The spiritually-minded will judge how many major revolutions in history compare to the revolutionary preaching by the Gaudiya Matha against the materialistic thought patterns of the world.
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvat inherited the urge to preach from his father and mentor, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura. Energized by the Thakura’s vision of suddha-bhakti diffusing throughout the globe, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati had an unrelenting drive to deliver suddha-bhakti to all jivas in the universe, and even to those beyond it. He wanted to capture the whole territory of maya and convert it to Krsna consciousness. He could not tolerate that there be any place devoid of Krsna-bhakti. Not restricted within the cultural horizon of Bengal, he wanted to annihilate misconceptions at all levels in all cultures of human society and implement “full-fledged theism” everywhere. Even though seemingly impossible, he took it as his duty to spread suddha-bhakti by all means and at any cost. To establish Lord Caitanya’s mission the fetters of caste, ritual, and indeed all preexisting stereotypes and dogmas would have to be demolished. Hence Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati inevitably became a revolutionary.
His efforts were concentrated in a Bengal where Gaudiya Vaisnavism had lost its original dynamism, and from the ethnological perspective had transmuted into yet another component of the vast heterogeneous mosaic known as Hinduism. Although widespread, Vaisnava dharma was enveloped by a thick fog of nescience, having become synonymous with artificial shows of ecstasy, mantras imparted for money, flesh-eating “devotees,” cheaters competing to be lauded as avatars, siddha-pranali initiation for the asking, and descriptions of the amorous pastimes of Sri Sri Radha-Krsna bandied about like cheap market gossip. In this way prakrta-sahajiyas had etiolated the movement of Lord Caitanya into a foolish and immoral travesty of Vaisnava dharma. Srila Sarasvati Thakura had to reestablish the genuine parampara, which had all but vanished. To purge the Gaudiya lineage of impurities, he publicly decried ecclesiastical and social conventions that were suffocating Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s sampradaya. Animated with the heroic spirit of Hanuman in opposing Ravana, Srila Sarasvati Thakura committed himself to a lifetime of struggle against the beneficiaries of the rotten status quo.
Preaching meant fighting. Although Indian society had traditionally been deeply religious, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati insisted that mere theocentricity was not sufficient. Thus he openly criticized beliefs and practices held sacral by most Hindus, such as impersonalism and demigod worship. With unfaltering determination he uninhibitedly cudgeled various misrepresentations of Vaisnava dharma, business in the name of religion, caste-ism, atheism, Western cultural chauvinism, sensualism posing as spirituality, and innumerable forms of opinionative and deviant philosophies—whatever fell short of pure devotion to Krsna. This was in accord with the intrinsic purport of Srimad-Bhagavatam, which singularly among scriptures established the topmost understanding of the Supreme Lord and the individual soul’s relationship with Him, and expounded dharmah projjhita-kaitavah, “complete rejection of religious principles that are selfishly motivated.” Holding that every word of Srimad-Bhagavatam outweighs any other opinion past, present, or future, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati likened all religious processes save that given in Bhagavatam to jars of poison with a little milk floating on top, and composed a distich based on Bhagavatam’s rejection of motivated religious practices:
prthivite yata katha dharma nama cale
bhagavata kahe taha paripurna chale
Bhagavatam states that whatever in the world is passing as dharma is actually wholesale deception.
Srila Sarasvati Thakura lived for truth, and like a valiant warrior, never hesitated to attack the myriad manifestations of falsity. Personifying the spirit of Srimad-Bhagavatam by insisting that the highest truth is reality distinguished from illusion for the welfare of all, he effectively sifted out the real from the unreal, the servant of the real from the servant of the unreal, the Vaisnava from the non-Vaisnava. He never countenanced the slightest deviation from the truth, not even by the most eminent or nearest-and-dearest persons, and would detect, expose, and dissect even the subtlest presence of fallacy in theories and statements that to others appeared entirely plausible. He held that all prevalent so-called truths point only to a limited ideal formulated by subjective projection, and thus are actually untruths and impasses in realizing the truth. He exhorted:
Do not try to discover the nature of truth by the exercise of your imagination. Do not endeavor to attain the truth through experience of this world. Do not manufacture truth in order to satisfy your erring inclinations, or hastily accept anything for the reason that it satisfies such inclinations. Do not regard as truth anything that has been “built up” or has the support of a majority of people like yourself, nor as untruth anything that is rejected by the overwhelming majority. According to the scriptures there will be found hardly one in a crore of human beings who really worships the truth. What is proclaimed by the united voices of all the people of this world as truth may turn out to be false. Therefore, cease to confront the truth in a challenging mood. The truth is not brought into existence by such arrogance. One has to approach the truth in the spirit of absolute submission. It is necessary to listen to truth. Truth is self-revealing, and only when it is pleased to reveal itself can its actual nature be known to us, and not otherwise. (The Harmonist 25.230 March 1928 )
He explained why broadcasting the truth was rare:
Everyone is eager for adoration by others, not for the absolute truth. Those who make a show of being preachers do not disturb mankind, but rather maintain everyone’s present mentality while busily protecting their own existence. Therefore there is no propagation of the truth, since one’s popularity is not served by speaking or hearing the truth.
