Commentation (CC and Other Books)

Expressions researched:
"comment" |"commentated" |"commentating" |"commentation" |"commentations" |"commented" |"commenting" |"comments"

CC Adi-lila

CC Adi 1.91, Purport:

In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, a distinction between real religion and pretentious religion has been clearly made. According to this original and genuine commentation on the Vedānta-sūtra, there are numerous pretentious faiths that pass as religion but neglect the real essence of religion. The real religion of a living being is his natural inborn quality, whereas pretentious religion is a form of nescience that artificially covers a living entity's pure consciousness under certain unfavorable conditions. Real religion lies dormant when artificial religion dominates from the mental plane. A living being can awaken this dormant religion by hearing with a pure heart.

CC Adi 2.117, Purport:

Imitation devotees, who wish to advertise themselves as elevated Vaiṣṇavas and who therefore imitate the previous ācāryas but do not follow them in principle, are condemned in the words of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (2.3.24) as stone-hearted. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura has commented on their stone-hearted condition as follows: bahir aśru-pulakayoḥ sator api yad dhṛdayaṁ na vikriyeta tad aśma-sāram iti kaniṣṭhādhikāriṇām eva aśru-pulakādi-mattve ’pi aśma-sāra-hṛdayatayā nindaiṣā. "Those who shed tears by practice but whose hearts have not changed are to be known as stone-hearted devotees of the lowest grade. Their imitation crying, induced by artificial practice, is always condemned." The desired change of heart referred to above is visible in the reluctance to do anything not congenial to the devotional way. To create such a change of heart, conclusive discussion about Śrī Kṛṣṇa and His potencies is absolutely necessary.

CC Adi 3.49, Purport:

This is a verse from the Mahābhārata (Dāna-dharma, Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma-stotra). In his commentary on the Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma, called the Nāmārtha-sudhā, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, commenting upon this verse, asserts that Lord Caitanya is the Supreme Personality of Godhead according to the evidence of the Upaniṣads. He explains that suvarṇa-varṇaḥ means a golden complexion. He also quotes the Vedic injunction yadā paśyaḥ paśyate rukma-varṇaṁ kartāram īśaṁ puruṣaṁ brahma-yonim (Muṇḍaka Up. 3.1.3). Rukma-varṇaṁ kartāram īśam refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead as having a complexion the color of molten gold. Puruṣam means the Supreme Lord, and brahma-yonim indicates that He is also the Supreme Brahman. This evidence, too, proves that Lord Caitanya is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa. Another meaning of the description of the Lord as having a golden hue is that Lord Caitanya's personality is as fascinating as gold is attractive.

CC Adi 3.52, Purport:

Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī cites a verse from the Vedic literature which says that there is no necessity of performing sacrificial demonstrations or ceremonial functions. He comments that instead of engaging in such external, pompous exhibitions, all people, regardless of caste, color or creed, can assemble together and chant Hare Kṛṣṇa to worship Lord Caitanya. Kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākṛṣṇam (SB 11.5.32) indicates that prominence should be given to the name of Kṛṣṇa. Lord Caitanya taught Kṛṣṇa consciousness and chanted the name of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore, to worship Lord Caitanya, everyone should together chant the mahā-mantra—Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. To propagate worship in churches, temples or mosques is not possible, because people have lost interest in that. But anywhere and everywhere, people can chant Hare Kṛṣṇa.

CC Adi 5.14, Purport:

Revealed knowledge may in the beginning be unbelievable because of our paradoxical desire to verify everything with our tiny brains, but the speculative means of attaining knowledge is always imperfect. The perfect knowledge propounded in the revealed scriptures is confirmed by the great ācāryas, who have left ample commentations upon them; none of these ācāryas has disbelieved in the śāstras. One who disbelieves in the śāstras is an atheist, and we should not consult an atheist, however great he may be. A staunch believer in the śāstras, with all their diversities, is the right person from whom to gather real knowledge. Such knowledge may seem inconceivable in the beginning, but when put forward by the proper authority its meaning is revealed, and then one no longer has any doubts about it.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

Indeed, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu declared, śrīmad-bhāgavataṁ purāṇam amalam: "Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is a spotless Purāṇa." Malicious editors and scholars who attempt to misrepresent the Pañcarātra-śāstras to refute their regulations are most abominable. In the modern age, such malicious scholars have even commented misleadingly upon the Bhagavad-gītā, which was spoken by Kṛṣṇa, to prove that there is no Kṛṣṇa. How the Māyāvādīs have misrepresented the pāñcarātrika-vidhi will be shown below.

(1) In commenting on Vedānta-sūtra 2.2.42, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya has claimed that Saṅkarṣaṇa is a jīva, an ordinary living entity, but there is no evidence in any Vedic scripture that devotees of the Lord have ever said that Saṅkarṣaṇa is an ordinary living entity. He is an infallible plenary expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the Viṣṇu category, and He is beyond the creation of material nature. He is the original source of the living entities.

CC Adi 5.83, Purport:

He is an avatāra, or incarnation. The two categories of avatāras are empowered devotees and tad-ekātma-rūpa (the Lord Himself). An example of tad-ekātma-rūpa is Śeṣa, and an example of a devotee is Vasudeva, the father of Lord Kṛṣṇa. Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa has commented that the material cosmic manifestation is a partial kingdom of God where God must sometimes come to execute a specific function. The plenary portion of the Lord through whom Lord Kṛṣṇa executes such actions is called Mahā-Viṣṇu, who is the primal beginning of all incarnations. Inexperienced observers presume that the material energy provides both the cause and the elements of the cosmic manifestation and that the living entities are the enjoyers of material nature. But the devotees of the Bhāgavata school, which has scrutinizingly examined the entire situation, can understand that material nature can independently be neither the supplier of the material elements nor the cause of the material manifestation.

CC Adi 5.86, Purport:

In the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, commenting upon the Lord's transcendental position beyond the material qualities, says that Viṣṇu, as the controller and superintendent of material nature, has a connection with the material qualities. That connection is called yoga. However, the person who directs a prison is not also a prisoner. Similarly, although the Supreme Personality of Godhead Viṣṇu directs or supervises the qualitative nature, He has no connection with the material modes of nature. The expansions of Lord Viṣṇu always retain their supremacy; they are never connected with the material qualities. One may argue that Mahā-Viṣṇu cannot have any connection with the material qualities, because if He were so connected, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam would not state that material nature, ashamed of her thankless task of acting to induce the living entities to become averse to the Supreme Lord, remains behind the Lord in shyness. In answer to this argument, it may be said that the word guṇa means "regulation." Lord Viṣṇu, Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva are situated within this universe as the directors of the three modes, and their connection with the modes is known as yoga.

CC Adi 7.18-19, Purport:

Śrīmatī Rādhikā is very dear to Lord Kṛṣṇa, and similarly Her ponds, namely, Śyāma-kuṇḍa and Rādhā-kuṇḍa, are also very dear to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments in his Anubhāṣya that among the five tattvas, two are energies (śakti-tattva) and the three others are energetic (śaktimān tattva). Unalloyed and internal devotees are both engaged in the favorable culture of Kṛṣṇa consciousness untinged by philosophical speculation or fruitive activities. They are all understood to be pure devotees, and those among them who simply engage in conjugal love are called mādhurya-bhaktas, or internal devotees. The loving services in parental love, fraternity and servitude are included in conjugal love of God. In conclusion, therefore, every confidential devotee is a pure devotee of the Lord.

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu enjoys His pastimes with His immediate expansion Nityānanda Prabhu. His pure devotees and His three puruṣa incarnations, namely, Kāraṇodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu and Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, always accompany the Supreme Lord to propound the saṅkīrtana movement.

