Ārya Dharma Evaṁ Bauddha Dharmera Paraspara Ghāta Pratighāta u Saṅvāta (‘The Mutual Conflict, Counteraction, and Clash Between Ārya Dharma and Buddhism.’) This lecture was delivered in the society of the Brāhmos by the honourable Śrīyukta Dvijendranath Tagore Mahāśaya. Dvijendra Bābu has entrusted us with a copy of that lecture for review and critique.

Dvijendra Bābu is a learned scholar in the sciences. From childhood he has been our Boro Dādā (elder brother). In our younger days we engaged in many discussions on the śāstras with him. We have always been charmed by his affectionate and gentle behaviour. Therefore, with special pleasure, we have undertaken a discussion of this small booklet of his.

We are merely carriers of the foot-dust of the pure Vaiṣṇavas. Consequently, whatever objections or criticisms we may offer, our Boro Dādā will surely consider them with kindness.

In this small booklet, Boro Dādā, guided by the workings of his natural imaginative energy, has written a brief religious history of the Āryas and discussed it in relation to Buddhist doctrine. Setting aside strict historical craftsmanship, he has attempted to accomplish his purpose through poetic ability.

We are fond of Boro Dādā’s Bengali writing. He has always been skilled in playful wit and gentle humour, and he has displayed that characteristic throughout his narration of history as well. He has written:

In the secluded birthplace of the radiant Ārya-dharma – in the auspicious land of Brahmā-varta near the five-flowing rivers of the Pañca-nada region – at the time when the knowledge and religion of the human race had for some time been gradually advancing toward fuller development, the various natural phenomena such as Marut, Varuṇa, and others were little by little awakening within people’s minds a conception of Brahman, much like the fanciful tales told by a nurse to a child. But after some centuries, the minds of those truth-thirsty ṛṣis were no longer satisfied with such narratives. They came to regard homas, yajñas, etc. as mere childish play, and thus established āśramas in the secluded regions of the forests. Then, in due course of time, the all-auspicious Creator – the original cause and foundation of the entire universe – appeared before those primeval forefathers of ours as father, mother, and friend. Thus they came to realise. ‘He is our friend, progenitor, and sustainer’ (sa no bandhūr janitā sa vidhātā).

At that time, by meditating upon Brahman, worshipping Brahman, performing acts dear to Brahman, and drinking the blissful nectar of Brahman, they acquired an invincible brahma-tejas (spiritual radiance), and by virtue of that, they became brāhmaṇas. Soon afterward, a terrible wildfire of conflict blazed forth between the spiritual power of brahma-tejas and the martial vigour of the kṣatriyas.

Speaking in this way, Boro Dādā gradually brought forth the three principal junctures of Purāṇic history, successively bringing out the accounts of Paraśurāma, Rāmacandra, and Kṛṣṇacandra. Immediately thereafter came the topic of Buddhadeva and the glorification of Buddhadeva. That Buddhadeva had said nothing at all concerning God – this too came to be regarded as foremost among his many virtues. While speaking of all these matters, the discussion eventually arrived at the punishment of Choṭa Hari Dāsa in connection with the manifestation of the anger of Śrī Caitanyadeva. After that came the discussion of the six systems of philosophy (ṣaḍ-darśana). Having spoken of all these matters, our Boro Dādā concluded the historical portion of his discourse.

The more we read elder brother’s lecture, the more we perceive the workings of his imaginative energy. History and geography are matters not very near to him. The result is that, after reading Boro Dādā’s lecture extending to 103 pages, we were unable to learn any well-founded historical account or arrive at any geographical conclusion.

We are not distressed by the many historical point upon which our elder brother has expended words. Wherever there is a doctrine or theory, diverse notions naturally arise, and no one ought to quarrel over such varied ideas. But Boro Dādā has become utterly relentless and has wielded the sword of his argument against Vaiṣṇava dharma itself. It is at this that we are grieved.

Our submission to Boro Dādā is this – that he should set aside, at least somewhat, the beliefs born of his own prejudices and examine Vaiṣṇava dharma impartially. Another point is this – the Vaiṣṇava śāstras have not separated bhakti from jñāna. Pure jñāna and bhakti are one and the same thing. What is jñāna in the state of inquiry becomes bhakti in the state of relishment. When Śrīman Mahāprabhu instructed Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, He expounded the catuḥ-ślokī doctrine of the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam. In that, this śloka appears first:

jñānaṁ me paramaṁ guhyaṁ yad vijñāna-samanvitam
sa rahasyaṁ tad-aṅgaṁ ca gṛhāṇa gaditaṁ mayā

Knowledge of Me which is endowed with realisation is most confidential. Receive that secret along with its divisions which has been spoken by Me. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 2.9.31)

