The following is a transcription of a discourse delivered by Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja in Bakersfield, California on June 24, 1996

 

madīśā-nāthatve vraja-vipina-candraṁ vraja-vane
śvarīṁ tāṁ-nāthatve tad-atula-sakhītve tu lalitām
viśākhāṁ śikṣālī-vitaraṇa-gurutve priya-saro
girīndrau tat-prekṣā-lalita-rati-datve smara manaḥ

Śrī Manaḥ-śikṣā (Verse 9)

[“O mind, always remember Vṛndāvana-candra Śrī Kṛṣṇa as the prāṇanātha (Lord of the life-breath) of my Svāminī Śrī Rādhikā, Vṛndāvaneśvarī Śrīmatī Rādhikā as my mistress, Śrī Lalitā as the peerless friend of my Svāminī, Śrī Viśākhā as the śikṣā-guru in the arrangements of Śrī Yugala sevā, and Śrī Rādhā-kuṇḍa and Girirāja Govardhana as those who grant darśana of Śrī Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa and bestow sublime rati for Their lotus feet.”]

Vraja-vipana candram; Vraja-vipana candra is Kṛṣṇa who plays in Vṛndāvana. He never leaves Vṛndāvana; He is always playing in Vṛndāvana. Candra – Kṛṣṇacandra is the nātha of Madīśā, Madīśvarī.

Śyāmarāṇī dāsī: He is the Lord of my worshipable deity.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Who is like a beloved; nātha means a beloved. No pati, no Lord; there is nothing like this there. And, Vṛndāvaneśvarī is my iṣṭa-devī, Madīśvarī. Who is Lalitā? Lalitā is the sakhī of my īśvarī, and Viśākhā is also like my guru who teaches me how to serve Śrīmatī Rādhikā because she has all the qualities that Śrīmatī Rādhikā has. All her qualifications and qualities are like Śrīmatī Rādhikā’s. Lalitā is pragalbhā, outspoken. Candrāvalī is not pragalbhā. She is of a dakṣiṇa mood, a submissive mood. But Rādhikā is in the middle, dhīrādhīrā. So, Viśākhā is also like that.

So Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī prays, “She is my śikṣā-guru; how to serve? And what should my behaviour towards Kṛṣṇa and the others be?”

Who is Candrāvalī?

Śyāmarāṇī dāsī: Kāya-vyūha?

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Candrāvalī is the kāya-vyūha of Śrīmatī Rādhikā because rasa cannot come if Śrīmatī Rādhikā is alone. So, Śrīmatī Rādhikā has manifested lakhs and lakhs of gopīs from Her lakhs and lakhs of moods. So, Candrāvalī is not like Śrīmatī Rādhikā; she is a kāya-vyūha of Śrīmatī Rādhikā. She enhances this rasa because if there is no rivalry with Śrīmatī Rādhikā, then rasa cannot be there. Hence, Kṛṣṇa plays with Candrāvalī and her gopīs to increase the rasa and feelings of rivalry in Śrīmatī Rādhikā. And Kṛṣṇa tastes all these different moods. Therefore, Śrīmatī Rādhikā Herself has become Candrāvalī, Śaibyā, Padmā, and all others. So we should do praṇāma to Candrāvalī also because she is the manifestation of Śrīmatī Rādhikā, and she is creating so much rasa for Rādhikā by having feelings of rivalry. Hence, Rādhikā tastes moods like māna and other moods.

So, we should try to develop a relationship with them. You should know that Rūpa Gosvāmī knows so many things about bhakti-rasa, as Caitanya Mahāprabhu had told him. But how do we apply these teachings? How do we practice them with our mind, senses, and heart and make all these things as a rasa? So, Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī has written the answers. So, he is also a śikṣā-guru. If Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī was not there, then how could bhakti be made into bhakti-rasa? It would be so difficult. We know that juice can be made using sugar, water, and lemon. But we don’t know the process. We don’t know the proper proportions; we don’t know how to mix them. We don’t know how much sugar, water, and lemon should be used. An improper mixture will be called ku-rasa; something that is against rasa.

Śyāmarāṇī dāsī: Rasa–duṣṭa?

