To consider a nondevotee a devotee, and false bhakti as bhakti, is simply self-deception

(The conception of Gaura-nagari-bhava has been totally rejected by our Gaudiya Guruvarga)

Date – 31.12.2024

Gauḍīya Goṣṭhī Pati Śrī Śrīla Bhakti Siddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Ṭhākura Prabhupāda said that— “To consider a nondevotee a devotee, and false bhakti as bhakti, is simply self-deception. Until one is fortunate enough to serve and respect devotees, he will continue to desire to fabricate that nondevotees are devotees. Can a crow become a peacock simply by wearing peacock feathers? Can a blue jackal become the king of animals? How long can cheating remain covered? The truth will certainly be revealed.”

Śrīla Bhakti Siddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Ṭhākura Prabhupāda further told that— “Persons who are actually very poor, possessing nary a drop of prema, being overcome by crookedness and failing to attain prema, nonetheless announce themselves to the world as exalted devotees. Yet for all such advertising, such prema-bereft persons lack even the possibility of attaining prema. To exhibit their supposed good fortune, prākṛta-sahajiyās sometimes display devotional symptoms, but they are simply pretending, for those features are merely external. Prākṛta-sahajiyās make these displays to flaunt their so-called advancement in love of Kṛṣṇa, yet far from acknowledging prākṛta-sahajiyās as actual lovers of Kṛṣṇa, pure devotees reject their association as being destructive to cultivation of bhakti. Prākṛta-sahajiyās should not be equated with pure devotees. One in whom actual prema has manifest tries to hide his glories and continue with bhajana.

Hypocritical prākṛta-sahajiyās, covetous of money, women, and reputation, criticize pure devotees by calling them philosophers, learned scholars, knowers of the truth, or minute observers, but not devotees. On the other hand, they depict themselves as rasika (most advanced transcendentally blissful devotees), bhajanānandī (those who delight in bhajana), bhāgavatottama (highest devotees in spontaneous love), līlā-rasapānonmatta (mad to taste the rasa of transcendental pastimes), rāgānugīya-sādhakāgragaṇya (best practioners on the rāga path), rasajña (knowers of transcendental rasa), rasika-cūḍamaṇi (topmost devotees relishing rasa), and so on. Not actually knowing the transcendental nature of love of Godhead, they esteem themselves as great devotees while thinking their material emotions indicative of advancement. Unaware of actual transcendental rasa, those among them who attempt to write Vaiṣṇava literature simply promote mundane conceptions of rasa and thereby pollute the process of devotional service.

Svami Sadananda the first Western adherent in Vaiṣṇava culture and a most intimate disciple of Śrīla Bhakti Siddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura Prabhupāda said that— “The spiritual ecstasies experienced in the cult of Śrī Śrī Rādhā Govinda are of such an uncommon and extraordinary character, that though of Divine origin, the spiritual madness and intoxication appears to those who have not realised them, as symptomatic of insanity, epilepsy or lunacy. The Kṛṣṇa dedicated souls are, therefore, instructed to hide these experiences from the view of outsiders, nay, it is considered base and low to expose any of these experiences to the view of those who are averse to the unconditional service of Śrī Kṛṣṇa and indulge in the intellectual or emotional exploitation of whatever they come across in their so-called human life, which is – in reality – only another form of bestial life – being void of the true meaning of life: to serve God unreservedly and unconditionally. […]”

