Accuse (Books)

Expressions researched:
"accusation" |"accusations" |"accusative" |"accuse" |"accused" |"accuses" |"accusing"

SB Canto 1

SB 1.17.18, Purport:

Although the bull, or the personality of religion, and the cow, the personality of the earth, knew perfectly well that the personality of Kali was the direct cause of their sufferings, still, as devotees of the Lord, they knew well also that without the sanction of the Lord no one could inflict trouble upon them. According to the Padma Purāṇa, our present trouble is due to the fructifying of seedling sins, but even those seedling sins also gradually fade away by execution of pure devotional service. Thus even if the devotees see the mischief-mongers, they do not accuse them for the sufferings inflicted. They take it for granted that the mischief-monger is made to act by some indirect cause, and therefore they tolerate the sufferings, thinking them to be God-given in small doses, for otherwise the sufferings should have been greater.

SB 1.17.18, Purport:

Mahārāja Parīkṣit wanted to get a statement of accusation against the direct mischief-monger, but they declined to give it on the abovementioned grounds. Speculative philosophers, however, do not recognize the sanction of the Lord; they try to find out the cause of sufferings in their own way, as will be described in the following verses. According to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, such speculators are themselves bewildered, and thus they cannot know that the ultimate cause of all causes is the Supreme Lord, the Personality of Godhead.

SB Canto 2

SB 2.3.24, Purport:

Even though decorated with the signs of a devotee, a person addicted to smoking, drinking or illegitimate sex with women cannot have all the above-mentioned ecstatic symptoms. But it is seen that sometimes these symptoms are willfully imitated, and for this reason Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī accuses the imitators of being stonehearted men. They are sometimes even affected by the reflection of such transcendental symptoms, yet if they still do not give up the forbidden habits, then they are hopeless cases for transcendental realization.

SB 2.4.3-4, Purport:

Śrīla Mādhavendra Purī said further:

mugdhaṁ māṁ nigadantu nīti-nipuṇā bhrāntaṁ muhur vaidikā

mandaṁ bāndhava-sañcayā jaḍa-dhiyaṁ muktādarāḥ sodarāḥ

unmattaṁ dhanino viveka-caturāḥ kāmam mahā-dāmbhikam

moktuṁ na kṣāmate manāg api mano govinda-pāda-spṛhām

"Let the sharp moralist accuse me of being illusioned; I do not mind. Experts in Vedic activities may slander me as being misled, friends and relatives may call me frustrated, my brothers may call me a fool, the wealthy mammonites may point me out as mad, and the learned philosophers may assert that I am much too proud; still my mind does not budge an inch from the determination to serve the lotus feet of Govinda, though I be unable to do it."

SB Canto 3

SB 3.30.10, Purport:

There is a Bengali proverb, "The person for whom I have stolen accuses me of being a thief." The family members, for whom an attached person acts in so many criminal ways, are never satisfied. In illusion an attached person serves such family members, and by serving them he is destined to enter into a hellish condition of life.

SB Canto 4

SB 4.2.16, Purport:

Dakṣa was repentant that on the request of Brahmā, who was his father, he had handed over his daughter to a person who, according to his calculation, was nasty. He was so angry that he did not acknowledge that the request was from his father. Instead, he referred to Brahmā as parameṣṭhī, the supreme teacher in the universe; because of his temperament of gross anger, he was not even prepared to accept Brahmā as his father. In other words, he accused even Brahmā of being less intelligent because he had advised Dakṣa to hand over his beautiful daughter to such a nasty fellow. In anger one forgets everything, and thus Dakṣa, in anger, not only accused the great Lord Śiva, but criticized his own father, Lord Brahmā, for his not very astute advice that Dakṣa hand over his daughter to Lord Śiva.

SB 4.4.11, Purport:

In Bhagavad-gītā (9.29) the Lord says, samo'haṁ sarva-bhūteṣu: "I am equal to all living entities." Similarly, Lord Śiva is a qualitative incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, so he has almost the same qualities as the Supreme Lord. Therefore he is equal to everyone; no one is his enemy, and no one is his friend, but one who is envious by nature can become the enemy of Lord Śiva. Therefore Satī accused her father, "No one but you could be envious of Lord Śiva or be his enemy." Other sages and learned brāhmaṇas were present, but they were not envious of Lord Śiva, although they were all dependent on Dakṣa. Therefore no one but Dakṣa could be envious of Lord Śiva. That was the accusation of Satī.

SB 4.4.12, Purport:

Among the uncommonly good souls there are still gradations, and the best good soul is one who accepts an insignificant asset of a person and magnifies that good quality. Lord Śiva is also called Āśutoṣa, which refers to one who is satisfied very easily and who offers to any person the highest level of benediction. For example, once a devotee of Lord Śiva wanted the benediction that whenever he touched someone on the head, that person's head would at once be separated from his trunk. Lord Śiva agreed. Although the benediction asked was not very commendable because the devotee wanted to kill his enemy, Lord Śiva considered the devotee's good quality in worshiping and satisfying him and granted the benediction. Thus Lord Śiva accepted his bad qualities as magnificently good qualities. But Satī accused her father, "You are just the opposite. Although Lord Śiva has so many good qualities and no bad qualities at all, you have accepted him as bad and found fault with him. Because of your accepting his good qualities to be bad, instead of your becoming the most exalted soul you have become the most fallen. A man becomes the greatest soul by accepting the goodness of others' qualities, but by unnecessarily considering others' good qualities to be bad, you have become the lowest of the fallen souls."

SB 4.7.29, Translation:

Lord Śiva said: My dear Lord, my mind and consciousness are always fixed on Your lotus feet, which, as the source of all benediction and the fulfillment of all desires, are worshiped by all liberated great sages because Your lotus feet are worthy of worship. With my mind fixed on Your lotus feet, I am no longer disturbed by persons who blaspheme me, claiming that my activities are not purified. I do not mind their accusations, and I excuse them out of compassion, just as You exhibit compassion toward all living entities.

SB 4.11.20, Purport:

Although the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original cause of all causes, He is not responsible for anyone's material sufferings or enjoyment. There is no such partiality on the part of the Supreme Lord. The less intelligent accuse the Supreme Lord of being partial and claim that this is why one enjoys in this material world and another suffers. But this verse specifically says that there is no such partiality on the part of the Supreme Lord. Living entities, however, are never independent.

SB 4.14.23, Purport:

King Vena was so foolish that he accused the saintly sages of being inexperienced like small children. In other words, he was accusing them of not having perfect knowledge. In this way he could reject their advice and make accusations against them, comparing them to a woman who does not care for her husband who maintains her but goes to satisfy a paramour who does not maintain her. The purpose of this simile is apparent. It is the duty of the kṣatriyas to engage the brāhmaṇas in different types of religious activities, and the king is supposed to be the maintainer of the brāhmaṇas. If the brāhmaṇas do not worship the king but instead go to the demigods, they are as polluted as unchaste women.

