In the Second Chapter of the Madhya-līlā, the author describes the pastimes the Lord performed during the last twelve years of His life. Thus he has also described some of the pastimes of the antya-līlā. Why he has done so is very difficult for an ordinary person to understand. The author expects that reading the pastimes of the Lord will gradually help a person awaken his dormant love of Kṛṣṇa. Actually this Caitanya-caritāmṛta was compiled by the author during very old age. Fearing he might not be able to finish the book, he has included a synopsis of the antya-līlā here in the Second Chapter. Śrīla Kavirāja Gosvāmī has confirmed that the opinion of Svarūpa Dāmodara is authoritative in the matter of devotional service. Over and above this are the notes of Svarūpa Dāmodara, memorized by Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī, who also helped in the compilation of the Caitanya-caritāmṛta. After the disappearance of Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī, Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī went to Vṛndāvana. At that time the author, Śrīla Kavirāja Gosvāmī, met Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī, by whose mercy he also could memorize all the notes. In this way the author was able to complete this transcendental literature, Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta.
Opinion (CC)
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta
CC Adi-lila
According to the deliberate opinion of all revealed scriptures, the spiritual master is nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa. Lord Kṛṣṇa in the form of the spiritual master delivers His devotees.
All other incarnations are situated in potential form in the original body of the primeval Lord. Thus according to one's opinion, one may address Him as any one of the incarnations.
According to expert opinion, Balarāma, as the chief of the original quadruple forms, is also the original Saṅkarṣaṇa. Balarāma, the first expansion of Kṛṣṇa, expands Himself in five forms: (1) Mahā-saṅkarṣaṇa, (2) Kāraṇodakaśāyī, (3) Garbhodakaśāyī, (4) Kṣīrodakaśāyī, and (5) Śeṣa. These five plenary portions are responsible for both the spiritual and material cosmic manifestations. In these five forms Lord Balarāma assists Lord Kṛṣṇa in His activities. The first four of these forms are responsible for the cosmic manifestations, whereas Śeṣa is responsible for personal service to the Lord. Śeṣa is called Ananta, or unlimited, because He assists the Personality of Godhead in His unlimited expansions by performing an unlimited variety of services. Śrī Balarāma is the servitor Godhead who serves Lord Kṛṣṇa in all affairs of existence and knowledge. Lord Nityānanda Prabhu, who is the same servitor Godhead, Balarāma, performs the same service to Lord Gaurāṅga by constant association.
The great Vaiṣṇava philosopher Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa has very nicely explained the materialistic conclusion in his Govinda-bhāṣya, a commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. He writes as follows:
“The Sāṅkhya philosopher Kapila has connected the different elementary truths according to his own opinion. Material nature, according to him, consists of the equilibrium of the three material qualities—goodness, passion and ignorance. Material nature produces the material energy, known as mahat, and mahat produces the false ego. The ego produces the five objects of sense perception, which produce the ten senses (five for acquiring knowledge and five for working), the mind and the five gross elements. Counting the puruṣa, or the enjoyer, with these twenty-four elements, there are twenty-five different truths. The nonmanifested stage of these twenty-five elementary truths is called prakṛti, or material nature. The qualities of material nature can associate in three different stages, namely as the cause of happiness, the cause of distress and the cause of illusion. The quality of goodness is the cause of material happiness, the quality of passion is the cause of material distress, and the quality of ignorance is the cause of illusion. Our material experience lies within the boundaries of these three manifestations of happiness, distress and illusion. For example, a beautiful woman is certainly a cause of material happiness for one who possesses her as a wife, but the same beautiful woman is a cause of distress to a man whom she rejects or who is the cause of her anger, and if she leaves a man she becomes the cause of illusion.
They want to be worshiped as God by others. Such persons do not accept the philosophies of the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, which are known as śuddhādvaita (purified monism), śuddha-dvaita (purified dualism), viśiṣṭādvaita (specific monism), dvaitādvaita (monism and dualism) and acintya-bhedābheda (inconceivable oneness and difference). Māyāvādīs do not discuss these philosophies, for they are firmly convinced of their own philosophy of kevalādvaita, exclusive monism. Accepting this system of philosophy as the pure understanding of the Vedānta-sūtra, they believe that Kṛṣṇa has a body made of material elements and that the activities of loving service to Kṛṣṇa are sentimentality. They are known as Māyāvādīs because according to their opinion Kṛṣṇa has a body made of māyā and the loving service of the Lord executed by devotees is also māyā. They consider such devotional service to be an aspect of fruitive activities (karma-kāṇḍa). According to their view, bhakti consists of mental speculation or sometimes meditation. This is the difference between the Māyāvādī and Vaiṣṇava philosophies.
Therefore the Vedānta-sūtra is known as nyāya-prasthāna, the Upaniṣads are known as śruti-prasthāna, and the Gītā, Mahābhārata and Purāṇas are known as smṛti-prasthāna. All scientific knowledge of transcendence must be supported by śruti, smṛti and a sound logical basis.
It is said that both the Vedic knowledge and the supplement of the Vedas called the Sātvata-pañcarātra emanated from the breathing of Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Vedānta-sūtra aphorisms were compiled by Śrīla Vyāsadeva, a powerful incarnation of Śrī Nārāyaṇa, although it is sometimes said that they were compiled by a great sage named Apāntaratamā. The Pañcarātra and Vedānta-sūtra, however, express the same opinions. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore confirms that there is no difference in opinion between the two, and He declares that because the Vedānta-sūtra was compiled by Śrīla Vyāsadeva, it may be understood to have emanated from the breathing of Śrī Nārāyaṇa. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that while Vyāsadeva was compiling the Vedānta-sūtra, seven of his great saintly contemporaries were also engaged in similar work. These saints were Ātreya Ṛṣi, Āśmarathya, Auḍulomi, Kārṣṇājini, Kāśakṛtsna, Jaimini and Bādarī. In addition, it is stated that Pārāśarī and Karmandī-bhikṣu also discussed the Vedānta-sūtra aphorisms before Vyāsadeva.
The most prominent Māyāvādī scholar, Sadānanda Yogīndra, has written a book called Vedānta-sāra, in which he expounds the philosophy of Śaṅkarācārya, and all the followers of Śaṅkara's philosophy attribute great importance to his statements. In this Vedānta-sāra Sadānanda Yogīndra defines Brahman as sac-cid-ānanda combined with knowledge and without duality, and he defines ignorance (jaḍa) as knowledge distinct from that of sat and asat. This is almost inconceivable, but it is a product of the three material qualities. Thus he considers anything other than pure knowledge to be material. The center of ignorance is considered to be sometimes all-pervading and sometimes individual. Thus according to his opinion both the all-pervading Viṣṇu and the individual living entities are products of ignorance.
In simple language, it is the opinion of Sadānanda Yogīndra that since everything is nirākāra (formless), the conception of Viṣṇu and the conception of the individual soul are both products of ignorance. He also explains that the viśuddha-sattva conception of the Vaiṣṇavas is nothing but pradhāna, or the chief principle of creation. He maintains that when all-pervading knowledge is contaminated by the viśuddha-sattva, which consists of a transformation of the quality of goodness, there arises the conception of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the omnipotent, omniscient supreme ruler, the Supersoul, the cause of all causes, the supreme īśvara, etc. According to Sadānanda Yogīndra, because īśvara, the Supreme Lord, is the reservoir of all ignorance, He may be called sarva-jña, or omniscient, but one who denies the existence of the omnipotent Supreme Personality of Godhead is more than īśvara, or the Lord. His conclusion, therefore, is that the Supreme Personality of Godhead (īśvara) is a transformation of material ignorance and that the living entity (jīva) is covered by ignorance. Thus he describes both collective and individual existence in darkness. According to Māyāvādī philosophers, the Vaiṣṇava conception of the Lord as the Supreme Personality of Godhead and of the jīva, or individual soul, as His eternal servant is a manifestation of ignorance.
Sometimes, therefore, modern scientists consider the sun to be the original cause of creation, not knowing that the sun is only a medium, for it is also created by the supreme energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Aside from the sun and the touchstone, there are many other material things that transform their energy in different ways and yet remain as they are. It is not necessary, therefore, for the original cause, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, to change due to the changes or transformations of His different energies.
