Maharaj-libel-truth-pushtimarg

Unveiling the Core Principles and Truths of Pushtimarg and Hinduism

In the notorious Maharaja Libel case, this work with its commentary by Gokulanathaji was cited by the defendant to show that the religious tenets preached by Vallabhacarya and his grandson sanctioned immoral practices. This is the most perverted use made of the noblest of works. At this distance of time, it is difficult for us to see how such a monstrous suggestion could have been made. Vallabhacarya’s whole life was based on vairagya. In all his works, he insists on vairagya as the first bhagavad-dharma. His learned descendant Purusottamaji says, ‘acaryanain talparyari tyaga eva.’ It was unfortunate that all the materials available were not placed before the court. The court was prejudiced by the highly coloured testimony of the defendant’s witnesses. General ignorance of the tenets of Vallabhacarya, and a desire not to give publicity to the works of the sampradaya helped to create an atmosphere prejudicial to the reputation of the sampradaya. To add to this, the life led by a few of the priestly class, suggested an inference against them. Of course, we have no doubt that Yadunathaji Maharaja, who instituted the libel case, has not got justice in court. By a perusal of the evidence led in the case against the Maharaja, we are driven to the conclusion that the verdict of the court as regards Vallabhacarya’s teachings is entirely wrong. We are of the opinion that the publication of this whole work with all the commentaries is the best answer to all the misconceptions about, and false allegations against the sampradaya.

Let us first see what is taught by Vallabhacarya and his grandson Gokulanatha and others. In the sampradaya there are two rites generally performed, viz., sarana-mantroupadesa and atma-nivedana. The first gives recognition as a Vaisnava and the second makes one adhikari in the Seva-marga. The first initiation is given by a descendant of Vallabhacarya by repetition of the mantra, ‘Srikrsnah saranam mama,’ in the ears of the child and then putting the tulasi-kanthi on his neck. The performance of the second initiation is also generally through a descendant take place only through him or his descendants. Vallabhācārya does not seem to insist that any particular person should initiate you. Of course it goes without saying that the person who initiates and the person initiated must be spiritually exalted. In his Nibandha, while discussing the question as to who can be a Guru, he observes as follows:

kṛṣṇa-sevā-parāṁ vikṣya dambhādi-rahitaṁ naraṁ

śrībhāgavata-tattvajñānīṁ bhajej jijñāsuḥ śāravat.

tadabhāve svayaṁ vāpi mṛtirṁ kṛṣṇo hareḥ kvacit.

paricarayāṁ sada kurvya tadṛtṁaṁ tatra ca sthitam.

- Tatvartha Deepa Nibandha (T.D.N) II. 227-8

His commentator here observes as follows: kaler baliṣṭhatvena agrimeṣu gurulakṣaṇābhāvaṁ alocya svasmin-nevaaitān-mārgyā-gurūtvāṁ niścachanta āhuḥ (T.D.N.P. Āv. II. 228). Putting together these two statements, we can easily understand how the idea of Śrīmadācārya’s presence was always considered necessary at the time of initiation. Vallabha’s descendants even to this day initiate their pupils not in their own name and responsibility, but in the name and responsibility of Śrī Vallabha.

This initiation is referred to as brahma sambandha by Vallabhācārya in the present work. The necessary qualification of the initiated is bhagavat-kṛpā, which can be inferred from one’s inclination towards the bhagavat-mārga. Thus the kṛpā-yukta soul has to dedicate his everything to Lord Kṛṣṇa through Śrīmadācārya and proclaim himself as the dāsa of Kṛṣṇa. This is what is known as brahma-sambandha, and it is interpreted in this sense by all the commentators here.

Gokulanāthajī says: ‘brahma-sambandha-karaṇi nāma etan-mārgīya- cārya-dvāra bhagavatnivedanam’ (Siddhant Rahasya Vivruti 2, p. 2, T.E.).

According to Raghunāthajī, ‘brahma-sambandha’ means this: ‘brahmāvid brahma puruṣottamaḥ, tat-sambandhas tasmin dehaikmaior nivedana- lakṣaṇaḥ’ (Siddhant Rahasya Vi. 2, p. 8, T.E.).

Kalyāṇarāyajī says: ‘brahma-sambandho nāma sva-mārggāchārya-dvāra bhagavati nivedanam’ (S.R. Vi. 2, p. 11, T.E.).