Śrīla Saccidananda Bhaktivinod Ṭhākura has said in his Bhakti-tattva-vivek— “Unfortunately in contemporary society, in the name of śuddha-bhakti various types of mixed devotion such as karma-miśrā (mixed with fruitive action), jñāna-miśrā (mixed with speculative knowledge), and yoga-miśrā (mixed with yoga processes), as well as various impure and imaginary notions, are spreading everywhere like the germs of a plague. People in general consider these contaminated and mixed approaches to be bhakti and respect them as such. Thus they remain deprived of śuddha-bhakti. These polluted and mixed conceptions are our greatest enemies. Some people say that there is no value in bhakti, that God is an imaginary sentiment only, that man has merely created the image of a God in his imagination, and that bhakti is a pestilent state of consciousness, which in no way can benefit us. Though opposed to bhakti, such people cannot much harm us because we can easily recognize and avoid them. But those who propagate that bhagavad-bhakti is the highest dharma yet behave contrary to the principles of śuddha-bhakti, and instruct others against those principles, can be especially harmful, for ultimately, they lead us onto a path totally contrary to bhagavad-bhakti. Therefore, the previous ācāryas have scrutinizingly defined the intrinsic nature of bhakti and repeatedly cautioned us to avoid polluted and mixed conceptions.” Śrīla Prabhupāda also has said that— “The disease of Prākṛta-sahajiyāism is very widespread. In a form that devours everything, takes various shapes, and steals the mind, it wanders throughout the universe, increasing the covering of those jīvas captured by a seemingly natural tendency to reject Kṛṣṇa, and by severe offenses to Vaiṣṇavas, it causes further degradation of the bound jīvas and uprooting of their devotional creeper.” (From Gaudiya 11.409)

And he further said that— “Once tridaṇḍa-sannyāsī Śrī Rāmānuja Svāmī of South India, who was an avatāra of Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu, delivered the Vaiṣṇavas of this world from the talons of the worshipers of five gods. Today, by the endeavours of the servants of the Vaiṣṇavas like us, the religious principles of the scriptures will again be established in Āryāvarta. We are taking refuge of śrī-guru and Gaurāṅga in order to deliver Gauḍīya society from the clutches of envious pseudo-Vaiṣṇavas such as āula, bāula, prākṛta-sahajiyā, neḍā, daraveśa, sāṅi, gaura-nāgarī, jāta-gosāñis, and false renunciants.” (The Prabhupāda, from the article of brāhmaṇa and Vaiṣṇava)

The conception of Gaura-nagari-bhava has been rejected by Śrīla Vrndavana Dasa Ṭhākura in Caitanya-bhagavata as follows:

ei mata cāpalya  karena saba sane

sabe  strīmātra na dekhena drstikane

strī ‘hena na prabhu ei avatāre

śravaṇe o na karilā-vidita saṁsāre

ataeva sāta yata mahā mahimā sakale

‘gaurāṅga-nagara’ hena stava nāhi bale       (Caitanya-bhagavata 15.28-31)

“The Lord was apt to indulge in indiscriminate, merciful behavior towards all, except that he never looked at a woman, even by a sidelong glance. It is known to all the world that He did not even allow the name of a woman to enter His ear. Those who are His real devotees, therefore, never address Śrī Gaurāṅga as ‘Gaurāṅga-nagari’ or the enjoyer of women. Although all forms of praise are applicable to the Lord, the wise only sing that which is in accordance with His nature.”

Prof. Nisikanta Sanyal (Śrī Narayan Das Bhakti Shudakar Prabhu) wrote in Shree Kṛṣṇa Chaitanya Vol. 2  the following—

Sree Krishna is the Sole Enjoyer of every entity. He seeks His Own Pleasure and does not mind the pleasure of anybody else. He insists that every other entity should have no other function but to serve His pleasure. Sree Gaursundar is Sree Krishna Himself. Sree Gaursundar shows by His Own Conduct how other entities are to conduct themselves towards Sree Krishna. He does not display the Role of the Enjoyer. He displays instead the Role of the willingly and consciously Enjoyed of Krishna. The Vaishnavas belong to the category of the consciously enjoyed of Krishna. It would be inconsistent with the Role of the Consciously Enjoyed assumed by Sree Gaursundar to display also the Role of the Enjoyer even to the Vaishnavas. The Vaishnavas must not look upon Sree Gaursaundar as the Enjoyer. Sree Viṣṇupriyā Devi finds Herself on the plane of Sree Gaursundar in the common category of the consciously enjoyed of Krishna. Her true conduct in this position consists of behaving towards Sree Gaursundar not as towards Krishna, but as towards the Enjoyed of Krishna. She accordingly cannot desire to be the enjoyed of Sree Gaursundar, although she is no doubt really His Own Eternal Consort. The relationship of Sree Viṣṇupriyā Devi to Sree Gaursundar is identical with yet distinct from the conduct of Bhushakti, the Consort of Krishna, in the same way in which the conduct of Sree Gaursundar towards Her is both identical with yet distinct from that of Krishna towards Her Corresponding Self. The Gaurnagaris altogether overlook this distinction and by doing so ignore the significance of the Leela of Sree Gaursundar, thereby committing the gravest offence by setting themselves up as the avowed opponents of the Distinctive Personality of Sree Gaursundar.

