Short logo as a picture.

How institutionalized irrationally sentimental and blindly fanatic pseudo neo-Gauḍīyas manipulate the classical Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava texts for fulfilling their petty motives! (All prophecies misused and misinterpreted by pseudo/neo-Gauḍīyas – vehemently refuted.)





(1) Example –

Misinterpreted and wrongly translated Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.10.86 verse (ISKCON BBT’s edition) –

“mālīra icchāya śākhā bahuta bāḍila / bāḍiyā paścima deśa saba ācchādila //”


mālīra icchāya — on the desire of the gardener; śākhā — branches; bahuta — many; bāḍila — expanded; bāḍiyā — so expanding; paścima — western; deśa — countries; saba — all; ācchādila — covered.


“By the will of the supreme gardener, the branches of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī grew many times over, expanding throughout the western countries and covering the entire region.”



Analysis by Bhaktirasavedāntapīṭhādhīśvara Ācārya Śrī Gurupāda –


In CC 1.10.86, the usage of the term ‘paścima-deśa’ doesn’t mean the European and American countries. There are instances in Caitanya-caritāmṛta when the term ‘paścima’ or ‘west’ has been used for all those provinces of Bhārata which are geographically located west of Bengal or Gauḍadeśa.


There are numerous instances in CC itself where even Vrajabhūmi and Mathurā has been termed as ‘paścima-deśa’ or the provinces falling in Western direction.


Proof –

“anupama-vallabha, śrī-rūpa, sanātana / ei tina śākhā vṛkṣera paścime sarvottama //”


anupamavallabha — Anupama, or Vallabhaśrīrūpa — Śrī Rūpasanātana — Sanātanaei — these; tina — three; śākhā — branches; vṛkṣera — of the tree; paścime — on the western side; sarvottama — very great.


“On the western side were the forty-third, forty-fourth and forty-fifth branches — Śrī Sanātana, Śrī Rūpa and Anupama. They were the best of all.”


Analysis contd. –

The above evidence from Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.10.84 (which falls just two verses before CC 1.10.86 cited by neo-Gauḍīyas to glorify themselves and their so-called achievements) is contextual because it shares the same context as CC 1.10.86. In CC 1.10.84, the term ‘paścime’ or in the west directly denotes to Śrī Rūpa, Sanātana and all the Six Gosvāmīs who were sent to Vrajabhūmi placed in western direction from the Gauḍadeśa or Bengal. This is the reason why the term ‘paścime’ has been used. Did Six Govāmīs go to Europe and America? If no, the only relevance for them being considered in west  or ‘paścime’ is their spending their whole life-time in the western land of Vrajabhūmi – after initially spending their years in Bengal (eastern land).


Further proof substantiating the intended meaning of the term ‘paścim-deśa’ as seen in CC 1.10.86 – clarified in CC 1.10.87 –


“ā-sindhunadī-tīra āra himālaya / vṛndāvana-mathurādi yata tīrtha haya //”


āsindhunadī — to the border of the river Sindhutīra — border; āra — and; himālaya — the Himalayan Mountains; vṛndāvana — Vṛndāvanamathurā — Mathurāādi — heading the list; yata — all; tīrtha — places of pilgrimage; haya — there are.


“Extending to the borders of the river Sindhu and the Himalayan Mountain valleys, these two branches expanded throughout India, including all the places of pilgrimage, such as Vṛndāvana, Mathurā and Haridvāra.”


Analysis contd. –


Hence, it’s clear that the meaning of ‘paścima-deśa’ or western region is only till the boundary of River Sindhu in the west (which is the boundary of classical Bhārata/India). Here, west does not indicate mleccha-deśas or the European countries.


Similarly, another reason why the term ‘paścima-deśa’ as seen in CC 1.10.86 cannot be interpreted to mean the occidental European and American countries is because the very tone of that verse tells that it describes the situation during the prakaṭa-līlā or the manifest pastimes of Caitanyadeva. It is a very clear fact that Caitanyadeva and His eternal contemporary associates never went to any Western country in Europe and America.


Furthermore, CC 1.10.86 verse uses terms in past tense like ‘ācchādila’ and ‘bāḍila’ which means ‘expanded’ and ‘covered’.


Śrī Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī is writing this CC almost half century after Caitanyadeva’s demise. So, when he uses the past tense verbs like ‘covered’ and ‘expanded’ — it clearly denotes the preaching activity which happened during Caitanyadeva’s time.


Conclusion –

The term ‘paścima-deśa’ doesn’t imply to the European/American countries. Rather, it implies to the Western region of Bhārata which was ‘west’ in relation with the Eastern province of Bengal. Mahāprabhu and His associates delivered this Western region, too (like the area of Northern and Western India). Hence, the speculated meaning indicating occidental/western countries of Europe etc. – in relation to CC 1.10.86’s term ‘paścima-deśa’ – is totally out of context and conflicts grammatically with past two tense verbs (‘ācchādila’ and ‘bāḍila’) as used in the same verse, and contravenes with the term ‘paścime’ seen in CC 1.10.84, too.




(2) Example –

Misinterpreted verse from the Caitanya-bhāgavata 3.4.126 (Gauḍīya Mutt – Bengali Edition)

“pthivī-paryyanta jata āche deśa grāma / sarvatra sañcāra haibeka mora nāma //

Literal translation –

“In every village and region on the extent of Earth, My name will spread everywhere.”


Analysis contd. –

The modern day neo/pseudo-Gauḍīyas have interpreted this verse to substantiate their missionary activities’ authenticity. But, after a diligent scrutiny of classical Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava works, we find the claims of these pseudo-Gauḍīyas as unproved. How? Let us examine below.


a) When Śrī Caitanyadeva forecasts the spread of His name, He is forecasting the spread of śuddhā bhakti or uttamā bhakti (purely unadulterated top calibre devotion) represented by the chanting/utterance of the śuddha-nāma (cent percent pure Holy Name of God recited on the stage of bhāva/prema-bhakti). Contrarily, He is not forecasting the spread of aśuddha-nāma (unadulterated name) displayable through two forms viz., aparādha-nāma (holy name on the stage of offenses) & nāma-ābhāsa (semblance/reflection/shadow of the actual holy name). Why such interpretation? Because, if it is accepted that Caitanyadeva forecasted the spread of the aśuddha-nāma, it adds to no glory of His advent – since, aśuddha-nāma has continued to be taken by all sorts of sinners and imperfect sādhakas since time without beginning. If Caitanyadeva continues to spread such aśuddha-nāma, it does not prove any substantiality to His contribution to the world. Hence, it is to be interpreted that Caitanya is predicting the spread of the śuddha-nāma or uttamā-bhakti.

Once established, now rises a second question as to whether the missionary efforts of the neo/pseudo-Gauḍīyas do, actually, comprise the spread of the śuddha-nāma/uttamā-bhakti or not? Let us examine on the basis of the topmost scripture of the Gauḍīyas dedicated to the portrayal of the science of devotion viz., Bhakti-rasa-amṛta-sindhu 1.2.259 & 1.2.113 –

Evidence – (i)

“dhana-śiyādibhir dvārair yā bhaktir upapādyate | vidūratvād uttamatā-hānyā tasyās ca nāgatā ||”

– BRS 1.2.259 & BRS 1.2.113 and its commentaries clarify that the bhakti which is established on the grounds of wealth and followers – is not to be considered part of uttamā-bhakti (it cannot be considered sādhana-bhakti and when it is not sādhana-bhakti, it cannot give rise to bhāva or prema, irrespective of vaidhī or rāgānugā types; it can, however be considered to be the gateway or dvāra-svarūpa for acquiring the sukti needed to gain the prathama-sādhu-saga needed for obtaining the pāramārthikī-śraddhā or the bhakti-latā-bīja).


