Суд над Бхагавад-гитой / Attempt to ban Bhagavad-gita

and the general populace. It is not enough to unconvincingly
cower behind a glib formula that denounces any open
discussion of the matter before the unconversant. Taboo,
prudery, and timidity concerning the enlightened free
propagation of the correct conception of the thing have only
paved the way for rampant misconception amid those
victimized by the vigorous, widespread propaganda of the
Mayavadi impersonalists, Sahajiyas, professional preachers of
the Bhagavata, and other such demonic elements waylaying an
already darkened contemporary world view devoid of properly
developed personal understanding of the Absolute. Shripada
Shankaracarya purposefully preached his concocted illusionist
philosophy of impersonal monism with the intention to create
within the minds of the people in general an aversion to the
proposition of a tasteless impersonal outcome of religious life. In
this way he indirectly promoted irreligion in the form of
materially “tasteful” lawless sexual indulgence, the result of
which would be a profuse influx of low-life progeniture (varna-
sankara) upon the face of the Earth. His mission was simply to
preface the descent of Lord Gauranga by kindly giving the most
condemned conditioned souls a chance to gain the highest good
upon encountering the sankirtana movement with the Lord’s
maximum munificence in view. Unless the preachers of the
Rupanuga-sampradaya systematically and forcefully present the
topmost personal conception of God as the supreme lover, the
ultimate purpose of Shankaracarya’s undertaking will not be
fulfilled. Moreover, people will not have the opportunity to
clearly see an all-attractive raso vai sah alternative to the
relatively tasteless brahman conception of spirituality, without
which they could hardly have much impetus to abandon the
quest for rasa on the mundane plane. Knowledge of the true
nature of the original spiritual mellow of conjugal love as the
ultimate cause of its dull, shadow-like material reflection
effectively alleviates the problem of mundane affinity by the
power of superior magnetism. Scientific exposition of the
highest madhurya aspect of the Personality of Godhead will
naturally preclude all philosophical aberrations thereof to
benefit the open-minded. Offenders, determined to deny the


authoritative persuasion of the Vaishnava Acaryas, will go to hell
anyway of their own accord. What can be done? We should not
be overly concerned about that.

Aishvarya-jnanete saba jagat mishrita / aishvarya-shithila-
preme nahi mora prita. “Knowing My opulences, the whole
world looks upon Me with awe and veneration. But devotion
made feeble by such reverence does not attract Me.” (Cc. adi
3.16) Aishvarya-jnane vidhi-bhajana kariya / vaikunthake yaya
catur-vidha mukti pana. “By performing such regulated
devotional service in awe and veneration, one may go to
Vaikuntha and attain the four kinds of liberation.” (Cc. adi 3.17)
Lord Shri Krishna desired to appear in this world at the very
end of Dvapara-yuga for two reasons – to personally taste the
quintessential mellows of love of God (prema-rasa-niryasa) and,
beyond that, to purposely propagate the process of raga-marga-
bhakti in the world. In doing so, He would herald the highest
good to the most fallen people of this Age of Kali, who would get
the opportunity to learn of His enchanting vraja-lilas from the
scriptural accounts of His earthly pastimes. Krishna, as lila-
purusottama, tasted prema-rasa from the standpoint of the
visaya-vigraha, the supreme enjoyer and object of prema. Being
relatively unimpressed by reverential devotion, He deliberately
revealed the beauty and sweetness of the Vrajavasis’ purest
love for Him to the world by practically evincing that love in the
course of His manifest pastimes. Yet, until His advent as Lord
Caitanya, His purposes remained largely unfulfilled.
Retrospectively, it appears that Krishna-lila, in fact, simply
paved the way for the Supreme Lord’s appearance as Lord
Caitanya who, for the most part, merely expanded upon and, in
His own way, dynamically reinforced the two original (internal
and external) objectives of Krishna. By tasting prema-rasa from
the standpoint of the ashraya-vigraha, Shri Radha – the
resplendent abode of the highest prema, whose relishment is ten
million times greater than that of Her beloved – Shri Caitanya
Mahaprabhu, as prema-purusottama, became increasingly
moved to compassionately distribute vraja-prema in an
unprecedented and unparalleled way. In fact, as detailed
throughout the Gosvamis’ writings, He exuberantly preferred to


