2. Mukhya-vrtti ("the direct meaning")

    Gauna-vrtti ("the indirect meaning")

 

In this section we will see very clearly that Narayana Maharaja has describe the words 'krsna bhuli' from Caitanya-caritamrta Madhya Lila verse 20.117 in terms of indirect meaning.

 

 Upon this, the Lord spoke as follows: "My dear sir, I can understand the meaning of the sutras like janmady asya yatah, sastra-yonitvat, and athato brahma jijnasa of the Vedanta-sutra, but when you explain them in your own way it becomes difficult for Me to follow them. The purpose of the sutras is already explained in them, but your explanations are covering them with something else. You do not purposely take the direct meaning of the sutras but indirectly give your own interpretations."
   The Lord thus attacked all Vedantists who interpret the Vedanta-sutra fashionably, according to their limited power of thinking, to serve their own purpose. Such indirect interpretations of the authentic literatures like the Vedanta-sutra are hereby condemned by the Lord.
   The Lord continued: "Srila Vyasadeva has summarized the direct meanings of the mantras in the Upanisads in the Vedanta-sutra. Unfortunately you do not take their direct meaning. You indirectly interpret them in a different way.

[S.B. Intro]

 

Note: Narayana Maharaja at first accepts the direct meaning of the words 'krsna bhuli':

 

[Narayana Maharaja]: We are eternally Krsna dasa, servants of Krsna, but now we are Krsna bhuli; we have forgotten Him. The words 'krsna bhuli' are used here. It means 'the jiva forgets Krsna',

 

Note: He then proceeds to give his indirect interpretation:

 

[Narayana Maharaja]: but what does this actually mean? It seems to mean that the jiva was once engaged in Krsna's service, but now he has forgotten that service. Actually, this is not true. This is not the meaning. There is defect in worldly languages. They are not perfect, and therefore they cannot purely express what is the nature of our svarupa (constitutional form). To clarify the meaning of 'krsna bhuli', Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami writes in the next line, "krsnera 'tatastha'sakti' 'bhedabheda-prakasa.'"

 

Note: Such indirect interpretations of the authentic literatures like Caitanya-caritamrta is condemned by the Lord. Narayana Maharaja then makes the great offense of saying the Lords words are worldly or more clearly material and that the Lord is not able to express purely the nature of our svarupa (constitutional form). This is very nicely refuted as follows:

 

Yogesvara: For them the word nirvana means an end but an end to this material existence and an entrance into the silence of the Absolute, onto a level that is real, whereas this one is false. This one is rejected.
Prabhupada: Why silence?
Yogesvara: He says the term "entering into silence" is a mystic term that means...
Prabhupada: He cannot explain. (break)
Yogesvara: ...it is undescribable because it's something that's arrived at inside through meditation. You can't really describe it in words?
Prabhupada: Why? You are describing so many thing in words and the ultimate goal you cannot describe.

Yogesvara: He says that many great masters like you from the East tend to smile at their explanations, but he...
Guru Gauranga: They tend to smile when this question is asked, "Who am I?" So what can I say compared to these masters?
Prabhupada: That means his knowledge is not perfect.
Guru Gauranga: His knowledge is not perfect, and like us, he is simply trying for perfect knowledge.
Prabhupada: So unless you have got your goal perfectly known, how you can make progress?

 

[S.P. Room Conversation, with Rosicrucians, August 13, 1973, Paris]

Note: The nature of our svarupa is very clearly described by Srila Prabhupada (See the section The constitutional position of the living entity)

Narayana Maharaja then finally becomes ludicrous and says "krsnera 'tatastha'sakti' 'bhedabheda-prakasa.'"  is the next line of 'krsna bhuli', when factually it is from a completely different sloka!!!

