(From Śrī Gauḍīya, Volume 18, Issue 22, Published under the shelter of Śrīla Prabhupāda Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Ṭhākura (Translated for first time in English on the auspicious appearance day of Śrīla Prabhūpāda on Gaurābda 538 ,Govinda
Māsa Pañcamī by Siddhānt Vāṇi team )
The enternal associate of Śrī Gaurāṅga Mahāprabhu—Nityālilāpraviśta Oṁ Viṣṇupāda Śrī Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Prabhupāda has told this one thing most of the times—that we must become dovetailed with the cittavṛtti (inner disposition) of the Śrī Rūpānuga Guru-Varga. The more a disciple’s cittavṛtti is harmoniously dovetailed with that of Śrī Gurudeva, the more intimately connected they are to the lotus feet of Śrī Gurudeva, the more they become antaraṅga (innermost intimate associate), and the more dear they are to Śrī Gurudeva. Thus, even when from external vision there seems to be barriers of space, time, or circumstance between Śrī Gurudeva and Śrī Śiṣya, the disciple, whose cittavṛtti is fully dovetailed with that of Śrī Guru, remains his nitya pārśva-cara (eternal dedicated companion) and embodiment of pārśva-vṛtti (servitude in divine proximity).
Śrīman Mahāprabhu resided in Nīlācala, while antarnga bhaktas (His most intimate associates), who are sama-citta-vṛtti-viśiṣṭa (endowed with the same inner disposition)—Śrī Rūpa, Śrī Sanātana, and others—remained hundreds of miles away in Śrī Vṛndāvana, absorbed in bhajana. Similarly, from external vision, Śrīla Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda manifested a pastime of residing at a great distance from the Vaiṣṇava–Sārvabhauma (Supreme Emperor of the Vaiṣṇavas) Śrīla Jagannātha Dāsa Gosvāmī Prabhu.
“Śrīla Prabhupāda did not sit beside his Gurudeva at all times”
Parama-Āradhyatama (Our most worshipable) Śrī Śrīla Prabhupāda did not remain perpetually seated near the divine lotus feet of his Śrī Gurupādapadma, Śrīla Gaura Kiśora Dāsa Gosvāmī Prabhu. In Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own words:
“Many foolish and devious materialists, who were in opposition to the conclusions of pure devotion would come and surround him, considering themselves the dearmost objects of his affection. Although they engaged themselves in the pursuit of worldly things, Srila Gaurakisora Prabhu never displayed any intention of driving them away, nor completely abandoned them in a manifest manner.”
—(Śrī Sajjana-Toṣaṇī, Volume 19, Issues 5 & 6)
From the highly esteemed essay “Antaraṅga” in Gauḍīya, so deeply cherished by Śrīla Prabhupāda, we glean a profound truth—
“Mosquitoes, lice, bedbugs, and other such creatures may enact the semblance of residing in closest proximity to the sacred limbs of a Mahāpuruṣa. Yet, far from possessing an attunement with his cittavṛtti (inner disposition), their only intent—their singular aspiration or prayojana is to exploit his very lifeblood. Thus, true meaning of satsaṅga—the association of Guru, Sādhu, or Vaiṣṇava—does not lie in mere physical proximity, but in alignment of consciousness. One’s nearness to the śrīpādapadma (divine lotus feet) of Guru and Vaiṣṇava is measured solely by the degree to which one’s inner disposition (vṛtti) resonates in harmony with theirs (sama-citta-vṛtti-viśiṣṭa).”
During his manifest pastimes, Śrī Śrīla Prabhupāda—out of his boundless compassion—bestowed Hari-kathā and kīrtana, striving in countless ways to keep souls forever yoked to the shelter of his śrīpādapadma. Within the cooling radiance of a million moons of his śrī-caraṇa-kamala he extended the gift of divine association, drawing souls into his transcendental embrace. Through his aprakaṭa-līlā (unmanifest Pastimes), he conferred an even deeper benediction—by kindling the fire of viraha-smṛti (remembrance in separation), upon his devotees who are ever inclined for service (sevonmukha), granting them an even greater opportunity for association in the realm of divine longing. Yet, in both His manifest and unmanifest līlās, this inert frame of mine (jaḍa-piṇḍa) whether appearing to be near his sacred lotus feet, or feigning a state of distance, I have, in truth, remained forever severed from the association of his Lotus feet. For the disposition of my heart has always been wholly misaligned with the cittavṛtti of Śrīla Prabhupāda and his pure-hearted servants. And though I have foolishly considered myself a recipient of his grace, despite this I have remained intoxicated—drowning in the poison of mundane desires and objects, and still getting lost.