The falsity of Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya's explanation of vivarta-vāda and pariṇāma-vāda has been detected by the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, especially Jīva Gosvāmī, whose opinion is that actually Śaṅkara did not understand the Vedānta-sūtra. In Śaṅkara's explanation of one sūtra, ānanda-mayo ’bhyāsāt, he has interpreted the affix mayaṭ with such word jugglery that this very explanation proves that he had little knowledge of the Vedānta-sūtra but simply wanted to support his impersonalism through the aphorisms of the Vedānta philosophy. Actually, however, he failed to do so because he could not put forward strong arguments. In this connection, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī cites the phrase brahma pucchaṁ pratiṣṭhā (Taittirīya Up. 2.5), which gives Vedic evidence that Brahman is the origin of everything. In explaining this verse, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya interpreted various Sanskrit words in such a way that he implied, according to Jīva Gosvāmī, that Vyāsadeva had very little knowledge of higher logic. Such unscrupulous deviation from the real meaning of the Vedānta-sūtra has created a class of men who by word jugglery try to derive various indirect meanings from the Vedic literatures, especially the Bhagavad-gītā. One of them has even explained that the word kurukṣetra refers to the body. Such interpretations imply, however, that neither Lord Kṛṣṇa nor Vyāsadeva had a proper sense of word usage or etymological adjustment. They lead one to assume that since Lord Kṛṣṇa could not personally sense the meaning of what He was speaking and Vyāsadeva did not know the meaning of what he was writing, Lord Kṛṣṇa left His book to be explained later by the Māyāvādīs. Such interpretations merely prove, however, that their proponents have very little philosophical sense.
"Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu used to say, "I am living in this world only on account of the excellent behavior of Śrī Paramānanda Purī."" The Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (118) states, purī śrī-paramānando ya āsīd uddhavaḥ purā. "Paramānanda Purī is none other than Uddhava." Uddhava was Lord Kṛṣṇa's friend and cousin, and in caitanya-līlā the same Uddhava became the friend of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and His uncle in terms of their relationship in the disciplic succession.
Keśava Bhāratī: The Sarasvatī, Bhāratī and Purī sampradāyas belong to the Śṛṅgerī-maṭha in South India, and Śrī Keśava Bhāratī, who at that time was situated in a monastery in Katwa, belonged to the Bhāratī-sampradāya. According to some authoritative opinions, although Keśava Bhāratī belonged to the Śaṅkara-sampradāya, he had formerly been initiated by a Vaiṣṇava. He is said to have been a Vaiṣṇava on account of having been initiated by Mādhavendra Purī, for some say that he took sannyāsa from Mādhavendra Purī. The temple and Deity worship started by Keśava Bhāratī are still existing in the village known as Khāṭundi, which is under the postal jurisdiction of Kāndarā in the district of Burdwan. According to the managers of that maṭha, the priests are descendants of Keśava Bhāratī, and some say that the worshipers of the Deity are descendants of the sons of Keśava Bhāratī. In his householder life he had two sons, Niśāpati and Ūṣāpati, and a brāhmaṇa of the name Śrī Nakaḍicandra Vidyāratna, who was a member of the family of Niśāpati, was the priest in charge at the time that Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī visited this temple. According to some, the priests of the temple belong to the family of Keśava Bhāratī’s brother. Still another opinion is that they descend from Mādhava Bhāratī, who was another disciple of Keśava Bhāratī’s. Mādhava Bhāratī’s disciple Balabhadra, who also later became a sannyāsī of the Bhāratī-sampradāya, had two sons in his family life, named Madana and Gopāla. Madana, whose family's surname was Bhāratī, lived in the village of Āuriyā, and Gopāla, whose family's surname was Brahmacārī, lived in the village of Denduḍa. There are still many living descendants of both families.
"Sāndīpani Muni, who formerly offered the sacred thread to Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma, later became Keśava Bhāratī." It is he who offered sannyāsa to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. There is another statement about Keśava Bhāratī from the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (117): iti kecit prabhāṣante ’krūraḥ keśava-bhāratī. "According to some authoritative opinions, Keśava Bhāratī is an incarnation of Akrūra." Keśava Bhāratī offered the sannyāsa order to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu in the year 1432 śakābda (A.D. 1510) in Katwa. This is stated in the Vaiṣṇava-mañjuṣā, Part Two.
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.
One who has no idea what God actually is thinks that any form he imagines or any rascal he accepts can be God. This acceptance of cheap gods or incarnations of God is actually atheism. It is to be concluded, therefore, that those who worship demigods or self-proclaimed incarnations of God are all atheists. They have lost their knowledge, as confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā (7.20): kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ prapadyante ’nya-devatāḥ. "Those whose minds are distorted by material desires surrender unto demigods." Unfortunately, those who do not cultivate Kṛṣṇa consciousness and do not properly understand the Vedic knowledge accept any rascal to be an incarnation of God, and they are of the opinion that one can become an incarnation simply by worshiping a demigod. This philosophical hodge-podge exists under the name of the Hindu religion, but the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement does not approve of it. Indeed, we strongly condemn it. Such worship of demigods and so-called incarnations of God should never be confused with the pure Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.
In the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (54), Śrīla Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi is described as the father of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī in kṛṣṇa-līlā. Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore treated him as His father. Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi's father was known as Bāṇeśvara or, according to another opinion, Śuklāmbara Brahmacārī, and his mother's name was Gaṅgādevī. According to one opinion, Bāṇeśvara was a descendant of Śrī Śivarāma Gaṅgopādhyāya. The original home of Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi was in East Bengal (now Bangladesh), in a village near Dacca named Bāghiyā, which belonged to the Vārendra group of brāhmaṇa families. Sometimes these Vārendra brāhmaṇas were at odds with another group known as Rāḍhīya brāhmaṇas, and therefore Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi's family was ostracized and at that time was not living as a respectable family.
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura writes in his Anubhāṣya, “One of the members of this family is living in Vṛndāvana and is named Sarojānanda Gosvāmī. One special characteristic of this family is that each of its members had only one son or no son at all, and therefore the family was not very expansive. There is a place in the district of Caṭṭagrāma in East Bengal that is known as Hāta-hājāri, and a short distance from this place is a village known as Mekhalā-grāma, in which Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi's forefathers lived. One can approach Mekhalā-grāma from Caṭṭagrāma either on horseback, by bullock cart or by steamer. The steamer station is known as Annapūrṇāra-ghāṭa. The birthplace of Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi is about two miles southwest of Annapūrṇāra-ghāṭa.
Caitanya dāsa, the eldest son of Śivānanda Sena, wrote a commentary on Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta that was later translated by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura in his paper Sajjana-toṣaṇī. According to expert opinion, Caitanya dāsa was the author of the book Caitanya-carita (also known as Caitanya-caritāmṛta), which was written in Sanskrit. The author was not Kavi-karṇapūra, as is generally supposed. This is the opinion of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura. Śrī Rāmadāsa was the second son of Śivānanda Sena. It is stated in the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (145) that the two famous parrots named Dakṣa and Vicakṣaṇa in kṛṣṇa-līlā became the elder brothers of Kavi-karṇapūra, namely Caitanya dāsa and Rāmadāsa. Karṇapūra, the third son, who was also known as Paramānanda dāsa or Purī dāsa, was initiated by Śrīnātha Paṇḍita, who was a disciple of Śrī Advaita Prabhu. Karṇapūra wrote many books that are important in Vaiṣṇava literature, such as the Ānanda-vṛndāvana-campū, Alaṅkāra-kaustubha, Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā and the great epic Caitanya-candrodaya-nāṭaka. He was born in the year 1448 Śakābda (A.D. 1526). He continually wrote books for ten years, from 1488 until 1498.
His father was a very much celebrated man of the name Maheśvara Viśārada. It is said that Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya was the greatest logician of his time in India. At Mithilā, in Bihar, he became a student of a great professor named Pakṣadhara Miśra, who did not allow any student to note down his explanations of logic. Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya was so talented, however, that he learned the explanations by heart, and when he later returned to Navadvīpa he established a school for the study of logic, thus diminishing the importance of Mithilā. Students from various parts of India still come to Navadvīpa to study logic. According to some authoritative opinions, the celebrated logician Raghunātha Śiromaṇi was also a student of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya's. In effect, Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya became the leader of all students of logic. Although he was a gṛhastha (householder), he even taught many sannyāsīs in the knowledge of logic.
