Part Three of Acintya-bhedābheda: The Importance of Maṅgalācaraṇa
Tṛtīya Siddhānta
Third Conclusion
Going against proper śiṣṭācāra (etiquette)
If we consult ancient, religious literature, we see that every example of it has preserved the etiquette of including a maṅgalācaraṇa at its commencement. What to speak of granthas in Sanskrit, this etiquette has not been done away with in Bengali books of worship either. It is absolutely imperative to have a maṅgalācaraṇa for every auspicious undertaking. Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta’s author—Śrīla Kṛṣṇa-dāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata’s author—Śrīla Vṛndāvana-dāsa Ṭhākura, Śrī Caitanya-maṅgala’s author—Śrīla Locana-dāsa Ṭhākura, and every other ācārya has offered obeisance to their respective iṣṭadeva (worshipful deity) and prayed for their mercy or proclaimed their glory and victory. Some poets have, in some places, not composed a śloka or payār for a maṅgalācaraṇa, but they have all demonstrated their honor for their deity or object of worship in one way or another.
We cannot accept that Subodha Bābu has demonstrated any sort of etiquette at the start of his Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda book. Of course, we can see that at the top of the book’s first page, “Śrī Śrī Guru-Gaurāṅgau Jayataḥ” has been printed in very small letters; but is this Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya’s maṅgalācaraṇa? What we will show here is that he has not, in fact, maintained proper etiquette with this line and done a maṅgalācaraṇa.
The meaning of “Śrī Śrī Guru-Gaurāṅgau Jayataḥ”
The purport of “Śrī Śrī Guru-Gaurāṅgau Jayataḥ” is to convey a manner of prayer, as in: “Śrī Guru and Śrī Gaurāṅga are forever reaping victory,” or “may Śrī Gurudeva and Śrī Gaurāṅga-deva have victory.” There is no way of understanding from Sundarānanda Bābu’s book what he means when he uses that phrase. And I am compelled to say with particular insistence that he has planted that phrase on the heading of his asiddhānta-replete book with the express purpose of contradicting it. The deceitful daityas and dānavas, and the asuras who bear malice for the demigods and the rest of the world, conceal their inner, secretive and devious aims as they charm Śiva and other demigods with their austerities, whereafter they try to kill those same demigods they were worshipping; Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya, or Subodhacandra Sāhā Mahāśaya, has adopted just such a propensity in using the phrase “Śrī Śrī Guru-Gaurāṅgau Jayataḥ.” As much as he has displayed a less than noble motive with the use of his own name [to acquire prestige], he has displayed similar deviousness with the subject of this book as well. He has written it and titled it Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda with the intention of destroying the siddhānta of acintya-bhedābheda and establishing “acintya-advaita-vāda – the doctrine of inconceivable non-dualism.” We see misrepresentation and artifice in his exploitation of the name his guru gave him, and we see he uses a misleading name and similar artifice with the title of this book. He even goes about establishing his siddhāntas in a deceptive, artificial way and demonstrates deception and misrepresentation as he lives and moves in society itself.
Now I ask: “Who is Subodha Sāhā’s guru? Whose glories is he singing? Śrī Gaurāṅga who? Where did he learn about Śrī Gaurāṅga? From whom? Can we know who that is? From whom has he received dīkṣā? Has he received divine knowledge? Or rather, has he made any actual attempt to attain that divine knowledge? Will we find any information about his gurudeva in his book? What sort of guidelines has Śrī Hari-bhakti-vilāsa provided in regard to how one is to mention one’s śrī gurudeva’s name? Does he know these rules? If someone’s name was mentioned according to those standards, then we would be able to understand that Sāhā Bābu’s gurudeva is such and such mahājana. Does he know that if he mentions his śrī gurudeva’s name in the same way one refers to any Rāmā, Śyāmā, Yadu, or Madhu of today that it reduces gurudeva to the same level as everyone else? What is a maṅgalācaraṇa, or proper etiquette? Did he not learn proper etiquette as taught in the śāstras? If he cannot learn this small etiquette, then it would have been better for him not to have the audacity to write books on grave subject matters. The asuras and daityas do a great many deeds—but we look upon all of it with disdain. Being like a mother and trying to force poison into Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s mouth like Pūtanā did is extremely wicked business. Vaiṣṇavas have no disagreement on that. Only the asuras experience boundless bliss and feel pride to see that Pūtanā attained the position of nurse to Kṛṣṇa in Goloka. The pure Sārasvata Vaiṣṇavas consider this the fitting destination of an asura and do not give it much regard; but sahajiyās are enamoured with that and become engaged in Pūtanā’s service.