Pure items are rare and not easily attainable, and so are not much appreciated. Similarly, there is no respect for those who do not misguide people but are busy trying through sankirtana and Hari-katha to turn them toward the Lord. At present it is fashionable to be cheated by those who in the name of dharma misguide people. Real devotees do not speak to satisfy their audiences. They do not cheat people. Rather, pure devotees reveal the defects of cheaters who love to compromise. Only fortunate persons learn to be cautious after hearing the words of saints. Although the words of genuine devotees may appear to contradict our present taste and experience, nonetheless they are most auspicious for us.
Hence a major focus of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s preaching was to expose cheating in all forms, especially in the spheres of philosophy and religious practice. He denounced as hypocritical all varieties of religion practiced without the intention of surrendering to Krsna, such as those meant to improve moral, social, or intellectual life, or promote an irenic ambiance conducive to genteel sense gratification in this world, those aimed at enjoying enhanced sensual delights in a future birth, and even those aspiring for spiritual liberation but devoid of devotion to Krsna. He presented religion not as a palliative for the pangs of material existence, but as the required alternative to it. He was not interested in becoming famous or respected, in merely creating a good impression, or in becoming a religious icon. He preached to establish Gaudiya siddhanta, to uphold the dignity of the authentic Gaudiya sampradaya, and to convince others of the overwhelming necessity of accepting Krsna-bhakti.
Srlla Sarasvati Thakura refused to be molded by popular demand into the stereotype sadhu of flowery beatitude passing a halcyon existence and doling out benedictions in exchange for contributions. Nearly all people who approach sadhus seek peace, reassurance, and relief from the bruises of life, expecting blessings for solving their material problems and to facilitate unobstructed sense indulgence. Such individuals do not want or expect a sadhu to force his way into their phantasmagoria and reveal their life to be in need of wholesale reform. But Srila Sarasvatl Thakura was a different grade of sadhu. Like a lotus, which lives in water but remains above it, he moved in human society but was unaffected by it. Even numerous sadhus of his day, most of whom sequestered themselves from the world and its turbulence, could not understand his approach to spiritual life.
Srlla Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati considered that his responsibility as a sadhu was to slash others’ misconstructions. Although persons who lead serene lives of study and prayer but do not preach may be regarded as saintly, they cannot be compared to devotees who go out to confront all opposing elements and fight for Krsna. And even among preachers, many prefer to adopt a soft line, averting conflict by not disturbing others’ false egos. Sadhus were expected to be mild and nonjudgmental, avoiding causing annoyance to others, and promoting concord by recognizing all opinions as equally tenable. But Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati deemed such liberalism another form of deception, a self-serving acceptance born of fear of retribution—in other words, refraining from pointing out others’ misdoings lest oneself become subject to assessment. He parodied the hypocrisy inherent in such mutual social acquiescence by saying, mein bhi cup, turn bhi cup: “I’ll be quiet, you be quiet.’”
Srila Sarasvati Thakura was not for sectarian coexistence, conciliation, or syncretism. His sole means for bridging the abyss between others and himself was to exhort them to come to his side. He spoke against mushy tolerance of nonsensical ideas in the name of ecumenism, which he anyway took as a nebulous and impossible dream, unless people were prepared to forswear miscellaneous rubrics of cheating religion and simply surrender unto Krsna. He expostulated against that style of utopian concinnity so cherished by worldly idealists who aimed at attuning all streams of human thought within an inclusive, tolerant, pluralistic, open-minded ethos in defiance of Krsna—as capsulized in Ramakrishna’s catchy jingle yata mata tata patha: “All are approaching the absolute in diverse ways.” Srila Sarasvati Thakura countered this by stating that those who worship on assorted religious paths cannot possibly serve Bhagavan. He taught that real harmonizing is achievable only by aligning with Krsna, whereby everyone’s actual self-interest would automatically be fulfilled, and that any other attempts for consentaneity, however seemingly noble, would merely engender further envy, rivalry, and competition, and thus were actually disjunctive and ungodly.
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati dubbed as “pseudo-latitudinarianism” the impersonalistic attempt to obfuscate or make light of meaningful differences, such as those between genuine and watered-down dharma, and considered it to be based on what he termed cit-jada-samanvaya-vada (trying to conflate material with spiritual), which he compared with the endeavor to inosculate gold and stone:
How can sat and asat, devotee and nondevotee, pious and sinful, literate and illiterate, demigod and Supreme Lord, chaste and unchaste, dharma and adharma, light and darkness, constitutional and conditional, bhakti and abhakti, be homologous?