Note –

If the followers or disciples made are ineligible to be included within the sampradāya and are taken resort of – and if  wealth is made the primary instrument for the propagation of sampradāya instead of the actual spiritual knowledge and spiritual qualification, then the ‘uttamā-bhakti’ is certainly unmanifest.

Gist of Viśvanātha Caravarttī’s comments on BRS 1.2.259 –

“Among the aṅgas of bhakti, wealth and the other items are generally not needed for hearing and chanting. The excellence of bhakti is destroyed when it depends on wealth and followers. For instance, in deity worship. One person may feel that he cannot perform all the services for the deity by himself and thus depend on followers. However, this danger is not present in all agas of bhakti.”

Evidence – (ii)  – (Jīva Gosvāmī’s comments on BRS 1.2.113) –

“śiyān naivānubadhnīyād ity ādiko yadyapi sannyāsi-dharmas tathāpi nivttānām apy aneā bhaktānā upayujyata iti bhāva. etac cānadhikarīśiyādy-apekayā | śrī-nāradādau tac-chravaāt | tat-tat-sampradāya-nāśa-prasagāc ca | anyathā jñāna-śāhyāpatte | ataeva nānubadhnīyād iti sva-sva-sampradāya-vddhy-artham anadhikārio pi na saghyād ity artha | bahūn iti bhagavad-bahirmukhān anyās tv ity artha | ārambhān ity api tadvat ||113||”

Translation –

“Though the topic under discussion in the Bhāgavatam is sannyāsa-dharma, and therefore the three rules apply to a renounced person, the rules are also applicable to other devotees. In any case,  this rule means that one should not accept unqualified disciples. This is because we see examples of Nārada and others taking disciples, though they were renounced. If the rule was literally followed, and no disciples were made, then the sampradāya would be destroyed because there would be no lineage. Consequently, there would be an appearance of false knowledge.  Thus, the rule that a devotee should not be attached to making disciples actually means the devotee should not accept unqualified disciples in order to increase the numbers in one’s sampradāya.”



Remarks continued –

Since, the institutionalized missionary activities of the pseudo-Gauḍīyas are, wholly, dependent on the amount of wealth and followers etc. and since, neo/pseudo-Gauḍīyas are very much keen on choosing disciples from the scripturally ‘anadhikārī’ (ineligible) lot and are keen, also, to appoint dīkṣā/śikṣā-gurus from the ‘anadhikārī’ lot – their missionary activities, clearly, do fall under the jurisdiction of ‘bhakti retrograde’ – which is opposed to the principles of unadulterated uttamā-bhakti. Such pseudo-Gauḍīyas’ devotion and their so-called preaching activities will instantly come to a permanent termination as soon as their two strengths are pulled away from them viz., the monetary power and the following power. They cannot survive without these two as analogous to a fish out of a water. Hence, it is evident that their ‘bhakti-pracāra’ or spread of bhakti is not of the calibre of uttamā-bhakti.


When their ‘bhakti-pracāra’ is not of the calibre of uttamā-bhakti, it cannot be accepted that they are spreading the śuddha-nāma (śuddha-nama can be taken and propagated only on the platform of uttamā bhakti). When they are not spreading the śuddha-nāma, but rather, the aśuddha-nāma (of two types) – then it cannot be accepted that they are fulfilling the above prediction given by Śrī Caitanyadeva as seen in Caitanya-bhāgavata 3.4.126. Therefore, when it is deducted that the prophecy of Caitanyadeva regarding the spread of His name applies to some other context, wholly, unrelated with that of the neo-Gauḍīyas’ missionary works – then, another question arises as to what is the actual context applicable to the prophecy seen in Caitanya-bhāgavata 3.4.126? Let us analyse.


b) The real applicable context of CB 3.4.126 is clarified in Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.3.254-256 during the conversation of the personified Goddess of Illusion (Māyādevī) and Haridāsa Thā The original Bengali verses of CC 3.3.254-256 should be heeded to and not their out of context and opportunistic misinterpretation given in the commentaries of neo-Gauḍīyas.

“caitanyāvatāre vahe premāmṛta-vanyā / saba jīva preme bhāse, pṛthivī haila dhanyā //



caitanyaavatāre — in the incarnation of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhuvahe — flows; premaamṛta — of the eternal nectar of love of Godhead; vanyā — the flood; saba jīva — all living entities; preme — in ecstatic love; bhāse — float; pṛthivī — the whole world; haila — became; dhanyā — thankful.



“There is now a flood of the eternal nectar of love of Godhead during the incarnation time of Śrī Caitanya. All living entities are floating in that flood. The entire world is now thankful to the Lord.”


Remarks Contd. –

The  immediately succeeding verses from CC 3.3.255-269 should, also, be consulted for further elucidation of the context. The phrase ‘caitanya-avatāre’ and ‘haila’ are the key words in interpreting CC 3.3.254 given above. ‘Caitanya-avatāre’ indicates the inundation of the whole Earth in the flood of Godly love during the prakaṭa-līlā-kāla (time of the manifest pastime) or the avataraṇa-kāla (time of the incarnation) of Caitanyadeva. It does not indicate the ‘an-avatāra-kāla’ or the (time when the manifest incarnation of Caitanyadeva is summed up). The missionary propagation done by the neo-Gauḍīyas in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries – constitutes the ‘an-avatāra-kāla’. Such missionary propagation is not being done during the ‘prakaṭa-līlā’ or the manifest pastimes of Gauracandra. It is done almost 4 centuries after the ‘avatāra-kāla’ of Caitanya is over – again a strong reason to discount the neo-Gauḍīyas’ missionary activities as having any sort of relation with CB 3.4.126 and CC 3.3.254 alike.


c) Another term employed in CC 3.3.254 – ‘haila’ is, literally, translated as ‘recently happened/occurred just now’. What Māyādevī is telling Haridāsa Thākura in the Antya-līlā (the last 3rd section of Caitanyadeva’s pastimes in Caitanya-caritāmṛta) is that such global inundation of Godly love on the whole Earth has just happened in recent past – thus, ruling out any future hypothetical possibility of such indundation’s re-occurrence (especially, after the prakaṭa-līlā or the avatāra-kāla of Caitanya is over after the wounding up of the manifest pastimes).


Now, the original Bengali verse under discussion from Caitanya-bhāgavata’s Antya-khanda (last or the 3rd portion) or CB 3.4.126 corresponds to the period of Caitanyadeva’s pastimes depicted in the Madhya-līlā (2nd or the intermediate portion) of Caitanya-caritāmṛta. The manifest pastimes (prakaṭa-līlā) depicted by Śrī Vṛndāvanadāsa Thakkura in Caitanya-bhāgavata’s Antya-khaṇḍa (last 3rd Canto) – timely correspond to the manifest pastimes of Caitanyadeva mentioned in the Madhya-līlā (intermediate 2nd Canto) of Śrīla Kṛṣnadāsa Kavirāja’s Caitanya-caritāmṛta. Hence, the manifest pastimes described in the last 3rd Canto (Antya-līlā) of Caitanya-caritāmṛta – are not even depicted in Caitanya-bhāgavata for Caitanya-bhāgavata ends just before entering into the last portion of Caitanya-līlā. The point is that the Antya-līlā of Caitanya-caritāmṛta supersedes in timely or chronological sequence to the time of the pastimes depicted within the Antya-khaṇḍa of Caitanya-bhāgavata. For example, CB 3.4.126 verse under main discussion is spoken by Caitanyadeva when He plans to return back to Odisha (Jagannātha Purī) after a sudden plan change from the halt made at the village of Rāmakeli (Maldah District – Nothern West Bengal state of current Bhārata) on his uncompleted journey to Mathurā/Vṛndāvana. This episode which is described in the Antya-khaṇḍa (3rd Canto) of Caitanya-bhāgavata – is described in the Madhya-līlā (2nd Canto) of Caitanya-caritāmṛta. Hence, it is logically understood that the 3rd Canto (Antya-līlā) of Caitanya-caritāmṛta timely supersedes the Antya-khaṇḍa (3rd Canto) of Caitanya-bhāgavata and so, the pastimes mentioned in the 3rd Canto of Caitanya-caritāmṛta represent the ‘future’ pastimes (within the manifest or prakaṭa-līlā) in comparative relation to the pastimes mentioned in the 3rd Canto of Caitanya-bhāgavata. So, when Caitanya-bhāgavata 3.4.126 verse was spoken by Caitanyadeva during His incomplete tour to Vṛndāvana – it is a past incident as when compared to the Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.3.254. (Caitanya-caritāmṛta was composed much later than Caitanya-bhāgavata.)


