Srila Gurudeva was adept at refuting all arguments contrary to the path of devotion and at establishing the conclusions of pure devotion. Impressed by the persuasive intellect and humble, respectful demeanour of His disciple, Srila Prabhupada sent Srila Gurudeva to meet Pandita Paṣcanana Tarkaratna of Naihaṭi, Bhaṭṭapalli on 4 October 1936. This Pandita had strongly criticised Srila Prabhupada’s views on daiva-varnasrama, which were based on the sacred scriptures. Srila Prabhupada feared that such criticism from a renowned person like Pandita Paṣcanana Tarkaratna would harm sincere seekers of the truth due to his powerful and influential stature among brahmana scholars. The Pandita even refused to debate with a non-brahmana. In order to approach the Pandita, Srila Prabhupada referred to Srila Gurudeva’s brahmana lineage prior to entering the order and also went so far as to hide the signs of a Vaiṣnava altogether. Without hesitation, Srila Gurudeva accepted his Guru Maharaja’s words as his command.

Srila Gurudeva reached the residence of Sri Tarkaratna in Kaṭhalpada at 8:30 a.m. accompanied by Sri Prafulla Kumara Caṭṭopadhyaya. Srila Gurudeva was first introduced to the worthy son of the scholar, Sri Jiva Nyayatirtha, M. A. Afterwards, Srila Gurudeva sat down for a two-hour debate with Sri Tarkaratna. He would later recount his experience to his listeners: “There is no doubt that Sri Paṣcanana Tarkaratna is a man of great scholarship. However, even though he knows numerous verses by heart, he cannot provide convincing solutions to many philosophical problems. Consistently following the path of dry argument, he reaches a dead-end and is unable to give satisfactory replies to important questions.” Analysing the reason why this should be the case with such a great scholar, Srila Gurudeva said, “Pandita Maharaja has not had the association of a pure devotee, nor has he met a real sadhu. Without the blessings of a saintly person, it is not possible to arrive at and realise the ultimate conclusion.”

The main contents of the debate have been published in the 13th & 15th volumes of the 15th year of a Bengali weekly journal published by Srila Prabhupada under the auspices of Sri Gaudiya Maṭha. The title of the article is Karma-jada-smarta-vada O Suddha-bhagavata-siddhanta (“Mundane Ritualistic Works vs. Pure Devotion”). It was published in the form of a dialogue. In this article, Srila Gurudeva is referred to as “Mahopadesaka.”

First, Mahopadesaka Sriyukta Heramba Kumara Bandyopadhyaya met the worthy son of Tarkaratna, Sriyukta Jiva Nyayatirtha, M.A. When Prafulla Babu introduced Srila Gurudeva as a preacher of Sri Gaudiya Maṭha, Nyayatirtha Maharaja warmly welcomed him indicating that he was well aware of the activities of the Gaudiya Maṭha in India and abroad. Nyayatirtha then quoted the following Sanskrit verse:

yatha kaṣcanatam yati
kamsyam rasa-vidhanatah
tatha dikṣa-vidhanena
dvijatvam jayate nṛnam
(Hari-bhakti-vilasa 2.12)

[As bell metal can be turned into gold when treated with mercury, a disciple initiated by a bona fide guru immediately attains the position of a brahmana.]

He asked, “Are these not the words of your Gaudiya Maṭha?”

Mahopadesaka replied, “These are the words of the Satvata-paṣcaratra Tattvasagara. These have been compiled by Srila Sanatana Gosvami Prabhu according to the instructions of Sri Caitanyadeva Himself.”

Nyayatirtha: Have you not used the words daikṣa brahmana?

Mahopadesaka: These are the words of Jagadguru Sridhara Svamipada and Bhargaviya Manu:

trivṛt saukram savitram daikṣyam iti trigunitam janma
(Bhavartha-dipika 10.23.29)

[There are three kinds of birth—saukra, savitra, and daikṣa—according to their different qualities.]

matur agre ’dhi-jananam
dvitiyam mauṣjibandhane
tṛtiyam yajṣa-dikṣayam
dvijasya sruti-codanat
(Manu-smṛti 2.169)

[The sruti states that a brahmana gets his first birth from his mother (saukra-janma or seminal birth). He gets his second birth by receiving the sacred thread (savitra-janma), and finally he gets his third birth by yajṣa-dikṣa (ceremonial initiation at a fire sacrifice).]

They debated in this manner for about fifteen minutes, after which Srila Gurudeva expressed his desire to meet Tarkaratna Maharaja. In response, he was taken up to the first floor of the residence. Pandita Tarkaratna asked Srila Gurudeva, “What is your name and where do you come from?”

Srila Gurudeva replied, “My name is Heramba Kumara Bandyopadhyaya, and my previous residence was Vikrampur, Bharakara. At present, I am a humble servant of Sri Gaudiya Maṭha. I have come to Naihaṭi for the purpose of preaching with other tridandis.”

Tarkaratna, repeating the verse which his son had spoken earlier, said, “Yatha kaṣcanatam yati. Are these not the words of your Gaudiya Maṭha?”

Mahopadesaka again explained, “These are from Satvata-smṛti and Paṣcaratra. Sri Caitanyadeva and the six Gosvamis have spread this srauta message (supported by the Vedic scriptures). Sri Gaudiya Maṭha is totally committed to Sri Caitanyadeva’s life, teachings and, in particular, His interpretations of Srimad-Bhagavatam.”

Tarkaratna: In what way does the Gaudiya Maṭha follow Sri Caitanya? I feel that they do not.

Mahopadesaka: Do you know about Sri Caitanya? If so, then what is your opinion of Him?

Tarkaratna: Sri Caitanyadeva was a great devotee and scholar.

Mahopadesaka: I’m sure that you must have perused Caitanya-caritamṛta and other chronicles.

Tarkaratna: Yes, I have read Caitanya-caritamṛta. It is in the Bengali payara metre. It does not require much scholarship to understand Sri Caitanyadeva. Anybody can do so.

Mahopadesaka: Do you not admit that different levels of readers may have different interpretations of the same subject?