Śrīla Prabhupāda’s cittavṛtti (inner disposition) is fully manifest in his vānī (divine speech). In one of his letters, addressing a particular recipient, he wrote:
“saṁśayātmā vinaśyati”—The doubting soul is doomed (Bhagavad-gita 4.40).You have forsaken the path of true anusarāṇa (genuine following) by relying instead on mere anukaraṇa (imitation). But we possess no wealth that caters to return journey ticket-holders, for we recognize that every object is meant to be enjoyed by the only enjoyer, Lord Krishna—He is the sole bhoktā, and all else exists as His bhogya. Alas, those inflicted by misfortune fail to grasp this truth, and thus they fall prey to doubt, lacking praṇipāta (humble surrender), paripraśna (inquisitive inquiry), and sevā (devotional service). We understand well that acts performed in alignment with true sevā are neither karmakāṇḍī pursuits driven by a desire for fruitive gain, nor are they the impersonalist’s self-serving search for undifferentiated Brahman. The sincere inquisitive seeker and the bhakti-prārthī (one aspiring for devotion) must retain śraddhā (faith) in the potency of the medicine they seek.The feeble energy inherent in inert jaḍa-dravya-guṇa (the qualities of material substances) can never penetrate the domain of the spiritual realm.”
— (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 2, Page 133)
No matter how much I have outwardly performed the act of singing the glories of Śrīla Prabhupāda, no matter how boldly I have proclaimed, “My devotion for Śrīla Prabhupāda has only intensified ever since his entrance into his aprakaṭa-līlā (unmanifest pastimes),”—in reality, the mortal perception (martya-buddhi) I harbor toward him has not been eradicated from my heart. My lingering doubts concerning his transcendental nature have not been dispelled.
It is precisely due to this that my mental disposition has always mirrored that of a return journey ticket-holder—and it remains so even now. Consequently, my so-called approach toward him has only resulted in imitation rather than true following. Ensnared in the grip of ādhyakṣiktā (tendency of understanding the transcendental subjects through one’s own material senses), I have become a man of doubt.
The unfeigned inner disposition of praṇipāta (humble surrender), paripraśna (earnest inquiry), and sevā (pure service) has not awakened within me. That’s why, I have perceived acts of service to be akin to the prayers of fruit-seeking endeavors of the karmakāṇḍīs (ritualistic workers) or the impersonalist’s effort to merge into the undifferentiated Brahman for his own selfish end.
“If I have rendered service, then why should I be deprived of wealth, women, or prestige in the form of remuneration or commission?”—this alone has been the deep-seated disposition of my heart.
Had I truly been a genuine seeker and one who sincerely aspires for bhakti, I would have maintained unwavering śraddhā (faith) and bhakti (devotion) toward the remedy given by Śrī Guru. Instead, my misguided reasoning has been as follows: “Just as fire inevitably burns the hand that touches it, why then has my mere external performance of service not immediately resulted in Kṛṣṇa’s attainment?” Yet, such a cittavṛtti is utterly opposed to the cittavṛtti of Śrīla Prabhupāda and the Śrī Rūpānuga Vaiṣṇavas. This truth, we have all perceived—by their vānī alone.
My mental disposition is such that—regardless of the manner in which I have acted out the acceptance of dīkṣā-mantra from Śrīla Prabhupāda, regardless of how many times I have externally served in his presence or showed the pretentious efforts of service before him—how could I ever consider that my comprehension of his inner disposition is way inferior as compared to my other Godbrothers? Why should I accept that only one person alone can truly understand the heart of Śrīla Prabhupāda?While I, who have stood before him and performed such acts, do not? Why should I acknowledge such a notion?