Vrajosṭavajī says: ‘brahma - sambandha - karaṇi nāma sākṣat- puruṣottama-sambandha-karaṇam. tacca śrīmadācārya-dvāra śaraṇa-gamana- pūrvakam’ (S.R. Vi. 2, p. 15, T.E.).

Gokulotsavajī observes: ‘brahmānaḥ śrīpuruṣottamasya sambandhi- karaṇāt sarva-samarpāṇena tadīyatva-sampādanāt’ (S.R. Vi. 2, p. 22, T.E.).

Harirāyajī says:

‘adaṁ sambandha-karaṇaṁ kanyayeva svayaṁvare.

svasya sarva-pādārthānāṁ manasa tena yojanaṁ.

sambandhavatvāt dīnyeva guṇāḥ tatkṛtir bhavet.

sambandhasyāpi nirdoṣas tathā sarvasamāṁ smṛtaḥ.

vahnerivedi bodhya proktām brahmapadārth punah.

nirdoṣaṁ hi samāni brahmetyatroktāṁ tat tathāvidham.

yat prayukte kṛṣṇa-pade viṣayatevaṁ guṇaḥ।

sambandhe tadrūpeksa nāsti doṣa-nivāraṇāt.

doṣa-mārga-nivṛttayārthaṁ brahma-sambandha ucyate.’

(S.R. Vi. 2 Kā. 26-30, p. 26, T.E.).

Viṭṭhalarāyajī says: ‘brahmaṇā mayā saha sambandhaḥ kāryaḥ.’ (S.R. Vi. 2, p. 31, T.E.).

Giridharaijī defines it thus: ‘asmin mārge yaśododoṣānāga-lalitā-śrī- kṛṣṇasyāyopapāyattvasya cājñalokācāryatva-mātra-brahmatvāt tad yadyānaṁ sambandhaḥ samārgīya-nivedanaṁ tadīyatva-sampādanā-lakṣaṇaḥ’ (S.R. Vi. 2, p. 50, T.E.).

Lālū Bhaṭṭa explains it thus: ‘brahmaṇa saha sambandhaḥ svā- svāmi-bhāva-lakṣaṇaṁ dehendriya-prāṇatnaḥ-karaṇa-dārāgra-putrāṇām ātmanaś ca tadīyatvaṁ iti yāvat. tasya karaṇā gadya-sahita-pañcākṣara- nivedana-mantrasyopadeśena sphuṭikaraṇād ityarthaḥ’ (S.R. Vi. 2, p. 56, T.E.).

According to the last Ṭīkākāra it means this: ‘nirdoṣaṁ hi samāṁ brahma dāmani, tasmin sambandhasya karaṇāt, sādhaka-tamāḥ sagadya- pañcākṣara-kathanaṁ. anistve’pi ‘parabhidhyānātiti tirohitāṁ, tato hyasya bandha-viparyayav (B.S. III. 2.5) iti bhakti-mārgyātma-samarpanapara- paryaya-nivedana-dvāra sevakatva-karaṇād ityarthaḥ’ (S.R. Vi. 2, p. 66, T.E.).

Puruṣottamajī has written on almost all works of Vallabhācārya, and he explains the word brahma-sambandha thus ‘brahma-sambandho nāma sarvasmin bhagavat-svāmitvakaraṇāpayā sambandhaḥ, tasya karaṇai nāma bhāgavata ācāryaṁ prati gadyeṇokto ya ātma-samarpana-prakārah,

tadīyatvaṁ bhagavatī svātma-sahita-sūlya-sarva-pādārthānāṁ bhagavati

tathātva-vijñāpanam, ‘sa vai naiva reme’ (Br. Upa. I. 4.3) iti śruteḥ,

‘kṛtārthām ātmana idānṁ trivāgat kṛtān te,

svāmānya tu tatra kudiśyo’para tis kurvyaḥ’ (Bha. VIII. 22.20).

ityādi-vākyac ca, vastutah sarvasya bhagavatyāve’pi ‘sa vai naiva reme’ (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad I. 4.3) ityādi-śrutyā ram rāmṇārthān dvitīya-nirmāṇādi- śravaṇāt tena āpāditā yā tat-tat-padārthe jīvasya svatva-sūyatvabhimāthī tat-pariyāgena teṣu bhagavādīyatvasya vijñāpanam iti yāvat.’ (Siddhant Rahasya Vi. 2, p. 39, T.E.).

