Nastika Lens of Vedic Scholars from Modern Universities

When we speak of Vedic Scholars from Modern Universities, we mean the scholars that have studied the Vedic lore not through traditional Guru-parampara, and specifically the scholars who have studied the Vedic lore through the university system set all over the world (starting from India) and running till date. This includes universities like Harvard, Oxford, etc. all those following the same system—which means almost all the modern colleges and universities. It all started with establishment of Indological department by the British with a specific aim—that of systematically destroying the Vedic understanding and application (and thus the hold of traditional Indian society over the Vedas) from the hearts of upcoming generations. For more on the mechanics of how this was (and is still being) done as well as solid evidence, the readers are advised to read the books of Rajiv Malhotra. 

However, below is an excerpt from a recently published Essay: Is the Term "Vedic Astrology" A Misnomer? by H G Shyamasundara Prabhu (ACBSP) which I wish to present first, because it succinctly presents the situation:

From the very onset I want to state that I accept the Vedic world view and its traditions and that I reject the chronology and views that foriegn academics, Indologists and Orientalists place on Vedic culture. These people were motivated by colonial expansion and missionary zeal to destroy the native culture and instead promote their own hegemony, world view and religion. And while modern academics are not funded by missionaries or colonial powers they by and large still accept  the views of  their colonial/missionary predecessors.  

In the following quote from M.M. Williams’s Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Williams clearly states the purpose of  Sanskrit study in the West in the 19th century: 

In explanation I must draw attention to the fact that I am only the second occupant of  the Boden Chair [for Sanskrit at Oxford], and that its founder, Colonel Boden, stated most explicitly in his will (dated Aug 15, 1811) that the special object of  his munificent bequest was to promote the translation of  the Scriptures into Sanskrit, so as ‘to enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion of  the natives of  India to the Christian Religion.’  

. . . I have made it the chief  aim of  my professorial life to provide facilities for the translation of  our sacred Scriptures into Sanskrit, and for the promotion of  a better knowledge of  the religions and customs of  India, as the best key to a knowledge of  the religious needs of  our great Eastern Dependency. My very first public lecture delivered after my election [to the Boden Chair] in 1860 was on ‘The Study of  Sanskrit in Relation to Missionary Work in India’ (published in 1861). (Monier Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, New Edition, Delhi, India: Motilal Banrsidass, 1899). ix-x) 

Williams was following in the footsteps of  his predecessor H.H. Wilson.  

H.H. Wilson the first holder of  the Boden Chair would deliver public lectures to promote his cause of  dismantling Vedic culture. The lectures were intended to ‘help candidates for a prize of  two hundred pounds...for the best refutation of  the Hindu religious system.’ (Goswami, Readings in Vedic Literature. 177) 

Goldstucker further reveals the bias that these scholars had in studying Vedic literature, he refers to followers of  Vedic culture as “the enemy”: 

‘The means for combating the enemy is as simple as it is irresistible: a proper instruction of  the growing generation in its ancient literature.’ In his book Inspired Writings of  Hinduism, Goldstucker assailed the validity of  Vedic literature. His aim was to demonstrate to the new generation of  Vedic followers that he had scholastically annihilated their scriptures and that they should show their appreciation by adopting European values and improving their character. (Goswami, Readings in Vedic Literature. 179) 

These few quotes hardly do justice to the subject but are indicative of  the deep enduring prejudice and bias against Vedic culture historically held by academia. This bias persists even today, as demonstrated by recently published books like Invading the Sacred, and The Battle For Sanskrit. This section does not aim to delve into a comprehensive exposé on the anti-Vedic bias, as that would unduly dilate this text. Instead, it briefly highlights why I categorically reject academics, Orientalists, and Indologits who arrogate themselves as the sole “authorities” with a monopoly on the subject. India is now experiencing a new awakening—an intellectual de-colonization—that challenges the long-standing Western domination of discourse on India still characterized by a condescending colonial-era style of writing, which denigrates Vedic thought as the product of an inferior civilization. 

BACK TO THE DISCUSSION

What is Nastika View?

Nastika is a Sanskrit word specifically used in the Vedic tradition, which lived the Vedic way. The outlook towards the Vedic lore that doesn't accept it as eternal is called a Nastika View (see ManuS 2.11, alongwith its commentaries starting from 2.8 to 2.14). 

