Chapter 7: Nityānanda's Wandering, II

জয় জয় গৌরচন্দ্র মহামহেশ্বর। জয় নিত্যানন্দ-প্রিয় নিত্য-কলেবর ॥ ১

Translation. All glory, all glory to Gauracandra, the great Lord of lords! Glory to Him who is dear to Nityānanda [or: to whom Nityānanda is dear], whose body is eternal!

Subject. The Lord's play of learning — His pastime of study and His pastime of teaching — and, in both, His display of manifold sportive humor. The Lord's marriage to Lakṣmīpriyā-devī, daughter of Vallabhācārya. Śacī-devī's vision, in her own house, of a wondrous effulgence. Gaura's excursions through the town together with his fellow students, and, on those occasions, his display of an imperious mood in debate and argument with them. Whomever he meets, of him the Lord playfully demands a "bluff" — a trick question. Śrīvāsa and the other devotees, fearing this bluff-questioning, flee whenever they see the Lord on the road. The discussion of Govinda among Mukunda and the other devotee-students in Advaita's assembly, and the Lord's playful sport with Mukunda. The devotees' joy turning to sorrow at the sight of the Lord's air of scholarly intoxication. In the course of the Mukunda episode, the Lord, in a playful, joking manner, foretells with his own mouth Mukunda's future duty. The devotees' grief and loud weeping at the slander of kīrtana voiced by outward-looking people opposed to it, and the dispelling of their grief — and the resumption of joyful kīrtana — upon Śrī Advaita's assurance that he will bring forth Śrī Kṛṣṇa. The account of Śrīpāda Īśvara Purī's coming to Navadvīpa: his arrival; his going in disguise to Advaitācārya's house there; his becoming overwhelmed with love on hearing, from Mukunda Datta's mouth, songs of Kṛṣṇa's pastimes; his residing for several months in Gopīnātha Ācārya's house; his acquaintance with Gadādhara Paṇḍita, and his affectionate teaching to him of his own composition, the Śrī-kṛṣṇa-līlāmṛta; his meeting with the Lord; Purī Gosvāmī's taking alms at the Lord's house; his request that the Lord point out the faults in his book; his discussion of his own composition with the Lord; and his departure afterward from Navadvīpa elsewhere.

Note 1. In place of "Gauracandra Mahāmaheśvara" a variant reads "Śrī Gaurasundara Maheśvara." Nityānanda-priya — one dear to Śrī Nityānanda, or one to whom Śrī Nityānanda Himself is dear: either sense is possible, and the word qualifies "Gauracandra." Nitya-kalevara, "of eternal body," likewise qualifies "Gauracandra": Śrī Gaura's body is eternal, unchanging, true in the three times. From beginningless time to endless time His body remains ever the same, without alteration. His body is not, like a conditioned soul's, made of the five gross elements, but is sac-cid-ānanda, a dense concentration of consciousness and bliss; for this reason it is changeless and eternal. Only the gross material elements are subject to change; spiritual substance, being of a nature opposed to matter, does not undergo such change. In the Lord there is, in truth, no distinction at all between the body and its possessor — He is Himself the very form of sac-cid-ānanda: whatever is His body, that is He Himself; and whatever He Himself is, that is His body.

---

V.2. Glory to the Lord of Śrī Govinda the door-keeper! O Lord, cast your auspicious glance upon the souls of this world.

Note 2. Śrī Govinda was Mahāprabhu's personal attendant at Nīlācala. He was not merely an attendant on the Lord's person — Śrī Govinda conducted all of the Lord's affairs. Whatever any devotee brought for the Lord, he would give it to Śrī Govinda alone, without even informing the Lord directly; it was Govinda who would then present it to the Lord, naming the devotee who had brought it. Wherever the Lord went at Nīlācala, Śrī Govinda was always at His side. And whenever, for some reason, the Lord barred someone from entering (that is, forbade his entry into the Gambhīrā), Śrī Govinda would stand at the door of the Gambhīrā and see to it that the man was not admitted; thus Śrī Govinda also performed the office of doorkeeper. It is for this reason that Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura calls him "the door-keeper," and calls Mahāprabhu "the Lord of the door-keeper named Śrī Govinda."

V.3. Glory, glory to the son of Jagannātha, the very king of brāhmaṇas! Glory be to all your assembly of devotees!

Note 3. Jagannātha-suta — "son of Jagannātha," the standard epithet for Gaurachandra used repeatedly elsewhere in this text (e.g. payars 1.5.129, 2.8.1066, 2.26.559 in the verse-only text). Śrī-bhakta-samāja — the assembly of devotees; the word śrī is used here as an honorific. Or else śrī may denote wealth or fortune, so that śrī-bhakta means "a devotee possessed of the wealth of devotion."

V.4. Glory, glory, O lotus-eyed ocean of mercy! Grant such mercy that my mind may remain fixed on your fame.

Note 4. "That my mind may remain fixed on your fame" — that is, may my mind stay absorbed in the singing of your glories and greatness. In the opening four verses of the chapter the author has offered his invocatory homage (maṅgalācaraṇa) — a hymn of victory — to his cherished deity, Śrī Gauracandra.

V.5. Listen, brother, to the account of Caitanya in the Ādi-khaṇḍa: how the Lord performed His play of learning.

Note 5. Vidyāra bilāsa — the pastime that consists of studying, of acquiring learning. Yathā — "in what manner."

V.6. In this way, in Navadvīpa, Śrī Gaurasundara, day and night immersed in the mellow of learning, had no rest from it.

Note 6. Rāti-dina — day and night. "No rest in the mellow of learning" — being always absorbed in the joy of study, He had no leisure or occasion for any other pursuit.

V.7. At dawn, having performed His morning devotions, the Lord of the thirty gods would go to His studies together with all His fellow disciples.

Note 7. Uṣaḥ-kāle — at daybreak, at the start of the day. Sandhyā — the daily rite of morning worship and the like. Tridaśera nātha, "Lord of the thirty gods" — the Supreme Godhead Himself. Sarva-śiṣya-gaṇa-sāthe, "with all the disciples" — here "disciples" refers to the pupils of Gaṅgādāsa Paṇḍita, the Lord's own teacher. It has already been told that Gaṅgādāsa Paṇḍita himself seated the Lord as "foremost of all"; and since He was the foremost among Gaṅgādāsa's students, the Paṇḍita's other pupils, too, would come to the Lord to have their lessons explained, and followed His lead. For this reason they too were, in effect, His own disciples — though at this point the Lord had not yet begun teaching in a school of His own, and so, strictly speaking, He had no disciples of His own as yet.

---

V.8. Coming to Gaṅgādāsa's assembly, the Lord would sit down and, without fail, take up both sides of every debate — argument and counter-argument alike.

Note 8. When any matter is debated, there are ordinarily two sides: what one party maintains, the other tries to refute. The one party is called pakṣa, "the position," and the other pratipakṣa, "the counter-position" — one the proponent, the other the opponent.

V.9. Whoever failed to come and study the meaning of a text with the Lord, him the Lord would ceaselessly tease and mock.

Note 9. Those who neither asked the Lord the meaning or purport of a text, nor availed themselves of what He said when asked, He would hold up to ridicule — mockery, jest, humiliation.

V.10–11. The Lord would sit down to have the texts studied with Him, while the other pupils, each with his own following, sat about Him in various directions. Murāri Gupta did not come to study his texts with the Lord, and so the Lord would tease him for it.

Note 10–11. Cintāite — to have discussed, to be led through discussion or study. The students, divided into different groups, would sit all around the Lord.

V.12. Binding His cloth in the fashion of a yogapaṭṭa, He would sit in the midst of the assembly in vīrāsana.

Note 12. A yogapaṭṭa is a particular manner in which renunciates bind their cloth: as the Padma Purāṇa (Kārtika-māhātmya, ch. 2) describes it, a firm band wound round the back and both knees so that it holds one seated with the knees drawn up — that is called a yogapaṭṭa. Out of playfulness the Lord would bind His cloth about His back and knees in this same fashion. Vīrāsana is a particular yogic sitting posture: the right foot placed upon the left thigh and the left foot upon the right, the arms crossed correspondingly — this seated posture is called vīrāsana (cf. the Yoga-śāstra verse cited in Śrīdhara Svāmī's commentary on Bhāgavata 4.6.18).

V.13. His upright tilaka of sandalwood shone with great splendor; the radiance of His teeth put pearls to shame.

Note 13. Subhāti — of excellent lustre. Gañjaye — puts to shame, humbles.

V.14. His golden-limbed beauty, His attire enchanting even to Cupid — the Lord was sixteen years old, in the very flower of youth.

V.15. He displayed a scholarship surpassing even Bṛhaspati, the preceptor of the gods; and whoever studied a text independently, without consulting Him, He would hold up to laughter.

Note 15. Svatantra — without acknowledging allegiance to the Lord. Pūthi cinte — studies and reflects on a text.

V.16. The Lord would say: "Is there any great scholar here? Let him come and, if he can, refute the interpretation I have established!"

Note 16. Ithe — in this matter. Āmāra sthāpana — the conclusion I have established.

V.17. Some, without even knowing the rules of sandhi [euphonic combination — among the very first topics in a grammar], would work out a text entirely on their own and console themselves with their own guesses.

Note 17. Sandhi-kārya — the rules of the sandhi section of grammar, which comes at the very outset of grammatical study. Without asking anyone who actually knows, such a person ponders the text's meaning alone by himself, and comforts himself with whatever sense his own private reflection yields — taking that for the true meaning and feeling satisfied, when in fact it is not the true meaning at all.

V.18. Out of pride, people become fools through their own misfortune; one who truly knows will not study a text with such a person.

Note 18. Bhāle — by ill fortune, by the fault of one's own head (i.e., destiny).

V.19. Murāri Gupta would hear this proud, boastful talk but say nothing in reply — he simply went about his own business.

Note 19. Āṭopa-ṭaṅkāra — the boastful, self-important speech referred to above.

V.20. Still the Lord would always tease him; and seeing His own devotee, the best of brahmins felt great delight.