From the above quotations the reader will be in a position to see that the so-called brahma-sambandha has reference to Kṛṣṇa, and not to Ācārya or any of his descendants. From Vallabhācārya down to the most recent commentator, all the writers have understood that the samarpaṇa is to Puruṣottama or Kṛṣṇa and not to any mortal being.

In spite of these facts, it would be monstrous to substitute the word Ācārya in place of Puruṣottama and then to draw the inference that Vallabhācārya and his sampradāya looked upon immoral practices as sanctioned by his teachings. Of course we are not in a position to deny that a certain section of the followers and some individuals of the priestly class had degenerated. Such degeneration comes, at one time or another, in all religions. But to say that the followers or priests were degenerated is one thing, and to conclude from their mischievous activities that Vallabhācārya or any of his learned followers preached or tolerated or sanctioned immoral practices is another thing. Vallabhācārya and his learned descendants have condemned immorality to this day in no uncertain terms. In order to give an idea of this, we shall quote from their writings. Vallabhācārya in his Nibandha lays down the rules for the guidance of a bhakta. Commenting on this passage, Puruṣottamajī discusses this question at great length. To give a correct idea of what he has said there, we shall quote that portion of his commentary and leave the reader to judge as to how it is true to say that the sampradāya sanctioned immoral practices.

The last lines of Puruṣottamajī represent the correct attitude of the sampradāya as regards morality. No descendant of Vallabhācārya has claimed himself to be Ācārya. The sampradāya recognized Vallabhācārya alone as Ācārya. Hence, we don’t find any of Vallabha’s descendants assuming the said title as we find in case of the successors to the Maṭhas of Śaṅkarācārya. When this is the position of the descendants of Vallabhācārya, how was it possible for them to pose as Kṛṣṇa-Puruṣottama-incarnate? Vallabha himself says that he is Kṛṣṇa dāsa, ‘iti śrīkṛṣṇa-dasasyā vallabhasya hitāni vacaḥ,’ (An.1y-karana. 10). When that is the position of Vallabhācārya, how could it be otherwise with any of his representatives? Vallabha was succeeded by his two illustrious sons Gopīnatha and Viṭṭhaleśvara. To them he was father both in spiritual and physical sense. The expressions uttered by them as regards their father are full of fervent devotion. Gopīnatha says: ‘ta nāḥ pitṛ-padā-padmaṁ ṛṇavāh kāma-dhenavah,’ and Viṭṭhaleśvara says: ‘vasatulaḥ kṛṣṇa eva’ (Śrīvallabhāṣṭakam, 8) bhāvi na bhito’styapi.’ It is rare to find such fervent devotion in ordinary relation of son and father. Sons of Viṭṭhaleśvara regarded him similarly. This fact and the fact of their being men of spotless character, sound learning, and single-minded devotion to Kṛṣṇa generated a sort of intense devotion to his descendants among the members of the sampradāya. The long life generally enjoyed by them leads one to the same conclusion. Vallabha’s son Viṭṭhaleśvara lived for over seventy years. His grandson Gokulanātha the commentator of Siddhānta-rahasya lived over 90 years, his great grandson Harirāyajī lived over 20 years. Numerous instances to this day could be multiplied.

Telivala gives here a very long quotation from Puruṣottama’s Āvaraṇabhānga on T.D.N. II. 238, pp. 183-188 N.S.E., (Ed.).

aio bhagavatlila-dṛṣṭāntona laukike pravartanā na pravartamānaṁ ca vināyakān niścitya tat-saṅginām parihitya sāvadānya-nigrahaḥ kāryaḥ (T.D.N. Av. II. 238 p. 186, N.S.E.), (Ed.).

Almost all the illustrious scholars in the sampradāya are descendants of Vallabhācārya. The position being this, we are not surprised to find that Vallabha’s descendants came to be looked upon as objects of deep veneration like Kṛṣṇa. So far we see nothing wrong.

The Vedic injunction,

yasyā deve parā bhaktir yathā deve tatha gurau,

tasyaite kathitā hyarthāḥ prakāśante mahatmanaḥ.

