Swami Sampurnananda : Your question is wrong. All the authentic books published by Ramakrishna Mission mention Swami Nirmalananda as a Direct Disciple of Sri Ramakrishna. See the Life of Sri Ramakrishna with a Forward by Mahatma Gandhi or Earlier Editions of The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna or Sri Sri Ramakrishna Lila Prasangha (footnote) or Sri Ramakrishna The Great Master (footnote). All these books mention Tulsi Maharaj along with the names of Hari and Gangadhar. A later day author claims that Swami Nirmalananda is not a disciple. That author can be dismissed on the principle that if Shruti and Smrithi differ Shruti is taken as the Last Word.
Sugata Bose But then why is Swami Nirmalananda not officially recognised as Thakur's direct disciple anymore, for even in the room of President Maharaj at Belur Math, his photograph is absent among those of the other direct disciples, now numbering 16? Swami Chetanananda in his 'God Lived With Them' also lists Thakur's direct disciples as 16 and leaves Swami Nirmalananda out. Surely, there must be some reason for this conspicuous omission? Also, why in countless references in lectures and articles delivered and written by monks of the Order consistently this position is maintained that Thakur had but 16 direct disciples among whom Nirmalanandaji's name does not figure? If the 'shruti' must prevail over the 'smriti' as you so aptly put it, why this reluctance of the Mission monks to clear the air once and for all and categorically affirm that Swami Nirmalananda was a direct disciple of Thakur about which there cannot be a shred of doubt? Why this refusal by the Mission itself to abide by the 'shruti' for all practical purposes as well regarding this issue and not make an open declaration that Swami Nirmalananda was a direct disciple of Thakur and settle the matter once and for all? It will do history a world of good, for this is a serious issue related to the one (Sri Ramakrishna) who was preeminently the embodiment of Truth, and will only be in keeping with the otherwise glorious spiritual tradition of the Ramakrishna Order. Devotees, now much confounded, may come to light thus, and you cannot argue that all will have to wade through authentic Ramakrishna literature amidst a mass of less authentic ones propagated by the Mission itself and promoting the counter-theory about the disciple issue, and filter their understanding to be able to come to the truth about this matter. It is a horrendous proposition that one is expected to go through copious contrary literature simply to arrive at the knowledge as to who the direct disciples of Thakur were, for otherwise one is culpable to be misled into the gathering of false fact about the same. Surely, the Mission owes it to its devotees and to the world at large to clearly articulate this truth about Swami Nirmalananda's direct discipleship in no uncertain terms. In that will be maintenance of the truthfulness which was so dear to the Master, a trait which he had said was the austerity of the Age. I await your response reverently. @ Swami Sampurnananda P.S. : Why must it be necessary to go to earlier editions of 'The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna' or 'Sri Sri Ramakrishna Leela Prasanga' / 'Sri Ramakrishna the Great Master' as you say we must to get to the truth? Does it, therefore, mean that the text in the later editions has been altered to suit the narrative that Swami Nirmalananda was not the direct disciple of Thakur? Also, who is this unnamed latter-day author who has posited the contrary view that Swami Nirmalananda was not the disciple of Thakur, and why? You have said that this author's assertion may be dismissed on the ground that it has mere smriti-like validity and must bow down to the superior shruti-like authority of the earlier more authentic versions where Swami Nirmalananda has been recognised as the direct disciple of Thakur. Then may I humbly ask as to why the Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission are still catering to this erroneous version of this latter-day author and are allowing this story to circulate of Thakur having had 16 direct disciples where Swami Nirmalananda is not visible? These are some of the the pertinent points I place before you in the hope that we may all arrive at a satisfactory conclusion to this contentious issue. I remain beholden to you at any rate for having thus far provided significant clues regarding the same which are helping to dispel much of the confusion that surrounds this discipleship deliberation. 
No comments:
Post a Comment