Lord Caitanya said that direct commentaries on the Upanisads and Vedanta-sutra are glorious, but that anyone who follows the indirect path of Sankaracarya's Sariraka-bhasya is certainly doomed

Expressions researched:
"Sariraka-bhasya" |"doomed"

CC Adi-lila

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the real commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. Unfortunately, if one is attracted to Śrī Śaṅkarācārya's commentary, Śārīraka-bhāṣya, his spiritual life is doomed.

CC Adi 7.110, Translation and Purport:

"Śaṅkarācārya is not at fault, for it is under the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead that he has covered the real purport of the Vedas."

The Vedic literature is to be considered a source of real knowledge, but if one does not take it as it is, one will be misled. For example, the Bhagavad-gītā is an important Vedic literature that has been taught for many years, but because it was commented upon by unscrupulous rascals, people derived no benefit from it, and no one came to the conclusion of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Since the purport of the Bhagavad-gītā is now being presented as it is, however, within four or five short years thousands of people all over the world have become Kṛṣṇa conscious. That is the difference between direct and indirect explanations of the Vedic literature. Therefore Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, mukhya-vṛttye sei artha parama mahattva: "To teach the Vedic literature according to its direct meaning, without false commentary, is glorious." Unfortunately, Śrī Śaṅkarācārya, by the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, compromised between atheism and theism in order to cheat the atheists and bring them to theism, and to do so he gave up the direct method of Vedic knowledge and tried to present a meaning which is indirect. It is with this purpose that he wrote his Śārīraka-bhāṣya commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra.

One should not, therefore, attribute very much importance to the Śārīraka-bhāṣya. In order to understand Vedānta philosophy, one must study Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which begins with the words oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya, janmādy asya yato ’nvayād itarataś cārtheṣv abhijñaḥ sva-rāṭ: "I offer my obeisances unto Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, who is the Supreme all-pervading Personality of Godhead. I meditate upon Him, the transcendent reality, who is the primeval cause of all causes, from whom all manifested universes arise, in whom they dwell and by whom they are destroyed. I meditate upon that eternally effulgent Lord, who is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations and yet is fully independent." (SB 1.1.1) Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the real commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. Unfortunately, if one is attracted to Śrī Śaṅkarācārya's commentary, Śārīraka-bhāṣya, his spiritual life is doomed.

Students of Vedic philosophy know very well how strongly Śrī Rāmānujācārya's viśiṣṭādvaita-vāda and Śrī Madhvācārya's tattva-vāda contest the impersonal Māyāvāda philosophy. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, however, accepted the direct meaning of the Vedānta philosophy and thus defeated the Māyāvāda philosophy immediately. He opined in this connection that anyone who follows the principles of the Śārīraka-bhāṣya is doomed.

CC Adi 7.110, Purport:

The purpose of the discussions in the Upaniṣads and Vedānta-sūtra is to philosophically establish the personal feature of the Absolute Truth. The impersonalists, however, in order to establish their philosophy, accept these discussions in terms of lakṣaṇā-vṛtti, or indirect meanings. Thus instead of being tattva-vāda, or in search of the Absolute Truth, they become Māyāvāda, or illusioned by the material energy. When Śrī Viṣṇu Svāmī, one of the four ācāryas of the Vaiṣṇava cult, presented his thesis on the subject matter of śuddhādvaita-vāda, immediately the Māyāvādīs took advantage of this philosophy and tried to establish their advaita-vāda or kevalādvaita-vāda. To defeat this kevalādvaita-vāda, Śrī Rāmānujācārya presented his philosophy as viśiṣṭādvaita-vāda, and Śrī Madhvācārya presented his philosophy of tattva-vāda, both of which are stumbling blocks to the Māyāvādīs because they defeat their philosophy in scrupulous detail. Students of Vedic philosophy know very well how strongly Śrī Rāmānujācārya's viśiṣṭādvaita-vāda and Śrī Madhvācārya's tattva-vāda contest the impersonal Māyāvāda philosophy. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, however, accepted the direct meaning of the Vedānta philosophy and thus defeated the Māyāvāda philosophy immediately. He opined in this connection that anyone who follows the principles of the Śārīraka-bhāṣya is doomed. This is confirmed in the Padma Purāṇa, where Lord Śiva tells Pārvatī:

śṛṇu devi pravakṣyāmi tāmasāni yathā-kramam

yeṣāṁ śravaṇa-mātreṇa pātityaṁ jñāninām api

apārthaṁ śruti-vākyānāṁ darśayal loka-garhitam

karma-svarūpa-tyājyatvam atra ca pratipādyate

sarva-karma-paribhraṁśān naiṣkarmyaṁ tatra cocyate

parātma-jīvayor aikyaṁ mayātra pratipādyate

"My dear wife, hear my explanations of how I have spread ignorance through Māyāvāda philosophy. Simply by hearing it, even an advanced scholar will fall down. In this philosophy, which is certainly very inauspicious for people in general, I have misrepresented the real meaning of the Vedas and recommended that one give up all activities in order to achieve freedom from karma. In this Māyāvāda philosophy I have described the jīvātmā and Paramātmā to be one and the same." How the Māyāvāda philosophy was condemned by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and His followers is described in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya-līlā, Second Chapter, verses 94 through 99, where Svarūpa-dāmodara Gosvāmī says that anyone who is eager to understand the Māyāvāda philosophy must be considered insane. This especially applies to a Vaiṣṇava who reads the Śārīraka-bhāṣya and considers himself to be one with God. The Māyāvādī philosophers have presented their arguments in such attractive, flowery language that hearing Māyāvāda philosophy may sometimes change the mind of even a mahā-bhāgavata, or very advanced devotee. An actual Vaiṣṇava cannot tolerate any philosophy that claims God and the living being to be one and the same.

CC Madhya-lila

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu approved of a sannyāsī’s reading the Vedānta-sūtra, or Brahma-sūtra, but He did not approve the Śārīraka commentary of Śaṅkarācārya. Indeed, He said elsewhere, māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa: "If one hears the Śārīraka-bhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya, he is doomed." Thus a sannyāsī, a transcendentalist, must read the Vedānta-sūtra regularly, but he should not read the Śārīraka-bhāṣya.

CC Madhya 6.127, Translation and Purport:

"Only for the sake of executing the duties of the renounced order of sannyāsa do I listen. Unfortunately, I cannot in the least understand the meaning you are presenting."

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu presented Himself as if He were a sannyāsī in name only or, in other words, a number-one fool. Māyāvādī sannyāsīs in India are very much accustomed to declaring themselves jagad-gurus, teachers of the world, although they have no information of the outside world and are limited in their experience to a small town or village, or perhaps to the country of India. Nor do such sannyāsīs have sufficient education. Unfortunately, at the present moment there are many foolish sannyāsīs, both in India and elsewhere, who simply read and study Vedic literature without understanding the purports. When Caitanya Mahāprabhu was having His discussion with the Chand Kazi, the Muslim magistrate of Navadvīpa, He recited a verse from the Vedic literature to the effect that the order of sannyāsa is prohibited in this Age of Kali. Only those who are very serious and who follow the regulative principles and study Vedic literature should accept sannyāsa. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu approved of a sannyāsī’s reading the Vedānta-sūtra, or Brahma-sūtra, but He did not approve the Śārīraka commentary of Śaṅkarācārya. Indeed, He said elsewhere, māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa: (CC Madhya 6.169) "If one hears the Śārīraka-bhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya, he is doomed." Thus a sannyāsī, a transcendentalist, must read the Vedānta-sūtra regularly, but he should not read the Śārīraka-bhāṣya. This is the conclusion of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. The real commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Artho ’yaṁ brahma-sūtrānām: Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the original commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, written by the author himself, Śrīla Vyāsadeva.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

Śaṅkara's commentary on Vedānta-sūtra, known as Śārīraka-bhāṣya, is very much adored by the impersonalist scholars, but commentaries written on the Vedānta written from the materialistic point of view are completely adverse to the transcendental service of the Lord. Consequently Lord Caitanya said that direct commentaries on the Upaniṣads and Vedānta-sūtra are glorious, but that anyone who follows the indirect path of Śaṅkarācārya's Śārīraka-bhāṣya is certainly doomed.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 19:

Actually in the first two chapters of Vedānta-sūtra the relationship between the living entities and the Supreme Lord is explained, and in the Third Chapter the discharge of devotional service is explained. The Fourth Chapter deals with the relationship which results from discharging devotional service. The natural commentary on Vedānta-sūtra is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. The great ācāryas of the four Vaiṣṇava communities (sampradāyas)—namely, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī and Nimbārka—have also written commentaries on Vedānta-sūtra by following the principles of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. At present the followers of all the ācāryas have written many books following the principles of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as the commentary on the Vedānta. Śaṅkara's commentary on Vedānta-sūtra, known as Śārīraka-bhāṣya, is very much adored by the impersonalist scholars, but commentaries written on the Vedānta written from the materialistic point of view are completely adverse to the transcendental service of the Lord. Consequently Lord Caitanya said that direct commentaries on the Upaniṣads and Vedānta-sūtra are glorious, but that anyone who follows the indirect path of Śaṅkarācārya's Śārīraka-bhāṣya is certainly doomed.

Lord Caitanya admitted that Śaṅkarācārya was an incarnation of Lord Śiva, and it is known that Lord Śiva is one of the greatest devotees (a mahājana) of the Bhāgavata school. There are twelve great authorities on devotional service, and Lord Śiva is one of them. Why, then, did he adopt the process of Māyāvādī philosophy? The answer is given in Padma Purāṇa, where Lord Śiva states:

māyāvādam asac-chāstraṁ

pracchannaṁ bauddham ucyate

mayaiva kalpitaṁ devi

kalau brāhmaṇa-rūpiṇā

"The Māyāvādī philosophy is veiled Buddhism." In other words, the voidist philosophy of Buddha is more or less repeated in the Māyāvādī philosophy of impersonalism, although the Māyāvādī philosophy claims to be directed by the Vedic conclusions. Lord Śiva, however, admits that this philosophy is manufactured by him in the age of Kali in order to mislead the atheists. "Actually the Supreme Personality of Godhead has His transcendental body," Lord Śiva states. "But I describe the Supreme as impersonal. I also explain the Vedānta-sūtra according to the same principles of Māyāvādī philosophy."

In the Śiva Purāṇa the Supreme Lord says:

dvāparādau yuge bhūtvā

kalayā mānuṣādiṣu

svāgamaiḥ kalpitais tvaṁ ca

janān mad-vimukhān kuru

"In the beginning of the Dvāpara-yuga, directed by My orders, many sages will bewilder the people in general by Māyāvādī philosophy." In the Padma Purāṇa Lord Śiva personally tells Bhāgavatīdevī:

śṛṇu devi parakṣyāmi

tāmasāni yathā-kramam

yeṣāṁ śravaṇa-mātreṇa

pātityaṁ jñāninām api

apārthaṁ śruti-vākyānāṁ

darśayaḻ loka-garhitam

karma-svarūpa-tyājyatvam

atra ca pratipādyate

sarva-karma-paribhraṁśān

naiskarmyaṁ tatra cocyate

parātma jīvayor aikyaṁ

mayātra pratipādyate

"My dear Devī, sometimes I teach Māyāvādī philosophy for those who are engrossed in the mode of ignorance. But if a person in the mode of goodness happens to hear this Māyāvādī philosophy, he falls down, for when teaching Māyāvādī philosophy, I say that the living entity and the Supreme Lord are one and the same."

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore says, māyāvādī bhāṣya sunile haya sarva nāśa. Māyāvādī bhāṣya means Śaṅkara, Śārīraka-bhāṣya of the Brahma-sūtra. If you hear the Śārīraka-bhāṣya, then you'll be doomed, you will be Godless. Therefore it has been forbidden by Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973:

Therefore Kṛṣṇa specifically mentions, Brahma-sūtra. Brahma-sūtra-padaiś caiva hetumadbhir viniścitaiḥ (BG 13.5). The sampradāya must have understanding of the Brahma-sūtra, Vedānta-sūtra. So all the sampradāyas, they have got their commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra and... Even Śaṅkarācārya. But his commentary is not accepted by the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas because he has tried to derive some meaning, interpretation. But there is no question of interpretation. When the things are clear, in the Brahma-sūtra, all the sūtras are very clear. So you don't require any interpretation. You can expand, explain very elaborately. That is another thing. But you cannot go beyond the sutra.