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: So, Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī has explained everything. He has told us how to make a rasa.

Śyāmarāṇī dāsī: In Stavāvalī?

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Everywhere, in Vilāpa-kusumāñjali, Vraja-vilāsa-stava, and in his other books. So, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī has explained everything in Bengali. He has explained all the ślokas that Caitanya Mahāprabhu used to taste. These are the outlines.

Only thinking, “I am not a Vaiṣṇava,” will not do. You will have to search.

Śyāmarāṇī dāsī: What do you mean by searching?

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: To search means you will have to go deep into the books. You will have to hear from Vaiṣṇavas. This is called “searching.”

Śyāmarāṇī dāsī: Last night, you told us to remember ślokas and prayers. I try to remember them, but they disappear.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: If you cannot remember, then you can read and think; no harm. I do like this. I have no remembrance at all. But these ślokas automatically come to me. I have not gone to school or college. I have not gone to Sanskrit schools. And all learned persons honour me; I don’t know why they do. And you are following me here and there. I don’t know why.

Śyāmarāṇī dāsī: For your foot dust. I was trying to learn, “Kṛpā-kaṭākṣa-bhājanam.”

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Kadā kariṣyasīha māṁ kṛpā-kaṭākṣa-bhājanam. Did you read?

Śyāmarāṇī dāsī: Yes.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Do you know something?

Śyāmarāṇī dāsī: I know a little when you explain.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: I have not explained. It is not to be explained. It is very high. You should tell all the lady devotees to be together like how they were together last night in the Rādhā-ramaṇajī temple.

Śyāmarāṇī dāsī: Would you kindly bless me with the power to keep all the ślokas in my heart?

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Kṛṣṇa can do. He is so powerful. I will pray to Him to bestow His mercy on you because you are qualified. (Break of audio)

(In the following section of the audio file, Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja and some devotees discuss the construction of a temple)

Devotee: Kṛṣṇa has an appeal all over India and this country.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: In all our books like the Vedas, Purāṇas, Upaniṣads, and everywhere – Lord Kṛṣṇa’s supremacy is stated.

ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ
kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam
indrāri-vyākulaṁ lokaṁ
mṛḍayanti yuge yuge

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.3.28)

[All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists.]

mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat
kiñcid asti dhanañ-jaya
mayi sarvam idaṁ protaṁ
sūtre maṇi-gaṇā iva

Bhagavad-gītā (7.7)

[O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.]

sarva-dharmān parityajya
mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja
ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo
mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ

Bhagavad-gītā (18.66)

[Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.]

My blessing will be that you should serve Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa. You should serve Girirājajī also.

Devotee: The dome will give a nice look.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: In South India also, the domes are very high. I have visited almost all the pilgrimage places and cities of Southern India. (Break of audio)

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: You should try to establish Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa in the middle. The deities of the demigods can be placed according to what is written in the Vedas and Upaniṣads. But in the middle, Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa should be established.

Devotee: Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa will be on the highest platform, and then, everyone else can be on a lower platform.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Rāmacandra or any expansion can also be placed. But Śaṅkara is always outside of the temple like …

Devotee: Protector?

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Hari-hara-eka-ātmā. Śaṅkara is the best Vaiṣṇava. So we should do like this.

Devotee: You will have your lecture here, Mahārāja. We can nicely organize.

Devotee 2: Svāmījī, we are so fortunate now. The dust of Vraja has mixed with the dust here.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: I desire that this temple become like Vraja. You should make this temple into Vraja, then nobody will face any obstacles. Lord Śiva will be there. Rāmacandra can also be there. And you can keep the deity of any demigod you desire. But it would be very nice if the main deities were there.

Devotee: This is the East Mahārāja.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Very good, very good.

Devotee: We designed it this way.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Very good. East is the best direction for deities.

Devotee: According to the śāstras, the East, slightly the Northeast.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: No harm. But it is East.

Devotee: All the deities will be facing the East.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: It is according to śāstra. Do you know all the instructions of the śāstras, like where to establish the deities, what [direction] they should face, and other details? I have done many installations of the deities.

