Antya 9.27-44 Lord Chaitanya stresses sannyasis noninvolvement in financial matters- Chaitanya Char

Chapter 9, text 27 onwards. शुनी राजपुत्र मने ख्रोध उपजिला, राजा रिथानियाई बहु लागाई करिला.
शुनी राजपुत्र मने ख्रोध उपजिला. On hearing this, on hearing how Gopinath Patnaika had compared him to an animal and devalued him, derided him thus, became furious. राजा रिथानियाई बहु लागाई करिला.
And he dragged him before the king and made various allegations. So here we see that things have started escalating out of control, getting worse and worse. The causes of anger often hurt us, but the consequences of anger hurt us even more.
That means that suppose somebody has done something that has caused anger within us. Now, those words may be hurtful, those actions may be horrifyingly painful, but still, when there are consequences of anger, they can be even worse. That the consequences of what we do can be so terrible that we end up wounded, terribly wounded by those consequences, far more than what we would have been otherwise.
And that’s what happens here to Gopinath Patnaika, as we will see. Now, he started making multiple allegations against Gopinath Patnaika in front of the king. So he says, he’s not giving the money to me and he actually collects money and handles it on some pretext and if you give me the order, I will I will raise him on the Changa, I’ll place him on the device for execution.
So the king basically gave authority to the prince to do whatever is required. He said that whatever you think is appropriate, you can do. Basically, just get the money back from him, whatever is the way means for that, do the needful.
Now, the do the needful can be a dangerously ambiguous instruction, because for doing the needful, how far can one go? So, it seems from the king’s perspective, the point was not to punish Gopinath Patnaika and was this a statement that allowed him to execute Gopinath Patnaika? No. It was primarily to extract the money from him, but the angry prince took that to mean that he could actually throw him down. So, placing him on the device of execution, raising him up, that is one thing and then dropping him so that he’ll be killed.
So, sometimes people need to be threatened with consequences, although actually those consequences are not to be given to them. But that ambiguity was there in the king’s words and the prince interpreted it in the way that he wanted. The king’s purpose was simply to get the money back, but the prince’s purpose was to get back at this person who had dared to insult him.
And the words of the king were interpreted by the prince in a way to justify what he wanted to do, that is, hurt him even to the point, hurt Gopinath Patnaika even to the point of killing him. So, when we are in a position of authority, we have to word our instructions with sufficient clarity so that people with their own agendas can’t very easily twist those words for their own meaning. Now, people with western agendas can extract any meaning from any sentence if they want to, but there are some meaning which are reasonable inferences and some which are unreasonable.
So, we need to, if you are in positions of authority, be responsible enough to have at least reasonable clarity in our pronunciations and the orders that we issue. So, 13, राजपुत्रासि तारे चंगे चड़ाईला, खड़ग उपरे फेलाई ते तले खड़ग पाटीला। So, he, the prince raised him accordingly on the changa and thereafter he had him, he had swords put below, खड़ग पाटीला. The idea is that he wanted to threaten him, sometimes you just shake up a person, you threaten a person.
So, we see that it seems raising a person, here the two distinct actions are described, one is to raise him on the changa and other is to place swords below. So, it seems that people might have been raised high up and threatened to be dropped down and that might injure them slightly, but to be threatened, to be dropped down on swords would mean they might be, higher chance that they would be killed. So, he had not, the prince had not mentioned about खड़ग पाटीला, that I will keep the swords below, that has not swords, that’s not been mentioned by him earlier and this is something where he is going beyond the order of the king and this will cause ambiguity and it can even lead to disaster.
So, text 31, शुनी प्रभो कहे किच्चु करी प्रणय रोष। So, on hearing this story, this has been told by the people who have come to him, प्रभो कहे किच्चु करी प्रणय रोष। The lord has exhibited affectionate anger, it’s a beautiful word, beautiful combined word, compound word, प्रणय रोष। It was not a hate-filled anger, it was not a revenge-filled anger, it was affection-filled anger, प्रणय रोष। So, प्रणय रोष indicates that the lord had a basic foundation of affection towards Bhavanandaraya and all his sons, including the person currently implicated, Gopinath Pattanaika, but there was रोष for his present action. So, within a foundation of affection, there could be a wave of anger, exasperation and that is being pointed to by this word प्रणय रोष। So, now if Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says with that affectionate anger, if he does not pay the king, then how can you blame the king? If what is due to the king is not given to the king, then you cannot blame. Even if somebody is in influential positions materially or spiritually, they still have to obey the laws.