He started a school at Jagannātha Purī for the study of Vedānta philosophy, of which he was a great scholar. When Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya met Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he advised the Lord to learn Vedānta philosophy from him, but later he became a student of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu to understand the real meaning of Vedānta. Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya was so fortunate as to see the six-armed form of Lord Caitanya known as Ṣaḍbhuja. A Ṣaḍbhuja Deity is still situated at one end of the Jagannātha temple. Daily saṅkīrtana performances take place in this part of the temple. The meeting of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya with Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu is vividly described in Madhya-līlā, Chapter Six. Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya wrote a book of one hundred verses named Caitanya-śataka or Suśloka-śataka. Two other verses he wrote, beginning with the words vairāgya-vidyā-nija-bhakti-yoga (CC Madhya 6.254) and kālān naṣṭaṁ bhakti-yogaṁ nijaṁ yaḥ, are very famous among Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas. The Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (119) states that Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya was an incarnation of Bṛhaspati, the learned scholar from the celestial planets.
A Ṣaḍbhuja Deity is still situated at one end of the Jagannātha temple. Daily saṅkīrtana performances take place in this part of the temple. The meeting of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya with Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu is vividly described in Madhya-līlā, Chapter Six. Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya wrote a book of one hundred verses named Caitanya-śataka or Suśloka-śataka. Two other verses he wrote, beginning with the words vairāgya-vidyā-nija-bhakti-yoga (CC Madhya 6.254) and kālān naṣṭaṁ bhakti-yogaṁ nijaṁ yaḥ, are very famous among Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas. The Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (119) states that Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya was an incarnation of Bṛhaspati, the learned scholar from the celestial planets.
Gopīnātha Ācārya, who belonged to a respectable brāhmaṇa family, was also an inhabitant of Navadvīpa and a constant companion of the Lord. He was the husband of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya's sister. In the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (178) it is described that he was formerly the gopī named Ratnāvalī. According to the opinion of others, he was an incarnation of Brahmā.
The Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (120–24) states that Rāmānanda Rāya was formerly Arjuna. He is also considered to have been an incarnation of the gopī Lalitā, although in the opinion of others he was an incarnation of Viśākhādevī. He was a most confidential devotee of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, "Although I am a sannyāsī, My mind is sometimes perturbed when I see a woman. But Rāmānanda Rāya is greater than Me, for he is always undisturbed, even when he touches a woman." Only Rāmānanda Rāya was endowed with the prerogative to touch a woman in this way; no one should imitate him. Unfortunately, there are rascals who imitate the activities of Rāmānanda Rāya. We need not discuss them further.
In Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu's final pastimes, Rāmānanda Rāya and Svarūpa Dāmodara always engaged in reciting suitable verses from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and other books to pacify the Lord's ecstatic feelings of separation from Kṛṣṇa. When Lord Caitanya went to southern India, Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya advised Him to meet Rāmānanda Rāya, declaring that there was no devotee as advanced in understanding the conjugal love of Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs. While touring South India, Lord Caitanya met Rāmānanda Rāya by the bank of the Godāvarī, and in their long discourses the Lord took the position of a student, and Rāmānanda Rāya instructed Him. Caitanya Mahāprabhu concluded these discourses by saying, "My dear Rāmānanda Rāya, both you and I are madmen, and therefore we met intimately on an equal level." Lord Caitanya advised Rāmānanda Rāya to resign from his government post and come back to Jagannātha Purī to live with Him.
At first all the followers of Advaita Ācārya shared a single opinion. But later they followed two different opinions, as ordained by providence.
Some of the disciples strictly accepted the orders of the ācārya, and others deviated, independently concocting their own opinions under the spell of daivī-māyā.
This verse describes the beginning of a schism. When disciples do not stick to the principle of accepting the order of their spiritual master, immediately there are two opinions. Any opinion different from the opinion of the spiritual master is useless. One cannot infiltrate materially concocted ideas into spiritual advancement. That is deviation. There is no scope for adjusting spiritual advancement to material ideas.
Here is the opinion of Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī. Persons who strictly follow the orders of the spiritual master are useful in executing the will of the Supreme, whereas persons who deviate from the strict order of the spiritual master are useless.
From a book named Śākhā-nirṇayāmṛta it is understood that Acyutānanda was a disciple of Gadādhara Paṇḍita and that he took shelter of Lord Caitanya in Jagannātha Purī and engaged in devotional service. The Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā, Chapter Ten, states that Acyutānanda, the son of Advaita Ācārya, lived in Jagannātha Purī, taking shelter of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Gadādhara Paṇḍita, in the last years of his life, also lived with Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu at Jagannātha Purī. There is no doubt, therefore, that Acyutānanda was a disciple of Paṇḍita Gadādhara. In the accounts of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu's dancing in front of the car during the Ratha-yātrā festival, Acyutānanda's name is to be found many times. It is stated that in the party of Advaita Ācārya from Śāntipura, Acyutānanda was dancing and others were singing. At that time the boy was only six years old. Text 87 of the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā, compiled by Śrī Kavi-karṇapūra, describes Acyutānanda as a disciple of Gadādhara Paṇḍita and a great and dear devotee of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. According to the opinion of some, he was an incarnation of Kārttikeya, the son of Lord Śiva, and according to others he was formerly the gopī named Acyutā. The Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (88) supports both these opinions. Another book, Narottama-vilāsa, compiled by Śrī Narahari dāsa, mentions Acyutānanda's presence during the festival at Khetari. According to Śrī Narahari dāsa, during the last days of his life Acyutānanda stayed in his house at Śāntipura, but during the presence of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu he lived at Jagannātha Purī with Gadādhara Paṇḍita.
Texts 197 and 207 of the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā describe Kavi Datta as the gopī named Kalakaṇṭhī, texts 196 and 207 describe Nayana Miśra as the gopī named Nitya-mañjarī, and texts 196 and 205 describe Gaṅgāmantrī as the gopī named Candrikā. Māmu Ṭhākura, whose real name was Jagannātha Cakravartī, was the nephew of Śrī Nīlāmbara Cakravartī, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's grandfather. In Bengal a maternal uncle is called māmā, and in East Bengal and Orissa, māmu. Thus Jagannātha Cakravartī was known as Māmā or Māmu Ṭhākura. Māmu Ṭhākura's residence was in the district of Faridpur, in the village known as Magḍobā. After the demise of Śrī Gadādhara Paṇḍita, Māmu Ṭhākura became the priest in charge of the temple known as Ṭoṭā-gopīnātha, in Jagannātha Purī. According to the opinion of some Vaiṣṇavas, Māmu Ṭhākura was formerly known as Śrī Rūpa-mañjarī. The followers of Māmu Ṭhākura were Raghunātha Gosvāmī, Rāmacandra, Rādhāvallabha, Kṛṣṇajīvana, Śyāmasundara, Śāntāmaṇi, Harinātha, Navīnacandra, Matilāla, Dayāmayī and Kuñjavihārī.
Kaṇṭhābharaṇa, whose original name was Śrī Ananta Caṭṭarāja, was the gopī named Gopālī in kṛṣṇa-līlā.
Jayadeva was born during the reign of Mahārāja Lakṣmaṇa Sena of Bengal, in the eleventh or twelfth century of the Śaka Era. His father was Bhojadeva, and his mother was Vāmādevī. For many years he lived in Navadvīpa, then the capital of Bengal. His birthplace was in the Birbhum district, in the village Kendubilva. In the opinion of some authorities, however, he was born in Orissa, and still others say that he was born in southern India. He passed the last days of his life in Jagannātha Purī. One of his famous books is Gīta-govinda, which is full of transcendental mellow feelings of separation from Kṛṣṇa. The gopīs felt separation from Kṛṣṇa before the rāsa dance, as mentioned in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and the Gīta-govinda expresses such feelings. There are many commentaries on the Gīta-govinda by many Vaiṣṇavas.
Caṇḍīdāsa was born in the village of Nānnura, which is also in the Birbhum district of Bengal. He was born of a brāhmaṇa family, and it is said that he also took birth in the beginning of the fourteenth century, Śakābda Era. It has been suggested that Caṇḍīdāsa and Vidyāpati were great friends because the writings of both express the transcendental feelings of separation profusely. The feelings of ecstasy described by Caṇḍīdāsa and Vidyāpati were actually exhibited by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He relished all those feelings in the role of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, and His appropriate associates for this purpose were Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya and Śrī Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī. These intimate associates of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu helped the Lord very much in the pastimes in which He felt like Rādhārāṇī.
After some time, when we find that they are actually situated strictly in the line of brahminical behavior, śālagrāma-śilā worship will be introduced.
