The Mood of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s Mission:
Provocative Statements in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Purports to the Verses of the Caitanya-caritāmṛta
A significant part of the writings Śrī Śrīmad A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda left to the world consists of his English translations and explanations (commentaries) on the Caitanya-caritāmṛta, the canonical biography of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu composed at the beginning of the 17th century by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s commentaries on the verses of the Caitanya-caritāmṛta are to a large extent direct translations of the Bengali commentary authored by his spiritual master, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura. At times, however, Śrīla Prabhupāda either further elaborates on his predecessor’s commentary or appends certain verses with his own independent purport.
In his own purports, Śrīla Prabhupāda on several occasions makes general references to persons and circumstances connected with the period following the departure of his spiritual master. These persons – like Śrīla Prabhupāda himself – were disciples of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, and the circumstances concerned the progress – or lack of progress – in the missionary activities of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas.
In such instances Śrīla Prabhupāda clearly stresses – apparently in response to criticism that appeared in various circles – that the International Society for Kṛṣṇa Consciousness (ISKCON), founded by him in 1966, is the institution that should be regarded as truly representing and practically fulfilling the desires of his own spiritual master and the desires of the earlier ācāryas (respected members of the disciplic succession stemming from Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu). He also explicitly seeks to warn and protect his own disciples from the faults he perceived in the Gauḍīya Maṭha (the institution founded by Bhaktisiddhānta Ṭhākura) in the period after Bhaktisiddhānta’s departure.
This article aims to offer further clarification to the readers of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Caitanya-caritāmṛta. Some of them may be wondering about the meaning of certain of his statements concerning the Gauḍīya Maṭha and related issues. Although over the last forty years there have been various controversies regarding ISKCON and its relationship with other Vaiṣṇava institutions and their leaders, I am not attempting here to present a single, final resolution with which all parties could agree. Rather, I will try, in a concise and – hopefully – balanced way, to present the main points of controversy and to suggest practical ways of understanding and appreciating Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words as teachings meant for all serious practitioners of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, regardless of their institutional affiliation.
Prabhupāda addresses the topic that concerns us here in several of his purports to Caitanya-caritāmṛta, but for our purposes we will focus on only two, namely his purports to Cc. Ādi-līlā 10.7 and Cc. Ādi-līlā 12.8. In the first of these purports we find the statement that ISKCON should be accepted and respected as “a branch of the tree of Caitanya,” the tree of the followers of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. In the second, Śrīla Prabhupāda explains in detail what he describes as unfortunate events that took place among some of the disciples of his own spiritual master.
If we consider the purports to these two verses together, they give us a general idea of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s concerns about the present and future culture of practicing and spreading Kṛṣṇa consciousness. These concerns, although written down more than forty years ago, remain relevant for many members of the growing Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. I therefore hope that this short essay will help members of ISKCON and the broader Vaiṣṇava community to reflect more clearly on the issues in question, in a way that benefits everyone. I also hope that it will help those readers of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books who are not familiar with ISKCON or the wider Vaiṣṇava community to better understand the matters discussed here.
Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 10.7
The seventh verse of the tenth chapter of the Ādi-līlā of the Caitanya-caritāmṛta is a Sanskrit prayer, which Śrīla Prabhupāda translates as follows:
“I offer my obeisances to all the dear devotees of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, who are the eternal tree of love of Godhead. I offer my obeisances to all the branches of this tree—the devotees of the Lord who distribute the fruit of love of Kṛṣṇa.”
In the ninth and tenth chapters of the Ādi-līlā, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja draws the picture of a great and glorious tree with many branches and “sub-branches”: a tree that represents the multi-generational spiritual family of the direct associates of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. In these chapters the names of those associates are given, along with their connections to other members on the list. These connections may be established through the disciplic succession, and quite often they are biological family ties.