We will discuss Sāhā Bābu’s abandonment of his guru later on at the appropriate place. Only one who has attained special distinction in the realm of bhakti is a truly distinguished guru-sevaka. Till this day, no conception has destroyed gurudeva’s philosophy and been accepted in the religious world. No one in the religous world will approve of serving Haridāsa Bābājī and serving or supporting Vāsudeva’s (Purī Gosvāmī’s) unholy wedding. If such despicable conduct is accepted in the religious realm, then what are we to call wrongdoing, unholy arrangements, and sinful activities? Hiraṇyakaśipu, Rāvaṇa and other asuras had no shortage of erudition. You can get a sense of Hiraṇyakaśipu’s erudition if you study his instructions to the wives of Hiraṇyākṣa after Hiraṇyākṣa’s death as described in Bhāgavatam. The advaitavādīs have become enamoured with the discussions between the ten-headed Rāvaṇa and the Tathāgata Buddha in Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra. Are mental acrobatics devoid of any real character or conduct to be considered bhakti? Does working out or exerting the mind to generate dozens of spurious arguments like Cārvaka consitute bhakti? The devil can quote scripture too. Does that make his propositions acceptable to sādhakas? The authors of scripture give no value to preaching that lacks proper conduct. I beg Sāhā Bābu to follow the instruction of Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta:
āpane ācare keha, nā kare pracāra |
pracāra karena keho, nā karena ācāra ||
‘ācāra’, ‘pracāra’,—nāmera karaha ‘dui’ kārya |
tumi—sarva-guru, tumi—jagatera ārya ||
(Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya 4.102–103)
What is the point of giving up the etiquettes of the dīkṣā-saṁskāras and other traditions and becoming a barbarian? “Guru chāḍi gaurāṅga bhaje, se pāpī narake maje – One who gives up guru and worships Gaurāṅga is a sinner who sinks into hell.” Has Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya forgotten this saying?
The publisher’s maṅgalācaraṇa
It is a stubborn fact that Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya did not use the words “Śrī Śrī Guru-Gaurāṅgau Jayataḥ” as a maṅgalācaraṇa. Though I have proven this already, I am submitting a few more points in this regard. Of the three trident-forming books he has wrought to destroy guru-sevā-based bhagavad-bhakti, the other two1 besides Acintya-bhedābheda have the phrase “Śrī Śrī Guru-Gaurāṅgau Jayataḥ” printed above their titles and a maṅgalācaraṇa to start out their text. From this we know that Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya has not even taken “Śrī Śrī Guru-Gaurāṅgau Jayataḥ” or “Śrī Śrī Gaura-Nityānandau Jayataḥ” and other statements seriously as maṅgalācaraṇas. If his heart’s mood had been that this phrase is in and of itself a maṅgalācaraṇa, then he would not have added maṅgalācaraṇas to the beginnings of the other two books. The authors of scripture and other such mahājanas have all maintained a standard practice of composing a maṅgalācaraṇa, for the sake of proper etiquette. Even the publishers of granthas include a maṅgalācaraṇa to alleviate obstacles in the publication process. These sorts of phrases are seen preceding the titles of books. They are accepted everywhere as the maṅgalācaraṇa of the prakāśaka (publisher), not the author. “Śrī Gaṇeśāya Namaḥ,” “Śrī Sītā-Rāmābhyāṁ Namaḥ,” “Śrī Rādhā-Kṛṣṇābhyāṁ Namaḥ,” “Śrī Hanumate Namaḥ,” “Śrī Śivāya Namaḥ,” “Śrī Sarasvatyai Namaḥ,” “Śrī Nārāyaṇāya Namaḥ,” “Śrī Durgāya Namaḥ,” “Śrī Guru-caraṇāravindābhyāṁ Namaḥ,” and, in the books presently under scrutiny: “Śrī Śrī Guru-Gaurāṅgau Jayataḥ” and “Śrī Śrī Gaura-Nityānandau Jayataḥ.” These and other such phrases are generally understood to be the maṅgalācaraṇas of the publishers. If any exalted personality accepts these phrases as maṅgalācaraṇas, we cannot consider that a mistake. Even if a preacher of atheistic dharma does not accept these statements as maṅgalācaraṇas, that does not stop them from being classified as maṅgalācaraṇas; still, they are the publishers’ maṅgalācaraṇas, not the authors’.
__________________
1 ‘Gauḍīya-darśanera Itihāsa o Vaiśiṣṭya’ and ‘Gauḍīyāra Tina Ṭhākura’—published 467 Gaurābda, 1360 Baṅgābda, 1953 Christian era, by Gauḍīya Mission.
__________________
Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda is published by Gauḍīya Mission. So if Gauḍīya Mission has inserted the mantra “Śrī Śrī Guru-Gaurāṅgau Jayataḥ” and published Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya’s book, then it is the Gauḍīya Mission’s maṅgalācaraṇa. However, there is a fair bit of dispute as to whether or not the Gauḍīya Mission (registered) has the right to utter or use said mantra, because the current Gauḍīya Mission has no relation with the old Gauḍīya Mission’s founder or with Guru-Gaurāṅga. Publishing this kind of book by Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya, a book that is rooted in malice towards guru, is pure antagonism of the statement “Śrī Śrī Guru-Gaurāṅga Jayataḥ [Let there be victory for Śrī Guru and Gaurāṅga!].” Whatever the case may be with that, the publisher’s maṅgalācaraṇa cannot be accepted as the author’s maṅgalācaraṇa.