SB 4.17.22, Purport:

The cow-shaped earthly planet submitted that she not only was a woman, but was innocent and sinless as well. Thus she argued that she should not be killed. Besides, she pointed out that being perfectly religious-minded, the King could not violate the religious principles that forbade killing a woman. In reply, Mahārāja Pṛthu informed her that first of all she had disobeyed his orders. This was her first sinful activity. Secondly he accused her of taking her share of the yajñas (sacrifices) but not producing sufficient food grains in return.

SB 4.17.29, Purport:

After King Pṛthu gave his royal command, the planet earth in the shape of a cow could understand that the King was a directly empowered incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Consequently the King knew everything—past, present and future. Thus there was no possibility of the earth's cheating him. The earth was accused of hiding the seeds of all herbs and grains, and therefore she is preparing to explain how the seeds of these herbs and grains can be again exposed. The earth knew that the King was very angry with her, and she realized that unless she pacified his anger, there was no possibility of placing a positive program before him.

SB Canto 5

SB 5.1.11, Purport:

The power, glory and potencies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead can never be diminished. In the Īśopaniṣad, the Lord is described as apāpa-viddha, which indicates that He is never affected by anything materially considered sinful. Similarly, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam describes the Supreme Personality of Godhead as being so powerful that nothing we might consider abominable can affect Him. An example sometimes given to explain the position of the Supreme Lord is that of the sun, which evaporates urine from the earth but is never affected by contamination. The Supreme Lord can never be accused of doing anything wrong.

SB 5.10.11, Translation:

My dear King, you have unnecessarily accused me of being dead though alive. In this regard, I can only say that this is the case everywhere because everything material has its beginning and end. As far as your thinking that you are the king and master and are thus trying to order me, this is also incorrect because these positions are temporary. Today you are a king and I am your servant, but tomorrow the position may be changed, and you may be my servant and I your master. These are temporary circumstances created by providence.

SB 5.10.14, Purport:

An exalted devotee of the Lord never thinks that he is a paramahaṁsa or a liberated person. He always remains a humble servant of the Lord. In all reverse conditions, he agrees to suffer the results of his past life. He never accuses the Lord of putting him into a distressed condition. These are the signs of an exalted devotee. Tat te 'nukampāṁ susamīkṣyamāṇaḥ. When suffering reversed conditions, the devotee always considers that the reverse conditions are the Lord's concessions. He is never angry with his master; he is always satisfied with the position his master offers. In any case, he continues performing his duty in devotional service.

SB 5.12.5-6, Purport:

One who understands Lord Viṣṇu as the original cause of everything is to be understood to be perfectly situated in knowledge. Although he was falsely proud of being a king, King Rahūgaṇa was not really situated in knowledge. Therefore he was rebuking the palanquin carriers, including the self-realized brāhmaṇa, Jaḍa Bharata. This is the first accusation Jaḍa Bharata made against the King, who was daring to talk to a learned brāhmaṇa from the flimsy ground of ignorance, identifying everything with matter. King Rahūgaṇa argued that the living entity is within the body and that when the body is fatigued the living entity within must therefore be suffering.

SB 5.14.26, Purport:

Unless one is liberated from material conditioning, these four defects must be there. Consequently every man has a cheating propensity, which is employed in business or money transactions. Although two friends may be living peacefully together, due to their propensity to cheat they become enemies when there is a transaction between them. A philosopher accuses an economist of being a cheater, and an economist may accuse a philosopher of being a cheater when he comes in contact with money. In any case, this is the condition of material life.

SB Canto 6

SB 6.1.17, Purport:

One should not think that the person who takes to bhakti is one who cannot perform the ritualistic ceremonies recommended in the karma-kāṇḍa section of the Vedas or is not sufficiently educated to speculate on spiritual subjects. Māyāvādīs generally allege that the bhakti path is for women and illiterates. This is a groundless accusation. The bhakti path is followed by the most learned scholars, such as the Gosvāmīs, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu and Rāmānujācārya. These are the actual followers of the bhakti path. Regardless of whether or not one is educated or aristocratic, one must follow in their footsteps. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ: (CC Madhya 17.186) one must follow the path of the mahājanas. The mahājanas are those who have taken to the path of devotional service (suśīlāḥ sādhavo yatra nārāyaṇa-parāyaṇāḥ), for these great personalities are the perfect persons.

SB 6.2.2, Purport:

The Viṣṇudūtas accused the Yamadūtas of violating the religious principles by attempting to drag Ajāmila to Yamarāja for punishment. Yamarāja is the officer appointed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead to judge religious and irreligious principles and to punish people who are irreligious. However, if completely sinless people are punished, the entire assembly of Yamarāja is contaminated. This principle applies not only in the assembly of Yamarāja, but throughout human society also.

SB 6.3.5, Purport:

Actually the position of Yamarāja was very awkward in the case of Ajāmila because the Yamadūtas were right in attempting to arrest Ajāmila, but the Viṣṇudūtas had baffled them. Although Yamarāja, under these circumstances, was accused by both the Viṣṇudūtas and the Yamadūtas, he is perfect in administering justice because he is empowered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore he will explain what his real position is and how everyone is controlled by the supreme controller, the Personality of Godhead.

SB 6.5.36, Purport:

Desiring to train his sons to become gṛhasthas fully equipped with knowledge, Dakṣa had sent them to execute austerities by Nārāyaṇa-saras. Nārada Muni, however, taking advantage of their highly elevated position in austerity, instructed them to become Vaiṣṇavas in the renounced order. This is the duty of Nārada Muni and his followers. They must show everyone the path of renouncing this material world and returning home, back to Godhead. Prajāpati Dakṣa, however, could not see the exaltedness of the duties Nārada Muni performed in relation to his sons. Unable to appreciate Nārada Muni's behavior, Dakṣa accused Nārada of being asādhu.

SB 6.5.36, Purport:

In the Western countries especially, these four prohibited activities practically constitute the life and soul of the modern population. Therefore parents sometimes dislike our movement, just as Prajāpati Dakṣa disliked the activities of Nārada and accused Nārada of dishonesty. Nevertheless, although parents may be angry at us, we must perform our duty without hesitation because we are in the disciplic succession from Nārada Muni.

SB 6.5.37, Purport:

Unfortunately, Prajāpati Dakṣa, the father of the Haryaśvas and Savalāśvas, did not understand the great service rendered by Nārada Muni. Dakṣa therefore addressed him as pāpa (the personality of sinful activities) and asādhu (a nonsaintly person). Since Nārada Muni was a great saint and Vaiṣṇava, he tolerated all such accusations from Prajāpati Dakṣa. He merely performed his duty as a Vaiṣṇava by delivering all the sons of Prajāpati Dakṣa, enabling them to return home, back to Godhead.

SB 6.5.38, Purport:

Since Prajāpati Dakṣa was a karmī, he could not appreciate the great service Nārada Muni had rendered his eleven thousand sons. Instead, he accused Nārada Muni of being sinful and charged that because Nārada Muni was associated with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Lord would also be defamed. Thus Dakṣa criticized that Nārada Muni was an offender to the Lord although he was known as an associate of the Lord.