CC Adi 7.72, Purport:

Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Mahārāja comments in this connection, "One can become perfectly successful in the mission of his life if he acts exactly according to the words he hears from the mouth of his spiritual master." This acceptance of the words of the spiritual master is called śrauta-vākya, which indicates that the disciple must carry out the spiritual master's instructions without deviation. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura remarks in this connection that a disciple must accept the words of his spiritual master as his life and soul. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu here confirms this by saying that since His spiritual master ordered Him only to chant the holy name of Kṛṣṇa, He always chanted the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra according to this direction ("kṛṣṇa-mantra" japa sadā,—ei mantra-sāra).

Kṛṣṇa is the origin of everything. Therefore when a person is fully Kṛṣṇa conscious it is to be understood that his relationship with Kṛṣṇa has been fully confirmed. Lacking Kṛṣṇa consciousness, one is only partially related with Kṛṣṇa and is therefore not in his constitutional position.

CC Adi 7.72, Purport:

A devotee must know the importance of simultaneously understanding Vedānta philosophy and chanting the holy names. If by studying Vedānta one becomes an impersonalist, he has not been able to understand Vedānta. This is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā (15.15). Vedānta means "the end of knowledge." The ultimate end of knowledge is knowledge of Kṛṣṇa, who is identical with His holy name. Cheap Vaiṣṇavas (sahajiyās) do not care to study the Vedānta philosophy as commented upon by the four ācāryas. In the Gauḍīya-sampradāya there is a Vedānta commentary called the Govinda-bhāṣya, but the sahajiyās consider such commentaries to be untouchable philosophical speculation, and they consider the ācāryas to be mixed devotees. Thus they clear their way to hell.

CC Adi 7.76, Purport:

"Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare—these sixteen names composed of thirty-two syllables are the only means to counteract the evil effects of Kali-yuga. In all the Vedas it is seen that to cross the ocean of nescience there is no alternative to the chanting of the holy name." Similarly, Śrī Madhvācārya, while commenting upon the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad, has quoted the following verse from the Nārāyaṇa-saṁhitā:

dvāparīyair janair viṣṇuḥ pañcarātrais tu kevalaiḥ

kalau tu nāma-mātreṇa pūjyate bhagavān hariḥ

"In Dvāpara-yuga one could satisfy Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu only by worshiping Him gorgeously according to the pāñcarātrikī system, but in the Age of Kali one can satisfy and worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead Hari simply by chanting the holy name."

CC Adi 7.101, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments in this connection, "Māyāvādī sannyāsīs accept that the commentary by Śrī Śaṅkarācārya known as Śārīraka-bhāṣya gives the real meaning of the Vedanta-sūtra. In other words, Māyāvādī sannyāsīs accept the meanings expressed in the explanations of the Vedānta-sūtra by Śaṅkarācārya, which are based on monism. Thus they explain the Vedānta-sūtra, the Upaniṣads and all such Vedic literatures in their own impersonal way." The great Māyāvādī sannyāsī Sadānanda Yogīndra has written a book known as Vedānta-sāra, in which he writes, vedānto nāma upaniṣat-pramāṇam. tad-upakārīṇi śārīraka-sūtrādīni ca. According to Sadānanda Yogīndra, the Vedānta-sūtra and Upaniṣads, as presented by Śrī Śaṅkarācārya in his Śārīraka-bhāṣya commentary, are the only sources of Vedic evidence. Actually, however, Vedānta refers to the essence of Vedic knowledge, and it is not a fact that there is nothing more than Śaṅkarācārya's Śārīraka-bhāṣya. There are other Vedānta commentaries, written by Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, none of whom follow Śrī Śaṅkarācārya or accept the imaginative commentary of his school.

CC Adi 7.106, Purport:

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.

As mentioned above, the Vedānta-sūtra consists of four chapters. The first two chapters discuss the relationship of the living entity with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is known as sambandha-jñāna, or knowledge of the relationship. The third chapter describes how one can act in his relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is called abhidheya-jñāna.

CC Adi 7.110, Purport:

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.

CC Adi 7.110, Purport:

"In Kali-yuga, mislead the people in general by propounding imaginary meanings for the Vedas to bewilder them." These are the descriptions of the Purāṇas.

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that mukhya-vṛtti ("the direct meaning") is abhidhā-vṛtti, or the meaning that one can understand immediately from the statements of dictionaries, whereas gauṇa-vṛtti ("the indirect meaning") is a meaning that one imagines without consulting the dictionary. For example, one politician has said that Kurukṣetra refers to the body, but in the dictionary there is no such definition. Therefore this imaginary meaning is gauṇa-vṛtti, whereas the direct meaning found in the dictionary is mukhya-vṛtti or abhidhā-vṛtti. This is the distinction between the two. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu recommends that one understand the Vedic literature in terms of abhidhā-vṛtti, and the gauṇa-vṛtti He rejects. Sometimes, however, as a matter of necessity, the Vedic literature is described in terms of the lakṣaṇā-vṛtti or gauṇa-vṛtti, but one should not accept such explanations as permanent truths.

CC Adi 7.120, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura comments in this connection that in all Vedic scriptures the jīva-tattva, the truth of the living entities, is mentioned to be one of the energies of the Lord. If one does not accept the living entity to be a minute, infinitesimal spark of the Supreme but equates the jīva-tattva with the Supreme Brahman or Supreme Personality of Godhead, it must be understood that his entire philosophy is based on a misunderstanding. Unfortunately, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya purposely claimed the jīva-tattva, or living entities, to be equal to the Supreme God. Therefore his entire philosophy is based on a misunderstanding, and it misguides people to become atheists, whose mission in life is unfulfilled. The mission of human life, as described in the Bhagavad-gītā, is to surrender unto the Supreme Lord and become His devotee, but the Māyāvāda philosophy misleads one to defy the existence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and pose oneself as the Supreme Lord. Thus it has misguided hundreds of thousands of innocent men.

CC Adi 7.121, Translation:

“In his Vedānta-sūtra Śrīla Vyāsadeva has described that everything is but a transformation of the energy of the Lord. Śaṅkarācārya, however, has misled the world by commenting that Vyāsadeva was mistaken. Thus he has raised great opposition to theism throughout the entire world.

CC Adi 7.121, Purport:

Thus he has accused Śrīla Vyāsadeva of being mistaken. In developing his philosophy of monism, therefore, he has established vivarta-vāda, or the Māyāvāda theory of illusion.”

In the Brahma-sūtra, Second Chapter, the first aphorism is as follows: tad-ananyatvam ārambhaṇa-śabdādibhyaḥ. Commenting on this sūtra in his Śārīraka-bhāṣya, Śaṅkarācārya has introduced the statement vācārambhaṇaṁ vikāro nāmadheyam from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.1.4) to try to prove that acceptance of the transformation of the energy of the Supreme Lord is faulty. He has tried to defy this transformation of energy in a misguided way, which will be explained later. Since his conception of God is impersonal, he does not believe that the entire cosmic manifestation is a transformation of the energies of the Lord, for as soon as one accepts the various energies of the Absolute Truth, one must immediately accept the Absolute Truth to be personal, not impersonal. A person can create many things by the transformation of his energy.

CC Adi 7.122, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura comments that if one does not clearly understand the meaning of pariṇāma-vāda, or transformation of energy, one is sure to misunderstand the truth regarding this material cosmic manifestation and the living entities. In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.8.4) it is said, san-mūlāḥ saumyemāḥ prajāḥ sad-āyatanāḥ sat-pratiṣṭhāḥ. The material world and the living entities are separate beings, and they are eternally true, not false. Śaṅkarācārya, however, unnecessarily fearing that by pariṇāma-vāda (transformation of energy) Brahman would be transformed (vikārī), has imagined both the material world and the living entities to be false and to have no individuality. By word jugglery he has tried to prove that the individual identities of the living entities and the material world are illusory, and he has cited the examples of mistaking a rope for a snake or an oyster shell for gold. Thus he has most abominably cheated people in general.

