|
Ravi M.
Gupta (Radhika Ramana Dasa)
This article
takes us to a time and place of special importance in the history of
Caitanya Vaisnavism. The first half of the eighteenth century was a
period of dynamic growth, prestige, and prosperity for the followers
of Sri Caitanya, especially in the Rajput kingdom of modern-day
Rajasthan. But with the growth and success of any community, crucial
questions of identity and legitimacy arise. How do we define
ourselves as a community? From where do we derive our authority? How
do we represent ourselves to those who are not members of our
community? In the Indian religious context, such questions usually
centre on the important concept of sampradaya, or disciplic
tradition. So also in the history of Caitanya Vaisnavism, questions
of sampradaya have caused some controversy, particularly in
regard to the issue of affiliation with the Madhva tradition. Some
members of the tradition argue that Sri Caitanya and his followers
were affiliated with Madhvacarya, others argue to the contrary. The
author’s purpose here is not to decide the debate either way or
even present all the evidence; rather to show how controversies of
this sort can become opportunities for clarifying a community’s
sense of identity and purpose. One acarya in particular,
Baladeva Vidyabhusana, seized such an opportunity when it arose and
used it to preserve and strengthen the tradition.
It is ironic that
the nature of a community’s religious identity is often most
clearly revealed when that identity is called into question. The
delicate network of relationships that lends stability to a notion of
religious identity is clarified precisely when that network becomes
unstable. A challenge from outside the community, a controversy from
within, or changing socio-political circumstances can bring issues of
identity into sharp focus.
In
the Hindu context, such disturbances are often centred on the
important category of sampradaya. The word ‘sampradaya’
can be loosely translated as ‘tradition’ or ‘religious
system’, although the word commands much more power and respect
in the Indian context than do its translations in English. Perhaps
sampradaya is more analogous to ‘cumulative tradition’,
in the way Wilfred Cantwell Smith uses the phrase.
Sampradaya is a body of precept, practice, and attitudes,
which are transmitted to, and redefined by, each successive
generation of followers. Participation in sampradaya forces
continuity with the past, but at the same time provides a platform
for change from within the community of practitioners.
Besides
this human locus, however, sampradaya also has a divine
genesis, an origin which continually re-presents itself in successive
generations. The notion of sampradaya is closely tied to the
concrete reality of guru-parampara—the lineage of
spiritual masters who are both repositories and transmitters of
tradition. William Pinch writes of the relationship between
sampradaya and parampara,
What requires
emphasis, however, is the fact that the institutional memory implicit
to guru parampara defined the contours of sampraday [sic]
for every individual. Each is linked to the others by a common
memory, binding Ramanandis [members of the sampradaya] in the
present by connecting them collectively to the past. Sampraday is
predicated upon a remembered past lined with charismatic preceptors
deriving inspiration from a divine origin. (Pinch, p. 40–1)
This
continuity with the past and appeal to divine inspiration go hand in
hand with issues of legitimacy and authority. Bestowing legitimacy,
whether to a theological doctrine, a ritual procedure, or to an
individual in the parampara, is one of the primary functions
of sampradaya. Membership in, and appeal to, a sampradaya
not only lends authority to one’s truth claims, but allows one
to make those claims in the first place. An oft-quoted verse from the
Padma Purana states, sampradayavihina ye mantras te
nisphala matah: ‘Mantras which are not received in
sampradaya are considered fruitless.’
Because
of the multi-faceted role sampradaya plays in the formation,
transmission, and perpetuation of communal religious identity, it
naturally becomes the locus of many challenges to that identity.
These challenges, in turn, become fruitful places to look at for the
constituents of religious identity. But for most observers,
controversies regarding sampradaya usually mean controversies
of succession. These are controversies at the human end of the
parampara, over ‘who is the legitimate representative of
a particular line, or . . . whose “level of divine
realization” is superior’ (Jarow, p. 60). What is often
ignored is that the divine end (or rather, divine beginning) of the
parampara, the transcendental origin of the lineage, can be
equally problematic. This is especially the case with the younger
sampradayas of North India, whose members often have to look
to older lineages to establish the legitimacy of their line.
Questions such as, ‘Who is the founder of, or primary
inspiration for, our sampradaya? Did he in fact found a new
sampradaya, or was he simply transforming and renewing one
that already existed? In either case, did he establish his legitimacy
by accepting initiation in an existing sampradaya, or is his
authority self-manifest?’ Questions such as this invert the
locus of controversies, and in a sense deepen it, because they
challenge the identity structure of every member of the lineage.
Whereas a controversy over succession may cause the sampradaya
to branch under two leaderships, controversy over divine
origin threatens to split the sampradaya into two
distinct lines, with only one point of intersection—namely, the
common inspirer of both.
In many
ways, such controversies over origin of lineage reflect the much
larger Indian concern over parentage. This concern operates at many
levels, including the religious, and is closely tied to issues of
identity and legitimacy. At the most basic, individual level,
membership in a legitimate sampradaya is akin to having
legitimate parentage in social circles. Even as producing a genealogy
ensures respectability in society, initiation into a parampara
community brings acceptability in religious circles.