In many editions of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam,2 it is seen that the mantra “oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya” is printed at the beginning of the text. Then there are other editions where the aforementioned mantra is not printed, like the 437 Śrī Caitanyābda edition published by Śrī Ananta-Vāsudeva Brahmacārī with Śrīmad Gauḍīya-bhāṣya (the Gauḍīya Maṭha edition), and the 1288 Sāla edition published 14th of Jyeṣṭha from No. 164 Māṇikatalā Street, Kalikātā, edited by Śrī Upendra-candra Mitra and published by Śrī Bhagavatī-caraṇa Rāya. Of all the editions of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam available at present, the latter, the one edited by Śrī Upendra-candra Mitra Mahāśaya with Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary, is the oldest. From these editions it is evident that mantras like “Śrī Śrī Guru-Gaurāṅgau Jayataḥ” or “Oṁ Namo Bhagavate Vāsudevāya” do not constitute the author’s own maṅgalācaraṇa. In the aforementioned oldest version of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the “janmādy asya” verse has been interpreted as Vyāsa’s maṅgalācaraṇa. And the editor, Mitra Mahāśaya, has made this clear by titling the verse “śrī bhāgavata-kṛto maṅgalācaraṇa.” He has even excluded it from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam’s official verse count, designating it as the maṅgalācaraṇa. Even though Mitra Mahāśaya is a prominent advaita-vādī, he did not hesitate to accept from Vyāsadeva’s “satyaṁ paraṁ dhīmahi” statement that the aforementioned verse is the maṅgalācaraṇa to the text. Moreover, he did not think it necessary to include any atheistic advaita-vādī version of a maṅgalācaraṇa. He has accepted Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as a distinguished text that propounds advaita-vāda and he believes that Pūjyapāda Śrīdhara Svāmī was also a teacher of advaita-vāda and wrote Bhāvārtha-dīpikā with that intention. This is Mitra Mahāśaya’s opinion, and Sundarānanda Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya has, like Mitra Mahāśaya, followed in the footsteps of the advaita-vādīs, echoing this belief throughout the text of Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda.
__________________
2 (1) The edition published from Bhavānīpura, 37 no. Balarama Bose Ghat Road, Kolkata, by Śrī Khagendranātha Śāstrī; (2) the 1960 Samvat edition edited by Śrī Nityasvarūpa Brahmacārī, published by Rājarṣi Vanamālī Rāya Bāhādura; (3) the 1304 Vaiśākha edition of Śrī Rāma Nārāyaṇa Vidyāratna Mahāśaya; (4) the 1334 Sāla edition of Śrī Pañcānana Tarkaratna Mahāśaya.
__________________
Though the aforementioned edition of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam published by Śrī Gauḍīya Maṭha does not use the mantra “Oṁ Namo Bhagavate Vāsudevāya,” it has printed the words “Śrī Śrī Guru-Gaurāṅgau Jayataḥ” above the title of the book. This is conclusively not the author’s, but the publisher’s maṅgalācaraṇa. Still, in his Gaūḍīya-bhāṣya on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Jagad-guru Oṁ Viṣṇupāda Paramahaṁsa-kula-cūḍāmaṇi Śrī Śrīmad Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Ṭhākura has maintained the proper etiquette and has first of all performed a maṅgalācaraṇa via a kīrtana glorifying the entire Śrī Guru-paramparā.3 Every commentator on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and all the Gosvāmīs have accepted the aforementioned verse [janmādy asya] as the main maṅgalācaraṇa to Bhāgavatam by Śrī Vyāsa. They have even offered praṇāmas to and sung the glories of their respective iṣtadevas while writing their individual ṭīkās on this verse.
__________________
3 rukma-varṇa gaurahari, nitya dui tanu dhari, rādhā-kṛṣṇa ānanda-cinmaya |
vibhāva sāmagrī-nāma, viṣaya āśraya dhāma, ālambana nāme paricaya ||
[The golden-complexioned Gaurahari, eternally abides in two forms, as Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, as transcendental bliss.
Vibhāva is what the ingredients are called; the abodes of viṣaya and āśraya are called the ālambanas.]
nitya uddīpana-yoge, upādeya rasa-bhoge, cid-vilāse matta nirantara |
aprākṛta rati juṣṭa, sadā nāma-rase puṣṭa, gaura-bhakta-saba parikara ||
[With eternal enhancing excitants, enjoying the appropriate rasa, They are intoxicated in transcendental romance without interruption.
Satisfied with supramundane love, forever nourished by the rasa of nāma, Gaura's devotees are all Their associates.]
parikara paricaya, sambandha sthāpita haya, tāhā lāgi paramparā gāna |
anvaya nirddeśa kari, guru-gaṇa pada dhari, yāhe harijana abhimāna ||
[Knowing Their associates establishes relationship; that is why to sing this paramparā song.
