← श्रीचैतन्यभागवतम्

Introduction (Bhūmikā) — Śrī Caitanya Bhāgavata

By Dr. Rādhāgovinda Nātha, from his edition of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata with the Nitāi-karuṇā-kallolinī commentary. Translated into English page-by-page from an OCR scan of the Bengali original; the translation follows the most contextually sensible reading wherever the scan was ambiguous or garbled.

Table of Contents

(Blank — bleed-through from the reverse side only, no printed text.)

In Homage — Sadhana Prakashani. Disappearance day: 15th Agrahāyaṇa, 1377 (Bengali era). Dr. Rādhāgovinda Nātha.

(A photographic portrait of the author, garlanded.)

(Blank.)

Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata (Introduction), with the edition including the Nitāi-karuṇā-kallolinī commentary.

Written by Rādhāgovinda Nātha, M.A., D.Litt., Parāvidyācārya, Vidyāvācaspati, Bhāgavata-bhūṣaṇa, Bhakti-siddhānta-ratna, Bhakti-bhūṣaṇa, Bhakti-siddhānta-bhāskara — former Professor and Principal of Comilla Victoria College, and later of Noakhali Chowmuhani College.

Sadhana Prakashana, 75/2B Roy Bahadur Road, Calcutta 700034.

First edition: Āṣāḍha 1373 (Śaka 1888) / Śrī Caitanya-abda 489 — June 1966. New edition (Nava-kalevara): Rathayātrā, Āṣāḍha 1419 — June 2012.

(Dedication page.) For the pleasure of Śrī Guru and the Vaiṣṇavas. May this be an offering to Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya. (The remainder of this page — likely a publisher's rights notice — is too garbled by OCR to reconstruct reliably.)

(Blank.)

Om. I offer my obeisances unto my spiritual master, who has opened my eyes, blinded by the darkness of ignorance, with the torchlight of knowledge.

I offer my repeated obeisances unto the Vaiṣṇava devotees of the Lord, who are like wish-fulfilling trees, able to grant the desires of everyone, and who are oceans of compassion, purifiers of the fallen.

I bow to the two brothers, whose arms extend to their knees, whose complexions are like molten gold, who alone originated the saṅkīrtana movement, whose eyes are wide as lotus petals, who sustain the universe, the best of brahmins, the protectors of the religious principles of the age, dear to the whole world, incarnations of mercy.

Ever since the Gaura-kṛpā-taraṅgiṇī commentary on Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta was published, devotees from many places, at many times, have been instructing this unworthy fallen soul to write a similar commentary on Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. When the book Mahāprabhu Śrī Gaurāṅga was published, that instruction arrived in still greater measure. It then occurred to me that such an instruction could only come by the inspiration of Śrīman Mahāprabhu himself. Mahāprabhu possesses inconceivable power — even through a puppet He can accomplish His desired work. Being affectionate to His devotees, and a wish-fulfilling tree for their desires, Mahāprabhu can, in order to fulfill His devotees' wishes, make use of even an unworthy person like myself for some purpose — it is with this hope alone that I have undertaken the presumptuous task of writing the "Nitāi-karuṇā-kallolinī" ("The Surging Waves of Nitāi's Mercy") commentary on Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata.

Only Śrīman Nityānanda Prabhu, who is non-different in person from Śrīman Mahāprabhu, truly knows the truth of Gaura. Without his mercy, no one is capable of speaking or writing anything about Śrī Gaurāṅga — Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura has said this again and again. It is therefore relying solely on the mercy of Śrīman Nityānanda that I have undertaken the writing of this commentary, and I have named it accordingly. Whatever has arisen in my mind, I have taken to be inspired by his grace, and have set it down as commentary. Of course, it has arisen while passing through the impure mind of this fallen soul, so it is quite possible that it has become clouded by that impurity. Still, my hope is that fault-blind devotees will set the impurity aside and accept whatever, if anything, is worth accepting. And if anyone, out of kindness, points out errors with the help of scriptural reasoning, this unworthy person will consider himself fortunate.

The most venerable Prabhupāda Śrīla Atulakṛṣṇa Gosvāmī, of the Nityānanda lineage, had brought out an edition of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata together with a commentary of his own composition. This Prabhupāda, it seems, was the pathfinder for commentaries on Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. However, his commentary is very brief. For that reason — it seems — devotees have continued to urge this unworthy one. In the Nitāi-karuṇā-kallolinī commentary, in certain places, portions have also been quoted from Prabhupāda's commentary itself, acknowledged with the abbreviation "A. Pr." [Atulakṛṣṇa Prabhupāda].

Prabhupāda's edition cites, in its footnotes to Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, variant readings and additional passages drawn from many handwritten and printed texts — there is scarcely a page without such citations. This undoubtedly shows Prabhupāda's extraordinary diligence, patience, and fidelity to accuracy in editing the text. For these reasons, the text as edited by the greatly learned Prabhupāda seemed especially reliable. Offering obeisances at his feet, and praying for his mercy, the main text of the present edition has therefore been taken from the third edition of Prabhupāda's book. Since an effort has also been made to bring out the meaning of the variant readings, Prabhupāda's cited variants have been noted within the commentary itself. Words in the root text that are clearly printer's errors have been silently corrected (a list of examples with verse locations follows in the original, omitted here as a reference table).

In the main body of the text, the old orthography has been retained; in the commentary, modern spelling conventions have been followed as far as possible.

Because unfavorable opinions about Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata are sometimes heard in certain quarters, and out of consideration for the feet of the book's author — the incarnation of Vyāsa, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura — a fairly detailed Introduction has been written for this book, in order to dispel such opinions. This greatest of devotee-authors was supremely absorbed in describing the glory of the pastimes of Śrī Gaura and Nityānanda; he had no particular concern with expounding any single doctrine continuously in one place. But in various places, on various occasions, in the course of describing the glory of the pastimes, what he revealed through the mouth of Śrī Gaura, through the mouth of Śrī Nityānanda, in the prayers of the devotees, and in his own words, makes his views on various doctrines clearly known. From this it is also known that on matters of doctrine he is in no way at variance with the later ācāryas, nor with Mahāprabhu's own later statements. Among the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, it was Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa who first revealed these doctrines. All this is discussed in the Introduction; readers are asked to look at the Introduction first, as it will be of great help in following the commentary.

For readers' convenience, an appendix has been added at the end of the final volume (Antya-khaṇḍa), containing: an index of verses cited in the book, an index of couplets identifying places mentioned in the book, an index of Puranic accounts, an index of subjects discussed in particular detail, an index of verses quoted within the couplet-commentary and verse-explanations, and an index of couplets.

I offer my respectful obeisances at the feet of all who kindly assisted and encouraged me in writing this commentary, including by helping collect supporting texts. I also offer my respectful obeisances at the feet of readers, patrons, and all devotees, and pray that they will kindly forgive the errors and lapses of this unworthy person.

I am grateful to the institution "Sadhana Prakashani" (69 Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta 9), which of its own accord took on the entire responsibility for publishing this book. My prayer is that the mercy of Śrī Śrī Gaura-Nityānanda may pour down abundantly upon this institution.

— 46 Rasa Road East, Fern Lane, Calcutta, 20 May 1965. Praying for the mercy of the devotees, Śrī Rādhāgovinda Nātha.

(Blank.)

The book cites its sources by abbreviation. The works cited include (among others): Kavi Karṇapūra's Alaṅkāra-kaustubha (Puridas edition); Prabhupāda Atulakṛṣṇa Gosvāmī's commentary on Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata; Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi (Behrampur edition); the Kaṭha Upaniṣad; Murāri Gupta's Śrī Kṛṣṇa-caitanya-caritāmṛtam, known as the Kaḍacā; the Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā; the Gopāla-pūrva-tāpanī Śruti; Rādhāgovinda Nātha's own Gaura-kṛpā-taraṅgiṇī commentary on Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta; Kavi Karṇapūra's Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (Behrampur edition); Haridāsa Dāsa's Śrī Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Abhidhāna (dictionary); Rādhāgovinda Nātha's Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava-darśana; Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (3rd edition, edited by Rādhāgovinda Nātha); the Chāndogya Upaniṣad; the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam edited by Pañcānana Tarkaratna Bhaṭṭācārya (1334 B.E.), with the translation by Vīreśvara Vidyāsāgara; the Taittirīya Upaniṣad; the Nṛsiṃha-pūrva-tāpanī Upaniṣad; the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (Bangabasi edition); the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Śruti; Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta; the Brahma-saṃhitā (Behrampur edition); the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (Behrampur edition); the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (Bangabasi edition); Rādhāgovinda Nātha's Mahāprabhu Śrī Gaurāṅga; Jīva Gosvāmī's Prīti-sandarbha; and the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad — together with the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta (Puridas edition), the Bhakti-sandarbha, the Śvetāśvatara Śruti, and Śyāmācaraṇa Kavīratna's edition of Śrī Hari-bhakti-vilāsa.