In his purport to this verse, Śrīla Prabhupāda draws attention to the sense of equality evoked by the Bengali expression bhakta-gaṇa, derived from Sanskrit and translated here as “all the devotees.” This admirable mood of respect for all devotees, shown by Kṛṣṇadāsa, he contrasts with the attitude of “many foolish so-called devotees of Lord Caitanya.” Prabhupāda had himself only recently experienced how these later followers opposed the fact that he accepted the honorable and affectionate title “Prabhupāda,” which his disciples had given him in recognition of his outstanding achievements in preaching the mission of Śrī Caitanya all over the world. He explains that these same critics then began to “minimize the value of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.”
At the end of his purport he again refers to the spirit of equality found in this verse:
“Thus Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī offers equal respect to all who teach devotion to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and who therefore are compared to the branches of the tree described here. ISKCON is one of these branches, and therefore it should be treated with respect by all sincere devotees of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu.”
The obvious purpose of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s assertion that ISKCON is a branch of “Caitanya’s tree” is to remove doubts about the authenticity of his institution and its spiritual connection with the Caitanya tradition described by Kṛṣṇadāsa. This assertion implies that ISKCON is, and will remain, a healthy branch capable of producing the “fruits” of love of God.
Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 12.8
Śrīla Prabhupāda translated verse eight of the twelfth chapter of the Ādi-līlā as follows:
“At first all the followers of Advaita Ācārya shared a single opinion. But later, by the arrangement of providence, two different opinions developed.”
In obvious contrast to the mood of the previously cited verse, in the section from which this verse is taken Kṛṣṇadāsa sharply condemns those whom he sees as deviating from the path of following Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. In verse nine, Kṛṣṇadāsa accuses these persons of having disobeyed the order of their guru — who in this case is Advaita Ācārya — and he emphatically condemns them as asāra, which Prabhupāda translates as “useless.”
In his purport to verse eight, Śrīla Prabhupāda, using a similarly critical tone to that of Kṛṣṇadāsa, notes the similarity between the story described here and the Vaiṣṇava history of his own time, and he expresses his deep disappointment with the conduct of the main disciples of his own guru, Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura. As he did in his purport to Ādi-līlā 10.7, Śrīla Prabhupāda draws attention to his own success in preaching and attributes it to his obedience to the instructions of his spiritual master (namely, that he preach Kṛṣṇa consciousness in the English language, which entailed spreading Caitanya’s teachings to the rest of the world beyond India, especially through large-scale production and distribution of books). In this way, he contrasts the “useless” followers who “could not develop the preaching” with the success that he himself, together with his ISKCON disciples, achieved “beyond [his] expectations.”
In what follows I will make a few observations concerning these two purports.
My remarks on the purport to Ādi-līlā 10.7
By affirming that ISKCON is a branch in the disciplic succession of Caitanya’s tree (which he also states in his purport to Ādi-līlā 9.18), Prabhupāda clearly intends to emphasise that a particular institution (namely ISKCON), not recognised as authentic by some members of the wider Caitanya Vaiṣṇava community, does in fact deserve such recognition. Making use of Kṛṣṇadāsa’s analogy of a tree with branches, Prabhupāda notes that “ISKCON is one of those branches.”
We should note that Prabhupāda does not write that ISKCON is the entire Caitanya tree. Rather, he acknowledges the existence of other branches, which implies that those branches either are flourishing or have the potential to flourish, and as such are able to bear the desired “fruit” — love of God.
The implication of this — as many ISKCON members have understood — is that it would be appropriate for all members of ISKCON to respect the members of other branches of Caitanya’s tree, and to appreciate their sincere efforts and successes in practising Kṛṣṇa consciousness and preaching the teachings of Caitanya Mahāprabhu throughout the world.
My remarks on the purport to Ādi-līlā 12.8
In my view, the main purpose of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s adopting the sharp, discriminating language of Kṛṣṇadāsa is to instruct and to warn — especially those who follow him (the members of ISKCON) — not to repeat the same mistakes that were made by some of his Godbrothers (disciples of the same guru).