Tarkaratna: Caitanya-caritamṛta is simple and easy to follow. It can be understood by anyone. It is not required that one be a man of learning to peruse it.

Mahopadesaka: (pointing to some students present there) Does each of your students understand your lessons in an identical manner? In the Chandogya Upaniṣad (chapter 8, sections 7-12) we find that Virocana and Indra had both visited Lord Brahma to learn the Vedas. From the same mantra given to both of them, they arrived at different conclusions. Due to his mistaken interpretation, Virocana spread the philosophy of greed and materialism, while Indra, understanding the core of Brahma’s teaching, spread the divine message. The scriptures say that the neem and mango trees grow together by the banks of the Ganges River. Both are nourished by the same river, but one bears sweet fruit while the fruit of the other is bitter. In the same way, the one Caitanya-caritamṛta produces poison in one person and nectar in another.

Tarkaratna: We have learned from Caitanya-caritamṛta that Caitanyadeva never ate food cooked by a non-brahmana. Do you admit this to be true?

Mahopadesaka: Caitanya-caritamṛta says that Sri Caitanyadeva only accepted the invitations of bhojyanna brahmanas (Vaiṣnava brahmanas). He never did otherwise. Had He gone to the houses of brahmanas in general (i.e., including non-Vaiṣnava brahmanas), then the words bhojyanna and abhojyanna would not have been used. In fact, Caitanyadeva accepted food in the house of a Sanodiya brahmana, from whom high class brahmana do not even accept water, because the brahmana was a follower of Sri Madhavendra Puri. This was in keeping with the ideals of Puripada. In Caitanya-caritamṛta (Antya-lila 8.88-89), it is stated:

abhojyanna vipra yadi karena nimantrana
prasada-mūlya la-ite lage kaudi dui-pana
bhojyanna vipra yadi nimantrana kare
kichu ‘prasada’ ane, kichu paka kare ghare

[When a brahmana at whose home an invitation could not be accepted invited the Lord, he would pay two panas of conchshells (the currency of that time) to purchase the prasadam (Jagannatha-prasada). When a brahmana at whose home an invitation could be accepted invited Him, the brahmana would purchase part of the prasadam and cook the rest at home.]

Tarkaratna: However, when Sri Caitanyadeva resided in the house of Bhakta Candrasekhara at Kasi, He took him to be a sūdra and went to eat at the house of Tapana Misra, who was a brahmana.

Mahopadesaka: Take note that Sri Caitanyadeva never accepted the invitations of mayavadi brahmana sannyasis, even though those sannyasis were brahmanas, tyagis (renunciates), tapasvis (performers of austerities) and of virtuous character:

tapana-misrera ghare bhikṣa-nirvahana
sannyasira saṅge nahi mane nimantrana
(Caitanya-caritamṛta, Ādi-lila 7.46)

[Sriman Mahaprabhu used to take His meals at the house of Tapana Misra. He would not accept invitations to dine with any of the other sannyasis.]

Sriman Mahaprabhu did not eat at the house of Candrasekhara Ācarya, but instead ate at the house of Tapana Misra because His main aim in coming to Kasi was to save the mayavadis, not because of any caste differences. For this purpose, He even donned the garb of the mayavadi sannyasis. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu acted just like a detective in disguise in order to defeat the mayavadi sannyasis and their philosophy of mayavada and karma-jada-smarta-dharma. A detective sometimes dresses like a criminal and mingles with them in order to catch them. Thus, for practical purposes, Sri Caitanyadeva adopted this external appearance. Everyone knows that the makeup and clothing of a detective are just an act.

Tarkaratna: Apart from Kasi, Mahaprabhu could have eaten with or partaken of food cooked by His followers of lower caste. Why did He not do so?

Mahopadesaka: Following the instructions of Sriman Mahaprabhu, Sri Advaita sat with and shared a meal with Ṭhakura Haridasa, who was a yavana (Muslim) by birth. This took place at Sri Advaita’s residence:

...prabhu balena vacana…
mukunda-haridasa laiya karaha bhojana
tabe ta’ acarya saṅge laṣa dui jane
karila icchaya bhojana, ye achila mane
(Caitanya-caritamṛta, Madhya-lila 3.105-107)

[Sriman Mahaprabhu said to Advaita Ācarya, “Take Mukunda and Haridasa with You and accept Your meal.” Thereupon, Advaita Ācarya went with the two of them and they all honoured the prasadam of Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Nityananda Prabhu according to their hearts’ desire.]

The Supreme Lord, Who is independent of all rules or mundane considerations, would graciously accept alms only from those persons who by His mercy only, desired to give Him alms. The unique quality of bhakti is that there is no effort on the part of the pure devotee to enjoy Guru-Vaiṣnava-Bhagavan for the satisfaction of the material, sensual ego (i.e., there is no desire for any material benefit from Guru-Vaiṣnava-Bhagavan). In this, there is no place for the worldly caste of the karma-marga or other related considerations. When Bhagavan desires to accept some service, His devotees carry out that service in like manner for the satisfaction of their Object of Service.

Ācaryavarya Srila Jiva Gosvami, who was always blessed by the thoughts and teachings of Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, has quoted the following verses of the Garuda Purana in his Bhakti-sandarbha (177):

brahmananam sahasrebhyah
satra-yaji visiṣyate
satra-yaji-sahasrebhyah
sarva-vedanta-paragah
sarva-vedanta-vit-koṭya
viṣnu-bhakto visiṣyate
vaiṣnavanam sahasrebhya
ekanty eko visiṣyate

[One yajṣika (performer of Vedic sacrifices) is greater than a thousand brahmanas. One person versed in all the sastras is greater than a thousand yajṣikas. One Vaiṣnava is greater than a million Vedic scholars, and one unalloyed Vaiṣnava is greater than a thousand other Vaiṣnavas.]

Kalidasa, although born in a high, upper caste family, picked up and ate the remnants of food left in the garbage by Jhadu Ṭhakura, who belonged to a low caste bhuiṅmali (gardener) family. Sri Caitanyadeva could not have upheld these examples if He had looked upon Haridasa Ṭhakura and Jhadu Ṭhakura as yavana and bhuiṅmali respectively.

