Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c9.s5: 5. Caitanya-Worship as a Cult

Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c9.s5

Language
English

5. Caitanya-Worship as a Cult

c9.s5.1

It is indeed a remarkable fact that although direct worship of Caitanya as a deity prevailed, according to the testimony of his Bengali biographical works, even during his life-time, the Sanskrit sources of Caitanyaism (with the exception of the Sanskrit biographical works of Murāri and Kavikarṇapūra) are entirely wanting in all reference to a distinct cult of Caitanya, and they nowhere inculcate directly such a worship. The whole object of the learned Sanskrit works of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins, we have seen, is to establish that Kṛṣṇa is the exclusive object of worship, not as an Avatāra but as the supreme deity of the faith; and they attempt to demonstrate this proposition by an elaborate system of interpretation of those older Purāṇic and sectarian texts which the Bengal school would accept as authoritative. But they make no similar attempt anywhere to establish the supreme godhead or incarnated divinity of Caitanya, probably because such an attempt would have hardly been consistent with their central position that Kṛṣṇa alone is the supreme god. They acknowledge Caitanya as an Avatāra or even as Kṛṣṇa himself, but they never try to reconcile this practical faith in Caitanya with their theoretical creed regarding Kṛṣṇa. The whole theology or emotionalism of the religious system is deduced, more or less, from older devotional texts, chiefly from the Śrīmad-bhāgavata, and we have no direct presentation of the gospel or personal teachings of its founder, nor any express theological claim regarding his supreme and exclusive divinity. The recognized theologians of the sect, the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins, are concerned principally with Kṛṣṇa-līlā in their serious works on theology or Rasa-śāstra, and do not speak in the same way at all about Caitanya-līlā and its place in their devotional scheme.¹

c9.s5.2

¹ See above pp. 227-28.

c9.s5.3

It must not, however, be supposed that there is no reference at all to the divine personality of Caitanya or homage paid to it, but these passages, occurring mostly in the poetical works or in the Namaskriyās only of the more learned treatises of the Gosvāmins, do not make the position clear. Nor do they inculcate any such worship of Caitanya as obtained at Navadvīpa or Purī in his life-time or in the later history of the sect. Caitanya himself probably deprecated the natural tendency of his followers to deify him; and even his most orthodox biography records in one place¹ (but explains it away) that Caitanya on one occasion disclaimed his identity with Kṛṣṇa. But, at the same time, there can be no doubt that the belief that he was an incarnation of Kṛṣṇa or even Kṛṣṇa himself certainly took form in his life-time among the Gosvāmins, who were his immediate disciples, even though the strictly theological position involved in this belief was never discussed by them.

c9.s5.4

¹ *Caitanya-caritāmṛta*, Madhya xviii, 109-112.

c9.s5.5

Some of the Sanskrit Stotras or Stavas which Rūpa and Raghunātha-dāsa wrote clearly indicate this attitude. In the *Stava-mālā* of the former Gosvāmin there are three opening Aṣṭakas in praise of Caitanya, although the rest of the work, consisting of more than fifty separate Stotras, describes in highly erotic imagery the different aspects of the Vṛndāvana-līlā of Kṛṣṇa. In these three Aṣṭakas, however, which are called *Caitanyāṣṭakas*, the high panegyric of Caitanya forms the direct theme. In the first Aṣṭaka, composed in Śikhariṇī metre, we are told in one verse that gods like Śiva, Brahmā, and others worship Caitanya, who is the resting place of the Upaniṣads, the all-in-all of the sages, the sweet sentiment of devotion itself to his devotees and the very essence of love to the Gopīs,—epithets which imply an identification of Caitanya with Kṛṣṇa himself. In another punning verse, which applies equally to Kṛṣṇa and to Caitanya, reference is made to the associates and followers of Caitanya, such as Advaita, Śrīvāsa Svarūpa and Paramānanda (Kavikarṇapūra?), as well as to Gajapati [Pratāparudra]. Mention is also made of Caitanya's reciting of Kṛṣṇa's name, his recollection of Vṛndāvana, his ecstasy, his residence at the sea-side and the Saṃkīrtana processions led by him before the car of Jagannātha. The second Aṣṭaka, also composed in Śikhariṇī, refers, among other things, to the attitude of some deluded people who, overcome by demoniacal tendency (*asura-bhāva*), do not acknowledge Caitanya,¹ who is Kṛṣṇa in fair form (akṛṣṇāṅga), whose Yajña consists of Saṃkīrtana and whose human form is always overflowing with bliss in order to teach the doctrine of love and remove the sorrows of the world. The seventh stanza apparently describes Caitanya in the dress and appearance of a Saṃnyāsin². It is also noteworthy that the third stanza of this Aṣṭaka explains the fair complexion of Caitanya by the supposition that Kṛṣṇa, desiring to experience the sweet feeling of the Gopīs, concealed his own dark complexion by stealing the golden hue of Rādhā, his beloved. We shall see presently that this fancy led to the elaboration of the doctrine that Caitanya is the incarnation of Kṛṣṇa as well as of Rādhā, although the doctrine is already anticipated by the contemporary composers of Bengali Padas on Caitanya and some of his Bengali biographers. The third Aṣṭaka, composed in Pṛthvī metre, addresses the son of Śacī directly as Mukunda, whose greatness could not be described even by men of great intelligence like [Vāsudeva] Sārvabhauma.³ Caitanya has revealed the great wealth of Bhakti-rasa, which cannot be found in the Veda or the Upaniṣad and which was never divulged before in any other greater incarnation (guruturāva-tārāntare).

c9.s5.6

¹ The detractors of Caitanya are condemned in one whole section of 15 verses, entitled Caitanyābhakta-nindā, by Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī in his Caitanya-candrāmṛta.

c9.s5.7

² It is the appearance of Caitanya as a Saṃnyāsin which seems to have appealed to the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins, and not the personal presence of the comparatively youthful Caitanya who figures prominently in the works of the Navadvīpa disciples. It should be remembered that, according to Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, Rūpa met Caitanya only thrice: at Rāmakeli (Madhya, i. 172-212), at Prayāga for ten days only (Madhya, xix. 122), and at Puri for about ten months (Antya, iv. 25). All this occurred after Caitanya's Saṃnyāsa. The Yati-veśa is distinctly emphasised by Sanātana in the third Namaskriyā stanza of his Bhagavatāmṛta.

c9.s5.8

³ The name of Sārvabhauma is specially mentioned not only because he was one of the foremost veteran scholars of the day but also because he wrote a Caitanyāṣṭaka, on which perhaps Rūpa's own Aṣṭakas were modelled. Ānandin quotes two verses from this work, one of which is again quoted as Sārvabhauma's by Sanātana and both of which are given as Sārvabhauma's in Kavikarṇapūra's Caitanya-candrodaya (vi. 43-44). Murāri puts them in the mouth of Sārvabhauma himself.

