At that time, Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya lived on the southern side of the Jagannātha Temple. His home was practically on the beach and was known as Mārkaṇḍeya-sarastaṭa. At present it is used as the monastery of Gaṅgāmātā.

The word sūddīpta-sāttvika is explained as follows by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura: “The Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu mentions eight kinds of transcendental transformations in the bodies of advanced devotees. These are sometimes checked by the devotee, and there are two stages of such checking, technically known as dhūmāyitā and jvalitā. The dhūmāyitā (smoking) stage is exhibited when only one or two transformations are slightly present and it is possible to conceal them. When more than two or three transcendental transformations are manifest and it is still possible to conceal them, although with great difficulty, that stage is called jvalitā (lighted). When four or five symptoms are exhibited, the dīpta (blazing) stage has been reached. When five, six or all eight symptoms are simultaneously manifest, that position is called uddīpta (inflamed). And when all eight symptoms are multiplied a thousand times and are all visible at once, the devotee is in the sūddīpta (intensely inflamed) stage. Nitya-siddha-bhakta indicates the eternally liberated associates of the Lord. Such devotees enjoy the company of the Lord in four relationships — as servant, friend, parent or conjugal lover.”

Adhirūḍha-bhāva, or adhirūḍha-mahābhāva, is explained in the Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura quotes Rūpa Gosvāmī as follows: “The loving propensity of the āśraya (devotee) toward the viṣaya (Lord) becomes so ecstatic that even after enjoying the company of the beloved, the devotee feels that his enjoyment is insufficient. At such a time, the lover sees the beloved in different ways. Such a development of ecstasy is called anurāga. When anurāga reaches its highest limit and becomes perceivable in the body, it is called bhāva. When the bodily symptoms are not very distinct, however, the emotional state is still called anurāga, not bhāva. When bhāva ecstasy is intensified, it is called mahā-bhāva. The symptoms of mahā-bhāva are visible only in the bodies of eternal associates like the gopīs.”

Maheśvara Viśārada was a classmate of Nīlāmbara Cakravartī’s. He lived in the Nadia, district in a village called Vidyānagara, and had two sons named Madhusūdana Vācaspati and Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma. His son-in-law was Gopīnātha Ācārya.

Lāphrā-vyañjana is a preparation in which many vegetables are boiled together, and then a cheṅkā is added, consisting of spices like cumin, black pepper and mustard seed.

In return, Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, “Kṛṣṇe matir astu” [“Let your attention be on Kṛṣṇa”].

It is the etiquette among sannyāsīs, those on the fourth platform of spiritual life, to offer respects by saying oṁ namo nārāyaṇāya (“I offer my respectful obeisances unto Nārāyaṇa”). This greeting is used especially by Māyāvādī sannyāsīs. According to the smṛti scriptures, a sannyāsī should not expect anything from anyone, nor should he consider himself identical with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs never think of themselves as being one with the Lord; they always consider themselves eternal servants of Kṛṣṇa, and they want to see everyone in the world become Kṛṣṇa conscious. For this reason, a Vaiṣṇava sannyāsī always offers his blessings to everyone, saying kṛṣṇe matir astu (“May you become Kṛṣṇa conscious”).

The word pūrvāśrama refers to one’s previous situation in life. Sometimes a person will accept the renounced order from householder life, and sometimes even from student (brahmacārī) life. Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya wanted to know of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s previous situation as a householder.

A sannyāsī is always to be worshiped and offered all kinds of respect by the gṛhasthas (householders). Although Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya was older than Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Sārvabhauma respected Him as a sannyāsī and as one who had attained the topmost platform of spiritual ecstasy. Thus the Bhaṭṭācārya certainly accepted Him as his master.

Because the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs teach Vedānta philosophy to their students or disciples, they are customarily called jagad-guru. This indicates that they are the benefactors of all people. Although Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya was not a sannyāsī but a householder, he used to invite all the sannyāsīs to his home and offer them prasādam. Thus he was accepted as the best well-wisher and friend of all the sannyāsīs.

Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya considered Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu a very humble and meek person because although Caitanya Mahāprabhu was a sannyāsī, He still retained His brahmacārī name. The Lord took sannyāsa from Keśava Bhāratī in the Bhāratī sampradāya, in which the brahmacārīs (the assistants of the sannyāsīs) are named “Caitanya.” Even after accepting sannyāsa, Caitanya Mahāprabhu retained the name “Caitanya,” meaning a humble servant of a sannyāsī. Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya appreciated this very much.

