Not acceptable

Expressions researched:
"neither acceptable" |"not acceptable" |"not at all acceptable" |"not be acceptable" |"not is acceptable" |"not very acceptable"

BG Chapters 1 - 6

BG 2.24, Purport:

The word sarva-gata ("all-pervading") is significant because there is no doubt that living entities are all over God's creation. They live on the land, in the water, in the air, within the earth and even within fire. The belief that they are sterilized in fire is not acceptable, because it is clearly stated here that the soul cannot be burned by fire. Therefore, there is no doubt that there are living entities also in the sun planet with suitable bodies to live there. If the sun globe is uninhabited, then the word sarva-gata—"living everywhere"—becomes meaningless.

BG Chapters 7 - 12

BG 8.3, Purport:

Impersonalist commentators on the Bhagavad-gītā unreasonably assume that Brahman takes the form of jīva in the material world, and to substantiate this they refer to Chapter Fifteen, verse 7, of the Gītā. But in this verse the Lord also speaks of the living entity as "an eternal fragment of Myself." The fragment of God, the living entity, may fall down into the material world, but the Supreme Lord (Acyuta) never falls down. Therefore this assumption that the Supreme Brahman assumes the form of jīva is not acceptable. It is important to remember that in Vedic literature Brahman (the living entity) is distinguished from Para-brahman (the Supreme Lord).

SB Canto 3

SB 3.15.45, Purport:

I am present throughout my body by my consciousness, but my consciousness is not present in another's body. The Supersoul, or Paramātmā, however, being present everywhere and within everyone, is also conscious of everyone's existence. The theory that the soul and the Supersoul are one is not acceptable because it is not confirmed by authoritative Vedic literature. The individual soul's consciousness cannot act in superconsciousness. This superconsciousness can be achieved, however, by dovetailing individual consciousness with the consciousness of the Supreme. This dovetailing process is called surrender, or Kṛṣṇa consciousness. From the teachings of Bhagavad-gītā we learn very clearly that Arjuna, in the beginning, did not want to fight with his brothers and relatives, but after understanding Bhagavad-gītā he dovetailed his consciousness with the superconsciousness of Kṛṣṇa. He was then in Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

SB 3.20.8, Purport:

In Bhagavad-gītā the same fact is confirmed; when the Lord descends to this earth, He assumes a form by His own internal potency. The form of the Lord, therefore, can never consist of material energy. The Māyāvāda version that when Brahman assumes a form the form is accepted from māyā is not acceptable, because although māyā is superior to the conditioned soul, she is not superior to the Supreme Personality of Godhead; she is under the control of the Supreme Godhead, as confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā. Māyā is under His superintendence; māyā cannot overcome the Lord. The Māyāvāda idea that the living entity is the Supreme Absolute Truth but has become covered by māyā is invalid, because māyā cannot be so great that it can cover the Supreme. The covering capacity can be employed on the part and parcel of Brahman, not on the Supreme Brahman.

SB 3.26.3, Purport:

The materialistic or atheistic theory stating that there is no soul, that there is no God and that consciousness is the result of a combination of matter is not acceptable. Matter is not beginningless; it has a beginning. As this material body has a beginning, the universal body does also. And as our material body has begun on the basis of our soul, the entire gigantic universal body has begun on the basis of the Supreme Soul. The Vedānta-sūtra says, janmādy asya (SB 1.1.1). This entire material exhibition—its creation, its growth, its maintenance and its dissolution—is an emanation from the Supreme Person. In Bhagavad-gītā also, the Lord says, "I am the beginning, the source of birth of everything."

SB 3.26.8, Purport:

Thus it is his free choice to accept a spiritual body or a material body, but once the body is accepted he has to enjoy or suffer the consequences. The Māyāvādī philosopher's presentation is that the living entity enjoys his pastimes by accepting the body of a hog. This theory is not acceptable, however, because the word "pastime" implies voluntary acceptance for enjoyment. Therefore this interpretation is most misleading. When there is enforced acceptance for suffering, it is not a pastime. The Lord's pastimes and the conditioned living entity's acceptance of karmic reaction are not on the same level.

