Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c5.s2: 2. Pre-Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism in Bengal

Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c5.s2

Language
English

2. Pre-Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism in Bengal

c5.s2.1

It is difficult to say in what particular form Vaiṣṇavism existed in Bengal before Caitanya. A general diffusion of some form of Vaiṣṇavite worship may be presumed to have existed from the Gupta and Post-Gupta periods, but it probably took the form of general Bhāgavatism of the early type, losing itself in Viṣṇuism. The Gupta princes were styled Parama-bhāgavatas, and the chief object of worship was probably Viṣṇu, of whom Kṛṣṇa might have been regarded as one of the many incarnations. In the Susunia Rock inscription of Candravarman (circa 4th century A.D.) the prince appears as a worshipper of Cakrasvāmin or Viṣṇu. This makes it probable that the mediaeval emotionalism of the Śrīmad-bhāgavata and its mystic adoration of Kṛṣṇa had not yet taken its root in Bengal. But it is believed that one of the figures recovered at the Paharpur excavation represents the united figure (yugala-mūrti) of Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā. It is definite, however, that in the Belava inscription of Bhojavarman (circa 11th century A. D.), mention is made of Śrī-Kṛṣṇa not only as the mahābhārata-sūtradhāra, but also as the gopi-śata-kelikāra of the Śrīmad-bhāgavata, although he is still an incarnation (aṃśa-kṛiāvatāra) and not the supreme deity himself. The official religion of the Pāla kings was Buddhism, but they do not appear to have been hostile to other religions, and evidence is not wanting in the inscriptions of the period of erection of Viṣṇu temples. It seems probable that from this period some form of Vaiṣṇava Bhakti cult was developing: for it emerged in a finished literary form in the *Gita-govinda* of Jayadeva, who flourished under the Vaiṣṇavite Sena kings towards the end of the 12th century. Some are of opinion that the advent of the Karṇāṭas in Bengal with the Cedi prince Karṇadeva introduced the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata* emotionalism, which had its most probable origin in Southern India; and it is noteworthy that the Sena kings themselves, who were in all probability Vaiṣṇavas, are described in their inscriptions as Karṇāṭa-kṣatriyas. There can be no doubt, however, that the first and the most important literary record of pre-Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism in Bengal is the passionate lyrical poem of Jayadeva, which must have been the source of inspiration of such later Bengali poems as the *Śrīkṛṣṇa-kīrtan* of Baḍu Caṇḍīdāsa (*circa* end of the 14th century).¹

c5.s2.2

¹ See Introd. to *Śrīkṛṣṇa-kīrtan*, ed. Vaṅgiya Sāhitya Pariṣad, Calcutta 1323 B.S. pp. 10 f.; *IHQ*, 1929, pp. 328-29.

c5.s2.3

A Caitanyaite Vaiṣṇava would regard the *Gita-govinda* not merely as a poetical composition of great beauty, but also as a great religious work, and would feign explain it in terms of his Bhakti Rasa-śāstra. But it must not be forgotten that Jayadeva's poem was composed nearly three hundred years before the appearance of Caitanya and before the promulgation of the Rasa-śāstra of Caitanyaism. It is hardly believable, therefore, that Jayadeva, like Rūpa Gosvāmin of the Caitanya sect, could have written it expressly for the illustration of any particular dogma or doctrine. As a poet of undoubted gifts, his chief object must have been to create a beautiful and finished work of great lyrical, pictorial and verbal splendour. His emotional temperament preferred an erotic theme, but of all erotic themes of mediaeval times the eternally fascinating love-story of Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā was probably found the most absorbing. The love that Jayadeva depicts is indeed a reflex of the human emotion presented in a series of extremely brilliant and musical word-pictures, and the divine Kṛṣṇa and his consort are greatly humanised. As a musician, courtier and court-poet of Lakṣmaṇa-sena, Jayadeva must have been, as his poem itself testifies, entirely different in temperament and outlook from such devout and scholarly Gosvāmins as Rūpa and Sanātana. Whatever may have been the original character of the work, there can be no doubt that the Gita govinda, with its mystical emotions, was claimed by Caitanyaism as one of the sources of its religious inspiration. It is said that the Padāvalis of Jayadeva, like the Maithili songs of Vidyāpati, had a great appeal for Caitanya himself. It is not surprising, therefore, that Caitanya's followers should try to transform Jayadeva, as well as Vidyāpati,¹ into a Vaiṣṇava of the orthodox type. But in all probability, Jayadeva, like Vidyāpati, was chiefly and essentially a poet. No doubt, he emphasises in his poem the praise and worship of Kṛṣṇa, but it is not unusual in older poetry to present poetic and even secular themes under the garb of religion. It is not our purpose to deny Jayadeva's Vaiṣṇava leanings, which are too obvious to be ignored, but we should like to emphasise the point that as a poet, it was probably not his concern to compose a religious treatise in accordance with any particular Vaiṣṇava dogmatics. It is undoubted that the erotic mysticism of his poem, which gives expression to fervent devotional longings in the intimate language of earthly passion, influenced similar tendencies of Caitanyaism, but it would not be historically correct to read later Vaiṣṇava Rasa-śāstra into his much earlier work, or judge it by the tenets and practices which came into existence some centuries later.

