Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c6: Chapter II. The Advent of Caitanya

Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c6

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II. The Advent of Caitanya

1. Materials for a Study of Caitanya's Life

c6.s1.1

There is no dearth of materials for a study of Caitanya's life and personality. A fairly large number of lives in Sanskrit and in Bengali came into existence not many years after his death; and they supply valuable materials not only regarding the details of his career, but also about the circumstances attending upon the growth of the movement he initiated, its method, its extent and its contagion. They reproduce the atmosphere and depict in vivid outline the attractive figures of the leading actors in the scene. As some of these works are contemporary records, they embody personal impression and knowledge, and in this sense they are truly historical. But most of them already acknowledge the divinity of Caitanya and write from the devotional point of view¹. Biography is a distinctly Vaiṣṇava contribution to Middle Bengali; and by creating it, the movement added a new *genre* to the literature of the country; but the prolix and exuberant metrical narratives are often presented in a distorted perspective by an imagination which is ready to go to the utmost limits, or want of limits, of fanatical devotion. The powerful impression made by a great personality inspired these men to give sincere expression to their human love and admiration, but the early deification of Caitanya made them accept as their model the myths and unrealities of their favourite Purāṇic stories. Miraculous legends and grotesquely absurd accounts about Caitanya appear to have rapidly grown up even during his life-time, and the pious credulity of these devout writers found no difficulty in reproducing them in all seriousness. Yet, beneath all this, we have a picture of great human interest and appeal; and the purely devotional aspect of Caitanya's career is depicted with sincere and loving care, with all the attending details and circumstances¹.

c6.s1.2

¹ अलौकिक लीला इह परम निगूढ़ । विश्वासे पाइवे तर्के हय बहुदूर ॥

c6.s1.3

¹ The best critical account of the materials for a study of Caitanya's life will be found in Bimanbihari Majumdar, *Śrī-Caitanya-cariter Upādān* in Bengali. Calcutta University 1939.

Murāri-Gupta

c6.s1.t1.1

The earliest available work on Caitanya's life appears to be the Sanskrit *Śrī-kṛṣṇacaitanya-caritāmṛta*, or simply *Caitanya-caritāmṛta*, attributed to Murāri-gupta,² an older contemporary, fellow-student and associate of Caitanya. It purports to have been composed in response to the devout enquiries made of the author by Dāmodara Paṇḍita (not to be confused with Svarūpa Dāmodara) who was a well-known follower and companion of Caitanya in his final years of residence at Puri. It is usually known as a *Kaḍacā* or a brief biographical account, but the printed text³ offers it as a regular Sanskrit Kāvya, consisting of four sections (prakrama) and total of seventy-eight cantos, and versifying in a variety of metres practically the whole career of Caitanya. The concluding verse¹ in the printed text gives Śaka 1435=1513 A.D. as the date of composition; but since Caitanya became a Saṃnyāsin in Śaka 1431=1510 A.D. and returned to Bengal for a short time, after a little over three years in Śaka 1435=1513 A.D., the biography should have recorded incidents of his life up to that date. In reality, however, the story is carried down to a greater part of his later life at Puri, down even to 1530 A.D.; it alludes to the Gambhīrā episode (iv. 24) and even to the death of Caitanya (i. 2, 12-14). The genuineness of the date or of the subsequent account, therefore, is open to serious doubt.

c6.s1.t1.2

² References to Murāri-gupta are to be found in almost all the biographies of Caitanya, and some of them directly utilise his pioneer work. But details of his life are meagre. Originally belonging to Sylhet, he appears to have settled at Navadvīpa, and was probably a neighbour of Caitanya's father and a fellow-student of Caitanya at Gaṅgādāsa's Tol (*C-bh*, Ādi vii). He belonged to the Vaidya caste and apparently practised as a physician. He seems to have had Vedāntic inclination before he became a devotee of Caitanya. He appears to have been originally, like Caitanya's father, a Rāma-worshipper; and the *Rāmāṣṭaka*, which he cited before Caitanya, is given in full in his biography at ii. 7. 10-17. This circumstance might have led to his being regarded as an incarnation of Hanūmat. He was also a man of extraordinary physical strength, and it is recorded that once during a Kīrtana ecstasy at Śrīvāsa's courtyard he carried Caitanya on his shoulders and danced for hours together. His dates are unknown; but he must have been older than Caitanya, and probably survived him. In spite of Murāri's reputation for Sanskrit scholarship, his work contains many instances of *lapsus linguae* which cannot be explained merely as a feature of later Kāvya-style.

c6.s1.t1.3

³ Published by Mṛṇāl Kanti Ghosh, Amrita Bazar Patrika Office, 3rd Ed., Calcutta B.E. 1357 (=1921 A.D.) in Bengali characters. The first ed. was published by Syamlal Goswami in 1303, the second in

c6.s1.t1.4

¹ 1317. It is said to have been edited from two MSS, one from Dacca and another from Brindaban; no account of the sources is given. The number of cantos in the four Prakramas is respectively: 16 18, 18 and 26. The extremely incorrect form in which the text is printed, even in the third edition, precludes the allegation of fabrication or deliberate tampering with the text.

c6.s1.t1.5

¹ *caturdaśa śatābḍānte pañca-triṃśati-vatsare |* *aṣṭha-sita-saptamyāṃ grantho’yaṃ pūrṇatāṃ gataḥ ||* The reference is apparently to Śaka era. This is the reading of the third edition, published by Mrinal Kanti Ghosh; but the first two editions read *pañca-viṃśati-vatsare*, which gives us Śaka 1425, instead of Śaka 1435.

c6.s1.t1.6

Whatever may be the value of the printed text, the existence of some biographical account by Murāri-gupta is beyond doubt, and it is probable that it dealt chiefly with the early years of Caitanya’s life. The earliest Bengali biography of Vṛndāvana-dāsa omits all references to it; nor does Jayānanda mention it in his short list (p. 3) of previous lives of Caitanya. But writing only nine years after Caitanya’s death (1542 A.D.), Kavikarṇapūra informs us that he based his own Caitanya-caritāmṛta Kāvya chiefly on Murāri’s account (xx. 42). It is clear, however, that Murāri’s work was utilised closely for Caitanya’s early life, although after canto xi Kavikarnapūra appears to have drawn from other sources. That the name of Murāri's work was also *Caitanya-caritāmṛta* is clear from the citation by this name in the *Gaura-gaṇod-deśa-dīpikā* (śl. 94),¹ another work of Kavikarṇapūra's. The much later, but the more authoritative, Bengali biography of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, written probably within ninety years of Caitanya's death, professes to utilise Murāri-gupta's work and describes it as a condensed account of all the exploits of Caitanya in his early life². Locana-dāsa, an earlier biographer, writing about the end of 16th century, refers to the existence of a poetical life by Murāri-gupta from Caitanya's birth to boyhood (जन्म हइते बालक चरित्र) and acknowledges his immense debt to that work.³

c6.s1.t1.7

The present text devotes its three out of four sections (*prakrama*) to incidents occurring up to Caitanya's visit to Rāmakeli after the South Indian pilgrimage, *i.e.* roughly up to 1513 A.D., while the last section very briefly and rapidly sketches his Vṛndāvana pilgrimage and his final settlement at Puri. The second section ends exactly with the account of his Saṃnyāsa, which incident, in the usual reckoning, con-

c6.s1.t1.8

1 Reference is made in this verse to a story, said to be related by Murāri-gupta, about Haridāsa's being an incarnation of a Muni-putra. The legend is actually told in the present text in i. 4. 9 f.