SB 3.29.35, Purport:

Herein the Supreme Personality of Godhead Kapiladeva perfectly explains that the mystic yoga system, consisting of eight different kinds of yoga activities, has to be performed with the aim of coming to the perfectional stage of bhakti-yoga. It is not acceptable for one to be satisfied simply by practicing the sitting postures and thinking himself complete. By meditation one must attain the stage of devotional service. As previously described, a yogī is advised to meditate on the form of Lord Viṣṇu from point to point, from the ankles to the legs to the knees to the thighs to the chest to the neck, and in this way gradually up to the face and then to the ornaments. There is no question of impersonal meditation.

SB Canto 6

SB 6.8.32-33, Purport:

Since the Lord is all-pervasive, He exists in everything, and everything exists in Him. Therefore even worship of the Lord's weapons or ornaments has the same potency as worship of the Lord. Māyāvādīs refuse to accept the form of the Lord, or they say that the form of the Lord is māyā, or false, but one should note very carefully that this is not acceptable. Although the Lord's original form and His impersonal expansion are one, the Lord maintains His form, qualities and abode eternally. Therefore this prayer says, pātu sarvaiḥ svarūpair naḥ sadā sarvatra sama-gaḥ: "May the Lord, who is all-pervasive in His various forms, protect us everywhere." The Lord is always present everywhere by His name, form, qualities, attributes and paraphernalia, and they all have equal power to protect the devotees. Śrīla Madhvācārya explains this as follows:

SB Cantos 10.14 to 12 (Translations Only)

SB 11.11.20, Translation:

My dear Uddhava, an intelligent person should never take to literatures that do not contain descriptions of My activities, which purify the whole universe. Indeed, I create, maintain and annihilate the entire material manifestation. Among all My pastime incarnations, the most beloved are Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma. Any so-called knowledge that does not recognize these activities of Mine is simply barren and is not acceptable to those who are actually intelligent.

CC Adi-lila

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

“Some say that transcendence must be void of all qualities because qualities are manifested only in matter. According to them, all qualities are like temporary, flickering mirages. But this is not acceptable. Since the Supreme Personality of Godhead is absolute, His qualities are nondifferent from Him. His form, name, qualities and everything else pertaining to Him are as spiritual as He is. Every qualitative expansion of the absolute Personality of Godhead is identical with Him. Since the Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead, is the reservoir of all pleasure, all the transcendental qualities that expand from Him are also reservoirs of pleasure.

CC Madhya-lila

CC Madhya 3.6, Purport:

He still recited a verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam about the tridaṇḍa-sannyāsa accepted by the brāhmaṇa of Avantīpura. Indirectly He declared that within that eka-daṇḍa, one daṇḍa, four daṇḍas existed as one. Accepting ekadaṇḍa-sannyāsa without parātma-niṣṭhā (devotional service to Lord Kṛṣṇa) is not acceptable to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. In addition, according to the exact regulative principles, one should add the jīva-daṇḍa to the tri-daṇḍa. These four daṇḍas, bound together as one, are symbolic of unalloyed devotional service to the Lord. Because the ekadaṇḍi-sannyāsīs of the Māyāvāda school are not devoted to the service of Kṛṣṇa, they try to merge into the Brahman effulgence, which is a marginal position between material and spiritual existence.

CC Madhya 8.128, Purport:

Sometimes a caste guru says that ye kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā, sei guru haya means that one who is not a brāhmaṇa may become a śikṣā-guru or a vartma-pradarśaka-guru but not an initiator guru. According to such caste gurus, birth and family ties are considered foremost. However, the hereditary consideration is not acceptable to Vaiṣṇavas. The word guru is equally applicable to the vartma-pradarśaka-guru, śikṣā-guru and dīkṣā-guru. Unless we accept the principle enunciated by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement cannot spread all over the world. According to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's intentions, pṛthivīte āche yata nagarādi-grāma sarvatra pracāra haibe mora nāma. (CB Antya-khaṇḍa 4.126) Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's cult must be preached all over the world. This does not mean that people should take to His teachings and remain śūdras or caṇḍālas.

