While Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu was touring East Bengal, His wife, Lakṣmīdevī, was bitten by a serpent or by the serpent of separation, and thus she left this world. When the Lord returned home, He saw that His mother was overwhelmed with grief because of Lakṣmīdevī’s death. Therefore at her request He later married His second wife, Viṣṇupriyā-devī. This chapter also describes the Lord's argument with Keśava Kāśmīrī, the celebrated scholar, and the Lord's criticism of his prayer glorifying mother Ganges. In this prayer the Lord found five kinds of literary ornaments and five kinds of literary faults, thus defeating the paṇḍita. Later the Kāśmīrī Paṇḍita, who was known to have been victorious all over the country, submitted himself to the goddess of learning, and by her order he met Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu on the morning of the next day and surrendered unto Him.
Criticism (CC and Other Books)
Expressions researched:
"critic"
|"criticising"
|"criticism"
|"criticisms"
|"criticize"
|"criticized"
|"criticizes"
|"criticizing"
|"critics"
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta
CC Adi-lila
If one poses himself as an ācārya but does not have an attitude of servitorship to the Lord, he must be considered an offender, and this offensive attitude disqualifies him from being an ācārya. The bona fide spiritual master always engages in unalloyed devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. By this test he is known to be a direct manifestation of the Lord and a genuine representative of Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu. Such a spiritual master is known as ācāryadeva. Influenced by an envious temperament and dissatisfied because of an attitude of sense gratification, mundaners criticize a real ācārya. In fact, however, a bona fide ācārya is nondifferent from the Personality of Godhead, and therefore to envy such an ācārya is to envy the Personality of Godhead Himself. This will produce an effect subversive of transcendental realization.
There are some rascals who dare to speak against the mission of Lord Caitanya by criticizing the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement for accepting Europeans and Americans as brāhmaṇas and offering them sannyāsa. But here is an authoritative statement that in distributing love of Godhead one should not consider whether the recipients are Europeans, Americans, Hindus, Muslims, etc. The Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement should be spread wherever possible, and one should accept those who thus become Vaiṣṇavas as being greater than brāhmaṇas, Hindus or Indians. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu desired that His name be spread in each and every town and village on the surface of the globe. Therefore, when the cult of Caitanya Mahāprabhu is spread all over the world, should those who embrace it not be accepted as Vaiṣṇavas, brāhmaṇas and sannyāsīs? These foolish arguments are sometimes raised by envious rascals, but Kṛṣṇa conscious devotees do not care about them. We strictly follow the principles set down by the Pañca-tattva.
Here is an important point. Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu wanted to invent a way to capture the Māyāvādīs and others who did not take interest in the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. This is the symptom of an ācārya. An ācārya who comes for the service of the Lord cannot be expected to conform to a stereotype, for he must find the ways and means by which Kṛṣṇa consciousness may be spread. Sometimes jealous persons criticize the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement because it engages equally both boys and girls in distributing love of Godhead. Not knowing that boys and girls in countries like Europe and America mix very freely, these fools and rascals criticize the boys and girls in Kṛṣṇa consciousness for intermingling. But these rascals should consider that one cannot suddenly change a community's social customs. However, since both the boys and the girls are being trained to become preachers, those girls are not ordinary girls but are as good as their brothers who are preaching Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore, to engage both boys and girls in fully transcendental activities is a policy intended to spread the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. These jealous fools who criticize the intermingling of boys and girls will simply have to be satisfied with their own foolishness because they cannot think of how to spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness by adopting ways and means that are favorable for this purpose. Their stereotyped methods will never help spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore, what we are doing is perfect by the grace of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, for it is He who proposed to invent a way to capture those who strayed from Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura has explained the term "Māyāvādī" as follows: "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is transcendental to the material conception of life. A Māyāvādī is one who considers the body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa to be made of māyā and who also considers the abode of the Lord and the process of approaching Him, devotional service, to be māyā. The Māyāvādī considers all the paraphernalia of devotional service to be māyā." Māyā refers to material existence, which is characterized by the reactions of fruitive activities. Māyāvādīs consider devotional service to be among such fruitive activities. According to them, when bhāgavatas (devotees) are purified by philosophical speculation, they will come to the real point of liberation. Those who speculate in this way regarding devotional service are called kutārkikas (false logicians), and those who consider devotional service to be fruitive activity are called karma-niṣṭhas. Those who criticize devotional service are called nindakas (blasphemers). Similarly, nondevotees who consider devotional activities to be material are called pāṣaṇḍīs, and scholars with a similar viewpoint are called adhama paḍuyās.
Thus the students, infidels, fruitive workers and critics all came to surrender unto the lotus feet of the Lord.
It is the concern of the ācārya to show mercy to the fallen souls. In this connection, deśa-kāla-pātra (the place, the time and the object) should be taken into consideration. Since the European and American boys and girls in our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement preach together, less intelligent men criticize that they are mingling without restriction. In Europe and America boys and girls mingle unrestrictedly and have equal rights; therefore it is not possible to completely separate the men from the women. However, we are thoroughly instructing both men and women how to preach, and actually they are preaching wonderfully. Of course, we very strictly prohibit illicit sex. Boys and girls who are not married are not allowed to sleep together or live together, and there are separate arrangements for boys and girls in every temple. Gṛhasthas live outside the temple, for in the temple we do not allow even husband and wife to live together. The results of this are wonderful. Both men and women are preaching the gospel of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu and Lord Kṛṣṇa with redoubled strength. In this verse the words sabā nistārite kare cāturī apāra indicate that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu wanted to deliver one and all.
Fortunately or unfortunately, we also meet such Māyāvādīs who criticize our method of chanting and accuse us of not being interested in study. They do not know that we have translated volumes and volumes of books into English and that the students in our temples regularly study them in the morning, afternoon and evening. We are writing and printing books, and our students study them and distribute them all over the world. No Māyāvādī school can present as many books as we have; nevertheless, they accuse us of not being fond of study. Such accusations are completely false. But although we study, we do not study the nonsense of the Māyāvādīs.
The Māyāvādīs' accusation that devotees do not study Vedānta is false. The Māyāvādīs do not know that chanting, dancing and preaching the principles of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, called bhāgavata-dharma, are the same as studying Vedānta. Since they think that reading Vedānta philosophy is the only function of a sannyāsī and they did not find Caitanya Mahāprabhu engaged in such direct study, they criticized the Lord. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya has given special stress to the study of Vedānta philosophy: vedānta-vākyeṣu sadā ramantaḥ kaupīnavantaḥ khalu bhāgyavantaḥ. "A sannyāsī, accepting the renounced order very strictly and wearing nothing more than a loincloth, should always enjoy the philosophical statements in the Vedānta-sūtra. Such a person in the renounced order is to be considered very fortunate." The Māyāvādīs in Vārāṇasī blasphemed Lord Caitanya because His behavior did not follow these principles. Lord Caitanya, however, bestowed His mercy upon these Māyāvādī sannyāsīs and delivered them by means of His Vedānta discourses with Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī and Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya.
“How long can we tolerate the blasphemy by Your critics against Your conduct? We should give up our lives rather than hear such blasphemy.
This was exhibited by Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. One should not tolerate blasphemy against a Vaiṣṇava but should immediately take one of three actions. If someone blasphemes a Vaiṣṇava, one should stop him with arguments and higher reason. If one is not expert enough to do this he should give up his life on the spot, and if he cannot do this, he must go away. While Caitanya Mahāprabhu was in Benares or Kāśī, the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs blasphemed Him in many ways because although He was a sannyāsī He was indulging in chanting and dancing. Tapana Miśra and Candraśekhara heard this criticism, and it was intolerable for them because they were great devotees of Lord Caitanya. They could not stop it, however, and therefore they appealed to Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu because this blasphemy was so intolerable that they had decided to give up their lives.
"The Māyāvādī sannyāsīs are all criticizing Your Holiness. We cannot tolerate hearing such criticism, for this blasphemy breaks our hearts."
This is the essence of Caitanya Mahāprabhu's instruction that one be more tolerant than a tree and think oneself lower than the straw in the street (tṛṇād api su-nīcena taror iva sahiṣṇunā). However, even if a devotee is in the uttama-bhāgavata status he must come down to the second status of life, madhyama-adhikārī, to be a preacher, for a preacher should not tolerate blasphemy against another Vaiṣṇava. Although a kaniṣṭha-adhikārī also cannot tolerate such blasphemy, he is not competent to stop it by citing śāstric evidences. Therefore Tapana Miśra and Candraśekhara are understood to be kaniṣṭha-adhikārīs because they could not refute the arguments of the sannyāsīs in Benares. They appealed to Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu to take action, for they felt that they could not tolerate such criticism although they also could not stop it.