Citations to Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata itself follow the form "1.2.141" etc., meaning Ādi-khaṇḍa, Chapter 2, couplet (payāra) 141, and so on.

(The original is a detailed, two-column table of contents for the Introduction, running some 80 numbered sections with lettered sub-points and internal page references — badly fragmented by OCR in the scan. Rather than mistranscribe exact numbers, here is a paraphrased overview of what the Introduction covers, in roughly the order the original lists it; see pp. 19–22 of the scan for the literal table.)

1. The author's identity — including the discussion of opposing/critical views about him, his birth-time, later life, his worship and spiritual nature, his other written works, and Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's characteristic humility.
2. The sources of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata — specific and general statements, Murāri Gupta's Kaḍacā, the origin and nature of oral tradition, the earlier biographers of Gaura (Murāri Gupta, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja), what material Kavirāja Gosvāmī drew from Caitanya-bhāgavata itself (in the household and final pastimes), pastimes Caitanya-bhāgavata covers in detail that Caitanya-caritāmṛta omits, the nature of Kavirāja Gosvāmī's sources, Locana Dāsa, and Kavi Karṇapūra (his verses quoted in Caitanya-caritāmṛta, the nature of his sources, and a comparison of Karṇapūra's and Kavirāja's accounts) — including sub-discussions of the Lord's travels through Rāḍha after taking sannyāsa, His first arrival at Nīlācala (Puri), His tour of South India, and His meeting with Rāmānanda Rāya, compared across Kavirāja's account and Karṇapūra's mahākāvya and nāṭaka.
3. The distinctive character of Caitanya-bhāgavata's source material; certain episodes it reports only as oral tradition/legend, in the Madhya-khaṇḍa and Antya-khaṇḍa; its lack of strict chronological order; and its incompleteness as a full biography of Śrī Caitanya.
4. The language of Caitanya-bhāgavata — difficult expressions, words used in obsolete senses, dialectal and corrupted forms, sandhi (euphonic combination) not current in Bengali, and the charge that its language is sometimes harsh — followed by a discussion of the book's greatness, its extent, and when it was composed, and the various names by which Vṛndāvana Dāsa's work has been known.
5. Gaura-tattva (the theology of Gaura) — the many strands of evidence Caitanya-bhāgavata offers for Śrī Gaurāṅga's identity with Kṛṣṇa: direct statements; worship offered to the infant/child Gaura by Brahmā and other gods, by Advaita, and by various devotees; declarations by others (Rāmānanda's Vipra, Śivānanda, Murakunda, Jagāi-Mādhāi, etc.); statements about Gaura's transcendent, more-than-Kṛṣṇa nature; His self-revelation in the forms of various avatāras; His devotional moods (as a devotee) before and after His formal self-manifestation, including kīrtana on the Ganges bank, in Nija-gṛha, in Śrīvāsa's courtyard, and on Hari-vāsara nights; the mood of Rādhā awakening in Gaurāṅga; His radiant sāttvika transformations (tears, trembling, hairs standing on end, and swooning) in numerous specific episodes (at Ratnagarbha Ācārya's, on Hari-vāsara nights, at Kāṭoyā, Chatrabhoga, Siddhavaṭa, Rāmakeli, and before Pratāparudra); Gaurāṅga as the combined form of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa; two verses from Śrīmad Bhāgavatam and a statement from Caitanya-bhāgavata on this; and His indiscriminate distribution of divine love (prema) — to Ratnagarbha Ācārya, Nārāyaṇī Devī, to Jagāi and Mādhāi, to Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, to countless people at Vācaspati's house, and to the multitudes at Jhulan village.
6. A closing discussion of the "mystery" of Gaurāṅga's devotional moods and His indiscriminate gift of prema; His opulence (aiśvarya) and its inner meaning — including the point that both Kṛṣṇa and Gaurāṅga display fully human pastimes and a fully human self-conception, and the difference between how the residents of Vraja and the residents of Navadwip each perceive that opulence; various epithets applied to Gaurāṅga (Vaikuṇṭhanātha, Nārāyaṇa, etc.); the inner meaning of His slaying of demons; and a summary of Gaura-tattva in Caitanya-bhāgavata, showing its agreement with Murāri Gupta on the one hand and with Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja on the other.
7. A discussion of views opposed to this reading — including Prabhupāda Atulakṛṣṇa Gosvāmī's editorial remarks in the third edition of his own Caitanya-bhāgavata, and the book Śrī Caitanya-caritera Upādāna.
8. Nityānanda-tattva — the theology of Nityānanda, and His glory.
9. Advaita-tattva — the theology of Advaita, including the (only apparent) quarrel between Advaita and Nityānanda.
10. Gadādhara-tattva — the theology of Gadādhara.
11. The status of Śrīvāsa and the other principal devotees in Caitanya-bhāgavata.
12. Sādhya-sādhana-tattva — the goal and the means: sambandha (our relationship with the Divine), abhidheya (the process), and prayojana (the ultimate goal) as taught in Caitanya-bhāgavata, with an extended discussion of the specific statements establishing each of these three, and of worship of the Lord together with His eternal associates.
13. Gaura-Lakṣmī: Śrī Lakṣmīpriyā Devī and Śrī Viṣṇupriyā Devī; the Gaura-mantra.
14. What Caitanya-bhāgavata teaches the world at large.
15. Contemporary Navadwip and the state of the country at that time — administration, customs and material culture, economic conditions, education, social conditions, and the state of religious life.
16. An extended excursus on Tantra — Vedānta-conforming Tantra versus Tantra outside or contrary to the Vedas; Śaiva Tantra; a long treatment of Śākta Tantra (its scholarly critics' views, the claim that it draws on Buddhist tāntrika ideas, that many of its mantras derive from Buddhist Tantra, that goddess-worship traditions were originated by non-Āryan peoples, that Bengal's tantra texts lean on Buddhist Tantra, that many tāntrika deities are imaginative constructs without independent reality, and that the Śākta tantra texts are comparatively modern, human compositions rather than revealed scripture); the argument that Tantra conflicts with the Veda; the true, Vedic Kālī versus the tāntrika Kālī; tāntrika "seats of power" (pīṭha-sthāna) and a discussion of the Devī-bhāgavata; the tāntrika Mahāmāyā doctrine and the avatāras of the Mahāvidyās; the Śākta reading of the dharma proper to the age of Kali; Tantra and liberation, and the true nature of Vedic bhakti; the Absolute (para-tattva) according to Tantra; tāntrika sādhana; Tantra in relation to Śrīpāda Śaṅkara; a note on the Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī; a summary of the whole discussion; the influence of Tantra in that era, contemporary tāntrikas' attitude to kīrtana; the effect of Mahāprabhu's influence on the country (tāntrikas adopting Vaiṣṇava dharma and Tantra's consequent decline); the eighteenth-century revival of Śākta religion (including the influence of Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra); and a further look at the country's condition under Mahāprabhu's influence.
17. A defense of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja's citation, in Caitanya-caritāmṛta, of the Viṣṇu-sahasranāma — answering four specific objections raised against it, and showing (in passing) that the Mahābhārata's thousand names of Viṣṇu, the names beginning in "su-varṇa," and the closing "śāntiḥ," all refer uniquely to Gaura.

(An errata list for the original edition follows on p. Bhū-303/304 of the source and is omitted here.)

