Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c7.s1: 1. General Remarks

Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c7.s1

Language
English

1. General Remarks

c7.s1.1

If Caitanya did not concern himself actively in the work of organising his followers, still less did he take upon himself the work of a thinker or writer. However much intellectual pride he is reported to have possessed in his youth, he gave up his scholastic pursuits almost entirely after his return from Gayā. A man of his great emotional capacity was hardly ever fit for serious or sustained intellectual effort, for which he never showed any particular bent, and which became more and more impossible as years went on. To him spiritual realisation was not a matter of speculative discussion; and on one occasion he confessed to Raghunātha-dāsa¹ that his follower Svarūpa Dāmodara knew more about theology than he himself did. In spite of the fact that some of his scholastic biographers delight in depicting Caitanya as a trained theorist expounding with precision² a whole theological system, we are not sure that he had any settled system in his mind, or ever relished mere theological discourses. The theology that is attributed to him by Kṛṣṇadāsa is clearly the theology of a later day, in which Kṛṣṇadāsa himself was severely trained. This is, however, not the impression given by Murāri-gupta, Vṛndāvana-dāsa and other biographers of the Navadvīpa circle, who avoid the exaggerated scholastic colouring and enlarge more upon Caitanya's ecstatic devotion and power of working miracles. It must not also be forgotten that the significance of Caitanya's teaching lies not so much in his special interpretation of this or that text, but in the reality and force of his inner spiritual experience, which gave him an extraordinary power over the minds of men. The whole trend, indeed, of Caitanya's life was against his being an exact scholar or thinker, and his practice of a highly wrought emotionalism stood in the way of serious intellectual pursuits. When Caitanya closed his *tol* after his return from Gayā, he shut up his books and said to his pupils that for him lessons were finished from that day.¹ The words became almost literally prophetic, for in after-years he hardly ever opened a book for serious study, and hardly ever wrote anything. The scholarly pursuits of a Pandit, the pride of learning, the zest for dialectic disputations—all passed out of his life, which now began to move in a new atmosphere of entirely different interests. Outside the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata*, the newly discovered *Brahma-saṃhitā*, the *Saṃgita-nāṭaka* of Rāmānanda, and the devotional lyrics of Līlāśuka, Jayadeva, Vidyāpati and Caṇḍīdāsa,² he appears to have relished next to nothing.³ It is misdirected zeal which invests him with the false glory of scholastic eminence; his true greatness lies in other directions, and his power over men came from other sources.

c7.s1.2

¹ C-C, Antya vi. 233-34.

c7.s1.3

² In one place he is represented as explaining a text in 61 different ways. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, no doubt, loves to invest Caitanya with the omniscience of a Śāstric Paṇḍita, but he also indicates that in his ecstatic absorption Caitanya was careless of mere Śāstric knowledge.

c7.s1.4

¹ तोमा सभास्थाने मोर एइ परिहार । आज हइते आर पाठ नाहिक आमार ॥...एइ बोल महाप्रभु सभारे कहिया । दिलेन पुथिर डोर अश्रुसिक्त हइया ॥ (C-bh, Madhya i).

c7.s1.5

² चण्डीदास विद्यापति रायेर नाटकगीति कर्णामृत श्रीगीतगोविन्द । स्वरूप रामानंद सने महाप्रभु रात्रिसिने गाय शुने परम आनन्द ॥ (C-C, Madhya ii. 77)- विद्यापति चण्डीदास श्रीगीतगोविन्द । एइ तिन गीते करे प्रभुर आनन्द ॥ (C-C, Madhya x. 115). विद्यापति चण्डीदास श्रीगीतगोविन्द । भावानुरूप श्लोक पड़े राय रामानंद ॥ मध्ये मध्ये प्रभु आपने श्लोक पड़िया । श्लोकेर अर्थ करेन प्रभु प्रलाप करिया ॥ (C-C, Antya xvii. 6-7).

