipin Bihari Goswami, who became known as Bhaktivivek Bharati Maharaja.

(6) There are some points which may not be proved directly like for instance it is known that Bipin Bihari mixed very freely with the degraded sections of Bengal society and associated with anti-Vedic philosophers like the Brahma Samaja. Even after his return to Vaisnavism he continued bad habits like smoking etc. - thus Sarasvati Thakura, who was himself very strict in this principles, saw this as a sign of lower Vaisnava adhikari (kanishtha adhikari), although Bhaktivinoda Thakura remained unspoken on the issue.

(7) Bhaktivinoda Thakura did for sometime show formal respect to Bipin Bihari Goswami. But when the Goswami disrespected Srila Raghunatha dasa Goswami by thinking that he can give blessings to Raghunatha dasa, the prayojana-acarya, because Raghunatha dasa was from a "lower caste", the Thakura distanced himself more from Bipin Bihari Goswami.

Your servant, Nayana-ranjana dasa

Dear Nayana Ranjan Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

You have attempted to supply for the benefit of the learned members of these conferences some supposed "historical evidences" which you claim "prove the actual position of Bipin Bihari Goswami". Ajamila Prabhu has commented on your text by stating that the information you have supplied was "well-researched" and "very useful". I respectfully submit that your information is not at all well-researched, and is not only of questionable usefulness but also misleading and possibly dangerous. Devotees should be very careful in discussing historical matters concerning departed vaisnavas in writing and in public forums, as there is always the possibility that if the information is not presented properly or accurately it will result in vaisnava aparadha and ruin one's own or one's readers' spiritual life!

But to give you the benefit of the doubt, you have made what is a common mistake -- you have believed something because it was in writing in a fancy hardbound book with nice graphics and it was grouped together with some quite authentic, accurate, and useful statements. Especially in this day and age we should be cautious about repeating anything without making sure our sources are accurate.

The first point to note about your "historical evidence" is that it consists 99% of verbatim quotes from the book "The Authorized Sri Caitanya Saraswata Parampara" by HH BG Narasingha Maharaja, formerly with ISKCON but now having his own preaching institution. (Or it may be quotes from the advance publication Narasingha Maharaja distributed earlier on the internet.) Not only have you quoted from a questionable source, but you have failed to inform your readers where you have taken the information from and have attempted to pass it off as the results of your own learned research. You haven't even cared to paraphrase what is written in that book, but have directly and extensively used Narasingha Maharaja's words without quoting him. This is very poor practice if you actually intend to benefit those who will read your writing.

But in any case, you have chosen this book as your source. I have studied that book carefully and there are several points to be mentioned. Although I appreciate Maharaja's noble intentions in writing the book, he could have served his stated purpose quite well without even mentioning any of the controversies surrounding Bipin Bihari Goswami. For the benefit of the readers I will offer some brief explanation of this crucial point:

There are members of other Gaudiya Vaisnava camps who sometimes attempt to lure inexperienced devotees away from ISKCON and the various Gaudiya Maths with "evidence" of how Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur is not actually coming in a bonafide line of disciplic succession. I will not go into the details of their contrived arguments here, but they often include with their evidence, stories about the relationship between Saraswati Thakur and Bipin Bihari Goswami. Based upon these stories they somehow conclude that therefore Bhaktivinode Thakur rejected Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, thus breaking the disciplic succession and leaving ISKCON without a connection to Sri Krishna.

Now, the purpose of Narasingha Maharaja's book is to refute all of the arguments of these other camps, and he does a reasonably good job of presenting the correct arguments. But unfortunately he offers some additional arguments about Bipin Bihari Goswami, even though it does nothing to help establish his case that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur is bonafide. The detractors trace their line in another way to Bhaktivinode Thakur, and then to Bipin Bihari Goswami, his diksa guru. Narasingha Maharaja attempts to prove that Bhaktivinode Thakur's relationship with Bipin Bihari Goswami was broken, thus the detractors' spiritual ancestry cannot be traced. It is in this context that he makes so many points about Bipin Bihari Goswami.

But the learned readers should note that logically if one wants to prove that one's own line is bonafide there is no profit in establishing that another person's line is unbonafide. In this way we should carefully note that to defeat the arguments of these detractors we gain nothing by criticizing Bipin Bihari Goswami. Rather, any mud we try to splash on him will also serve to muddy us up a bit as well, as, after all, he is the diksa guru of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur.