One may argue here that the incidence of Māyādevī meeting Haridāsa Thākura (as mentioned in CC 3.3.254-269) had occurred even before the advent of Caitanyadeva (when Haridāsa had not met Caitanya in Navadvīpa). If so, how can the CC 3.3.254 onwards be considered to timely succeed the statement spoken by Caitanyadeva in CB 3.4.126 during His visit to Rāmakeli? The answer to this logical question is that though the meeting of Māyādevī with Thākura Haridāsa had occurred even before the advent of Caitanyadeva, nevertheless, in Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.3.254 onward, He is Caitanyadeva only Who is narrating this whole past happened incidence of Haridāsa & Māyādevī – to His bhaktas in Jagannātha Purī. Hence, the narration by Caitanyadeva (made about Haridāsa & Māyā) timely succeeds the statement of Caitanyadeva as seen in CB 3.4.126 during the visit to Rāmakeli. Though the original conversation between Māyā and Haridāsa did not timely succeed Caitanya’s visit to Rāmakeli, nevertheless, Caitanya’s retelling the conversation between Māyā and Haridāsa has timely succeeded the assertion made in CB 3.4.126.


Therefore, the future tense verbal form – ‘haibeka’ (will happen) as seen employed in CB 3.4.126 indicates the inundation of the Earth (when it is said whole Earth, it is very relative – for even after boasting their missionary expansion throughout the globe – these so-called neo-Gauḍīyas have not even spread in one-tenth of the total geographical places on Earth; their presence is not like the Christian or Islamic missionaries who have their presence in almost every smallest place on Earth) with Godly love which happened after Caitanyadeva visited and completed His tour of Vṛndāvana and successfully sent Śrī Rūpa and Sanātana to the Vraja area. His visit to Vṛndāvana and the arrival of Rūpa and Sanātana to Vṛndāvana had not happened (and so the western and northern lands of Bhārata had not been inundated yet in the Godly love) when CB 3.4.126 (‘haibeka’ – will happen) was spoken by Caitanya in Rāmakeli. However, all this had completed by the time Caitanyadeva retold the conversation between Māyā and Haridāsa in the CC 3.3.254 onward; proof that Caitanyadeva retold the conversation is found in CC 3.3.93-94. So, when Caitanyadeva retold the conversation between Māyā and Haridāsa, He had, actually, inundated the whole world in Godly love by then. So, He logically switched from the future tense verb that Māyā had used in her original conversation to Haridāsa – to an already happened incident (since the inundation is already completed or done by now) or to the past tense ‘haila’ (recently happened) as seen in CC 3.3.254 – during the retelling.


The conclusion is that CB 3.4.126 refers to the inundation of the Earth (the essence of Earth or prithivī is Bhārata-varṣa and so the devatās yearn to take birth in Bhārata-varṣa – the epitome on Earth – and not to other lands on Earth) or Bhārata-varṣa in Kṛṣna-prema or Godly love – as completed and happened during the manifest advent incarnation time (prakaṭa avarataraṇa līlā kāla) of Caitanyadeva.


d) And such inundation can, only, occur during the ‘avatāra-kāla’ of Caitanyadeva because of a special reason mentioned in CC 2.16.121 –

“emana kṛpālu nāhi śuni tribhuvane / kṛṣṇa-premā haya yāńra dūra daraśane //



emana kṛpālu — such a merciful person; nāhi — not; śuni — we hear; tribhuvane — within the three worlds; kṛṣṇapremā haya — one gets love of Kṛṣṇayāńra — of whom; dūra daraśane — by seeing from a distance.



“There is no one as merciful as Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu within all three worlds. Simply by seeing Him from a distance, one is overwhelmed with love of Godhead.”

Another proof found in CC 1.3.64 –

“śrī-ańga, śrī-mukha yei kare daraśana / tāra pāpa-kṣaya haya, pāya prema-dhana //”



śrīańga — His body; śrīmukha — His face; yei — anyone who; kare — does; daraśana — seeing; tāra — of him; pāpakṣaya — destruction of sins; haya — there is; pāya — obtains; premadhana — the wealth of love of Godhead.



“Anyone who looks upon His beautiful body or beautiful face becomes freed from all sins and obtains the wealth of love of Godhead.”


Remarks Contd. –

Therefore, the physical presence of Caitanydeva during His ‘avatāra-kāla’ or the incarnation time (manifest pastimes / prakaṭa-līlā) is very much required to flood all the eligible jīvas present on Bhārata-varṣa (Earth) to be inundated with such Godly love – another strong reason to discount the misconstruing of the missionary preaching of the neo-Gauḍīyas as constituting an actual inundation of the Holy Name/śuddhā bhakti/krṣṇa-prema in the world.

e) CC 1.7.25-40 (the author of CC is making an assessment of the result/outcome/contribution which came out after that the manifest pastimes of Caitanyadeva were wound up). The below proof, once, again proves that the ‘haibeka’ (or ‘will happen’) as seen employed in CB 3.4.126 has ‘recently happened’ or ‘haila’ (when assessment is made immediately after the consummation of the prakaṭa-līlā of Gauracandra) and that such global inundation is not pointing towards any future incidences happening in 19th, 20thor 21stcenturies CE –

“uchalila prema-vanyā caudike veḍāya / strī, vṛddha, bālaka, yuvā, sabāre ḍubāya // – CC 1.7.25



uchalila — became agitated; premavanyā — the inundation of love of Godhead; caudike — in all directions; veḍāya — surrounding; strī — women; vṛddha — old men; bālaka — children; yuvā — young men; sabāre — all of them; ḍubāya — merged into.



“The flood of love of Godhead swelled in all directions, and thus young men, old men, women and children were all immersed in that inundation.”

“saj-jana, durjana, pańgu, jaḍa, andha-gaṇa / prema-vanyāya ḍubāila jagatera jana // – CC 1.7.26



satjana — gentle men; durjana — rogues; pańgu — lame; jaḍa — invalid; andhagaṇa — blind men; premavanyāya — in the inundation of love of Godhead; ḍubāila — drowned; jagatera — all over the world; jana — people.



The flood stream of ‘prema’ has drowned the world and everyone, whether one be a gentleman, a rogue or even lame, invalid or blind.”


