Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c6.s3: 3. Caitanya's Relation to the Sect and the Cult

Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c6.s3

Language
English

3. Caitanya's Relation to the Sect and the Cult

c6.s3.1

Although Caitanya possessed great qualities of leadership and extraordinary power over minds of men, he did not at any time of his career concern himself directly with the organisation of his followers. Absorbed in his devotional ecstasies, he hardly ever sought to build up a cult or a sect. If such a cult or sect gathered itself round him, it was due to the charm of his personality and the powerful appeal of his evident devotion. The enthusiasm of some of his more practical, or more scholastically inclined, followers would feign to see in him a great organiser and expounder of a system, but neither propagating zeal nor theological ambition ever entered his simple life of intense religious emotion. If some notable conversions were achieved, they were not the result of any direct missionary effort on his part but, as the records themselves indicate, they were due to the powerful impression he could create on receptive minds by his outstanding religious personality. Even admitting that he could employ philosophy or theology as a weapon in argument, it was yet his intimate and vivid sense of spiritual truth which cast a mystic spell and called forth a deep and lasting response.¹ One must indeed admire Caitanya's wonderful religious enthusiasm which could enthrall men of great capacity and inspire them with a life-long zeal for sectarian pioneering.

c6.s3.2

¹ Kavikarṇapūra states that people became Caitanya's devotee vinopadeśena, without instruction, by the very sight of Caitanya's devotion. But Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja never misses an opportunity of making Caitanya a veteran scholar and logician! This is one of the differences of attitude between Caitanya's Navadvīpa and Vṛndāvana followers. The Gosvāmins saw Caitanya for the first time as a Saṃnyāsin, but not so his Navadvīpa disciples who met him first on terms of fellowship; the impression was naturally different. The duration and intimacy of contact, as well as time, place and circumstances, were also divergent. Kṛṣṇadāsa never saw Caitanya, while the Gosvāmins had only brief association with him, Jiva probably never meeting him in person.

c6.s3.3

laborious scholarship and devotional austerity; but to attribute this achievement to any conscious effort or purpose is to misread the whole trend of his life.

c6.s3.4

The later development of the sect and the cult, therefore, is chiefly the work of his chosen disciples and associates. At the same time, one must guard against the error of supposing that the cult and the sect were entirely created by his followers, to whom Caitanya was a mere figurehead or a willing instrument. Caitanya's personal relation to his leading disciples, as borne out by the orthodox records, clearly demonstrate that on the main lines of its growth and expansion the movement was directly inspired by the example of his life and experience, even if he did not actually persevere at the task. If he possessed the capacity, he never had, in his emotional absorption, either the time or the willingness to found a sect or a system; but from the very beginning the movement bore the impress of his individuality and developed on the lines of his spiritual experience, which formed its greatest and most powerful asset. This was the driving force by which the movement organised and propagated itself during his lifetime, and which inspired his leading disciples to organise and propagate it after his death. As such this was his highest contribution to the sect and the cult. The standard of Vaiṣṇava life and devotion set up by his own life, the new spirit of emotionalism which he imparted to traditional piety, the wide-spread emotional appeal of the new mode of Saṃkīrtana which he developed, the sincerity and contagious passion of his realisation of the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa cult, the expansive and liberating power of his catholic and simple ideas of worship, his devotional fancies about the Vṛndāvana settlement, his winning over of scholars and devotees who were to be the future organisers of the sect both on its practical and doctrinal sides, and inspiring them with a selfless love for the task,—in one word, his great religious life and personality clearly gave an initial direction and an impetus to the movement, which gradually organised itself in the hands of his capable followers into a definite sect and cult.