But the
force of parentage does not stop here. The parampara community
itself must prove its legitimacy in order to gain an identity for the
community as a whole. As Wright and Wright put it, ‘If one
cannot prove natal legitimacy, one may be cast out as a bastard. The
same social standard applies to religious organizations. If a
religious group cannot prove its descent from one of the recognised
traditions, it risks being dismissed as illegitimate.’ (Wright
and Wright , p. 162) This meta-parentage, so to speak, is the divine
end of sampradaya, the non-human source which gives ‘birth’
to the line of human teachers. This higher order of legitimacy can be
secured by a community in two ways: either by making an independent
claim to direct descent from God himself, or by aligning oneself with
another sampradaya which has already secured its
meta-legitimacy. The second option is easier, because it allows one
to make the leap to a divine origin simply by connecting to the human
end of another sampradaya. But it also means less prestige for
the younger group, as it gets ‘tagged on’ to a larger and
more soteriologically important community. Thus, a younger group
might choose both options, professing allegiance to a recognised
parampara in order to gain acceptability, while claiming
divine status for its founder and an independent theology.
This,
then, brings us to the heart of the identity issue I wish to focus on
here, namely, the controversy over meta-parentage that was and still
is played out in the Caitanya Vaisnava sampradaya of Vrndavana
and Bengal.
The
Caitanya school of Vaisnavism, also known as Gaudiya Vaisnavism
because of its Bengali origins, was founded in the sixteenth century
by the ecstatic saint and spiritual teacher, Sri Krsna Caitanya. Sri
Caitanya, also known to his followers as ‘Mahaprabhu’,
the great master, taught that unmotivated bhakti (devotion) to
Krsna is the highest human goal. Caitanya Vaisnavas prefer to worship
Krsna as the blue-hued cowherd-boy sporting in forests of Vrndavana,
his childhood home. This Krsna is the Supreme Godhead, the source
even of Visnu, and all living entities are his natural servitors. The
ideal of selfless devotion and surrender to Krsna is exemplified by
the gopis of Vrndavana, Krsna’s cowherd girlfriends, and
of all the gopis, Srimati Radha is the topmost. Thus, in
Caitanya Vaisnava temples, Krsna is worshipped along with his eternal
consort, Radha.
Caitanya
himself is considered by members of the sampradaya to be a
combined incarnation of Radha and Krsna.
This fact is not insignificant for our study, because the founder’s
dual identity provides the theological underpinnings for the
sampradaya’s issues over identity. As both Radha and
Krsna, Caitanya plays a dual role in the lives of devotees. He is
both the ideal worshipper (sadhaka) and the worshipable goal
(sadhya), he is both the best devotee (bhakta) and the
Supreme Lord (bhagavan), and he is both the teacher (acarya)
to be emulated but also the Lord (isvara) who is not to be
imitated. Caitanya’s dual role encapsulates the tension that
unfolds itself in the controversy over the meta-parentage of the
sampradaya. Who is Sri Caitanya? As God himself, is he the
self-illuminating founder of a new and independent sampradaya?
Or as the ideal devotee, did he take initiation into an
already-recognised sampradaya to set a proper example? Do his
followers owe allegiance to a parampara that predates
Caitanya, or are they recipients of a new dispensation who need
answer to no one?
In the
case of Caitanya Vaisnavism, the senior sampradaya in question
is the Madhva sampradaya, founded by the South Indian acarya
Madhva in the eleventh century. Defendants of the view favouring
affiliation claim that Caitanya’s guru’s guru,
Madhavendra Puri, was initiated by a teacher of the Madhva school,
Laksmipati Tirtha. Defendants of the separatist view claim that the
connection is spurious.
Proponents
of either side agree that Caitanya is both devotee and God; the
question is simply which of the two identities is most relevant for
issues of sampradaya. O. B. L. Kapoor, in a systematic defense
of the view favouring affiliation, writes,
We have no intention
of questioning the faith of the Sampradaya regarding the
divinity of Sri Caitanya . . . It is a fact that he took Mantra diksa
from his Guru, Isvara Puri, and he must, from that point of view be
regarded as formally affiliated with the Sampradaya to which Isvara
Puri belonged [namely, the Madhva sampradaya]. Even the
uniqueness of his position of Bhakta-Bhagavan involves this aspect,
since as Bhakta, who must seek initiation before he can start his
Sadhana, he must be linked with some Sampradaya. (Kapoor, p. 45)
For
Kapoor, Caitanya’s identity as devotee necessitates his
adherence to the formality of initiation. But Radha Govinda Nath, an
early twentieth century devotee-scholar to whom Kapoor responds in
his essay, argues that Caitanya’s identity as God makes
sampradaya affiliation redundant and unwanted. Nath quotes the
eighteenth century commentator Sri Isvari in support of his point,
‘Therefore
. . . Sri Krsna Caitanya, who is the Supreme Godhead Himself (svayam
bhagavan), is the propagator of the sampradaya and his
associates only are the gurus of the sampradaya, not anyone
else.’ . . . By this statement it is clear that Sriman
Mahaprabhu himself is the propagator of the ‘Gaudiya
Sampradaya.’ Therefore it is indeed appropriate to call it the
‘Caitanya Sampradaya’ [as opposed to ‘the Madhva sampradaya’].
