At the conclusion of the Ninth Chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā, Lord Kṛṣṇa directly orders, "Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me alone, and offer obeisances unto Me alone." By so doing, the Lord says, one is sure to go to Him in His transcendental abode. But the scholarly demons misguide the masses of people by directing them to surrender not to the Personality of Godhead but rather to the impersonal, unmanifested, eternal, unborn truth. The impersonalist Māyāvādī philosophers do not accept that the ultimate aspect of the Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If one desires to understand the sun as it is, one must first face the sunshine and then the sun globe, and then, if one is able to enter into that globe, one may come face to face with the predominating deity of the sun. Due to a poor fund of knowledge, the Māyāvādī philosophers cannot go beyond the Brahman effulgence, which may be compared to the sunshine. The Upaniṣads confirm that one has to penetrate the dazzling effulgence of Brahman before one can see the real face of the Personality of Godhead.
Impersonalist (CC)
Expressions researched:
"impersonalist"
|"impersonalist's"
|"impersonalistic"
|"impersonalists"
|"impersonality"
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta
CC Preface and Introduction
An analogy will help us understand the distincion between ourselves and God. From the ground we may see only clouds in the sky, but if we fly above the clouds we can see the sun shining. From the sky, skyscrapers and cities seem very tiny; similarly, from God's position this entire material creation is insignificant. The tendency of the living entity is to come down from the heights, where everything can be seen in perspective. God, however, does not have this tendency. The Supreme Lord is not subject to falling down into illusion (māyā) any more than the sun is subject to falling beneath the clouds. Impersonalist philosophers (Māyāvādīs) maintain that both the living entity and God Himself are under the control of māyā when they come into this material world. This is the fallacy of their philosophy.
"O my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Kindly remove that covering and exhibit Yourself to Your pure devotee." (Śrī Īśopaniṣad 15) The impersonalists do not have the power to go beyond the effulgence of God and arrive at the Personality of Godhead, from whom this effulgence is emanating. The Īśopaniṣad is a hymn to that Personality of Godhead. It is not that the impersonal Brahman is denied; it is also described, but that Brahman is revealed to be the glaring effulgence of the body of Lord Kṛṣṇa. And in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta we learn that Lord Caitanya is Kṛṣṇa Himself. In other words, Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya is the basis of the impersonal Brahman. The Paramātmā, or Supersoul, who is present within the heart of every living entity and within every atom of the universe, is but the partial representation of Lord Caitanya. Therefore Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, being the basis of both Brahman and the all-pervading Paramātmā as well, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As such, He is full in six opulences: wealth, fame, strength, beauty, knowledge and renunciation. In short, we should know that He is Kṛṣṇa, God, and that nothing is equal to or greater than Him. There is nothing superior to be conceived. He is the Supreme Person.
CC Adi-lila
As mentioned previously, a disciple should always respect the spiritual master as a manifestation of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, but at the same time one should always remember that a spiritual master is never authorized to imitate the transcendental pastimes of the Lord. False spiritual masters pose themselves as identical with Śrī Kṛṣṇa in every respect to exploit the sentiments of their disciples, but such impersonalists can only mislead their disciples, for their ultimate aim is to become one with the Lord. This is against the principles of the devotional cult.
The Lord's mercy descends to a devotee like Brahmā and, through Brahmā, to Nārada, from Nārada to Vyāsa, from Vyāsadeva to Śukadeva and so on in the bona fide chain of disciplic succession. We cannot discover the mysteries of the Lord by our mundane endeavors; they are only revealed, by His grace, to the proper devotees. These mysteries are gradually disclosed to the various grades of devotees in proportion to the gradual development of their service attitude. In other words, impersonalists who depend upon the strength of their poor fund of knowledge and morbid speculative habits, without submission and service in the forms of hearing, chanting and the others mentioned above, cannot penetrate to the mysterious region of transcendence where the Supreme Truth is a transcendental person, free from all tinges of the material elements. Discovering the mystery of the Lord eliminates the impersonal feature realized by common spiritualists who are merely trying to enter the spiritual region from the mundane platform.
Similarly, the effulgent bodily luster of the Supreme Lord is the cause of the creation of infinite universes. The Brahman effulgence is impersonal, but the cause of that energy is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. From Him, in His abode, the Vaikuṇṭhas, this brahma-jyotir emanates. He is never impersonal. Since impersonalists cannot understand the source of the Brahman energy, they mistakenly choose to think this impersonal Brahman the ultimate or absolute goal. But as stated in the Upaniṣads, one has to penetrate the impersonal effulgence to see the face of the Supreme Lord. If one desires to reach the source of the sunshine, he has to travel through the sunshine to reach the sun and then meet the predominating deity there. The Absolute Truth is the Supreme Person, Bhagavān, as Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam explains.
The pradhāna, the chief cause of all causes in the impersonal vision, is none other than the Supreme Lord, whom one can see face to face in the internal potency. He takes the material all-pervasive form by His inconceivable power. Although all three potencies—namely internal, external and marginal—are essentially one in the ultimate issue, they are different in action, like electric energy, which can produce both cold and heat under different conditions. The external and marginal potencies are so called under various conditions, but in the original, internal potencies there are no such conditions, nor is it possible for the conditions of the external potency to exist in the marginal, or vice versa. One who is able to understand the intricacies of all these energies of the Supreme Lord can no longer remain an empiric impersonalist under the influence of a poor fund of knowledge.
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. False devotees may think that simply shedding tears will lead one to the transcendental plane, even if one has not had a factual change in heart, but such a practice is useless if there is no transcendental realization. False devotees, lacking the conclusion of transcendental knowledge, think that artificially shedding tears will deliver them. Similarly, other false devotees think that studying books of the previous ācāryas is unadvisable, like studying dry empiric philosophies. But Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, following the previous ācāryas, has inculcated the conclusions of the scriptures in the six theses called the Ṣaṭ-sandarbhas. False devotees who have very little knowledge of such conclusions fail to achieve pure devotion for want of zeal in accepting the favorable directions for devotional service given by self-realized devotees. Such false devotees are like impersonalists, who also consider devotional service no better than ordinary fruitive actions.
Those engaged in devotional service according to the ritualistic principles mentioned in the scriptures attain these different kinds of liberation. But although such devotees can attain sārṣṭi, sārūpya, sāmīpya and sālokya, they are not concerned with these liberations, for such devotees are satisfied only in rendering transcendental loving service to the Lord. The fifth kind of liberation, sāyujya, is never accepted even by devotees who perform only ritualistic worship. To attain sāyujya, or merging into the Brahman effulgence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the aspiration of the impersonalists. A devotee never cares for sāyujya liberation.
"In His early pastimes He appears as a householder with a golden complexion. His limbs are beautiful, and His body, smeared with the pulp of sandalwood, seems like molten gold. In His later pastimes He accepts the sannyāsa order, and He is equipoised and peaceful. He is the highest abode of peace and devotion, for He silences the impersonalist nondevotees."
Similarly, one who understands the pure parental love of Nanda and Yaśodā for Kṛṣṇa will be saved from being dragged into material parental affection. If one accepts Kṛṣṇa as the supreme friend, the attraction of material friendship will be finished for him, and he will not be dismayed by so-called friendship with mundane wranglers. If he is attracted by servitorship to Kṛṣṇa, he will no longer have to serve the material body in the degraded status of material existence, with the false hope of becoming master in the future. Similarly, one who sees the greatness of Kṛṣṇa in neutrality will certainly never again seek the so-called relief of impersonalist or voidist philosophy. If one is not attracted by the transcendental nature of Kṛṣṇa, one is sure to be attracted to material enjoyment, thus to become implicated in the clinging network of virtuous and sinful activities and to continue material existence by transmigrating from one material body to another. Only in Kṛṣṇa consciousness can one achieve the highest perfection of life.
In fact, Rādhārāṇī is the internal potency of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and She eternally intensifies the pleasure of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Impersonalists cannot understand this without the help of a mahā-bhāgavata devotee. The very name "Rādhā" suggests that Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī is eternally the topmost mistress of the comforts of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. As such, She is the medium transmitting the living entities' service to Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Devotees in Vṛndāvana therefore seek the mercy of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī in order to be recognized as loving servitors of Śrī Kṛṣṇa.
What is the particular attraction that makes the Supreme Lord enthusiastic to accept devotional service, and what is the nature of such service? The Vedic scriptures inform us that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Absolute Truth, is self-sufficient, and that māyā, nescience, can never influence Him at all. Therefore the potency that overcomes the Supreme must be purely spiritual. Such a potency cannot be anything of the material manifestation. The bliss enjoyed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead cannot be of material composition, like the impersonalist conception of the bliss of Brahman. Devotional service is reciprocation between two, and therefore it cannot be located simply within one's self. Therefore the bliss of self-realization, brahmānanda, cannot be equated with devotional service.