c6.s1.t1.9

2 आदिसलीलामध्ये प्रभुर यतेक चरित । सुलरुपे मुरारि गुप्त करिला ग्रथित ॥ *Caitanya-caritāmṛta*, Ādi xiii, 15. But elsewhere Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja says: दामोदर स्वरुप आर गुप्त मुरारि । मुख्य मुख्य लीलामूल लिखियाछे विस्तारि ॥ (Ādi xiii, 46). This may mean that Murāri-gupta dealt in detail with the chief incidents of Caitanya's life as a whole; but the mention of Dāmodara Svarūpa permits the interpretation that Murāri and Dāmodara, who knew intimately the earlier and later life respectively, gave a detailed account of the chief incidents of each phase.

c6.s1.t1.10

3 Locana-dāsa actually translates in some places the account given in the present text, and mentions some points (e.g. Lakṣmī's having been in previous birth an Apsaras) exclusively stated by Murāri-gupta. Even from the last doubtful section of Murāri's work he utilises the Bibhīṣaṇa episode which is not mentioned in any other biography.

c6.s1.t1.11

cludes his Ādi-līlā or early life. The genuineness of the fourth and last section (as possibly also of the third), therefore, is not altogether beyond question; and the presumption has been made that the concluding verse, which gives its date of composition, originally occurred, as it should, at the end of the second section, but was somehow retained even when the supplementary section or sections were added. The somewhat strange device of making Dāmodara Paṇḍita¹ the curious enquirer after Caitanya's life would be justifiable, only if his enquiries related to the earlier portion of that life; for Dāmodara, who was one of Caitanya's companions at Puri must have known more about the later phase of Caitanya's life than Murāri could have done from hearsay. But apart from the fact that Kavikarṇapūra generally knew the present text, even if he ignored the last section, it was undoubtedly known, almost in its entirety, to Locana-dāsa, who closely and directly makes use of it throughout, and specifically utilises the Bibhīṣaṇa episode of the last section (iv. 21). It is also noteworthy that Narahari Cakravartin, in the 18th century, quotes from Murāri's work in his Bhakti-ratnākara, and the quotations are traceable in the present text; and it is also interesting that the last section (up to iv. 10—Vṛndāvana visit) was known to Narahari. The allegation, therefore, that the printed text is a modern fabrication cannot be very well maintained. The statement that the earlier part of Caitanya's life only was described by Murāri probably owes its origin to the fact that Murāri gives a more detailed account of the earlier phase of which he had direct knowledge, while the later phase is only hurriedly and vaguely given. The work may have been composed during Caitanya's life-time, but since it alludes to his passing away, it is probable that it came into existence after his death (1533 A.D.), but before 1542 A.D. Murāri's biography begins with a deified picture of Caitanya as the incarnation (Yugāvatāra) of Viṣṇu (i. 4. 26-27 ; i. 5. 4 ; 1. 12. 19 ; i. 1. 14 as Caturbhuja Viṣṇu) and gives credence to miraculous legends as a proof of his divinity. This common trait, as well as the uncertainty of the present text, impairs its importance as a strictly historical document. But if the entire work is genuine, it is extremely valuable as the earliest record written by a close associate; and in spite of its pious attitude, it gives a vivid and somewhat human account, not too much overlaid with theology, of the Navadvīpa period of Caitanya's life, for which it is, with Vṛndāvana-dāsa's biography, the best and most authoritative source. But its value as a record of incidents has been greatly diminished by the more systematic biographies which followed and made considerable use, openly or otherwise, of its material.

c6.s1.t1.12

¹ Jagatbandhu Bhadra (Gaura-pada-taraṅginī, Introd. p. 50) makes the not unnatural mistake of confusing Dāmodara Paṇḍita with Svarūpa Dāmodara.

Svarūpa Dāmodara

c6.s1.t2.1

The account of Svarūpa Dāmodara, which is probably next in date, appears to be lost. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja refers¹

c6.s1.t2.2

¹ दामोदर स्वरूप कड़चा अनुसारे (C-C. Madhya viii, 312) : प्रभुर मध्यशेपलीला स्वरूप दामोदर । सूत करि ग्रन्थिलेन ग्रन्थेर भितर ॥ (Ādi xiii, 16) ; दामोदर स्वरूप आर शुभ मुरारि । मुख्य मुख्य लीलासूत लिखियाछे विस्तारि ॥ (Ādi xiii, 46) : स्वरूप गोसामि आर रघुनाथ दास । एइ दुएर कड़चाते ए लीला प्रकाश ॥ (Antya xiv, 7), etc.

c6.s1.t2.3

II Raghunātha-dāsa also wrote a Kaḍacā; as the last passage states, it is also lost. Possibly this was no independent work of Raghunātha's, but he helped his Guru Svarūpa Dāmodara in the compiling of the latter's Kaḍacā. Nothing of Raghunātha-dāsa's writing on Caitanya remains except his Caitanyāṣṭaka and Gaurāṅga-stavakalpataru incorporated in his Stavāvalī (altogether 20 stanzas); while we have only a few doctrinal verses in the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (13, 17, 149) ascribed to Svarūpa Dāmodara. These could not have been implied by the word Kaḍacā in Kṛṣṇadāsa's statement. Bimanbihari Majumdar (op. cit., p. 331) denies that any biographical account could have been written by Svarūpa Dāmodara or Raghuto it as his chief source for the middle part and last years of Caitanya's life, and describes it as a Kaḍacā. This could not have been the actual name of the work which is said to have been composed in Sanskrit. The author appears to have been originally a Navadvīpa scholar,¹ named Puruṣottama Ācārya (C-bh. Antya x. 52), a Vedāntist who subsequently became a Saṃnyāsin of the Daṇḍin order under the name of Svarūpa Dāmodara. Attaching himself to Caitanya as one of his most intimate and favourite disciples at Puri, he became thereafter an indispensable companion, keeping watchful care and regulating the life of the Master in detail.² Kavikarṇapūra in his Caitanya-candrodaya,³ as well as Caitanya's other biographers, makes him, as he really was, a great figure in Caitanya's life at Puri; and the verse viii. 10 (heloddhūlita-

c6.s1.t2.4

¹ This is implied by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja (Madhya x. 101-2); but Murāri does not mention him as a Navadvīpa-associate of Caitanya, while there is nothing in the works of Kavikarṇapūra, Vṛndāvanadāsa and Raghunātha-dāsa to support the view that Svarūpa Dāmodara was a native of Navadvīpa. On Puruṣottama Ācārya, see below, note 3.