Tarkaratna: Yes, bhakti is the greatest, but the scriptures do not state that bhakti does away with the concept of untouchability.

Mahopadesaka: To say that a devotee can be untouchable is like saying “a clay gold pot,” (i.e., a pot made of gold certainly cannot be made of clay; the pot can be made of either gold or clay, but not both. In this way, a devotee is worshipable by all. Therefore, it is meaningless to say that a devotee can be untouchable, just as it is meaningless to say, “a clay gold pot.”) If Sri Caitanyadeva had regarded Haridasa Ṭhakura to be an untouchable, could He have lifted his body after death and danced with it? To Sri Caitanyadeva, the body of a devotee was holy and pure. By mundane calculation, the body should have been doubly impure. Not only was the man who had been in this body an outcaste (outside the four varnas), but the body itself was now dead! And yet Mahaprabhu said that all the waters, winds and all things as far as the ocean had become great tirthas (holy places of pilgrimage) by the touch of Srila Haridasa Ṭhakura. Had Sri Mahaprabhu thought differently, could the other devotees have drunk the water that had washed the lowest part of Haridasa’s body, his feet? However, that is exactly what the devotees did in the presence of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

The example set by Sri Caitanya in this regard is not unique. Previously, the Vaiṣnava acaryas of yore had exhibited similar behaviour. Sri Ramanuja was born a brahmana of the highest order. His guru, Sri Mahapūrna, had performed the last rites of a devotee born in a low caste. The smarta-brahmanas immediately reacted to this with strong criticism and Sri Mahapūrna was even ostracised by his relatives and family. Upon hearing this, Sri Ramanuja rushed to his guru. Sri Mahapūrna told Ramanuja that he had acted according to the dictates of the scriptures, as it was their duty to follow in the footsteps of the mahajanas (great devotees). Although Jaṭayu was a bird, since he was a great devotee, his last rites were performed by Bhagavan Sri Ramacandra Himself. King Yudhiṣṭhira, born in a kṣatriya family, used to worship Vidura, whose mother belonged to a sūdra caste. Thus, following the example of these holy personalities, Sri Mahapūrna achieved great satisfaction by serving one of his devotees in this fashion. Actually, his relatives and acquaintances had done him a great favour by ostracising him. He had been trying to escape from their bad association for a long time. By the grace of God, it had now happened inadvertently by their own efforts!

In the book Prapannamṛta, we hear the story of Tiruppana, who was born a low caste candala in South India. Once, he lost consciousness while chanting the Holy Names of Hari by the bank of the river Kaveri. At that time, a brahmana priest named Muni was returning to the Sri Raṅganatha temple with water for the Diety’s abhiṣeka (bath). Seeing the candala Tiruppana lying on the bank of the river, he repeatedly called out to him in a rude manner. Disdaining to touch the lowborn person with his hands, and fearful that the water meant for the Deity might become impure, he threw a lump of earth at the prostrate figure and awakened him. Arriving at the temple, Muni found that the doors were bolted from inside. After calling out for a long time, the priest heard a voice speak to him. The voice said that Sri Raṅganatha Himself had been injured by the lump of earth that had been thrown at His humble servant by this proud priest. Unless the priest circumambulated the temple carrying the devotee on his shoulders, the doors of the temple would not open. Thus, it came to pass that the priest did as he had been ordered, and only then did the doors of the temple open. The Tiruppani Sri Vaiṣnavas still worship Tiruppana as Munivahana because a brahmana named Muni had carried him (acted as his vahana) around the temple. Ramanujacarya and others, belonging to the cream of the brahmanas, worshipped Munivahana daily. Ālavandara Yamunacarya, who was also a brahmana, offered pranamas to Bhakta Saṭhakopa, the avatara of a devotee, who was born in a sūdra family:

mata-pita yuvatayas tanaya vibhūtih
sarvam yadeva niyamena madanvayanam
adyasya nah kalupater-bakulabhiramam
srimat-tad-aṅghri yugalam pranamami mūrdhna
(Stotra-ratna 7)

[I reverently bow my head to the blessed feet, attractive as bakula flowers, of Saṭhakopa, the first acarya of our devotional family. For our disciplic succession, his lotus feet are everything—our father, mother, son, wife, and wealth.]

Tarkaratna: How can a sūdra be the guru of a brahmana? In which scripture has this been stated? Even Caitanyadeva did not agree with this.

Mahopadesaka: I am surprised to hear these words from a learned person like you who is well versed in the scriptures. But Sarasvati compels you to speak the truth. A sūdra can never be the guru of a brahmana. A Vaiṣnava is not a sūdra. One who serves Viṣnu is a yogi established in knowledge of Brahman:

arcye viṣnau sila-dhir guruṣu nara-matir vaiṣnave jati-buddhir
viṣnor va vaiṣnavanam kali-mala-mathane pada-tirthe ’mbu-buddhih
sri-viṣnor namni mantre sakala-kaluṣa-he sabda-samanya-buddhir
viṣnau sarvesvarese tad-itara-sama-dhir yasya va naraki sah
(Padma Purana)

[Anyone who considers the Deity to be nothing but stone, the guru to be an ordinary human being, or the Vaiṣnava to be a member of a particular caste or race, who takes the holy water which has washed Viṣnu or the Vaiṣnava’s feet and can destroy all the sins of the age of Kali to be ordinary water, who thinks that the name or mantra of Viṣnu, which destroys all evils, is the same as any other sound, or who takes Viṣnu to be equal to anything other than Him, has a hellish nature and is a great sinner.]

Upon hearing this verse, Tarkaratna remained silent for some time.

Mahopadesaka further said, “You have read in Caitanya-caritamṛta that Ṭhakura Haridasa was the guru of the brahmana Balarama Ācarya. In that same literature, you have seen:

kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sūdra kene naya
yei kṛṣna-tattva-vetta, sei ‘guru’ haya
(Caitanya-caritamṛta, Madhya-lila 8.128)

[Whether one is a brahmana, a sannyasi or a sūdra—regardless of what he is—he can become a guru if he knows the science of Kṛṣna.]