Hlādinī is the personal manifestation of the blissfulness of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, by which He enjoys pleasure. Because the pleasure potency is perpetually present in the Supreme Lord, the theory of the impersonalist that the Lord appears in the material mode of goodness cannot be accepted. The impersonalist conclusion is against the Vedic version that the Lord possesses a transcendental pleasure potency. When the pleasure potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is exhibited by His grace in the person of a devotee, that manifestation is called love of God. "Love of God" is an epithet for the pleasure potency of the Lord. Therefore devotional service reciprocated between the Lord and His devotee is an exhibition of the transcendental pleasure potency of the Lord.
There are two kinds of liberated souls—those who are liberated by the favor of the Lord and those who are liberated by their own effort. One who gets liberation by his own effort is called an impersonalist, and he merges into the glaring effulgence of the Lord, the brahma-jyotir. But devotees of the Lord who qualify themselves for liberation by devotional service are offered four kinds of liberation, namely sālokya (status equal to that of the Lord), sāmīpya (constant association with the Lord), sārṣṭi (opulence equal to that of the Lord) and sārūpya (features like those of the Lord).
Outside of Vaikuṇṭha, the abode of Kṛṣṇa, which is called paravyoma, is the glaring effulgence of Kṛṣṇa's bodily rays. This is called the brahma-jyotir. The transcendental region of that effulgence is called Siddhaloka or Brahmaloka. When impersonalists achieve liberation, they merge into that Brahmaloka effulgence. This transcendental region is undoubtedly spiritual, but it contains no manifestations of spiritual activities or variegatedness. It is compared to the glow of the sun. Within the sun's glow is the sphere of the sun, where one can experience all sorts of varieties.
From this incident one can understand that even a person who thinks of Kṛṣṇa as an enemy and is killed by Him may be liberated by becoming one with the body of Kṛṣṇa. What then must be the destination of devotees who always think favorably of Kṛṣṇa as their master or friend? These devotees must attain a situation better than Brahmaloka, the impersonal bodily effulgence of Kṛṣṇa. Devotees cannot be situated in the impersonal Brahman effulgence, into which impersonalists desire to merge. The devotees are placed in Vaikuṇṭhaloka or Kṛṣṇaloka.
In considering the quadruple forms of the absolute Personality of Godhead, known as Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha, the impersonalists, headed by Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, have interpreted the aphorisms of the Vedānta-sūtra in a way suitable for the impersonalist school. To provide the intrinsic import of such aphorisms, however, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, the leader of the Six Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana, has properly replied to the impersonalists in his Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta, which is a natural commentary on the aphorisms of the Vedānta-sūtra.
The Padma Purāṇa specifically mentions that anyone who thinks the form of the Lord in the temple to be made of wood, stone or metal is certainly in a hellish condition. Impersonalists are against the worship of the Lord's form in the temple, and there is even a group of people who pass as Hindus but condemn such worship. Their so-called acceptance of the Vedas has no meaning, for all the ācāryas, even the impersonalist Śaṅkarācārya, have recommended the worship of the transcendental form of the Lord. Impersonalists like Śaṅkarācārya recommend the worship of five forms, known as pañcopāsanā, which include Lord Viṣṇu. Vaiṣṇavas, however, worship the forms of Lord Viṣṇu in His varied manifestations, such as Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa, Sītā-Rāma and Rukmiṇī-Kṛṣṇa. Māyāvādīs admit that worship of the Lord's form is required in the beginning, but they think that in the end everything is impersonal. Therefore, since they are ultimately against worship of the Lord's form, Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu has described them as offenders.
Similarly, the Bhagavad-gītā also confirms, vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ: (BG 15.15) by all the Vedas, Kṛṣṇa is to be known. Therefore, the main purpose of understanding the Vedas, performing Vedic sacrifices and speculating on the Vedānta-sūtra is to understand Kṛṣṇa. Accepting the impersonalist view of voidness or the nonexistence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead negates all study of the Vedas. Impersonal speculation aims at disproving the conclusion of the Vedas. Therefore any impersonal speculative presentation should be understood to be against the principles of the Vedas, or standard scriptures. Since the speculation of the impersonalists does not follow the principles of the Vedas, their conclusion must be considered to be against the Vedic principles. Anything not supported by the Vedic principles must be considered imaginary and lacking in standard proof. Therefore no impersonalist explanation of any Vedic literature can be accepted.
Although Śrī Advaita Prabhu is an incarnation of Viṣṇu, for the welfare of the conditioned souls He manifested Himself as a servitor of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and throughout all His activities He showed Himself to be an eternal servitor. Lord Caitanya and Lord Nityānanda also manifested the same principle, although They also belong to the category of Viṣṇu. If Lord Caitanya, Lord Nityānanda and Advaita Prabhu had exhibited Their all-powerful Viṣṇu potencies within this material world, people would have become greater impersonalists, monists and self-worshipers than they had already become under the spell of this age. Therefore the Personality of Godhead and His different incarnations and forms played the parts of devotees to instruct the conditioned souls how to approach the transcendental stage of devotional service. Advaita Ācārya especially intended to teach the conditioned souls about devotional service. The word ācārya means "teacher."
In his Anubhāṣya commentary Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura describes the Pañca-tattva as follows: The supreme energetic, the Personality of Godhead, manifesting in order to enjoy five kinds of pastimes, appears as the members of the Pañca-tattva. Actually there is no difference between them because they are situated on the absolute platform, but they manifest different spiritual varieties as a challenge to the impersonalists to taste different kinds of spiritual humors (rasas). In the Vedas it is said, parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate: (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport) "The varieties of energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are differently known." From this statement of the Vedas one can understand that there are eternal varieties of humors, or tastes, in the spiritual world. Śrī Gaurāṅga, Śrī Nityānanda, Śrī Advaita, Śrī Gadādhara and Śrīvāsa Ṭhākura are all on the same platform, but in spiritually distinguishing between them one should understand that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the form of a devotee, Nityānanda Prabhu appears in the form of a devotee's spiritual master, Advaita Prabhu is the form of a bhakta (devotee) incarnation, Gadādhara Prabhu is the energy of a bhakta, and Śrīvāsa Ṭhākura is a pure devotee.
The impersonalists, fruitive workers, false logicians, blasphemers, nondevotees and lowest among the student community are very expert in avoiding the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, and therefore the inundation of Kṛṣṇa consciousness cannot touch them.
Like Māyāvādī philosophers in the past such as Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī of Benares, modern impersonalists are not interested in Lord Caitanya's Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. They do not know the value of this material world; they consider it false and cannot understand how the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement can utilize it. They are so absorbed in impersonal thought that they take it for granted that all spiritual variety is material. Because they do not know anything beyond their misconception of the brahma-jyotir, they cannot understand that Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is spiritual and therefore beyond the conception of material illusion. Whenever Kṛṣṇa incarnates personally or as a devotee, these Māyāvādī philosophers accept Him as an ordinary human being.
All were converted into devotees of Lord Caitanya, even the mlecchas and yavanas. Only the impersonalist followers of Śaṅkarācārya evaded Him.
In this verse it is clearly indicated that although Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu converted Muslims and other mlecchas into devotees, the impersonalist followers of Śaṅkarācārya could not be converted. After accepting the renounced order of life, Caitanya Mahāprabhu converted many karma-niṣṭhas who were addicted to fruitive activities, many great logicians like Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, nindakas (blasphemers) like Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, pāṣaṇḍīs (nondevotees) like Jagāi and Mādhāi, and adhama paḍuyās (degraded students) like Mukunda and his friends. All of them gradually became devotees of the Lord, even the Pāṭhāns (Muslims), but the worst offenders, the impersonalists, were extremely difficult to convert, for they very tactfully escaped the devices of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
In describing the Kāśīra Māyāvādīs, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura has explained that persons who are bewildered by empiric knowledge or direct sensual perception, and who thus consider that even this limited material world can be gauged by their material estimations, conclude that anything that one can discern by direct sense perception is but māyā, or illusion. They maintain that although the Absolute Truth is beyond the range of sense perception, it includes no spiritual variety or enjoyment. According to the Kāśīra Māyāvādīs, the spiritual world is simply void. They do not believe in the Personality of the Absolute Truth or in His varieties of activities in the spiritual world. Although they have their own arguments, which are not very strong, they have no conception of the variegated activities of the Absolute Truth. These impersonalists, who are followers of Śaṅkarācārya, are generally known as Kāśīra Māyāvādīs (impersonalists residing in Vārāṇasī).
