Cannot be accepted as authoritative

Expressions researched:
"cannot be accepted as authoritative" |"never be accepted as authoritative"

CC Adi-lila

This story is another ignominious example of blasphemy against a guru and Vaiṣṇava. Such a story should never be accepted as authoritative.

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. 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. One should follow the example given by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Lord Caitanya says in His Śikṣāṣṭaka (3):

tṛṇād api su-nīcena taror iva sahiṣṇunā

amāninā māna-dena kīrtanīyaḥ sadā hariḥ

[Cc. Ādi 17.31]

“One can chant the holy name of the Lord in a humble state of mind, thinking himself lower than the straw in the street. One should be more tolerant than a tree, devoid of all sense of false prestige, and should be ready to offer all respect to others. In such a state of mind one can chant the holy name of the Lord constantly.” Nevertheless, when the Lord was informed that Nityānanda Prabhu was injured by Jagāi and Mādhāi, He immediately went to the spot, angry like fire, wanting to kill them. Thus Lord Caitanya has explained His verse by the example of His own behavior. One should tolerate insults against oneself, but when there is blasphemy committed against superiors such as other Vaiṣṇavas, one should be neither humble nor meek: one must take proper steps to counteract such blasphemy. This is the duty of a servant of a guru and Vaiṣṇavas. Anyone who understands the principle of eternal servitude to the guru and Vaiṣṇavas will appreciate the action of Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī in connection with the so-called scholar’s victory over his gurus, Śrīla Rūpa and Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī.

Another story fabricated to defame Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī states that when Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī showed him the newly-completed manuscript of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Jīva Gosvāmī thought it would hamper his reputation as a big scholar and therefore threw it into a well. Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī was greatly shocked, according to this story, and he died immediately. Fortunately a copy of the manuscript of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta had been kept by a person named Mukunda, and therefore later it was possible to publish the book. This story is another ignominious example of blasphemy against a guru and Vaiṣṇava. Such a story should never be accepted as authoritative.

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. Unfortunately, in Vṛndāvana and Navadvīpa it has become fashionable among sahajiyās, in their debauchery, to find an unmarried sexual partner to live with to execute so-called devotional service in parakīya-rasa. Foreseeing this, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī supported svakīya-rasa, and later all the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas also approved of it. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī was never opposed to the transcendental parakīya-rasa, nor has any other Vaiṣṇava disapproved of it. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī strictly followed his predecessor gurus and Vaiṣṇavas, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī, and Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī accepted him as one of his instructor gurus.

Ādi 10.86

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Unless it is verified by the words of the Vedas, that cannot be accepted as authoritative.

Lecture on SB 6.1.40 -- Surat, December 22, 1970: So Śrīdhara Svāmī says that vedena praṇihita vihita dharmaḥ sa ca veda-pramāṇaka ity arthaḥ.(?) Unless it is verified by the words of the Vedas, that cannot be accepted as authoritative. Anena yo veda-pramakaḥ sa dharmaḥ. Now, it is concluded that "Anything which is supported by the Vedic injunction, that is dharma." Sa dharma yo 'dharmo na veda pramāṇakaḥ: "And any dharma which is not corroborated by the Vedas, that is not dharma. That is not accepted as religion." Iti svarūpaḥ pramāṇaṁ ca ity uktam.(?) Now, that is the characteristic of dharma, svarūpa. So if we want to understand what is dharma, then the test should be whether it is corroborated by the Vedas. Then it is dharma. Otherwise it is... Now, the question may be that the Indians or the followers of the Vedas... Now it has become so. Actually, the followers of Vedas are everyone. Every human being is the followers of Veda because the history of all other religions, they are all recent—one thousand year, two thousand years, three thousand years—but you cannot trace out the history of the Vedic religion. So from historical point of view, suppose one religion is current for the last three thousand years. Then what was their condition before three thousand years? So the natural conclusion is: as there was no such religion three thousand years and the Vedic religion has no history—it is coming from time immemorial—that was the religion.