Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

An Outline of the Religious Literature of India c12: Chapter VII. Muslim Influence A.D. 1350 to 1800.

An Outline of the Religious Literature of India c12

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VII. Muslim Influence A.D. 1350 to 1800.

c12.1

MUSLIM INFLUENCE

c12.3

§ 337. The new factor in the religion of India during these centuries is the influence of Islam. That influence seems to be scarcely traceable in the literature before 1400; but we choose 1350 as the opening year of the new period, because it is most probable that further research will succeed in discerning its activities a good deal earlier. Islamic ideas are not so generally diffused as the great elements which have hitherto formed the distinguishing features of our periods, but they seem to be of greater importance than any other force operative during these centuries.

c12.4

It was, in the first instance, through the teaching of Sūfis that Islam found entrance to Hindu hearts. They fraternized with Hindu ascetics and gurus; and each learned to respect the other's religious faith and life. But not until the last quarter of the fifteenth century did the movement show any notable force. Kabīr was the man through whom the leading ideas were popularized. From his time the condemnation of idolatry and polytheism became frequent. But large sections of Hinduism show little or no reaction to the influence of Islam.

c12.5

Perhaps the extraordinary rise of the vernaculars from the fourteenth century onwards may be partly due to the serious weakening of Sanskrit scholarship consequent on the impoverishment of Hinduism and the destruction of Hindu schools and monasteries by the invaders.

c12.6

Akbar, who had come to the throne in 1542, transformed the character of the empire by his policy of giving Hindus equal rights with Muslims and admitting them to the highest positions in the army and the administration. He thereby not only gave Hinduism freedom once more to raise its head, but greatly changed the feeling of Hindus towards the Empire. He had many Hindu works translated into Persian, and his great-grandson, Dārā Shikoh, followed his example.

A. The Philosophies.

c12.t1.1

a. The Karma Mīmāmsā.

c12.t1.2

§ 338. From the very beginning of this period to the middle of the seventeenth century there was great activity in the Karma Mīmāmsā school. Three authors produced each a famous treatise, and a very large number of ancillary works appeared. The earliest, written during the first decades of our period, is Mādhava's *Jaiminīya-nyāya-mālā-vistara*, a full exposition of the system in verse, accompanied by a commentary in prose. Colebrooke says:

c12.t1.3

It follows the order in Jaimini's text; not by way of paraphrase, but as a summary (though the title rather implies amplification) of its purport, and of approved deductions from it; sometimes explaining separately the doctrine of Bhaṭṭa and of Guru, under each head; at other times that of the old scholiast; but more commonly confined to that of Bhaṭṭa alone; yet often furnishing more than one application to the same text, as Bhaṭṭa himself does.¹

c12.t1.4

¹ ME. I. 300.

c12.t1.5

This work has had a great vogue, partly because of its clearness, largely also because the verses could be easily committed to memory. The author and his brother Sāyaṇa were closely connected with the court of Vijayanagara and with Śaṅkara's monastery at Śṛingerī. They are amongst the most illustrious of Hindu scholars. Āpa Deva² wrote, about A.D. 1630, an elementary manual, the *Mīmāmsā-nyāya-prakāśa*, which is usually called the *Āpadevī* and has been much studied, because it is easy. Then Khaṇḍadeva (died 1665) produced the *Bhāṭṭadīpikā*, which has won itself an honoured place because of its brilliant logical reasoning. Appaya Dīkshita¹ (1552–1624) has a treatise in verse on the Mīmāṃsā which was much talked of in its day, the *Vidhi-rasāyana*: in it he attacks Kumārila.

c12.t1.6

² His son, Ananta Deva, author of the *Smṛiti Kaustubha*, wrote at the command of Baz Bahadur Chandra of Kumaon, who died in 1678. Duff, CI. 281.

c12.t1.7

¹ See § 354.

c12.t1.8

The Mīmāṃsā has been atheistic, in the sense of not recognizing the Supreme, throughout its history; yet that has never hindered Smārtas, who almost to the last man recognize the Brahman of the Upanishads, from making full use of the system. Vedānta-Deśika² in his *Seśvara Mīmāṃsā* maintains that Kumārila acknowledged the existence of God, and other writers have argued that the acknowledgement of God is quite consistent with its principles.

c12.t1.9

² See § 381.

c12.t1.10

b. The Vedānta.

c12.t1.11

§ 339. During this period an immense number of treatises were written on the advaita Vedānta, commentaries, super-commentaries, summaries in prose and verse, and partial expositions. Here we note only a few of the more noteworthy manuals. At the beginning of the period there appeared the *Pañchadaśī* by Bhāratītīrtha and Mādhava, an independent exposition in verse of the whole system running to fifteen chapters, as the name implies. It betrays the tendency, which went further later on, to bring into the Vedānta ideas belonging to the other systems, especially the Sāṅkhya. In the fifteenth century, Advaitānanda wrote the *Brahma-vidyābharaṇa*, a prose commentary on Śaṅkara’s *Bhāshya* which Colebrooke found useful. His disciple Sadānanda is the author of a brief outline of the Advaita in prose called the *Vedānta-sāra*, which forms a useful introduction to the philosophy; but the student must realize that contamination of the Vedānta from the Sāṅkhya proceeds further in it than in earlier works. Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, a sannyāsī of the Sarasvatī order, flourished before A.D. 1550, and wrote a well-known work on the nature of release in the Advaita, the *Vedānta-kalpalatikā*. He belongs to the group who believe that all the six systems of Hindu philosophy teach essentially the same doctrine.¹ Vijñāna Bhikshu’s *Vijñānāmṛita* is a dualist bhāshya, an attempt to prove that the dualism of the Sāṅkhya can be established within the Vedānta.²

c12.t1.12

¹ See § 346.

c12.t1.13

² His position is explained in § 342.

c12.t1.14

§ 340. Several fresh sectarian bhāshyas were written during this period. The following table may be found useful:

c12.t1.15

SECTARIAN BHĀSHYAS.