SB 6.5.39, Purport:

In the West also, the parents of the young people who join this movement have also become enemies. We have no business creating enemies, but the process is such that nondevotees will always be inimical toward us. Nevertheless, as stated in the śāstras, a devotee should be both tolerant and merciful. Devotees engaged in preaching should be prepared to be accused by ignorant persons, and yet they must be very merciful to the fallen conditioned souls. If one can execute his duty in the disciplic succession of Nārada Muni, his service will surely be recognized.

SB 6.5.39, Purport:

In this verse the word sauhṛda-ghnam ("a breaker of friendship") is used. Because Nārada Muni and the members of his disciplic succession disrupt friendships and family life, they are sometimes accused of being sauhṛda-ghnam, creators of enmity between relatives. Actually such devotees are friends of every living entity (suhṛdaṁ sarva-bhūtānām (BG 5.29)), but they are misunderstood to be enemies. Preaching can be a difficult, thankless task, but a preacher must follow the orders of the Supreme Lord and be unafraid of materialistic persons.

SB 6.5.40, Purport:

If one seriously engages in devotional service to Lord Vāsudeva, jñāna and vairāgya are automatically manifest in one's person. There is no doubt of this. Prajāpati Dakṣa's accusation that Nārada had not actually elevated his sons to the platform of knowledge was not factual. All the sons of Prajāpati Dakṣa had first been raised to the platform of jñāna and had then automatically renounced this world. In summary, unless one's knowledge is awakened, renunciation cannot take place, for without elevated knowledge one cannot give up attachment for material enjoyment.

SB 6.5.42, Purport:

Prajāpati Dakṣa wanted to prove that he had been most tolerant in not having said anything when Nārada Muni, for no reason, induced his ten thousand innocent sons to adopt the path of renunciation. Sometimes householders are accused of being gṛhamedhīs, for gṛhamedhīs are satisfied with family life without spiritual advancement. Gṛhasthas, however, are different because although gṛhasthas live in householder life with their wives and children, they are eager for spiritual advancement.

SB 6.5.44, Purport:

Now, it may be asked why Nārada Muni stayed in the presence of Prajāpati Dakṣa and tolerated all his accusations and curses. Was that for Dakṣa's deliverance? The answer is yes. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura says that after being insulted by Prajāpati Dakṣa, Nārada Muni should have left immediately, but he purposely stayed to hear all Dakṣa's strong words so that Dakṣa might be relieved of his anger. Prajāpati Dakṣa was not an ordinary man; he had accumulated the results of many pious activities. Therefore Nārada Muni expected that after delivering his curse, Dakṣa, satisfied and freed from anger, would repent his misbehavior and thus get a chance to become a Vaiṣṇava and be delivered.

SB 6.10.28, Translation:

When insignificant persons use rough words to cast false, angry accusations against saintly persons, their fruitless words do not disturb the great personalities. Similarly, all the efforts of the demons against the demigods, who were favorably situated under the protection of Kṛṣṇa, were futile.

SB 6.10.28, Purport:

There is a Bengali saying that if a vulture curses a cow to die, the curse will not be effective. Similarly, accusations made by demoniac persons against devotees of Kṛṣṇa cannot have any effect. The demigods are devotees of Lord Kṛṣṇa, and therefore the curses of the demons were futile.

SB 6.13.11, Purport:

One cannot be happy by committing sinful acts, even if one is endowed with material opulence. Indra found this to be true. People began to blaspheme him, saying, "This person has killed a brāhmaṇa for the sake of enjoying heavenly material happiness." Therefore in spite of being King of heaven and enjoying material opulence, Indra was always unhappy because of the accusations of the populace.

SB 6.14.54, Purport:

This is the way a conditioned soul condemns the supreme creator when he meets reverses. Sometimes he accuses the Supreme Personality of Godhead of being crooked because some people are happy and some are not. Here the Queen blames supreme providence for her son's death. Following the creative laws, a father should die first and then his son. If the creative laws are changed according to the whims of providence, then providence certainly should not be considered merciful, but must be considered inimical to the created being. Actually it is not the creator, but the conditioned soul who is inexperienced. He does not know how the subtle laws of fruitive activity work, and without knowledge of these laws of nature, he ignorantly criticizes the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

SB 6.17.17, Purport:

A devotee is naturally so humble and meek that he accepts any condition of life as a blessing from the Lord. Tat te 'nukampāṁ susamīkṣamāṇaḥ (SB 10.14.8). A devotee always accepts punishment from anyone as the mercy of the Lord. If one lives in this conception of life, he sees whatever reverses occur to be due to his past misdeeds, and therefore he never accuses anyone. On the contrary, he becomes increasingly attached to the Supreme Personality of Godhead because of his being purified by his suffering. Suffering, therefore, is also a process of purification.

SB Canto 7

SB 7.1 Summary:

In this chapter, in response to a question by Mahārāja Parīkṣit, Śukadeva Gosvāmī gives his conclusions concerning how the Supreme Personality of Godhead, although the Supersoul, friend and protector of everyone, killed the Daityas, the demons, for the sake of Indra, the King of heaven. In his statements, he totally refutes the arguments of people in general who accuse the Supreme Lord of partiality. Śukadeva Gosvāmī proves that because the body of the conditioned soul is infected by the three qualities of nature, dualities arise such as enmity and friendship, attachment and detachment. For the Supreme Personality of Godhead, however, there are no such dualities.

SB 7.1.25, Purport:

Because of being covered by material bodies, the conditioned souls, including even greatly learned scholars and falsely educated professors, all think that as soon as the body is finished, everything is finished. This is due to their bodily conception of life. Kṛṣṇa has no such bodily conception, nor is His body different from His self. Therefore, since Kṛṣṇa has no material conception of life, how can He be affected by material prayers and accusations? Kṛṣṇa's body is described herewith as kaivalya, nondifferent from Himself.

SB 7.1.25, Purport:

Whenever the Lord punishes persons like demons, however, such punishment is meant for the good of the conditioned soul. The conditioned soul, being envious of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, may accuse Him, saying, "Kṛṣṇa is bad, Kṛṣṇa is a thief" and so on, but Kṛṣṇa, being kind to all living entities, does not consider such accusations. Instead, He takes account of the conditioned soul's chanting of "Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa" so many times. He sometimes punishes such demons for one life by putting them in a lower species, but then, when they have stopped accusing Him, they are liberated in the next life because of chanting Kṛṣṇa's name constantly. Blaspheming the Supreme Lord or His devotee is not at all good for the conditioned soul, but Kṛṣṇa, being very kind, punishes the conditioned soul in one life for such sinful activities and then takes him back home, back to Godhead.

SB 7.2 Summary:

When the Supreme Personality of Godhead appeared as the boar and killed Hiraṇyakaśipu's brother Hiraṇyākṣa, Hiraṇyakaśipu was very much aggrieved. In anger, he accused the Supreme Personality of Godhead of being partial to His devotees and derided the Lord's appearance as Varāha to kill his brother. He began to agitate all the demons and Rākṣasas and disturb the ritualistic ceremonies of the peaceful sages and other inhabitants of earth. For want of the performance of yajña, sacrifice, the demigods began wandering unseen on earth.