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore says, māyāvādī bhāṣya sunile haya sarva nāśa (CC Madhya 6.169). Māyāvādī bhāṣya means Śaṅkara, Śārīraka-bhāṣya of the Brahma-sūtra. If you hear the Śārīraka-bhāṣya, then you'll be doomed, you will be Godless. Therefore it has been forbidden by Caitanya Mahāprabhu. All the Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas, Rāmanujya Sampradāya, Madhvācārya Sampradāya, they all, I mean to say, disagree with the commentary of Śaṅkarācārya, Śārīraka-bhāṣya, Brahma-sūtra.

So far we are concerned, Madhva-Gauḍīya Sampradāya, our ācāryas, they took it, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, as the right commentary on Brahma-sūtra. Bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrānāṁ vedārtha-paribṛṁhitam **. This Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the real bhāṣya of Brahma-sūtra. So the Gauḍīya Sampradāya did not make any commentary on the Brahma-sūtra because they took it, Caitanya Mahāprabhu took it as, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, as a natural commentary, because Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is also made by Vyāsadeva and Vyāsadeva is the original author of Brahma-sūtra. So author made his own commentary; so there was no need of another commentary. This is the Gauḍīya-siddhānta, Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava-siddhānta.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

When there is such doubt, one can interpret. But when there is no doubt—everyone can understand clearly the meaning—there is no question of interpreting. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's stressing, that gauṇa-vṛttye yebā bhāṣya karila ācārya. Therefore each and every aphorism and verse of Vedānta-sūtra has been indirectly interpreted by the Śārīraka-bhāṣya. Such interpretation, if somebody hears, then his future is doomed.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:

So Caitanya Mahāprabhu is stressing that to read Vedic literature, Vedānta, Upaniṣad—these are principal literatures in the Vedic knowledge—then Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, all these books should be studied from the direct meaning. Don't try to interpret. According to ordinary, I mean to say, dealings, suppose in the law court there are two parties. Two lawyers are fighting on the principle of one clause or section in the lawbook. One is interpreting in a different way, one is interpreting in a different way, and the judges give their judgment. Now, the opportunity for interpretation is there when the meaning is not clear. A very good example is given by the grammarians, or Sanskrit scholars, that gaṅgayaṁ ghoṣapali, that "There is a neighborhood which is called Ghoṣapali on the Ganges." Now somebody may ask, "How there can be a quarter on the Ganges? Ganges is water." So there is interpretation required. So somebody says, " 'On the Ganges' means on the bank of the Ganges." That makes it clear. "On the Ganges" does not mean that in the middle water there is a, I mean to say, residential quarter. No. "On the Ganges" means on the bank of the Ganges.

So when there is such doubt, one can interpret. But when there is no doubt—everyone can understand clearly the meaning—there is no question of interpreting. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's stressing, that gauṇa-vṛttye yebā bhāṣya karila ācārya. Therefore each and every aphorism and verse of Vedānta-sūtra has been indirectly interpreted by the Śārīraka-bhāṣya. Such interpretation, if somebody hears, then his future is doomed. Just like our Gandhi, he wanted to prove, from Bhagavad-gītā, nonviolence. The Bhagavad-gītā is being preached in the battlefield, and it is completely violence. How he can prove? Therefore he is dragging the meaning out of his own con... It is very troublesome, and anyone who will read such interpretation, he is doomed. He is doomed because the Bhagavad-gītā is meant for awakening your Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If that is not awakened, then it is useless waste of time. Just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu embraced the brāhmaṇa who was illiterate, but he took the essence of Bhagavad-gītā, the relationship between the Lord and the devotee. Therefore, unless we take the real, I mean to say, essence of any literature, it is simply waste of time.

tāṅhāra nāhika doṣa, īśvara-ājñā pāñā

gauṇārtha karila mukhya artha ācchādiyā

(CC Adi 7.110)

Now, at the beginning, He criticized Śaṅkarācārya that "If somebody hears Śaṅkarācārya's commentation, then he's sure to be doomed." But again He supports Śaṅkarācārya. Why? Śaṅkarācārya is the incarnation of Lord Śiva, and he's a great devotee. Śaṅkara... Vaiṣṇavānāṁ yathā śambhuḥ: "There are many devotees of the Lord, but the foremost devotee is Lord Śiva." And he has got a disciplic succession which is called Viṣṇu Svāmī-sampradāya. So Śaṅkarācārya was covered devotee. He's covered devotee. His aim was to bring men to the standard of devotional service, but the time and circumstances in which he was preaching, he could not place his real object because they were unable to understand.