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepted sannyāsa from the Bhāratī sampradāya (community), which belongs to the disciplic succession of Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkarācārya introduced names for his sannyāsa disciples, and these are ten in number. Out of these, the surnames Tīrtha, Āśrama and Sarasvatī are considered topmost. In the monastery at Śṛṅgerī, the surname Sarasvatī is considered first class, Bhāratī second class and Purī third class. A sannyāsī who has very nicely understood the slogan tat tvam asi and who takes his bath at the confluence of the rivers Ganges, Yamunā and Sarasvatī is called a Tīrtha. A person who is very eager to accept sannyāsa, who is detached from worldly activities, who has no desire for any kind of material facilities, and who is thus saved from repeated birth and death is known as Āśrama. When a sannyāsī lives in a beautiful, solitary place in the forest and is freed from all material desires, he is called Vana. A sannyāsī who always lives in the forest and renounces all connection with the world in order to be elevated to the heavenly planets, where he can live in the Nandana-kānana, is called Araṇya. One who prefers living in the mountains engaging in the study of the Bhagavad-gītā and whose intelligence is fixed is called Giri. One who prefers living in great mountains, even among ferocious animals, to attain the summit of philosophical speculation (understanding that the essence of this material world is useless) is called Parvata. A sannyāsī who has dipped into the ocean of the Absolute Truth and collected some valuable stones of knowledge from that ocean, who never falls from the regulative principles of a sannyāsī, is called Sāgara. One who has learned the classical art of music, who engages in its culture, and who has become expert and completely aloof from material attachment is called Sarasvatī. Sarasvatī is the goddess of music and learning, and in one hand she holds a musical instrument called a vīṇā. A sannyāsī who is always engaged in music for spiritual elevation is called Sarasvatī. One who has become completely educated and is freed from all kinds of ignorance and who is never unhappy, even in a distressed condition, is called Bhāratī. One who has become very expert in absolute knowledge, who is situated in the Absolute Truth, and who always discusses the Absolute Truth is called Purī.

All these sannyāsīs are assisted by brahmacārīs, who are described as follows: One who knows his real identity and is fixed in his particular occupational duty, who is always happy in spiritual understanding, is called Svarūpa-brahmacārī. One who completely knows the Brahman effulgence and is always engaged in the practice of yoga is called Prakāśa-brahmacārī. One who has acquired absolute knowledge and who always meditates on the Absolute Truth, knowledge, the unlimited and the Brahman effulgence, thus keeping himself in transcendental bliss, is called Ānanda-brahmacārī. One who is able to distinguish between matter and spirit, who is never disturbed by material transformations, and who meditates on the unlimited, inexhaustible, auspicious Brahman effulgence is a first-class, learned brahmacārī and is named Caitanya.

When Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya was talking with Gopīnātha Ācārya about Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s sannyāsa community, he appreciated the first name, “Śrī Kṛṣṇa,” but did not like the surname, “Caitanya,” which is the name for a brahmacārī belonging to the Bhāratī community. He therefore suggested that the Lord be elevated to the Sarasvatī community. However, Gopīnātha Ācārya pointed out that the Lord does not depend on any external formality. Gopīnātha Ācārya was firmly convinced that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was Kṛṣṇa Himself and therefore independent of any external ritual or formality. If one wants to engage in pure devotional service, he does not require titular superiority as a Bhāratī or a Sarasvatī.

According to Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, among sannyāsīs the cultivation of Vedānta philosophy helps in becoming detached from sense gratification. Thus a sannyāsī can protect the prestige of wearing a loincloth (kaupīna). One has to practice sense control as well as mind control and subdue the six forces of speech, mind, anger, tongue, belly and genitals. Then one can become expert in understanding the devotional service of the Lord and thus become a perfect sannyāsī. For that purpose one must cultivate knowledge and renunciation regularly. When one is attached to material sense gratification, he cannot protect his sannyāsa order. Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya suggested that by the study of vairāgya (renunciation) Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu might be saved from the clutches of full-fledged youthful desires.

The Bhaṭṭācārya wanted to reinstate Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu into the Sarasvatī sampradāya because he did not like the Lord’s belonging to the Bhāratī sampradāya or Purī sampradāya. Actually, he did not know the position of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. As the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Caitanya Mahāprabhu did not depend on an inferior or superior sampradāya. The Supreme Personality of Godhead remains in the supreme position in all circumstances.

Since the Bhaṭṭācārya was an impersonalist, he had no idea of the Absolute Truth beyond the impersonal effulgence. However, Gopīnātha Ācārya informed him that Caitanya Mahāprabhu was the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Those who know the Absolute Truth know it in three phases, as explained in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.2.11):

“Those who are in knowledge of the nondual Absolute Truth know very clearly what is Brahman, what is Paramātmā, and what is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” The Supreme Personality of Godhead is ṣaḍ-aiśvarya-pūrṇa, complete with six opulences. Gopīnātha Ācārya emphasized that all those six opulences were completely existing in Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

Gopīnātha Ācārya replied, “The statements of authorized ācāryas who understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead are proof.”

Since the appearance of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, there have been many pseudo incarnations in India who do not present authorized evidence. Five hundred years ago the disciples of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, being very learned scholars, were certainly right in asking Gopīnātha Ācārya for evidence. If a person proposes that he himself is God or that someone else is an incarnation of God or God Himself, he must cite evidence from śāstra to prove his claim. Thus the request of the Bhaṭṭācārya’s disciples is quite bona fide. Unfortunately, at the present moment it has become fashionable to present someone as an incarnation of God without referring to the śāstras. Before an intelligent person accepts someone as an incarnation of God, however, he must ask about the evidence. When the disciples of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya challenged Gopīnātha Ācārya, he immediately replied correctly: “We must hear the statements of great personalities in order to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” Lord Kṛṣṇa is established as the Supreme Personality of Godhead by statements from many authorized persons, such as Brahmā, Nārada, Vyāsadeva, Asita and Arjuna. Similarly, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is also established as the Supreme Personality of Godhead by evidence from the same personalities. This will be explained later.