Vedic Lore consists of: 4-Vedas (Samhitas alongwith their Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanisads), the 6-Vedangas (siksa, chanda, etc.), the 5th Veda i.e. Itihasas and Puranas, the Pancaratra Sastras, the 20 prime Dharma-sastras, and Nyaya, Mimamsa, and the Vedanta. These literatures are eternal and are breathed out by Lord Narayana at the beginning of creation. Therefore, there can be no date assigned to them; they are considered Apauruseya. (for evidence, go on reading)

Those who try to date these literatures as being former or later are necessarily having a nastika view. The whole foundation of modern scholarship of the Vedas is dependent on dating them of prior and later origin. That is why their view of the Vedic lore is nastika view. In any book, paper, or PhD thesis published by modern universities you will see this—dating of the Vedic lore. In the introduction part of any critical editions of different books from Vedic lore, you will find that necessarily they will try to date the literature they are producing critical edition of. This has been a fundamental error, and probably the intentional one too, of the modern scholarship. 

Modern Academia Is Necessarily Nastika In Its Vedic Outlook

For instance, famous Indological scholar from Harvard University, Michael Witzel, PhD. guru of His Holiness Hridayananda Dasa Goswami (ACBSP), is one of the current ten big shots who are proponents of anti-vedic agenda (read the book The Ten Heads of Ravana, by Rajiv Malhotra's team). He says, 

The  important  late  Vedic  and  early Vaisnava  text,  the  Vaikhanasa  Mantrapraśna  has  recently  been  edited  and translatedby H. Resnick.* (from p.5, Inside the texts, Beyond the Texts. New Approaches to the Study of the Vedas, Ed. Michael Witzel, Harvard Oriental Series, Cambridge 1977 )

Note the words early Vaisnava and late Vedic. According to the dating of modern indological scholars the Vedic era was different and then the Vaisnava era started (about 2000 years ago). Here H. Resnick is Hridayananda Dasa Goswmi, and this was his PhD thesis. So according to Witzel (and the whole university system) Vaikhanasa sastras were a later invention and not eternal, and probably Hridayananda Maharaja also agrees with this dating technique because he had PhD over this in which (at p.24, and also p.35-41) he ascribes Vaikhanasa Samhita to early medival period (i.e. from 6th to 13th Century). 

At another instance, Witzel writes:

Incidentally, the Indo-Aryan loanwords in Mitanni confirm the date of the Rig Veda for ca. 1200–1000 BCE. The Rig Veda is a late Bronze age text, thus from before 1000 BCE. However, the Mitanni words have a form of Indo-Aryan that is slightly older than that ... Clearly the Rig Veda cannot be older than ca. 1400, and taking into account a period needed for linguistic change, it may not be much older than ca. 1200 BCE. (Witzel, Michael‚ 2019, "Beyond the Flight of the Falcon,"  p. 11)

It is not just Witzel's view but it pervades the whole modern academia and is considered as an irrevocable fact. For more idea about modern academic view about the dating of the Rigveda, see here. And here is the chronology of the so-called "Hindu texts" as upheld till now by the modern academia (original source):

Samhita, Brahmana layers of the Vedas

    Rigveda, 1500 – 1100 BCE

    Samaveda, 1200 – 800 BCE

    Yajurveda, 1100 – 800 BCE

    Atharvaveda, 1000 – 800 BCE

The early Upanishads were composed over 900 – 300 BCE.

OTHERS

    Mahabharata, 400 BCE (Origins likely in the 8th or 9th century BCE)

    Bhagavad Gita, 400 BCE

    Ramayana, 400 BCE

    Samkhya Sutra

    Mimamsa Sutra, 300 – 200 BCE

    Arthashastra, 400 BCE – 200 CE

    Nyāya Sūtras, 2nd century BCE

    Vaiśeṣika Sūtra, 2nd century BCE

    Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, 100 BCE – 500 BCE

    Brahma Sutra, 500 BCE

    Puranas, 250 – 1000 CE

    Shiva Sutras, 120 BCE

    Abhinavabharati, 950 – 1020 CE

    Yoga Vasistha, 750 CE

CONCLUSION

The modern academic outlook to the Vedic lore is necessarily nastika—they do not accept the Vedic lore as eternal.

What is the Astika View?