 

TRANSLATION: "Sripada Sankaracarya has described all the Vedic literatures in terms of indirect meanings. One who hears such explanations is ruined. Sankaracarya is not at fault, for he has thus covered the real purpose of the Vedas under the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

PURPORT: The Vedic literature is to be considered a source of real knowledge, but if one does not take it as it is, one will be misled. For example, the Bhagavad-gita is an important book of Vedic literature that has been taught for many years, but because it was commented upon by unscrupulous rascals, people derived no benefit from it, and no one came to the conclusion of Krsna consciousness. Since the purpose of the Bhagavad-gita is now being presented as it is, however, within four or five short years thousands of people all over the world have become Krsna conscious. That is the difference between direct and indirect explanations of the Vedic literature. Therefore Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, mukhya-vrttye sei artha parama mahattva: "To teach the Vedic literature according to its direct meaning, without false commentary, is glorious." Unfortunately, Sri Sankaracarya, by the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, compromised between atheism and theism in order to cheat the atheists and bring them to theism, and to do so he gave up the direct method of Vedic knowledge and tried to present a meaning which is indirect. It is with this purpose that he wrote his Sariraka-bhasya commentary on the Vedanta-sutra.......
   Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura comments that mukhya-vrtti ("the direct meaning") is abhidha-vrtti, or the meaning that one can understand immediately from the statements of dictionaries, whereas gauna-vrtti ("the indirect meaning") is a meaning that one imagines without consulting the dictionary. For example, one politician has said that Kuruksetra refers to the body, but in the dictionary there is no such definition. Therefore this imaginary meaning is gauna-vrtti, whereas the direct meaning found in the dictionary is mukhya-vrtti or abhidha-vrtti. This is the distinction between the two. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu recommends that one understand the Vedic literature in terms of abhidha-vrtti, and the gauna-vrtti He rejects. Sometimes, however, as a matter of necessity, the Vedic literature is described in terms of the laksana-vrtti or gauna-vrtti, but one should not accept such explanations as permanent truths.
   The purpose of the discussions in the Upanisads and Vedanta-sutra is to philosophically establish the personal feature of the Absolute Truth. The impersonalists, however, in order to establish their philosophy, accept these discussions in terms of laksana-vrtti, or indirect meanings.

 

[Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 7.109-110]

 

Note: Narayana Maharaja has described Srila Prabhupada's books in terms of indirect meanings. One who hears such explanations is ruined. Srila Prabhupada's books are to be considered a source of real knowledge, but if one does not take it as it is, one will be misled. Narayana Maharaja gave up the direct method of Vedic knowledge and tried to present a meaning which is indirect. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura comments that mukhya-vrtti ("the direct meaning") is abhidha-vrtti, or the meaning that one can understand immediately from the statements of dictionaries, whereas gauna-vrtti ("the indirect meaning") is a meaning that one imagines without consulting the dictionary. For example, one politician has said that Kuruksetra refers to the body, but in the dictionary there is no such definition. Therefore this imaginary meaning is gauna-vrtti, whereas the direct meaning found in the dictionary is mukhya-vrtti or abhidha-vrtti. This is the distinction between the two. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu recommends that one understand the Vedic literature in terms of abhidha-vrtti, (Srila Prabhupada's direct purports) and the gauna-vrtti (the interpretations of Narayana Maharaja) He rejects. The impersonalists, (Narayana Maharaja and his followers) however, in order to establish their philosophy, accept these discussions in terms of laksana-vrtti, or indirect meanings.

 

 

TRANSLATION: "You do not explain the direct meaning of the Brahma-sutras. Indeed, it appears that your business is to cover their real meaning."

 

PURPORT: This is typical of all Mayavadis or atheists who interpret the meaning of Vedic literature in their own imaginative way. The real purpose of such foolish people is to impose the impersonalist conclusion on all Vedic literature. The Mayavadi atheists also interpret the Bhagavad-gita. In every verse of Srimad Bhagavad-gita it is clearly stated that Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In every verse Vyasadeva says, sri-bhagavan uvaca, "the Supreme Personality of Godhead said," or "the Blessed Lord said." It is clearly stated that the Blessed Lord is the Supreme Person, but Mayavadi atheists still try to prove that the Absolute Truth is impersonal. In order to present their false, imaginary meanings, they must adopt so much word jugglery and grammatical interpretation that they finally become ludicrous. Therefore Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu remarked that no one should hear the Mayavadi commentaries or purports to any Vedic literature.