CC Adi 7.122, Purport:

Even if a complete manifestation is taken away from Him, He continues to be complete. The material creation is manifested by the energy of the Lord, but He is still the same person. His form, entourage, qualities and so on never deteriorate. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, in his Paramātma-sandarbha, comments regarding the vivarta-vāda as follows: “Under the spell of vivarta-vāda one imagines the separate entities, namely the cosmic manifestation and the living entities, to be one with Brahman. This is due to complete ignorance regarding the actual fact. The Absolute Truth, or Para-brahman, is always one and always the same. He is completely free from all other conceptions of existence. He is completely free from false ego, for He is the full spiritual identity. It is absolutely impossible for Him to be subjected to ignorance and fall under the spell of a misconception (vivarta-vāda). The Absolute Truth is beyond our conception.

CC Adi 7.147, Purport:

Everyone who actually desires to understand the Vedānta philosophy must certainly accept the explanation of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu and the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas who have also commented on the Vedānta-sūtra according to the principles of bhakti-yoga. After hearing the explanation of the Vedānta-sūtra from Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, all the sannyāsīs, headed by Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, became very humble and obedient to the Lord, and they spoke as follows.

CC Adi 8.15, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments in this connection that people in general, in their narrow-minded conception of life, create many different types of humanitarian activities, but the humanitarian activities inaugurated by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu are different. For logicians who want to accept only that which is proven through logic and argument, it is a fact that without logic and reason there can be no question of accepting the Absolute Truth. Unfortunately, when such logicians take to this path without the mercy of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, they remain on the platform of logic and argument and do not advance in spiritual life. However, if one is intelligent enough to apply his arguments and logic to the subtle understanding of the fundamental spiritual substance, he will be able to know that a poor fund of knowledge established on the basis of material logic cannot help one understand the Absolute Truth, which is beyond the reach of imperfect senses. The Mahābhārata therefore says, acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. (Mahābhārata, Bhīṣma-parva 5.22) How can that which is beyond the imagination or sensory speculation of mundane creatures be approached simply by logic? Logic and argument are very poor in spiritual strength and always imperfect when applied to spiritual understanding.

CC Adi 8.25, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, commenting on this verse, which is a quotation from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (2.3.24), remarks that sometimes a mahā-bhāgavata, or very advanced devotee, does not manifest such transcendental symptoms as tears in the eyes, whereas sometimes a kaniṣṭha-adhikārī, a neophyte devotee, displays them artificially. This does not mean, however, that the neophyte is more advanced than the mahā-bhāgavata devotee. The test of the real change of heart that takes place when one chants the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra is that one becomes detached from material enjoyment. This is the real change. Bhaktiḥ pareśānubhavo viraktir anyatra ca (SB 11.2.42). If one is actually advancing in spiritual life, he must become very much detached from material enjoyment. If it is sometimes found that a kaniṣṭha-adhikārī (neophyte devotee) shows artificial tears in his eyes while chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra but is still completely attached to material things, his heart has not really changed. The change must be manifested in terms of one's real activities.

CC Adi 12.17, Purport:

Commenting on verses 13 through 17, Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura gives an extensive description of the descendants of Advaita Ācārya. The Caitanya-bhāgavata, Antya-khaṇḍa, Chapter One, states that Acyutānanda was the eldest son of Advaita Ācārya. The Sanskrit book Advaita-carita states, "Advaita Ācārya Prabhu had three sons who were devotees of Lord Caitanya. Their names were Acyuta, Kṛṣṇa Miśra and Gopāla dāsa, and they were all born of the womb of His wife, Sītādevī. Advaita Ācārya also had three more sons, whose names were Balarāma, Svarūpa and Jagadīśa. Thus there were six sons of Advaita Ācārya." Among the six sons, three were strict followers of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and of these three, Acyutānanda was the eldest.

Advaita Prabhu married in the beginning of the fifteenth century Śakābda (late fifteenth century A.D.). When Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu wanted to visit the village of Rāmakeli while going from Jagannātha Purī to Vṛndāvana during the Śakābda years 1433 and 1434 (A.D. 1511 and 1512), Acyutānanda was only five years old. The Caitanya-bhāgavata, Antya-khaṇḍa, Fourth Chapter, describes Acyutānanda at that time as pañca-varṣa vayasa madhura digambara, "only five years old and standing naked."

CC Adi 13.42, Purport:

These intimate associates of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu helped the Lord very much in the pastimes in which He felt like Rādhārāṇī.

Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments in this connection that such feelings of separation as Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu enjoyed from the books of Vidyāpati, Caṇḍīdāsa and Jayadeva are especially reserved for persons like Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya and Svarūpa Dāmodara, who were paramahaṁsas, men of the topmost perfection, because of their advanced spiritual consciousness. Such topics are not to be discussed by ordinary persons imitating the activities of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. For critical students of mundane poetry and literary men without God consciousness who are after bodily sense gratification, there is no need to read such a high standard of transcendental literature. Persons who are after sense gratification should not try to imitate rāgānuga devotional service.

CC Adi 13.86, Purport:

Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī gives the following annotation in this connection: "mana āviveśa" manasy āvirbabhūva; jīvānām iva na dhātu-sambandha ity arthaḥ. There was no question of the seminal discharge necessary for the birth of an ordinary human being. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī also comments in this connection that Lord Kṛṣṇa first appeared in the mind of Ānakadundubhi, Vasudeva, and was then transferred to the mind of Devakī-devī. Thus the spiritual bliss in the mind of Devakī-devī gradually increased, just as the moon increases every night until it becomes a full moon. At the time of His appearance, Lord Kṛṣṇa came out of the mind of Devakī and appeared within the prison house of Kaṁsa, by the side of Devakī’s bed. At that time, by the spell of yogamāyā, Devakī thought that her child had now been born. In this connection, even the demigods from the celestial kingdom were also bewildered. As it is stated, muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ (SB 1.1.1). They came to offer their prayers to Devakī, thinking that the Supreme Lord was within her womb.

CC Adi 15 Summary:

A synopsis of the Fifteenth Chapter is as follows. The Lord took lessons in grammar from Gaṅgādāsa Paṇḍita and became very expert in commenting upon grammar. He forbade His mother to take grains on the Ekādaśī day. He narrated a story that Viśvarūpa, after accepting the sannyāsa order, invited Him in a dream to accept sannyāsa also, but the Lord refused and was therefore sent back home. When Jagannātha Miśra passed away, the Lord married the daughter of Vallabhācārya, whose name was Lakṣmī. All these events are summarized in this chapter.

CC Adi 15.6, Translation:

He soon became so expert in commenting on the Pañjī-ṭīkā that He could win victory over all the other students, although He was a neophyte.

CC Madhya-lila

CC Madhya 1.82, Purport:

In his Anubhāṣya, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments, "The gopīs are purely engaged in the service of the Lord without motive. They are not captivated by the opulence of Kṛṣṇa, nor by the understanding that He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Naturally the gopīs were inclined to love Kṛṣṇa, for He was an attractive young boy of Vṛndāvana village. Being village girls, they were not very much attracted to the field of Kurukṣetra, where Kṛṣṇa was present with elephants, horses and royal dress. Indeed, they did not very much appreciate Kṛṣṇa in that atmosphere. Kṛṣṇa was not attracted by the opulence or personal beauty of the gopīs but by their pure devotional service. Similarly, the gopīs were attracted to Kṛṣṇa as a cowherd boy, not in sophisticated guise. Lord Kṛṣṇa is inconceivably powerful. To understand Him, great yogīs and saintly persons give up all material engagements and meditate upon Him. Similarly, those who are overly attracted to material enjoyment, to enhancement of material opulence, to family maintenance or to liberation from the entanglements of this material world take shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

CC Madhya 4.111, Purport:

In this connection, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that Advaita Ācārya took initiation from Mādhavendra Purī, who was a sannyāsī in the disciplic succession of the Mādhva-sampradāya. According to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu:

kibā vipra kibā nyāsī śūdra kene naya,

yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā, sei "guru" haya

"A person may be a brāhmaṇa, a sannyāsī, a śūdra or whatever, but if he is well conversant in the science of Kṛṣṇa, he can become a guru." (CC Madhya 8.128) This statement is supported by Śrī Mādhavendra Purī. According to the pañcarātra injunction, only a householder brāhmaṇa can initiate. Others cannot. When a person is initiated, it is assumed that he has become a brāhmaṇa; without being initiated by a proper brāhmaṇa, one cannot be converted into a brāhmaṇa. In other words, unless one is a brāhmaṇa, he cannot make another a brāhmaṇa.