Om. I offer my obeisances unto my spiritual master, who has opened my eyes, blinded by the darkness of ignorance, with the torchlight of knowledge.

I offer my repeated obeisances unto the Vaiṣṇava devotees of the Lord, who are like wish-fulfilling trees, able to grant the desires of everyone, and who are oceans of compassion, purifiers of the fallen.

...whose arms extend to their knees, whose complexions are like molten gold, who alone originated the saṅkīrtana movement, whose eyes are wide as lotus petals; I bow to the two brothers, sustainers of the universe, best of brahmins, protectors of the religious principles of the age, dear to the whole world, incarnations of mercy.

I bow to Him who is true through the three phases of time, the son of Jagannātha, together with His servants, His son, and His consort.

Vṛndāvana Dāsa, the Vyāsa of Caitanya's pastimes — I bow at his feet, holding a straw between my teeth (in utter humility).

(Blank.)

The Introduction (Bhūmikā)

§1. The Author's Identity

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura, the author of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, does not record his own lineage anywhere in his book. In one place, however, he mentions his mother and his initiating guru. In the course of describing Śrī Nityānanda, he writes:

"Their very last servant is this Vṛndāvana Dāsa — the last remaining portion (avaśeṣa-pātra), born from Nārāyaṇī." (3.6.221)

His mother's name was Nārāyaṇī. She was the Lord's "avaśeṣa-pātra" — the recipient of Mahāprabhu's own leftover remnants. The significance of this is as follows. After returning from Gayā, it was this Nārāyaṇī through whom Mahāprabhu first revealed Himself. When, after that return, the Lord began to spread kīrtana, the worldly-minded people of the town grew envious and spread a threat: that the king's boatmen would come and seize Nimāi Paṇḍita and his kīrtana companions. Hearing this, the simple-hearted Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita became extremely afraid. The Lord went to him and reassured him — saying that if the royal boat did come, He Himself would be the first to board it, go before the king, and make the king and his ministers weep out the name of Kṛṣṇa. Then He said, "If you don't believe this, see My power for yourself right now." At that:

"Before them appeared a little girl — Śrīvāsa's brother's daughter, named Nārāyaṇī. Even today this remains a byword among Vaiṣṇavas. Gauracandra, the Lord who is the indwelling witness of every heart, commanded: 'Nārāyaṇī! Cry out the name of Kṛṣṇa!' The child, not yet four years old, with no such wild manner before, suddenly began weeping the name of Kṛṣṇa, utterly beside herself — tears streaming down her body to the ground, the whole place flooded with the water of her eyes." (2.23.18–22)

Later, at the time of the Lord's great self-revelation (mahā-prakāśa) in Śrīvāsa's house, when the Lord ordered that the remnants of the garland-touched betel-leaf He had chewed be given to the devotees to eat —

"All of them ate in great joy, thrilled, receiving something more precious than the nectar-moon of countless full moons. Whatever was left over of that eating, the blessed Nārāyaṇī alone received. Śrīvāsa's small, uncomprehending niece — to her the Lord gave the last remnant. She ate the Lord's prasāda in supreme bliss, and all the Vaiṣṇavas blessed her, crying 'Blessed, blessed is she who has thus served!' — blessed is the life of this child. On eating it, at the Lord's command, she cried, 'Nārāyaṇī! You are weeping from the supreme bliss of Kṛṣṇa, look and listen!' Such is the power of Lord Caitanya's command — the little girl wept the name of Kṛṣṇa in pure childlike absorption. Even today this remains a byword in the Vaiṣṇava community: 'Nārāyaṇī, the receiver of Gaurāṅga's remnants.'" (2.10.287–94)

Vṛndāvana Dāsa himself wrote these things about his mother Nārāyaṇī Devī. Kavirāja Gosvāmī, too, wrote of her:

"Nārāyaṇī, the recipient of Caitanya's remnants — from her womb was born Śrī Dāsa Vṛndāvana." (Cc. 1.8.37)

Kavi Karṇapūra, in his Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā, writes:

"She who was the sister of Aṣṭikā [Ambikā?] was, in Kṛṣṇa's pastimes, Kilimbikā, who used to eat Kṛṣṇa's remnants — she is remembered as this same Nārāyaṇī." (verse 43) — that is, she who was Aṣṭikā's [sic] sister in Kṛṣṇa's Vraja-līlā, and who used to partake of Kṛṣṇa's leftover food, was this same Kilimbikā, now Nārāyaṇī in the Navadwip pastimes. Murāri Gupta likewise writes that Śrīvāsa's niece Nārāyaṇī wept upon eating Hari's prasāda (Kaḍacā, 2.726).

Such was the exceedingly great Nārāyaṇī Devī, mother of Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura — Vaiṣṇavas the world over still bow their heads at her name.

That Nārāyaṇī Devī was Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita's brother's daughter is known from the statements of both Vṛndāvana Dāsa and Murāri Gupta.

Vṛndāvana Dāsa himself writes that Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita had "four brothers" (1.2.92–93); Kavirāja Gosvāmī and Karṇapūra also speak of these "four brothers" — Śrīvāsa, Śrīrāma, Śrīpati, and Śrīnidhi — all of whom received Mahāprabhu's mercy. But which of these three brothers (Śrīrāma, Śrīnidhi, or Śrīpati) was Nārāyaṇī's own father is not recorded by any of the early biographers of Gaura. The Śrī Śrī Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Abhidhāna states that "Nārāyaṇī was the daughter of Nalina Paṇḍita, Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita's eldest brother" (Sādhana, Part 2, p. 1375) — if this is reliable, it suggests that this Nalina Paṇḍita either did not live in Navadwip, or had already passed away by the time of Mahāprabhu's Navadwip pastimes, which is probably why the early biographers never mention him by name.

Vṛndāvana Dāsa likewise never names his own father anywhere in his book, nor do Murāri Gupta, Karṇapūra, or Kavirāja Gosvāmī. This suggests that Vṛndāvana Dāsa's father was not among the devotees who accompanied Mahāprabhu during His Navadwip pastimes, and so there was no occasion for Vṛndāvana Dāsa to name him. That he mentions his mother Nārāyaṇī Devī at all is solely because of the great mercy she received from the Lord, and solely to display her glory — not because giving his own biographical background was ever his purpose. That he was born of Nārāyaṇī's womb, he states only near the very end of his book, in the verse already quoted ("Their very last servant is this Vṛndāvana Dāsa..."). Elsewhere too he had already spoken of Nārāyaṇī's glory, but nowhere before this closing verse does he say that she was his own mother. Even this final mention seems intended less to introduce himself than to express his own humility together with Nārāyaṇī's greatness — as if to say: "It is only because I am the son of Nārāyaṇī, the recipient of Gaurāṅga's remnants, that Śrī Nityānanda has accepted me as His servant; otherwise I would never have received Nityānanda's mercy, having no worthiness of my own for it." Nowhere else in the entire book does he offer any word that identifies himself. Apart from expressing his own unworthiness and his prayers at the feet of Gaura-Nityānanda and the devotees, the author never speaks of himself on any other occasion — this itself is a mark of the humility born of true devotion. To describe the glory of Gaura-Nityānanda, the devotees, and devotion itself was his one and only purpose. His father was probably not among the devotees described in these early accounts, and that is likely why his name finds no place even in Murāri Gupta's or the other biographers' narratives. Nowhere in Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's book is there any trace of self-promotion; had he wished to publicize himself by naming his own background, he could easily have named his father even if his father were not among the devotees mentioned.

He mentions the name of Nārāyaṇī's uncle, Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita, in many places — but always in the context of showing Gaura's mercy toward Śrīvāsa and the glory of Śrīvāsa's devotion, not in order to establish that Śrīvāsa was his own great-uncle...

(The text continues into page 30, discussing a claim, found in the later and less authoritative Prema-vilāsa, that Nārāyaṇī's husband was one "Vaikuṇṭhanātha Vipra" of Kumarhatta, and that he died while she was pregnant with Vṛndāvana Dāsa — a claim the author goes on to treat with considerable skepticism, as Prema-vilāsa is regarded by scholars as unreliable and partly a later interpolation.)