Everything seems alright to those unmindful of the tidings of the internal reality, who cannot enter into its highly subtle understanding. An ignorant boy may claim that his illegible
script has meaning because that of an intelligent person has meaning; and one who does not regard scrawl and meaningful writing as equal will be accused of sectarianism or partiality by the foolish. If we appeal to popularists who have no comprehension of Hari, Hari-katha, or satya-siddhanta, they will say that to promote genuine siddhanta is sectarian and to refute asat-siddhanta is blasphemy. They think, “When we know nothing, better to cook the accounts by calling everything equal. In this way everyone will stay satisfied and there will be no mutual bad feelings.” But truth and falsehood, devotion and nondevotion, can never be one. Persons devoid of devotional sentiment, who feel no necessity to serve the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who do not want actual benefit, who consider sensual enjoyment and fame desirable, will adjudge contaminated and pure as one.
Srila Sarasvati Thakura never characterized himself as an apologist of a particular religious faith, not even Hinduism, for although in sociological terms Vaisnava dharma could be defined as part of the Hindu gestalt, in its pristine essence it transcended all exoteric attempts at definition. He stood above and apart from all terrestrial religions, which were but partial reflections of the eternal truth that he alone was delineating:
We do not subscribe to the way in which Hindus, Muhammedans, Christians, etc., have been endeavoring to set forth their respective contentious views. Neither has the obsolete quarrel between the saktas and the Vaisnavas any bearing on the subject matter of our preaching. Our words will never die as long as time endures, nay, even after time itself has ceased to function. The fact is that once a person becomes really conversant with the message of Sri Caitanya- deva about the function of spiritual love, all little narrownesses are eliminated once and for all. (From The Harmonist 31.410 14.May 1935)
When asked if Vaisnava dharma could be acceptable to all, Srila Sarasvatl Thakura replied:
There is no dharma other than Vaisnava dharma. It is the eternal dharma of all jivas. Whatever else is propagated in the world as dharma is either a step toward or a perversion of Vaisnava dharma. There is no use in being a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, animal, bird, tree, stone, demigod, human, or demon. Let all become Vaisnavas and be situated in their eternal constitutional position. This is what Sri Mahaprabhu effected when He went to South India, where He loudly chanted the Lord’s glories while traveling. His chanting created many Vaisnavas. By His mercy, as He perambulated Jharikhanda forest even the birds, animals, trees, and creepers became Vaisnavas. Worshipers of Siva and Durga, atheists, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, impersonalists, materialists, mental speculators, yogis, ascetics, learned, foolish, sick, healthy—all became Vaisnavas. Mahaprabhu’s only weapon was the chanting of Krsna’s holy names. Those who became Vaisnavas in turn made others Vaisnavas, by acting as spiritual masters under Mahaprabhu’s order. (SriSri Sarasvati Samlapa– Allahabad)
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati appreciated daring disciples who took risks in preaching and did not hedge or compromise. He referred to conciliators as “good-for-nothings,” or in Bengali, sander gobar (bull’s dung) , a disparaging term meaning “useless person.” He cautioned his disciples that “a flatterer can neither be a guru nor a preacher,” and told them, “Don’t speak to please the janata (people in general), but to please Janardana (Krsna). Declare that those who do not perform Hari-bhajana are foolish and butchers of their own souls. The public may not like our message, yet it is incumbent upon us to state the truth. It is our responsibility to strongly refute ideologies opposed to Vaisnava dharma. Our previous acaryas did so to a great degree, and our only duty is to follow in their footsteps.” He viewed the disinclination to correct others as being the sign of a cheater, and warned:
Do not associate with so-called sadhus who by not chastising anyone do not act for others’ welfare. By associating with sadhus, the heart should become purified from sinful propensities. The present role of sadhus acting for others’ mundane happiness can render no wellbeing whatsoever.
Srila Sarasvati Thakura thus personified Lord Caitanya’s statement ‘nirapeksa’ nahile ‘dharma’ na yaya raksane: “Without being nirapeksa (impartial, aloof from popular opinion, equitable) one cannot protect dharma.” (Cc 3.3.23) He explained that nirapeksa means being unaffected by anything material and remaining steady in the Lord’s service. He himself was never swayed by worldly predilections, and by his commitment to speaking only the unbiased truth he firmly protected dharma.
Sarasvati Thakura spoke of “aggressive grace” and often quoted pasunam lagudo yatha—that obdurate inane rascals who cannot be persuaded by reasonable arguments deserve physical punishment, as do animals (although he never encouraged his followers to actually administer such chastisement).