(Śvet. Upa. VI. 23).

lays down the correct principle, that one who has bhakti towards the teacher as he has towards God, to such a great soul these meanings (teachings) become visible. To entertain the same bhakti towards Ācārya as they do to God is necessary for the right understanding of his teachings. From this it would be absurd to infer that the dedication as contemplated to God is to be done to Ācārya. On this point there is absolutely no room for doubt. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the dedication contemplated in the sampradāya has reference to Puruṣottama Kṛṣṇa alone, and this can be done through Vallabhācārya alone, who is considered present in spirit at the initiation. His descendants are all guru-dvāra. Thus brahma-sambandha referred to in the present work is to take a vow, in the presence of Ācārya or his descendant, that whatever is comprised in aham and mama of one is dedicated to God Kṛṣṇa, and that he is His dāsa.

Having thus seen clearly that the brahma-sambandha spoken of here in the present work has reference to Puruṣottama Kṛṣṇa the Highest Divinity, and not to Ācārya or his descendants representing him, let us now understand what is the purport of the gadyārtha—the vow by which the brahma-sambandha is supposed to take place with God in the presence of the Ācārya or his representative. According to this grantha, this was the vow which was communicated to Śrī Vallabhācārya by Kṛṣṇa Himself on the mid-night of the bright half of the month of Śrāvaṇa, and Dāmodarādaśa was the first sevaka initiated. As regards the verses describing the effect of this initiation in the present work, there is some difference of opinion among the commentators as to whether these verses are those ones spoken by Kṛṣṇa to Ācārya, or whether they are composed by Ācārya incorporating the sense of every letter uttered by Him. Whichever view we take it does not matter much. We are concerned with the sense expressed in these verses and not with the authorship of the same, because in either case the authoritativeness of them is the same.

Vallabhācārya’s activities were many-fold. His ancestors and he himself were Dīkṣitas. They daily performed agnihotra. In his Subodhinī he calls himself Śrī Vallabha Dīkṣita. Kumārila’s Pūrvamīmāṁsā view was not accepted by him. In order to bring out the true significance as he understood it to be, he wrote out a Bhāṣya on the Sūtras of Jaimini. Hence, we find his name karma-mārga pravartakah. Similarly, to preach the true significance of. Brahma-vāda he wrote out a Bhāṣya on the Sūtras of Bādarāyaṇa. To explain bhakti-śāstra correctly, he wrote his Subodhinī on Śrīmadbhāgavata. But after doing all this, he saw that times were not suitable. People had not the requisite capacity to study all this.

He seems to have thought over this question for a long time. Thus, it appears that after establishing the Karma-mārga and Brahma-vāda, he wanted to find out a path by which all can approach God. The Supreme Divinity was described in the Upaniṣads as ānandamaya, vaiśvānara, dahara, sarvakāma, sarva-gandha, asthūlam, anañu, neti, neti. Out of these various aspects, which aspect should be selected so as to be agreeable to all? The ānandamaya puruṣottama is the best aspect. There are two views of sṛṣṭi, viz., illusory and real. There is no clear reference to the illusory character of the sṛṣṭi in the Upaniṣads, but on the contrary sṛṣṭi is described as ramāṇa or līla in passages like ‘sa vai naiva reme’ (Br. Upa. I. 4.3). Bādarāyaṇa distinctly describes sṛṣṭi as līla and not as mūyā, while Bhagavata describes sṛṣṭi as krīḍā-bhāṇḍa. Sṛṣṭi is two-fold, one referring to human souls, and the other referring to jagat.

bhagavacchāstram āśrāya vicārya ca punaḥ punaḥ.

yaduhaṁ hariṇā puṣcāti savalha-vinirṇītayo.

ekam śāstram dvaivak pūtra-gītam,

eko devo devaik-pūtra eva.

mano’pyokas tasya vāmanīk yāni,

harimṛpekhina tasya dāsoya sevā. (T.D.N. I. 43)