Nimai Pandit found it increasingly impossible for Himself to perform His duties towards the people of this world in the manner that they expected. He was an ideal Husband who loved His wedded consort without being subject to sexuality. This is the ideal of connubial relationship enjoyed by the scriptures on Brahmana householders. Nimai Pandit had exhibited this high level of conduct. Carnality is never the mature of a Brahmana householder. All sensual persons are forbidden by the scriptures to marry. Nimai Pandit had not married for the purpose of disobeying the scriptures. On this point we posses also the testimony of Ṭhakur Vrindavana das. Nimai Pandit never looked upon woman as an object of sensual enjoyment. The wedded wife Is to be looked upon as a helpmate In practicing the function of the soul. Marriage can be a sacrament only in this sense.  Before one is Initiated one does not know how he Is really to conduct himself towards his wedded wife. For the pure soul alone there can be naturally no attraction for carnality. Such a person desists from all carnal relationship. He Is thereupon permitted conjugal relationship which is free from the taint of carnality and conducive to his spiritual progress. Nimai Pandit certainly did not plunge into a course of sexual orgies under the pretext of following the injunctions of the Scriptures which are liable to be so grossly misunderstood by those who are not bonafide Brahmaṇas.

Even after His Initiation Nimai Pandit did not find it necessary to cultivate sexual relationship with His wedded Consort. This was no doubt a purely individual choice In His case. The Scriptures never make the practice of sexuality obligatory on any person. They only permit non-carnal sexuality under the above safe-guards. Nimai Pandit was eligible, after His Initiation, for practicing sexuality in the pure form prescribed by the Scriptures. But He did not do so.

This was fully in keeping with the true meaning of the Scriptural injunctions. The Scriptural regulation of sexual relationship is not intended for the cure of carnality. Nimai Pandit did not find it necessary to avail of it for practising His Devotions to Kṛṣṇa.

The particular line of conduct which Nimai Pandit adopted makes the nature of the Scriptural regulation of married relationship clear beyond all ambiguity. The conduct of Nimai Pandit proves that the sexual relationship must be dispensed with by those who feel no spiritual necessity for it. Such total abstinence is not only not an abnormal procedure but is in perfect keeping with the Ideal of conductenjoined by the Scriptures for the wedded state.

The Unauthorised Gaura-Nagaris

(By Śrīla Bhakti Siddhānta Sarasvati Ṭhākura Prabhupāda)

