“Hari-saṅkīrttanam executed in the company of deliberate nāma-aparādhīs is far worst than non-execution of such saṅkīrttanam. Why? Because, such a vaiṣṇava-saṅga is an aparādhī-saṅga. It bears no spiritual effect. And there cannot be any worst nāma-aparādhī than one who commits an offense unto the lotus-like feet of Bhaktidevī by minimizing Her glory by accepting the fall-down of the bhagavat-prema-maṅḍita-jīvas from the Lord’s nitya-līlā!. If somebody argues that even if gold is found in gutter we will take it out from there also – the said contention is inapplicable in this context. Why? Because, even when Caitanya Mahāprabhu would conduct His saṅkīrttanam at Paṇḍiṭa Śrīvāsa’s house daily night, He and His comrades would make sure that any ‘vijātīya’ or a person having opposite ideology would not enter. Two evidences to prove the fact –
1) (from Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.22.131) ‘śrīmad-bhāgavatārthānām āsvādo rasikaiḥ saha /
sajātīyāśaye snigdhe sādhau saṅgaḥ svato vare //’
Rendition – ‘One should taste the meaning of Śrīmad-bhāgavatam in the association of pure devotees, and one should associate with the devotees who are more advanced than oneself and who are endowed with a similar type of affection for the Lord.’
2) Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī has written in his Haribhaktivilāsa:
avaiṣṇava-mukhodgīrṇam pūtam hari-kathāmṛtam /
śravaṇam naiva karttavyaṁ sarpocchiṣṭam yathā payaḥ //
Rendition – ‘One should not hear anything about Kṛṣṇa from a non-vaiṣṇava. Milk touched by the lips of a serpent has poisonous effects; similarly, talks about Kṛṣṇa given by a non-Vaiṣṇava are also poisonous.’
Conclusion – (taken from BRVF’s 30 Points Paper) – “Third reason of separation of BRVF from ISKCON is that the current Governing Body Commission of that heterodox institution is accepting the baddha-jīvas’ fall down theory directly from the nitya-līlā of Kṛṣṇa and also propagates that all baddha-jīvas are containing the ‘hlādinī-vṛtti-svarūpa-kṛṣṇa-prema’ from time without beginning – notions which are not acceptable according to śāstras, pūrvāaryas, and even parent institutions like Gauḍīya Maṭha and all other bona fide vaiṣṇava sampradāyas. Present theory accepted by the top leadership of that organization is almost on par with the criticism of the pratibimba-vāda and pariccheda-vāda theories of the Māyāvādi philosophy heavily criticized by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī in his Tattva-Sandarbha. Hence, the present theory of those heretics on jīvas containing kṛṣṇa-prema from anādi-kāla and their fall-down from the nitya-līlā of Śrī Hari – is supporting the Māyāvāda theory in allusion. VCT’s Mādhurya Kādambinī proves that anybody having ‘bhagavat-prema’ cannot actually fall down in the material world. If he falls, it can only be considered equivalent to the not actual fall down of Jaya, Vijaya and Citraketu. Hence, it is proved that heretics propounding opposite to the actual siddhanta are not only resembling Māyāvādīs, but are also offenders unto the Lotus Feet of Bhaktidevī – for they are minimizing the glories of Bhaktidevī (the internal potency of Kṛṣṇa) and establishing the glories of Maya to be greater! Moreover, they are in total perplexity about their own svarupa and itihāsa (i.e. identity and history). This is called ‘sva-svarūpa-bhrama’.”
Another argument can be placed here as follows – “But when Mahāprabhu was performing saṅkīrttanam on streets of Navadvīpa, everyone, either adhikārī (eligible) or anadhikārī (non-eligible) were present in that.”
Clarification – “Mahāprabhu’s saṅkīrttanam during prakaṭa-navadvīpa-līlā on the streets was to bestow bhāva and prema on the fellow prakaṭa-navadvīpa-vāsīs (baddha-jīvas). This was the speciality of the prakaṭa-gaura-līlā. Kindly refer to the following verse CC 1.3.64 –
“śrī-ańga, śrī-mukha yei kare daraśana
tāra pāpa-kṣaya haya, pāya prema-dhana” –
Rendition – “Anyone who looks upon His beautiful body or beautiful face becomes freed from all sins and obtains the wealth of love of Godhead.” Whereas, in the case of the sādhakas doing kīrttanam, the special prerogative that Mahāprabhu possessed is inapplicable.”
So, there are two types of anadhikārīs viz., a) deliberate nāma-aparādhīs and b) sāmānya-baddha-jīvas. The public saṅkīrttanam with the latter is not harmful for the sādhakas. But, if done with the former, it turns detrimental, if the genuine sādhakas who are not endowed with sufficient bhakti-balam.