Many people deemed Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s aggressive triumphalism alien to the all-accommodating spirit of Hinduism and unbefitting a saintly person. Hence they questioned his authenticity as a sadhu, opining that his bludgeoning was unnecessary and that it was better to appreciate the good in everyone. To objections that his approach was overly negative and that elaboration on bhakti as a positive process would be more fitting and effective, the Harmonist emphatically responded that negativity is required:
The positive method by itself is not the most effective method of propaganda in a controversial age like the present. The negative method which seeks to differentiate the truth from non-truth in all its forms, is even better calculated to convey the directly inconceivable significance of the absolute. It is a necessity which cannot be conscientiously avoided by the dedicated preacher of the truth if he wants to be a loyal servant of Godhead. The method is sure to create an atmosphere of controversy in which it is quite easy to lose one’s balance of judgment But the ways of the deluding energy are so intricate that unless their mischievous nature is fully exposed, it is not possible for the soul in the conditioned state to avoid the snares spread by the enchantress for encompassing the ruin of her only too willing victims. It is a duty which shall be sacred to all who have been enabled to attain even a distant glimpse of the Absolute. (The Harmonist 29.72-73 ,September 1931)
In numerous speeches and articles, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati insisted that an actual sadhu must speak strongly:
The only duty of sadhus is to cut away all the accumulated wicked propensities of every individual. This alone is the causeless natural desire of all sadhus. Worldly persons possess a double nature; they express one kind of sentiment but internally cherish a different purpose. Moreover, they want to advertise this duplicity as a mark of liberalism, or love of harmony. Those who are unwilling to show any duplicity, who desire to be frank and straightforward, or in other words, to exercise unambiguously the function of the soul—such really sincere individuals are called “sectarian” and “orthodox” by those who practice duplicity. We will cultivate the association only of those who are straightforward, and avoid the company of others. By all means we must avoid bad company. We are advised to keep a distance of one hundred cubits from animals of the horned species, and should observe the same caution in regard to all insincere persons. (The Harmonist 28.243 , January 1931)
Without doubt, a sadhu’s words possess power to destroy the evil propensities of one’s mind. In this way sadhus benefit everyone who associates with them. There are many things which we do not disclose to the sadhu. The real sadhu makes us speak out what we keep concealed in our hearts. He then applies the knife. The very word sadhu has no other meaning than this. He stands in front of the block with the uplifted sacrificial knife in his hand. The sensuous desires of men are like goats. The sadhu stands there to kill those desires by the merciful stroke of the keen edge of the sacrificial knife in the form of unpleasant language. If the sadhu turns into my flatterer, then he does me harm; he becomes my enemy. If he flatters us, we will be led to the road which brings worldly enjoyment but no factual well-being. (The Harmonist 28.287.264 , February 1931)
He is a sadhu by contact with whom the weapon of his words can cause one to give up all mischievous behavior, all attachments to the non-absolute, and all imagined conceptions. (From Gaudiya 14.171.)
The aggressive pronouncement of the concrete truth is the crying necessity of the moment, for silencing the aggressive propaganda of specific untruths that is being spread all over the world. ( The Harmonist 29.167-73 ( December 1931)
Without cheating anyone, we should boldly proclaim the truth to everyone. Even if the truth is unpopular, if it bestows genuine auspiciousness on the living entities we must speak it.
Unless we fearlessly speak the truth, Sri Sri Guru-Gaurariga will not be pleased. The more determined one is in devotional service, the bolder and more courageous he will be as a preacher.
If I were to desist from speaking the impartial truth for fear that some listeners might be riled, I would be deviating frOm the path of Vedic truth to accept that of untruth. I would become inimical to the Vedas, an atheist, and would no longer possess faith in Bhagavan, the very embodiment of truth. (From the Gaudiya 5.25)
He maintained that the Vaisnavas’ aggression is required to counter enemies of truth:
The loyal servant of the Absolute Truth is required to be the active opponent of all violent enemies of the truth. It is his imperative duty to protest against the violence of nontheists in uncompromising terms and take all consequence of such protest. He is to give up his own life if he is not in a position to oppose the enemy of Visnu in an effective manner and cannot also avoid their society. And if he possesses the power it is his imperative duty to use it against violence. One who does not perform these imperative duties commits a grave offense against the truth.
The theist is by no means enjoined by the scriptures to be a nonviolent passive spectator of the violent acts of aggressive nontheists against Visnu and His devotees. This is not the meaning of the teaching of the Supreme Lord Sri Krsna Caitanya by which the devotee is required to be humbler than a blade of grass and more tolerant than the tree. These qualities are to be exercised in upholding, and not for deserting the cause of the truth. ( From The Harmonist 29.113-14, October 1931)
After his first major victory at Balighai, Siddhanta Sarasvati had been encouraged and blessed by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura with the potency to go on speaking in that unrestrained manner:
You will be undefeated everywhere in presenting Vaisnava siddhanta. If in propagating the straightforward unbiased truth the entire anti-devotional misguided self-interested community unites to attack you, still no one will be able to muzzle your fearless voice. Never desist from preaching the truth. (From Nadiya Prakash 12.293.8, 19 February 1938)
Srlla Sarasvati Thakura was more concerned with preciseness than politeness. He spoke what people needed to hear, rather than to nourish their perverted desires, and never employed euphemisms or other devices that might have softened his message and made it more palatable. He explained:
A chanter of Hari-kirtana is necessarily the uncompromising enemy of worldliness and hypocrisy. It is his constant function to dispel all misconceptions by preaching the truth in its most unambiguous form, without any consideration of person, place, or time. The form to be adopted is that which is least likely to be misunderstood. It is his bounden duty to clearly and frankly oppose any person who tries to deceive and harm himself and others by misrepresenting the truth, whether due to malice or genuine misunderstanding. This will be possible if the chanter of kirtana is always prepared to submit to being trodden upon by thoughtless people, if such discomfort will enable him to benefit his persecutors by chanting of the truth in the most unambiguous manner. If he is unwilling or afraid of considerations of self-respect or personal discomfort to chant kirtana under all circumstances, he is unfit to be a preacher of the absolute truth. Humility implies perfect submission to the truth and no sympathy for untruth. Those who entertain any partiality for untruth are unfit to chant Hari-kirtana. Any clinging to untruth is opposed to the principle of humility born of absolute submission to the truth.