Because the blasphemy was cast against Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself, He did not feel sorry, and therefore He was smiling. This is ideal Vaiṣṇava behavior. One should not become angry upon hearing criticism of himself, but if other Vaiṣṇavas are criticized one must be prepared to act as previously suggested. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was very compassionate for His pure devotees Tapana Miśra and Candraśekhara; therefore by His grace this brāhmaṇa immediately came to Him. By His omnipotency the Lord created this situation for the happiness of His devotees.
Tapana Miśra and Candraśekhara appealed to the lotus feet of the Lord regarding their grief at the criticism of Him by the sannyāsīs in Benares. Caitanya Mahāprabhu merely smiled, yet He wanted to fulfill the desires of His devotees, and the opportunity came when the brāhmaṇa came to request Him to accept his invitation to be present in the midst of the other sannyāsīs. This coincidence was made possible by the omnipotency of the Lord.
The Māyāvādī sannyāsīs met Caitanya Mahāprabhu at Vārāṇasī to criticize the Lord regarding His participation in the saṅkīrtana movement, which they did not like. This demonic nature of opposition to the saṅkīrtana movement perpetually exists. As it existed in the time of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, similarly it existed long before that, even in the time of Prahlāda Mahārāja. He used to chant in saṅkīrtana although his father did not like it, and that was the reason for the misunderstanding between the father and son.
"Dear Sir, You are Vedic knowledge personified and are directly Nārāyaṇa Himself. Kindly excuse us for the offenses we previously committed by criticizing You."
The complete path of bhakti-yoga is based upon the process of becoming humble and submissive. By the grace of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, all the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs were very humble and submissive after hearing His explanation of the Vedānta-sūtra, and they begged to be pardoned for the offenses they had committed by criticizing the Lord for simply chanting and dancing and not taking part in the study of the Vedānta-sūtra. We are propagating the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement simply by following in the footsteps of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. We may not be very well versed in the Vedānta-sūtra aphorisms and may not understand their meaning, but we follow in the footsteps of the ācāryas, and because of our strictly and obediently following in the footsteps of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, it is to be understood that we know everything regarding the Vedānta-sūtra.
Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu has already sanctified the entire universe by His presence five hundred years ago, and therefore anyone who attempts to serve Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu sincerely by following in His footsteps and following the instructions of the ācāryas will successfully be able to preach the holy names of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra all over the universe. There are some foolish critics who say that Europeans and Americans cannot be offered sannyāsa, but here we find that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu wanted to preach the saṅkīrtana movement all over the universe. For preaching work, sannyāsīs are essential. These critics think that only Indians or Hindus should be offered sannyāsa to preach, but their knowledge is practically nil. Without sannyāsīs, the preaching work will be impeded. Therefore, under the instruction of Lord Caitanya and with the blessings of His associates, there should be no discrimination in this matter, but people in all parts of the world should be trained to preach and given sannyāsa so that the cult of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's saṅkīrtana movement will expand boundlessly. We do not care about the criticism of fools. We shall go on with our work and simply depend on the blessings of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu and His associates, the Pañca-tattva.
There are ten offenses to avoid in chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra. The first offense is to blaspheme great personalities who are engaged in distributing the holy name of the Lord. It is said in the śāstra (CC Antya 7.11), kṛṣṇa-śakti vinā nahe tāra pravartana: one cannot distribute the holy names of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra unless he is empowered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore one should not criticize or blaspheme a devotee who is thus engaged.
Śrī Padma Purāṇa states:
- satāṁ nindā nāmnaḥ paramam aparādhaṁ vitanute
- yataḥ khyātiṁ yātaṁ katham u sahate tad-vigarhām
To blaspheme the great saintly persons who are engaged in preaching the glories of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra is the worst offense at the lotus feet of the holy name. One should not criticize a preacher of the glories of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra. If one does so, he is an offender. The Nāma-prabhu, who is identical with Kṛṣṇa, will never tolerate such blasphemous activities, even from one who passes as a great devotee.
One must be a submissive student of the Six Gosvāmīs, from Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī to Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī. Not following their instructions but imagining how to worship Gaurasundara and Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa is a great offense, as a result of which one clears a path to hell. If one neglects the instructions of the Six Gosvāmīs and yet becomes a so-called devotee of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, he merely criticizes the real devotees of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa. As a result of speculation, he considers Gaurasundara to be an ordinary devotee and therefore cannot make progress in serving the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa.
Brahmānanda Purī: Śrī Brahmānanda Purī was one of the associates of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu while He was performing kīrtana in Navadvīpa, and he also joined Lord Caitanya in Jagannātha Purī. We may note in this connection that the name Brahmānanda is accepted not only by Māyāvādī sannyāsīs but by Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs also. One of our foolish Godbrothers criticized our sannyāsī Brahmānanda Svāmī, saying that this was a Māyāvādī name. The foolish man did not know that Brahmānanda does not always refer to the impersonal Brahman. Para-brahman, the Supreme Brahman, is Kṛṣṇa. A devotee of Kṛṣṇa can therefore also be called Brahmānanda; this is evident from the fact that Brahmānanda Purī was one of the chief sannyāsī associates of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
Persons who had formerly criticized Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, calling Him a drunkard, also ate the fruit and began to dance, saying, "Very good! Very good!"
When Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu started the saṅkīrtana movement, even He was unnecessarily criticized by Māyāvādīs, atheists and fools. Naturally we are also criticized by such men. They will always remain and will always criticize anything that is actually good for human society. But the preachers of the saṅkīrtana movement should not be deterred by such criticism. Our method should be to convert such fools gradually by asking them to come and take prasādam and chant and dance with us. This should be our policy. Anyone who comes to join us, of course, must be sincere and serious regarding spiritual advancement in life; then such a person, simply by joining us, chanting with us, dancing with us and taking prasādam with us, will gradually also come to say that this movement is very good. But one who joins with an ulterior purpose, to get material benefit or personal gratification, will never be able to grasp the philosophy of this movement.
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu called Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi "father," and He gave him the title Premanidhi. Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi later became the spiritual master of Gadādhara Paṇḍita and an intimate friend of Svarūpa Dāmodara's. Gadādhara Paṇḍita at first misunderstood Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi to be an ordinary pounds-and-shillings man, but later, upon being corrected by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he became his disciple. Another incident in the life of Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi involves his criticizing the priest of the Jagannātha temple, for which Jagannātha Prabhu chastised him personally by slapping his cheeks. This is described in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, Antya-khaṇḍa, Chapter Ten. Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura informs us that during his time there were still two living descendants of the family of Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi, who were named Śrī Harakumāra Smṛtitīrtha and Śrī Kṛṣṇakiṅkara Vidyālaṅkāra. For further information one should refer to the dictionary known as Vaiṣṇava-mañjuṣā.
Jagannātha-vallabha-nāṭaka he personally directed extremely beautiful young girls in dancing, but he was never affected by their youthful beauty. Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya personally bathed these girls, touching them and washing them with his own hands, yet he remained calm and passionless, as a great devotee should be. Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu certified that this was possible only for Rāmānanda Rāya. Similarly, Dāmodara Paṇḍita was notable for his objectivity as a critic. He did not even spare Caitanya Mahāprabhu from his criticism. This also cannot be imitated by anyone else. Haridāsa Ṭhākura is exceptional for his forbearance because although he was beaten with canes in twenty-two marketplaces, he was nevertheless tolerant. Similarly, Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī, although he belonged to a most respectable brāhmaṇa family, was exceptional for his humility and meekness.
While Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī was living with Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the Lord blessed him by offering him betel nuts offered to the Jagannātha Deity and a garland of tulasī said to be as long as fourteen cubits. Under Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī’s order, one of his disciples constructed the Govinda temple. Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī supplied all the ornaments of the Govinda Deity. He never talked of nonsense or worldly matters but always engaged in hearing about Kṛṣṇa twenty-four hours a day. He never cared to hear blasphemy of a Vaiṣṇava. Even when there were points to be criticized, he used to say that since all the Vaiṣṇavas were engaged in the service of the Lord, he did not mind their faults. Later Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī lived by Rādhā-kuṇḍa in a small cottage. In the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (185) it is said that Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī was formerly the gopī named Rāga-mañjarī.
It was the desire of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu that His cult be spread all over the world. Therefore there is a great necessity for many, many disciples of the branches of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's disciplic succession. His cult should be spread not only in a few villages, or in Bengal, or in India, but all over the world. It is very regrettable that complacent so-called devotees criticize the members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness for accepting sannyāsa and spreading the cult of Lord Caitanya all over the world. It is not our business to criticize anyone, but because they try to find fault with this movement, the real truth must be stated. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu wanted devotees all over the world, and Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura and Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura confirmed this. It is in pursuit of their will that the ISKCON movement is spreading all over the world. Genuine devotees of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu must take pride in the spread of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement instead of viciously criticizing its propaganda work.
