Who is the real “neo-Smārta?”

By Srnjaya Dasa

Abstract

In this brief article, we will refute Kaunteya Dasa’s erroneous claims by illustrating the historical interactions among Vaisnava Sampradayas. We will shed light on Bhaktisiddanta’s efforts in consulting with other Sampradayas to purify the Gaudiya Sampradaya. Additionally, we will delve into the extensive historical connection between Muralidhar Bhattar’s family and the Gaudiya Sampradaya. Lastly, we will address Kaunteya Dasa’s misunderstanding of the term “Smārta” and highlight its applicability to his own position.

Kaunteya Prabhu takes umbrage that his doctrinal opponents have looked beyond the “pure Gaudiya tradition” to other (bona fide) sampradayas while researching important topics. However, it is not verboten to consult sadhus of other sampradayas. When we say that our principle is “guru, sadhu, and sastra” it includes sadhus from other genuine traditions.

Srila Prabhupada’s books are replete with quotations of sadhus from other Vaisnava paramparas. In this regard, Srila Prabhupada follows the ancient ways of Krsna’s Vedic culture. Gaudiya Acaryas such as Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, Bhaktivinode Thakura, Baladeva Vidya Bhusana, Visvanatha Cakravarti, Jiva Gosvami, Rupa Gosvami, and Sanatana Gosvami, among others, all quoted the works of acaryas from other sampradayas. Srila Prabhupada himself frequently quoted the great Sri Vaisnava saint Yamuna Acarya and one of his favorite prayers was the Mukunda Mala Stotra by the Sri Vaisnava Kulasekara Alvara.

Our own blessed Gauranga Mahaprabhu revered Sridhara Swami, an acarya from a different lineage, and castigated Vallabha Acarya for thinking his commentary was better than Sridhara Swami’s. Lord Caitanya also accepted two points each from the teachings of the four authentic sampradayas.

Later, when I begin the sankirtan movement, I Myself will preach, using the essence of the philosophies of the four of you. From Madhva I will receive two items:  his complete defeat of the  Mayavadi philosophy and his service to the murti of Krsna,  accepting this form as an eternal spiritual being. From Ramanuja I will accept two teachings: the concept of bhakti unpolluted by karma and jnana, and service to the devotees. From Visnu Swami’s teachings, I will accept two elements: the sentiment of exclusive dependence on Krsna and the path of raga bhakti. And from you (Nimbarka) I will receive two great principles:  the necessity of taking shelter of Radha and the high esteem for the gopis’ love of  Krsna.

Navadvip Dham Mahatmya Ch. 16

That Lord Caitanya Himself accepted some teachings from each of the four authentic sampradayas demonstrates His universal vision and magnanimity. Lord Caitanya is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna Himself, who appeared in this age of Kali to inaugurate the sankirtan movement, the yuga-dharma for this age. He is also the founder and leader of the Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya, which is a branch of the Madhva Sampradaya. However, Lord Caitanya did not limit Himself to the teachings of the Madhva sampradaya alone, but rather embraced and incorporated some teachings from each of the four bona fide sampradayas into His own teachings. This shows that He did not consider any sampradaya to be superior or inferior to another, but rather saw them all as manifestations of His own mercy and potency. He also showed that He is the source and essence of all sampradayas and that He can harmonize and reconcile their apparent differences in a higher synthesis.

Gopala Bhatta Goswami, one of the six Goswamis, was a Sri Vaisnava from Srirangam who deeply studied the sastras and Krsna’s Vedic culture in the traditional way of the Sri Vaisnavas. He stayed in Srirangam to care for his parents and didn’t go to Vrndavana until after he was an adult when his parents had died of old age.

The authors of Hari Bhakti Vilasa and Sat Sandarbhas both credit Gopala Bhatta Gosvami for being the actual author of these books, as they are based on his extensive notes. Therefore, it could be argued that these texts are based on knowledge and tradition coming from the Sri Vaisnavas.

Furthermore, biographies of Bhaktivinode Thakura and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura reveal that during their lifetimes, Gaudiya Vaisnavism had become so corrupt that insulting someone by calling them a “Vaisnava” was commonplace. To purify Gaudiya Vaisnavism, Bhaktivinode prayed that Lord Jagannatha send a “Ray of Visnu,” which led to the appearance of Bhaktisiddhanta with a dual mission: to establish the pure chanting of the Holy Name and to establish Daiva Varnashrama Dharma.

