prakÄÅ›Änanda Å›rÄ«pÄda sabhÄte vasiyÄ
'vedÄnta' paá¸Äna bahu Å›iá¹£ya-gaṇa lañÄ
prakÄÅ›Änanda - PrakÄÅ›Änanda; Å›rÄ«pÄda - a great sannyÄsÄ«; sabhÄte - in the assembly; vasiyÄ - sitting down; vedÄnta - VedÄnta philosophy; paá¸Äna - instructs; bahu - many; Å›iá¹£ya-gaṇa - disciples; laÃ±Ä - taking.
ÅšrÄ«pÄda PrakÄÅ›Änanda SarasvatÄ« was a MÄyÄvÄdÄ« sannyÄsÄ«, and his characteristics have been described in Caitanya-bhÄgavata (Madhya-khaṇá¸a, chapter three):
‘hasta’, ‘pada’, ‘mukha’ mora nÄhika ‘locana’
veda more ei-mata kare viá¸ambana
kÄśīte paá¸Äya veá¹Ä ‘prakÄÅ›a-Änanda’
sei veá¹Ä kare mora aá¹…ga khaṇá¸a-khaṇá¸a
vÄkhÄnaye veda, mora vigraha nÄ mÄne
sarvÄá¹…ge ha-ila kuá¹£á¹ha, tabu nÄhi jÄne
sarva-yajñamaya mora ye-aṅga — pavitra
‘aja’, ‘bhava’ Ädi gÄya yÄá¹…hÄra caritra
‘puṇya’ pavitratÄ pÄya ye-aá¹…ga-paraÅ›e
tÄhÄ â€˜mithyÄ’ bale veá¹Ä kemana sÄhase
In the Madhya-khaṇá¸a, chapter twenty, it is said:
sannyÄsÄ« ‘prakÄÅ›Änanda’ vasaye kÄśīte
more khaṇá¸a-khaṇá¸a veá¹Ä kare bhÄla-mate
paá¸Äya ‘vedÄnta’, mora ‘vigraha’ nÄ mÄne
kuá¹£á¹ha karÄiluá¹… aá¹…ge, tabu nÄhi jÄne
‘satya’ mora ‘lÄ«lÄ-karma’, ‘satya’ mora ‘sthÄna’
ihÄ â€˜mithyÄ’ bale, more kare khÄn-khÄn
Being an impersonalist, PrakÄÅ›Änanda SarasvatÄ« used to explain the Absolute Truth as being without hands, legs, mouths or eyes. In this way he used to cheat the people by denying the personal form of the Lord. Such a foolish person was PrakÄÅ›Änanda SarasvatÄ«, whose only business was to sever the limbs of the Lord by proving the Lord impersonal. Although the Lord has form, PrakÄÅ›Änanda SarasvatÄ« attempted to cut off the hands and legs of the Lord. This is the business of demons. The Vedas state that people who do not accept the Lord’s form are rascals. The form of the Lord is factual, for Kṛṣṇa states in the Bhagavad-gÄ«tÄ (15.15), vedaiÅ› ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ. When Kṛṣṇa says aham, He says “I am,†which means “I,†the person. He adds the word eva, which is used for conclusive verification. Thus by studying VedÄnta philosophy one must come to know the Supreme Person. Whoever describes Vedic knowledge as impersonal is a demon. One becomes successful in life by worshiping the form of the Lord. The MÄyÄvÄdÄ« sannyÄsÄ«s deny the form of the Lord, which delivers all fallen souls. Indeed, the MÄyÄvÄdÄ« demons try to cut this form to pieces.
The Personality of Godhead is worshiped by exalted demigods like Lord BrahmÄ and Lord Åšiva. The original MÄyÄvÄdÄ« sannyÄsÄ«, Åšaá¹…karÄcÄrya, also accepted the fact that the Lord’s form is transcendental: nÄrÄyaṇaḥ paro ’vyaktÄt. “NÄrÄyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is beyond the avyakta, the unmanifested material energy.†AvyaktÄd aṇá¸a-sambhavaḥ: “This material world is a creation of that unmanifested material energy.†However, NÄrÄyaṇa has His own eternal form, which is not created by the material energy. Simply by worshiping the form of the Lord, one is purified. However, MÄyÄvÄdÄ« sannyÄsÄ«s are impersonalist philosophers, and they describe the form of the Lord as mÄyÄ, or false. How can one be purified by worshiping something false? MÄyÄvÄdÄ« philosophers have no sufficient reason for being impersonalists. They blindly follow a principle that cannot be supported by reason or argument. This was the situation with PrakÄÅ›Änanda SarasvatÄ«, the chief MÄyÄvÄdÄ« sannyÄsÄ« of Benares. He was supposed to teach VedÄnta philosophy, but he would not accept the form of the Lord; therefore he was attacked with leprosy. Nonetheless, he continued to commit sins by describing the Absolute Truth as impersonal. The Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, always displays pastimes and activities, but MÄyÄvÄdÄ« sannyÄsÄ«s claim that these activities are false.
Some people falsely claim that PrakÄÅ›Änanda SarasvatÄ« later became known as PrabodhÄnanda SarasvatÄ«, but this is not a fact. PrabodhÄnanda SarasvatÄ« was the uncle and spiritual master of GopÄla Bhaá¹á¹a GosvÄmÄ«. In his gá¹›hastha life, PrabodhÄnanda SarasvatÄ« was a resident of ÅšrÄ« Raá¹…ga-ká¹£etra, and he belonged to the Vaiṣṇava RÄmÄnuja-sampradÄya. It is a mistake to consider PrakÄÅ›Änanda SarasvatÄ« and PrabodhÄnanda SarasvatÄ« the same man.