In this connection one should refer to Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī’s soliloquy after meeting Uddhava in Vṛndāvana. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu presented a similar picture of such ecstatic imaginary talking. Full of jealousy and madness symptomizing neglect by Kṛṣṇa, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, criticizing a bumblebee, talked just like a madwoman. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, in the last days of His pastimes, exhibited all the symptoms of such ecstasy. In this connection one should refer to the Fourth Chapter of the Ādi-līlā, verses 107 and 108.
Our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement follows this principle. We do not recognize any method for spiritual realization other than Kṛṣṇa consciousness, devotional service. Sometimes we are criticized by groups following jñāna, yoga, tapas or dharma, but fortunately we are unable to make any compromises with them. We simply stand on the platform of devotional service and preach the same principles all over the world.
The gopīs, the girlfriends of Kṛṣṇa, were almost of the same age as He. Within their minds they desired that Kṛṣṇa be their husband, but because of feminine bashfulness they could not express their desire. Therefore later on, after stealing their garments, Kṛṣṇa informed them, "I immediately understood your desire and approved of it. Because I have now stolen your garments, you have presented yourselves before Me completely naked, which means that I have accepted all of you as My wives." Sometimes foolish rascals, not knowing the purpose of the Lord or the purpose of the gopīs, unnecessarily criticize from their own angle of vision, but the real purpose of vastra-haraṇa is expressed by the Lord in this verse.
The Supreme Personality of Godhead and His devotees who come to this world are executing a mission, and therefore sometimes they act in a way that is very difficult to understand. It is said, therefore, vaiṣṇavera kriyā-mudrā vijñeha nā bujhaya: (CC Madhya 23.39) even if one is a very learned and intelligent scholar, he cannot understand the activities of a Vaiṣṇava. A Vaiṣṇava accepts anything favorable for executing his mission. But foolish persons, not knowing the purpose of such exalted Vaiṣṇavas, indulge in criticizing them. That is forbidden. Since no one can understand what a Vaiṣṇava does for the purpose of executing his mission, to criticize such a Vaiṣṇava is the offense called sādhu-nindā.
Keśava Kāśmīrī first wanted to bluff Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu by saying that since He was not an advanced student in literary style, He could not review a verse full of metaphors and literary ornaments. This argument has some basis in fact. Unless one is a medical man he cannot criticize a medical man, and unless one is a lawyer he cannot criticize a lawyer. Therefore Keśava Kāśmīrī first depreciated the Lord's position. Because Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was to the champion a student of grammar, how could He dare criticize a great poet like him? Lord Caitanya, therefore, criticized the poet in a different way. He said that although He was certainly not advanced in a literary career, He had heard from others how to criticize such poetry, and as a śruti-dhara, possessing a complete memory, He could understand the process for such a review.
“You have achieved poetic imagination and ingenuity by the grace of your worshipable demigod. But poetry not well reviewed is certainly subject to criticism.
Hearing of the incident, all the students became greatly angry and joined together in criticizing the Lord.
When all the students thus resolved, criticizing Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, their intelligence was spoiled. Thus although they were learned scholars, because of this offense the essence of knowledge was not manifested in them.
But the proud student community did not become submissive. On the contrary, the students spoke of the incident anywhere and everywhere. In a laughing manner they criticized the Lord.
CC Madhya-lila
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was invited to dine at the house of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya. While He was eating sumptuously, the son-in-law of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya (the husband of his daughter Ṣāṭhī) criticized Him. Because of this, Ṣāṭhī’s mother cursed him by praying that Ṣāṭhī would become a widow. In other words, she cursed her son-in-law to die.
Rāmacandra Purī criticized Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu's eating; therefore the Lord reduced His eating to a minimum. However, when all the Vaiṣṇavas became very sorry, the Lord increased His portion to half as much as usual.
n reply to those critics who say that Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta is full of Sanskrit verses, it can be said that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is also full of Sanskrit verses, as are the commentaries on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Nonetheless, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam can be understood by everyone, as well as by advanced devotees who study the Sanskrit commentaries. Why, then, will people not understand the Caitanya-caritāmṛta? There are only a few Sanskrit verses, and these have been explained in the Bengali vernacular. What is the difficulty in understanding?
As Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura explains, the word nirapekṣa means not being affected by anything material and remaining fixed in the service of the Lord. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu did not very much care for the roaring tumult and cry at the house of Advaita Ācārya, which He heard when starting for Jagannātha Purī. Worldly moralists may criticize Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu for being very cruel, but the Lord did not care for such criticism. As the world teacher of this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, He actually showed that a person seriously engaged in Kṛṣṇa consciousness should not be affected by worldly affection. The best course is to engage in rendering service to the Lord and to become callous to material objectives. Externally everyone is attached to material things, but if one becomes entangled in such things, he cannot make progress in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore those who are engaged in Kṛṣṇa consciousness should not care for the so-called morality of the material world if that morality opposes the service of the Lord. As Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu has personally shown, one cannot properly execute Kṛṣṇa consciousness without being neutral.
Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura says: karma-kāṇḍa jñāna-kāṇḍa kevala viṣera bhāṇḍa. For a Vaiṣṇava, the karma-kāṇḍa and jñāna-kāṇḍa sections of the Vedas are unnecessary. Indeed, a real Vaiṣṇava takes these sections as a poison pot (viṣera bhāṇḍa). Sometimes we take part in a marriage ceremony for our disciples, but this does not mean that we are interested in karma-kāṇḍa activities. Sometimes, not knowing the Vaiṣṇava philosophy, an outsider criticizes such activity, maintaining that a sannyāsī should not take part in a marriage ceremony between a young boy and a young girl. However, this is not a karma-kāṇḍa activity, because our purpose is to spread the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. We are giving all facility to the general populace to take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and in order to fix the devotees in concentration on the service of the Lord, marriage is sometimes allowed. We have experienced that such married couples actually render very important service to the mission. Therefore, one should not misunderstand when a sannyāsī takes part in a marriage ceremony. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and Nityānanda Prabhu took great pleasure in hearing about the marriage ceremony between the young brāhmaṇa and the daughter of the elderly brāhmaṇa.
This is also confirmed in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (3.1.1): yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante. "The Supreme Absolute Truth is that from which everything is born." Similarly, in the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (1.1.7) it is stated, yathorṇa-nābhiḥ sṛjate gṛhṇate ca: "(The Lord creates and destroys the cosmic manifestation) as a spider creates a web and draws it back within itself." All of these Vedic statements indicate the transformation of the Lord's energy, not of the Lord Himself. Transformation of the Lord's energy is called pariṇāma-vāda. However, being very anxious to protect Śrīla Vyāsadeva from criticism, Śaṅkarācārya became a pseudo gentleman and put forward his theory of illusion (vivarta-vāda). Śaṅkarācārya concocted this meaning of pariṇāma-vāda, and by word jugglery he endeavored very hard to establish pariṇāma-vāda as vivarta-vāda.
Thus Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu criticized Śaṅkarācārya's Śārīraka-bhāṣya as imaginary, and He pointed out hundreds of faults in it. To defend Śaṅkarācārya, however, Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya presented unlimited opposition.
The personal associates of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu sometimes behaved contrary to regulative principles out of intense love for the Lord, and because of their love Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself sometimes violated the regulative principles of a sannyāsī. In the eyes of the public, such violations are not good, but Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was so controlled by His devotees' love that He was obliged to break some of the rules. Although accusing them, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was indirectly indicating that He was very satisfied with their behavior in pure love of Godhead. Therefore in verse 27 He mentions that His devotees and associates place more importance on love of Kṛṣṇa than on social etiquette. There are many instances of devotional service rendered by previous ācāryas who did not care about social behavior when intensely absorbed in love for Kṛṣṇa. Unfortunately, as long as we are within this material world, we must observe social customs to avoid criticism by the general populace. This is Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's desire.
There are many sahajiyās who decry the activities of the Six Gosvāmīs—Śrīla Rūpa, Sanātana, Raghunātha dāsa, Bhaṭṭa Raghunātha, Jīva and Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmīs—who are the personal associates of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and who enlightened society by writing books on devotional service. Similarly, Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura and other great ācāryas like Madhvācārya, Rāmānujācārya and others accepted many thousands of disciples to induce them to render devotional service. However, there is a class of sahajiyās who think that these activities are opposed to the principles of devotional service. Indeed, they consider such activities simply another phase of materialism. Thus opposing the principles of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, they commit offenses at His lotus feet. They should better consider His instructions and, instead of seeking to be considered humble and meek, should refrain from criticizing the followers of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu who engage in preaching. To protect His preachers, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu has given much clear advice in these verses of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta.
