Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c9.s1: 1. General Characteristics

Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c9.s1

Language
English

1. General Characteristics

c9.s1.1

It is difficult to give a proper exposition¹ of the philosophy of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism without a detailed reference to the sacred texts which are cited throughout as revealed and indisputable, and on which indeed the faith elaborately bases its philosophical ideas. The whole system is built up on a direct explication of its own peculiar sectarian texts; and absolute faith in their interpretation by its acknowledged theologians is essential for an acceptance of their truth. Such entire reliance upon verbal authority and verbal interpretation makes it difficult in any exposition to steer clear of the texts which are quoted at every step, but it also impairs the value of its theology and philosophy as an independent system of thought. The usual procedure is to make a dogmatic statement, and then support it not so much by argumentation, which is held at discount, as by a compilation of authoritative texts, chiefly derived from the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata Purāṇa*, and by interpretation of those texts in the light of the peculiar dogmas and doctrines of the school. The basic theory of the threefold Śakti of the Supreme Being, for instance, is founded upon a text of the *Viṣṇu-purāṇa*, amplified by other texts, while its other fundamental doctrine of the threefold aspect of the deity as the Brahman, Paramātman and Bhagavat is entirely based upon a system of interpretation of a single text of the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata*. The same remarks apply to its central postulate of the highest and exclusive divinity of Kṛṣṇa, while its doctrine of Bhakti is deduced from a peculiar theory of emotional realisation which is based entirely upon a series of devotional texts and dogmatic statements.

c9.s1.2

¹ For a brief account of the theology and philosophy of Caitanya-ism, as well as of its Rasa-śāstra, see S. K. De, introd. to the *Padyāvalī* (Dacca 1934), pp. liv-civ.

c9.s1.3

It is true that in some older systems of Indian philosophy mere Tarka or discursive reasoning is deprecated as a means of attaining ultimate truth; and in most systems, belief in Śruti or revelation and interpretation of revealed texts are at least theoretically accepted as the proper mode. But in the speculations of the Bengal school, this attitude of reverence for infallible testimony appears to have been carried to its extreme limit, and theological heresy is counted as a grievous sin. The Bengal school of Vaiṣṇavism, believing that everything is revealed by the grace of a personal god, theoretically rejects all Pramāṇas (sources of knowledge) excepting Śabda or revealed word, but Śabda as a source of belief has a peculiar significance in this school. We shall have occasion later on to explain its theory of Pramāṇa, but briefly speaking, the appeal is not to reason but to a peculiar system of scriptural authority. It is true that theoretical homage is paid to Śruti or the Veda in the wider sense of Indian philosophy, but the term Śabda in practice denotes other kinds of sectarian scriptures which, as Smṛti, are hardly admitted by older philosophical schools. The Pramāṇa is practically circumscribed to a few Vaiṣṇava Purāṇas and other sectarian texts; but it is curious to note that these texts are regarded as revealed or authoritative chiefly on the strength of statements to that effect contained in these texts themselves. Older Śruti texts, when convenient, are indeed cited with respect, but we are told that the sense of the earlier Śrutis is unfathomable, and that the Vaiṣṇava Purāṇas, which can explain them properly, are the only kinds of revelation which are accessible at the present decadent age. In the compilation and exposition of the Purāṇa and Smṛti texts, again, the same dogmatic attitude is prominent. Non-vaiṣṇava texts are rejected as tāmasika and untruthful; and even among Vaiṣṇava texts the Śrīmad-bhāgavata alone is regarded as the quintessence of all Śastras and as possessing the supreme authority. Other schools of Vaiṣṇavism propound their doctrines by writing elaborate commentaries on the *Vedānta-sūtra* and interpreting it in their own way; but the Bengal school regards the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata* as Vyāsa's own commentary on his *Vedānta-sūtra*, and therefore confines itself to an interpretation of this Purāṇa in its own light, instead of composing a separate commentary on the Sūtra. The Bengal school, therefore, proceeds almost entirely on an explication of the *Bhāgavata Purāṇa*. If some of the texts cited from this or other sources are apocryphal, this fact makes no difference so long as they fall in with the peculiar doctrines of the school. Even of Vaiṣṇava texts there is a careful selection and arrangement of those which are favourable; and inconvenient texts are sometimes quietly forgotten or glossed over and sometimes twisted in an ingenious way to suit its particular views. These methods are not unfamiliar to students of sectarian religious literature, but they possess little philosophical interest. The details of such a method may prove interesting and valuable to the faithful devotee, but they hardly appeal either to the general reader or to the critical enquirer.

c9.s1.4

It would appear, therefore, that as it is chiefly a system of mystical-emotional dogmatics, the strictly philosophical views of the Bengal school of Vaiṣṇavism are intimately mixed up with the details of its devotional theologism and its emotional erotic mysticism, which are set forth in its pious text-books of legend and fancy. Its purely speculative thought, therefore, cannot be easily disentangled from its sentimental and mythical envelopment. The Bengal Vaiṣṇavism, no doubt, presents itself as a deliberate historical religion promulgated by a definite founder, but in the practical working out of the system by the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins the direct intuitive realisation or the teachings of the Master¹ hardly find a place.