SB 7.2.6, Purport:

The demon Hiraṇyakaśipu accused the Lord of being partial because the demigods worshiped Him, but in fact the Lord, like the government, is not partial at all. The government is not partial to any citizen, but if a citizen is law-abiding he receives abundant opportunities from the state laws to live peacefully and fulfill his real interests.

SB 7.2.7-8, Purport:

Hiraṇyakaśipu accused the Supreme Lord of having a restless mind like that of a small child who can be induced to do anything if simply offered some cakes and lāḍḍus. Indirectly, this indicates the true position of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who says in Bhagavad-gītā (9.26):

patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ

yo me bhaktyā prayacchati

tad ahaṁ bhakty-upahṛtam

aśnāmi prayatātmanaḥ

"If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it." The Lord accepts the offerings of devotees because of their transcendental love.

SB 7.5.23-24, Purport:

In the book Nāma-kaumudī it is recommended that if one is an offender at the lotus feet of a Vaiṣṇava, he should submit to that Vaiṣṇava and be excused; similarly, if one is an offender in chanting the holy name, he should submit to the holy name and thus be freed from his offenses. In this connection there is the following statement, spoken by Dakṣa to Lord Śiva: "I did not know the glories of your personality, and therefore I committed an offense at your lotus feet in the open assembly. You are so kind, however, that you did not accept my offense. Instead, when I was falling down because of accusing you, you saved me by your merciful glance. You are most great. Kindly excuse me and be satisfied with your own exalted qualities."

SB 7.5.28, Translation:

The son of Śukrācārya, Hiraṇyakaśipu's spiritual master, said: O enemy of King Indra, O King! Whatever your son Prahlāda has said was not taught to him by me or anyone else. His spontaneous devotional service has naturally developed in him. Therefore, please give up your anger and do not unnecessarily accuse us. It is not good to insult a brāhmaṇa in this way.

SB 7.9 Summary:

The Lord's mercy is bestowed equally upon everyone, regardless of whether one is high or low. Because Prahlāda Mahārāja was blessed by Nārada Muni, Prahlāda became a great devotee. The Lord always saves the devotee from impersonalists and voidists. The Lord is present in everyone's heart as the Supersoul to give the living being protection and all benefits. Thus the Lord acts sometimes as the killer and sometimes as the protector. One should not accuse the Lord for any discrepancies. It is His plan that we see varieties of life within this material world. All of them are ultimately His mercy.

SB 7.9.10, Purport:

We have had actual experience of how Americans and Europeans, because of their full Kṛṣṇa consciousness, have purified their whole families, so much so that a mother of a devotee, at the time of her death, inquired about Kṛṣṇa with her last breath. Therefore it is theoretically true and has been practically proven that a devotee can give the best service to his family, his community, his society and his nation. The foolish accuse a devotee of following the principle of escapism, but actually the fact is that a devotee is the right person to elevate his family. A devotee engages everything in the service of the Lord, and therefore he is always exalted.

SB Canto 8

SB 8.3.32, Purport:

When a devotee is in great danger, he sees that danger to be the great mercy of the Lord because it is an opportunity to think of the Lord very sincerely and with undiverted attention. Tat te 'nukampāṁ susamīkṣamāṇo bhuñjāna evātma-kṛtaṁ vipākam (SB 10.14.8). He does not accuse the Supreme Personality of Godhead for having let His devotee fall into such a dangerous condition. Rather, he considers that dangerous condition to be due to his past misdeeds and takes it as an opportunity to pray to the Lord and offer thanks for having been given such an opportunity.

SB 8.22.20, Purport:

Bali Mahārāja's wife, who was most intelligent, supported the arrest of her husband and accused him of having no intelligence because he had claimed proprietorship of the property of the Lord. Such a claim is a sign of demoniac life. Although the demigods, who are officials appointed by the Lord for management, are attached to materialistic enjoyment, they never claim to be proprietors of the universe, for they know that the actual proprietor of everything is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

SB 8.22.20, Purport:

Bali Mahārāja's wife accused Bali Mahārāja by saying that although the Supreme Personality of Godhead had arrested him, showing him extraordinary mercy, and although Bali Mahārāja was offering his body to the Supreme Lord for the Lord's third step, he was still in the darkness of ignorance. Actually the body did not belong to him, but because of his long-standing demoniac mentality he could not understand this. He thought that since he had been defamed for his inability to fulfill his promise of charity, and since the body belonged to him, he would free himself from defamation by offering his body. Actually, however, the body does not belong to anyone but the Supreme Personality of Godhead, by whom the body is given.

SB Canto 9

SB 9.24.59, Purport:

For flickering happiness, people waste their human energy, not understanding the importance of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement but instead accusing the simple devotees of brainwashing. Demons may falsely accuse the preachers of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, but Kṛṣṇa will arrange a fight between the demons in which all their military power will be engaged and both parties of demons will be annihilated.

SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13

SB 10.3.51, Purport:

Vasudeva knew very well that as soon as the daughter was in the prison house of Kaṁsa, Kaṁsa would immediately kill her; but to protect his own child, he had to kill the child of his friend. Nanda Mahārāja was his friend, but out of deep affection and attachment for his own son, he knowingly did this. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura says that one cannot be blamed for protecting one's own child at the sacrifice of another's. Furthermore, Vasudeva cannot be accused of callousness, since his actions were impelled by the force of Yogamāyā.

SB 10.8.35, Purport:

We ordinarily see this in the material world, but in relation to Kṛṣṇa it is different; such activities are meant to endow the devotee with transcendental ecstasy. The Supreme Personality of Godhead was playing as a liar and accusing all the other devotees of being liars. As stated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.12.11), kṛta-puṇya-puñjāḥ: a devotee may attain such an ecstatic position after many, many births of devotional service.

SB 10.8.35, Purport:

Persons who have amassed the results of a vast amount of pious activities can attain the stage of associating with Kṛṣṇa and playing with Him like ordinary playmates. One should not consider these transactions of transcendental service to be untruthful accusations. One should never accuse such devotees of being ordinary boys speaking lies, for they attained this stage of associating with Kṛṣṇa by great austerities (tapasā brahmacaryeṇa śamena ca damena ca (SB 6.1.13)).

SB Cantos 10.14 to 12 (Translations Only)

SB 10.56.16, Translation:

He said, "Kṛṣṇa probably killed my brother, who went to the forest wearing the jewel on his neck." The general populace heard this accusation and began whispering it in one another's ears.

SB 10.56.31, Translation:

(Lord Kṛṣṇa said:) It is for this jewel, O lord of the bears, that we have come to your cave. I intend to use the jewel to disprove the false accusations against Me.

SB 10.57.41, Translation:

After the almighty Lord had shown the Syamantaka jewel to His relatives, thus dispelling the false accusations against Him, He returned it to Akrūra.

SB 10.83.9, Translation:

Śrī Satyabhāmā said: My father, his heart tormented by his brothers death, accused Kṛṣṇa of killing him. To remove the stain on His reputation, the Lord defeated the king of the bears and took back the Syamantaka jewel, which He then returned to my father. Fearing the consequences of his offense, my father offered me to the Lord, even though I had already been promised to others.