Tarkaratna: This might be justified as regards the sikṣa-guru (the instructing guru), but surely the dikṣa-guru (initiating guru) must be a brahmana.

Mahopadesaka: In the Padma Purana, quoted by Sri Sanatana Gosvami Prabhu in Hari-bhakti-vilasa, it is said:

na sūdra bhagavad-bhaktas
te tu bhagavata matah
sarva-varneṣu te sūdra
ye na bhakta janardane

[Devotees of the Lord are never sūdras; rather they are all first-class bhagavatas. But if one is not a devotee of Lord Kṛṣna, he should be considered a sūdra even if he was born in a brahmana, kṣatriya or vaisya family.]

ṣaṭ-karma-nipuno vipro
mantra-tantra-visaradah
avaiṣnavo gurur na syad
vaiṣnavah sva-paco guruh

[Even if a brahmana is very learned in Vedic scriptures and knows the six occupational duties of a brahmana, he cannot become a guru unless he is a devotee of the Supreme Lord. However, if one is born in a family of dog-eaters but is a pure devotee of the Lord, he can become a guru.]

maha-kula-prasūto ’pi
sarva-yajṣeṣu dikṣitah
sahasra-sakhadhyayi ca
na guruh syad avaiṣnavah

[Even if born in an aristocratic brahmana family, initiated with all the appropriate Vedic sacrifices and learned in one thousand branches of Vedic knowledge, one who is not a Vaiṣnava can never be a guru.]

vipra kṣatriya vaisyas ca
guravah sūdra janmanam
sūdras ca guravas teṣam
trayanam bhagavat-priyah

[A brahmana, kṣatriya or vaisya can be guru for the sūdra class, but a Vaiṣnava, even if born a sūdra, because he is dear to the Supreme Lord, can be the guru of these higher orders.]

There is no factual difference between the sikṣa-guru and the dikṣa-guru. There only exist differences in their pastimes. The sikṣa-guru acquaints us with Sri Kṛṣna in Whom we seek shelter. The dikṣa-guru establishes a relationship with the same Supreme Sri Kṛṣna. Thus, neither contradicts the other. Both are gurus and are beyond mundane discrimination. In the Caitanya-caritamṛta (Ādi-lila 1.44-47), it is stated:

yadyapi amara guru—caitanyera dasa
tathapi janiye ami taṅhara prakasa
guru kṛṣna-rūpa hana sastrera pramane
guru-rūpe kṛṣna kṛpa karena bhakta-gane
acaryam mam vijaniyan
navamanyeta karhicit
na martya-buddhyasūyeta
sarva-deva-mayo guruh
sikṣa-guruke ta’ jani kṛṣnera svarūpa
antaryami, bhakta-sreṣṭha,—ei dui rūpa

[Srila Kṛṣnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami: Although I know that my guru is a servitor of Sri Caitanya, I know Him also as a plenary manifestation of the Lord. According to the deliberate opinion of all revealed scriptures, the guru is nondifferent from Lord Kṛṣna. Sri Kṛṣna in the form of the guru delivers His devotees. Lord Kṛṣna says to Uddhava, “One should know the acarya as Myself and never disrespect him in any way. One should not envy him, thinking him an ordinary man, for he is the representative of all the demigods.” One should know the sikṣa-guru to be the absolute counterpart of Sri Kṛṣna. Lord Kṛṣna manifests Himself as the Paramatma and as the greatest devotee of the Lord.]

Kiba vipra, kiba nyasi—If these words referred only to the sikṣa-guru, then would Sriman Mahaprabhu have taken dikṣa from the sannyasi Srila Īsvara Puri? Would Sri Nityananda Prabhu and Advaita Ācarya have taken dikṣa from Srila Madhavendra Puri Gosvami? Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami Prabhu, who was born in a kayastha caste, is famous among the Gaudiya Vaiṣnavas as Jagadguru and Ācarya. The brahmanas Sri Gaṅga-narayana Cakravarti and Sri Ramakṛṣna Bhaṭṭacarya took dikṣa from Srila Narottama Ṭhakura (a non-brahmana by material estimation). Srila Yadunandana Cakravarti of Katwa took initiation from Srila Gadadhara dasa, and Sri Rasikananda (a smarta-brahmana) took initiation from Sri Syamananda (a low-class brahmana by material consideration). Sri Ramakṛṣna’s father, Sivai Bhaṭṭacarya, was furious when he heard that his son had taken dikṣa from Srila Narottama Ṭhakura:

ore mūrkha! kaha dekhi kona sastre kaya?
brahmana haite ki vaiṣnava bada haya?
vipra siṣya kaila se va kemana vaiṣnava?
panditera samaje karava parabhava
(Narottama-vilasa, 10th vilasa)

[O fool, which one among the scriptures has said that the Vaiṣnavas are superior to brahmanas? What type of a Vaiṣnava is he to have initiated a brahmana? I will have him accept defeat and humiliation before the society of scholars.]

In his work Narottama-vilasa, the brahmana Sri Narahari Cakravarti has given great importance to this and other similar incidents. He narrates how Sivai Bhaṭṭacarya had invited Murari Pandita to a debate on the topic of bhagavata-dharma and how Digvijaya Murari Pandita had been humiliated and ultimately defeated.

Thus, it is nothing new for proponents of karma-jada-smarta philosophy to present incorrect arguments. They know and yet refuse to understand. They know, but nonetheless will not practice the teachings of the scriptures. If they did, they would lose their identification with their bodies and sacrifice their material interests. This they find impossible to do. However, the Srimad-Bhagavatam, sruti, smṛti, Puranas and Paṣcaratra loudly proclaim that it is the Vaiṣnava who has acquired brahminical qualification in a spiritual sense, apart from any material considerations. Srila Jiva Gosvami Prabhu points out that Kaimutika Nyaya accepts this concept of spiritual brahminhood. As there are a thousand coins in a lakh (100,000 rupees), so too there is brahminhood in a Vaiṣnava.

Tarkaratna: Where has this brahminhood been discussed in sruti?