 

[Caitanya-caritamrta Mad. 6.132]

 

Note: Narayana Maharaja does not explain the direct meaning of Vedic literature like Srila Prabhupada's books. Indeed, it appears that his business is to cover their real meaning. This is typical of all Mayavadis or atheists who interpret the meaning of Vedic literature in their own imaginative way. The real purpose of such foolish people is to impose the impersonalist conclusion on all Vedic literature. In order to present their false, imaginary meanings, they must adopt so much word jugglery and grammatical interpretation that they finally become ludicrous. Therefore Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu remarked that no one should hear the Mayavadi commentaries or purports such as those by Narayana Maharaja, to any Vedic literature.

 

 

TRANSLATION "For each sutra the direct meaning must be accepted without interpretation. However, you simply abandon the direct meaning and proceed with your imaginative interpretation... Although there is other evidence, the evidence given in the Vedic version must be taken as foremost. Vedic versions understood directly are first-class evidence."

 

PURPORT: Works that should be consulted are Srila Jiva Gosvami's Tattva-sandarbha (10-11), Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana's commentary on that, and the following verses of the Brahma-sutra: sastra-yonitvat (1.1.3), tarkapratisthanat (2.1.11) and srutes tu sabda-mulatvat (2.1.27), as commented upon by Sri Ramanujacarya, Sri Madhvacarya, Sri Nimbarkacarya and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana. In his book Sarva-samvadini, Srila Jiva Gosvami has noted that although there are ten kinds of evidence--direct perception, the Vedic version, historical reference, hypothesis, and so on--and although they are all generally accepted as evidence, the person presenting a hypothesis, reading the Vedic version, perceiving or interpreting by his experience is certain to be imperfect in four ways. That is, he is subject to commiting mistakes, to becoming illusioned, to cheating and to having imperfect senses. Although the evidence may be correct, the person himself is in danger of being misled due to his material defects. Apart from the direct presentation, there is a chance that an interpretation may not be perfect. Therefore the conclusion is that only a direct presentation can be considered evidence. An interpretation cannot be accepted as evidence, but may be considered proof of evidence.
   In the Bhagavad-gita, at the very beginning it is stated:

 

                        dhrtarastra uvaca
                    dharma-ksetre kuru-ksetre
                       samaveta yuyutsavah
                      mamakah pandavas caiva
                       kim akurvata sanjaya

 

   The statements of the Bhagavad-gita are themselves proof that there is a place of religious pilgrimage named Kuruksetra where the Pandavas and Kurus met to fight. After meeting there, what did they do? This was Dhrtarastra's inquiry to Sanjaya. Although these statements are very clear, atheists try to interpret different meanings of the words dharma-ksetra and kuru-ksetra. Therefore Srila Jiva Gosvami has warned us not to depend on any kind of interpretation. It is better to take the verses as they are, without interpretation.

 

[Caitanya-caritamrta Mad. 6.134-35]

 

Note: For each sutra the direct meaning must be accepted without interpretation. However, Narayana Maharaja simply abandons the direct meaning and proceeds with his imaginative interpretation.. Therefore the conclusion is that only a direct presentation can be considered evidence. An interpretation cannot be accepted as evidence, but may be considered proof of evidence. Although the statements "krsna bhuli' sei jiva anadi-bahirmukha - Forgetting Krsna, the living entity has been attracted by the external feature from time immemorial" are very clear, atheists like Narayana Maharaja try to interpret different meanings of the words krsna bhuli. Therefore Srila Jiva Gosvami has warned us not to depend on any kind of interpretation. It is better to take the verses as they are, without interpretation.