c5.s2.4

¹ The question is discussed in Haraprasad Sastri's Introduction to his edition of Vidyāpati's Kīrti-latā (Hṛṣikeśa Series, Calcutta B.S. 1331, in Bengali characters). See also S. K. De, Nānā-nibandha, Calcutta 1954, pp. 43-160.

c5.s2.5

The prominence given to Rādhā in the Gita-govinda makes it probable that the source of Jayadeva's inspiration could not have been the Kṛṣṇa-Gopī legend of the *Śrīmad-bhāgavta*, which avoids all direct mention of Rādhā as Kṛṣṇa's consort, and which speaks of autumnal, and not vernal, Rāsa-līlā. The incident referred to in the opening verse of Jayadeva's poem, again, cannot be traced in the earlier Purāṇas, but it is supposed to refer to an episode described in the fifteenth chapter of the Kṛṣṇa-janma-khaṇḍa of the *Brahmavaivarta Purāṇa*, in which the infant Kṛṣṇa, similarly entrusted by Nanda during the rains to Rādhā, sports with her on the banks of the Yamunā. This reference possesses some historical importance. We have already pointed out that the *Brahmavaivarta*, much more than any other Purāṇa, presents Rādhā in a vivid background of great sensuous charm, and in no other Purāṇa the erotic possibilities of the theme have been so elaborately worked out. This Purāṇa is also singular in effecting a regular marriage between Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā, and thereby discountenancing the Parakīyā doctrine which came to prevail in Bengal Vaiṣṇavism. But while the erotic Mādhurya aspect of Kṛṣṇa-worship is emphasised in this Purāṇa, the Aiśvarya aspect of this worship is also made prominent by legendary descriptions of Kṛṣṇa's greatness and power as the supreme deity. It is remarkable that almost similar tendencies are found in Jayadeva's poem. The opening Daśāvatāra Stotra, as well as the second Jaya-Jaya Deva-Hare Stotra, presents Kṛṣṇa in his Aiśvarya aspect, not as an Avatāra, but as the veritable supreme deity of many incarnations (*daśākṛtikṛte kṛṣṇāya tubhyam namaḥ*), omitting all reference to Rādhā but mentioning Śrī or Lakṣmī. As the poem proceeds, the Dhīrodātta Nāyaka becomes Dhīralalita, and all the erotic Mādhurya implications of the theme are developed to their fullest extent.

c5.s2.6

While these parallelisms are admitted, there is no proof of Jayadeva's direct indebtedness to the *Brahmavaivarta Purāṇa*, and it is difficult to explain why Jayadeva should prefer its authority to that of the almost exclusively paramount Vaiṣṇava scripture, the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata*. The date of the *Brahmavaivarta* is uncertain, but assuming the genuineness of the extant text, the *Kṛṣṇa janma-khaṇḍa* must be at least later than Śaṃkara and his school, to whom a distinct reference is made.¹ The suggestion that the whole of the Uttara-khaṇḍa of the Purāṇa is a Nimbārkite interpolation² is hardly convincing. Of all the Vaiṣṇava schools the Nimbārkas appear, no doubt, to give prominence to Rādhā in their thought and worship; but there are chronological difficulties in assuming Nimbārkite influence either on Jayadeva or on the Purāṇa. The date of Nimbārka has not yet been fixed with certainty, but if he lived some time after Rāmānuja,³ he would be almost contemporaneous with Jayadeva, and the theory of any influence by Nimbārka or by his sect on Jayadeva and his assumed source would be highly improbable. But the exaltation of Rādhā is a distinctive feature of the Purāṇa as well as of Jayadeva and of the Nimbāra sect. It is possible that Jayadeva derived and developed his erotic mysticism from the same source as Nimbārka himself; and to the same obscure source probably the writer of the latter portion of the Purāṇa was indebted for his extremely sensuous treatment of the Rādhā-legend. Such emotional tendencies might have been wide-spread enough to have been thus widely and popularly utilised. In later times we find that the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata* became the ultimate source of such emotionalism, and it ceased to be confined to Bengal, Mithilā and Southern India; but the Rādhā-legend and the exuberant development of its erotic possibilities, which supplied inspiration alike to Jayadeva, Nimbārka and writers of such late Purāṇas as the *Brahmavaivarta*, must be traced to a different and earlier unknown source.

c5.s2.7

² Farquhar, *op. cit.*, pp. 240, 271, 376.

c5.s2.8

³ R. G. Bhandarkar, *Vaiṣṇavism* etc., Strassburg 1913, p. 62.

c5.s2.9

1 *kārāgāre ca saṃsāre durvahaṃ niṣaḍaṃ param/
acchyedye jñāna-khaḍgaiś ca mahadbhiḥ śaṃkarādibhiḥ//*
(*Kṛṣṇa-janma-khaṇḍa*, ed. Veṅkaṭeśvara Press, xxiv. 18).