I outline the lineage, catching hold of gurus' feet, who identify as the associates of Hari.]
kṛṣṇa haite caturmukha, haya kṛṣṇa-sevonmukha, brahmā haite nāradera mati |
nārada haite vyāsa, madhva kahe vyāsadāsa, pūrṇaprajña padmanābha-gati ||
nṛhari mādhava-vaṁśe akṣobhya paramahaṁse, śiṣya boli aṅgīkāra kare |
akṣobhyera śiṣya jaya-tīrtha nāme paricaya, tā̃ra dāsye jñānasindhu tare ||
tā̃hā ha’te dayānidhi, tā̃ra dāsa vidyānidhi, rājendra haila tā̃hā ha’te |
tā̃hāra kiṅkara jaya-dharma nāme paricaya, paramparā jāno bhālomate ||
jaya-dharma dāsye khāti śrī puruṣotttama yati, tā hai’te brahmaṇya-tīrtha-sūri |
vyāsa-tīrtha tā̃ra dāsa, lakṣmīpati vyāsadāsa, tā̃hā hate mādhavendra purī ||
mādhavendra purīvara śiṣya-vara śrī īśvara, nityānanda śrī advaita vibhu |
īśvara purīke dhanya, karilena śrī caitanya, jagad-guru gaura mahāprabhu ||
mahāprabhu śrī caitanya, rādhā-kṛṣṇa nahe anya, rūpānuga-janera jīvana |
viśvambhara priyaṅkara, śrī svarūpa dāmodara, śrī gosvāmī rūpa-sanātana ||
rūpa-priya mahājana, jīva raghunātah hana, tā̃ra pirya kavi kṛṣṇadāsa |
kṛṣṇadāsa priyavara narottama sevāpara, jā̃ra pada viśvanātha āśa ||
viśvanātha bhaktasātha baladeva jagannātha, tā̃ra pirya śrī bhaktivinoda |
mahābhāgavata-vara śrī gaura-kiśora-vara, hari bhajanete jā̃ra moda ||
ihārā paramahaṁsa, gaurāṅgera nija-vaṁśa, tā̃dera caraṇe mama gati |
āmi sevā-udāsīna, nāmete tridaṇḍī dīna, śrī bhaktisiddhānta sarasvatī ||
[These are all Paramahaṁsas, Gaurāṅga's own family; my destination is at their feet.
I am indifferent service, a fallen tridaṇḍi by the name of Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī.]
(From the Gauḍīya Maṭha edition of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam published by Śrī Ananta-Vāsudeva)
__________________
Maṅgalācaraṇa in the Vedas and Upaniṣads
We also see the use of maṅgalācaraṇa in all ancient scriptures, both those that are apauruṣeya (not of mortal origin) and those that are pauruṣeya (of man-made provenance). Of the four Vedas—Ṛk, Yajuḥ, Sāma, and Atharva—the Ṛg Veda is the oldest, and is considered the original Veda. At the beginning of this Vedic text, we see the etiquette of maṅgalācaraṇa embodied and taught in the very first mantra:
“oṁ agnimīle purohitaṁ yajñasya deva-mṛtvijaṁ hotāraṁ ratna-dhātam4 |” (Ṛg Veda, 1st Maṇḍala, 1st Sūkta, 1st Ṛk) – I praise the god of fire. He is the family purohita priest of the sacrifice as well as the intermediary ṛtvik priest and the officiating hotā. He is its presiding diety and has full claim to the finest of gems.” (Sāyanācārya has written the following his commentary to this: “agni-nāmakaṁ deva-mīle | staumi | īḍa stauti| … ḍa-kārasya la-kāraḥ … prāptaḥ |”)
__________________
4 From 5th page of Ṛg-veda Saṁhitā, edited by Śrīyuta Durgācaraṇa Lāhiḍī.
__________________
From this we can understand that the Ṛg Veda itself has performed a maṅgalācaraṇa by uttering the oṁkāra and praising Agni-devatā. It is not that the Veda is itself trying to dispel any inauspiciousness that might befall it with this maṅgalācaraṇa. It must be understood that Bhagavān is uttering these words as teachings to the jīvas. We cannot take this to mean that Bhagavān is dispelling His own inauspiciousness with this Vedic maṅgalācaraṇa. If one does not maintain the Vedic standard of etiquette and perform a maṅgalācaraṇa, then one’s work will be relegated to the non-Vedic, Buddhist category of texts. We glean this implication from the aforementioned statement of Veda itself. This tradition exists not only in the Vedas, but also in the Upaniṣads. The teachings born from the supramundane contemplations of the Ṛṣis as they studied the Vedas manifested in the form of the Upaniṣads, and there too we find that they all begin with a maṅgalācaraṇa. The Īśopaniṣad and Bṛhad Āraṇyaka Upaniṣad share the same śānti-pāṭha [“prayer for peace”] as their maṅgalācaraṇa:
“oṁ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaṁ pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate |
pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate || oṁ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥi ||”
The śānti-pāṭha type of maṅgalācaraṇa found in the Muṇḍakopaniṣad, Praśnopaniṣad, and Nṛsiṁha-Tāpanī is as follows: “oṁ bhadraṁ karṇebhiḥ śṛṇuyām” etc. In Aitareyopaniṣad, Kauśītakī Upaniṣad, Mudgalopaniṣad, and others, we see “oṁ vāñ me manasīti śāntiḥ.” The śānti-pāṭha invoked in the Kaṭha and Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣads is of the same variety: “oṁ saha nāvavatu | saha nau bhunaktu | … oṁ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ.”