c9.s5.9

In the Stavāvali of Raghurātha-dāsa, who was the most fortunate of all the six Gosvāmins in obtaining longer and greater personal intimacy with Caitanya at Puri, we have only the first two (out of about thirty Kṛṣṇaite) Stotras directly concerned with Caitanya. The first is an Aṣṭaka of the same type (also composed in the Śikhariṇī metre) as those of Rūpa, while the second, consisting of twelve Śikhariṇī stanzas, is entitled Gaurāṅga-stava-kalpataru. The Aṣṭaka refers chiefly to Caitanya's life at Puri, his daily visit to the Jagannātha temple where he used to stand near the Garuḍa-column, the solicitous care of Svarūpa and the servant Govinda, his fits of frenzy at Saṃkīrtana, and his revealing of the Bhakti-doctrine which was inaccessible to the old sages and lay concealed in the Śruti. But the most remarkable statement occurs in the first verse, which repeats the fancy of Caitanya's double incarnation by saying that Kṛṣṇa, having once fallen in love with his own beauty reflected in a mirror, and desiring to taste his own sweetness as it was tasted by Rādhā, was born (jātaḥ) in Gauḍa in the one indivisible body of fair hue belonging to Rādhā who was his own (apara-gauraika-tanubhāk).¹ In his Saṃkīrtana Caitanya has thus merely cited with delight his own sweet names (mudā gāyann uccair nija-madhura-nāmāvalir asau). The Stava-kalpataru, on the other hand, referring to Caitanya's life of devotion at Puri at the house of [ Kaśīśvara- ] Miśra, as well as to his Guru Īśvara Purī (also mentioned in stanza 2 of the Aṣṭaka), his disciple Svarūpa and his servant Govinda, describes chiefly the ecstatic feelings of divine love which characterized the last phase of his life. It depicts Caitanya more as a Bhakta of passionate devotionalism than as an incarnated deity; but since the divyonmāda, the state of divine frenzy, is regarded in Vaiṣṇava Rasa-theology as the characteristic of the highest Madana Mahābhāva of Rādhā, there is possibly an implication here of the idea of the Rādhā-incarnation of Caitanya.¹ In the Namaskriyā verse to his Muktā-caritra,² however, Raghunātha does not refer to the Rādhā-incarnation of Caitanya, but simply regards him as an Avatāra who took birth in the womb of Śacī in order to bestow upon this world the bright nectar of his own Bhakti,³ while in the body of the work itself, which deals with a fancied episode of Kṛṣṇa's career, no such reference occurs.

c9.s5.10

¹ This conceit also finds expression in Rūpa's Lalita-mādhava viii. 32, where the astonished Kṛṣṇa is enamoured of his own beautiful reflection on the jewelled wall and expresses a greedy longing to enjoy it like Rādhā (sa-rabhasam upabhoktuṃ kāmaye rādhikeva); but there is no reference to Caitanya in this connexion.

c9.s5.11

¹ But this need not be presumed or read into it, for it is probable from all accounts that Caitanya practised the Rāgānugā form of Bhakti and imagined himself as Rādhā. Raghunātha may be referring to this fact without any such theological implication of Caitanya's Rādhā-incarnation.

c9.s5.12

² Raghunātha-dāsa's Dāna-keli-cintāmaṇi contains no Namaskriyā to Caitanya, as also Rūpa's two Dūta-kāvyas, Dāna-keli-kaumudī and Padyāvalī.

c9.s5.13

³ nijām ujjvalitām bhakti-sudhām arpayitum kṣitau / uditam tam śacī-garbha-vyomni pūrṇam vidhum bhaje //

c9.s5.14

Although these poetical and passionate Stotras do not form a part of the regular theology of the school, they are yet composed by professed theologians; and in spite of their undoubtedly devotional character, they are coloured a great deal by their sectarian beliefs. It is, therefore, interesting to note that, apart from inevitable embellishment and exaggeration, they acknowledge, even if they do not theologically propound, the divinity of Caitanya and even this identity with Kṛṣṇa. It is, however, not clear from these devout poetical utterances whether Caitanya was regarded as Kṛṣṇa himself or merely as an Avatāra of Kṛṣṇa. Some passages, as noted above, incline to the former view, but the term Avatāra and its derivatives distinctly occur in other passages. It is, however, evident that here we have the definite suggestion, if not the elaboration, of the doctrine of double incarnation, which later writers developed with great delight. If Caitanya is to be regarded as Kṛṣṇa himself, it was found necessary to explain how Kṛṣṇa's dark colour became transformed in Caitanya into a golden hue. Again, Caitanya's ecstatic feeling of divine love for Kṛṣṇa in an almost feminine rôle of mystically erotic passion also required explanation. It was, therefore, imagined, in accordance with the Mādhurya theory of the school, that Kṛṣṇa, in order to relish the supreme taste of his own Mādhurya as it was relished by his most beloved Rādhā, assumed the feelings as well as the beauty of Rādhā, so that the two became one in Caitanya. It has been noted above that one of the most approved modes of devotional realization of this sect consisted of the practice of the Rāgānugā form of Bhakti, an emotional state in which the devotee imagined himself as one of the dear ones of Kṛṣṇa and played that rôle in his longings for the deity. The orthodox records show that Caitanya himself probably began this practice, often imagined himself as Rādhā longing for her beloved Kṛṣṇa and tried to realize the same intense yearnings. We shall see presently that in this emotional practice of the Rādhā-bhāva, he received support from Rāmānanda-Rāya. If it was a fact that Caitanya, for his emotional devotional purposes, imagined himself as Rādhā, it was only a step that he came to be regarded by his disciples as Rādhā herself incarnated. Rāmānanda's attitude, as reported by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, probably indicates the final shape which the tendency took; and this conceit was undoubtedly strengthened both by Caitanya's fair complexion and his passionate ecstasies. The idea of the Rādhā-incarnation of Caitanya, voiced already by the contemporary composers of Bengali Padas on Caitanya, was thus probably suggested by the Rādhā-bhāva, which his 'divine madness' for Kṛṣṇa typified, as well as by the theological necessity of furnishing an explanation of the appearance of a fair, instead of a dark, Kṛṣṇa. But the idea is only poetically suggested; its theological implications never appear to have been fully worked out until Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja sets it forth much later as the view of Rāmānanda-Rāya in his Bengali *Caitanya-caritāmṛta*.