In this age, the worship of the śālagrāma-śilā is not as important as the chanting of the holy name of the Lord. That is the injunction of the śāstra: harer nāma harer nāma harer nāmaiva kevalaṁ/ kalau nāsty eva nāsty eva nāsty eva gatir anyathā (CC Adi 17.21). Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī’s opinion is that by chanting the holy name offenselessly one becomes completely perfect. Nevertheless, just to purify the situation of the mind, worship of the Deity in the temple is also necessary. Therefore when one is advanced in spiritual consciousness or is perfectly situated on a spiritual platform, he may take to the worship of the śālagrāma-śilā.
The transference of the Lord from the heart of Jagannātha Miśra to the heart of Śacīmātā is explained by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura as follows: "It is to be concluded that Jagannātha Miśra and Śacīmātā are nitya-siddhas, ever-pure associates of the Lord. Their hearts are always uncontaminated, and therefore they never forget the Supreme Personality of Godhead. A common man in this material world has a contaminated heart. He must therefore first purify his heart to come to the transcendental position. But Jagannātha Miśra and Śacīmātā were not a common man and woman with contaminated hearts. When the heart is uncontaminated, it is said to be in the existential position of Vasudeva. Vasudeva can beget Vāsudeva, or Kṛṣṇa, who is transcendentally situated."
In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (7.13.8) it is said, granthān naivābhyased bahūn na vyākhyām upayuñjīta: "One should not read many books, nor should one try to make a profession of reciting many books, especially if one is a devotee." One must give up the ambition to be a learned scholar and in this way earn a worldly reputation and financial facilities. If one diverts his attention to studying many books, he cannot fix his mind in devotional service, nor can he understand many scriptures, for they are full of grave statements and meanings. In this connection Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura gives his opinion that those who are attracted to studying many kinds of literature concerning various subject matters, especially fruitive activities and philosophical speculation, are deprived of unalloyed devotional service because of their splayed attention.
Man has a general tendency toward fruitive activities, religious ritualistic ceremonies and philosophical speculation. A living entity thus bewildered since time immemorial does not understand the real goal of life, and thus his activities in life are wasted. Innocent persons misled in this way are deprived of unalloyed kṛṣṇa-bhakti, devotional service to the Lord. Tapana Miśra is a vivid example of such a person. He was a learned scholar, but he could not ascertain what the goal of life is. Therefore he was given a chance to hear Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu instructing Sanātana Gosvāmī. Lord Caitanya's instruction to Tapana Miśra is especially significant for persons who loiter here and there collecting books and reading none of them, thus becoming bewildered regarding the aim of life.
The great sage Bharata Muni, an authority on poetic metaphor, has given his opinion in this connection as follows.
There is a persistent misunderstanding between caste brāhmaṇas and advanced Vaiṣṇavas, or gosvāmīs, because caste brāhmaṇas, or smārtas, are of the opinion that one cannot become a brāhmaṇa unless he changes his body. As we have discussed several times, it is to be understood that by the supremely powerful potency of the Lord, as described by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, everything is possible. Caitanya Mahāprabhu is as fully independent as Kṛṣṇa. Therefore no one can interfere with His activities. If He wants, by His mercy He can convert even a yavana, an unclean follower of non-Vedic principles, into a perfectly well behaved gentleman. This is actually happening in our propagation of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. The members of the present Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement were not born in India, nor do they belong to the Vedic culture, but within the short time of four or five years they have become such wonderful devotees simply by chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra that even in India they are well received as perfectly well behaved Vaiṣṇavas wherever they go.
The phaujadarā, or city magistrate, was called the kājī (Kazi). The jamidāras (zamindars), or landholders (maṇḍalerās), levied taxes on the land, but keeping law and order and punishing criminals was the duty entrusted to the Kazi. Both the Kazi and the landholders were under the control of the governor of Bengal, which at that time was known as Subā-bāṅgālā. The districts of Nadia, Islāmpura and Bāgoyāna were all under the zamindar named Hari Hoḍa or his descendant known as Hoḍa Kṛṣṇadāsa. It is said that Chand Kazi was the spiritual master of Nawab Hussain Shah. According to one opinion his name was Maulānā Sirājuddina, and according to another his name was Habibara Rahamāna. Descendants of Chand Kazi are still living in the vicinity of Māyāpur. People still go to see the tomb of Chand Kazi, which is underneath a campaka tree and is known as Chand Kazi's samādhi.
CC Madhya-lila
The twentieth vilāsa discusses the construction of temples, referring to those constructed by the great devotees. The details of the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa-grantha are given by Śrī Kavirāja Gosvāmī in the Madhya-līlā (24.329–345). The descriptions given in those verses by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī are actually a description of those portions compiled by Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī. According to Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, the regulative principles of devotional service compiled by Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī do not strictly follow our Vaiṣṇava principles. Actually, Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī collected only a summary of the elaborate descriptions of Vaiṣṇava regulative principles from the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa. It is Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī’s opinion, however, that to follow the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa strictly is to actually follow the Vaiṣṇava rituals in perfect order. He claims that the smārta-samāja, which is strictly followed by caste brāhmaṇas, has influenced portions that Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī collected from the original Hari-bhakti-vilāsa. It is therefore very difficult to find out Vaiṣṇava directions from the book of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī. It is better to consult the commentary made by Sanātana Gosvāmī himself for the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa under the name of Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā. Some say that the same commentary was compiled by Gopīnātha-pūjā Adhikārī, who was engaged in the service of Śrī Rādhā-ramaṇajī and who happened to be one of the disciples of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī.
The third Sandarbha is called Paramātma-sandarbha, and in this book there is a description of Paramātmā (the Supersoul) and an explanation of how the Supersoul exists in millions and millions of living entities. There are discussions of the differences between the qualitative incarnations, and discourses concerning the living entities, māyā, the material world, the theory of transformation, the illusory energy, the sameness of this world and the Supersoul, and the truth about this material world. In this connection, the opinions of Śrīdhara Svāmī are given. It is stated that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, although devoid of material qualities, superintends all material activities. There is also a discussion of how the līlā-avatāra incarnations respond to the desires of the devotees and how the Supreme Personality of Godhead is characterized by six opulences.
The fourth Sandarbha is called Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha, and in this book Kṛṣṇa is proved to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There are discussions of Kṛṣṇa's pastimes and qualities, His superintendence of the puruṣa-avatāras, and so forth. The opinions of Śrīdhara Svāmī are corroborated. In each and every scripture, the supremacy of Kṛṣṇa is stressed. Baladeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa and other expansions of Kṛṣṇa are emanations of Mahā-Saṅkarṣaṇa. All the incarnations and expansions exist simultaneously in the body of Kṛṣṇa, who is described as two-handed. There are also descriptions of the Goloka planet, Vṛndāvana (the eternal place of Kṛṣṇa), the identity of Goloka and Vṛndāvana, the Yādavas and the cowherd boys (both eternal associates of Kṛṣṇa), the equality of the manifest and unmanifest pastimes, Śrī Kṛṣṇa's manifestation in Gokula, the queens of Dvārakā as expansions of the internal potency, and, superior to them, the superexcellent gopīs.
Sometimes, for business purposes, large crowds of men are taken to different places of pilgrimage, and money is collected from them. That is a very lucrative business, but Rūpa and Sanātana Gosvāmīs, expressing their opinion in the presence of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, disapproved of such crowded pilgrimages. Actually when Lord Caitanya visited Vṛndāvana, He visited it alone and accepted a servant only at His devotees' request. He never visited Vṛndāvana with crowds of people for a commercial purpose.
In this Caitanya-caritāmṛta there is no contradictory conclusion, nor is anyone else's opinion accepted. I have written this book to describe the simple substance as I have heard it from superiors. If I become involved in someone's likes and dislikes, I cannot possibly write the simple truth.
The simplest thing for human beings is to follow their predecessors. Judgment according to mundane senses is not a very easy process. Whatever is awakened by attachment to one's predecessor is the way of devotional service as indicated by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. The author says, however, that he cannot consider the opinions of those who become attracted or repelled by such things, because one cannot write impartially in that way. In other words, the author is stating that he did not inject personal opinion in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta. He has simply described his spontaneous understanding from superiors. If he had been carried away by someone's likes and dislikes, he could not have written of such a sublime subject matter in such an easy way. The actual facts are understandable to real devotees. When these facts are recorded, they are very congenial to the devotees, but one who is not a devotee cannot understand. Such is the subject matter for realization. Mundane scholarship and its concomitant attachments and detachments cannot arouse spontaneous love of Godhead. Such love cannot be described by a mundane scholar.