The Śrī Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Abhidhāna likewise, regarding Nārāyaṇī Devī, gives her husband's name as Śrī Vaikuṇṭhadāsa Vipra, and states that Nārāyaṇī's husband passed away while Vṛndāvana Dāsa was still in the womb (citing Prema-vilāsa for this). It further gives, on Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's own account: "father's name — Vaikuṇṭhanātha Vipra; mother's name — Nārāyaṇī Devī, daughter of Nalina Paṇḍita, Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita's elder brother."

(a) A dissenting view, examined. Dr. Bimanbihari Majumdar, in his book Śrī Caitanya-caritera Upādāna (pp. 177–79), writes that "Nārāyaṇī was widowed in childhood — that is, before the age of four — and conceived only after reaching youth," meaning, in effect, that Vṛndāvana Dāsa was Nārāyaṇī's illegitimate son. In support, Dr. Majumdar cites a verse of the poet Uddhava Dāsa:

"Out of affection, she gave into Nārāyaṇī Ṭhākurāṇī's hands the Lord's chewed betel-remnant — widowed in childhood, wealthy, the crown-jewel of chaste and virtuous women, she served with that very devotion."

It seems that on the strength of the phrase "widowed in childhood, wealthy" alone, Majumdar concluded that Nārāyaṇī was widowed before the age of four.

My submission on this point is as follows. The same verse calls Nārāyaṇī both "widowed in childhood" and "the crown-jewel of chaste and virtuous women." But whether a child — by Majumdar's own reckoning, under four years old, and by Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own account exactly four and absorbed in childish play — is chaste or unchaste, virtuous or not, is simply not a question that can be meaningfully asked. Sexual desire in a woman awakens only from late adolescence onward; only once desire is strong does the question of chastity — the ability to restrain it — even arise. In a four-year-old, no such desire has yet arisen at all, so "chaste" or "unchaste" cannot apply. Uddhava Dāsa's phrase "crown-jewel of chaste and virtuous women" must therefore describe Nārāyaṇī's condition in her adolescence or youth, not her infancy. One may then ask: why call her "widowed in childhood" at all? Because, in ordinary usage, even a widow of fifteen, sixteen, or twenty draws exactly this kind of lament from those who love her — "Alas, the poor girl lost her married state at such a tender age, she's still practically a child!" Such expressions of sympathy are still heard today. Uddhava Dāsa, recalling Nārāyaṇī's early widowhood even while celebrating her good fortune in receiving the Lord's remnants, is speaking in exactly this idiom. No one denies that a four-year-old cannot bear a child, nor that the question of a four-year-old's chastity cannot meaningfully arise. Everyone agrees Vṛndāvana Dāsa was Nārāyaṇī's son. Given all this, if Nārāyaṇī really had been widowed at four [and yet later bore a child], her son would indeed be illegitimate — would Uddhava Dāsa then be calling the mother of an illegitimate child "the crown-jewel of chaste and virtuous women"? This discussion shows that Uddhava Dāsa's verse gives no support at all to Dr. Majumdar's conclusion.

In further support, Dr. Majumdar cites a verse from Murāri Gupta's Kaḍacā: "Śrīvāsa's brother's daughter, of sweet radiance, abhartṛkā, calls out for the Lord's grace-remnant — the auspicious Nārāyaṇī." (2.726) Majumdar reads abhartṛkā as "husbandless." Prabhupāda Atulakṛṣṇa Gosvāmī, however, in his own article "Śrīla Ṭhākura Vṛndāvana Dāsa" (appended to his edition of Caitanya-bhāgavata, Caitanya-era 452), quotes the very same verse with the reading abhrātṛkā — "brotherless" — instead, and reads it accordingly. The Amrita Bazar printed edition of the Kaḍacā does read abhartṛkā. Dr. Majumdar cites Prabhupāda's abhrātṛkā reading too, but argues: "In identifying a woman, stating whether she has a husband is far more relevant than stating whether she has a brother — so the printed reading abhartṛkā is probably correct."

My submission here: a scribal or printing slip turning abhartṛkā into abhrātṛkā, or vice versa, is entirely possible either way. But let us grant Dr. Majumdar's preferred reading, abhartṛkā, and examine what it actually means. Bhartā and dhava both mean "husband." By established usage, a woman whose husband has died is vidhavā ("widow"), never adhavā; a man whose wife has died is vipatnīka, never apatnīka. In each case the negating prefix is vi-, which means "existed before, but no longer" — a vidhavā once had a husband, but no longer. The prefix a-, however, carries a different sense entirely, as in abādha ("never obstructed"), amlāna ("never faded"), asampūrṇa ("never completed") — and aputraka, "one to whom no son was ever born" (as opposed to mṛta-putra, "one whose son was born and died"). It is exactly in this sense that Prabhupāda reads abhrātṛkā as "one to whom no brother was ever born." This is precisely why a woman whose husband has died is vidhavā, never adhavā — adhavā instead means an unmarried woman, a maiden. By the same logic, abhartṛkā would mean a woman who does not yet have a husband — i.e., unmarried — not a widow. Had the text meant "widowed," it would read vibhartṛkā. So even reading abhartṛkā, Murāri Gupta is not calling Nārāyaṇī a widow at that time, but unmarried — and this, too, gives Dr. Majumdar's conclusion no support.

Vṛndāvana Dāsa's father did die while he was still in the womb, so he was indeed born of the widow Nārāyaṇī — one could call him "the son of a widow" in that narrow sense, but that is not the same as calling him illegitimate. Anyone who hears "Vṛndāvana Dāsa was a widow's son" and concludes he must therefore be illegitimate deserves only admiration for the quality of their reasoning.

As already noted from Karṇapūra, Nārāyaṇī Devī was Kṛṣṇa's own eternal associate in Vraja, Kilimbikā — not an ordinary conditioned soul bound by māyā, and therefore incapable of lustful desire in the first place. But even setting aside her transcendental nature, it can simply be shown on the facts that there is no possibility she desired illicit union with another man.

Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata itself shows Nārāyaṇī receiving extraordinary mercy from Mahāprabhu and heartfelt blessings from the Vaiṣṇavas (see the couplets already quoted) — such a person could hardly be supposed to harbor lust. Kavi Karṇapūra was Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own contemporary, some four or five years his senior, and so knew exactly who Nārāyaṇī was — would he have declared a fallen woman to be a Vraja-associate? Would Vṛndāvana Dāsa himself have so boldly written, "Even today this remains a byword among Vaiṣṇavas — 'Nārāyaṇī, the receiver of Gaurāṅga's remnants'" (2.10.294)? Would the Vaiṣṇava community still bow its head at her name today, if she had been fallen? As will be told later, in the respectable, Brahmin-scholar-filled quarter of Mamagachi, Mahāprabhu's dear devotee Vāsudeva Datta had a family shrine, and it was to the poor widow Nārāyaṇī that he entrusted its service; Vṛndāvana Dāsa himself studied there, living with his mother. Would Vāsudeva Datta have entrusted Deity-service to the mother of an illegitimate child? Would the learned Brahmins of Mamagachi not have objected and abandoned that very temple? Would Vṛndāvana Dāsa himself have found admission to any traditional school? This was not the age of Satyakāma Jābāla [where parentage was set aside]. Nārāyaṇī was not fallen — she was of pure character, truly the crown-jewel of chaste and virtuous women. Her very marriage took place, it seems, so that the incarnation of Vyāsa, Vṛndāvana Dāsa, could appear within Gaura's human-like pastimes. In any case, this discussion establishes that Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's father was named Vaikuṇṭhanātha (or Vaikuṇṭhadāsa) Vipra, and his mother Nārāyaṇī Devī.

(b) Time of birth. Exactly when Vṛndāvana Dāsa was born cannot be stated with certainty, but a rough estimate can be made from his own writing. He records that Nārāyaṇī was four years old when Mahāprabhu first revealed Himself after returning from Gayā. Karṇapūra's mahākāvya (4.76) places the Lord's return to Navadwip at the end of Pauṣa, with kīrtana beginning at the start of Māgha (see commentary on 2.23.43); a year later, at the end of Māgha in Śaka 1431, the Lord took sannyāsa (see commentary on 2.26.57). This places the Lord's return from Gayā at the very end of Pauṣa, Śaka 1430, and His blessing of Nārāyaṇī in Māgha of that same year — so Nārāyaṇī was four years old in Māgha, Śaka 1430.