CC Madhya 5.24, Purport:

In this regard, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that the younger brāhmaṇa rendered service to the older one with the purpose of pleasing Kṛṣṇa. It was not a matter of ordinary worldly dealings. Kṛṣṇa is pleased when a Vaiṣṇava is rendered service. Because the younger brāhmaṇa served the older one, Lord Gopāla agreed to become a witness of the marriage negotiation in order to maintain the prestige of both devotees. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu would certainly not have liked to hear about marital dealings unless such dealings were exchanged between two Vaiṣṇavas. Marriage arrangements and ceremonies belong to ordinary material karma-kāṇḍa sections of the scriptures. The Vaiṣṇavas, however, are not interested in any kind of karma-kāṇḍa dealings. Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura says: karma-kāṇḍa jñāna-kāṇḍa kevala viṣera bhāṇḍa. For a Vaiṣṇava, the karma-kāṇḍa and jñāna-kāṇḍa sections of the Vedas are unnecessary. Indeed, a real Vaiṣṇava takes these sections as a poison pot (viṣera bhāṇḍa). Sometimes we take part in a marriage ceremony for our disciples, but this does not mean that we are interested in karma-kāṇḍa activities. Sometimes, not knowing the Vaiṣṇava philosophy, an outsider criticizes such activity, maintaining that a sannyāsī should not take part in a marriage ceremony between a young boy and a young girl. However, this is not a karma-kāṇḍa activity, because our purpose is to spread the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.

CC Madhya 6.87, Purport:

This is a very important verse. Even big scholars cannot understand Kṛṣṇa, yet they dare comment on the Bhagavad-gītā. Reading the Bhagavad-gītā means understanding Kṛṣṇa, yet we actually see many scholars making blunders in trying to understand Kṛṣṇa. Gopīnātha Ācārya's statement is confirmed in many places in the Vedic literature. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad (1.2.23) it is stated:

nāyam ātmā pravacanena labhyo

na medhayā na bahunā śrutena

yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyas

tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanūṁ svām

It is also stated in Kaṭha Upaniṣad (1.2.9):

naiṣā tarkeṇa matir āpaneyā

proktānyenaiva sujñānāya preṣṭha

yāṁ tvam āpaḥ satya-dhṛtir batāsi

tvādṛṅ no bhūyān naciketaḥ praṣṭā

The fact is that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Supersoul, cannot be attained simply by explanations, logic and erudite scholarship. One cannot understand Him simply by one's brain substance. Even by studying all the Vedic literatures, one cannot understand the Supreme Lord. However, if one is slightly favored by the mercy of the Lord, if the Lord is pleased, one can understand Him.

CC Madhya 6.135, Purport:

Works that should be consulted are Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī’s Tattva-sandarbha (10–11), Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa's commentary on that, and the following verses of the Brahma-sūtra: śāstra-yonitvāt (Vs. 1.1.3), tarkāpratiṣṭhānāt (Vs. 2.1.11) and śrutes tu śabda-mūlatvāt (Vs. 2.1.27), as commented upon by Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Śrī Madhvācārya, Śrī Nimbārkācārya and Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. In his book Sarva-saṁvādinī, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has noted that although there are ten kinds of evidence—direct perception, the Vedic version, historical reference, hypothesis and so on—and although they are all generally accepted as evidence, the person presenting a hypothesis, reading the Vedic version, perceiving or interpreting by his experience is certain to be imperfect in four ways. That is, he is subject to committing mistakes, to becoming illusioned, to cheating and to having imperfect senses.

CC Madhya 6.137, Purport:

If we want to interpret the Vedic version, we must imagine an interpretation according to what we want to do. First of all, we set forth such an interpretation as a suggestion or hypothesis. As such, it is not actually true, and the self-evident proof is lost.

Śrīla Madhvācārya, commenting on the aphorism dṛśyate tu (Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.6), quotes the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa as follows:

ṛg-yajuḥ-sāmātharvāś ca bhārataṁ pañcarātrakam

mūla-rāmāyaṇaṁ caiva veda ity eva śabditāḥ

purāṇāni ca yānīha vaiṣṇavāni vido viduḥ

svataḥ-prāmāṇyam eteṣāṁ nātra kiñcid vicāryate

The Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahābhārata, Pañcarātra and original Rāmāyaṇa are all considered Vedic literature. The Purāṇas that are especially meant for Vaiṣṇavas (such as the Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa, Nāradīya Purāṇa, Viṣṇu Purāṇa and Bhāgavata Purāṇa) are also Vedic literature. Therefore, whatever is stated in such Purāṇas or in the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa is self-evident.

CC Madhya 6.147, Purport:

Actually, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is vedeṣu durlabham (untraceable in the Vedas), but when the Vedas are properly understood or when Vedic knowledge is received from devotees, one can understand that all Vedic knowledge leads to Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

The Brahma-sūtra (1.1.3) confirms this fact also: śāstra-yonitvāt. Commenting upon this Brahma-sūtra aphorism, Śrī Madhvācārya says, "The Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahābhārata, Pañcarātra and the original Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa are all Vedic literatures. Any literature following the conclusive statements of these Vedic literatures is also to be considered Vedic literature. That literature which does not conform to Vedic literature is simply misleading."

Therefore when reading Vedic literature, we must take the path traversed by great ācāryas: mahā-jano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. Unless one follows the path traversed by great ācāryas, he cannot understand the real purport of the Vedas.

CC Madhya 8.229, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that the word siddha-deha, "perfected spiritual body," refers to a body beyond the material gross body composed of five elements and the subtle astral body composed of mind, intelligence and false ego. In other words, one attains a completely spiritual body fit to render service to the transcendental couple Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa: sarvopādhi-vinirmuktaṁ tat-paratvena nirmalam (CC Madhya 19.170).

When one is situated in his spiritual body, which is beyond this gross and subtle material body, he is fit to serve Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa. That body is called siddha-deha. The living entity attains a particular type of gross body in accordance with his past activities and mental condition. In this life the mental condition changes in different ways, and the same living entity gets another body in the next life according to his desires. The mind, intelligence and false ego are always engaged in an attempt to dominate material nature. According to that subtle astral body, one attains a gross body to enjoy the objects of one's desires. According to the activities of the present body, one prepares another subtle body. And according to the subtle body, one attains another gross body. This is the process of material existence.

CC Madhya 8.288, Purport:

I taste My own transcendental features by accepting the complexion of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī. Without Rādhārāṇī, one cannot taste the transcendental pleasure of Kṛṣṇa's conjugal love.” In this regard, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments on the prākṛta-sahajiyā-sampradāya, which considers Kṛṣṇa and Lord Caitanya to possess different bodies. They misinterpret the words gaura aṅga nahe mora in text 287. From that verse and the present verse we can understand that Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu is nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa. Both are the same Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the form of Kṛṣṇa, the Lord enjoys spiritual bliss and remains the shelter of all devotees, viṣaya-vigraha. And in His Gaurāṅga feature Kṛṣṇa tastes separation from Kṛṣṇa in the ecstasy of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī. This ecstatic form is Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya. Śrī Kṛṣṇa is always the transcendental reservoir of all pleasure, and He is technically called dhīra-lalita. Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī is the embodiment of spiritual energy, personified as ecstatic love for Kṛṣṇa; therefore only Kṛṣṇa can touch Her. The dhīra-lalita aspect is not seen in any other form of the Lord, including Viṣṇu and Nārāyaṇa. Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī is therefore known as Govinda-nandinī and Govinda-mohinī, for She is the only source of transcendental pleasure for Śrī Kṛṣṇa and the only person who can enchant His mind.