Note 20. Sevaka — a devoted attendant. Murāri Gupta was one of the Lord's own eternal associates. Seeing this attendant of His, the Lord felt immense joy, and in the overflow of that joy He began His sport of teasing him — the subject of the next three verses.

V.21–23. The Lord said: "O physician! Why do you study this? Go, take your roots and herbs, and go make your patients 'firm'! This science of grammar is the very outer limit of difficulty — in it there is no remedy prescribed for phlegm, bile, or indigestion. Pondering it all alone in your own mind, what will you ever understand of it? Go home — go make your patients firm!"

Note 21–23. These three verses record the Lord's playful teasing of Murāri Gupta. As already noted (V.15/18), it is those who study a text "independently" whom the Lord teases — and Murāri Gupta did study independently, hence the Lord's jest. Vaidya — a practitioner of medicine, a physician; Murāri Gupta was born into a family of physicians, hence the Lord addresses him as "physician" — itself here a term of jest. "Why do you study this?" — meaning grammar. "Taking roots and herbs" refers to the plant ingredients used in Āyurvedic medicine; or, taken in its more pointed, teasing sense: "you have no competence to prepare a proper Āyurvedic remedy — go and practice with mere roots and herbs, that is, go be a quack, for that is the only kind of medicine you are, or ever will be, competent to practice." Avadhi — the outer limit. "The extremity of difficulty" — extraordinarily hard, extraordinarily obscure. Ithi — "in this," in the science of grammar. "Phlegm, bile, indigestion" and the like: Murāri, you are a physician, medicine is your family's hereditary calling — you ought to learn the symptoms of such disorders as these, and their remedies; but grammar contains nothing of that sort at all. Why, then, do you waste your time on grammar? "Pondering it all alone" — grammar is an extremely difficult subject, especially for you; had you sought the guidance of some learned person and studied it with him, you might perhaps have grasped something; but you, without anyone's help, are trying to work out its meaning entirely by your own private reflection — how, then, will you ever understand its true purport? (Indeed, you will understand nothing at all. To become skilled in the medical art one needs to study and practice the Āyurvedic scriptures — but that in turn requires competence in grammar, since the Āyurvedic texts are composed in Sanskrit. By your own unaided effort you will attain neither competence in grammar nor the ability to study the Āyurvedic scriptures — with nothing but roots and herbs, you are fated to become nothing more than a quack.) "Go home" — leave this school and go home, and try your hand instead at being a quack physician. Daḍha is a corrupted form of dṛḍha, "firm, rigid" — as when one says "hold it firmly, so that it does not slip from your hand," or "bind these pieces of wood firmly together, so that they cannot come apart" — in such contexts "firm" (śakta) means precisely "rigid, unyielding" (dṛḍha/daḍha). Whatever is rigid in this way moves as a single whole when shaken, no part of it moving independently; and some while after a person's death, the corpse too becomes rigid in just this fashion — if one takes hold of the leg and shakes it, the whole body moves together. In verse 21 the Lord tells Murāri Gupta, "take roots and leaves and make the patient daḍha," and again in verse 23, "go home, go make the patient daḍha." What precisely the author means by "make the patient daḍha [firm/rigid]" is not stated in so many words; but that "make the patient firm" is meant as the Lord's own joking remark has already been shown — and considering the whole passage from beginning to end, especially Murāri Gupta's own later remark in verse 27 ("without even asking, you say 'what do you know?'"), it becomes clear enough that "make the patient firm" means "make the patient rigid" in the sense of a corpse — that is, its real purport is: "prove the patient's mortality — kill him." Many a patient does indeed die at the hands of a quack; and this, it seems, is the true drift of the Lord's teasing remark.

V.24. Murāri, though a portion of Rudra and by nature extremely sharp-tongued, still felt no anger on seeing Viśvambhara.

Note 24. Rudra-aṁśa — as if a portion of Rudra [Śiva], that is, of an irascible temperament. Parama-kharatara — extremely skilled even in harsh speech. Despite this irascible nature and his skill in sharp retort, Murāri Gupta, on hearing the Lord's words and looking upon Viśvambhara, felt no anger and spoke no harsh word in return. The following several verses show that he answered the Lord instead with great humility. The reason for this, it seems, is that Murāri Gupta — though in truth the Lord's own intimate eternal associate — did not, by the influence of the Lord's own pastime-potency, know this about himself at the time; nor did he grasp that the Lord's words were spoken in jest. He took them instead for genuine reproach, and sought only to show that there was no real cause for reproach — yet even so, he answered the Lord with the humility and deference proper from a servant toward his Lord. It was the pastime-potency itself that thus preserved, through Murāri, the Lord's own dignity.

V.25–27. He replied: "Why, are you truly so great? You tease everyone alike — we shall see whose pride is shattered! Whatever sūtra, vṛtti, gloss, or commentary you may propose, have I ever asked you and failed to get an answer? Yet without even asking me, you say, 'What do you know?' You are my lord and a brahmin — what can I possibly say to that?"

Note 25–27. These three verses are Murāri Gupta's reply to the Lord. Sūtra, vṛtti, pāñjī, ṭīkā — technical terms for the successive layers of grammatical text and commentary. Murāri Gupta was, in fact, senior to the Lord in age, and also stood in a higher class of study; this, it seems, is why he speaks as he does here.

V.28–29. The Lord said, "Then explain what you studied today." Gupta gave his explanation, and the Lord set about refuting it. Gupta proposed one meaning, the Lord another — and neither Lord nor servant could get the better of the other.

V.30–31. By the Lord's own influence Gupta showed himself a scholar of the first rank; hearing Murāri's explanation, the Lord was delighted, and in His satisfaction placed His lotus hand upon Murāri's lap — at which Murāri's whole body was flooded with bliss.

V.32–34. Murāri Gupta thought within his own heart: "This is surely never an ordinary man. What human being could possess such scholarship? At the mere touch of his hand my body has become filled with supreme bliss. There is no shame at all in studying under him — nowhere in the whole of Navadvīpa is there such fine intelligence as his."

Note 32. Prākṛta-manuṣya — not an ordinary being of this world, bound by māyā and possessed of a body made of the illusory five gross elements. By the touch of the Lord's hand—

V.35. Well pleased, the best of physicians said: "I shall study with you from now on — hear this, O Viśvambhara!"

V.36–37. Having thus sported with His devotee, the Lord took His whole company and went to bathe in the Gaṅgā; and having bathed, He returned home. In this way the Lord sported in the mellow of learning.

---

V.38–41. Mukunda-sañjaya was a man of great fortune, in whose house there was a place set aside for the play of learning; the Lord Himself taught his son, who in turn held devotion for the Lord in every way. A great Caṇḍī-maṇḍapa stood at his house, wide enough to hold many students all around; there, gathering His own assembly of pupils, the best of brahmins would teach — and that place became Caitanya's own school of learning.

Note 38. Mukunda-sañjaya — "Mukunda" is the name, "Sañjaya" the family title. Most of the older manuscripts read "añjaya" in place of "sañjaya," and in places the two are even joined by sandhi into "Mukundāñjaya" — which reading is correct is uncertain (Atulakṛṣṇa Prabhupāda). In fact "Mukunda-sañjaya" denotes a single person, not two separate men named Mukunda and Añjaya; this is also clear from the singular pronouns "yāhāra" (V.38) and "tāhāra" (V.39) used of him.

Note 39. "His son" — this son's name was Puruṣottama Dāsa (see payar 1.10.185).

Note 41. Paḍhāna — teaches students. Vidyāra samāja — an assembly for the giving of instruction. From this verse it is understood that the Lord had, by this time, begun teaching in a school of His own in the spacious Caṇḍī-maṇḍapa of Mukunda-sañjaya's house — Gaṅgādāsa Paṇḍita's own school, by contrast, was at his own house, not at Mukunda-sañjaya's.

V.42–44. He would give His explanations sharply, and refute rival readings in speech, forever making pointed remarks against other teachers. The Lord would say: "One who does not even know the rules of sandhi — in this age of Kali he yet bears the title of Bhaṭṭācārya! Let such a man find me out with a bluff-question if he can; only then will I grant that the titles of Bhaṭṭa and Miśra that they all carry are truly deserved."

Note 42. Adhyāpaka-prati — against other teachers. Ākṣepa — per Atulakṛṣṇa Prabhupāda, a pointed rebuke uttered for the sake of establishing some particular point; a reproachful remark, an expression of displeasure, a censure. The following verse (45, discussed below) shows that "ākṣepa" here means precisely this: words of reproach.

Note 43. This verse is the Lord's rebuke of other teachers. Sandhi-kārya — see the note on payar 17 above. Bhaṭṭācārya-padavī — see the note on payar 1.6.188. Kaliyuge — in this age of Kali it is the very nature of the times that even the unworthy assume such titles.

Note 44. Phāṅki — a trick or "bluff" question (see the note on payar 1.5.120). Baluka — "let him say" [that this is a bluff], or, in the variant reading, "let him show me" [the flaw in my bluff].

---

V.45. In this way the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha sported in the mellow of learning, and not even His own servants could recognize who He truly was.

Note 45. Kona dāse — any one of His own eternal associate-devotees. By the influence of the pastime-potency, even the Lord's own intimate devotees had not, up to this time, come to know His true identity.

V.46. Seeing that her son's youth had now fully arrived, Mother [Śacī] began constantly turning over in her mind the matter of His marriage.

V.47–48. By providence there lived in that same Navadvīpa a fine brahmin named Vallabha Ācārya, comparable to King Janaka [father of Sītā]. He had a daughter who seemed Lakṣmī herself embodied, and that brahmin was forever pondering how to find a fitting husband for her.

Note 47. Janakera sama — comparable to Janaka, father of Mother Sītā. According to Kavi-karṇapūra's Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (v. 44), Vallabhācārya was the combined essential form of Janaka and Bhīṣmaka [father of Rukmiṇī].

Note 48. Bipra — Vallabha Ācārya.