Since women generally do not bear children before fifteen or sixteen (rarely as early as fourteen), Vṛndāvana Dāsa's birth cannot be placed earlier than about ten to twelve years after Śaka 1430 — that is, not before roughly Śaka 1440. Assuming the earliest possible case (Nārāyaṇī bearing a child at fourteen), his birth may be estimated around Śaka 1440, though no more precise date can be fixed. Dr. Majumdar himself concludes, on page 179 of his book, "Vṛndāvana Dāsa was not born before Śaka 1440 (1518 CE)," and on pages 180–82 skillfully refutes various other scholars' competing guesses. Since Mahāprabhu's disappearance occurred in Śaka 1455, and Vṛndāvana Dāsa cannot have been born before Śaka 1440, he cannot have been more than about fifteen years old — quite possibly younger — at the time of Mahāprabhu's disappearance.

(c) Later life. Nothing in particular is known of Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's later life from any early text either. Prabhupāda Atulakṛṣṇa Gosvāmī writes, in the same article: "It is a matter of the deepest regret that nothing more can be learned of the sacred life of that first great poet, that sweet-voiced cuckoo of the grove of Bengali letters, the incarnation of Vyāsa, Vṛndāvana Dāsa. After the most careful research, authoritative texts yield only this much: that he was born of Nārāyaṇī Devī, Śrīvāsa's niece, and that his life's occupation was to remain intoxicated in the love of Prabhu Nityānanda."

Prabhupāda further records: on the western bank of the Ganges within holy Navadwip lies a village called Mamagachi (called Modapradadwīpa in the Bhakti-ratnākara), where Vāsudeva Datta maintained a Deity-service. "We once visited that village to see the service, and were told there that 'Nārāyaṇī Devī took charge of the service and lived at Mamagachi for many years' — the service is still known today as 'Nārāyaṇī's Service.' After Śrīman Mahāprabhu took sannyāsa, both Śrīvāsa and Śrīrāma settled with their families at Kumarhatta. It may be conjectured that Nārāyaṇī was married into some village near Mamagachi; when she became pregnant she was widowed, and since a poor Brahmin household no longer offered any support, she accepted the caretaker's role at Vāsudeva Datta's shrine. Vāsudeva Datta's own village, Kanchrapara, lies a short distance from Śivānanda's house... During the Lord's Navadwip pastimes Vāsudeva Datta established the Mamagachi service in order to remain near the Lord, and later, no longer finding it convenient to travel to Navadwip himself, and out of friendship for Śrīvāsa, entrusted the service to Śrīvāsa's niece."

There can be little doubt that Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura, in his childhood, lived with his saintly mother at the Mamagachi shrine, and received his Sanskrit education in that same village — Mamagachi being itself part of the Navadwip holy area, it too, like Vidyanagar, was likely home to many scholars; a village whose Brahmin quarter still flourishes today can hardly have lacked a serious tradition of learning, especially lying as it does almost adjoining the residences of Viśārada Bhaṭṭācārya and Devānanda Paṇḍita. That Vāsudeva Datta of Kanchanpalli was both learned and wealthy is suggested by Kavirāja Gosvāmī himself; the Deity-service he established was, naturally, within a respectable Brahmin quarter.

In that respectable quarter of Mamagachi, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura first learned his letters at a village school, and later gained mastery of Sanskrit at some traditional academy. "...While residing in holy Navadwip, in the last days of Prabhu Nityānanda's preaching of prema, the poet Vṛndāvana Dāsa took his association and attained supreme bliss."

Vṛndāvana Dāsa himself states in Caitanya-bhāgavata that he was Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu's very last disciple: "Their very last servant is this Vṛndāvana Dāsa — the last remnant-recipient, born of Nārāyaṇī." (3.6.221) This suggests that Śrī Nityānanda did not remain manifest on earth very much longer after initiating Vṛndāvana Dāsa — had He remained longer, He would have taken more disciples. The Śrī Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Abhidhāna records that Vṛndāvana Dāsa's ancestral village was Denur, in Burdwan district, some four krośa west of Navadwip, and that he installed Deities of Śrī Gaura-Nitāi there.

It is easy to see that Vṛndāvana Dāsa never witnessed the Lord's Navadwip pastimes himself, since he was not yet born. He says as much himself, describing those pastimes: "This sinner was not yet born then, and so was deprived of the sight of that joy. (1.8.284) This sinner's birth had not yet come to pass, and so he could not witness that great festival. (2.8.198)" Nor is there any hint anywhere in Caitanya-bhāgavata that he ever traveled to Nīlācala (Puri) to witness the Lord's pastimes there. Regarding Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi and the episode of Jagannātha's cloth, he writes, "let me set down a little of what came from Gadādhara's own mouth" (3.11.84). Gadādhara Paṇḍita Gosvāmī went to Nīlācala in Śaka 1434, after the Lord's return from South India, and never left Nīlācala again thereafter — which might suggest that Vṛndāvana Dāsa heard Gadādhara's words directly from Gadādhara himself, and therefore did visit Nīlācala. But this seems unlikely, since at the time of the Lord's disappearance (Śaka 1455) Vṛndāvana Dāsa was well under fifteen — too young, it seems, to have made such a journey before then. Nor is there any hint that Nārāyaṇī Devī herself ever traveled to Nīlācala to see the Lord. It may be that the service entrusted to her by Vāsudeva Datta made such travel impossible for her; or it may be that Nārāyaṇī Devī herself passed away before the Lord's own disappearance. Though we do not know exactly when she passed, one statement in Caitanya-bhāgavata suggests she was no longer living when the book was written: the author writes, "even today [adyāpiha] this remains a byword among Vaiṣṇavas — 'Nārāyaṇī, the receiver of Caitanya's remnants'" (2.23.19) — the word "even today" suggesting she was no longer present at the time of writing. All this suggests that Vṛndāvana Dāsa did not hear Gadādhara's words directly from Gadādhara himself at Nīlācala, but learned them from someone else who had.

In two couplets (3.11.93, 97) the author uses a phrase current in Puri usage — "lāgi haite lāgila." Prabhupāda Atulakṛṣṇa Gosvāmī explains this as referring to cloth being fastened onto the body of the Deity — the expression "lāgi haoyā" (to have [something] applied/fastened) is still current in Puri today, as in "flowers being applied" or "sandalwood paste being applied." One might think Vṛndāvana Dāsa's use of this Puri idiom shows he had visited Nīlācala himself — but he could equally have heard it in Bengal from the mouth of someone who had come from Nīlācala. So this phrase alone cannot prove he ever went there — especially since, as already shown, such a journey was not really possible for him before Mahāprabhu's disappearance. It appears, then, that Vṛndāvana Dāsa never witnessed even the Lord's Nīlācala pastimes — he was, in fact, an eyewitness to none of the Lord's pastimes at all.

Nor is there any indication in Caitanya-bhāgavata that he ever visited Vṛndāvana. It is true that Śrīla Haridāsa Dāsa, in the Śrī Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Abhidhāna, writes that Vṛndāvana Dāsa, after installing the Śrī Gaura-Nitāi Deities at Denur, entrusted their service to a Kāyastha disciple named Rāmahari and departed for Śrī Vṛndāvana himself — but Haridāsa Dāsa cites no evidence for this claim.

Anyone who studies Caitanya-bhāgavata with close attention will recognize the sheer depth of Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's scriptural learning. In two or three places he gives extended accounts of Puranic narratives, and the sheer number of Puranic and historical episodes he references, in passing, through the prayers and speeches of various characters, is so vast that to call it uncountable would hardly be an exaggeration. That he was a great devotee of the highest order (parama-bhāgavata) is likewise beyond doubt — throughout his book he has, in the most beautiful way, expressed the glory of Gaura-Nityānanda, the glory of the devotees, and the nature and glory of pure devotion itself.