c12.t1.16

| *Approx. date.* | *Author.* | *Sect.* | *Name of bhāshya.* | *Philosophic Standpoint.* |
| 1085 | Rāmānuja | Śrī-Vaishṇava | *Śrī-bhāshya* | Viśishṭādvaita |
| 1230 | Madhva | Mādhva | *Sūtra-bhāshya* | Dvaita |
| XIII | Vishṇusvāmī | Vishṇusvāmī | *Brahma-sūtra-bhāshya* | Dvaita |
| XIII | Śrīnivāsa | Nimbārka | *Vedānta-kaustubha* | Bhedābheda |
| c. 1400 | Śrīkaṇṭha | Śaiva | *Śaiva-bhāshya* | Viśishṭādvaita |
| XVI | Vallabha | Vallabhāchārya | *Anubhāshya* | Śuddhādvaita |
| ? | Śrīpati | Liṅgāyat | *Śrīkara-bhāshya* | Śakti-viśishṭādvaita |
| ? | Śuka | Bhāgavata | *Śuka-bhāshya* | Viśishṭādvaita |
| XVIII | Baladeva | Chaitanya | *Govinda-bhāshya* | Achintya-bhedābheda |

c12.t1.17

§ 341. A scholar named Nārāyaṇa, who, coming later than Śaṅkarānanda, the guru of Mādhava, probably lived early in this period, wrote commentaries on many Upanishads, and gives a list of fifty-two Upanishads which is of considerable historical importance. The *Muktikā U.* contains a list of 108 Upanishads of considerable interest. In the year 1656 Dārā Shikoh, one of the sons of the Mugal Emperor Shah Jahan, gathered a number of paṇḍits at Delhi and got them to translate fifty Upanishads into Persian. Anquetil Duperron, the French scholar who went to India to study Zoroastrianism in the latter part of the eighteenth century, obtained a copy of this work, and when he returned to Europe translated it word for word into Latin. This was the form in which the Vedānta first reached Europe.

c12.t1.18

§ 342. Throughout this period the Sāṅkhya Kārikā continued to be much read; for Mādhavāchārya’s summary of Sāṅkhya doctrine in his Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha, written about A.D. 1380, is based on it; and several commentaries on it and on Vāchaspati’s Sāṅkhya-tattva-kaumudī have been written. But there are two other expositions of Sāṅkhya teaching which have also been largely used, the Sāṅkhya-sūtras and the Tattva-samāsa. The date and the author in each case are quite unknown. Max Müller thought that the Tattva-samāsa was older than the Kārikā; but scholars of to-day do not follow him. Clearly, it is much more likely that these two are comparatively late works; for there is no clear reference to either before the fifteenth century. The Tattva-samāsa represents a form of arrangement of the Sāṅkhya principles considerably different from the form exhibited in the Kārikā. The Sāṅkhya-sūtra gives a good deal of space to criticism of the other philosophical systems, including the Vedānta; yet it makes a very great advance towards the Vedantic conception of God. Keith says¹:

c12.t1.19

¹ SS. 94.

c12.t1.20

The work makes remarkable efforts to prove that its views are in full accord with scripture, to which it attributes conclusive value, and endeavours to show as accordant with the Sāṅkhya itself the statements in scripture regarding the personality of God, the unity of the absolute, the joy which is asserted to be part of the nature of the absolute, and the heavenly bliss acknowledged in the Vedānta as a step on the way to final release. Indeed the text goes so far as to hold that obedience to the traditional rules of action has a good effect towards securing final release, and to talk of the attainment of the nature of the absolute.

c12.t1.21

The Sūtra thus approaches the doctrine, which became very popular during this period, that all the six Hindu systems can be shown to be in harmony with each other. There are other developments of doctrine of less interest.¹ In the middle of the sixteenth century there lived in the vicinity of Benares a Sāṅkhya sannyāsī named Vijñāna Bhikshu who carried this movement a little farther. His fundamental conceptions seem to have been those of the ancient theistic system called Sāṅkhya-yoga. In any case he was a Sāṅkhya dualist, and yet a theist, conceiving God not as the universal spirit, but as a special soul, perfect and ever free. He wrote a bhāshya on the Sāṅkhya Sūtra, the Sāṅkhya-pravachana-bhāshya. In it he gives expression to the conviction that all the six systems are authoritative, in spite of their differences.

c12.t1.22

¹ See the fine analysis in Keith, SS. 92 ff.

c12.t1.23

Sāṅkhya sannyāsīs are now so rare that it is of interest to know that, as late as 1912, a learned Sāṅkhya yati named Svāmī Hariharānanda was alive and teaching in Calcutta.²

c12.t1.24

² Chatterji, HR. xiv.

c12.t1.25

d. The Yoga.

c12.t1.26

§ 343. Three useful works on Yoga produced during this period may be mentioned. Mādhava’s chapter on the subject in his Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha (c. A.D. 1380), Vijñāna Bhikshu’s Yogasārasaṅgraha (mid. sixteenth century), and Rāmānanda Sarasvatī’s commentary on the Yoga-sūtra, called Maṇiprabhā, written about A.D. 1600.

c12.t1.27

Yogis of this great old school have become very rare. I have never had the good fortune to meet one.

c12.t1.28

e. The Vaiśeshika and the Nyāya.

c12.t1.29

§ 344. The work of the combined school of Vaiśeshika and Nyāya was vigorously pursued by Annam Bhaṭṭa and Viśvanātha Pañchānana, who were Vaiśeshikas, and by Jagadīśa and Laugākshi Bhāskara, who were Naiyāyikas. All four lived somewhere about 1600. The Bengālī school of New Logic started with Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma,³ who taught at Nuddea from 1470 to 1480, but was brought to full intellectual freedom by his pupil, Raghunātha Śiromaṇi. There was a long succession of teachers thereafter down to the end of the seventeenth century.¹

c12.t1.30

³ Sen, CC. 80 ff. Sārvabhauma became an enthusiastic follower of Chaitanya.

c12.t1.31

¹ See a full statement by Manamohan Chakravarti in *JASB*. Sept. 1915, pp. 259 ff.

c12.t1.32

§ 345. The most famous of the numerous critical summaries of philosophical systems written in India saw the light about A.D. 1380, the *Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha* of Mādhava. Sixteen systems are sketched, arranged so as to form a gradually ascending series. First come the materialistic Chārvākas, the Buddhists and the Jains, then six of the sectarian theologies, and finally the Hindu philosophies,² the whole series culminating in the Vedānta.³

c12.t1.33

² These are seven instead of six, because Pāṇini's grammatical teaching is included, on account of his theory of the eternity of sound.

c12.t1.34

³ In the vulgate text of the work there is no essay on the Vedānta, the explanation probably being that readers were expected to turn to the *Pañchadaśī*. Recently, however, a text was published in Poona on the basis of a manuscript discovered in Tanjore, in which an essay on the Vedānta completes the work. Is this essay genuine?