(Nath, pp. 22, 33)
Whether
or not Caitanya’s prestige is diminished by his membership in
another sampradaya is a question that must be resolved
theologically within the tradition itself. What is clear, however, is
that the issue of sampradaya affiliation was not near as
important to the early followers of Caitanya as it became for later
generations. The immediate disciples of Caitanya, especially the six
Gosvamis, argue neither for nor against affiliation with any
particular sampradaya. Caitanya’s position as their
leader and spiritual master was quite obvious to them. Although they
were aware that he was affiliated with another sampradaya by
virtue of the fact that he received both mantra-diksa and
sannyasa-diksa from gurus of already-existing sampradayas,
they saw no reason to emphasise that affiliation.
At the same time, they did not see themselves in opposition to other
lineages, and were quite happy to use the acaryas of these
traditions as authoritative sources in their writings.
It was
at the beginning of the eighteenth century that the issue of
sampradaya affiliation took centre stage and became a point of
serious controversy both within and beyond the Caitanya tradition.
The events and literature of this period provide us with a concrete
example of how the tradition was transformed on the inside when its
identity structure was challenged on the outside. A brief account of
the historical context surrounding the controversy will put the
issues at stake in sharper focus.
Since
the time of Caitanya himself, the village of Vrndavana, Krsna’s
childhood home, has been the spiritual, intellectual, and
administrative centre of the Caitanya Vaisnava movement. Because of
its proximity to Delhi and Agra, as well as its importance as a
centre of trade and pilgrimage, the Mathura-Vrndavana region, in
present day Uttar Pradesh, was held under close supervision by the
Mughal rulers of India. When Aurangzeb issued an edict in 1669 to
‘destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the
infidels’, the Vaisnavas of Vrndavana saw a real threat to
their lives, property, and deities (Edwardes, p. 116).
As
a counterbalance to the Mughal rule, however, the Rajput kings of
Eastern Rajasthan also held considerable sway in the Vrndavana area.
Since the time of Akbar, the Mughal rulers had given considerable
autonomy to the Rajputs, or more specifically, the Kachavahas, in
exchange for their political loyalty and military support (Spear, p.
52). The Kachavahas, who became the highest ranking officers of the
Mughal court (Horstmann, p. 2), saw themselves as guardians of the
Hindu tradition and were given direct charge of several Vrndavana
temples belonging to the Caitanya sampradaya (Horstmann, p.
3).
The
most important of these temples was the one dedicated to Govindadeva,
a form of Krsna established by Rupa Gosvami. The image of Govinda is
accompanied by his consort, Srimati Radha, and together they are the
aradhya (worshipable deities) for all followers of Caitanya.
The Kachavaha kings had long-standing affinity for the deities of
Radha and Govinda, and through them for the Caitanya sampradaya.
Monika Horstmann describes Govindadeva’s increasing
significance for the Kachavaha rulers:
Around 1669, the
images of GD [Govindadeva] and his consort, Radha, . . . were removed
from Vrindaban and taken to the Kachavaha territory. The period from
1670 to 1739 is characterized by the gradual transformation of GD
from the Lord of Braj’s Vrindaban . . . to the Lord of the
Palace of Jaipur, a Lord who demanded tribute from the entire Jaipur
State. This glorious transformation was achieved by Jai Singh II.
(Horstmann, p. 3)
With
the rising fortunes of Govindadeva, his caretakers, the Caitanya
Vaisnavas,
also gained prominence in matters of ritual procedure and royal
ceremony. Over time, they superseded another sampradaya which
had so far enjoyed precedence in the kingdom, namely the Ramanandis.
This Vaisnava sampradaya, founded by the fourteenth-century
North Indian teacher Ramananda, reveres Lord Rama as the Supreme
Godhead. Although the Kachavahas had long venerated Rama as their
forefather and family deity, ‘since the time of Jai Singh II
Govindadeva has superseded Sitarama in the hearts of the rulers and
in certain ceremonies’ (Clementin-Ojha, p. 57, quoted in
Horstmann, p. 7).
This
rise to prominence, however, was not always smooth for the Caitanya
Vaisnavas, as the new arrivals faced many challenges to their
legitimacy, especially in their role as caretakers of Govindadeva.
Questions were raised by both rival sampradayas and by Jai
Singh himself, and were always mediated in the court of the King.
During the first quarter of the eighteenth century, three main
challenges were brought forward, hitting at Caitanyite theology,
ritual, and sampradaya. First, the propriety of worshipping
Radha and Krsna together was questioned since they are apparently not
married. Second, it was argued that one should worship Visnu before
worshipping Krsna, since Krsna is an avatara of Visnu, yet the
Caitanya Vaisnavas did not follow this order. And lastly, it was
alleged, the followers of Caitanya did not belong to an authorised
sampradaya, since there are only four recognised Vaisnava
sampradayas, namely, those founded by Ramanuja, Madhva,
Visnusvami and Nimbarka.
The
first two objections strike at the heart of what is unique to
Caitanya theology and practice. Krsna’s pre-eminence as the
Supreme Godhead and Radha’s inseparability from him are beliefs
that are held dearly by devotees. Any possibility of Radha’s
being separated from Krsna would have caused much consternation in
the community, for it would have stripped the devotees of their very
impetus to perform worship. The most serious objection, however, is
the third, since, as we have noted, without sampradaya, the
followers of Caitanya would lose the very ability to defend their
theology and practice.