c9.s5.15

In the professed theological works of the Gosvāmins, however, Caitanya is referred to only in the Namaskriyās, but nowhere else in the body of these elaborate treatises his divinity or incarnated appearance is either mentioned or discussed in the same way as the divinity of Kṛṣṇa. For reasons best known to themselves, these recognized theologians of the sect and authors of systematic treatises do not, except in their brief Namaskriyās, make any reference to Caitanya. While the personality and the direct spiritual realizations of the Master are silently passed over, Jiva Gosvāmin, who gives an exposition of the entire philosophy and theology of the sect in his stupendous six *Saṃdarbhas*, does not utter a single word about the Caitanya-concept in itself, as well as in relation to the Kṛṣṇa-concept, with which latter concept he appears to be entirely occupied. Rūpa and Sanātana, in their two *Bhāgavatāmṛtas*, consider with great devotional and scholastic acumen the question of Avatāra, but in this connexion they make no reference, either direct or illustrative, to Caitanya. Just as the Kṛṣṇa-concept had to be traced and established in the light of Bhāgavata texts, so it was necessary that the Caitanya-concept in a similar manner should find a distinct place in the authoritative philosophic and theological compendiums of the sect. If Jiva thought it necessary to write an elaborate *Kṛṣṇa-saṃdarbha*, he never thought it necessary, for some unknown reason, to write a similar *Caitanya-saṃdarbha*. This remarkable omission is, no doubt, made good by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja in his scholastic Bengali biography of Caitanya, but Kṛṣṇadāsa's theology on this point is clearly the theology of a later date, anticipated, no doubt, by the six Gosvāmins but never clearly expressed. Even in the collection of Stotras mentioned above, written by the professed theologians of the sect, we have only four (out of nearly one hundred) separate poems which are devoted to the glorification of Caitanya, the rest setting forth in highly sensuous language and imagery the various phases of the Vṛndāvana-līlā of Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā. The realization of the Līlā or divine sport of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa indeed forms the central creed, which Caitanya himself is reported to have emphasized by the erotico-religious emotionalism characterizing his own devotional career. But this Līlā of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa is considered by the Gosvāmins, only as set forth by the Bhāgavata texts, and not as directly realized by Caitanya, only in itself and not in relation to the Caitanya-līlā, even though they regard Caitanya as the first founder of the emotional creed.

c9.s5.16

We find the same attitude in the dramatic and Rasa-śāstra works of Rūpa Gosvāmin. One might expect that the systematic exposition of the emotional aspects of the creed in the Rasa-śāstra should, by way of illustration at least, make some topical reference to Caitanya's own realization of this supreme emotion as a Rasa, but as a matter of fact this is never done either here or in Jīva Gosvāmin's Bhakti- and Prīti-sandarbhas; and wherever illustrations are drawn, they are all cited from the older Purāṇas, and not from the newer living exemplification of the doctrines in Caitanya himself. The Ujjvala-nīla-maṇi of Rūpa is even remarkable in not containing the usual Namaskriyā to Caitanya, although there is a Namaskriyā addressed to Rūpa's elder brother and master Sanātana; while in his Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu Rūpa pays only in one verse¹ his homage to the lotus-feet of Caitanya-deva who is Hari, and acknowledges the emotional inspiration which has stimulated even an insignificant person like himself to undertake the task. Turning to Rūpa's dramatic works, which appear to have been purposely composed to illustrate the emotional aspects of the faith, we find that they are entirely devoted to the treatment of certain aspects of Kṛṣṇa-līlā on the basis of the Purāṇic tradition. The Dāna-keli-kaumudī, which was probably his earliest dramatic attempt, contains even no express Namaskriyā to Caitanya but opens with two descriptive Namaskriyās to Kṛṣṇa. The Sūtradhāra, however, describes in the third verse the frenzied ecstasy of an unnamed Bhakta, which is probably drawn after Caitanya's example. The work itself, on the other hand, sets forth a supposed episode in Kṛṣṇa's amorous career, which is not found in the Śrīmad-bhāgavata or Gīta-govinda, but which certainly became popular in mediaeval times as the Dāna-līlā and formed the theme of the Dāna-khaṇḍa of Caṇḍīdāsa's earlier Bengali Kṛṣṇa-kīrtana, as well as of many a later Bengali song and poem. In the two other dramatic works of Rūpa, entitled respectively Vidagdha-mādhava and Lalita-mādhava,¹ Kṛṣṇa is presented as the Vidagdha and the Lalita Nāyaka respectively of the erotico-religious sentiment, emphasizing in turns the Aiśvarya and Mādhurya aspects of Kṛṣṇa's legendary career. The last named work opens with a suitable Namaskriyā to Kṛṣṇa, but the fourth verse pays homage to Caitanya, the son of Śacī, without however directly identifying him with Kṛṣṇa. But the second verse of the first work gives us a remarkable Namaskriyā to Caitanya, which is often quoted as expressing the author's views about the founder of the sect to which he belonged. Imperfectly translated into English it runs thus:

c9.s5.17

¹ *hṛdi yasya preraṇayā pravartito'ham varāka-rūpo'pi | tasya harreḥ pada-kamalam vande caitanya-devasya ||*

c9.s5.18

¹ The titles are obviously on the model of Jayadeva's descriptive naming of each section of his Gīta-govinda.

c9.s5.19

Let the son of Śacī shine in the hollow of my heart, the Hari, who is lighted up by an assemblage of lustre lovelier than that of gold, and who in his compassion has descended at last in the Kali Age in order to bestow that wealth of his own Bhakti, which was never bestowed before and

c9.s5.20

which consists of the exalted sentiment of love or Ujjvala-rasa.¹

c9.s5.21

¹ anarpitacarīṁ cirāt karuṇayāvatīrṇaḥ kalau samarpayitum unnotojjvala-rasāṁ sva-bhakti-śriyam/ hariḥ puraṭa-sundara-dyuti-kadamba-sandīpitaḥ sadā hṛdaya-kandare sphuratu vaḥ śacī-nandanaḥ//

c9.s5.22

In this verse which is similar to, but more definite than, the Namaskriyā verse already cited above from Raghunāthadāsa's Muktā-caritra, Rūpa Gosvāmin states quite expressly his belief of Caitanya's identity with Kṛṣṇa; but it also appears that the son of Śacī was regarded by him as an Avatāra in the Kali Age (avatīrṇaḥ) for the special purpose of teaching, by his own example, the secrets of Ujjvala or Madhura Rasa, by which is of course meant the religiously sublimated erotic sentiment, which the Rasa-śāstra of this school established as the highest sentiment of Bhakti.