CC Madhya 9.11, Purport:

Actually the disciplic succession of Madhvācārya is known as the Brahmā Vaiṣṇava sect; that is the sect coming down from Lord Brahmā. Consequently the Tattvavādīs, or followers of Madhvācārya, do not accept the incident of Lord Brahmā’s illusion, which is recorded in the Tenth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śrīla Madhvācārya has purposefully avoided commenting on that portion of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in which brahma-mohana, the illusion of Lord Brahmā, is mentioned. Śrīla Mādhavendra Purī was one of the ācāryas in the Tattvavāda disciplic succession, and he established the ultimate goal of transcendentalism to be attainment of pure devotional service, love of Godhead. Those Vaiṣṇavas belonging to the Gauḍīya-sampradāya, the disciplic succession following Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, are distinct from the Tattvavādīs, although they belong to the same Tattvavāda-sampradāya. The followers of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu are therefore known as the Mādhva-Gauḍīya-sampradāya.

CC Madhya 9.61, Purport:

Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that all the Buddhist disciples were actually initiated by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu into the chanting of the holy name of Kṛṣṇa, and when they chanted, they actually became different persons. At that time they were not Buddhists or atheists but Vaiṣṇavas. Consequently they immediately accepted Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's order. Their original Kṛṣṇa consciousness was revived, and they were immediately able to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa and begin worshiping the Supreme Lord Viṣṇu.

It is the spiritual master who delivers the disciple from the clutches of māyā by initiating him into the chanting of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra. In this way a sleeping human being can revive his consciousness by chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. In other words, the spiritual master awakens the sleeping living entity to his original consciousness so that he can worship Lord Viṣṇu. This is the purpose of dīkṣā, or initiation.

CC Madhya 10.23, Purport:

In this verse the word prabhupāda, referring to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, is significant. Regarding this, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Prabhupāda comments, "Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and all His servants address Him as Prabhupāda. This means that there are many prabhus taking shelter under His lotus feet." The pure Vaiṣṇava is addressed as prabhu, and this address is an etiquette observed between Vaiṣṇavas. When many prabhus remain under the shelter of the lotus feet of another prabhu, the address Prabhupāda is given. Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu and Śrī Advaita Prabhu are also addressed as Prabhupāda. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Śrī Advaita Prabhu and Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu are all viṣṇu-tattva, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Viṣṇu. Therefore all living entities are under Their lotus feet. Lord Viṣṇu is the eternal Lord of everyone, and the representative of Lord Viṣṇu is the Lord's confidential servant. Such a person acts as the spiritual master for neophyte Vaiṣṇavas; therefore the spiritual master is as respectable as Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya or Lord Viṣṇu Himself.

CC Madhya 12.135, Purport:

In commenting on the cleansing of the Guṇḍicā temple, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura says that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, as the world leader, was personally giving instructions on how one should receive Lord Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, within one's cleansed and pacified heart. If one wants to see Kṛṣṇa seated in his heart, he must first cleanse the heart, as prescribed by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu in His Śikṣāṣṭaka: ceto-darpaṇa-mārjanam (CC Antya 20.12). In this age, everyone's heart is especially unclean, as confirmed in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: hṛdy antaḥ-stho hy abhadrāṇi. To wash away all dirty things accumulated within the heart, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu advised everyone to chant the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra.

CC Madhya 13.24, Purport:

In this connection, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that as an ideal husband, Lord Jagannātha remained fifteen days in a secluded place with His wife, the supreme goddess of fortune. Nonetheless, the Lord wanted to come out of seclusion to give happiness to His devotees. The Lord enjoys Himself in two ways, known as svakīya and parakīya. The Lord's conjugal love in the svakīya-rasa relates to the regulative principles observed in Dvārakā, where the Lord has many married queens. But in Vṛndāvana the conjugal love of the Lord is not with His married wives but with His girlfriends, the gopīs. Conjugal love with the gopīs is called parakīya-rasa. Lord Jagannātha leaves the secluded place where He enjoys the company of the supreme goddess of fortune in svakīya-rasa, and He goes to Vṛndāvana, where He enjoys the parakīya-rasa. Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura therefore reminds us that the Lord's pleasure in parakīya-rasa is superior to His pleasure in svakīya-rasa.

CC Madhya 15.111, Purport:

In his Upadeśāmṛta (5), Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī states: kṛṣṇeti yasya giri taṁ manasādriyeta dīkṣāsti cet praṇatibhiś ca bhajantam īśam. An advanced devotee should respect a person who has been initiated by a bona fide spiritual master and who is situated on the transcendental platform, chanting the holy name with faith and obeisances and following the instructions of the spiritual master. Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura comments that serving Vaiṣṇavas is most important for householders. Whether a Vaiṣṇava is properly initiated or not is not a subject for consideration. One may be initiated and yet contaminated by the Māyāvāda philosophy, but a person who chants the holy name of the Lord offenselessly will not be so contaminated. A properly initiated Vaiṣṇava may be imperfect, but one who chants the holy name of the Lord offenselessly is all-perfect. Although he may apparently be a neophyte, he still has to be considered a pure, unalloyed Vaiṣṇava. It is the duty of the householder to offer respects to such an unalloyed Vaiṣṇava. This is Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's instruction.

CC Madhya 15.264, Purport:

"The Personality of Godhead Śrī Kṛṣṇa said, "A brahma-bandhu is not to be killed, but if he is an aggressor, he must be killed.""

Quoting from the smṛti, Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī comments on this quotation from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam:

ātatāyinam āyāntam api vedānta-pāragam

jighāṁ santaṁ jighāṁsīyān na tena brahma-hā bhavet

""An aggressor intent on killing may be a very learned scholar of Vedānta, yet he should be killed because of his envy in killing others. In such a case, it is not sinful to kill a brāhmaṇa.""

CC Madhya 16.238, Purport:

The word markaṭa-vairāgya, indicating false renunciation, is very important in this verse. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, in commenting on this word, points out that monkeys make an external show of renunciation by not accepting clothing and by living naked in the forest. In this way they consider themselves renunciants, but actually they are very busy enjoying sense gratification with dozens of female monkeys. Such renunciation is called markaṭa-vairāgya—the renunciation of a monkey. One cannot be really renounced until one actually becomes disgusted with material activity and sees it as a stumbling block to spiritual advancement. Renunciation should not be phalgu, temporary, but should exist throughout one's life. Temporary renunciation, or monkey renunciation, is like the renunciation one feels at a cremation ground. When a man takes a dead body to the crematorium, he sometimes thinks, “This is the final end of the body.

CC Madhya 16.238, Purport:

"The bare necessities of life must be accepted, but one should not superfluously increase his necessities. Nor should they be unnecessarily decreased. One should simply accept what is necessary to help one advance spiritually."

In his Durgama-saṅgamanī, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī comments that the word sva-nirvāhaḥ actually means sva-sva-bhakti-nirvāhaḥ. The experienced devotee will accept only those material things that will help him render service to the Lord. In the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (1.2.256), markaṭa-vairāgya, or phalgu-vairāgya, is explained as follows:

prāpañcikatayā buddhyā hari-sambandhi-vastunaḥ

mumukṣubhiḥ parityāgo vairāgyaṁ phalgu kathyate

"When persons eager to achieve liberation renounce things related to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, thinking them to be material, their renunciation is called incomplete." Whatever is favorable for the rendering of service to the Lord should be accepted and should not be rejected as a material thing.

