Prativāda (A Response)

‘Prativāda’ (A Response) by Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja is a defence of The Gauḍīya magazine, written in response to an article published in Śrī Viṣṇupriyā-Gaurāṅga, which condemned The Gauḍīya for criticising a prominent member of the Advaita Vaṁśa. In this article, Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja justifies The Gauḍīya’s position and sheds light on the history of several sons of Advaita Ācārya. It was first published in The Gauḍīya, Year 5, Issue 43 (1927), shortly after Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja received hari-nāma initiation from Sarasvatī Ṭhākura.

During the last month of Vaiśākha (April/May), *Śrī Śrī Viṣṇupriya-Gaurāṅga *magazine wrote that The Gauḍīya magazine occasionally criticizes Śrīla Rādhā-mohana Gosvāmī Bhaṭṭācārya Vidyā-vacaspati Mahāśaya, a descendent in the line of Śrī Śrī Advaita Ācārya, as being a follower of smārta-dharma. However, they claim that the abovementioned Gosvāmī Bhattacarya, in spite of being a scholar in smṛti-śāstra, is a follower of Vaiṣṇavism and follows vaiṣṇava-dharma as preached by Mahāprabhu. The Viṣṇupriya magazine also says that such conclusions have arisen after investigations by various people.

However, we believe that the conclusions and findings of previous mahājanas in all subjects are more fool-proof and worthy of veneration in the domain of transcendence, rather than the views, conclusions, and findings of modernists.

At present, many people are ignorant of the nature of pure Vaiṣṇavism. We don’t hesitate to honour someone as a ‘Vaiṣṇava’ and ‘Mahāprabhu’s topmost devotee’ if they utter a few words like ‘Hari’, ’Kṛṣṇa’, ’Rāma’, ’Gaurāṅga,’ or if someone dabbles with scriptures like the Bhāgavatam. Many conveners and leaders of Vaiṣṇava associations that promote bhakti completely practice Smārta rituals in their homes, such as preta-śrāddha, eating on Ekādaśī, following Vidha-Ekādaśī, pañcopāsana, pañca-yajña, and accepting a non-Vaiṣṇava guru.* It goes even to the extent of wearing Vaiṣṇava dress, tulasī beads and tilaka while feasting on meat and fish and maintaining illicit, immoral habits and lifestyles.

*** Translator’s Note:** Preta-śrāddha is a ritual for the deliverance of deceased relatives. Vidha Ekādaśī is when an Ekādaśī is mixed with another lunar day. In that case, it should not be followed. *Pañcopāsana *is the worship by Smārtas of Gaṇeśa, Sūrya, Śiva, Durgā and Viṣṇu as aspects of the impersonal Brahman. *Pañca-yajña *is the chanting of the Vedas, offering sacrifice to the Devas, honouring the forefathers, giving charity, and feeding other living beings

If someone externally follows the social behaviour expected in Vaiṣṇava gatherings (sabhāyāṁ vaiṣṇavo mataḥ), displays some artificial sentiments, dresses as a devotee of Gaura or, like some brāhmaṇa poets of Bengal, nurtures polluted ideas and writes books on the esoteric pastimes of Gaura or Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa (i.e. claiming that Mahāprabhu left His body due to being pierced by a thorn in His foot, Bhagavān comes into this world covered by māyā, Svarūpa Dāmodara left his body after a heart attack, Kṛṣṇa was killed due to an arrow shot by the hunter, Jarā etc. which, according to the conclusions of the sattvata-śāstras, are all simply statements that only befit stone-hearted sinful persons), then these days it is the general opinion that such persons are elevated Vaiṣṇavas and should be counted amongst the greatest followers of Mahāprabhu.