c6.s1.t2.5

² Svarūpa was one of the few faithful followers who possessed great influence upon Caitanya, and knew his mind (C-C. Madhya xiii. 122, 134-5 etc.). Caitanya himself paid a tribute to his scholarship and devotion when he laughingly confessed to young Raghunātha that Svarūpa knew more about the Śāstras than he himself did.

c6.s1.t2.6

³ In his Caitanya-caritāmṛta Kāvya (xiii. 137-142) Kavikarṇapūra refers apparently to Svarūpa Dāmodara as Puruṣottama Ācārya. For the citation of a verse ascribed to Puruṣottama Ācārya in some MSS of the Padyāvalī, see S. K. De's ed. of the work, no 83 (note) and p. 212. But it is remarkable that Kavikarṇapūra does not mention Svarūpa Dāmodara's Kaḍacā, although he expressly acknowledges his indebtedness to Murāri's biographical account in his Caitanya-caritāmṛta Kāvya.

c6.s1.t2.7

nātha; but his arguments are not convincing. The worthless work which is sometimes printed from Baṭṭalā as Svarūpa Dāmodara's Kaḍacā cannot be seriously taken; it does not correspond to the descriptions given by Kṛṣṇadāsa, and contains wholesale appropriations even from Minanātha's work on the Kāma-śāstra; it is obviously a later Sahajiyā fabrication.

c6.s1.t2.8

kheḍayā), which is put in Svarūpa's mouth in the drama, is said to be Svarūpa's own composition incorporated by Kavi-karṇapūra.¹ He was well versed in Vaiṣṇava theology and practice, and had charge of young Raghunātha-dāsa's Vaiṣṇava training at Purī.² In Kavikarṇapūra's Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā, Svarūpa Dāmodara is credited with the doctrine of Pañca-tattva,³ which established Caitanya, Nityānanda, Advaita, Gadādhara and Śrīvāsa as the five Tattvas of the faith, and exalted Caitanya as Mahāprabhu and Nityānanda and Advaita as Prabhus. This would indicate Svarūpa's attitude, if not the whole of his theology. He is said to have been so deeply attached to Caitanya that he never survived the great shock of Caitanya's death; but from Raghunātha-dāsa's reference in the Muktā-caritra (śl. 4), it is not unlikely that he passed his last days at Vṛndāvana and wrote his personal reminiscences there.

c6.s1.t2.9

¹ The verses 5-12 which open Kṛṣṇadāsa's Caitanya-caritāmṛta are printed in some editions of the text as quotations from the so-called Kaḍacā of Svarūpa Dāmodara (e.g. in Vaṅgavāsī ed., Mādhva Gauḍīya Maṭha ed. etc.); but in the Kālnā edition of the text this indication is omitted. The manuscripts of the text which we have consulted in the Dacca University Library do not support this attribution to Svarūpa, as there is no such heading there as svarūpa-gosvāmi-kaḍacāyām. See S. K. De in IHQ, 1933, pp. 99-100; Bimanbihari Majumdar, op. cit. p. 329, coming to the same conclusion after consulting five MSS of the work in the Vaṅgiya Sāhitya Pariṣad collection. It is probably an unjustifiable "padding" by zealous editors, of which instances are very frequent in the printed texts. The well-known verse śrī-rādhāyāḥ praṇava-mahimā is often, but wrongly, attributed to Svarūpa Dāmodara, probably because it embodies a doctrine ascribed to him.

c6.s1.t2.10

² The disciple acknowledges his debt in the opening verses of the Muktā-caritra, where he refers to Svarūpa, along with Rūpa and Sanātana.

c6.s1.t2.11

³ See above p. 32 note 2.

Paramānanda Kavikarṇapūra

c6.s1.t3.1

After these comes the Caitanya-caritāmṛta Mahākāvya in twenty cantos, composed nine years after Caitanya's death, by Paramānanda-sena, better known by his poetical title of Kavikarnapūra, who also wrote many years later a drama in ten acts on the same theme, entitled Caitanya candrodaya. The author was the son of Śivānanda-sena, an elderly disciple of Caitanya,¹ who used to organise and lead the annual exodus of Caitanya's followers to Puri. He belonged to the Vaidya caste, and his youngest son Paramānanda was born at Kāñcapāḍā (Kāñcanapalli), near Naihati, a few years before Caitanya's death. Śivānanda had poetical tendencies, and some of his Bengali songs are to be found in the Vaisnava anthology, Pada-kalpataru, as well as in the modern compilation, Gaura-pada-taraṅgiṇī (six Padas on Caitanya); his son appears to have inherited his father's literary gifts at an early age. When he was a boy of seven he is said to have accompanied his father to Puri, where he saw Caitanya; and the touch of the Master's feet is said to have inspired the precocious child to utter the following Sanskrit verse in the difficult Āryā metre, which praised Kṛṣṇa as the ear-ornament of the Gopis, and earned for him the title, given by Caitanya himself of Kavi-karṇapūra or "ear-ornament of poets":²

c6.s1.t3.2

¹ Kavikarṇapūra speaks about his father as one of the chief disciples of the Master (pārṣadāgryam mahāprabhoḥ) in his Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā, śl. 4 and 177. Śivānanda is regarded as occupying a high position among Caitanya's disciples: see Murāri, iv, 17, 6; Vṛndāvana-dāsa, Antya v and ix; Jayānanda, p. 142; Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, Antya i, 12-28; x, 139; xii, 11 and 44; xvi, 60 etc. Both in his drama and his poem, Karṇapūra mentions Śivānanda many times and records that during his return to Bengal Caitanya paid a visit to Śivānanda's house. There is also a significant passage in the drama in which Śivānanda is represented as bringing his son (apparently Kavikarṇapūra himself) before Caitanya at Puri.

c6.s1.t3.3

² His other name given by Caitanya is said to have been Purī-dāsa, which occurs in the colophon to the printed text of his Gaura-gaṇoddeśa; but on this alleged name see B. Majumdar, op. cit. pp. 85-86. In his work Kavikarṇapūra he never uses this name of Purī-dāsa. An Āryā-śataka, now lost, is ascribed to him; this Āryā-

c6.s1.t3.4

śravasoḥ kuvalayam akṣṇor añjanam uraso mahendra-maṇi-dāma|
vṛndāvana-ramaṇīnāṃ maṇḍanam akhilaṃ harir jayati||

c6.s1.t3.5

'Victorious is Kṛṣṇa, who is the blue water-lily in the two ears, collyrium in the two eyes, the great rope of sapphire on the breast, (in fact) the entire adornment, of the young women of Vṛndāvana!'