c5.s2.10

The Caitanya movement in Bengal, no doubt, accepted the *Gita-govinda* as a source of inspiration, but it does not appear to have accepted the *Brahmavaivarta Purāṇa* as canonical. Its chief scripture was the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata*, on whose devotional poetry and legend it based its emotionalism. Its glorification of the Rādhā-legend need not of itself connect it with the *Brahmavaivarta*, to which it seldom refers. Nor can any Nimbārka influence be traced directly in it. The influence of the Śrī-sampradāya of Rāmānuja is still less traceable in it; and the Vallabhācārya sect was almost contemporaneous and could not have immediately influenced it. There is, however, a tendency¹ to affiliate the Caitanya sect as a branch of the Mādhva Sampradāya which is said to have been most influential in Bengal before Caitanya. But the evidence adduced in favour of this assumption is hardly satisfactory, and there is nothing to shew that there was any direct Mādhva influence on Caitanyaism in the earlier stages of its development. It has, however, been stated, without much justification, that Caitanya himself was brought up in Mādhva traditions, that his predecessor Advaita, as well as many of his influential relatives and associates, had close connexion with Madhvaism, that Mādhavendra Purī, to whom is ascribed the credit of initiating a Bhakti movement in Bengal before Caitanya, was a Mādhva ascetic, and that Īśvara Purī and Keśava Bhāratī, the Dīkṣā and Saṃnyāsa Gurus respectively of Caitanya, were ascetics of the Mādhva order, to which Caitanya was thus initiated. But these statements lack corroboration in the early records of the sect.

c5.s2.11

¹ As maintained by Dinesh Chandra Sen in his three works on Bengal Vaiṣṇavism, and repeated by Kennedy in his *Caitanya Movement* (Oxford University Press, 1925). Jiva Gosvāmin in his *Sarva-saṃvādinī* directly disclaims connexion of the Bengal school with the views of all other Sampradāyas (p. 149, ed. Vaṅgiya Sāhitya Pariṣad). Ānandin in his commentary on Prabodhānanda's *Caitanya-candrāmṛta* claims that Caitanya himself and his followers were the founders of the Bengal Sampradāya and owed nothing to the Gurus of any other Sampradāya (*Śrīkṛṣṇa caitanya-mahāprabhuḥ svayaṃ bhagavān, saṃpradāya-pravartakaś tatparyādi eva, sāmpradāyikā guravo nānye*). See S. K. De, *Nānā-nibandha*, Calcutta 1953, pp. 62-69.

c5.s2.12

While Madhva himself is seldom cited. Madhvaism or affiliation to the Mādhva sect is never acknowledged in the several authoritative lives of Caitanya, nor in the canonical works of the six Gosvāmins of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism. It is asserted for the first time in Kavikarṇapūra's *Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā*¹, but this work was not written probably before 1576 A.D. Caitanya's Guru-paramparā is traced in it, with more ingenuity than accuracy, from Madhva himself, through Mādhavendra and Īśvara Purī, in a list, which looks suspiciously similar to a list given by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa which we shall mention presently. In his drama *Caitanya-candrodaya* (Act i), however, Kavikarṇapūra refers to Mādhavendra Purī, but not as a Mādhva ascetic; nor is there any reference to Madhva or Madhvaism in this work, as well as in his earlier Sanskrit poem *Caitanya-caritāmṛta*. On the contrary, in the fifth Act of his drama, Caitanya is distinctly stated to have entered the monastic order of the Advaitavādins². The only other support of the theory of Mādhva affiliation is to be found in a list of Guru-paramparā³ given at the commencement of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa's *Govinda-bhāṣya* (on the *Vedānta-sūtra*) and in his *Prameya-ratnāvalī*. As the time of some of these Mādhva Gurus is well-known, the historical accuracy of this list can be easily challenged,¹ and there can be no doubt that the list was made up for the occasion mainly from hearsay or imagination. Baladeva, a native of Orissa, belonged to the 18th century; and what tradition records about his pro-Mādhva tendencies is confirmed by his learned writings. Even if his *Govinda-bhāṣya* shows independence, he has entirely given himself up to Madhvaism in his *Prameya-ratnāvalī*². We shall discuss below the reason for this change of attitude on the part of one of the most acute champions of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism; but whatever may have been the reason, there is no other direct claim for Mādhva affiliation in the authoritative works of Caitanyaism.

c5.s2.13

¹ This list is quoted with approval in the *Bhakti-ratnākara* (18th century), but the evidence of this work is late and unreliable. It could not, however, have been copied from Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa's list, but was probably derived from a common source.

c5.s2.14

² Advaita asks: (v. 21) *keyam līlā vyarati bhavatā yo'yam advaita-bhājām | aryantesfas tam adhīta bhavān āśramam yat turīyam ||*, to which Caitanya replies: *bho advaita smara kimu vayam hanta nādvaita-bhājo | bhedas tasmin tvayi ca yad iyān rūpato liṅgataś ca ||*, implying that Caitanya believed that his being an Advaita Saṃnyāsin was not inconsistent with his devotional attitude of Bhakti. Caitanya is again reported to have said (viii—opening passage) that he was not impressed by the Rāmānuja and the Madhva sects whom he had met in Southern India: *kiyanta eva vaiṣṇavā dṛṣṭāḥ, te pi nārāyaṇo-pāsakā eva; apare tattva-vādinaḥ, te tathāvidhā eva; niravadyam na bhavati teṣām matam*. And all this inspite of Karṇapūra's own *Gaura-gaṇoddeśa*.

c5.s2.15

³ The Guru-paramparā is thus given (*Govinda-bhāṣya*, introductory verses, ed. Syāmalāl Gosvāmī, Calcutta 1894; *Prameya-ratnāvalī*).