c7.s1.6

³ It should be recognised that the extremely emotional mode of Caitanya's religious devotion never made any demand upon the intellect, nor wanted the nourishment of any other interest. There was no study, and no production. He lived in and for mystic ecstasies and trances;

c7.s1.7

It is not surprising, therefore, that Caitanya wrote nothing with the exception perhaps of eight Sanskrit verses which are given as the Śikṣāṣṭaka, and which are nothing more than expressions of his simple and passionate faith.¹ Kavikarṇapūra in his *Caitanya-candrodaya*² appears to negative the idea that Caitanya ever wrote anything about his doctrines. Ānandin, in his commentary on Prabodhānanda's *Caitanya-candrāmṛta*, distinctly states that Caitanya never composed any work; but he meets the objection of those, who maintain the impossibility of propagating any devotional doctrine without such means, by stating that even if Caitanya wrote

c7.s1.8

¹ These verses are given as the Śikṣāṣṭaka in the last chapter of the C-C where Caitanya himself is represented as uttering and explaining them. All these verses are to be found under Caitanya's name (as Śrī-bhagavān) Rūpa Gosvāmin's *Padyāvalī* (ed. S. K. De, Dacca 1934) nos. 22, 31, 32, 71, 93, 94, 324, 337. For a discussion of their authorship and of other doubtful works ascribed to Caitanya, see S. K. De in *IHQ*, 1934, pp. 310-17.

c7.s1.9

² Pāripārśvikah: *Bhāva, kim teneha tene hariṇā svābhimatas vyañjako granthah.* Sūtradhārah: *Yadyapi ko na veda veda-kartṛtvam bhagavata-tathāpi khalvantaryāmīti yām ihate preranām na khalu sā bāhyopadeśato delato vā kālataś ca paricchinna bhavitum arhati* (Act i, Prastāvanā).

c7.s1.10

they consumed all his energies. Questions of social or ethical import, the welfare of society, seldom impinge upon his ecstatic consciousness; nor does intellectual consideration guide his practice. Although Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja would make an attempt to figure Caitanya as a subtle logician, he would also admit to Caitanya's life of 'divine madness' in later years. The other biographical records, however, clearly indicate that as days went Caitanya's life became marked by progressive nervous instability; and in proportion to the excess of frenzied emotional there was steady deterioration of his intellectual gifts. It is not surprising, therefore, that Caitanyaism itself, which was inspired by and modelled on Caitanya's life, there is a great deal of intellectual subtlety, but intellectual virility is never a marked feature.

c7.s1.11

nothing, he transferred his own energy into his disciples like Rūpa and inspired them to reveal the doctrines.¹ The attribution to him, therefore, of any specific work or specific doctrine is more a matter of pious belief than a positive historical fact. It is indeed difficult to say how much of the elaborate theologising, which is piously put in his mouth, was actually uttered by him; for his reported utterances are in fact faithful summaries of the highly scholastic texts of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins themselves, who, as leisured recluses, could devote their keenly trained minds to the construction of elaborate system. In chapter after chapter of the Caitanya-caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa, Caitanya is credited with stupendous Śāstric learning, highly philosophical discourses, great scholastic ingenuity, marvels of interpretation in expounding finely finished theological and rhetorical systems of Bhakti; but the general impression, given by the orthodox accounts themselves, of Caitanya's life of continuous and absorbing devotional ecstasies, as well as his own disclaimer (explained as the result of his humility) of all such pretensions, certainly throw considerable doubt upon his personal responsibility in such scholastic pursuits. It is not clear, therefore, how far these tenets of a later time actually represent Caitanya's own views. No doubt, Caitanya is represented as commissioning Rūpa and Sanātana to prepare these learned texts as the doctrinal foundations of the faith, and suggesting to them elaborate outlines and schemes; but these outlines and schemes are so suspiciously faithful to the actual and much later products of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins themselves that they take away whatever truth there might have been in the representation. That some such relation existed between Caitanya and his Vṛndāvana followers is highly probable, but excessive zeal has represented it in a distorted perspective. It is also noteworthy in this connexion that the actual personal contact of Rūpa and Sanātana with Caitanya was indeed very brief,¹ while there is no evidence to show that Jīva ever had this good fortune. It is almost unbelievable that within the period of a few months at most they could have been instructed in the whole range and depth of the Bhakti-śāstra and in every such detail of doctrine as they set it forth in their elaborate and voluminous works. It is certainly true that Caitanya inspired these men of great talent with a life-long zeal for the task, which made them scorn delight and live laborious days; he might have also suggested to them his own ideas of devotion, born out of his own religious realisation; and above all, his life itself must have furnished them a vivid text to enlarge and comment upon,² But to hold him

c7.s1.12

¹ Nanu granthādi-racanām vinā līlādi-vistāraṇam na syāt, granthādiḥ ko'pi na kṛtaḥ Śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanyena, katham tad vastu-prathanam iti vācyam| bhagavatā sākṣād grantha-karaṇābhāvad hṛdā brahmani brahma-prakāśitavac chri-rūpādiṣu sveṣu hṛdi śaktim samcārya tat-tad-dvāreṇa sarvam prakāśitam iti. (pp. 107-8).