c6.s1.t3.6

Whatever value this story of an infant prodigy may possess, it is probable that it originated from the fact of his extraordinarily precocious literary gifts. His earliest sustained poetical effort appears to be his Sanskrit *Caitanya-caritāmṛta Kāvya*,¹ in which he declares himself as a "child" (*śiśu*). One of the concluding verses² gives its date of composition as Āṣāḍha, Śaka 1464=June-July, 1542 A. D. If we accept 1524 A.D. as the date of his birth,³ he would then be about eighteen when the work was completed. For a youth the poem is indeed a marvellous achievement of precocious gifts. The work consists of 20 Sargas and over 1900 verses in a variety of Sanskrit metres (excepting Āryā), and gives a poetical but complete verse may have formed its opening Namaskriyā. The verse is, however, given in Kavikarṇapūra's *Alaṃkāra-kaustubha* (Kiraṇa viii) as an example of the poetic figure Mālā-rūpaka.

c6.s1.t3.7

¹ Ed. Radharuman Press, Berhampur-Murshidabad 1884, in Bengali characters with a Bengali translation. In *Gaura-gaṇoddeśa*, the name of Karṇapūra's Guru occurs as Śrīnātha.

c6.s1.t3.8

² *vedā rasāḥ śrutava indur iti prasiddhe/ śike tathā khalu śucau subhage ca māsi/ vīre sudhā-kiraṇa-nāmanyasita-dvitīye/ tithyantare parisamāptir abhūd amusya* (xx. 49).

c6.s1.t3.9

³ This usually accepted date is given by Rajendralala Mitra in his Bibl. Ind. ed. of *Caitanya-candrodaya* (Preface, p. vi). This would make Karṇapūra about nine years old at the time of Caitanya's passing away, and would not conflict with Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja's account of Karṇapūra's visit to Puri. In a MS of the *Caitanya-caritāmṛta* of Karṇapūra, however, in the Dacca University Library (no. 2389) the scribe, one Viṣṇudāsa, calling himself a servant of Rūpa Gosvāmin, records the tradition that Karṇapūra was only sixteen when he composed this work (*caitanya-candra-caritāmṛtam adbhutābhair | dvyaṣṭābdikair viracitam kavikarṇapūrāḥ*). This tradition would agree more with the poet's self-description as a "child," and put his birth-date at 1526 A.D. His visit to Puri in his seventh year would then have occurred in the very year in which Caitanya passed away. But, of course, this does not entirely remove the difficulties of exact dating.

c6.s1.t3.10

account of forty-seven years (catvāriṃśatā saptabhājā hāyanānāṃ kramena)¹ of Caitanya’s life. The author himself admits that he based his work chiefly on the account of Murāri, who knew Caitanya in his boyhood and youth; and as it was composed nine years after Caitanya’s death, the standard Bengali biographies had not yet been written. The latter part of the life, however, is independent of Murāri’s account, but it is rather meagrely treated. Like the preceding work, Karṇapūra’s poem devotes its strength chiefly upon the poetical and devotional possibilities of the theme, indulging in frequent flights (in the regular long drawn Kāvya-style) of poetical descriptions, and presenting Caitanya as the blessed Saviour and incarnation of Kṛṣṇa, as well as the hero of a religious Kāvya. The author conceives himself as a poet and devotional writer rather than as a sober historian. His drama, *Caitanya-candrodaya*,² a more mature work composed in 1572

c6.s1.t3.11

¹ This enumeration does not really conflict with Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja’s mention of forty-eight years, for the actual number of years covered by Caitanya’s life appears to have been forty-seven years and a few months. See B. Majumdar, *op. cit.*, pp. 21-23 for a discussion of the question.

c6.s1.t3.12

² Ed. Kāvyamālā 87. NSP, Bombay 1917. The date of composition is given in one of concluding verses, which however has been differently interpreted, making a difference of seven years. The verse (*śake caturdaśa-śate ravi-vājī-yukte/gauro harir dharani-maṇḍala āvirāsīt/ tasmins catur-navati-bhāji tadiya-likh-grantho’yam āvirabhavat katamasya vaktrāt//*) says that Caitanya was born in Śaka 1407, and that the drama, which deals with his life, was composed in Śaka 1494=1572 A.D. (*tasmin* referring to unqualified *catur-daśa-śate śake*); but some interpret the verse so as to give Śaka 1501=1579 A.D. as the date of composition (taking *tasmin* to refer to *caturdaśa-śate* like qualified by the phrase *ravivājī-yukte*). As the drama is quoted in Kavikarṇapūra’s *Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā* which is expressly dated 1576 A.D., the date 1572 is more likely than 1579. There is nothing to throw doubt on the genuineness of this verse; but Bimanbihari Majumdar, *op. cit.*, pp. 88-94, brushes aside this explicit date and maintains, chiefly from what he considers to be internal evidence, that the drama was composed before 1540 A.D.

c6.s1.t3.13

A. D. at the command of Gajapati Pratāparudra of Orissa,¹ is conceived in the same strain, and introduces allegorical (e. g. Maitri, Bhakti, Adharma, Virāga, etc.) and even mythical figures (e. g. Nārada, Rādhā, Kṛṣṇa, etc.), somewhat after the manner of the well-known *Prabodha-candrodaya*, which must have been its model. If Kavikarṇapūra does not strictly follow Murāri's account in this work, and departs in many details from his earlier poem, it is perhaps due to his more mature and fuller knowledge and judgment, as well as to his desire to enlarge in the drama upon the later phase of Caitanya's life, as much as his immature poem was largely devoted (after Murāri-gupta) to its earlier phase. The work, however, is a regular drama in ten acts, as the other is a regular poem in twenty cantos. As sober historical documents both these works, which are obviously literary and devotional in form and treatment, are not of much value, but they give us an interesting glimpse into the atmosphere of Caitanyaism, and record some traditions which the poet's father, Sivānanda, who is a figure in this drama, might have handed down.²

c6.s1.t3.14

¹ One must, however, recognise the difficulty of this reference, for most historians are of opinion that Pratāparudra was dead by 1540 A.D. This is one of the strong reasons which leads B. Majumdar to hold that the drama was composed before 1540, that is, even before the poem, which is dated 1542 A.D.