c5.s2.16

¹ The question has been discussed by Amar Chandra Ray in *Udbodhana*, Vaiśākha 1337 B.S., pp. 244-53 and Caitra 1336, pp. 136-138, and *Assam Research Society Journal*, April 1935; also by B. N. Krishnamurti Sarma in *Indian Culture* iv, 1937-38, pp. 429 f. To the arguments detailed in these articles regarding the correctness of the Mādhva list of succession, one may add that neither Mādhavendra Purī nor Īśvara Purī is mentioned in the list of succession prepared by R. G. Bhandarkar (*Report*, 1883-94) from original lists procured from Miraj, Belgaum and Poona. Baladeva's list differs materially from this more authentic list.

c5.s2.17

² His nine central principles of Vaiṣṇavism enunciated in this work are identical with the nine fundamental tenets of Madhva. Baladeva's Guru Rādhādāmodara appears to have been considerably influenced by Madhva in his *Vedānta-syamantaka*.

c5.s2.18

On the other hand, the indications are strong that Caitanya formally belonged to the Daśanāmī order of Śaṅkara Saṃnyāsins, even though the ultimate form which he gave to Vaiṣṇava Bhakti had nothing to do with Śaṅkara's extreme Advaita-vāda. Barring the two passages referred to above, ed. Atul Kṛṣṇa Gosvāmī, 1927, p. 4): Madhva (Ānandatīrtha)—Padmanābha—Nṛhari—Mādhava—Akṣobhya—Jayatīrtha—Jñānasindhu—Mahānidhi—Vidyānidhi—Rājendra—Jayadharma—Puruṣottama—Brahmanya—Vyāsatīrtha—Lakṣmīpati—Mādhavendra Purī—Īśvara Purī—Caitanya.

c5.s2.19

there is no evidence anywhere in the early standard works of Bengal Vaisnavism¹ that Mādhavendra Puri or his disciple Īśvara Puri, who influenced the early religious inclinations of Caitanya, was in fact a Mādhva ascetic. There is nothing to show that either they or their alleged disciple Advaita were Mādhavas in outlook. Tradition records that Madhva himself was initiated into the Tirtha order of Śamkara by Acyutaprekṣa or Puruṣottama Tirtha; and even after he promulgated his Dvaita doctrines in opposition to Śamkara’s teaching of Advaita,² he adhered to his Tirtha designation under his Saṃnyāsa name of Ānandatirtha. Ever since his time and up to the present day, all the Gurus of his order called themselves Tirthas, and not Puris or Bhāratīs³. Mādhavendra and Īśvara were both Puris, and not Tirthas; while Mādhavendra’s other alleged disciple Keśava Bhārati was apparently also a Saṃnyāsin of the Bhārati order of Śamkara.⁴ To Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma at Puri, Caitanya is introduced (C-C, Madhya vi) as a Saṃnyāsin belonging to the Bhārati-saṃpradāya. There are also other facts recorded in his authoritative biographies which militate against the assumption of Caitanya’s Mādhva leanings. His calling himself a Māyāvādin ascetic on several occasions⁵; Kavikarṇapūra’s distinct statement that he belonged to the Advaita monastic order and did not approve of the Tattva-vādins; the raillery of Prakāśānanda, an Advaita ascetic, on Caitanya's avoidance of his fellow Māyāvādin ascetics and on his improper indulgence in singing and dancing¹: his direct disapproval of Mādhva doctrines²:—all these and other indications raise a legitimate doubt regarding the historical accuracy of Caitanya's alleged connexion with Madhvaism.

c5.s2.20

¹ The evidence of such late works as the Bhakti-ratnākara (18th century), pp. 308-11, the verses of Gopāla Guru cited therein (pp. 312-13), or the Anurāgavalli of Manohara-dāsa, dated 1696 A.D., pp. 48-49, etc. are here excluded for obvious reasons.

c5.s2.21

² Śamkara-śiṣyatām labdhvāpi śrī-bhāgavat-pakṣapātena tato vicchidya, as Jīva Gosvāmin (Tattva-sandarbha, p. 70) puts it.

c5.s2.22

³ See B. N. Krishnamurti Sarma, op. cit., p. 430, who is definitely of opinion that ‘Puri’ is not distinctive of Mādhva order.

c5.s2.23

⁴ Farquhar’s statement (op. cit., p. 304) that in the later history of the Mādhva sect, the Mādhva ascetics called themselves Puris and Bhāratis really begs the question; for it is based on the assumption that Mādhavendra Puri, Viṣṇu Puri, Īśvara Puri and Keśava Bhārati were in fact Mādhva ascetics.

c5.s2.24

⁵ Kṛṣṇadāsa, Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya, viii. 45, 123; Madhya, ix. 250; Antya, vii. 16.

c5.s2.25

¹ C-C Ādi, vii, 40-42. Vṛndāvana-dāsa retaliates by making Caitanya denounce Prakāśānanda in unmeasured language and afflict the uncompromising Vedāntist scholar with leprosy and damnation!

c5.s2.26

² C-C Madhya, ix, 254 f, esp. 276-7; also Kavikarṇapūra's Caitanya-candrodaya cited above. But Caitanya, as reported by Kṛṣṇadāsa, entirely misunderstands the position of Madhva (B. N. Krishnamurti Sarma, op. cit., p. 431).