The name Rādhā is derived from this verse (SB 10.30.28), from the words anayārādhitaḥ, meaning "by Her the Lord is worshiped." Sometimes the critics of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam find it difficult to find Rādhārāṇī’s holy name in that book, but the secret is disclosed here in the word ārādhita, from which the name Rādhā has come. Of course, the name of Rādhārāṇī is directly mentioned in other Purāṇas. This gopī’s worship of Kṛṣṇa is topmost, and therefore Her name is Rādhā, or "the topmost worshiper."
Due to his incorrect pronunciation, people sometimes criticized him and laughed at him, but he did not care. He was full of ecstasy due to reading the Bhagavad-gītā and was personally very happy.
This is the answer to Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's question, and from this we can understand that Veṅkaṭa Bhaṭṭa knew the truth. He told Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu that Nārāyaṇa is a form of Kṛṣṇa associated with transcendental opulence. Although Kṛṣṇa is two-armed and Nārāyaṇa four-armed, there is no difference in the person. They are one and the same. Nārāyaṇa is as beautiful as Kṛṣṇa, but Kṛṣṇa's pastimes are more sportive. It is not that the sportive pastimes of Kṛṣṇa make Him different from Nārāyaṇa. Lakṣmī’s desiring to associate with Kṛṣṇa was perfectly natural. In other words, it is understandable that a chaste woman wants to associate with her husband in all his different dresses. Therefore one should not criticize Lakṣmī for wanting to associate with Kṛṣṇa.
This is a verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (6.17.28) regarding the personality Citraketu. Once when Citraketu saw the goddess Pārvatī sitting on the lap of Lord Śambhu (Śiva), he criticized Lord Śiva for being shameless and sitting just like an ordinary man with his wife on his lap. For this reason Citraketu was cursed by Pārvatī. Later he became a demon named Vṛtrāsura. Citraketu was a very powerful king and a devotee, and he could certainly retaliate even against Lord Śiva, but when Pārvatī cursed him, he immediately accepted the curse with a bowed head. When he agreed to accept this curse, Lord Śiva praised him and told Pārvatī that a devotee of Lord Nārāyaṇa is never afraid of accepting any position provided there is a chance to serve the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is the purport of nārāyaṇa-parāḥ sarve na kutaścana bibhyati.
The same principles can be applied to demoniac persons, even though they be in the sampradāya of Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Without receiving the Lord's special power, one cannot preach His glories all over the world. Even though one may celebrate himself as a learned follower of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and even though one may attempt to preach the holy name of the Lord all over the world, if he is not favored by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu he will find fault with the pure devotee and will not be able to understand how a preacher is empowered by Lord Caitanya. One must be considered bereft of the mercy of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu when he criticizes the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement now spreading all over the world or finds fault with this movement or the leader of the movement.
From the spiritual point of view, a sannyāsī is strictly forbidden to see materialistic people, especially a king who is always engaged in counting pounds, shillings and pence. Indeed, the meeting between a sannyāsī and a king is always considered abominable. A sannyāsī is always subjected to public criticism, and a small fault on his part is taken seriously by the public. People actually expect a sannyāsī to preach and not take part in any social or political matters. If a sannyāsī is subject to public criticism, his preaching will not be fruitful. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu specifically wanted to avoid such criticism so that His preaching work would not be hampered. It so happened that while the Lord was talking to His disciples at that time, the devotee Dāmodara Paṇḍita was present. This Dāmodara Paṇḍita was a very faithful devotee and a staunch lover of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Whenever there was anything that might touch or taint the character of the Lord, Dāmodara Paṇḍita would immediately point it out, not even considering the exalted position of the Lord. It is sometimes said that fools rush in where angels dare not, and Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu wanted to point out Dāmodara Paṇḍita's foolishness in coming forward to criticize the Lord. This is why the Lord stated that if Dāmodara Paṇḍita would give Him permission, He would go to see the King. There was deep meaning in this statement, for it is a warning that Dāmodara should not dare criticize the Lord any more, for it was not befitting his position as a devotee. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was considered the guide and spiritual master of all the devotees living with Him. Dāmodara Paṇḍita was one of them, and the Lord rendered Dāmodara Paṇḍita a special favor by warning him to avoid criticizing Him any further. A devotee or a disciple should never attempt to criticize the Lord or His representative, the spiritual master.
Thereafter, when Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was accepting prasādam at the house of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, Sārvabhauma's son-in-law, Amogha, created trouble in the family with his criticisms. The following morning, he was attacked by the disease of visūcikā (cholera). Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu very kindly saved him from death and enlivened him in chanting the holy name of Lord Kṛṣṇa.
While Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was taking prasādam at the house of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, Amogha criticized Him. Still, the Lord accepted Amogha, thereby showing how much He was obliged to His devotees.
The Bhaṭṭācārya then began to curse his son-in-law and call him ill names. When the Bhaṭṭācārya returned, he saw that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was laughing to hear him criticize Amogha.
""One who criticizes Lord Viṣṇu and His devotees loses all the benefits accrued in a hundred pious births. Such a person rots in the Kumbhīpāka hell and is bitten by worms as long as the sun and moon exist. One should therefore not even see the face of a person who blasphemes Lord Viṣṇu and His devotees. Never try to associate with such persons.""
"After seeing Kṛṣṇa, various people criticize the blinking of their eyes. In Vṛndāvana especially, all the gopīs criticize Lord Brahmā because of this defect in the eyes." Then Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu recited some verses from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and explained them vividly, thus enjoying the taste of transcendental sweetness with great happiness.
“If by devotional service one gets the results of pious activities and sees Lord Kṛṣṇa's face, what can he relish with only two eyes? His greed and thirst increase twofold by seeing the nectarean face of Kṛṣṇa. Due to his inability to sufficiently drink that nectar, he becomes very unhappy and criticizes the creator for not having given more than two eyes.
(15) The devotee should treat loss and gain equally. (16) The devotee should not be overwhelmed by lamentation. (17) The devotee should not worship demigods, nor should he disrespect them. Similarly, the devotee should not study or criticize other scriptures.
When the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs at Vārāṇasī criticized Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the Lord's devotees became very much depressed. To satisfy them, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu showed His mercy to the sannyāsīs.
When the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs were criticizing Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu anywhere and everywhere in Vārāṇasī, the Maharashtriyan brāhmaṇa, hearing this blasphemy, began to think about this unhappily.
Nonetheless, there are many people who are just like owls and never open their eyes to see the sunshine. These owlish personalities, who are inferior even to the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, cannot see the brilliance of Kṛṣṇa's favor upon the mahā-bhāgavata devotee. They are prepared to criticize the person engaged in distributing the holy name all over the world and following in the footsteps of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, who wanted Kṛṣṇa consciousness preached in every town and city.
At this time, Candraśekhara and Tapana Miśra both heard blasphemous criticism against Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and felt very unhappy. They came to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's lotus feet to submit a request.
CC Antya-lila
Dāmodara Paṇḍita was a great devotee of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Sometimes, however, a person in such a position becomes impudent, being influenced by the external energy and material considerations. Thus a devotee mistakenly dares to criticize the activities of the spiritual master or the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Despite the logic that “Caesar's wife must be above suspicion,” a devotee should not be disturbed by the activities of his spiritual master and should not try to criticize him. A devotee should be fixed in the conclusion that the spiritual master cannot be subject to criticism and should never be considered equal to a common man. Even if there appears to be some discrepancy according to an imperfect devotee's estimation, the devotee should be fixed in the conviction that even if his spiritual master goes to a liquor shop, he is not a drunkard; rather, he must have some purpose in going there.
Although Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu knew that Dāmodara Paṇḍita was a pure and simple devotee, upon hearing this impudent talk the Lord said, "My dear Dāmodara, what nonsense are you speaking?"
Dāmodara Paṇḍita replied, “You are the independent Personality of Godhead, beyond all criticism.
As a simple and staunch devotee of Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Dāmodara Paṇḍita could not tolerate criticism of the Lord, but unfortunately he himself was criticizing Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu in his own way. The Lord could understand that it was because of Dāmodara Paṇḍita's simplicity that he impudently dared criticize Him. Nevertheless, such behavior by a devotee is not very good.
This young man, Gopāla Cakravartī, became very angry upon hearing the statements of Haridāsa Ṭhākura. He immediately criticized him. "O assembly of learned scholars," he said, “just hear the conclusion of the emotional devotee.