B. Reconciliation of Systems.

c12.t2.1

§ 346. We noticed above⁴ the statement made in the *Prabodhachandrodaya* that the six systems of Hindu philosophy are not mutually exclusive systems but that they all celebrate from various points of view the same glorious and uncreated God. Vijñāna Bhikshu,⁵ the sixteenth-century Sāṅkhya sannyāsī, who is a theist, acknowledges that the Sāṅkhya system and the Karma Mīmāmsā are atheistic, yet he holds that all the systems are authoritative, and reconciles them by distinguishing between essential and practical truths, the latter being false or imperfect theories inculcated with a view to some practical end, and therefore to be neglected in a general survey. Similarly, Madhusūdana Sarasvatī⁶ wrote rather later:

c12.t2.2

⁴ In § 270.

c12.t2.3

⁵ See § 342.

c12.t2.4

⁶ *Prasthānabheda*: Muir, *OST*. IV. 102.

c12.t2.5

The ultimate scope of all the Munis, authors of these different systems, is to support the theory of illusion, and their only design

c12.t2.6

is to establish the existence of one Supreme God, the sole essence; for these Munis could not be mistaken since they were omniscient. But as they saw that men, addicted to the pursuit of external objects, could not all at once penetrate into the highest truths, they held out to them a variety of theories, in order that they might not fall into atheism. Misunderstanding the object which the Munis thus had in view, and representing that they even designed to propound doctrines contrary to the Vedas, men have come to regard the specific doctrines of these several schools with preference, and thus become adherents of a variety of systems.

c12.t2.7

§ 347. Most modern Hindu scholars occupy a similar standpoint. Mr. J. C. Chatterji’s statement¹ may be taken as representative. The Nyāya, Vaiśeshika, and Karma Mīmāmsā systems are all realistic; the Sāṅkhya and the Yoga are dualistic; the Vedānta monistic. From this he proceeds:

c12.t2.8

¹ HR. 5.

c12.t2.9

Thus, in reality, there are only three metaphysical systems of the Hindus. These systems again are not considered as mutually contradictory. They are regarded as forming a graduated series in which the three systems form, as it were, three great standards, suited to different types or grades of minds—different intellectual (and only intellectual) capacities and temperaments.

c12.t2.10

§ 348. The position of Kabīr,² and all his school, seems at the first glance to be still wider; for in him there is a reconciliation of Islam and Hinduism; but the truth in it is far simpler, surer, and more practical. For the reconciliation is between one school of Islam and one school of Hinduism, the latter already seriously modified by the laying aside of idolatry.

c12.t2.11

² See § 396.

c12.t2.12

§ 349. But the boldest of all is Akbar’s Divine Faith, the Dīn Ilāhī,³ which was meant to sum up all religions, a creation which died with its own imperial creator. A little later, Hindu paṇḍits at the court of Aurungzebe suggested to Bernier⁴ the idea that there might be many true religions, all proceeding from the one God.

c12.t2.13

³ V. A. Smith, Akbar, 209 ff.

c12.t2.14

⁴ Travels, 328.

c12.t2.15

§ 350. Early in the eighteenth century, Prāṇnāth taught, at Panna in Bandelkhand, that all the religions of India were reconciled in his own person, since he was at once the Christian Messiah, the Mohammedan Mahdi, and the *Nishkalaṅkāvatāra*, ‘the stainless incarnation’, of the Hindus, and expressed the dogma in his *Kulljama Saheb*.¹

c12.t2.16

¹ Wilson, 315 f.; Griswold, *Forman Christian College Magazine*, July and Nov. 1905; Growse, M. 230 ff.; *JASB*. XLVIII. 171; Russell, *TCCP*. 216 ff. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Khan of Qadian is an exact modern parallel: see Walter’s *Ahamadīya Movement*, Calcutta, 1918.

C. The Hindu People.

c12.t3.1

§ 351. The Hindu people are still roughly divisible into the three old groups. There is first the mass of the common people, caste or outcaste, who belong to no sect, but acknowledge all the gods and worship whichever they think is likely to help at the moment. There come next the orthodox twice-born men, who acknowledge all the gods and worship them with Vedic rites, and in addition hold some religious philosophy, either monistic or theistic. The third group are the Sectarians. Each sect holds a theistic theology, worships its own god as the personal Supreme, and identifies him with the Brahman of the Upanishads. Groups of the uncultured common people may be found here and there, especially in the south, who cling intelligently to a sectarian theology and cult.

c12.t3.2

As will be evident from our survey, Hinduism produced a long series of great sects from the twelfth to the sixteenth century. From about 1550, however, the effort rapidly weakened and died away. One of the most noteworthy facts in the history of the religion since 1700 is the steady persistent decay of the sects² all over North India and also in wide regions farther south. Multitudes have drifted back to undifferenced polytheism, carrying with them the merest shreds of the old thought. Uneducated *pūjārīs*³ with their numerous images and mongrel ritual strengthen the reactionary movement. This fact makes fruitful research exceedingly difficult over wide areas.

c12.t3.3

² See Chanda’s statement, *IAR*. 143 ff.

c12.t3.4

³ I. e. temple-ministrants.

D. Smārta Literature.

c12.t4.1

§ 352. The orthodox twice-born fall into two groups. The first, the *Śrautas*, who still perform some of the ancient *Śrauta* sacrifices, are so few in most parts of India that they are seldom distinguished from the much larger group, the *Smārtas*, who content themselves with the worship of the five gods and the observance of the *Sandhyā*, i. e. the daily prayers. In South India and in Gujarāt the word Smārta connotes, in addition, allegiance to Śaṅkara’s Vedānta; but in North India the Smārta is free in philosophy. He may follow Śaṅkara; he may accept the Nyāya system; or he may find satisfaction in an attempt to blend Rāmānuja’s theism with the strength and simplicity of Śaṅkara’s thought. The worship of the five gods in *Pañchāyatana Pūjā* is observed at home.¹ Images, or stone and metal symbols,² or diagrams, or earthenware pots, may be used to represent the divinities. The image or symbol of the god whom the worshipper prefers is placed in the centre, and the other four are so set as to form a square around the central figure.³

c12.t4.2

¹ In Gujarāt and in the Tamil country Smārtas may be found who no longer worship the five: they worship Śiva and reverence the others.

c12.t4.3

² The more usual symbols are: Viṣṇu, the *Śalagrāma* pebble; Śiva, the *Narmadeśvara* pebble; the Devī, a piece of metal, or the *Svarṇarekhā* stone found in a river in South India; Sūrya, a round piece of *Sūryakānta*, i. e. sun-stone, or of *sphaṭika*, i. e. crystal; Gaṇeśa, the *Svarṇabhadra*, a red slab from a stream near Arrah.