In many places in Caitanya-bhāgavata the author has composed certain couplets and tripadīs in the form of songs, complete with their intended rāga and rāgiṇī — showing that he was also highly accomplished in music and musical theory.

(d) His worship and true spiritual identity. Kavi Karṇapūra writes in his Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā that he who was formerly Vedavyāsa is now Vṛndāvana Dāsa, and that Kṛṣṇa's cowherd friend Kusumāpīḍa of Vraja has also merged into him: "He who was Vedavyāsa is now, in this age, Dāsa Vṛndāvana; the friend named Kusumāpīḍa has entered him as well." (Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā 109) This shows that Vṛndāvana Dāsa was a worshiper in the mood of friendship (sakhya-bhāva) proper to Vraja — his eternal identities being Vedavyāsa and the Vraja cowherd-friend Kusumāpīḍa.

(e) His other writings. Several of the author's own statements make clear that it was on Śrī Nityānanda's own order that Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura wrote Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. He writes:

"Nityānanda, the indwelling witness, playfully instructed me to write something of Caitanya's character in a book." (1.1.60, 1.12.143) "Bearing Nityānanda-svarūpa's command upon my head, I write only a fraction, according to His grace." (1.10.403) "By His command, and according to His grace, I have written just a little in this book." (2.26.226) "That same Lord, the wandering avadhūta of this age of Kali — by His command alone do I write this fraction." (3.4.302)

The word "antaryāmī" (the indwelling witness) in the first couplet suggests that the desire to write of Caitanya's character had already arisen in Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own heart, and that Nityānanda, as the indwelling witness, perceived this and thereupon commanded him to write. Whether Vṛndāvana Dāsa wrote any other book besides Caitanya-bhāgavata, or composed any other songs or kīrtana verses beyond those found within it, cannot be said with certainty. Several books and kīrtana verses are indeed popularly attributed to "Vṛndāvana Dāsa," but most of these are demonstrably not the work of Nārāyaṇī's son. Śrīla Haridāsa Dāsa touches on some of these in the Śrī Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Abhidhāna (Part 2), noting on page 1376 that works such as Śrī Nityānanda-prabhura Vaṃśa-vistāra, Gaurāṅga-vilāsa (Patbari manuscript Bi-47), Caitanya-līlāmṛta (Patbari manuscript Ka-18-Ka), Bhajana-niścaya, and Bhakti-cintāmaṇi "have been attributed to Śrī Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura" — the word "attributed" itself suggesting Haridāsa Dāsa is unwilling to affirm that the author of these is the same Vṛndāvana Dāsa who wrote Caitanya-bhāgavata. Elsewhere (p. 1585) he notes a work called Nityānandaprabhor Vaiśvaryāmṛta-kāvyam (Patbari manuscript Bi-9), a 128-verse Sanskrit poem in various metres said (in a colophon dated 1260 B.E.) to be by Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura, describing Nityānanda's opulence, sweetness, and — notably — His "feminine nature" (prakṛti-svarūpa); a similarly attributed text, Rasa-kalpa-sāra-tattva (Patbari Bi-46), makes the same claim. On page 1613 he records 63 verses signed "Vṛndāvana Dāsa" in the Gaura-pada-taraṅgiṇī anthology, while noting that literary scholars and linguists — including Dr. Sukumar Sen in his Brajabuli Sāhitya, and Śrī Śivaratana Mitra in Bangiya Sahitya Sevak — have identified as many as eighteen different poets who all signed themselves "Vṛndāvana Dāsa" in Bengali literature, without being able to distinguish among them. It would therefore not be sound simply to accept any book, or any verse signed "Vṛndāvana Dāsa," as the work of the author of Caitanya-bhāgavata. To determine authorship, one must check whether the doctrines, scriptural conclusions, and devotional moods expressed are consistent with what Caitanya-bhāgavata itself teaches. As already noted, the works attributed to Vṛndāvana Dāsa in Haridāsa Dāsa's dictionary — Nityānandaprabhor Vaiśvaryāmṛta-kāvyam and Rasa-kalpa-sāra-tattva — are said by Haridāsa Dāsa himself to describe Nityānanda's "feminine nature" (prakṛti-svarūpa, meaning a female form). But nowhere in Caitanya-bhāgavata — in everything Nārāyaṇī's son Vṛndāvana Dāsa says there about Nityānanda's essence, moods, and pastimes — is there even a hint of any "feminine nature" of Nityānanda. What he does say about Śrī Nityānanda simply cannot be reconciled with the doctrine expressed in these later attributed works, composed by some other, later poet.

We have also come across two songs signed "Vṛndāvana Dāsa," quoted here for reference. The first:

"Nitāi within, Nitāi without, Nitāi fills the world; Nitāi the lover, Nitāi the beloved, Nitāi alone speaks. Nitāi is the practice, Nitāi is the worship, Nitāi the pupil of every eye; Nitāi beautiful in all ten directions, Nitāi the deliverer of the universe. Rādhā's own sweetness, Anaṅga-mañjarī — Nitāi and she are eternally one, serving each other; a face lovely as ten million moons, the friend and the girlfriend both, Baladeva. Nitāi is Rādhā's own sister, Śyāma's beloved, the very life of all Her friends — whose loveliness, whose bower, whose ornament is called Śrī Maṇi-mandira. Beautiful Nitāi, seated on the jeweled throne at the summit of the yoga-pīṭha; Nitāi the garment, Nitāi the ornament, reveling among Her friends. What more can I say — Nitāi is everyone's own eyes, face, every limb. Nitāi, Nitāi, Nitāi, Nitāi — ever a fresh delight. Come, let us go together to the groves of Vraja — this Dāsa Vṛndāvana submits his prayer: Nitāi, never abandon me."

And the second:

"Nitāi the lover, ocean of rasa, teacher of every mellow — whatever anyone desires, he grants it, a wish-fulfilling tree without discrimination. Nitāi is Rādhā's very equal, sulking prettily with Kṛṣṇa, ever at His side; day and night, wandering always, absorbed in the delight of speaking of Kṛṣṇa. Sitting at His left side, smiling softly, calling Him 'Lord of my life' — [that very Nitāi of such qualities is my own; conceived of in the mood of Anaṅga-mañjarī, is Balarāma] — doing always just as Rādhā's own heart desires..." (continuing on the next page) "...a golden ketakī flower, the very form of rasa, fulfilling the heart's every longing — this Dāsa Vṛndāvana submits his prayer: let me behold Nitāi as Rādhā."

In both songs Nitāi is called both the lover (nāgara) and the beloved (nāgarī, i.e., in a feminine identity). In the second song, Nitāi is even called Rādhā Herself. And yet Nitāi is also said to "sit at His left side, smiling softly, calling Him 'Lord of my life'" — whose left side does Nitāi sit at? Whom does Nitāi address as the Lord of life? Does Nitāi, in the form of Balarāma, sit at Kṛṣṇa's left and call Kṛṣṇa the Lord of life — or does Nitāi, being non-different from Kṛṣṇa, sit at Śrī Gaurāṅga's left and call Gaurāṅga the Lord of life? And is Anaṅga-mañjarī — even though she is Rādhā's own sister — actually identical with Rādhā Herself? Anaṅga-mañjarī does indeed possess mahābhāva, it is true, but not Rādhā's own...

(The manuscript source text continues into a detailed doctrinal argument about whether these songs' theology is compatible with orthodox Gauḍīya siddhānta regarding Nityānanda's identity — the author's conclusion, as already stated, is that they are not, and hence not genuinely by the author of Caitanya-bhāgavata.)

Does Anaṅga-mañjarī possess the specific mahābhāva called mādana, proper to Rādhā alone? In any case, what these two songs say about Nitāi runs entirely counter to the view of Caitanya-bhāgavata's own author, and to the view of all other authoritative Gauḍīya ācāryas — so these two songs, too, cannot be believed to be the work of Nārāyaṇī's son Vṛndāvana Dāsa. Rather, it appears that whichever Vṛndāvana Dāsa (or Vṛndāvana Dāses) wrote the Nityānandaprabhor Vaiśvaryāmṛta-kāvyam and Rasa-kalpa-sāra-tattva mentioned earlier — that same poet, or poets of similarly inclined sentiment, are the likely authors of these two songs as well; such sentiments are altogether foreign to the Vaiṣṇavas of the recognized lineage following Śrī Rūpa and the other Gosvāmīs.

