Trying to Sort Out a Controversy
BY: TARA DEVI DASI
Jul 18, 2010 — KOLKATA, INDIA (SUN) — Below is an article entitled "Sriya Suka", which was recently written by Narasingha Maharaj in South India and sent out on his mailing list called "Krishna Talk". After reading the article I thought it was very nice but a few days later, a reply was circulated (also below) to Narasingha Maharaj's article that was written by Brajanath das, the secretary of Sri Bhaktivedanta Narayan Maharaj. Brajanath dismisses Narasingha Maharaj's article by saying that he (Narasingha Maharaj) is mistaken and he also categorizes Narasingha Maharaj as being without proper guidance and as trying to discredit the undisputed, spotless character of Bhaktivedanta Narayan Maharaj. Brajanath falls just short of demonizing Narasingha Maharaj, although in his article Narasingha Maharaj has said nothing about Narayan Maharaj or his character.
I am surprised that Brajanath has taken objection to Narasingha Maharaj's article by assuming that Narasingha Maharaj is attacking Narayan Maharaj. One would think that Narayan Maharaj and his followers would be in support of exposing false conceptions and preaching proper Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta, but apparently not.
In his reply, Brajanath das says in a few short words that Narasingha Maharaj's opinion is not correct. However, I have noted that Narasingha Maharaj has stated in his article two main points:
1) that no previous acharya has ever supported the story that Sukadeva is the parrot of Radha and,
2) that no shastra supports that Sukadeva was the parrot of Radha.
Brajanath assures his reader that Narasingha Maharaj does not know what he is talking about, but Brajanath fails to demonstrate where any previous acharya has stated that Sukadeva was the parrot of Radha and he also fails to state any shastric reference that says that Sukadeva was the parrot of Radha.
vSimply condemning Narasingha Maharaj without presenting any evidence to demonstrate the he was wrong doesn't seem fair to me and certainly isn't very convincing. At least I am not convinced.
It seems that Brajanath is attempting to make Narayan Maharaj the "sacred cow", so as to say that anyone who disagrees with Narayan Maharaj is automatically devoid of proper Vaishnava association or an offender, or both! This, however, is what my father used to call 'smoke-screening' (demonizing) in an attempt to avoid the real issue. The real issue in Maharaj's article being that there are no references anywhere that Sukadeva Goswami was the pet parrot of Shri Radhika in Krishna Lila. It seems only logical that if Brajanath wanted to make a convincing reply to Narasingha Maharaj's article that he would have given some references to show that Narasingha Maharaj was wrong, but he didn't.
Narasingha Maharaj's article has shown with quotes from Bhaktivinoda Thakur, Shrila Shridhar Maharaj and even from Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu himself that Sukadeva Goswami was not an intimate associate of the Lord's Lila, that he previously held no permanent position in Krishna Lila, and that Sukadeva was an example of Krishna's causeless mercy. All this was shown in Narasingha Maharaj's article with due references and quotes. Brajanath, however, writes like a man in denial and expects his readers to accept what he says just because he says so.
Narasingha Maharaj mentioned at the end of his article that "to err is human", but I guess Brajanath thinks that the 'sacred cow' never makes mistakes. This way of thinking is indeed a great mistake in itself because if one cannot admit mistakes, then there is no room for proper adjustment. As Srila Sridhar Maharaj has said, "Real religion means proper adjustment".
My conclusion is that Brajanath is not very convincing because of his lack of references/evidence to support his side. I think Brajanath is writing 'mission propaganda' to keep the flock together but he is not writing from a position of Vaishnava authority. So until Brajanath or others produce references to support their side of the argument, I for one am inclined to accept Nrsingha Maharaj's article as accurate and true to our Gaudiya Vaishnava beliefs.
Thank you for listening.