There is always a difference of opinion between a smārta-brāhmaṇa and a Vaiṣṇava gosvāmī. There are even smārta opinions and Vaiṣṇava gosvāmī opinions available in astrological and astronomical calculations. By calling Nityānanda Prabhu a bhraṣṭa avadhūta (a rejected paramahaṁsa), Advaita Ācārya Prabhu in a sense accepted Nityānanda Prabhu as a paramahaṁsa. In other words, Nityānanda Prabhu had nothing to do with the rules governing smārta-brāhmaṇas. Thus under pretense of condemning Him, Advaita Ācārya was actually praising Him. In the avadhūta stage, the paramahaṁsa stage, which is the supermost stage, one may appear to be viṣayī, on the platform of sense gratification, but in actuality he has nothing to do with sense gratification. At that stage, a person sometimes accepts the symbols and dress of a sannyāsī and sometimes does not. Sometimes he dresses like a householder. We should know, however, that these are all joking words between Advaita Ācārya and Nityānanda Prabhu. They are not to be taken as insults.
Mother Śacī said, “This consideration is good. In my opinion, if Nimāi remains at Jagannātha Purī, He may not leave any one of us and at the same time can remain aloof as a sannyāsī. Thus both purposes are fulfilled.
"Wherever there is Kṛṣṇa, the master of all mystics, and wherever there is Arjuna, the supreme archer, there will also certainly be opulence, victory, extraordinary power and morality. That is my opinion." (BG 18.78)
If the preachers in our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement are sincere devotees of Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa will always be with them because He is very kind and favorable to all His devotees. Just as Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa were victorious in the Battle of Kurukṣetra, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement will surely emerge victorious if we but remain sincere devotees of the Lord and serve the Lord according to the advice of the predecessors (the Six Gosvāmīs and other devotees of the Lord). As Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura has stated: tāṅdera caraṇa sevi bhakta-sane vāsa, janame janame haya ei abhilāṣa. The Kṛṣṇa consciousness devotees must always desire to remain in the society of devotees. Bhakta-sane vāsa: they cannot go outside the Kṛṣṇa consciousness society or movement. Within the society we must try to serve the predecessors by preaching Caitanya Mahāprabhu's cult and spreading His name and fame all over the world. If we attempt this seriously within the society, it will be successfully done. There is no question of estimating how this will happen in the mundane sense. But without a doubt, it happens by the grace of Kṛṣṇa.
A gṛhastha-brāhmaṇa partaking of the varṇāśrama-dharma institution can secure various types of paraphernalia to worship Lord Viṣṇu through his honest labor. Actually, people beg to be initiated by these householder brāhmaṇas just to become successful in the varṇāśrama institution or to become free from material desires. It is therefore necessary for a spiritual master in the gṛhastha-āśrama to be a strict Vaiṣṇava. A spiritual master from the sannyāsa order has very little opportunity to perform arcana, Deity worship, but when one accepts a spiritual master from the transcendental sannyāsīs, the principle of Deity worship is not at all neglected. To implement this conclusion, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu gave us His opinion in the verse kibā vipra kibā nyāsī, etc. This indicates that the Lord understood the weakness of society in its maintaining that only a gṛhastha-brāhmaṇa should be a spiritual master. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu indicated that it does not matter whether the spiritual master is a gṛhastha (householder), a sannyāsī or even a śūdra. A spiritual master simply must be conversant in the essence of the śāstra; he must understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Only then can one become a spiritual master. Dīkṣā actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination.
According to the opinion of the Māyāvādī Vedāntists, the living entity's ultimate success is to merge into the impersonal Brahman. The impersonal Brahman, or bodily effulgence of the Supreme Lord, is known as Brahmaloka or Siddhaloka. According to the Brahma-saṁhitā (5.40), yasya prabhā prabhavato jagad-aṇḍa-koṭi: the material universes are generated from the bodily rays of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Yogīs who follow the principles of Patañjali accept the personality of the Absolute Truth, but they want to merge into the transcendental body of the Supreme Lord. That is their desire. Being the greatest authority, the Supreme Lord can easily allow many millions of living entities to merge into His body. The origin of everything is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Bhagavān, and His bodily effulgence is known as the brahma-jyotir, Brahmaloka or Siddhaloka. Thus Brahmaloka or Siddhaloka is a place where many sparklike living entities, parts and parcels of the Supreme Lord, are assembled. Because these living entities do not wish to keep their individual existences, they are combined and allowed to remain in Brahmaloka like so many atomic particles of sunshine emanating from the sun.
“Dāmodara Paṇḍita and others are more advanced in receiving the mercy of Lord Kṛṣṇa; therefore they are independent of public opinion. As such, they want Me to enjoy sense gratification, even though it be unethical. But since I am a poor sannyāsī, I cannot abandon the duties of the renounced order, and therefore I follow them strictly.
Moreover, there are those who take the caste gosvāmīs' opinions of such parties as bona fide, comparing these opinions to those of the Six Gosvāmīs, headed by Śrī Rūpa and Śrī Sanātana. This is simply another cheating process. There are also nondevotees who compose unauthorized songs, who establish different temples for money, who worship the Deity as priests for salaries, who accept caste brahmanism as all in all, and who do not know the value of a pure Vaiṣṇava. Actually the caste brāhmaṇas of the smārta community are opposed to the principles of the Sātvata-pañcarātra. Furthermore, there are many Māyāvādīs and those overly addicted to material sense enjoyment. None of these can be compared to a person who is purely engaged in preaching Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Every Kṛṣṇa conscious person is constantly endeavoring to utilize different transcendental devices in the service of the Lord. Such a devotee renounces all material enjoyment and completely dedicates himself to the service of his spiritual master and Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He may be a perfect celibate, a restrained householder, a regulated vānaprastha or a tridaṇḍi-sannyāsī in the renounced order. It doesn’t matter. The pseudo transcendentalists and the pure devotees cannot be compared, nor can one argue that a person can invent his own way of worship.
“One who is attracted by that ecstatic love of the gopīs does not care about popular opinion or the regulative principles of Vedic life. Rather, he completely surrenders unto Kṛṣṇa and renders service unto Him.
"In this Age of Kali, the fame of one who is known as a great devotee is very rare. However, such a position is superior to that of the great demigods like Brahmā and Mahādeva. This is the opinion of all spiritual masters."
In the Itihāsa-samuccaya, Nārada tells Puṇḍarīka:
- janmāntara-sahasreṣu yasya syād buddhir īdṛśī
- dāso ’haṁ vāsudevasya sarvāl lokān samuddharet
"After many, many births, when a person realizes that he is the eternal servant of Vāsudeva, he can deliver all the worlds."
In the Ādi Purāṇa, in a conversation between Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna, it is said, bhaktānām anugacchanti muktayaḥ śrutibhiḥ saha: "The most exalted position of liberation is given by Vedic knowledge. Everyone follows in the footsteps of the devotee." Similarly, in the Bṛhan-nāradīya Purāṇa it is further stated, adyāpi ca muni-śreṣṭhā brahmādyā api devatāḥ: "Until now, even the great demigods like Brahmā and Lord Śiva did not know the influence of a devotee." The Garuḍa Purāṇa similarly states:
By the influence of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, all these people abandoned their own opinions and became Vaiṣṇavas, devotees of Kṛṣṇa.
All of these adherents of various scriptures were ready to present the conclusions of their respective scriptures, but Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu broke all their opinions to pieces and established His own cult of bhakti based on the Vedas, Vedānta, the Brahma-sūtra and the philosophy of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva.
The range of mountains in South India beginning at Kerala and extending to Cape Comorin is called Malaya-parvata. Concerning Agastya, there are four opinions: (1) There is a temple of Agastya Muni in the village of Agastyampallī, in the district of Tanjore. (2) There is a temple of Lord Skanda on a hill known as Śiva-giri, and this temple is said to have been established by Agastya Muni. (3) Some say that the hill near Cape Comorin known as Paṭhiyā served as Agastya Muni's residence. (4) There is a place known as Agastya-malaya, which is a range of hills on both sides of the Tāmraparṇī River. Cape Comorin itself is also known as Kanyā-kumārī.
According to the Tattvavādīs, the best process for achieving the highest goal of life is to execute the duties of the four varṇas and āśramas. In the material world, unless one is situated in one of the varṇas (brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra) one cannot manage social affairs properly to attain the ultimate goal. One also has to follow the principles of the āśramas (brahmacarya, gṛhastha, vānaprastha and sannyāsa), since these principles are considered essential for the attainment of the highest goal. In this way the Tattvavādīs establish that the execution of the principles of varṇa and āśrama for the sake of Kṛṣṇa is the best way to attain the topmost goal. The Tattvavādīs thus established their principles in terms of human society. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, however, differed when He said that the best process is hearing and chanting about Lord Viṣṇu. According to the Tattvavādīs, the highest goal is returning home, back to Godhead, but in Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's opinion the highest goal is attaining love of Godhead, in either the material world or the spiritual world. In the material world this is practiced according to śāstric injunction, and in the spiritual world the real achievement is already there.