Mahopadesaka: Sruti says that brahminhood can be determined by means of the observation of a person’s actions. In the Samavediya Chandogya Upaniṣad (4.4.5), we come to know of Satyakama and Gautama. Gautama Ṛṣi determined the caste of Satykama by the yardsticks of truthfulness and simplicity:

tam hovaca kim gotro nu saumyasiti
sa hovaca nahametadveda bho yad-gotro ’ham asmi
apṛccham mataram sa ma pratyabravid
bahvaham caranti paricarini yauvane tvamalabhe
saham etat na veda yad-gotras-tvamasi
jabala tu nama ahamasmi, satyakamo nama tvamasiti
so ’ham satyakamo jabalo ’smi bho iti
tam hovaca naitadabrahmano vivaktum-arhati samidham
saumya ahara. upa tva nesye. na satyadaga iti
(Chandogya Upaniṣad 4.4.4-5)

[Gautama asked Satyakama, “My dear boy, what is your gotra?” The boy said, “I do not know what my caste or family background is. I asked my mother, and she said, ‘When I was young, I wandered here and there and knew many men. Then you were born. I knew so many men that I don’t know who your father is, or what your caste is. All I know is that my name is Jabala and your name is Satyakama (One who wants truth).’ Therefore I am known as Satyakama Jabala, and do not know my caste.” Gautama said, “My dear boy, you speak truthfully, and therefore you must be a brahmana. No one but a brahmana could speak such an unpalatable truth. O beautiful young boy, go and bring me wood for the sacrificial fire. I shall initiate you as my disciple, for you never depart from the truth.”]

Tarkaratna: This is another example of your wishful thinking. Satyakama Jabala was of brahmana parentage.

Mahopadesaka: Where is the proof of this?

Tarkaratna: Only those who have brahmana blood in them show the inclination, when they come of age, to go to the guru and pursue learning. From these tendencies, we can surmise that Satyakama was of brahmana heritage.

Mahopadesaka: Often, it is seen that brahmana youths are reluctant to stay with the guru and follow the path of brahmacarya and learning. Even today, one is confronted by many hundreds of examples of this.

Tarkaratna: You have misinterpreted the word bahvaham. It should not be taken to mean “serving many men,” but “many kinds of service.”

Mahopadesaka: Let us assume that you are right. If Jabala had been an extremely devoted wife and had served her husband in many ways, how could she have forgotten her husband’s name?

Tarkaratna: It is not customary for a wife to utter her husband’s name, so she could not tell it to her son.

Mahopadesaka: Again, let us assume that you are right and that the devoted wife could not utter the name of her husband. What, however, prevented her from mentioning his gotra (family name)? In bahvaham, the word bahu is to be understood as an adverb. Bahu implies serving many people, in many ways, and in many places. Immediately after this comes yauvane tvamalabhe (“I begot you in my youth”), thus indicating the fruit of her services. If Jabala did not know her husband’s gotra due to being absorbed in executing many services at home, then what would be the significance of the words yauvane tvamalabhe? “By performing many services, I have begotten you in my youth”—can this be taken as an excuse for not knowing her husband’s gotra? By using the term yauvane (“in my youth”), Jabala has, in a serious and discreet manner, told Satyakama the truth. It would be a transgression of truth to interpret it otherwise for some other purpose. A child is conceived only in youth. “By serving many in my youth I have begotten you.” It seems clear that any other interpretation of the word is irrelevant. Gautama Ṛṣi understood the subtlety of these dignified and polite words. Had he not, he would not have acclaimed Satyakama to be truthful and honest. There is nothing out of the ordinary when one mentions the names of one’s parents. However, Gautama praised Satyakama’s good qualities when he realised that Satyakama was saying something special, and not at all ordinary. Gautama Ṛṣi said, “Only a brahmana could make such a bold statement, thus I will initiate you with brahmana rites.”

To be simple and truthful is to publicly admit what might be harmful to one’s own self. Generic, ordinary statements do not merit attention, nor can they be taken to be the hallmark of higher qualities such as truthfulness and simplicity. Thus, the meaning is very clear. The name of the gotra is mentioned at the time of marriage and again when a child is conceived. It is surprising that on both occasions Jabala failed to register it. Jabala got married, lived with her husband, had a son, and yet she did not know her husband’s name and gotra? Eminent scholars of the scriptures and leaders of society should question the motives of those who contrive to paint a picture of Jabala as a naive simpleton. In their advocacy of this absurdity, they have not shown Jabala as she really was, and have thereby thrust falsehood and deceit into an episode highlighting simplicity and truthfulness. Religious men and women of society all know the names of their parents and their gotra. No other arguments should be raised to cover this simple, honest and dignified statement of the boy Satyakama. It was due to his unabashed openness about such a shameful fact that Gautama appreciated his straightforwardness and hailed him as a brahmana. This is the interpretation of the Sama Veda in Madhva-bhaṣya:

arjvavam brahmane sakṣat
sūdro ’narjava-lakṣanah
gautamastv iti vijṣaya
satya-kamamupanayat

[A brahmana possesses the quality of simplicity, and a sūdra possesses the quality of crookedness. Knowing this fact, Gautama awarded sacred thread initiation to Satyakama and made him a first-class brahmana.]

Tarkaratna did not reply to this example, but instead moved on: “In this life, no matter how high a person rises in spiritual practice, he cannot be awarded the honour and seat of a person who is a brahmana by birth. He can claim this only after death, in another birth in a brahmana family.”