Around
1723, the issue of sampradaya legitimacy came to a head and,
in the traditional manner of settling religious disputes, Maharaja
Jai Singh invited all parties to a conference at his court
(Elkman, p. 43). On the Caitanya side, a young scholar named Baladeva
Vidyabhusana
was deputed for the defense. Before joining the Caitanya sampradaya,
Baladeva had been an initiated member of the Madhva sampradaya,
and so had an advantage when it came to establishing his legitimacy
in the assembly. In fact, Baladeva argued that Caitanya himself was
affiliated with the Madhva sampradaya through his guru’s
guru, Madhavendra Puri, and thus all Caitanya Vaisnavas were members
of a legitimate Vaisnava parampara. In response to this,
however, Baladeva was asked to name a commentary on the Brahmasutra
that was acceptable to the Caitanya Vaisnavas. Traditionally, a
Brahmasutra commentary has been the defining work of any
Vedantic school of philosophy since the time of Sankara. If the
Caitanya Vaisnavas claimed legitimate status, they would have to
argue their theology either on the basis of Madhva’s
commentary, or else produce their own.
It
is here that the difficulty of establishing meta-parentage for a
sampradaya becomes clear. If Baladeva were to completely
identify the Caitanya Vaisnavas with the followers of Madhva, and use
Madhva’s Brahmasutra commentary, he would be unable to
defend the doctrines and practice unique to Caitanya Vaisnavism (such
as the worship of Radha and Krsna). On the other hand, the Caitanyas
had no commentary of their own, for they regarded the Bhagavata
Purana as the perfect, natural commentary, making a human
commentary redundant.
This, of course, was unacceptable to followers of other sampradayas,
and arguing this position would have alienated the Caitanya Vaisnavas
from the very sampradaya with which they claimed affiliation.
Thus, Baladeva chose a middle course, deciding to write a commentary
himself,
but drawing heavily from Madhva for his explanations within it.
The
delicate balancing act that Baladeva was engaged in might be seen
most clearly in another work called the Prameyaratnavali,
which was probably written around the same time as a supplement to
his commentary on the Brahmasutra.
In the Prameyaratnavali, Baladeva Vidyabhusana summarises
Caitanya Vaisnava theology in nine prameyas (theses). These
prameyas are short, didactic statements, concerning such
things as the nature of God and the means of knowing him, the living
entities, the world, and the relationship between them. Baladeva
systematically states each prameya, and then argues for its
validity by citing numerous scriptural passages and dealing with
possible objections.
Now,
the idea of summarising one’s theology in nine points was not
Baladeva’s; it had already been done by Vyasatirtha, an eminent
philosopher of the Madhva school
(Sharma 1981, p. 297). At the beginning of the Prameyaratnavali,
Baladeva paraphrases Vyasatirtha’s prameyas and then
identifies them with his own, saying, ‘So taught the great
master, Sri Caitanya’.
In other words, by utilising a pedagogical technique that was widely
known as belonging to the Madhva sampradaya, Baladeva was
clearly identifying his tradition with that of Madhva. At the same
time, the prameyas were only brief and non-specific
statements, allowing Baladeva enough theological leeway to argue for
the unique aspects of Caitanyite doctrine and practice. For example,
Baladeva’s first prameya says, ‘Visnu is supreme’,
and Vyasatirtha’s first says, ‘Hari is supreme’. On
the surface both prameyas are nearly identical. Yet in his
exposition of this prameya, Baladeva replaces Visnu
with Krsna
and cites a plethora of scriptural passages establishing Krsna’s
pre-eminence. He writes, ‘Because Krsna
is the [original] cause, because He is the resting place of qualities
like eternity, intelligence, and bliss, and because He eternally
possesses Laksmi
and other energies, therefore Krsna
is considered supreme’
(paragraph 10). In this way, Baladeva responds to the question of
ritual priority brought against the Caitanya Vaisnavas.
The
Prameyaratnavali also shows clear signs of responding to the
other challenges brought before the sampradaya. Baladeva
devotes an unusually long section in the first prameya to
Radha’s position as the inseparable sakti (energy) of
Krsna and source of all other Goddesses, such as Laksmi and Durga.
Most significantly, in the introduction to the Prameyaratnavali,
Baladeva makes a clear statement regarding the issue of sampradaya.
After offering homage to Madhvacarya,
he cites the verse from the Padma Purana identifying the
Vaisnava sampradayas as only four in number. He then lists his
own parampara tracing the succession of gurus from Madhva to
Sri Caitanya.
Although
I have argued here that the Prameyaratnavali displays the
concerns associated with the establishment of meta-legitimacy in the
Caitanya community,
specifically in regard to its affiliation with the Madhva sampradaya,
this claim is far from universally accepted. The conference at Jai
Singh’s court is interpreted entirely differently depending on
one’s stance on the issue of affiliation. Radha Govinda Nath,
for example, is unwilling to concede that Baladeva was in any
significant way influenced by the Madhva sampradaya. He
regards the guru-parampara at the beginning of the
Prameyaratnavali as an interpolation (Nath, p. 46). In order
to account for the obvious Madhva connection in the Prameyaratnavali,
Nath asserts that Baladeva wrote the work before he converted to
Caitanya Vaisnavism (Nath, p. 51), and thus all references to
Caitanya in the text are spurious. Although this seems to be a
difficult position to defend,
we must realise that for Nath, the very purpose of the debate was to
establish the Caitanya Vaisnavas as an independent sampradaya,
and so any move by Baladeva towards affiliation would have been
dishonest. Nath’s reasoning is simple: Baladeva was a follower
of Caitanya. But the views of Madhva and Caitanya differ in
significant ways, as we saw in the different interpretations of the
first prameya; therefore Baladeva—or for that matter any
Caitanya Vaisnava—could not possibly have aligned himself with
Madhva’s lineage (Nath, p. 52).