Near Vārāṇasī there is another group of impersonalists, who are known as Saranātha Māyāvādīs. Outside the city of Vārāṇasī is a place known as Saranātha, where there is a big Buddhist stūpa. Many followers of Buddhist philosophy live there, and they are known as Saranātha Māyāvādīs. The impersonalists of Saranātha differ from those of Vārāṇasī, for the Vārāṇasī impersonalists propagate the idea that the impersonal Brahman is truth whereas material varieties are false, but the Saranātha impersonalists do not even believe that the Absolute Truth, or Brahman, can be understood as the opposite of māyā, or illusion. According to their vision, materialism is the only manifestation of the Absolute Truth.
Since these impersonalists who do not have perfect spiritual knowledge cannot understand the principles of bhakti-yoga, they must be classified among the nondevotees who are against the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. We sometimes feel inconvenienced by the hindrances offered by these impersonalists, but we do not care about their so-called philosophy, for we are propagating our own philosophy as presented in Bhagavad-gītā As It Is and getting successful results. Theorizing as if devotional service were subject to their mental speculation, both kinds of Māyāvādī impersonalists conclude that the subject matter of bhakti-yoga is a creation of māyā and that Kṛṣṇa, devotional service and the devotee are also māyā. Therefore, as stated by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, māyāvādī kṛṣṇe aparādhī: "All the Māyāvādīs are offenders to Lord Kṛṣṇa." (CC Madhya 17.129) It is not possible for them to understand the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement; therefore we do not value their philosophical conclusions. However expert such quarrelsome impersonalists are in putting forward their so-called logic, we defeat them in every respect and go forward with our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Their imaginative mental speculation cannot deter the progress of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, which is completely spiritual and is never under the control of such Māyāvādīs.
While preaching Kṛṣṇa consciousness with full vigor, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu faced many Māyāvādī philosophers. Similarly, we are also facing opposing svāmīs, yogīs, impersonalists, scientists, philosophers and other mental speculators, and by the grace of Lord Kṛṣṇa we successfully defeat all of them without difficulty.
Thus it is to be understood that a Vaiṣṇava should be completely conversant with Vedānta philosophy, yet he should not think that studying Vedānta is all in all and therefore be unattached to the chanting of the holy name. 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.
Impersonalist Māyāvādīs always try to defy Vaiṣṇavas because Vaiṣṇavas accept the Supreme Personality as the supreme cause and want to serve Him, talk with Him and see Him, just as the Lord is also eager to see His devotees and talk, eat and dance with them. These personal exchanges of love do not appeal to the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs. Therefore the original purpose of the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs of Benares in meeting Caitanya Mahāprabhu was to defeat His personal conception of God. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, however, as a preacher, turned the minds of the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs. They were melted by the sweet words of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and thus became friendly and spoke to Him also in sweet words. Similarly, all preachers will have to meet opponents, but they should not make them more inimical. They are already enemies, and if we talk with them harshly or impolitely their enmity will merely increase. We should therefore follow in the footsteps of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu as far as possible and try to convince the opposition by quoting from the śāstras and presenting the conclusion of the ācāryas. It is in this way that we should try to defeat all the enemies of the Lord.
The purpose of the discussions in the Upaniṣads and Vedānta-sūtra is to philosophically establish the personal feature of the Absolute Truth. The impersonalists, however, in order to establish their philosophy, accept these discussions in terms of lakṣaṇā-vṛtti, or indirect meanings. Thus instead of being tattva-vāda, or in search of the Absolute Truth, they become Māyāvāda, or illusioned by the material energy. When Śrī Viṣṇu Svāmī, one of the four ācāryas of the Vaiṣṇava cult, presented his thesis on the subject matter of śuddhādvaita-vāda, immediately the Māyāvādīs took advantage of this philosophy and tried to establish their advaita-vāda or kevalādvaita-vāda. To defeat this kevalādvaita-vāda, Śrī Rāmānujācārya presented his philosophy as viśiṣṭādvaita-vāda, and Śrī Madhvācārya presented his philosophy of tattva-vāda, both of which are stumbling blocks to the Māyāvādīs because they defeat their philosophy in scrupulous detail. Students of Vedic philosophy know very well how strongly Śrī Rāmānujācārya's viśiṣṭādvaita-vāda and Śrī Madhvācārya's tattva-vāda contest the impersonal Māyāvāda philosophy.
Why the daivī-māyā, or illusory energy of Kṛṣṇa, takes away the knowledge of the Māyāvādī philosophers is also explained in the Bhagavad-gīta by the use of the words āsuraṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ, which refer to a person who does not agree to the existence of the Lord. The Māyāvādīs, who are not in agreement with the existence of the Lord, can be classified in two groups, exemplified by the impersonalist Śaṅkarites of Vārāṇasī and the Buddhists of Saranātha. Both groups are Māyāvādīs, and Kṛṣṇa takes away their knowledge due to their atheistic philosophies. Neither group agrees to accept the existence of a personal God. The Buddhist philosophers clearly deny both the soul and God, and although the Śaṅkarites do not openly deny God, they say that the Absolute is nirākāra, or formless. Thus both the Buddhists and the Śaṅkarites are aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ (SB 10.2.32), or imperfect and unclean in their knowledge and intelligence.
This is similar to the politician's attempt to prove nonviolence from the Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa is violent to demons, and to attempt to prove that Kṛṣṇa is not violent is ultimately to deny Kṛṣṇa. As such explanations of the Bhagavad-gītā are absurd, so also is Śaṅkarācārya's explanation of the Vedānta-sūtra, and no sane and reasonable man will accept it. At present, however, the Vedānta-sūtra is misrepresented not only by the so-called Vedāntīs but also by other unscrupulous persons who are so degraded that they even recommend that sannyāsīs eat meat, fish and eggs. In this way, the so-called followers of Śaṅkara, the impersonalist Māyāvādīs, are sinking lower and lower. How can these degraded men explain the Vedānta-sūtra, which is the essence of all Vedic literature?
In the Brahma-saṁhitā there are mantras offering obeisances to Lord Śiva, Lord Brahmā, the sun-god and Lord Gaṇeśa, as well as Lord Viṣṇu, all of whom are worshiped by the impersonalists as pañcopāsanā. In their temples impersonalists install deities of Lord Viṣṇu, Lord Śiva, the sun-god, goddess Durgā and sometimes Lord Brahmā also, and this system is continuing at present in India under the guise of the Hindu religion. Vaiṣṇavas can also worship all these demigods, but only on the principles of the Brahma-saṁhitā, which is recommended by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. We may note in this connection the mantras for worshiping Lord Śiva, Lord Brahmā, goddess Durgā, the sun-god and Gaṇeśa, as described in the Brahma-saṁhitā.
All the demigods are servants of Kṛṣṇa; they are not equal with Kṛṣṇa. Therefore even if one goes to a temple of the pañcopāsanā, as mentioned above, one should not accept the deities as they are accepted by the impersonalists. All of them are to be accepted as personal demigods, but they all serve the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Śaṅkarācārya, for example, is understood to be an incarnation of Lord Śiva, as described in the Padma Purāṇa. He propagated the Māyāvāda philosophy under the order of the Supreme Lord. We have already discussed this point in text 114 of this chapter: tāṅra doṣa nāhi, teṅho ājñā-kārī dāsa. "Śaṅkarācārya is not at fault, for he has thus covered the real purport of the Vedas under the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Although Lord Śiva, in the form of a brāhmaṇa (Śaṅkarācārya), preached the false philosophy of Māyāvāda, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu nevertheless said that since he did it on the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, there was no fault on his part (tāṅra doṣa nāhi).
Sanātana Gosvāmī and Rūpa Gosvāmī belonged to the Bharadvāja-gotra, which indicates that they belonged either to the family or disciplic succession of Bharadvāja Muni. As members of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement we belong to the family, or disciplic succession, of Sarasvatī Gosvāmī, and thus we are known as Sārasvatas. Obeisances are therefore offered to the spiritual master as sārasvata-deva, or a member of the Sārasvata family (namas te sārasvate deve), whose mission is to broadcast the cult of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu (gaura-vāṇī-pracāriṇe) and to fight with impersonalists and voidists (nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi-pāścātya-deśa-tāriṇe). This was also the occupational duty of Sanātana Gosvāmī, Rūpa Gosvāmī and Anupama Gosvāmī.