Opposed to the Nastika View, the astika view upholds the eternal nature of the Vedic lore and all the bona fide sampradayas (including the Gaudiya Vaisnavas) accept this outlook. This outlook is mentioned, described, glorified, and propagated by the Vedic lore itself and by the people living the instrucitons of the Vedic lore—the sadhu pramana. For instance Jiva Gosvami quotes Brhadaranyaka in  his tattva-sandarbha (which is widely quoted by our own Srila Prabhupada), 

ṛgādibhiḥ samamanayoḥrapauruṣeyatvenābhedo mādhyāndina-śrutāveva vyajyate—"evaṁ vā are'sya mahato bhūtasya niśvasitam etad yad ṛgvedo yajurvedaḥ sāmavedo'tharvāṅgirasa itihāsaḥ purāṇam"  ityādinā.

By the following verse from madhyandina-sruti the eternal nature of the Itihasas and Puranas is established in equivalence to that of the four vedas like the Rigveda—In this way, the Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, and Atharvaveda, alongwith the Itihasas and the Puranas have come out from the breathing of Narayana.

Srila Prabhupada echoes the same: "As stated in the Vedas, asya mahato bhūtasya niśvasitam etad yad ṛg-vedaḥ iti: the injunctions of dharma emanate from the breathing of Nārāyaṇa, the supreme living entity. Nārāyaṇa exists eternally and breathes eternally, and therefore dharma, the injunctions of Nārāyaṇa, also exist eternally." (SB 6.1.40, ppt)

Then Jiva Gosvami starts giving evidence from various Puranasa and Upanisads to prove this point. Readers interested in details can read it here (from page no.39). I will quote just one or two such sloka series because that gives the whole picture of the expanse of the Vedic lore that came out of Narayana's breathing:

Matsya Purana, Chapter 3

tapaścacāra prathamamamarāṇāṁ pitāmahaḥ| āvirbhūtāstato vedāḥ sāṅgopāṅgapadakramāḥ (2) purāṇaṁ sarvaśāstrāṇaṁ prathamaṁ brahmaṇā smṛtam| nityaṁ śabdamayaṁ puṇyaṁ śatakoṭipravistaram (3) anantarañca vaktrebhyo vedāstasya viniḥsṛtāḥ| mīmāṁsānyāyavidyāśca pramāṇāṣṭaka saṁyutāḥ (4)

[Lord Matsya says]: "First of all the Pitamaha performed the austerities befitting the immortals. From him the Vedas became manifest alongwith its limbs (6-angas — siksa, chanda, kalpa, vyakarana, jyotisa, nirukta), upangas (corollaries) and the arrangements of padas (words). From all the sastras, the first remembered by Lord Brahma were the Puranas, which are eternal, pious, full of meaningful words, and 100 crore verses in expanse. Then from the mouth of Lord Brahma became manifest the Vedas. Then the Mimamsa and Nyaya sastras became manifest which contains the eight types of pramanas."

Matsya Purana Chapter 53:

purāṇaṁ sarvaśāstrāṇāṁ prathamaṁ brahmaṇā smṛtam | anantaraṁ ca vaktrebhyo vedāstasya vinirgatāḥ (3) purāṇamekamevāsīttadā kalpāntare 'nagha | trivargasādhanaṁ puṇyaṁ śatakoṭipravistaram (4) nirdagdheṣu ca lokeṣu vājirūpeṇa vai mayā | aṅgāni caturo vedānpurāṇaṁ nyāyavistaram (5) mīmāṁsāṁ dharmaśāstraṁ ca parigṛhya mayā kṛtam | matsyarūpeṇa ca punaḥ kalpādāvudakārṇave (6)

[Lord Matsya says] : "From all the sastras, the first remembered by Lord Brahma were the Puranas. Then from his mouth the Vedas came out. In that different Kalpa, the Puranas were manifest in just one single form, O sinless.  They were 100 crores of verses in expanse and were pious and were the instruments for achieving life's three goals. When all the lokas were burned to ashes I only, in the form of Hayagriva, upheld the four Vedas alongwith their 6-angas (limbs), the Puranas, the Nyaya-sastra, the Mimamsa Sastra, and the Dharmasastras. Again in the beginning of the Kalpa, when the whole universe is filled with ocean water, I only, in the form of Matsya, uphold and propagate these sastras."