Servant of the servant,
Tara devi dasi
Krsna Talk 109
Sriya Suka
By Swami BG Narasingha
If you have been attending extensive hari-katha in recent years then you may have heard or read the story of Radha's parrot generally known as Sriya Suka. The story is paraphrased as follows:
One day Lord Siva was speaking the Bhagavatam for his wife Parvati to hear. As Siva spoke in deep rapture, Parvati herself was not so attentive and began to slumber. A parrot however was sitting nearby and he appeared to be listening to Lord Siva as he spoke. Suddenly Siva could see that Parvati had not been listening. Then he understood that the parrot had seemed to have taken it all in. Siva began to reflect that this ignorant bird had heard the Bhagavatam but would simply repeat it, as parrots are prone to do and thus make a mockery of the great message of Bhagavatam. Siva thus decided to terminate the parrot, at which time the bird took flight in great fear with Siva in hasty pursuit. The chase was on and the parrot soon reached the asrama of Vyasadeva where he flew into the mouth of Vatika, Vyasadeva's wife, entering her womb. The parrot was now safe. For sixteen years the parrot stayed within the womb of Vatika before taking birth, becoming known as Sukadeva, the son of Vyasa, and eventually as the speaker of the Bhagavatam to Maharaja Pariksit.
Yet we are told that the original identity of Sukadeva was that of Srimati Radharani's pet parrot. The story goes thus:
"Radha's pet parrot (suka) used to sit on Her left hand while She would affectionately feed him the seeds from pomegranate fruit. She would pet him affectionately telling him "Bolo Krsna! Bolo Krsna!" This parrot would then sweetly utter the Names of Krsna. "One day that suka flew away to Nandagrama to Krsna who was sitting within a kunja (Garden) with His friend Madhumangala and others. The suka sat on a branch of a pomegranate tree and very sweetly began to utter Krsna's Name, "Krsna, Krsna." Krsna looked toward the suka and was moved. The parrot spoke again, "Oh, I am very wretched and unfortunate. I am krtaghna, ungrateful, and don't recognize the good qualities of anyone. For I have left my mistress and have come here." He uttered this in such a pitiable manner that Krsna was both astonished and impressed. He at once took the parrot, who was Srimati Radhika's own, in His hand and began to fondle him.
"After Krsna's manifest lila ended, by the order of Krsna, the parrot, to manifest Bhagavatam, remained in this world. Later, he entered into the mouth of Vyasadeva's wife and remained for 16 years. This Sukadeva is " sriya suka," the suka of Srimati Radharani."
The first part of this story involving the parrot flying into the mouth of Vatika and taking shelter in her womb is confirmed in the Moksa-dharma Parva of Mahabharata, Brahma-vaivarta Purana and the Skanda Purana. Once Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was asked by a noted pandita from Assam as to what was the origin of Sukadeva Gosvami. Sarasvati
Thakura replied as follows:
In the Puranas we find two conclusions regarding the appearance of Sukadeva. One story says that he took the form of Suka from the arani wood after Vyasa saw the naked apsara, Ghrtaci. The other story says that he was born from the womb of the wife of Vyasa. (Conversation with Sri Atmarama Sastri, Assam, October 25th 1928, The Gaudiya)
These two very different accounts for an origin of Sukadeva can be understood according to different kalpas (kalpa-bheda). In one kalpa Sukadeva appeared from the arani wood and from another kalpa (our kalpa) he appeared from the womb of Vatika. This has also been collaborated by Srila B.R. Sridhara Maharaja as follows:
When Mahadeva was talking about Krsna to his wife Durga (Parvati), then Durga-devi slept while attending the talk of Mahadeva. And one bird, suka-paksi (parrot), he was hearing also, listening. And Mahadeva was regularly, now and then, asking Parvati, "Do you hear?"
"Yes!" And the bird was continuing the answer, "Yes!"
Though Durga slept, Mahadeva was continuing. But at last Siva found out that Durga was sleeping and the bird was answering – then he chased the bird and the bird went. Suddenly somehow he managed to enter within the womb of a woman (Vatika). And then, by any function (vidhata), he came out as a man. Suka was his name. (Conversation, July 10th 1982)
Part two of the story, wherein the pet parrot of Radharani flew to Nandagrama and entered the kunja where Krsna was seated, is cited in the eighth stavaka of Ananda Vrndavana Campu by Sri Kavi Karnapura – a very sweet and charming narration. Part three of the story, however, wherein Krsna orders the parrot to remain in this world and manifest the Bhagavatam is not cited in any sastra or by any previous acarya. Part three, it seems, is a conjecture. In other words, there is no evidence in literature or in the commentaries of previous acaryas that Sukadeva Gosvami in krsna-lila was the pet parrot of Radharani. In this regard we find a very interesting statement by Srila Sridhara Maharaja:
Vyaso vetti na vetti va – whatever Krsna wants to do, that is done. Sukadeva was the great exponent of Bhagavatam, but it is not found that he is in the highest position of krsna-lila. What he is delivering through his mouth, through tongue - so many high things have been transmitted through his tongue, but he may not have his stand in that plane. We don't find that Sukadeva has got his permanent position in Radha-Krsna's lila, or in the madhurya-rasa as a particular sakhi also.