Maṅgalācaraṇa of the Sūtrakāras
The six darśanas (philosophies) of India are recorded in sūtra (aphorism) form. I will discuss the topic of Nyāya philosophy later, but for now, a review of the five darśanas—Sāṅkhya, Pātañjala, Vaiśeṣika, Pūrva-mīmāṁsā and Uttara-mīmāṁsā̃—reveals that each of them has included a maṅgalācaraṇa via the word ‘atha’. As the Vedas, Upaniṣads, and their corrallaries perform maṅgalācaraṇa via the word ‘oṁ’, the authors of the sūtras have done their maṅgalācaraṇas simply with the word ‘atha’.
The first sūtra of Kapila’s Sāṅkhya darśana is “atha trividha-duḥkhātyanta-nivṛttir atyanta-puruṣārthaḥ.” Here the word ‘atha’ is interpreted as a maṅgalācaraṇa, as Ācārya Vijñāna Bhikṣu writes in his commentary to this sūtra: “‘atha’ śabdo ’yam uccāraṇa-mātreṇa maṅgala-rūpaḥ.”
In Patañjali’s Yoga-sūtra, we see “atha yoga-śāsanam.” The fact that the word ‘atha’ in this first sūtra of the Yoga darśana is meant to be a maṅgalācaraṇa is clearly proven in the ṭīkā of Vācaspati Miśra: “athaiṣa ‘jyotir-ativat’, natvānantaryārthaḥ | … adhikārārthasya cā ’tha-śabdasyā ’nyārthaṁ nīya-mānoda-kumbha-darśanamiva śravaṇam maṅgalāyopakalpata iti mantavyam.”
The first sūtra of Kaṇāda’s Vaiśeṣika darśana is “athāto dharmaṁ vyākhyāsyāmaḥ,” and again in the first sūtra of Jaiminī’s Pūrva-Mīmāṁsa—“athāto dharma-jijñāsā”—we see a maṅgalācaraṇa via the word ‘atha’. In the foremost of these darśanas, Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Veda-vyāsa’s Uttara-mīmāṁsā, we see the first sūtra of the Vedānta darśana is: “athāto brahma-jijñāsā.” All the ācāryas have accepted the word ‘atha’ in Vedānta to be a maṅgalācaraṇa. Of all the sūtra texts, Brahma-sūtra is the one that delivers to us sambandha-jñāna. Then, for the perspective of abhidheya-tattva, in Śāṇḍilya Ṛṣi’s sūtras we see “athāto bhakti-jijñāsā,” and from the prayojana-tattva5 angle, again we find a maṅgalācaraṇa via the word ‘atha’ in Nārada’s bhakti-sūtras: “athāto bhaktiṁ vyākhyāsyāmaḥ.”
__________________
5 Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas take bhakti to exist in both abhidheya and prayojana forms. Śāṇḍilya’s bhakti-sūtras discuss abhidheya-tattva, whereas Śrī Nārada’s bhakti-sūtras address prayojana-tattva. To explain bhakti, he has written in the second sūtra of the aforementioned text: “sā tvasmin parama-prema-rūpā.” In the third sūtra, he writes: “amṛta-svarūpā ca” etc. From this, we learn the bhakti described by Nārada is in the stage of prema, the foundational stage of the prayojana, which is likened to amṛta, the nectar of immortality.
__________________
Even Pāṇini Ṛṣi has written “atha śabdānuśāsanam” in his first sūtra. Therefore, we see that as the authors of the sūtras proceeded to describe their respective conclusions in extreme brevity, they channeled the depth of sentiment in their hearts into a maṅgalācaraṇa via the word ‘atha’. In some places in the Vedas, Upaniṣads, and other similar literatures, the maṅgalācaraṇas are performed with the “oṁ” bīja-mantra. All of these examples indicate that a maṅgalācaraṇa is imperative at the start of any grantha.
Discernment of Namaskāra in the Kātantra
The author of the Kātantra performs his maṅgalācaraṇa not with ‘atha’, but with the word ‘siddhi’. The commentators on the Kātantra (otherwise known as Kalāpa-vyākaraṇa) have written extensively on the use of this word ‘siddhi’. Of them, the Pañjikā-ṭīkā by Trilocana and Kaumudī-ṭīkā by Abrada Tarka-cūḍāmaṇi are notable in this regard. We request Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya to study the critical analysis of maṅgalācaraṇa performance these commentators have provided, which includes quotations of all the arguments against performing a maṅgalācaraṇa. Though this study of theirs was printed along with the main text of Kalāpa-vyākaraṇa, it has been published separately by Īśvaracandra Tarka-vāgīśa in 1306 Baṅgābda, under the title “Namaskāra Vivekaḥ.” It states clearly there that if one does not include a maṅgalācaraṇa, one’s text is bound to retain many types of flaws. It is evident to us that Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya’s book is full of many such erroneous conclusions, as outlined in the Pañjikā-vṛtti-vyākhyā and Kaumundī-ṭīkā of Kātantra.