c12.t4.4

³ A Smārta Brāhman one day invited me to have a look at his domestic chapel. It was a very small room. The sacred place was about two and a half feet square, and was sunk some six inches below the main level. In the centre of this little quadrangle stood the liṅga, while an image stood in each of the corners, Viṣṇu, Devī, Sūrya, and Gaṇeśa.

c12.t4.5

§ 353. Hindu temples are supposed to fall into two classes, Smārta and Sectarian. In a Smārta temple, whether it is dedicated to Śiva, Viṣṇu, Devī, Sūrya, Gaṇeśa, or some other god, the ritual and liturgy ought to be Vedic, and the five gods ought to be worshipped. In sectarian temples, the ritual and liturgy ought to be Tantric (i. e. based on the *Saṃhitās* in a Viṣṇava temple, on the *Āgamas* in a Śaiva temple, and on the Tantras in a Śākta temple), and the chief deity ought to be some form of the god of the sect, even if other divinities are also recognized. As a matter of fact, in the north, comparatively few pure Smārta temples are to be found¹; and, while in the south and west sectarian temples are managed with a good deal of strictness, in the north laxity is widespread. Pūjārīs are usually men of little education, and they very naturally tend to introduce images of popular gods in addition to the divinity of the temple, and to follow their own whims in matters of ritual.

c12.t4.6

¹ A temple may be found here and there in which the five gods are arranged according to rule. Thus in the Vallabhāchārya temple in Udaipur the main temple is the shrine of Kṛiṣṇa, while Śiva has a small shrine in the NE. corner, Durgā in the NW., Sūrya in the SW., and Gaṇeśa in the SE. In Śaiva temples in Gujarāt one frequently finds, in addition to the liṅga, images of the Devī and of Gaṇeśa, while Viṣṇu is represented by a tortoise, and Sūrya is not pictured, because he is visible in the sky. There is usually an image of Hanumān also. Frequently there is no separate image of the Devī: she is represented by a snake coiled round the lower half of the liṅga. This is the concept of Kuṇḍalinī from Śākta Yoga: see § 232, and cf. Kṛiṣṇa Śāstrī, SII. 185, n. 1.

c12.t4.7

In most Śaiva temples in North India a Smārta Brahman can go forward to the liṅga and perform his own worship in accordance with the directions of the Gṛihya-sūtra of his own caraṇa. The pūjārī of the temple conducts the pūjā of sixteen operations (ṣoḍaśa upachāra) at certain fixed times, but the Smārta Brāhman’s worship is quite independent. In South India this personal worship in the temple is not permitted. In many Śaiva temples in the north, all worshippers, including women, are allowed to approach the liṅga, place a few bilva leaves upon it, and pour some Ganges water over it, while they mutter their mantras or prayers.

c12.t4.8

Most Smārtas give their preference to Śiva, but others are Vaiṣṇava or Śākta in their leanings, and in earlier times, doubtless, many, like Rāja Bīrbal,² were Sauras.

c12.t4.9

² V. A. Smith, Akbar, 165.

c12.t4.10

§ 354. The first fifty years of the period are memorable for the brilliant Vedic and philosophic work done by the brothers, Mādhava and Sāyaṇa. Mādhava’s three books, the Nyāyamālā-vistara on the Mīmāṃsā, the Pañchadaśī on the Vedānta, and the Sarvadarśanasangraha, a review of philosophic systems, have been dealt with above under the philosophies; but the style as well as the subject would inevitably make each a work of very great interest to thinking Smārtas. The works of Sāyaṇa (died 1387), on the other hand, deal directly with the literature on which the orthodox twice-born depend. A series of valuable commentaries on the Ṛgveda, the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa and Āraṇyaka, and on the Taittirīya Saṃhitā, Brāhmaṇa, and Āraṇyaka of the Black Yajurveda were written in whole or in part by Sāyaṇa. They have been of large service to Hindu scholars ever since, and European scholarship owes them a great debt. The Prasthānabheda of Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, who has been already mentioned, is interesting as showing the orthodox method of regarding the various philosophies and sectarian systems with their literature. The title of the work means ‘Varieties of the Ways’, i.e. to God.

c12.t4.11

In Bengal Raghunandana Bhaṭṭāchārya (c. A.D. 1500) dealt fully with the detailed religious duty of the Hindu in his Aṣṭāviṃśati Tattva, a work greatly treasured by the orthodox.

c12.t4.12

Appaya Dīkṣita, 1552-1624, one of the most famous Smārta scholars of the time, produced a large number of books on very varied subjects. Amongst his religious works is the Śivārkamaṇidīpikā, a Sanskrit commentary on Śrī-kaṇṭha’s Śaiva-bhāshya, which has been much used.¹ In his later years he followed the right-hand practice of Śāktism.²

c12.t4.13

¹ See § 424.

c12.t4.14

² See § 270 and § 317.

c12.t4.15

One very practical type of Smārta literature consists of manuals, usually called prakaraṇa-granthas, written for the purpose of applying Mīmāṃsā principles to the ceremonies enjoined in smṛti books, and forming an offshoot from the Mīmāṃsā proper. One of the earliest and chief of these is the Smṛti-Kaustubha, written by Ananta-deva, son of the author of the *Āpadevī*.¹ They may be found in local forms in all parts of the country.

c12.t4.16

¹ See § 338.

c12.t4.17

Mukundarāj is the author of an exposition of the Vedānta in Marāṭhī verse called the *Vivekasindhu*, which is much admired. It has been referred to the reign of Jaitrapāl, King of Devagiri in the Marāṭhā country at the end of the twelfth century, and has therefore been called the earliest piece of Marāṭhī literature, but the character of the language scarcely bears out the claim. It does not seem to be nearly so ancient as the language of the *Jñāneśvarī*.² Further, Mahīpati, who wrote lives of many of the Marāṭhī poets, makes him a contemporary of Tukārām. His date is thus quite uncertain.

c12.t4.18

² See § 278.

c12.t4.19

The *Yoga-Vasiṣṭha-Rāmāyaṇa*, discussed above,³ was widely used. It is mentioned and quoted by Bhāratītirtha and Mādhava in the *Pañchadaśī*; and the *Jñāna-Vasiṣṭham*, an adaptation in Tamil verse by Alavantar Madavappattar, appeared about A. D. 1600.

c12.t4.20

³ § 270.