Mahopadesaka: The person who is a brahmana by birth is tied to his karma. The devotee of the Supreme Lord does not take to such lowly ambitions as to roam in the cycle of cause and effect. The devotee disdains the titles of Brahma or Indra, and regards the heavenly planets and mokṣa (liberation) to be no higher than hell. Even the faintest traces of bhakti will not show themselves unless one scorns and spurns bhukti (sense enjoyment) and mukti (liberation from material existence):

narayana-parah sarve
na kutascana bibhyati
svargapavarga-narakeṣv
api tulyartha-darsinah
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.17.28)

[Devotees solely engaged in the devotional service of the Supreme Lord Narayana never fear any condition of life. For them the heavenly planets, liberation and the hellish planets are all the same, for such devotees are interested only in the service of the Lord.]

bhukti-mukti-spṛha yavat
pisaci hṛdi vartate
tavad bhakti-sukhas yatra
katham abhyudayo bhavet
(Bhakti-rasamṛta-sindhu, Pūrva 2.22)

[How is it possible for the ocean of devotional happiness to appear in the heart as long as the witches of bhukti and mukti remain present there?] The devotee does not have to travel from womb to womb. It is ridiculous, illogical and contrary to the scriptures to think that, compelled by past activities, the devotee will be born into the womb of a brahmana, experience the threefold material afflictions¹ and then nullify his past! Nitya-siddha-bhaktas or eternally liberated devotees such as Hanuman, Guhaka, Garuda, Ṭhakura Haridasa, Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami Prabhu, Srila Vasudeva Datta Ṭhakura, Srila Uddharana Datta Ṭhakura, Sri Jhadu Ṭhakura and others are universally considered to be the cream among devotees. To say that they would be forced to take birth as brahmanas bound by the cycle of cause and effect like any other being within ordinary society would be like making noise rather than engaging in actual debate. Tarkaratna: I am very pleased to have spoken with you. Indeed, you are a scholar. I am greatly impressed by your polite manners. Mahopadesaka: From your words, I gather that you have studied Sri Caitanya-caritamṛta like any other general reader. But I think that if you were to hear these nectarean words from the lips of a bona fide follower of Sri Caitanyadeva, emanating devotion, you would dispel your erroneous notions and, therefore, you would be better equipped to understand Sri Gaudiya Maṭha. You have not directly heard about the Gaudiya Maṭha; hearing from some aberrant person accounts for your misconceptions. You are both a respected elder and a scholar. Please carefully consider the purpose of Sri Gaudiya Maṭha. It endeavours solely to preach Srimad-Bhagavatam and advocates the establishment of brahminhood of the highest order. Sri Gaudiya Maṭha wishes to re-establish the original divinely ordained divisions of society (daiva-varnasrama-dharma). Tarkaratna: I have read Sri Caitanya-caritamṛta with special attention. I have also heard about your organisation and have personally read about it. Mahopadesaka: Sarvabhauma Bhaṭṭacarya, an elderly and renowned scholar of Vedanta specialising in nyaya (logic) had at first judged Sri Caitanyadeva to be a maha-bhagavata. However, when informed of the glories of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu from the lips of His devotee Gopinatha, he came, by the grace of Sri Caitanyadeva, to regard Him as the Supreme Lord Himself. What more can be said? At first, Sarvabhauma, thinking Sri Caitanyadeva to be just a sadhaka (seeker), made the Lord listen to Vedanta and endeavoured, as a well-wisher, to protect His sannyasa-dharma! However, after speaking with the disciples of Mahaprabhu, Sarvabhauma came to realise that far from being an ordinary sannyasi, Sri Caitanyadeva was Supreme Knowledge Himself. Tarkaratna: I feel affection and have great regard for your scholasticism and simplicity, but it seems that in spite of the fact that you are a brahmana by birth, you are misguided. Mahopadesaka: Both of us might have doubts as to who is in the wrong. Truth is one without a second, but one who is overcome by bhrama (illusion), pramada (error), karanapaṭava (imperfection of the senses), vipralipsa (cheating) and other defects understands untruth to be truth. I am compelled to say that, by birth, I am a saukra-brahmana of the Radhiya order, no less great than the brahmanas of Bhaṭṭapalli. But pride of a divine nature will intoxicate me if I am able to put to my head a single grain of dust from the foot of a servant of a servant of the suddha-bhaktas of Sri Gaudiya Maṭha. No earthly heritage can compare to this honour. Let me ask you this: can anyone prove that our saukra stream is flowing pure and unblemished from the time of Brahma? If asked, can an honest and concise reply be given? Tarkaratna: You yourself are proof of this because your gotra is intact. Mahopadesaka: It is the custom of parents who have no child of their own to resort to adoption. This process involves the changing of the gotra. Does the saukra lineage then remain pure as it flows down through the following generations? Taking the preceding example into account; how can it be said that the gotra protects brahminhood? Please note that in the Mahabharata, Dharmaraja Yudhiṣṭhira tells Nahuṣa that men of all castes are able to impregnate women of any caste. This, of course, makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine the caste of an individual: jatiratra maha-sarpa manuṣyatve maha-mate saṅkarat sarva-varnanam duṣparikṣyeti me matih sarve sarvasvapatyani janayanti sada narah vaṅ-maithunam atho janma maranam ca samam nṛnam (Mahabharata, Vana Parva 18.31-32) [Yudhiṣṭhira told Nahuṣa: “O noble-minded and great serpent, it is very difficult to ascertain one’s caste because of promiscuity among the four orders. This is my opinion. Men belonging to all castes beget offspring among women of all the different castes. And among men of different castes, speech, sexual intercourse, birth and death are common to all.”] For this reason, the truth-loving sages have made the following statement: na caitad vidmo brahmanah smo vayam abrahmana veti (from Sri Nilakanṭha’s commentary on the preceding verses) [“We do not know whether we are brahmanas or non-brahmanas.”] Tarkaratna: Even if such things occurred in ancient times, they cannot affect our concept of brahminhood, because we do not have concrete evidence of the past. Such things have not taken place in our presence. Mahopadesaka: Is there any written document that guarantees that such did not occur ten years ago, or that such events will not occur in the future? Tarkaratna: I do not have a word of praise for brahmanas who are immoral and who do not observe the rituals of Gayatri and sandhya-vandana. There are still sagnika-brahmanas today who follow the brahminical code. Mahopadesaka: Can you say who the present day sagnika-brahmanas (those who protect the sacred fire lit by Brahma) in Bengal and the rest of India are? Tarkaratna: Of course there are none in Bengal. Just recently there was one such brahmana in Kasi, but he is now deceased. Mahopadesaka: There is no objection to addressing one or two individuals as brahmanas, but they should not be considered to be on the same level as the spiritual brahmanas. This is because Vaiṣnavas, from the very onset, are not situated on the path of karma. They are, instead, situated in viṣnu-bhakti, which is transcendental. Merits are higher than sin, and good works are certainly higher than evil deeds. But viṣnu-bhakti transcends both merits and demerits, good and bad; it is non-material and is the natural function of the Self (atma). Tarkaratna: I have heard that at Kasi, you, the Gaudiya Vaiṣnavas, do not give recognition to the demigods and demigoddesses. You also do not go to see Lord Visvanatha. Mahopadesaka: Sri Gaudiya Maṭha respects all the demigods and demigoddesses, but it objects to those who attempt to exploit these divinities to satisfy their own petty, mundane needs. Sri Gaudiya Maṭha says, instead, “Do not attempt to make the demigods and demigoddesses serve your own worldly needs. Do not treat them as though they were your servants. Do not attempt to barter with them, but rather, pray to them to assist the Self in increasing its awareness of God, for this unfolding of the natural function of the Self is pleasing to the Supreme Lord Who is beyond mundane sense perception.” I have lived with the monks of Gaudiya Maṭha for quite a number of years, travelling with them on pilgrimages all over India. I have also met many scholars, brahmanas, people who are westernised, and people who are quite ordinary. I have found that most of those who verbally accept the Vedas and call themselves Hindus are, in fact, quite ignorant of the real nature of worship of their particular worshipable deity. For example, they pray to Sūrya, the sun god, for dharma (religiosity