Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c10.s3.28

c10.s3.28

Caitanyaism removed the barriers of caste in matters of worship by the free and unritualistic reciting of the divine name, and effectively utilised group-emotion by its lusty and contagious method of Saṃkīrtana, it is by no means correct to state that Caitanyaism taught or practised universal, or even democratic, brotherhood. It is true that it tried to create a new grouping of men united by a common religious impulse; it certainly gave, at least in its earlier stages, a larger place to women and outcasts by recognising their inherent religious capacity; but it never aimed at nor attempted any dissolution or change of the established social order.¹ It did not break through conventional priestcraft, nor did it depart from orthodox social duties. In its earlier stages, it brought religious freedom and fellowship in a certain measure, but hardly social freedom and fellowship. Its social conservatism is distinctly shown in its retention of caste restriction in ritualistic worship,² as well as in social usages and relations; and even in religious matters it did not show much toleration towards non-Vaiṣṇavas or Vaiṣṇavas of other sects. Hedged in by such limitations, its doctrine of good will and humility becomes merely negative, and the vision of fellowship extremely provincial. The social insufficiency of Caitanyaism may be one of its religious assets in its ‘unworldliness’, but it is, precisely for that reason, one of its ethical weaknesses. The fundamental conception of a world-order, viewed as the manifestation of divine sport which is essentially erotic in character, can hardly form the foundation of any healthy and free ethical endeavour. While the erotic symbolism, presented as a fact, becomes an uncomfortable creed by its direct conflict with the sober ideas of established society, there is also a self-centredness about the conception and a lack of