CC Madhya 24.330, Purport:

If one is a Vaiṣṇava, he is already a brāhmaṇa. If a guru is completely qualified as a Vaiṣṇava, he must be accepted as a brāhmaṇa even if he is not born in a brāhmaṇa family. The caste system method of distinguishing a brāhmaṇa by birth is not acceptable when applied to a bona fide spiritual master. A spiritual master is a qualified brāhmaṇa and ācārya. If one is not a qualified brāhmaṇa, he is not expert in studying the Vedic literatures. Nānā-śāstra-vicāraṇaika-nipuṇau. Every Vaiṣṇava is a spiritual master, and a spiritual master is automatically expert in brahminical behavior. He also understands the Vedic śāstras.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 31:

The impersonalists recommend a process of ahaṅgrahopāsanā, by which one worships his own body as the Supreme. Thinking in this way, such pseudo-transcendentalists dress themselves as the damsels of Vraja. Such activities are not acceptable in devotional service. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, the most authoritative ācārya in the Gauḍīya-sampradāya, has condemned these imitators. The process of transcendental realization is to follow in the footsteps of the associates of the Supreme Lord; therefore to think oneself a direct associate of the Supreme Lord is condemned. According to authorized Vaiṣṇava principles, one should follow a particular devotee and not think of himself as Kṛṣṇa's associate.

Nectar of Devotion

Nectar of Devotion 7:

Unfortunately, it happens that someone who is not fit to become a spiritual master may approach wealthy persons to contribute for temple constructions. If such money is utilized by unqualified spiritual masters for living comfortably in costly temples without actually doing any preaching work, this is not acceptable. In other words, a spiritual master needn't be very enthusiastic for constructing temple buildings simply in the name of so-called spiritual advancement. Rather, his first and foremost activity should be to preach. In this connection, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Mahārāja recommended that a spiritual master print books. If one has money, instead of constructing costly temples, one should spend his money for the publication of authorized books in different languages for propagating the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.

Nectar of Devotion 9:

Someone may think, "For a whole week I may commit sinful activities, and for one day I will go to the temple or church and admit my sinful activities so that I can become washed off and again begin my sinning." This is most nonsensical and offensive and is not acceptable to the author of Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu.

In the Nārada Pañcarātra there is a statement of submission accompanied by the desire for perfection. The devotee says, "My dear Lord, when shall that day come when You will ask me to fan Your body, and according to Your pleasure, You will say, 'You just fan Me in this way'?"

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 9, 1966:

Just like we have got relation. So that depends on my discretion. But now, comparatively, if we study that if we merge into the existence of God, the, at least, in the opinion of the bhaktas, that is not acceptable. That is not acceptable. They know that, that "God has created me as an individual being, so He has got some purpose. And because He has created me for some purpose, I must fulfill that purpose. I must fulfill that purpose."

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Hyderabad, November 26, 1972:

That means that if you actually love God, there is no condition. Because you are poor man you cannot love God, that is not the fact. Or because you are rich man you cannot love God, no, that is also not fact. Because you are not educated you cannot love God, that is also not acceptable. Because you are very much educated, highly philosophical... So many conditions you can bring but all these conditions are not applicable in the business, in the transaction, of loving God without motive. So this is the description of love of Godhead and if we practically try to cultivate this knowledge of Godhead, that is called, that process is called bhakti.

Lecture on SB 1.16.22 -- Los Angeles, July 12, 1974:

Nigama-kalpa-taror galitaṁ phalam (SB 1.1.3). Galitaṁ phalam means the fruit matured in the tree. Here we artificially mature. We take the fruit unripe, and by artificial method, we get it ripened. But that is not acceptable. But the fruit which is ripened fully in the tree, that is very palatable, sweet. Nigama galitam. Galitaṁ phalam, fully matured fruit, this Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Fully matured fruit of the desire tree known as Vedas.