* Another very important point in regards to evidence. You may recall the very offensive statement:

 

[Srila Narayana Maharaja:] I know. I have read them. Srila Swami Maharaja sometimes gave baby food to babies. When I give a baby medicine like quinine, I tell him, "Baby, baby, it is very sweet." I'm telling him something that is not true so that I can give him the medicine. Similarly, Srila Swami Maharaja has written to someone who was very low in bhakti. A letter cannot always be proof. What Srila Swami Maharaja has written in Caitanya-caritamrta and in his Gita and Bhagavata explanation is authentic. These are proofs. He can write something else for a little baby, but it is not proof.

 

 

Note: Here is one of those letters:

 

Crow And Tal-Fruit Logic

   We never had any occasion when we were separated from Krsna. Just like one man is dreaming and he forgets himself. In dream he creates himself in different forms: now I am the King discussing like that. This creation of himself is as seer and subject matter or seen, two things. But as soon as the dream is over, the "seen" disappears. But the seer remains. Now he is in his original position.
   Our separation from Krsna is like that. We dream this body and so many relationships with other things. First the attachment comes to enjoy sense gratification. Even with Krsna desire for sense gratification is there. There is a dormant attitude for forgetting Krsna and creating an atmosphere for enjoying independently. Just like at the edge of the beach, sometimes the water covers, sometimes there is dry sand, coming and going. Our position is like that, sometimes covered, sometimes free, just like at the edge of the tide. As soon as we forget, immediately the illusion is there. Just like as soon as we sleep, dream is there.
   We cannot say therefore that we are not with Krsna. As soon as we try to become Lord, immediately we are covered by Maya. Formerly we were with Krsna in His lila or sport. But this covering of Maya may be of very, very, very, very long duration, therefore many creations are coming and going. Due to this long period of time it is sometimes said that we are ever-conditioned. But his long duration of time becomes very insignificant when one actually comes to Krsna consciousness. Just like in a dream we are thinking very long time, but as soon as we awaken we look at our watch and see it has been a moment only. Just like with Krsna's friends, they were kept asleep for one year by Brahma, but when they woke up and Krsna returned before them, they considered that only a moment had passed.
   So this dreaming condition is called non-liberated life, and this is just like a dream. Although in this material calculation it is a long, long period, as soon as we come to Krsna consciousness then this period is considered as a second. For example, Jaya and Vijaya. They had their lila with Krsna, but they had to come down for their little mistake. They were given mukti, emerging into the Brahmasayujya after being killed three times as demons. This Brahmasayujya mukti is non-permanent. Every living entity wants pleasure, but Brahmasayujya is minus pleasure. There is eternal existence only. So when they do not find transcendental bliss, they fall down to make a compromise with material bliss. Just like Vivekananda founded so many schools and hospitals. So even Lord Brahma, he is still material and wants to lord it over. He may come down to become a germ, but then he may rise up to Krsna consciousness and go back to home, back to Godhead. This is the position.
   So when I say Yes, there is eternal lila with Krsna, that means on the evidence of Jaya-Vijaya. Unless one develops full devotional service to Krsna, he goes up only up to Brahmasayujya but falls down. But after millions and millions of years of keeping oneself away from the lila of the Lord, when one comes to Krsna consciousness this period becomes insignificant, just like dreaming.
   Because he falls down from Brahmasayujya, he thinks that may be his origin, but he does not remember that before that even he was with Krsna. So the conclusion is that whatever may be our past, let us come to Krsna consciousness and immediately join Krsna. Just like with a diseased man, it is a waste of time to try to find out how he has become diseased, better to spend time curing the disease.
   On the top of the tree there is a nice tal-fruit. A crow went there and the fruit fell down, Some panditas, big big learned scholars saw this and discussed: the fruit fell due to the crow agitating the limb. No, the fruit fell simultaneously with the crow landing and frightened the crow so he flew away. No, the fruit was ripe and the weight of the crow landing broke it from the branch, and so on and so on. What is the use of such discussions? So whether you were in the Brahmasayujya or with Krsna in His lila, at the moment you are in neither, so the best policy is to develop your Krsna consciousness and go there, never mind what is your origin.
   Brahmasayujya and Krsna lila--both may be possible, but when you are coming down from Brahmasayujya or when you are coming down from Krsna lila, that remains a mystery. But at the present moment we are in Maya's clutches, so at present our only hope is to become Krsna conscious and go back to Home, back to Godhead. The real position is servant of Krsna, and servant of Krsna means in Krsna lila. Directly or indirectly, always we are serving Krsna's lila. Even in dream. Just like we cannot go out of the sun when it is daytime, so where is the chance of going out of Krsna lila? The cloud may be there, it may become very gray and dim, but still the sunlight is there, everywhere, during the daytime. Because I am part and parcel of Krsna, I am always connected. My finger, even though it may be diseased, remains part and parcel of my body. Therefore, we try to treat it, cure it, because it is part and parcel. So Krsna comes Himself when we forget Him, or He sends His representative.
   Awakening or dreaming, I am the same man. As soon as I awaken and see myself, I see Krsna. Cause and effect are both Krsna. Just like cotton becomes thread and thread becomes cloth, still, the original cause is cotton. Therefore, everything is Krsna in the ultimate sense. When we cannot contact Krsna personally, we contact His energies. So there is no chance to be outside Krsna's lila. But differences we see under different conditions. Just like in the pool of water and in the mirror the same me is reflecting, but in different reflections. One is shimmering, unsteady, one is clear and fixed. Except for being in Krsna consciousness, we cannot see our actual position rightly, therefore the learned man sees all living entities as the same parts and parcels of Krsna. Material existence is impersonal because my real personality is covered. But we should think that because I am now covered by this clay, I am diseased, and we should think that I must get to business to get myself uncovered, not wonder how I got this way. Now the fruit is there, take it and enjoy, that is your first business. God is not bound by cause. He can change, He is the Cause of all Causes. Now don't waste your time with this "Kaka taliya nyaya," crows and tal-fruit logic.