Those who perpetually serve the truth with all their faculties, and who have no hankering for the trivialities of this world, are necessarily always free from malice born of competing worldliness. Thus they are fit to admonish those who are actively engaged in harming themselves and others by opposing or misrepresenting the truth for attaining rewards in the shape of a perpetuation of the state of misery and ignorance. The method employed by the servant of the good preceptor for preventing such misrepresentation of the truth is a part and parcel of the truth itself. It may not always be pleasing to the diseased susceptibilities of deluded minds, and may even be denounced by them as a malicious act with which they are only too familiar. But truthful words from the lips of a loyal and humble servant of Hari possess such beneficent power, that all effort to suppress or obstruct those words serves merely to vindicate to impartial minds the necessity of complete submission to the absolute truth as the only cure of the disease of worldliness. Humility employed in unambiguous service to the absolute truth is necessarily and qualitatively different from its perverted prototype, practiced by cunning people for worldly gain. The professors of pseudo-humility have reason to fear the preaching of Hari’s servant, one of whose duties is to expose the enormous possibility of mischief inherent in various forms of so-called spiritual conduct when they are prostituted for serving the untruth. (From The Harmonist 26.249-50 , April 1929)
As His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada later wrote:
No compromise—Ramakrishna, avatars, yogis, everyone was enemy to Guru-maharaja. He never compromised. Some godbrothers complained that this preaching was a chopping technique and it would not be successful. But we have seen that those who criticized fell down.(Letters from Svami Maharaja)
Such a contentious stand was certainly at odds with the ecumenic current of the world and could not be substantiated merely by polite speeches. The extent of prevalent religious distortion necessitated a fittingly forceful response. Thus Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati displayed no qualms about transgressing hallowed social norms by openly criticizing venerated religious leaders, and remained unruffled at being deemed profane by those concerned more with a sham of refined manners than with truth. His disciples, who had to bear the backlash provoked by his unabashed outspokenness, were forced to comprehend his position and articulately defend it from repeated upbraidings by indignant persons who demanded to know why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati spoke so demeaningly. His assertiveness, urging whomever he met to immediately accept suddha-bhakti as the sole purpose in life, left no scope for opponents to vacillate, and polarized Vaisnava society in Bengal into ardent supporters ready to do anything to assist him, and conscienceless enemies prepared to do anything to squelch him. He was quite aware that, despite its pretense of respectability, the powerful standpatter orthodoxy that he defied had nothing to gain but everything to lose from his endeavors, which it thus vehemently resisted.
Accordingly, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati had temple doors closed on him in Vrndavana, stones hurled at him in Navadvipa, and had to face constant vindictiveness and confrontation, including even bids on his life. But despite taking all risks and provoking enmity, he remained unshakably confident and never wavered in his resolve, knowing that he could not be defeated, for his message had been received from the infallible source of sadhu-sastra-guru. He fully depended on Krsna’s protection, trusting that as their surrendered representative, all the parampara-acaryas and Krsna Himself were directly behind him, as had been revealed in the divine vision at Vrajapattana. With this conviction he was determined to execute their mission even by imperiling his life. He seemed to gain enthusiasm in proportion to the ferocity of opposition, and considered such resistance indicative that his efforts were taking effect. In a 1930 lecture he stated:
Previously only foolish groups, not understanding the Gaudiya Matha teachings, in various tricky ways used to oppugn, imitate, and compete with us or just make monkey faces at us. But now it is clear that even bodies much esteemed by the educated community are also trying to attack our institution of spotless spiritual instruction. This is a very good sign. If this is happening in the beginning of our preaching activities, what could be more auspicious? Just as in homeopathic treatment if initially the aggravation increases and the thermometer rises, that means the medicine is having effect. Let us hope that next year we will get one hundred times more obstructions to our broadcasting of truth, one hundred times more strength to overcome such obstacles, and ten million times more enthusiasm for service. We also wish auspiciousness to those who oppose us.