Nowadays, if someone composes one or two ślokas, or a poem and adds Mahāprabhu’s name to their composition, or they compose one or two songs, or make a show of singing Mahāprabhu’s name in kīrtana (in spite of it being tattva-viruddha – against the principles of absolute reality, siddhānta-viruddha – against scriptural conclusions, and *duṣṭa-rasābhāsa *–an offensive and incompatible mixture of rasas) he is still considered to be a great devotee of Gaura. Yet if a natural Rūpānuga, who is a great devotee, preaching by his personal example, introduces a kīrtana or a song that does not have the Name of Gaura in it, then the modernists are not shy to glance at them and criticise such pure songs, which may be devoid of the Name of Gaura, but are composed by the mahājanas – then they claim that they have been written simply to attain personal prestige. The only reason for such a response is nothing more that our innate aversion towards the Supreme, which in turn makes us hostile towards the Vaiṣṇavas.

At present, the root cause of such ignorance in understanding the true nature of Vaiṣṇavism is due to the fact that most critics are averse to Hari, have shallow faith (kamala-śraddhā) or are kaniṣṭha-adhikārī Vaiṣṇavas. Until one reaches the stage of a madhyama-adhikārī under the shelter of a pure Vaiṣṇava ācārya, one cannot distinguish between a Vaiṣṇava and a non-Vaiṣṇava. This fact cannot be understood by materialistic and contaminated sampradāyas, hence they mistake non-Vaiṣṇavas as Vaiṣṇavas, and Vaiṣṇavas as non-Vaiṣṇavas. They take the Smārtas, who are pañcopāsakas, to be their ‘guru’ and they endeavour to establish them as ‘Vaiṣṇavas’. If someone is considered to be a ‘Vaiṣṇava’ simply by composing a few ślokas or a poem citing Mahāprabhu’s Name, then why did the examiner of devotional conclusions, Svarupa-Dāmodara Gosvāmī Prabhu, hesitate to call the dramatist from Bengal a ‘Vaiṣṇava’? Māyāvādīs, Smārtas and pañcopāskas also glorify Kṛṣṇa, but that does not mean that true devotees of Kṛṣṇa will take them to be ‘Vaiṣṇavas’ or ‘kṛṣṇa-bhaktas’. Regarding such sections of contaminated devotees of Kṛṣṇa, Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda has stated:

*dhik taṅhāra kṛṣṇa-sevā śravaṇa-kīrtana

kṛṣṇa-aṅge vajra hāne tāṅhāra stavana*

Fie on their so-called ‘service’ to Kṛṣṇa and their ‘hearing and chanting!’ Their prayers are like thunderbolts hurled at Kṛṣṇa’s body. (Śaraṇāgati 27)

Once again, through the words of Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda, we want to explain this to those modern scholars regarding judging Vaiṣṇavas and non-Vaiṣṇavas – in this world, two very distinct religions go by the name of vaiṣṇava-dharma. One is pure vaiṣṇava–dharma, and the other is contaminated vaiṣṇava-dharma. In fact, pure vaiṣṇava–dharma is one and unique; its other name is nitya-dharma (eternal dharma), or parama–dharma (supreme dharma). Contaminated vaisnava-dharma is of two kinds – (1) polluted by karma (2) polluted by jñāna. The practices of the Smārtas that they consider to be vaiṣṇava-dharma are actually all contaminated by karma; this type of vaiṣṇava-dharma entails initiation with viṣṇu-mantra, yet Viṣṇu is treated as a constituent part of the process of karma. When followers of the process of pañcopāsana worship Viṣṇu, they perform initiation, pūjā and all other activities centered on Viṣṇu and sometimes even Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa. Still, it is not pure vaiṣṇava-dharma.

The pure vaiṣṇava-dharma that arises when one removes contaminated vaiṣṇava-dharma is true vaiṣṇava-dharma. Due to the influence of Kali-yuga, most people cannot understand pure vaiṣṇava-dharma and thus they accept various forms of contaminated vaiṣṇava-dharma as true vaiṣṇava-dharma (jaiva-dharma).

Mahā-mahopādhyāya Raghunandana Bhaṭṭācārya is known by all as an advocate of Smārta philosophy. Yet in the prelude to his Śrāddha-tattva, he writes:

*praṇamya sac-cid-ānandaṁ kṛṣṇaṁ vedānta-vistṛtam

*pārvaṇādi śraddha-tattvaṁ vakti śrī-raghunandanaḥ

I offer my respects unto Kṛṣṇa, who is comprised of eternity, knowledge and bliss and is the disseminator of the Vedānta. Śrī Raghunandana will now explain the ceremony in honour of deceased ancestors in his book, Śrāddha-tattva.

