While reading a certain sectarian periodical, I observed that a certain traveller, wandering within the narrow jungle of sectarianism, having become self-bewildered by limited knowledge, had become eager to devise a new system concerning true dharma, even before attaining the qualification to properly achieve that which is truly valuable.

It is a matter of sorrow that although the author combines discussions on all the darśana-śāstras (philosophical works), Vedānta, and adherence to the ācāryas, he nevertheless, despite all his cultivation of jñāna (knowledge), while attempting to nourish religious sentiment, has taken refuge in self-importance.

It is better not to cultivate, through such intellectual discussions, a religion sustained by self-importance. Those wrongdoers identified by the author are incapable of accepting religion as he conceives it, because Śrī Gauracandra, the ocean of infinite knowledge and saviour of the fallen, teaches exactly the opposite of self-importance.

tṛṇād api sunīcena taror api sahiṣṇunā
amāninā mānadena kīrtanīyaḥ sadā hariḥ

One who considers himself as insignificant as grass, who is more tolerant than a tree, who is without pride and shows respect unto others – he is always eligible to engage in hari-kīrtana. (Śikṣāṣṭakam 3)

In this way, He has given such instructions.

Although it is inappropriate to inundate the sacred form of Sajjana Toṣaṇī with rambling and corrupt discussions such as this, a brief deliberation is necessary so that this misguided follower of such a modern ideology does not cause unnecessary suffering to the hearts of the holy Vaiṣṇavas and does not make pure bhakti troublesome.

A few lines of the author are quoted here:

Without the illumination of jñāna, religious sentiment can never become fully nourished, nor can it protect one from the rubbish of superstition. When Śāntipura was, as it were, submerged in the powerful flood of prema, those who were leaders in that sphere at the time – even though they did not understand that there was also some necessity for jñāna in the field of religion – if they could return today and see to what extreme condition their prema had descended due to the absence of jñāna, they would themselves say that the neglect of jñāna was indeed a grave misdeed.

The author is a servant of the path of jñāna. He likes nothing except jñāna. Even pure prema does not satisfy him unless it is mixed with fragments of jñāna. Such is his inclination that he even tries to equate love attained through supreme realisation with jñāna itself.

Be that as it may, here it should be briefly explained to him in simple language, the relationship between jñāna and bhakti. Knowledge of the relationship between śaktimān (the possessor of potency) and His śakti (potency) is supreme knowledge; all other knowledge apart from this is known as apara-jñāna (inferior knowledge). In other words, true knowledge is the proper understanding of the nature of Bhagavān and the jīva. Apart from jñātṛtva (the ‘knowing-nature’) of jñāna, it has is no other function. This is the last limit of jñāna. A jñāna-oriented person in unqualified to go further than this.

Taking only a single aspect of His infinite potency, the knowers of Brahman, climbing the highest peak of the mountain of ego by means of that very potency, upon reaching that supreme zenith, attain jñāna and realise their svarūpa (intrinsic nature). Even then, having attained parabrahma-jñāna (knowledge of the Supreme Brahman), they become eager – almost insane – to obtain a particle of prema. Then, if at that stage, a jñānavādī, still regarding that condition as belonging to the domain of jñāna, advises reliance upon knowledge, then that must be said to be his misfortune. The jñānavādī remains bound within jñāna; his aim is not the attainment of the true goal.

The entrance exam for true religion is itself liberation from the strong chains of jñāna. As long as a human being remains fallen within the womb of karma, his desire for enjoyment remains strong. When he becomes exhausted by the wheel of karma, then cessation of action itself becomes desirable for him. He naturally continues the cultivation of that of which he is constituted. When the covering of karma is removed, the jñāna-oriented jīva remains caught in the wheel of jñāna. Without the cultivation of jñāna, there is no liberation from the vicious cycle of karma. The ultimate result of jñāna is the destruction of karma. Freedom from karma is only a secondary attainment of jñāna. At its highest stage, the cultivation of jñāna culminates in sambandha-jñāna (knowledge of one’s relationship with the Supreme). Beyond this, the driving force of jñāna has no further movement. Jñāna is not something to be attained as an end in itself. Through its help, the desired goal is attained. Jñāna is merely a means; it is not the goal.