But that what Sukadeva has given to us through his mouth, that is unfathomable…he is delivering – akuntha-medhasa. He is going on. These things were coming through him flowing in a natural way. What he has delivered through his nectarine tongue has no comparison in the world ever, anywhere. But still he is considered in that way – from the general position of his previous consideration (a brahmavadi). Jagama bhiksubhih sakam – after giving delivery to all these things, he went away along with the beggars to nowhere. He did not care to meet Vyasadeva, his father and guru, nor his father's guru Narada, there in the meeting. He did not care for that. He chose to be unseen. He came from the unseen and entered into it again...an untraceable, solitary life. But there was his guru, parama-guru – he did not care. Hare Krsna!
So he was selected as some machine, loudspeaker…something like that. The inspiration came only to help – that Bhagavata is above Vedanta, above jnana. The jnanis and yogis formed the major portion of the audience, so Sukadeva was necessary. Suka-mukhad amrta-drava-samyutam. To the audience at large, it was proved that Bhagavata is more than this non-differentiatedness - the nirvisesavada. Sukadeva was necessary. That must come from him, Then those fellows will have some regard. At least they won't say, "Oh, we know all these things, from Padma Purana, from Brahma-vaivarta Purana, we have seen all those things – what is there more?" But when colored by the brahma-jnana of Sukadeva Gosvami it was received with rapt attention…he gave to their ears Bhagavata. (Conversation, August 20th 1982)
Sridhara Maharaja says above that:
1) Sukadeva Gosvami is not found to be in the highest position of krsna-lila.
2) That Sukadeva may not have his stand in that plane.
3) That we don't find that Sukadeva has got his permanent position in Radha-Krsna's lila.
4) That Sukadeva came from the unseen and entered into it again.
5) That his delivery of Bhagavatam was as some machine, "a loudspeaker…something like that."
What Sridhara Maharaja has said about Sukadeva is so much deeper than what the shallow thinkers are able to appreciate.
In other words, Sukadeva Gosvami did not come down from krsna-lila from a previous position as a parrot to speak Bhagavatam as some persons have suggested. Rather, Sukadeva's previous position was that of Brahman realization and his ability to speak Bhagavatam was due to the causeless mercy of Krsna and nothing else.
In Chapter 22 of Jaiva Dharma, Thakura Bhaktivinoda confirms that Sukadeva was the recipient of the causeless mercy of Krsna:
The mercy of Krsna is of three types – vacika, alokadana and hardda. Instances where Krsna rewards all three types of mercy are found in the scriptures. In vacika, Krsna simply promises His devotee by word of mouth, and immediately that all-benedicting crest-jewel embodiment of divine bliss and transcendentally willful bhakti that seeks only Krsna to serve, awakens as bhava within his heart. An example of alokodana-krpa are the sages of Dandakaranya forest, who had never directly seen the Supreme Lord. But as soon as they beheld the Lord, their hearts were flooded with bhava and bhakti, simply by the mercy of the Lord. Bhava which spontaneously sprouts within the heart, as in the case of Srila Sukadeva Gosvami, is due only to the causeless mercy of the Lord, or hardda-krpa.
So the story of Sriya Suka seems to be a compendium of the actual story of the birth of Sukadeva, having first entered the womb of Vatika as a parrot, from the Puranas; then combined with a completely different story of Radha's pet parrot from Ananda Vrndavana Campu and concluded with a ‘rasika' style twist.
Strangely enough, no one has been able to put forward any evidence, either sastric or from previous acaryas, to prove that Sukadeva Gosvami's identity in krsna-lila was that of Radha's pet parrot or that Sukadeva has any standing in krsna-lila. To the contrary, we found that in more than 75% of the cases where we approached the heads of various Sahajiya communities in Vrndavana for verification of the third part of the story, they replied that it was conjecture by someone trying to stand out as a rasika. This was strange indeed coming from the Sahajiyas.