CC Madhya 17.15, Purport:

The words snigdha ("very peaceful") and su-snigdha ("affectionate") are used in verses fourteen and fifteen respectively, and they are also found in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.1.8): brūyuḥ snigdhasya śiṣyasya guravo guhyam apy uta. "A disciple who has actual love for his spiritual master is endowed, by the blessings of the spiritual master, with all confidential knowledge." Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī has commented that the word snigdhasya means prema-vataḥ. The word prema-vataḥ indicates that one has great love for his spiritual master.

CC Madhya 18.109, Purport:

Thus according to Māyāvāda philosophy, whoever becomes a sannyāsī declares himself Nārāyaṇa. Foolish people accept such ordinary human beings as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is called vivarta-vāda.

In this regard, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that jaṅgama-nārāyaṇa means that the impersonal Brahman takes a shape and moves here and there in the form of a Māyāvādī sannyāsī. The Māyāvāda philosophy confirms this. Daṇḍa-grahaṇa-mātreṇa naro nārāyaṇo bhavet: "Simply by accepting the daṇḍa of the order of sannyāsa, one is immediately transformed into Nārāyaṇa." Therefore Māyāvādī sannyāsīs address one another by saying oṁ namo nārāyaṇāya. In this way one Nārāyaṇa worships another Nārāyaṇa.

Actually an ordinary human being cannot become Nārāyaṇa. As the chief Māyāvādī sannyāsī, Śrī Śaṅkarācārya, says, nārāyaṇaḥ paro ’vyaktāt: "Nārāyaṇa is not a creation of this material world. Nārāyaṇa is above the material creation."

CC Madhya 20.397, Purport:

"After giving up this material body, such a devotee comes to Me." After leaving the material body, the perfect devotee takes birth from the womb of a gopī on a planet where Kṛṣṇa's pastimes are going on. This may be in this universe or another universe. This statement is found in the Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi, which is commented upon by Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura. When a devotee becomes perfect, he is transferred to the universe where Kṛṣṇa's pastimes are taking place. Kṛṣṇa's eternal associates go wherever Kṛṣṇa manifests His pastimes. As stated before, first the father and mother of Kṛṣṇa appear, then the other associates. Quitting his material body, the perfect devotee also goes to associate with Kṛṣṇa and His other associates.

CC Madhya 21.91, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that in the Goloka planet there are three divisions: Gokula, Mathurā and Dvārakā. In His incarnation as Gaurasundara, Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the Lord conducts His pastimes in three areas: Navadvīpa, Jagannātha Purī (and South India) and Vraja-maṇḍala (the area of Vṛndāvana-dhāma).

CC Madhya 22.165, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments on this verse. Externally a devotee performs all the items of devotional service in nine different ways, beginning with śravaṇa and kīrtana, and within his mind he always thinks of his eternal relationship with Kṛṣṇa and follows in the footsteps of the devotees of Vṛndāvana. If one engages himself in the service of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa in this way, he can transcend the regulative principles enjoined in the śāstras and, through his spiritual master, fully engage in rendering spontaneous love to Kṛṣṇa. In this way, he attains affection at the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa actually comes under the control of such spontaneous feelings, and ultimately one can attain association with the Lord.

CC Madhya 23.105, Purport:

This principle is recommended here: śuṣka-vairāgya-jñāna saba niṣedhila. This is Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's liberal demonstration of the bhakti cult. We should not introduce anything whimsically, without the sanction of the bona fide spiritual master. In this connection, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments on these points by quoting two verses by Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.255–256).

anāsaktasya viṣayān yathārham upayuñjataḥ

nirbandhaḥ kṛṣṇa-sambandhe yuktaṁ vairāgyam ucyate

prāpañcikatayā buddhyā hari-sambandhi-vastunaḥ

mumukṣubhiḥ parityāgo vairāgyaṁ phalgu kathyate

“When one is not attached to anything but at the same time accepts everything in relation to Kṛṣṇa, one is rightly situated above possessiveness.

CC Madhya 24.330, Purport:

Brahmanism is not a question of heredity. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (7.11.35) Śrī Nārada Muni tells Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira what a brāhmaṇa is. He states that if brahminical qualifications are observed in kṣatriyas, vaiśyas or even śūdras, one should accept them as brāhmaṇas. In this regard, Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī has commented: śamādibhir eva brāhmaṇādi-vyavahāro mukhyaḥ, na jāti-mātrādīty āha—yasyeti. yad yadi anyatra varṇāntare ‘pi dṛśyeta, tad-varṇāntaraṁ tenaiva lakṣaṇa-nimittenaiva varṇena vinirdiśet, na tu jāti-nimittenety arthaḥ: "The most important criterion for deciding whether to deal with someone as a brāhmaṇa or as a member of another varṇa is the presence or absence of self-control and similar brahminical qualities. We should not judge primarily according to superficial characteristics like birth. This is stated in the verse beginning yasya (SB 7.11.35). If the qualities of one varṇa are seen in someone born in another, he should be designated according to the varṇa of his qualities, not that of his birth."

CC Madhya 25.9, Purport:

In this Age of Kali, real religious propaganda should induce people to chant the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra. This is possible for someone who is especially empowered by Kṛṣṇa. No one can do this without being especially favored by Kṛṣṇa. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments in this regard in his Anubhāṣya, wherein he quotes a verse from the Nārāyaṇa-saṁhitā:

dvāparīyair janair viṣṇuḥ pañcarātrais tu kevalaiḥ

kalau tu nāma-mātreṇa pūjyate bhagavān hariḥ

"In Dvāpara-yuga, devotees of Lord Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa rendered devotional service according to the principles of Pāñcarātra. In this Age of Kali, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is worshiped simply by the chanting of His holy names." Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura then comments, “Without being empowered by the direct potency of Lord Kṛṣṇa to fulfill His desire and without being specifically favored by the Lord, no human being can become the spiritual master of the whole world.

CC Antya-lila

CC Antya 2.117, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that saralatā, or simplicity, is the first qualification of a Vaiṣṇava, whereas duplicity or cunning behavior is a great offense against the principles of devotional service. As one advances in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, one must gradually become disgusted with material attachment and thus become more and more attached to the service of the Lord. If one is not factually detached from material activities but still proclaims himself advanced in devotional service, he is cheating. No one will be happy to see such behavior.

CC Antya 5.45-46, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments in this connection, "Any person seriously inclined to hear about the pastimes of Kṛṣṇa's rāsa dance, as mentioned in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, with great faith and a transcendental, spiritually inspired mind, is immediately freed from the natural lusty desires found within the heart of a materialistic man."

When a pure Vaiṣṇava speaks on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and another pure Vaiṣṇava hears Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam from such a realized soul, both of them live in the transcendental world, where the contamination of the modes of material nature cannot touch them. Freed from the contamination of the modes of nature, the speaker and hearer are fixed in a transcendental mentality, knowing that their position on the transcendental platform is to serve the Supreme Lord. The class of men known as prākṛta-sahajiyās, who consider the transcendental pastimes of Lord Kṛṣṇa something like the behavior between a man and a woman in the material field, artificially think that hearing the rāsa-līlā will help them by diminishing the lusty desires of their diseased hearts.

CC Antya 6.162, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that although the atheists who have deviated from the order of Śrī Advaita Ācārya introduce themselves as followers of Advaita Ācārya, they do not accept Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. Yadunandana Ācārya, one of the most confidential followers of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, was the initiated disciple of Advaita Ācārya. He was not polluted by sentimental distinctions classifying Vaiṣṇavas according to birth. Therefore, although Vāsudeva Datta had not been born in a brāhmaṇa family, Yadunandana Ācārya also accepted him as his spiritual master.