It cannot be said that simply because knowledge has been attained, the desired goal has also been achieved – rather, the path to the attaining the goal has merely been determined. Since the inherent nature of the jīva is full of knowledge, jñāna is regarded as an important principle. However, although knowledge is an important principle, it is not the ultimate object to be attained. The goal is not jñāna; it is something else. It is bhakti or prema. Bhakti or prema, although it is a means, is also itself the goal. When the object to be achieved is obtained with the help of knowledge as a means, the jñānī-jīva will never again engage in discussions on jñāna; he has no need for such discussions. Just as, if one says “I possess a lakh of coins,” there is no need to separately mention that one also possesses two coins or four coins – it is understood by that alone.

However, the wealth of the jñānavādī is only a single small coin; he does not know how to count anything beyond that. Therefore, being unable to measure the wealth of a millionaire, he sometimes speaks foolishly like an immature child. When the cultivation of jñāna becomes mature, experience is attained; and for the jñānī, that experience itself becomes the cultivation of prema. The childish jñānavādī, considering his own fragile piece of knowledge to be extremely valuable, does not hesitate to treat even the cintāmaṇi jewel of prema as equal to it.

Experienced devotees have understood that the hunger of a person who is genuinely famished should be relieved by feeding him good food. In the matter of hunger, an unqualified jñānavādī comes and says that one should merely discuss what hunger is. The task will be accomplished simply by discussing taste. As long as the urge for actually tasting remains weaker than the tendency for discussion, one will like to waste time discussing such topics as brahma-jñāna, sambandha-jñāna etc. If the cultivation of jñāna or mere discussion alone constitutes religion, and if their desired goal is fulfilled through discussion, then the aim of the jñānavādī and the devotee are completely different. The purpose of the architect is to construct a palace, whereas the purpose of a king is to reside within it. The confectioner’s purpose is to prepare sweets, whereas the hungry person’s purpose is to taste them. If the aims of the jñānavādī and the devotee are different, then I request the servant of jñāna to abandon the attempt to equate himself with the devotee.

A hungry devotee, by whatever means necessary, will certainly attain whatever knowledge is required regarding the food he desires. However, at the time of eating, such argumentative quibbling about whether Hari Dāsa the confectioner or Rāma Dāsa the confectioner originally belonged to the barber caste and were transformed into confectioners by the mercy of Śrī Gaurāṅga – such discussions are not accepted by him as being any part of the act of eating! Before eating, the devotee receives this assurance – that before him, mahājanas have partaken of that very food and attained divine love. They did not destroy themselves by consuming the poison of māyāvāda. Kevala-brahma-jñāna, nirviśeṣa-jñāna, Kapila’s prakṛti-jñāna, and such other childish and deluding poisonous sweets are not fit to be accepted by them. Ātma-jñāna (knowledge of the ātma), ātmānubhūti (experience of the ātmā), and the knowledge of the relation between the śaktima-tattva (the principle of the possessor of all potencies) and His śakti enhance the wonderful relish of those things which are fit to be experienced by them. They possess considerable experience in distinguishing between nectar and poisonous food. To claim that they lack experience even regarding how many sweets or curd there are, how they were prepared, by whom, and in what manner, is itself a display of ignorance – such talk only befits an immature jñānavādī. Within the Śrī Gauḍīya sampradāya, there are many persons who advise the jñānavādī to examine in detail the entire method of preparing his ‘poisonous lāḍḍus’ and to then consume them, thereby bringing about his own destruction. However, such persons do not become intoxicated with pride and show their self-importance by claiming to be more knowledgeable than the jñānavādī.

For the benefit of the jñānavādī, the best of ācāryas, Śrīmad Rūpa Gosvāmī has written about bhakti in his book Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu. After reading that, it is proper for the jñānī to accept it with a bowed head. If the jñānī’s efforts for knowledge is like burning hunger, and that too is rejected, then what remains of dharma?

bhukti-mukti-spṛhā yāvat piśācī hṛdi vartate
tāvad bhakti-sukhasyātra katham abhyudayo bhavet

As long as the witches of mundane pleasures or mukti reside within the heart, how can there ever be an awakening of the bliss of bhakti? (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.22)

anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam
ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānuśīlanaṁ bhaktir uttamā

The highest type of bhakti is that which is free from all desires, not covered by jñāna, karma etc. and which is favourable for service to Kṛṣṇa. (Bhakti-rasāmṛṭa-sindhu 1.1.11)

Whoever accepts bhakti as the goal thereby achieves the desired result of parama-jñāna (supreme knowledge). For a jīva endowed with knowledge, the purpose is to attain bhakti as the goal, by whatever means. Once the goal has already been determined, it is not proper to again attempt to redefine the goal and, like someone with a deranged mind, unnecessarily churn distorted jñāna. If the help of jñāna is still necessary, then it must be said that bhakti has not yet arisen. Even when brahma-jñāna is fully attained, whatever is achieved thereby is so insignificant that calling it ‘bhakti’ or ‘a particle of prema’ is merely a form of praise.