As it turns out, many members of today's Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya (particularly among western branches) are the most prone to tell the story of "Sriya Suka/Radha's Parrot" in their hari-katha. This is especially true among those who are sentimentalists and gate-crashers of the highest lila of Krsna. True and sad as it may be, such are the attempts of the ignorant spurred on by ignoble leaders claiming to be Vaisnavas of the highest order. Some persons have deviated even further and gone so far as to conjecture that Sukadeva Gosvami was actually a manjari in krsna-lila, surpassing even the position of Radha's parrot. But such conjectures are a shabby substitute for sastric truth.
Someone may ask, "What difference does it make even if some of the story is conjecture? It is still sweet anyway!" The answer is that such conjectures are bitter and distasteful like neemboli (the fruit of the Neem tree) to those whose hearts are truly filled with the nectar of krsna-prema. Even a little conjecture of the truth spoils the whole thing. It becomes rasabhasa – rasa with artificial sweetener.
Some contemporary Vaisnavas are so confused regarding higher and lower topics, that they prefer the devotion of Sukadeva over that of great personalities such as Prahlada Maharaja and Advaita Acarya, saying that such personalities cannot give krsna-prema. They speak of krsna-prema as though it were a handout from the public welfare services and all one need do is just take it (take initiation from the rasika). This understanding is indeed pitiful. Such a mentality springs from the deepest ignorance born of "amara guru jagat-guru" and smacks of pigheadedness and false egotism.
Mahaprabhu Himself became very angry when Srivasa Pandita tried to compare Advaita Acarya with Sukadeva. Mahaprabhu rebuked Srivasa with a slap and told him that Sukadeva was a mere infant compared to Advaita who had the deepest connection with caitanya-lila. The story appears in Caitanya-bhagavata, Antya-khanda 9.282-296 as follows:
The Lord said, "O Srivasa, tell Me what type of Vaisnava do you think Advaita Prabhu is."
Srivasa Pandita thought for a while and finally said, "I consider Him to be similar to Sukadeva or Prahlada."
Upon hearing the comparison of Advaita with Prahlada and Sukadeva, the Lord became angry and hit Srivasa.
Just as an affectionate father beats his son in order to teach him, similarly the Lord gave a slap to Srivasa.
"What did you say? What did you say, Pandita Srivasa? You are comparing My Nada (Advaita) with Sukadeva or Prahlada!
"You may claim that Sukadeva is fully liberated, but compared to Nada, he is like a child.
"How dare you say such a thing about My Nada? O Srivasa, today you have put Me in great distress."
Saying this, the Lord in an angry mood grabbed a stick in His hand and ran after Srivasa to hit him. Sri Advaita Acarya then stood up and gently caught hold of the Lord's hand.
"O Lord, a father teaches his sons out of compassion. So who in the three worlds is a suitable candidate for Your anger?"
"Hearing the words of Advaita Acarya, the Lord gave up His anger and in ecstasy began to profusely glorify Advaita.
The Lord said, "Since all of you are just like My children, My anger has now dissipated.
"Who can understand the glories of Nada? It was He who awakened Me from sleep and called Me here.
The Lord said, "O Srivasa, is this how you show respect to My Nada?
"Suka and others are like His children. You should know that they are all junior to Nada."
Our conclusion is as Srila Sridhara Maharaja and others have stated – that Sukadeva Gosvami has no permanent position in krsna-lila and that he was empowered by the causeless mercy of Krsna to speak Srimad Bhagavatam.
I am writing this essay on Sriya Suka to set straight the record because I too have told this conjectured story in the past as though it were true thru and thru. To err is human, but to admit one's mistakes and to be rectified with the proper understanding is to make real advancement. To remain in ignorance – even if one thinks that such ignorance is bliss – is to continue on the path of doom!
Reply by Brajanath das
Respected Gour Govinda prabhu and respected Syamarani didi, please accept my dandavats pranams. All glories to Sri Guru and Sri Gauranga and all glories to Sri Sri Radha Vinode Bihariji.
Thank you for your kind messages. From the talk it is understood that there are two parts of the story that are verified by the sastra, meaning that indeed Sukadeva Gosvami takes birth from the womb of Vatika, the wife of Sri Vyasadeva. This Sukadeva is the original parrot of Srimati Radhika or is an ordinary parrot? This is the concern of respectable Sripad Narasimha Maharaja.
Respectable Sripad Narasimha Maharaja has done lots of research with sahajiya babajis, and he also happens to be a pre-eminent follower of Param Pujyapada Srila Sridhar Maharaja. We have also heard, and even read claims from respectable Sripad Narasimha Maharaja that he is the most authentic siksa disciple of Parama Pujyapada Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur, Srila Prabhupada.