V.49–51. By providence Lakṣmī[priyā] one day went to bathe in the Gaṅgā, and Gauracandra happened to be at that very place at that very moment. Recognizing His own eternal Lakṣmī, Gauracandra smiled; and Lakṣmī, too, silently offered homage in her mind to the Lord's feet. In this way the two recognized each other and returned each to their own home — who indeed can fathom Gaurasundara's play?

Note 49. Lakṣmī — Lakṣmīpriyā-devī, daughter of Vallabha Ācārya, in whom the two essential forms of Jānakī and Rukmiṇī are present together (Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā 45).

Note 50. Nija-lakṣmī — His own eternally-established beloved. In Lakṣmīpriyā-devī, Jānakī and Rukmiṇī are both present: Jānakī is the consort of Śrī Gaura's Rāmacandra aspect, and Rukmiṇī the queen of His Śrī Kṛṣṇa aspect. "Recognizing His own Lakṣmī" — on seeing Lakṣmīpriyā-devī the Lord recognized her as His own eternal beloved, and, recognizing her, began to smile; it was the pastime-potency itself that made this known to the Lord. Bandilā — offered homage, obeisance — silently, in her mind. The pastime-potency caused the knowledge of their eternal relation to arise, in that instant, within the hearts of both Gaura and Lakṣmīpriyā.

V.52–63. By the Lord's own will, the brahmin Vanamālī Nāga went that very day to Śacī-devī's house. Offering obeisance to Mother, the best of brahmins sat down, and Mother courteously gave him a seat. Then Vanamālī Ācārya said to her: "Why do you not think of arranging your son's marriage? Vallabha Ācārya lives blamelessly in Navadvīpa, of good family, fine character, and good conduct; his daughter is Lakṣmī herself in beauty, character, and standing — arrange that match, if it pleases your mind." Mother said, "My boy has no father; let him first live and finish his studies — the rest can come after." Finding no satisfaction in Mother's answer, the brahmin departed somewhat downcast. On the way he happened to meet Gauracandra, who, seeing him, playfully embraced him. The Lord said, "Tell me, where have you been?" The brahmin said, "To see your mother — I spoke to her of your marriage, but I do not know why, on hearing it, she did not take it up warmly." Hearing this, the Lord fell silent; then, smiling, He took courteous leave of him and returned home. He then said to His mother, smiling: "Why was it not good to receive the Ācārya's proposal?"

Note 52. Īśvara-icchāya — by Śrī Gauracandra's own prompting; it was Gaura Himself who inspired the brahmin Vanamālī's mind to go to Mother Śacī. Or, "by the will of the Lord Gauracandra" — that is, sensing the Lord's own wish to marry Lakṣmīdevī, Vanamālī Ācārya went to Śacī-devī that very day. The following verse (63) and the first half of verse 64 seem to bear out this sense. In this whole affair of Gaurasundara's marriage to Lakṣmīpriyā-devī, the brahmin Vanamālī served as matchmaker — just as Viśvāmitra served this role in Rāma's marriage to Jānakī, and just as the messenger whom Rukmiṇī-devī sent to Kṛṣṇa proposed her own marriage to Him; both these figures are here present, embodied together, in the brahmin Vanamālī (Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā 49).

Note 57. "Let him live, let him finish his studies" — the rest, i.e., marriage and the like, after that. Śacī-devī did not, at first, consent to Vanamālī Ācārya's proposal.

Note 62. Tāna — his, Vanamālī Ācārya's. "Fell silent" — said nothing further in reply. Mandire — to His own home.

---

V.64–77. Reading her son's hint, Śacī was overjoyed, and the next day had the brahmin brought and spoke to him: "O brahmin, what you told me yesterday — go and arrange it quickly; this I say to you now." Taking the dust of Mother's feet, the brahmin set off at once for Vallabha's house. Seeing him, Vallabha Ācārya received him with great respect and honor, and seated him. The Ācārya said, "Hear my word: fix now the auspicious hour for your daughter's marriage. There is the son of Miśra's son — Viśvambhara by name — a supreme scholar, an ocean of every virtue; he is a fitting match for your daughter. This I have said; act on it as your heart moves you." Hearing this, Vallabhācārya said joyfully: "A husband for such a daughter is won only through great good fortune. If Kṛṣṇa is truly gracious to me, or if Kamalā [Lakṣmī] and Gaurī are pleased with my daughter, only then will I obtain such a son-in-law — pray, arrange this at once, in every way. Only one thing I am ashamed to say: I am a poor man, with nothing to give. I can give my daughter only along with five myrobalans [as token dowry] — go and bring me Mother's approval of this." Having heard Vallabha Miśra's words, the Ācārya, the whole matter thus settled, returned home well pleased, and told Mother: "The task has succeeded — now fix the auspicious hour."

Note 65. Variant readings noted for minor wording.

Note 69. "Miśra's son" — that is, Jagannātha Miśra's son, Viśvambhara.

Note 75. "Give her only with five myrobalans" — even today a poor father, in proposing his daughter's marriage, speaks in such terms, meaning he has no means to give ornaments or vessels as dowry. "Bring me this consent" — go and inform Śacī-devī of this, and bring back (beg, as it were) her assent. This, however, is only Vallabha Ācārya's own expression of humility; it is known from the later verse 93 that he did in fact give Lakṣmīpriyā away adorned with every ornament.

---

V.78–89. All their kinfolk, hearing the news, rejoiced, and all set to making preparations themselves. The adhivāsa rite was performed on an auspicious day and at an auspicious hour, with dance, song, and many instruments played by the performers. All around, the brahmins chanted the Vedas, while in their midst, moon-like, sat the jewel among brahmins. Offering the Lord fragrance and garlands at the auspicious hour, the assembled kinsmen and brahmins performed the adhivāsa; with fine scents, sandalwood, betel, and garlands they joyfully gratified the brahmins. Vallabha Ācārya himself came and, having had the adhivāsa performed according to proper rite, returned home with delight. Rising at dawn, the Lord bathed, made His offerings, and worshipped His forefathers with due honor. With dance, song, and music a great auspicious tumult arose; on every side resounded the cry "Give! Give!" [as ritual gifts were exchanged]. Many chaste women gathered, along with dear friends, brahmins, and good people; with puffed rice, plantains, vermilion, betel, and oil, Mother joyfully gratified the women. The gods and their consorts, in human guise, had come with delight to the Lord's wedding. In this same manner, according to due rite, Vallabha Ācārya joyfully performed the rites owed to gods and forefathers.

V.90–107. Then, at the auspicious hour of dusk [go-dhūli, "cow-dust time"], the Lord set out and arrived at Miśra's [Vallabha's] house. The moment He arrived with the whole Miśra family present, everyone's mind was plunged into an ocean of joy. With great respect they gave Him a seat according to proper rite, and welcomed the bridegroom with the greatest delight. At last, adorned with every ornament, the daughter Lakṣmī was brought before the Lord. Everyone present raised the cry of "Hari!," and all lifted the Lord up from the ground [as the rite required]. Then Lakṣmī circled Him seven times and stood with joined palms, offering obeisance. At the last there was an exchange of flower garlands, Lakṣmī and Nārāyaṇa both filled with delight; and, offering a divine garland at the Lord's feet, Lakṣmī bowed and surrendered herself entirely. On every side rose the great cry "Jaya, jaya, Hari!" — such supreme joy that nothing else could be heard. Thus, His moonlike face bathed in delight, the Lord sat down with Lakṣmī at His left — the Lord, in the very bloom of youth, surpassing Cupid himself, Lakṣmī seated at His side. What splendor, what joy filled Miśra's house then — who has the power to describe it? Then, at last, Vallabha, to give away his daughter, sat as though Bhīṣmaka [Rukmiṇī's father] himself were present; offering foot-water to those very feet — at which even Śaṅkara and Brahmā, having once offered the same, gained the power to conquer the [three] worlds — the best of brahmins adorned that body with cloth, garlands, and sandalwood, and, having given his daughter away according to proper rite, was himself plunged into an ocean of bliss. Then whatever customary family rites remained, the chaste women performed afterward. Remaining there that night, the next day Mahāprabhu returned to His own home together with Lakṣmī.

Note 102. Bhīṣmaka — Rukmiṇī-devī's father (see the note on payar 1.7.47).

Note 103. "By whose feet Śaṅkara and Brahmā" — an allusion to the tradition that even Śiva and Brahmā gained their power over the universe only by first honoring the Lord's feet with foot-water.

Note 106. Kula-vyavahāra — customary family rites, women's ceremonial practices and the like.

---

V.108–116. Riding in a palanquin together with Lakṣmī, the Lord came home, and everyone ran to see them. With fragrance, garlands, ornaments, crowns, and sandalwood, their eyes bright with kohl, the two shone forth as Lakṣmī and Nārāyaṇa themselves. Everyone who saw them could only cry, "Blessed, blessed!" — the women especially fell into utter wonderment. "For how long, and with what sincere devotion, must this fortunate girl have worshipped Hara and Gaurī," they said, "that a daughter of little fortune should win such a husband?" "Surely this is Hara and Gaurī themselves," said some; others, "It is Indra and Śacī, or Rati and Madana!" Some woman said, "This is Lakṣmī and Nārāyaṇa!" — others, "It is as though Sītā and Rāma sit there in the palanquin, beyond all compare!" So the women spoke of them in many ways, all gazing with an auspicious eye upon Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa. In this way, amid the tumult of dance, song, and music, the Lord came home at evening.

V.117–120. Then Śacī-devī, taking the brahmin ladies with her, joyfully brought her daughter-in-law into the house. Brahmins and every kind of performer and musician were all gratified with wealth, cloth, and kind words. Whoever hears this sacred account of the Lord's marriage never at all falls into the bondage of material existence. With Lakṣmī now beside the Lord, Śacī's house became a supreme abode of light.

Note 119. Hearing this account dissolves every kind of worldly bondage entirely.