Thus, we should not feel shy to examine more closely the relationship between Bipin Bihari Goswami and Bhaktivinode Thakur. Sometimes we think that we have to criticize Bipin Bihari Goswami in order to prove ourselves as loyal followers of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. There is no substantial basis for this.

The next point about the above-mentioned book is that one will note that there is practically no mention by Narasingha Maharaja as to what are the sources of his information. I contacted Maharaja and asked him for his sources. He told me that all of his conclusions were collected by hearing them from HH Sridhara Maharaja and others in the various Gaudiya Math institutions. I replied to him suggesting that it would be good if he could present maybe even one piece of written evidence to substantiate his claims. He replied that since he heard it from Sridhara Maharaja that was good enough for him.

I respectfully submit that it may be good enough for the personal realizations of Narasingha Maharaja, but it should not be good enough for us to accept the book as the gospel truth. It is greatly significant to note here that:

* In spite of all the things that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur is reported to have said about Bipin Bihari Goswami, it should be marked that not a single piece of written information is available. And there are volumes and volumes of written information from Saraswati Thakur. Sometimes teams of stenographers were engaged to carefully preserve every word he spoke. Still, there is no criticism of Bipin Bihari Goswami anywhere there.

* Not only that, but there is not, to our knowledge, a single piece of written information from any DISCIPLE of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur reporting that he criticized Bipin Bihari Goswami, or even themselves criticizing Bipin Bihari Goswami.

So, even if there was something to be critical of, still the last two (or more) generations of vaisnavas have scrupulously avoided putting anything in writing on this subject. It makes one wonder why Narasingha Maharaja has seen fit to "improve" on the etiquette shown by his elders.

It also makes one wonder whether Narasingha Maharaja's recollections of his discussions with Sridhara Maharaja haven't suffered over the years, what to speak of whether he actually heard every detail from that source or whether he just heard one or two things which were amplified by additional discussions he had with other Gaudiya Math members.

Which brings me to another point. In ISKCON we are well trained up to avoid leaving ISKCON to associate intimately with other Gaudiya Math sadhus or to join other Gaudiya institutions. But in spite of this we immediately, quite diligently, and very happily imbibe the conceptions/misconceptions commonly found there, as if they must be automatically correct. I'll admit that all of the points made by Narasingha Maharaja are common knowledge in Gaudiya Math circles, but that doesn't make them true. The Bhagavatam strongly advises us to be inquisitive and not to be blind followers. We may come across something they say, and we may want to try to understand their points, but we should always seek confirmation from guru, sastra, and the previous acaryas. Blindly repeating whatever ANYONE says as truth is very risky business.

Our learned readers may also be interested to hear some other statements that Narasingha Maharaja makes in this very same book. After pointing out what he considers to be some faults in ISKCON, including ongoing vaisnava aparadha, he goes on to say, "This we feel is largely due as a result of the ISKCON leaders having completely cut themselves off from the senior members of the Gaudiya Math who are themselves living/realized representatives of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur Prabhupada." Thus it seems he considers himself qualified to judge who is realized and who is not realized, and he has found all the realized to be in his camp and only the non-realized in ISKCON. By making such a statement is he really exemplifying proper vaisnava behavior? Has he learned this mentality from his gurujanas? I think not.

Now for the substance of your text. Please note that below I do not attempt to prove that your statements are wrong. They may be right or they may be wrong. The real point is that whatever you have written is simply the repetition of hearsay. I am not making any claims about Bipin Bihari Goswami. I am simply advising caution before one concludes that he should be criticized. If someone wants to criticize him that is his business, but others should know that the statements are not substantiated. If any of these statements can be substantiated then I would very much like to see that evidence, which even Narasingha Maharaja is not aware of. Without such evidence we should follow the example of our gurujanas and remain silent on the issue.

So although I am making no claims here which have to be proved, I will suggest wherever possible, without proof, other interpretations than what is presented by Narasingha Maharaja, for consideration by the readers:

You have written:

> I just want to put my two pennies in this discussion about Bipin Bihari > Goswami. There are many historical evidences of a major strain in the > relationship between Bhaktivinode Thakura & Bipin Bihari Goswami which can > be considered as conclusive evidence of the Bipin Bihari Goswami's > position. I will give a few:

You have not stated what is his position, you have only presented what you call "conclusive evidence", but then you have left the conclusions to the reader. Generally you should state your conclusions, although in this case it is probably just as well that you haven't.