Refutation of Dayānanda’s Conceptions on Maṅgalācaraṇa
In reality, it is not acceptable for anyone besides the speakers of the Vedas or Upaniṣads and the authors of the sūtra texts to perform a maṅgalācaraṇa with the words ‘oṁ’ or ‘atha’. We see the following claim in a book by Dayānanda Sarasvatī titled Satyārtha Prakāśa: “Performing a maṅgalācaraṇa by any śloka, phrase, or chanda other than the words ‘atha’ and ‘oṁ’ is not endorsed by the Vedas.” We deem this opinion of his to be the embodiment of atheism and a train of thought that is utterly bereft of tattva-jñāna. In the sūtra style, the verbosity of the mind is restrained and, instead, a profound and expansive truth is fully expressed in few words6. Therefore, if putting the full emotion of the heart into verse form and conveying one’s faithful offering to one’s cherished deity cannot be accepted as a maṅgalācaraṇa, then what are we to call a maṅgalācaraṇa? What else is to be considered a expression of honor and proper etiquette? Svāmī Dayānanda’s opinion is very laughable and wholly rejectable, because the Vedas and Upaniṣads have clearly not performed their maṅgalācaraṇas only with the word ‘oṁ’. As for the sūtrakāras, it is only because their mode of presentation is so constrained that they do their maṅgalācaraṇas with the word ‘atha’.
__________________
6 alpākṣaram analpārthaṁ viśuddhaṁ sarvato mukhaṁ |
viśeṣa-kathanopekṣaṁ sūtraṁ sūtra-vido viduḥ ||
This is quoted from the commentary of sūtra 42 of Harināmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa—Rāma-nārāyaṇa Vidyaratna’s edition, Behrampore; its author is Durgādāsa, commentator on the Mukha-bodha-vyākaraṇa.
__________________
Our Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya will possibly say: “Where is the proof that we have to follow the etiquette of performing maṅgalācaraṇa?” Even total atheists like Svāmī Dayānanda who are inimical to the deity form of the Lord have been compelled to accept some manner of maṅgalācaraṇa etiquette. Subodha Bābu may think that even though this is a long-practiced custom, because there is no hard proof for it, there is nothing wrong with not honoring it. The reason we assume this is because he has already perpetrated atrocities against the mahā-mantra, claiming without proof that mahā-mantra is not to be sung and chanted aloud. This false statement is like dealing a blow to the form of śrī nāma with a mace. By doing so he has become an nāmāparādhī. We will, with evidence based on scriptural reasoning, refute the nāmaparādha conceptions disseminated in this Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda book by this stain on our community, Vidyāvinoda. Those who do not engage in loud kīrtana of the sixteen-name, thirty-two-syllable mahā-mantra are phony nāmāparādhī ascetics.
Sāṅkhya philosophy on maṅgalācaraṇa
In the Sāṅkhya philosophy of Kapila, we see evidence in support of observing the maṅgalācaraṇa etiquette:
“maṅgalācaraṇaṁ śiṣṭācārāt” phala-darśanāt śrutitaś-ceti ||”
(Sāṅkhya-darśana 5.1)
“For the sake of observing etiquette and in order to see proper results, and to honor tradition, it has been determined that it is imperative to perform a maṅgalācaraṇa.”
Thus, we see that the author of the aforementioned Sāṅkhya sūtras does not disregard the custom of maṅgalācaraṇa either. And Vijñāna Bhikṣu also writes: “maṅgalācaraṇaṁ śiṣṭācārāt iti svayam eva pañcamādhyāye vakṣyati – the sūtra author himself explains in the fifth chapter that maṅgalācaraṇa is proper, customary etiquette.” Vijñāna Bhikṣu has pointed this out in his commentary on the word ‘atha’ in the first sūtra. In other words, it is being clearly established that there is indeed a need to perform a maṅgalācaraṇa at the start of any grantha.
Perhaps Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya will think, “Kapila’s Sāṅkhya is a yoga-śāstra; why should we Vaiṣṇavas accept his word?” When it comes to the history of India philosophy, everyone unanimously accepts Sāṅkhya darśana to be the oldest, and even in Vedānta, Vyāsadeva does not transgress the tenets of Sāṅkhya in relation to the creation of the material universe. Even though it is an atheistic school of thought and its theories on sādhya and sādhana have been totally refuted, its statement “maṅgalācaraṇaṁ śiṣṭācārāt” (5.1) has not been transgressed in any way. Who can say that this statement was not made by the Kapila who was the Lord’s śaktyāveśa-avatāra, the son of Devahūti? According to Ācārya Vijñāna Bhikṣu7, Devahūti-nandana Kapila is indeed the author of the Sāṅkhya sūtras. These sūtras are twenty-two in total. Their extension, or explanation, the Sāṅkhya-pravacana, which is comprised of six chapters, was composed by the Kapila who was an incarnation of Agni. It is this Sāṅkhya-pravacana that represents Sāṅkhya philosophy in the current age. Vijñāna Bhikṣu states that the original twenty-two Sāṅkhya sūtras form the basis of Sāṅkhya-pravacana. Thus we must conclude that the statement “maṅgalācaraṇaṁ śiṣṭācārāt” comes directly from the Kapila who was an avatāra of Viṣṇu and the son of Devahūti.