Cc 2.6.137, ppt. --- Srila Madhvacarya, commenting on the aphorism drsyate tu (Vedanta-sutra 2.1.6), quotes the Bhavisya Purana as follows:

    ṛg-yajuḥ-sāmātharvāś ca bhārataṁ pañcarātrakam

   mūla-rāmāyaṇaṁ caiva veda ity eva śabditāḥ

   purāṇāni ca yānīha vaiṣṇavāni vido viduḥ

   svataḥ-prāmāṇyam eteṣāṁ nātra kiñcid vicāryate

The Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahabharata, Pancaratra and original Ramayana are all considered Vedic literature. The Puranas that are especially meant for Vaisnavas (such as the Brahma-vaivarta Purana, Naradiya Purana, Visnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana) are also Vedic literature. Therefore, whatever is stated in such Puranas or in the Mahabharata and Ramayana is self-evident. There is no need for interpretation. The Bhagavad-gita is also within the Mahabharata; therefore all the statements of the Bhagavad-gita are self-evident. There is no need for interpretation, and if we do interpret, the entire authority of the Vedic literature is lost. 

There are thousands of evidence to support this view and we will not quote all of them here. Interested reader may start first reading the tattva sandarbha. 

Therefore, the Astika Outlook of the Vedic Lore is that it is eternal and is manifested and unmanifested time to time at different places in the Universe. One cannot date the Vedic lore. 

What is the consequence of Nastika Outlook?

Nastika Outlook is based on the Nastika view of the Universe as mentioned in the Bhagavad-gita (16.8)—that there is no creator and controller of the Universe; it has come into being by chance and that life as we know it originated accidently from chemical combination. The evolutionary processes gradually diversified the life species and human race is one of such species that is the result of crores of years of evolution. The current Modern Homosapien Sapien species (that we call ourselves belonging to) has come into being about 2,00,000 years ago. Among them only some 20,000 years ago they began to settle down on the banks of river and started living in communities. Then began farming and then there was a need for language also which gradually developed over of period of time in various ways at various places. There also became a need to mutually deal with and therefore some social etiquette was necessary. So the people started forming some rules that all the members in a particular group will agree to follow, and these were the first traces of civilization. These rules then started defining how should the people behave by their body, mind, and words in society as well as personal lives, in families, etc. Because these rules developed at different places among different people, necessarily they are different and they do change over a period of time because the people and conditions change. The broader word culture that we use nowadays is a concept that conglomorates the lifestyle of a particular group of people (classified and grouped with some common criterion) in a particular place at particular time. Vedic Culture is no exception; it is one such culture classified based on the criterion of the people following the Vedas. The Vedas are one such text that were agreed upon by some big group of people (either Aryans or otherwise -- whichever theory you believe). However, seeing the vast extant of the Vedic texts and long expanse of time, it is understood that there is no such thing as "the Vedic Culture" but we can see it changing through timeline and also through geographical situation. The different literary contributions of this culture are recorded over time as the four vedas, the upanisads, the puranas, the darsanas, dharmasastras etc. The chronology is already given above. 

Therefore, there is no such thing as the eternal Vedic Culture, as some sentimental Hindus claim. Therefore, all such claims in the Vedic lore are to be considered either interpolations, or the views of the people of those times—they may have believed the story that the Vedas are eternal. Therefore, these literatures of different times reflect what the society was living like, thinking like, and what were the beliefs that people of those times subscribed to. 

The first technical consequence of this is that the modern academia doesn't consider that the author of the whole Vedic lore is one (which according to them is impossible). Therefore, they conclude that there is no strict connection of instructions between different sastras in the Vedic lore—i.e. the Vedic lore lacks continuum but is just a collection of views, descriptions of lifestyles, etc. over varying periods of time and among varying people. Once this connection is lost they do not try to harmonize the continuity of meaning among these literatures but take them in isolation—i.e. what a particular sastra wants to say in a verse cannot be judged by comparing it to the other sastra where the same thing is mentioned. Thus, they get entangled in matching the exact readings in several MSS, and coming up with critical editions. However, if they would have accepted the continuity of meaning of all sastras then it would have been quite easy to come to proper meaning of a text even if some part of the text is missing or interpolated. However, this cutting out of each sastra in Isolation is the first step in Indologists' modus operandi in killing the Vedic knowledge. 

Second consequence is that they believe that the original texts do not have their own meaning but can be understood by the persons reading them as they desire. They do not want to take help of the teacheres of these texts in the bygone ages because they think why should they take the opinion of those teachers. Therefore, they by-pass the sadhu (sista) pramana and the commentators on these texts. In stead they come to conclusion based on their own nastika lens. 