and mundane conceptions of morality); to Ganesa, the remover of obstacles, for artha (wealth); to Sakti, the personification of the material energy, for kama (sense gratification); and to Rudra, the god of austerities, for mokṣa (liberation from material existence). Then there are others who consider Viṣnu to be a demigod who is greater than the previous four—the fifth god as it were, and visualise Him in a temporary, non-eternal form. All are busy seeking dharma, artha, kama or mokṣa for their own sense gratification. Nobody talks about gratifying the senses of that Adhokṣaja Supreme Absolute Truth. The Supreme Lord has supramundane senses. With His supramundane senses, He enjoys transcendental pastimes. This enjoyment of His is eternal. Each of us should seek to become the fuel in that enjoyment. None but Sri Caitanyadeva refers to this. Viṣnu is not a divinity Who exists to satisfy the lust and greed of man. Rather, He is the Supreme Enjoyer Himself. It is the eternal dharma of each of us to be an eternal servitor in that enjoyment. Many among us have often seen Sri Visvanatha at Kasi and Sri Bhuvanesvara at Bhubaneswar. Who has said that we do not take darsana of Sri Visvanatha? It should be pointed out that our acarya has given us the following instructions: “Do not get entangled in seeing the visva (i.e., external outlook) when you go to see Visvanatha. Do not wrongly think that by seeing bhūta and bhuvana (external appearances) you have viewed Bhutesvara and Bhuvanesvara.” Tarkaratna: How does Sri Gaudiya Maṭha view Sri Visvanatha? Mahopadesaka: In pursuance of the Srimad-Bhagavatam (12.13.16), we see Him as vaiṣnavanam yatha sambhuh: “Sambhu, or Lord Siva, is the ideal Vaiṣnava.” Under the guidance of our guru-varga, we offer pranama to Gopisvara Mahadeva by chanting the verse vṛndavanavani-pate. We pray to Sri Visvanatha to withdraw His tamasika Rudra form (meant for those who are covered by the mode of ignorance) and instead, to manifest Himself as Sri Kṛṣna’s most beloved and the eternal spiritual master of the whole world. We perform worship of that eternal form. Tarkaratna: Have you accepted the varnasrama-dharma of the scriptures? Mahopadesaka: It is none other than Sri Gaudiya Maṭha that is promoting the re-establishment of daiva-varnasrama-dharma. Sri Caitanyadeva’s conception of dharma is closely aligned with that of Srimad-Bhagavatam. In that literature it is said: yasya yal lakṣanam proktam pumso varnabhivyaṣjakam yad anyatrapi dṛsyeta tat tenaiva vinirdiset (Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.11.35) There are certain characteristics that typify a person’s varna (caste). Apart from one’s birth caste, these characteristics are the signs that contribute to the correct identification of the varna of an individual. This is because the varna cannot be ascertained by the jati (birth-caste) alone. (In other words, if a person born in a low caste displays the characteristics of a higher caste, or vice versa, then that person’s actual varna is determined on the basis of the characteristics he displays. For example, if one born in a vaisya family displays the characteristics of a brahmana, then he should be accepted as a brahmana.) To further our understanding, we can look to the words of that crest jewel of brahmanas, Jagadguru Sridhara Svamipada. Sri Caitanyadeva considered the commentaries of Sridhara Svamipada to be infallible. He also thought of him as His guru. Sridhara Svamipada has offered the subsequent explanation to the above verse in his Bhavartha-dipika: samadibhir eva brahmanadi-vyavaharo mukhyo na jati-matrad ity aha yasyeti. yad yadi anyatra varnantare ’pi dṛsyeta tad varnantaram tenaiva lakṣana-nimitenaiva varnena vinirdiset na tu jati-nimitenety arthah (Commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.11.35) The primary method of judging the brahminhood of a person is to observe within him the presence of the qualities of self-restraint, discipline, knowledge, etc. Usually, birth is taken to be an indication, but this is not always the case. The yasya yal lakṣanam verse (Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.11.35) confirms this. It is not a fact that because one is born in a brahmana family, one is automatically a brahmana. He has a better chance to become a brahmana, but unless he meets all the brahminical qualifications, he cannot be accepted as such. On the other hand, if the brahminical qualifications are found in the person of a sūdra, he should immediately be accepted as a brahmana. The Srimad-Bhagavatam has classified varna by dint of birth as being cyuta-gotra (a fallible lineage), but Vaiṣnavas as belonging to the acyuta-gotra (infallible lineage). Vaiṣnavahood has nothing to do with birth. The circle of birth arises from falldown and lapse. A glorious past life might facilitate one’s appearance in a higher caste, but the actions of this present life might very well lead to a subsequent birth in the womb of a low-born person, or even an animal, bird or insect. One can even fall down in various ways in the present life. Quite unlike the previous scenarios, Vaiṣnavahood is eternal and infallible. It has to do with the state of consciousness of the Self and has no connection with insentient matter. It is clearly perceivable to all that whatever is born is subject to decay and destruction. The material body consists of stuff that is low and impure: jatasya hi dhruvo mṛtyur dhruvam janma mṛtasya ca (Bhagavad-gita 2.27) [One who has taken his birth is sure to die, and after death one is sure to take birth again.] Srimad-Bhagavatam has also condemned this cycle of action and reaction: karmanam parinamitvad a-viriṣcyad amaṅgalam vipascin nasvaram pasyed adṛṣṭam api dṛṣṭa-vat (Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.19.18) Scholars should understand that past merit might very well take one all the way up to Brahmaloka, but even this achievement is subject to the laws of karma and is ultimately temporary. Srimad-Bhagavatam has repeatedly discussed this (in slokas 5.4.12, 9.17.3, 9.20.1 and elsewhere) and has established that one’s works and activities are more accurate pointers to the identification of varna than one’s birth. The kṣatriyas Ṛṣabhadeva and Devadatta were the parents of one hundred sons. Among them, Bharata became the king of Bharata-varṣa, and nine of his brothers became kings of nine other varṣas (countries). Nine other sons named Kavi, Havi, etc., became the Navayogendras—renowned maha-bhagavata Vaiṣnavas. The remaining eighty-one became brahmanas. In the Puru dynasty, many brahmarṣis may be found. Kṣatravṛddha was the son of King Āyu belonging to the lunar dynasty. In that family, Saunaka attained brahminhood and became a sage. In this way, there are many hundreds of examples to be found in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. From this great literature, we know that in the ancient age of Satya-yuga, there were no such divisions as brahmana, kṣatriya, vaisya and sūdra. From the Treta-yuga, distinctions came to be made based upon guna-karma (one’s qualities and work or action). Guna-karma is the real basis of deciding a person’s varna. Standing by itself, the word varna is rendered meaningless. It is guna or quality that determines our life both here and hereafter: adau kṛta-yuge varno nṛnam hamsa iti smṛtah kṛta-kṛtyah praja jatya tasmat kṛta-yugam viduh treta-mukhe maha-bhaga pranan me hṛdayat trayi vidya pradurabhūt tasya aham asam tri-vṛn makhah vipra-kṣatriya-viṭ-sūdra mukha-bahūru-pada-jah vairajat puruṣaj jata ya atmacara-lakṣanah (Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.17.10, 12 and 13) [Lord Kṛṣna to Uddhava: “In the beginning, in Satya-yuga, there is only one social class, called hamsa, to which all human beings belong. In that age all people are unalloyed devotees of the Lord from birth, and thus learned scholars call this first age Kṛta-yuga, or the age in which all religious duties are perfectly fulfilled. O greatly fortunate one, at the beginning of Treta-yuga, Vedic knowledge appeared from My heart, which is the abode of the air of life, in three divisions—as Ṛg, Sama and Yajur. Then from that knowledge I appeared as threefold sacrifice. In Treta-yuga the four varnas were manifested from the universal form of the Supreme Lord. The brahmanas appeared from the Lord’s face, the kṣatriyas from the Lord’s arms, the vaisyas from the Lord’s thighs and the sūdras from the legs of that mighty form. Each varna was recognized by its particular duties and behavior.”] Tarkaratna: You come from a brahmana family. I hold affection for you because you are a brahmana. Mahopadesaka: Affection toward one’s kith and kin is common in all conditioned living beings. The scriptures do not point to birth alone as a means of determining brahminhood. Primarily, it is determined by one’s qualities. You know of the mantra of the Vajra-sūcikopaniṣad commented upon by Sankaracarya. What is said in that sruti?