This
argument is countered by O. B. L. Kapoor, who believes that Nath
assumes a faulty premise, namely that in every case a disciple must
adhere to the views of the sampradaya into which he is
initiated. Although this is ordinarily required, says Kapoor, history
shows that a powerful acarya may offer a new set of teachings,
while still accepting membership in the sampradaya to set a
proper example (Kapoor, p. 42). Kapoor agrees that Caitanya differs
significantly from Madhva, and so concludes that their connection is
purely formal, though not meaningless (Kapoor, p. 45). Baladeva
Vidyabhusana brought this historical connection into the limelight,
but by no means did he invent it.
There is yet a third
side to the debate over meta-parentage, and that is the perspective
of the parent sampradaya in question. In general, scholars of
the Madhva sampradaya have been cautious in accepting
Caitanyite claims of affiliation. With neither complete agreement in
theology nor formal, institutional cooperation, there is little
reason for the Madhvas to include the followers of Caitanya in their
fold. The official parampara lists of the South Indian
Madhvite centres do not include Laksmipati Tirtha or Madhavendra Puri
(Sharma 1981, p. 525). Syamadasa, a contemporary Caitanyite scholar
who rejects affiliation, recalls several exchanges he has had with
leaders of the Madhva sampradaya wherein they denied any
familiarity with the life or teachings of Caitanya (Syamadasa, pp.
13–14).
At
the same time, Madhva scholars recognise the considerable influence
that their theology has had on writers of the Caitanya school, and
admit the real possibility of parampara connections.
The words of Bannanje Govindacharya, a respected Madhva author from
Udupi, exemplify the general ambivalence towards the Caitanya
tradition.
There are definite
differences [between the two traditions] although there are many
parallels as well. Besides Gaudiyas accept Caitanya Mahaprabhu as the
Deity, whereas Madhvas accept him as a great devotee. Who can say? .
. . I think a closer link would be Baladeva Vidyabhusana, who was
definitely influenced by Madhva’s thought. (Govindacharya, p.
15).
What is important to
note here is the confidence regarding Baladeva and his connection
with Madhva. B. N. K. Sharma displays similar confidence, ‘It
may therefore be observed that till the days of Jiva Gosvamin, the
Bengal Vaisnavas were only partially influenced by the
writings of Madhva and his followers. . . . It was in the 18th
century that this influence became very pronounced and predominant
[author’s italics]’ (Sharma 1981, p. 528). Sharma
assures us that although Baladeva was ‘an enthusiastic follower
of Caitanya’, ‘of his zealous acceptance of and devotion
to Madhva Sampradaya, there can be no doubt’ (Sharma 1981, p.
529). And in a recent article in the Journal of Vaisnava Studies,
Sharma enthusiastically endorses the Caitanya connection,
If the leaders of
Madhva thought among the intelligentsia would take advantage of the
existing common ground of tradition between Dvaita philosophy and the
Caitanya school, with its modern offshoot of ISKCON, it may be
expected to open a new chapter in the history of Vedantic Realism in
India. (Sharma 1997, p. 20)
Conclusion
We have thus seen a
myriad of attitudes and responses to the Caitanyite controversy over
sampradaya. The arguments on each side involve theological,
historical, and institutional considerations, but the underlying
issue is the same: the formation and transformation of communal
religious identity. Using a common body of literature and history as
evidence, each side arrives at a different conclusion, endorsing or
rejecting the Madhva connection to varying degrees. In the midst of
all this, Baladeva Vidyabhusana and his text, the Prameyaratnavali,
perform a delicate balancing act between the parties. Despite the
different views, it is significant that each side claims Baladeva for
itself. Those against affiliation are convinced that because Baladeva
wrote a new commentary on the Brahmasutra, he was establishing
an independent identity for the followers of Caitanya. But those
favouring affiliation claim that Baladeva was a champion of their
view because he proved a connection with the Madhva sampradaya
and thus defended the Caitanya Vaisnavas from allegations of
illegitimacy. The followers of Madhva are not quite sure what to make
of either side, but they are sure about one thing: Baladeva
Vidyabhusana was one of them. If Baladeva’s purpose in writing
was to mediate between the various parties, and if the current
situation is any measure of the past, then Baladeva Vidyabhusana
seems to have done remarkably well. He quite smoothly walked a
theological tightrope in the Caitanya sampradaya.
This
balancing act between identity and difference is one that has been
performed many times in the Indian context, with varying degrees of
subtlety and success. The Ramanandi sampradaya, for example,
went through its own crisis over meta-parentage some two hundred
years after the Caitanya Vaisnavas. Until the second decade of the
twentieth century, Ramanandis considered their lineage to be a branch
of the South Indian sampradaya of Ramanuja. By 1921, however,
after a debate held in Ujjain, Ramanuja had been ‘purged from
the institutional memory of the Ramanandi sampraday, and
Ramanand was declared to have acted independently in originating
Vaishnavism in the north’ (Pinch, p. 37).
A
study of this sort of identity transformation as it has occurred in
different traditions would be quite rewarding, bringing out many
fruitful points of comparison.