V.121–130. Constantly Śacī would see, inside the house or out, a supremely wondrous light she could not even bear to look upon; sometimes, beside her son, she would see what seemed a flame of fire, and, turning to look again, could bear to see no more. From time to time she caught the fragrance of the lotus; in great astonishment Mother pondered constantly. She thought: "Now I understand the reason — the goddess Kamalā herself must dwell in this girl; that is why I see this light and smell this fragrance, and why the poverty and sorrow we knew before has vanished. Ever since this daughter-in-law Lakṣmī came into our house, everything comes to us from we know not where." Thus Mother spoke many things to herself in her mind; but though His glory was becoming manifest in these ways, the Lord still did not openly reveal Himself. Who indeed has the power to fathom the Lord's own will — in what manner, and at what time, He enacts His pastimes? When the Lord does not choose to make Himself known, even Lakṣmī herself has no power to know Him. All this the scriptures — the Vedas and Purāṇas — explain: "Only he on whom the Lord bestows His mercy comes to know Him."

Note 120. Jyotirdhāma — an abode of effulgence.

Note 121. Inside the house and out, Mother Śacī would constantly see nothing but this light — a light so wondrous that she could not bear even to look toward it.

Note 124. Kamalāra — of Kamalā, Nārāyaṇa's consort, the goddess Lakṣmī.

Note 127. "Though manifest, yet not manifest" — although the Lord's divine nature was, in these several ways, becoming outwardly manifest — through the wondrous light and through the vanishing of their poverty — the Lord had still not openly disclosed Himself, and no one had yet come to know His true identity.

V.131–141. In this hidden way the best of brahmins remained, with no occupation but His studies — His beauty surpassing a myriad Cupids, matchless grace and loveliness in every limb, His arms hanging to His knees, His eyes like lotuses, betel upon His lips, clad in resplendent garments. Ever the embodiment of wit through the power of His learning, when the Lord walked abroad a thousand students went with Him; the Lord of all three worlds would wander through the whole of Navadvīpa, His beloved Sarasvatī herself present in His hand in the form of His book. In all Navadvīpa there was no scholar who could come and truly grasp the Lord's explanations — only Gaṅgādāsa, a man of great fortune, was one with whom the Lord would exchange His learning. All worldly people said, "Blessed indeed! What poverty could touch one who has such a son?" Ordinary people saw Him as beauty itself, equal to Cupid; the impious saw Him as very Death embodied; the learned saw Him as though He were Bṛhaspati himself — thus each one saw Him according to his own disposition. But all the Vaiṣṇavas, seeing Viśvambhara's ways, felt in their minds a mingling of joy and sorrow.

Note 135. Kare — in hand. Whenever the Lord wandered through Navadvīpa with His students, He would carry a book in His hand; it is as though the goddess Sarasvatī herself, beloved of the Lord, had taken the form of that book to dwell there. This signals the Lord's mastery of all the scriptures.

Note 138–140. Each person saw the Lord according to his own inner disposition — the worldly saw beauty, the impious saw terror, the learned saw a rival scholar to be measured against Bṛhaspati himself.

---

V.141–145. But all the Vaiṣṇavas, seeing Viśvambhara's ways, felt in their minds a mingling of joy and sorrow: "In such a divine body there is no mellow of Kṛṣṇa," they said — "what use will all this learning be, once He falls into the grip of Time?" All the Vaiṣṇavas were bewildered by the Lord's own māyā [His pastime-potency]; even seeing Him, none could truly see Him. Even face to face with the Lord, some would say, "To what purpose do you pass your days lost in the delirium of learning?" Hearing His servants' words, the Lord would smile and say, "It is my own great fortune that you instruct me so."

Note 141. Hariṣa-biṣāda — joy and sorrow: joy at seeing the Lord's "divine body" and "learning," but sorrow at not seeing "kṛṣṇa-rasa" in Him.

Note 142. Kṛṣṇa-rasa — devotion to Kṛṣṇa, or the bliss that devotion to Kṛṣṇa yields. Kāla-baśa — fallen under the sway of Time, into the clutches of Death. "What use will learning be" — when Yama comes and seizes one by the hair, no learning or scholarship can shield one from his hand; only devotion to Kṛṣṇa can protect one from Yama's rod.

Note 143. Māyāya — by the influence of Yogamāyā, the pastime-potency (see the note on payar 1.3.140).

Note 144. Goṅāo kāla — "you pass your days." Vidyā-bhole — lost, bewildered, in the mellow of learning.

Note 145. "That you instruct me thus" — that My own servants should teach Me in this way, the Lord says, is My own supreme good fortune.

V.146–150. In this way the Lord passed His time in the mellow of learning; if even His own servants could not recognize Him, how much less could anyone else? People came to Navadvīpa from every quarter, for one who studied at Navadvīpa attained the true fruit of learning. Many residents of Chittagong, too, were there; the Vaiṣṇavas among them all studied and dwelt along the Gaṅgā, having, as it were, taken birth there under the Lord's own command — all detached from worldly life, devotees of Kṛṣṇa in every way. Meeting one another, and having studied and listened, they would withdraw to some quiet place and discuss Govinda.

Note 147. Bidyāra sāra — the true fruit, the essence, of learning.

Note 148. Gaṅgāya — at Navadvīpa on the bank of the Gaṅgā.

Note 149. Birakta — detached from worldly life, free of worldly attachment.

Note 150. Govinda-carcā — discussion and reflection on matters concerning Śrī Kṛṣṇa; a variant reads "gāna," kīrtana of Kṛṣṇa.

V.151–157. Mukunda was the sole beloved of all the Vaiṣṇavas; at his singing, every great soul would melt. When evening came, the devotees would gather and meet in Advaita's assembly; the very moment Mukunda began to sing of Kṛṣṇa, no one there had a thought left for anything else. Some wept, some laughed, some danced, some rolled upon the ground heedless of their own clothing; some cried aloud, some clapped, some went and clasped Mukunda's two feet. Thus arose a supreme and blissful joy, and the Vaiṣṇavas knew no other sorrow at all. The Lord, too, felt great delight toward Mukunda; the moment He saw him, He would Himself take hold of him.

Note 151. Mukunda — Mukunda Datta, who appeared in the Chittagong district; an intimate devotee of the Lord.

Note 152. Adbaita-sabhāya — at Advaitācārya's house in Navadvīpa.

Note 153. Bhita — direction, side.

V.158–165. The Lord would put a "bluff"-question to him, and Mukunda would set about explaining it; the Lord would say, "That's not it," and a loving wrangle would follow. By the Lord's own influence Mukunda was himself a great scholar, and would take up position and counter-position against the Lord. In this way, recognizing His own servants, the Lord would put His bluff-questions to them, and every one of them would come off defeated; even seeing Śrīvāsa and the others, He would ask His bluff-question, and, dreading to waste words on falsehood, they would all flee. By their very nature they were all given over entirely to the mellow of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and cared for nothing but talk of Kṛṣṇa — yet the instant the Lord caught sight of any of them, He would only put His bluff-question; no one could ever satisfy Him with an answer, and in the end He would only mock them. So if anyone saw the Lord coming from a distance, all would flee, in dread of being asked a bluff-question — for they loved nothing so much as to hear talk of Kṛṣṇa, yet apart from His bluff-questions the Lord would never speak of Kṛṣṇa with them at all.

Note 158. Phāṅki — see the note on payar 1.5.120. Bākhāne — explains, sets forth the purport of the bluff-question. Dvandva — a loving quarrel, an affectionate wrangle.

Note 161. Mithyā-vākya-vyaya-bhaye — Any talk other than talk of Kṛṣṇa is, for a human life, false and without value — indeed it fosters and deepens one's outward-turned worldliness, and whatever time is spent on it is simply wasted. The devotees, for this reason, had no wish to spend either words or time on anything but talk of Kṛṣṇa. Since the Lord's bluff-questions contained nothing at all about Kṛṣṇa, the time spent answering them was likewise wasted; and so, on sensing that the Lord was about to put a bluff-question to them, the devotees would flee — out of this very fear, the fear of wasting words on falsehood.

V.166. One day the Lord came along the royal road, together with His students, displaying every mark of an extremely imperious bearing.

Note 166. One day the Lord was walking along the royal road with His students, exhibiting "marks of great imperiousness" — in the debates and disputes He carried on with them, the gestures and turns of speech and limb He displayed showed that He was putting on an air of great audacity and pride.

---

V.167–174. Mukunda was going to bathe in the Gaṅgā; seeing the Lord, he slipped out of sight and fled some distance off. Noticing this, the Lord asked Govinda: "Why did this fellow flee the moment he saw me?" Govinda said, "I do not know, sir — perhaps he had some other errand, or went some other way." The Lord said: "I know very well why he fled — he does not think it proper to converse with one turned away from Kṛṣṇa. This fellow studies all the Vaiṣṇava scriptures, while I merely expound grammar-glosses, commentaries, and almanacs; in conversing with me there is no talk of Kṛṣṇa at all — that is why he flees the moment he sees me." Well pleased, the Lord then heaped mock-abuse on Mukunda — and, under the pretext of scolding him, was in truth revealing His own nature. The Lord said: "Ho there, fellow! Stay put a few more days yet — wherever you flee, you will never escape my snare!"

Note 167. Āḍe — out of sight, in a place where the Lord could not see him.

Note 168. Govinda — the name of one of the Lord's companion-students.

Note 170. Bahirmukha-sambhāṣā — Mukunda fled because he considered the Lord to be one turned away from Kṛṣṇa, and felt it improper to converse with such a person. In the following two verses the Lord Himself explains, at length, the reason for Mukunda's flight.

[Unnumbered note, after 172.] In every pastime of the all-auspicious Lord there lies some auspicious teaching for the souls of this world, and the same holds true of this pastime of imperious pride. Through it the Lord showed that no one loves a proud man — that people flee the very sight of him — and thus that pride is never a fitting thing. And through His pastimes of scholarly intoxication and bluff-questioning, He made known that mere worldly learning, empty of any reference to Kṛṣṇa, can never bring a human birth to its true fulfillment, nor deliver anyone from the rod of Yama. Those eager to worship Śrī Kṛṣṇa must, in every way, shun the company of people intoxicated with such merely worldly scholarship; those who have won a human birth fit for devotional practice ought, alongside their studies, to make discussion of Govinda in the company of Vaiṣṇavas their true calling.

