The story of Pundarika Vidyanidhi - Inner bhava of Gadadhara's guru

Do you know the story of Gadadhar Pandit? There was a brahmin named Pundarika Vidyanidhi, who happened to come from the same area in East Bengal, Chattagram, that he did. When Pundarika came to Nabadwip, everyone told Gadadhar what a great Vaishnava he was, so Gadadhar went with Mukunda to see him. Gadadhar could not believe it--Pundarika was obviously a rich man and he wore fine clothes--even smoked a hookah! So whatever faith Gadadhar had before meeting him left as soon as he saw him.

Mukunda, however, recited a verse from the Bhagavatam describing Krishna's qualities--



Pundarik started to tremble and shed tears with ecstasy on hearing these words. "Go on, go on!" he shouted at Gadadhar, absorbed in joy at being reminded of Krishna's merciful nature.

Now Gadadhar was speechless. He thought, "I disrespected this great soul. What mishap will befall me now?" He then embraced Mukunda and thanked him, saying, "You have saved me from a great evil. I was beginning to think that Pundarika was a sensuous dilettante, but you showed me his true glory, which had been hidden to me."

He then said, "I have committed an offense to him, but if I take shelter and take mantra from him, then he will have to forgive me."

The verse may have been the inspiration itself. Though Putana was offensive, Krishna did not take offense because she came to him in the guise of a nurse. Similarly, when one who has committed some offense to a Vaishnava, then by taking shelter of him as a disciple he is forgiven his foolishness, because the Vaishnavas are as merciful as Krishna himself.

(Chaitanya Bhagavata Madhya 7)

Jagadananda ji, would you like to sum up the moral of this story?

A Vaishnava is not known by his adherence to external forms. If he does adhere, it is out of his mercy for the foolish.

If you dont mind, I have an urelated (?) question"Krishna drank the kalakuta poison that was mixed with her breast milk, and then awarded her the position of a wet nurse (as Ambika Kilimba in Goloka), in spite of her evil intentions."

was Putana a perfected soul before she engaged in that lila? was her placement as wet nurse in Goloka immediate?

in other words, can unperfected soul simply end up in Goloka without a proper change of heart and desire? was it Putana's desire to go to Goloka?

It was her passionate desire to give Krishna breast milk. The evil intentions that mixed with it were separated out... by the hamsa of Krishna's heart swimming in the ocean of His compassion.

more like a passionate desire to kill Krishna to please Kamsa...

is Krishna's mercy overriding the free will of the living entity? will she be happy in Goloka in her new position with this kind of heart? if so... why not be really merciful and transfer ALL living entities to Goloka - ready or not...

If her intentions had been pure, Krishna's dayaa would have missed a chance to be recognized and glorified. Krishna's leela with demons like Putana is very rasik.



Putana came to Krishna of her own free will. Please try to see the beauty of this. If Krishna can accept Putana who had merely a perverse semblance of motherly affection, then perhaps we may also have some hope.

the beauty I can see.... but what I cant see is Krishna allowing someone into Goloka, who apparently has no desire to be there at all.

certainly, such objection can be waved off by saying: "it's inconcievable" or "it's very rasik" or similar general clause statement, yet the fundamental issue remains:

is Krishna allowing someone into Goloka, who apparently has no desire to be there at all?

so.... to bring this side topic around:

and this is the difference between a neophyte like myself and great devotee like Pundarika Vidyanidhi...

It's not like going to Goloka is a torture. As far as I see it, Putana was just fortunate to get the merciful sidelong glance of Lord Krishna, which we all crave. I do not know anything more about it. Perhaps one of our resident pundits can answer you better.

Seems like everyone is intent on emphasizing the verse about Putana in this thread. However from the title of the thread I think that Jagat wanted to get some discussion about that actual story of Gadadhara and Pundarika Vidhyanidhi.

Here's my question: If we accept that a pure Vaisnava can sometimes act in ways that seem un-Vaisnavic. And that such a person may even be accepted as a diksha guru.

Then how can we pass judgement on those who have played the role of diksha guru and yet have displayed strange behavior?

In other words can this story be practically applied today?

Who are you referring to here as having strange behaviour?
I wonder if the people displaying "strange behaviour" had the same depth of bhav in their hearts as Pundarik Vidyanidhi?

What does un-Vaisnavic mean?

I wouldn't have taken diksha from Putana.

This idea makes me wonder...
How many kRSNAnurAgI Braj rasa upAsaka gurus have directly experienced Krishna's madhurya like Putana did....She just might be a good choice of guru...

Well yes, I obviously meant I wouldn't have taken diksha before the event. As we all know, the timeframe for taking diksha after the event and before her departure was pretty tight.

Exactly what I wrote. Un-Vaisnavic could mean anything from eating meat to worshiping other Gods but Visnu. It could be either gross or subtle. Take your pick. My question is when searching for a guru where is one supposed to draw the line in terms of behavior? It seems arbitrary.

Personally my experience is that those who act like outside of the social norms or as Avadhutas usually don't take disciples. The taking of disciples in itself means relating to society.

Kesava-ji, what immediately came to my mind was a story I heard in relation to Vamsidas Babaji (I am assuming that most, if not all, are familiar with his behaviour.) Saraswati Thakur used to like to come and take his darshan, but he advised against it for his sisyas. He told them that they are likely only to make some aparadh in their minds when going for darshan due to his non-adherence of external forms. As far as "drawing a line" goes, well if I am seeking someone in who is in a higher position than myself, I am not sure I would be wise to think about "line drawing." Due to my ignorance, it seems that I could easily make a mistake in judgement.
I quite honestly don't know what you mean when you say, "the taking of disciples in itself means relating to society."