c9.s1.5

¹ Teachings are imputed, no doubt, especially by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, a disciple of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins, but these teachings

c9.s1.6

Except the usual obeisance and homage to Caitanya and general passages testifying to his identity with the supreme deity, there is nowhere in the extensive works of Sanātana, Rūpa and Jiva any direct reference to his personal views and teachings. These theologians and philosophers are chiefly concerned with the godhead of Kṛṣṇa and his Līlā as revealed in their older scriptures, and Kṛṣṇa in their theory is not an Avatāra but is alone the supreme deity himself (svayam bhagavat). They are almost entirely silent about Caitanya-līlā and its place in their devotional scheme, and it is somewhat strange that in presenting a system of religion in his name they rely upon older sources and do not refer at all to his direct realisation of spiritual truths. The divinity of Kṛṣṇa as the exclusive object of worship is elaborately established, but the divinity of Caitanya, which is implicitly acknowledged in Namaskriyās and other devotional verses, is hardly ever discussed. If Jiva Gosvāmin wrote a Kṛṣṇa-samdarbha, he never wrote a Caitanya-samdarbha. It is said in the Bengali biography of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja that these works of the Gosvāmins were not only inspired but were directly communicated to these disciples by Caitanya himself; but even then there is no direct acknowledgment of this fact by the Gosvāmins themselves¹. There cannot be any doubt that the devout life of Caitanya inspired these faithful disciples, but in the building up of their systems of theology and philosophy there is no reference to the life, personality or views of Caitanya himself. There is, on the other hand, an entire dependence upon a complicated system of text-interpretation, rather than upon any direct and vivid spiritual illumination. It must be admitted that in these treatises we reach a high level of the emotional Bhakti-doctrine in the setting of a vital and practical system of religious beliefs, and

c9.s1.7

¹ See above, p. 115.

c9.s1.8

are, as we have stated above (pp. 75, 85), clearly those of the Gosvāmins themselves.

c9.s1.9

the life and personality of Caitanya must have been to his devout followers a powerful exemplification of these beliefs and doctrines: but we still move in an indefinite haze of mythology, sentiment and speculation, derived from Purāṇic tradition: while the intellectual seriousness or the ethical nobility of the tenets is hardly propounded with the force of direct realisation, inasmuch as they are completely merged in a floating mass of uncertain myths, legends and traditional beliefs.

c9.s1.10

The theology and philosophy found in the writings of the Navadvīpa disciples are vague and unsystematic, and can be briefly summarised here. They are concerned more with simple and direct faith than with elaborate discussion; and their aim is to depict chiefly the passionately devotional life of Caitanya, rather than to set forth his teachings. Unlike the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins, they take Caitanya as the centre of their thought and emotion, and regard him as the highest reality and object of adoration of their faith. This has been characterised as the Gaura-pāramya-vāda, which (whatever may have been their personal attitude) the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins never discuss or set forth in their theological treatises. In the eyes of the contemporary composers of Padas on Caitanya, for instance, Caitanya is Kṛṣṇa himself who, in his recollection of Vṛndāvana, pines for Rādhā. They also believe in the Rādhā-bhāva of Caitanya, that is, they regard Caitanya as both Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā in one personality. They do not, however, consider it necessary to discuss the question but take it as already established by Anubhava or personal experience. Narahari and his disciple Locana, however, develop a doctrine of Gaura-nāgara-bhāva,¹ in which the devotee (in the Rāgānugā way) regards Caitanya as the Nāgara and himself as a Nāgarī; but this doctrine receives little credit in the orthodox circles. Murāri considers Caitanya as an incarnation (Avatāra) of the Bhagavat. He believes in two kinds of Avatāra—

c9.s1.11

¹ See above, pp. 59, 65.