In the past the respectable Maharaja has made serious allegations to bring into discredit the undisputed, spotless character of our Gurumaharaja, Om Vishnupada Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayan Gosvami Maharaja. In this recent Krishna Talk it is evident that he has not learned his lesson.
I refer to the response - http://www.bvml.org/contemporary/roktryin.htm - that has been provided by Sripad Bhaktivedanta Madhava Maharaja to the previous attempt of the Maharaja to find fault with our Gurumaharaja' character. In this beautiful response from Sripad Madhava Maharaja it is made crystal clear that Sripad Narasingha Maharaja is acting without proper guidance.
Certainly the respected Maharaja is entitled to his opinion - as everybody else is, isn't it? He has perhaps studied lots of scriptures, and for sure has received the association of exalted Vaisnavas - Srila Prabhupada Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja and Srila Sridhar Maharaja - but this does not necessarily qualify him as an authority in the Vaisnava Tradition. There are many respectable Vaisnavas who have had even more association with these 2 exalted Vaisnava Acaryas and who have also studied the Vaisnava literature. These Vaisnavas do not make similar claims as respected Narasimha Maharaja.
Therefore, we cannot and will not take his talk very serious... unless he is able to show by example and words, how to honor Vaisnavas properly. This is one of the most important teachings of Srila Rupa Gosvami in Sri Upadesamrta # 5:
krishneti yasya giri tam manasadriyeta
dikshasti cet pranatibhis ca bhajantam isam
susrushaya bhajana-vijnam ananyam anyanindadi-
sunya-hridam ipsita-sanga-labdhya
Sri Upadesamrita 5/BR 2.37
krishna—Krishna; iti—thus (appears); yasya—in whose; giri—speech; tam—that
person (a neophyte devotee); manasa—within the mind; adriyeta—one should
respect; diksha—accepted initiation from a qualified Guru; asti—he has; cet—if;
pranatibhih—by offering obeisances; ca—also; bhajantam—an intermediate devotee; isam—unto Bhagavan; susrushaya—with all types of service (such as offering dandavat-pranama, making relevant inquiry and rendering service); bhajanavijnam—
a self-realised, expert maha-bhagavata Vaishnava who performs bhajana of
Sri Radha-Krishna's eightfold daily pastimes; ananyam—who is an exclusive devotee of Sri Krishna; anya-nindadi-sunya-hridam—and whose heart, due to his undeviating absorption in Krishna, is free from faults such as the tendency to criticize others; ipsitasanga— the association for which one hankers; labdhya—having obtained.
One who takes krishna-nama just once by calling out "O Krishna!" is a neophyte devotee (kanishtha-adhikari). One should consider him to be his family member and silently respect him. One who, fully understanding the principle of diksha, has accepted initiation from a qualified Guru and performs bhajana of Bhagavan in accordance with the Vaishnava conventions is an intermediate devotee ( madhyama-adhikari). One should respect such a devotee who is endowed with the correct understanding of reality and illusion by offering pranama unto him and so forth. One who is conversant with the science of bhajana as described in the Srimad-Bhagavatam and other Vaishnava scriptures and who performs exclusive bhajana of Sri Krishna is a maha-bhagavata devotee. Due to his undeviating absorption in Sri Krishna, the pure heart of such a devotee is free from faults such as the tendency to criticize others. He is expert in bhajana, meaning that he mentally renders service (manasa-seva) to Sri Radha-Krishna's pastimes which take place during the eight segments of the day (ashta-kaliya-lila).
Knowing him to be a topmost devotee whose heart is established in the particular mood of service to Sri Radha-Krishna for which one aspires and who is affectionately disposed towards oneself, one should honour him by offering dandavat-pranama (pranipata), making relevant inquiry (pariprasna) and rendering service (seva) with great love.
If the Maharaja has any problems and is unable to accept any pertinent points, why is he so worried to approach sahajiya babajis instead of authentic, contemporary Gaudiya Vaisnavas? Perhaps the Maharaja prefers isolation rather than approaching superior Vaisnavas; or he may harbor the dangerous conception that no one at present in this world is more advanced than him.
I wish the Maharaja all the best, especially I wish him to be in more advanced association.
aspiring for the service of Sri Guru and Vaisnavas
Brajanath das