Despite reciting a śloka offering obeisances to Śrī Kṛṣṇa, he is still not recognised as a Vaiṣṇava in the society of pure devotees. This is because in the preface to his Śrāddha-tattva, he has offered his praṇāmas to Kṛṣṇa, the disseminator of Vedānta, but the Śrāddha-tattva itself contains a section on preta-śrāddha (rites to deliver one’s ancestors from a ghostly birth) which is bereft of pure Vaiṣṇava conclusions, or in the language of the Vaiṣṇava smṛti, he has delineated upon rākṣasa-śrāddha (rites for demons).

Māyāvādīs also offer prayers to Kṛṣṇa, Viṣṇu and Nārāyaṇa, and after attaining their intended purification, they attempt to destroy the eternal beauty, qualities, pastimes, abode and associates etc. of the very Nārāyaṇa whom they glorified before. Although they offer prayers to Kṛṣṇa and Nārāyaṇa, still they are not counted as Vaiṣṇavas in the society of pure devotees. Similarly, in the society of pure Vaiṣṇavas, Smārta Raghunandana Bhaṭṭācārya’s follower, Śrī Rādhā-Mohana Gosvāmī Bhaṭṭācārya Mahāśaya, is considered to be a follower of the materialistic karma philosophy of the Smārtas.

Of course, at present, several members of his family have endeavoured to prove that the honourable Smārta Bhaṭṭācārya Mahāśaya is a pure Vaiṣṇava follower of Mahāprabhu and have tried to remove the existing perception that he is a follower of the materialistic karma philosophy of the Smārtas. Such efforts are indeed admirable. However, truth, being impartial to the influence of any individual or family lineage, seems to prove otherwise.

The honourable Śrīyukta Rādhā-Mohana Gosvāmī Bhaṭṭācārya Mahāśaya is the descendent of Śrīla Advaita Ācārya’s proud son, Śrī Balarāma Miśra. The Sanskrit book, Advaita Carita says:

*acyutaḥ kṛṣṇa-miśras ca gopāla-dāsa eva ca

**ratna-trayam idaṁ proktaṁ sītā-garbhādhi sambhavam

**ācārya-tanayeṣvete trayo gaura-gaṇaḥ smṛtaḥ

**caturtho balarāmaś ca svarūpaḥ pañcamaḥ smṛtaḥ

*ṣaṣṭhasta jagadīśāsakhya ācārya-tanayā hi ṣaṭ

Acyuta, Kṛṣṇa Miśra and Gopāla Dāsa are known to be the three gems amongst Advaita’s sons who took birth from the womb of Sītā Devī. These three sons of the Ācārya are remembered as associates of Śrī Gaura. The fourth son of the Ācārya was called Balarāma, the fifth son was Svarūpa and the sixth son was named Jagadīśa.

From the above statements, it is understood that Śrī Śrīla Acyutānanda Prabhu, Śrī Kṛṣṇa Miśra and Śrī Gopāla Dāsa, who were born of the ocean of Sītā Devī’s womb, were the three sons of Advaita Ācārya who were considered to be amongst the associates of Gaura. In Śrī Gaura Gaṇoddeśa Dīpikā, Śrī Kavi Karṇapūra Gosvāmī has referred to Śrī Acyutānanda Prabhu and Śrī Kṛṣṇa Miśra as associates of Gaura, and Śrī Acyutānanda Prabhu has been mentioned as most dear to Śrī Gaurasundara and a disciple of Śrīmad Gadādhara Paṇḍita Gosvāmī. Śrīla Ṭhākura Vṛndāvana and Śrī Kavirāja Gosvāmī have continuously sung how Gaura was the very life of Śrī Acyutānanda Prabhu.