Note –

The unscrupulous pseudo/neo-Gauḍīyas have deliberately changed the English translation of the above Bengali verse to fool their followers. The terms – “The Kṛṣṇa Consciousness movement will inundate” – such phrase is nowhere to be seen in the original literal meaning of the above Bengali verse. By saying ‘this Kṛṣṇa Consciousness movement’ – they are alluding to their recently and legally registered institutions for their missionary works. They are not wanting to allude to the classical Gauḍīya Sampradāya. This is their vested motive. Also, from where the future tense verb ‘will inundate/drown’ – came? The original Bengali word seen in the verse is – ‘ḍubāila’ which literally, is a past tense verb denoting term meaning – ‘recently inundated/drowned’ (as when seen from the time when Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja wrote the above verse in 16th Century few decades after the physical disappearance of Caitanyadeva. So, by changing the meaning from past tense to the future tense, the heinous motive of these pseudo-Gauḍīyas have been detected to manipulate the original Bengali verse in such a way that it starts substantiating their missionary activities.

“jagat ḍubila, jīvera haila bīja nāśa / tāhā dekhi’ pāńca janera parama ullāsa // – CC 1.7.27



jagat — the whole world; ḍubila — drowned; jīvera — of the living entities; haila — it so became; bīja — the seed; nāśa — completely finished; tāhā — then; dekhi‘ — by seeing; pāñca — five; janera — of the persons; parama — highest; ullāsa — happiness.



“When the five members of the Pañca-tattva saw the entire world drowned in love of Godhead and the seed of material enjoyment in the living entities completely destroyed, they all became exceedingly happy.”


Note –

Till CC 1.7.39, it was explained as to how Caitanyadeva inundated the world with Holy Name and Holy Love (prema + nāma) during His gṛhastha-līlā in Navadvīpa and then, how He undertook sannyāsa āśrama to further touch those who were left untouched in such flood. In cc 1.7.39, the term ‘mleccha ādi’ or ‘mleccha etc.’ – does not refer to the missionary activities recently undertaken by pseudo-Gauḍīyas. It denotes the yavanas/mlecchas who received Caitanyadeva’s mercy during His physical presence and before moving to Varanasi/Kāśī on the way to Prayāga/Allahabada (the conversion of Pathan Muslims into Vaiṣṇavas) – as clearly evident from the context.




(3) Example —

The third greatly misinterpreted evidence comes from Śrī Caitanya Mangala (Sūtra-khaṇḍa, song 12, texts 564-565) composed by Gaurasundara’s eternal associate Śrī Locanadāsa Thākura. In it, Lord Caitanya is, clearly, seen mentioning that He will send His leading preacher abroad:

“ebe nāma sakīrttana tīkṣṇa khadga lañā antara asura jīvera phelibā kāiyā / yadi pāpī chāi dharma dūra deśe jāya / mora senāpati-bhakta jāibe tathāya //


Translation –

“Taking the sharp sword of the congregational chanting of the Holy Name, I will root out and destroy the demoniac mentality in the hearts of the conditioned souls. If some sinful people escape and giving up religious principles go to
far off regions, then My army generals (senāpati-bhakta) will appear to chase them.”


Analysis contd. –

Herein, the neo/pseudo-Gauḍīyas of the 19th, 20th & 21st centuries claim that the above prediction (especially, the term – ‘senāpati-bhakta’) reflects to their legally registered institutional founder(s). But, according to the most authentic and highly revered hagiography of Śrī Caitanyadeva, the case is, all together, contrary to their assumptions. Let us examine evidences from Caitanya-caritāmṛta proving as to what does Lord Caitanya meant by ‘senāpati-bhakta’ when He asserted the above proposition in Caitanya-maṅgala.


Additionally, the context in which the above cited Caitanya-maṅgala verses are written – clearly indicate (upon reading the Bengali verses of that portion of Caitanya-maṅgala immediately preceding and succeeding the ones cited above) the thoughts of Śrī Golokanātha Kṛṣna Who ponders over the desire to incarnate/manifest/appear onto the Earthly Navadvīpa by merging into the icon of Gaurasundara Who is self-same as Nanda-nanana Kṛṣṇa of Vraja. Hence, even the very actual context of that portion of Caitanya-maṅgala makes it clear to the readers that Kṛṣṇa is predicting about His prakaṭa-gaura-līlā (manifest pastimes as Caitanya on Earthly Navadvīpa) and so, the term – ‘senāpati-bhakta’ indicates His contemporaneous eternal associates or nitya-siddha-pārṣadas like Śrī Nityānanda/Śrī Advaita/Śrī Rūpa/Śrī Sanātana – as will be evident by contemplating on the analysis given below.


Proofs –

(i) CC 1.3.74-75 –

“nityānanda gosāñi sākṣāt haladhara / advaita ācārya gosāñi sākṣāt īśvara //”




nityānanda gosāñi — Lord Nityānanda Gosāñisākṣāt — directly; haladhara — Lord Balarāma, the holder of the plow; advaita ācārya gosāñi — Śrī Advaita Ācārya Gosāñisākṣāt — directly; īśvara — the Personality of Godhead.



“Śrī Nityānanda Gosāñi is directly Haladhara [Lord Balarāma], and Advaita Ācārya is the Personality of Godhead Himself.”

“śrīvāsādi pāriṣada sainya sańge lañā / dui senā-pati bule kīrtana kariyā //”




śrīvāsaādi — Śrīvāsa and others; pāriṣada — associates; sainya — soldiers; sańge — along with; lañā — taking; dui — two; senāpati — captains; bule — travel; kīrtanakariyā — chanting the holy name.



“These two captains, with Their soldiers such as Śrīvāsa Ṭhākura, travel everywhere, chanting the holy name of the Lord.”


Note –

Herein, Śrī Nityānanda and Śrī Advaita have been the ‘senāpati’ or commanders in chief heading the army of other nitya-siddha-pārṣadas or eternally perfect associates of Gaurasundara like Śrīvāsa Thākura etc.

(ii) CC 1.7.163-167 –

“ei pañca-tattva-rūpe śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya / kṛṣṇa-nāma-prema diyā viśva kailā dhanya //




ei — this; pañcatattvarūpe — the Lord in His five forms; śrīkṛṣṇacaitanya — Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhukṛṣṇanāma — the holy name of Lord Kṛṣṇaprema — love of Kṛṣṇadiyā — having given; viśva — the whole world; kailā — madedhanya — thankful.



“Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu and His associates of the Pañca-tattva distributed the holy name of the Lord and the love of Godhead throughout the universe, and thus the entire universe was thankful.”


Note –

In the distorted interpretation given in the BBT Purport to the above verse, the neo-Gauḍīya camp has tried to bring themselves in by connecting the verse with their recently undertaken missionary activities. They have provided wrong meanings to certain key verbal words employed in the verse to suit their interpretation. As for example, the term ‘diyā’ means – ‘having given’ (indicating a recent past – in timely connection to Caitanya-caritāmṛta’s authorship). This past tense verb ‘diyā’ – suits with another past tense verb – ‘kailā’ – which, also means – ‘done/made’. However, the pseudo-Gauḍīyas have interpreted the word ‘diyā’ – in a totally wrong way by ascribing to it a wrong meaning – ‘delivering’. ‘Diyā’ doesn’t mean ‘delivering’ in present tense. It means ‘to give’ in recent past tense. Then, the distorters have endeavoured to apply this speculated meaning having speculated present tense – ‘diyā/delivering’ to apply to their current missionary activities to prove such activities as delivering the conditioned jīvas. Such mischief has been played in the purport below the above verse found. The past tense verbs – ‘diyā’ + ‘kailā’ – solidly indicate that during the prakaṭa-līlā of Caitanyacandra which was just recently wound up before the authorship of Caitanya-caritāmṛta – in those manifest pastimes, did Gaurasundara made the world or ‘viśva’ (Earth/prithivī) blessed (‘dhanya kailā) by giving the śuddha-kṛṣṇa-nāma and kṛṣṇa-prema (‘kṛṣṇa-nāma prema diyā’). This, in no way, indicates the recently undertaken missionary acts of neo-Gauḍīyas. The context is altogether different and contextually, only the prakaṭa-līlā of Śrī Caitanya is under consideration in the above verse.