Before Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu exhibited His spiritual forms during His residence at Navadvīpa, He asked Śrī Rāma Paṇḍita, Śrīvāsa Ṭhākura's brother, to go to Śāntipura and bring back Advaita Ācārya. Acyutānanda joined his father at that time. It is said, advaitera tanaya "acyutānanda" nāma/ parama-bālaka, seho kānde avirāma. Acyutānanda also joined in crying in transcendental bliss. Again, when Lord Caitanya beat Advaita Ācārya for explaining Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam from an impersonalist viewpoint opposed to the principles of bhakti-yoga, Acyutānanda was also present. Therefore all these incidents must have occurred only two or three years before Lord Caitanya accepted the sannyāsa order. As mentioned above, in the Caitanya-bhāgavata, Antya-khaṇḍa, Chapter One, it is stated that Acyutānanda, the son of Advaita Ācārya, offered his obeisances to the Lord. Therefore it should be concluded that from the very beginning of his life Acyutānanda was a great devotee of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
In the philosophical discourse between the mother and the son, when the son said that everything is one, as impersonalists say, the mother replied, "If everything is one, why do people in general not eat dirt but eat the food grains produced from the dirt?"
Mukunda Datta was once forbidden to enter the association of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu because of his mixing with the Māyāvādī impersonalists. When Lord Caitanya manifested His mahā-prakāśa, He called all the devotees one after another and blessed them, while Mukunda Datta stood outside the door. The devotees informed the Lord that Mukunda Datta was waiting outside, but the Lord replied, "I shall not soon be pleased with Mukunda Datta, for though he explains devotional service among devotees, he then goes to Māyāvādīs to hear from them the Yoga-vāśiṣṭha-rāmāyaṇa, which is full of Māyāvāda philosophy. For this I am greatly displeased with him." Hearing the Lord speak in that way, Mukunda Datta, standing outside, was exceedingly glad that the Lord would at some time be pleased with him, although He was not pleased at that moment. But when the Lord understood that Mukunda Datta was going to give up the association of the Māyāvādīs for good, He was pleased, and He at once called to see Mukunda. Thus He delivered him from the association of the Māyāvādīs and gave him the association of pure devotees.
CC Madhya-lila
This means that devotional service is acquired from Vedic knowledge. Tac chraddadhānāḥ munayaḥ. Devotees who are actually serious attain bhakti, scientific devotional service, by hearing Vedic literatures (bhaktyā śruta-gṛhītayā). It is not that one should create something out of sentimentality, become a sahajiyā and advocate such concocted devotional service. However, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura considered such sahajiyās to be more favorable than the impersonalists, who are hopelessly atheistic. The impersonalists have no idea of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The position of the sahajiyās is far better than that of the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs. Although the sahajiyās do not think much of Vedic knowledge, they nonetheless have accepted Lord Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Lord. Unfortunately, they mislead others from authentic devotional service.
The sixth Sandarbha is called Prīti-sandarbha, a thesis on love of Godhead. Here it is stated that through love of Godhead, one becomes perfectly liberated and attains the highest goal of life. A distinction is made between the liberated condition of a personalist and that of an impersonalist, and there is a discussion of liberation during one's lifetime as distinguished from liberation from material bondage. Of all kinds of liberation, liberation in loving service to the Lord is described as the most exalted, and meeting the Supreme Personality of Godhead face to face is shown to be the highest perfection of life. Immediate liberation is contrasted with liberation by a gradual process. Both realization of Brahman and meeting with the Supreme Personality of Godhead are described as liberation within one's lifetime, but meeting with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, both internally and externally, is shown to be superexcellent, above the transcendental realization of the Brahman effulgence.
When Sārvabhauma met Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he asked Him to hear Vedānta philosophy from him. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepted this proposal, and for seven days He continually heard Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya explain the Vedānta-sūtra. However, the Lord remained very silent. Because of His silence, the Bhaṭṭācārya asked Him whether He was understanding the Vedānta philosophy, and the Lord replied, "Sir, I can understand Vedānta philosophy very clearly, but I cannot understand your explanations." There was then a discussion between the Bhaṭṭācārya and Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu concerning the authority of the Vedic scriptures, specifically the Upaniṣads and Vedānta-sūtra. The Bhaṭṭācārya was an impersonalist, but Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu proved that the Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He proved that the conceptions of the Māyāvādī philosophers concerning the impersonal Absolute Truth are incorrect.
Since the Bhaṭṭācārya was an impersonalist, he had no idea of the Absolute Truth beyond the impersonal effulgence. However, Gopīnātha Ācārya informed him that Caitanya Mahāprabhu was the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Those who know the Absolute Truth know it in three phases, as explained in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.2.11):
- vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam
- brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate
"Those who are in knowledge of the nondual Absolute Truth know very clearly what is Brahman, what is Paramātmā, and what is the Supreme Personality of Godhead." The Supreme Personality of Godhead is ṣaḍ-aiśvarya-pūrṇa, complete with six opulences. Gopīnātha Ācārya emphasized that all those six opulences were completely existing in Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
This is typical of all Māyāvādīs or atheists who interpret the meaning of Vedic literature in their own imaginative way. The real purpose of such foolish people is to impose the impersonalist conclusion on all Vedic literature. The Māyāvādī atheists also interpret the Bhagavad-gītā. In every verse of Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā it is clearly stated that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In every verse Vyāsadeva says, śrī-bhagavān uvāca, "the Supreme Personality of Godhead said," or "the Blessed Lord said." It is clearly stated that the Blessed Lord is the Supreme Person, but Māyāvādī atheists still try to prove that the Absolute Truth is impersonal. In order to present their false, imaginary meanings, they must adopt so much word jugglery and grammatical interpretation that they finally become ludicrous. Therefore Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu remarked that no one should hear the Māyāvādī commentaries or purports to any Vedic literature.
According to the Vedic instructions, the Supreme Personality of Godhead has His eternal, transcendental form, which is always blissful and full of knowledge. Impersonalists think that "material" refers to the forms within our experience and that "spiritual" refers to an absence of form. However, one should know that beyond this material nature is another nature, which is spiritual. Just as there are material forms in this material world, there are spiritual forms in the spiritual world. This is confirmed by all Vedic literature. The spiritual forms in the transcendental world have nothing to do with the negative conception of formlessness. The conclusion is that a person is an agnostic when he does not agree to worship the transcendental form of the Lord.
The Bhaṭṭācārya continued, “The impersonalists, who do not accept the transcendental form of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and the demons, who are always engaged in blaspheming and fighting with Him, are punished by being merged into the Brahman effulgence. But that does not happen to the person engaged in the devotional service of the Lord.
Śrīla Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī has sung, kaivalyaṁ narakāyate. The impersonalist's conception of becoming one with the effulgence of the Lord is exactly like hell. Therefore, of the five types of liberation, the first four (sālokya, sāmīpya, sārūpya and sārṣṭi) are not so undesirable because they can be avenues of service to the Lord. Nonetheless, a pure devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa rejects even these types of liberation; he aspires only to serve Kṛṣṇa birth after birth. He is not very interested in stopping the repetition of birth, for he simply desires to serve the Lord, even in hellish circumstances. Consequently the pure devotee hates and fears sāyujya-mukti, merging into the effulgence of the Lord. This merging is due to an offense committed against the transcendental loving service of the Lord, and therefore it is not at all desirable for a pure devotee.
They believe that in the perfectional stage, the conception of puruṣa is vanquished. According to their description, citi-śaktir iti. They believe that when one becomes perfect, he cannot remain a person. This yoga system is therefore abominable because its final conception is impersonal. In the beginning, these yogīs accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but they ultimately give up this idea in order to become impersonal. They are most unfortunate because although they have a personal conception of the Absolute Truth, they neglect to render devotional service to the Lord and thus fall down again into the material world. As mentioned above, this idea is supported by Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.2.32: aruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adho ’nādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ. Due to neglecting the lotus feet of the Lord, these yogīs again fall down into the material existence (patanty adhaḥ). Consequently this path of yoga is more abominable than the impersonalists' path. This conclusion is also supported by Lord Kapiladeva in the following verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (3.29.13).
Sometimes materialists consider Lord Viṣṇu a material conception. Impersonalists think that above Lord Viṣṇu is the impersonal Brahman. The impersonalists misunderstand the worship of Lord Viṣṇu. They worship Lord Viṣṇu to merge into His body. In order that viṣṇu-ārādhana not be misunderstood, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu requested that Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya proceed further and clear up the issue. Rāmānanda Rāya quoted the verse from the Bhagavad-gītā stating that the results of one's occupational duty may be offered to Lord Viṣṇu or Kṛṣṇa. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.2.8) it is also said:
- dharmaḥ sv-anuṣṭhitaḥ puṁsāṁ viṣvaksena-kathāsu yaḥ
- notpādayed yadi ratiṁ śrama eva hi kevalam
"If one executes the occupational duties of varṇāśrama-dharma but does not cultivate his dormant Kṛṣṇa consciousness, his activities are futile. His occupation simply becomes unnecessary labor."