In accord with his wishing auspiciousness to opponents, and lest his followers imbibe his trenchant style sans the deep compassion from which it was born, Srila Sarasvati Thakura revealed to them his inner feelings: “Let me not desire anything but the highest good for my worst foes.” And factually, despite his fighting approach he bore no malice toward anyone. It was not his intention to become anyone’s enemy, for he was the genuine well-wisher of all. But as a propagator of the ultimate truth, which alone could bestow actual beatitude upon all, he was obliged to point out discrepancies in whoever contested his propagating that truth. As he explained, “If people would happily accept the truth, there would be no need to reprove them.” His chastisement was in the spirit of vasudhaiva-kutumbakam (seeing everyone in the world as dear), for he cared so deeply for all that he could not bear to see others misled or misleading.* He spoke caustically only to benefit persons whose perverse attitudes could not otherwise be altered, and to protect the sincere from being cheated. He clarified that although his approach might seem pugnacious, he was compelled to speak thus to avoid harming others, for the worst type of violence is to refrain from delivering Hari-katha. He explained that jiva-himsa (violence to or envy of jivas) included not only the conventional definition of killing, disturbing, or causing trouble to all categories of jiva, but more importantly consisted of apathy or miserliness toward preaching suddha-bhakti, or in encouraging Mayavadis, karmis, or anyabhilasis or speaking in a manner sympathetic to and accomodating of their outlook.- Hence he exhorted his listeners to patiently hear his message, notwithstanding any discomfort experienced in so doing:
*The well-known phrase vasudhaiva-kutumbakam, “seeing the whole world as one’s family,” is from Hitopadesa:
ayarh nijah paro vetti ganand laghu-cetasam udara-caritdnam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam
“Narrow minded persons calculate in terms of ‘this is mine, that is another’s,’ but those of noble character see everyone in the world as their kin.”
Let us cast off the challenging temper, submissively offer our ear, and hear what the messenger says. We will clear up doubts by interrogatories. The messenger should not be regarded as our flatterer. He will speak in the most insolent way. By bitter words he will undeceive us. If we have any hankering for the truth, we should submit and hear. The first duty of the messenger of the absolute is to cut off our wrong impressions, to change our taste. It is an unpalatable duty. But we shall make progress by his regulation. You should be prepared for bitter words for the undoing of whatever you have learnt.
In Vrndavana in 1932, a certain gentleman posited to Srila Sarasvati Thakura, “You have numerous respectable and educated followers and many first-class properties, and thus have acquired facilities to work with. I have not. So before speaking the truth I will have to gain much more momentum.” Srila Sarasvati Thakura responded, “Unless one is fixed in the truth, he cannot fearlessly present the truth.”
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati advised his disciples to see the opposition they were sure to face as being God’s arrangement, and to develop the tolerance essential for preachers of Hari-katha:
When Bhagavan is merciful to me, He arranges unlimited persons to speak sour words in uncountable ways, simply to teach me tolerance. One who cannot learn to tolerate the cavils of the world is ineligible to chant harinama.
He exhorted his disciples to follow the example of Sri Radha in not giving up service to Krsna despite inviting public scorn by such adamancy. And he put in perspective the difficulty and thanklessness of his task:
Millions of materially motivated speakers will go to hell, but someday someone will realize the independent truth spoken forthrightly and be saved. It may take hundreds of lives or millions of years before someone will be able to comprehend this confidential reality. It is not possible to make even one individual do so without spending hundreds of gallons of blood.
We tell everyone, “You understand little.” Thus we have gained numerous enemies and friends. When one contradicts those conceptions opposed to bhakti—namely karma, jnana, and anyabhilasa—and establishes bhakti-siddhanta, it becomes necessary to buck the current thoughts of the world concerned with the body and mind. As the saying goes, “A dumb person has no enemies.” If one simply sits in one’s house silently, thinking of one’s own welfare, there will certainly be nothing of import to tell the world. But we cannot tolerate that people who have achieved the rare human birth, a birth suitable for worshiping the Lord, simply tread the path of misfortune, of non-devotion. We are obliged to repeatedly call others to topics of devotion.
I will die soon, after which no one will come to prevent you from your enjoyment; at that time you will be able to enjoy to your heart’s content. In rejecting sense indulgence and instead talking of satisfying Krsna’s senses, I have become a source of disgruntlement for many. They have not missed a chance to attempt to kill me. Some of them think, “He scuttled our court case”; others opine, “Our position has become diminished.” One cannot help becoming the butt of dislike for people absorbed in greed, egoism, prestige, and duplicity. If Krsna protects a person, no one can do anything to him. May the actual truth prevail.