Lecture on SB 3.25.31 -- Bombay, December 1, 1974:

They are coming from Lord Śiva, Rudra-sampradāya. And there is Kumāra-sampradāya, Nimbāditya-sampradāya. So śāstra says, sampradāya-vihīnā ye mantrās te niṣphalā matāḥ: "If you do not belong to any sampradāya, party of bhakta or devotees, then niṣphalā matāḥ, your verdict or conclusion is niṣphala, without any fruit." It is not acceptable.

Lecture on SB 3.25.42 -- Bombay, December 10, 1974:

Some rascal will say that "I am avatāra." The Vaiṣṇava will not accept. Tasmāt śāstra-vidhānoktam. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said that śāstra-vidhānoktam, kāryākārya. We have to accept and reject according to the śāstra, not that any bogus man comes and says that "I am avatāra." That is not acceptable. The Vaiṣṇava will not accept. A foolish man may accept; that is a different thing. So certainly, the Supreme Personality has got many avatāra, but each avatāra has, has been mentioned in the śāstras, different avatāras. So Kapiladeva is avatāra. Therefore He is saying, "Me," mad-bhayāt . Mad-bhayāt .

So mad-bhayād vāti vāto 'yam. These are the very strong sources of fearfulness. If there is cyclone, it is very fearful. It is going on very nicely, but if it is a big cyclone, then it is fearful. So there is necessity of cyclone also.

Lecture on SB 5.5.2 -- Boston, April 28, 1969:

So this is going on, mental speculation. But we have got Vedic history, millions and millions of years. There are different species of life always. It is not that..., that only one species of life was existent and then gradually they have come to... This theory is not reasonable, neither acceptable. That is a long story.

All different forms of species of life, as they are existing at the present moment—you'll have aquatic animals, you'll have plant life, microbes, insects, birds, beasts, human beings, uncivilized human beings, civilized human beings—as they are presently existing, they existed even from the very beginning of creation. Not that in the creation there was no human being.

Lecture on SB 7.9.11-13 -- Hawaii, March 24, 1969:

So is that emancipation? But it was advertised as emancipation. Similarly, whatever material advancement we are making in the name of facility, emancipation, we are simply bungling the whole affair, disturbing. They do not know that. Life is so simple. Of course, it is not acceptable at the present situation. Therefore our only remedy is that whatever situation is there, you simply chant. Everything will be adjusted. But this atheistic way of life, this materialistic way of life, is always disturbing. That you should know. Disturbing to whom? To the Supreme. Just like the more they become materially advanced, they'll decry, "Oh, there is no God. I am God. We don't care for God. Why you are clamoring for God?" What...? That is their business, simply to decry God. Therefore they are...

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.156-163 -- New York, December 11, 1966:

"No, that is a planet." And as in this planet we have got so many variegatedness, similarly, in that planet also, there are... In every planet. There is no reason to disbelieve that in, in the, in other planets there is no life, there is no variegatedness. No. According to Vedic literature, it is not acceptable. Each and every planet, there is variegatedness as we find in this planet. The difference is that in some of the planets earthly matter is prominent, some of the planets fiery elements are prominent. So in the sun, sun planet, fiery elements is very prominent. There the living entities and everything, they are made of fire.

Festival Lectures

Radhastami, Srimati Radharani's Appearance Day -- Bhagavad-gita 18.5 -- London, September 5, 1973:

The first expansion is called avatāra, and when there is another avatāra from avatāra, that is called kalā. Rāmādi-mūrtiṣu kalā-niyamena tiṣṭhan (Bs. 5.39). Very scientific analysis in the śāstra. Not that any rascal comes, "I am God." This is not acceptable. We have to understand śāstra-vidhi, as śāstra it is said. So about Śrī Cai... Because Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu appeared, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, so many rascals have imitated: "Well, this Nimāi Paṇḍita, if He can become avatāra, then why not Gadādhara Paṇḍita?" This Ramakrishna, his name was Gadadhar Chatterjee. So he was also imitation of Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Where is the reference in the śāstra? So far Caitanya Mahāprabhu is concerned, there are so many innumerable references, in Mahābhārata, in Bhāgavata, in Purāṇa, in Upaniṣad.