Chanting of the Holy Name in Bengal and Orrisa had been prevalent since the time of Lord Caitanya, but just a few generations after Him it had become corrupted because of apasampradayas that turned Gaudiya Vaisnavism into a sex cult. Thus, Daiva Varnashrama Dharma was necessary to keep the Holy Name pure, and the pure chanting of the Holy Name was necessary to keep Daiva Varnashrama Dharma from degenerating into a caste system. Thus both are necessary, synergistic, and part of a circular inter-dependency — you cannot have one without the other.

We learn from the biography of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura that he believed in the importance of publishing works of acaryas from other sampradayas, particularly the Madhva and Sri Sampradaya, with the expectation that his followers would study these texts.

From his biography, it is clear that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura had immense respect for Sripada Ramanuja Acarya, whom he considered to be an incarnation of Sri Nityananda. In his research of Daiva Varnashrama, Bhaktisiddhanta traveled extensively throughout South India, meeting with acaryas and scholars of the Madhva and Sri Sampradayas to learn from them and implement their teachings. For example by reintroducing the brahmachari and sannyasa ashrama back into the Gaudiya Sampradaya. Bhaktisiddhanta specifically went to Sri Perumbudur, the birthplace of Sripada Ramanuja Acarya, and consulted with the resident acarya and learned from him how to perform the tri-dandi sannyasa samskara. It was from this knowledge that Bhaktisiddhanta took tri-danda sannyasa. (Madhva’s are ekadanda sannyasis.)

At the Yoga-pitha, Bhaktisiddhanta built a Matha and placed the image of each sampradaya acarya at the top of the temple, emphasizing the need for cooperation among all four sampradayas to preach the glories of Sri Krsna. To this end, Bhaktisiddhanta brought two panditas, one each from the Madhva and Sri Vaisnava Sampradayas to Navadvipa to teach his disciples their respective teachings and practices, and especially how to effectively defeat Advaitavada.

Our Srila Prabhupada reached out to scholars of the Sri and Madhva Sampradayas about the meaning of the Fifth Canto. To open the Hyderabad temple in 1976 Srila Prabhupada had arcakas from the Sri Samparadaya— Sampat Kumar Bhattacarya and Narasimha Bhattacarya — perform the installation ceremony. Srila Prabhupada was very satisfied with their service and wanted them to be the ones to do the same for the scheduled temple opening in Juhu.

We learn from the 2005 SAC paper on FDG that HH Bhakti Rasamrta Swami was delegated the task of approaching members of the Madhva and Sri Sampradaya to get their views on the topic of FDG. Thus even SAC which is pro-FDG was willing to consult the Sri and Madhva Sampradaya.

So we have seen that from ancient to modern times it has been an accepted practice to consult sadhus of authentic sampradayas.  Why? In other traditions (Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism) bloody wars have been fought by rival sects killing millions. The current war in Syria is a proxy war between the Sunnis (Saudi Arabia) and the Shias (Iran). Whereas there has never been conflict between the Vaisnava Sampradayas even though there may be some minor doctrinal differences. Rather there has always been mutual respect and admiration for the devotees of other sampradayas. Remember that it was a member of the Vallabha Sampradaya, Sumati Morarji, who played a pivotal role in helping Srila Prabhupada come to the West by giving him free passage on the Jaladutta. Ultimately the adi-Guru of each sampradaya is Krsna and we need all four of them, just like a car needs all four wheels for stability.

Inter-sampradaya dialogue is crucial in promoting harmony and cooperation among Vaisnavas and is in line with the spirit and mood of Lord Caitanya and His followers. Inter-sampradaya dialogue means engaging in respectful and constructive conversations with sadhus from other sampradayas, to learn from them, appreciate them, and find common ground with them. It does not mean compromising one’s own siddhanta or loyalty to one’s own guru-parampara, but rather acknowledging and honoring the diversity and richness of the Vaisnava tradition. It also does not mean avoiding or ignoring the differences or disagreements that may exist among the sampradayas, but rather addressing them humbly and courteously, without being offensive or sectarian. It also means recognizing and respecting the autonomy and integrity of each sampradaya, without trying to convert or subsume them under one’s own. Inter-sampradaya dialogue is based on the principle of sarva-bhuta-hite ratah, being engaged in the welfare of all living beings, which is one of the characteristics of a pure devotee. It is also based on the principle of trnad api sunicena, being more humble than a blade of grass, which is one of the teachings of Lord Caitanya.