Srila Sarasvati Thakura perfectly manifested the mood of Sri Prahlada Maharaja, the archetypal preacher, who had said:
naivodvije para duratyaya-vaitaranyas
tvad-virya-gdyana-mahamrta-magna-cittah
soce tato vimukha-cetasa indriyartha-
maya-sukhaya bharam udvahato vimudhan
O best of great personalities, I am not at all afraid of material existence, for wherever I stay I am fully absorbed in thoughts of Your glories and activities. My only anxiety is for the fools and rascals who are making elaborate plans for mundane happiness and maintaining their families, societies, and countries. I am simply concerned with love for them.
prayena deva munayah sva-vimukti-kama
maunam caranti vijane na parartha-nisthah
naitan vihaya krpanan vimumuksa eko
nanyam tvad asya saranam bhramato ’nupasye
Most saintly persons, desiring their own deliverance, go to the hills or forest to meditate with vows of silence. They are not interested in delivering others. But I do not wish to be liberated alone, leaving aside all these poor fools and rascals. I know that without Krsna consciousness, without taking shelter at Your lotus feet, one cannot be happy. Therefore I wish to bring them back to the shelter of Your lotus feet. (SB 7.9.43-44)
To Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s disciples several individuals proffered what they considered well-intentioned suggestions for improving his performance: “If he would just be a little more sensitive to public opinion and more positive in his outlook, if he would look for the good in others and not grouse so much, and not be so insistent on always speaking the straight facts, then surely today no other religious leader would have as many supporters as he”; “If he did not forbid all kinds of intoxicants, then right now thousands would surrender to him”; “He could have been tremendously successful by adjusting to smarta practices and not introducing new ideas about brahminism”; “If he had at least orally endorsed groups that he instead chose to berate, the gurus thereof and their unlimited followers would have submitted to him as their universal head.”
Another common tactic of opponents unable to digest the raw truth presented by Srila Sarasvati Thakura was to take exception with his mode of delivery, thus dodging discussion of his actual message. But Srila Sarasvati Thakura was not to be inveigled by the apparent pragmatism of such self-serving cant. He knew that while among themselves such persons proclaimed loathing for everything he stood for, they feared to voice their opinions in the presence of even his junior disciples, lest they be philosophically demolished and exposed as the scapegraces they were. So rather than reconcile with those whose real intent was to continue with undisturbed sense enjoyment, he went on speaking the truth in a manner virtually guaranteed to invoke enmity, thus inviting upon himself untold troubles and inconveniences.
Often as soon as he nullified one argument, his opponents would fabricate another, calling on seemingly unending reserves of warped imaginative intelligence for weaving convoluted theories. Yet as a committed soldier, Srila Sarasvati Thakura was not only bold but also unyielding. Remaining firm and equipoised on the battlefield, he shattered with the weapons of sastriya knowledge, insight, and conviction the barrage of verbal missiles ever fired at him. Despite the Gaudiya Matha’s multipronged, ingenious, sedulous, and widely acclaimed preaching campaign, relatively few were serious enough to wholeheartedly accept its teachings and the genuine devotional path:
The Gaudiya Matha has been advertising its aims and objects and its methods in the most unambiguous manner, viz., by the words and deeds of all the inmates of its numerous branches and its wandering preachers. But in spite of its vigorous propagandist endeavors, the general public is hardly correctly informed of its character. The unique nature of its purpose and method has necessarily raised up a numerous body of opponents who believe in intellectual and humanitarian activities. It has been vehemently condemned by the orthodox sections of the Hindus. It has been supposed to be dogmatic, reactionary, and uncultured. The intellectual sections have kept aloof from it in sheer despair and in almost open contempt. The average so-called religious person feels scandalized by the open deprecation of all good work. Everybody is persuaded that an institution which goes against the opinion of the generality of mankind is automatically proved to be wrong and absurd.
It is this inert self-complacency that has perverted most persons from lending their serious attention to the preachers of the matha. They have seemed to hear its message only out of their condescending courtesy. They have not listened to the message as to a matter of immediate practical importance.
They have not felt the necessity of lending their really serious attention. ( From The Harmonist 33.92-93 , 24 december 1936)
Yet Srila Sarasvati Thakura exhorted his followers not to be discouraged:
The truth is always the truth, the genuine always genuine. Ordinary people may or may not accept it, but it never loses its glory or respectable position. Maybe it will happen that within many eons only one sincere truth-seeking person will appreciate the genuineness of the Gaudlya Matha. Yet such a person could effect auspiciousness for unlimited millions of people.
And those who did allow bhaktisiddhanta-vani to enter their heart, surrendering their life for its propagation, became so charged with transcendental energy that each man performed the work of many. Thus the voice of the Gaudiya Matha was heard far and wide, making a significant and lasting impression on the cultural, religious, and philosophical life of Bengal and beyond. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati untiringly strove to transmit suddha- bhakti to as many as possible, yet his aim was not so much to collect numerous followers as to find but a single sincere person. He would often declare, “Even at the expense of all these properties, temples, and Mathas, if I could assist even one soul in becoming a pure devotee, my mission would be fulfilled.”