> (1) With the help of Jagannatha dasa Babaji, Bhaktivinode Thakura was able > to discover the place of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's appearance. > Simultaneously it was declared that the so-called Yogapitha at Navadvipa > on the other side of the Ganges was false. Many caste goswamis objected to > the site at Sri Mayapur being the original site. Bipin Bihari Goswami at > that time rejected Bhaktivinoda's preaching in a small newspaper of his > own called Gauranga-sevaka Patrika in 1919. One could say at this > point-that at the very least they did not see eye to eye or that their > feelings for placing distance in their relationship was mutual-indeed a > difficult relationship to maintain between "guru and disciple." (The > Gaurangasevaka Patrika and article available at Caitanya Research > Institute, Calcutta)

After seeing this reference in Narasingha Maharaja's book I went to the Caitanya Research Institute in Calcutta. They don't keep copies of any issues of the Gaurangasevaka Patrika. When I confronted Narasingha Maharaja with this point he referred me to a book recently published by a Bengali scholar, Kananbihari Goswami, entitled "Baghnapara Sampradaya O Vaisnava Sahitya" (The Caste Goswamis of Baghnapara and Vaisnava Literature) I bought the book, and it does contain many points of interest. It also contradicts many of Narasingha Maharaja's points [see below]. Dr. Goswami is related to the family of caste goswamis who supervise the worship of Caitanya Mahaprabhu at Pracina Mayapur, across the river from Mayapur. He appears to be a firm believer that Pracina Mayapur is the actual birthsite of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, so how much we can accept his authority is questionable. He does state that Bhaktivinode Thakur was rejected by his guru, Bipin Bihari Goswami, for giving false information about the birthsite, and he states as his proof the article published by Bipin Bihari Goswami in 1919. He unfortunately does not give the text of this article.

Curiously, in his book, Dr. Goswami also describes Bhaktivinode Thakur as the "dear disciple" of Bipin Bihari Goswami, and he also praises the writings of Bhaktivinode Thakur, describing them as being part of the literature of the Baghnapara Vaisnavas (Bipin Bihari Goswami's extended family). If the Thakur was rejected, then how is his literature related?

One thing that is well known is that there was a lot of politics between different groups of Gaudiya Vaishnavas over the location of the actual birthsite of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, even before the Gaudiya Math was started. After the disappearance of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur in 1914 these political controversies became quite shrill, and there were nasty exchanges going on. So five years after the disappearance of Bhaktivinode Thakur, Bipin Bihari Goswami did perhaps criticize those who were supporting the Mayapur site, but without seeing the original article it is difficult to say. Right now we only have Dr. Goswami's word to go on. We are trying to track down the article.

And the fact remains that Bipin Bihari Goswami was appointed as one of the directors of the committee to oversee the worship of Sriman Mahaprabhu, newly established at the yogapitha in Mayapur by Bhaktivinode Thakur. So perhaps Bipin Bihari Goswami had a change of mind somewhere along the way, which he certainly had a right to do.

> (2) We do not find any association of Bhaktivinode Thakura with Bipin > Bihari Goswami except for short time in Narail, East Bengal and this does > not include any reference to the latter instructing Bhaktivinode in the > matter of pure devotional service.

What about the meeting in Krishnanagar to organize the yogapitha worship? What about the fact that Bhaktivinode Thakur appointed Bipin Bihari Goswami to be in charge of his printing press?

And even if this statement were true it actually proves nothing. Bhaktivinode Thakur was an important government official who was posted at many distant places, and then later he was doing so many preaching works in other distant places.

And as far as his instructions, doesn't giving vaisnava diksa fall in the category of pure devotional service?

> (3) In 1911 there was an famous assembly of scholars held in Medinpur > (Bengal) wherein the topic of debate was to be "Brahmana and Vaisnavas." > Bipin Bihari Goswami was present at that assembly and, as already known, > he would side with the brahmana community in the platform that brahmana > Vaisnavas were automatically superior to non-brahmnana Vaisnavas, due to a > brahmana being born in a higher caste. Bhaktivinode Thakura was also > invited to attend that assembly. The conflict between he and Bipin Bihari > was destined. Bhaktivinoda Thakura - not wanting to take a position of > confronting & attempting to defeat his "diksha guru" in a public forum > declined to attend the meeting on the pleaa of bad health. In his place he > sent Sarasvati Thakura (age 37) to represent the Gaudiya Vaisnava > Siddhanta in the line of Sri Rupa & Raghunatha dasa Goswami, as per the > teachings of Mahaprabhu. We all know what happened in the meeting.