"Those who are not expert, if they hear the commentary of Śaṅkarācārya, Śārīraka-bhāṣya, then he is doomed." In other words, those who are actually aspiring for being elevated in spiritual science, they should avoid to hear any commentary which is impersonal. Any commentary. Then he is doomed.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.113-17 -- San Francisco, February 22, 1967:

So Caitanya Mahāprabhu concludes, therefore, that cid-ānanda-teṅho, tāṅra sthāna, parivāra. Therefore anything of Kṛṣṇa, or anything of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is spiritual. Spiritual. Deha. Deha means body. His body is spiritual, His abode is spiritual, and His paraphernalia, parivāra, His friends, His mother, His father, His beloved—everything spiritual. Ānanda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhāvitābhis tābhir ya eva nija-rūpatayā kalābhiḥ (Bs. 5.37). He's expansion of all spiritual. Tāṅre kahe-prākṛta-sattvera vikāra. And Śaṅkarācārya says that "The Absolute is imperson, but when He comes, appears, He assumes a form which is in the modes of goodness." He does not say, of course, in the modes of ignorance. Modes of goodness. No. When Kṛṣṇa comes, He has nothing to do with modes of goodness even. What is this goodness here in this material world? This is also matter. So there is no value, even goodness. One has to transcend the modes of goodness. That is transcendental, or aprakṛta.

tāṅra doṣa nāhi, teṅho ājñā-kārī dās

āra yei śune tāra haya sarva-nāśa

So again He supports Śaṅkarācārya, that "It is not his fault. He had to do it under the superior order to explain the Vedic literature in an impersonalist way. But those who are not expert, if they hear the commentary of Śaṅkarācārya, Śārīraka-bhāṣya, then he is doomed." In other words, those who are actually aspiring for being elevated in spiritual science, they should avoid to hear any commentary which is impersonal. Any commentary. Then he is doomed.

Āra yei śune tāra haya sarva-nāśa. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu warns that "Anyone who hears Śaṅkara's bhāṣya, Śārīraka-bhāṣya, he is doomed."

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.113-17 -- San Francisco, February 22, 1967:

If we follow Caitanya Mahāprabhu's instruction, then any impersonal commentary means, if we hear... Because we are not expert. We are not expert. Kaniṣṭha-adhikārī. Kaniṣṭha-adhikārī means neophytes, neophytes who are not conversant with the conclusion of the Vedas. They have got some, I mean to say, faith. That's all. But faith can be changed. Any... If a person, strong in arguments and strong in presenting things in jugglery of words, oh, the neophyte, his idea can be changed. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu warns, therefore, in the Vaiṣṇava philosophy that "You should not worship any other demigods." It does not mean that you should show disrespect to demigods. No. That is not. But because he is in the lower stage, if he is allowed to worship or to show respect to the demigods, he will think that he is also like Kṛṣṇa. "Kṛṣṇa is another demigod, and this Candra is another demigod, Śiva is another demigod." Just like some foolish persons, they propagate that "Whatever deity you worship, oh, that is God." Even, they say, if you worship a cat or a dog, that is also God. So therefore there is stricture. And in the Bhagavad-gītā also, mām ekam, "Simply unto Me, one," Kṛṣṇa says. Because one is a neophyte, he can be turned, his faith can be disturbed at any moment; therefore in the beginning one has to, I mean to say, pin his faith only in Kṛṣṇa, mām ekam. Otherwise, he cannot make progress. And when one understands Kṛṣṇa, janma karma me divyam (BG 4.9), in truth, then he can understand other things also.

Āra yei śune tāra haya sarva-nāśa. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu warns that "Anyone who hears Śaṅkara's bhāṣya, Śārīraka-bhāṣya, he is doomed."