c9.s5.23

Rūpa in this attitude appears to follow the views of Sanātana whom in more than one verse he reverently addresses as his master or Prabhu. The third Namaskriyā verse of Sanātana's Bṛhad-Bhāgavatāmṛta makes it clear that Sanātana, like Rūpa, regarded Caitanya not so much as the supreme deity of the faith as the ideal devotee-incarnation, the Bhakta-Avatāra of Kṛṣṇa, who incarnated as the fair-hued ascetic son of Śacī for the purpose of himself relishing his own sweetness as it was relished by Rādhā, his own greatest devotee. It says:²

c9.s5.24

² sva-dayita-nija-bhāvaṁ yo vibhāvya svabhāvāt sumadhuram avatīrṇo bhakta-rūpeṇa lobhāt/ jayati kanaka-dhāmā kṛṣṇa-caitanya-nāmā harir iha yati-veṣaḥ śrī-śacī-sūnur eṣaḥ//

c9.s5.25

Victory be to this son of Śacī, the Hari here in the dress of an ascetic, bearing the lustre of gold and the name of Kṛṣṇa-caitanya, who having sweetly contemplated from his own feelings the feelings of his own beloved towards himself, has descended out of greed (to taste them) in the form of a Bhakta or devotee.

c9.s5.26

It should be noted that by the word ‘greed’ (lobha) employed in this verse is probably meant, as the *Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu* shows,¹ that Sanātana regarded Caitanya’s rapture as an example of the Rāgātmikā or Rāgānugā Bhakti. If the nameless running commentary to this work is by Sanātana himself, he speaks, in his own explanation of this verse, of Caitanya as the Bhakta-rūpa Avatāra,² the Parama Guru, the dearest Avatāra of Śrī-bhagavat (*śrī-bhagavat-priyatamā-vatāra*), who spread the sentiment of Bhakti consisting for the most part of the Saṃkīrtana of his own name (*nija-nāma-saṃkīrtanaprāya - bhakti - rasa - vistāraka*). Elsewhere in the same commentary he makes his views quite clear by saying³ that the Gopi-bhāva was admitted in this particular Avatāra for the purpose of revealing the special excellence of Prema-bhakti. The belief is further indicated briefly in the Namaskriyā⁴ to Sanātana’s *Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī* commentary on the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata*, where he pays homage in almost similar phraseology to the Bhagavat Śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya, who is full of compassion and who became an Avatāra in Gauḍa for the purpose of propagating Prema-bhakti. It is also noteworthy that these passages appear to accept the implications of the theory of dual incarnation of Caitanya, even if they do not expressly state it. But Ānandin in his commentary on Prabodhānanda's *Caitanya-candrāmṛta* attributes an eulogistic verse to Sanātana, which distinctly gives expression to this idea by saying that since the love of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa is an expression of the blissful divine attribute (Hlādinī Śakti), it divided itself formerly in this world, in spite of its essential identity, into two forms, but the two have now attained a unity, called Caitanya, which is identical with Kṛṣṇa but which is diversified by the brightness of the state of Rādhā.¹

c9.s5.27

¹ See above p. 176-77. There is evidence to show that many of the disciples of Caitanya followed the Rāgānugā way of worship and tried to realise the sentiments of Sakhya, Dāsya and Mādhurnya. It is alleged in *Gaura-gaṇoddeśa* that the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins realised the Sakhi-bhāva themselves, and they were thus considered as Mañjarīs (see above p. 177. footnote).

c9.s5.28

² In *Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā* (śl. 10-11) a classification of the stages or hierarchy of Bhakta-rūpa (Caitanya), Bhakta-svarūpa (Nityānanda), Bhaktāvatāra (Advaita), Bhakta (Śrīvāsa and others) and Bhakta-śakti (Gadādhara) is elaborated ; but this appears to be a further scholastic development of fine distinctions. It is difficult to say if Sanātana wanted to imply any such distinction between Bhakta-rūpa and Bhaktāvatāra, for he appears to use the terms indiscriminately.

c9.s5.29

³ yadyapi *śrī-caitanya-devo bhagavad-avatāra eva, tathāpi prema-bhakti-viśeṣa - prakāśanārtham svayam avatīrṇatvāt tena tadartham svayam gopī-bhāvo vyajyate* (on śl. 1).

c9.s5.30

⁴ *vande śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanyam bhagavantam kṛpāmayam/ prema-bhakti-vitānārtham gauḍeṣvavatatāra yaḥ//*

c9.s5.31

¹ *rādhā-kṛṣṇa-praṇaya-vikṛtir hlādinī-śaktir asmād* *ekātmānāvapi bhuvi purā deha-bhedam gatau tau |* *caitanyākhyam prakaṭam adhunā tad-dvayam caikyam āptam* *rādhā-bhāva-dyuti-śabalitam naumi kṛṣṇa-svarūpam ||*

c9.s5.32

These verses, no doubt, reveal an attitude of adoration which verges almost upon worship, but theoretically the Gosvāmins do not maintain any such worship of Caitanya as they insist upon in the case of Kṛṣṇa who alone, in their view, is the supreme deity of the faith. They appear to regard Caitanya more as an Avatāra, the Bhakta-Avatāra *par excellence*, the Kṛṣṇa incarnated as Rādhā, as it were, for a special purpose. It appears, therefore, that Caitanya-worship did not become a definite creed with these learned disciples of Caitanya. This is even more evident from Gopāla Bhaṭṭa's *Hari-bhakti-vilāsa*, which is the most authoritative compendium of Vaiṣṇava Ācāra of the sect. The eighteen out of twenty Namaskriyās to the twenty chapters of this work express the author's deep reverence for Caitanya and apply

c9.s5.33

This verse is also cited by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja anonymously at the commencement of his *Caritāmṛta*.—It may be that the Guru, Jayanta, of the Gopakumāra in Sanātana's *Bhāgavatāmṛta* is an allegorical representation of Caitanya, who was Sanātana's Guru. Jayanta is described there as an Avatāra of Kṛṣṇa born in Gauḍa on the banks of the Ganges (ii. 3. 122):

c9.s5.34

*gauḍe gaṅgā-taṭe jāto māthura-brāhmaṇottamaḥ |*
*jayanta-nāma kṛṣṇasyāvatāras te mahān guruḥ ||*

c9.s5.35

to him such eulogistic epithets as the *bhagavat*, *jagad-guru*, *ananta-adbhuta-aiśvarya*, *tīrthottama*, *mahāścarya-prabhāvaka*, but there is nothing in them that does not apply, for instance, to one's Guru; and it is remarkable that nowhere is Caitanya directly identified with Kṛṣṇa or even spoken of as an incarnation. The contents of the work appear to confirm and support this attitude; for it is significant that this elaborate authoritative text on the ritualism of the sect gives no direction for the worship of Caitanya or his image, although it deals elaborately with the every-day service as well as the temple-ritual connected with Kṛṣṇa and his image.