c9.s1.12

Yugāvatāra and Kāryāvatāra. In the four Yugas, the different Avatāras, in his opinion, are respectively Śukla, Yajña, Pṛthu and Caitanya; the ten Kāryāvatāras are Matsya, Kūrma, Varāha, Nṛsiṃha, Vāmana, Bhārgava, Rāma, Kṛṣṇa, Buddha and Kalkin, in which list (slightly different from that of Jayadeva) Caitanya's name does not appear (i. 4. 18-33). Elsewhere (i. 8. 9-10), Murāri accepts Caitanya as an Āveśa-Avatāra; and like his other biographers, he regards Caitanya as having manifested divine character from the very beginning. He thus speaks of Caitanya as an Aṃśa of Hari (i. 5. 4), but, not very consistently, as the Bhagavat himself (i. 15. 1), and bows to him as the Caturbhuja Viṣṇu (i. 1. 14). Kavikarṇapūra, on the other hand, regards Caitanya definitely as Dvibhuja Kṛṣṇa, śrīmad-vraja-varavadhu-prāṇanātha (Kāvya i. 8), and believes that his descent was for the purpose of saving men from suffering (ibid, xvii. 7), for refuting Advaitavāda (drama i. 7), and for teaching devotion to Hari, that is, to himself (ibid, i. 28). In his introductory Namaskriyā to his Ānanda-vṛndāvana-campū (śl. 3), he pays homage to Caitanya as his family deity and as Hari himself (devo naḥ kuladaivatam vijayatāṃ caitanya-kṛṣṇo hariḥ). The faith of the biographers of Caitanya in his divinity is axiomatic and does not require demonstration; but they seek to establish it partly by recording personal feeling and experience of his followers and partly by the enumeration of Caitanya's devotional and miraculous acts. Kavikarṇapūra distinguishes the Vaidhi from the Rāgānugā Bhakti (drama iii. 19), but thinks that the Rāgānugā can never follow a fixed course. He never considers Advaita Mukti as the summum bonum, but states (drama i) mukti-śabdo'tra pārṣada-svarūpa-paraḥ, and regards Saṃkīrtana to be the sole means of Bhakti. In his Gaura-gaṇoddeśa, however, he elaborates a complete hagiology of the faith and purports to develop Svarūpa Dāmodara's doctrine of Pañcatattva, which regards Caitanya, Nityānanda, Advaita, Gadādhara and Śrīvāsa as the five Tattvas of the faith, but which considers Caitanya as the Mahāprabhu, and Advaita and Nityānanda as Prabhus. Vṛndāvana-dāsa, accepting the divinity of Caitanya as manifested from his very birth (in which view Locana and Jayānanda also agree) and his identity with Kṛṣṇa, does not consider it as worth discussing, but models the early life of Caitanya (before his Saṃnyāsa) on the Vṛndāvana life of Kṛṣṇa. He rejects, however, the Gaura-nāgara doctrine with contempt and rules out erotic traits from Caitanya's life as Kṛṣṇa, although occasionally, following the Rāgānugā doctrine, he describes the Rādhā-bhāva of Caitanya. All the biographers are concerned more with the description of the inner emotional life of Caitanya than with outward doctrine. A short theological work, called *Śrīkṛṣṇa-bhajanāmṛta*¹ is ascribed to Narahari Sarkār Thākur. It is composed in prose, with interspersed verses, and discusses such questions as the diversity of Vaiṣṇava devotees; conduct towards the Dīkṣā-guru and the Śikṣā-guru respectively; the incarnation of Balabhadra in relation to Kṛṣṇa; Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva as Guṇāvatāras of Kṛṣṇa; Lakṣmī, Rukmiṇī, Jānakī and Rādhā as consorts of the deity, and so forth. Although the work pays homage to Caitanya and regards him as an Avatāra of Kṛṣṇa, there is no trace of the Gaura-pāramya-vāda or Gaura-nāgara-vāda which is prominent in the Padāvalis ascribed to Narahari as a Navadvipa devotee of Caitanya. The genuineness of the attribution is, therefore, open to doubt, and its theology offers nothing new, being obviously influenced (which indication is somewhat strange) by the views of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins. In the following pages, we need, therefore, confine ourselves to the systematic exposition given by the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins in their laborious theological treatises.

c9.s1.13

¹ Published in Bengali characters and with a running Bengali translation by the Raghunandana Samiti, Shrikhanda, Burdwan B.E. 1309.

c9.s1.14

Having regard to the peculiar method and standpoint of the Bengal school of Vaiṣṇavism, it would not be possible for us to refer in detail to the large mass of texts cited in the works of the Gosvāmins for scriptural justification and interpretation. The more or less scholastic disquisition of words and phrases are neither profitable nor possess general interest. The learning displayed in these works is amazing, but it is learning of a limited sectarian kind. The theological acumen is praiseworthy, but the whole discussion and its pot-pourri method are marked more by intellectual subtlety than intellectual virility. All that we can do here is to give a rapid résumé of the main dogmas and doctrines, and indicate only generally the way in which these are sought to be established. As our object is chiefly historical, we shall, as far as possible, avoid criticism and discussion, and confine ourselves to a descriptive exposition of the essential features of its philosophical and theological ideas. Historically again, Bengal Vaiṣṇavism derives a great deal, in an eclectic spirit, from previous Vaiṣṇava systems, especially from the doctrines of the Rāmānuja sect; but with our limited object in view, it will be necessary for us to avoid all comparative observations and maintain an attitude of descriptive objectivity. We shall also limit ourselves to an account of the subject chiefly derived from the theological and philosophical works of Rūpa, Sanātana and Jiva, excluding its further development in the much later works (18th century) of Viśvanātha Cakravartin and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa.

c9.s1.15

The main theological presuppositions of the school are set forth in Sanātana's *Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta*, and its supplement *Saṃkṣepa-* or *Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta* written by his brother Rūpa, although most of their implications find a place in the Saṃdarbhas of their nephew Jiva, more especially in the latter's *Śrīkṛṣṇa-saṃdarbha*. We shall, therefore, begin with a brief survey of the two *Bhāgavatāmṛtas*¹ and pass on to the more professedly philosophical treatises of Jiva.

c9.s1.16

¹ Our references are to the only available edition of the *Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta* published by Nityasvarup Brahmachari in Devanāgarī characters, (Brindavana?) 1904; and to the Murshidabad edition of the

Linked texts (6)