Antya-līlā · 2

The Lord always manifested His āvirbhāva appearance in the following four places: (1) the house of Śrīmatī Śacīmātā, (2) wherever Nityānanda Prabhu danced in ecstasy, (3) the house of Śrīvāsa (when kīrtana was performed), and (4) the house of Rāghava Paṇḍita. Lord Caitanya Himself appeared in these four places. (In this connection, one may consult text 34.)

For an explanation of sapta-dvīpa, see Madhya-līlā, chapter twenty, verse 218, and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Fifth Canto, chapters sixteen and twenty. In the Siddhānta-śiromaṇi, chapter one (Golādhyāya), in the Bhuvana-kośa section, the nine khaṇḍas are mentioned as follows: aindraṁ kaśeru sakalaṁ kila tāmraparṇam anyad gabhastimad ataś ca kumārikākhyamnāgaṁ ca saumyam iha vāruṇam antya-khaṇḍaṁ gāndharva-saṁjñam iti bhārata-varṣa-madhye “Within Bhārata-varṣa, there are nine khaṇḍas. They are known as (1) Aindra, (2) Kaśeru, (3) Tāmraparṇa, (4) Gabhastimat, (5) Kumārikā, (6) Nāga, (7) Saumya, (8) Vāruṇa and (9) Gāndharva.”

As stated in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Antya 7.11): kali-kālera dharma — kṛṣṇa-nāma-saṅkīrtanakṛṣṇa-śakti vinā nahe tāra pravartana Unless one is empowered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, one cannot spread the holy names of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra throughout the world. Persons who do so are empowered. Therefore they are sometimes called āveśa-avatāras, or empowered incarnations, for they are endowed with the power of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura says that Āmbuyā-muluka is the present Ambikā, a city in the Burdwan district of West Bengal. Formerly, during the Muslim regime, it was known as Āmbuyā-muluka. In this city there is a neighborhood called Pyārīgañja, and that is where Nakula Brahmacārī used to live.

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura explains the Gaura-gopāla mantra in his Amṛta-pravāha-bhāṣya. Worshipers of Śrī Gaurasundara accept the four syllables gau-ra-aṅ-ga as the Gaura mantra, but pure worshipers of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa accept the four syllables rā-dhā kṛṣ-ṇa as the Gaura-gopāla mantra. However, Vaiṣṇavas consider Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu nondifferent from Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa (śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya rādhā-kṛṣṇa nahe anya). Therefore one who chants the mantra “gaurāṅga” and one who chants the names of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are on the same level.

Nṛsiṁhānanda replied, “Just see the behavior of your Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

For a description of Bhagavān Ācārya, one may refer to Ādi-līlā, tenth chapter, verse 136.

Generally those who invited Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu for dinner used to offer Him the remnants of food that had first been offered to Lord Jagannātha. Bhagavān Ācārya, however, instead of giving Him the remnants of Jagannātha’s food, prepared dinner at his home. In Orissa, food offered to Lord Jagannātha is called prasādī, and that which is not offered to Lord Jagannātha is known as āmānī or ghara-bhāta, rice prepared at home.

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.

The philosophers known as kevalādvaita-vādīs generally occupy themselves with hearing the Śārīraka-bhāṣya, a commentary by Śaṅkarācārya advocating that one impersonally consider oneself the Supreme Lord. Such Māyāvāda philosophical commentaries upon the Vedānta-sūtra are simply imaginary, but there are other commentaries on the Vedānta-sūtra. The commentary by Śrīla Rāmānujācārya, known as Śrī-bhāṣya, establishes the viśiṣṭādvaita-vāda philosophy. Similarly, in the Brahma-sampradāya, Madhvācārya’s Pūrṇaprajña-bhāṣya establishes śuddha-dvaita-vāda. In the Kumāra-sampradāya, or Nimbārka-sampradāya, Śrī Nimbārka establishes the philosophy of dvaitādvaita-vāda in the Pārijāta-saurabha-bhāṣya. And in the Viṣṇu-svāmi-sampradāya, or Rudra-sampradāya, which comes from Lord Śiva, Viṣṇu Svāmī has written a commentary called Sarvajñabhāṣya, which establishes śuddhādvaita-vāda. A Vaiṣṇava should study the commentaries on the Vedānta-sūtra written by the four sampradāya-ācāryas, namely Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī and Nimbārka, for these commentaries are based upon the philosophy that the Lord is the master and that all living entities are His eternal servants. One interested in studying Vedānta philosophy properly must study these commentaries, especially if he is a Vaiṣṇava. These commentaries are always adored by Vaiṣṇavas. The commentary by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī is elaborately given in the Ādi-līlā, chapter seven, text 101. The Māyāvāda commentary Śārīraka-bhāṣya is like poison for a Vaiṣṇava. It should not be touched at all. Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura remarks that even a mahā-bhāgavata, or highly elevated devotee who has surrendered himself unto the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, sometimes falls down from pure devotional service if he hears the Māyāvāda philosophy of the Śārīraka-bhāṣya. This commentary should therefore be shunned by all Vaiṣṇavas.