“You have dared criticize Śrīdhara Svāmī, and you have begun your own commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, not accepting his authority. That is your false pride.
"Why did you not retaliate by reproaching Him? Why did you fearfully tolerate His criticism?"
The following summary of the Eighth Chapter is given by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura in his Amṛta-pravāha-bhāṣya. This chapter describes the history of the Lord's dealings with Rāmacandra Purī. Although Rāmacandra Purī was one of the disciples of Mādhavendra Purī, he was influenced by dry Māyāvādīs, and therefore he criticized Mādhavendra Purī. Therefore Mādhavendra Purī accused him of being an offender and rejected him. Because Rāmacandra Purī had been rejected by his spiritual master, he became concerned only with finding faults in others and advising them according to dry Māyāvāda philosophy. For this reason he was not very respectful to the Vaiṣṇavas, and later he became so fallen that he began criticizing Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu for His eating. Hearing his criticisms, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu reduced His eating, but after Rāmacandra Purī left Jagannātha Purī, the Lord resumed His usual behavior.
Let me offer my respectful obeisances to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, who reduced His eating due to fear of the criticism of Rāmacandra Purī.
Encouraging him again and again, Rāmacandra Purī fed him sumptuously, but when Jagadānanda had washed his hands and mouth, Rāmacandra Purī began criticizing him.
The characteristic of Rāmacandra Purī was that first he would induce someone to eat more than necessary and then he would criticize him.
One who is attached to dry speculative knowledge has no relationship with Kṛṣṇa. His occupation is criticizing Vaiṣṇavas. Thus he is situated in criticism.
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura has explained in his Anubhāṣya that the word nirbandha indicates that Rāmacandra Purī had a steady desire to criticize others. Impersonalist Māyāvādīs, who have no relationship with Kṛṣṇa, who cannot take to devotional service, and who simply engage in material arguments to understand Brahman, regard devotional service to Kṛṣṇa as karma-kāṇḍa, or fruitive activities. According to them, devotional service to Kṛṣṇa is but another means for attaining dharma, artha, kāma and mokṣa. Therefore they criticize the devotees for engaging in material activities. They think that devotional service is māyā and that Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu is also māyā. Therefore they are called Māyāvādīs. Such a mentality awakens in a person who is an offender to Kṛṣṇa and His devotees.
Thus Īśvara Purī became like an ocean of ecstatic love for Kṛṣṇa, whereas Rāmacandra Purī became a dry speculator and a critic of everyone else.
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu knew that Rāmacandra Purī was criticizing Him before everyone, but whenever Rāmacandra Purī came to see Him, the Lord offered him respects with great attention.
One day Rāmacandra Purī came in the morning to the abode of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Seeing many ants, he said something to criticize the Lord.
Ants generally crawl about here, there and everywhere, but Rāmacandra Purī, imagining faults, criticized Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu by alleging that there had been sweetmeats in His room.
After hearing this criticism, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was doubtful and apprehensive. Therefore He called Govinda and instructed him as follows.
Paramānanda Purī said, “My Godbrother Rāmacandra Purī is by nature a bad critic. If You give up eating because of his words, what will be the profit?
“In this way he induces one to eat more than necessary, and then he directly criticizes him, saying, ‘You eat so much. How much money do you have in your treasury?
"One should see that because of the meeting of material nature and the living entity, the universe is acting uniformly. Thus one should neither praise nor criticize the characteristics or activities of others."
“Of the two rules, Rāmacandra Purī obeys the first by abandoning praise, but although he knows that the second is more prominent, he neglects it by criticizing others.
The above-mentioned verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam gives two injunctions. The first, called pūrva-vidhi, is that one should not praise, and the second, para-vidhi, is that one should not criticize. As will be apparent from the following verse, the injunction against praise is less important than the injunction against blasphemy. One should carefully observe the para-vidhi, although one may neglect the pūrva-vidhi. Thus the actual injunction is that one may praise but should not criticize. This is called śleṣokti, or a statement having two meanings. Rāmacandra Purī, however, acted in just the opposite way, for he neglected the para-vidhi but strictly observed the pūrva-vidhi. Since he avoided following the principle of not criticizing, Rāmacandra Purī broke both the rules.
“Even where there are hundreds of good qualities, a critic does not consider them. Rather, he attempts by some trick to point out a fault in those attributes.
"Why have You given up proper eating due to the criticism of Rāmacandra Purī? Please accept invitations as before. This is the request of us all."
Gopīnātha Paṭṭanāyaka criticized the prince. He was unafraid of the prince because the King was very kind toward him.
Hearing this criticism, the prince became very angry. Going before the King, he made some false allegations against Gopīnātha Paṭṭanāyaka.
When a person is sinful, he loses both the chance for spiritual advancement and the chance for material opulence. If one enjoys the material world for sense gratification, he is certainly doomed. Advancement in material opulence is not the direct mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; nevertheless, it indicates the indirect mercy of the Lord, for even a person too attached to material prosperity can gradually be detached and raised to the spiritual platform. Then he can offer causeless, purified service to the Lord. When Śrī Caitanya said, āmā haite kichu nahe ("It is not My business to do anything"), He set the ideal example for a person in the renounced order. If a sannyāsī takes the side of a viṣayī, a person engaged in material activities, his character will be criticized. A person in the renounced order should not take interest in material activities, but if he does so out of affection for a particular person, that should be considered his special mercy.
With great affection, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, "If you are angry with Me when you go to Mathurā, you will merely become a beggar and criticize Me."
Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa never did anything harmful to a Vaiṣṇava. In other words, he was never inattentive in the service of the Lord, nor did he ever violate the rules and regulations of a pure Vaiṣṇava. It is the duty of a Vaiṣṇava ācārya to prevent his disciples and followers from violating the principles of Vaiṣṇava behavior. He should always advise them to strictly follow the regulative principles, which will protect them from falling down. Although a Vaiṣṇava preacher may sometimes criticize others, Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa avoided this. Even if another Vaiṣṇava was actually at fault, Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa would not criticize him; he saw only that everyone was engaged in Kṛṣṇa's service. That is the position of a mahā-bhāgavata. Actually, even if one is serving māyā, in a higher sense he is also a servant of Kṛṣṇa. Because māyā is the servant of Kṛṣṇa, anyone serving māyā serves Kṛṣṇa indirectly.
The nectar of Kṛṣṇa's lips, combined with the vibration of His flute, attracts all the people of the three worlds. But if we gopīs remain patient out of respect for religious principles, the flute then criticizes us.
The prākṛta-sahajiyās sometimes criticize pure devotees by calling them philosophers, learned scholars, knowers of the truth, or minute observers, but not devotees. On the other hand, they depict themselves as the most advanced, transcendentally blissful devotees, deeply absorbed in devotional service and mad to taste transcendental mellows. They also describe themselves as the most advanced devotees in spontaneous love, as knowers of transcendental mellows, as the topmost devotees in conjugal love of Kṛṣṇa, and so on. Not actually knowing the transcendental nature of love of God, they accept their material emotions to be indicative of advancement. In this way they pollute the process of devotional service. To try to become writers of Vaiṣṇava literature, they introduce their material conceptions of life into pure devotional service. Because of their material conceptions, they advertise themselves as knowers of transcendental mellows, but they do not understand the transcendental nature of devotional service.
In the Third Chapter is a description of the forceful glories of Haridāsa Ṭhākura. That chapter also mentions how Dāmodara Paṇḍita spoke words of criticism to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
Other Books by Srila Prabhupada
Teachings of Lord Caitanya
It was at the age of sixteen or seventeen that He traveled to Gayā with a host of His students and there took His spiritual initiation from Īśvara Purī, a Vaiṣṇava sannyāsī and a disciple of the renowned Mādhavendra Purī. Upon His return to Nadia, Nimāi Paṇḍita turned religious preacher, and His religious nature became so strongly represented that Advaita Prabhu, Śrīvāsa and others who had before the birth of Caitanya already accepted the Vaiṣṇava faith were astonished at the change in the young man. He was then no more a contending naiyāyika, a wrangling smārta and a criticizing rhetorician. He swooned at the name of Kṛṣṇa and behaved as an inspired man under the influence of His religious sentiment. It has been described by Murāri Gupta, an eyewitness, that He showed His heavenly powers in the house of Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita in the presence of hundreds of His followers, who were mostly well-read scholars.
“The gopīs used to relish the beauty of Kṛṣṇa as a ceremony of perpetual enjoyment. They enjoyed the beautiful face of Kṛṣṇa—His beautiful ears with earrings, His broad forehead, His smile—and while enjoying this sight of Kṛṣṇa's beauty they used to criticize the creator, Brahmā, for causing their vision of Kṛṣṇa to be momentarily impeded by the blinking of their eyelids.”