Note 173–174. Santoṣe pāḍena gāli — The Lord was extremely pleased by Mukunda's devotee-like conduct, and it was out of this very pleasure that He began to heap mock-abuse and reproach upon him. The outward form of the Lord's "abuse" was reproach, but within it lay only His own affection for Mukunda — just as a sugar-doll shaped like a serpent, however serpentine its form, loses none of its sweetness. This loving "reproach" is described further in the verses that follow. Vyapadeśe — under a pretext, disguised as mock-abuse. "Revealing Himself" — disclosing His own true nature, or His own future conduct. Eḍāibe — will be able to escape, get free of. Pāka — a snare, a stratagem.

V.175–179. Laughing, the Lord said: "Study on a while longer — then indeed you will see the marks of a true Vaiṣṇava in Me. I shall become such a Vaiṣṇava in this world that Brahmā and Śiva themselves will come to my door. Hear this, brothers all — this is My own word: I shall become a Vaiṣṇava unlike any other, matchless in every way. Those who now flee at the sight of Me — they too, one day, shall sing my glory and my praise!" Having said this, the Lord went off laughing, and returned home together with His own disciples.

Note 176. Aja — Brahmā; bhava — Mahādeva [Śiva]. Here the Lord revealed His own essential nature: that He is Godhead Himself, worshipped even by Brahmā and Śiva.

Note 177. Bhāi-saba — the Lord addressed His companion-students as "brothers," showing how deeply affectionate and intimate His feeling was toward His own disciples. Sarva-bilakṣaṇa — utterly distinctive, without parallel. Śrī Śrī Gaurasundara is, in His own essential nature, the combined form of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa (see the explanation of śloka 1.2.6 [ch. 1]). Śrī Rādhā alone possesses the fullest, undivided treasury of prema-bhakti; and since Gaurasundara is united with Her in a single form, He too possesses that same undivided treasury of Rādhā's prema-bhakti, and is thus filled with the very mood of a devotee. This devotee-mood is intrinsic to His own essential nature, and is not different from Śrī Rādhā's own devotee-mood; and since no one else possesses a devotee-mood like Rādhā's — and hence like Gaurasundara's — this mood is beyond all comparison, "sarva-bilakṣaṇa." In the words "I shall become a Vaiṣṇava unlike any other," the Lord declared that He would one day manifest precisely this incomparable devotee-mood, Rādhā's own mood; thus, even while speaking of His future conduct, He also disclosed, in veiled fashion, the truth of His own essential nature.

V.180–181. In this way Viśvambhara-rāya sported; who indeed could know Him, unless He Himself chose to make Himself known? So the devotees dwelt on in Nadīyā, while the whole of Nadīyā lay intoxicated with the mundane joys of wealth and sons.

Note 181. Sakala nadīyā — the people who dwelt in Nadīyā [Navadvīpa]. Dhana-putra-rase — in the worldly pleasure of enjoying wealth and the company of sons. From this verse through verse 187, several verses speak of the aversion to God among the ordinary people of that time.

---

V.182–183. The moment they heard kīrtana, they would mock it. Some said, "It's all just done to fill their bellies." Others said, "Abandoning all proper reflection on jñāna and yoga, dancing about like the impudent — what manner of conduct is this?"

Note 182–183. This lengthy note takes up the meaning of "jñāna-yoga" in the verse, and requires extended discussion.

Jñāna-yoga — jñāna and yoga; or, as a single compound, the practice of the path of knowledge. Jñāna, the discipline of knowledge, is of two kinds: the discipline sanctioned by the Veda, and the discipline that lies outside it. Those who seek sāyujya-mukti — liberation through merging into the undifferentiated Brahman taught by the Veda — practice the Vedically-sanctioned path of knowledge; but those who seek oneness with the undifferentiated Brahman as conceived by Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya practice a discipline of knowledge that falls outside the Veda. The undifferentiated Brahman Śaṅkarācārya conceives of is not the same as the undifferentiated Brahman of which śruti speaks. He further teaches that there is, in reality, no distinction between the soul and Brahman — that Brahman itself, fallen under māyā's sway, appears as the individual soul, and that upon release from māyā the soul becomes Brahman itself (his own conceived, undifferentiated Brahman). This teaching, too, runs counter to śruti: Vyāsadeva, in the very last section of his Brahma-sūtra, shows that even in the liberated state the soul retains a separate existence. For these reasons, the Śaṅkara-derived path of knowledge falls outside the Veda. Yoga, likewise, is of two kinds: that which follows the Veda, and that which does not. The Vedic path of yoga aims at the union of the individual soul with the Paramātmā, the indwelling Supersoul spoken of in the Veda — itself a form of the Vedically-taught sāyujya-mukti. Vyāsadeva's Brahma-sūtra declares several varieties of yoga to fall outside the Veda — the godless Sāṅkhya-yoga, for instance, and the yoga taught by Patañjali (see Brahma-sūtra 2.2.1–10 and 2.1.3, with the commentaries of Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya and others).

According to śruti and smṛti, the individual soul is, in essential nature, a spiritual potency of the Supreme Brahman, Śrī Kṛṣṇa (Gītā 7.5), and — since a potency is non-different from its possessor — an eternal fragmental part of Śrī Kṛṣṇa (Gītā 15.7). The duty intrinsic to a potency's own nature is only to render favorable, loving service to its possessor, and the duty intrinsic to a part's own nature is only to render such service to the whole. Since the soul is, in essence, both potency and part of the Supreme Brahman Śrī Kṛṣṇa, its own intrinsic duty can only be loving service to Him — and this is possible only where a bond of love exists between them. The Bṛhadāraṇyaka-śruti teaches that the soul's relation to Śrī Kṛṣṇa is indeed one of love, and for this reason instructs the worship of Śrī Kṛṣṇa as one's own beloved: that śruti declares the soul's intrinsic duty to be service whose sole purport is Kṛṣṇa's happiness (see the explanation of śloka 1.2.3–4 [ch. 1]). But the one thing indispensable for attaining that service is the yearning for it — a yearning called prema, or loving devotion; for without the wish to please, there is no real service at all. Service devoid of the wish to please is no better than the service of a machine, which produces whatever its operator desires and thereby pleases him, and yet has no desire of its own to please him — were it otherwise, a machine would never, on occasion, go on to crush its operator's own limbs. Thus the one thing indispensable to the soul's intrinsic duty — service whose sole purport is Kṛṣṇa's happiness — is precisely this yearning, this prema, for Kṛṣṇa's pleasure: "the desire for Kṛṣṇa's pleasure alone is called prema" (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.19.178). This very prema is bhakti toward Kṛṣṇa, the fruit attained through worship on the path of spontaneous devotion within pure bhakti; and in the cultivation of this pure bhakti, the Vedically-sanctioned path of jñāna-yoga can have no part, since its goal is liberation (mokṣa) — and liberation stands opposed to the soul's own intrinsic duty of loving service (see the explanation of śloka 1.2.3–4). Hence even the jñāna-yoga sanctioned by the Veda is opposed to the soul's attainment of that service.

"Abandoning proper reflection on jñāna-yoga" — this remark shows that certain people did regard the paths of knowledge and yoga as proper; but the jñāna-yoga they had in mind was not the Vedically-sanctioned kind, for that kind cannot, without the accompaniment of some limb of devotional practice, bestow the very liberation it aims at: "karma, yoga, and jñāna all look to bhakti as their crown" (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.22.14) — which is likewise the purport of Gītā 7.14–16. Nāma-saṅkīrtana is the very foremost among the limbs of bhakti (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.4.66); hence no partisan of the Vedic jñāna-yoga could ever condemn saṅkīrtana. The people spoken of in this verse, then, must have been partisans of a jñāna-yoga lying outside the Veda.

What, then, is this non-Vedic "knowledge" and "yoga"? It does not seem to be Śaṅkara's "jñāna," nor the "yoga" of the godless Sāṅkhya or of Patañjali — nothing in Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's own testimony suggests these were especially current in this region at the time. What we do learn is that Tantric doctrine was then especially prevalent, as the following discussion shows.

Tantra is of two kinds: that which follows the Veda, and that which lies outside or runs contrary to it. According to the Veda and the scriptures that follow it, Kṛṣṇa alone is the Supreme Brahman and both the efficient and material cause of the universe; the soul's bond with Him is beginningless and unbroken, and it is for this reason that Śrī Kṛṣṇa alone is that which is to be known through all the Vedas ("by all the Vedas I alone am to be known," Gītā 15.15). This Śrī Kṛṣṇa is of the nature of sac-cid-ānanda, untouched by māyā, and all the forms of Godhead in which He has manifested from beginningless time — the undifferentiated Brahman of śruti being but one such form — are likewise sac-cid-ānanda and untouched by māyā. When He and His forms such as Rāma and Nṛsiṁha descend into the universe, they descend in that same eternally-perfected sac-cid-ānanda form, never assuming a body of the five illusory elements; nor do their associates take on such bodies. The individual soul is, in essence, a spiritual potency of Śrī Kṛṣṇa and an eternal fragmental part of Him; atomic in measure, it retains a separate existence even in liberation. Kṛṣṇa is the soul's object of worship, and the soul His worshipper, in a relation of served and server realized through bhakti-yoga — recall here the Māṭhara-śruti, "bhakti alone leads to Him, bhakti alone reveals Him." Whatever Tantric texts follow this Vedic doctrine constitute Veda-following Tantra.

