Why was Lord Chaitanya harsh with Chota Haridas and lenient with Balabhadra Bhattacharya?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So, why did Chaitanya Mahaprabhu deal so harshly with Chhota Haridas? On the other hand, Balabhadra Bhattacharya, when he went off with someone, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu actually brought him back. So, it seems to be inconsistent. Different thing, I don’t think Balabhadra Bhattacharya was a sannyasi.
Basically, he was just a brahmachari. Chhota Haridas, as far as I understand, he was a sannyasi. He was in the renounced order directly.
That’s one thing. Second thing is that in the overall story, in general, in scripture, often lessons are taught by using extreme examples. So, if you take the converse, we see that Haridas, that Ajamil, just one chanting of the name of Lord Narayan, saved him from hell.
In general, the extreme examples in scripture are never to be standardized. So, that is the mood in the scripture itself. Shukadeva Swami says, and Prabhupada also elaborates, but put over there that Ajamil chanted once, and that too unintentionally, and he was after leading a life of sin, and he was saved from so much suffering.
So, if we chant intentionally, referring to the Lord, and we chant regularly, and we chant while trying to live a pure life, then surely the Lord will be merciful for us. So, that’s how we can actually see the extreme as examples for reinforcing the standard. Not that we make the extreme the standard.
So, like this, Chhota Haridas pastime is especially meant to convey the extreme example to reinforce the standard. The standard is that we are all meant to be very careful in our dealings with women, especially those in the renounced order. So, now, for someone to commit suicide, yes, he felt that if I cannot serve the Lord, then what is the use of my life? His feeling was that my life is meant for serving the Lord, and if the Lord has rejected me, then what can I do? So, it was an expression of his dedication that his life was meant for the service of the Lord.
That’s how he thought of that extreme step. Now, those who are in that situation, or rather, if you see, that was Chaitanya Mahaprabhu setting a standard with His example. It was so harsh on Chhota Haridas.
But then we will see that, was Chaitanya Mahaprabhu only unforgiving? Because, in one sense, all His associates were trying to console Him, were trying to help Him. So, now, that means, now His associates are not acting independently. They are also acting in a sense to do His will.
So, the same Lord who was being harsh directly was also being gentle through His associates. So, through His personal conduct, He set an example of strictness. Through His associates, He was setting also the standard of compassion.
It is not that the whole community rejected Him because of that. So, we see that way, in general, His mood in the Nanta Leela is a little harsh towards anything worldly that is improper. It is also the example of Gopinath Pattanaika.
When he did something improper and he was arrested. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said, don’t involve me in this. The devotees were begging, no, please do something, please do something.
So, if we see that as overall in consistence with His mood in the Nanta Leela, He just wanted to focus on the transcendental and He did not want to get involved in anything material. So, that… So, there are… First, it’s an extreme example. The same Lord also extended compassion through His associates.
And ultimately, He is the Lord. So, suicide is normally considered a sinful activity by which one gets a ghostly body. But here, he still had divine consciousness.
And he was singing for the pleasure of the Lord and the Lord was accepting that service. That means, in that particular situation, the Lord arranged for His liberation. So, that is an extraordinary situation.
So, the whole circumstance is extraordinary to illustrate a standard principle. And we can’t replicate that extraordinary or consider that whole thing to be standard. Because we… If we become judgmental like that towards someone, then we can’t liberate that person as Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did when they committed suicide.
And also that… So, I would say, overall, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu anticipated that Dervi Sahajiyas would take the male-female interaction very lightly and to underscore that He did not condone this sort of thing. In any way, this was an extreme example. And it is… Generally, if you see, when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was in the traveling, preaching mood, He was much more compassionate.
So, because at that time, okay, they were interacting with the general world. While interacting with the world, they were interacting with materialistic people. They are going to have their own issues.
So, while traveling, when Bala Bhattacharya had that issue, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu rescued him. So, in general, His mood was much more inclusive. Like, He would Himself go out and sing and hug people and inspire them to chant.
But when He was in Dante Leela, in Puri, He was more of a recluse. He would not meet people so much also. He liked to be alone.
Just focusing on the Lord. So, that is the time when He is relishing esoteric pastimes. At that time, the chance of people imitating those pastimes and becoming sahajiyas, and imitating Radha Krishna pastimes and doing immoral activities, that is much more.
So, He did not want that to happen. So, in this sense, while preaching, He was in a mood of much more accommodation. While relishing the highest mellows of Krishna Bhakti, at that time, He was much more strict.
Because He did not want those highest mellows to be contaminated and perverted by some imitators who did immorality in the name of Bhakti. That is one way we can understand what happened in that pastime, actually.