The worship with awe and reverence performed by neophyte devotees who follow the regulative principles and aspire for mundane fame cannot be accepted as transcendental. The execution of regulative devotional service with a desire for mundane fame is only an indirect worship of the personal Godhead. Even though the objective of worship with awe and reverence is Kṛṣṇa, it is not the same as worship in the mood of sweetness mixed with faith and pure love. There are differences in worship in terms of the understanding of the goal of life, the realization of the goal, and the nature of the goal. One cannot ignore these different grades and considerations. Although the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the Absolute Truth, the truth of his existence is initially incomprehensible for a neophyte devotee. Since a neophyte devotee maintains a connection with the three material modes of nature, his conception of the Absolute Truth is incomplete. But a devotee who follows the path of pure devotional service establishes an eternal relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead and Absolute Truth. Neophyte devotees who follow the regulative principles and worship the Lord with awe and reverence cannot understand that the opulence of the Absolute Truth is a manifestation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead’s energy, and thus they are unable to enter into the path of attachment and sweetness. Because of this defect, some of them fail to accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Kṛṣṇa, the son of King of Vraja, the cause of all causes, and the original Personality of Godhead, as the only source of all forms of Godhead. Because neophyte devotees have not properly heard from a bona fide spiritual master, they base their conception of Godhead on his vaibhāva-prakāśa, his opulent and all-powerful feature as the Absolute Truth. No one has the right to drink even a drop of nectar from the ocean of the transcendental mellows of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes without the mercy of the daughter of King Vrishabhanu. That is why, due to lack of subordination to the gopīs, Lakṣmī and her descendants, the followers of the Śrī Sampradāya, have no right to see the beauty of the service of Śrī Rādhā Govinda. Due to a lack of this understanding, the unauthorized sampradāya Nadīyā-nāgarī is bereft of the service of Śrī Gaurasundara, whom they accept as an incarnation of Kṛṣṇa’s vaibhāva-prakāśa, and they try to establish themselves in the imaginary position of Gaura-nāgarī. This group of gaura-nāgarīs, who are situated in mundane rasa, think of themselves as beyond the concocted mundane rasa by establishing Gaurasundara as separate from Lord Kṛṣṇa, who is the shelter of mādhurya-rasa. On the pretext of serving Kṛṣṇa, they become busy in the service of Gaurahari’s vaibhāva-prakāśa, Lord Nārāyaṇa. The dim reflection of mādhurya-rasa is svakīyarasa, and so it is simply another form of dāsya-rasa. Many people make a mistake by accepting Lord Nārāyaṇa’s pastimes with his legitimate wife as mādhurya-rasa. Those who have actually followed Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta are situated in ujjvala-rasa, which is hundreds of thousands of miles away from such illusion. They know that the reflected mādhurya-like svakīya-rasa is pure dāsya-rasa. In dāsya-rasa, a mood of awe and reverence, respect, following of rules and regulations, and a lack of pure love and devotion are prominent in the heart of the servant. In ujjvala-rasa, instead of these above-mentioned moods being prominent, the devotees who are fully inclined to Śrī Gaurasundara, who is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss, who is the embodiment of sweetness, and who is the personification of magnanimous pastimes, display an intense attachment that is imbued with faith and love. The concept of a mādhurya-like svakīya-rasa conceived by the so-called Vaiṣṇavas whose hearts are filled with regulative principles derived from [mechanically] studying literature like Bhaktirasāmṛta-sindhu and Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi is nothing but a lack of submission to Śrī Rūpa. They say that since Lakṣmīpriya’s and Viṣṇupriyā’s attachment for Śrī Gaura is similar to the attachment of Satyabhama for the Lord of Dwarka and to Lakṣmī’s attachment for the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha, therefore the concept of svakīya is identical with mādhurya-rasa, both for the object of worship and the worshiper. Therefore, they conclude that the svakīya mood of Śrī Gaura and Viṣṇupriyā is certainly ujjvala-rasa. But mistaking the inferior dāsya-rasa to be mādhurya-rasa is simply not acceptable. By taking shelter of Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī’s Bṛhat-bhāgavatāmṛta and Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu and Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi, the intelligence of an ordinary mundane rhetorician can be refined and the conception of the Gaura-nāgarī philosophy can be exposed as unauthorized. — (Patrāmṛta, Nectar from the Letters, translated by Bhumipati Dasa, published by Isvara Dasa, Touchstone Media, Kolkata, 2012)

Gaurāṅga-nāgarīs

(By Śrīla Bhakti Pragyan Kesava Gosvāmī Maharaj)

Unlike other apa-sampradāyas, gaurāṅga-nāgarīs, also known as nadīyā-nāgarīs or gauranāgarīs, identified themselves solely as Vaiṣṇava adherents of Gaura, free from degraded tantric or other influences. Most of them strictly abstained from flesh and fish and wore Vaiṣṇava tilaka and tulasī neckbeads, and many were reputed as expert kīrtana performers. But they were rejected by bona fide devotees for the offense of portraying Gaurāṅga as the nāgara of the young women of Nadia, thus disturbing His role in taking the position of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī to taste the sweetness of Kṛṣṇa.

In the transcendental amour of Śrī Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, Śrī Kṛṣṇa is nāgara, the predominating hero and enjoyer, and Śrī Rādhā and Her expansions the sakhīs are nāgarīs, the predominated heroines to be enjoyed. Although Śrī Gaura is Kṛṣṇa Himself, He adopts the bhāva of the nāgarī Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī to experience the nature of Her love for Kṛṣṇa. Therefore Śrī Gaurāṅga is not in the bhāva of a nāgara. The gaura-nāgarīs conceived of Śrīman Mahāprabhu as nāgara and themselves as nāgarīs.