Gopīnātha Ācārya replied, “One cannot attain real knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead by such logical hypothesis and argument.”

The Māyāvādī philosophers in particular make certain hypotheses about the Absolute Truth. They reason that in the material world we experience that everything is created. If we trace the history of anything, we find a creator. Therefore there must be a creator of this huge cosmic manifestation. By such reasoning they come to the conclusion that a higher power has created this cosmic manifestation. The Māyāvādīs do not accept this great power to be a person. Their brains cannot accommodate the fact that the huge cosmic manifestation can be created by a person. They doubt this because as soon as they think of a person, they think of a person within the material world with limited potency. Sometimes the Māyāvādī philosophers will accept Lord Kṛṣṇa or Lord Rāma as Bhagavān, but they think of the Lord as a person having a material body. The Māyāvādīs do not understand that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, has a spiritual body. They think of Kṛṣṇa as a great personality, a human being, within whom there is the supreme impersonal power, Brahman. Therefore they finally conclude that the impersonal Brahman is the Supreme, not the personality Kṛṣṇa. This is the basis of Māyāvādī philosophy. However, from the śāstras we can understand that the Brahman effulgence consists of the bodily rays of Kṛṣṇa:

“I serve the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Govinda, the primeval Lord, the effulgence of whose transcendental body is known as the brahmajyoti. That brahmajyoti, which is unlimited, unfathomed and all-pervasive, is the cause of the creation of unlimited numbers of planets with varieties of climates and specific conditions of life.” (Brahma-saṁhitā 5.40)

Māyāvādī philosophers study the Vedic literature, but they do not understand that in the last stage of realization the Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. They do accept the fact that there is a creator of this cosmic manifestation, but that is anumāna (hypothesis). The Māyāvādī philosophers’ logic is something like seeing smoke on a hill and concluding that there is a fire. When there is a forest fire on a high hill, smoke is first of all visible. Since it is known that smoke is created when there is fire, from seeing the smoke on the hill one can conclude that a fire is burning there. Similarly, from seeing this cosmic manifestation the Māyāvādī philosophers conclude that there must be a creator.

The disciples of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya wanted evidence to show that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was actually the creator of the cosmic manifestation. Only then would they accept Him as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the original cause of creation. Gopīnātha Ācārya replied that one could not understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead by guesswork. As Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad- gītā(7.25):

“I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My eternal creative potency [yogamāyā]; and so the deluded world knows Me not, who am unborn and infallible.” The Supreme Personality of Godhead reserves the right of not being exposed to nondevotees. He can only be understood by bona fide devotees. Lord Kṛṣṇa says elsewhere in the Bhagavad-gītā (18.55), bhaktyā mām abhijānāti: “One can understand Me only by the devotional process.” In the fourth chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā (4.3) Lord Kṛṣṇa says, bhakto ’si me sakhā ceti rahasyaṁ hy etad uttamam. Here Lord Kṛṣṇa informs Arjuna that He is disclosing the secrets of the Bhagavad-gītā to him because he is His devotee. Arjuna was not a sannyāsī, nor was he a Vedāntist or brāhmaṇa. He was, however, a devotee of Kṛṣṇa. The conclusion is that we have to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead from the devotees. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself says, guru-kṛṣṇa-prasāde pāya bhakti-latā-bīja. (Cc. Madhya 19.151)

More evidence can be cited to show that without the mercy of a devotee or the mercy of Kṛṣṇa, one cannot understand what is Kṛṣṇa and what is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is confirmed in the next verse.

One cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead simply by exhibiting some mundane magic. Foolish people are enchanted by magical demonstrations, and when they see a few wonderful things done by mystical power, they accept a magician as the Personality of Godhead or an incarnation. This is not the way of realization. Nor should one guess or speculate about an incarnation of God or the Personality of Godhead. One has to learn from the bona fide person or from the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, as Arjuna did, by the mercy of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa Himself also gives many hints about His potencies as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. One should understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead only through the evidence presented by the śāstras and the mahājanas. In any case, one must have the mercy of the Lord in order to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead by devotional service.

The above verse is from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.14.29). The Brahma-saṁhitā states, vedeṣu durlabham adurlabham ātma-bhaktau (Bs. 5.33). Although the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, is the ultimate goal of knowledge (vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ), one who is not a pure devotee and who is not engaged in the service of the Lord cannot understand Him. Lord Brahmā therefore confirms this. Vedeṣu durlabham: “It is very difficult to understand the Supreme Lord simply through one’s studies.” Adurlabham ātma-bhaktau: “However, it is very easy for the devotees to capture the Lord.” The Lord is known as ajita (unconquerable). No one can conquer the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but the Lord consents to be conquered by His devotees. That is His nature. As stated in the Padma Purāṇa:

Being pleased by devotional activities, the Lord reveals Himself to His devotees. That is the way to understand Him.

The verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam quoted by Gopīnātha Ācārya was originally spoken by Lord Brahmā when he was defeated by Lord Kṛṣṇa. Lord Brahmā had stolen all the calves and cowherd boys in order to test Kṛṣṇa’s power. Lord Brahmā admitted that his own extraordinary powers within the universe were not in the least comparable to the unlimited powers of Lord Kṛṣṇa. If Lord Brahmā can make a mistake in understanding Kṛṣṇa, what to speak of ordinary persons, who either misunderstand Kṛṣṇa or falsely present a so-called incarnation of Kṛṣṇa for their own sense gratification.

This is a very important verse. Even big scholars cannot understand Kṛṣṇa, yet they dare comment on the Bhagavad-gītā. Reading the Bhagavad-gītā means understanding Kṛṣṇa, yet we actually see many scholars making blunders in trying to understand Kṛṣṇa. Gopīnātha Ācārya’s statement is confirmed in many places in the Vedic literature. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad (1.2.23) it is stated:

It is also stated in Kaṭha Upaniṣad (1.2.9):

The fact is that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Supersoul, cannot be attained simply by explanations, logic and erudite scholarship. One cannot understand Him simply by one’s brain substance. Even by studying all the Vedic literatures, one cannot understand the Supreme Lord. However, if one is slightly favored by the mercy of the Lord, if the Lord is pleased, one can understand Him. But who are the candidates eligible to receive the mercy of the Lord? Only the devotees. They alone can understand what is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Lord reveals Himself to the sincere devotee when He is pleased with his service: svayam eva sphuraty adaḥ. One should not try to understand the Lord simply from the statements of the Vedas, nor should one uselessly attempt to decry these statements through reasoning and logic.

Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya informed his brother-in-law, Gopīnātha Ācārya, “The Supreme Personality of Godhead may not have shown mercy to me, but what is the proof of His having shown it to you? Kindly let us know about this.” In reply to this, Gopīnātha Ācārya said that the summum bonum, the Absolute Truth, and His different potencies are identical. Therefore one can understand the substance of the Absolute Truth by the manifestation of His different potencies. The summum bonum includes all potencies in one unit. The Absolute Truth combined with different characteristics is the original substance (vastu): parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate.

Thus the Vedas state that the Absolute Truth has different potencies. When one understands the characteristics of the potencies of the Absolute Truth, one is aware of the Absolute Truth. On the material platform as well, one can understand the substance by the manifestation of its symptoms. For example, when there is heat, it is to be understood that there is fire. The heat of the fire is perceived directly. The fire may not be visible, but one can search out the fire by feeling heat. Similarly, if one can perceive the characteristics of the Absolute Truth, we can know that he has understood the substance of the Absolute Truth by the mercy of the Lord.

In the Bhagavad-gītā (7.25) it is said, nāhaṁ prakāśaḥ sarvasya: the Supreme Personality of Godhead reserves the right of not being exposed to everyone. Sevonmukhe hi jihvādau svayam eva sphuraty adaḥ: “The Lord reveals Himself to a devotee when He is completely satisfied by the devotee’s service.” Thus one cannot understand the Supreme Lord without His mercy. The Absolute Truth cannot be understood by speculation, and this is the conclusion of the Bhagavad-gītā.

Gopīnātha Ācārya is pointing out that Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya had already seen uncommon symptoms of ecstasy in the body of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

These uncommon symptoms of ecstatic love indicated the Supreme Person, but despite having seen all these symptoms, the Bhaṭṭācārya could not understand the Lord’s transcendental nature. He was considering the Lord’s pastimes to be mundane. This was certainly due to illusion.

When one’s heart is not cleansed, one cannot awaken the transcendental nature of devotional service. As Lord Kṛṣṇa confirms in the Bhagavad-gītā (7.28):

“Persons who have acted piously in previous lives and in this life and whose sinful actions are completely eradicated are freed from the dualities of delusion, and they engage themselves in My service with determination.”

When one is actually engaged in pure devotional service, it is understood that he has already attained freedom from all reactions to sinful activities. In other words, it is to be understood that devotees are already freed from sin. A sinful person, a miscreant (duṣkṛtī), cannot engage in devotional service. Nor can one engage in devotional service simply on the basis of scholarly speculation. One has to wait for the mercy of the Lord in order to render pure devotional service.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Viṣṇu, is known as Triyuga, which means that He is manifest in three yugas. However, this means that in the Age of Kali the Lord appears not directly but in disguise. This is confirmed in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (7.9.38):

“My Lord, You kill all the enemies of the world in Your multifarious incarnations in the families of men, animals, demigods, ṛṣis, aquatics and so on. Thus You illuminate the worlds with transcendental knowledge. In the Age of Kali, O Mahāpuruṣa, You sometimes appear in a covered incarnation. Therefore You are known as Triyuga [one who appears in only three yugas].”

Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī has also verified that Lord Viṣṇu appears in the Age of Kali but does not act as He does in other ages. Lord Viṣṇu incarnates for two purposes: paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām. That is, He comes to engage in pastimes with His devotees and to annihilate the demons. These purposes are visible in the Satya, Tretā and Dvāpara yugas, but in Kali-yuga the Lord appears disguised. He does not directly kill demons and give protection to the faithful. Because the Lord is not directly perceived in Kali-yuga but is directly known in the other three yugas, His name is Triyuga.

A līlā-avatāra is an incarnation of the Lord who performs a variety of activities without making any special endeavor. He always has one pastime after another, all full of transcendental pleasure, and these pastimes are fully controlled by the Supreme Person. The Supreme Person is totally independent of all others in these pastimes. While teaching Sanātana Gosvāmī (Cc. Madhya 20.296-298), Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu pointed out that one cannot count the number of līlā-avatāras:

“However,” the Lord told Sanātana, “I shall explain the chief līlā-avatāras.”

Thus the Lord’s incarnations were enumerated, including Matsya, the fish incarnation; Kūrma, the tortoise; Lord Rāmacandra; Nṛsiṁhadeva; Vāmanadeva; and Varāha, the boar incarnation. Thus there are innumerable līlā-avatāras, and all of these exhibit wonderful pastimes. Lord Varāha, the boar incarnation, lifted the entire planet earth from the depths of the Garbhodaka Ocean. The tortoise incarnation, Lord Kūrma, became a pivot for the emulsification of the whole sea, and Lord Nṛsiṁhadeva appeared as half-man, half-lion. These are some of the wonderful and uncommon features of līlā-avatāras.

In his book Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī has enumerated the following twenty-five līlā-avatāras: Catuḥ-sana, Nārada, Varāha, Matsya, Yajña, Nara-Nārāyaṇa, Kapila, Dattātreya, Hayaśīrṣa (Hayagrīva), Haṁsa, Pṛśnigarbha, Ṛṣabha, Pṛthu, Nṛsiṁha, Kūrma, Dhanvantari, Mohinī, Vāmana, Paraśurāma, Rāghavendra, Vyāsa, Balarāma, Kṛṣṇa, Buddha and Kalki.

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is not mentioned as a līlā-avatāra because He is an incarnation in disguise (channa-avatāra). In this Age of Kali there are no līlā-avatāras, but there is an incarnation of the Lord manifested in the body of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. This has been explained in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

This verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.8.13) was spoken by Garga Muni when he was performing the rituals at Lord Kṛṣṇa’s name-giving ceremony. He states that the incarnations of the Lord in other ages had been white, red and yellow. This yellow color refers to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, whose bodily complexion was yellowish. This confirms that in past Kali-yugas the Lord also had incarnated in a body that was yellow in hue. It is understood that the Lord incarnates in different colors for the different yugas (Satya, Tretā, Dvāpara and Kali). Accepting the color yellow (pīta), as well as other characteristics, the Lord incarnated as Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. This is the verdict of all Vedic authorities.

This is a quotation from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.5.31).

This verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.5.32) is explained by Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī in his Krama-sandarbha, as quoted by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura in regard to the explanation of Ādi-līlā, third chapter, verse 52.

Gopīnātha Ācārya quoted this verse from the Mahābhārata’s Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma-stotra.

This is a quotation from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (6.4.31).

In this verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.22.4), the Supreme Personality of Godhead explains that His illusory energy can perform the impossible; such is the power of the illusory energy. In many cases philosophical speculators have covered the real truth and have boldly set forth false theories. In ancient times philosophers like Kapila, Gautama, Jaimini, Kaṇāda and similar brāhmaṇas propounded useless philosophical theories, and in modern days so-called scientists are setting forth many false theories about the creation, backed up by seemingly logical arguments. This is all due to the influence of the Supreme Lord’s illusory energy. The illusory energy, therefore, sometimes appears correct because it is emanating from the Supreme Correct. To avoid the very bewildering illusory influence, one must accept the words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead as they are. Only then can one escape the influence of the illusory energy.

The Vedānta- or Brahma-sūtra, written by Śrīla Vyāsadeva, is a book studied by all advanced spiritual students, especially by the sannyāsīs of all religious communities (sampradāyas). The sannyāsīs must read the Vedānta-sūtra to establish their final conclusions concerning Vedic knowledge. Here, of course, the Vedānta mentioned is the commentary of Śaṅkarācārya, known as Śārīraka-bhāṣya. Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya intended to convert Caitanya Mahāprabhu, who was a Vaiṣṇava sannyāsī, into a Māyāvādī sannyāsī. He therefore made this arrangement to instruct Him in the Vedānta-sūtra according to the Śārīraka commentary of Śaṅkarācārya. All the sannyāsīs of the Śaṅkara-sampradāya enjoy seriously studying the Vedānta-sūtra with the Śārīraka-bhāṣya commentary. It is said, vedānta-vākyeṣu sadā ramantaḥ: “One should always enjoy the studies of the Vedānta-sūtra.”