If it is true that the constituents of a community’s religious
identity are brought into sharper focus when that identity is
challenged, then we should have no shortage of opportunities to gain
insight into the theological and institutional dynamics of communal
religious identity.
Bibliography
A. C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Sri Caitanya-caritamrta of
Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami.
New York: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1974.
—— Teachings
of Lord Caitanya, the Golden Avatar. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta
Book Trust, 1988.
Baladeva
Vidyabhusana. Prameya Ratnavali. Trans. (into Hindi) Haridasa
Sastri. Vrindavan: Gadadhara Gaura Hari Press, 1981.
—— Prameya
Ratnavali by Baladeva Vidyabhusana. The Vedanta-Sutras of
Badarayana with the Commentary of Baladeva. Trans. Rai Bahadur
Srisa Chandra Vasu. New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint, 1979. Appendix
II.
—— The
Vedanta-Sutras of Badarayana with the Commentary of Baladeva.
Trans. Rai Bahadur Srisa Chandra Vasu. New Delhi: Oriental Books
Reprint, 1979.
Burton,
Adrian P. ‘Temples, Texts, and Taxes: The Bhagavad-Gita and the
Politico-Religious Identity of the Caitanya Sect.’ PhD
Dissertation. Australian National University, 2000.
Case, M. H., Beeche R., et
al. Eds. Govindadeva: a dialogue in stone. New Delhi: Indira
Gandhi National Centre for Arts, 1996.
Dasgupta,
Surendranath. A History of Indian Philosophy. Vol. 4. 1949.
London: Cambridge UP, 1973.
De,
Sushil Kumar. Early History of the Vaisnava Faith and Movement in
Bengal from
Sanskrit
and Bengali Sources. Calcutta: Firma KLM Private, 1986.
Edwardes,
S. M., and Garrett, H. L. O. Mughal Rule in India. Delhi: S.
Chand, n.d.
Elkman,
Mark Stuart. Jiva Gosvamin's Tattvasandarbha: A Study on the
Philosophical and Sectarian Development of the Gaudiya Vaisnava
Movement. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1986.
Entwistle,
A. W. Braj Centre of Krishna Pilgrimage. Groningen: Egbert
Forsten, 1987.
Govindacharya,
Bannanje. ‘An Interview with Professor Bannanje Govindacharya
on the Life of
Madhvacarya.’ in Journal of Vaisnava Studies. 5.3
(1997): pp. 7–16.
Grimes,
John. ‘Two Philosophical Presuppositions Vis-a-Vis Dvaita
Vedanta.’ in Journal of Vaisnava Studies 9.1 (2000): pp.
5–20.
Gupta,
Ravi M. ‘A Translation of Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s Sri
Prameya Ratnavali and an Essay Analyzing Its Philosophical and
Historical Context.’ Senior Thesis, Boise State University,
1999.
Hansen,
Waldemar. The Peacock Throne: The Drama of Mogul India. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.
Haynes,
Richard D. ‘Svami Haridas and the Haridasi Sampraday.’
Diss. U of Pennsylvania, 1974.
Horstmann,
Monika. In Favour of Govinddevji: Historical Documents Relating to
a Deity of Vrindaban and Eastern Rajasthan. Delhi: Indira Gandhi
National Centre for the Arts and Manohar, 1999.
Jarow,
E. H. Rick. ‘Karna and Controversy in the Mahabharata.’
in Journal of Vaisnava Studies 8.1 (1999): pp. 59–76.
Jiva
Gosvami. Jiva Gosvamin’s Tattvasandarbha: A Study on the
Philosophical and Sectarian Development of the Gaudiya Vaisnava
Movement. trans. Mark Stuart Elkman. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,
1984.
Kapoor,
O. B. L. ‘Sri Caitanya and the Madhva Sampradaya.’ in
Journal of Vaisnava Studies 5.3 (1997): pp. 35–53.
Mabbett,
I. W. A Short History of India. Melbourne: Cassell Australia,
1968.
Majumdar,
A. K. Caitanya: His Life and Doctrine. A Study in Vaisnavism.
Chowpatty,
Maharashtra: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,
1969.
Narang,
Sudesh. The Vaisnava Philosophy According to Baladeva
Vidyabhusana. Delhi: Nag, 1984.
Nath,
Radha Govinda. Sri Caitanya Sampradaya (Sri Gaudiya-Vaisnava
Sampradaya). Trans. Nityananda Dasa. Vrindavan: Sri Harinama
Sankirtana Mandala, 2000.
Sastri,
Haridasa, trans. (into Hindi). Prameya Ratnavali. By Baladeva
Vidyabhusana. Vrindavan: Gadadhara Gaura Hari Press, 1981.
Sharma,
B. N. K. ‘The Dvaita School of Vedanta.’ in Journal of
Vaisnava Studies 5.3 (1997): pp. 17–33.
—— History
of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and Its Literature. 2nd ed.
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1981.
Smith,
Wilfred Cantwell. The Meaning and End of Religion. New York:
Macmillan, 1963.
Spear,
Percival. A History of India. Vol. 2. Middlesex, England:
Penguin, 1965.
Syamadasa.
‘Sahars Nivedan.’ Sri Caitanya Sampradaya (Sri Gaudiya
Vaisnava Sampradaya).
ed. Nityananda Das. Vrindavan: Sri Harinama Sankirtana Mandala, 2000.