c6.s3.5

We are concerned here not so much with the practical organisation of the sect as with the crystallisation of its dogmas and doctrines; and for our purpose it is not necessary to refer to the later history of the sect and its creed. We are not sure, however, if there was at any time any systematic organisation of the sect. When the movement started at the courtyard of Śrīvāsa after Caitanya's return from Gayā, it started, without any premeditation or previous preparation, among a small band of men in the city who cherished religious aspirations, and who instantly hailed him as the very embodiment of these aspirations. The new and spontaneous enthusiasm proved contagious, and the ranks were quickly filled; but there was as yet hardly any definite idea of establishing a cult or a sect. Nor was the very brief interval between Caitanya's return from Gayā and his Saṃnyāsa enough for a movement to establish itself firmly. When he left Bengal immediately after his Saṃnyāsa, he commended the growing group of his followers at Navadvīpa to the care of the venerable Advaita, as well as to Nityānanda, but the intimate personal contact of the Master, which was essential to its solidarity, was gone. So completely had he been the very life and soul of its activities, that his sudden renunciation and departure from Bengal must have proved a great blow to an incipient movement. No doubt, the annual reunion at Purī and its common enthusiasm and adoration of Caitanya afforded an inspiration and a bond of unity, but the movement grew and expanded somewhat haphazardly in Bengal; and there was no one on the spot who had the same power of personality and influence. Advaita was growing old, and the energy necessary for controlling the movement could not be expected of him. It is also said in the Prema-vilāsa that for a time Advaita gave up the way of Bhakti and reverted to the doctrine of Jñāna. No one else, not even Nityānanda, could effectively replace Caitanya in the leadership of the sect. After Caitanya's death this became even more patent. Although they were a kind of church fathers of the faith, the six Gosvāmins of Vṛndāvana were in fact scholars and recluses, living, as they did, far away from Bengal, and engaged in the absorbing task of preparing the authoritative books of the cult. Their theology was a matter of later deliberate development; and except in their Stotras or Namaskriyās in their dramas and poems, they seldom refer to Caitanya, and speak little of his life and his teaching. If they were devotees they were also theologians; and the disciples of the Vṛndāvana circle, as evidenced also by Kṛṣṇadāsa's biography, looked at Caitanya somewhat differently from the followers of the Navadvīpa circle whose faith was naive, simple and direct. It is true that Rūpa and Sanātana (but seldom their associate Gosvāmins) are mentioned with respect in the earlier biographical records of Caitanya, inspired by the Navadvīpa circle; but it is at the same time noteworthy that, before Kṛṣṇadāsa produced his biography at the inspiration of the Gosvāmins of Vṛndāvana themselves, not much is recorded of them by the Bengal writers, and they do not appear to have received as yet exclusive homage and ascendancy as the acknowledged law-givers of the faith. The phrase 'Six Gosvāmins' (ṣaḍ gosvāminaḥ) is not used before Kṛṣṇadāsa. It was the later effort of Jīva Gosvāmin's pupil Śrīnivāsa Ācārya, and Lokanātha's disciple, Narottama-dāsa Ṭhākura, as well as that of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, which propagated the views of the Gosvāmins in Bengal; but these were different from the original ideas of the Bengal devotees and biographers, who mention Sanātana and Rūpa indeed but never speak collectively of the Six Gosvāmins.

c6.s3.6

If we are to rely on orthodox accounts, Advaita appears to have now exceeded the allotted span of three score years and ten. The leadership at Navadvīpa and adjoining places naturally fell upon Nityānanda and was almost entirely left to him. But the records of the sect themselves indicate that Nityānanda could hardly occupy the same place in the estimation of the heterogenous sect or possessed the same compelling power of character and personality as Caitanya did. He had also views which were perhaps far ahead of those of Caitanya. His somewhat unconventional life, about which complaints appear to have been made to Caitanya at Puri,¹ his renouncing of ascetic vows and his espousing simultaneously of two wives late in life² might have had something to do with the unpopularity against which his enthusiastic champion Vṛndāvana-dāsa takes so much pains to defend him.³ He took also the revolutionary step of admitting under the banner of Caitanyaism all classes of men without any discrimination. Opinions differ in the records as to whether Nityānanda's bold action received the entire approval of Caitanya himself; but it seems likely that it was in conflict with Caitanya's inherited regard for the established social order.¹ There is enough evidence to show that Caitanya, in proclaiming obliteration of distinctions, never meant a total disruption of social usage and tradition. Catholicity and equality in matters of worship, which Caitanya certainly upheld, did not perhaps imply nor permit a vigorous practical application of the idea in social matters. At any rate, most of his associates and followers, inclusive of Advaita, appear to have adopted the conservative attitude :¹ and they either did not approve of the step or stood aloof from it. Thus, an important difference arose early in the sect which had enduring consequences. It was aggravated by the fact that there was no real co-ordination between the different groups which had sprung up spontaneously and independently around Caitanya or around some of his immediate associates. We hear of the adorers of Caitanya's Nāgara-bhāva, followers of Advaita, admirers of Gadādhara, devotees as well as detractors of Nityānanda. Each of Caitanya's associates and devotees appears to have developed a considerable community

c6.s3.7

¹ C-bh, Antya vi.

c6.s3.8

² He married Vasudhā and Jāhnavī, daughters of Sūryadāsa Sārkhel. This was done, it is said, with the permission of Caitanya himself. Jayānanda (p. 3) speaks of another daughter of Sūryadāsa, named Candramukhī as a beloved of Nityānanda ! The ascetic Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins apparently never liked all this.

c6.s3.9

³ कोन चैतन्येर लोक नित्यानन्द प्रति । मन्द बोले हेन देख से केवल स्तुति ॥...इथे एकजनेर हइया पक्ष से । अन्य जनेर निन्दा करे क्षय याय से ॥ (C-bh, Ādi vii). एत परिहारेओ ये पापी निन्दा करे । तवे लाथि मारों तार शिरेर उपरे ॥ (Ādi xv ; Antya vi). एइ अवतारे केह गौरचन्द्र गाय । नित्यानन्द नाम शुनि उठिया पलाय ॥ (Madhya iii). ए सब वचने यार नाहिक प्रतीत । सय अधःपात तार जानिह निश्चित ॥ (Madhya x). देखि नित्यानन्द महाप्रभु विलास । केह सुख पाय कारो ना जन्मे विश्वास ॥ (Antya vi), etc. It is noteworthy that the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins (with the exception of Sanātana) never refer to Nityānanda, nor do they mention Advaita in the same terms as they do obeisance and pay their homage to Caitanya. Only in the long list of Caitanya's associates and followers, given at the commencement of his Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī does Sanātana mention Nityānanda and Advaita along with others. As we have already pointed out, the doctrine of Pañca-tattva, which includes Nityānanda and Advaita as two of the five objects of adoration of the sect, is not acknowledged by the Gosvāmins, but the idea appears to have originated in the Bengal works.