c6.s1.t3.15

² The *Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā* (ed. Murshidabad, Radharaman Press, 1912) is usually regarded as Karṇapūra's third work. Its date of composition, however, is uncertain, as the concluding verse which gives the date has different readings in different manuscripts. The MSS noticed in Haraprasad Sastri's *Notices*, ii, no 60 (pp. 49-50) and in Aufrecht's *Leipzig Catalogue* no. 721, as well as the printed text, read *śake vasu-graha-mite manunaiva yukte* (Saka 1498=1576 A.D.): but the India Office MS (*Eggeling's Catalogue*, iv, no. 2510) reads *śake rāśi-rasa-mite manunaiva yukte* (Saka 1466=1544 A.D.). The work gives an elaborate account of the previous incarnations of Caitanya's disciples as associates of Kṛṣṇa in the Vṛndāvana-līlā,—an extreme logical development of the Vaiṣṇava theory of incarnation, which regards not only Caitanya as Kṛṣṇa, but also his followers as Kṛṣṇa's associates and beloved ones. It is true that hints of such a system are already found in Kavikarṇapūra's *Caitanya-caritāmṛta*

Vṛndāvana-dāsa

c6.s1.t4.1

These Sanskrit works became the starting point of a series of biographies of Caitanya in Bengali, which absorbed and in course of time eclipsed the Sanskrit originals. The earliest, and by far the most important, of these Bengali accounts, with

c6.s1.t4.2

Kāvya, composed in 1542 A.D., for it mentions Nityānanda as an incarnation of Balarāma, Advaita as that of Śiva and Śrīvāsa as that of Nārada; but the mature theological elaboration of the dogma, such as the present work offers, could not have been worked out as early as 1544 A.D. It is also possible that the idea of the work was suggested by Rūpa Gosvāmin's description of the Gaṇas of Kṛṣṇa, for which Caitanyite parallels had to be found, in his *Rādhā-kṛṣṇa-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā* (about 1550 A.D.). The date 1576, given by the majority of MSS. appears therefore more suitable for this alleged work of Karṇapūra. Doubts have been expressed regarding its genuineness; but it is quoted in the 18th century by Narahari Cakravartin in his *Bhakti-ratnākara*. See B. Majumdar, *op. cit.*, pp. 97-100 for a discussion of the question; but interpolations into the text may be suspected. As an instance, one may point out that this work expressly affiliates the Caitanya Sampradāya to the Madhva, but Karṇapūra's drama testifies to Caitanya's dislike of Mādhva doctrine and his being an Advaita Saṃnyāsin! In style and treatment the work is pedestrian, and its theology is clearly of later development; it is difficult to say if it is really a genuine work of Kavikarṇapūra's. Karṇapūra's other Sanskrit works are: (i) *Ānanda-vṛndāvana-campū*, a voluminous Campū in Sanskrit prose and verse in 22 Stavakas, on the childhood and youth of Kṛṣṇa (ed. in the *Pandit*, Old Series, vol. ix and x, New Series, vol. i-iii. Only 9 Stavakas, ed. Madhusudan Das, Hooghly 1919, with comm. of Viśvanātha Cakravartin, and a Bengali translation, in Bengali characters). The Stavaka i is entitled *Bhagavat-sthāna-tattva-vallī-vistāra*, describing Vṛndāvana; Stavaka ii-vii *Bālya-līlā-latā-vistāra*, dealing with childhood, and Stavakas viii-xxii *Kaiśora-līlā-latā-vistāra*, treating of the early youth of Kṛṣṇa; (ii) *Alaṃkāra-kaustubha* (ed. Murshidabad, Radharaman Press, 1907; also ed. Varendra Research Society, Rajshahi, 1923-34), a regular work on Sanskrit Poetics, of which illustrative verses are mostly in praise of Kṛṣṇa. A short description of this work will be found in S. K. De, *Sanskrit Poetics*, 2nd ed. Calcutta 1960, i, p. 254-55; (iii) *Kṛṣṇāhnika-kaumudī* (ed. Haridas Das, in Bengali characters, Haribole Kutir, Navadvipa 1941), a small Kāvya in six Prakāśas, dealing with the Aṣṭakālīya Līlā of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, and belonging by its theme to the same type of composition as the respect to the early part of Caitanya's life, is the *Caitanya-bhāgavata*, composed by Vṛndāvana-dāsa at the command of Nityānanda.¹ Its date is uncertain² but it was probably writ-

c6.s1.t4.3

² Various dates are given: Ramagati Nyāya-ratna (*Baṅgabhāṣā O Sāhitya-viṣayaka Prastāva*) gives Saka 1470 = 1547 A.D.); Jagadbandhu Bhadra (*Gaura-pada taraṅgiṇī*, introduction p. 130) gives 1457 (= 1535 A.D.) which is absurd, because, if it were so, then this important biography would have been referred to in Kavikarṇapūra's Sanskrit *Caitanya-caritāmṛta*. Dinesh Chandra Sen in his various works gives the dates 1535 and 1573 A.D.; but the authority for these conjectures is not known. The work must have been completed some time before Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja undertook the laborious compilation of his

c6.s1.t4.4

*Govinda-līlāmṛta* of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja and *Kṛṣṇa-bhāvanāmṛta* of Viśvanātha Cakravartin. The work is often wrongly ascribed to Bilvamaṅgala (see *Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta*, ed. S. K. De, Dacca 1938, p. xx, footnote 2).—The *Camatkāra-candrikā*, a small Kāvya in four Kutūhalas and 225 verses, on Rādhā-kṛṣṇa-līlā, is sometimes assigned to Kavikarṇapūra (Rajendralala Mitra, *Notices*, vi, no. 2150, pp. 212-13), but it belongs most probably to Viśvanātha Cakravartin. In the printed edition of this text, however, based on three MSS (ed. Haridas Das, in Bengali characters, with a Bengali translation, Navadipa 1937), no manuscript indication or proof of authorship is found. In the India Office MS of the work (Eggeling, vii, p. 1463, no. 3882/ 1177e) the author's name is missing. Several other works are ascribed to him, but their genuineness is doubtful. The *Varṇa-prakāśa*, a dictionary of vocables containing the same consonants, composed for Rājadhara, son of Amara-māṇikya of Traipura (= Tipperah), is probably by some other Kavikarṇapūra, as the MS noticed in the India Office Catalogue (Eggeling, no. 3107, ii, p. 293) contains no reference or homage to Caitanya. A *Bṛhat-kṛṣṇa-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā* is also ascribed to him in the *Pandit*, ix, 105. Of the *Āryā-śataka* mentioned above, no information is available.—An account of the literary works of Kavikarṇapūra will be found below in Ch. vii.