Initiation Lectures

Excerpt from Sannyasa Initiation of Viraha Prakasa Swami -- Mayapur, February 5, 1976:

He still recited from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam about the tridaṇḍa-sannyāsa accepted by the brāhmaṇa of Avantīpura. Indirectly He declared that within the ekadaṇḍa, one daṇḍa, four daṇḍas existed as one. Accepting ekadaṇḍa sannyāsa without parātma-niṣṭhā, devotional service to Lord Kṛṣṇa, is not acceptable to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. In addition, according to the exact regulative principles, one should add the jīva-daṇḍa to the tridaṇḍa. These four daṇḍas bound together as one are symbolic of unalloyed devotional service to the Lord. Because the ekadaṇḍī-sannyāsīs of the Māyāvāda school are not devoted to the service of Kṛṣṇa, they try to merge into the Brahman effulgence, which is a marginal position between material and spiritual existence.

General Lectures

Lecture -- Seattle, October 11, 1968:

I am present all over my body by my consciousness, but I am not present in any other's body by my consciousness. However, the Supersoul or Paramātmā, being present within everyone, situated everywhere, is conscious of every existence. The theory that the soul and the Supersoul are one is not acceptable because the individual soul's consciousness cannot act in superconsciousness. This superconsciousness can only be achieved by dovetailing individual consciousness with the superconsciousness. And this dovetailing process is called surrender, or Kṛṣṇa consciousness. From the teachings of the Bhagavad-gītā we learn very clearly that Arjuna in the beginning did not want to fight with his brothers and relatives.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Prabhupāda: Just like a living entity is trying to become master—"I am the monarch of all I survey." That is untruth. The truth is that he is eternal servant. You cannot say that because one is trying to be imitation God, that that is another truth. You cannot say that. That is māyā. There cannot be a second God. God is one. That is truth, absolute truth. Our point is that we do not accept this proposition, that there are two types of truth. That is not at all acceptable. Truth is one.

Śyāmasundara: Supposing you saw some ice, and you said, "Due to there being cold, this water has turned hard and become ice."

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: But that seven continents is not the whole world. That is our charge. That you are claiming that you have excavated all. We say no, not even an insignificant portion. So your knowledge is limited. (indistinct) they say the same (indistinct), Dr. Frog. Dr. Frog is limited within the three-feet well. If he says "I have seen everything," that is not acceptable.

Śyāmasundara: But at least in thousands of places they have bored into the earth or dug into the earth, and they've found...

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Śyāmasundara: ...find out what is the greatest pleasure, we look for the greatest quality, which we find in someone like Socrates, he says. And then we introduce that as the standard for the greatest quantity.

Prabhupāda: But that is not acceptable by the greatest number. That is to be accepted by the smallest number.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. But he says that should be the standard.

Prabhupāda: That is not meant for mass of people, the greatest number. The mass of people, abodha-jāta, they are fools and rascals. The Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement cannot be understood by mass of people. A selected number of men who are fortunate, they can understand.

Philosophy Discussion on The Evolutionists Thomas Huxley, Henri Bergson, and Samuel Alexander:

Śyāmasundara: And he sees also in the same way two types of religion. He sees the static religion and he calls this static religion "myth devised by human intelligence as a means of defense against the depressing experiences of life. Being fearful of the future, man attempts to combat his fate by constructing religious myths."

Prabhupāda: Just that... Anything created by human being, that is not acceptable. We do not follow that principle. Because a human being is always imperfect. So we cannot take anything manufactured, myth, by any human being. We take directly from God. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam (SB 6.3.19). The religious principles, they are given directly by God. Just like Kṛṣṇa says, "This is religion: surrender unto Me." This is religion. It is not man-manufactured. Man is manufacturing, "Oh, this is my type of religion. It is Muhammadanism." "This is Hinduism."

1971 Conversations and Morning Walks

Room Conversation -- August 21, 1971, London:

Prabhupāda: No, no. Why not acceptable? No. Yes. Yes. That's all right. Let him take. We are paying Hayagrīva also. What can be done?