Devotee: According to the śāstras, the deities cannot be lined. They should always be high, low, high, low.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa should be on the top. If Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa and Rāmacandra are there, then there must be some partition.

(Break of audio)

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Koṭiṣv api mahā-mune; among lakhs and lakhs of rnunis, there may be a very rare, real kṛṣṇa-bhakta. But due to Caitanya Mahāprabhu, we are seeing and meeting with pure devotees. But after some time, they may not be there. So, we are so fortunate.

Devotee: Will Lord Caitanya keep sending great personalities to come and assist, like Prabhupāda or yourself?

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Because Kali-yuga is going on, he should also be given a chance. You should know how to chant harināma and how to preach. We are seeing so many Vaiṣṇavas now. But after that, it may be that Jagannātha will vanish. He will go away. The Ganges will dry up, and the Yamunā will dry up. Govardhana Hill will also not be there. Half of Govardhana’s form has already entered the earth’s surface. He has entered the surface of the planet for more than a mile. All the groves and kuṇḍas are disappearing. The pastimes of Kṛṣṇa should be cultivated.

Devotee: I feel like I have dwindled for many lifetimes, and now, I have become serious about Kṛṣṇa consciousness. And now, it is another chance.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: We have turned so many devotees who gave up all practices.

Devotee: Sometimes, we see new children born. The number will rise for some time. There are some difficulties, but…

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: The link will never be broken. Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and all are eternal. Similarly, it is sanātana, eternal. So, it may be that the link will become lean and thin. But yet, sometimes, the link will grow.

Devotee: Another question is whether the Lord personally remains on planets of demigods in different parts of the universe as Vāmanadeva does in Sutala. So, do Lord Nṛsiṁha and some other incarnations reside personally on planets, or do the demigods worship the deities?

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: There are some devotees there. Like, in Pātāla, Prahlāda Mahārāja is worshipping; Bali Mahārāja is worshipping. Although the post of Indra is changed in heaven, Indra always worships Bhagavān. Who will the present Brahmā worship in Brahmaloka? Sahasraśīrṣā will be worshipped. And in other places, like Kimpuruṣa, Hanumān will worship Rāma.

Devotee: Yes. But is Rāma present there?

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Yes. But we are not seeing. Caitanya Mahāprabhu is also in Māyāpura. Kṛṣṇa is also in Vṛndāvana. The worship is going on. But, a very rare person can see.

(A devotee reads a letter that Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja had dictated earlier)

Dear Bhakti-vaidūrya Mādhava Mahārāja,

Please accept my humble obeisances at your lotus feet.

All glories to Śrī Śrī Guru and Gaurāṅga.

I have received your letter dated June 21, 1996. Because I am presently on tour, I was delayed in responding to your letter. Please forgive me for this. I have read your letter, and in this regard, I want to say that you should not take my response as an opponent but rather as a friend. For about fifty-five years, I have had the good fortune to associate with very learned disciples of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura Prabhupāda who are deeply conversant with all the conclusions of śāstra. As a result, I had the opportunity to hear from and serve many of the most prominent disciples, such as my Gurudeva, as well as pūjyapāda Śrī Bhaktivedānta Svāmī Mahārāja, pūjyapāda Śrautī Mahārāja, pūjyapāda Giri Mahārāja, pūjyapāda Gosvāmī Mahārāja, pūjyapāda Vaikhānasa Mahārāja, pūjyapāda Purī Mahārāja, pūjyapāda Mādhava Mahārāja and pūjyapāda Śrīdhara Mahārāja.

I consider Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja as my śikṣā-guru. I have had his association and have served him since 1946. By my being his śikṣā disciple, my faith in and service to him is no less than any member of ISKCON. He used to show me even greater affection and respect than his disciples. Kindly note all these facts first, then consider what I will explain.

