Recently, in a brief response to the paper “The Sunīti Pramāṇa and Set Theory,” by Madana Mohana Dāsa (disciple of Mukunda Goswami), with Akiñcanā-Rati Dāsa, PhD (Math.), Dvija-Govinda Dāsa, PhD (Math.), Sukumārī-Sundarī Devī Dāsī, PhD (Math.) et al., His Holiness Bhakti Vikāśa Swami said –
The very fact that supposed devotees attempt to interpret Śrīla Prabhupāda’s statements using mathematics shows how foolish and deviated they are from the basic methods of spiritual understanding as taught by Śrīla Prabhupāda. Why even bother to discuss mathematical approaches to “understanding” Śrīla Prabhupāda’s purports? It is complete nonsense from the outset.
(Source: click here)
In reply to this, the paper’s principal author, Madana Mohana Prabhu, objected to Mahārāja’s description of their attempt to interpret Śrīla Prabhupāda’s statements using mathematics as “complete nonsense” and that those involved in such mathematical jugglery are “foolish” and “supposed devotees.” I am writing this article in answer to Madana Mohana Prabhu, supporting Mahārāja’s usage of these terms.
“It is complete nonsense”
In trying to interpret SB 4.12.32, purport, a pro-FDG (female dīkṣā-guru) respondent, in a paper titled “A Response to Krishna-kirti Prabhu’s Argument” (which the authors of the Set Theory paper also quote), says that to think that “every mother is a woman” is a fallacy. What else could be said about it other than “it is complete non-sense”?
Here is what the pro-FDG respondents (who have chosen to remain anonymous) say:
If it were that easy, then Śrīla Prabhupāda would not say that we all have seven mothers. These mothers include the cow (a completely different genus). Moreover, in the Bhagavad-gītā (9.17) the Supreme Puruṣa (male) named Krishna says — jagato mātā — “I am the mother of this universe”. By falsely thinking that every mother is a woman, Krishna-kirti Prabhu makes another fallacy. If this logic is to be followed, Krishna will also become a woman.
(Source Article or copy paste this URL: https://tinyurl.com/RK-paper-MMD)
In SB 4.12.32, purport, Śrīla Prabhupāda writes, “Sunīti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Mahārāja’s dīkṣā-guru.” Which sober person will read this and think that the type of mother Śrīla Prabhupāda is speaking about includes someone who is not necessarily a woman or is not human?
The equation is simple: if you want to give such a person a benefit of doubt about his non-devotional intentions, then at the most you can say that such a person is “foolish.” That is a concession for him.
However, we also see that such persons are not only foolish but they are adamantly committed to discredit anyone who is against their FDG idea, and they do not exempt Vedic culture or even a pure devotee, like Sunīti.
Here is a sample of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s view about Sunīti that he picturizes in the Bhāgavatam:
Sunīti, the mother of Dhruva, was a farseeing woman, and therefore she advised her son to worship the Supreme Lord and no one else. (SB 4.8.23, Purport)
As regards to the entire pastime of Dhruva, Śrīla Prabhupāda gives nothing but praise for Sunīti. There is not a tinge of criticism of her character or instructions in any of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s statements.
But according to Madana Mohana Prabhu, Sunīti was vengeful towards her husband, and to take revenge she instructed Dhruva Mahārāja to worship Lord Nārāyaṇa. Thus, as per Madana Mohana Prabhu, Sunīti was not eligible to become even śikṣā-guru what to speak of her becoming dīkṣā-guru.
Here is the text from his paper:
It appears from the dialogue that Sunīti as Dhruva’s mother and a neglected co-wife of the King was afflicted by grief out of affection for her son, as well as by jealousy and vengefulness towards Suruci and Uttānapāda. This might naturally be the reason why she could not muster enough composure and clarity (required of a guru) to pacify and enlighten even herself, much less her son, and could not become his śikṣā-guru. (Madana Mohana et. al. page 17)
So, as per Madana Mohana Prabhu, the reason for Sunīti not being Dhruva Mahārāja’s dīkṣā-guru was not on account of her being a woman but on account her having lower, base qualities like being vengeful, etc. This can be called the Sunīti Vengeance Argument.
You can get idea of how Madana Mohana Prabhu is misleading devotees: his description of Sunīti is derogatory whereas Śrīla Prabhupāda gives the highest praise for Sunīti’s character and instruction. If you read the whole chapter or the whole incident of Sunīti and Dhruva from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, you will not find a single instance even slightly indicating anything near what is misconstrued by the Sunīti Vengeance Argument. No person (either foolish or intelligent) can construe such disparaging remarks towards Sunīti out of this pastime, unless he is adamantly envious of Vedic culture and devotees following that culture.
Madana Mohana Prabhu had been appropriately and śāstrically answered for this same mischief of his in a WhatsApp conference six months back in front of about fifty devotees, which he has not responded to until today. Instead, he is repeating the same line of thinking and speech. This is being adamantly offensive. A befitting answer (that was given to him in the conference) will be published soon. However, just for readers to get some idea, below is a small sample of it.
The statement of Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura that Madana Mohana Prabhu is trying to misconstrue actually says that Sunīti very much tried to calm down Dhruva and not become envious of his father (and Suruci), and Sunīti directed him to worship Lord Nārāyaṇa if he wants a greater kingdom than his father (SB 4.8.17-19). Actually, in order to help Dhruva not build enmity towards Suruci, Sunīti even glorified Suruci saying that her words are bitter but true, that Dhruva should worship Nārāyaṇa in order to get the kingdom of his father, and she recommended that he follow those words and worship Nārāyaṇa (SB 4.8.19).
However, Dhruva immediately remembered the words of Suruci (in SB 4.8.13), that he has to take birth from her womb if he wants his father’s kingdom; this instilled in him the thought that as a result of worshipping Nārāyaṇa, he may have to take birth from Suruci, which will then enable him to get the kingdom. If such is the case then, Dhruva thought, he will never worship Nārāyaṇa.
Sunīti could understand Dhruva’s mind and thus she considered that because Suruci is wretched and similarly her husband because of being her servant, the result of worshipping Nārāyaṇa cannot be to take birth from Suruci’s womb. Thus, to assure Dhruva and convince him to worship Nārāyaṇa, far-seeing Sunīti, spoke the words in which she said that Nārāyaṇa has given a kingdom to your father and great grandfather, why He could he not also give a kingdom to him directly? (SB 4.8.20-23) By such words Sunīti removed an obstacle from Dhruva’s path of worshipping Nārāyaṇa.
Thus, His Holiness Bhakti Vikāśa Swami is not at all exaggerating in describing such authors as no more than “supposed devotees.”
The rest I leave to the readers to decide. Ultimately someone has to loudly say, “THE KING IS NAKED!”