tarhi jatir brahmana iti cet tan na tatra jaty-antara-jantuṣu aneka-jati-sambhava maharṣayo bahavah santi. ṛṣyasṛṅgo mṛgah. kausikah kusat. jambuko jambukat. valmiko valmikat.
vyasah kaivarta-kanyayam. sasa-pṛṣṭhat gautamah. vasiṣṭhah ūrvasyam. agastyah kalase jata iti srutatvat. eteṣam jatya vinapy agre jṣana-pratipadita ṛṣayo bahavah santi. tasman na jatih brahmana iti.
(Vajra-sūcika Upaniṣad 5)

[Can one become a brahmana by dint of birth alone? Definitely not! There exist incidents of maharṣis manifesting themselves from various other antecedents and varieties of parentage. We have heard that Ṛṣyasṛṅga was born from a deer, Kausika from kusa grass, Jambūka from a fox, and Valmiki from an ant-hill. Vyasa was the son of a fisherwoman, Gautama came from a rabbit, Vasiṣṭha from the celestial prostitute Urvasi, and Agastya from a pot. There are innumerable other sages and ṛṣis who were not brahmanas by birth. From this, it is understood that brahminhood is not determined by birth alone.]

The esteemed Vedantacarya Jayatirtha of the Sriman Madhva-sampradaya quotes the logic of “the scorpion and the rice” (vṛscika-tanduli-nyaya) in his commentary entitled Sruta-prakasika:

brahmanad eva brahmana iti niyamasya
kvacid anyathatvopapatte vṛscika-tanduliyakadi-vad iti

Male and female scorpions unite to give birth to another scorpion, but sometimes, scorpions are born from rice. Vasiṣṭha, Agastya, Ṛṣyasṛṅga, Vyasadeva and others were not brahmanas in the general sense. Therefore, both factors of qualities and birth should be the basis in deciding a person’s varna. The yasya yal lakṣanam proktam verse in Srimad-Bhagavatam (7.11.35) reiterates the previous information.

---

¹ - The three material afflictions:
1. ādhyātmika: miseries caused by one’s own body and mind.
2. ādhibhautika: miseries caused by other living entities.
3. ādhidaivika: miseries caused by the demigods or natural disasters.