The Vedic hymn known as Kāma-gāyatrī describes the face of Kṛṣṇa as the king of all moons. In metaphorical language, there are many different full moons, but they are all one in Kṛṣṇa. There is the full moon of His face, the full moons of His cheeks, the full moon of the sandalwood-pulp spot on His forehead, which is a half-moon, and the beautiful full moons of His fingernails and toenails. In this way there are twenty-four and a half moons, and Kṛṣṇa is the central figure of all of them.
The dancing movement of Kṛṣṇa's earrings, eyes and eyebrows is very attractive to the damsels of Vraja. Activities in devotional service increase the sense of devotional service. What else is there for two eyes to see beyond the face of Kṛṣṇa? Since one cannot sufficiently see Kṛṣṇa with only two eyes, one feels incapable and thus becomes bereaved. Such bereavement is slightly reduced when one criticizes the creative power of the creator. The unsatiated seer of Kṛṣṇa's face thus laments: "I do not have thousands of eyes but only two, and even these two eyes are disturbed by the movements of my eyelids. So it is to be understood that the creator of this body is not very intelligent. He is not conversant with the art of ecstasy but is simply a prosaic creator. He does not know how to arrange things properly so one can see only Kṛṣṇa."
One who thinks that there is a possibility of arguing about transcendence is called an agnostic, and one who thinks that there is a possibility of criticizing transcendence is called an atheist. Lord Caitanya wanted to accept all kinds of agnostics, atheists, skeptics and unfaithfuls and swallow them in the flood of love of God. Therefore He accepted the renounced order of life to attract all these forces.
Lord Caitanya remained a householder until His twenty-fourth year, and in the twenty-fifth year of His life He accepted the renounced order. After accepting the renounced order (sannyāsa), He attracted many other sannyāsīs. When He had been spreading the saṅkīrtana movement as a family man, many Māyāvādī sannyāsīs did not take His movement very seriously, but after the Lord accepted the sannyāsa order of life, He delivered not only Māyāvādī sannyāsīs but speculative students, atheists and those who were attached to fruitive activities and unnecessary criticism. The Lord was so kind that He accepted all these people and delivered to them the most important factor in life: love of God.
He delivered not only Māyāvādī sannyāsīs but speculative students, atheists and those who were attached to fruitive activities and unnecessary criticism. The Lord was so kind that He accepted all these people and delivered to them the most important factor in life: love of God.
To fulfill His mission of bestowing love of God upon the conditioned souls, Lord Caitanya devised many methods to attract those who were uninterested in love of God. After He accepted the renounced order, all the agnostics, critics, atheists and mental speculators became His students and followers. Even many who were not Hindus and who did not follow the Vedic principles accepted Lord Caitanya as the supreme teacher. The only persons who avoided the mercy of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu were those sannyāsīs who were known as the Māyāvādī philosophers of Benares. Their plight is described by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī: "The Māyāvādī philosophers of Benares were less intelligent because they wanted to measure everything by direct perception. On this basis they calculated that whatever is perceived by material means is māyā, or illusion. Since māyā is full of variegatedness and the Absolute Truth is transcendental to māyā, they concluded that there is no variegatedness in the Absolute Truth."
The impersonalists speculate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His devotees and subject them to the tests of direct perception. But the Lord, His devotees and His devotional service are not subject to direct perception. In other words, spiritual variegatedness is unknown to the Māyāvādī philosophy; therefore all the Māyāvādī philosophers and sannyāsīs criticized Lord Caitanya when He was conducting His saṅkīrtana movement. They were surprised to see Lord Caitanya chanting and dancing after He accepted His sannyāsa order from Keśava Bhāratī, for Keśava Bhāratī belonged to the Māyāvādī school. Since Lord Caitanya therefore also belonged to the Māyāvādī sect of sannyāsīs, the Māyāvādīs were surprised to see Him engaged in chanting and dancing instead of hearing or reading the Vedānta-sūtras, as is the custom. The Māyāvādī philosophers are very fond of the Vedānta, and they misinterpret it in their own way. Misunderstanding their own position, they criticized Lord Caitanya as an unauthorized sannyāsī, arguing that because He was a sentimentalist He was not actually a bona fide sannyāsī.
All these criticisms were carried to Lord Caitanya when He was at Benares, and He was not at all surprised at them. He even smiled when the news was carried to Him. He did not associate with the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs but remained alone and executed His own mission. After staying for some days in Benares, He started for Mathurā.
According to the principles of the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, singing, dancing and playing musical instruments are strictly prohibited, for they are considered to be sinful activities. The Māyāvādī sannyāsī is simply supposed to engage in the study of the Vedānta. Therefore when the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs in Benares saw that Lord Caitanya was indulging in singing, dancing, playing musical instruments and always chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare, they concluded that He was not educated and that, out of sentiment, He was misleading His followers. Śaṅkarācārya's injunction was that a sannyāsī should always study the Vedānta and that he should be satisfied by simply having one cloth and nothing more. Because Lord Caitanya neither studied the Vedānta formally nor ceased from singing and dancing, He was criticized by all the sannyāsīs at Benares, as well as by their householder followers.
When Lord Caitanya received news of this criticism from His students and disciples, He simply smiled and started for Mathurā and Vṛndāvana. When He returned to Benares on His way from Mathurā to Jagannātha Purī, He stayed at the house of Candraśekhara, who was considered a śūdra because he was a clerk. In spite of this, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu made His residence at his home.
After receiving these teachings, Sanātana Gosvāmī was authorized to propagate the principles of devotional service and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. It was during this time that both Tapana Miśra and Candraśekhara were feeling very sorry about the strong criticism against Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and they came together and prayed for the Lord to meet the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs.
"We have been mortified by hearing unfavorable criticisms from the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs against You," they informed Lord Caitanya. "Indeed, it has become intolerable for us." They requested the Lord to do something so that these criticisms would be stopped. While they were discussing this subject, a brāhmaṇa came to Lord Caitanya and invited Him to his home. All the sannyāsīs but Caitanya Mahāprabhu had been invited, and now the brāhmaṇa came to invite Him. Knowing that the Lord did not mix with Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, the brāhmaṇa fell down at Caitanya Mahāprabhu's feet and implored Him: "Although I know that You do not accept invitations, I still implore You to come and take prasādam at my home with the other sannyāsīs. If You accept this invitation, I will consider it a special favor."
Nectar of Devotion
When Indra was defeated by Kṛṣṇa in the matter of taking the pārijāta plant from heaven, Nārada met Indra and criticized him, "O Indra, great King of heaven, Kṛṣṇa has already defeated Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva. So what can be said of an insignificant demigod like you?" Nārada Muni, of course, was criticizing Indra jokingly, and Indra enjoyed it. In Nārada's statement it is confirmed that Kṛṣṇa was able to illusion even Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva, as well as Indra. So there is no question of Kṛṣṇa's power to do the same to lesser living entities.
When similar symptoms were manifest in the body of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, some of Her friends criticized Her: "Dear friend, You are blaming the aroma of the flowers for the tears in Your eyes. You are rebuking the air for the standing of the hairs on Your body. And You are cursing Your walking in the forest for Your thighs' being stunned. But Your faltering voice reveals the cause to be different: it is just Your attachment for Kṛṣṇa!"
When Śiśupāla objected to the worship of Kṛṣṇa in the Rājasūya arena at a sacrifice organized by Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, Sahadeva, the younger brother of Arjuna, said, "A person who cannot tolerate the worship of Kṛṣṇa is my enemy and is possessed of a demoniac nature. Therefore I wish to strike my left foot upon his broad head, just to punish him more strongly than the wand of Yamarāja!" Then Baladeva began to lament like this: "Oh, all auspiciousness to Lord Kṛṣṇa! I am so surprised to see that the condemned descendants of the Kuru dynasty, who so unlawfully occupied the throne of the Kuru kingdom, are criticizing Kṛṣṇa with diplomatic devices. Oh, this is intolerable!" This is another instance of eagerness caused by dishonor to Kṛṣṇa.
In the Vidagdha-mādhava, Jaṭilā, the mother-in-law of Rādhārāṇī, began to criticize Kṛṣṇa in this way: "Kṛṣṇa, You are standing here, and Rādhārāṇī, who has just been married to my son, is also standing here. Now I know both of You very well, so why should I not be very anxious to protect my daughter-in-law from Your dancing eyes?" This is an instance of dishonorable words used to indirectly criticize Kṛṣṇa.