A very long history of association with the Gaudiya Sampradaya

In the photo at the beginning of this article, ISKCON devotees are seen interviewing Sriman Muralidhar Bhattar on the left and Sri Vasudevan on the right. Muralidhar Bhattar Prabhu’s family has a very long history of association with the Gaudiya Sampradaya. For over 500 years, his family has been the arcakas of Srirangam, and he can trace his lineage back to Tirumala Bhatta, the brother of Venkata Bhatta, the father of Gopala Bhatta Goswami. Thus his ancestor was the uncle of Gopala Bhatta Goswami. The ancestral house where Muralidhar Bhattar was born was called “Mahaprabhu Sadanam” because Lord Caitanya stayed there for four months during Caturmasya while on His tour of South India. In the early days of ISKCON, a party of devotees led by Acyutananda Swami and Yashodananda Swami visited Srirangam and stayed at the ancestral home of Muralidhar Bhattar. You can see them in the photo below.

From left to right front row unknown man in shirt, Narasimha Bhattar, Bhanu Swami (then brahmacari). Back row Bamsidhari Prabhu, Banabhatta Prabhu, Yashodanandan Swami, Rangaraja Bhattar, Acyutananda Swami, Krtagama Prabhu. In the back is an unknown devotee.

You will note that the sign behind them says “Only Hindus allowed.” The party of ISKCON devotees was given a good reception in the temple and given the darshan of Ranganatha Swami because of  Murlidhar Bhattar’s father Rangaraja Bhattar.

With that photo, Muralidhar Bhattar Prabhu wrote:

Namasthe prabhuji.  In the centre is my father Shri Anna Rangaraja Bhattar to his left Shri Achyutananda Goswami with sannyasi danda and on his left with danda Swami Yasodananda.  Along with my father my brother Shri Narasimha Bhattar, the one with spectacle is Shri Bhanu Maharaj.  He was brahmachari at that time.  Rest of the brahmacharis names I forgot. The reason why they took photos in front of this board is at that time, worship at sanctum sanctorum was denied to them.  My father proved they are real Hindus who know Bhagavat Gita better than us and brought them for Darshan. Great treasures.

Furthermore, Sriman Rangaraja Bhattar also wrote a letter addressed to the public stating that ISKCON was authorized because it was a branch of the Gaudiya Sampradaya. ISKCON used this letter, along with similar ones from Visvesvara Tirtha Swami of  Pejvara Matha (Madhva Sampradaya) and other heads of Vaisnava Sampradayas and published a pamphlet ISKCON is Authorized that was distributed widely and used for preaching especially in South India.

Ramamani mataji, Muralidhar Bhattar’s dharmapatni, has gone on Brajamandala Parikrama with the local ISKCON devotees of Srirangam. Muralidhara Bhattar has also taught several ISKCON devotees from Europe how to do homas and various aspects of pancaratra agama. In late 2019 Muralidhara Bhattar came to Bangalore and performed an Ayush (longevity) homa on behalf of Jayapataka Swami. Yearly on Gaura Purnima, Muralidhara performs a special puja for Lord Caitanya at the Jagannatha temple across from his home. Muralidhar jokingly says that because of his family’s long association with Lord Caitanya, he is half Sri Vaisnava and half Gaudiya Vaisnava.

To reiterate our principle is to follow guru, sadhu, and sastra. “Sadhu” doesn’t exclude sadhus from other bona fide Vaisnava sampradayas. And we should remember that many devotees and leaders in ISKCON India were raised as Sri Vaisnavas, Madhvas, or other Vaisnava Sampradayas. Thus Kaunteya’s fault finding is an insult to these devotees and devotees in other sampradayas. It is simply a diversion to undermine opposition to his introduction of nonsensical Western ideas.

Ultimately Kaunteya’s criticism that consulting  Sri Vaisnavas on important topics common to all sampradayas is against “pure Gaudiya” is patently absurd and indicative of serious underlying problems on his part. It was to return Gaudiya Vaisnavism to a pure state that Bhaktisiddhanta consulted other sampradayas regarding Daiva Varsnasrama.