The third consequence is that they restructure historical events technically called—Historical reconstruction. They base themselves not on the direct meanings of the text describing its own history but will resort to secondary and tertiary sources like the dating techiniques, linguistic analysis, inscriptions, etc. Based on these so-called evidence they would conclude if a particular thing mentioned in a text is a real history or a myth. Therefore, they call Vedic literatures as Mythology because they find very little of believable truth in it. For instance, when it is said that Vyasadeva wrote all the 18 Puranas, the 4 Vedas, the Mahabharata, the Vedanta, etc. they will bring their dating techniques and see that these are spread over several thousand years; so it is not possible for one person to live so long; therefore, one person cannot be the author of all of these books. So they do not consider such events as historical events but myth. Another example is the debate about is Mahabharata War Historical or Myth? One devotee, Cakrapani Dasa (BVKS) has written a scholastic book on this [get it here] & [his webiste here] & [video 1 here] & [video 2 here] & [his youtube channel].

The Fourth consequence is the social one; because of the faulty alternative understandings of the Vedic history that are presented by nastikas, the society starts believing in them and starting to lose their faith in the real understanding that is coming from the parampara system. People start believing that their ancestors have made a mistake and that they did not know the real history. And more dangerous if they start believing that their ancestors were the ones who misused, mistreated, and miguided their next generations by manipulating historical facts and tampering with the historical records (compiled as sastras) and thus lose all faith in the currently available sastras if they are correct or not. They really start doubting if the meaning of the sastras (and even the text itself) that is being brought to them through parampara is correct or not. Practical manifestation of this fourth consequence in ISKCON has been started from about 2 decades and Hridayananda Maharaja is one of most vocal proponents of this through his Theory of Cultural Conditioning of Srila Prabhupada, which is now much more comprehensively and thoroughly presented by Kaunteya Dasa (JPS) in his book Tough Questions, Difficult Answers. Kaunteya Dasa's writings are full of these understandings; you can see he is on a crussade to prove that the Varnasrama as understood by all the acaryas for thousands of years is not the acutal Varnasrama which he proposes he knows and has written books to this end. If you see the content of those books, you will find the same stuff that you find in the writings of university scholars (after all, he himself has graduated in social sciences from such university system).  

The fourth consequence is actually the practical consequence that was the desired result for which the whole Indological system was designed at first place—to destroy Vedic tradition. 

Influences of the Nastika Lens on ISKCON's Scholarship

As is exemplified by several instances, ISKCON today is inflicted by such a Nastika Lens which the devotees have imbibed from their studies in universities. In fact, if you go through the evidence produced by Rajiv Malhotra's team, Harvard and Oxford Universities are the centers for teaching this nastika lens and thus creating work-force to propagate this nastika lens all over the world. And if you see, our leading vocal proponents of such views have studied in these universities (an example was given before) under the prime teachers who are hell-bent on destroying the Vedic culture. 

Even currently speaking, in ISKCON we have the Oxford Center for Hindu Studies (OCHS), in which many of the intellectual devotees study (some of who are even guiding the GBC and a part of the SAC, and OCHS is mostly populated by devotees). However, as we have seen, Oxford has been one of the two most active centers for producing and training nastika-scholars, another being Harvard. Therefore, it would not be a surprise if you see their (OCHS) papers, theses, and how they write in the academia, you find influences of the nastika lens of the modern academia. For instance, when they would quote a verse from Caitanya Caritamrta or Bhagavatam, they will not use the translation of Srila Prabhupada but rather use translations from a professor of secular academia (like collins, grifith, etc.). Besides this, they also often mention about the age of the text, even for eternal texts like the upanisads and the pancaratras. Besides this, there are several such aspects that you can see. Below I shall provdie a few instances of it and I do not aim to offend anyone but this is an attempt to support the observation from purely a scholarly point of view. The scholars mentioned below are always kept in high esteem, reverence by me and they are worshipable for my heart. Nor do I say that they are necessarily doing it by volition; it may just be that they do not even recognize that they have these influences on their understanding, who are otherwise sincere devotees.

One of the members of the Oxford Cetner for Hindu Studies, Mans Broo (Bhrgupada Prabhu, ACBSP) has written Hari Bhakti Vilasa's Ciritical Edition, Chapters 1 to 5, Published by Brill, 2023, [ISBN  978-90-04-53765-1]. It is an academically very well researched book. In the introduciton, in the section about who wrote Hari Bhakti Vilasa, he mentions (emphasis added)—

Around 1610, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja ascribes the hbv to Sanātana twice in his Caitanyacaritāmṛta (2.1.35,3.4.221; for this important early 17th-century hagiography, see Stewart 2010) and even has Caitanya teach a summary of its teachings to Sanātana (2.24.329–345). 