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati avowed that even if the whole world were against him, or if not a single individual were to stay with him, or if those who had made a pretense of surrendering to him were to leave, still, under the protection of his gurudeva’s lotus feet, he would fearlessly and unceasingly preach the unadulterated truth until the last moment he remained in this world; and if some day that truth were to enter the ear of even one fortunate soul, then through that lone person the entire universe would attain the topmost benefit. Citing the stanza koti-mukta-madhye ‘durlabha’ eka krsna-bhakta—“Even among millions of liberated persons even one devotee of Lord Krsna is rare” (Cc 2.19.148)—he commented, “Considering that liberated persons are very rare, then what to speak of authentic Vaisnavas? So, if as a result of our activities five pure devotees were to emerge from among the fifty million people of Bengal, we could deem that an unexpectedly great success.” When asked disparagingly “How many people know of Vaisnava dharma?” Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati responded, “How many postgraduates are being turned out? How many Newtons have there been? Is it a wise principle to give up the culture of science because there are not many Professor J. C. Boses?”
A headmaster once petitioned Srila Sarasvatl Thakura, “You are speaking of very high matters, but we are now in a nightmarish state. Giving up fish and flesh is too hard for us. We are conditioned souls. Please give us an easy process.” Srila Sarasvatl Thakura replied, “You are fallen in the well. I should not go down; you should come up to me. Don’t try to pull me down; stretch out your hand and I will pull you up. Don’t try to make it too easy. We cannot give up our essential practices and allow eating of fish and flesh.” Such words indicated the implicit tenor of Srila Sarasvati Thakura’s message and mission: to set exemplary standards and uplift others so that they could derive actual benefit, not to become coopted by humdrum religiosity of no real value for anyone.
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati never blenched at pointing out deviations from sastra and siddhanta. During the Gauda-mandala Parikrama in 1925, while visiting the birthplace of Isvara Puri in Kumarahatta, in a speech to his accompanying disciples he specified the discrepancies within the temple there. The deity form of Isvara Purl depicted him as an old man dressed in the white cloth of a grhastha. Before him was a deity of Nimai Pandita in a pose beseeching his mercy. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati explained that at the time of awarding initiation to Sri Caitanya, Isvara Puri was a sannyasi, and since he had not remained long in this world it was inaccurate to portray him as aged. Besides, although Isvara Puri had formally initiated Nimai Pandita, actually his mood was ever that of a servant to Caitanya Mahaprabhu, so to represent him as if the Lord’s master was certainly against the intent of sastra. Moreover, the imaginative writings inscribed in the temple, and that the puja was conducted with bael leaves and red hibiscuses (standard offerings to Lord Siva) further indicated the worshipers’ ignorance.
Aggressive as he was toward all forms of hypocrisy, Srila Sarasvati Thakura sometimes recommended a tactful approach, such as suggesting gradual treatment of persons afflicted with the malaise of material life by dispensing “homeopathic doses in sugar-coated pills,” and that better than directly naming popular bogus missions or individuals was to expose the defects in their teachings and thus defeat them indirectly. To immediately identify rascals as such would cause others who were sentimentally attached to them to take umbrage and be unable to hear the intended message. Attacking on a personal level would unnecessarily engender acrimonious vendettas, thus dragging matters to a petty level and thereby sidelining philosophical understanding. Thus Srila Sarasvati Thakura sometimes advised his disciples, “Don’t say ‘cow,’ but rather ‘an animal with four legs, a tail, and two horns that gives milk.’”
But in the company of his followers, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati unreservedly fulminated against charlatans and cheaters and the missions built around them. Bengalis were proud of their various celebrities in science, politics, philosophy, and religion; yet on the strength of Srimad-Bhagavatam Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati dismissed them all as fools. And often the publications of the Gaudiya Matha named and openly criticized certain celebrities. For instance, the September 1929 Harmonist targeted both maverick philosopher J. Krishnamurti and Nobel Prize winner Rabindranath Tagore, the most famous and revered poet of Bengal, for their vague speculative approachs to spiritual life—the former outright discarding and the latter politely dodging srauta-pantha?Yet Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati did not simply criticize or call ill names, or lash out whimsically or boorishly, or over trivial matters. He condemned the attacking of others with a “dissuading policy” as being the approach not of a pracaraka (preacher) but a prataraka (cheater). He explained on the basis of sastra and philosophy why whatever he was criticizing was certainly criticizable, and should—must—be criticized. His systematic sastriya presentation of the absolute truth was clearly far above both mere dogmatic censure and the slushy emotionalism associated with Bengali Vaisnavism, and attracted many thoughtful followers, whom he expected to assimilate on the strength of reasoned conviction the asceticism, dedication, and unbreachable preaching spirit inherent to himself.
Srila Sarasvati Thakura never considered that he had accomplished enough and was entitled to retire comfortably. Having declared unmitigating war on maya, he established the paragon of a genuine preacher by fighting up to his last breath. Yet even while battling for Krsna, he ever remained a saint and gentleman. As a perfect Vaisnava, even in opposing others he retained intrinsic respect for them and always spoke on principles, never descending to the platform of personal feuding. Thus, many who were initially startled by his forceful speaking were gradually won over by the cogency of his teachings, his sincere concern for others as manifested in his unflinching adherence to truth, and his other extraordinary godly qualities.
(Adopted from Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Vaibhava Vol.1)