“mathurāte pāṭhāila rūpa-sanātana / dui senā-pati kaila bhakti pracāraṇa //



mathurāte — toward Mathurāpāṭhāila — sent; rūpasanātana — the two brothers Rūpa Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī; dui — both of them; senāpati — as commanders in chief; kaila — He made them; bhakti — devotional service; pracāraṇa — to broadcast.



“Lord Caitanya dispatched the two generals Rūpa Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī to Vṛndāvana to preach the bhakti cult.”


Note –

Herein, Śrīla Rūpa and Sanātana Gosvāmīs have been, explicitly, designated as ‘senāpati’ or commanders in chief.

“nityānanda-gosāñe pāṭhāilā gauḍa-deśe / teńho bhakti pracārilā aśeṣa-viśeṣe //



nityānanda — Lord Nityānandagosāñe — the ācāryapāṭhāilā — was sent; gauḍadeśe — in Bengal; teńho — Hebhakti — devotional cult; pracārilā — preached; aśeṣaviśeṣe — in a very extensively peculiar way.



“As Rūpa Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī were sent toward Mathurā, so Nityānanda Prabhu was sent to Bengal to preach extensively the cult of Caitanya Mahāprabhu.”

“āpane dakṣiṇa deśa karilā gamana / grāme grāme kailā kṛṣṇa-nāma pracāraṇa //



āpane — personally; dakṣiṇa deśa — South India; karilā — went; gamana — traveling; grāme grāme — in each and every village; kailā — He did; kṛṣṇanāma — the holy name of Lord Kṛṣṇapracāraṇa — broadcasting.



“Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu personally went to South India, and He broadcast the holy name of Lord Kṛṣṇa in every village and town.”

“setubandha paryanta kailā bhaktira pracāra / kṛṣṇa-prema diyā kailā sabāra nistāra //




setubandha — the place where Lord Rāmacandra constructed His bridge; paryanta — up to that place; kailā — did; bhaktira — of the cult of devotional service; pracāra — broadcast; kṛṣṇaprema — love of Kṛṣṇadiyā — delivering; kailā — did; sabāra — everyone; nistāra — deliverance.



“Thus the Lord went to the southernmost tip of the Indian peninsula, known as Setubandha Rāmeśvaram. Everywhere He distributed the bhakti cult and love of Kṛṣṇa, and in this way He delivered everyone.”


Final remarks –


From all the above analysis and evidences taken directly from the major hagiographical works related to Caitanyadeva, it is, clearly, evident as to how Śrī Caitanya along with His four comrades (pañca-tattva) and with their senāpati-bhaktas like Śrī Rūpa & Sanātana – successfully inundated the whole world / Earth (viśva/prithivī) with the flood of kṛṣṇa-nāma/prema. In all these contexts, the contextually appropriate meaning indicated by terms like ‘viśva’ (world) and ‘prithivī’ (Earth) is Bhārata or India – for Lord Caitanya and His comrades had no interest and objective to visit the mleccha/yavana lands of West. Furthermore, in those days, the Āryans/Hindus/Vedic-dharmīs/Sanātana-dharmīs/Bhārtīyas – resided only within the geographical jurisdiction of the Mahābhārata-kālīna Bhārata (India of the Mahābhārata time). Unlike today, the Indigenous Bhāratīya Āryan diaspora did not reside on mleccha/yavana lands of occidental hemisphere. And, Śrī Caitanya’s and His comrades’ focus of deliverance was, solely, the residents of Bhārata – whether be handful of mlecchas/yavanas or the majority Āryans – as clearly seen from His moves of delivering jīvas during His prakaṭa-līlā.


For all the above reasons, the missionary activities not in alignment with scriptures and classical tradition – as undertaken by neo/pseudo-Gauḍīyas under the usurped garb of ‘Hare Krishnas’ or under any other pretext related with Gauḍīya Vaishnavism (like ‘Gauḍīya Mutt’) – do not find any justification, whatsoever, in the precisely explicit statements embedded in the classical literary canon of Caitanyaites/Gauḍīyas.


If it is argued by the pseudo-Gauḍīyas that why their missionary activities are not considered as a positive (though they may have accepted by now that their activities are not in the denomination of uttamā-bhakti – by gazing at the above cited manifold scriptural testimonies) task done for uplifting the humanity at large especially, when they (the neo-Gauḍīyas) are spreading the ‘aśuddha-aparādha-nāma’ (impure offensive form of the actual Holy Name of God) – the reply to their sarcastic query is invested/hidden in their question only. How?


When, those a bit among such pseudo-Gauḍīyas, have accepted that their spread of the Holy Name is not the actual śuddha-nāma, but the aparādha-yukta aśuddha-nāma, then it will become quite easy for them to now comprehend as to what benefit the spread of the aparādha-nāma (offensive name) will bestow? And the reason why it is offensive (nāmābhāsa or non-offensive semblance of Holy Name is only spread by very few neo-Gauḍīys; most are spreading only the aparādha-nāma type of aśuddha-nāma) is because to outwardly accept the validity (prāmāṇya) of the śruti-śāstra or the Vedic literature (this includes the classical literature of 6 Gauḍīya Gosvāmīs and others, too, which is in conformity with the original Vedic literature), but to harbour/foster/defend/implement/spread/canvass/advertise the doctrines/beliefs/ideologies/tenets/gospels/philosophy/theology/siddhānta – which are against those propounded by the śruti-śāstras and the classical pūrvācārya-paramparā (includes 6 Gosvāmīs – the theological founders of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism) – on numerous subjects – proves that such neo-Gauḍīyas are committing two offenses unto the Holy Name at the same time viz., ‘śruti-śāstra-nindanam’ (criticizing the validity of Vedic scriptures by outwardly praising them, but inwardly, not abiding by their views – an act of great spiritual duplicity and heinous crime not forgivable) + ‘guror avajñā’ (not following the views of the guru-paramparā – especially, not following the views of the mūla-gurus of the Gauḍīya Sampradāya viz., the 6 Gosvāmīs – any latter guru not abiding by 6 Gosvāmīs’ ideology is just a namesake guru meant to spread illusion – which is, too, needed to bring to highlight the value of the real true light of knowledge – for if there exists no darkness, no question of appreciating illumination arises). Because of being in everlasting constant accompaniment of the aforesaid two offenses/aparādhas, their spread of the Godly names is aparādha-mūlaka or offense-creating and thus, it can bear no good for the humanity at large – in a scriptural perspective (śāstrīya dṛṣṭikoṇa). This is the reason why the Brahma-yāmala-tantra verse cited in Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu says – “śruti-smṛti-purāṇadi-pañcarātra-vidhiṁ  vinā / aikāntikī harer bhaktiḥ utpātāyaiva kalpate //” that “Even if the devotion to God Hari is exclusive, if its practice goes in contravention of the injunctions/theories/processes laid down by the scriptures like Upaniṣads/śrutis, smṛtis/dhama-śāstras, purāṇas/itihāsa and pañcarātra texts – it creates sole disturbance on the spiritual path.”


The gist is that such neo-Gauḍīyas’ missionary tasks produce no spiritual good ultimately. The only seeming welfare they provide to the humanity at large is their making their followers uplifted to a sāttvika-styled life bereft of sins. Thus, the only social contribution (nothing spiritually substantial) they provide to man-kind is their turning animal-like human beings into those civilized ones – if Vedic culture is taken into account to some extent. {But, many organizations even among the neo-Gauḍīyas do promote certain sinful activities (like the permission to illegitimate mixture of homo-gender etc.) considering them non-harmful to the practice of bhakti – by such camps, even such benefit is not obtained to humanity.} However, in the last, even their turning tāmasika jīvas into sāttvika ones prove no benefit because they inspire the distortion of the conventional Vedic varṇāśrama structure to prevail – thus proving their all contributions to a total void in the last.