Here, he recommends the Caitanya Caritamrta by Stewart and not by Srila Prabhupada. This one by Stewart is a publication of Harvard University Press, 2000, ISBN 978-0674002857. 

And here, at few places he subscribes to the dating ideology of the sastras (emphasis added)—

His main scriptural source here is the Gopālatāpanī Upaniṣad, a late Upaniṣad (13th–14th century?) in which the first part contains a lengthy description of the Gopāla mantra (Brzezinski2019). (Introduction, p.37, emphasis added)

Sanātana Gosvāmin follows up with citations from various late Tantric texts, such as the Gautamīya Tantra. (Introduction, p.37, emphasis added)

Sanātana Gosvāmin appears to have had access to two Pañcarātric texts as well: the Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra and the Nārada Pañcarātra. The first is a voluminous text from the 8th of 9th century (Raddock 2011: 80) on the fashioning of images and temples in three parts (khaṇḍa), of which only the first has been published. [...] The Nārada Pañcarātra, on the other hand, is cited throughout and on many kinds of topics. Now, as noted by G.C. Tripathi (1976), the text usually known as the Nārada Pañcarātra or Jñānāmṛtasāra is a late text not identical with the one often cited in mediaeval nibandhas.

This is true in the case of the hbv as well, as no verses cited here are found in that work. Rather, the Nārada Pañcarātra of the hbv is identical with the Jayākhya Saṃhitā, one of the “Three Jewels” (ratnatraya), that is, the oldest and most respected of the Pañcarātric texts, a text of 33 chapters and around 4500 verses, written perhaps towards the middle of the fifth century (Matsubara 1994: 21). (Introduction, p.38, emphasis added)

Just for an example, the Gopala-tapani Upanisad is being dated as late, belonging to 13th or 14th century. However, it is one of the 108 upanisads that are mentioned in a list quoted by Srila Prabhupdada in his purport to Caitanya Caritamrta, Adi, 7.108. This list is from Muktikopanisad, verses 30–39. Therefore, this upanisad is also eteranal and cannot be dated belonging to 13th or 14th century. This suggests that the author subscribes to the idea that the upanisads are not eteral but are composed.

Similarly, Jayakhya Samhita has been considered one of the topmost and most revered Pancaratra sastra by all Vaisnava Acharyas, especially the Ramanujas. These texts are eternal and not a creation of humans, it is called Daiva Pancaratra. However, the author categorizes these pancaratrika texts in timeline; he puts Jayakhya in the 5th century. 

The author also dismisses Jnanamrta-sara-samhita as a "late text" and not attributed to Narada Pancaratra. However, we find herein the famous verse (1.2.6)—"ārādhito yadi haris tapasā tathā kiṁ, nārādhito yadi haris tapasā tathā kiṁ...."—quoted by our acaryas and often by Srila Prabhupada as belonging to Narada Pancaratra. Caitanya Mangala of Locana Dasa Thakura (Madhya, song 3/170) quotes it as being from Narada Pancaratra. He was contemporary of the six gosvamis. SBSST in his commentary to Caitanya Bhagavata, 1.2.70, quotes this verse as being from Narada Pancaratra. There are several other verses that are quoted by our acaryas to be from Padma Purana but actually not found there but in Jnanamrta-sara-samhita‚ for instance (4.2.23)—smartavya satatam visnur vismartavyo na jatucit...

And in the excerpt below, the author doubts if Sanatana Gosvami was living a highly renunciate life of living under one tree each day while simultaneously writing Hari Bhakti Vilasa—

Rather than two hundred texts, Sanātana Gosvāmin thus seems to have used around twenty-five sources for his hbv, but that is still much more than one would expect a renunciant “sleeping every night under a different tree” to have access to. If Sanātana Gosvāmin ever led such a life, the writing of the hbv represents another, more settled phase of his life, probably spent in co-operation with the other Gosvāmins of Vṛndāvana, particularly his brother Rūpa (who seems to have copied many manuscripts that Sanātana made use of). (Introduction, p.39)

This seems to be an instance of starting to believe what seems more plausible to our intellect and experience than to rely on the authority of scriptures as well as acaryas. 