Tulasī dāsajī was a Vaiṣṇava belonging to the Rāmānanda sampradāya, a branch of the Śrī sampradāya. All the four Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas are worthy of our respect. His name, Tulasī dāsa, is a Vaiṣṇava name, and he wore the vertical (ūrdhva-puṇḍra) Vaiṣṇava tilaka. He also wore tulasī-mālā around his neck and was initiated into the śrī-rāma-mantra, which is a mantra for obtaining perfection. His guru was siddha Narahari (Nṛsiṁhadeva) dāsa. His worshipful Deities were Śrī Sītā-Rāmacandra who are incarnations of Śrī Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa. In his numerous books, he often glorified Vrajendra-nandana Kṛṣṇa. He explained the prominent glories of śrī-nāma, especially for the age of Kali. He translated the Sanskrit ślokas of the Vedas, Upaniṣads, Purāṇas, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and especially the Rāmāyaṇa, into Hindi poetical verse. He has written on the importance of “śaraṇāgati,” and he accepted bhagavad-prema as the highest goal and object for the jīvas. He accepted the nine forms of bhakti described in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. He accepted the jīvas to be the separated parts and parcels of the Lord, as has been explained in the Gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. He also accepted the doctrine of acintya-bheda-abheda or, in other words, the simultaneous oneness and difference between the omnipotent Lord and His potency (śakti-śaktimān). He completely disregarded sāyujya-mukti and the other forms of liberation.

Throughout his writings, he refuted the theory of Māyāvāda. Therefore, he has not expressed Māyāvāda conclusions in any of his writings. It is incorrect to think that Śrīman Madhvācārya has accepted only the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa as authoritative. In his commentary on a statement from the Skanda Purāṇa he has written as follows (quoted in Gauḍīya Kaṇṭhahāra):

ṛg-yajuḥ-sāmātharvāś ca bhārataṁ pañcarātrakam
mūla-rāmāyaṇaṁ caiva śāstram ity abhidhīyate
yac cānukūlam etasya tac ca śāstraṁ prakīrtitam
ato’nya grantha vistaro naiva śāstraṁ kuvatma tat

[“The four Vedas – Ṛg, Yajur, Sāma and Atharva — the Mahābhārata, the original Rāmāyaṇa and the Pañcarātra are all authoritative and bona fide scriptures. Any scriptures which follow in support of them are all accepted as authoritative. All other scriptures apart from these are not accepted as authoritative.”]

Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja supports the very same conclusion as seen in the following quotes:

[“According to Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, any book that gives enlightenment in the matter of advancing in devotional service is considered to be revealed scripture. Śrīla Madhvācārya has also defined revealed scriptures as referring to books such as the Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata, Purāṇas, Upaniṣads, Vedānta – and any other literature written in pursuance of such revealed scriptures.”] (The Nectar of Devotion Chapter 12)

“Therefore we have to gather knowledge from the right source. Indeed, in reality we can get knowledge only from the Vedic sources. The four Vedas, with their supplementary Purāṇas, the Mahābhārata, the Rāmāyaṇa and their corollaries, which are known as smṛtis, are all authorized sources of knowledge. If we are at all to gather knowledge, we must gather it from these sources without hesitation.” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 5.14, Purport)

“The Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahābhārata, Pañcarātra and the original Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa are all Vedic literatures. Any literature following the conclusive statements of these Vedic literatures is also to be considered Vedic literature. That literature which does not conform to Vedic literature is simply misleading.” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 6.147, Purport)

The conclusion is that all scriptures that support this literature favourably are also accepted as bona fide and authoritative. Otherwise, all the books of Śrī Rāmānuja, Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī and Śrīla Kavirāja Gosvāmī could not be accepted as authoritative. There are no learned scholars or ācāryas of other sampradāyas who wrote commentaries on any of the books of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, Jīva Gosvāmī or Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī. Yet these books certainly cannot be said to be inauthentic. It is irrelevant to say that Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī did not accept evidence from the Rāmāyaṇa of Tulasī dāsa because, at that time, it had not yet been published, for Tulasī dāsa was a contemporary of Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī.

I would like to point out to you that you have also cited the verse of Śrī Madhvācārya twice in your letter to me. The first reference you give is from Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja’s Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya[-līlā, Chapter Six] 147, although you neglected to mention what chapter of Madhya-līlā it was from. I have also cited Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja’s translation of this verse above. For some reason, when you quoted this statement, you omitted the sentence which would have refuted your argument and which, coincidentally, appears precisely in the middle of Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja’s translation: “Any literature following the conclusive statements of these Vedic literatures is also to be considered Vedic literature.”