According to some opinions, Ṛṣyamūka is a chain of mountains beginning at the village of Hāmpi-grāma in the district of Belāri. The mountain chain begins along the bank of the river Tuṅgabhadrā, which gradually reaches the state of Hyderabad. According to other opinions, this hill is situated in Madhya Pradesh and bears the present name of Rāmpa. Daṇḍakāraṇya is a spacious tract of land which begins north of Khāndeśa and extends up to the southern Āhammada-nagara through Nāsika and Āuraṅgābāda. The Godāvarī River flows through this tract of land, and there is a great forest there where Lord Rāmacandra lived.
According to some, the old name of the Tuṅgabhadrā River was Pambā. According to others, Vijaya-nagara, the capital of the state, was known as Pampātīrtha. According to still others, the lake near Anāguṇḍi, in the direction of Hyderabad, is Pampā-sarovara. The river Tuṅgabhadrā also flows through there. There are many different opinions about the lake called Pampā-sarovara.
In the Śrī Caitanya-candrodaya (beginning of the eighth act) Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, "Sārvabhauma, I have traveled to many holy places, but I cannot find a Vaiṣṇava as good as you anywhere. However, I must admit that Rāmānanda Rāya is wonderful."
Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya replies, "Therefore, my Lord, I requested that You see him."
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu then says, "There are, of course, many Vaiṣṇavas in these holy places, and most of them worship Lord Nārāyaṇa. Others, who are called Tattvavādīs, are also Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa worshipers, but they do not belong to the pure Vaiṣṇava cult. There are many worshipers of Lord Śiva, and there are also many atheists. Regardless, My dear Bhaṭṭācārya, I very much like Rāmānanda Rāya and his opinions."
"O scion of Bharata, you should understand that I am also the knower in all bodies, and to understand this body and its knower is called knowledge. That is My opinion."
The Supreme Personality of Godhead in His Paramātmā feature is expanded everywhere. The Brahma-saṁhitā says, aṇḍāntara-stha-paramāṇu-cayāntara-stham: (Bs. 5.35) by virtue of His all-pervasive nature, the Supreme Lord is within the universe as well as within all elements of the universe. He is even within the atom. In this way the Supreme Lord Govinda is all-pervasive. On the other hand, the living entities are very, very small. It is said that the living entity is one ten-thousandth of the tip of a hair. Therefore the living entity is localized. Living entities rest on the Brahman effulgence, the bodily rays of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
The devotees gave their opinion and said, "The Lord will never meet the King, and if we requested Him to do so, the Lord would surely feel very unhappy."
When Rāmānanda Rāya addressed Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Caitanya Mahāprabhu objected, saying, “I am not the Supreme Personality of Godhead but an ordinary human being. Therefore I must fear public opinion in three ways—with My body, mind and words.
“It is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's opinion that the process of Deity worship is not actually necessary, just as the specific prescriptions of the Pañcarātra and other scriptures do not have to be followed. The Bhāgavatam enjoins that even without practicing Deity worship one can achieve the complete success of human life by any of the other devotional processes, such as simply offering oneself at the Lord's feet for His protection. Nonetheless, Vaiṣṇavas following the path of Śrī Nārada and his successors endeavor to establish a personal relationship with the Lord by receiving the grace of a bona fide spiritual master through initiation, and in this tradition the devotees are obliged at the time of initiation to begin engaging in Deity worship.
"Although Deity worship is not essential, the material conditioning of most candidates for devotional service requires that they engage in this activity. When we consider their bodily and mental conditions, we find that the character of such candidates is impure and their minds are agitated. Therefore, to rectify this material conditioning the great sage Nārada and others have at different times recommended various kinds of regulations for Deity worship."
Kāśī is another name for Vārāṇasī (Benares). It has been a place of pilgrimage since time immemorial. Two rivers named Asiḥ and Varuṇā merge there. Maṇikarṇikā is famous because, according to the opinion of great personalities, a bejeweled earring fell there from the ear of Lord Viṣṇu. According to some, it fell from the ear of Lord Śiva. The word maṇi means "jewel," and karṇikā means "from the ear." According to some, Lord Viśvanātha is the great physician who cures the disease of material existence by delivering a person through the ear, which receives the vibration of the holy name of Lord Rāma. Because of this, this holy place is called Maṇikarṇikā. It is said that there is no better place than where the river Ganges flows, and the bathing ghat known as Maṇikarṇikā is especially sanctified because it is very dear to Lord Viśvanātha. In the Kāśī-khaṇḍa it is said:
They even become entangled in material activities disguised as spiritual activities. In the Bhagavad-gītā such people are described as veda-vāda-ratāḥ, supposed followers of the Vedas. They do not understand the real purport of the Vedas, yet they think of themselves as Vedic authorities. People versed in Vedic knowledge must know Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ. (BG 15.15)
In this material world a person may be famous as a karma-vīra, a successful fruitive worker, or he may be very successful in performing religious duties, or he may be known as a hero in mental speculation (jñāna-vīra), or he may be a very famous renunciant. In any case, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (3.23.56) gives the following opinion in this matter.
- neha yat karma dharmāya na virāgāya kalpate
- na tīrtha-pada-sevāyai jīvann api mṛto hi saḥ
"Anyone whose work is not meant for elevating him to religious life, anyone whose religious ritualistic performances do not raise him to renunciation, and anyone situated in renunciation that does not lead him to devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead must be considered dead, although he is breathing."
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu continued, ""Dry arguments are inconclusive. A great personality whose opinion does not differ from others is not considered a great sage. Simply by studying the Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right path by which religious principles are understood. The solid truth of religious principles is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated, self-realized person. Consequently, as the śāstras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the mahājanas advocate.""
After visiting Nandīśvara, Pāvana-sarovara, Śeṣaśāyī, Khelā-tīrtha, Bhāṇḍīravana, Bhadravana, Lohavana and Mahāvana, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu went to Gokula and then finally returned to Mathurā. Seeing a great crowd in Mathurā, He moved His residence near Akrūra-ghāṭa, and from there He went every day to Vṛndāvana to see Kālīya-hrada, Dvādaśāditya-ghāṭa, Keśī-ghāṭa, Rāsa-sthalī, Cīra-ghāṭa and Āmli-talā. At Kālīya Lake, many people mistook a fisherman for Kṛṣṇa. When some respectable people came to see Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, they expressed their opinion that when one takes sannyāsa, he becomes Nārāyaṇa. Their mistake was corrected by the Lord. In this way, their Kṛṣṇa consciousness was awakened, and they could understand that a sannyāsī is simply a living entity and not the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
When Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu took His bath at Akrūra-ghāṭa, He submerged Himself in the water for a long time. Balabhadra Bhaṭṭācārya decided to take Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu to Prayāga after visiting the holy place known as Soro-kṣetra. While stopping near a village on the way to Prayāga, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu fainted in ecstatic love. Some Pāṭhāna soldiers who were passing through saw Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and falsely concluded that the Lord's associates, Balabhadra Bhaṭṭācārya and others, had killed the Lord with a poison named dhuturā and were taking His wealth. Thus the soldiers arrested them. However, when Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu regained His senses, His associates were released. He talked with a person who was supposed to be a holy man in the party.
According to some opinions, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu visited Kurukṣetra while going to Prayāga from Vṛndāvana. There is a temple of Bhadra-kālī in Kurukṣetra, and near that temple there is a temple containing the Deity of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
Vallabha Bhaṭṭa was originally from a place in southern India called Trailaṅga. There is a railway station there called Niḍāḍābhalu. Sixteen miles from that station is a village called Kāṅkaḍabāḍa, or Kākuṅrapāḍhu. A learned brāhmaṇa named Lakṣmaṇa Dīkṣita used to live there, and Vallabha Bhaṭṭa was his son. There are five sections of the brāhmaṇa community of Āndhra Pradesh, known as Bella-nāṭī, Vegī-nāṭī, Muraki-nāṭī, Telagu-nāṭī and Kāśala-nāṭī. Out of these five brahminical communities, Vallabhācārya took his birth in the community of Bella-nāṭī in the year 1400 Śakābda Era (A.D. 1478). According to some people, Vallabha Bhaṭṭācārya's father took sannyāsa before Vallabha's birth, and he returned home to take Vallabhācārya as his son. According to the opinion of others, Vallabhācārya was born in 1400 Śakābda Era on the Ekādaśī day of the dark moon in the month of Caitra, and he took his birth in a brāhmaṇa family surnamed Khambhaṁpāṭībāru. According to this account, his father's name was Lakṣmaṇa Bhaṭṭa Dīkṣita, and he was born in Campakāraṇya. In someone else's opinion, Vallabhācārya appeared near the village named Cāṅpā-jhāra-grāma, which is near a railway station named Rājima in Madhya Pradesh.