Śrīla Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī wanted to impress upon Bhagavān Ācārya that even though someone firmly fixed in devotion to Kṛṣṇa’s service might not be deviated by hearing the Māyāvāda bhāṣya, that bhāṣya is nevertheless full of impersonal words and ideas — such as Brahman — which represent knowledge but which are impersonal. The Māyāvādīs say that the world created by māyā is false and that actually there is no living entity but only one spiritual effulgence. They further say that God is imaginary, that people think of God only because of ignorance, and that when the Supreme Absolute Truth is befooled by the external energy, māyā, He becomes a jīva, or living entity. Upon hearing all these nonsensical ideas from the nondevotee, a devotee is greatly afflicted, as if his heart and soul were broken.

In India śukla-cāula (white rice) is also called ātapa-cāula, or rice that has not been boiled before being husked. Another kind of rice, called siddha-cāula (brown rice), is boiled before being husked. Generally, first-class fine white rice is required for offerings to the Deity. Thus Bhagavān Ācārya asked Choṭa Haridāsa, or Junior Haridāsa, a singer in the assembly of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, to get some of this rice from the sister of Śikhi Māhiti. A māna is a standard of measurement in Orissa for rice and other food grains.

Bhagavān Ācārya replied, “I got it by begging from Mādhavī-devī.”

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.

The senses and the sense objects are so intimately connected that the mind of even a great saintly person is attracted to a wooden doll if it is attractively shaped like a young woman. The sense objects, namely form, sound, smell, taste and touch, are always attractive for the eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin. Since the senses and sense objects are naturally intimately related, sometimes even a person claiming control over his senses remains always subject to the control of sense objects. The senses are impossible to control unless purified and engaged in the service of the Lord. Thus even though a saintly person vows to control his senses, the senses are still sometimes perturbed by sense objects.

This verse appears in the Manu-saṁhitā (2.215) and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (9.19.17).

One should strictly follow the regulative principles, namely no illicit sex, no meat-eating, no intoxication and no gambling, and in this way one should make progress in spiritual life. If an unfit person sentimentally accepts vairāgya or takes sannyāsa but at the same time remains attached to women, he is in a very dangerous position. His renunciation is called markaṭa-vairāgya, or renunciation like that of a monkey. The monkey lives in the forest, eats fruit and does not even cover itself with a cloth. In this way it resembles a saint, but the monkey always thinks of female monkeys and sometimes keeps dozens of them for sexual intercourse. This is called markaṭa-vairāgya. Therefore one who is unfit should not accept the renounced order of life. One who accepts the order of sannyāsa but again becomes agitated by sensual disturbances and talks privately with women is called dharma-dhvajī or dharma-kalaṅka, which means that he brings condemnation upon the religious order. Therefore one should be extremely careful in this connection. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura explains the word markaṭa to mean “restless.” A restless person cannot be steady; therefore he simply wanders about, gratifying his senses. Just to get praise from others, to get cheap adoration from his followers or people in general, such a person sometimes accepts the dress of a sannyāsī or bābājī in the renounced order, but he cannot give up desires for sense gratification, especially for the association of women. Such a person cannot make advancement in spiritual life. There are eight different kinds of sensual enjoyment with women, including talking about them and thinking about them. Thus for a sannyāsī, a person in the renounced order, talking intimately with women is a great offense. Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya and Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura actually achieved the most elevated stage of the renounced order, but those who imitate them, accepting them as ordinary human beings, fall under the influence of the material energy, for that is a great misunderstanding.