We are in a particular state and we have to obey those laws of that state. Text 32, राजा विलात साधिका खाया नहीं राजा भाये, दारी नाटू यारे दिया करें नाना विये। राजा विलात साधिका खाया नहीं राजा भाये, दारी नाटू यारे दिया करें नाना विये। If he uses the money for himself, राजा विलात साधिका खाया नहीं राजा भाये, दारी नाटू यारे दिया करें नाना विये। And he uses it for दारी नाटू यारे, for dancing girls, करें नाना विये। He spends it like this. So now this reference is coming for the first time that he is using it for women, दारी नाटू यारे.
दारी is women, नाटू यारे is those who dance, dancing women. So if Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is mentioning this and there is no previous mention of this, so what does this imply? Although Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, there could be various possibilities. One is that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is giving a possible hypothesis, maybe he is adding more color and flavor to spice up the whole thing, that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is making a point here that it could be rhetorical, that the principle here is that dancing girls is one typical example of how people may squander their money, just as we may squander.
So today’s equivalent of dancing girls would be porn, where people may spend their money on something like that. Now whether that is what has happened or not, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s version, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s version is not countered by anyone and also his version is not actually what is focused on over here. The focus is that he has done wrong and it has to be corrected.
So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is very strict and especially about sannyasis, when they, when Chhota Haridas glances at a woman also, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is so furious, it is in this canto itself. But here Chaitanya Mahaprabhu does not seem to condemn Gopinath Patnaika for doing this and he says, basically the point is that he has squandered the king’s money. Now Chaitanya Mahaprabhu does not condemn him for looking at, for going to the, going to dancing girls.
So it could be that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu already has that information and from other sources and he is specifying that to support his non-involvement. His non-intervention specifically. He says that, let him deal with it, as you will see next.
Next text he will say, So if he is intelligent, so let him intelligently manage his assets, whatever they are and pay the king what is due to the king and after that, whatever he has, he can spend in whatever way he wants. So here the point is important that Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is not exactly condemning Gopinath Patnaika for whatever he has done, for specifically those seeing women. But he is saying that, this is basically Chaitanya Mahaprabhu stresses on that, this is an affair between the government, between the king and an officer of the king and why are you involved in me, let him settle it with the king.
What he does in his personal life is up to him, but he needs whatever is his professional life, he has to settle that professionally. So, and he said that, in a few minutes another person came, in running, he came running, that not only Gopinath Patnaika, but even his family members have been arrested, his father, they all have been bound now. So sometimes when money is not available with one person, then say when the bank freezes the accounts of someone, they may freeze the accounts of their relatives also.
So when one person is arrested and money is to be extracted, then they may do it for some other person also and that is what is for the relatives also. So here the issue is getting escalated over here, the problem is getting worse. Text 35, Prabhu kahe raja apane lekhara dravya laiva, ami virat sanyasi tahe ki kariba.
He says, the king has to realize his finances, he has to get the money that is due to him and he will do whatever is required for that. He says, I am a sanyasi, what can I do about it, I am a sanyasi, I can’t. So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is basically focusing on his non-involvement over here.
Tabhe swaroopaadiyat prabhu ra bhakta gaan, prabhu ve charan sabhe kailani vedan. At that time, swaroopaadiyat prabhu ra bhakta gaan, so till now it was general people who were coming and speaking. But now, so here text 36 onwards, a petition is being made to Lord Chaitanya not just by people in general but by devotees.
Swaroopaadiyat prabhu ra bhakta gaan, so not just devotional minded people of Puri but Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s own devotees led by his intimate associates Swaroopaadiyat. And thus the issue becomes more pressing for Lord Chaitanya also when they made this request to him. 37, Ramanandarayera goshti sab tomar das, tomar uchitana hai, aichana udas.
They said, oh please don’t treat this just as an affair between the king and a citizen and employee because all of the associates of Ramanandaraya are, you are, they are also your servants. It’s not just Ramanandaraya. So among in this Bhavananda’s family, Vanaraya’s family, the one closest to Lord Chaitanya was Ramanandaraya and thus his name is mentioned.
And starting with him he says that all family members are your servants, just as he is your servant, similarly they are also. And tomar uchitana hai, aichana udas, that it is not right for you to stay detached, to stay indifferent like this. Oh Lord, please do something.
38, Shuni Mahaprabhu rah kahe sakrodha vachane, more agya deha sabeya, yaaye rajasthane. So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, sakrodha vachane, he became angry and he said, all of you want to order me that I should go to the king. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu also, yes, so earlier it was pranayakosh, it was affectionate anger, but now it seems to be anger.
And Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, sometimes some situations have to be phrased in the way they are felt or they are seen because different people see them differently. So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is, now the devotees are petitioning, they are not requesting, but Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, when some petition comes repeatedly and very strongly, then it is felt as order and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has already expressed his desire. So when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had expressed his desire to not be involved and still people are pressing him to be involved, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu phrases their insistence as order.
The same situation is perceived differently by different people and our emotions are not determined by our situations, but our perception of our situations and to communicate our perception of our situation requires articulation. So often the way people articulate a situation is critical to hear, to understand how they perceive that situation. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is perceiving this as they are ordering him to go to the king.
So he said that, what do you want me to do? Is it your opinion that, your opinion seems to be that I should go to the king and spread my begging cloth to ask money from him? As a sannyasi, how can I ask money? So when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is saying, you are asking me to ask money from the king, he is phrasing things in the most provocative way to support his position of non-involvement. The devotees didn’t of course want him to ask for money, they just they wanted him maybe to ask the king to forgive, forgive or at least delay the punishment of Gopinath Patnaik. But Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is phrasing in this way, in these stark terms to remind them that he is a sannyasi and this is a financial matter and that’s why he doesn’t want to get involved in it.
He says that a sannyasi can beg for a small amount, five gandas, but how can I ask for two hundred thousand kahanas? How can I ask for such a huge amount? And why should even if I ask, why should a sannyasi be given this? Sannyasi is not expected to be involved in finances and therefore, there is no need for him to have this kind of money. And then this time, one more person came along and he said, Aralokailadev, when he came running along, so it’s like a breaking news here being reported, newsflash is coming one after another as the situation is developing. So now they said that he has already been, Gopinath has been placed on the Khadga and the situation has been readied to drop him onto the swords.
When the devotees appealed against to Lord Chaitanya, at that time, the Lord replied, No, I am a beggar. There is nothing in my hands. I can’t do anything about this.
So Lord Chaitanya is maintaining his position of non-involvement. And although the situation has become critical, he is saying, I can’t do anything about it. It is 43.
And Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is not abandoning them. He is not saying, I can’t help them. I can’t help you.
He says, you go. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is not playing the role of the Lord over here. He is playing the role of a Sanyasi.
We all have multiple identities. Often when people expect something from us, it depends on what is the role that they are seeing us in. And the devotees here are seeing Lord Chaitanya as God and therefore, they are asking him to do certain things.
Whereas, Lord Chaitanya is stressing that I am a Sanyasi and therefore, I can’t do anything. But he says, you go to the Lord. So we see consistently, at least in Lord Chaitanya’s times, he very rarely spoke of himself as God.
He spoke of himself as Sanyasi, as somebody who is trying to be a devotee. And he says that if you want to intervene, ask for divine intervention, go and pray to Jagannath. So we have various roles and people identify us according to our roles.
Sometimes people may stress a particular role and make certain expectation from us. But then we may have to part out that there is some other role for us. And based on that role, we have to see how best we communicate the identity that is appropriate over there, stress that identity and role and then accordingly redirect people.
So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is doing that by saying that I am a Sanyasi, you go to the Lord. Ishwara Jagannatha, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said that, everything, he said earlier that nothing is in my hands. He says, nothing is in my hands.
And now he says, it’s in Jagannath’s hand. He says that you should go, in his hands are everything, all purposes can be achieved by his hands. He is the Ishwara, he is the Lord.
And what can, what is, this Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is referring to a famous Upanishadic test. So, so he can, he is free, he is free to act with whatever he wants to do, what he to do, to do, what to not to do and to reverse his decision also to do something else. He is free to do whatever he likes.
I am not free. Therefore, you please go to Jagannath. And as Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu doesn’t just reject but redirects the devotees and does he models his role as a Sanyasi, as a devotee sadhaka, as a devotee rather than as the So, in this section, we saw how Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu stressed non-involvement by showing how it is a, it is a personal, it is a political matter.
It is a professional political administrative matter. It’s a matter of the misappropriation of funds and therefore malfeasance that it has to be dealt with at that level. And if it can’t be dealt at that level, he says that because it’s financial matter as a Sanyasi, I can’t be involved.
But you can go to the Lord. And within that, we discussed how the Lord stresses on his identity as a Sanyasi, not on his identity as the Lord. And also, how when something is going wrong, at that time, the devotees take it up as a repeatedly requesting, not the general people requesting.
Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu raises it in a provocative way that you are ordering me and you are asking me to ask for money. All the people, devotees may not have that intention. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says that that’s what it will become effectively because what are you asking me that you waive, that I waive the punishment for him? That means effectively the king will be giving that charity to me.
And that much charity a Sanyasi cannot ask and a king is also not duty bound to give. Therefore, I can’t intervene. We’ll continue discussion in the next session.
Thank you.