The first takes place according to the Vedic passage ‘yathāgneḥ kṣudrā viṣpuligāḥ’ (Br. Upa. II. 1.20), and the other in accordance with ‘yato vā imāni bhūtāni’ (Taitt. Upa. III. 1.1). Thus human soul becomes the aṁśa of the Highest Divinity; while the universe is the kārya of brahman. Brahman is sat, cit, ānanda, hence His aṁśa is also sat, cit, ānanda, but for the exigencies of ramaṇa his ānandānśa becomes non-manifest—tirobhūta; the result is that he forgets that everything of his including himself is Lord’s, and superimposes his ahantā and mamatā on objects which are really not his. In result he suffers sorrows and miseries. To remove this ignorance, the vow mentioned in gadya enjoins on the initiated to give up his ahantā and mamatā in all objects, and dedicate them to the Lord. By dedicating everything including himself to Lord, what becomes of him? He becomes Lord’s. He becomes Lord’s servant. His ahantā and mamatā cease to be jaivā, they become bhagavadīya. The moment he realises that he is Lord’s slave he feels that he has to abide by His will. His will prevails everywhere. His will is for sport—līlā, and he has to play the part allotted to him. Sorrow and misery caused by ignorance of māyā are substituted by the joy, happiness of līlā. From agni-viṣpuṁlinga Vedic passage, ‘mamaiṁśo jīva-loke’ (Gītā, XV. 7) Gītā-verse and ‘aṁśo nānā vyapadeśāt’ (B.S. II. 3.43) we know that the human soul is the aṁśa of brahman. We know from another Vedic passage ‘yo yo yadāṁśah sa tāṁ bhajeť that the aṁśa should worship that aṁsin whose aṁśa he is. Hence in Vallabha’s system the initiated are supposed to be aṁśas of aṁsin Kṛṣṇa. This Kṛṣṇa is rasāt-maka, ānandamaya puruṣottama taught in the Taittirīya. This is the highest conception of the Supreme Being where He is described as ānanda and rasa, and the mode to approach Him is only through nirupadhi niravādhi prema. To feel the kleśa—pangs of one’s separation from this rasātmaka ānandamaya is in itself a form of Bliss of the highest type. This is possible only when there is nirupadhi and niravādhi prema for the rasa, ānanda, Kṛṣṇa. This is taught in the formula of the gadya when it describes the initiated as one in whom the non-manifestation of the bliss of the pangs of separation for infinite number of years has taken place. The words ‘bhagavade Kṛṣṇāya’ describe the One to whom everything is to be dedicated. The two words connote līlā-viśiṣṭa rasa, ānanda, Kṛṣṇa.

By M. Telivala

The Form of Guru in Puṣṭimārga

There are primarily four types of questions:

1. **Yes/No Questions (Ekansh Vyakaraniy)**: These questions can be answered directly with a "yes" or "no."

2. **Divisible Questions (Vibhajya Vyakaraniy)**: These require a differentiated response depending on the situation.

3. **Counter-Questions (Pratiprccha Vyakaraniy)**: These are answered by posing another question.

4. **Abandonable Questions (Sthapniya)**: These are questions whose answers should be entirely avoided.

In the Maharaj libel case, when the court asked the Puṣṭimārga follower, "Is Guru a God?" the judge ordered that the answer must be either "yes" or "no." Is it appropriate for a secular court to decide on matters of religion and ethics? Is it reasonable to confine the answers to such complex religious questions within a simple "yes" or "no"? In the Vedic tradition, where all names, forms, and actions are seen as expressions of Brahman, such insistence reveals a lack of understanding of the Vedic principles.

Fundamentally, the question "Is Guru a God?" is not a simple yes/no question. It is a divisible or counter-question.

Śrī Vallabhācārya, in his texts, clarifies his purpose for manifesting on Earth: “अर्थं तस्य विवेचितुं..” (Subodhinī 1), stating that he came to uplift Puṣṭi souls by revealing the hidden meanings of the Śrīmad Bhāgavata Purāṇa, as commanded by Śrī Krishna. He also refers to himself as a servant of Krishna, as seen in “दासीनां सर्वरक्षार्थं प्रार्दुर्भुतो मम प्रभु..” (Subodhinī 10). His role is further explained in the Tatvarth Deep Nibandh, where he identifies as "अग्निस्चकार तत्वार्थदीपं" (Tatvarth Deep Nibandh). At the end of his sixteen works, he refers to himself as “इति कृष्णदसेन..” (a servant of Krishna). His son, Śrī Viṭṭhalnāthaji, in his Sarvottam Stotra, describes Śrī Vallabhācārya as "कृष्णास्य" (Krishna’s mouthpiece) and “वस्तुतः कृष्ण एव” (essentially Krishna) in the Śrī Vallabhāṣṭak.

From these scriptures, it is clear that Śrī Vallabhācārya never advocated for his own worship but always emphasized that only Śrī Krishna should be worshipped and served.