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu presented Himself as if He were a sannyāsī in name only or, in other words, a number-one fool. Māyāvādī sannyāsīs in India are very much accustomed to declaring themselves jagad-gurus, teachers of the world, although they have no information of the outside world and are limited in their experience to a small town or village, or perhaps to the country of India. Nor do such sannyāsīs have sufficient education. Unfortunately, at the present moment there are many foolish sannyāsīs, both in India and elsewhere, who simply read and study Vedic literature without understanding the purports. When Caitanya Mahāprabhu was having His discussion with the Chand Kazi, the Muslim magistrate of Navadvīpa, He recited a verse from the Vedic literature to the effect that the order of sannyāsa is prohibited in this Age of Kali. Only those who are very serious and who follow the regulative principles and study Vedic literature should accept sannyāsa. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu approved of a sannyāsī’s reading the Vedānta-sūtra, or Brahma-sūtra, but He did not approve the Śārīraka commentary of Śaṅkarācārya. Indeed, He said elsewhere, māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa: “If one hears the Śārīraka-bhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya, he is doomed.” Thus a sannyāsī, a transcendentalist, must read the Vedānta-sūtra regularly, but he should not read the Śārīraka-bhāṣya. This is the conclusion of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. The real commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Artho ’yaṁ brahma-sūtrānām: Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the original commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, written by the author himself, Śrīla Vyāsadeva.

The factual meaning of the aphorisms of the Vedānta-sūtra is as clear as sunshine. The Māyāvādī philosophers simply try to cover the sunshine with the clouds of interpretations imagined by Śaṅkarācārya and his followers.

Please refer to Ādi-līlā, seventh chapter, verses 106-146, for an explanation of this verse.

This is typical of all Māyāvādīs 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 Māyāvādī atheists also interpret the Bhagavad-gītā. In every verse of Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā it is clearly stated that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In every verse Vyāsadeva says, śrī-bhagavān uvāca, “the Supreme Personality of Godhead said,” or “the Blessed Lord said.” It is clearly stated that the Blessed Lord is the Supreme Person, but Māyāvādī 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 Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu remarked that no one should hear the Māyāvādī commentaries or purports to any Vedic literature.

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī has explained the word upaniṣad in his Anubhāṣya. Please refer to Ādi-līlā, second chapter, fifth verse, and Ādi-līlā, seventh chapter, verses 106 and 108, for his explanation.

Works that should be consulted are Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī’s Tattva-sandarbha (10-11), Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s commentary on that, and the following verses of the Brahma-sūtra: śāstra-yonitvāt (Vs. 1.1.3), tarkāpratiṣṭhānāt (Vs. 2.1.11) and śrutes tu śabda-mūlatvāt (Vs. 2.1.27), as commented upon by Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Śrī Madhvācārya, Śrī Nimbārkācārya and Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. In his book Sarva-saṁvādinī, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī 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 committing 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-gītā, at the very beginning it is stated:

The statements of the Bhagavad-gītā are themselves proof that there is a place of religious pilgrimage named Kurukṣetra where the Pāṇḍavas and Kurus met to fight. After meeting there, what did they do? This was Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s inquiry to Sañjaya. Although these statements are very clear, atheists try to interpret different meanings of the words dharma-kṣetra and kuru-kṣetra. Therefore Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has warned us not to depend on any kind of interpretation. It is better to take the verses as they are, without interpretation.

According to Vedic principles, bones and dung are generally considered very impure. If one touches a bone or stool, he must take a bath immediately. That is the Vedic injunction. Yet the Vedas also enjoin that a conchshell, although the bone of an animal, and cow dung, although the stool of an animal, are very much sanctified. Even though such statements appear contradictory, on the basis of the Vedic version we still accept the fact that conchshells and cow dung are pure and sanctified.

Out of four main types of evidence — direct perception, hypothesis, historical reference and the Vedas — Vedic evidence is accepted as the foremost. If we want to interpret the Vedic version, we must imagine an interpretation according to what we want to do. First of all, we set forth such an interpretation as a suggestion or hypothesis. As such, it is not actually true, and the self-evident proof is lost.

Śrīla Madhvācārya, commenting on the aphorism dṛśyate tu (Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.6), quotes the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa as follows:

The Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahābhārata, Pañcarātra and original Rāmāyaṇa are all considered Vedic literature. The Purāṇas that are especially meant for Vaiṣṇavas (such as the Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa, Nāradīya Purāṇa, Viṣṇu Purāṇa and Bhāgavata Purāṇa) are also Vedic literature. Therefore, whatever is stated in such Purāṇas or in the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa is self-evident. There is no need for interpretation. The Bhagavad-gītā is also within the Mahābhārata; therefore all the statements of the Bhagavad-gītā are self-evident. There is no need for interpretation, and if we do interpret, the entire authority of the Vedic literature is lost.

