Rāmacandra Purī Criticizes the Lord

Because Rāmacandra Purī was a disciple of Mādhavendra Purī, both Paramānanda Purī and Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu offered him respectful obeisances. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that although Rāmacandra Purī was naturally very envious and although he was against the principles of Vaiṣṇavism — or, in other words, against the principles of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His devotees — common people nevertheless addressed him as Gosvāmī or Gosāñi because he was superficially in the renounced order and dressed like a sannyāsī. In the modern age the title gosvāmī is used by a caste of gṛhasthas, but formerly it was not. Rūpa Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī, for example, were called gosvāmī because they were in the renounced order. Similarly, because Paramānanda Purī was a sannyāsī, he was called Purī Gosvāmī. By careful scrutiny, therefore, one will find that gosvāmī is not the title for a certain caste; rather, it is properly the title for a person in the renounced order.

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu offered obeisances to Rāmacandra Purī in consideration of his being a disciple of Śrīla Mādhavendra Purī, the spiritual master of His own spiritual master, Īśvara Purī. When a Vaiṣṇava sannyāsī meets another Vaiṣṇava sannyāsī, they both remember Kṛṣṇa. Even Māyāvādī sannyāsīs generally remember Nārāyaṇa, who is also Kṛṣṇa, by saying oṁ namo bhagavate nārāyaṇāya or namo nārāyaṇāya. Thus it is the duty of a sannyāsī to remember Kṛṣṇa. According to smṛti-śāstra, a sannyāsī does not offer obeisances or blessings to anyone. It is said, sannyāsī nirāśīr nirnamaskriyaḥ: a sannyāsī should not offer anyone blessings or obeisances.

As stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā: a Brahman realized person is always happy. Na śocati na kāṅkṣati: he neither laments nor aspires for anything. Not knowing why Mādhavendra Purī was crying, Rāmacandra Purī tried to become his advisor. Thus he committed a great offense, for a disciple should never try to instruct his spiritual master.

Rāmacandra Purī could not understand that his spiritual master, Mādhavendra Purī, was feeling transcendental separation. His lamentation was not material. Rather, it proceeded from the highest stage of ecstatic love of Kṛṣṇa. When he was crying in separation, “I could not achieve Kṛṣṇa! I could not reach Mathurā!” this was not ordinary material lamentation. Rāmacandra Purī was not sufficiently expert to understand the feelings of Mādhavendra Purī, but nevertheless he thought himself very advanced. Therefore, regarding Mādhavendra Purī’s expressions as ordinary material lamentation, he advised him to remember Brahman because he was latently an impersonalist. Mādhavendra Purī understood Rāmacandra Purī’s position as a great fool and therefore immediately rebuked him. Such a reprimand from the spiritual master is certainly for the betterment of the disciple.

The word vāsanā (“material desires”) refers to dry speculative knowledge. Such speculative knowledge is only material. As confirmed in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.14.4), a person without devotional service who simply wants to know things (kevala-bodha-labdhaye) gains only dry speculative knowledge but no spiritual profit. This is confirmed in the Bhakti-sandarbha (111), wherein it is said:

“Even though one is liberated in this life, if one offends the Supreme Personality of Godhead he falls down in the midst of material desires, of which dry speculation about spiritual realization is one.”

In his Laghu-toṣaṇī commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.2.32), Jīva Gosvāmī says:

“Even if one is liberated in this life, he becomes addicted to material desires because of offenses to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”

A similar quotation from one of the Purāṇas also appears in the Viṣṇu-bhakti-candrodaya:

“Even liberated souls sometimes fall down to material desires, but those who fully engage in devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead are not affected by such desires.”

These are references from authoritative revealed scriptures. If one becomes an offender to his spiritual master or the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he falls down to the material platform to merely speculate.

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura has explained in his Anubhāṣya that the word nirbandha indicates that Rāmacandra Purī had a steady desire to criticize others. Impersonalist Māyāvādīs, who have no relationship with Kṛṣṇa, who cannot take to devotional service, and who simply engage in material arguments to understand Brahman, regard devotional service to Kṛṣṇa as karma-kāṇḍa, or fruitive activities. According to them, devotional service to Kṛṣṇa is but another means for attaining dharma, artha, kāma and mokṣa. Therefore they criticize the devotees for engaging in material activities. They think that devotional service is māyā and that Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu is also māyā. Therefore they are called Māyāvādīs. Such a mentality awakens in a person who is an offender to Kṛṣṇa and His devotees.

Rāmacandra Purī could find no faults in the character of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, for He is situated in a transcendental position as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Ants are generally found everywhere, but when Rāmacandra Purī saw ants crawling in the abode of the Lord, he took it for granted that they must have been there because Caitanya Mahāprabhu had been eating sweetmeats. He thus discovered imaginary faults in the Lord and then left.

This is a quotation from the Bhagavad-gītā (6.16-17).

This verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.28.1) was spoken by Lord Kṛṣṇa to Uddhava.

The above-mentioned verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam gives two injunctions. The first, called pūrva-vidhi, is that one should not praise, and the second, para-vidhi, is that one should not criticize. As will be apparent from the following verse, the injunction against praise is less important than the injunction against blasphemy. One should carefully observe the para-vidhi, although one may neglect the pūrva-vidhi. Thus the actual injunction is that one may praise but should not criticize. This is called śleṣokti, or a statement having two meanings. Rāmacandra Purī, however, acted in just the opposite way, for he neglected the para-vidhi but strictly observed the pūrva-vidhi. Since he avoided following the principle of not criticizing, Rāmacandra Purī broke both the rules.

This is a verse from the nyāya literatures.