c5.s2.27

It appears probable, on the other hand, that Mādhavendra Purī and his disciple Īśvara Purī were Śaṃkarite Saṃnyāsins of the same type as Śrīdhara Svāmin,³ who in his great commentary on the Śrīmad-bhāgavata attempted to combine the Advaita teachings of Śaṃkara with the emotionalism of the Bhāgavatas. Devotion to Nārāyaṇa or Kṛṣṇa was never considered inconsistent with one's belonging to the Śaṃkara Sampradāya, and many a Śaṃkarite ascetic has taught that the stage of Advaita realisation can be reached through the devotional worship of a particular deity as a person or as a symbol. It is said that the tutelary deity of Śaṃkara himself was Śrīkṛṣṇa, while tradition alleges that his chief disciple Padmapāda, like Śrīdhara himself, was a worshipper of Nṛsiṃha. It would seem that about the time of Śrīdhara there must have grown a tendency of tempering the severe monistic idealism of Advaita Vedānta with the devotional worship of a personal god. Śrīdhara appears to give a definite expression to this tendency in his well known commentaries on the Viṣṇu-purāṇa, the Bhagavad-gītā and the Śrīmad-bhāgavata, in which he acknowledges Śaṃkara's teachings as authoritative, but considers Bhakti as the best means of Advaita Mukti.¹ Whatever may be the value of this attempt at reconciling Jñāna and Bhakti, tradition alleges that Śrīdhara's interpretation caused a great sensation in his Sampradāya at Benares, but that it ultimately came to prevail through divine intervention. From his time a class of mystic-emotional Saṃnyāsins seems to have grown up, who found nothing inconsistent in their practices of Bhakti with their belief in Advaita Vedānta. An Advaita Saṃnyāsin of this type must have been Viṣṇu Purī of Tirhut, who is often mistakenly described as a Mādhava ascetic². Following the tradition of Śrīdhara, he composed a *Bhāgavata-bhakti-ratnāvali* in which some of the finest passages of the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata* were selected and arranged in "thirteen strings" according to their subject-matter. One of the closing verses of this work apologises for any departure the compiler might have made from the writings of the great Śrīdhara³; and there can be no doubt about Śrīdhara's influence on this work. Some of Viṣṇu Purī's original verses are cited in the *Padyāvalī* of Rūpa Gosvāmin, and no one can mistake their devotional fervour¹. Mādhavendra Purī and Īśvara Purī were probably devotional Śaṃkarites of the same type, and the descriptions given of their religious attitude in the earlier Bengali Vaiṣṇava works, which however never call them Mādhava ascetics, fully bear out their emotional predilections. Caitanya himself was probably initiated as a Saṃnyāsin of this type, although his own religious experiences made him go a long way into the extreme emotional attitude of Bhakti, for which he is reported to have been ridiculed by the Saṃnyāsins of Benares. We shall see presently that his belonging to a particular Sampradāya hardly made any difference to his personal religious consciousness, that the movement he inaugurated had nothing to do with the strict

c5.s2.28

³ As Śrīdhara refers to Vopadeva he could not have been earlier than 1300 A.D.

c5.s2.29

¹ The phrase *sva-sampradāya* at the beginning of his commentary need not be interpreted to mean Viṣṇusvāmin Sampradāya. Jīva Gosvāmin (*Tattva-sandarbha*, ed. Berhampore, p. 68) dogmatically asserts that Śrīdhara, whose opinion is accepted as authoritative in the Bengal school, was a true Vaiṣṇava who only tempered his Vaiṣṇavism with Advaita doctrines in such a way as to make it acceptable to the Advaita schools. But there is no evidence to support this statement. On the contrary, at the commencement of his commentary on the *Bhagavad-gītā*, Śrīdhara distinctly acknowledges the views of the Bhāṣyakāra (*i.e.* Saṅkara), and in many places refrains from further explanation by simply referring the reader to Saṅkara's interpretation. Although Bhakti is his main theme, the Advaita trend of his writings is too obvious to be mistaken. See Amar Nath Ray in *Udbodhana*, Caitra 1336, pp. 162-3.

c5.s2.30

² Farquhar, *op. cit.*, pp. 229, 302, 375; Glasenapp, *Madhva's Philosophie des Viṣṇu-Glaubens* (Bonn and Leipzig, 1923), p. 61; in the works of D. C. Sen cited above. Kavikarṇapūra alleges in his *Gaura-gaṇoddeśa* genealogy that Viṣṇu Purī was a disciple of Jayadhvaja, mistakenly called Jayadharma! But see Amar Nath Ray, in *Indian Culture*, p. 102 f.

c5.s2.31

³ *atra śrīdhara-sattamokti-likhane nyūnādhikaṃ yad bhavet* *tat kṣantuṃ sudhiyo'rhata sva-racanā-lubdhasya me cāpalam* The colophon to the Dacca University manuscripts of the text,

c5.s2.32

¹ The *Padyāvalī* also cites another ascetic devotee, named Yādavendra Purī, of whom however nothing is known.