The greatest of everything is Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Lord Kṛṣṇa states in the Bhagavad-gītā (15.15), vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ: “By all the Vedas, I am to be known.” In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.2.11) it is said that the Absolute Truth is understood in three phases — namely, Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead (brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate). Thus the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the last word in understanding the Absolute Truth, Brahman.

Brahman means bṛhattva, the greatest of all. The greatest of all is Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He possesses all potencies and opulence in full; therefore the Absolute Truth, the greatest of all, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Whether one says “Brahman” or “the Supreme Personality of Godhead,” the fact is the same, for they are identical. In the Bhagavad-gītā, Arjuna accepted Kṛṣṇa as paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma. Although the living entities or material nature are sometimes described as Brahman, Parabrahman — the Supreme, the greatest of all Brahmans — is still Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is full with all opulences, and as such He possesses all riches, all strength, all reputation, all knowledge, all beauty and all renunciation. He is eternally a person and eternally supreme. If one tries to explain the Supreme impersonally, one distorts the real meaning of Brahman.

There are many impersonal statements about the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As stated in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (3.19):

Although the Supreme Lord is described as having no hands and legs, He nonetheless accepts all sacrificial offerings. He has no eyes, yet He sees everything. He has no ears, yet He hears everything. When it is stated that the Supreme Lord has no hands and legs, one should not think that He is impersonal. Rather, He has no mundane hands or legs like ours. “He has no eyes, yet He sees.” This means that He does not have mundane, limited eyes like ours. Rather, He has such eyes that He can see past, present and future, everywhere, in every corner of the universe and in every corner of the heart of every living entity. Thus the impersonal descriptions in the Vedas intend to deny mundane characteristics in the Supreme Lord. They do not intend to establish the Supreme Lord as impersonal.

This is a quotation from Śrī Caitanya-candrodaya-nāṭaka (6.67), by Kavi-karṇapūra.

In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (3.1) it is said, yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante: “The entire material cosmic manifestation is born of the Supreme Brahman.” Also, the Brahma-sūtra begins with the verse janmādy asya yataḥ: “The Absolute Truth is that from whom everything emanates.” (Bs. 1.1.2) That Absolute Truth is Kṛṣṇa. In the Bhagavad-gītā (10.8), Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate: “I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me.” Therefore Kṛṣṇa is the original Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Again, Kṛṣṇa states in the Bhagavad-gītā (9.4), mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagad avyakta-mūrtinā: “By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded.” And as confirmed in the Brahma-saṁhitā (5.37), goloka eva nivasaty akhilātma-bhūtaḥ: “Although the Lord always stays in His abode, Goloka Vṛndāvana, He is still all-pervading.” His all-pervasive feature is understood to be impersonal because one does not find the form of the Lord in that all-pervasiveness. Actually, everything is resting on the rays of His bodily effulgence. The Brahma-saṁhitā (5.40) also states:

Due to the rays of the Lord’s bodily effulgence, millions of universes are created, just as planets are created from the sun.

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura states in his Amṛta-pravāha-bhāṣya that according to the injunction of the Upaniṣads (“the Supreme Absolute Truth is He from whom everything emanates”), it is understood that the whole cosmic manifestation emanated from Brahman, the Supreme Absolute Truth. The creation subsists by the energy of the Supreme Brahman and, after annihilation, merges into the Supreme Brahman. From this we can understand that the Absolute Truth can be categorized in three cases — ablative, instrumental and locative. According to these three cases, the Absolute Truth is positively personified. In this connection, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī quotes the Aitareya Upaniṣad (1.1.1): ātmā vā idam eka evāgra āsīn nānyat kiñcana miṣat sa īkṣata lokān nu sṛjā iti. Similarly, in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (4.9) it is stated:

And in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (3.1): yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante, yena jātāni jīvanti, yat prayanty abhisaṁviśanti, tad vijijñāsasva tad brahma. This was the answer given by father Varuṇa when questioned by his son Vāruṇi Bhṛgu about the Absolute Truth. In this mantra, the word yataḥ, the Absolute Truth from which the cosmic manifestation has emanated, is in the ablative case; that Brahman by which this universal creation is maintained is in the instrumental case (yena); and that Brahman into which the whole cosmic manifestation merges is in the locative case (yat or yasmin). It is stated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.5.20):

“The entire universal creation is contained in the gigantic form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Everything emanates from Him, everything rests in His energy, and after annihilation everything merges into His person.”

In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.2.3), it is said, tad aikṣata bahu syāṁ prajāyeya. This statement confirms the fact that when the Supreme Personality of Godhead wishes to become many, the cosmic manifestation arises simply by His glancing over material energy. It may be noted that the Supreme Lord glanced over the material nature before the creation of this cosmic manifestation. Before the creation there were no material minds or material eyes; therefore the mind by which the Supreme Personality of Godhead desired to create is transcendental, and the eyes with which He glanced over material nature are also transcendental. Thus the Lord’s mind, eyes and other senses are all transcendental.