Bhagavān said to Brahmā, “O brāhmaṇa, knowledge is of two kinds, namely, prākṛta-jñāna (material knowledge) and aprākṛta-jñāna (transcendental knowledge). Knowledge over which those whose intelligence is bound to matter engage in debate, being produced by the senses, is material and external knowledge. Aprākṛta-jñāna, which exists in the spiritual realm, is the exceedingly confidential knowledge concerning Bhagavān. Only one who can transcend material intelligence and expand the eyes of the ātmā attains such confidential knowledge. The bound jīva, remaining confined within knowledge of the subtle realm, takes mundane knowledge to be actual knowledge, and attaining skill in that alone, he considers it to be vijñāna (realised knowledge). Without My mercy, spiritual knowledge cannot be achieved. Being pleased with your sādhana-bhakti, I am now bestowing upon you, in a manifest form, that divine, transcendental, confidential knowledge pertaining to Me. Receive it with great care. That aprākṛta-jñāna is pure and endowed with vijñāna. Within it lies the supreme secret. When, through the divisions of sādhana, My mercy is obtained, that mystery will be realised.”

The state of inquiry into knowledge is called sambandha-jñāna (knowledge of one’s relationship with the Absolute). The state of relishment is called rahasya (‘the secret’), or pure bhakti – that is, bhakti characterised by prema. Throughout the Vaiṣṇava texts there is praise of pure jñāna.

In all the teachings of Mahāprabhu, these three subjects are present – sambandha-jñāna, abhidheya-sādhana (the means of practice), and prayojana (the ultimate goal). What is the tattva concerning Bhagavān, what is the tattva concerning the jīva, what is the tattva concerning the entire material universe, and what is the mutual relationship among these three tattvas? To know this properly is called sambandha-jñāna. He alone is a genuine guru (sad-guru) who thoroughly instructs the disciple in this sambandha-jñāna, and then directs him toward abhidheya for the attainment of the prayojana. Upon attaining this sambandha-jñāna, what other kind of knowledge remains for the jīva to acquire? Whatever varieties of knowledge and science are current within the material universe – all of them become known thereby.

Boro Dādā, that alone which you call jñāna – is it anything beyond knowledge of the material universe? If all forms of physical knowledge are gathered together, the knowledge thus obtained may be called prākṛta-jñāna. The manifest foundational knowledge of that prākṛta-jñāna may be called aprākṛta-jñāna. In its modified condition, aprākṛta-jñāna itself becomes prākṛta-jñāna. The twenty-four principles of Sāṅkhya are all material by nature.* Through samādhi-yoga, that knowledge becomes obsolete, thereby giving rise to a hitherto unmanifested form of knowledge. The name of that knowledge is vijñāna. So long as inquiry remains, the play of ignorance also exists. With the cessation of ignorance arises spiritual knowledge in the form of vijñāna. Having attained knowledge up to that point, bhakti arises at the time of relishment. Therefore, that very knowledge is bhakti.

Boro Dādā! How can you separate bhakti from jñāna? Without even examining the Vaiṣṇava śāstras, you have already formed a conclusion born from prejudice! You have perhaps exchanged a few words with some emotional Vaiṣṇava and then convinced yourself that you have understood Vaiṣṇava tattva in the manner of ‘Titu Mīr’s crude bamboo fort.’* We were unaware that a composed and sober man such as yourself could interfere in such matters, making pronouncements without proper deliberation.

*Translator’s Note: Titu Mir was an anti-colonial rebel in Bengal during the early period of the British East India Company. He is famous for leading a peasant revolt in Bengal and for constructing a bamboo fort. ‘Titu Mīr’s bamboo fort’ became a expression sometimes used mockingly to suggest something crude, makeshift, unsophisticated, or based on a flimsy understanding.

However, when the Vaiṣṇava mahātmās condemn jñāna in various places, that is not pure knowledge which they condemn. Wherever the inconceivable Absolute Truth is subjected to analysis through the medium of material knowledge, such knowledge is condemned. If, pointing to a thief, one says, “What a rogue this man is,” that does not mean that all human beings are rogues. Only the thief is called a rogue. In the same way, certain mahātmās have said:

karma-kāṇḍa jñāna-kāṇḍa, kevala viṣera bhāṇḍa
amṛta baliyā yebā khāya
nānā yoni bhrami mare, avaśeṣe nāhitare
tāra janma adhaḥ-pāte yāya

Karma-kāṇḍa and jñāna-kāṇḍa are merely pots of poison. Whoever drinks them thinking them to be nectar, wanders and dies through various species of life and in the end, finds no deliverance. His birth goes downward into degradation. (Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura)

Here, jñāna refers to dry logic (śuṣka-tarka), by which no realisation of God is attained. The lives of those who remain bound to such knowledge are fruitless. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa says:

śreyaḥ-sṛtiṁ bhaktim udasya te vibho
kliśyanti ye kevala-bodha-labdhaye
teṣām asau kleśala eva śiṣyate
nānyad yathā sthūla-tuṣāvaghātinām