c6.s1.t4.5

¹ नित्यानन्दस्वरूपेर आज्ञा धरि शिरे। सलमाव लिखि आमि कृपा अनुसारे ॥

c6.s1.t4.6

The work has been published very often in Bengal but none of the editions can be regarded as critical. MSS are abundant, and the work deserves to be critically re-edited. The most convenient editions are those by Śiva Candra Sārvabhauma (Calcutta 1901) and the Amṛta Bazar Patrikā Office (Calcutta 1926). Also ed. Gauḍīya Maṭha with notes and indices. Atul Krishna Goswami's edition contains an index, while the verses are consecutively numbered in the Gauḍīya Maṭha edition.

c6.s1.t4.7

ten not more than fifteen years after Caitanya's death, at a time when Nityānanda was still alive. It is divided into three Khaṇḍas, viz. Ādi (ending with Caitanya's visit to Gayā), Madhya (ending with his Saṃnyāsa) and Antya (dealing with the remainder of his life), and contains a total of fifty-two chapters. The Caitanya-legends must have grown in the meantime, and the process of deification must have been complete. Vṛndāvana himself does not appear to have seen Caitanya. Brought up in the orthodox tradition, Vṛndāvana-dāsa, whose own birth is shrouded by a supernatural story.¹

c6.s1.t4.8

own monumental biography of Caitanya, in which the debt to Vṛndāvana's work is fully acknowledged. Locana-dāsa also mentions it; and in the list of previous authorities Jayānanda places it at the head of the (Bengali) accounts of Caitanya. As both these writers composed their respective works probably in the last quarter of the 16th century, it is likely that Vṛndāvana's work was completed much before 1575 A.D., especially as Vṛndāvana-dāsa is already mentioned as Vedavyāsa in Karṇapūra's Gauru-gaṇoddeśa composed in 1576 A.D. On the other hand, Karṇapūra does not, as we have already stated, mention nor utilise Vṛndāvana's work in his Caitanya-caritāmṛta Kāvya composed in 1542 A.D. It is not unlikely, as Bimanbihari Majumdar demonstrates from internal evidence (p. 183 f), that it may have been composed between 1546 and 1550 A.D. (at about 1548). If, as Majumdar shews, Vṛndāvana-dāsa was born in 1518 A.D., his age at the time of composition, was presumably between 28 and 32. It is probable that Vṛndāvana knew Murāri's work.

c6.s1.t4.9

1 Vṛndāvana is said to have been the posthumous son of Nārāyaṇī, born 18 months after the death of her husband, Vaikuṇṭha Cakravartin of Kumārahaṭṭa. But there is nothing in the earlier texts themselves to support this statement. Vṛndāvana himself nowhere mentions the name of his father which is found only in a spurious chapter of the Prema-vilāsa. Murāri-gupta mentions Nārāyaṇī as madhura-dyuti amṛta-bhartṛkā; but Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja simply says : नारायणी चैतन्येर उच्छिष्टभाजन । तॉर गर्भे जन्मिला श्रीदास वृन्दावन ॥ (Ādi viii, 41). The older contemporary writers, who must have known Nārāyaṇī, thus maintain a discreet silence, although Kavikarṇapūra speaks of her with esteem, and mentions her as a parikara of Gaurāṅga-līlā. There must have been some strong reasons to shroud the birth of Vṛndāvana-dāsa in mystery and miraculous legends. Nārāyaṇī was the daughter of one of the three brothers of Śrīvāsa, at whose house in Navadvipa readily accepts all supernatural stories about Caitanya, and strives to figure him with divine adoration. Deriving his inspiration chiefly from the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata*, he finds a record of Kṛṣṇa's boyhood in Caitanya's early life, and the Caitanya and his followers used to meet in the earlier stages of the movement. When Nārāyaṇī was a child of four she obtained the blessings of Caitanya (*Caitanya-bh*, Madhya ii), and devout Vaiṣṇavas believed with Kṛṣṇadāsa that Vṛndāvana came into the world by partaking of the food left by the Master. Vṛndāvana himself regrets that he had no opportunity of witnessing Caitanya-līlā. This may mean that either he was too young to witness Navadvīpa-līlā, or was not born during Caitanya's life-time. If he was not born at all during Caitanya's life-time, then it is difficult to explain the statement that Vṛndāvana was born out of Nārāyaṇī's partaking of the *ucchiṣṭa* of Caitanya. There is also another difficulty. Vṛndāvana tells us that he was directed by Nityānanda to write Caitanya's biography. If, as we are told, Nityānanda survived Caitanya only by eight years, it is inconceivable that he should have commissioned a boy of less than eight years to take such a responsibility. It is also said that Nārāyaṇī, like her son, was a faithful disciple of Nityānanda, who residing at that time at Śrīvāsa's house and not knowing that she was then a widow, blessed her with the boon of motherhood. At any rate, the scandal which ensued is said to have caused some inconvenience (see *Gaura-gaṇa-taraṅgiṇī*, Introd, p. 128), and Nārāyaṇī had to appear before the Kazi of Navadvīpa to defend her character. A miracle happened, and the Kazi was convinced. But this legend is absurd and unauthentic. Nārāyaṇī had, however, to leave her uncle's house with her infant son, and take shelter at the house of one Vāsudeva-datta at Māmgāchi, near Navadvīpa. Vṛndāvana praises Vāsudeva-datta in high terms (Antya v), and we are also told that Nityānanda used to live near by at Badaṅgāchi. In later years Vṛndāvana is said to have resided at Deṃuḍ in the district of Burdwan. The exact date of his birth is not known; but he tells us that either he was not born or was too young during Caitanya's Navadvīpa-līlā (हइल पापिष्ठ जन्म ना हइल तखने । हइलाम वञ्चित से सुख दरशने ॥ referring to the Navadvīpa-līlā, Adi x : हइल पापिष्ठ जन्म तखने ना हइल । हेन महा महोत्सव देखिते ना पाइल ॥ Madhya i). It is said that he was born about Śaka 1459 = 1537 A.D. and died in Śaka 1541 = 1619 A.D. at the great age of 82. Another date of birth, 1507, is sometimes given. These dates are unlikely and at best uncertain, and no reliance can be placed on them, as they are not given by any old writer. Of other dates, however, 1518 A.D. given by B. Majumdar (*op.*

c6.s1.t4.10

book was considered to have been so successful from this point of view that the venerable Gosvāmins of Vṛndāvana, for whose seal of approval it was submitted, are said to have changed its original name of *Caitanya-maṅgala* into *Caitanya-bhāgavata* ¹. The name itself is indicative of its general outlook, as well as of its sanctity; but apart from its obviously enthusiastic devotional spirit, the book became the most valuable and authoritative record of the earlier part of Caitanya's life at Navadvīpa, on which it practically spends all its strength. Having been the grandson of a brother of Śrīvāsa,

c6.s1.t4.11

¹ The story is told in *Prema-vilāsa* xix, but is at best doubtful (see B. Majumdar, *op. cit.* p. 259). To Kṛṣṇadāsa the work was still known as *Caitanya-maṅgala*, but Locana-dāsa refers to it as *Caitanya-bhāgavata*. The Vaiṣṇava hagiology knows Vṛndāvana as an incarnation of Vyāsa, author of *Śrīmad-bhāgavata*. Probably this originated from eulogistic references to him by Kṛṣṇadāsa and others as "the Vyāsa of Caitanya-carita" (चैतन्यचरिते व्यास वृन्दावन दास Ādi viii, 82). The designation "Maṅgala" clearly indicates the influence of Middle Bengali Maṅgala Kāvyas on this new type of literature created by Vaiṣṇavism. The preponderance of myth and supernaturalism is thus intelligible as a common trait.