E. Vaiṣṇava Literature.

c12.t5.1

a. General.

c12.t5.2

§ 355. The most prominent type of general Vaiṣṇava literature produced during the period consists of free renderings and adaptations of the Epics and the Purāṇas in the vernaculars. The *Mahābhārata* appeared in a Bengālī dress in the fourteenth century and often afterwards, in Tamil in the fifteenth, in Kanarese about 1500, and in Hindī in the nineteenth century. The *Rāmāyaṇa* was produced in Bengālī in the fourteenth century and often afterwards, in Malayalim in the fifteenth, in Kanarese in the sixteenth, in Hindī in the seventeenth, and in Oṛiyā at a later date. Three Vaiṣṇava Purāṇas, the *Viṣṇu*, *Varāha*, and *Padma*, were translated into Telugu in the fifteenth century. It would be unwise to lay much religious stress on these versions. The bulk of serious Vaiṣṇava literature arose in the sub-sects.

c12.t5.3

b. *Bhāgavata*.

c12.t5.4

1. The Bhāgavata Community.

c12.t5.5

§ 356. Probably about A.D. 1400, Śrīdhara Svāmī, Mahant of the Śaṅkarite monastery, Govardhana, in Purī, wrote a commentary on the *Bhāgavata P.*, the *Bhāgavata Bhāvārtha Dīpikā*, which is by far the most famous exposition of the work. He was clearly an excellent scholar, and he must have had access to a very trustworthy tradition. He begins his commentary with the distinct statement that the great Purāṇa was not written by Vopadeva. The fact that this theory was already current proves that Śrīdhara wrote at a time considerably later than A.D. 1300, when Vopadeva flourished. As the commentary was well known everywhere by the end of the fifteenth century, Śrīdhara’s *floruit* may reasonably be placed about A.D. 1400. His interpretation of the Purāṇa is advaitist, since he was a follower of Śaṅkara; and since the *Bhāgavata* itself tends to be monist, his *Dīpikā* is usually regarded as most authoritative.

c12.t5.6

The Purāṇa was translated into many languages, either completely or partially, during the period. It appeared in Telugu and Bengālī in the fifteenth century, in Braj and Persian in the sixteenth, in Marāṭhī and Kanarese about A.D. 1600, in Gujarātī and Malayalim in the seventeenth century, and in Hindī in the nineteenth.

c12.t5.7

A sectarian *bhāshya* on the *Vedānta-sūtras*, which is called the *Śuka Bhāshya*, and which purports to be a *Bhāgavata* work, seems to have been written late in this period. Its standpoint is Viśishṭādvaita, and the texts used to establish the teaching of the *bhāshya* are drawn from the *Bhāgavata P.*, Upanishad texts being cited only as subsidiary evidence. The author is called Śukāchārya, and is said to have been the founder of the *Bhāgavata* monastery at Talkad in Mysore, but the work is probably pseudonymous. It is a suspicious circumstance that a *Bhāgavata bhāshya* should be not advaita but viśishṭādvaita. Further, no Śukāchārya appears in the guruparampara of Talkad, nor yet among the gurus of the Maṭha of Mulubazil, the only other Bhāgavata monastery in Mysore, while the authorities of both monasteries refuse to recognize the Śuka Bhāshya as a Bhāgavata work.¹

c12.t5.8

¹ I am deeply indebted to Mr. R. Narasimhachar, Director of Archaeological Research in Mysore, who, at my request, wrote to Talkad for information with regard to the age of the bhāshya, and elicited the facts stated in this sentence.

c12.t5.9

The Bhāgavatas, being both Smārtas and devotees of Viṣṇu, occupied from the first rather an unstable position between the orthodox and the sects, and their acceptance of the Bhāgavata P. deepened the difficulty for them. The results are visible in their history. In the Mysore and the Tamil south they are a scattered community possessing very few temples of their own and only a few monasteries. They worship in Śrī-Vaiṣṇava temples but distinguish themselves from Śrī-Vaiṣṇavas by wearing the ancient sect-mark, a single upright line of cream-coloured gopīchandana,² and by using the Bhāgavata mantra.³ Occasionally individual Bhāgavatas pass over to the Śrī-Vaiṣṇava community. In the Kanarese country on the western coast they still maintain themselves, although greatly outnumbered by Mādhvas, and have a number of temples. Throughout these wide areas they still venerate Śiva as well as Viṣṇu, observe Vedic rites, and are recognized as Smārtas. They recognize no commentary on the Bhāgavata except Śrīdhara’s. All the other sects dependent on the Bhāgavata P. have experienced the same difficulty of maintaining the Vedic position, and most are in consequence now frankly sectarian.

c12.t5.10

² See § 277.

c12.t5.11

³ See § 161.

c12.t5.12

2. Marāṭhā Bhaktas.

c12.t5.13

§ 357. There seems to have been an interval of quite a century after Jñāneśvara before another star of any magnitude arose among the Marāṭhā Bhāgavatas. The next notable singer is Nāmdeva. There is a local tradition to the effect that he and Jñāneśvara met at least once, while in the *Bhakta-mālā* they are regarded as master and disciple. In consequence of this Nāmdeva has usually been placed at the end of the thirteenth, and the beginning of the fourteenth, century; but his Marāṭhī is of such a character that Sir Rāmakṛiṣṇa Bhandarkar is inclined to date him a century later.¹ Now, a number of his hymns occur in the Sikh *Granth*, and he is regarded as one of a few bhaktas who, coming just before Rāmānanda, prepared the way for him. There seems to be sufficient evidence to show that Rāmānanda flourished in the second and third quarters of the fifteenth century; so that Nāmdeva's *floruit* would be somewhere about 1400 to 1430. Mr. Baleśvar Prasād, who is a most careful student of Hindī literature, gives² A.D. 1423 as his *floruit*, which agrees perfectly with the above reasoning and with Sir Rāmakṛiṣṇa's conjecture. This chronology is finally established by one of Nāmdeva's own *abhangs*, ‘Gone are the saints’,³ which makes it absolutely clear that Jñāneśvara and his saintly companions lived long before him. He was a tailor, *shimpi*, by birth and occupation, but he spent his life propagating bhakti in the Marāṭhā country and in the Punjab. In his verse the influence of Islam first appears in the Marāṭhā country. He and those who followed him criticized idolatry with some severity but continued the use of idols. A large body of Marāṭhī hymns are attributed to him, and a considerable number of Hindī hymns appear under his name in the *Granth*, the whole forming a mass of verse of very high quality. A careful comparison of the two groups would probably throw further light on the man and his life. He was influential in the Punjab as well as in the Marāṭhā country, as is proved by his hymns in the *Granth* and by a shrine dedicated to his memory and still in use at Ghuman in the Gurdaspur district.⁴ Another Marāṭhā singer, Trilochan by name, seems to have been a contemporary of Nāmdeva, but very little is known about him. Three of his Hindī hymns appear in the *Granth*, but his Marāṭhī hymns, and even his memory, seem to be lost in his native land.