But Śrīla Prabhupāda’s inner disposition is of an entirely different nature. He himself proclaims:
“Those who, under the sway of deceitfulness, accept the shelter of the Gauḍīya Maṭha with an underlying intention to misappropriate the supramundane divine knowledge for their own selfish ends—such persons have no actual connection with the Gauḍīya Maṭha. Nor can they ever have one. Just as the acting of a traveling theater troupe lacks any true substantiality, in the same way, the mere performance of bhakti remains devoid of actual essence. Just as counterfeit gold can never replace real gold, so too, the veil of deceptive devotion can never be equated with pure devotion.The non-devotees perceive the ultimate necessity to be nothing more than the threefold pursuits—dharma (piety), artha (wealth), kāma (desire), or at most, the aspiration for liberation (mokṣa). But the Gauḍīya Maṭha, being the pathway of pure bhakti, can never accommodate such self-serving hypocrisy.The mere external act of accepting dīkṣā is not the same as the genuine attainment of divine knowledge.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 1, Page 59)
“The mere external performance of dīkṣā and the actual attainment of transcendental knowledge are not one and the same”—Even after verbally acknowledging this divine statement and teaching of Śrīla Prabhūpāda with dutiful lips, at some times, outwardly feigning a humility steeped in deception, I proclaim before others that, “I have not truly become Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disciple,”—thus attempting to apply a superficial whitewash over my countless inner faults—yet, when a well-wishing companion or a guru-like Vaiṣṇava, out of genuine concern for my spiritual welfare, points out my faults, I, in my arrogance, consider myself “baḍa āmi” (I am great). I perceive such a Vaiṣṇava as deluded, envious, or even malicious ( hiṁsaka), and in my ire, I attack them and instead of acknowledging my own shortcomings, I project these faults onto their shoulders, further embellishing and amplifying them as their own faults while simultaneously attempting to expose imagined flaws in them. Herein lies the profound divergence between my mental disposition and that of Śrīla Prabhupāda. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s true disposition is as follows:
“Rather than criticizing the nature of others, one should engage in self-correction—this alone is my instruction. I am duty-bound to critique my students and disciples for the sake of their learning, but why do you rush forth to create a commotion over such matters?”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Vol. 2, p. 106)
Failing to perceive the Vaiṣṇava as śikṣā-guru and the śikṣā-guru as non-different from Śrī Gurupādapadma, and being ensnared by the mortal intellect towards him, I regard the śikṣā-guru with mere mundane familiarity or equal to myself. Thus, I feel no inclination to accept the Vaiṣṇava as my kin or my guide and chastiser.
In truth, my disposition is not one of genuine surrender (anugatya-mayī), but rather one of dominance (prabhutva-mayī) or enjoyment-seeking (sambhoga-mayī). When Guru and Vaiṣṇavas, treating me as their student or disciple, offer critical instruction, I, unable to bear it, seek to seize from their hands that very weapon of discernment and cast it back upon them instead. Herein lies the divergence between my inner disposition and that of Śrīla Prabhupāda.
In my attempt to justify my conduct and thought process, I proclaim: “Those whom I once accepted as ideals—later, upon discovering their self–concocted flaws in my mind —I was instructed, by those very faults, to follow their nature.” Yet, in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s divine disposition, there is not even the slightest trace of such nihilistic, self-destructive impersonalism. His words reveal a higher vision:
“A difference of opinion has arisen between us. You, upon witnessing the mundane weakness and faults of certain individuals, wish to be swept away in the current of herd mentality, succumbing to the Gaḍḍālikā-pravāha-nyāya (the logic of the flock)—following the logic of the movement of a flock of sheep, who blindly follow the shepherd. However, I do not submit to such adverse reasoning. I have drawn my firm conviction from the Bhikṣu-gītā ( Songs of mendicant of Avantipura) of the Eleventh Canto, Twenty-Third Chapter of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam—that I will tolerate all kinds of blows and counter-blows by following the principle of tolerance like a tree. Yet, in restlessness, you protest—”Those whom I accepted as ideals—their faults and shortcomings have led me astray and disturbed.” But I say—Only by restraining the mind can one withstand the fierce currents of opposition. Every disturbance is a fault of my mind; nobody can actually harm me in this world. Srila Vamsidasa Babaji had accepted himself as a servant of Gaura-Nityananda and had concluded that there are no faults in the servants of the worshipable Lord. Please Bless me—when shall that day arise when I, too, shall realize the truth of these statements? By your blessings, I have now understood that I have afflicted all beings through my thoughts, words, and deeds. This realization grows stronger with each passing moment.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Vol. 2, p. 93-94)
Many times, I contemplate—Śrīla Prabhupāda granted shelter to individuals of diverse natures and dispositions. Yet, when I fail to perceive within them the complete manifestation of servitude-oriented consciousness, I begin to wonder—”Perhaps Śrīla Prabhupāda lacked some potency, or maybe, under the sway of worldly motives, he accepted many unqualified disciples.”
Then again, I think—”If I express such thoughts openly, I will be labeled a critic of the Guru.” Thus, I conceal these doubts within, and like cij-jaḍa-samanvayavādī (those who harmonize spirit with matter), I propagate the idea before others that—”Merely receiving dīkṣā–mantra from Śrīla Prabhupāda is sufficient to be counted as his own intimate follower, his true servant.” By adopting this strategy— “You remain silent, and I shall too remain silent”—I secure social prestige from all sides. Yet here, too, lies the chasm—vast as the distance between hell and heaven—between my disposition and the heart of Śrīla Prabhupāda.