O Infinite One, those who want to have a clear conception of You through their intellect and reject bhakti find their attempts useless. Their endeavours end only in frustration, like those who try to beat rice from an empty husk. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.14.4)

That knowledge which, upon reaching fulfillment, gives rise to bhakti, and that knowledge which is cultivated for the purpose of attaining bhakti, is most worthy of reverence. But that knowledge which abandons the supreme auspicious path of bhakti and busies itself merely with obtaining awareness of the gross material world is most contemptible. Those who undergo hardship in the pursuit of such knowledge obtain only useless suffering, like men who beat empty husks. They gain nothing whatsoever. The days pass in pounding husks, yet no grain of rice is obtained. Any pursuit of knowledge other than the pursuit of knowledge that follows after bhakti may be called jñāna-kāṇḍa.

In truth, the bhakti of the Vaiṣṇavas is itself the fully ripened state of pure knowledge. No one could possibly understand how such bhakti could be considered to be ‘a heart without a head.’

Boro Dādā! With humility I say this – abandoning your former prejudices, take shelter of pure bhakti. Those who consider jñāna and bhakti to be separate possess jñāna-miśrā-bhakti (bhakti mixed with jñāna). By such bhakti, attaining the mercy of Bhagavān is exceedingly difficult.

And Boro Dādā – what is this that you have again written on Page 102?

The Vaiṣṇava sampradāya is devoted solely to the cultivation of love. There is not the slightest doubt that love holds an exceedingly exalted position in the spiritual realm. But for love, an experienced guardian capable of keeping it under regulation is absolutely necessary. And likewise, a strong, capable, and skillful functionary who is able to properly carry out its practical affairs is equally necessary. That guardian is jñāna, and that functionary is of a noble character. In the absence of jñāna, the love of Vaiṣṇava dharma has become afflicted with madness and licentiousness; and in the absence of a noble character, love has become inactive and ineffective.

In the absence of proper discussion and examination of these subjects, prejudice enters into the heart. No one who has properly understood what is found in the books of the pure Vaiṣṇavas, what the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas have taught and propagated through both instruction and conduct, and what is seen in the character of the present-day pure Vaiṣṇavas, would arrive at such a conclusion.

anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ jñāna-karmādy anāvṛtam
ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānu-śīlanaṁ bhaktir uttamā

In order for the highest form of bhakti to develop, one must be devoid of all material desires, jñāna and karma etc. One must constantly serve Kṛṣṇa favourably, as He desires. (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.1.11)

Those in whom these characteristics of bhakti are seen in the stage of practice (sādhana-daśā) quickly attain the mature state and attain prema. Can only madness and licentiousness possibly exist in such prema? There is no need for a guardian. In the stage of practice, there is sādhana-bhakti; in the perfected stage, there is prema. What need then remains for a guardian, a functionary, or a physician? When prema arises from the full maturation of complete knowledge and of supreme noble character in a state of never wasting time in dharma, then where is there any fear of fall down again?

Boro Dāda! It is with some immature emotional Vaiṣṇava sect that you have these things in mind when writing all this. From this, it appears that you have not obtained the direct association of pure Vaiṣṇavas. Nor have the Vaiṣṇava śāstras properly revealed themselves to you.

Dādā! There is one true dharma in this world – its name is Vaiṣṇava dharma! As for all the other varieties of religion – within them diverse doctrines, disputes, mutual hostility, and the forceful ambition to establish one’s own sect run rampant. Those religions in which the proper relationship between jñāna, karma, bhakti, vairāgya, and prema has not been determined are full of deceit. Only pure Vaiṣṇava dharma is free from deceit. Non-deceptive Vaiṣṇava dharma cannot be understood through the doctrines or conduct of hypocritical Vaiṣṇavas. If necessary, I shall revisit this matter once again.

From Boro Dādā’s Vedāntic deliberation, a profound and valuable truth has emerged. It is necessary for every Brāhmo to make this conclusion his necklace (i.e., keep it always upon himself as a guiding principle).

Unlike the Advaitavādī, we do not declare the world to be illusory. Rather, we maintain that the world is an imperfect manifestation of Īśvara.

There is also a little Vaiṣṇava siddhānta in this. The world is of two kinds, namely the conscious world (jaiva-jagat) and the material world (jaḍa-jagat). The conscious world is indeed a partial manifestation of Īśvara, or an imperfect manifestation of Him. The material world, though not false, is nevertheless a shadow-like manifestation of Iśvara – more incomplete and more distant than a partial manifestation. Nothing is false. The world, that is, the material world, is perishable. There is no need of any further elaboration.

(Samālocana: A Review of Dvijendranath Tagore’s Lecture –  was first published in Sajjana Toṣaṇī, Vol.11, Issue 10 in 1900, and translated into English by Swami B.V. Giri)