c5.s2.33

with its commentary *Kāntimālā*, which we have consulted, reads: *iti śrī-puruṣottama-caraṇāravinda-kṛpā-makaranda-bindu-pronmilita-viveka-tairabhukta-paramahaṃsa-sri-viṣṇupurī-grathita-śrībhāgavatāmṛtābdhi-labdha-śrībhaktiratnāvalī-kāntimālā samāptā*. Apparently Puruṣottama was his Guru and not Jayadhvaja. An edition of the text with English translation has been published in the Sacred Books of the Hindus Series, Allahabad 1912. MSS noticed in Aufrecht's *Bodleian Catalogue*, no. 90; Aufrecht's *Florentine Manuscripts*, no. 236; Mitra, *Notices*, I, no. 422, p. 240; Eggeling, *India Office Catalogue*, vi, p. 1272-73. The colophon occurs with slight variations in Mitra's and Eggeling's MSS. Aufrecht (*Florentine Manuscripts*, p. 76) states that the work was composed at Benares in 1634 A.D. The source of his information is not known, but the editor of the Allahabad edition tells us that this date is given in a footnote to the edition of the work published at Calcutta. This date, however, is impossible, for it militates not only against the date 1595 (=Saṃvat 1652) of the copying of the India Office manuscript (Eggeling, *loc. cit.*), but also against the Bengal tradition that Viṣṇu Purī, who is mentioned by Kavikarṇapūra, was much earlier than Caitanya. This would dispose of the story of the meeting of Viṣṇu Purī and Caitanya, mentioned in the Introduction to the Allahabad edition and in Carpenter's *Theism in Mediaeval India* (London 1926, p. 422). On the date of the work see S. K. De in *Indian Culture*, v, 1938-39, pp. 197-99.

c5.s2.34

Advaita standpoint, and that he himself rose superior to sombre and passionless asceticism; but it is highly probable that Keśava Bhāratī (an ascetic apparently of Saṃkara's Bhāratī order),¹ who was his Saṃnyāsa Guru, and Īśvara Purī, who was his Dīkṣā Guru, formally introduced him into this tradition of emotional Saṃnyāsa, which hardly stood in the way of his practice of extreme forms of emotional Bhakti. The roots, therefore, of the Bhakti movement, which Mādhavendra Purī is said to have started in Bengal and which Caitanya carried forward and definitely shaped, must be sought in such traditions as originated from Śrīdhara's great commentary on the Śrīmad-bhāgavata, which was accepted with much veneration by the Bengal school.² Caitanya himself is said to have possessed the highest admiration for Śrīdhara Svāmin, and on one occasion he is said to have repudiated a commentary on the Śrīmad-bhāgavata by one Vallabha Bhaṭṭa on the ground that it departs from Śrīdhara Svāmin's interpretations³.

c5.s2.35

¹ Keśava Bhāratī, who formally initiated Caitanya into the monastic order at Katwa, near Burdwan, in Saka 1431=1510 A.D. does not appear to have exercised any direct spiritual influence on Caitanya or his sect. He is said to have belonged to the village of Denud in the district of Burdwan and born of Bengali Brahmin ancestry. According to the Prema-vilāsa (ch. xiii) Keśava's former name was Kālinātha Ācārya, and his native place was Kuliyā in Navadvīpa. But he appears to have resided chiefly at Katwa (Kan-taka-nagara). In the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Itihāsa (in Bengali) by Madhusudan Tattvavacaspati (2nd ed., Hooghly, 1333 B.S.=1926 A.D.) a confusion is made (p. 152) between Keśava Bhāratī and Keśava Kāśmīrī of the Nimbārka sect, of whom we shall speak later.

c5.s2.36

² Sanātana Gosvāmin in his Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī commentary on the Śrīmad-bhāgavata pays his homage to Śrīdhara in the Namaskriyā and speaks of his Bhakti interpretations of the work; and Jīva Gosvāmin has throughout accepted his interpretation, quoting his commentaries with approval (ṭīkānumatam, ṭīkānusāreṇa, sādhu vyākhyātam etc.) about sixty times in his Bhagavat-sandarbha, thirty times in his Paramātma-sandarbha, and more than seventy times in his Bhakti-sandarbha.

c5.s2.37

³ With an obvious pun he stigmatised this new commentary as bhraṣṭa because it renounces the Svāmin.