Tantra contrary to the Veda includes, first, Śaiva Tantra, in which Śiva Himself — formless in essential nature but, as an object of worship, possessed of form and the five elements — is held to be the Supreme Brahman and cause of the universe, performing His pastimes in the forms of Kṛṣṇa and the rest; on this view the soul, too, is essentially Śiva, and the aspirant's goal is to attain Śiva-hood (since the word paśu, "beast," denotes the soul on this view, this Śiva is also called Paśupati). Vyāsadeva, in Brahma-sūtra 2.2.37, points out this doctrine's inconsistency with the Veda, and Śaṅkara and the other commentators confirm it. The Śiva of Vedic scripture is neither the Supreme Brahman nor creator of the universe, but arises from the original Nārāyaṇa and is Himself possessed of a devotee's disposition. The worshippers of the Tantric doctrine are called Śaiva yogīs, and their practice relies on the six bodily cakras — with which Vedic practitioners have no connection at all. Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own line, "the songs of the Yogīpāla, the Bhogīpāla, and the Mahīpāla — to hear these delighted everyone" (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.4.12), speaks of just this popular devotion to Tantric yogīs of this class.

Second is Śākta Tantra, in which Śiva-śakti — not the same as Durgā, the potency of Śiva spoken of in the Veda, who is Herself a portion of Śrī Rādhā and possessed of a devotee's disposition — is held to be the cause of the universe and the Supreme Brahman, performing pastimes in the forms of Kṛṣṇa and the rest (on this Tantric view, even these forms are made of the five elements — hence the saying, "caught in the snare of the five elements, Brahman itself weeps"). Held to be no different from the individual soul, this "Godhead" leads these Tantric Śāktas to regard every soul as itself divine — a Tantric, not a Vedic, notion of Godhead, for Vedic scripture holds it an offense and an impiety to regard even Brahmā and Rudra as equal to Nārāyaṇa, let alone an ordinary soul ("whoever regards Nārāyaṇa as equal to gods such as Brahmā and Rudra is surely to be reckoned impious," Padma Purāṇa). These Śāktas, too, practice by means of the six bodily cakras, taking the awakened kuṇḍalinī-śakti itself for "bhakti" — this too runs contrary to the Veda; nor do the qualities and forms ascribed to Śiva and Śiva-śakti in Vedic scripture match those ascribed to them in this non-Vedic Tantra.

The Vāmācārī sannyāsī Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa mentions in chapter 2.19 of this work, the Śākta sannyāsī of payars 3.2.261–69, and the Śāktas mentioned elsewhere (as at 3.2.265) were all followers of this wine-drinking Śākta Tantra; he speaks too, in more than one place, of the contemporary worship of Vāśulī, a Tantric goddess (per the Tantrasāra as quoted under "Mahāvidyā" in the Śabda-kalpadruma). The vilifiers of the Vaiṣṇavas mentioned later, at payars 1.11.10–16, were likewise adherents of this non-Vedic Tantric doctrine (see the note on payar 1.11.11). Such people do not sing Kṛṣṇa's names and qualities — indeed they oppose such kīrtana, since on their doctrine Kṛṣṇa is not the Supreme Brahman, and so the singing of His names is intolerable to them; hence their mockery of kīrtana-singers, which was in truth a mockery of kīrtana itself, and a source of great sorrow to the devotees, who record that these people even schemed to tear down the kīrtana-performers' houses (see payar 1.11.13). Some Tāntrikas nowadays do approve of kṛṣṇa-kīrtana, but the people referred to here had a wholly different aim. In any case, for the same reason that Tantric Śaivism runs contrary to the Veda, so too does Tantric Śāktism, as the commentators on the sūtras following Brahma-sūtra 2.2.37 have shown.

According to Śaṅkara, "jñāna" means "the knowledge of the oneness, or non-difference, of the soul and Brahman." Because they perceive an agreement between Śaṅkara's view and their own concerning the nature of the Supreme Truth and the soul, the Tantric Śāktas regard Śaṅkara's doctrine as favorable to theirs, and, following him, likewise call their own practice "jñāna" or the "path of knowledge" — though in truth the Brahman and discipline Śaṅkara conceives are not the same as those the Śāktas conceive; indeed Śaṅkara himself declared this very Tantric doctrine contrary to the Veda. The "jñāna" of the verse under discussion is thus the "jñāna" of precisely this non-Vedic Tantric doctrine (compare the discussion of dharma and adharma in the explanation of śloka 1.2.3–4).

V.184–190. Some said: "However much I've studied the Bhāgavata, I've never found in it any prescription for this dancing and weeping!" "Because of these four brothers of Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita, my brother, I cannot even sleep after eating!" "Would it not be virtue enough simply to say 'Kṛṣṇa' quietly? What is gained by all this dancing, weeping, and shouting?" In this way all these sinful, impious people, the moment they saw a Vaiṣṇava, would heap such mocking words upon him. Hearing this, all the Vaiṣṇavas fell into great sorrow, and, crying "Kṛṣṇa!," wept aloud together: "When will these sorrows ever end? O Kṛṣṇacandra, reveal yourself to the world!" All the Vaiṣṇavas gathered at Advaita's house and laid before him the words of these impious men.

Note 184. Bhāgavata — the Śrīmad-Bhāgavata itself. "That dancing and weeping is a path of spiritual practice" — so these critics claimed — "is nowhere to be found in the Bhāgavata." In fact kīrtana is itself a limb of devotional practice; dance and weeping arise as sāttvika manifestations that follow from it. Bhāgavata 11.2.40 ("evaṁ-vrataḥ sva-priya-nāma-kīrtyā...") is proof of this, and the Bhāgavata instructs kṛṣṇa-kīrtana in many places.

Note 185. Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita had three brothers — Śrīvāsa, Śrīrāma, Śrīpati, and Śrīnidhi — all devotees of Kṛṣṇa, ever engaged in kṛṣṇa-kīrtana.

Note 187. Saṅkathana — various mocking remarks.

V.191–197. Hearing this, Advaita became an incarnation of wrath. "I will destroy them all!" he roared. "My Lord, the wielder of the discus, is coming — you shall see what happens within this Nadīyā! I shall make Kṛṣṇa visible to every eye — only then will the name 'Advaita, servant of Kṛṣṇa,' be justly mine. Wait but a few more days, brothers — here, in this very place, you shall all behold Kṛṣṇa's presence!" Hearing Advaita's words, the devotees forgot their sorrow and all began to perform kīrtana. The name of Kṛṣṇa arose, supremely auspicious, and, together with Advaita, all were overwhelmed; the whole tangled web of the impious men's words was swept far away, and thus the town of Nadīyā was filled with joy.

Note 192–194. See the note on payar 1.2.87 [Advaita's earlier vow to bring forth Kṛṣṇa].

---

V.198. In the joy of His studies, the Lord Viśvambhara-rāya constantly increased His mother's happiness.

V.199–201. At this time Śrī Īśvara Purī came to Navadvīpa, arriving in a guise so unassuming that no one could recognize him for who he was. This great soul, utterly overcome in the mellow of Kṛṣṇa, wholly dear to Kṛṣṇa and boundlessly compassionate, gave no clue to his true identity by his dress; by providence he happened to lodge at Advaita's house.

Note 199. Śrī Īśvara Purī — the disciple of Śrīpāda Mādhavendra Purī, filled to overflowing with kṛṣṇa-prema by his guru's grace. "Wearing an utterly unassuming guise" — a guise from which one could not tell his true nature, whether he was a devotee or some other kind of practitioner. The purport is that Śrīpāda Īśvara Purī arrived in Navadvīpa concealing his own identity — for it lies in the very nature of bhakti that its possessors are inclined to conceal themselves in this way.

Note 201. Tāna — his, Śrīpāda Īśvara Purī's. Daibe — by chance. Advaita-mandire — at Śrī Advaitācārya's house in Navadvīpa.

V.202–204. Where Advaita sat performing his worship, there he sat down before him, in great hesitation and humility. But a Vaiṣṇava's inner brilliance cannot stay hidden from another Vaiṣṇava; again and again Advaita found his gaze drawn toward him. Advaita said: "My child, who are you? My heart tells me you are a Vaiṣṇava sannyāsī."

Note 203. Baiṣṇabete nā lukāya — does not remain hidden from a Vaiṣṇava.

Note 204. Baiṣṇava sannyāsī — a sannyāsī devoted to Viṣṇu, a worshipper of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Atulakṛṣṇa Prabhupāda notes: "Let no one here take 'Vaiṣṇava sannyāsī' for the 'bhek-dhārī Bābājīs' of today... It is doubtful whether such an order of bhek even existed at that time. It is quite certain that the modern bhek-dhārī Bābājī and this 'Vaiṣṇava sannyāsī' do not belong to the same category at all."

V.205. Īśvara Purī said: "I am a wretched, fallen soul; I have come only to behold your feet."

Note 205. Kṣudrādhama — a most base and fallen soul. Out of the humility that springs from devotion, Purī Gosvāmī spoke thus of himself, for it is the very nature of a devotee that "he considers himself, though the most excellent of all, to be lowly" (Caitanya-caritāmṛta). Prabhupāda Atulakṛṣṇa Gosvāmī writes on this point: "Here some have conjectured 'śūdrādhama' in place of 'kṣudrādhama,' and claim that Śrīpāda Īśvara Purī was by birth a śūdra. How mistaken this view is may be seen in my own book, Śrīpāda Īśvara Purī." That he was indeed a sannyāsī is known from his very title "Purī"; whether sannyāsa is scripturally sanctioned for a śūdra is a further matter to be considered here (see the note on payar 1.12.100).

V.206–212. Sensing this, Mukunda began to sing, with the utmost love, a song of one of Kṛṣṇa's own pastimes. The very moment he heard it, Īśvara Purī collapsed, swooning, to the ground; there was no end to the tears in his eyes, and the flow of that river of prema swelled again and again. Advaita hurriedly lifted him into his own lap, his body drenched with the tears from his eyes; his prema could not be restrained, but only grew, and Mukunda, well pleased, began reciting verses aloud. Seeing this transformation wrought by prema, all the Vaiṣṇavas present felt an incomparable joy well up within them. It was only afterward that they recognized him as Śrī Īśvara Purī; seeing his prema, they all cried out, "Hari! Hari!"