Śrīpāda has written in his book:

brahmānando bhaved eṣa cet parārdha-guṇī-kṛtaḥ
naiti bhakti-sukhāmbhodheḥ paramāṇu-tulām api

Even if the bliss of Brahman were multiplied by billions of times, it could not compare to even a single particle of the ocean of happiness found in bhakti. (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.1.38)

If, by the sādhana of jñāna, by cooking food, or even becoming a cobbler and making shoes, one’s knowledge does not lead to the attainment of bhakti as the goal – if the pleasure of eating is not actually achieved, and if the shoes are not actually used – then all such efforts end only in futile labour. It must be said that this is the aim of the jñānavādī. Will the wearer of shoes attain his goal simply by discussing in detail the entire craft of shoemaking? No – only by actually wearing the shoes can the desired goal be achieved.

What is the need for a devotee to discuss jñāna? In days of immaturity before becoming a devotee, he had already displayed his own scholarship and, having understood its uselessness, he gave it up. So why are you again requesting him to enter a group of ‘calves’?

It is the jñānavādī himself who is a slave to such states as mental conditioning (saṁskāra), unfavourable conditioning (ku-saṁskara) etc. When jñāna is achieved and one becomes freed from the grip of both favourable and unfavourable conditioning, and the conclusion is established, then there is no further need for the cultivation of jñāna. If one were to gather up the mental attitudes of the members of the jñānavādī community, they would themselves end up labelling each other as being bound by unfavourable conditioning. Just as Huxley, Cārvāka, Darwin etc. would view the modern Vedāntic jñānavādī as unfavourably conditioned and intellectually inferior, they would also regard him as trapped in a well of various forms of mental debris.

O narrow-minded, sectarian, so-called ‘progressive’ jñānavādī! I do not know why you attempt to inject your waste materials into the pure body of the devotee who is beyond jñāna. Your attempt to fill all directions with the smell of your own refuse is simply a sign of your ignorant practices. This is because you have not attained true knowledge. If any real benefit has indeed come from your cultivation of jñāna, then having drawn a conclusion, you have, according to your own understanding, fallen into some rubbish heap of unfavourable conditioning. There is no other way left to clean up your refuse. You are creating utter disrespect with your contradictory words. Once a conclusion has been established, there is no further need for the cultivation of jñāna. Just as, after seeing a clock, one knows it is midnight – so also, when something is already known, is it not a sign of a deranged mind to try to know it again? If bhakti or prema is accepted as something obtainable through jñāna, yet superior and more essential than jñāna, then why is there again an attempt to add some impurity to it?

Only a jñānavādī would be able to ascertain how ‘knowledgeable’ it is to label an actor in a theatrical troupe as a Vaiṣṇava, simply because he is dressed in Vaiṣṇava attire. If someone from a theatrical troupe appears dressed as a jñānavādī or brahmavādī, and one observes his conduct at other times – or his actions contrary to that role – and then becomes inclined to criticise jñānavāda on the basis of that, it is hard to understand what kind of mentality this reflects. If someone, simply posing as a jñānavādī, presents ignorance as knowledge, then it cannot be that a true jñānavādī would accept him as a realised sage out of blind faith. Those corrupt, selfish, low-minded persons who, like cranes,* have taken refuge under the guise of supremely pure dharma are not to be accepted as the topmost religious persons, mahā-puruṣa devotees who have attained knowledge, merely on that account. Under the system of jñānavāda, who can give assurance that such low-minded persons have not taken shelter there or will not take shelter there? Merely because of such a class of people, mahājanas cannot become eligible for ridicule by short-sighted persons who love jñāna.

* Translator’s Note: A crane stands still in the water as if meditating, but is simply looking for a fish to eat. Similarly, pseudo-religious persons pose as if they are righteous, but their saintliness is merely a show.

It is seen that, once impurity in the form of jñāna has entered into prema-dharma, various sub-sects have been created. By wounding Bhakti Devī and inserting their own narrow intellectual ideas, hypocrites disguised as devotees have many times attempted to inject the poison of māyāvāda into pure bhakti. The attempt of this modern jñānavādī is not new.