SB 11.6.8, Translation:

O unconquerable Lord, You engage Your illusory energy, composed of three modes, to unleash, maintain and devastate the inconceivable manifest cosmos, all within Your own self. As the supreme superintendent of māyā, You appear to be situated in the interaction of the modes of nature; however, You are never affected by material activities. In fact, You are directly engaged in Your own eternal, spiritual bliss, and thus You cannot be accused of any material infection.

CC Adi-lila

CC Adi 7.41, Purport:

Fortunately or unfortunately, we also meet such Māyāvādīs who criticize our method of chanting and accuse us of not being interested in study. They do not know that we have translated volumes and volumes of books into English and that the students in our temples regularly study them in the morning, afternoon and evening. We are writing and printing books, and our students study them and distribute them all over the world. No Māyāvādī school can present as many books as we have; nevertheless, they accuse us of not being fond of study. Such accusations are completely false. But although we study, we do not study the nonsense of the Māyāvādīs.

CC Adi 7.41, Purport:

The Māyāvādīs' accusation that devotees do not study Vedānta is false. The Māyāvādīs do not know that chanting, dancing and preaching the principles of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, called bhāgavata-dharma, are the same as studying Vedānta. Since they think that reading Vedānta philosophy is the only function of a sannyāsī and they did not find Caitanya Mahāprabhu engaged in such direct study, they criticized the Lord.

CC Adi 7.43, Translation:

Hearing all this blasphemy, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu merely smiled to Himself, rejected all these accusations and did not talk with the Māyāvādīs.

CC Adi 7.121, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura explains, "In the Vedanta-sūtra of Śrīla Vyāsadeva it is definitely stated that all cosmic manifestations result from transformations of various energies of the Lord. Śaṅkarācārya, however, not accepting the energy of the Lord, thinks that it is the Lord who is transformed. He has taken many clear statements from the Vedic literature and twisted them to try to prove that if the Lord, or the Absolute Truth, were transformed, His oneness would be disturbed. Thus he has accused Śrīla Vyāsadeva of being mistaken. In developing his philosophy of monism, therefore, he has established vivarta-vāda, or the Māyāvāda theory of illusion."

CC Adi 10.85, Purport:

The sahajiyās level three accusations against Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī. This is certainly not congenial for the execution of devotional service. The first accusation concerns a materialist who was very proud of his reputation as a great Sanskrit scholar and approached Śrī Rūpa and Sanātana to argue with them about the revealed scriptures. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī, not wanting to waste their time, gave him a written statement that he had defeated them in a debate on the revealed scriptures. Taking this paper, the scholar approached Jīva Gosvāmī for a similar certificate of defeat, but Jīva Gosvāmī did not agree to give him one. On the contrary, he argued with him regarding the scriptures and defeated him.

CC Adi 10.85, Purport:

Certainly it was right for Jīva Gosvāmī to stop such a dishonest scholar from advertising that he had defeated Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī, but due to their illiteracy the sahajiyā class refer to this incident to accuse Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī of deviating from the principle of humility. They do not know, however, that humility and meekness are appropriate when one's own honor is insulted but not when Lord Viṣṇu or the ācāryas are blasphemed. In such cases one should not be humble and meek but must act.

CC Adi 10.85, Purport:

According to another accusation, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī did not approve of the principles of the parakīya-rasa of Vraja-dhāma and therefore supported svakīya-rasa, showing that Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are eternally married. Actually, when Jīva Gosvāmī was alive, some of his followers disliked the parakīya-rasa of the gopīs. Therefore Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, for their spiritual benefit, supported svakīya-rasa, for he could understand that sahajiyās would otherwise exploit the parakīya-rasa, as they are actually doing at the present time.

CC Adi 12.42, Purport:

Mother Śacīdevī was similarly punished, as mentioned in the Caitanya-bhāgavata, Madhya-khaṇḍa, Chapter Twenty-two. Mother Śacīdevī, apparently showing her feminine nature, accused Advaita Prabhu of encouraging her son to become a sannyāsī. Caitanya Mahāprabhu, taking this accusation as an offense, asked Śacīdevī to touch the lotus feet of Advaita Ācārya to mitigate the offense she had supposedly committed.

CC Adi 12.73, Purport:

This analysis by Śrī Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, supporting the statements of Śrī Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, depicts the position of the present so-called Hindu religion, which, being predominantly conducted by the Māyāvāda philosophy, has become a hodgepodge institution of various concocted ideas. Māyāvādīs greatly fear the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement and accuse it of spoiling the Hindu religion because it accepts people from all parts of the world and all religious sects and scientifically engages them in the daiva-varṇāśrama-dharma. As we have explained several times, however, we find no such word as "Hindu" in the Vedic literature. The word most probably came from Afghanistan, a predominantly Muslim country, and originally referred to a pass in Afghanistan known as Hindukush, which is still a part of a trade route between India and various Muslim countries.

CC Adi 14.50, Purport:

Sometimes we, the members of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, are accused of not approving of the worship of demigods. But how can we approve of this when it is condemned by Lord Caitanya and Lord Kṛṣṇa? How can we allow people to become foolish and hṛta-jñāna (BG 7.20), bereft of intelligence? Our propaganda is simply meant to enable intelligent people to understand the distinction between matter and spirit and understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the whole spiritual identity. That is our mission. How could we mislead people into worshiping so-called gods in material bodies within this material world?

CC Adi 17.71, Purport:

On the mahā-prakāśa day, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu embraced Haridāsa Ṭhākura and informed him that he was none other than an incarnation of Prahlāda Mahārāja. When Viśvarūpa took sannyāsa, Śacīmātā thought that Advaita Ācārya had persuaded Him to do so. Therefore she accused Advaita Ācārya of this, which was an offense at His lotus feet. Later Lord Caitanya induced His mother to take the dust of Advaita Ācārya's lotus feet, and thus her vaiṣṇava-aparādha was nullified.

CC Adi 17.203, Purport:

The pāṣaṇḍīs were against the Hare Kṛṣṇa movement of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and now we see practically that they also do not like our humble attempts to spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness all over the world. On the contrary, these pāṣaṇḍīs say that we are spoiling the Hindu religion because people all over the world are accepting Lord Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead according to the version of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. The pāṣaṇḍīs condemn this movement, and sometimes they accuse Vaiṣṇavas from foreign countries of being not bona fide. Even so-called Vaiṣṇavas—pseudo followers of the Vaiṣṇava cult—do not agree with our activities in making Vaiṣṇavas in the Western countries. Such pāṣaṇḍīs existed even during the time of Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and they continue to exist.

CC Adi 17.255, Translation:

"Nimāi Paṇḍita alone has spoiled the entire country," they accused. "He wants to strike a caste brāhmaṇa. He has no fear of religious principles."

CC Madhya-lila

CC Madhya 3.35, Translation:

When Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu accused Nityānanda of cheating Him, Śrīla Advaita Ācārya said, "Whatever Nityānanda Prabhu has told You is not false. You have indeed just now taken Your bath in the river Yamunā."

CC Madhya 3.86, Translation:

Advaita Ācārya accused Nityānanda Prabhu, saying, "You can eat ten to twenty mānas of rice. I am a poor brāhmaṇa. How shall I get so much rice?"