c5.s2.38

It must also be pointed out that in doctrinal matters, Bengal Vaiṣṇavism, as set forth by Caitanya's Navadvīpa devotees or by the six Gosvāmins, hardly shows any resemblance to Madhvaism. Madhvaism is more speculative than emotional, and displays a distinct metaphysical leaning towards the views of the Naiyāyikas and Sāmkhyas. The Mādhvas reject the erotic Rāsa-pañcādhyāya of the Śrīmad-bhāgavata, which is one of the sacred texts of the Bengal Vaiṣṇavas. In Mādhva devotion there is hardly a place for Rādhā, nor is the Vṛndāvana-līlā of Kṛṣṇa an exclusive object of adoration. The name or the works of Madhva, or of his Sampradāya, are very seldom cited in the earlier standard works of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism. Sanātana, in his Vaiṣṇva-toṣaṇī commentary on the Śrīmad-bhāgavata, has once or twice quoted the Madhva-bhāṣya, but it is not clear whether these passages were inserted by Jiva Gosvāmin, who made an abridgment of the work. Rūpa Gosvāmin also refers to the Bhāṣya of Madhvācārya in his Laghu-Bhāgavatāmṛta (ed. Murshidabad, p. 310). In his Tattva-samdarbha, Jiva refers with respect to Madhvācārya's Vaiṣṇava ideas (pp. 56-57), as well as to three Madhvācāryas, namely Vijayadhvaja, Brahmatīrtha and Vyāsatīrtha, and their works, from which he professes to derive some material,¹ but he does not refer to them as Pūrva-gurus. It is only when we come to Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa that Mādhva-affiliation is distinctly and authoritatively claimed. It appears probable that in Baladeva's time differences of Vaiṣṇava opinion arose between the Bengal sect and other Vaiṣṇava sects at Vṛndāvana; and the question, which was hitherto of no importance, came to be mooted whether it was possible or desirable to affiliate the comparatively new Caitanya Sampradāya to the four recognised Vaiṣṇava Sampradāyas. The Bengal Vaiṣṇavas, for some reason or other,¹ thought it convenient to acknowledge themselves as Mādhavas. There is a tradition that at a conference of Vaiṣṇavas at the Galta Valley in Jaipur State, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa made this acknowledgment on behalf of Bengal Vaiṣṇavas. Hitherto the Bengal school did not think it necessary to follow the example of other schools in the writing of a commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra; and its philosophical apologist, Jiva Gosvāmin, in his Tattva-samdarbha, declared that such a course was not necessary, for the Śrīmad-bhāgavata itself was Vyāsa's own commentary on his authoritative Vedānta sūtra. But now a necessity arose for writing a learned commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra for making the metaphysical position of the sect clear; and the task was accomplished, it is said, by Baladeva in his Govinda-bhāṣya. The verses describing the Mādhva Guru-paramparā, at the commencement of this Bhāṣya, as well as in Baladeva's Prameya-ratnāvali, probably grew out of this circumstance. Madhvaism could not have proved congenial to the extremely emotional and erotic predilections of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism, and it is very doubtful if it ever had any influence on the thought and practice of Caitanyaism; but now an authoritative declaration was made, which was hardly consistent with its earlier tradition and which hardly affected its essential doctrines in its subsequent history. It will be clear from what has been said above that, in spite of this belated acknowledgment, the Bengal school, like other Vaiṣṇava schools, derived its original inspiration from the Śrīmad-bhāgavata itself, which is undoubtedly the fountain-source of all the mediaeval Vaiṣṇava sects. The devotional interpretations of Śrīdhara were apparently accepted by a class of devotional Saṃnyāsins, who first laid the foundations of a Vaiṣṇava Bhakti movement in Bengal on the ultimate basis of the Śrīmad-bhāgavata. Caitanya, himself a Saṃnyāsin of this type, moulded this movement into an entirely new shape by his own practice and experience of Bhakti.

c5.s2.39

¹ Vijayadhvaja-brahmatīrtha-vyāsatīrtha-veda-vedārtha-vidvadvarāṇām iti-madhvācārya-caraṇānām bhāgavatatparya-brahmasūtrabhāṣyādibhyaḥ saṃgṛhītāni (p. 71). In his Bhagavat-samdarbha (pp. 154, 454-5, 593, 698) and Paramātma-samdarbha (p. 251), Jiva Gosvāmin cites Śruti texts as he finds them quoted in the Madhva-bhāṣya (madhva-bhāṣya-pramāṇitā śrutiḥ); while the Madhva-bhāṣya itself is cited in the former Samdarbha (at pp. 181, 235). In his Sarva-saṃvādinī (p. 4), which also quotes some Madhva-bhāṣya-pramāṇita Śrutis, he speaks of writing his six Samdarbhas after looking into old Vaiṣṇava works like those of Rāmānuja, Madhvācārya and Sridharasvāmin; but he speaks of Madhvācārya (p. 12) as tattvavāda-bhāṣya-kṛt, which Tattva-vāda Caitanya is said to have discredited at Udipi in his South Indian pilgrimage. These Tattva-vāda-gurus are cited twice (pp. 224, 37) in his Kṛṣṇa-samdarbha (ed. Prangopal Gosvami) only for the purpose of refuting their peculiar views.

c5.s2.40

¹ It has been suggested that their common origin from the Saṃkara-Sampradāya was probably the reason for the rapprochement.

