Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c6.s3.10

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-