CC Madhya 6.172, Translation:

"Śaṅkarācārya's theory states that the Absolute Truth is transformed. By accepting this theory, the Māyāvādī philosophers denigrate Śrīla Vyāsadeva by accusing him of error. They thus find fault in the Vedānta-sūtra and interpret it to try to establish the theory of illusion."

CC Madhya 7.29, Purport:

All the accusations made by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu against His beloved devotees actually showed His great appreciation of their intense love for Him. Yet He mentioned these faults one after another as if He were offended by their intense affection. The personal associates of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu sometimes behaved contrary to regulative principles out of intense love for the Lord, and because of their love Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself sometimes violated the regulative principles of a sannyāsī. In the eyes of the public, such violations are not good, but Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was so controlled by His devotees' love that He was obliged to break some of the rules. Although accusing them, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was indirectly indicating that He was very satisfied with their behavior in pure love of Godhead.

CC Madhya 8.139, Purport:

The name Madana refers to Cupid, but Kṛṣṇa is the spiritual Madana. His body is not material like the body of Cupid in this material universe. Kṛṣṇa's body is all-spiritual—sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1). Therefore He is called Aprākṛta-madana. He is also known as Manmatha-madana, which means that He is attractive even to Cupid. Sometimes Kṛṣṇa's activities and attractive features are misinterpreted by gross materialists who accuse Him of being immoral because He danced with the gopīs, but such an accusation results from not knowing that Kṛṣṇa is beyond this material world.

CC Madhya 17 Summary:

At Vārāṇasī, Vaidya Candraśekhara, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's old friend, also rendered service unto Him. Seeing the behavior of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, a Maharashtriyan brāhmaṇa informed Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, the leader of the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs. Prakāśānanda made various accusations against the Lord. The Maharashtriyan brāhmaṇa was very sorry about this, and he brought the news to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, inquiring from Him why the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs did not utter the holy name of Kṛṣṇa.

CC Madhya 18.207, Purport:

After being initiated, the devotees in the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement change their names. Whenever a person in the Western world becomes interested in this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, he is initiated by this process. In India we are falsely accused of converting mlecchas and yavanas to the Hindu religion. In India there are many Māyāvādī sannyāsīs known as jagad-guru, although they have hardly visited the whole world. Some are not even sufficiently educated, yet they make accusations against our movement and accuse us of destroying the principles of the Hindu religion by accepting Muslims and yavanas as Vaiṣṇavas. Such people are simply envious.

CC Madhya 21.133, Translation:

"When the onlooker of Kṛṣṇa's face becomes dissatisfied in this way, he thinks, 'Why didn't the creator give me thousands and millions of eyes? Why has he given me only two? Even these two eyes are disturbed by blinking, which keeps me from continuously seeing Kṛṣṇa's face.' Thus one accuses the creator of being dry and tasteless due to engaging in severe austerities. ‘The creator is only a dry manufacturer. He does not know how to create and set things in their proper places."

CC Madhya 25.120, Purport:

The cult of bhāgavata-dharma can be spread in all circumstances, among all people and in all countries. Many envious people accuse the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of spoiling the rigidity of so-called Hinduism. That is not actually the fact. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu confirms that devotional service to the Lord—the cult of bhāgavata-dharma, which is now being spread as the Hare Kṛṣṇa movement—can be spread in every country, to every person, in any condition of life, and in all circumstances. Bhāgavata-dharma does not restrict pure devotees to the Hindu community. A pure devotee is above a brāhmaṇa; therefore it is not incompatible to offer the sacred thread to devotees in Europe, America, Australia, Japan, Canada, and so on.

CC Antya-lila

CC Antya 1.150, Translation:

"When one hears praise from his beloved, he outwardly remains neutral but feels pain within his heart. When he hears his beloved making accusations about him, he takes them to be jokes and enjoys pleasure. When he finds faults in his beloved, they do not diminish his love, nor do the beloved's good qualities increase his spontaneous affection. Thus spontaneous love continues under all circumstances. That is how spontaneous love of Godhead acts within the heart."

CC Antya 7.98, Purport:

As the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu exists in everyone's heart. Therefore He would know the circumstances under which Paṇḍita Gosāñi agreed to hear Vallabha Bhaṭṭa's explanations, and certainly He would not be angry. However, the Vaiṣṇavas who were always with Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu might not understand Gadādhara Paṇḍita's inner consciousness, and they might accuse him of having compromised with Vallabha Bhaṭṭa, despite his having been neglected by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Gadādhara Paṇḍita Gosāñi was seriously thinking in this way.

CC Antya 8 Summary:

Although Rāmacandra Purī was one of the disciples of Mādhavendra Purī, he was influenced by dry Māyāvādīs, and therefore he criticized Mādhavendra Purī. Therefore Mādhavendra Purī accused him of being an offender and rejected him. Because Rāmacandra Purī had been rejected by his spiritual master, he became concerned only with finding faults in others and advising them according to dry Māyāvāda philosophy. For this reason he was not very respectful to the Vaiṣṇavas, and later he became so fallen that he began criticizing Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu for His eating. Hearing his criticisms, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu reduced His eating, but after Rāmacandra Purī left Jagannātha Purī, the Lord resumed His usual behavior.

CC Antya 8.50, Translation:

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu had heard rumors about Rāmacandra Purī’s blasphemy. Now He directly heard his fanciful accusations.

CC Antya 8.84, Translation:

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, "Why are all of you angry at Rāmacandra Purī? He is expounding the natural principles of sannyāsa life. Why are you accusing him?"

CC Antya 19.44, Translation:

"Why does Providence continue the life of one who does not wish to live?" This thought aroused anger and lamentation in Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, who then recited a verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that chastises Providence and makes an accusation against Kṛṣṇa.

CC Antya 19.50, Translation:

"But this is the fault of My own destiny. Why should I needlessly accuse you? There is no intimate relationship between you and Me. Kṛṣṇa, however, is My life and soul. It is We who live together, and it is He who has become so cruel."

Nectar of Devotion

Nectar of Devotion 22:

A statement by Uddhava after the Syamantaka jewel plundering confirms that Kṛṣṇa is so kind and favorable that if a servitor is accused even of great offenses, Kṛṣṇa does not take this into consideration. He simply considers the service that is rendered by His devotee.

Nectar of Devotion 43:

In separation from Kṛṣṇa, mother Yaśodā became so humble that she prayed to the creator of the universe, Lord Brahmā, with tears in her eyes, "My dear creator, won't you kindly bring my dear son Kṛṣṇa back to me so that I can see Him at least for a moment?" Sometimes, in restlessness like a madwoman, mother Yaśodā used to accuse Nanda Mahārāja, "What are you doing in the palace? You shameless man! Why do people call you the King of Vraja? It is very astonishing that while being separated from your dear son Kṛṣṇa, you are still living within Vṛndāvana as a hardhearted father!"

Nectar of Devotion 43:

When Nanda Mahārāja was accused by mother Yaśodā of being "hardhearted," he replied, "My dear Yaśodā, why are you becoming so agitated? Kindly look more carefully. Just see, your son Kṛṣṇa is standing before you! Don't become a madwoman like this. Please keep my home peaceful." And Kṛṣṇa was informed by some friend that His father Nanda was also in illusion in this way, in separation from Him.