Impersonalists cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead; therefore it is not possible for them to enter into the spiritual kingdom of God and return home, back to Godhead. Actually one attains different results by different means. It is not that all achievements are one and the same. Those interested in the four principles of dharma, artha, kāma and mokṣa cannot be compared to those interested in the unalloyed devotional service of the Lord. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.1.2) therefore says:
- dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo ’tra paramo nirmatsarāṇāṁ satāṁ
- vedyaṁ vāstavam atra vastu śiva-daṁ tāpa-trayonmūlanam
- śrīmad-bhāgavate mahā-muni-kṛte kiṁ vā parair īśvaraḥ
- sadyo hṛdy avarudhyate ’tra kṛtibhiḥ śuśrūṣubhis tat-kṣaṇāt
"Completely rejecting all religious activities which are materially motivated, this Bhāgavata Purāṇa propounds the highest truth, which is understandable by those devotees who are pure in heart. The highest truth is reality distinguished from illusion for the welfare of all. Such truth uproots the threefold miseries. This beautiful Bhāgavatam, compiled by the great sage Śrī Vyāsadeva, is sufficient in itself for God realization. As soon as one attentively and submissively hears the message of Bhāgavatam, he becomes attached to the Supreme Lord."
The goddess Durgā is the superintending deity of this material world, which is made of material elements. The demigods are simply different directors engaged in operating the departments of material activities, and they are under the influence of the same material energy. Kṛṣṇa's internal potencies, however, have nothing to do with the creation of this cosmic material world. The spiritual world and all spiritual activities are under the direction of the internal, spiritual energy, and such activities are performed by Yogamāyā, the spiritual energy. Yogamāyā is the spiritual or internal energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Those who are interested in being promoted to the spiritual world and engaging in the service of the Lord attain spiritual perfection under the control of Yogamāyā. Those who are interested in material promotion engage in ritualistic religious ceremonies and economic development to develop sense gratification. They ultimately attempt to merge into the impersonal existence of the Lord. Such people generally become impersonalists. They are interested in worshiping Lord Śiva or goddess Durgā, but their return is one hundred percent materialistic.
Since material philosophers are situated in the material conception of life, they are unable to realize the spiritual prema-vilāsa-vivarta. They cannot accommodate an elephant upon a dish. Similarly, mundane speculators cannot capture the spiritual elephant within their limited conception. It is just like a frog's trying to measure the Atlantic Ocean by imagining it so many times larger than his well. Materialistic philosophers and sahajiyās cannot understand the talks between Rāmānanda Rāya and Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu concerning the pastimes of Śrī Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa. The only tendency of the impersonalists or the prākṛta-sahajiyās is to face the platform of impersonalism. They cannot understand spiritual variegatedness. Consequently, when Rāmānanda Rāya attempted to sing his own verses, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu stopped him by covering his mouth with His own hand.
The greatest reputation a living being can have is to be a devotee of Kṛṣṇa and to act in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. In the material world everyone is trying to be famous by accumulating a large bank balance or material opulence. There is a steady competition among karmīs attempting to advance in a wealthy society. The whole world is turning in accordance with that competitive mood. But this kind of name and fame is temporary, for it lasts only as long as the temporary material body exists. One may become famous as a brahma-jñānī, an impersonalist scholar, or one may become a materially opulent person. In either case, such reputations are inferior to the reputation of Kṛṣṇa's devotee.
Those who desire liberation by merging into the existence of God do not desire sense gratification within the material world. On the other hand, they have no information about serving the lotus feet of the Lord. Consequently, they are doomed to stand like trees for many thousands of years. Although trees are living entities, they are nonmoving. The liberated soul who merges into the existence of the Lord is no better than the trees. Trees also stand in the Lord's existence because material energy and the Lord's energy are the same. Similarly, the Brahman effulgence is also the energy of the Supreme Lord. It is the same whether one remains in the Brahman effulgence or in the material energy because in neither is there spiritual activity. Better situated are those who desire sense gratification and promotion to the heavenly planets. Such people want to enjoy themselves like denizens of heaven in the gardens of paradise. They at least retain their individuality in order to enjoy life. But the impersonalists, who try to lose their individuality, also lose both material and spiritual pleasure. The last destination of the Buddhist philosophers is to become just like a stone, which is immovable and has neither material nor spiritual activity.
The word pāṣaṇḍī refers to those who are opposed to pure devotional service. In particular, these are the Māyāvādīs, the impersonalists. A definition of pāṣaṇḍī is given in the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa (1.73), wherein it is stated:
- yas tu nārāyaṇaṁ devaṁ brahma-rudrādi-daivataiḥ
- samatvenaiva vīkṣeta sa pāṣaṇḍī bhaved dhruvam
- (CC Madhya 18.116)
A pāṣaṇḍī is one who thinks that the Supreme Lord Nārāyaṇa, the Personality of Godhead, is on the same level with the demigods, headed by Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva. A devotee never considers Lord Nārāyaṇa to be on the same platform with Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva. The Madhvācārya-sampradāya and Rāmānuja-sampradāya are mainly worshipers of Lord Rāmacandra, although the Śrī Vaiṣṇavas are supposed to be worshipers of Lord Nārāyaṇa and Lakṣmī and the Tattvavādīs are supposed to be worshipers of Lord Kṛṣṇa. At present, in most of the monasteries belonging to the Mādhva-sampradāya, Lord Rāmacandra is worshiped.
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura remarks, "The impersonalists imagine some forms of the Absolute Truth through the direct perception of their senses. The impersonalists worship such imaginary forms, but neither Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam nor Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepts this sense gratificatory worship to be of any spiritual significance." The Māyāvādīs imagine themselves to be the Supreme. They imagine that the Supreme has no personal form and that all His forms are imaginary like the will-o’-the-wisp or a flower in the sky. Both Māyāvādīs and those who imagine forms of God are misguided. According to them, worship of the Deity or any other form of the Lord is a result of the conditioned soul's illusion. However, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu confirms the conclusion of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam on the strength of His philosophy of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. That philosophy holds that the Supreme Lord is simultaneously one with and different from His creation. That is to say, there is unity in diversity. In this way Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu proved the impotence of fruitive workers, speculative empiric philosophers and mystic yogīs. The realization of such men is simply a waste of time and energy.
To set the example, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu personally visited temples in various holy places. Wherever He visited, He immediately exhibited His ecstatic love for the Supreme Personality of Godhead. When a Vaiṣṇava visits the temple of a demigod, his vision of that demigod is different from the vision of the impersonalists and Māyāvādīs. The Brahma-saṁhitā supports this. A Vaiṣṇava's visit to the temple of Lord Śiva, for example, is different from a nondevotee's visit. The nondevotee considers the deity of Lord Śiva an imaginary form because he ultimately thinks that the Supreme Absolute Truth is void. However, a Vaiṣṇava sees Lord Śiva as being simultaneously one with and different from the Supreme Lord. In this regard, the example of milk and yogurt is given. Yogurt is actually nothing but milk, but at the same time it is not milk. It is simultaneously one with milk yet different from it.
The Absolute Truth, God, is everything, but this does not mean that everything is God. For this reason Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and His followers visited the temples of all the demigods, but they did not see them in the same way an impersonalist sees them. Everyone should follow in the footsteps of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and visit all temples. Sometimes mundane sahajiyās suppose that the gopīs visited the temple of Kātyāyanī in the same way mundane people visit the temple of Devī. However, the gopīs prayed to Kātyāyanī to grant them Kṛṣṇa as their husband, whereas mundaners visit the temple of Kātyāyanī to receive some material profit. That is the difference between a Vaiṣṇava's visit and a nondevotee's visit.
Not understanding the process of disciplic succession, so-called logicians put forward the theory of pañcopāsanā, in which a person worships one of five deities—namely Viṣṇu, Śiva, Durgā, the sun-god or Ganeśa. In this conception the impersonalists imagine one of these five deities as supreme and reject the others. Such philosophical speculation, which is certainly idol worship, is not accepted by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu or by Vaiṣṇavas. This imaginary deity worship has recently been transformed into Māyāvāda impersonalism. For want of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, people are victimized by the Māyāvāda philosophy, and consequently they sometimes become staunch atheists.