Although we are substantiating the authority of Tulasī Rāmāyaṇa, the question may be asked why we don’t regard it on the same level as the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava literature. The reason for this is that although, according to Vaiṣṇava siddhānta, it is accepted as bhakti scripture in a routine sense, it does not present a complete description of rāgānuga (or rūpanuga) rasamayī bhakti. Similarly, the Viṣṇu Purāṇa and other śāstras do not propound kṛṣṇa-bhakti-rasa, although they are “certainly bhakti scriptures”. Therefore, we accept Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and the books of Śrī Rūpa, Sanātana and other Gosvāmīs as being the most authoritative and efficacious for us.

If, as you wrote in your letter to me, Tulasī dāsa’s writing in Hindi is a disqualification, then must we conclude that the Caitanya-caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, and the Gītā and Bhāgavatam translations and purports of param-pūjyapāda Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Svāmī Mahārāja due to being written in Bengali and English respectively, are also inauthentic?

The book Prema-sāgara is a Hindi translation of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam done by the well-known Māyāvādī Śrī Śāntanu Dvivedī. The Tulasī Rāmāyaṇa, however, is a book translated by a highly reputed perfected soul of deep spiritual realisation. If Śrīla Tulasī dāsa was indeed a Māyāvādī, then kindly present some concrete evidence to support your conclusion. Blind following will simply not do. The disciple must correctly understand and explain the teachings of his gurudeva. You are all learned, research scholars. You can examine the writings of Tulasī dāsa for yourself. If you detect any Māyāvāda conclusions in his writings, you should give evidence directly from his statements.

I have personally read and studied the Rāma-carita-mānasa in Hindi, in its entirety, at least ten times. May I ask how many times you have read Tulasī’s original Rāmāyaṇa with scrutiny? I am well acquainted with the conclusions of Vaiṣṇava śāstra and have been associating with pure Vaiṣṇavas for a long time. My conclusions, and the conclusions of other respected Vaiṣṇavas in our line, is that there is not a trace of Māyāvāda anywhere in the original work of the Tulasī Rāmāyaṇa. As I am travelling now, I do not have access to that book, but upon consulting it, I can surely provide you with concrete evidence from the direct statements of the book to support my position.

There are numerous statements in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and other Vaiṣṇava scriptures which may seem to support Māyāvāda conclusions. In these śāstras, the Absolute Truth is sometimes referred to as advaya-jñāna, and kaivalya is sometimes spoken of as the ultimate destination. I quote here a verse and translation from Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja’s Bhāgavatam translation (4.22.27), which superficially seems to support the Māyāvāda theory:

dagdhāśayo mukta-samasta-tad-guṇo
naivātmano bahir antar vicaṣṭe
parātmanor yad-vyavadhānaṁ purastāt
svapne yathā puruṣas tad-vināśe

[“When a person becomes devoid of all material desires and liberated from all material qualities, he transcends distinctions between actions executed externally and internally. At that time the difference between the soul and the Supersoul, which was existing before self-realization, is annihilated. When a dream is over, there is no longer a distinction between the dream and the dreamer.”]

Although this verse and others may be misinterpreted to support the Māyāvāda theory, Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja has clearly explained its true Vaiṣṇava conception in his commentary. For a correct understanding, individual verses must be understood in relationship to the overall presentation. Śrīdhara Svāmī, the original Bhāgavatam commentator, was sometimes accused of having Māyāvāda leanings, yet Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepted him as being most authoritative. He said that anyone who disregarded the commentary of Śrīdhara Svāmī should be rejected as a prostitute or one who does not follow his Svāmī. Similarly, there may be some statements of Tulasī dāsa which could be misinterpreted as supporting Māyāvāda conclusions. Still, these must be reconciled with his overall presentation of siddhānta.