CC Antya 7.134, Purport:

The paramparā system does not allow one to deviate from the commentaries of the previous ācāryas. By depending upon the previous ācāryas, one can write beautiful commentaries. However, one cannot defy the previous ācāryas. The false pride that makes one think that he can write better than the previous ācāryas will make one's comments faulty. At the present moment it has become fashionable for everyone to write in his own way, but such writing is never accepted by serious devotees. Because of false pride, every scholar and philosopher wants to exhibit his learning by interpreting the śāstras, especially the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, in his own way. This system of commenting in one's own way is fully condemned by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Therefore He says, "artha-vyasta" likhana sei. Commentaries written according to one's own philosophical way are never accepted; no one will appreciate such commentaries on the revealed scriptures.

CC Antya 7.135, Translation:

“One who comments on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam following in the footsteps of Śrīdhara Svāmī will be honored and accepted by everyone.

CC Antya 7.170, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu acted as a very merciful well-wisher toward Vallabha Bhaṭṭa by externally neglecting him in many ways to purify him of his false pride in being a learned scholar. The Lord neglected Gadādhara Paṇḍita for a few days because of his associating with Vallabha Bhaṭṭa. Actually He was not at all displeased with Gadādhara Paṇḍita. Indeed, because Gadādhara Paṇḍita is the personal potency of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, there is no chance of the Lord's being dissatisfied with him. However, a person who is too much attracted to externals cannot understand the deep meaning of these dealings of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. If one therefore becomes disrespectful to Gadādhara Paṇḍita, he will surely be vanquished.

CC Antya 8.8, Purport:

Because Rāmacandra Purī was a disciple of Mādhavendra Purī, both Paramānanda Purī and Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu offered him respectful obeisances. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that although Rāmacandra Purī was naturally very envious and although he was against the principles of Vaiṣṇavism—or, in other words, against the principles of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His devotees—common people nevertheless addressed him as Gosvāmī or Gosāñi because he was superficially in the renounced order and dressed like a sannyāsī. In the modern age the title gosvāmī is used by a caste of gṛhasthas, but formerly it was not. Rūpa Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī, for example, were called gosvāmī because they were in the renounced order. Similarly, because Paramānanda Purī was a sannyāsī, he was called Purī Gosvāmī. By careful scrutiny, therefore, one will find that gosvāmī is not the title for a certain caste; rather, it is properly the title for a person in the renounced order.

CC Antya 9.69, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that there are many materialistic persons who become preachers, gurus, religionists or philosophers only for the sake of maintaining a high standard of living and sense gratification for themselves and their families. Sometimes they adopt the dress of a sannyāsī or preacher. They train some of their family members as lawyers and continually seek help from a high-court to acquire riches on the plea of maintaining temples. Although such persons may call themselves preachers, live in Vṛndāvana or Navadvīpa, and also print many religious books, it is all for the same purpose, namely to earn a living to maintain their wives and children. They may also professionally recite the Bhāgavatam or other scriptures, worship the Deity in the temple and initiate disciples. Making a show of devotional paraphernalia, they may also collect money from the public and use it to cure the disease of some family member or near relative.

CC Antya 9.141, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that one should always remember that he is eternally a servant of Kṛṣṇa. Whether one is engaged in material activity involving pounds, shillings and pence or is in the renounced order, he should always think that he is an eternal servant of God, for that is the real position of the living being. Both taking sannyāsa and dealing in pounds, shillings and pence are external affairs. In any condition, one should always consider how to please and satisfy Kṛṣṇa. Thus even if one is involved in great material affairs, he will not become attached. As soon as one forgets that he is an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, he becomes involved in material attachments. However, if one is always conscious that Kṛṣṇa is the supreme master and that he is an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, he is a liberated person in any condition. Entangling material activities will not affect him.

CC Antya 12.34, Translation:

Śivānanda Sena's nephew, Śrīkānta, the son of his sister, felt offended, and he commented on the matter when his uncle was absent.

CC Antya 13.61, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments on this incident as follows: Vaiṣṇavas are all liberated persons, unattached to anything material. Therefore a Vaiṣṇava need not accept the dress of a sannyāsī to prove his exalted position. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepted the renounced order from a sannyāsī of the Māyāvāda school. Present-day Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs, however, never think that by accepting the dress of the sannyāsa order they have become equal to Caitanya Mahāprabhu. In fact, a Vaiṣṇava accepts the sannyāsa order to remain an eternal servant of his spiritual master. He accepts the sannyāsa order knowing that he is unequal to his spiritual master, who is a paramahaṁsa, and he thinks that he is unfit to dress like a paramahaṁsa. Therefore a Vaiṣṇava accepts sannyāsa out of humility, not out of pride.

Sanātana Gosvāmī had adopted the dress of a paramahaṁsa; therefore it was inappropriate for him to wear the saffron cloth on his head. However, a Vaiṣṇava sannyāsī does not think himself fit to imitate the dress of a paramahaṁsa Vaiṣṇava.

CC Antya 13.92, Purport:

Commenting on the word parama-vaiṣṇava, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura says that anyone who desires to merge into the existence of the Lord cannot be a pure Vaiṣṇava, but because Rāmadāsa Viśvāsa was a great devotee of Lord Rāmacandra, he was almost a Vaiṣṇava. In those days, no one could distinguish between a pure Vaiṣṇava and a pseudo Vaiṣṇava. Therefore Rāmadāsa Viśvāsa was known as a Vaiṣṇava because he worshiped Lord Rāmacandra.

CC Antya 20.28, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that persons who are actually very poor because they possess not even a drop of love of Godhead or pure devotional service falsely advertise themselves as great devotees, although they cannot at any time relish the transcendental bliss of devotional service. A class of so-called devotees known as prākṛta-sahajiyās sometimes display devotional symptoms to exhibit their good fortune. They are pretending, however, because these devotional features are only external. The prākṛta-sahajiyās exhibit these symptoms to advertise their so-called advancement in love of Kṛṣṇa, but instead of praising the prākṛta-sahajiyās for their symptoms of transcendental ecstasy, pure devotees do not like to associate with them. It is not advisable to equate the prākṛta-sahajiyās with pure devotees.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 22:

I cannot know the real meaning of the Vedānta-sūtra, but Vyāsadeva, who is an incarnation of Nārāyaṇa, knows its real meaning. No ordinary living entity can interpret the Vedānta-sūtra according to his mundane conceptions. In order to curb commentaries on the Vedānta-sūtra by unscrupulous persons, the author himself, Vyāsadeva, has already commented upon the Vedānta-sūtra by writing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.” In other words, the best explanation of a book is written by the author himself. No one can understand the author's mind unless the author himself discloses the meaning of his words. Therefore the Vedānta-sūtra should be understood through Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the commentary written by the author of the Vedānta-sūtra.

Praṇava, or oṁkāra, is the divine substance of all the Vedas. Oṁkāra is further explained in the Gāyatrīmantra, exactly as it is explained in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. In the Bhāgavatam there are four verses written in this connection, and these were explained to Brahmā by Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself. In his turn, Brahmāexplained them to Nārada, and Nārada explained them to Vyāsadeva. In this way the purport of the verses of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam has come down through disciplic succession.

Nectar of Devotion

Nectar of Devotion 50:

Although in this statement there are contradictory mellows of ecstatic devotion, the result is not incompatible, because the conjugal love is so elevated that it is defeating all other varieties of mellows. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī comments in this connection that such a loving state of mind is not possible for all. It is possible only in the case of the gopīs of Vṛndāvana.

There are many other instances of contradictory mellows where there is no perverted experience of rasābhāsa. Once some minor demigod of the heavenly planets remarked, "Kṛṣṇa, whose joking words were once the source of so much laughter for the residents of Vraja, has now been attacked by the serpent king, Kāliya, and He has become the object of everyone's overwhelming lamentation!" In this instance there is a mixture of laughter and compassion, but there is no incompatibility, because by both of these rasas the loving affection for Kṛṣṇa is increased.

Nectar of Instruction

Nectar of Instruction 8, Purport:

This method is applicable both in the stage of sādhana (spiritual practices executed while in the stage of bondage) and in the stage of sādhya (God realization), when one is a siddha-puruṣa, or a spiritually perfect soul."