Nectar of Devotion 47:

There is a statement in the Vidagdha-mādhava wherein Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, in an angry mood, addressed Her mother, Paurṇamāsī, after she had accused Rādhārāṇī of going to Kṛṣṇa. "My dear mother," Rādhā declared, "what can I say to you? Kṛṣṇa is so cruel that He often attacks Me on the street, and if I want to cry out very loudly, this boy with a peacock feather on His head immediately covers My face so that I cannot cry. And if I want to go away from the scene because I am afraid of Him, He will immediately spread His arms to block My path. If I piteously fall down at His feet, then this enemy of the Madhu demon, in an angry mood, bites My face! Mother, just try to understand My situation, and don't be unnecessarily angry with Me. Instead, please tell Me how I can save Myself from these terrible attacks of Kṛṣṇa!"

Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead

Krsna Book 28:

Nine days of the waxing moon having passed, on the tenth day King Indra worshiped Lord Kṛṣṇa, and thus the matter was satisfactorily settled. After this, on the eleventh day of the full moon, Ekādaśī, Mahārāja Nanda observed fasting for the whole day, and just early in the morning of the next day, Dvādaśī, he went to take a bath in the river Yamunā. He entered deep into the water of the river, but he was arrested immediately by one of the servants of Varuṇadeva. This servant brought Nanda Mahārāja before the demigod Varuṇa and accused him of taking a bath in the river at the wrong time. According to astronomical calculations, the time in which he took a bath was considered demoniac. The fact was that Nanda Mahārāja wanted to take a bath in the river Yamunā early in the morning before the sunrise, but somehow or other he was a little too early, and he bathed at an inauspicious time. Consequently he was arrested.

Krsna Book 29:

"Dear Kṛṣṇa, we have simply been captivated by seeing You with tilaka and with earrings and by seeing Your beautiful face covered with scattered hair and bearing Your extraordinary smile. Not only that, but we are also attracted by Your arms, which always give assurance to the surrendered souls. And although we are also attracted by Your chest, which is always embraced by the goddess of fortune, we do not wish to take her position. We shall simply be satisfied by being Your maidservants. If You accuse us, however, of encouraging prostitution, then we can only ask, Where is that woman within these three worlds who is not captivated by Your beauty and the rhythmic songs vibrated by Your transcendental flute? Within these three worlds there is no distinction between men and women in relation to You because both men and women belong to the marginal potency, or prakṛti."

Krsna Book 33:

Another important point is that none of the gopīs who danced with Kṛṣṇa were in their material bodies. They danced with Kṛṣṇa in their spiritual bodies. All their husbands thought that their wives were sleeping by their sides. The so-called husbands of the gopīs were already enamored with the influence of the external energy of Kṛṣṇa; so by dint of this very energy they could not understand that their wives had gone to dance with Kṛṣṇa. What then is the basis of accusing Kṛṣṇa of dancing with others' wives? The bodies of the gopīs, which were their husbands’, were lying in bed, but the spiritual parts and parcels of Kṛṣṇa were dancing with Him. Kṛṣṇa is the supreme person, the whole spirit, and He danced with the spiritual bodies of the gopīs. There is therefore no reason to accuse Kṛṣṇa in any way.

Krsna Book 47:

A student, after finishing his education, gives up his relationship with the teacher and the school. A priest, after taking his reward from the worshiper, gives him up. When the fruit season is over, birds are no longer interested in the tree. Just after eating in the house of a host, the guest gives up his relationship with him. After a forest fire, when there is a scarcity of green grass, deer and other animals give up the forest. And so a man, after enjoying his girlfriend, gives up his connection with her.” In this way, all the gopīs indirectly accused Kṛṣṇa by citing many examples.

Krsna Book 47:

These talks of Rādhārāṇī with the bumblebee messenger, including Her accusing Kṛṣṇa in so many ways and at the same time expressing Her inability to give up talking about Him, are signs of the topmost transcendental ecstasy, called mahā-bhāva. The ecstatic mahā-bhāva manifestation is possible only in the persons of Rādhārāṇī and Her associates. Great ācāryas like Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī and Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura have analyzed these mahā-bhāva speeches of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī and described their different varieties, such as udghūrṇā, or bewilderment, and jalpa-pratijalpa, or talking in different ways. These are the signs of ujjvala-rasa, or the brightest jewel of love of God.

Krsna Book 50:

Jarāsandha also criticized Kṛṣṇa for not even being a kṣatriya. Because He was raised by Mahārāja Nanda, Kṛṣṇa was not a kṣatriya but a vaiśya. Vaiśyas are generally called guptas, and the word gupta can also be used to mean "hidden." So Kṛṣṇa was both hidden and raised by Nanda Mahārāja. Jarāsandha accused Kṛṣṇa of three faults: that He killed His own maternal uncle, that He was not even a kṣatriya, and that He was hidden in His childhood. And therefore Jarāsandha felt ashamed to fight with Him.

Krsna Book 74:

Śiśupāla went crazy because of Kṛṣṇa's being elected the supreme, first-worshiped person in that meeting, and he spoke so irresponsibly that it appeared he had lost all his good fortune. Being overcast with misfortune, Śiśupāla continued to insult Kṛṣṇa, and Lord Kṛṣṇa patiently heard him without protest. Just as a lion does not care when a flock of jackals howl, Lord Kṛṣṇa remained silent and unprovoked. Kṛṣṇa did not reply to even a single accusation made by Śiśupāla, but all the members present in the meeting, except for a few who agreed with Śiśupāla, were very much agitated because it is the duty of any respectable person not to tolerate blasphemy against God or His devotee. Some of them, who thought that they could not properly take action against Śiśupāla, left the assembly in protest, covering their ears with their hands in order not to hear further accusations. Thus they left the meeting, condemning the action of Śiśupāla. It is the Vedic injunction that whenever there is blasphemy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one must immediately leave. If he does not do so, he becomes bereft of his pious activities and is degraded to a lower condition of life.

Krsna Book 76:

"Oh, you have done the most abominable act! Why have you removed me from the battlefield? My dear charioteer, I have never heard that any of our family members was ever removed from the battlefield. None of them left the battlefield while fighting. By this removal you have overburdened me with a great defamation. It will be said that I left the battlefield while fighting was going on. My dear charioteer, I must accuse you—you are a coward and emasculator! Tell me, how can I go before my uncle Balarāma and my father, Kṛṣṇa, and what shall I say before Them? Everyone will talk about me and say that I fled from the fighting place, and if they inquire from me about this, what will be my reply? My sisters-in-law will play jokes upon me with sarcastic words: "My dear hero, how have you become such a coward? How have you become a eunuch? How have you become so low in the eyes of the fighters who opposed you?" I think, my dear charioteer, that you have committed a great offense by removing me from the battlefield."