Gaurāṅga-nāgarīs claimed to be followers of Viṣṇupriyā-devī, who they purported to be Rādhā. They asserted that there is no need to worship Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa—since Lord Caitanya is Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa combined, worship of Him alone is sufficient. But Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī cited the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā description of Viṣṇupriyā-devī as bhū-śakti, who being an expansion and maidservant of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī would never attempt to usurp Her position. He further pointed out that no recognized discipular descendant of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu had worshiped Śrī Gaura-Viṣṇupriyā in mādhurya-rasa, and that in contrast to Kṛṣṇa, Lord Caitanya did not have more than one concurrent wife and never entered into conjugal enjoyment with either. Nonetheless, gaura-nāgarīs promulgated seamy myths about Lord Caitanya's alleged romances with various fictional girlfriends of whom no mention exists in standard biographies.

In support of their thesis, gaurāṅga-nāgarīs would cite the term gaura-nāgara-vara from Śrī Caitanya-candrāmṛta. Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura contended that gaurāṅga-nāgarīs took this stanza out of context from a work that presents a conception of Gaura wholly different from their theory of His being the enjoyer of young girls. Contextually, in this verse the word nāgara combined with gaura should be understood to mean Kṛṣṇa, as in the compound name GauraKṛṣṇa, thus indicating that Gaura is Kṛṣṇa yet in no way undermining Gaura's specialty in having a different bhāva. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, the revealer of Gaura's mano-'bhīṣṭa, had never explained differently than Śrīla Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī, the most confidential of Lord Caitanya's associates, who was intimately familiar with His inner being and had stated, rādhā-bhāva-dyuti-suvalitaṁ naumi kṛṣṇa-svarūpam: “I salute Lord Caitanya, who is Kṛṣṇa adorned with the sentiment and complexion of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī.” Thus: “The pretext of declaring Gaurāṅga a nāgara, with the intention of converting Him into an object of enjoyment for the jīva, is the ultimate limit of perverted intelligence and Hari-vimukhatā (indifference to, rejection of, and turning away from the Lord).”

To the gaurāṅga-nāgarī contention that because Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the Supreme Lord therefore all types of relationships are possible with Him, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī replied that following in the footsteps of Śrīla Svarūpa Dāmodara and other Vaiṣṇava luminaries, a true devotee tries to assist the Lord in experiencing the bhāva that He wishes to relish, rather than artificially and pompously attempting to thrust upon Him his own contaminated desires for enjoyment. Since pure devotees have no desire separate from the Lord's, their understanding, attitude, and service are propelled by His svarūpa-sakti. Only to this manner of pure devotion does the Lord respond by revealing Himself and all truths about Himself. But gaurāṅga-nāgarīs wrongly consider their impure, capricious, speculative desires born of conditioned selfish motives for enjoyment to be devotional, and thus try to create nāmarūpa-gūṇa-līlā (names, forms, qualities, and pastimes) of the Supreme Lord according to their whims. Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura would quote Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata (1.15.30–31):

ataeva yata mahā-mahimā sakale

‘gaurāṅga-nāgara’ hena stava nāhi

bale yadyapi sakala stava sambhave tāhāne

tathāpiha svabhāva se gāya budha-jane

Therefore great personalities do not offer prayers addressing Lord Gaurāṅga as the enjoyer of damsels. Although all kinds of prayers may be offered to the Supreme Lord, intelligent persons glorify only those characteristics that a particular avatāra manifests.

To the claim that Śrī Narahari Sarkār and Śrī Bāsu Ghoṣa, both associates of Lord Caitanya, had composed kīrtanas expressing nāgarī-bhāva, Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura retorted that those songs had been written long after their departure by self-interested persons who ascribed those songs to them. Previously it was common for a devotional poet to credit his compositions to a devotee whom he much admired, yet this system gave scope for broadcasting apa-siddhānta in the name of a recognized associate of Lord Caitanya.