Śrīla Haridāsa Dāsa, in his dictionary (p. 1546), also mentions two further "Vṛndāvana" texts — Caitanya-gaṇoddeśa and Śrī Caitanya-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā — noting of the author of the latter that "he, however, is not the author of Caitanya-bhāgavata."

In any case, this discussion establishes that it cannot be said with certainty that Nārāyaṇī's son Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura wrote any book other than Caitanya-bhāgavata.

Nor is it known that Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura ever married. He did not take sannyāsa either — in the third chapter of the Antya-khaṇḍa of his own book, he expresses, through the mouth of Sārvabhauma, strong opposition to sannyāsa. Nor does it seem he later adopted the "veśa" (robes) of the renounced Vaiṣṇava bābājīs, since that custom did not yet exist in his time. Though born a brahmin, in the devotional humility proper to a Vaiṣṇava he identified himself simply as "Vṛndāvana Dāsa" ("servant of Vṛndāvana").

Nothing certain is known of the date of Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's disappearance either. Śrīla Haridāsa Dāsa writes in his dictionary (p. 1376): "Some say his disappearance occurred in Śaka 1511 — but this is mere conjecture."

(f) Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's humility. Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's humility was extraordinary — genuine, and born of true devotion. This is why his book contains almost no attempt at self-identification at all. In the line "this Vṛndāvana Dāsa sings at their lotus feet" he gives only his name and nothing more about himself. In one place he speaks of his mother Nārāyaṇī Devī: "Śrīvāsa's niece, named Nārāyaṇī — even today this remains a byword among Vaiṣṇavas: 'Nārāyaṇī, the receiver of Caitanya's remnants'" (2.23.18–19) — but even here he never says that this same Nārāyaṇī Devī was his own mother, since to say so would have been to display his own significance. Even that Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita — recipient of Mahāprabhu's boundless grace and one of His most intimate associates — was his own great-uncle, he never once states, for the same reason. He simply had no sense of his own importance at all. Only once, in the entire book, in the context of describing Śrī Nityānanda's glory, does Vṛndāvana Dāsa identify himself, as "born of Nārāyaṇī's womb": "Their very last servant is this Vṛndāvana Dāsa — the last remnant-recipient, born of Nārāyaṇī. Even today this remains a byword among Vaiṣṇavas: 'Nārāyaṇī, the receiver of Caitanya's remnants.'" (3.6.121–22) The point of this statement is that Vṛndāvana Dāsa considered: "I have no worthiness or merit of my own by which Śrī Nityānanda could ever have accepted me as His servant. It is only because I am born of Nārāyaṇī — well known among Vaiṣṇavas as the receiver of Caitanya's remnants — that Śrī Nityānanda, out of love and mercy toward my mother, has accepted a wretch like me as His servant." So even this act of self-identification is itself only further evidence of his humility.

There is no doubt that Caitanya-bhāgavata displays the author's extraordinary literary skill. Yet his own genuine, heartfelt conviction was that he himself had no capacity whatsoever to describe Śrī Caitanya's pastimes, and that he wrote this book solely by the mercy of Śrī Nityānanda and Śrī Caitanya. As Vṛndāvana Dāsa himself says: "This account of Caitanya springs forth by the mercy of Śeṣa [Nityānanda in His form as Ananta Śeṣa] — the treasury of His glory rests upon Śeṣa's very tongue. I see neither beginning nor end to the account of Caitanya — I write only what He, by His mercy, makes me say. Just as a wooden puppet has no capacity to dance on its own, but dances exactly as the puppeteer moves it by his hidden art — so does Gauracandra make me speak." (1.1.65–66) Here Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa says: just as a wooden puppet has no capacity to dance by itself, but dances only as the hidden puppeteer moves it, so too he has no capacity of his own to narrate Śrī Caitanya's pastimes — whatever Śrī Gauracandra has, by His grace, made him say, that alone he has set down in his book. Such extraordinary, wholly unfeigned humility as this could never arise except from an extraordinary manifestation of pure devotion in the heart.

§2. The Sources of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata

As already noted, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura never witnessed any of Mahāprabhu's pastimes with his own eyes. He himself states that he wrote this book on Śrī Nityānanda's own command: "Nityānanda, the indwelling witness, playfully instructed me to write something of Caitanya's character in a book." (1.1.60, 1.12.143) The word "antaryāmī" here suggests that Vṛndāvana Dāsa himself had already wished to write of Śrī Caitanya's character, and that Nityānanda, as the indwelling witness, perceiving this wish, playfully commanded him to write the book. But where, and how, did he obtain the material for Caitanya's life-story? He himself makes several specific statements on this point.

(a) Specific statements. Some of his material he obtained directly from Śrī Nityānanda Himself:

(1) Śrī Nityānanda had Himself beheld Mahāprabhu Śrī Gaurāṅga's six-armed form. Describing this in chapter 2.5, Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes that Nityānanda personally told him of this vision: "He Himself has spoken of seeing the six-armed form; out of His love for me, I speak these things which He related." (2.5.128)

(2) In describing, in chapter 2.23, the deliverance of the Qazi, the author states that Śrī Nityānanda Himself told him this story: "Have no doubt about this in your mind — that very Lord [Nityānanda] has spoken it Himself, out of His grace." (2.23.428)

(3) The author states that he heard something of the truth and the glory of the Vaiṣṇavas directly from Śrī Nityānanda's own mouth: "From Prabhu Nityānanda's own mouth I have heard something of the truth of the Vaiṣṇavas, and something of their glory." (2.20.156) From this it may be inferred that he likely also heard, from Nityānanda Himself, accounts of those pastimes of the Lord in which the truth and glory of the Vaiṣṇavas were revealed.

He states no other material as coming directly from Śrī Nityānanda.

Some material the author obtained from Śrī Advaita Ācārya. Just as Arjuna beheld Kṛṣṇa's universal form, Mahāprabhu too, at Advaita's request, showed him that same universal form. Describing this in chapter 2.24, the author writes: "These things came from Advaita's own sacred mouth — whoever does not accept them is entirely sinful." (2.24.68) He records no other pastime as coming from Advaita.

As already noted, the author obtained the account of Jagannātha's chariot festival and the cloth episode, and the account of Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi, from Gadādhara's own mouth: "let me set down a little of what came from Gadādhara's own mouth" (3.11.84). Gadādhara Paṇḍita had himself been Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi's disciple.

(b) General statements. Beyond these specific instances, the author makes only a general statement about the sources of his book:

"Who indeed knows the account of Caitanya, hidden even from the Vedas? I write only what I have heard from the devotees." (1.1.64)

The word "devotees" (bhakta) in this couplet could mean any of three classes: first, devotees who directly witnessed the Lord's pastimes; second, devotees who, though not eyewitnesses, heard the accounts directly from eyewitnesses; and third, later devotees who were neither eyewitnesses themselves nor had heard a complete account from an eyewitness, but had heard only fragments, secondhand, of some event. Of these three classes, there can be no real doubt about the reliability of accounts from the first two classes. But no one, I think, would deny the need to critically examine whether accounts from the third class are consistent with those given by the first two.

This covers what Vṛndāvana Dāsa himself says about the sources of his material. From his book, it is also clear that he was indebted, in this respect, to Murāri Gupta.

(c) Murāri Gupta's book. Of the four maṅgalācaraṇa (invocatory) verses that open Caitanya-bhāgavata, the last two (1.1.3–4) were composed by Murāri Gupta — and these two verses are not found in Murāri Gupta's Kaḍacā itself, suggesting that Vṛndāvana Dāsa had access to other verses of Murāri Gupta's besides the Kaḍacā.