c7.s1.13

¹ Rūpa was sent by Caitanya to Vṛndāvana immediately after meeting him at Prayāga (Allahabad), but he came to Puri later on and stayed only for ten months (C-C, Antya i and iv, 26). Sanātana met Caitanya at Benares and later on came to Puri for a short while. Locana-dāsa is not supported by any other biographer in the statement that Sanātana was present at the time of Caitanya's passing away. Kavikarṇapūra's account, in his poem, that all the three brothers (including Vallabha) came to Puri together and adored Caitanya lacks corroboration, for it is not accepted by Kṛṣṇadāsa who otherwise draws liberally upon Kavikarṇapūra's account. It is Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, as their disciple and associate at Vṛndāvana, who supplies the longest and best information about Sanātana and Rūpa, the other Bengal biographers knowing little of them at first hand.

c7.s1.14

² We have seen that, according to the Bhakti-ratnākara, Sanātana and Rūpa were already well versed in śāstric learning as well as predisposed towards Vaiṣṇavism when Caitanya met them; and this must have been one of the reasons why Caitanya selected them for the special task of systematising the theology of the sect. It is noteworthy that Sanātana Gosvāmin in the 11th verse of his Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta states:

c7.s1.15

bhagavad-bhakti-śāstrāṇām ayaṃ sārasya saṃgrahah |
anubhūtasya caitanya-deve tat-priya-rūpataḥ ||

c7.s1.16

The word anubhūtasya here is significant. Sanātana does not say that responsible for every fine point of dogma and doctrine elaborated by the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins would indicate an undoubtedly pious, but entirely unhistorical, imagination.

c7.s1.17

Whatever might have been the case, the fact remains that Caitanya never thought it necessary to emulate the founders of other Vaiṣṇava sects in the writing of religious or speculative works himself, nor did he care much about putting together all that he taught and practised. He left his own life and personality as an inspiring example of devotion, and as his best legacy to his faithful followers. On his immediate and intimate disciples, therefore, fell the laborious task of systematising the doctrines and practices of the faith and defining

c7.s1.18

he actually received any direct instruction in these matters, but that he is compiling what he has felt about the character of Bhakti in Caitanya himself. Again, at the end of the *Digdarśanī* commentary to the same work, Sanātana states:

c7.s1.19

*svayaṃ pravartitaiḥ kṛtsnair mamaitāl likhana-śramaḥ / śrīmac-caitanya-rūpo'sau bhagavān priyatam sadā ||*,

c7.s1.20

which speaks indeed of inspiration received from Caitanya, but not of direct instruction by him. This is perhaps what is meant by the reference to Rūpa in the well known line: *Śrī-caitanya-mano'bhiṣṭam sthāpitam yena bhūtale*. Rūpa himself similarly speaks of inspiration from Caitanya (*hṛdi yasya preranayā pravartito'ham varāka-rūpo'pi*). But in the works of the Gosvāmins there is nowhere any acknowledgment of direct instruction by Caitanya, as alleged by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja. Had it been a fact, they must have prominently mentioned it. Nor is this fact mentioned in any other biography of Caitanya than that of Kṛṣṇadāsa. It is also noteworthy that, with the exception of the usual Namaskriyā in their various works and of a few hymns by Raghunātha-dāsa and Rūpa which we shall discuss below, the Gosvāmins nowhere speak directly of Caitanya nor give expression to their views about Caitanya. They are chiefly concerned with the exposition of Kṛṣṇa-līlā and never describe Caitanya-līlā. No doubt, they accept the divinity of Caitanya (*e.g.* in the Namaskriyā in Sanātana's *Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī*: *vande śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanyam bhagavantam kṛpārṇavam | prema-bhakti-vitānārtham gauḍeṣvavatatāra yaḥ ||*; verse 2 of *Bhakti-rasāmṛta*: *tasya hareḥ pada-kamalam vande caitanya-devasya*); but beyond this they hardly ever speak directly about his life and personality. Caitanya-worship does not appear to have been a creed with them.