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura says in this connection that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the ocean of mercy, chastised Junior Haridāsa, although Junior Haridāsa was His dear devotee, to establish that one in the devotional line, engaged in pure devotional service, should not be a hypocrite. For a person engaged in devotional service in the renounced order, having intimate relationships with women is certainly hypocrisy. This chastisement was given to Junior Haridāsa as an example to future sahajiyās who might adopt the dress of the renounced order to imitate Rūpa Gosvāmī and other bona fide sannyāsīs but secretly have illicit connections with women. To teach such men, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu chastised His dear devotee Haridāsa for a slight deviation from the regulative principles. Śrīmatī Mādhavī-devī was a highly elevated devotee; therefore approaching her to ask for some rice to serve Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was certainly not very offensive. Nevertheless, just to preserve the regulative principles for the future, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu enforced the hard-and-fast rule that no one in the renounced order should intimately mix with women. Had Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu not chastised Junior Haridāsa for this slight deviation, so-called devotees of the Lord would have exploited the example of Junior Haridāsa to continue their habit of illicit connections with women unrestrictedly. Indeed, they still preach that such behavior is allowed for a Vaiṣṇava. But it is strictly not allowed. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the teacher of the entire world, and therefore He enforced this exemplary punishment to establish that illicit sexual connections are never allowed by Vaiṣṇava philosophy. This was His purpose in chastising Junior Haridāsa. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is in fact the most magnanimous incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but He strictly prohibited illicit sex.

In connection with strī-sambhāsaṇa, talking with women, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura says that talking with women for the purpose of mingling with them for sense gratification, subtle or gross, is strictly prohibited. Cāṇakya Paṇḍita, the great moral instructor, says, mātṛ-vat para-dāreṣu. Thus not only a person in the renounced order or one engaged in devotional service but everyone should avoid mingling with women. One should consider another’s wife his mother.

Svarūpa Dāmodara, however, protested, “This is a false guess.

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura remarks that after one adopts the renounced order and accepts the dress of either a sannyāsī or a bābājī, if he entertains the idea of sense gratification, especially in relationship with a woman, the only atonement is to commit suicide at the confluence of the Ganges and Yamunā. Only by such atonement can his sinful life be purified. If such a person is thus punished, it is possible for him to attain the shelter of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Without such punishment, however, the shelter of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is very difficult to regain.

Summarizing this chapter, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura says that one should derive from it the following lessons. (1) Although Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is an incarnation of mercy, He nevertheless gave up the company of one of His personal associates, namely Junior Haridāsa, for if He had not done so, pseudodevotees would have taken advantage of Junior Haridāsa’s fault by using it as an excuse to live as devotees and at the same time have illicit sexual connections. Such activities would have demoralized the cult of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and as a result, devotees would surely have gone to a hellish life in the name of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. (2) By chastising Junior Haridāsa, the Lord set the standard for ācāryas, or the heads of institutions propagating the Caitanya cult, and for all actual devotees. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu wanted to maintain the highest standard. (3) Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu instructed that a pure devotee should be simple and free from sinful activities, for thus one can be His bona fide servant. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu taught His followers how to observe the renounced order strictly. (4) Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu wanted to prove that His devotees are exalted and that their character is ideal. He kindly accepts His faithful devotees and teaches them how much tribulation and disturbance can be produced by even a slight deviation from the strict principles of devotional life. (5) By chastising Junior Haridāsa, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu exhibited His mercy toward him, thus showing how elevated was Junior Haridāsa’s devotion for Him. Because of this transcendental relationship, the Lord corrected even a slight offense committed by His pure devotee. Therefore one who wants to be a pure devotee of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu should give up all material sense gratification; otherwise, the lotus feet of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu are very difficult to attain. (6) If one dies in such a celebrated holy place as Prayāga, Mathurā or Vṛndāvana, one can be relieved of the reactions to sinful life and then attain the shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. (7) Although a pure or faithful devotee may fall down, he nevertheless ultimately gets the chance to go back home, back to Godhead, by the mercy of the Lord. Thus end the Bhaktivedanta purports to Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya-līlā, second chapter, describing the chastisement of Junior Haridāsa.