Śrīla Prabhupāda’s cittavṛtti is revealed in his words as follows—
“Those ignorant souls who are incapable of conceiving the supremely magnanimous pastimes of a Mahābhāgavata, they, lacking discernment, repeatedly raise questions— Why did Kālakṛṣṇadāsa, though under the shelter of Gaurasundara, become enticed by the Bhāṭṭathāris’ women? Why did Choṭa Haridāsa, though engaged in Gaurasundara’s service, not adhere to the conduct befitting a devotee, but instead became engaged in other inferior pursuits? Why did Rāmacandra Purī abandon the shelter of Mādhavendra Purī? Why did certain offspring of Advaita Ācārya and certain so–called disciples of Vīrabhadra Prabhu embrace a stance of independent authority? Such untutored individuals, being unable to grasp the absolute reality, distort the principles of kanishṭha (neophyte) and madhyama (intermediate) adhikāra and then propagate flawed interpretations. They may be regarded as honorable authorities by the ignorant masses, but in essence, they remain devoid of true wisdom. However, when these foolish people enter the deep meaning of the transcendentally magnanimous pastimes of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and His exalted Mahābhāgavata associates, only then will they come to understand that in order to provide an opportunity for well-being to all unfit and fallen souls, Lord Caitanya has revealed the truth that all living entities are constitutionally servants of Lord Krishna (jīva-mātrei svarūpataḥ ye kṛṣṇa-dāsa). Even though the service of Krishna temporarily manifested in a perverted form as an aversion to Krishna when combined with material enjoyment, it remains beyond the judgment of unqualified materialists who rely solely on direct perception, nor does it violate the principle of the “api cet su-durācāro” verse. A Mahābhāgavata knows everyone as his spiritual master and thus, only a Mahābhāgavata can be acknowledged as the Jagad-guru, the universal teacher.”
— (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Vol. 1, pp. 57–58)
In my heart, I perceive even my śikṣā-gurus as my obedient attendants, or at best, as equals to myself. However, in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s cittavṛtti, we see a vastly different realization—he perceives even his own disciples not as mere subordinates, but as manifestations of the guru-tattva.
“These exalted devotees, the Bhakta-nara-gaṇa of Śrī Narottama Ṭhākura, are indeed Vaiṣṇavas—hence, they manifest before me in innumerable forms as my very own Gurus. In their direct aspect (anvaya-bhāva), they appear as my Guru-varga and preceptors; in their indirect aspect (vyatireka-bhāva), they are graciously engaged in hearing the prattling words of a fallen soul like myself, even amidst their precious moments of bhajana-sevā. It is only in their association that I find myself capable of kīrtana, reciting the sacred words I have received from my Gurudeva in unbroken succession. I possess no audacity to instruct the world, for the tattva of Viṣṇu and the Vaiṣṇavas is full of specialties (nitya vaiśiṣtyamaya) or eternally distinct (nitya-bheda-yukta), but remain inconceivably non-different (acintya-abhinnatā).”
— (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Vaktṛtāvalī, Vol. 1, pp. 17–18)
By perceiving myself as a “co-ordinate authority” (samakakṣa-śāsaka)—an equal ruler—and by cultivating this very cittavṛtti, the notion that “I am great” or “We are mighty and courageous” has driven me towards an impersonalistic (nirviśeṣavāda) disposition. This mentality has engaged me in the fault-finding of my dīkṣā-guru, śikṣā-guru, and śravaṇa-guru-varga, reducing my spiritual consciousness to a void of non-differentiation. Thus, being enslaved by the dictates of my mind (manodharma), I have, moment after moment, deemed myself qualified to replace Śrī Guru at will, proudly considering myself an “intrepid renouncer of unworthy gurus” (asad-guru parityāgī bahādur)”, only to ultimately plummet into the bottomless abyss of impersonalism.
The very nature of adhyākṣika-nirviśeṣavādīs is that they are ever engaged in scrutinizing the faults of the guru-varga. The Asura-Mohana-Avatāra, Ācārya Śaṅkara, in his illusion-inducing descent, led people into the delusion that Jagadguru Vyāsadeva was later mistaken, creating the doubt that Vyāsadeva’s true intent was vivartavāda (illusory transformation of Brahm), not śakti-pariṇāmavāda (real transformation of energy). Thus, he hastened to fabricate such an idea. Śrī Śaṅkarācārya, relying on his Parama-guru, Gauḍapāda’s Kārikā, composed his own Bhāṣya on the Brahma-sūtras, wherein he critically examined and found fault in the very Sāṅkhya-kārikās composed by Gauḍapāda himself—thus engaging in the fault-finding of his own Ācārya. The cittavṛtti of the impersonalist Rāmachandra Puri was also of the same nature. Similarly, Śrī Vallabhācārya, deeming Śrīdhara Svāmī to be a māyāvādī, considered his commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to be flawed. In great exultation, he presented this very idea before Śrīman Mahāprabhu. However, Śrīman Mahāprabhu did not give any refuge to this impersonalistic stream of thought.