c12.t5.14

¹ *VS.* 92.

c12.t5.15

² *SBS.* II. 26.

c12.t5.16

³ Macnicol, *PMS.* 41.

c12.t5.17

⁴ Macauliffe, VI. 39.

c12.t5.18

The next leader of eminence among the Marāṭhā bhaktas is Eknāth (died 1608), who was a Brāhman and lived at Paithan. He is said to have spoken and acted in opposition to caste, and to have suffered for his zeal. But he has been most influential through his Marāṭhī verse translations from the *Bhāgavata P.*¹ He left also a collection of twenty-six abhaṅgs called *Haripāth*. In philosophy he was a monist, like Mukundarāj and Jñāneśvara.

c12.t5.19

¹ Parts of these are sung in Saṅkīrtan in the temple at Paṇḍharpur.

c12.t5.20

Tukārām (1608–49) was a petty shopkeeper. He is passionately devoted to Viṭhobā, and his personal religious life is reflected with great vividness in his moving lines—his longing for God, his humility, his sense of unworthiness, his boundless need, his trust in God, and his appeals and prayers for help. It is his own religious life that occupies his soul; as in most forms of Hinduism, there are but few traces of the passion for winning others. His worship centres in the image of his god. He is conscious of Viṭhobā’s omnipresence, and his spirituality, and yet somehow the invisible God is identified with the adored image before which the worshipper bends. His hymns are of a very high order, and are probably the largest religious influence in the Marāṭhā country. There is scarcely a theological or philosophical system to be found in his writings, but so far as philosophical thinking may be traced, he tends to be a monist. Śivajī, the man who welded the Marāṭhā race into a strong people, rose to prominence in the last few years of Tukārām’s life, and he sent some of his councillors to beg him to come to court, but Tukārām sent him a few stanzas instead.

c12.t5.21

Nārāyaṇa (1608–81), who later took the name of Rām Dās, probably under the influence of the Rāmānandī movement, was also a poet, but his verse has not laid hold of the people in the same way as Tukārām’s. Yet he exerted great personal influence over Śivajī from 1650 onwards. His poem, *Daśabodha*, contains much shrewd wisdom, but it is philosophical rather than religious. A small sect, the Rām-dāsīs, still perpetuate his name, wear a sect-mark, and use a secret mantra of their own. The head-quarters are at Sajjangarh, near Satāra, where there is the Samādh of Rām Dās, a temple to Rām Chandra, and a Rām-dāsī monastery. There are many sādhus belonging to the sect.

c12.t5.22

A Brāhman poet, named Śrīdhara, rose to great fame and popularity during the first quarter of the eighteenth century. His leading works present in stirring Marāṭhī verse the great stories of the *Rāmāyaṇa* and the *Mahābhārata*. His influence is not directly religious, except in so far as the stories he reproduces have a religious character.

c12.t5.23

Mahīpati, who flourished later in the same century, gave his strength to writing the lives of devotees and saints.

c12.t5.24

§ 358. The Bhāgavatas of the Marāṭhā country to-day form a popular bhakti movement, the literature of which, apart from the *Bhāgavata P.* itself and Śrīdhara’s commentary, is all in the vernacular. The god is Viṭṭhal or Viṭhobā; both these names are merely local variations of Viṣṇu. The chief centres are Paṇḍharpur, Alandi, and Dehu, but there are numerous shrines throughout the country. In the chief temple of Paṇḍharpur Viṭṭhal wears a curious sort of crown, which the priests say is Śiva’s *liṅga*; so that the image, standing for both gods, is truly Bhāgavata. Viṭṭhal has several consorts installed near him, each in a separate shrine, Rakmabai (i.e. Rukmiṇī), Rādhā, Satyabhāmā, and Lakṣmī; but it is noteworthy that Rādhā takes no place in Marāṭhī literature. Mahādeva, Gaṇapati, and Sūrya are also installed; so that, taking Lakṣmī as devī, the five gods are still worshipped there. No Outcaste is admitted to Bhāgavata temples in Mahārāṣtra. Nāmdeva’s head, represented in brass, is placed on the lowest step of the stair which leads up to the gate of the temple; and the shrine of an Outcaste named

c12.t5.25

Chokamela ¹ is on the opposite side of the street. Monthly and annual pilgrimages are made to the chief sacred places. The pilgrims are called Warkaris. Those who have made the pilgrimage a number of times are allowed to carry a red banner. As they march along, they shout ‘Dynanobā, Tukārām’, and sing Abhaṅgs. There are also hired singers called Haridāsīs, who sing Marāṭhī Abhaṅgs and portions of Eknāth’s translations from the Bhāgavata in the temple of Paṇḍharpur.

c12.t5.26

¹ He was a Mahār. His poetry survives, and parts of it are very fine.

c12.t5.27

One of the best institutions of the movement is called *Harikathā*, a sort of sermon in song which the leader opens by shouting aloud several times, *Jai Rāma-Kṛiṣhṇa Hari*. He then sings a number of hymns and other texts in verse, expounding each in prose. This method of mingled song and exhortation is found in the south also, where the singer is called *Kālakshepam*.

c12.t5.28

§ 359. The bhakti movement in Gujarāt remains Smārta in general character to the present day. The two chief temples are dedicated to Raṇachor Rai, i.e. the king who left the fight, an allusion to the occasion on which, according to the mythology, Kṛiṣhṇa left Mathurā and came to Dwārkā. These two great shrines are at Dwārkā and at Daker near Ahmadabad. In both the ritual is still conducted in accordance with Vedic rules.

c12.t5.29

3. The Mādhvas.

c12.t5.30

§ 360. The history of the Mādhva sect during this period is not yet known; so that all we can do is to give some account of the literature, so far as scholars have dealt with it.

c12.t5.31

A Mādhva ascetic named Viṣhṇu Purī, who belonged to Tirhut and probably lived in the second half of the fourteenth century, made a selection of the finest utterances on bhakti in the Bhāgavata, and arranged them according to subject in thirteen groups. He called each of these collections a string of gems, and named the whole *Bhaktiratnāvalī*, or ‘Necklace of Bhakti Gems’, the best introduction to Bhāgavata bhakti. It was translated into Bengali by Lauriya Kṛṣṇa Dāsa early in the fifteenth century.