__________________
7 “Śāstra-mukhyārtha-vistāras-tantrākhye ’nukta-pūraṇaiḥ | ṣaṣṭhādhyāye kṛtaḥ paścād-vākyārthaś-copasaṁhṛtaḥ ||” tad-idaṁ sāṅkhya-śāstraṁ kapila-mūrtti-bhagavān viṣṇur-akhila-loka-hitāya prakāśitavān | yat tatra vedānti-bruvaḥ kaścid āhaḥ—sāṅkhya-praṇetā kapilo na viṣṇuḥ | kintv-agnyavatāraḥ kapilāntaram—“agniḥ sas kapilo nāma sāṅkhya-śāstra-pravarttakaḥ |” iti (mahābhārata) smṛter iti | tal-loka-vyāmohana-mātram | “etan-me janma loke ’smin mumukṣuṇāṁ durāśayāt | prasaṅkhyānāya tattvānāṁ sammatāyātma-darśane ||” ityādi (bhāgavata 3.24.36) smṛtiṣu viṣṇvavatārasya devahūti-putrasyaiva sāṅkhyopdeṣṭṛtvāvagamāt | kapila-dvaya-kalpanāgauravāc ca | tatra cāgni-śabdo ’gnyākhya-śaktyāveśād eva prayuktaḥ | yathā—“kālo ’smi loka-kṣaya-kṛt prabuddhaḥ |” iti (gītā 11.32) śrī kṛṣṇa-vākye kāla-śaktyāveśād eva kāla-śabdaḥ | anyathā viśvarūpa-pradarśaka-kṛṣṇasyāpi viṣṇvavatāra-kṛṣṇād-bhedāpatter iti dik || (sā bhā—6.70)
__________________
And if one is to disregard the views of Vijñāna Bhikṣu, the ancient śunyavādī preceptor of Sāṅkhya, Gauḍapāda, informs us at the start of his Sāṅkhya-bhāṣya that Kapiladeva is one of the seven sons of Brahmā8. If we accept Gauḍapāda’s statement for the sake of argument, then the author of the Sāṅkhya darśana, Kapila, the son of Brahmā, is a third Kapila. This Brahmaputra Kapila would have to be different from Vijñāna Bhikṣu’s agni-avatāra Kapila and Devahūti’ son Kapila. If he is Brahmā’s son, then those in the Brahma-sampradāya should not object to accepting his statements. Thus, whichever Kapila it was who made that statement, if it is favorable to bhagavad-bhajana, then there is nothing stopping us from accepting it.
__________________
8 “iha bhagavān brahma-sutaḥ kapilo nāma | tad yathā—sanakaś ca sanandaś ca tṛtīyaś ca sanātanaḥ | kapilaś cāsuriś caiva boḍhūṁ pañca-śikhas tathā | antya ityete brahmaṇaḥ putroḥ sapta proktā maharṣayaḥ ||”
(From Kālivara Vedānta-vāgīśa’s preface to the 5th edition of Sāṅkya-darśanam, page 9)
__________________
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam on śiṣṭācāra (Etiquette)
Putting aside all other views, we are bound to accept the decrees of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam with bowed heads. Śrī Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsadeva himself has demonstrated proper etiquette by performing his maṅgalācaraṇa in Vedānta-sūtra by the word ‘atha’ and in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam by the verse “janmādy asya”. He demonstrates the etiquette himself and is not remiss in putting clear injunctions on the topic into written word. We see in the First Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, second chapter, fourth verse:
nārāyāṇaṁ namaskṛtya narañcaiva narottamam |
devīṁ sarasvatīm vyāsaṁ tato jayam udīrayet ||
In other words: “The presiding deity of this scripture is Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Person, and the incarnation of Bhagavān known as Nara Ṛṣi. After offering obeisance to them as well as to the goddess of divine knowledge, Sarasvatī, and the sage Vyāsadeva, one is to recite this sacred text that allows one to conquer saṁsāra.”
(Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam published in 437 Śrī Caitanyābda by Ananta Vāsudeva)
The aforementioned śloka ordains obeisance to one’s worshipful deities before doing anything else. After thus glorifying them in order to conquer this nescient existence, one may compose instructive texts, etc. In this context, we are quoting Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary: “jayatyanena saṁsāram iti jayo granthas tam udīrayet iti svayaṁ tathodīrayan anyān api paurāṇikānupaśikṣyati.” Vyāsadeva himself, in order to compose the sacred text of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which enables the conditioned souls to conquer saṁsāra, has demonstrated the tradition of offering obeisance to one’s worshipful deity. Not only that, but—“anyān api paurāṇikān upaśikṣayati.” In other words, we understand from this statement of Śrīdhara Svāmī that Vyāsadeva did this so that other authorities of the Purāṇas would offer their respects to the Supreme Lord and compose other similar literatures that may be referred to by the word jaya (“victory”)9. Even though Śrīdhara-svāmipāda is not a predecessor ācārya of the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya and there are significant differences between his conceptions and those of Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇavas, everyone has shown him tremendous respect as being the original commentator on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in one sense, among all the other commonly read Bhāgavata commentators. In his Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda, Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya has invested considerable effort into trying to prove that Śrīman Mahāprabhu was a follower of Śrīdhara Svāmipāda’s lineage. That is precisely why I have been compelled to quote Śrīdhara Svāmipāda’s statement here and expose Sāhā Bābu’s unwillingness to observe proper etiquette in this regard. If we understand from the aforementioned verse’s statement (“tato jayam udīrayet”) that after offering our obeisance we are to utter the word “jaya,” then we can see that “Śrī Śrī Guru-Gaurāṅgau Jayataḥ” has not been used in Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya’s title in a way that follows in Śrīdhara Svāmipāda’s footsteps. And since we know the word jaya refers to all saṁsāra-conquering scriptures, we can understand that the book Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda has not been written for the purpose of conquering saṁsāra.
__________________
9 jaya-śabdasyāyam artho bhaviṣyottare | viṣṇu-dharmādi-śāstrāṇi śiva-dharmaś ca bhārata | kārṣañca pañcamo vedo yan mahābhārataṁ smṛtam || sītā-rāmādi-dharmāś ca mānavoktā mahīpate | jayeti nāma caiteṣāṁ pravadanti manīṣiṇa iti ||—(footnote on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.2.4, from the edition of Śrī Khagendranātha Śāstri)
__________________
It is relevant in this context to inform the readers of a certain aspect of Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya’s nature. In the various books he has written, he has advocated a number of conflicting conclusions and self-contradictory ideas; and if you ask him in person why he has written all these perplexing statements, he responds: “I am not the operator, just an instrument.” So, by his own admission, he is like a paid employee and does not have a problem with publishing completely conflicting views according to the wishes of whoever he is subservient to at any given time. We will lay bare this habit of his as we proceed to critique his book in these articles. For now, our question is: Who is the actual operator behind this Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda book? Has this figure behind the curtain not been able to conquer saṁsāra and instead relinquished his śrī gurudeva and sannyāsa to become a degraded sort of householder? And is Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya becoming a vāntāśī as well and spending his whole life in the gṛhastha-āśrama? If so, then how will his writings comprise a book that can help people cross over saṁsāra? Instead it will be a tome that fosters states of eternal frog-like entrapment in the well of material existence. Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya’s book has not upheld the purport of Śrīdhara Svāmipāda’s statement: “saṁsāram iti jayo grantham udīrayet”—nor can it.
This ‘jaya’ word spoken in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was referring to books that are full of powerful instructions that afford one the ability to conquer this nescient state of existence. And the word ‘udīrayet’ refers to the recitation of such texts, as well as to their composition or compilation. Therefore, this ‘jaya’ refers to all the teachings imparted by the authors of scripture and the various Purāṇic authorities. Svāmipāda’s mention of ‘anyān api’ is in reference to anyone else who may write instructive texts. Therefore, it follows that everyone is expected to observe the procedural etiquettes of such writing as prescribed in śāstra. This is the purport of Śrīdhara Svāmipāda’s commentary.
In his commentary to the aforementioned śloka, Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, following the lead of previous ācārya commentators of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, has provided another very clear instruction to the writers of granthas: “guruṁ natvā devatādīn praṇamati nārāyaṇam iti.” Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura’s instruction is this: “First one must offer obeisance to gurudeva, and then one can offer obeisance to one’s upāsya-tattva (whichever form of Bhagavān one chooses to worship). In the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya, there is no need to give any separate introduction to who Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura is. He is a mahā-mahopādhyāya scholar in all scriptures. Whether you look at his Vaiṣṇava qualities or at his role as a protector of the sampradāya, Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura’s name commands distinction in every respect. Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya’s neglect of this “guruṁ natvā” instruction of Śrīla Cakravartī Ṭhākura gives us further reason not to accept his book as any sort of helpful, saintly text.
To sum up, we have seen that even Śrī Vyāsadeva himself does not transgress the standard established in Sāṅkhya—“maṅgalācaraṇaṁ śiṣṭācārāt.” He has demonstrated that etiquette himself in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and put into writing the rules for maṅgalācaraṇa. If one neglects this standard, no matter what task one sets about, no good will come of it. Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya has included maṅgalācaraṇas in all the other books he has done, but with this ‘vāda’ book of his, this Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda, it is as if the gods or fate itself knew he would be publishing conclusions opposed to pure Vaiṣṇava philosophy and so, he was somehow deterred from following the proper etiquette. We will demonstrate in detail how his book has managed to be opposed to siddhānta, opposed to guru and Vaiṣṇavas, contradictory to history, contradictory to proper presentation of evidence, antithetical to proper conduct, antithetical to civility, antithetical to purity, at odds with Gauḍīya thought, inimical to the Gosvāmīs, inimical to Śrī Caitanya, contrary to the sampradāya, opposed to śrī nāma, and opposed to everything else of the like.