Śrīla Kavirāja Gosvāmī, after mentioning the names of Śrī Acyutānanda Prabhu, Śrī Kṛṣṇa Miśra and Śrī Gopāla as the three sons of Advaita Ācārya who were devotees of Gaura, goes on to say how the other three sons were:

*Asāragrāhī – not seeking that which is essential (Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 12.1)

*Svatantra – independent (Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 12.9)

*Asāra – useless, and ācārya-ājñā-laṅghanakārī – transgressing the orders of Advaita Ācārya (Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 12.10)

*Phatanā – unproductive (Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā.12.12)

*Kṛtaghna – ungrateful (*Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā *12.68)

*Śuṣka-kāṣṭa-sama – as dry as wood, jīvanmṛta – living dead, yama-daṇḍya – punishable by Yamarāja, and caitanya-vimukha – averse to Śrī Caitanya (Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 12.70-71) etc.

– and he pays his obeisance to the first three sons of Advaita Prabhu, whom he refers to as sāragrāhī (seekers of the essence) and as caitanya-jīvana (the very life of Śrī Caitanya). He showed the example by neglecting to pay respects to the other three sons, who were asāragrāhīs. Thus, these three asāragrāhī sons of Advaita’s family have been separated from the three *sāragrāhī *sons of Advaita in order to purify the lineage of Śrīla Advaita Ācārya. In several places in his work, Ṭhākura Vṛndāvana has also indicated such points:

*yadyapi advaita koṭi-candra suśītala

*tathāpi caitanya-vimukhera kālānala

Although Advaita is as cooling as millions of moons, he is like the fire of destruction for those who are averse to Śrī Caitanya. (Caitanya-bhāgavata, Antya-khaṇḍa 4.475)

Such writers, who are authorities on caitanya-līlā, have proven that Śrī Acyutānanda and his younger brothers Śrī Kṛṣṇa Miśra and Śrī Gopāla Dāsa were the three sons who obeyed the orders of Śrī Śrī Advaita Prabhu, were Mahāprabhu’s associates and were pure Vaiṣṇavas. The other three, according to the writings of Śrī Kavirāja Gosvāmī, are considered to be the rejected sons of Śrī Advaita Ācārya.

sva-mata kalpana kare daiva-paratantra

They independently concocted their own opinions. (Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 12.10)

nā māne caitanya-mālī durdaiva-kāraṇa

Some of the branches, for unfortunate reasons, deviated from His path. (Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 12.67)

The honourable Śrī Rādhā-mohana Gosvāmī Bhaṭṭācārya is a descendent of the most prominent of these three rejected sons, Śrī Balarāma Miśra. Therefore, pure Vaiṣṇavism is absent in such a lineage because they have not accepted the teachings of Śrī Advaita Ācārya or Śrī Acyutānanda. Evidential history proves that there is a strong influence of Smārta ideology in this line. The honourable Śrī Gosvāmī Bhaṭṭācārya has written a commentary on Mahā-mahopādhyāya Smārta Raghunandana Bhaṭṭācārya’s book, Aṣṭa-viṁśati Tattva as regards observing mala-māsa (Puruṣottama Māsa), Ekādaśī, prayaścitta (ritual atonement) and ritual cleanliness – thus, the Smārta Bhaṭṭācārya has exhibited his allegiance to Smārta ideology.

It was Advaita Ācārya Prabhu who, in spite of residing in the community of the highest brāhmaṇas in Śāntipura and displaying pastimes of being born in the best of brāhmaṇa families, completely trampled upon the polluted conventions of Smārta society and set an example by offering his father’s śrāddha-pātra to Ṭhākura Hari Dāsa, who was born in a non-Hindu family, because he considered him to be the best of all brāhmaṇas (Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya-līlā 3.220). Furthermore, the Ācārya, who is the guardian of devotion (bhakti-samrakṣaka), displayed the pastime of desiring to honour mahā-prasāda with Ṭhākura Hari Dāsa at his home in Śāntipura (Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 3.107). Also, to establish the dignity of pure devotion in this world, the Ācārya pretended to explain empirical knowledge and displayed the pastime of accepting punishment from the hand of Mahāprabhu Himself in order to set the example of rejecting any explanation from those books that promote anti-devotional, māyāvāda or Smārta conclusions (Caitanya-bhāgavata Madhya-khaṇḍa 19.141). The Ācārya, who was the unbiased propagator of truth, told Mahāprabhu:

*yadi mora putra haya haya vā kiṅkara

*vaiṣṇavāparādhī muñi nā dekhoṅ gocara

Even if he is My son or servant, I will never look upon the face of a person who offends Vaiṣṇavas. (Caitanya-bhāgavata Madhya-khaṇḍa 19.175)

If there is such a display of anti-Vaiṣṇavism in the lineage of the very Ācārya who spoke such words to convey the ideals of impartiality and pure Vaiṣṇavism, how can the true descendants of Acyutānanda who are acyuta-gotra descendants of Advaita, declare such a display as being in adherence to Śrī Advaita instead of declaring it as supporting Smārta ideology? Impartial senior Vaiṣṇavas like Oṁ Viṣṇupāda Vaiṣṇava-Sārvabhauma Śrīla Jagannātha Dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja and Śrīla Gaura Kiśora Dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja knew all about the histories of both the acyuta-gotra and non-acyuta-gotra descendants of Advaita Ācārya, and compared to their opinions, the value of the research of motivated modernists is negligible. The aforementioned great souls have enough historical evidence to show the scarcity of pure Vaisnavism amongst the non-acyuta-gotra descendants of Śrīla Advaita Ācārya as well as their strong inclination towards Smārta ideals.

Some time ago (and one can research this and see if it is still prevalent) in the above-mentioned family lineage, even viṣṇu-mantra was not accepted. Such activities that are against Vaiṣṇava behaviour such as the observance of the śrāddha ceremony for departed souls, pañcopāsana, prohibition of married women observing Ekādaśī and the eating of fish etc. amongst family members was quite prominent. Nowadays, some of the mahā-mahopādhyāyas of that family adhering to Smārta and māyāvādī doctrines are trying to promote themselves with the title ‘Nikhila Vaiṣṇava-śāstra-niṣṇāta śrīmad advaita-vaṁśāvataṁsa paṇḍita-pravara prabhupāda’ (‘That Prabhupāda who is the best of scholars, the descendant of Śrīmad Advaita’s lineage who is expert in all the Vaiṣṇava śāstras’) and other such designations. Similarly, the followers of the honourable Rādhā-mohana Gosvāmī Bhaṭṭācārya Mahāśaya have also endeavoured to prove that he is a pure Vaiṣṇava ācārya in the line of Mahāprabhu. In modern times such people write prayers such as:

*vande madana-gopālaṁ phaṇi-bhūṣaṇa vigraham

*sviṣṭa-daivaṁ guruñ caiva vāñca-kalpa-taruṁ mudā

With joy, I worship Madana-gopāla, who has taken the form of my beloved divine guru, Śrī Phaṇi-bhūṣaṇa, who is my personal deity and is like a desire tree. *(1)

They explain the janmādasya śloka as referring to, ‘someone who worships Nārāyaṇa, someone who worships Sūrya, someone who worships Śiva, someone who worships Durgā etc *(2), they try to establish Śrīdhara Svāmī as being an adherent of Kevalādvaitavāda and explain the verse, pibata bhāgavataṁ rasamālayaṁ in such a way which is opposed to the opinion of the jagad-guru Vaiṣṇava ācāryas i.e. alayam – mokṣa-kāla-paryantaṁ, sādhana-daśāmārabhya siddha-daśā-paryantamity-arthaḥ (“Only from the stage of sādhana up to the stage of mokṣa should one follow this explanation of the Bhāgavatam.”) *(3)

They support the opinions of anti-Vaiṣṇava Smārtas in the Smārta assemblies at Lakṣmī Bazaar in Dacca, declaring without śāstrika basis that the eternal and pure system of Pañcarātra is connected to Śaṅkara’s philosophical system.