c6.s1.t4.12

*cit.* p. 179) appears to be more plausible; for, as we have seen above, it would have been impossible for Nityānanda to have directed Vṛndāvana-dāsa to write Caitanya's biography if he was born in 1537 A.D. He appears as an enthusiastic partisan of Nityānanda, at whose instance he wrote his work, and the details of whose life occupy a great deal of his attention. Even Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja remarks upon this trait (नित्यानन्द-लीलावर्णने इल आवेश । चैतन्येर शेषलीला रहिल अवशेष ॥ Ādi viii. 48). Very frequently in his work, Vṛndāvana refers to a somewhat impatient and immoderate language to those who speak ill of Nityānanda, and his vigorous invective itself indicates the existence of some amount of ill-feeling in the sect against Nityānanda. Vṛndāvana appears to indicate that at the time of his writing, which could not have been very early but which was probably ten to fifteen years after Caitanya's death, the Bengal Vaiṣṇavas were already split into several sects, paying homage to Advaita, Gadādhara and Nityānanda, or believing in the Gaura-Nāgara doctrine which Vṛndāvana himself discredits. Several other works are attributed to Vṛndāvana, but their genuineness is not beyond question.

c6.s1.t4.13

whose historic courtyard was the early centre of the movement. Vṛndāvana-dāsa was in full possession of all the Navadvīpa legends and traditions. He may have utilised Murāri's account,¹ but his chief source must have been what he heard from Nityānanda; and he puts special emphasis on incidents of Caitanya's life connected with Nityānanda. This somewhat impairs his independent judgment. His acceptance of the Purāṇic attitude and his belief in the established identity of Caitanya and Kṛṣṇa confirm and encourage his unhistorical imagination. Nevertheless, he does not, as Kṛṣṇadāsa does, concern himself much with abstruse theology. By his simple narrative and picturesque presentation of men and things, which makes his work deservedly popular, he forcefully reproduces the devotional atmosphere and gives a vivid picture of the men who played an important part in the movement in its earlier stages.

c6.s1.t4.14

¹ B. Majumdar, *op. cit.*, pp. 201 f. Vṛndāvana did not himself witness any of the incidents of Caitanya's life, but writes from what he heard from Bhaktas: তাহা লিখি যাহা শুনিয়াছি ভক্তস্থানে (Adi i). Gadādhara's words may also have been, as he tells us, one of his sources: গদাধর শ্রীমুখের কথা কিছু লিখি (Antya x). B. Majumdar, *op. cit.*, p. 195 considers the *Caitanya-bhāgavata* to have been left incomplete, but offers no ground for his opinion.

Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja

c6.s1.t5.1

The rather inadequate treatment of the closing years of Caitanya's life by Vṛndāvana-dāsa was remedied by the next Bengali biography, entitled also *Caitanya-caritāmṛta*,² of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja. In the narrative portion it makes considerable use of the previous works of Murāri, Dāmodara, Svarūpa, Kavikarṇapūra and Vṛndāvana-dāsa,¹ and professes to have been composed with the express permission of the latter.² Perhaps it also depends upon the personal reminiscences of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins, at whose inspiration it was undertaken as a supplement to Vṛndāvana’s work. Like the *Caitanya-bhāgavata*, it is divided into three parts, covering sixty-two chapters. The Ādi, Madhya and Antya Līlā deal respectively with the three stages of Caitanya’s life, namely, the early life ending with his Saṃnyāsa, the six years of pilgrimage, and the last eighteen years spent in residence at Puri. As the early life of Caitanya till his Saṃnyāsa has been fairly fully treated by Vṛndāvana-dāsa in thirty-two chapters, Kṛṣṇadāsa devotes only five short chapters to it (Ādi xiii-xvii), but the remainder of the life, to which Vṛndāvana gives only ten chapters, takes up forty-five chapters of the *Caritāmṛta*.

c6.s1.t5.2

² This popular work has been printed very often in Bengal, but none of the editions can be regarded as critical or even entirely reliable. Discrepancies in reading etc. are found on a comparison with original MSS which we consulted in the Dacca Univesity Library and elsewhere. An edition with full critical apparatus, based on reliable MSS, is still desirable. The most noteworthy publications of this work are those by the Vaṅgavāsī Press; by the Gauḍīya Mādhva Maṭha (Calcutta 1927; with indices etc. and commentaries in Bengali); by Gosvāmins at Kālnā (with a Sanskrit commentary and notes, Kālnā 1898), the last giving a comparatively reliable text.

c6.s1.t5.3

In literary merit the work, with its epic length, prolixity and prosiness, is much inferior to its prototype. The style is

c6.s1.t5.4

1 दामोदर स्वरुप आर गुप्त मुरारि ।
मुख्य लीलासूत्र लिखियाछे विस्तारि ॥
सेहि अनुसारे लिखि लीलासूत्रगण ।
विस्तारि वर्णियाछेन दास वृन्दावन ॥
ग्रन्थविस्तार भये छाडिला ये ये स्थाने ।
सेइ सेइ स्थाने किछु करिव व्याख्याने ॥
प्रभुर लीलामृत तिहँ कैल आस्वादन ।
ताँर भुक्शेष किछु करिव चर्वण ॥

c6.s1.t5.5

(C-C, Ādi xiii, 46-50). Indebtedness to Karṇapūra, though not acknowledged, is clear.

c6.s1.t5.6

2 चैतन्यलीलाय व्यास दास वृन्दावन ।
ताँर आज्ञाय करों ताँर उच्छिष्ट-चर्वण ॥

c6.s1.t5.7

(C-C, Madhya i; also Ādi viii, 39-48, 82).

