Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c6.s1.t4: Vṛndāvana-dāsa

Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c6.s1.t4

Language
English

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.

Cites (14)