c9.s5.36

There can be no doubt that the determinative creed of the Bengal sect is that Kṛṣṇa alone is the Bhagavat or the only and most perfect god. As the trend of their exclusively Kṛṣṇaite hymns, dramas and poems, as well as Śāstric works which have Kṛṣṇa as their only theme, should indicate, Rūpa, Sanātana and Jīva, as well as Gopāla Bhaṭṭa and Raghunāthadāsa, adhere firmly to this creed. But this position, once accepted, would logically exclude every other claimant from the highest divine honour. It was, therefore, not possible from the strictly theoretical point of view to make an explicit declaration of what these personal disciples of Caitanya practically believed, namely, that Caitanya, like Kṛṣṇa himself, was the supreme deity of the creed. This inconsistency could be reconciled only by supposing, as they do suppose, that Kṛṣṇa, as the supreme being of endless incarnations, made his descent in the Kali Age in the form of Caitanya, but that he assumed the fair form as well as the fervid feelings of Rādhā, uniting in himself, for the particular purpose of relishing his own divine bliss, the two incarnated forms (to use a theological phrase) of the Sakti and the Saktimat in a kind of identity in non-identity. The Gosvāmins have taken great pains to demonstrate that Kṛṣṇa is the Bhagavat and not an incarnation, but they never make any attempt in the same way to demonstrate the creed in the case of Caitanya; for, to avoid inconsistency, they had to acknowledge that Caitanya was an incarnation, even if a unique incarnation, of Kṛṣṇa.

c9.s5.37

The theory of double incarnation, however, is not elaborated by the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins, but we can see from what is said above that the germs of the idea are already contained in the fanciful suggestions scattered throughout their poetical, if not in their theological, writings. We have already remarked that the idea of the Rādhā-incarnation of Caitanya is attributed by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja to Rāmānanda-Rāya whom Caitanya is said to have met on the banks of the Godāvari during his South Indian pilgrimage. It is possible that some such tradition existed, for Rāmānanda is called a Sahaja Vaiṣṇava by Kavikarṇapūra. But Rāmānanda's existing dramatic work, entitled *Jagannātha-vallabha*, the theme of which is the Vṛndāvana-līlā of Kṛṣṇa, makes no reference to Caitanya at all and does not bear out the allegation. The attribution of Sahajiyā tendencies may have originated from Rāmānanda's admiration and close imitation of the frankly sensuous lyrics of Jayadeva, whom Sahajiyās claim, rightly or wrongly, as their Ādi-guru and one of the nine recognized Rasikas. But our knowledge of Pre-caitanya Sahajiyā cult is so meagre that it is impossible to come to a definite conclusion. It is remarkable, however, that Kṛṣṇadāsa's account for the first time wants to emphasize that after Caitanya met Rāmānanda, the Rādhā-bhāva in Caitanya became intensified, as if Rāmānanda revealed him to himself. From this time also commenced Caitanya's deep appreciation of Jayadeva's erotic mysticism which he is said to have constantly utilized in Rāmānanda's company at Puri. Before this meeting Caitanya appears in his Navadvipa career chiefly as an incarnation of or identical with Kṛṣṇa (although occasionally the Pada-composers, as well as the biographers of the Navadvipa circle refer, as we have noted more than once above, to the Rādhā-bhāva of Caitanya); but after the meeting he is held more and more to be the embodiment not only of Kṛṣṇa but also of Rādhā. The closing years of his life at Puri, where Rāmānanda was one of his constant companions, are said to have been characterized by what is regarded as the highest emotion of the devotional state, namely, the Mādana Mahābhāva of Rādhā. That association with Rāmānanda apparently formed a turning point in Caitanya’s career of Bhakti is indicated also by the report of Kṛṣṇadāsa that it was the spiritual insight of Rāmānanda which revealed to Caitanya that he had, for the purpose of realizing his own divine nature, usurped the complexion and devotional spirit of Rādhā in the present Avatāra.¹ We are further told that it is to Rāmānanda alone, and to no other associate or follower, that Caitanya revealed himself in the united form of both Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā.²

c9.s5.38

¹ See above pp. 129-30.

c9.s5.39

On the other hand, Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī makes direct use of and elaborates this doctrine in his *Caitanya-candrāmṛta*.³ This work, consisting of a series of 143 devotional lyrics in praise of Caitanya, may not be a recognized work of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism, but it has been held in great esteem. In this work, Prabodhānanda appears to regard Caitanya as one of the greatest Avatāras of Kṛṣṇa (śl. 1 and 7), who descended to earth in the womb of Śacī for propagating the spirit of Bhakti unrevealed even to great sages of old (śl. 18). In one whole section (the tenth) of 21 verses he speaks of the greatness of the Caitanya-Avatāra.

c9.s5.40

1 राधिकार भावकान्ति करि अधिकार ।
निज रस आस्वादिते करियाछ अवतार ॥
2 तवे हासि प्रभु निज देखाल स्वरूप ।
रसराज महाभाव दुइ एक रूप ॥

c9.s5.41

The Nāgara-bhāva of Caitanya, emphasized by Locana-dāsa's Bengali biography, apparently develops the idea of Kṛṣṇa-incarnation in a different direction, and has hardly any connexion with the thesis of the Rādhā-incarnation of Caitanya. Jayānanda, the other Bengali biographer of Caitanya, generally steers clear of all such theological subtleties.

c9.s5.42

although it is maintained that he is not a partial incarnation (Amśa-Avatāra) like the Fish, the Boar and other incarnations of past ages (śl. 141). At the same time there are other passages which seem to indicate that Prabodhānanda believed Caitanya to be the Īśvara (śl. 37), golden-complexioned (Kanaka-rucirāṅga) Kṛṣṇa, and Hari himself (śl. 41, 57, 112). The author, who was more a devotee than a theologian, does not appear to possess any exact theology: but whatever might be his belief or theology on this point, there is no doubt that his work is one of the early extensive productions which directly inculcate not only adoration but worship of Caitanya.¹

c9.s5.43

¹ But Prabodhānanda's alleged pupil Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, as we have seen above, hardly lends any support to such a cult. It is possible that although the ascetic Prabodhānanda was apparently older than Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, his conversion to Caitanyaism may have taken place later when such a cult was widely gaining ground, and his work consequently may be of a later date; or this view may have been his personal belief. But Gopāla Bhaṭṭa's pupilage of this Prabodhānanda lacks proof (see above, p. 129 f).

c9.s5.44

He also seems to be aware of the idea of Caitanya's dual incarnation. He tells us (śl. 13) that in Caitanya we have the form of Kṛṣṇa united with that of Rādhā and bearing the beauty of the interior of a full-blown golden lotus.² He therefore addresses Caitanya (śl. 43) as the fair-complexioned lord of the Gopis manifested in the Kali Age.³ It is also noteworthy that in stanza 132 there is a reference to Caitanya as Gaura-nāgara-vara, which apparently subscribes to the Nāgara-bhāva doctrine of Narahari and Locana, deprecated or ignored by the orthodox circles of both Navadvīpa and Vṛndāvana.