That we may safely assume the central thrust of this purport to be didactic rather than condemnatory becomes clearer when we consider it in the light of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s statement in his purport to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.28.31:
“Vaiṣṇavas may have different opinions, because each is an individual person, but the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement must go on despite all personal differences. … All the disciples of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Mahārāja are Godbrothers, and although there are some differences of opinion and we are not acting conjointly, every one of us is spreading this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement according to his own capacity and producing many disciples to spread it all over the world.”
One might indeed wonder whether these two contrasting passages do not mutually contradict each other. In one place Prabhupada seems to condemn some of his Godbrothers as “useless,” and in another he acknowledges their success in preaching. How are we to understand this? If we set aside speculation about the guru’s personal opinion and his relationships with his Godbrothers, then the only thing we can safely and constructively accept is that, in order to be successful in their important undertaking while following Prabhupada’s instructions, Prabhupada’s followers should take this particular purport as a warning.
Śrīla Prabhupada undoubtedly uses strong words in this purport, indirectly but clearly urging every member and every “branch” of Caitanya’s tree to engage zealously in activity aimed at realizing Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s vision for this world. Thus, ISKCON members should not condemn other branches. Rather, they should see the changes that have taken place in recent years in a positive light. It is clear that, following Śrīla Prabhupāda’s example, the leaders and members of today’s branches of the Gauḍīya Maṭha are much more active in promoting the mission, and for their efforts and successes they deserve congratulations and appreciation.
I should also mention that, given the critical tone and tenor of this purport, it is understandable that some respected members of the Gauḍīya Maṭha have found it disturbing and counterproductive to the cultivation of harmony between the branches of Caitanya’s tree, which we all desire. They have therefore humbly requested the publisher of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, to remove this purport (and any other disturbing purports) from future editions of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Caitanya-caritāmṛta. We are all interested in cultivating harmony, and we will certainly strive effectively toward it by not doing something that would only amount to yet another mistake.
Removing the purport in question would stand in complete contradiction to the spirit of that very purport, which emphasises following the instructions of the spiritual master. Śrīla Prabhupāda never suggested that any of his purports might be removed in the future, and thus this could not be done without violating the principle of carrying out the guru’s order. To remove a purport in which he so strongly emphasises what must not be done — namely, acting against the instructions of the spiritual master — would be deeply problematic.
There is no need for members of the Gauḍīya Maṭha to feel discouraged or to think that terms such as asāra apply to them, since it is obvious that at present, inspired and guided by their gurus, they are inspiring many souls to take up the path of Kṛṣṇa-bhakti given by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Nor is there any need for them to assume that these expressions referred specifically to their own spiritual masters. Ultimately, Prabhupāda valued all of them for their dedication to the mission of preaching Kṛṣṇa consciousness, as we can understand from another of his purports to the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Cc Ādi 7.37):
“Each ācārya has a specific means of propagating his spiritual movement with the aim of bringing men to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore the method of one ācārya may be different from that of another, but the ultimate goal is never neglected.”
From this it follows that the “ultimate goal” is what unites all Vaiṣṇavas, despite the various ways in which they promote it. What Śrīla Prabhupāda was constantly striving for is precisely this commonality of purpose, and the reason he sometimes expressed disappointment was the temporary fading of clarity regarding that goal.
The unchanging message and call we receive from the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas always concerns the urgent need for us to accept and propagate the teachings of Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Sometimes they call us with a sweet and gentle voice; at other times their tone is sharp and piercing. But regardless of their tone, it would be appropriate for us to be constantly seeking a deeper understanding of their message. Then we can receive and fully benefit from the blessings that come from the ācāryas through their writings. In this way we can “grasp the truth” (SB 1.3.1, purport) of the often provocative words of the previous ācāryas as a light leading us to the lotus feet of Lord Kṛṣṇa.