c6.s1.t5.8

terse but not very elegant or attractive, and the versification poor and faulty. The author cares little for the picturesque, poetic or human possibilities of the theme; and his long residence outside Bengal, as well as his greater familiarity with languages other than Bengali, is perhaps responsible for its quaint and laboured diction. But it is a profoundly laborious and learned work, and is by far the most authoritative biography of Caitanya. It should, however, be remembered that it is not a Carita, but a Caritāmṛta, written more from the devotional than from the historical point of view. Although the work, like the other works on Caitanya's life, was written within a century of his passing away, the Caitanya myths and legends, originating from Navadvīpa and gradually expanding, must have now completed the process of deification. Kṛṣṇadāsa does not hesitate to accept them fully, but even elaborates and adds to them; sometimes his devotional fancy goes to the extreme limits of credulity and the colours are too thickly laid. This is indeed a common trait, but Kṛṣṇadāsa achieves something more than this. The Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins had come and occupied an important position in the meantime, and they supplied the necessary learned theological justification to the naïve popular adoration. The picture of a life, devoid of striking external incidents but rich in impassioned religious consciousness, is marvellously well drawn; but every thing is coloured by the Rasa-śāstra and theology of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins. The Caitanya-caritāmṛta is indeed a great work in Middle Bengali, but its greatness consists not so much in the literary skill or narrative interest with which the story of a great life is told, as in the profound scholasticism with which it presents and exemplifies the entire theology of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism (as propounded by the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins) in the life of the Master. If the Gosvāmins took the life of Kṛṣṇa as their theme, Kṛṣṇadāsa exemplifies all the implications of their exposition in the life of Caitanya. But the work goes a step further. Its speciality lies in figuring Caitanya not only as an incarnation of Kṛṣṇa (and later on of Rādhā), but also as a passionate devotee who was at the same time a scholastic theologian of the devotional school. The author, himself a scholar and devotee leading a celebate old age at Vṛndāvana in company with the learned Gosvāmins,¹ was trained as their disciple in the exact school

c6.s1.t5.9

1 Not much authentic information is available about the details of Kṛṣṇadāsa's life. His Vaiṣṇava modesty apparently prevents him from speaking about himself. The names of his parents, as well as his caste, are uncertain, but he is said to have been the son of Bhagiratha and Sunandā. He was born at Jhāmatpur, near Katwa, in the district of Burdwan. His father might have been a Vaidya by caste and profession, but Kṛṣṇadāsa became an orphan in childhood. He appears to have left home in early youth; and, inspired by Nityānanda in a dream (C-C. Ādi v), he went to Vṛndāvana and lived a devout and scholarly life there till his death. His original name is not known, for Kṛṣṇadāsa must have been his name on initiation. He acknowledges the Gosvāmins of Vṛndāvana as his Śikṣā-gurus (Ādi i. 37), and makes a special obeisance to Rūpa and Raghunātha at the end of almost every chapter of his book. The Prema-vilāsa tells us that Raghunātha-dāsa initiated him into ascetic life. With their learned theological writings he shows complete familiarity. Aufrecht makes the curious mistake of making him a son of Raghunātha Bhatta, but this is entirely wrong. He was more of a Sanskrit than Bengali scholar, and wrote also several works in Sanskrit, of which the following are notable: (i) Govinda-līlāmṛta, a Kāvya in 23 cantos on the amours of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa (ed. with a Bengali trs. and in Bengali characters by Sachinandan Gosvami, printed at Vṛndavana, 1908). It was written after an indication of Rūpa Gosvāmin (xxiii. 94) and deals with the Aṣṭakālīya-līlā (beginning from morning to the end of the night) of Kṛṣṇa. On this work, see below under ch. vii. In this work also, a reverential mention is made of the Gosvāmins, including Raghunātha-dāsa and Raghunātha Bhatta, to whom the Kāvya is sometimes wrongly attributed (see IA. Nov. 1928). In his Muktā-caritra, which in its turn is quoted in Rūpa's Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi (p. 261), Raghunātha calls Kṛṣṇadāsa kavi-bhūpati; it is likely, therefore, that the Govinda-līlāmṛta was an early work, composed some time before these two works of Rūpa and Raghunātha. The work was translated into Bengali verse by Yadunandana-dāsa. (ii) Sāraṅga-raṅgadā commentary on Līlāśuka's Śrīkṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta (ed. in Bengali characters, along with the text and a Bengali verse trs. by Yadunandana-dāsa, at Murshidabad, Radharaman Press, 1925; re-edited by S. K. De in his edition of Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta in of Vaiṣṇava theology. As his work itself indicates by its imposing array of Sanskrit quotations¹ and by its frequent intrusion of abstruse theological matter, which impair its purely biographical interest, Kṛṣṇadāsa was well read in the scholarly and authoritative works of Rūpa, Sanātana and other theologians of the cult. He does not even hesitate at the risk of anachronism and absurdity to put their subtle scholastic views in the mouth of Caitanya himself. The work itself was begun, as Kṛṣṇadāsa tells us, at the special request (Ādi viii. 50-62) of the Vaiṣṇavas of Vṛndāvana,² at a time

c6.s1.t5.10

¹ For a full list of the works actually cited by name, prepared from a MS of the work (no. 207, dated Śaka 1672) existing in the Dacca University Library, by Subodh Chandra Banerji, Keeper of these MSS, see *IHQ*, 1933, pp. 100-102. The printed editions do not distinguish between actually cited works and those anonymously cited, but sometimes the editors themselves supply as a heading the names, by chapter and verse, of the works which the manuscripts quote anonymously.—The work is calculated to contain roughly 15,000 couplets. The Gauḍīya Mādhva Maṭha ed. calculates total number of couplets to be 11, 515.

c6.s1.t5.11

² It is doubtful if the six Gosvāmins were alive at the time of the writing of the work. In his *Govinda-līlāmṛta*, the author speaks of the personal interest of four Gosvāmins (Rūpa, Raghunātha-dāsa, Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa and Jīva), but here no such direct acknowledgment is found, although the Gosvāmins are reverentially mentioned as his Śikṣā-gurus (Ādi i. 37). On the other hand, Kṛṣṇadāsa (Ādi viii. 57-55) informs us that he undertook his *Caitanya-caritāmṛta* at the direction and request of Haridāsa (a Pra-śiṣya of Gadādhara), Govinda (a disciple of Kāśīśvara), Yādavācārya (a friend of Rūpa), Śivānanda Cakravartin (according to one reading of the text, a disciple of Advaita), Caitanyadāsa (a disciple of Bhūgarbha), Mukunda Cakravartin, Kṛṣṇadāsa (with the epithet Premin) and other Vaiṣṇavas then living at Vṛndāvana,—a list which omits all reference to the six Gosvāmins and suggests that they were probably not alive when the work was completed.—In spite of his scholasticism, Kṛṣṇadāsa's devout attitude and mystic inclination are quite conspicuous throughout the work. While in theology he draws entirely upon the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins, in biographical matters he borrows a great deal from his predecessors; but his imagination is too pious to be strictly historical, and too inelastic to be imbued with common sense. Himself

First 66 of 259 passages. Read on

Linked texts (36)