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura has commented as follows upon this verse: "One who has not yet developed interest in Kṛṣṇa consciousness should give up all material motives and train his mind by following the progressive regulative principles, namely chanting and remembering Kṛṣṇa and His name, form, quality, pastimes and so forth. In this way, after developing a taste for such things, one should try to live in Vṛndāvana and pass his time constantly remembering Kṛṣṇa's name, fame, pastimes and qualities under the direction and protection of an expert devotee. This is the sum and substance of all instruction regarding the cultivation of devotional service.

"In the neophyte stage one should always engage in hearing kṛṣṇa-kathā.

Easy Journey to Other Planets

Easy Journey to Other Planets 1:

We hope that with the progress of time the materialist will be able to estimate the value of the anti-material world, in which there is no trace of material principles. Of course the very word "anti-material" indicates that the principle is in opposition to all material qualities.

There are, of course, the mental speculators who comment upon the anti-material principle. These fall into two main groups, and they arrive at two different erroneous conclusions. One group (the gross materialists) either denies the anti-material principle or admits only the disintegration of material combination at a certain stage (death). The other group accepts the anti-material principle as being in direct opposition to the material principle with its twenty-four categories. This group is known as the Sāṅkhyaites, and they investigate the material principles and analyze them minutely. At the end of their investigation, the Sāṅkhyaites finally accept only a transcendental (anti-material) nonactive principle.

Renunciation Through Wisdom

Renunciation Through Wisdom Introduction:

The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) has become well known for its large body of Vedic literature—books on bhakti-yoga that include the Bhagavad-gītā, the Śrīmad-Bhagavatam, and the Caitanya-caritāmṛta. These three works by the movement's founder and spiritual guide, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, are voluminous commented English translations of Sanskrit and Bengali classics. Remarkably, Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote these and many other, smaller works in the span of twelve years, from 1966 to 1977, while traveling widely and overseeing the growth of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.

What many people may not know, however, is that during the years before he came to the West Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote extensively on Kṛṣṇa consciousness in his native language, Bengali. In 1976, soon after I joined the Hare Kṛṣṇa movement, I discovered some of Śrīla Prabhupāda's early Bengali writings. They were serialized essays that had appeared in a monthly magazine he edited called Gauḍīya Patrika.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 1.5:

Yet people find it impossible to renounce fruitive activities. Even the so-called sannyāsīs who make a show of renouncing such activities must still perform many activities, at least to relieve their hunger. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, seeing the condition of the sannyāsīs during his time, commented, "One takes on many different garbs just to fill one's stomach." And trying to give up all activities is no solution. When Śrī Arjuna, a warrior, wanted to forsake his duty of fighting a war, the Supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa, advised him, "Perform your prescribed duty, for doing so is better than not working. One cannot even maintain one's physical body without work." (Bhagavad-gītā 3.8)

A person should never give up his prescribed duty without scriptural authorization, for this will cause chaos in the world. Since it is impossible to maintain the body without activities, it is impossible to totally renounce activities.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 1.9:

In their desire to reach perfection, they tolerate all sorts of adversities and sufferings and remain fixed on their goal. Ultimately they attain a state of consciousness that cannot be compared to anything in this material world. In this state of mystic perfection, no suffering—not even death—seems formidable. Lord Kṛṣṇa's comment about such yogīs has been recorded in the Bhagavad-gītā (6.22),

Established thus, one never departs from the truth, and upon gaining this he thinks there is no greater gain. Being situated in such a position, one is never shaken, even in the midst of greatest difficulty."

In his purport to this verse, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura says that when one detaches himself from the sensual world and becomes situated in samādhi, complete absorption in the Absolute Truth, one perceives the pure spiritual self and is rewarded with intense bliss. Such a yogī never deviates his concentration from the Absolute Truth, the object of his meditation.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 1.9:

The spiritual progress the karma-yogī makes in this lifetime remains intact, and he continues in his next life from that point. In the Bhagavad-gītā (6.43), Lord Kṛṣṇa comments, "On taking such a birth, he revives the divine consciousness of his previous life, and he again tries to make further progress in order to achieve complete success, O son of Kuru." In his next life the unsuccessful yogī may be born in the family of a pious brāhmaṇa or wealthy merchant. When we talk of failure in yoga, we refer karma-yogīs, dhyāna-yogīs, and jñāna-yogīs. Among the followers of these paths, the karma-yogī is closest to becoming a pure devotee, since he has dedicated his activities to the Supreme Lord's service. Gradually, acting in this manner, he becomes a bhakta-yogī. Such a yogī is in the highest order, and he is fit to instruct all other yogīs.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 2.6:

Undeviating concentration on the Supreme Lord is the first sign of pure devotion. In other words, a pure devotee is one who wards off all desires and thoughts not related to unflinching devotional service to the Supreme Lord. Many spiritual stalwarts have commented upon pure devotional service. For example, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, the foremost of the great spiritual preceptors in the time of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, wrote in his Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.1.11):

anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ

jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam

ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānu-

śīlanaṁ bhaktir uttama

(CC Madhya 19.167)

One should render transcendental loving service to the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa favorably and without desire for material profit or gain through fruitive activities or philosophical speculation. That is called pure devotional service.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 2.9:

The mahātmās are always ready to render such service to the Lord with great determination. In this regard His Divine Grace Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura once made this comment in a lecture:

The neophyte Vaiṣṇava devotees' ringing the bell even once during worship of the Deity of the Supreme Lord is a million times more valuable, spiritually and otherwise, than the charitable fruitive workers building many hospitals, feeding thousands of the poor, or building homes, or even the empirical philosophers' Vedic studies, meditation, austerities, and penances.

The mahātmās have shown the perfect path of charity: devotional service to the Lord. If anyone ignores this path and instead builds hospitals, his effort to help humanity is a mere pretense. Humanity can never reap any permanent advantage from such activities. Indeed, the number of patients only increases along with the number of hospitals.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.5:

The devotee never prays for the jñānī's sāyujya-mukti, for it is an impossible proposition. By sāyujya-mukti the impersonalists mean relinquishing one's identity, or individuality. This is nothing less than spiritual suicide. In this regard, I reproduce Dr. Radhakrishnan's comment on the Bible:

The doctrine of the Incarnation agitated the Christian world a great deal. Arioes maintained that the Son is not the equal of the Father but created by Him. The view that they are not distinct but only different aspects of one Being is the theory of Sabellius. The former emphasized the distinctness of the Father and the Son and the latter their oneness. The view that finally prevailed was that the Father and the Son were equal and of the same substance; they were, however, distinct persons. ("Introductory Essay," p. 35).

These words vaguely describe the philosophy of "simultaneously one and different"; therefore we acknowledge it. Jesus, the son of God, is a jīva, a separated part of the Supreme Godhead. But the jīva is also spiritual, and hence Jesus is qualitatively the same as the Supreme Lord.

Narada-bhakti-sutra (sutras 1 to 8 only)

Narada Bhakti Sutra 2, Purport:

One famous scholar wrote in his commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā that one does not have to surrender to Lord Kṛṣṇa or even accept Him as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but that one should rather surrender to "the Supreme within Kṛṣṇa." Such fools do not know what is within and what is without. They comment on the Bhagavad-gītā according to their own whims. Such persons cannot be elevated to the highest stage of love of Godhead. They may be scholarly, and they may be elevated in other departments of knowledge, but they are not even neophytes in the process of attaining the highest stage of perfection, love of Godhead. Niṣṭhā implies that one should accept the words of Bhagavad-gītā, the words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as they are, without any deviation or nonsensical commentary.

If a person is fortunate enough to vanquish all misgivings caused by material existence and rise up to the stage of niṣṭhā, he can then rise to the stages of ruci (taste) and āsakti (attachment for the Lord). Āsakti is the beginning of love of Godhead.