In his early life, Bilvamaṅgala Ṭhākura was an impersonalistic monist, and he used to meditate upon the impersonal Brahman effulgence. Later he became a devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa, and his explanation for this change is given in a verse (text 178) that is quoted in the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu. Sometimes a devotee gradually comes to the stage of Bhagavān realization, realization of the Supreme Person, after having attained the lower stages of realization—impersonal Brahman realization and localized Paramātmā realization. The condition of such a devotee is described in the Caitanya-candrāmṛta (5), by Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī:
- kaivalyaṁ narakāyate tridaśa-pūr ākāśa-puṣpāyate
- durdāntendriya-kāla-sarpa-paṭalī protkhāta-daṁṣṭrāyate
- viśvaṁ pūrṇa-sukhāyate vidhi-mahendrādiś ca kīṭāyate
- yat-kāruṇya-kaṭākṣa-vaibhava-vatāṁ taṁ gauram eva stumaḥ
Kaivalya, oneness in the effulgence of Brahman, appears hellish to the devotee. The heavenly planets, the abodes of the demigods, appear to a devotee like phantasmagorias. The yogīs meditate for sense control, but for the devotee the senses appear like serpents with broken teeth. The devotee doesn’t have to control his senses, for his senses are already engaged in the Lord's service.
There was also some humorous talk between Nityānanda Prabhu and Advaita Prabhu during prasādam. Advaita Prabhu said that Nityānanda Prabhu was unknown to anyone and that it was not the duty of a householder brāhmaṇa to accept dinner with a person unknown in society. In answer to this humorous statement, Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu replied that Advaita Ācārya was a monist and that one could not know how his mind could be turned by eating with such an impersonalist. The conversation of these two prabhus-Nityānanda Prabhu and Advaita Prabhu-carried a deep meaning that only an intelligent man can understand. After all the Vaiṣṇavas finished their luncheon, Svarūpa Dāmodara and others took their prasādam within the room. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu took great pleasure when He saw the Jagannātha Deity after the period of the Deity's retirement. At that time Lord Caitanya was accompanied by all the devotees, and all of them were very pleased.
A devotee knows that there is oneness in diversity. The mantras of the śāstras do not support the monistic conclusions of the impersonalists, nor does Vaiṣṇava philosophy accept impersonalism without variety. Brahman is the greatest, He who includes everything, and that is oneness. As Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā (7.7), mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat: there is no one superior to Kṛṣṇa Himself. He is the original substance because every category emanates from Him. Thus He is simultaneously one with and different from all other categories. The Lord is always engaged in a variety of spiritual activities, but the monist cannot understand spiritual variety. The conclusion is that although the powerful and the power are one and the same, within the energy of the powerful there are varieties.
A brāhmaṇa may be a very learned scholar, but this does not mean that he is free from material contamination. A brāhmaṇa's contamination, however, is in the mode of goodness. In the material world, the three modes are goodness, passion and ignorance, and all of these are simply different gradations of contamination. Unless a brāhmaṇa transcends such contamination and approaches the platform of unalloyed devotional service, he cannot be accepted as a Vaiṣṇava. An impersonalist may be aware of the impersonal Brahman feature of the Absolute Truth, but his activities are on the impersonal platform. Sometimes he imagines a form of the Lord (saguṇa-upāsanā), but such an attempt is never successful in helping one attain complete realization. The impersonalist may consider himself a brāhmaṇa and may be situated in the mode of goodness, but nonetheless he is conditioned by one of the modes of material nature. This means that he is not yet liberated, for liberation cannot be attained unless one is completely free from the modes. In any case, the Māyāvāda philosophy keeps one conditioned. If one becomes a Vaiṣṇava through proper initiation, he automatically becomes a brāhmaṇa. There is no doubt about it.
Unless one is a fully qualified brāhmaṇa, he cannot advance in the spiritual science. A real brāhmaṇa is never envious of Vaiṣṇavas. If he is, he is considered an imperfect neophyte. Impersonalist brāhmaṇas are always opposed to Vaiṣṇava principles. They are envious of Vaiṣṇavas because they do not know the goal of life. Na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇum (SB 7.5.31). However, when a brāhmaṇa becomes a Vaiṣṇava, there is no duality. If a brāhmaṇa does not become a Vaiṣṇava, he certainly falls down from the brāhmaṇa platform. This is confirmed by Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.5.3): na bhajanty avajānanti sthānād bhraṣṭāḥ patanty adhaḥ.
The word prārabdhe ("past deeds") is important in this verse. Since Candraśekhara was a devotee, he was always eager to hear about Kṛṣṇa and His transcendental pastimes. Most of the inhabitants of Benares were and are impersonalists, worshipers of Lord Śiva and followers of the pañcopāsanā method. The impersonalists imagine some form of the impersonal Brahman, and to facilitate meditation they concentrate upon the forms of Viṣṇu, Śiva, Gaṇeśa, Sūrya and goddess Durgā. Actually these pañcopāsakas are not devotees of anyone. As it is said, to be a servant of everyone is to be a servant of no one. Vārāṇasī, or Kāśī, is the chief holy place of pilgrimage for impersonalists, and it is not at all suitable for devotees. A Vaiṣṇava likes to live in a viṣṇu-tīrtha, a place where Lord Viṣṇu's temples are present. In Vārāṇasī there are many hundreds and thousands of Lord Śiva's temples, or pañcopāsaka temples. Consequently Candraśekhara expressed great unhappiness as he informed Lord Caitanya that he was obliged to live at Benares due to his past misdeeds. As said in the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, durjāty-ārambhakaṁ pāpaṁ yat syāt prārabdham eva tat: “According to one's past misdeeds, one takes birth on a lower platform.” But in the Brahma-saṁhitā (5.54) it is said, karmāṇi nirdahati kintu ca bhakti-bhājām: "There is no karma attached to the past deeds or misdeeds of one in devotional service." A devotee is not subjected to karma-phala, the effect of fruitive activity. Karma-phala is applicable to karmīs, not bhaktas.
Being an impersonalist, Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī used to explain the Absolute Truth as being without hands, legs, mouths or eyes. In this way he used to cheat the people by denying the personal form of the Lord. Such a foolish person was Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, whose only business was to sever the limbs of the Lord by proving the Lord impersonal. Although the Lord has form, Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī attempted to cut off the hands and legs of the Lord. This is the business of demons. The Vedas state that people who do not accept the Lord's form are rascals. The form of the Lord is factual, for Kṛṣṇa states in the Bhagavad-gītā (15.15), vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ. When Kṛṣṇa says aham, He says "I am," which means "I," the person. He adds the word eva, which is used for conclusive verification. Thus by studying Vedānta philosophy one must come to know the Supreme Person. Whoever describes Vedic knowledge as impersonal is a demon. One becomes successful in life by worshiping the form of the Lord. The Māyāvādī sannyāsīs deny the form of the Lord, which delivers all fallen souls. Indeed, the Māyāvādī demons try to cut this form to pieces.
The Personality of Godhead is worshiped by exalted demigods like Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva. The original Māyāvādī sannyāsī, Śaṅkarācārya, also accepted the fact that the Lord's form is transcendental: nārāyaṇaḥ paro ’vyaktāt. "Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is beyond the avyakta, the unmanifested material energy." Avyaktād aṇḍa-sambhavaḥ: "This material world is a creation of that unmanifested material energy." However, Nārāyaṇa has His own eternal form, which is not created by the material energy. Simply by worshiping the form of the Lord, one is purified. However, Māyāvādī sannyāsīs are impersonalist philosophers, and they describe the form of the Lord as māyā, or false. How can one be purified by worshiping something false? Māyāvādī philosophers have no sufficient reason for being impersonalists. They blindly follow a principle that cannot be supported by reason or argument. This was the situation with Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, the chief Māyāvādī sannyāsī of Benares. He was supposed to teach Vedānta philosophy, but he would not accept the form of the Lord; therefore he was attacked with leprosy. Nonetheless, he continued to commit sins by describing the Absolute Truth as impersonal. The Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, always displays pastimes and activities, but Māyāvādī sannyāsīs claim that these activities are false.
Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī vilified and blasphemed Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Words like brahma, caitanya, ātmā, paramātmā, jagadīśa, īśvara, virāṭ, vibhu, bhūmā, viśvarūpa and vyāpaka all indirectly indicate Kṛṣṇa. However, the chanter of these names is not actually attracted to the Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa and His transcendental pastimes. One may get a little light from these names, but one cannot understand that the holy name of the Lord is identical with the Lord. One considers the Lord's names material due to a poor fund of knowledge. Māyāvādī philosophers and the pañcopāsakas cannot in the least understand the existence of the spiritual world and the blissful variegatedness there. They cannot understand the Absolute Truth and its spiritual varieties—name, form, qualities and pastimes. Consequently they conclude that Kṛṣṇa's transcendental activities are māyā. To avoid this misconception one has to directly cultivate knowledge about the holy name of the Lord. Māyāvādī philosophers do not know this fact, and therefore they commit great offenses. One should not hear anything about Kṛṣṇa or devotional service from the mouths of Māyāvādī impersonalists.