Similarly, your letter has presented specific quotes by Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja, but I have here several quotes from him that present a different picture. The first one pre-dates any you have given. In this quote, Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja seems to suggest a very different conclusion about Tulasī dāsa:

“So he became a great devotee of Rāma, Tulasī dāsa. His book, Rāma-carita-mānasa. ‘Thinking always of Rāma,’ that is his book. It is very famous book, and that is the only important literature in the Hindi language, Rāma-carita-mānasa.” (Room conversation with Brāhmaṇanda, April 12, 1969)

And again, in another conversation, this is affirmed:

Devotee: Tulasī dāsa said that he wanted to see Rāma.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is devotee’s inclination. That we must have.

(Room Conversation Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.1.14 November 10, 1970, Bombay, India)

In two other instances, Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja describes the conclusions of Rāma-carita-mānasa as being consistent with Vedic conclusions and based on śāstras such as the Gītā and Bhāgavatam:

“And Tulasī dāsa, he has also said… Tulasī dāsa is big poet in Hindi language. He has written the Rāma-carita-mānasa. His opinion… Not only his opinion, that is the Vedic opinion, that… He says, dhol gamar strī śūdra…, paśu śūdra nārī, ei ei sab śāsana ke adhikārī(?). So this statement will not be very palatable to the Western girls.” (Lecture Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 5.6.4 November 26, 1976, Vṛndāvana, India)

“The Tulasī dāsa’s Rāmāyaṇa means Rāma-carita-mānasa. It is not Rāmāyaṇa. Rāma-carita-mānasa. He was devotee of Lord Rāmacandra. So as he was thinking of Lord Rāmacandra, he has written. So he was a learned scholar, brāhmaṇa, he must have read Bhagavad-gītā, Bhāgavatam. So all his translation is there on the basis of the śāstra, especially Bhāgavatam and Bhagavad-gītā. You’ll find many parallel passages. But Gītā is the summary of all Vedic literature, and it is spoken by the Personality of Godhead.” (Evening Darśana, July 8, 1976, Washington DC)

Apart from the above quotes, I have also noted at least thirteen times when Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja has quoted Tulasī dāsa’s writings as a positive authority in his books or lectures to substantiate a preaching point he was making. For brevity, I have noted the references here, and you may consult them at your leisure. If Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja truly considered Tulasī dāsa and his writing to be unauthorized, it appears odd that he would quote him so often in his preaching. The following are the references:

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.11.4, Purport
Bhagavad-gītā 2.15 August 21, 1973, London Lecture
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.16.19 July 19, 1974 Los Angeles, CA
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.3.19 July 9, 1974 Los Angeles, CA
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.9.7 April 24, 1972
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.1.33 July 18, 1975 San Francisco, CA
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.1.39 July 20, 1975 San Francisco, CA
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.3.12-15 Lecture February 9, 1971, Gorakhpur, India
Morning Walk through BBT Warehouse – February 10, 1975, Los Angeles, CA
Morning Walk – May 25, 1976 Honolulu, HW
Arrival Room Conversation – July 2, 1976, Washington, DC
Morning Walk – February 2, 1977 Bhubaneswar
Room Conversation – April 19, 1977, Bombay, India

In addition to all the above quotes, I feel it necessary to respond to some of the quotes you gave as evidence against Tulasī dāsa. On close inspection, it is apparent that almost none of them have anything negative to say about him or his Rāma-carita-mānasa. Furthermore, you have omitted portions in many quotes validating him. Please excuse me for pointing this out; I think it is necessary to arrive at a proper understanding of the issue.

During a lecture in Montreal on Rādhāṣṭamī August 30 in 1968 Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja quoted Tulasī dāsa and referred to him as a great devotee: “am aprameyam anaghaṁ nirvāṇa-śānti-pradaṁ brahma-śambhu-phanīndras tebhyo ’niśaṁ vedānta-vedyaṁ vibhuṁ sura-guruṁ māyā-mānuṣya-hariṁ vande ’haṁ karunākaraṁ raghu-varaṁ bhū-pāla-cudāmaṇim: This is a verse composed by a great devotee, Tulasī dāsa. He was a devotee of Lord Rāmacandra.”