Sanātana Gosvāmī was an important minister in the government of Hussain Shah, but he gave up everything to follow Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He adopted the life of a mendicant and lived under a different tree every night. One may ask, "After giving up material enjoyment, how can one live?" The Gosvāmīs lived by dipping into the ocean of the transcendental loving affairs between Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs. Since that was their asset, they could live very peacefully. (TLK Vs.22, ppt) 

And below, the author says that Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami "has Sanatana call himself lowborn." This indicates that the author doesn't accept what Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami says is faultless, because according to the author Sanatana Gosvami may not have really called himself "lowborn" but that it was the opinion of Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami that Sanatana considered himself lowborn.

Nevertheless, despite this excellent brāhmaṇical pedigree, Kṛṣṇadāsa has Sanātana call himself “lowborn” (nīcajāti) several times in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (e.g., 2.24.320, 3.4.6, 3.4.28) and behaving as if he had lost his brāhmaṇical standing by for instance not entering the Jagannātha temple in Purī. Usually this has been understood to stem from the fact that Sanātana had worked in the Muslim government of Bengal led by Ḥusain Shāh (r. 1493–1519) as chief minister or departmental head (sākar mallik) while Rūpa had been the Shāh’s private secretary (dabīr khās, O’Connell 2019: 176). However, as Joseph O’Connell has clearly demonstrated (2019: 173–178), many followers of Caitanya were directly involved with the rule of Ḥusain Shāh without any apparent loss of social or religious status. (Introduction, p.23, emphasis added)

It is something like saying "Vyasadeva made Pariksit sit on the banks of Ganges and hear Srimad Bhagavatam, but it may not be that Pariksit Maharaja sat on the banks of Ganges or actually heard Bhagavatam."

A point also to be noted in the above quote is that the author also doubts that Sanatana Gosvami's service in Muslim Government of Hussain Shah made him lose his caste—a fact that is repeatedly explained by the author's own Guru, ISKCON's founder acharya, Srila Prabhupada. He doubts this traditional stance of his guru on the basis of a logic given by Josheph T. O'Connell (who also met Srila Prabhupada several times and who had later done his PhD in Harvard) that many other brahmins in his time working for Muslim governement did not lose their castes, so why should Sanatana. If the author could have little bit more researched in his guru's own words (in stead of swimming in secular scholars' works) he would have found a logical answer, as follows:

Both Dabira Khāsa and Sākara Mallika belonged to the brāhmaṇa caste, but because they were employed by Muslims, their original habits degenerated into those of the Muslim community. Since the symptoms of brahminical culture were almost nil, they identified themselves with the lowest caste. In the Bhakti-ratnākara it is clearly stated that because Sākara Mallika and Dabira Khāsa associated with lower-class men, they introduced themselves as belonging to the lower classes. Actually, however, they had been born in respectable brāhmaṇa families. (Cc 2.1.189, ppt, emphasis added)

From above, it seems that the author doesn't read Srila Prabhupada's Caitanya-caritamrta commentaries or he may have the idea that he doesn't want to be influenced by anyone's opinion on Caitanya-caritamrta. At the same time you can also see that Srila Prabhupada directly accepts the fact mentioned by the author of the Bhakti-ratnakara, while the author doesn't and thus goes on to confuse himself and others by his writings.

Another such author is Sachi Patel (from OCHD). In his PhD thesis he openly declares in a footnote in the beginning itself—

Fn_2 Dimock, Edward C; Stewart, Tony K, Caitanya caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja (Cambridge, 1999), p.611 (CC 2.19 in Śloka 1) and p.618 (CC 2.19.108) [All references to Caitanya caritāmṛta will be from Edward Dimock and Tony Stewart’s edition going foward] 

In Footnote 1, he introduces Lord Caitanya as—

Fn_1 Caitanya (1486-1534) is a Bengal Brahmin turned ascetic, whose followers accept him to be divine, and is considered the founder of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava school.

I very much appreciate his thesis work and I have learnt a lot from his findings and this will be a very important contribution to Gaudiya world and Srila Prabhupada's mission. However, I wonder if such sincere devotees are also getting affected by the nastika lens of modern academia then what to speak of most of devotees who work with the universities. 

I would like to end here not prolonging the bitter evidence citing for a sad situation. I hope that this analysis and conclusion can help devotees to better deal with modern academia and deviations coming from people influenced by it.