c6.s3.10

¹ Caitanya's attitude towards questions of caste and social order in general appears to be rather complex. No doubt, Caitanya is reported to have discarded his tuft of hair and sacred thread (*Śikhā* and *Sūtra*) at the time he took Saṃnyāsa, and his staff, symbolical of asceticism, was broken by Nityānanda on his way to Puri. He felt no hesitation in embracing Haridāsa, Rūpa and Sanātana and admitting them to fellowship; but separate living quarters were arranged for them, and there was some discrimination about eating food with them. All these disciples of questionable social status scrupulously kept away from the Jagannātha temple, and Caitanya himself appears to have approved of their action in doing so (*C-C*, Antya iv. 118-132; Madhya xi. 164-168, 206). Even if he himself might not have any prejudice against caste, he upheld the prejudice of others; and the story of his commendation of Sanātana's action in avoiding the temple road is thus given by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja (*C-C*, Antya iv. 130-132): "The Lord was very pleased in his mind and expressed his satisfaction by saying this to Sanātana: 'It is the nature of a Bhakta to observe propriety, for the maintenance of propriety is the ornament of a truly pure man. People ridicule when propriety is transgressed, and both worlds are lost. You have observed propriety and my mind is pleased. If you do not act thus, who will?'" Much of this conservatism is apparent, as we shall see, in Gopāla Bhaṭṭa's *Hari-bhakti-vilāsa*, which recognises caste restrictions in ritualistic worship. On the other hand, Caitanya is reported to have said to Sanātana and Rūpa that there is no consideration of caste or family in the worship of Kṛṣṇa; but this appears to mean only religious, and not social, fellowship. This is perhaps what is meant when he is reported to have declared that worship, or Saṃkīrtana, or reciting of name is open to all from a Caṇḍāla to a Brāhman; and women as well as men, have an equal right here. In this respect there is no exclusiveness. Caitanya never, for instance, encouraged any particular caste or person to the monopoly of the function of a spiritual guide or teacher, himself selecting men like Rūpa, Sanātana and Raghunātha-dāsa for the task of propagating the faith. But admitting all this, a somewhat curious distinction appears to have been implied between religious and social spheres; the broadening of religious privileges was not taken necessarily to mean enlargement of social rights. There is no evidence that Caitanya ever wanted to inter-

c6.s3.11

¹ In recent years the sect appears to have gone back, more or less, to conservatism in social matters.

c6.s3.12

fere actively with the established social order, with the time-honoured Varṇāśrama Dharma; his sole concern with caste or other social restrictions was that they should not interfere with community of worship, but this did not imply community in eating or other social concerns, which should be governed by the established rules. If such community of worship did often break down social or caste convention, it was inevitable, but incidental. This never appears to have been his real object; and it is doubtful if Caitanya fully recognised the logical implications of such an attitude of common worship. There is nothing to show that he did, or that he sympathised with the radicalism of some of his followers (like Nityānanda) who wanted to work out the implications. The much talked of universal brotherhood which Caitanya is often said to have promulgated must be understood in this sense; what he wanted was not social, but religious, freedom and fellowship. It should be frankly admitted that the indications of the texts are somewhat confusing; but one need not emphasise only some of the anti-caste inclinations of Caitanya's religious (and never social) attitude, and unnecessarily make him out to be (in the light of modern ideas) a great social reformer, which he never pretended to be.

c6.s3.13

of disciples of his own, and taught the cult of Bhakti according to the light each had received in his own way from the Master.

c6.s3.14

In spite of this lack of solidarity in the history of the sect, there was a certain agreement on the doctrinal and theological side. Some of the old dogmas were, no doubt, modified and new dogmas were developed, while a definite cult of the worship of Caitanya himself was established; but the creed and tenets as fixed by the Gosvāmins of Vṛndāvana prevailed and ruled the whole community. To these six Gosvāmins,¹ therefore, and their work we must look for the fundamental doctrines of the cult.

c6.s3.15

¹ The origin of the term 'Gosvāmin' is obscure and uncertain. It is employed in Middle Bengali (Ghanarāma and Kavikaṅkan) in the general sense of 'lord' or 'master', as well as in the sense of 'religious mendicant or teacher.' Literally, it means 'lord of cows': it is used as an honorific title by the Caitanya sect to signify an authoritative religious teacher or guide. The term may have originated or at least obtained currency from the peculiar theory of Caitanyaism that the only and original form, dress and occupation of Kṛṣṇa as the supreme being is that of a Gopa; his faithful devotee is necessarily a 'cow-lord'.

Linked texts (3)