This is also confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā (15.15), where the Lord says, vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ. The ultimate object in all Vedic literature is Kṛṣṇa. Everyone is searching for Him. This is also confirmed elsewhere in the Bhagavad-gītā (7.19):

“After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare.”

When one has actually become wise through the study of Vedic literature, he surrenders unto Vāsudeva, Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa. This is also confirmed in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.2.7-8):

Understanding Vāsudeva is real knowledge. By engaging in the devotional service of Vāsudeva, Kṛṣṇa, one acquires perfect knowledge and Vedic understanding. Thus one becomes detached from the material world. This is the perfection of human life. Although one may perfectly follow religious rituals and ceremonies, he is simply wasting his time (śrama eva hi kevalam) if he does not attain this perfection.

Before the creation of the cosmic manifestation, the Supreme Personality of Godhead possessed His totally transcendental mind and eyes. That Supreme Personality of Godhead is Kṛṣṇa. A person may think that there is no direct statement about Kṛṣṇa in the Upaniṣads, but the fact is that the Vedic mantras cannot be understood by people with mundane senses. As stated in the Padma Purāṇa, ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ: a person with mundane senses cannot fully understand the name, qualities, form and pastimes of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. The Purāṇas are therefore meant to explain and supplement Vedic knowledge. The great sages present the Purāṇas in order to make the Vedic mantras understandable for common men (strī-śūdra-dvija-bandhūnām). Considering that women, śūdras and dvija- bandhus (unworthy sons of the twice-born) cannot understand the Vedic hymns directly, Śrīla Vyāsadeva compiled the Mahābhārata. Actually, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is vedeṣu durlabham (untraceable in the Vedas), but when the Vedas are properly understood or when Vedic knowledge is received from devotees, one can understand that all Vedic knowledge leads to Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

The Brahma-sūtra (1.1.3) confirms this fact also: śāstra-yonitvāt. commenting upon this Brahma-sūtra aphorism, Śrī Madhvācārya says, “The Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahābhārata, Pañcarātra and the original Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa are all Vedic literatures. Any literature following the conclusive statements of these Vedic literatures is also to be considered Vedic literature. That literature which does not conform to Vedic literature is simply misleading.”

Therefore when reading Vedic literature, we must take the path traversed by great ācāryas: mahā-jano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. Unless one follows the path traversed by great ācāryas, he cannot understand the real purport of the Vedas.

This quotation from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.14.32) is spoken by Lord Brahmā.

As mentioned above, the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (3.19) states:

This Vedic mantra clearly states, puruṣaṁ mahāntam. The word puruṣa means “person.” In the Bhagavad-gītā (10.12) Arjuna confirms that this person is Kṛṣṇa when he addresses Kṛṣṇa as puruṣaṁ śāśvatam: “You are the original person.” Thus the puruṣaṁ mahāntam mentioned in the verse from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad is Śrī Kṛṣṇa. His hands and legs are not mundane but are completely transcendental. However, when He comes, fools take Him to be an ordinary person (avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam). One who has no Vedic knowledge, who has not studied the Vedas from a bona fide spiritual master, does not know Kṛṣṇa. Therefore he is a mūḍha. Such fools take Kṛṣṇa to be an ordinary person (paraṁ bhāvam ajānantaḥ). They do not actually know what Kṛṣṇa is. Manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu kaścid yatati siddhaye. It is not possible to understand Kṛṣṇa simply by studying the Vedas perfectly. One must have the mercy of a devotee (yat-pādam). Unless one is favored by a devotee, he cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Arjuna also confirms this in the Bhagavad-gītā (10.14): “My Lord, it is very difficult to understand Your personality.” The less intelligent class of men cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead without being favored by His devotee. Therefore the Bhagavad-gītā (4.34) contains another injunction:

One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master and surrender to him. Only then can one understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead as a person.

If the Supreme Personality of Godhead is formless, how can He be said to walk very fast and accept everything offered to Him? Rejecting the direct meaning of the Vedic mantras, the Māyāvādī philosophers interpret them and try to establish the Absolute Truth as formless. Actually, the Supreme Lord has an eternal personal form full of all opulence. The Māyāvādī philosophers try to interpret the Absolute Truth as being without potency. However, in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (6.8) it is clearly said, parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate: “The Absolute Truth has multipotencies.”

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu now quotes four verses from the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (6.7.61-63 and 1.12.69) to explain the different potencies of the Lord.

In the Bhagavad-gītā, in Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s discourse on the kṣetra and the kṣetra-jña, it is clearly stated that the kṣetra-jña is the living entity, who knows his field of activities. The living entities in the material world are forgetful of their eternal relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This forgetfulness is called avidyā, or nescience. The avidyā-śakti, the avidyā potency of the material world, provokes fruitive activity. Although this avidyā-śakti (material energy, or nescience) is also an energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, it is especially intended to keep the living entities in a state of forgetfulness. This is due to their rebellious attitude toward the Lord. Thus although the living entities are constitutionally spiritual, they come under the influence of the potency of nescience. How this happens is described in the following verse.