Since, Sanātana-dharma is a combination of the trio – ‘samṣkṛti/varnāśrama’ (culture and the prescribed occupation of 4 classes of Āryans and 4 stages of life) + ‘upāsanā’ (ritualistic devotional worship) + ‘adhyātma’ (spiritual philosophy) – and since, ‘varṇāśrama/samskṛti’ is the most core foundation/substratum of the other two elements like ‘bhakti/upāsanā’ and ‘adhyātma’ (varṇāśrama is foundational because irrespective of mutual philosophical differences in spirituality among the various Sanātana-dharmic sects like Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja etc. – they, all concur, unanimously, on the nature and identity of the conventional Vedic varṇāśrama and so, despite inward theological discord between them, all such sects have been ultimately accepted as being related to Sanātana-dharma; whereas, Indigenous sects like Buddhism which openly rejected the authenticity of the Vedic varṇāśrama – were considered totally disconnected with Sanātana-dharma – once again, proving ‘varṇāśrama’ as the foundation of the ‘adhyātma’ and ‘bhakti-upāsanā’), therefore, any endeavour to disconnect any one of the trio among the rest two or any effort to distort the conventional scriptural form of any of the three – results in ultimate harm for the enhancement of the actual Sanātana-dharma – thus proving no good to the mankind, too. Moreover, Vedic varṇāśrama resembles the virāṭa-rūpa of God and any endeavour to dismantle (transcending varṇāśrama is a different matter allowed by the scriptures for higher level spiritualists; but such transcending can be done only by one who is even deemed qualified by scriptures to practice Vedic varṇāśrama; if a mleccha/yavana etc. pāpayoni is not qualified for even placing itself within Vedic varṇāśrama, no question arises for them to transcend it.) of pervert its true form translates into a treacherous onslaught/attack/onset/invasion on Sanātana-dharma (refer to the “brāhmao’sya mukham āsīd….” – Puruṣa-sūkta Hymn from Yajurveda.). Therefore, those who are not even gauṇa-adhikārīs (secondary eligible) of bhakti/devotion/upāsanā (gauṇa-adhikārīs are the women of the 4 Āryan varṇas, the Āryan śūdras and the Āryan dvija-bandhus), but are, only ‘adhikārī-ābhāsa’ (whose eligibility for bhakti is neither primary nor secondary in the scriptural perspective; but whose eligibility is only a semblance of a true eligibility – refer to the tone of the verses in Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā 9.32-33 wherein, brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas have been considered topmost primary adhikārīs of bhakti among humans; then are considered the strīs, śūdras and dvija-bandhus etc. as having secondary eligibility; whereas, the antyajas/outcastes/cāṇḍālas/śvapacas/dog-eaters and the cow-eater mleccha/yavanas – their names have not even taken by Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa and rather, the Lord summed up their allusion by saying “ye ‘api syu pāpa-yonaya…” or ‘those others who are born in sinful human species’; (it is to be noted that anyone born in the male or female genders among the 4 classes of Āryans is not considered ‘pāpa-yoni’ or a sinful human species.) {When ŚBMP 2.4.18 – “kirāta-hūa-āndhra-pulinda….śudhyanti tasmai prabhaviṣṇave nama enumerates the pāpa-yonis, it is clearly evident from the tone of the verse that such enumeration is not done to glorify their mukhya-adhikāra in bhakti, but rather, to glorify the munificent nature of Bhagavān Hari which even purifies such lowest born. This becomes evident from studying the various classical Sanskrit commentaries by various Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya ācāryas on such ślokas of Bhāgavatam.} – in such mlecchas/yavanas etc. pāpa-yonis – are not even ‘adhikārī-ābhāsa’ for the other two pillars of Sanātana-dharma viz., the ‘adhyātma’ (spiritual Vedāntic philosophy or brahma-vidyā) + ‘varṇāśrama’. Scriptures like Smṛti-texts (dharma-śāstras) + Purāṇas + śrauta-sūtras (Vedic ancillary texts) + Mahābhārata (the most authoritative text in the ascertainment of the Vedic varṇāśrama structure) have ruled out all possibilities for the pāpa-yonis to gain any entrance within the Vedic varṇāśrama. And the Govinda-bhāṣya Sanskrit commentary by Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava-vedānta-ācārya Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇapāda/Ekānti-govinda-dāsa Gosvāmī ‘Vairāgī’ (late 17th Century CE – Chilka Lake, Odisha + Udupi, Karnataka + Vrindavan, UP, Bhārata) on the ‘apa-śūdra-adhikaraṇam’ in the Brahma-ṣutra – explicitly, concludes the ineligibility of even śūdras (what to speak of pāpa-yonis like mlecchas) to undergo the contemplation on Vedānta. According to the sub-commentary of Jagannātha Yati on the Mādhva-bhāṣyam on Brahma-sūtra, those mukhya-an-adhikārīs (main ineligibles) for Vedānta philosophy (refer to Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 1.4.25) (pāpa-yonis are not even mukhya-an-adhikārīs; they are gauna-an-adhikārīs or secondary ineligibles for Vedānta – so far low have they been placed) are not entitled to even study Purāṇas and Itihāsa (Mahābhārata + Vālmīkīya Rāmāyaṇam) + Pāñcarātrika texts – on their own. Rather, they will have to hear such scriptures (not even directly study or not even study in the vicinity of a Brahmin or a sannyāsī guru) as explained from the mouth of a Vedic guru. So, any possibility of pāpa-yonis studying/commenting/analysing even scriptures like Purāṇas/Gītā (falls within Mahābhārata)/Rāmāyaṇam etc. is ruled out. They have right to only hear such scriptures from the mouth of the Vedic/vaiṣṇava guru hailing from Vedic vipra families and such adhikāra is even ‘adhikāra-ābhāsa’ as they are not even counted as ‘mukhya-an-adhikārīs’ (primary ineligibiles for Veda/Vedānta) in the Srīmad-bhāgavatam 1.4.25 verse “strī-śūdra-dvija-bandhūnām trayī na śruti-gocarā / iti bhāratam ākhyānam kpayā muninā ktam”. Hence, the pāpa-yonis possess only a semblance/reflection/shadow (chāyā/ābhāsa) of the actual adhikāra/eligibility needed to even hear scriptures like Śrīmad-bhāgavatam etc. purāṇas.


