Excerpts from 
A Tract Against Idolatry 
Probably By
Ram Mohun Roy 
1820 

This lengthy tract is written in both Bengali and English. No author is listed, but it was most likely written by Ram Mohun Roy. It is divided into nameless sections, each being composed of a series of 'statement-and-reply' couplets. Names are spelled in an unfamiliar way, but you can figure out who the author is talking about. I've included the following verses because they are either directly or indirectly addressed to Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Having been written in Bengal, it isn't surprising that the followers of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu would be mentioned. What is a surprise is the author's biographical sketch of Mahaprabhu that places the great saint in the 7th century, about 800 years too early. 

If you say: The principal books in favour of Krishnoo are true; the declarations of these books only are therefore to be believed; 
I reply: As in the chief Shaster in favour of Sheeva the principal books devoted to Sheeva are declared to be of superior value and importance, thus in the principal Shaster in favour of Vishnoo those Shasters are said to be of superior value and importance which treat principally of Vishnoo. The same is said in the Poorans respecting the Poorans, and in the Tantras respecting the Tantras; nay at the end of every Pooran it is said, that this Pooran is superior to all the rest. But all this is mere exaggeration; for all the Poorans have but one author; therefore all the Poorans are of equal authority. Now if the declarations of this one author are false in one place, how can it be proved that they are true in another? And to consider some Poorans as false, and others as true, gives rise to great abuses in religion. 

If, following the religious principles of Nityananda and Choitanya, you say: It is true Shangkaracharjya has said, that the supreme God is without form, and that by knowing and worshipping him salvation is obtained; but all the devotees of Vishnoo are firmly persuaded that he has composed false commentaries, in order to lead men into error; 
I reply: It is clear from the Poorans and Tantras, that Shangkaracharjya with four disciples becoming incarnate, composed Commentaries on the Vedas and the Vedanta, in order to show to all men the way of obtaining salvation. You deny this, and say that Shangkaracharjya, the universally-respected author of the commentaries, is leading men into error; and, in order to prove this you bring forward stories, which you yourselves have fabricated. It becomes therefore necessary for us to remind you of what the devotees of the female deities say in answer to this; they assert that Shangkaracharjya had a follower of the name Keshababharatee whose disciple Choitanya, being guilty of the blackest crimes against his own gooroo, accused Acharjya of being an impostor, and led the people into temporal and eternal misery. For this he was in various ways punished by Biroopakhya (a celebrated follower of Shangkaracharjya), in consequence of which he afterwards received the truth and obtained salvation. The devotees of the female deities bring forward a great number of arguments for this assertion. Now how can the declaration of a person, guilty of the blackest crimes (Choitanya), be thought worthy of credit, so that thereby such a stigma should be affixed to the character of the divine teacher (Shangkaracharjya)? All the sacred authors and teachers of our country consider Shangkaracharjya as a gooroo, and revere him as much as Shankar (Sheeva). Those who reject him, as weavers, fishers, and such like persons, are wicked people. But that there would arise in the Kaleejoog persons who would reject him, this is clearly predicted in the Tantraratnakar (a book held sacred by some sects among the Hindoos). When Dakhya, in consequence of his having reviled Sheeva, got a goat's face, he conceived such an implacable hatred against Sheeva, that when the latter became incarnate in the person of Shankaracharjya, he appeared in the world in the person of Ramanooj, in order to give vent to his wrath, and reviled the religion of Sheeva, and cast likewise the greatest reproaches upon the doctrine and person of the blessed Shankaracharjya, who, is an incarnation of Sheeva; on which account he got a goat's face when he died. Also Treepoorashoor, after having been killed by Sheeva, became incarnate, in the following three persons, Nityananda, Choitanya and Adwoita, and established a religion in opposition to that of Sheeva; and abused him in the grossest manner, as also his followers do even till the present day. But these men met with their due punishment through Biroopakhya, an incarnation of Bhoirob (a companion of Sheeva). Accordingly, it is not unlikely that also at the present time those who revile Shankaracharjya, the incarnation of Sheeva, receive goat's faces, and are punished in various other ways. 

If you say: Although to seek after knowledge is indeed spiritual worship, yet it is contrary unto the established system of morals; 
I reply: It is very singular that you declare it to be contrary unto the established system of morals, that we call him God, who is declared in all the Shasters to be the author of the world, and serve him as far as lies in our power, by hearing about and meditating upon him: while you consider as gods, images of earth, which represent persons in various shockingly obscene positions; and place in their temples, to which your women resort, all sorts of figures of men and women which are not fit to be looked upon. Proofs of this are to be found even in the temple of Jagannath. There are also various figures unfit to meet the eye upon the cars of your gods, which are looked upon by persons of all ages and sexes. And when you have made an image, you consider it as God, and sing before it various obscene and abominable songs in the hearing of persons of all descriptions; and you employ persons to represent your favourite god, and amuse yourselves thereby. In order to acquire religious merit, thousands of males and females bathe together near a landing-place, so that their bodies touch each other; and you employ singers to sing the most obscene songs, and declaimers to use the most obscene expressions. Further, you eat in company with persons of all castes, and you appoint young men to instruct young women. Now in doing all this, do you not act contrary to the established system of morals? Nevertheless, if you are exhorted to worship the supreme Being, you say: 'How should we act contrary to the established system of morals?' 

If you say: The devotees of Vishnoo, who belong to the sect established by Choitanya, say: 'The light proceeding from Krishnoo's and Gouranga's body is the supreme Bramhu;' 
I reply: All beings, from Bramha down to the lowest insect, are full of the Deity; therefore the insect as well as the splendour of its body, and Krishnoo as well as the light proceeding from his body, are not different from the Deity. You are therefore culpable according to your own assertion: for you said that the light proceeding from Krishnoo's body is Bramhu, not Krishnoo himself, therefore your worship of Krishnoo is in vain. For the Shasters command us to worship God; consequently we ought not to worship anything, which is not God. 

Back to the Index 
Back to Topics for Seekers