bestow that most succulent, mysterious prema that follows in
the wake of Radha’s matchless expressions of maha-bhava
(samarpayitum unnatojjvala-rasam sva-bhakti-shriyam). In this
way, Mahaprabhu abundantly fulfilled what remained unfulfilled
in Krishna’s attempt, by powerfully preaching the process of
unalloyed devotion as He demonstratively practiced it Himself.
If Lord Krishna desired to propagate raga-marga bhakti in the
world by way of exhibiting His madhurya-lilas, Lord Gauranga,
the self-same Lord Krishna appearing in Kali-yuga as the most
munificent devotee of Himself, desired it a thousandfold on the
basis of His audrya disposition. That is precisely what
distinguishes Him as the maha-vadanyavatara. Kindly bear in
mind that the Lord’s aim to propagate the vraja-bhavas is but an
aspect of the external reason for His divine appearance, an
aspect that was not meant to be kept hidden. In fact, to further
this propagation work, the Six Gosvamis and many of their
contemporaries and followers took great pains to elaborately
illustrate both gradual (external) and sophisticated esoteric
(internal) methods of raga-marga-bhajana in their volumes of
literature. Thus, scientifically expounding the principles of vraja-
bhakti, they continue to perpetuate the greatest act of mercy
upon the world’s Kali-yuga populace down to the present day.
That few would be chosen (qualified) does not imply that many
should not be called. We, as living vibhinnamsha jivas, are
eternally parts and parcels of Lord Caitanya. Part and parcel
means “partner.” We are meant to act as partners in the
“business” of the Lord, having the same shared interests at
heart. Suffice to say, more mature “business partners”
representing the Lord’s sankirtana movement should recognize
the gravity of their assigned “business” responsibilities.
Following in the Lord’s footsteps, we should likewise personally
pursue the matchless mellows of love of Godhead (vraja-prema).
Similarly, whenever and wherever possible, we should also
purposefully preach raga-marga-bhakti in the world, showing the
highest munificence to the fallen people of this Age of Kali.
Mercifully spark the lobha or greed for the thing by facilitating
an inspired regard for, and attraction to, the Bhagavata’s
essential message, and then, in due course, help to diligently fan


that spark of lobha-maya-shraddha into a blazing fire of raga-
mayi spontaneity – not that we should beat about the bush,
becloud the issue, sweep it under the rug, or altogether
exterminate the thing. If out of devotional ineptitude,
immaturity, oversight, deceitfulness, miserliness, or sheer
ignorance, we were to grossly neglect or faithlessly sidestep the
forward implementation of this prime, two-fold missionary
objective, then how could we, in good conscience, deem
ourselves as compliant, competently instrumental,
magnanimous agents of guru and Gauranga’s grace?

Deliberating upon the profoundest precepts of the
Gaudiya-sampradaya and the progressive navigation of the
Krishna consciousness movement, we might guardedly examine
how a number of individuals in key ecclesiastico-administrative
positions, due to either inexperience, imprudence, unadorned
obtusity, neglect, or self-aggrandizing, perhaps even diabolical
intents, are, as a matter of fact, irresponsibly steering the
movement in a direction that may not so closely adhere to the
actual course intended by the sampradaya’s founding Acaryas.
So, fine! Let them do like that. Whatever nonsense they think to
do, let them do it. Because in any case the flow of the kevala-
bhakti cult, by the decree of Shri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, will be
apratihata, unobstructed. It will not be checked by any faction’s
substandard, foolish, materially conceived, watered-down
misrepresentation of the sankirtana movement’s fundamental
principles. Shri Caitanya Mahaprabhu doesn’t really need the
help of any individual or any group of individuals to accomplish
His missionary goals. They who are internally advanced enough
to precisely distinguish and wholly surrender to the Lord’s
divine loving network undoubtedly inherit the privilege of
assisting Him as His authorized sampradayic agents. If we don’t
act as His instruments to purely propagate the full gamut of
essential teachings of the Rupanuga tradition, it is not that no
one will come forward to do the needful. Lord Krishna
instructed Arjuna, “Even if you do not fight, all the warriors
assembled on this battlefield are already put to death by my
arrangement. Therefore, relinquish your petty weakness of
heart! Acting as My instrument, stand up and fight!” Similarly,