In Vṛndāvana there are prākṛta-sahajiyās who say that writing books or even touching books is taboo. For them, devotional service means being relieved from these activities. Whenever they are asked to hear a recitation of Vedic literature, they refuse, saying, "What business do we have reading or hearing transcendental literatures? They are meant for neophytes." They pose themselves as too elevated to exert energy for reading, writing and hearing. However, pure devotees under the guidance of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī reject this sahajiyā philosophy. It is certainly not good to write literature for money or reputation, but to write books and publish them for the enlightenment of the general populace is real service to the Lord. That was Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī’s opinion, and he specifically told his disciples to write books. He actually preferred to publish books rather than establish temples. Temple construction is meant for the general populace and neophyte devotees, but the business of advanced and empowered devotees is to write books, publish them and distribute them widely. According to Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, distributing literature is like playing on a great mṛdaṅga. Consequently we always request members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness to publish as many books as possible and distribute them widely throughout the world. By thus following in the footsteps of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, one can become a rūpānuga devotee.
Attachment for Kṛṣṇa never wanes; it increases more and more as one attains different stages. All the stages together are called sthāyibhāva, or continuous existence of ecstasy. The nine forms of devotional service are śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ smaraṇaṁ pāda-sevanam arcanaṁ vandanaṁ dāsyaṁ sakhyam ātma-nivedanam (SB 7.5.23). When continuous love of Godhead is mixed with the processes of devotional service, it is called vibhāva, anubhāva, sāttvika and vyabhicārī. The devotee thus enjoys a variety of transcendental bliss. In his Amṛta-pravāha-bhāṣya, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura states that anubhāva can be divided into thirteen categories: (1) dancing, (2) rolling on the ground, (3) singing, (4) yelling, (5) jumping, (6) making loud noises, (7) yawning, (8) heavy breathing, (9) not caring for public opinion, (10) discharging saliva, (11) roaring laughter, (12) unsteadiness and (13) hiccuping. These are the symptoms of anubhāva. Thus the transcendental mellows are experienced in different stages. Similarly, there are many other forms of expression that have been analytically studied by the Gosvāmīs. In the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, Rūpa Gosvāmī gives each and every symptom a particular name.
According to the opinion of advanced devotees and learned scholars, a devotee in sakhya-rati feels equal to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is a relationship in friendship. Due to having a friendly relationship with the Lord, not only is one free from material attachment, but one believes in equal dealings with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is called sakhya-rati. The sakhya-rati devotee is so advanced that he treats the Lord on an equal level and even exchanges joking words with Him. Although one is never equal to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the sakhya-rati devotee feels equal to the Lord, and he does not feel guilty because of this. Usually it is offensive to consider oneself equal to the Lord. The Māyāvādīs, for example, consider themselves equal to the Lord, but such feelings entail bereavement because they are material. Sakhya-rati, however, is a feeling experienced in the mind by a pure devotee, and he is eternally related with the Supreme Personality of Godhead in that feeling.
“According to the Siddhārtha-saṁhitā there are twenty-four forms of Lord Viṣṇu. First I shall describe, according to the opinion of that book, the location of the weapons, beginning with the disc.
“Thus in the spiritual sky the expansions, headed by Vāsudeva, hold weapons in Their own respective order. I am repeating the opinion of the Siddhārtha-saṁhitā in describing Them.
“According to the Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra, there are sixteen personalities. I shall now describe that opinion of how They hold the weapons.
The writing of Vaiṣṇava literatures is not a function for ordinary men. Vaiṣṇava literatures are not mental concoctions. They are all authorized literatures meant to guide those who are going to be Vaiṣṇavas. Under these circumstances, an ordinary man cannot give his own opinion. His opinion must always correspond with the conclusion of the Vedas. Unless one is fully qualified in Vaiṣṇava behavior and authorized by superior authority (the Supreme Personality of Godhead), one cannot write Vaiṣṇava literatures or purports and commentaries on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and the Bhagavad-gītā.
“Anyone who wants to establish his own opinion or philosophy certainly cannot explain any scripture according to the principle of direct interpretation.
In his Amṛta-pravāha-bhāṣya, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura gives the following summary of the six philosophical processes. Prakāśānanda admitted that Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, being very eager to establish his philosophy of monism, took shelter of the Vedānta philosophy and tried to explain it in his own way. The fact is, however, that if one accepts the existence of God, one certainly cannot establish the theory of monism. For this reason Śaṅkarācārya refuted all kinds of Vedic literature that establishes the supremacy of the Personality of Godhead. In various ways, Śaṅkarācārya has tried to refute the Vedic literature. Throughout the world, ninety-nine percent of the philosophers following in the footsteps of Śaṅkarācārya refuse to accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Instead they try to establish their own opinions. It is typical of mundane philosophers to want to establish their own opinions and refute those of others. Therefore: (1) The Mīmāṁsaka philosophers, following the principles of Jaimini, stress fruitive activity and say that if there is a God, He must be under the laws of fruitive activity. In other words, if one performs his duties very nicely in the material world, God is obliged to give one the desired result. According to these philosophers, there is no need to become a devotee of God. If one strictly follows moral principles, one will be recognized by the Lord, who will give the desired reward. Such philosophers do not accept the Vedic principle of bhakti-yoga. Instead, they give stress to following one's prescribed duty. (2) Atheistic Sāṅkhya philosophers like Kapila analyze the material elements very scrutinizingly and thereby come to the conclusion that material nature is the cause of everything. They do not accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the cause of all causes. (3) Nyāya philosophers like Gautama and Kaṇāda have accepted a combination of atoms as the original cause of the creation. (4) Māyāvādī philosophers say that everything is an illusion. Headed by philosophers like Aṣṭāvakra, they stress the impersonal Brahman effulgence as the cause of everything. (5) Philosophers following the precepts of Patañjali practice rāja-yoga. They imagine a form of the Absolute Truth within many forms. That is their process of self-realization.
“"Dry arguments are inconclusive. A great personality whose opinion does not differ from others is not considered a great sage. Simply by studying the Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right path by which religious principles are understood. The solid truth of religious principles is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated, self-realized person. Consequently, as the śāstras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the mahājanas advocate."
This is another instance of Hindu custom. One brāhmaṇa would give advice condoning a particular fault, and another would give advice to the contrary. Typically, lawyers and physicians differ, giving one kind of instruction and then another. Due to the brāhmaṇas' different opinions, Subuddhi Rāya became further perplexed. He did not know what to do or what not to do.
CC Antya-lila
When Rūpa Gosvāmī thus recited his verse, Caitanya Mahāprabhu disapproved of it because it described His personal glories. He expressed the opinion that it was an exaggerated explanation.
“Whatever the Supreme Personality of Godhead wants us to do will successfully be accomplished. This is your great fortune. That is my mature opinion.
"I have consulted Jagadānanda Paṇḍita for his opinion, and he has also advised me to return to Vṛndāvana."
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura gives his opinion about how a person completely engaged in the service of the Lord transforms his body from material to transcendental. He says, “A pure devotee engaged in the service of Lord Kṛṣṇa has no desire for his personal sense gratification, and thus he never accepts anything for that purpose. He desires only the happiness of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, and because of his ecstatic love for Kṛṣṇa, he acts in various ways. Karmīs think that the material body is an instrument for material enjoyment, and that is why they work extremely hard. A devotee, however, has no such desires. A devotee always engages wholeheartedly in the service of the Lord, forgetting about bodily conceptions and bodily activities. The body of a karmī is called material because the karmī, being too absorbed in material activities, is always eager to enjoy material facilities, but the body of a devotee who tries his best to work very hard for the satisfaction of Kṛṣṇa by fully engaging in the Lord's service must be accepted as transcendental. Whereas karmīs are interested only in the personal satisfaction of their senses, devotees work for the satisfaction of the Supreme Lord. Therefore one who cannot distinguish between devotion and ordinary karma may mistakenly consider the body of a pure devotee material. One who knows does not commit such a mistake. Nondevotees who consider devotional activities and ordinary material activities to be on the same level are offenders to the chanting of the transcendental holy name of the Lord. A pure devotee knows that a devotee's body, being always transcendental, is just suitable for rendering service to the Lord.