Krsna Book 79:

The good instruction given by Lord Balarāma to Bhīmasena and Duryodhana was intended for the equal benefit of both of them. But they were so enwrapped in anger against each other that they could remember only their long-standing personal enmity. Each thought only of killing the other, and they did not give much importance to the instruction of Lord Balarāma. Both of them then became like madmen in remembering the strong accusations and ill behavior they had exchanged with each other. Lord Balarāma, being able to understand the destiny awaiting them, was not eager to go further in the matter. Therefore, instead of staying, He decided to return to the city of Dvārakā.

Krsna Book 82:

It appears that Kuntīdevī was remembering the miserable days when she had been banished with her sons through the mischievous plans of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Duryodhana. She continued: "My dear brother, I can understand that when providence goes against someone, even one's nearest relatives forget him. In such a condition, even one's father, one's mother or one's own children will forget him. Therefore, my dear brother, I do not accuse you."

Krsna Book 83:

After this, Satyabhāmā began to speak. She said, "My dear Draupadī, my father was very much afflicted by the death of his brother, Prasena, and he falsely accused Lord Kṛṣṇa of killing his brother and stealing the Syamantaka jewel, which had actually been taken by Jāmbavān. Lord Kṛṣṇa, in order to establish His pure character, fought with Jāmbavān and rescued the Syamantaka jewel, which He later delivered to my father. My father was very much ashamed and sorry for accusing Lord Kṛṣṇa of his brother's death. After getting back the Syamantaka jewel, he thought it wise to rectify his mistake, so although he had promised others my hand in marriage, he submitted the jewel and me at the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, and thus I was accepted as His maidservant and wife."

Krsna Book 87:

The Bhagavad-gītā explains that our sinful desire is that we do not surrender unto the Supreme Lord. The Lord therefore says in the Bhagavad-gītā, "I shall give you protection from the reactions of sinful desires." These sinful desires are manifested in different types of bodies; therefore, no one can accuse the Supreme Lord of partiality in giving one type of body to a certain type of living entity and another type of body to another living entity. All the bodies of the 8,400,000 species are created according to the mental condition of the individual living entities. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Puruṣottama, only gives them a chance to act according to their desires. Therefore, the living entities act by taking advantage of the facility given by the Lord.

Krsna Book 89:

As we have explained in the First Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the king was so responsible for the comforts of the citizens that he was to see that there was not even excessive heat or cold. Now the brāhmaṇa whose child had died, thinking there was no fault on his own part, immediately went to the palace door with the dead child in his arms and accused the King as follows.

Krsna Book 89:

"The present King, Ugrasena, is envious of the brāhmaṇas!" The exact word used in this connection is brahma-dviṣaḥ. One who is envious of the Vedas, of a qualified brāhmaṇa or of the brāhmaṇa caste is called brahma-dviṣ. So the King was accused of being brahma-dviṣ. He was also accused of being śaṭha-dhī, falsely intelligent. The executive head of a state must be very intelligent to see to the comforts of the citizens, but according to the brāhmaṇa the King was not at all intelligent, although he was occupying the royal throne. Therefore the brāhmaṇa also called him lubdha, which means "greedy." In other words, a king or an executive head of state should not occupy the exalted post of president or king if he is greedy and self-interested. But it is natural that an executive head becomes self-interested when he is attached to material enjoyment. Therefore, another word used here is viṣayātmanaḥ.

Krsna Book 89:

The brāhmaṇa also accused the King of being kṣatra-bandhu, which refers to a person born in the family of kṣatriyas, or the royal order, but lacking the qualifications of a royal personality. A king should protect brahminical culture and should be very alert to the welfare of his citizens; he should not be greedy due to attachment to material enjoyment. If a person with no qualifications represents himself as a kṣatriya of the royal order, he is not called a kṣatriya but a kṣatra-bandhu. Similarly, if a person is born of a brāhmaṇa father but has no brahminical qualification, he is called brahma-bandhu or dvija-bandhu. This means that a brāhmaṇa or a kṣatriya is not accepted simply by birth. One has to qualify himself for the particular position; only then is he accepted as a brāhmaṇa or a kṣatriya.

Krsna Book 89:

The brāhmaṇa's second child also died at birth, and the third also. He had nine children, who all died at birth, and each time he came to the gate of the palace to accuse the King. When the brāhmaṇa came to accuse the King of Dvārakā for the ninth time, Arjuna happened to be present with Kṛṣṇa. On hearing that a brāhmaṇa was accusing the King of not properly protecting him, Arjuna became inquisitive and approached the brāhmaṇa. He said, "My dear brāhmaṇa, why do you say that there are no proper kṣatriyas to protect the citizens of your country? Is there not even someone who can pretend to be a kṣatriya, who can carry a bow and arrow at least to make a show of protection? Do you think that all the royal personalities in this country simply engage in performing sacrifices with the brāhmaṇas but have no chivalrous power?"

Krsna Book 89:

In the presence of Lord Kṛṣṇa and others, the brāhmaṇa began to accuse Arjuna: "Everyone see my foolishness! I put my faith in the words of Arjuna, who is impotent and who is expert only in false promises. How foolish I was to believe Arjuna. He promised to protect my child when even Pradyumna, Aniruddha, Lord Balarāma and Lord Kṛṣṇa had failed. If such great personalities could not protect my child, then who can do so? I therefore condemn Arjuna for his false promise, and I also condemn his celebrated bow Gāṇḍīva and his impudence in declaring himself greater than Lord Balarāma, Lord Kṛṣṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. How can anyone save my child, who has already been transferred to another planet? Due to sheer foolishness only, Arjuna thought he could bring back my child from another planet."

Krsna Book 90:

Another question may also be raised: The Lord is known as brahmaṇya-deva, the worshipable Deity of the brāhmaṇas, so why was He inclined to put a brāhmaṇa into such a terrible condition of lamentation over one son after another until the tenth son was taken away? The answer is that Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu was so eager to see Kṛṣṇa that He did not hesitate even to give trouble to a brāhmaṇa. Although giving trouble to a brāhmaṇa is a forbidden act, Lord Viṣṇu was prepared to do anything in order to see Kṛṣṇa—He was so eager to see Him. After losing each of his sons, the brāhmaṇa would come to the gate of the palace and accuse the King of not being able to give the brāhmaṇas protection and of thus being unfit to sit on the royal throne. It was Mahā-Viṣṇu's plan that the brāhmaṇa would accuse the kṣatriyas and Kṛṣṇa, and Kṛṣṇa would be obliged to come see Him to take back the brāhmaṇa's sons.

Renunciation Through Wisdom

Renunciation Through Wisdom 2.13:

In attempting to prove that the Absolute Truth cannot be the Supreme Personality of Godhead with unlimited energies, they argue that this would mean immutable Brahman is actually mutable. Thus their logic loses all cohesion and they become a laughingstock. In trying to refute the established theory of pariṇāma-vāda, or the "transformation of energy," they accuse Śrīla Vyāsadeva of being mistaken when he says that the material universe and the living entities are all transformations of the Lord's energy and are therefore real, not false. Thus in their philosophical discussions the monists reject the main purport and essence of all Vedic scriptures and their corollaries and hang on to nonessential injunctions, such as tat tvam asi, "You are that." They like to deliberate on these subpoints, but when confronted with the arguments of a learned Vaiṣṇava, they turn and run from the battlefront.