Lord Caitanya has enjoined that the Krishna consciousness
movement be spread to every town and village throughout the
world. And “spread” means to spread in terms of the afore-
mentioned purpose for which the movement is actually meant –
to raise people to the path of spontaneous loving devotion,
principally by way of congregational chanting of the Holy Name
– thus giving them the chance to evolve to the stages of
raganuga-bhava and vraja-prema in this lifetime, not after some
future millions of births, who knows how far down the road.
Mahaprabhu’s purposes will certainly be fulfilled in some way or
other by someone; do not think otherwise. It’s just a question of
who gets the credit.

Neither the territories nor the by-laws nor the treasuries,
logos, or various other external accoutrements of an institution
necessarily constitute the spiritual essence or sampradayic spirit
of the institution, any more than the body of an individual
constitutes the soul of the individual. Just as an automobile is
important in so far as the automobile serves the purposes of its
owner, a spiritual institution can be considered important to the
extent that it actually serves to further the spiritual objectives
of the sampradaya it claims to represent. If the car breaks down
or crashes, the owner may want to junk the thing and accept
another more reliable conveyance. Often it is moralized that the
spiritual master’s institution is the “body” of the spiritual
master. But the body of the spiritual master may become
diseased. If some part of the spiritual master’s body becomes
gangrenous, then it may become necessary to amputate that
part of the body. In other words, the body may become at least
partially if not wholly dysfunctional in the matter of serving the
purposes of the spiritual master. That is not impossible. It is not
that the body of the spiritual master, either in a healthy
condition or in a diseased condition, is the spiritual master
proper. The institution is his body, the printing press is the
heart of that body, his magazine is the backbone of that body,
his disciples are his bodily limbs, the collected hoards of money
are that body’s precious blood, but what constitutes the
consciousness, the essential supra-cognitive aspect of the
acarya’s eternal spiritual existence? One might proffer that his


consciousness is tantamount to his teachings, his personal
ecstasies expressed in the purports of his books. Who would
disagree? But then we should ask whether or not we have even
begun to understand the most basic of those teachings – that
we are not this body. The body of the spiritual master is not the
eternal cognizant essence of the spiritual master proper. The
spiritual master is not his body anymore than we are our
bodies. To say that the spiritual master’s institution is the body
of the spiritual master does not imply that the spiritual master’s
institution is the quintessence of the spiritual master’s
existence. So the conclusion should be that the institutional
“body” of the acarya is not to be equated with the acarya’s
cognitive, essential spirit – the eternal sampradayic truths.
Rather, the body is to be seen as merely the chariot of the soul.
The institution is a body through which the realizations of the
sampradayic soul are to be expressed. Service to the acarya’s
real self interest is not merely a bodily (institutional) affair; it is
to recognize, embrace, uphold, and disseminate the tenets of his
sampradaya’s highest ideology, an ideology expected to be
embodied by his institution.

From another angle, we may say that the body of the
acarya is factually identical with the acarya’s soul, at least in a
qualitative sense, in that the acarya’s body is fully absorbed in
yajna, sacrifice. Bramarpanam brahma havir, brahmagnau
brahmana hutam / brahmaiva tena gantavyam, brahma-karma-
samadhina (Bg. 4.24). All things connected with the
performance of sacrifice – the firewood, the fire, the ghee, the
offered grains, the officiating priest, the performer of sacrifice,
and the sacrifice itself – become merged in transcendence. They
become one in purpose, one in quality, as constituents of
Brahman via pure devotional yajna for the satisfaction of Visnu.
Things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other.
So in that sense the body of the spiritual master is respected on
the same level as the spiritual master’s soul. Even if his body
becomes diseased or a portion of it becomes gangrenous, he
may still remain fully determined to engage the body in acts of
sacrifice. However, the spiritual master may observe that the
disease of his body is such that it unremittingly obstructs the