c12.t5.32

It was a later Mādhva ascetic, Īśvara Purī, who won Chaitanya¹ to the faith. The new leader amply repaid the Mādhva community for this service. During his southern tour, 1509-11, he stimulated Mādhvas by his preaching and his enthusiastic singing. It is probable, indeed, that it was he that started Saṅkīrtan and Nagarkīrtan in the sect; for there seems to have been little emotional singing before his day. In any case the first great outburst of Kanarese hymn-writing among Mādhvas came shortly after his visit. The chief singer was Puramdar Dās, but there were many others. One of the most noted Mādhva scholars, Śrī Vyāsa Rāja, was a contemporary of Chaitanya. He lived in the south and wrote a number of works which are still much used.

c12.t5.33

¹ See § 364.

c12.t5.34

In the eighteenth century another group of enthusiastic bhaktas produced Kanarese hymns in praise of Kṛṣṇa. The chief writers were Timmappa Dās and Madhva Dās. About the same time lived Chidānanda whose Kanarese work *Haribhakti-rasāyana*, the ‘Sweets of Devotion to Kṛṣṇa’, is well known. The *Harikathāsāra*, a clear account of Mādhva doctrine in Kanarese prose, the date of which I do not know, is a very popular book.

c12.t5.35

There are also many Kanarese translations of Sanskrit works. They are almost without exception Vaiṣṇava, and many of them are probably the work of Mādhvas, but they are rather entertaining poems than religious books. Yet they must have helped the Mādhva cause. Between 1508 and 1530 the *Mahābhārata* was rendered into Kanarese by a number of writers, and about 1590 the *Rāmāyaṇa* was translated by a poet who called himself the younger Vālmīki, Kumāra Vālmīki. The *Bhāgavata P.* was translated about the same time, and rather later a special translation of the tenth book, known as *Kṛṣṇa Līlābhyudaya*, was written by a Mādhva named Veṅkāya Ārya. The *Jaimini Bhārata* by Lakshmīśa Devapura, the date of which is 1760, is a description of the wanderings of the horse for Yuddhishthira’s horse-sacrifice, but the aim in view is the praise of Kṛishṇa.

c12.t5.36

Mādhva ascetics are sannyāsīs belonging to Śaṅkara’s Daśnāmīs. Madhva himself and his chief disciples belonged to the Tīrtha order, but in the later history many were Purīs or Bhāratīs.

c12.t5.37

4. The Vishṇusvāmīs.

c12.t5.38

§ 361. The history of the Vishṇusvāmī sect is very obscure throughout this period. Since the seventeenth century they have been very weak; and the absence of a strong tradition is sufficient to account for the lack of information.

c12.t5.39

Bilvamaṅgala, a Vishṇusvāmī ascetic, is remembered because of his *Kṛishṇakarṇāmṛita*, a Sanskrit poem on Kṛishṇa and Rādhā which has been much admired. There are stories which connect him with Calicut and with the foundation of the temple of Padmanābha at Trivandram, Travancore. He probably lived early in the fifteenth century. Another scholar belonging to the sect, Varadarāja by name, wrote a *ṭīkā* on the *Bhāgavata P.* A manuscript of it, about 200 years old, lies in the library of the Sanskrit College, Benares, but it has not been examined. The date of the writer is unknown.

c12.t5.40

The rise of the Chaitanya and Vallabha¹ sects at the beginning of the sixteenth century bore very heavily upon the Vishṇusvāmīs and the Nimbārkas; and the Vishṇusvāmīs were in the long run almost completely absorbed by the Vallabhas. The sect is now extremely small. At the Kumbh Mela at Allahabad in February, 1918, I met some half a dozen Vishṇusvāmī ascetics. They wore the old sect-mark on their foreheads, and talked freely about the sect. Two monasteries, they averred, still survive, one at Kaṅkraoli near Udaipur in Rajputana and one at Kamban near Bhurtpore in the U. P. They also say that Viṣṇusvāmī's *Bhāgavata-bhāshya* still survives, and that a copy lies in each monastery. They use two books, the *Viṣṇu-rahasya* and the *Tattvatraya*, which they ascribe to Viṣṇusvāmī.

c12.t5.41

¹ See § 364 and § 372.

c12.t5.42

5. The Nimbārkas.

c12.t5.43

§ 362. The history of the Nimbārkas from 1350 to 1500 is unknown, but a reorganization of the sect appears to have been carried out about A.D. 1500, whereby the householders of the community were placed under one pontiff and the sannyāsīs under another. The succession in each case seems to have been faithfully kept up until to-day. The first pair of leaders, Keśava Kaśmīri, the head of the lay division, and his brother-in-law, Harivyāsa Muni, head of the ascetics, were contemporaries of Chaitanya and Vallabha. Keśava Kaśmīri was a well-known scholar and commentator. His *Krama-dīpikā*, a manual of the ritual, consists in the main of extracts from the *Gautamīya S.* The Nimbārkas practise a very quiet type of Saṅkīrtan, the hymns for which were written by Harivyāsa Muni and Śrī Bhaṭṭ, who lived about the same time. It is probable that the Saṅkīrtan was suggested by the practice of the Chaitanyas.¹

c12.t5.44

¹ I owe many of these facts about the Nimbārka sect to Mr. Rādhā Charaṇa Goswāmī, Honorary Magistrate, Brindāban.

c12.t5.45

The two chief centres of the Nimbārka sect to-day are Salīmabad, south of Ajmere, and Brindāban. The succession of the pontiffs in each case has been preserved,² but not much is known about the history. They have suffered from the competition of the Chaitanyas and the Vallabhas, like the Viṣṇusvāmīs, but not to the same extent. They still possess a number of temples at Brindāban and elsewhere.

c12.t5.46

² Growse, *M.* 147; Bhandarkar, *VS.* 62.