c9.s5.45

² bibhrat kāntim vikaca-kanakāmbhoja-garbhābhirāmam/ ekībhūtam vapur avatu vo rādhayā mādhavasya// Also see st. 112.

c9.s5.46

³ kalau prakaṭa-gaura-gopīpatiḥ, with an obvious pun on the word gaura.

c9.s5.47

It appears, therefore, that in this charming fancy of the Caitanyaite poet-devotees, most of whom were also the recognized theologians of the sect, an ingenious explanation was found of the golden hue of Caitanya’s body, which would have been dark as Kṛṣṇa’s had it not been for the Rādhā-element. As it appears from the works of Pada-composers and the Gosvāmins, it was at first, more or less, a devotional poetical fancy; but it was soon developed into a fundamental doctrine, and it is probable that from this theory originated the common epithet, Gaurahari, of Caitanya, with an evident pun on the word gaura, which makes the appellation mean at the same time ‘Gaura who is Hāri’ and ‘the fair-complexioned Hari.’

c9.s5.48

The conception of the dual incarnation was, therefore, not unknown to the Gosvāmins, but its theological implications are not found systematically developed until the Bengali Caitanyaite works, which in course of time almost superseded the Sanskrit sources of Caitanyaism, came to be composed. We find it set forth in its full-fledged form in the Bengali theological biography of Caitanya written by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja about 1615 A.D. We need not consider here in detail this later theological elaboration of the idea, but the process of Caitanya’s elevation from single to double incarnation, as we have already noted, can be traced in the account which Kṛṣṇadāsa records. Although there are many passages in which Kṛṣṇadāsa speaks of Caitanya as an Avatāra, the ideal Bhakta-Avatāra with the mission of Prema-bhakti, yet he expresses in unambiguous language his belief that śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya prabhu svayaṃ bhagavān, thus employing to the case of Caitanya the technical theological expression svayaṃ bhagavān which had been hitherto applied to Kṛṣṇa alone. In Kṛṣṇadāsa’s time Caitanya-worship apparently became an accomplished fact.¹ This zealous biographer of Caitanya's who also appears to have been a trained theologian in the school of his acknowledged Gurus, Rūpa, Sanātana and Jiva, spares no pains to demonstrate, with a wealth of theological texts and arguments, Caitanya's essential identity with Kṛṣṇa, laying down emphatically that there is no other greater Tattva in the world than Caitanya who is Kṛṣṇa (na caitanyāt kṛṣṇāj jagati para-tattvam param iha). Kṛṣṇadāsa, therefore, takes upon himself the task of analysing the Caitanya-concept and thus supplying an important omission of the previous theologians of the sect. He achieves this end chiefly by applying to the case of Caitanya all the divine attributes and energies of the Bhagavat-Kṛṣṇa which had been elaborated by his predecessors and which have been discussed from the theological point of view by Jiva Gosvāmin in his Kṛṣṇa-samdarbha. Some writers even go further, and, identifying Caitanya with Kṛṣṇa, evolve a series of Caitanya's Parikaras and Pārṣadas parallel to those of Kṛṣṇa, so that each associate and follower of Caitanya becomes from this point of view an incarnation of the various associates and followers of Kṛṣṇa.

c9.s5.49

¹ Some of the immediate disciples of Caitanya like Narahari Sarkāra and Vaṃśīdāsa appear to have believed in their own way in the worship of Caitanya’s image; and there is evidence to show that some followers of Caitanya established and worshipped his image even during his life-time. In the Vaṃśi-śikṣā of Vaṃśīdāsa we are told that

c9.s5.50

It is not necessary to consider here the arguments by which Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja establishes his position, but what is interesting for us here to note in his analysis of the Caitanya-concept is the further development of the theory of dual incarnation, in which he finds one of the principal

c9.s5.51

Vaṃśidāsa, being convinced by means of a vision that he should propagate the worship of Caitanya's image, carved an image out of the wood of the tree under which Caitanya was born. It is also said elsewhere that Pratāparudra of Orissa had a life-size image of Caitanya made some time before his death, but since there is no independent evidence that Pratāparudra was ever a convert to Caitanyaism, the authenticity of this story is doubtful. According to Murāri-gupta (iv. 14. 8, if this part of the work is genuine), Caitanya-image was worshipped by Viṣṇupriyā. Gaurīdāsa Paṇḍita is also said to have established and worshipped an image of Caitanya and Nityānanda (Gaur-Nitāi). In any case, these are isolated and sporadic instances and do not bear witness to any theoretical establishment of Caitanya-worship as a cult.

c9.s5.52

theological justifications of the advent of Caitanya. In applying the characteristics of the already established Kṛṣṇa-concept to the analysis of the Caitanya-concept, Kṛṣṇadāsa appears to maintain that the latter concept may be regarded as a supplement to the former. The motiveless attribute of divine bliss is the *raison d'être* of Caitanya-līlā as it is of Kṛṣṇa-līlā; but while in the latter case the supreme deity enjoys the bliss as the subject (Āśraya), in the former case the bliss is enjoyed both as the subject (Āśraya) and the object (Viṣaya). In other words, Kṛṣṇa the Śaktimat in his Vṛndāvana-līlā enjoys the bliss arising from his association with his Śakti, Rādhā, but he does not enjoy the bliss, which Rādhā realizes, as inherent in himself. In the Caitanya līlā, therefore, he combines the rôles of Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā, who have separate and real existences in spite of essential identity in the supreme but hitherto unattained divine unity of the subject and object of bliss.¹ The display of the blissful divine attribute (Hlādinī Śakti), therefore, is supposed to receive a further development in Caitanya than in Kṛṣṇa. The difference is merely a difference particular Līlā or divine sport, resulting in Caitanya's adoption of the complexion and feelings of Rādhā, as well as those of Kṛṣṇa, for a greater realization of the blissful attribute, but it does not affect Caitanya's intrinsic divine selfhood as Kṛṣṇa. The doctrine of the inscrutable Bhedābheda, which is peculiar to the school, applies also here between the Kṛṣṇa-concept and the Caitanya-concept; for there is identity so far as the intrinsic divine nature is concerned but there is a difference in the character of the divine sport.

c9.s5.53

¹ It is curious, however, that in the later hagiology of the sect Caitanya's intimate friend and follower Gadādhara is regarded as an incarnation of Rādhā and the Śakti of Caitanya (*Gaura-gaṇoddeśa*, śl. 11), while this honour is not accorded to either of the two wives of Caitanya. It is not denied that Caitanya is Rādhā, but since Caitanya is also Kṛṣṇa, his Śakti from this aspect is Gadādhara. As Ānandin puts it: *svayaṃ śrī-rādhikā.........eka-prakāṭena śrī-caitanyenābhinnā, prakāṭāntareṇa gadādhara-paṇḍita-svarūpā* (on *Caitanya-candrāmṛta*, śl. 118). See above p. 93, footnote 2.

