Srila Prabhupada and Bharadvaja-samhita are in harmony

This is my [email] response to Anuttama Prabhu’s objection to our presentation of our research on the Bharadvaj Samhita, which is an authorized shastra that is a part of Narada Pancharatra.

Anuttama Prabhu says [email dated 3 February 2020],

During those meetings [ICC, IIAC, India Bureau], Krsna-kirti prabhu  (KK) gave a PPT presentation why he and others oppose the GBC decision. One of the main arguments KK gives is that Srila Prabhupada’s instructions on Vaishnavi diksa gurus are “conflicting” and need to be harmonized.

Harmonizing seemingly conflicting statements within shastra or by guru is exactly the process that Srila Prabhupada and our acharyas have prescribed for us to understand siddhanta.

Srila Prabhupada frequently quotes Srila Narottama Das Thakura’s “sadhu-shastra-guru-vakya cittete kariya aikya”  The word “aikya” is very important here as it means to synchronize our understanding. We don’t just quote guru or sadhu or shastra in an inconsistent way, our understanding must be consistent with these sources. See Srila Prabhupada’s purport in CC Madhya 20.352, which I quoted in my IIAC presentation and gave examples from Srila Prabhupada as to how he employed it.

The full presentation with slides is online at Youtube at this link: https://youtu.be/v5n2xbNqwNw

[Anuttama:] KK told you that he’s been able to harmonize those instructions, specifically by referencing a few verses from Bharadvaja-samhita — a sastra that Srila Prabhupada never cited, and only mentioned once in his writings. I disagreed with that viewpoint.

With all due respect to Anuttama Prabhu and all the service he has done for Srila Prabhupada’s movement, I respectfully would like to point out that referencing sources that Srila Prabhupada himself never cited is something the GBC itself has done to defend its position when specific information on certain topics was not found in Srila Prabhupada’s own writings.

For example, in the 1995 GBC handbook  titled “Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON”, the GBC cites Srila Narahara Sarakara’s Krishna Bhajanamarta as pramana for what to do when a guru deviates from the path:

  [verse 59] "If a spiritual master commits a wrongful act, breaking
  Vaisnava regulative principles, one should confront him in a
  solitary place for his rectification, using logic and
  appropriate conclusions from sadhu, sastra, and guru, but
  one is not to give him up."

  [verse 63] "The authorized course of action is to continue as before
  with one's prescribed devotional service. One may take
  guidance through instructions from the Vaisnavas, for all
  Vaisnavas are considered guru or spiritual master, or one
  may use one's own intelligence, duly considering the
  relevant instructions from sadhu, sastra, and guru. In all
  cases one should continue one's devotional service."

  [verse 64] ". . . the spiritual master acts enviously towards that
  which is connected with the Supreme; is bewildered regarding
  the Supreme Personality of Godhead ('isvare bhrantah'); is
  averse to expanding the fame of Lord Krsna; personally
  refuses to accept hearing or chanting about the glorious
  pastimes of Lord Krsna, or has become totally bewildered,
  listening to the false praise of ignorant persons, and day
  by day is more materially contaminated and fallen."

These statements from Srila Narahari Sarakara are quoted as-is in the GBC’s handbook. But Srila Narahari Sarakara is mentioned only once in Sri Caitanya Caritamrita (CC Adi 10.78 – 79), and there is not a single reference to Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita in any of Srila Prabhupada’s published works.

So, how is it that all of a sudden, the fact that Srila Prabhupada refers to Bharadvaja-samhita only once in his own works now somehow makes it a non-authority?

Anuttama Prabhu’s opinion here is factually opposite to how the GBC itself has tried to resolve controversial issues in the past.

[Anuttama:] And, while I was not at your meetings to present the in-depth philosophical
reasoning behind the GBC decision–or to counter the arguments of KK, I encouraged you to study the matter more carefully.

As Prahladananda Maharaja has already pointed out, there are serious problems with the paper  presented by Anuttama Prabhu [in response to this book]. (The author is Madana Mohana Prabhu from Russia.) One problem that hasn’t already been pointed out is that his paper tends to nullify or diminish the authority of statements by Srila Prabhupada or bona fide shastras that lead to conclusions he doesn’t agree with.

For example, at the beginning of his paper, Prabhu Madan Mohan says (bolding in original):

There in verses 1.61-62 Bharadvaja Muni makes a blanket statement about conditioned souls who, due to their own beginningless sinful inclinations and resultant births into sinful families, sinful communities, or sinful countries, or at inauspicious times, cannot develop remembrance of, surrender to, or servitude toward Lord Vi??u, or Kesava: . [quotes Sanskrit verses]. As you can see, this statement from the scripture you propose as the new norm for ISKCON is literally one philosophical mutation away from what Gopipara?adhana Prabhu was apprehensive about as “the conclusion that actually only Indians born in brahma?a families should be dik?a-gurus”. (8)