c12.t5.47

6. Rādhā-Kṛiṣṇa Literary Verse.

c12.t5.48

§ 363. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries a great deal of Rādhā-Kṛiṣṇa literature was written in North India. Chaṇḍī-Dās, who belonged to Jayadeva's district of Bengal and flourished about 1380 to 1420, though a Śākta,¹ wrote Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa hymns of great power in Bengālī; and Vidyāpati, who belonged to Tirhut, and used Maithilī, the dialect of that part of India, produced in the middle of the fifteenth century Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa lyrics which not only pleased his own people, but captured the heart of Bengal when re-expressed in Bengālī. It seems most likely that Umāpati Dhara also, whose Kṛṣṇaite songs in Maithilī and Bengālī have recently been made known, belonged to Tirhut and was a contemporary of Vidyāpati. Narsing Mehtā, a Brāhman belonging to Junāgaḍh in Kathiawar and a famous Gujarātī poet, wrote many Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa lyrics which are very popular, but are also rather erotic. His flowering time may be placed at 1450-80. Mīrā Bāī, a princess of the house of Merta in Jodhpur, became the wife of the heir-apparent to the Mewar throne, but he died before the assassination of his father, the great Kumbha Rāṇā, in 1469.² Left a widow, and rather ungraciously treated by her brother-in-law, who had succeeded to the throne, she left Chittore and became a disciple of Rai Dās,³ the Rāmānandī, and then a devotee of Kṛṣṇa. Her Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa lyrics in Braj are very famous but rather disappointing. There are also numerous songs in Gujarātī attributed to her, some of them containing an erotic element. The two groups require to be critically examined together. It is not known whether any of these poets belonged to the Viṣṇusvāmī or the Nimbārka sect. As Chaṇḍī Dās was a Śākta, the others also may have written Kṛṣṇaite verse without belonging to any Kṛṣṇaite community. Yet this rich literature proves the vogue of the teaching of the two sects.

c12.t5.49

¹ Hence his name, Servant of Chaṇḍī, the goddess.

c12.t5.50

² My information comes from the palace records of the Mewār family. I am greatly indebted to my friend the Rev. Dr. James Shepherd of Udaipur for ascertaining the actual facts. Much legend has gathered round Mīrā Bāī’s name.

c12.t5.51

³ She mentions him in three of her lyrics. See § 393.

c12.t5.52

7. The Chaitanya Sect.

c12.t5.53

§ 364. Two new sects were founded at the opening of the sixteenth century, the Chaitanyas and the Vallabhas. Vallabha was probably the earlier of the two, but we take Chaitanya first because his teaching and practice stand in closer relation to the earlier sects.

c12.t5.54

Viśvambhara Miśra (1485–1533) was born in Nuddea, in Bengal, and made himself a name as a student and teacher of logic and grammar while still young. In A. D. 1507 he was won to a serious life and the practice of the passionate bhakti of the Bhāgavata P. by Īśvara Purī, a Mādhva sannyāsī. He at once began to preach, and disciples and supporters gathered round him, notably Advaitāchārya, an old and revered Vaishṇava scholar, and Nityānanda, who for many years had been a Mādhva. But he came also under the influence of the Nimbārkas and the Vishṇusvāmīs, and used with great delight the songs of Jayadeva, Chaṇḍī Dās, and Vidyāpati. He thus went beyond his Mādhva teachers, and gave Rādhā a very prominent place in his thought and his worship. He spent a great deal of time singing Rādhā-Kṛishṇa hymns with his followers, rousing them to devotional excitement (saṅkīrtana). Frequently he led them out through the city in procession, dancing and singing with such fervour and contagious emotion as to carry the people away in devotional raptures (nagarkīrtana). These new methods were destined to prove very fruitful.

c12.t5.55

In 1509 he became initiated as a Bhāratī sannyāsī by a Mādhva, Keśava Bhāratī, and took the name Kṛishṇa Chaitanya. He then went to Purī in Orissa to the temple of Kṛishṇa (here called Jagannāth, Lord of the World), but for some years he spent most of his time in long journeys in the south and in the north. He was already believed to be an avatāra of Kṛishṇa by the people of Nuddea, and his cult had begun. From about 1516 he lived at Purī. His adherents increased rapidly from the time he became a sannyāsī, notably Sārvabhauma, the greatest authority on logic of the day, Pratāpa Rudra, the King of Orissa, and Rāmānanda Rai, Pratāpa Rudra’s Brāhman minister. Rather later, he won two scholars who were destined to become the theologians of the faith. He gave them new names, Rūpa and Sanātana, and sent them to Brindāban to seek out the old sacred sites (then lying desolate through Muslim fury) and produce a Sanskrit literature for the sect. Several of his disciples became accomplished hymn-writers, especially Narahari Sarkar, Vāsudeva Ghosh, and Vamśivadana. They wrote not only Rādhā-Kṛiṣhṇa hymns but songs in praise of Chaitanya, called Gaur Chandrikā; for his beauty and fair complexion had brought him the name Gaur Chandra. He passed away in 1533.

c12.t5.56

Chaitanya was neither an organizer nor a writer. He left the organization of the sect to Nityānanda, while Rūpa and Sanātana took up the task of expressing the theology. Nor can we be sure that he had a settled system in his mind; though it was probably he that decided that the philosophic position of the sect should be the Bhedābheda of Nimbārka rather than the Dvaita of Madhva. His chief reading seems to have been the Bhāgavata P. with Śrīdhara’s commentary, the lyrics of Jayadeva, Vidyāpati, and Chaṇḍī Dās, the Brahma Saṃhitā and the Kṛiṣhṇakarṇāmṛita.¹ His power over men came from the reality of his religious experience, from the overpowering emotions which he exhibited when gazing on a divine image or discoursing on Kṛiṣhṇa and his love, and from the sincerity and contagious passion of his new modes of praise. He made the Rādhā-Kṛiṣhṇa myth the basis of his teaching and worship, because, as he tells us himself, the Hindus had nothing else that could touch the hearts of men so powerfully.² In his hands the unpleasing tale was unquestionably used in masterly fashion for noble ends.

c12.t5.57

¹ He brought manuscripts of the two last-mentioned works back with him from the south.

c12.t5.58

² Sen, HBLL. 536.

c12.t5.59

The historian of Bengālī literature describes the Vaishṇava community in Bengal as utterly stunned and crushed by the passing of Chaitanya:

c12.t5.60

From 1533 to 1590¹ the Vaishṇava community of Bengal lay enervated by an overpowering feeling of forlornness. The saṅkīrtana parties lost all heart, and their great music which had taken the country by surprise and flooded it with poetry, broke in the midst of their enthusiastic performances, and sounded no more on the banks of the Ganges. The companions of Chaitanya, mute and stricken with a sense of their great loss, one by one departed from the world; and the history of this period shows no striking feature of the Vaishṇava movement and no activity of any noteworthy nature.²

c12.t5.61

¹ Probably a slip for 1570.

c12.t5.62

² Sen, VLMB. 68.

c12.t5.63

But, though literature failed and music died away, the sect lived on. Nityānanda continued to organize the community and give it rules of conduct; and his son Vīrachandra carried on the work after his father's death, receiving as many as 2,500 Buddhist monks and nuns into the new ascetic orders in one day.³

First 142 of 418 passages. Read on

Cites (99)