Wright,
Michael and Nancy Wright. ‘Baladeva Vidyabhusana: The Gaudiya
Vedantist.’ Journal of Vaisnava
Studies. 1.2 (1993): 158–84.
Notes
An abridged version of this essay was originally presented at the
Eastern International Regional Conference of the American Academy of
Religion in April 2002. The essay is dedicated to the sacred memory
of Tamal Krishna Goswami, who was a D.Phil. candidate at the
University of Cambridge when he passed away. He gave me valuable
guidance for the presentation. I am also thankful to my professors
and colleagues at the University of Oxford for their comments.
Smith defines the term in the Meaning and End of Religion.
‘By “cumulative tradition” I mean the entire mass
of overt objective data that constitute the historical deposit as it
were, of the past religious life of the community in question:
temples, scriptures, theological systems, . . . and so on; anything
that can be and is transmitted from one person, one generation, to
another, and that an historian can observe.’ (Smith, pp.
156–7). About the Hindu tradition he says, ‘It is
diverse, it is fluid, it grows, it changes, it accumulates. It
crystallizes in material form the faith of previous generations, and
it sets the context for the faith of each new generation as these
come along. But it neither includes nor fully determines that later
faith.’ (p. 159)
See Krsnadasa Kaviraja’s Sri Caitanya-caritamrta,
Adi-lila 1.5.
I have translated this passage from the Hindi.
There are, however, explicit references to affiliation with the
Madhva sampradaya in early Caitanyite literature. See
footnote 26.
See Jiva Gosvami’s Tattvasandarbha, Anucchedas
26–7.
For a description of the Rajput involvement in Vrndavana,
especially in relation to the Caitanya Sampradaya, see
Entwistle, Braj Centre of Krishna Pilgrimage; Horstmann,
In Favour of Govinddevji; and Margaret Case, ed.,
Govindadev: A Dialogue in Stone.
See Krsnadasa Kaviraja’s Sri Caitanya-caritamrta,
Adi-lila 1.16.
For a thorough and carefully reasoned account of this period in
Caitanya Vaisnava history, see Adrian Burton’s doctoral
dissertation, ‘Temples, Texts, and Taxes’, section 3.2.
Burton argues that instead of a single debate instigated by the
Ramanandis, as is usually portrayed in traditional
accounts (e.g. Wright and Wright), there were probably a series of
conferences, called by the Maharaja himself in an attempt to
reconcile and organise the many younger sampradayas in
his kingdom. All the issues described in the traditional accounts
were no doubt real and crucial, but they were addressed, says
Burton, in a series of debates rather than one.
This claim is based on the Padma Purana, but the
oft-quoted verses cannot be located in any edition of the Purana
available today.
sampradaya-vihina
ye mantras te viphala matah
atah
kalau bhavisyanti catvarah sampradayinah
sri-brahma-rudra-sanaka
vaisnavah ksiti-pavanah
catvaras
te kalau bhavya hy utkale purusottamat
‘Those
mantras which are devoid of a sampradaya are considered
fruitless. Therefore, in the age of Kali, there will be four
founders of sampradayas—Sri, Brahma, Rudra and
Sanaka. These Vaisnavas purify the world, and in the age of Kali,
they will arise from the Supreme Person in Utkala.’
The debate took place in Galta, near Jaipur.
Taking the available records into account, Burton places Baladeva
between about 1700 and 1793. (Burton, p. 108)
There are not many sources available on the life of Baladeva
Vidyabhusana. A fresh, well-researched account is provided by
Burton in his doctoral dissertation (pp. 82–100). A very
readable hagiography, focusing especially on the debate in Jaipur,
is given by Michael and Nancy Wright in The Journal of Vaisnava
Studies. Surveys of Baladeva’s philosophy are found in A
History of Indian Philosophy, by Surendranath Dasgupta, and The
Vaisnava Philosophy According to Baladeva Vidyabhusana, by
Sudesh Narang.
See Krsnadasa Kaviraja’s Sri Caitanya-caritamrta,
Madhya-lila 25.91–100.
Baladeva named his commentary Govindabhasya, in
appreciation of the inspiration he received from Govindadeva.
Tradition says that he was given only eighteen days (or one month)
to compose the work.
Just how much Baladeva’s commentary owes to Madhva is a matter
that merits careful study. B. N. K. Sharma believes that ‘Baladeva
is virtually in agreement with Madhva on all the fundamental points
of his system’ (Sharma 1981, p. 596).
I say this because the book’s content strongly reflects the
issues at stake during the debate. Furthermore, the opening verses
of the Prameyaratnavali are identical to those of
Suksmatika, a commentary on the Govindabhasya
written by Baladeva himself.
The nine prameyas are as follows: (1) Visnu is supreme; (2)
He is to be known by all the Vedas; (3) The universe is real; (4)
There is difference [between Visnu and the world]; (5) The living
entities are servants of Hari [Krsna]; (6) There is gradation among
the living entities; (7) Liberation is the attainment of the feet of
Visnu; (8) Spotless worship of those feet is the cause of
liberation; and (9) the means of proof are three, beginning with
pratyaksa.