c9.s5.54

But other theological difficulties were also perceived and had to be reconciled. In the orthodox Purāṇa lists of Avatāras and direct advents of the deity, Caitanya is not expressly mentioned, but his descent has to be presented as a case of fulfilled prophecy in order to bring conviction to the mind of the unfaithful. Then again, there is a *Śrīmad-bhāgavata* text (xi. 8. 13)¹ which apparently informs us that Kṛṣṇa appeared in the three earlier ages in three different complexions respectively, namely, White (Śukla) in the Satya, Red (Rakta) in the Tretā and Golden-yellow (Pīta) in the Dvāpara Age, but it further adds that now, *i.e.*, apparently in the Kali Age, he appears as dark-blue Kṛṣṇa. But the same *Śrīmad-bhāgavata* tells us elsewhere that the god is dark-blue in the Dvāpara (*dvāpare bhagavān śyāmaḥ*, xi. 5. 25), so that the two statements appear to contradict each other. To reconcile this conflict it is maintained by an ingenious interpretation of the texts that the intention really is to indicate that the deity appeared as dark-blue in Dvāpara and not as golden-yellow, which must be the colour, as evident from Caitanya's complexion, suitable to the Kali Age. In this connexion both Rūpa and Jīva employ (without indicating that it is a quotation), as a part of their respective Namaskriyās to their *Saṃkṣepa-bhāgavatāmṛta* and *Tattva-sandarbha*, the following verse, which occurs also in the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata* (xi. 5. 29):

c9.s5.55

¹ *āsan varṇās trayo hyasya gṛhṇato'nuyugaṃ tanūḥ |* *śuklo raktas tathā pīta idānīṃ kṛṣṇatāṃ gataḥ ||*

c9.s5.56

*kṛṣṇa-varṇaṃ tviṣākṛṣṇaṃ sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣadam |*
*yajñaiḥ saṃkīrtana-prāyair yajanti hi sumedhasaḥ ||*

c9.s5.57

The verse has been explained by Śrīdhara, without any particular sectarian colouring, as applying generally to Kṛṣṇa; but both Rūpa and Jīva, as well as Sanātana in his *Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī* commentary on the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata*, appear to take the verse as predicting in particular the advent of Caitanya in the Kali Age. According to Śrīdhara's explanation, the verse emphasizes the pre-eminence of the Kṛṣṇa-Avatāra in the Kali Age.¹ The phrase *kṛṣṇa-varṇam*, in his opinion, apparently refers to his dark colour, and the phrase *tviṣākṛṣṇam* is interpreted in two ways by disjoining the word differently, namely, (i) in effulgence he is not dark (*tviṣā akṛṣṇam*), as he is dark in complexion, but shines like a bright sapphire (*indranīla-maṇivad ujjvalam*), or (ii) in his bright divine presence he is Kṛṣṇa (*tviṣā kṛṣṇam*), meaning that in the Kali Age he is pre-eminently the Kṛṣṇa-Avatāra. According to Śrīdhara, again, the word *aṅga* in the verse refers to Kṛṣṇa's beautiful limbs, *upāṅga* to his natural embellishments like Kaustubha, *astra* to such weapons as Sudarśana, and *pārṣada* to his retinue consisting of Sunanda and others. The word *yajña* need not, in his view, refer to anything more than general worship (*arcana*), and the word *saṃkīrtana* need not in the same way be taken in any narrow technical sense but should be interpreted generally as meaning the reciting of Kṛṣṇa's name (*nāmoccāraṇa*) and praise (*stuti*).²

c9.s5.58

¹ *anena kalau kṛṣṇāvatārasya prādhānyaṃ darśayati.*

c9.s5.59

² Even if Saṃkīrtana here be supposed to mean the peculiar Vaiṣṇava mode of singing Kṛṣṇa's name, the occurrence of the word in this passage in the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata* only indicates, apart from any sectarian interpretation, that the mode was fairly old, at least older than Śrīdhara who accepts this passage as genuine. If this is correct, then the Saṃkīrtana is probably not such an innovation introduced by Bengal Vaiṣṇavism as it is often supposed to be, although it must be admitted that Bengal Vaiṣṇavism first realized its possibilities and made it into an effective mode of propagating the mass-emotion of Bhakti.

c9.s5.60

For those who see in this verse an anticipation of Caitanya's advent it is not difficult to interpret it accordingly. Such methods of interpretative ingenuity are not unknown in Sanskrit mediaeval theology or philosophy; and such feats are comparatively easy in a language like Sanskrit which affords special facilities regarding the large number of meaning which may be assigned to particular words, the different modes of splitting up compounds and the diverse ways in which the syllables comprising a word or a sentence can be disjoined. It is quite natural, therefore, for the predisposed Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins to find in this verse a prophecy of Caitanya's appearance and press it into sectarian service. Accordingly, they agree in splitting up the phrase tviṣākṛṣṇam only in one way, namely, tviṣā akṛṣṇam 'in brightness not dark' and making it refer to Caitanya's bright and fair complexion; while the phrase kṛṣṇa-varṇa is supposed to refer to the citation of the syllables (varṇa) of Kṛṣṇa's name by Caitanya, although the more subtle Jīva Gosvāmin appears¹ to think that the phrase refers to the fact that Caitanya was inwardly Kṛṣṇa himself (antaḥ-kṛṣṇa) but outwardly Gaura or Caitanya, fair in complexion (*bahir gaura*, with the usual pun on the word *gaura*), with an implied allusion to the Prakaṭa and Aprakaṭa aspects of the divine sport. All interpretations of the Bengal school, however, agree that the *saṃkīrtana-prāya yajña* in the verse undoubtedly refers to the new mode of emotional worship by loud singing, music and dancing which the school made so popular. They also agree that the rest of the verse means that in this Līlā Caitanya had for his weapon (*astra*) only his companions like Nityānanda (*aṅga*), associates like Advaita (*upāṅga*), as well as followers like Gadādhara and others (*pārṣada*). What value this interpretation in itself may be judged to possess, there can be no doubt that it has an important bearing on the practical creed of Caitanyaism. But it is at the same time somewhat extraordinary that, apart from such passing references in the Namaskriyās and poetical effusions, neither Rūpa, Sanātana nor Jiva in the body of their elaborate and voluminous theological writing ever discusses, amplifies or illustrates the question from the point of view of this important bearing.