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, “The Māyāvādī impersonalists are great offenders unto Lord Kṛṣṇa; therefore they simply utter the words "Brahman," "ātmā" and "caitanya."
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is herein pointing out to the brāhmaṇa that Māyāvādī philosophers cannot understand that the living entity is equal in quality with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Because they do not accept this, they think that the living entity has been falsely divided from the original Brahman due to being conditioned by māyā. Māyāvādīs believe that the Absolute Truth is ultimately impersonal. When an incarnation of God or God Himself comes, they think He is covered by māyā. In other words, Māyāvādī impersonalists think that the Lord's form is also a product of this material world. Due to a poor fund of knowledge, they cannot understand that Kṛṣṇa has no body separate from Himself. His body and Himself are both the same Absolute Truth. Not having perfect knowledge of Kṛṣṇa, such impersonalists certainly commit offenses at His lotus feet. Therefore they do not utter "Kṛṣṇa, " the original name of the Absolute Truth. In their impersonal way, they utter the name of impersonal Brahman, spirit soul. In other words, they indulge in indirect indications of the Absolute Truth. Even if they happen to utter the names "Govinda," "Kṛṣṇa" or "Mādhava," they still cannot understand that these names are as good as Govinda, Kṛṣṇa or Mādhava the person. Because they are ultimately impersonalists, their uttering of the personal name has no potency. Actually they do not believe in Kṛṣṇa but consider all these names to be material vibrations. Not being able to appreciate the holy name of the Lord, they simply utter indirect names like Brahman, ātmā and caitanya.
Because they are constantly blaspheming the Supreme Personality of Godhead by saying that He has no head, hands or legs, Māyāvādī philosophers remain offenders for many, many births, even though they have partially realized Brahman. However, if such impersonalists are not offenders at the lotus feet of the Lord, they immediately become devotees in the association of a devotee. In other words, if an impersonalist is not an offender, he can become a devotee if he gets a chance to associate with other devotees. If he is an offender, he cannot be converted even by the association of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu was very much afraid of this Māyāvādī offender; therefore He spoke as follows.
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was selling the transcendental holy name of the Lord. But Kāśī was a city of Māyāvādīs (impersonalists), and such people will never chant the holy names of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra. Consequently Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was feeling disappointed. How could He teach the Māyāvādīs the importance of chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra? The attraction for chanting the holy name of the Lord belongs absolutely to pure devotees, and there was no possibility of finding pure devotees at Kāśī. Consequently Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's commodity was certainly very heavy. The Lord therefore suggested that even though there were no pure devotees in Kāśī, if someone was a little inclined to chant the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, He would deliver this big load, although the proper price was not paid.
Actually we experienced this when we came to preach the Hare Kṛṣṇa movement in the West. When we came to New York in 1965, we never expected that the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra would be accepted in this country. Nonetheless, we invited people to our storefront to join in chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, and the Lord's holy name is so attractive that simply by coming to our storefront in New York, fortunate young people became Kṛṣṇa conscious. Although this mission was started with insignificant capital, it is now going nicely. The spreading of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra in the West has become successful because the young people were not offenders. The youths who joined this movement were not very advanced as far as purity is concerned, nor were they very well educated in Vedic knowledge, but because they were not offenders, they could accept the importance of the Hare Kṛṣṇa movement. We are now very happy to see that this movement is advancing more and more in the Western countries. We therefore conclude that the so-called mlecchas and yavanas of the Western countries are more purified than offensive Māyāvādīs or atheistic impersonalists.
In the material world, the word mahātmā is understood in different ways by different religionists. Mundaners also come up with their different angles of vision. For the conditioned soul busy in sense gratification, a mahājana is recognized according to the proportion of sense gratification he offers. For instance, a businessman may consider a certain banker to be a mahājana, and karmīs desiring material enjoyment may consider philosophers like Jaimini to be mahājanas. There are many yogīs who want to control the senses, and for them Patañjali Ṛṣi is a mahājana. For the jñānīs, the atheist Kapila, Vasiṣṭha, Durvāsā, Dattātreya and other impersonalist philosophers are mahājanas. For the demons, Hiraṇyākṣa, Hiraṇyakaśipu, Rāvaṇa, Rāvaṇa's son Meghanāda, Jarāsandha and others are accepted as mahājanas. For materialistic anthropologists speculating on the evolution of the body, a person like Darwin is a mahājana. The scientists who are bewildered by Kṛṣṇa's external energy have no relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, yet they are accepted by some as mahājanas. Similarly, philosophers, historians, literary men, public speakers and social and political leaders are sometimes accepted as mahājanas.
This is the viewpoint of Māyāvāda philosophy. Māyāvāda philosophy supports the impersonalist view that Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has no form. One can imagine impersonal Brahman in any form—as Viṣṇu, Lord Śiva, Vivasvān, Gaṇeśa or Devī Durgā. According to the Māyāvāda philosophy, when one becomes a sannyāsī he is to be considered a moving Nārāyaṇa. Māyāvāda philosophy holds that the real Nārāyaṇa does not move because, being impersonal, He has no legs. 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.
Another kind of pāṣaṇḍī is one who does not believe in the spirit soul, the superior potency of the Lord, and therefore does not distinguish between spirit and matter. While describing one of the offenses against chanting the holy names, specifically the offense called śruti-śāstra-nindana (blaspheming the Vedic literature), Jīva Gosvāmī states in his Bhakti-sandarbha, yathā pāṣaṇda-mārgeṇa dattātreyarṣabha-devopāsakānāṁ pāṣaṇḍīnām. "Worshipers of impersonalists like Dattātreya are also pāṣaṇḍīs." Concerning the offense of ahaṁ-mama-buddhi, or dehātma-buddhi (considering the body to be the self), Jīva Gosvāmī states, deva-draviṇādi-nimittaka- "pāṣaṇḍa"-śabdena ca daśāparādhā eva lakṣyante, pāṣaṇḍa-mayatvāt teṣām: "Those who are overly absorbed in the conception of the body and the bodily necessities are also called pāṣaṇḍīs."
The revealed scripture of the Muslims is the Koran. There is one Muslim sampradāya known as the Sufis. The Sufis accept impersonalism, believing in the oneness of the living entity with the Absolute Truth. Their supreme slogan is "analahak." The Sufi sampradāya was certainly derived from Śaṅkarācārya's impersonalists.
The highest achievement attained by the jñānīs, or impersonalists, is becoming one with the Supreme, generally known as mokṣa, liberation. The highest achievements of the yogīs are the eight material perfections, such as aṇimā, laghimā and prāpti. Yet these are nothing compared to the eternal bliss of the devotee who returns back to Godhead and tastes the fruit of devotional service to the lotus feet of the Lord. The material perfections, even up to the point of liberation, are very insignificant in comparison; therefore the pure devotee is never interested in such things. His only interest is in perfecting his devotional service to the Lord. The pleasure of the impersonalist, monist philosophers is condemned in the following verse, which is also found in Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Lalita-mādhava.
This verse, quoted from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.1.1), links the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam with the Vedānta-sūtra with the words janmādy asya yataḥ. It is stated that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vāsudeva, is the Absolute Truth beyond the material creation. This has been accepted by all ācāryas. Even Śaṅkarācārya, the most elevated impersonalist, says in the beginning of his commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā: nārāyaṇaḥ paro ’vyaktāt. When this material creation is not yet manifested from the mahat-tattva, it is called avyakta, and when it is demonstrated from that total energy, it is called vyakta. Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is beyond this vyakta-avyakta, manifested and unmanifested material nature. This is the chief qualification of the Supreme Personality of Godhead when He assumes a particular incarnation. Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna that although they both took birth many, many times before, Kṛṣṇa remembers everything about His previous appearances but Arjuna does not remember.