You have also quoted a latter portion of the above quote. However, you did not quote it in full: “Our, this respectable Indian lady, she will begin Rāmāyana… This Tulasī…, this actually is not Rāmāyaṇa. It is called Rāma-carita-mānasa. Rāmāyaṇa means Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, but people have taken it as Rāmāyaṇa. Actually, Tulasī dāsa has expressed his own feelings about his devotion to Lord Rāma, and therefore he has named it Rāma-carita-mānasa, his mind full with service attitude for Lord Rāma. That is the real meaning of this book. But people have misinterpreted; they are going on just it is Rāmāyaṇa. And Rāmāyaṇa, of course, anywhere where Rāma’s activities are described, that is called Rāmāyaṇa. That is another sense. But real Rāmāyaṇa means the Rāmāyaṇa composed by Maharṣi Vālmīki. And this is… It is a popular notion that this is Rāmāyaṇa, but actually this book is called Rāma-carita-mānasa. So some of the descriptions of Rāma are there, but not all the descriptions. Rather, there are many differences from the original Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa. Anyway, this is a song of a devotee for his Lord Rāma. In that sense, you can call it Rāmāyaṇa, but this book is actually Rāma-carita-mānasa.”

This quote does not say anything negative about Tulasī dāsa or his Rāma-carita-mānasa. It simply points out that there is a difference between the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa and the Rāma-carita-mānasa. It should be noted, however, that this work was an expression of his mind ‘full with service attitude for Lord Rāma’. The part of the quote which you omitted was the last two sentences: This is a song of a devotee for his Lord Rāma and so it may, in that sense, be called Rāmāyaṇa.

In the next quote given by you, the only point made was that Tulasī dāsa’s Rāmāyaṇa is but a partial representative of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. The significant point that you left out was that Tulasī dāsa was a devotee of Lord Rāma, and he gave his thoughts in his book Rāmāyaṇa:

“From your book Soviet Studies of India I understand that academician Mr. A. P. Baranrikov completed a great translation, working the matter of Tulasī dāsa’s Rāmāyaṇa into Russian. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the ripe, mature fruit of the Vedic knowledge, and Tulasī dāsa’s Rāmāyaṇa (Rāma-carita-mānasa) is but a partial representative of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. The real Rāmāyaṇa is Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa. Tulasī dāsa was a devotee of Lord Rāma and he has given his thoughts in his book Rāmāyaṇa. But the real original thoughts and ideas are in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.” (Letter to Professor Kotovsky June 24, 1971)

In the next quote given by you (which I have replicated in the next paragraph), there is no mention whatsoever of Tulasī dāsa or his Rāma-carita-mānasa. When Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja states that there are many unauthorised Rāmāyaṇas, the reader is supposed to infer that he is referring to Tulasī dāsa’s version. Yet Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja goes on to say that five thousand years ago, there were many Rāmāyaṇas. You did not mention this part of the quote. Since Tulasī dāsa’s Rāma-carita-mānasa is a medieval work and was not published five thousand years ago, Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja certainly could not be referring to his book as one of the unauthorised versions. Most of the quotes you subsequently gave are in the same vein. There is no mention of Tulasī dāsa, but the reader, by this time, automatically assumes that his Rāma-carita-mānasa is being referred to as unauthorised.

“Unless one is tattva-darśī, in complete knowledge of the Absolute Truth, one cannot describe the activities of the Personality of Godhead. Therefore although there are many so-called Rāmāyaṇas, or histories of Lord Rāmacandra’s activities, some of them are not actually authoritative. Sometimes Lord Rāmacandra’s activities are described in terms of one’s own imaginations, speculations or material sentiments. But the characteristics of Lord Rāmacandra should not be handled as something imaginary. While describing the history of Lord Rāmacandra, Śukadeva Gosvāmī told Mahārāja Parīkṣit, “You have already heard about the activities of Lord Rāmacandra.” Apparently, therefore, five thousand years ago there were many Rāmāyaṇas, or histories of Lord Rāmacandra’s activities, and there are many still. But we must select only those books written by tattva-darśīs (jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ), not the books of so-called scholars who claim knowledge only on the basis of a doctorate. This is a warning by Śukadeva Gosvāmī.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 9.10.3, Purport)

There is one quote remaining which offers a strong criticism of Tulasī dāsa and his book. Yet, this must be weighed against all of the positive statements. Without seeing the broader siddhāntic view, how can we reconcile these apparently opposite opinions? How is it that Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja has seen fit to give such an appreciation of Tulasī dāsa as a bona fide Vaiṣṇava?