Kaunteya’s use of the term, “Neo-Smārta.”

Let us also explore Kaunteya’s use of the term, “Neo-Smārta.” “Neo” means “new” but what does “Smārta” mean? According to Kaunteya Dasa and those who share his view, “Smārta” is a catch-all pejorative term used to describe anyone they don’t like. In other words, it’s a form of name-calling. When one lacks substantial arguments, resorting to name-calling is often a way to deflect attention. “Give a dog a bad name and then hang him.” This modus operandi is prevalent in ISKCON, where anyone whose standard is less than yours is labeled a “fringey” or “neophyte,” while those who share your level of understanding are considered “mature and balanced.” However, anyone who is more knowledgeable or has a higher standard is labeled a “fanatic,” “fundamentalist,” “Taliban,” or “Smārta.”

But “Smārta” actually has a specific meaning. If one searches for the word “Smārta” in the VedaBase, they will find over 100 references, some of which describe the characteristics of a “Smārta Brahmana.” Of particular interest is that the Smārtas are antagonistic to and reject the Pañcarātra āgama: “Actually the caste brāhmaṇas of the smārta community are opposed to the principles of the Sātvata-pañcarātra.” Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.8.83p

And Srila Prabhupada further explains,

There is a difference between the smārta process and the gosvāmī process. According to the smārta process, one cannot be accepted as a brāhmaṇa unless he is born in a brāhmaṇa family. According to the gosvāmī process, the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa and the Nārada Pañcarātra, anyone can be a brāhmaṇa if he is properly initiated by a bona fide spiritual master.

Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.23.105p

Why is this significant? Because both Muralidhar Bhattar and Sri Vasudevan, whom Kaunteya criticizes us for consulting, are exponents of Pañcarātra āgama. Indeed the Sri Vaisnava Sampradaya is categorized as a Pañcarātric Vaisnava Sampradaya. And, that Ramanuja is the Pañcarātric Acarya who established Pañcarātra āgama in many temples.  Therefore, those who consult and respect sadhus from a Pañcarātric sampradaya cannot be considered Smārta by definition. On the other hand, Kauteya Dasa is a “neo-Smārta” by definition because he vehemently opposes the conclusions of Nārada Pañcarātra regarding FDG.

Kaunteya criticises ISKCON India for consulting genuine sadhus but who does Kaunteya go to for support? In his recent book, he takes shelter of “authorities” from the categories of yavanas, mlecchas, atheists, and meat eaters.

The question that arises is what kind of person is critical of those who consult bona fide sadhus outside of ISKCON and accuse them of being “neo-Smārtas” for leaving the “pure” Gaudiya tradition? There are several possibilities to consider, you decide, or you may add others of your own:

• Kaunteya is a bombastic illiterate nincompoop who is ignorant of the actual ways of the Gaudiya Acaryas regarding the sadhus of other sampradayas.

• Kaunteya didn’t like the answers given by the sadhus of other sampradayas because they contradict his cultural Marxist ideology and nonsensical Western ideas.

• Kaunteya is a “sleeper agent” for the Catholic church, aiming to destroy Gaudiya Vaisnavism.

• Kaunteya is a mlecha with tilak.

• Kaunteya is a “neo-Pralambāsura,” a demon disguised as a devotee.

In conclusion to fulfill Srila Prabhupada’s order to establish Daiva Varnashrama Dharma, then we, like Bhaktisiddhanta before us, will have to consult with leading acaryas in other legitimate sampradayas that are knowledgeable in the practice of Daiva Varnashrama dharma. The Sri Sampradaya is notable in this case because one of the last instructions of Sripad Ramanuja Acarya to his disciples was that they perfectly execute their Varnāsrama duties to please Lord Ranganatha — the very definition of Daiva Varnāsrama. Those who criticize such research are enemies opposed to implementing Srila Prabhupada’s instructions to establish Daiva Varnashrama Dharma.

Finally, it is worth noting that Kaunteya Dasa, though a nominal disciple of JPS, is actually a sishya of Hrdayananda Dasa Goswami (Krsna West). The implication of this is worth considering and can be found in the essay Who is the Real Moron?