In trying to make bhakti subordinate to jñāna, people have become less aware of their own lack of foresight. As a result, the Bāulas, Kartābhajās, and similar anti-devotional sects are mistakenly seen by inexperienced people as belonging to pure dharma. Even though the names ‘Bāula’ and ‘Kartābhajā’ have been abandoned, nowadays there are classes of so-called jñānī–bhakta groups who promote bhakti on the foundation of māyāvāda, thereby robbing ignorant people of their ability to distinguish between what is beneficial and harmful. Such groups are also quite influential today.

To blame the ācāryas of a tradition for lack of foresight based on the conduct of ‘theatrical’ Vaiṣṇavas or jñānīs – whose conduct is merely performative – is an argument that only serves the interests of selfish people. It is not the case that, because bhakti may not be found within dry, rigid jñāna and it is feared to ‘spoil’ without it, like milk, then one should therefore restrict oneself only to the hard gravel of jñāna. One should prepare pure milk and consume only that. If milk is mixed with the gravel of jñāna, it will certainly become spoilt.

If one supports the false doctrines of this new innovator and tries to alter the eternal jaiva–dharma, then Bāulas, Kartābhajā, Nava-Gorā, Theosophy, modern Brahmo, and opportunistic sects bearing tāntrika or Vedic names will be created. The world of bhakti will disappear. No matter how much jñānavādīs may disguise themselves and attempt to hide their inner disposition from devotees, the seed of māyāvāda within their hearts will inevitably strike at the very root of bhakti.

For this reason, Śrī Śrī Gauracandra, the purifier of Kali-yuga and the true ocean of mercy, has determined that renouncing the company of māyāvādīs is the only means of increasing bhakti. Within this group of jñānavādīs, māyāvāda sometimes lies in a latent form and sometimes becomes fully manifest like deadly poison. And even though māyāvādīs may be situated at different levels, there is no doubt that this is opposed to Brahman. The attempt to illuminate pure, sun-like prema with the light of the glow-worm of brahma-jñāna is itself a despicable act – and that wrongdoing has been committed by a short-sighted jñānavādī.

If the favour of persons within their community decreases, then people in general will more clearly perceive the purity of bhakti. If one tries to become a devotee by increasing jñāna, then such a type of blemish is inevitable. Just as in the ‘crow and palm fruit’,* causality is wrongly attributed to the crow, so too the jñānavādī’s method of causal reasoning is no better than that. Pure bhakti becomes contaminated when mixed with jñāna. And the proposed remedy for this defect is that if even more jñāna is mixed with bhakti, then that very defect will not remain! If a limb is burned and deformed by acid, the proposed treatment is that if the entire body had already been deformed by acid, then this defect would not have been possible! O jñānavādī, the misfortune you see is not due to pure bhakti being free from the gravel of jñāna – it is due to an absence of bhakti itself.

*Translator’s Note: Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura is referring here to the Kāka-tālīya Nyāya (logic of the crow and palm fruit). A crow lands upon the branch of a palm tree. When he does so, a ripe palm-fruit falls to the ground. The fall of the fruit is thus attributed to the perching of the crow. This example is given to denote cause and effect – was the crow the reason for the fall of the fruit, or was the fruit meant to fall at that time, with or without the crow perching there?

If there were bhakti to Bhagavān, or if the necessity of bhakti were understood, then such distortions would never arise among those non-devotees whom you label as devotees. The chief instrument for producing an absence of bhakti is ignorance – which you call ‘jñāna.’ When proper eligibility arises, then along with the attainment of jñāna, your ignorance will disappear. As long as you are engaged in the cultivation of jñāna, that itself is ajñāna (ignorance), because when pure knowledge or bhakti is attained, you can no longer call the method you previously adopted as ‘knowledge.’ Unless the cultivation of jñāna ceases, bhakti or prema cannot arise. By calling that which is destructive to bhakti as ‘knowledge’, then attempting to mix it with bhakti and by accepting it’s assistance, upa-dharma (pseudo-religion) or abhakti (that which is not bhakti) will arise. Use your own instrument of understanding and see for yourself who has committed the wrongdoing.

(Ādhunika Vāda – A Modern Ideology –  was first published in Sajjana Toṣaṇī, Vol.11, Issue 1 in 1899, and translated into English by Swami B.V. Giri)