c9.s5.61

¹ This verse is explained at some length by Jīva at the beginning of his Sarva-saṃvādinī Anuvyākhyā to his Tattva-sandarbha. The prose passage at the commencement of this explanation states as relevant context that the Śrīmad-bhāgavata verse eulogises Caitanya, to whom an eulogistic reference is also made. In this reference of his, Jīva Gosvāmin appears to believe that Caitanya in the Kali Age is an Avatāra worthy of worship by the Vaiṣṇava, that he is the presiding deity of his own Sampradāya, that by his descent he spread the current of loving devotion for the Bhagavat, and that his Bhagavad-bhāva has been well established by the insight of endless believers in the Bhagavat. This is high praise indeed, but it is not clear if Jīva attempts here at all to establish that Caitanya himself is the Bhagavat, as he has in his Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha taken pains to establish that Kṛṣṇa himself is the Bhagavat. On the other hand, Jīva appears inclined to accept Caitanya as an Avatāra of Kṛṣṇa, though he also uses the technical word Avirbhāva. The only other reference that Jīva makes to Caitanya occurs in the Namaskriyā to Gopāla-campū and Saṃkalpa-kalpadruma. In both these works he employs the same Namaskriyā, which comprehensively includes in one Anuṣṭubh verse homage to Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa-caitanya, Senātana, Rūpa, Gopāla Bhaṭṭa and his own father Vallabha, and which can also be interpreted so as to apply exclusively to Kṛṣṇa. The theme of both these works is of course Kṛṣṇa-līlā. In his Harināmāmṛta-vyākarana there is a Namaskriyā to Kṛṣṇa, but not to Caitanya.

c9.s5.62

It is clear, however, from what has been said above, that the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins of Caitanyaism implicitly accept Caitanya's identity with Kṛṣṇa, even if they explicitly declare only his Avatāratva ; and, to explain this identity, they indulge in the mystical devotional fancy of the dual incarnation of Caitanya. The accepted theory is that Kṛṣṇa's dark colour and form of a Gopa sporting in Vṛndāvana-līlā are real and eternal, being essential and intrinsic to his divine selfhood ; but here, in Caitanya, Kṛṣṇa has apparently manifested himself differently. Here we have none of the mighty divine qualities of Kṛṣṇa but only the rapture of erotic mysticism. These facts present theological difficulties which have to be explained. They are explained by this curious fancy of the external Rādhā-incarnation containing in itself the internal Kṛṣṇa in essence. This fancy became a creed in the next generation, and the cult of Caitanya-worship became an inevitable result. It would seem strange indeed that these devout minds should exercise themselves so much on the question of colour and complexion. but this is in perfect accord with the scholastic spirit of the age, as well as with the theological position of the school. The colour and complexion of Kṛṣṇa was regarded as a part of his divine essence, and any anomaly in this direction in his subsequent appearance had to be scholastically explained. The task was to establish the supreme godhead of Caitanya, and all the theological difficulties arising out of the sacred authoritative texts must be settled by the proper scholastic method. The fact of Caitanya's fair complexion and display of ecstatic feminine emotions, which were absent in the legendary Kṛṣṇa, thus gave an opportunity of establishing as a doctrine the theory of dual incarnation, which was indeed suggested but not fully developed by the recognized theological authorities of Caitanyaism.

c9.s5.63

So much about the views of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins and their disciple Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja. When we turn, however, to the Bengali writings of the followers of the Navadvipa circle, which (with the exception of a few Padas apparently composed in Caitanya's life-time) were contemporaneous with the theological and poetical productions of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins, we find that they regard Caitanya as the Parama Tattva of the Bengal faith. We have already indicated their attitude briefly above¹; but the Gaura-pāramya-vāda, though implicitly accepted without question, is hardly discussed from the theological point of view, in the same way as the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins discuss the Kṛṣṇa-pāramya-tattva. The Bengal writers are concerned more with practical faith than with theological exposition, more with Līlā than with Tattva; and they scarcely think it necessary to examine a question critically which was devotionally or intuitively accepted as a matter of unquestioned faith. The records, however, reveal that the divinity of Caitanya was only gradually established. Murāri-gupta tells us that Caitanya revealed himself as an Āveśa of the supreme deity, not consistently from his birth (as Vṛndāvana-dāsa, Locana and others believe) but occasionally (ii. 4. 4 ; ii. 5. 14, etc.) before his pilgrimage to Gayā ; but after his return and transformation into an ecstatic Bhakta (ii. 12. 5-26), he became the acknowledged centre of devotion of the Navadvīpa circle. Nityānanda saw him as the six-handed (Ṣaḍ-bhuja) Viṣṇu (ii. 8. 27), and one day Caitanya, in divine inspiration, sat on the throne in Śrīvāsa's chapel (ii. 9. 18). Murāri, Kavikarṇapūra (Drama Act i ; Kāvya vii. 30-35) and Vṛndāvana-dāsa (ii. 6) record the incident and describe how Advaita and others worshipped Caitanya, for the first time, as the Bhagavat himself. The second declaration of Caitanya's divinity is set forth in the description of what is called the Mahāprakāśābhiṣeka incident in Śrīvāsa's house before a large assembly of his Navadvīpa followers (Murāri ii. 12. 12-17 ; Vṛndāvana-dāsa ii. 9 ; Kavikarṇapūra, Kāvya v. 38-125). But it was after his Saṃnyāsa that his followers looked upon him as the supreme deity ; and it is interesting to note that such Āveśas became rare thereafter, and he himself deprecated such ascription of divinity to himself on many occasions. One such occasion was the public Saṃkīrtana of the name of Caitanya (and not Kṛṣṇa) organised by the followers at Puri, which is apparently the first more public and wider declaration of Caitanya's divinity ; and Advaita appears to have been, here also, the most prominent figure (Vṛndāvana-dāsa iii. 10. 504 f ; iv. 10. 16-20). All this the Vṛndāvana-Gosvāmins did not witness ; but the descriptions would indicate how Caitanya appeared in the eyes of his Navadvīpa followers, and how their adoration and worship of him as the supreme reality of the faith was implicitly accepted and widely declared. The Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins saw Caitanya for the first time as a Saṃnyāsin, in what they extol as his Yati-veśa (garb of an ascetic) ; but his Navadvīpa followers hailed him as the centre of their devotion even before his Saṃnyāsa. The respective differences of tradition and attitude, therefore, are intelligible. It is only among Caitanya's Navadvīpa devotees that views like Gaura-nāgara-vāda or Gaura-pāramya-vāda could develop; and Caitanya worship as a cult (along with Kṛṣṇa-worship which the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins encouraged) could establish itself in a highly devotional environment, which led to a rapid deification even during Caitanya's lifetime, even before he left Navadvīpa for Puri.¹

First 63 of 66 passages. Read on

Linked texts (16)