This appears to be a total fabrication. Of course the meeting was held and it was a great victory for Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. To date the only written information we have which states that Bipin Bihari Goswami was present at this assembly is this same "Baghnapara Sampradaya" book referred to above. Assuming that Narasingha Maharaja considers this book to be authentic, Dr. Goswami makes the following interesting statement:

tini smaarta panditder saastra-vicaare haariye gaudiya vaishnava-dharmera shresthatva pratipaadana koren

"He [Bipin Bihari Goswami] defeated the scriptural considerations of the smarta pandits and demonstrated the superiority of Gaudiya Vaishnava dharma."

I don't know how this statement escaped the attention of Narasingha Maharaja, as it was the sentence just preceding the description of Bipin Bihari Goswami's relationship with Bhaktivinode Thakur, referred to above, and it states exactly the opposite from what the Maharaja claims here.

It is amazing how rumors just get out of hand! They eventually end up stating just the opposite of the actual facts, and then they get put in writing, which makes them conclusive truth!

> (4) It is clear also in studying the life of Bhaktivinoda that he did not > imbibe any of the conceptions of Bipin Bihari Goswami. BVT stressed on the > chanting on the Holy Names in contrary to the stress on siddha-pranali > given by BBG.

This is a totally ridiculous statement. Does Narasingha Maharaja know what is the philosophy of Bipin Bihari Goswami? Do you? I certainly don't, as he only wrote one book, in Bengali, which has not been translated. In what context was he "stressing" siddha pranali? Have you read the writings of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur? Does the Thakur ever mention siddha pranali?

And in any case, so many acaryas stress different things from their gurus. Bhaktivinode Thakur was a pioneer of a great preaching movement. Naturally there may be some shift in emphasis. A difference in emphasis does not at all imply a difference of opinion. This again, even if it is true, proves nothing.

> (5)In later years Sarasvati Thakura reinitiated (hari-nama, mantra-diksha > & sannyasa) a prominent disciple of Bipin Bihari Goswami, who became known > as Bhaktivivek Bharati Maharaja.

Please note that the subject matter of this discussion is the relationship between Bipin Bihari Goswami and Bhaktivinode Thakur, and this information may distract us from the main point, on which it has no direct bearing.

But it is also a very interesting topic to understand all the wonderful and unprecedented things Srila Saraswati Thakur did to start his preaching movement. But we should be careful to draw too many conclusions from his reinitiation pastimes. He also reinitiated a disciple of Sri Visvambharananda Dev Goswami, the mahanta of Gopivallabhpur who had been the convenor of the Brahmana vs. Vaishnava debate at Midnapur referred to above. Even after doing this, the learned mahanta remained a staunch supporter of Saraswati Thakur and his preaching mission. Thus there are many factors here which need to be considered.

> (6) There are some points which may not be proved directly like for > instance it is known that Bipin Bihari mixed very freely with the degraded > sections of Bengal society and associated with anti-Vedic philosophers > like the Brahma Samaja. Even after his return to Vaisnavism he continued > bad habits like smoking etc. - thus Sarasvati Thakura, who was himself > very strict in this principles, saw this as a sign of lower Vaisnava > adhikari (kanishtha adhikari), although Bhaktivinoda Thakura remained > unspoken on the issue.

Where has Srila Saraswati Thakur proclaimed that Bipin Bihari Goswami was a kanistha adhikari? What will you conclude upon hearing that Srila Vamsidas Babaji smoked marijuana? Srila Saraswati Thakur said that he was a maha-bhagavat.

But even Narasingha Maharaja here admits that Bhaktivinode Thakur did not find any fault with his diksa guru over these issues. In general, though, we would like to see any evidence anyone has to support any of the claims made here.

> (7) Bhaktivinoda Thakura did for sometime show formal respect to Bipin > Bihari Goswami. But when the Goswami disrespected Srila Raghunatha dasa > Goswami by thinking that he can give blessings to Raghunatha dasa, the > prayojana-acarya, because Raghunatha dasa was from a "lower caste", the > Thakura distanced himself more from Bipin Bihari Goswami.