c7.s1.21

its creed. This his Navadvīpa followers had not done; perhaps they had not the training and capacity to do it properly. Caitanya, therefore, chose Sanātana and Rūpa for the highly technical and difficult task for which they appeared fully competent. How much of these teachings is Caitanya's and how much their own will never be definitely known; but it is probable that much of them, written within a few years after his death, was directly inspired by his personal example and teaching. Upon the two brothers Rūpa and Sanātana, Caitanya himself is said to have imposed the special task of expressing its theology and its Rasa-śāstra, in which they were very materially reinforced by the mystical-metaphysical scholarship of their nephew Jīva. They were men of great literary capacity, acute theologians and passionate poets, as well as ascetic devotees. Their authoritative position as the fit and chosen disciples especially instructed and commissioned for the exacting task, their austere and saintly character, their selfless devotion to the cause, and their laborious and life-long scholarship gave them a unique influence as the three authoritative Gosvāmins or teachers of the cult. As such, they had been held in the highest veneration in the later history of the sect. With these was closely associated Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, alleged to have been a South Indian Brahman, whose name and attainments are held with almost equal veneration. His chief task appears to have been the codification, probably in collaboration with Sanātana, of the Vaiṣṇava social and religious practices in a voluminous compilation, which forms the most authoritative ritualistic text of the cult. To these four Gosvāmins were added Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa, who does not appear to have written much, and Raghunātha-dāsa, whose passionate devotional sensibilities produced a Sanskrit poetical work of the Campū type on Kṛṣṇa-līlā and a series of fervent Sanskrit poems and panegyrics, as well as Bengali lyrics on the same erotic-mystic theme.

c7.s1.22

These were the six Gosvāmins to whom belongs the credit of working out and defining the whole system of tenets peculiar to Bengal Vaiṣṇavism. The works of the Navadvīpa and Vṛndāvana circles of followers respectively were produced at about the same time, but the 'Six Gosvāmins' as such are never, for obvious reason, spoken of by Murāri, Karṇapūra, Vṛndāvana, Jayānanda and Locana, although individually Sanātana and Rūpa are mentioned, as well as Gopāla Bhaṭṭa and Raghunātha-dāsa.¹ By the middle of the 17th century, however, the learned Bengali biography of Caitanya by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, as well as the zeal of Śrinivāsa Ācārya and Narottama-dāsa, made the views of the Six Gosvāmins accepted as authoritative in Bengal, so much so that they came almost to eclipse every other point of view. It was the inspiration and teaching of the six pious and scholarly Gosvāmins which came to determine finally the doctrinal trend of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism which, however modified and supplemented in later times, dominated throughout its subsequent history. To them was due the building up of modern Vṛndāvana as the chief intellectual and religious centre of the sect, where its philosophy, its theology, its ritualism and its Rasa-śāstra were created. They reclaimed the sacred sites, identified them, and gave to each a distinctive name; they made their wealthy disciples and admirers build the great temples, groves, and bathing places, and thus laid the foundations of its modern glory and sanctity. It was indeed their eminence and influence which gave a marked primacy to the Bengal school over other rival schools in the holy city associated with the name of Kṛṣṇa.²

c7.s1.23

¹ Before Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja's *Caitanya-caritāmṛta* (i.e. before 1615 A.D.), the term 'Six Gosvāmins' is never used in the previous biographies of Caitanya. The name of Jīva does not appear at all. Murāri mentions Gopāla Bhaṭṭa (iii. 15, 15-16), Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa (iv. 1. 17), Raghunātha-dāsa (iv. 17-21), and Sanātana and Rūpa (iii. 18. 1-2; iv. 13. 6, 11 f). Vṛndāvana-dāsa only mentions Rūpa and Sanātana. Kavikarṇapūra in his poem (xvii. 7-24) and drama (ix. 28, 29, 34, 37) refers to Rūpa, Sanātana and Raghunātha-dāsa.

c7.s1.24

² Growse in his *History of Mathura* (p. 241) relates a story of Emperor Akbar's visit to these Gosvāmins at Vṛndāvana in 1573 A.D.

c7.s1.25

Not much is known about the details of their life, but most of their works have survived.¹ Without exception they adopted Sanskrit as their medium of expression. The adoption of the almost obsolete and pedantic classical language was probably prompted by the idea of the sanctity and authority attached to the learned Deva-bhāṣā as befitting their classical works. But perhaps there was also the temptation of appealing to a larger learned public, as well as of emulating the standard Sanskrit texts of other schools and obtaining equal recognition.

c7.s1.26

¹ Most of these works have been published in Bengali characters at Berhampur-Murshidabad by the Radharaman Press. In the lists given below, these have been marked with an asterisk. Those printed at Vṛndāvana and elsewhere are separately indicated.

Linked texts (7)