Grand conclusion –


Those pāpa-yonis (mlecchas/yavanas) who possess not even mukhya-an-adhikāra (primary ineligibility) in ‘adhyātma/Vedānta/brahma-vidyā’ (who possess a gauṇa-an-adhikāra or a secondary ineligibility because they have not even been named in the list of those ineligibles in ŚBMP 1.4.25)




those pāpa-yonis who possess absolutely no adhikāra to enter the Vedic varṇāśrama (again substantiated by tonnes of scriptures and as shown by BRVF in many papers released in past and as verified in Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī’s Durgama-saṅgamanī Sanskrit commentary on Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhuḥ 1.1.21-22) and those pāpa-yonis who possess only an ‘avyakta/ābhāsa/chāyā typed adhikāra’ (not explicitly expressed eligibility as seen by the mention of only ‘trayī’ or the trio of āryan strīs, śūdras and dvija-bandhus – but no mention of pāpa-yonis like mlecchas/yavanas seen in ŚBMP 1.4.25) to hear (not even study or analyse or comment upon) scriptures like Śrīmad-bhāgavatam




those pāpa-yonis who are not even mukhya (primary) nor gauṇa (secondary) adhikārīs (eligiblies) to perform bhakti/upāsanā/hari-nāma-saṅkīrttanam (as it is indicated from Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā 9.32-33 wherein, pāpa-yonis have been summed up without even their names taken) but, are only ‘adhikāra-avyakta/adhikārī-ābhāsa’ (those whose eligibility is not clearly expressed and have semblance eligibility because of being placed lowered to the mukhya adhikārīs and the gauṇa adhikārīs of bhakti/upāsanā/devotion)(Caitanya-cartāmṛta 2.8.128 verse ‘kibā vipra kibā nyāsī….’ is the most highly misinterpreted by the pseudo-Gauḍīyas and its actual interpretation has been invincible proved in the paper released by BRVF in the years 2013-2014 AD)


– such pāpa-yonis are advised to perform the bhakti with no intention to become śikṣā/dīkṣā/varttma-pradarśaka/bhajana gurus (Scriptures have forbidden such positions to be taken by mlecchas/yavanas and nitya-siddha pārṣadas of Bhagavān appearing in pāpa-yonis by the desire of Yogamāya are to be counted as exceptions though, even they do not breach the socio-spiritual maryādā/decorum as evident in CC CC 3.4.128-133, 166-169 & CC 3.3.44-46.). But, nitya-siddhās appear only during the prakaṭa-līlā of Bhagavān like Haridāsa Thākura. They don’t appear after the prakaṭa-līlā has summed up.) and to not occupy any role of ācārya in Sanātana-dharma nor in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya. They have not even the mukhya-adhikāra to propagate the gospels of Caitanyadeva. The mukhya-adhikāra is with the Bhāratīya Āryans as verified by Caitanyadeva in Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.9.41 –


“bhārata-bhūmite haila manuṣya janma yāra / janma sārthaka kari’ kara para-upakāra //”




bhārata — of India; bhūmite — in the land; haila — has become; manuṣya — human being; janma — birth; yāra — anyone; janma — such a birth; sārthaka — fulfillment; kari‘ — doing sokara — dopara — others; upakāra — benefit.




“One who has taken his birth as a human being in the land of India [Bhārata-varṣa] (in an Āryan Vedic family – as only  should make his life successful and work for the benefit of all other people (pāpa-yonis hailing from regions far off Bhārata like the mlecchas/yavanas).”



Many other scriptural statements greatly misinterpreted to suit the distortion of conventional Vedic varṇāśrama and to create havoc on the path of bhakti/upāsanā are – “yathā kāñcanatā  yāti…dvijatvam jāyate nṛṇām” from Tattva-sāgara āgama text cited in Haribhaktivilāsa + “vainave jāti-buddhi…..yasa mati vā nārakī sa – from Viṣṇu-dharma + “cātur-varya  mayā sṛṣṭa…..” – from Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā 4.13 + “na śūdrā bhagavad-bhaktā…” + “aśuddhā śūdra-kalpā hi…” + “kalau śūdra-sambhavā…” (cited in Haribhaktivilāsa 5.5 and taken from Viṣṇu-yāmala-samhitā) + “yasya yal-lakṣaṇaṁ  proktam….” (ŚBMP 7.11.35) + “rākṣasāḥ kalim āśritya..” (from Varāha Purāṇa) + “bhaktir aṣta-vidhā hy eṣā yasmin mlecche ‘pi vartate… viprendro….sa ca pūjyo yathā hariḥ…” (from Garuḍa Purāṇa) + all statements similar to Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 7.9.10 – “viprād dviad-gua-yutād….śvapaca variṣṭham….” etc.



{When CC 3.4.66-67 talks about no consideration of jāti-kula etc. in bhagavad-bhakti and talks about the ineligibility of a brāhmaṇa in bhakti, it is a mere comparison done between a non-devotee brāhmaṇa and a devotee outcaste/pāpa-yoni. It is not a comparison done between a bhakta brāḥmana and a bhakta cāṇḍāla. Such comparison between bhaktas of higher and lower births is found in the tone of Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā 9.32-33 which alludes a lot. And the reason why a person of low-birth is at all consider qualified to perform bhagavad-bhajana is given in CC 3.4.68. But, in today’s times, after gaining entrance into Sanātana-dharma and especially, onto the bhakti path, those of lowest/basest births (mlecchas/yavanas) have become puffed up even more than the arrogant Vedic brāhmaṇas – and hence, CC 3.4.68 is not applicable to such pāpa-yoni born highly arrogant pseudo-devotees and when CC 3.4.68 is inapplicable to them, then, CC 3.4.66-67 is inapplicable to them, as well. Since, Caitanyadeva chastises Jagadānanda Paṇḍita for transgressing ‘maryādā’ or the socio-spiritual decorum in CC 3.4.166-169 and promotes Sanātana Gosvāmī (the compiler of Haribhaktivilāsaḥ) as the establisher and protector of the maryādās – as, also, verified in CC 3.4.221, whatever notions Jagadānanda Paṇḍita asserts in the two successive verses of his treatise called Prema-Vivarta such as – “kibā varṇī kibā śramī……āsala kathā chāḍi varṇe je kare ādara…….” – should be taken interpreted subordinate to and not higher and independent to the assertions of Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī made in Haribhaktivilāsa 1.38-59 – which establishes the special qualifications or viśeṣa-lakṣaṇāni for the dīkṣā-guruship in the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya of Sanātana Vaidika Dharma.


Though a vaiṣṇava-āgama text like Śāṇḍilya-samhitā allows the Āryan women to be dīkṣa-gurus on the pāñcarātrika-bhakti path, nevertheless, the strict criteria for dīkṣa-guruship as given in Haribhaktivilāsa 1.38-59 and Śrīla Gopālabhaṭṭa Gosvāmī’s commentary on that passage strongly indicate that only the vipra-kūla-prasūta male guru has been allotted the highest adhikāra of becoming a mantra-dīkṣā-guru and in impractically inconvenient situations, the male vaiṣṇava mahābhāgavatas hailing from the other three Āryan varṇas – thus ruling out possibilities for strī-jāti to occupy the ācārya post in the Vedic-based pāñcarātrika bhakti path – and not just a Veda-sidelined āgama path.


Moreover, according to śrauta-sūtras, Manu-smṛti and even Satkriyasāradīpikā by Gopālabhaṭṭa Gosvāmī, dvija-bandhus, śūdras and āryan strī cannot undergo any upanayanam samskāra – without which they are not entitled to occupy any Vedic posts. If Vedavyāsa knew the modern introduced concocted method of making anyone and everyone into brāhmaṇas, he wouldn’t have considered āryan strī, śūdra and dvija-bandhu (not to even count mleccha/yavana) as not eligible for Vedic studies due to their no rights for upanayanam. Also, certain statements seen in the Gauḍīya classical works like CC 3.5.84 – do not verify any jāti-śūdratva of Rāya Rāmānanda as there are many solid historical evidences to prove the kṣatriyatva of Rāmānanda Rāya. The jāti-śūdra, though be a highly qualified bhagavad-bhakta, is not entitled to impart or receive the Vedāntika knowledge of brahma-vidyā as evident in the section of Mahābhārata’s Udyoga-parva known as Sanatsujātīya commented upon both by Acārya Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja. The case discussed there is of Mahātmā Vidura who considers himself unfit to impart brahma-vidyā being born in śūdra-jāti and thus, facilitates to invite the Brahmarṣi Sanatsujāta of brahma-kula for the task.}


