Verse 2.20.34

Bengali text, Devanagari and Unicode transliteration of verse 2.20.34:

পডায বেদান্ত, মোর বিগ্রহ না মানে কুষ্ঠ করাইলুঙ্ অঙ্গে তবু নাহি জানে ॥ ৩৪ ॥

पडाय वेदान्त, मोर विग्रह ना माने कुष्ठ कराइलुङ् अङ्गे तबु नाहि जाने ॥ ३४ ॥

paḍāya vedānta, mora vigraha nā māne kuṣṭha karāiluṅ aṅge tabu nāhi jāne || 34 ||

padaya vedanta, mora vigraha na mane kustha karailun ange tabu nahi jane (34)

English translation:

(34) “He teaches Vedānta but does not accept My form. I gave him leprosy, yet he still does not understand.

Commentary: Gauḍīya-bhāṣya by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura:

Since it is possible to derive various meanings from the Vedic statements, persons of different taste find the various statements of the Vedas contradictory because of their own narrow-mindedness. So in order to appease their scriptural disagreements, Śrī Kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana Vyāsadeva compiled the Bādarāyaṇa-sūtras. These sūtras became distinguished from the other five philosophies of India and became renowned as “the philosophy of Vedānta.”Śrīmad Bhāgavatam is the natural commentary on these Vedānta-sūtras. The Śrīmad Bhāgavatam declares that the Absolute Truth known as Bhagavān is identified as Brahman and Paramātmā—words appropriate for two particular classes of men. Although addressed by three different names, this object is actually one and without second. Those who disregard vidvad-rūḍhi, the conventional meaning of words according to enlightened persons, and

take shelter of ajña-rūḍhi, the conventional meaning according to unenlightened persons, observe the Supreme Lord as separate from Brahman and Paramātmā. To establish a philosophy that is more or less impersonalistic, this class of commentators on the Brahma-sūtras explain Vedānta in a way that appeals to the Buddhists and are thus simply frustrated by Buddhist argument. Being advanced in the process of material conceptions, such covered Buddhist Vedāntists become entangled in the false arguments of this world of enjoyment. As a result, they try to maintain their supremacy and authority by preaching a philosophy that is different from that of the genuine Śrīmad Bhāgavatam. Envy of the Supreme Lord, denial of the Supreme Lord’s form, and striking the Supreme Lord’s body with a trident are other names for the offenses they accumulate while trying to prove that the philosophy of impersonalism is the purport of Vedānta by rejecting the philosophies of dvaitādvaita (monism and dualism), śuddhādvaita (purified monism), viśiṣṭādvaita (specific monism), śuddha-dvaita (purified dualism) that are described in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam. It is most futile to endeavor to separate a spiritual body from the owner of the body. That is why the chief sannyāsī of Kāśī, Prakāśānanda, developed leprosy throughout his perishable body. If materially learned people attack the spiritual body of the Lord, they will develop leprosy in both their gross and subtle bodies.

Since such lepers do not accept the form of the Supreme Lord, they are forced to enjoy the fruits of such an offense. This universe is factual. The foolishness and arrogance of those who reject this without considering the temporary nature of the living entity’s body in this material world and who then declare that this material world, manifested by the Lord’s external energy, is false and the bodies of the living entities of this material world are perishable and false rather than perishable and true fall in the category of offense. Innumerable universes are simply the manifestation of the Lord’s external energy. Since the material time factor functions within the external energy, foolish people take shelter of ignorance that is attained by material endeavor. These Māyāvādīs do not

accept the bodies of this material world to be products of the Lord’s external energy, rather they display a weakness in their flow of thought by accepting the eternal form of the Supreme Lord as a product of matter. The internal energy of the Lord always fully preserves the spiritual nature and remains eternally blissful. Attacking spiritual variegatedness with a mentality based on denial of material variegatedness is like Rāvaṇa’s futile endeavor to kidnap māyā Sītā. The Māyāvādīs are nondevotees and offenders in all respects. Their journey on the path of devotional service is duplicitous and ends in offense.