Śrīman Mahāprabhu never engaged in fault-finding of Śrī Īśvara Purīpāda’s sacred composition, Kṛṣṇa-līlāmṛta. Even though Rāmadāsa Viśvāsa was renowned as a distinguished teacher of Kāvya-prakāśa, an expert in all śāstras, a worshiper of Raghunātha, a parama-vaiṣṇava, and one who chanted Rāma-nāma ceaselessly day and night, Mahāprabhu never granted shelter to his impersonalistic (nirviśeṣavāda) tendencies, despite his outward engagement in Vaiṣṇava-sevā. This very cittavṛtti (inner disposition) is observed in Śrīla Prabhupāda and the Rūpānuga lineage. Those who, at heart, remain mumukṣu (aspiring for liberation), puffed up with the pride of scholarship and moral righteousness, and who are ever engaged in entangling Vaiṣṇavas within their web of false morality and immorality—such individuals are nothing but impersonalists. The external grandeur of their asceticism and austerity may dazzle my vision, yet the followers of Śrī Rūpa never bestow upon them even the slightest recognition. Śrīla Prabhupāda has spoken:
“Superfluous wealth and the fever of heroism are not the true concerns of a devotee’s life. If one embraces them, only obstructions born of transgression will arise. Bless me, that my heart may never race towards the thought that ‘We are greatly courageous.’”
One day, Śrī Vallabhācārya approached Śrīman Mahāprabhu and boldly declared that he did not accept Śrīdhara Svāmī as an authority, asserting that his own exposition of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was far superior.However, Mahāprabhu did not encourage Vallabhācārya in fostering such a mentality. Śrī Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmī has mercifully imparted instruction to a foolish being like myself through his verse: “pratiṣṭhāśā dhṛṣṭā svapaca-ramaṇī” [1]
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 2, Page 40)
Śrīla Prabhupāda has expressed views on so-called morality and immorality that stand in complete contrast to my own mentality:
“Ethical principles or moral rules of world (jāgātika-nīti-samūha) may be considered the highest within the realm of mundane reasoning, and on this point, I have no disagreement. However, Kṛṣṇa-prema is the most supremely desirable attainment, and in comparison to it, moral rules cannot be considered superior or more essential.*Those who adhere to conventional morality may perceive the transcendental lovers of Kṛṣṇa—who embrace the divine sentiments of paramour devotion (pārakiya)—as ‘less ethical.’ However, such divine affection for Hari possesses an inconceivable potency so extraordinary that even the highest moral standards become dim and insignificant in its presence.In the absence of bhakti, mere worldly duty-consciousness or a temperament inclined toward disbelief (disbelieving temper) cannot be eradicated.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 1, Page 38)
My mentality is such that I believe one attains the qualification to perceive the Madhyama-adhikārī stage and understand Vaiṣṇava principles only by receiving the syllables of the mantra from the Guru, along with some training in scriptural discussion, recitation, and oratory skills. However, in the supremely worshipable Śrīla Prabhupāda’s mentality, such artificial considerations find no place. Śrīla Prabhupāda states:
“The mere imparting of a mantra is not dīkṣā; rather, that which bestows divine knowledge is truly called dīkṣā. A jīva cannot attain his ultimate welfare simply by reading hundreds of scriptures on his own or by engaging in devotional practices based on his own mental speculations. The knowledge of words (śabdārtha-jñāna) serves only as an aid to the realization of the mantra’s true meaning (mantrārtha-jñāna).The conventional definition of dīkṣā prevalent in the external world—rooted in the mechanical understanding of letters and syllables—finds no place in the consciousness of a true Mahanta-guru. Instead, the actual realization of the mantra’s purport, or vidvad-rūḍhi (the comprehension of the enlightened ones), alone establishes true eligibility.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 4, Page 33)
Since the inclination of vidvad-rūḍhi-vṛtti (the enlightened comprehension of the mantra’s purport) has not found a place within my heart, I have not truly received dīkṣā from Śrīla Prabhupāda. I have not become one with his mood of consciousness (sama-citta-vṛtti-viśiṣṭa).
Those who engage in hari-bhajana do not concern themselves with past histories or previous faults; rather, they strive to dispel their present impurities through the constant influence of śravaṇa and kīrtana. However, my own mentality is quite the opposite—I am more inclined to scrutinize the past histories of Vaiṣṇavas, to judge them with mundane intelligence, rather than making an effort to eradicate my own present impurities.
Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words resound:
“All of our impurities, when fully surrendered in service to Kṛṣṇa, themselves transform into meaningful assets and become the cause of our eternal auspiciousness. The past character of Ṭhākura Bilvamaṅgala, the story of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, and all the fallacious arguments of Prakāśānanda—though initially appearing as obstacles—were ultimately transformed into pure service to Kṛṣṇa. Therefore, one should have no anxiety regarding past faults. As for present impurities, if one strengthens his practice of śravaṇa and kīrtana, they will naturally lose their potency and dissipate.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 1, Pages 19-20)
The aspiration to behold the transcendental nature of the Vaiṣṇava is the very hallmark of the citta-vṛtti of the Rūpānuga devotees. Thus, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī Prabhu has proclaimed: “na prākṛtatvam iha bhakta-janasya paśyet”[2]—”One must never perceive a devotee as mundane.” Those who fail to recognize the Vaiṣṇava’s transcendental nature and instead view them through the dim lens of mundane perception—regardless of how renounced or detached they may appear—possess nothing more than an insubstantial, hollow vairāgya, steeped in the barren waters of impersonal thought. Hence, we find in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words:
“If one perceives śāstra, the deity, nāma-bhajana, and the Vaiṣṇava through the lens of mundane knowledge, it arises insignificant so-called renunciation and must be abandoned by the devotee.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 1, Page 7)
For this very reason, Śrīla Prabhupāda has repeatedly cautioned us:
“nija kṣudra adhikāre, chāya bhakta dekhibāre, avaśeṣe aparādha haya.”
—(Upadeśāmṛta Commentary—anuvṛtti) — [ “Alas! To see a devotee through the prism of one’s own meager jurisdiction ultimately results in offense.”]
Elsewhere, it is sung:
“ye phalgu-vairāgī’ kahe nija tyāgī, se nā pāre kabhu haite vaiṣṇava. Māyāvādi-jana, kṛṣṇetara mana, mukta abhimāne se ninde vaiṣṇava.”
—(Nirjane Anartha, Sajjana Toṣaṇī, Year 23, Issues 1-2) [ “One who, in the guise of a so-called renunciant, declares himself a Vaiṣṇava can never become a true Vaiṣṇava. Such impersonalists, absorbed in the pride of liberation and harboring minds detached from Kṛṣṇa, invariably engage in the blasphemy of the Vaiṣṇavas.”]
In the citta-vṛtti of Śrīla Prabhupāda, an unquenchable yearning is revealed—for the service of those divine shelter-giving personalities who are tormented by the agony of separation from Kṛṣṇa (Kṛṣṇa–viraha–kātara āśraya-vigraha). His contemplations do not gravitate towards relishing the moods of mere object of service (viṣaya-vigraha) but rather towards the rasa-ālochana—the contemplation of seva rasa of those who are verily the embodiments of divine shelter (āśraya-vigraha). Yet, my citta-vṛtti stands in stark opposition. Instead of aspiring to serve those exalted associates who burn in the flames of separation from Kṛṣṇa, I consider it my supreme duty to serve the band of dacoits in the guise of my worldly kinsmen, who are afflicted by the scorching miseries of material existence. Assuming the external posture of relishing the moods of the Lord’s transcendental pastimes, I remain immersed in the mentality of a saṁbhogavādī prākṛta sahajiyā—a gross enjoyer who distorts divine love into mundane lust.
Śrīla Prabhupāda declares:
“We must carry our worshipable āśraya-jātīya Bhagavat-parikāras to Kurukṣetra, so that they may be delivered from their long-standing agony of separation and be turned towards Kṛṣṇa once more. To serve the Brajavāsīs, who are burning in the fires of Māthurā-viraha (Burning in flames of seperation for Kṛṣṇa being in Mathurā)—this alone is our supreme dharma.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 6, Page 46)“At all times, engage in the contemplation of rasa of the āśraya-jātīya devotees. If you do so, then the affliction of false identification with mundane objects will not torment you.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 3, Page 62)
My citta-vṛtti is such that I perceive myself to be highly virtuous, vastly learned, and immensely intelligent—so much so that, by my mercy alone, the fourteen generations of Guru and Gaurāṅga shall attain deliverance! Yet, Śrīla Prabhupāda’s realization is altogether different. He states:
“Śrī Śrī Gaurasundara is especially merciful towards the meek and incapable.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 2, Page 2)
Furthermore, my citta-vṛtti holds that the direct perception of Bhagavān (bhagavat-sākṣātkāra) and the chanting of Śrī Harināma are two separate phenomena—the chanting of Harināma being merely a means (sādhana), while the direct vision of Bhagavān is the ultimate goal (sādhya).