Similarly, many misinterpreted varṇāśrama related theoretical statements of Mahābhārata like those found in MB 3.177.20-21 + 3.203.11-12 + 3.206.12 + 13.131.8,26,49 + 12.181.13 + 12.182.2,4,7-8 + 12.306.86-87,89 etc. should be understood on par with the varṇāśrama related anecdote/historical example as portrayed in the whole 10th Chapter of the Anuśāsana-parva of Mahābhārata. The sum and substance is that the conclusion related with Vedic varṇāśrama as given in Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā 3.35 (“….para-dharmo bhayāvahaḥ”) is highest and even the ŚBMP 7.11.35 (“yasya yal-lakṣaṇaṁ  proktaṁ…”) and the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā commentary by Śrīdhara Svāmipāda on ŚBMP 7.11.35 –  do not conflict with ŚBG 3.35 or vice versa if compatible synchronization is done in interpretation. This means that all such statements found in Mahābhārata and Śrīmad-bhāgavatam which support ‘vṛtta-varṇāśrama’ (the concept of varṇāśrama based merely on nature and qualities or guṇa and prakṛti) merely indicate the obtainment of the internal status of any of the 4 varṇas and 4 āśramas by a born Āryan. But, despite acquiring an internal status of a particular varṇa or āśrama based on inherent qualities or nature, a person does not become entitled to perform the occupation of that varṇa or āśrama whose qualities or nature he has acquired due to the forbidding injunction (niṣedha) of ŚBG 3.35. Also, such an Āryan born in a different jāti/varṇa than the one whose quality and nature he is possessing, for such a candidate, the outward symbolic status (liṅga/cihna-upādhi-dhāraṇam) of the āśrama or varṇa with whom his nature and qualities synchronize (but who is born in a different varṇa/jāti) – cannot be undertaken/possessed. For example, if a born śūdra exhibits the quality and nature befitting a brāhmaṇa sannyāsī, he can be considered as ‘vṛtta-sannyāsī’ – but not a ‘liṅga-sannyāsī’ and cannot be formally considered as a sannyāsī neither situated in the sannyāsa-āśrama. Why? Because, of the parallel scriptural statements forbidding a mere ‘vṛtta-varṇāśramī’ candidate to be entitled to be considered as a ‘liṅga-varṇāśramī’.


Bhagavad-bhaktas hailing from seminal pāpa-yonis like mlecchas/yavanas are not treated as dvijas/vipras/brāhmaṇas/sannyāsīs etc. even in other traditional Vaiṣṇava Sampradāyas (what to speak of the staunch smārttas and Advaitin Śaṅkarites!) like the Rāmanuja etc. Rather, they are considered as ‘vrātya’ (their placement outside the Vedic varṇāśrama) and are not given any upanayanam samskāra or any other such Vedic privilege. Śrī Vīrarāghavācārya, the only classical commentator on Śrīmad-bhāgavatam from the Rāmānuja Śrī Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya – while commenting on Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 11.14.21 – negates the adhikāra/eligibility of the antyaja/outcaste/cāṇḍāla/śvapaca bhagavad-bhakta in the performance of the multi-limbed nine-fold (and 64 limbed) devotion/bhakti and asserts that antyaja (same applies to mlecchas/yavanas as they are considered even lower than the cānḍālas) is eligible to only perform bhakti through the concept of surrender or prapatti and not through the multi-limbed bhakti-yoga. There cannot be different rules for antyajas and mlecchas in every Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya.


While commenting on Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu 1.1.22, Śrī Viśvanātha thoroughly opposes the staunch pro-Vedic varṇāśrama views upheld by Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī seen during Jīva’s commentation on BRS 1.1.21. Śrī Viśvanātha, also, goes in violation with the views of all other classical commentators on ŚBMP 3.33.6-7 and tries to establish in his commentary on ŚBMP 3.33.7 that even a cāṇḍāla can become a nāmātmaka-mantra-dātṛ/dīkṣā-guru and can even perform the Vedic sacrifice in the same birth. If he has written in context of a nitya-siddha-pārṣada like Thākura Haridāsa, it may be alright. Nevertheless, Thākura Haridāsa never gave any person the Vedic or even pāñcarātrika dīkṣā-mantras and never performed Vedic sacrifices. He, only, allotted Hari-nāma to both Māyādevī and the prostitute. Apart from this, Śrī Viśvanātha disagrees with Śrī Jīva on many topics (even if the topic of svakīyā/parakīyā is excluded) – a major factor why many conventional Gauḍīya camps, to date, do not place Śrī Viśvanātha on the same level of esteem as Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī. Far ahead in conserving the spirit of pro-Vedic spirit is Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa who has defended the traditional views on Vedic varṇāśrama in his Govinda-bhāṣya to the ‘apa-sūḍra-adhikaraṇam’ section in Brahma-ṣūtram. One famous classical sub-commentator on the major and first commentary on Śrīmad-bhāgavatam by Śrīdhara Svāmī known as Bhāvārtha-dīpikā or Śrīdharī – known as Vamśidhara Śarmā and his commentary as Vamśidharī – has, while commenting on many verses of Bhāgavatam – tried to show the commentary by Śrī Viśvanātha as philosophically inferior to that of Śrī Jīva – by employing logical arguments and scriptural proofs in Jīva’s and other classical commentators’ defense with whom Viśvanātha seriously differs in his comments on many passages of Bhāgavatam.


Another point to be marked regarding Śrī Viśvanātha is that in his commentary to Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā, he has profusely quoted one staunch Advaitin Śaṅkarite Māyāvādī scholarly ācārya (originally hailing from Bengal and a recent contemporary of Śrī Jīva) historically famous as Śrī Madhusūdana Sarasvatī (the author of famous works like Bhakti-rasāyanam and Advaita-siddhiḥ) too many times and has eulogized him as if he were to be a pūrvācārya of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya or of any other Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya. Śrī Viśvanātha fails to quote earlier Gauḍīya ācāryas like Śrī Jīva and his Six Sandarbhas in the same way as how he has numerously cited Madhusūdana Sarasvatī considering him an authority to some extent in his Sārārtha-varṣiṇī. This is enough to determine the allegiance of Śrī Viśvanātha. A staunch Advaitin’s pro-bhakti views are quoted with utmost fervour and respect almost now and then and a staunch Rūpānuga like Śrī Jīva is sidelined by Śrī Viśvanātha almost everywhere in his writings. We do not like to say anything more in this regard as Śrī Viśvanātha, up to some extent, has succeeded in being considered an ācārya in the vision of most of the traditional Gauḍīya camps in today’s times (though few traditional Gauḍīya camps do not see him in that position even till date). Apart from that, Śrī Viśvanātha’s contributions to the Gauḍīya theology cannot be underestimated, as well. But, when constructive criticism will be done, even Śrī Viśvanātha won’t remain unaffected.


The correct contextual interpretations of all such and many more greatly distorted statements are found in the analyses of genuine Vedic/vaiṣṇava scholars and classical ācāryas. Their neo-interpretation done by pseudo-Gauḍīyas misaligns with many other portions of the scriptures and tradition.


Note –


BRVF is totally different, in ideology/praxis/administration/allegiance — from ISKCON/Akshaya-Patra/IRM/Krishna West/Gaudiya Mutt organizations or any other such neo/pseudo-Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava institutions. Just for the sake of indicating the neo-Gauḍīya camps, the logo of ISKCON has been used in this analysis so that the intended target becomes clear to the readers.





— Bhaktirasavedāntapīṭhāḍhīśvara Ācārya Śrī Gurupāda


(BRVF — City of Anand, Dist. of Anand, Central GJ, IN & Maha Shakti Ashram — Lodi, San Joaquin County, Northern CA, USA)


Link to the above essay —


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s