If at present, the pseudo-Vaiṣṇava society considers Śrīyukta Rādhā-Vinoda Gosvāmī Mahāśaya to be the crest-jewel of the Advaita-vaṁśa and an exalted Vaiṣṇava, then what can be said of incidents that occurred long ago that ordinary people like us may not have witnessed, but know so much about? The honourable Gosvāmī Mahāśaya, in spite of showing strong allegiance to Smārta ideas and being honoured with the Smārta title ‘Bhaṭṭācārya’ and writing a commentary on the Smārtācārya’s Śrāddha-tattva (the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas have only written on Vaiṣṇava literatures and have never endeavoured to write commentaries on any anti-Vaiṣṇava texts), was still recognised as a ‘pure devotee’ of Mahāprabhu amongst the so-called Vaiṣṇava society that secretly follows Smārta philosophy. Should such a thing surprise us when such deviations are still continuing in present times?

We must not forget that although the honourable Smārta Gosvāmī Bhaṭṭācārya may be a great paṇḍita of Nyāya, if he holds views contrary to the Gauḍīya-Vedantācārya, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu or Śrīla Cakravartī Ṭhākura, then he will never be honoured by the society of pure Vaiṣṇavas, who are the true followers of Mahāprabhu. There is sufficient proof that can be cited with reference to such cases.

Vaiṣṇava Dāsānudāsa –

Śrī Rāmendra Sundara Deva Śārma (Bhaṭṭācārya B.A.)

FOOTOTES

*(1) During the Bengali year 1332, in the December-January edition of Bhārata-varṣera, there was an article entitled, *Nirākāra Īśvara-i Sṛṣṭikartā *(‘The Formless God as the Creator’). Also in the August-September edition there is an essay called, Jīva o Īśvare Bheda o Abheda (‘Jīva and Isvara – Difference and Non-difference’). Furthermore, in Baṅga-vāsī Magazine (mostly editions from the month of April) there is an article entitled Sāhitya-Sammilaner Abhibhāṣana (‘An Address at a Literary Conference’) from the Bengali year 1333. The writer of these articles, Mahā-mahopādhyāya Śrīyukta Phaṇi-bhūṣaṇa Tarka-vāgīśa Mahāśaya (the ‘Gurudeva’ of Śrīyukta Rādhā-vinoda Gosvāmī), for no reason, has criticized and tried to prove that the conclusions of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, the ācārya of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya, are illogical.

*(2) We will allow the Vaiṣṇava readers to decide whether or not Śrīyukta Rādhā-vinoda Gosvāmī’s explanation of the janmādasya śloka is similar to the conclusions of the Smārta pañcopāsana.

*(3) Despite the speaker, Śrīyukta Rādhā-vinoda Gosvāmī referring to Śrīdhara Swami as a follower of Kevalādvaita philosophy, the Gosvāmī’s māyāvāda-based explanation is totally different to the pure Vaiṣṇava explanations of the Śuddhādvaita ācārya, Śrīdhara Svāmī. Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary is as follows:

na ca bhāgavatāmṛtapānaṁ mokṣe’pi tyājyamityāha – ālayaṁ, layo mokṣaḥ abhividhāvaraḥ layamabhivyāpya, nahīdaṁ svargādi-sukhavan-muktairūpekṣyete kintu sevyata eva. vaksyati hi – ātmārāmaś ca munayo nirgranthā apyurukrame. kurvanty-ahaitukiṁ bhaktim ittham bhūta-guṇo hariḥ

Ālaya (beyond liberation) – it is not that one should come and drink the nectar of the Bhāgavatam only at the stage of mokṣa, when all delusions are left behind – the acquisition (layam) implies that mokṣa is already achieved, the acquisition includes it. There is not even a shadow of liberation that is acquired in Svarga etc., but only the spirit of service. For it is said, “Even those who find joy in the ātmā and the liberated sages seek to perform selfless bhakti to Hari, who has such amazing qualities.”

(Translated into English by Swami B.V. Giri and Sanātana Dāsa)