One friend criticized Kṛṣṇa thus: "My dear Dāmodara, although You have been defeated by Śrīdāmā and have become sufficiently minimized in strength, by a false expression of strength You have somehow covered Your shameful condition of defeat."
One old devotee said, "My dear Lord, when we are away from You we become so anxious to see You again, and there is great misery in our lives. But then when we do see You, there immediately comes the fear of separation. Under the circumstances, both when we see You and when we do not see You, we are subjected to different kinds of tribulation." This is an instance of a contradictory mixture of ecstatic love for Kṛṣṇa. Such ecstatic love is palatable, and expert critics have compared such ecstatic love to a mixture of curd, sugar candy and a little black pepper. The combined taste is very palatable.
Kṛṣṇa Himself, after seeing Bali Mahārāja, told Uddhava, "My dear friend, how can I express the glorious characteristics of Bali Mahārāja, the son of Virocana? Although the King of the suras (demigods) was cursed by this son of Virocana, and although I cheated him in My incarnation as Vāmana, taking away his dominions throughout the universe, and although I still criticized him for not fulfilling his promise, I have just now seen him in his kingdom, and he feelingly expressed his love for Me."*
When one is mature in devotional service and is a realized soul, he can know his own eternal relationship with Kṛṣṇa. One should not artificially try to establish some relationship. In the premature stage it is sometimes found that a lusty, conditioned person will artificially try to establish some relationship with Kṛṣṇa in conjugal love. The result of this is that one becomes prākṛta-sahajiyā, or one who takes everything very cheaply. Although such persons may be very anxious to establish a relationship with Kṛṣṇa in conjugal love, their conditioned life in the material world is still most abominable. A person who has actually established his relationship with Kṛṣṇa can no longer act on the material plane, and his personal character cannot be criticized.
There is also an example of madness caused by separation from Kṛṣṇa. When Kṛṣṇa was absent from Vṛndāvana, all the cowherd boys became bewildered, and having given up all kinds of activities, they appeared to be mad and forgot all their regular business. They were sometimes lying down on the ground, sometimes rolling in the dust, sometimes laughing and sometimes running very swiftly. All of these symptoms gave them the appearance of madmen. One friend of Kṛṣṇa's criticized Him by saying, "My dear Lord, You have become the King of Mathurā after killing Kaṁsa, and that is very good news for us. But at Vṛndāvana all the residents have become blind from their continuous crying over Your absence. They are full only of anxieties and are not cheered at all by Your becoming the King of Mathurā."
Nectar of Instruction
One should mentally honor the devotee who chants the holy name of Lord Kṛṣṇa, one should offer humble obeisances to the devotee who has undergone spiritual initiation (dīkṣā) and is engaged in worshiping the Deity, and one should associate with and faithfully serve that pure devotee who is advanced in undeviated devotional service and whose heart is completely devoid of the propensity to criticize others.
No one should criticize the bodily defects of a pure devotee. If there are such defects, they should be overlooked. What should be taken into account is the spiritual master's main business, which is devotional service, pure service to the Supreme Lord. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā (9.30):
- api cet sudurācāro
- bhajate mām ananya-bhāk
- sādhur eva sa mantavyaḥ
- samyag vyavasito hi saḥ
Even if a devotee sometimes seems to engage in abominable activities, he should be considered a sādhu, a saintly person, because his actual identity is that of one engaged in the loving service of the Lord. In other words, he is not to be considered an ordinary human being.
We experience such difficulty in propagating this Kṛṣṇa consciousness all over the world. Unfortunately we are surrounded by neophyte Godbrothers who do not appreciate the extraordinary activities of spreading Kṛṣṇa consciousness all over the world. They simply try to bring us to their platform, and they try to criticize us in every respect. We very much regret their naive activities and poor fund of knowledge. An empowered person who is actually engaged in the confidential service of the Lord should not be treated as an ordinary human being, for it is stated that unless one is empowered by Kṛṣṇa, one cannot spread the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement all over the world.
When one thus criticizes a pure devotee, he commits an offense (vaiṣṇava-aparādha) that is very obstructive and dangerous for those who desire to advance in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. A person cannot derive any spiritual benefit when he offends the lotus feet of a Vaiṣṇava.
Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead
You feel very proud because of having touched that garland, and your mustaches have become reddish. You have come here carrying a message for Me, anxious to touch My feet. But My dear bumblebee, let Me warn you—don’t touch Me! I don’t want any messages from your unreliable master. You are the unreliable servant of an unreliable master.” It may be that Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī purposely addressed the bumblebee sarcastically in order to indirectly criticize the messenger Uddhava. Like the other gopīs, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī saw that Uddhava's bodily features resembled Kṛṣṇa's, but She also saw Uddhava as being equal to Kṛṣṇa. Indirectly, therefore, She indicated that Uddhava was as unreliable as Kṛṣṇa Himself. Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī wanted to give specific reasons why She was dissatisfied with Kṛṣṇa and His messenger.
Jarāsandha said, "It will be a great dishonor for me to fight with boys like Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma." Because Kṛṣṇa had killed Kaṁsa, Jarāsandha specifically addressed Him as the killer of His own relatives. Kaṁsa had killed many of his own nephews, yet Jarāsandha did not take notice, but because Kṛṣṇa had killed His maternal uncle, Kaṁsa, Jarāsandha tried to criticize Him. That is the way of demoniac dealings. Demons do not try to find their own faults or those of their friends, but try to find the faults of their enemies. Jarāsandha also criticized Kṛṣṇa for not even being a kṣatriya. Because He was raised by Mahārāja Nanda, Kṛṣṇa was not a kṣatriya but a vaiśya. Vaiśyas are generally called guptas, and the word gupta can also be used to mean "hidden." So Kṛṣṇa was both hidden and raised by Nanda Mahārāja. Jarāsandha accused Kṛṣṇa of three faults: that He killed His own maternal uncle, that He was not even a kṣatriya, and that He was hidden in His childhood. And therefore Jarāsandha felt ashamed to fight with Him.
After this episode, Kṛṣṇa expected that because Satyabhāmā had been rewarded with a full tree of pārijāta, Rukmiṇī would also demand something. Rukmiṇī did not mention anything of the incident, however, for she was grave and simply satisfied in her service. Kṛṣṇa wanted to see her a bit irritated, and therefore He schemed to see the beautiful face of Rukmiṇī in an irritated condition. Although Kṛṣṇa had more than 16,100 wives, He used to behave with each of them with familial affection; He would create a particular situation between Himself and His wife in which the wife would criticize Him in the irritation of love, and Kṛṣṇa would enjoy this. In this case, because Kṛṣṇa could not find any fault with Rukmiṇī, for she was very grave and always engaged in His service, He smilingly, in great love, began to speak to her just to provoke her loving anger. Rukmiṇī was the daughter of Bhīṣmaka, a powerful king.
Śrī Balarāma's losing the game was an opportunity for the King of Kaliṅga to criticize Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma. Thus the King of Kaliṅga was talking jokingly while purposefully showing his teeth to Balarāma. Because Balarāma was the loser in the game, He was a little intolerant of the sarcastic joking words and became somewhat agitated. Rukmī again challenged Balarāma and made a bet of a hundred thousand gold coins, but fortunately this time Balarāma won. Nonetheless, out of cunningness Rukmī claimed that Balarāma was the loser and that he himself had won. Because of this lie, Balarāmajī became most angry with Rukmī. His agitation was so sudden and great that it appeared like a tidal wave in the ocean on a full-moon day. Balarāma's eyes are naturally reddish, and when He became agitated and angry His eyes became more reddish. This time He challenged and made a bet of a hundred million coins.
In spite of this divine voice, Rukmī insisted that Balarāma had lost, and by his persistence it appeared that he had death upon his head. Falsely puffed up by the ill advice of his friend, he did not give much importance to the oracle, and he began to criticize Balarāmajī. He said, "My dear Balarāmajī, You two brothers, cowherd boys only, may be very expert in tending cows, but how can You be expert in playing chess or shooting arrows on the battlefield? These arts are well known only to the princely order." Hearing this kind of pinching talk by Rukmī and hearing the loud laughter of all the other princes present there, Lord Balarāma became as agitated as burning cinders. He immediately took His club in His hand and, without further talk, struck Rukmī on the head. From that one blow, Rukmī fell down immediately and was dead and gone. Thus Rukmī was killed by Balarāma on that auspicious occasion of Aniruddha's marriage. These things are not very uncommon in kṣatriya society.