However, Śrīla Prabhupāda refutes this misconception, saying:
“Know well that the chanting of Śrī Harināma and the direct perception of Bhagavān are one and the same. Śrī Nāma Himself is Bhagavān incarnate. It is only due to the limitations of mundane vision that one perceives the Holy Name and the Lord as separate.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī , Volume 2, Pages 3 & 5)
My citta-vṛtti is such that I think: “I chant so much Harināma, I perform so much service, and yet I fail to capture the hearts of Śrī Hari, Guru, and the Vaiṣṇavas! Does this not mean that they are not deceiving me by offering the temptations of wealth, women, and prestige?”
But Śrīla Prabhupāda refutes such doubts, saying:
“Ṭhākura Mahāśaya has sung— ‘Gaurā-paṅhu nā bhajiā mainu’, ‘adhane yatana kari dhana teyāginū’— ‘I did not worship Lord Gaura; instead, striving for that which is worthless, I have forsaken the true treasure.’ ”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 2, Page 7)
“Do not become anxious for results. With patience and tolerance, engage in ceaseless chanting of Kṛṣṇa’s Holy Name.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 2, Page 10)
Furthermore, my citta-vṛtti suggests: “I have served Śrī Hari, Guru, and the Vaiṣṇavas for many days—now, let me take some rest for a while.” But Śrīla Prabhupāda warns against such complacency, declaring:
“Only by rendering uninterrupted service to Śrī Hari, Guru, and the Vaiṣṇavas does the jīva escape the clutches of saṁsāra. Otherwise, the allurements of material life swiftly consume him.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 2, Page 14)
My conviction is: “I do not associate with the unholy in any way.” But in my mind, I have defined “asat-saṅga” or “duḥsaṅga” only as those persons who obstruct my sense gratification. I have not truly recognized the real nature of duḥsaṅga. However, Śrīla Prabhupāda clarifies:
“By chanting Kṛṣṇa’s Holy Name, all forms of bad association will dissipate on their own, like the vanishing of mist before the sun. Who are these bad associations? They are the māyāvādīs, karmīs, jñānīs, and those with ulterior desires. Day by day, māyāvādīs have begun introducing themselves as ‘Vaiṣṇavas’! Following the injunction of Śrīla Svarūpa Gosvāmī, one must drive these māyāvādīs far away and chant Harināma in a state of true detachment from these people.Then, Gaurahari will bestow His mercy.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 2, Page 27)
The sovereign master of the Gauḍīyas, Śrī Svarūpa Dāmodara Prabhu, has declared that nirviśeṣavādīs (impersonalists) are the most dangerous form of duḥsaṅga as compared to others. He even petitioned on behalf of Choṭa Haridāsa before Śrīman Mahāprabhu, yet he did not allow the impersonalist poet from Bengal to come before Mahāprabhu in any way.
In my heart , there has always been an overwhelming inclination to make arrangements for the “final hour”—(securing future security by hoarding material wealth and arrangements). I have placed greater faith in material wealth than in the supreme goal of life (paramārtha).
However, Śrīla Prabhupāda declares:
“I am not a greedy seeker of perishable wealth like you. Rather, I pray that in every birth, I may remain a greedy seeker of eternal wealth—of the supreme goal of life. Bless me in such a way! The greed for mundane wealth is such that I would not wish it even upon my most bitter enemy. Other than praying for the ultimate welfare of my greatest adversaries, I desire nothing. As for those heretics whose only craving is the accumulation of wealth—who amass riches solely to indulge in profit, adoration, and distinction, and to revel in gold and women—bless me that I may never have to set eyes upon such hypocrites in the remaining days of my life.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 2, Page 49)
My disposition is akin to that of the impersonalists (nirviśeṣavādīs), who seek to renounce the affliction of kāma (lust) merely by ceaselessly condemning it. However, the stream of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s contemplation does not flow in such a manner. He told that those who think in this way are, in truth, always meditating upon lustful thoughts itself—and in the end, they attain nothing but deep absorption in it. Only through the service of a pure Vaiṣṇava can one be truly freed from the grip of lust.