Haṁsadūta: And another thing I wanted to ask you about, Prabhupāda, is that Maṇḍalībhadra, he wants to make your literature perfect, which is natural because we want to make the nicest presentation. But the devotees are saying that the translation... For instance, this Easy Journey to Other Planets, has been in the process so long, it has so many times been reworked, that it's no longer palatable to them. They don't even read it. They'd rather have the English version. So I know that Your Divine Grace has said you have full faith in his ability to do the work...

1974 Conversations and Morning Walks

Room Conversation with Richard Webster, chairman, Societa Filosofica Italiana -- May 24, 1974, Rome:

Prabhupāda: No, thing is, if you want to offer to God, then—God is all-pure—the things you offer, that must be pure. And you must follow the instruction of God. Suppose if you want to give me something eatable, as a matter of etiquette, you ask me, "What can I offer you?" And if I say that "You offer me this thing, and that is very nice," you cannot offer me according to your whims. That may not be acceptable by Him.

1976 Conversations and Morning Walks

Room Conversation with Reporter -- June 4, 1976, Los Angeles:

Prabhupāda: Ah, others may deviate, that's another thing. But the system is not that. You cannot deviate from the Vedic injunction that if you have to follow the ācāryas, just like India is obeying. The mass population or the sane population, they are following the ācāryas. Ācāryas means great teachers, bona fide teachers—perhaps you have heard their name, just like Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Nimbārka, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Lord Caitanya. So they are followed, and they are of the same opinion. Millions of years ago, what was the opinion, and that opinion is still there. Ācchā, take for Bhagavad-gītā. And that is.... Not a single Indian who does not accept Bhagavad-gītā as authority. This is besides the foreigners who also take interest so much in Bhagavad-gītā. So far Indians are concerned, even some of the Muhammadans, so apart from Muhammadans, those who are claiming as Hindu, they all accept the authority of Bhagavad-gītā. So this Bhagavad-gītā, they might have changed, but that is not acceptable.

1977 Conversations and Morning Walks

Discussions with Devotees and Conversation with Dr. Ghosh -- June 1, 1977, Vrndavana:

Prabhupāda: You have brain. You are not afraid of anything...

Ātreya Ṛṣi: Jaya.

Prabhupāda: ...that we are preaching something which not is acceptable by scientists or philosophers. He must have to accept.

Bhavānanda: Śrīla Prabhupāda, Bhakti-prema Mahārāja is not here now. He's gone out.

1968 Correspondence

Letter to Jadurani -- San Francisco 8 April, 1968:

You are already a great artist. You don't want to become a great artist to satisfy the senses of the public. If your present paintings are not acceptable to the general public, I do not mind; they are fools. You continue trying your best to make your pictures as far they can be nice looking, but not to satisfy the senses of the rascal public. Yesterday I have been in a Unitarian Church and there I saw two pictures of only logs and bamboos, and I was explained by our great artist Govinda dasi that these are modern abstract arts. Anyway I couldn't see in them nothing but combination of logs and bamboos. There was nothing to impel my Krishna Consciousness. So, if you want to be a great artist in that way, I will pray that Krishna may save you. Anyway, if the public doesn't buy, we don't mind.

Letter to Rukmini -- Los Angeles 19 December, 1968:

So far as offering to Krishna apple cider, this can be done only if it is prepared by devotees. These food manufacturers do not take proper precautions in cleanliness nor do they have devotion to Krishna in their labors so it is not very acceptable offering. If you can make this preparation yourself then it will be alright.

1969 Correspondence

Letter to Brahmananda -- Los Angeles 18 January, 1969:

I have seen the lotus sign with the word Iskcon on it, and I think that it is not acceptable. This is because one does not know where to start reading the letters. If you like to make a lotus flower for this, I have enclosed one picture which I have drawn and which you may consider. But Radha-Krishna must also appear on this letterhead.

1976 Correspondence

Letter to Sri S. N. Nayar -- Calcutta 16 January, 1976:

I beg to thank you for your letter dated 21st December, 1975. I have gone through your translation, but it is not acceptable. We have already settled with a Vrindaban gentleman. I am returning herewith your manuscript. Thanking you.