Here are some important statements:

अतस्तु ब्रह्मवादेन कृष्णे बुद्धिर्विधियतां |

सर्वदा सर्वभावेन भजनीयो व्रजाधिपः |

कृष्ण सेव्यः |

कृष्णसेवा सदा कार्या |

पूर्णानन्दो हरिस्तस्मात् कृष्ण एव गर्तिर्मम |

कृष्णात् परं नास्ति दैवम् |

यद् यद् इष्टतमं लोके यच्चातिप्रियमात्मनः ...|

These and many other statements confirm that Śrī Vallabhācārya did not identify himself as Krishna but considered Krishna alone as the deity to be worshipped in Puṣṭimārga.

Śrī Viṭṭhalnāthaji, in his Śrī Vallabhāṣṭak, states, “श्रीवल्लभनामधेय न भावि न भुतोत्स्यपि ..” indicating that he does not equate himself to his father, let alone other descendants. In Puṣṭimārga, the guru is not the Supreme Being (Purushottam), but he is indeed revered. The guru's reverence is based on Śrī Vallabhācārya’s teaching: “कृष्णसेवा परं वीक्ष्य दंभादिरहितं नरं श्रीभागवततत्वज्ञ ..” Otherwise, the guru does not hold divine status.

The opportunity for the worship of the guru arises only when the guru leads the disciple towards the Supreme Brahman. The scriptures describe such a guru with respect and reverence to cultivate a sense of devotion towards them. This practice is known as "upāsanā vidhi." Śrī Purushottamaji elaborates on this in his commentary "Prakāś" on the Anubhāṣya:

अनुत्कृष्टस्य उत्कृष्टत्वेन उपासनं दृश्यते, मनो ब्रह्मेत्यादि, न तु उत्कृष्टस्य निकृष्टत्वेन |

This means that non-excellent names, forms, and actions are worshipped as Brahman, similar to how the mind and food are considered Brahman (as stated in the Taittiriya Upanishad), not by the inferior forms of Brahman. Through this upāsanā vidhi, the guru is also called Brahman because he shows the way to attain Brahman. Just as in the Taittiriya Upanishad, it is said, "The mind is Brahman," "Food is Brahman," similarly, "The guru is Brahman." There is no fault in this worship if the guru leads towards Brahman and fulfills all the characteristics described by Śrī Vallabhācārya. Many statements, such as:

गुरौ भेदबुद्धिः प्रथमो अपराध:

यस्य देवे परा भक्तिः यथा देवे तथा गुरौ (Shvetashvatara Upanishad)

यस्य साक्षद् भगवति ज्ञानदीपप्रदे गुरौ (Bhagavata Purāṇa 7|15|26)

नाम चिन्तामणिः कृष्ण-चैतन्यरस विग्रहः (Padma Purāṇa)

सतां निन्दां नाम्नां परमम् अपराधं वितनुते ...(Padma Purāṇa)

आचार्य चैत्य वपुषा स्वगतिं व्यनक्ति

In conclusion, the question "Is Guru a god?" can be understood as:

- If the question is, "Is Guru equivalent to Krishna?" the answer is "Yes, Guru is God."

- If the question is, "Is Krishna equivalent to Guru?" the answer is "No, Guru is Not God."

The main purpose of publishing this text is to acquaint modern followers with the truth, educate them on the fundamental principles of the sect, and dispel misconceptions. This text adopts a precise, Vedic, and systematic style known as "Adhikaraṇa," which consists of five parts: subject, doubt, opponent's argument, refutation, and conclusion. (विषयो विशयश्चैव पूर्वपक्षः तथोत्तरम् संगतिश्च शास्त्रे अधिकरणम् स्मृतं)

Throughout the history of Puṣṭimārga, there have been many instances where other sects have spread misconceptions out of malice. These have been addressed and refuted by the learned acharyas and followers of the sect. Examples include the debate at Kashi Vishwanath Temple, the argument with Chidrup, refuting the allegations of Lakshmananath Dandi, addressing Dayanand Saraswati’s accusations, and responding to the book “Puṣṭimārga is Fabricated” published by Dvārka Pīṭha Shankaracharya Mādhava Tīrtha. We are publishing this text with the same intent and spirit to provide a serious, unbiased, and legitimate analysis of the Maharaj libel case according to the fundamental and pure principles of Puṣṭimārga. I believe this publication will serve as a light to dispel the darkness of ignorance about Puṣṭimārga and help followers understand its fundamental principles.

By Dhawal Patel