Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c5.s2.38

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.