The very definition of kāma is opposition to the service of Kṛṣṇa.**To attain liberation from the torments of lust, one must understand that the sole remedy is to render service to a nirmatsara Kṛṣṇa-sevaka—a devotee free from envy. In this world, only the Kṛṣṇa-sevaka can deliver us from the grasp of our own lust, which stands as an enemy to divine love for Kṛṣṇa.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 2, Pages 126-127)
We who are material enjoyers or impersonalists can never truly comprehend the heart’s disposition of the Śrī-Rūpānuga Vaiṣṇavas—Yet, in our arrogance, we assume we have understood everything. Thus, Śrīla Prabhupāda declares:
“The inner disposition of the Śrī-Rūpānuga Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas can never be grasped by those who are entangled in material enjoyment.**Those who interpret according to external perception or sensuous considerations—such so-called ‘Cāṇḍīdāsa’—are not the pure devotee Cāṇḍīdāsa. Those who are absorbed in understanding everything through material perception (ādhyakśika) are incapable of recognizing the aprākṛita (Transcendental poet) Cāṇḍīdāsa.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 3, Page 17)
I am deeply infatuated with the desire for prestige. Thus, out of fear of public criticism, I may, at any moment, forsake the service of Gurudeva and the Vaiṣṇavas. The impersonalists (nirviśeṣavādīs), seizing upon this weakness of mine, seek to strike me down with countless arrows of rhetoric cunning words, aiming to fulfill their ultimate objective—diverting me from eternal service. But Śrīla Prabhupāda and the shelter-giving personalities (āśraya-vigrahas) hold an entirely different disposition—
“Out of fear of public reproach, Śrī Vārṣabhānavī Devī never abandons the service of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Even when the demon Ariṣṭa, opposing us, inaugurated the worship of the demonic goddess ‘Uluicāṇḍī,’ this did not give rise to any despondency within me.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 3, Page 25)
Many times, I contemplate that within Śrīla Prabhupāda’s heart, the tendency toward atan-nirasana—the refutation of that which is false—is particularly prominent. Thus, in my endeavor to engage in imitation of refutation, I reason that just as the impersonalists, in their rejection of the material, ultimately dismiss even the Viṣaya-Vigraha, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, as atad—as something other than Brahman (abrahm)—so too may I reject the Āśraya-Vigraha, Śrī Guru, or Śrī Ācāryapāda-Padma, and thereby align my heart with the refuting disposition of Śrīla Prabhupāda. Yet, my own impersonalist-inclined disposition remains distinct from the transcendental heart of Śrīla Prabhupāda.
“Diligently remember the verse ‘arche viṣṇau śilādhīḥ,’[3] and only then will you begin to grasp the flow of my thought. The purpose is not to relegate the special subject into the category of the general.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume 3, Page 50)
I think that if I merely situate this dull material body in Śrīdhāma Māyāpura, all the while indulging in bodily comforts, pursuing prestige, and engaging in the fault-finding of pure Vaiṣṇavas, then I am merely enacting the deception of bhajana—and yet, I may still delude myself into believing that, like Śrīla Prabhupāda, I am residing in Śrīdhāma or in Śrī Caitanya Maṭha, fully absorbed in hari-bhajana. But Śrīla Prabhupāda does not consider the ideals of sense enjoyment and so–called renunciation—exemplified by Śrīvāsa’s mother-in-law or a brahmacārī who took vow to sustain only on milk—as true hari-bhajana:
“If those who pose as leader residents of Śrīdhāma, rather than attaining divine knowledge, instead nourish ignorance and thus commit offenses against Śrīdhāma, then the mood of false servitude of Śrīvāsa’s mother-in-law and the milk-vow brahmacārī will only increase. The delicate creeper of bhakti will either dry up completely or be uprooted like a trampled flower by the elephantine desires for material gain, worship, and prestige. Therefore, I humbly appeal to those who outwardly act as residents of Śrīdhāma and to their followers—do not carry the inauspicious impressions of your previous mentality into Śrīdhāma; for if you do so, the association of the Vaiṣṇava-blasphemers of Kuliyā will be more desirable than yours.”
(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume III, Page 46)
The desire to enjoy Śrīdhāma while externally maintaining the guise of residing there is but the ornamentation of those faithless seekers of dharma, artha, kāma, and mokṣa—the so-called aspirants who remain devoid of devotion. When such hypocrisy erupts like a fiery volcano in those who pose as residents of Śrīdhāma, then weak beings like myself must remain hundreds and thousands of yojanas away from the association of such worldly-minded people.
For Śrī Gaura-sundara has declared: “saṁdarśanaṁ viṣayinām atha yoṣitāñ ca, hā hanta viṣaya-bhakṣaṇato ‘pi sādhu.”—”O saintly one! Merely beholding the faces of materialists and women is, alas! even more ruinous than taking poision itself.” We cannot afford to deviate from this solemn instruction.
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume III, Page 78)
How diametrically opposed my own disposition is to that of Śrīla Prabhupāda—this we have heard countless times in his own words:
“The followers of Śrī Rūpa do not establish faith in their own abilities but rather attribute all glories to the original source—the lotus feet of Hari, Guru, and Vaiṣṇavas. Likewise, we too perform all actions solely for the service of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, Śrī Rūpa, Śrī Bhaktivinoda, and Śrī Gurupāda-padma. But should we ever abandon the path of devotion, we will inevitably be consumed by the bewilderment of false pride of being a doer and self-delusion.”
—(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Patrāvalī, Volume III, Page 89)
English Translation: Rāya Rāmānanda Dāsa