The King of Kaliṅga, afraid that he would be the next one attacked, fled from the scene. Before he could escape even a few steps, however, Balarāmajī immediately captured him, and because the King had always shown his teeth while criticizing Balarāma and Kṛṣṇa, Balarāma broke all the King's teeth with His club. The other princes supporting the King of Kaliṅga and Rukmī were also captured, and Balarāma beat them with His club, breaking their legs and hands. They did not try to retaliate but thought it wise to run away from the bloody scene.
After Lord Kṛṣṇa heard the prayers of Bali Mahārāja, He spoke as follows: “My dear King of the demons, in the millennium of Svāyambhuva Manu, the Prajāpati known as Marīci begot six sons, all demigods, in the womb of his wife, Ūrṇā. Once upon a time, Lord Brahmā became captivated by the beauty of his daughter and was following her, impelled by sex desire. At that time, these six demigods looked at the action of Lord Brahmā with abhorrence. This criticism of Brahma's action by the demigods constituted a great offense on their part, and for this reason they were condemned to take birth as the sons of the demon Hiraṇyakaśipu. These sons of Hiraṇyakaśipu were thereafter put into the womb of Mother Devakī, and as soon as they took their birth Kaṁsa killed them one after another.
My feature of four-handed Nārāyaṇa is not so pleasing or dear to Me as is a brāhmaṇa Vaiṣṇava. Brāhmaṇa means "one well conversant with Vedic knowledge." A brāhmaṇa is the insignia of perfect knowledge, and I am the full-fledged manifestation of all gods. Less intelligent men do not understand Me, nor do they understand the influence of the brāhmaṇa Vaiṣṇava. They are influenced by the three modes of material nature and thus dare to criticize Me and My pure devotees. A brāhmaṇa Vaiṣṇava, or a devotee already on the brahminical platform, can realize Me within his heart, and therefore he definitely concludes that the whole cosmic manifestation and its different features are effects of different energies of the Lord. Thus he has a clear conception of the whole material nature and the total material energy, and in every action such a devotee sees Me only, and nothing else.
The entire material world, the entire cosmic manifestation, belongs to God, Kṛṣṇa. Therefore, everything should be utilized for Kṛṣṇa, and the devotee should remain unattached to material things.” This is the purpose of Vaiṣṇava sannyāsa. A materialist sticks to the world for sense gratification, but a Vaiṣṇava sannyāsī, although not accepting anything for his personal sense gratification, knows the art of utilizing everything for the service of the Lord. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī has therefore criticized the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs with his second formula: "Because the Māyāvādīs do not know that everything has a utilization for the service of the Lord, they take the world to be false and falsely think they are liberated from the contamination of the material world." Since everything is an expansion of the energy of the Supreme Lord, the expansions are as real as the Supreme Lord is.
The personified Vedas continued: "Dear Lord, anyone who by Your grace has understood the glories of Your lotus feet is callous to material happiness and distress." The material pangs are inevitable as long as we exist within the material world, but a devotee does not divert his attention to such actions and reactions, which are the results of pious and impious activities. Nor is a devotee very much disturbed or pleased by praise or condemnation from people in general. A devotee is sometimes greatly praised because of his transcendental activities, and sometimes he is criticized, even though there is no reason for adverse criticism. The pure devotee, however, is always callous to praise or condemnation by ordinary people. Actually, the devotee's activities are on the transcendental plane. He is not interested in the praise or condemnation of people engaged in material activities. If the devotee can thus maintain his transcendental position, his liberation in this life and the next is guaranteed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Actually, there are no unfavorable conditions for a devotee. Knowing that everything is coming by the will of the Lord, he sees every condition as favorable, and in any condition of life he is simply enthusiastic to discharge his devotional service. This devotional attitude is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā: a devotee is never distressed in reverse conditions of life, nor is he overjoyed in favorable conditions. In the higher stages of devotional service, a devotee is not even concerned with the list of do's and do not's. Such a position can be maintained only by following in the footsteps of the ācāryas. Because a pure devotee follows in the footsteps of the ācāryas, any action he performs to discharge devotional service should be understood to be on the transcendental platform. Lord Kṛṣṇa therefore instructs us that an ācārya is above criticism. A neophyte devotee should not consider himself to be on the same plane as the ācārya. It should be accepted that the ācāryas are on the same platform as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and as such neither Kṛṣṇa nor His representative ācārya should be subjected to any adverse criticism by the neophyte devotees.
Mahārāja Parīkṣit's question is very intelligent. The two classes of devotees, namely the devotees of Lord Śiva and the devotees of Lord Viṣṇu, are always in disagreement. Even today in India these two classes of devotees still criticize each other, and especially in South India the followers of Rāmānujācārya and the followers of Śaṅkarācārya hold occasional meetings for understanding the Vedic conclusion. Generally, the followers of Rāmānujācārya come out victorious in such meetings. So Parīkṣit Mahārāja wanted to clarify the situation by asking this question of Śukadeva Gosvāmī. That Lord Śiva lives as a poor man although his devotees appear very opulent, whereas Lord Kṛṣṇa, or Lord Viṣṇu, is always opulent and yet His devotees appear poverty-stricken, is a situation which appears contradictory and puzzling to a discriminating person.
When Bhṛgu Muni refused to embrace his brother, saying that Lord Śiva was impure, the latter became very angry with him. It is said that an offense can be committed either with the body, with the mind or by speech. Bhṛgu Muni's first offense, committed toward Lord Brahmā, was an offense with the mind. His second offense, committed toward Lord Śiva by insulting him, criticizing him for unclean habits, was an offense by speech. Because the quality of ignorance is prominent in Lord Śiva, when he heard Bhṛgu's insult his eyes immediately became red with anger. With uncontrollable rage, he took up his trident and prepared to kill Bhṛgu Muni. At that time Lord Śiva's wife, Pārvatī, was present. Her personality, like Lord Śiva's, is a mixture of the three qualities, and therefore she is called Triguṇamayī. In this case, she saved the situation by evoking Lord Śiva's quality of goodness. She fell down at the feet of her husband, and with her sweet words she talked him out of killing Bhṛgu Muni.
Arjuna then understood that the brāhmaṇa had lost all faith in the kṣatriya kings. Therefore, to encourage him, Arjuna spoke as if criticizing even his friend Lord Kṛṣṇa. While Lord Kṛṣṇa and others were listening, he specifically attacked Kṛṣṇa by saying, “My dear brāhmaṇa, I am neither Saṅkarṣaṇa nor Kṛṣṇa nor one of Kṛṣṇa's sons like Pradyumna or Aniruddha. My name is Arjuna, and I carry the bow known as Gāṇḍīva. You cannot insult me, for I have satisfied even Lord Śiva by my prowess when we were both hunting in the forest. I had a fight with Lord Śiva, who appeared before me as a hunter, and when I satisfied him by my prowess he gave me the weapon known as Pāśupata. Do not doubt my chivalry. I shall bring back your sons even if I have to fight with death personified.” When the brāhmaṇa was assured by Arjuna in such exalted words, he was somehow or other convinced, and thus he returned home.
Renunciation Through Wisdom
Members of the so-called educated class ask, "If one is busy all the time rendering devotional service to Lord Kṛṣṇa, how is one to maintain himself and his family?" The so-called educated men think only a fool would be blind to his immediate physical needs and uselessly waste his time in devotional service so he could rise to the platform of a mahātmā. In fact, they think that a real mahātmā is he who strives to improve his material facilities from good to better. They say that it is because of the economists' poor planning that the world is facing a major crisis in food production. Both the economists and their critics should turn to the Bhagavad-gītā (9.22) and hear what Lord Kṛṣṇa has to say on this subject:
- ananyāś cintayanto māṁ
- ye janāḥ paryupāsate
- teṣāṁ nityābhiyuktānāṁ
- yoga-kṣemaṁ vahāmy aham
But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they have.
Therefore why does he conclude that Lord Kṛṣṇa and His body are different? This we fail to understand. On page 275, Dr. Radhakrishnan admits that Arjuna says Lord Kṛṣṇa is Para-brahman, Bhagavān, the Absolute Truth. In the same book and on the same page he writes something quite incoherent and fictitious and attributes it to Arjuna: "Arjuna states that the Supreme (Śrī Kṛṣṇa) is both Brahman and Īśvara, Absolute and God." If Dr. Radhakrishnan possesses such a sketchy and incorrect perception of the Gītā that he thinks Bhagavān is different from Brahman then how can he claim to have read the Gītā? He argues that Bhagavān and Supersoul Kṛṣṇa are products of māyā, while Brahman is not! Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī has severely criticized such speculative philosophy.
| Page Title: | Criticism (CC and Other Books) |
| Compiler: | Mayapur |
| Created: | 22 of Sep, 2011 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=0, SB=0, CC=92, OB=34, Lec=0, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 126 |