One who is fully surrendered is qualified with the six following characteristics: (1) The devotee has to accept everything that is favorable for the rendering of transcendental loving service to the Lord. (2) He must reject everything unfavorable to the Lord's service. This is also called renunciation. (3) A devotee must be firmly convinced that Kṛṣṇa will give him protection. No one else can actually give one protection, and being firmly convinced of this is called faith. This kind of faith is different from the faith of an impersonalist who wants to merge into the Brahman effulgence in order to benefit by cessation of repeated birth and death. A devotee wants to remain always in the Lord's service. In this way, Kṛṣṇa is merciful to His devotee and gives him all protection from the dangers found on the path of devotional service. (4) The devotee should accept Kṛṣṇa as his supreme maintainer and master. He should not think that he is being protected by a demigod. He should depend only on Kṛṣṇa, considering Him the only protector. The devotee must be firmly convinced that within the three worlds he has no protector or maintainer other than Kṛṣṇa. (5) Self-surrender means remembering that one's activities and desires are not independent. The devotee is completely dependent on Kṛṣṇa, and he acts and thinks as Kṛṣṇa desires. (6) The devotee is meek and humble.
The four Kumāras (Catuḥsana), Śukadeva Gosvāmī and the nine Yogendras were absorbed in Brahman realization, and how they became devotees is described herein. There are three kinds of impersonalists—the mumukṣu (those desiring liberation), the jīvan-muktas (those liberated in this life) and the prāpta-svarūpas (those merged in Brahman realization). All three types of jñānīs are called mokṣākāṅkṣīs, those desiring liberation. By associating with devotees, such people give up the mumukṣu principle and render devotional service. The real cause for this change is the association of devotees. The Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is meant to attract all types of men, even those who desire things other than the Lord's devotional service. Through the association of devotees, they gradually begin to render devotional service.
The word "Brahman" ("the greatest") indicates the Supreme Personality of Godhead, full in all six opulences. But if we take the onesided impersonalist view, His fullness is diminished.
‘O most auspicious one! For our benefit, You enable our worship of You by manifesting Your transcendental form, which You show to us in our meditation. We offer our respectful obeisances unto You, the Supreme Person, and we worship You, whom impersonalists do not accept due to their poor fund of knowledge. Thus they are liable to descend into a hellish condition.
Impersonalists do not accept the personal feature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Personality of Godhead is stressed in this verse in order to impress upon them the necessity of accepting Him. Therefore the word "aham" is mentioned three times. To stress something important, one repeats it three times.
Real spiritual knowledge has to be received from revealed scriptures. After this knowledge is attained, one can begin to perceive his actual spiritual life. Any knowledge achieved by speculation is imperfect. One must receive knowledge from the paramparā system and from the guru; otherwise one will be bewildered and will ultimately become an impersonalist. One who very scrutinizingly deliberates on genuine spiritual knowledge can realize the personal feature of the Absolute Truth. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is always transcendental to this material creation. Nārāyaṇaḥ paro ’vyaktāt: "Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is always transcendental." He is not a creation of this material world. Without realizing spiritual knowledge, one cannot understand that the transcendental form of the Lord is always beyond the creative energy. The example of the sun and the sunshine is given. The sunshine is not the sun, but still the sunshine is not separate from the sun. The philosophy of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva (simultaneously one and different) cannot be understood by one who is fully under the influence of the external energy. Consequently a person under the influence of the material energy cannot understand the nature and form of the Personality of the Absolute Truth.
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura states that without studying Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam one cannot understand the purport of the Brahma-sūtra (Vedānta-sūtra) or the Upaniṣads. If one tries to understand Vedānta philosophy and the Upaniṣads without studying Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, one will be bewildered and, construing a different meaning, will gradually become an atheist or an impersonalist.
CC Antya-lila
During those days and also at the present, Vedānta philosophy is understood through the commentary of Śaṅkarācārya, which is known as the Śārīraka-bhāṣya. Thus it appears that Gopāla Bhaṭṭācārya, the younger brother of Bhagavān Ācārya, had studied Vedānta according to the way of the Śārīraka-bhāṣya, which expounds the Māyāvāda philosophy of the impersonalists.
Vaiṣṇavas strictly follow the directions of the śāstras regarding how one can be liberated simply by a slight awakening of pure chanting of the holy name. Māyāvādīs cannot tolerate the statements of the śāstras about how easily liberation can be achieved, for, as stated in the Bhagavad-gītā (12.5), kleśo ‘dhikaratas teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām: impersonalists must work hard for many, many births, and only then will they perhaps be liberated. Vaiṣṇavas know that simply by chanting the holy name of the Lord offenselessly, one achieves liberation as a by-product. Thus there is no need to endeavor separately for liberation. Śrīla Bilvamaṅgala Ṭhākura has said, muktiḥ svayaṁ mukulitāñjali sevate "smān: liberation stands at one"s door, ready to render any kind of service, if one is a pure devotee with unflinching faith and reverence. This the Māyāvādīs cannot tolerate. Therefore the ārindā pradhāna, chief tax collector, although very learned, handsome and youthful, could not tolerate the statements of Haridāsa Ṭhākura.
Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya externally appeared to be a gṛhastha who was under the influence of the external, material energy, not a self-controlled brahmacārī, vānaprastha or sannyāsī. Gṛhasthas (householders) who are under the influence of the external energy accept householder life for the purpose of sense enjoyment, but a transcendentally situated Vaiṣṇava is not subjected to the influence of the senses by the Lord's material rule of the six kinds of bodily changes (kāma, krodha, lobha, moha, mada and mātsarya), even when he plays the part of a gṛhastha. Thus although Śrīla Rāmānanda Rāya acted as a gṛhastha and was accepted as an ordinary pounds-and-shillings man, he was always absorbed in the transcendental pastimes of Lord Kṛṣṇa. Therefore his mind was spiritually situated, and he was interested only in the subject of Kṛṣṇa. Rāmānanda Rāya was not among the Māyāvādī impersonalists or materialistic logicians who are opposed to the principles of Lord Kṛṣṇa's transcendental pastimes. He was already spiritually situated in the order of renounced life; therefore he was able to turn sand into gold by spiritual potency, or, in other words, to elevate a person from a material to a spiritual position.
Rāmacandra Purī could not understand that his spiritual master, Mādhavendra Purī, was feeling transcendental separation. His lamentation was not material. Rather, it proceeded from the highest stage of ecstatic love of Kṛṣṇa. When he was crying in separation, "I could not achieve Kṛṣṇa! I could not reach Mathurā!" this was not ordinary material lamentation. Rāmacandra Purī was not sufficiently expert to understand the feelings of Mādhavendra Purī, but nevertheless he thought himself very advanced. Therefore, regarding Mādhavendra Purī’s expressions as ordinary material lamentation, he advised him to remember Brahman because he was latently an impersonalist. Mādhavendra Purī understood Rāmacandra Purī’s position as a great fool and therefore immediately rebuked him. Such a reprimand from the spiritual master is certainly for the betterment of the disciple.
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura has explained in his Anubhāṣya that the word nirbandha indicates that Rāmacandra Purī had a steady desire to criticize others. Impersonalist Māyāvādīs, who have no relationship with Kṛṣṇa, who cannot take to devotional service, and who simply engage in material arguments to understand Brahman, regard devotional service to Kṛṣṇa as karma-kāṇḍa, or fruitive activities. According to them, devotional service to Kṛṣṇa is but another means for attaining dharma, artha, kāma and mokṣa. Therefore they criticize the devotees for engaging in material activities. They think that devotional service is māyā and that Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu is also māyā. Therefore they are called Māyāvādīs. Such a mentality awakens in a person who is an offender to Kṛṣṇa and His devotees.
One should be completely free from all material desires and should serve Kṛṣṇa simply to please Him. When people become interested in their own sense gratification (bhukti-mukti-siddhi-kāmī), some of them desire to enjoy the material world to the fullest extent, some of them desire to be liberated and merge into the existence of Brahman, and others want to perform magic through mystic power and thus become incarnations of God. These are all against the principles of devotional service. One must be free from all material desires. The desire of the impersonalist to merge into the existence of Brahman is also material because such an impersonalist wants to gratify his senses by merging into the existence of Kṛṣṇa instead of serving His lotus feet. Even if such a person merges into the Brahman effulgence, he falls down again into material existence.
When Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī left Vārāṇasī on his way to Jagannātha Purī after completing his education, he met Rāmadāsa Viśvāsa Paṇḍita. Viśvāsa Paṇḍita was very proud of his education, and being an impersonalist, he was not well received by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. A summary of the life of Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī ends this chapter.
Within his heart, Rāmadāsa Viśvāsa was an impersonalist who desired to merge into the existence of the Lord, and he was very proud of his learning. Since Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the omniscient Supreme Personality of Godhead, He can understand the heart of everyone, and thus He knew all these things.
| Page Title: | Impersonalist (CC) |
| Compiler: | Visnu Murti, Mayapur |
| Created: | 25 of Mar, 2012 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=0, SB=0, CC=93, OB=0, Lec=0, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 93 |