 

 

To such a misguided interpreter we may reply, "Why should you suggest such fallacious logic? An interpretation is never accepted as evidence if it opposes the principles of scripture. [Caitanya-caritamrta Adi. 2.73]

 

Note: We have to take the mukhya-vrtti ("the direct meaning"), or the meaning that one can understand immediately from the statements of dictionaries. The direct meaning of the words krsna bhuli' is forgetting Krsna.

 

Therefore Srila Prabhupada's statements in the above letter, namely: [We never had any occasion when we were separated from Krsna. Just like one man is dreaming and he forgets himself.... . Even with Krsna desire for sense gratification is there. There is a dormant attitude for forgetting Krsna and creating an atmosphere for enjoying independently.... We cannot say therefore that we are not with Krsna. As soon as we try to become Lord, immediately we are covered by Maya. Formerly we were with Krsna in His lila or sport.] are identical to the direct statement of the Lord in Caitanya-caritamrta "krsna bhuli' sei jiva anadi-bahirmukha ataeva maya tare deya samsara-duhkha "Forgetting Krsna, the living entity has been attracted by the external feature from time immemorial. Therefore, the illusory energy (maya) gives him all kinds of misery in his material existence." (Cc Madhya 20.117)

 

The statement "Formerly we were with Krsna in His lila or sport." is also identical to the direct statement of the Lord in Caitanya-caritamrta  "It is the living entity's constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Krsna because he is the marginal energy of Krsna and a manifestation simultaneously one with and different from the Lord" (Cc Madhya 20.108-109)

 

Therefore Srila Prabhupada's letters are DIRECT EVIDENCE and Narayana Maharaja's statements are extremely offensive!!!