c5.s2.41

The apostle with whose name this early movement in Bengal is usually associated in the period immediately before Caitanya, is the emotional Saṃkarite ascetic, Mādhavendra Purī, of whom we have spoken above. Among his disciples is counted not only Īśvara Purī, but also Advaita who was Caitanya's precursor at Navadvīpa.¹ The Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī of Sanātana states that the Kalpataru of Kṛṣṇa-Bhakti was germinated by Mādhavendra in three worlds (lokeṣvaṅkurito yena kṛṣṇa-bhakti-rasāṅghripaḥ) : the Caitanya bhāgavata tells us that Mādhavendra was the ādi-sūtradhāra of Bhakti-rasa in Bengal ; the Caitanya-caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa pays a similar compliment by speaking of him as the first sprout (aṅkura) of the Kalpataru of Bhakti ; and Kavikarṇapūra in his Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā distinctly says that Vaiṣṇavism in Bengal, with its associations of Prīta, Preyas, Vatsala and Ujjvala Rasas, owes its origin to Mādhavendra (yad dharmo’-yam pravartitaḥ, p. 15). We have already spoken above of the tradition that Advaita before Caitanya was initiated into Bhakti by Mādhavendra. We are also told that Nityānanda met him in Southern India, that Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi was his disciple, and that Īśvara Purī, one of Caitanya's Gurus, was an ascetic initiated by Mādhavendra. Caitanya himself never appears to have met Mādhavendra,¹ who must have died when he was in his childhood, but he always cherished a great reverence for Mādhavendra, as well as for his many disciples whom Caitanya is said to have met during his pilgrimage. At Puri, we are told, Caitanya used to recite with great emotion Mādhavendra's verse *ayi dīna-dayārdra nātha he*, cited in the *Padyāvalī* 330. But the mystic emotionalism which Mādhavendra made current in Bengal could not have been Madhvaism. Unlike a Mādhva ascetic, Mādhavendra appears to have been a devotee of great emotional capacity, who must have, before Caitanya, imparted a new spirit to the sombre and forbidding aspects of asceticism, and who probably cared more for actual devotional fervour than for the teaching of dry doctrines. It is noteworthy that in the references to Mādhavendra mentioned above, stress is laid upon his teaching of Bhakti as a religious emotion or Rasa; and we also read, in the various accounts given of him in these works, about his ecstatic emotions and visions as striking features of his religious experience. He would go into mystic trances, we are told, even at the sight of dark-blue clouds which became to him a symbol of Śrī-Kṛṣṇa². In all this he anticipated Caitanya himself and prepared the way for his advent. But he is said to have done more than this. Fifty years before the Bengal Gosvāmins, he turned the thoughts of Bengal Vaiṣṇavas towards the sacred sites of Vṛndāvana, where he is said to have recovered an image of Gopāla-Kṛṣṇa and established a temple with two Bengali priests as custodians¹. D. C. Sen,² chiefly on these grounds, conjectures him to have been a Bengali, but the evidence is slender and inconclusive.

c5.s2.42

¹ Eleven other disciples of Mādhavendra Purī are mentioned by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja: Keśava Bhāratī, Paramānanda Purī, Brahmānanda Purī, Viṣṇu Purī, Keśava Purī, Kṛṣṇānanda Purī, Nṛsiṃha Tīrtha, Sukhānanda Purī, Raṅga Purī, Rāmacandra Purī and Brahmānanda Bhāratī. Other works add a few more!

c5.s2.43

¹ Jayānanda is singular in stating that Caitanya met Mādhavendra at Gaya, but he is also singular in stating that Viśvambhara's Dīkṣā from Īśvara Purī occurred at Rajgir and not at Gaya!

c5.s2.44

² माधवेन्द्र पुरी कथा अकथ्यकथन । मेघदरशनमाल हव अचेतन ॥ (Caitanya-bhāgavata, Ādi viii).

c5.s2.45

¹ Kṛṣṇadāsa's Caitanya caritāmṛta, Madhya iv, 48-104. 2 Caitanya and His Companions (Calcutta 1907), p. 207. 3 Prema-vilāsa, ch. xxiii. As the authenticity of this chapter is not beyond question, these details may or may not be correct. It is curious that in the C-bh, Ādi ix, Īśvara Purī calls himself "a humble śūdra" (śūdrādhama)! Probably this is a term of humility. 4 Ed. Kāvyamālā, pp. 272-284. 5 प्रभु कहे ईश्वरपुरीर जन्मस्थान [ए मृत्तिका आमार जीवन धन प्राय ॥] (Caitanya-bhāgavata, Ādi. xv).

c5.s2.46

But tradition is definite that Mādhavendra's disciple, Īśvara Purī, meeting with whom at Gaya is said to have formed a turning point in Caitanya's life, was a Bengali. Īśvara Purī, whose original name is not known, is said to have been born at Kumārahaṭṭa (modern Halisahar, near Naihati) of Rāḍhīya Brahman family, his father's name having been Śyāmasundara Ācārya³. The Bhakti-ratnākara tells us (ch. xii) that he composed a Śrīkṛṣṇa līlāmṛta in Sanskrit at the house of Gopinātha Ācārya, brother-in-law of the great scholar Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma. This may or may not be the same work as Rukmiṇī-svayaṃvara, which is attributed to Īśvara Purī by Rūpa Gosvāmin and from which two verses are quoted in the Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi.⁴ It is probable that Īśvara Purī came pretty often to Navadvipa, and it is recorded (C-bh, Ādi. ix) that on one of these occasions he tried to win Caitanya, then a proud and light-hearted young scholar, to devout life; but Caitanya's only response to the attempt was to pick flaws in the grammar of the Sanskrit texts quoted from Īśvara Purī's Śrīkṛṣṇa-līlāmṛta. Later on at Gaya, Caitanya received Mantra-Dīkṣā from Īśvara Purī and came back a changed man. In later years Caitanya spoke of him with great reverence; and on one occasion when Caitanya was passing by Kumārahaṭṭa, he is reported to have said that the very dust of the place which saw the birth of Īśvara Purī, was to him dearer than life or wealth.⁵ Īśvara Purī, like Mādhavendra was also an emotional mystic, who used to go into trances on hearing the Kīrtana of Kṛṣṇa’s name.¹

c5.s2.47

¹ C-bh, Ādi, ix.

Linked texts (23)