body’s reasonable absorption in yajna, by which it could viably
stand as a useful Brahman constituent of his existence, so much
so that he may blamelessly opt to discard his body as useless
for all practical purposes. If the body becomes in some way
contemptuous toward the spiritual master’s real pure
devotional ideal, or if the body becomes contemptible in the
eyes of the spiritual master, then what’s the use of such a body?
In other words, if the institutional “body” of the acarya becomes
deviated from its true purpose, in terms of the function intended
by the acarya’s sampradayic “soul,” then that body becomes
rejectable. We would have to question whether the institutional
body of the acarya is, in truth, fully engaged in yajna. To the
extent that the constituents of the acarya’s institutional body
are fully absorbed in yajna, to that extent they are spiritual.
Conversely, to the extent that they are deviated toward sundry
gross and subtle material pursuits or substandard, conditional
spiritual pursuits, to that extent they could hardly be
considered spiritually fit – or perhaps their legitimacy as actual
constituents should be dismissed. In other words, we should
sagaciously question whether the “constituents” that are
materially or in other ways conditionally absorbed are at all real
constituents of the spiritual master’s institutional body, or are
only apparent constituents having no genuine relation as parts
and parcels of the true form of the acarya’s institution although
seeming to be integrally related. Viewed sanely, they may be
deemed as reflections (pratibimba) of constituents, shadows
(chaya) of constituents, partial constituents, or perhaps
atrophied constituents.

If we accept the body of the acarya as qualitatively
identical to the soul within that body, we might analogously
conclude that the institutional body of the acarya should be
seen as identical to the acarya himself, the sampradaya’s pure
representative. We would then have to willingly admit that
those customarily seen as constituents of the institutional body
who are not purely absorbed in unalloyed devotional yajna as
per the ideals and standards of the acarya’s sampradaya could
hardly be accepted as parts of the acarya’s institution in the
true sense, although claiming to be or masquerading as such.


Granting that the acarya is a maha-bhagavata, an unalloyed
devotee of the Lord, the institution purported to be his body
would necessarily have to embody his ideals as a completely
spiritual manifestation of the purest sampradayic principles, as
an external exemplar of internal devotional substance,
qualitatively one with the acarya. If that were so, then wherever
we would see a dearth of unalloyed devotional substance, we
would have to question whether what we are seeing before us
is, in fact, the real form of the institution. Otherwise, since the
quality of the disciples is said to reflect the quality of the guru,
someone might wonder whether the institutional anomalies
represent impurities or a lack of qualification on the part of the
acarya himself. Hence, they who, though declaring institutional
membership, consciously or ignorantly undermine, either by
precept or by personal conduct, the true sampradayic standards
and decline to comply with the sampradaya’s ultimate purpose
of facilitating the total range of unalloyed devotional experience
in its members, could scarcely themselves be accepted as bona
fide representatives of the acarya’s institution. In other words,
we would have to very seriously question what or who actually
constitutes the institution of the acarya? Once again, we would
have to discerningly separate form from substance or spirit.

Why say that the institution is the body of the acarya?
Given that the acarya is the representative of Lord Caitanya, we
should be able to reasonably conclude that the institution is, in
fact, the body of Lord Caitanya. Yet, it is seen that, in the course
of His manifested earthly pastimes, Mahaprabhu
uncompromisingly dismissed His own devotees who deviated
from standard devotional proprieties. Similarly Advaita acarya
openly rejected a few of His own sons due to their preaching
erroneous conclusions. A son is considered an expansion of his
father’s own body. They were His sons; still, He unhesitatingly
disowned them. In the same way, if on account of sadly sensing
a spiritual impotence, a disciplic incompetence amongst its
membership, Mahaprabhu would deem an institution
established by any eminent representative of His acarya-
parampara effectually useless in the matter of practically
advancing His intended missionary objectives, He may see fit to