Note 206. Seeing in Purī Gosvāmī the Vaiṣṇava brilliance that springs from devotion, Śrī Advaita understood him to be a Vaiṣṇava; and Mukunda Datta, seeing his characteristic devotee's humility, understood the same. Understanding this, and wishing either to draw out Purī Gosvāmī's hidden devotee-nature, or simply to please him, Mukunda began to sing, with the utmost love, a song of Kṛṣṇa's pastimes.

Note 207. The very moment he heard, from Mukunda's mouth, this song of Kṛṣṇa's pastimes, Purī Gosvāmī fell to the ground overwhelmed with prema — what he had wished to conceal now stood revealed.

Note 209. Āthe-byathe — hastily.

Note 212. It was only afterward that the devotees learned that this was Śrī Īśvara Purī.

Giri, Purī, Vana, Bhāratī, and the like are titles borne by sannyāsīs of the Śaṅkara sampradāya, a lineage opposed to bhakti; and yet verses 207–11 have just described Śrīpāda Īśvara Purī's own wondrous transformation of prema. From this it is plainly to be understood that Śrīpāda Īśvara Purī was a Vaiṣṇava devotee of the very highest order. It seems, then, that he had once been a sannyāsī of the Śaṅkara lineage, and afterward left that lineage, taking discipleship under Śrīpāda Mādhavendra Purī and worshipping Śrī Śrī Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa. Śrīpāda Mādhavendra Purī, too, was a worshipper of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa; and his own title "Purī" likewise suggests that he too had once been a sannyāsī of the Śaṅkara lineage before leaving it — for when such men leave the Śaṅkara sampradāya, the name and garb that lineage gave them commonly remain with them still.

Some hold that Śrīpāda Mādhavendra Purī, Śrīpāda Īśvara Purī, and others belonged to the Mādhva sampradāya founded by Śrīpāda Madhvācārya; but this is not correct, for these Purī Gosvāmīs show none of the marks of the Mādhva lineage. First: Mādhavendra and the rest bore the title "Purī." Purī, Giri, Bhāratī, and the like are titles of the Śaṅkara sampradāya; sannyāsīs of the Mādhva lineage carry no such titles at all — every one of them bears the title "Tīrtha." When a sannyāsī of some other title is initiated into the Mādhva lineage, its ācāryas strip him of his former title and give him, too, the title "Tīrtha." Hence Mādhavendra and the others, bearing the title "Purī," could never have belonged to the Mādhva lineage. Second: according to Śrīpāda Madhvācārya, it is the four-armed Nārāyaṇa, Lord of Vaikuṇṭha, who is Godhead Himself, the Supreme Brahman; Madhvācārya did not accept Śrī Kṛṣṇa's status as Godhead Himself and the Supreme Brahman, and held Rādhikā and the other gopīs to be nothing more than celestial nymphs (apsarās). His followers in the Mādhva lineage are worshippers of Śrī Nārāyaṇa alone, not of Śrī Kṛṣṇa or of Śrī Śrī Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa; to this day the ācāryas of that lineage do not accept Śrī Kṛṣṇa as Godhead Himself, the Supreme Brahman, and still regard Rādhikā and the gopīs as celestial courtesans. The worship of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa has never, at any time, been current within the Mādhva sampradāya — how, then, could Mādhavendra and the others, worshippers of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, possibly be called followers of that lineage? The dictionary sense of the word sampradāya itself confirms this: a sampradāya is a teaching handed down through a succession of the learned, and those who follow one and the same such handed-down teaching are called a sampradāya. Since the worship of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa never existed, and does not exist, in the Mādhva lineage, its teaching could never have been handed down through that lineage's own succession either — and it is therefore plain that Mādhavendra and the others, being themselves worshippers of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, could not have received that teaching from the Mādhva lineage. In this way, too, the accepted dictionary sense of "sampradāya" confirms that these Purī Gosvāmīs did not belong to the Mādhva sampradāya.

Because, in His human-like pastimes, Śrīman Mahāprabhu took dīkṣā from Śrīpāda Īśvara Purī, some who hold that Mādhavendra Purī and Īśvara Purī belonged to the Mādhva lineage further conclude that Mahāprabhu Himself, and the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya that follows Him, belong to that lineage as well. This too is a strange conclusion — for it is Mahāprabhu Himself who declared the Mādhva sampradāya a lineage to be censured, precisely because of the view it holds regarding Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Rādhikā and the gopīs; and no one calls his own lineage one to be censured.

It is known from the Caitanya-caritāmṛta that when Mahāprabhu traveled through the southern country He also visited Uḍupī, Madhvācārya's own seat, and there discussed the truth of the goal and the means [sādhya-sādhana] with the ācāryas of the Mādhva lineage. Citing scriptural proofs, He refuted what those ācāryas held on this subject, and made known to them that the soul's true and ultimate treasure is kṛṣṇa-prema, attainable only through the path of pure bhakti — while the Mādhva conception of the goal and the means stands entirely opposed to this. The Mādhva ācāryas had no answer, and even granted that what the Lord said was true, yet they did not adopt His view. In the course of this discussion Mahāprabhu repeatedly called the Mādhva lineage "your sampradāya," never once "my sampradāya." Nor did the Lord's own intimate associates — Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, Kavi-karṇapūra, the Gosvāmīs Rūpa, Sanātana, and Śrī Jīva, and their successor Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa — ever accept that the Gauḍīya sampradāya belonged to the Mādhva lineage; nor have the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas of more recent times — Prabhupāda Rādhāmohana Gosvāmī of the Advaita lineage (Śāntipura), Prabhupāda Rādhikāmohana Gosvāmī (of Vṛndāvana), Prabhupāda Satyānanda Gosvāmī of the Nityānanda lineage (Calcutta), Prabhupāda Prāṇagopāla Gosvāmī (Navadvīpa), Paṇḍita Rasikamohana Vidyābhūṣaṇa of the Śrīnivāsācārya lineage (Calcutta), and others (see the extended discussion of this question in the appendix to Part Five of the enlarged edition of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava-darśana).

V.213–216. In this way Īśvara Purī remained unrecognized in the town of Navadvīpa, and no one could tell who he truly was. By chance, one day, the Lord Śrī Gaurasundara, having finished teaching, was returning to His own home when He happened to meet Īśvara Purī on the road; seeing him as one of Kṛṣṇa's own servants, the Lord Himself bowed down before him — that indescribably beautiful Lord, matchless in every excellent quality—

Note 215. Bhṛtya dekhi — seeing him as a servant [of Kṛṣṇa]. Śrīpāda Īśvara Purī was a worshipper of Śrī Śrī Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa; and the Lord, too, is in essence the combined form of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa — hence Purī Gosvāmī was, in truth, the Lord's own servant as well. Yet the Lord Himself offered obeisance to him: at that time the Lord was a householder, and Purī a sannyāsī, and the Lord thereby demonstrated that a sannyāsī is worthy of a householder's obeisance. Moreover, being Himself filled with the devotee's mood, it was only natural for the Lord to bow to that foremost of devotees, Purī Gosvāmī.

---

V.217–220. Though no one there knew His true nature, still everyone who saw the Lord felt an awe they could not help. Īśvara Purī looked upon the Lord's body — supremely grave and composed, like that of a perfected being — and asked Him: "What is your name, best of brahmins? What texts do you teach and study, and where is your home?" At last those present told him, "This is Nimāñi Paṇḍita." "So you are he!" Purī exclaimed, filled with great delight.

Note 217. Tāna marma — his true nature. Sādhvasa — awe.

Note 218. Siddha-puruṣera prāya — like a perfected being: Purī Gosvāmī found the Lord as supremely grave as a great perfected soul, without the least trace of restlessness in Him.

Note 220. "So you are he!" — this shows that, though he had never met the Lord before, Purī Gosvāmī had already heard His name and His fame as a teacher.

V.221–225. The Lord invited him to take his meal at His house, and led him home Himself, with the greatest honor. Śacī prepared an offering fit for Kṛṣṇa, and, having taken his meal, Purī sat in the household shrine room. He then began to speak of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and, speaking of Kṛṣṇa, became overwhelmed. Seeing this outpouring of prema, the Lord was pleased — yet still, because the time was not yet ripe, did not reveal Himself. For some months Īśvara Purī remained in the town of Navadvīpa, at the house of Gopīnātha Ācārya.

Note 221. Bhikṣā-nimantraṇa — an invitation to a meal; the meal of a sannyāsī is called bhikṣā.

Note 223. Śrī-kṛṣṇa-prastāba — discourse on Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Bihvala — overcome with prema.

Note 224. Prema-dhārā — the outpouring or transformation of kṛṣṇa-prema. "Did not reveal Himself" — the Lord did not yet let anyone know of the undivided treasury of prema that lay within Him; the time for His self-revelation had not yet come.

Note 225. Gopīnātha Ācārya — a devotee residing at Navadvīpa, brother-in-law of Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma; he later lived at Nīlācala in Sārvabhauma's house. He was still at Navadvīpa when the Lord later revealed Himself there, and so witnessed the whole of the Lord's Navadvīpa pastimes and came to realize His essential nature.

V.226–229. Everyone rejoiced greatly to see him, and the Lord Himself, too, went daily to see him. Seeing Gadādhara Paṇḍita's tears of prema, all the Vaiṣṇavas held him very dear; his mind had been utterly detached from worldly life from childhood, and Īśvara Purī, too, felt great affection for him. To Gadādhara Paṇḍita he taught his own composition, a book named Kṛṣṇa-līlāmṛta.

Note 227. Gadādhara Paṇḍita — Gadādhara Paṇḍita Gosvāmī. Prema-jala — tears of prema shed while hearing discourse on Kṛṣṇa.

Note 229. Śrīpāda Īśvara Purī had composed a book called Kṛṣṇa-līlāmṛta, which he taught to Gadādhara Paṇḍita with great affection.

V.230–234. Having finished teaching and studying by evening, the Lord would go to offer his respects to Īśvara Purī. Seeing the Lord, Śrī Īśvara Purī was delighted — though he did not know who He truly was, his affection for Him was very great. Smiling, he said: "You are a supreme scholar; I have composed a book on Kṛṣṇa's own character — tell me plainly wherever any fault lies in it, and it will give me the very greatest satisfaction." The Lord said: "A devotee's own words are themselves a description of Kṛṣṇa; whoever finds fault in such words is himself a sinner."