The letter of 1969 which you quoted in your letter to me also needs to be put in its proper historical perspective:

“Regarding the two books you have mentioned, Śrī Rāma-carita-mānasa by Gosvāmī Tulasī dāsa is not very authorized, and Rāmāyaṇa is authorized. One thing is though, you have got enough other books to study. Did you appear in the examination held on Janmāṣṭamī Day? Why should you go to Rāmāyaṇa when you have got Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and Teachings of Lord Caitanya? Don’t divert your attention in that way. The author of Rāma-carita-mānasa, Gosvāmī Tulasī dāsa, has a tint of Māyāvadī philosophy. He belogs to the Rāmānanda sampradāya. They are mixed up combination of personalist and impersonalist. Therefore, the author is not considered as pure Vaiṣṇava. Pure Vaiṣṇava is free from all material contamination of fruitive activities and mental speculation. The pure Vaiṣṇava is simply, purely disposed to transcendental loving service to Kṛṣṇa. The pure Vaiṣṇava rejects anything which has no pure idea of serving the Personality of Godhead.” (Letter to: Raktaka, Hamburg, 6 September, 1969)

Of all the quotes you have presented as evidence against Tulasī dāsa or his Rāma-carita-mānasa, the only one that really stands as a substantial criticism is the one which I have reproduced in its entirety above.

Consistent with your approach to discussing this topic, you have selected only a portion of the quote. It may also be noted that this quote was made by Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja only five months after the conversation in which he stated that Tulasī dāsa was a great devotee of Rāma and that his book is the only important literature in the Hindi language. Furthermore, this statement was made in 1969 when his disciples were very immature in their spiritual development without even reading Bhagavad-gītā. The part of the letter which you omitted was that Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja did not want his disciples’ attention diverted when they had so many other books to read. It may also be questioned how authentic the English translations they were reading were. When we examine all of the positive statements that Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja made about Tulasī dāsa and the Rāma-carita-mānasa, it appears that he simply wanted his disciples to focus on the books he was translating and not questionable translations of other books. This is the real crux of the matter and not the authenticity of Tulasī dāsa’s work.

There is a misconception that the title of Tulasī dāsa’s book, Rāma-carita-mānasa, suggests that it was inspired by the mānasa, or mind, of Tulasī dāsa, and thus it is not a work of divine revelation. Yet in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.7.4), we find the same word (manasi) used to describe the vision which inspired Śrīla Vyāsadeva to write Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam:

bhakti-yogena manasi
samyak praṇihite ’male
apaśyat puruṣaṁ pūrṇaṁ
māyāṁ ca tad-apāśrayām

[“By the power of bhakti-yoga Śrīla Vyāsadeva, being firmly concentrated in meditation with a purified mind, saw Śrī Kṛṣṇa fully endowed with spiritual effulgence, with His plenary portions, and with His internal potency of svarūpa śakti. His external potency māyā, being of an inferior nature, was seen in the background under His control.”]

In this verse, ‘manasi apaśyat,’ he saw the complete Absolute Truth with the mind. Yet Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is not to be taken as manasi-grantha, but rather as samādhi-grantha, for Vyāsadeva’s mind was fully absorbed in samādhi, and his perception was by the power of bhakti-yoga. Similarly, the Rāmāyaṇa of Tulasī dāsa should not be taken as manasi-grantha, for it sprung from his purified mind, which was absorbed in complete samādhi by the power of bhakti-yoga.

Please forgive me if this letter has caused you any discomfort.

Vaiṣṇava dāsa anudāsa,

B.V. Nārāyaṇa

Source: Purebhakti.com

Image(s) made possible by Pixabay.com, Krishnapath.org and/or Bhaktiart.net
Unless indicated differently, all verse translations and quotes are from the books by Śrīla Prabhupāda (Vedabase.com)