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura writes, "The Hari-bhakti-vilāsa was originally compiled by Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī. Later, Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī produced a shortened version of it and added the Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā. In the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa there are so many quotations from the sātvata scriptures that sometimes it is inquired how the atheistic smārtas can refuse to accept them and instead imagine some other opinions. What is recorded in the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa strictly follows the Vedic scriptures and is certainly pure, but the attitude of the karmīs is always one of giving up the conclusion of pure Vaiṣṇava understanding. Because the karmīs are very much attached to the world and material activities, they always try to establish atheistic principles that oppose the understanding of the Vaiṣṇavas."
When a man is greatly learned in the Vedānta-sūtras, he is known as a paṇḍita, or learned scholar. Generally this qualification is attributed to brāhmaṇas and sannyāsīs. Sannyāsa, the renounced order of life, is the topmost position for a brāhmaṇa, a member of the highest of the four varṇas (brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra). According to public opinion, a person born in a brāhmaṇa family, duly reformed by the purificatory processes and properly initiated by a spiritual master, is an authority on Vedic literature. When such a person is offered the sannyāsa order, he comes to occupy the topmost position. The brāhmaṇa is supposed to be the spiritual master of the other three varṇas, namely kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra, and the sannyāsī is supposed to be the spiritual master even of the exalted brāhmaṇas.
Generally brāhmaṇas and sannyāsīs are very proud of their spiritual positions. Therefore, to cut down their false pride, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu preached Kṛṣṇa consciousness through Rāmānanda Rāya, who was neither a member of the renounced order nor a born brāhmaṇa. Indeed, Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya was a gṛhastha belonging to the śūdra class, yet Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu arranged for him to be the master who taught Pradyumna Miśra, a highly qualified brāhmaṇa born in a brāhmaṇa family. Even Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself, although belonging to the renounced order, took instruction from Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya. In this way Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu exhibited His opulence through Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya. That is the special significance of this incident.
A well-to-do householder Vaiṣṇava cannot live like a person in the renounced order who completely takes shelter of the holy name. Such a householder should chant the holy name of Kṛṣṇa in the morning, at midday and in the evening. Then he will be able to cross beyond nescience. Pure devotees in the renounced order, however, who fully surrender to the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, should chant the holy name of the Lord with great love and faith, always thinking of Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet. They should have no occupation other than chanting the holy name of the Lord. In the Bhakti-sandarbha (283), Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī says:
yady api śrī-bhāgavata-mate pañca-rātrādi-vad-arcana-mārgasyāvaśyakatvaṁ nāsti, tad vināpi śaraṇāpatty-ādīnām ekatareṇāpi puruṣārtha-siddher abhihitatvāt.
“It is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's opinion that the process of Deity worship is not actually necessary, just as the specific prescriptions of the Pañcarātra and other scriptures do not have to be followed. The Bhāgavatam enjoins that even without practicing Deity worship one can achieve the complete success of human life by any of the other devotional processes, such as simply offering oneself at the Lord's feet for His protection.”
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura writes in his Anubhāṣya that in the opinion of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the govardhana-śilā, the stone from Govardhana Hill, was directly the form of Kṛṣṇa, the son of Mahārāja Nanda. The Lord used the stone for three years, and then in the heart of Raghunātha dāsa the Lord awakened devotional service to the stone. The Lord then gave the stone to Raghunātha dāsa, accepting him as one of His most confidential servants. However, some envious people conclude that because Raghunātha dāsa had not taken birth in the family of a brāhmaṇa, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu did not give him the right to worship the Deity directly but instead gave him a stone from Govardhana. This kind of thought is nārakī, or hellish. As stated in the Padma Purāṇa, arcye viṣṇau śilā-dhīr guruṣu nara-matir vaiṣṇave jāti-buddhiḥ . . . yasya vā nārakī saḥ. If one thinks that the worshipable śālagrāma-śilā is a mere stone, that the spiritual master is an ordinary human being or that a pure Vaiṣṇava preaching the bhakti cult all over the world is a member of a particular caste or material division of society, he is considered a nārakī, a candidate for hellish life. When Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu instructed that the govardhana-śilā, the stone taken from Govardhana, is nondifferent from the body of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He indirectly advised such foolish persons that one should not be envious of a Vaiṣṇava who belongs to a different caste or sect. One should accept a Vaiṣṇava as transcendental. In this way one can be saved; otherwise, one is surely awaiting a hellish life.
According to the opinion of some historians, Prahlāda Mahārāja was born in Tretā-yuga in the city of Multan, in the state of Punjab. He was born of Hiraṇyakaśipu, a king of the dynasty of Kaśyapa. Prahlāda Mahārāja was a great devotee of Lord Viṣṇu, but his father was very much against Viṣṇu. Because the father and son thus differed in their consciousness, the demon father inflicted all kinds of bodily pain upon Prahlāda. When this torture became intolerable, the Supreme Lord appeared as Nṛsiṁha-deva and killed the great demon Hiraṇyakaśipu.
Bali Mahārāja was the grandson of Prahlāda Mahārāja. The son of Prahlāda Mahārāja was Virocana, and his son was known as Bali. Appearing as Vāmana and begging Bali Mahārāja for three feet of land, the Lord took possession of the entire three worlds. Thus Bali Mahārāja became a great devotee of Lord Vāmana. Bali Mahārāja had one hundred sons, of whom Mahārāja Bāṇa was the eldest and most famous.
Vyāsadeva was the son of the great sage Parāśara. Other names for him are Sātyavateya and Kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana Bādarāyaṇa Muni. As one of the authorities on the Vedas, he divided the original Veda, for convenience, into four divisions—Sāma, Yajur, Ṛg and Atharva. He is the author of eighteen Purāṇas as well as the theosophical thesis Brahma-sūtra and its natural commentary, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. He belongs to the Brahma-sampradāya and is a direct disciple of Nārada Muni.
“Your opinion is that I should go to the King's palace and spread My cloth to beg money from him.
Bengalis are generally not very stout and strong. Therefore when a lone Bengali traverses the roads of Bihar, the plunderers on the road capture him, rob all his belongings and kidnap him for their own service. According to one opinion, the rogues of Bihar know very well that Bengalis are intelligent; therefore these thieves generally force the Bengalis into service requiring intelligence and do not allow them to leave.
The residents of Vṛndāvana and Mathurā are devotees of Kṛṣṇa in parental affection, and their feelings always conflict with the opinions of smārta-brāhmaṇas. Devotees who worship Kṛṣṇa in opulence cannot understand the parental devotional feelings of the residents of Mathurā and Vṛndāvana, who follow the path of spontaneous love. Devotees on the platform of vidhi-mārga (regulative devotional principles) may misunderstand the activities of those on the platform of rāga-mārga (devotional service in spontaneous love). Therefore Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu instructed Jagadānanda Paṇḍita to remain apart from the residents of Vṛndāvana, who were spontaneous devotees, so as not to become disrespectful toward them.
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's transcendental feelings of separation from Kṛṣṇa and His consequent madness are not at all understandable by a person on the material platform. Nonetheless, a so-called party of devotees named nadīyā-nāgarī has sprung up and introduced the worship of Viṣṇupriyā. This certainly indicates their ignorance concerning Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's pastimes. In the opinion of Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, such worship is a product of the imagination. Many other methods of worshiping Caitanya Mahāprabhu have also been introduced, but they have all been rejected by stalwart devotees like Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura. The groups practicing such unauthorized worship have been listed by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura:
- āula, bāula, kartābhajā, neḍā, daraveśa, sāṅi,
- sahajiyā, sakhībhekī, smārta, jāta-gosāñi,
- ativāḍī, cūḍādhārī, gaurāṅga-nāgarī
Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī and Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī witnessed Caitanya Mahāprabhu's activities firsthand and recorded them in two notebooks. Therefore, without reference to these notebooks one cannot understand the activities of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Anyone inventing some new method for worshiping Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is certainly unable to understand the Lord's pastimes, for he is bereft of the real process of approaching the Lord.
| Page Title: | Opinion (CC) |
| Compiler: | Visnu Murti, RupaManjari |
| Created: | 19 of Nov, 2012 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=0, SB=0, CC=84, OB=0, Lec=0, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 84 |