Vyasatirtha’s famous prameyasloka goes like this:
sriman-madhva-mate
harih paratamah satyam jagat tattvato
bhedo
jiva-gana harer anucara nicocca-bhavam gatah
muktir
naija-sukhanubhutir amala bhaktis ca tat-sadhanam
aksadi-tritayam
pramanam akhilamnayaikavedyo harih
sri-madhvah praha visnum paratamam akhilamnaya-vedyam
ca visvam
satyam
bhedam ca jivan hari-carana-jusas taratamyam ca tesam
moksam
visnv-anghri-labham tad-amala-bhajanam tasya hetum pramanam
pratyaksadi-trayam
cety upadisati harih krsna-caitanya-candrah
Compare
this verse with Vyasatirtha’s prameyasloka above.
hetutvad vibhu-caitanyanandatvadi-gunasrayat
nitya-laksmyadimatvac
ca krsnah paratamo matah
See paragraphs 18–24. For example:
purtih
sarvatriki yady apy avisesa tathapi hi
taratamyam
ca tac-chakti-vyakty-avyakti-krtam bhavet
‘Although
each form of Laksmi is complete, and although there is no difference
between them, still there may be a gradation caused by the
appearance or non-appearance of their powers.’
. . .
gautamiya-tantre
ca—
devi
krsna-mayi prokta radhika para-devata
sarva-laksmi-mayi
sarva-kantih sammohini para
‘And
in the Gautamiyatantra, “The supreme goddess is
Radhika. She is completely imbued with Krsna, and she is
the supreme enchantress. She possesses all of the Laksmis, and all
of their loveliness combined.”’
ananda-tirtha-nama sukha-maya-dhama
yatir jiyat
samsararnava-taranim
yam iha janah kirtayanti budhah
‘May
the ascetic named Anandatirtha, who is an abode full of happiness,
be ever victorious. Learned persons glorify him, who is the boat in
the ocean of samsara.
There is a commentary on the Prameyaratnavali called
Kantimala which shows further signs of
responding to these issues. The Kantimala is
usually attributed to Baladeva Vidyabhusana himself (Dasgupta,
p. 438), but sometimes to Krsnadeva Sarvabhauma (Sastri,
p. 1).
Caitanya is mentioned five times in the text, and the theological
content is thoroughly Caitanya Vaisnava. For example, the doctrine
of three saktis, the five types of rasa relationships,
and the supremacy of Krsna are all discussed in the
Prameyaratnavali.
Indeed, since the time of Sri Caitanya himself, Caitanya Vaisnavas
have affiliated themselves with the Madhva sampradaya.
Parampara lists connecting Caitanya to Madhvacarya
are found in several works from Orissa written during or just after
the time of Mahaprabhu. These include Bhaktijnanabrahmayoga
by Acyutananda Dasa (a close associate of Caitanya in
Puri) and a list by Gopalaguru Gosvami, a disciple of
Vakresvara Pandita. Outside of Orissa, the most significant claim to
the Madhva connection is the parampara list given by
Kavi Karnapura in his Gauraganoddesadipika, which is
quoted in Visvanatha Cakravarti’s Gauraganatattvasvarupacandrika and in the
Bhaktiratnakara. Lala Dasa’s Bhaktamala
also supports the Caitanya-Madhva link. Furthermore, it is
interesting to note that early writings of the Vallabha sampradaya
also make mention of Madhavendra Puri as a Madhva sannyasi,
even though they consider him to be part of their own sampradaya.
For a discussion of the available textual evidence, see Elkman, pp.
32–9 and Kapoor, p. 38.
B. N. K. Sharma suggests that a link may be found in Visnu Puri, the
author of Bhaktiratnavali, who is said to have been a
disciple of the Madhva sannyasi Jayadhvaja (or
Jayadharma). ‘Most probably, it was this Visnu Puri, who was
the real founder of the Bhakti Movement in the North and the
teachers Laksmipati, Madhavendra Puri and Isvara were descended
from him . . .’ (Sharma 1981, p. 526).
For a historical analysis of the controversy, see William R. Pinch,
Remembering Ramanand. Pinch’s description elicits many
comparisons with our own discussion of meta-parentage. ‘A
central referent in the debate over Ramanandi tradition was the
integrity of Ramanand as a form of Ramchandra. Though Ramanand’s
god-like status was practically assumed by Ramanandis at the turn of
the century, by 1918 a group of Ramanandis chose to reject in
vehement terms the possibility that Ramanand was originally a member
of someone else’s sampraday, and insisted rather that
he single-handedly founded the Ramanandi sampraday as part of
his own divine plan. This radical element could stomach no
presentation of Ramanand that compromised in any way his complete
and total control over his own destiny and the destiny of his
religious community. Inasmuch as a radical position demands either
allegiance or refutation, one either remained a Ramanandi or became
a “Ramanujite” accordingly.’ (Pinch, p. 41)
Another place to look would be the Haridasi tradition of
Vrndavana, which also diverged over issues of sampradaya affilation. Haynes writes, ‘One of the major points in the
controversy between the two branches of the Haridasi sampradaya is Svami Haridas’ own sectarian affiliation. The sadhus say it was the Nimbarka Sampraday, the
Gosvamis insist he belonged to the Visnusvami Sampraday.
There is the third possibility that Haridas belonged to neither
of these two sects, since a clear theological orientation in the
history of the Haridasi Sampraday appears first with the
attempt at governmental regulation in the time of Jaisingh in the
early eighteenth century.’ (Haynes, p. 225)
|
|