Deliberate nāma-aparādhī is a person who, though understanding the deviation in their faulty concepts, does not try to evade them and tries to maintain his ‘pūrvāgraha’ or ‘wrong faulty philosophical beliefs’. Those who might be trying to not commit nāma-aparādha, but only inadvertently commit it are not deliberate ‘nāma-aparādhīs’. That’s the difference between the deliberate and the inadvertent category of nāma-aparādhīs. This is the crux of the whole matter.
a) ‘hlādinī-vṛtti-svarūpa-kṛṣna-prema’ can be thoroughly understood by you if you study the following article – https://rkdb.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/srimati-radhika-the-crest-jewel-of-all-potencies/
b) ‘pratibimba-vāda’ is the theory of Advaitins where they claim that the original impersonal non-specified absolute reality (nirviśeṣa-brahma) reflected itself onto ‘avidyā’ or ‘illusion’ and those reflections turned into jīvātmās or individual souls.
c) ‘pariccheda-vāda’ is a similar theory adopted by the Advaitins where they claim that the original impersonal non-specified absolute reality (nirviśeṣa-brahma) was divided by the impact of the limiting adjunct (upādhi) ‘avidyā’ or illusion into many small chunks – each chunk forming a jīva or an individual living entity.
d) Tattva-sandarbha is the first volume of the Six Sandarba treatises composed by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī as an exposition of Śrīmad-bhāgavatam.
e) Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravarttī’s Mādhurya-kādambinī is a book.
f) Kindly refer to the Citraketu’s and Vṛtrāsura’s story in the 6th Canto of Śrīmad-bhāgavatam (ŚBMP).
g) Jaya and Vijaya are nitya-siddha-pārṣadas or eternal associates of Nārāyaṇa in Vaikuṇṭha. Whereas, Citraketu is a sādhana-siddha-parikara or a ‘perfected through means associate’ of Hari (Saṅkarṣaṇa) in Vaikuṇṭha.
h) Genuine sādhakas need to chant and do Hari-saṇkīrttanam. But, not with those who deliberately want to stay as nama-aparadhis. Otherwise, it will turn as ‘asat-saṅga’ for them – unless such sādhakas are preachers and scholars of the highest level who would have strength to change the deliberate nāma-aparādhīs. That’s the point. Let such deliberate nāma-aparādhīs do their chanting within their flock.
i) Deliberate nāma-aparādhīs are those who don’t want to accept genuine philosophy despite externally attiring themselves in vaiṣṇava-like attire. They will concoct various philosophies against scriptures which will make them into severe offenders unto the lotus-like feet of Bhaktidevī. Philosophical deviancy can turn into a sever nāma-aparādha. Kindly study the main post above where a sample of such philosophical deviancy turning into nāma-aparādha is given. I have differentiated between common ‘nāma-aparādhīs’ and the deliberate ‘nāma-aparādhīs’ who want to believe in erroneous theological concepts culminating into offensive thoughts.
j) Our stand is very clear. Let nāma-aparādhīs do their chanting within their own flock. Genuine sadhakas who are not on ‘uttama-adhikārī’ stage should not associate with them. These are the reasons why even philosophical deviants like Māyāvādins (Māyāvādins are also Kṛṣṇa’s offenders due to their deviant ideology; similarly, those vaiṣṇavas who have offensive thoughts for Bhaktidevī are more deviant than those Māyāvādins) and their treatises are forbidden for a common vaiṣṇava-sādhaka (who is not on an uttama-adhikārī’s platform; don’t confuse this with uttama-bhāgavata category). However, for an acarya propagating and defending the vaisnava views, the srudy of Mayavadi and all sorts of non-Vaisnava philosophies is a must for Gaudiya Vaisnava masters like Srila Jiva Gosvami & Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana have, extensively, cited from many non-Vaisnava theological classics to confute such heterodox views.
Vide – a) CC 2.17.129 —
prabhu kahe, — “māyāvādī kṛṣṇe aparādhī
‘brahma’, ‘ātmā’ ‘caitanya’ kahe niravadhi
prabhu kahe — Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu said; māyāvādī — the impersonalists; kṛṣṇe — unto Kṛṣṇa; aparādhī — great offenders; brahma — brahma; ātmā — ātmā; caitanya — caitanya; kahe — say; niravadhi — without stopping.
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, “The Māyāvādī impersonalists are great offenders unto Lord Kṛṣṇa; therefore they simply utter the words ‘Brahman,’ ‘ātmā’ and ‘caitanya.’
b) CC 2.6.169 —
jīvera nistāra lāgi’ sūtra kaila vyāsa
māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa
jīvera — of the living entities; nistāra — deliverance; lāgi’ — for the matter of; sūtra — the Vedānta-sūtra; kaila — made; vyāsa — Śrīla Vyāsadeva; māyāvādi — of the impersonalists; bhāṣya — commentary; śunile — if hearing; haya — becomes; sarva-nāśa — all destruction.
“Śrīla Vyāsadeva presented the Vedānta philosophy for the deliverance of conditioned souls, but if one hears the commentary of Mayavadins, everything is spoiled.
We have never said that nāma-aparādhīs i.e. whether deliberate or non-deliberate should forsake chanting the holy names. Rather, what we propound is that the genuine sādhakas (who are below the category of uttama-adhikārīs) should not associate with deliberate nāma-aparādhīs or else, their bhakti will gravely be infected. To prove it, we have cited the scriptures, also.
— Bhaktirasavedāntapīṭhādhīśvara Ācārya Śrī Gurupāda