Note 231. Nimāi Paṇḍita's true nature as the Lord Himself was unknown to Śrīpāda Īśvara Purī; the pastime-potency itself kept him from knowing it, for otherwise the power of his own prema would surely have revealed it to him. Yet, though he did not know the Lord's true nature, his affection welled up all the more powerfully the moment he saw Him — an effect of the Lord's own essential quality. One who cannot recognize fire as fire still feels its heat on drawing near it; it was Purī Gosvāmī's own devotion that gave rise to this affection.

Note 233. Purī Gosvāmī said to the Lord: "I have written a book concerning Kṛṣṇa's pastimes; if you will look it over and tell me what faults it contains and where, I shall be greatly satisfied."

Note 234. Hearing this, the Lord said: in the first place, this is a devotee's own composition, and moreover its very subject is a description of Kṛṣṇa's own pastimes — there can be no fault in it at all; whoever sees fault in it is assuredly a sinner.

V.235–239. "Whatever form a devotee's own composition takes, in whatever manner it is written, Kṛṣṇa's own pleasure in it is assured beyond question. The fool says 'viṣṇāya,' the wise man says 'viṣṇave' — Kṛṣṇa the hero accepts both forms of speech alike:

mūrkho vadati viṣṇāya dhīro vadati viṣṇave / ubhayos tu samaṁ puṇyaṁ bhāva-grāhī janārdanaḥ

"The fool says viṣṇāya, the wise man says viṣṇave; yet the merit of both is equal, for Janārdana looks only to the devotion in the heart. Whoever finds fault here, the fault is his own; a devotee's very description is itself Kṛṣṇa's delight — what bold soul, then, would dare find fault with it?" Hearing the Lord's answer, Īśvara Purī's whole body felt as if bathed in nectar.

Note 235. Bhaktera kabitva — poetry on Kṛṣṇa composed by a devotee, with love and devotion. "In whatever form it is written" — whatever flaws or lapses it may contain. "Kṛṣṇa's pleasure is assured" — Kṛṣṇa takes delight in it in every way, for He is ever hungry for the mellow of His devotees' love, and receives that mellow with pleasure however it is offered to Him (see the next verse).

Note 236. Even where grammatical errors occur in a devotee's own loving composition on Kṛṣṇa, this verse declares, they still bring Kṛṣṇa delight. Viṣṇāya, viṣṇave — the correct dative singular of "Viṣṇu" is viṣṇave; if the unlearned, ignorant of grammar, say viṣṇāya instead, Kṛṣṇa is not displeased by it — He receives the fool's "viṣṇāya" exactly as He receives the scholar's "viṣṇave," for the devotee-loving Kṛṣṇa attends only to the devotion in the heart, not to the correctness of the language expressing it: He is bhāva-grāhī janārdanaḥ, "one who takes hold only of the sentiment." A verse is quoted below in support of this statement.

Note 237. "Here" — that is, in a devotee's words, even where grammatical faults exist. "Whoever sees fault" — one who fixes on the fault alone and pays no heed to the devotion in the devotee's heart, who gives the fault priority over the sentiment — in him, and not in the devotee's words, the fault truly lies, "for a devotee's very description is Kṛṣṇa's delight." The purport: whoever finds fault in a devotee's words, the fault is his own — to see fault in a devotee's Kṛṣṇa-loving speech is itself a faulty act.

Only those in whose hearts devotion has awakened can savor the sweetness of a devotee's writings on Kṛṣṇa's pastimes; their minds are drawn to such a work, and even where they notice some fault in it, they attach no importance to it — these alone are the true connoisseurs, the ones who take the essence. One who covets a fragrant rose never gives weight to the thorns on its stem, nor does he despise the rosebush for being thorny; rather he takes constant care that the plant be preserved and nourished. But those devoid of devotion cannot savor the sweetness of works on Kṛṣṇa's pastimes at all, and hold no regard for them; being devoid of devotion, their minds remain sullied by māyā, full of envy, of inability to bear another's excellence, and of eagerness to hunt out others' faults. Far from savoring such works' sweetness, they give the fault in them pride of place — they cannot be true connoisseurs or takers of the essence. Envy and its like are the fruit of this sullying by māyā — a mark of sin, a grave fault; and it is for this very reason that Mahāprabhu declared, "a devotee's words are themselves a description of Kṛṣṇa — whoever finds fault in this is a sinner" (1.7.234), and again, "whoever finds fault here, the fault is his" (1.7.237). Those who are true connoisseurs and takers of the essence, even where a thing contains countless faults, will praise it for the sake of a single great virtue it possesses. Kali, though a mine of every fault, has this one great virtue: that in Kali it is through kṛṣṇa-kīrtana alone that a soul may be freed from worldly attachment and attain the ultimate treasure. Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī told Mahārāja Parīkṣit exactly this: "O king, though the age of Kali is an ocean of faults, it has one great virtue: through kīrtana alone one attains Kṛṣṇa and is freed from material bondage" (Bhāgavata 12.3.51). The great Karabhājana likewise told King Nimi that in Kali, through saṅkīrtana alone, every true end may be won, worldly attachment destroyed, and supreme peace attained — a peace beyond which souls wandering through saṁsāra can gain nothing greater (Bhāgavata 11.5.36–38). For this one virtue alone, connoisseurs and takers of the essence, among all four ages, praise Kali above the rest, and even the people of Satya-yuga and the other ages long to be born in Kali instead. Mahāprabhu spoke in a like vein to the dig-vijayī paṇḍita who came to Navadvīpa, concerning another's poetry as well: "You are a great scholar, the crown of poets, from whose mouth flows such a stream of poetic speech; your poetic gift is like the flow of the Gaṅgā's waters — nowhere do I see a poet your equal. Bhavabhūti, Jayadeva, and Kālidāsa — even in their poetry faults may be found; but I consider this weighing of fault and virtue a trifling matter beside the power of composition itself, of which I have spoken" (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.16.93–96) — the Lord spoke thus to the dig-vijayī even though many faults were indeed present in his verse.

Note 240. Hearing the Lord's words, Purī Gosvāmī rejoiced greatly, and, laughing, said to Him: "You have no fault in this" — that is, "you have said that whoever finds fault in a Kṛṣṇa-poem is himself at fault; yet you must still, without fail, tell me where any fault lies in my own book, for that will bring no fault upon you — since your purpose will not be to belittle me, but only to help me make my book faultless in every way."

Note 242. Dhātu nā lāge — In grammar, verbal roots such as kṛ and bhū are called dhātu; some of these are ātmanepadī, some parasmaipadī, and some take both forms (these are technical grammatical terms). It is a fault to attach a parasmaipadī ending to an ātmanepadī root, or vice versa. In one place in Purī Gosvāmī's book, he had used a parasmaipadī root in the ātmanepadī form; hence the Lord said, "this root does not take this ending" — meaning the ātmanepadī ending was wrongly applied. In the following verse the Lord gives His reason: "this root is not ātmanepadī."

Note 244. Variant reading noted; the sense is unchanged.

V.240–248. Then, smiling, [Purī] said: "You have no fault in pointing this out — indeed you must tell me wherever a fault truly lies." In this way the Lord, every day, would sit with him for two or four daṇḍas, discussing his book with playful delight. One day, hearing one of his verses, the Lord smilingly found fault: "This root does not take this ending — it is not ātmanepadī," He said, and, having spoken, went home. But Īśvara Purī, too, was learned in every scripture, and took great delight in this playful discussion of grammar; after the Lord had gone, he examined that very root, working out its analysis in every possible way, and concluded that it was indeed to be classed as ātmanepadī. The next day, when the Lord came, he presented his conclusion: "The root you said was parasmaipadī — this I have now proven to be ātmanepadī." Hearing his explanation, the Lord was extremely pleased, and pressed no further objection, simply to let His own servant have the victory.

V.249. Always the Lord let His own servant win — this indeed is His very nature, as all the Vedas declare.

V.250–255. In this way, sporting in the mellow of learning, Īśvara Purī remained for some time in Gauracandra's company. But ever restless in the mellow of devotion, never staying long in one place, he set out once more to wander, purifying the earth as he went. Whoever hears this sacred account of Īśvara Purī comes to dwell at Kṛṣṇa's own lotus feet. Whatever store of prema had dwelt in Mādhavendra Purī's own body, he bestowed it all, with delight, upon Īśvara Purī; and having received his guru's own prema by Kṛṣṇa's grace, Īśvara Purī wandered the earth in perfect harmony with all. Know Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya and Nityānanda-cāṅda [to be one and the same truth] — Vṛndāvana Dāsa sings at the pair of Their feet.

Note 251. Ekatra nahe sthiti — he did not remain long in any one place.

Note 253. At the time of his passing, Śrīpāda Mādhavendra Purī's body had become extremely ill; Śrīpāda Īśvara Purī served him then without the least distaste, and thereby won his special grace: "Īśvara Purī Gosāñi served his master, cleansing with his own hand his stool and urine; ceaselessly he had him remember the name of Kṛṣṇa, and constantly recited to him accounts of Kṛṣṇa's pastimes and verses on Kṛṣṇa. Pleased, Purī embraced him and gave him a boon: 'May you have the treasure of prema for Kṛṣṇa.' From that time Īśvara Purī became an ocean of prema" (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.8.27–30).

Note 254. Ati-nirvirodhe — entering into conflict with no one; or, no one ever entered into conflict with him — he wandered everywhere at ease.

Note 255. See the note on payar 1.2.85.

---

Colophon. Thus ends the Seventh Chapter, called "The Meeting with Īśvara Purī," in the Ādi-khaṇḍa of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata.

Iti śrī-caitanya-bhāgavate ādi-khaṇḍe īśvarapurī-milanaṁ nāma saptamo 'dhyāyaḥ.