The evidence for this supposed statement by Bipin Bihari Goswami about Raghunath Das Goswami is also missing. There is evidence, however, for a statement of this type being made by one disciple of Bipin Bihari Goswami, a young zamindar by the name of Choudhary Jadabendranandan. Perhaps this got twisted into a rumor, which has now become a "fact" due to being put in writing. Since Bipin Bihari Goswami spoke strongly at the Midnapur debate that vaisnavas were superior than brahmanas, this supposed statement becomes even more doubtful.

So now you may judge for your self. My humble suggestion is that you follow our previous acaryas and not actively criticize Bipin Bihari Goswami.

One final point I would like to make here. There is a subtle implication in this relegation of Bipin Bihari Goswami to some sort of lower status or even outright rejection. That is, someone may conclude that since Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur rejected or distanced himself from his diksa guru, it is therefore proven that a vaishnava may reject or distance himself from his diksa guru who is found to be of a "lesser standard". It was just such an implication drawn by an innocent reader of Narasingha Maharaja's book and posted on a public COM conference that began this whole discussion. But this conclusion is nowhere supported by guru, sadhu or sastra. Rather, sastra never sanctions distancing oneself from or rejecting a diksa guru unless the guru is seriously fallen or has become a non-vaisnava. The GBC reinitiation papers clearly state this.

In conclusion, I will repeat here the most conclusive evidence about the relationship in question, which is the only evidence we have in writing, from the Thakur himself. He offers heartfelt prayers to Bipin Bihari Goswami in some of his publications and also prays in Kalyana Kalpataru (3.10) for the association of Srimati Ananga Manjari in the spiritual world. Ananga Manjari appeared as Jahnava Mata, the original preceptor of the diksa parampara of which Bipin Bihari Goswami was a member.

This is his specific prayer in his Amrta Pravaha Bhasya:

"The eminent Bipin Bihari Prabhu, who is the manifestation of the transcendental energy of Lord Hari, Who sports in the forests of Vraja, has descended in the form of the spiritual preceptor. Seeing me in the dark well of worldly existence, he has delivered this humble servant of his."

Once, in Vrndavan, Bhaktivinoda Thakura's so-called "guru," Bipin Bihari

Goswami, said that Raghunatha Das Goswami was a sudra by caste. From that day on, Sarasvati Thakura never spoke with him, considering that he had committed a great offense, as Raghunatha Das Goswami is considered great even amongst the maha-bhagavatas. Sarasvati Thakura started fasting in protest, so Kunjada (Kunja Babu) tried to pacify him, but never said anything against Bipin Bihari Goswami. Sarasvati Thakura then exclaimed, "You may compromise but I cannot! I cannot tolerate that Raghunatha Das Goswami be called a sudra." He continued, "I am coming here in a big car, taking the position of an acarya taking all honour and respect. So, taking the position, with all the paraphernalia for worship of an acarya means I cannot make any compromise!"

Bhaktivinoda thakura also had no brahmana thread and was initiated by Jata

Gosai Bipin Bihari. Of course, we understand that this was for formality also, because he couldn't find any real sadhu.

SBV had taken initiation from Bipin Bihari Goswami, who came in the line of

Gadadhara Pandit. When BBG was visiting SBV, SBV paid obeisances and BBG placed his foot on SBV's head. SBS saw this and was surprised. He thought this was a dangerous thing for BBG to do. When SBV left the room, SBS asked him a question: "You are my father's guru. But do you know who he is?" BBG was taken aback at this 7-year-old's question. SBS continued, "My father is a nityasiddha, an eternal associate of the Supreme Lord. Do you have sufficient spiritual potency to place your foot on his head?" SBV returned at this time, so the conversation was interrupted. BBG said, "Your son is bold to the point of being rude." Later on, SBV found this out and used to tell this story to his disciples.

The disciples of Srila Bhaktivinoda were given harernama and Nrsimha

mantras, just as he had given the Nrsimha mantra to Sarasvati Thakura when he was a young boy. Bimala Prasada was taken by Bhaktivinoda Thakura on many of his travels in Bengal and Orissa. The peculiarity is that Bhaktivinoda, even before formally taking diksa from Bipin Bihari Goswami, was giving Nrsimha mantra to Bimala Prasad. He didn't get that Nrsimha mantra from anyone but still he was giving it. So we may say that this is a very peculiar practice, but actually this is just confirmation that he was a siddha from the very beginning, and, therefore, above all the rules and regulations that govern the neophyte.