On the first day of the Gauḍīya Maṭha's annual festival in Calcutta in 1923, the editor of Viṣṇupriyā-Gaurāṅga, the principal magazine of the gaurāṅga-nāgarīs, Śrī Haridāsa Gosvāmī, made an unannounced visit to the Gauḍīya Maṭha. Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura had published several articles in Sajjana-toṣaṇī decrying the gaurāṅga-nāgarī doctrine as being against the pure devotional siddhānta of Gosvāmī literature. Now that a leading proponent of this anomaly had come unsought into his presence, Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura wasted no time in candidly exposing the defects of that creed. Some days later Śrī Haridāsa Gosvāmī featured the following comments in his magazine:

Śrī Siddhānta Sarasvatī is a great scholar of Vaiṣṇava scriptures. For the uplift of Vaiṣṇava literature he has published and disseminated many important works. I was wonderstruck to witness his scholarly intellect and analytic ability, and considered myself fortunate to make his acquaintance. Notwithstanding the difference of opinion between us, his wide-ranging Vaiṣṇava genius is laudable, and we cannot but offer him the respect due a Vaiṣṇava. This tiger of a man is a principal jewel among Vaiṣṇava literati, a radiant star in the Vaiṣṇava firmament.

Despite this acclamation, soon thereafter the Gauḍīya ran a scorching analysis of the nāgarīs' deviation, especially pinpointing Haridāsa Gosvāmī's flavor:

1. Gaurāṅga-nāgarīs imagine themselves to possess the sentiment of the gopīs toward Lord Caitanya. They fail to realize that He placed Himself not as Kṛṣṇa the enjoyer, but as an enjoyed devotee of Kṛṣṇa. This mistake falls within the category of rasābhāsa. The endeavor of the gaurāṅga-nāgarīs to be gaura-bhogīs (enjoyers of Gaurāṅga) is ever rejected by authentic Gaura-bhaktas (servants of Gaurāṅga).

2. Gaurāṅga-nāgarīs accept guruship by seminal succession, which was never the teaching or policy of Śrī Caitanya or His devotees.

3. Caitanya Mahāprabhu and His devotees recognized as Gauḍīyas only those who purely and strictly followed the authorized path; yet Haridāsa Gosvāmī regards all thirteen apa-sampradāyas bona fide, and their stultifying notions of devotion as bhakti.

In 1926 Śrī Madhusūdana Gosvāmī, an old supporter of the Gauḍīya Maṭha, published an article expressing sympathy for the gaurāṅga-nāgara doctrine. The Gauḍīya responded with a series of in-depth articles exposing gaurāṅga-nāgarīs as:

pauttalika—idol worshipers, for imagining a form and personality of Gaura that is wholly inconsistent with His actual reality;

gaura-bhogī—desirous to illicitly enjoy Gaura rather than serve Him;

bheda-vādī—not appreciating how Kṛṣṇa and Gaura are acintya-bhedābheda, thinking that Gaura cannot be Kṛṣṇa unless He also enjoys damsels; hence the gaurāṅga-nāgarī differentiation between Kṛṣṇa and Gaura is necessarily mundane;

līlā-vināśī—spoilers of His pastimes by attempting to force Kṛṣṇa's mood as the supreme enjoyer onto Gaura, who deliberately takes a different form to experience a different bhāva;

gurvaparādhī—offenders of gurus, for not recognizing the standard explanations of Gaura-līlā given by Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, thus propagating teachings different from those given by genuine gurus;

rasa-tattvāndha—blind to accurate śāstrīya ascertainment of the intricacies of rasa.

This series of articles was concluded with one titled “Duḥsaṅga Varjanīya” (Bad association is rejectable).

(Excerpts from Bhakti Siddhānta Vani Vaibhava)

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………................................................................................................

The āula, bāula, cūḍādhārī, gaurā-nāgarī, neḍā, daraveśa, sāṅi, sakhībhekī, ativāḍī, sahajiyā and other miscreant forms of degeneracy all of which are staunch servitors of Māyāvādism. All are disbelievers in the divine form of the Supreme Lord and all are disavowers of the śāstra from authorized scriptures verifying the reality of the existence of the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa evidenced in His name, fame form, qualities, incarnations and pastimes.