Many of the events recounted in the Ādi- and Madhya-khaṇḍas of Caitanya-bhāgavata (i.e., covering the Lord's household pastimes) also appear, in brief or merely as passing mentions, in Murāri Gupta's Kaḍacā. In the fourth chapter of the Antya-khaṇḍa, where the author describes Murāri Gupta reciting his Rāmāṣṭaka verses at the Lord's request, two verses of that very Rāmāṣṭaka as found in the Kaḍacā (3.4.1–2) are directly quoted. This makes it perfectly clear that Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura had read, and drew upon, Murāri's Kaḍacā as well. Of course, where the Kaḍacā gives only a brief account, or a bare mention, of some event, Vṛndāvana Dāsa gives a far more detailed account — suggesting he supplemented what he read there with what he heard from other devotees. Where such detailed accounts rest on the testimony of eyewitnesses, there can be no real doubt about their reliability. But where a later devotee's account — someone who did not know the full sequence of some event firsthand, but had only heard scattered fragments of it — has found its way into Caitanya-bhāgavata, no one, I think, would deny the necessity of examining that account critically, since it is entirely possible that it rests merely on hearsay legend. Where such an account can be checked against another account resting on direct eyewitness testimony, it is only proper to judge its reliability by that comparison.

A few words are now in order on the origin and nature of such hearsay legend (kiṃvadantī).

§3. The Origin and Nature of Hearsay/Legend

When many people directly witness some event, the true account of that event also becomes known, through them, to many others — so there is little room for speculative or invented material to creep into such an account.

But when only one or two people directly witness some event, it is not possible for everyone to learn the complete, sequential account of it. If someone hears only a fragment or two of the event, he may, with the aid of conjecture, connect what he has heard to some inferred completion of the story, and thereby construct a full-seeming account of it — and he himself knows perfectly well that this connected account is merely conjectural.

But once that account leaves his mouth and, passing from person to person, reaches the ears of others, they no longer recognize it as conjectural — it comes to seem simply true. At that point it hardens into legend (kiṃvadantī). Such legend can produce strange combinations of unrelated events, and even of unrelated dates. This, it seems, is exactly how legend originates, and this is its essential nature — and it is precisely such legend that must be tested against accounts resting on direct eyewitness testimony.

To know what the eyewitnesses actually said, we must first understand the nature of the material given to us by the early biographers of Gaura. This is now taken up.

§4. The Biographers of Gaura

There are five early biographers of Gaura: Murāri Gupta, Vṛndāvana Dāsa, Locana Dāsa, Karṇapūra, and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja. The character of the material each provides is discussed in the following sections.

§5. Murāri Gupta

Murāri Gupta was a resident of Navadwip, a contemporary of Mahāprabhu (in fact somewhat older than Him), and one of His intimate associates. He personally witnessed the Lord's entire Navadwip pastimes, up to and including the taking of sannyāsa, and recorded them in sūtra (aphoristic) form in his Kaḍacā. There can be no doubt about the reliability of his account of the Navadwip pastimes.

But he was not an eyewitness to the Lord's pastimes after sannyāsa. When he traveled to Nīlācala for the Ratha-yātrā to see the Lord, he witnessed only whatever pastimes occurred during however many months he stayed there each time, and perhaps some of the pastimes during the Lord's occasional visits back to Bengal from Nīlācala — but he was not an eyewitness to any of the Lord's other post-sannyāsa pastimes at all.

Nor does it seem likely that Murāri Gupta, or the other Gauḍīya devotees, could have learned much reliable detail about the Lord's travels through South India or western India while they themselves remained at Nīlācala — since nearly all their time there was spent hearing discourses on Kṛṣṇa from the Lord's own mouth and joining in kīrtana with Him. Their minds were wholly absorbed at all times in the Lord's beauty, qualities, and glory; the thought of systematically gathering historical information does not seem to have occurred to them.

For all these reasons, scholars do not place great weight on what the printed Kaḍacā (as published by the Amrita Bazar Office) reports about the Lord's pastimes after sannyāsa. In the introduction to the fourth edition of the printed Kaḍacā, its translator Śrīla Haridāsa Dāsa writes that "the revered Kavi Karṇapūra Gosvāmī follows this [Kaḍacā] only up to the thirteenth canto of his Caitanya-caritāmṛta-mahākāvya" (p. 270) — meaning Karṇapūra ceases to follow the Kaḍacā after the thirteenth canto. Haridāsa Dāsa further notes there that certain portions of the Kaḍacā may include later additions (pp. 260, 280).

Dr. Bimanbihari Majumdar, in his book Śrī Caitanya-caritera Upādāna (p. 73), writes: "The poet Karṇapūra follows Murāri's text with great fidelity in his mahākāvya up to the eleventh canto, but no longer follows him so closely after that — which strengthens the suspicion regarding the authenticity of Murāri's account of the Nīlācala pastimes."

Kavirāja Gosvāmī, too, in his own Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, never once cites Murāri Gupta's Kaḍacā when describing the Lord's post-sannyāsa pastimes — but he does cite it when describing the Lord's household pastimes: "The Lord's household pastimes are called the Ādi-līlā. Within the Ādi-līlā, all the Lord's activities Murāri Gupta strung together in sūtra form." (Cc. 1.13.13–14)

For all these reasons, it has been said that specialists do not place great weight on what the Kaḍacā records regarding the Lord's pastimes after sannyāsa. Murāri Gupta's Kaḍacā certainly must contain something written about that later period — but since he was not himself an eyewitness to it, that material is not given the same weight; and since some later material has evidently entered the text of the Kaḍacā as well, it is even difficult to determine exactly which portions are genuinely his.

Nevertheless, Murāri Gupta remains the very first biographer of the Lord's life.

§6. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja

Kavirāja Gosvāmī was not an eyewitness to any of the Lord's pastimes at all. There is not even any evidence, in his own Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, that he ever personally saw Mahāprabhu, Prabhu Nityānanda, or Prabhu Advaita during their manifest presence on earth. He is, moreover, the very last of the biographers of Gaura chronologically. And yet, because the material available to him has one quite extraordinary distinguishing feature, his sources are discussed here immediately after Murāri Gupta's.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī divides the Lord's pastimes into three parts: Ādi-līlā, Madhya-līlā, and Antya-līlā. His Ādi-līlā covers the period up to the Lord's sannyāsa — corresponding to the pastimes described in the Ādi- and Madhya-khaṇḍas of Caitanya-bhāgavata. The period after sannyāsa he calls, broadly, the "Śeṣa" (final) līlā, which he further divides into two: Madhya-līlā and Antya-līlā. He names the first six years after sannyāsa the Madhya-līlā — during these six years the Lord traveled from Nīlācala to South India and to western India, and once returned to Bengal as well. The Lord's final eighteen years he calls the Antya-līlā — during these eighteen years the Lord never left Nīlācala at all, except to visit Ālālanātha during the period when Jagannātha was not visible to Him, after the Snāna-yātrā (bathing festival).

(a) The material for Gaura's life-story. Regarding his own sources, Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes:

"All the Lord's activities within the Ādi-līlā, Murāri strung together in sūtra form; and the Lord's final pastimes, Svarūpa-Dāmodara strung together within a book. Having seen and heard the sūtras of these two, the Vaiṣṇavas [i.e., Kavirāja himself] describe them in sequence." (Cc. 1.13.14–16)

Of the sources for the Antya-līlā, Kavirāja Gosvāmī further writes:

"Caitanya's pastimes, the essence of all jewels, were Svarūpa's own treasury, which he entrusted to Raghunātha's care; whatever of it I have heard, that I have described here, and offer it as a gift to the devotees." (Cc. 2.1.73) — that is, whatever Svarūpa Dāmodara had spoken to Raghunātha, that Kavirāja heard from Raghunātha's own mouth and has described here.

Of the Lord's pastimes of divine madness (divyonmāda), he writes:

"Svarūpa Gosāñi and Raghunātha Dāsa — these two, in their kaḍacās, have revealed this pastime. At that time these two alone remained by Mahāprabhu's side; all the other kaḍacā-writers lived far away. These two, moment by moment, experienced and recorded these things, some briefly and some at length, in their kaḍacās. Setting aside their more elaborate portions, I follow their [Svarūpa's] concise notes [pāñji-ṭīkā]." (Cc. 3.14.6–9)

Here, the phrase "Svarūpa the sūtra-maker, Raghunātha the commentator" means that whatever Svarūpa Dāmodara set down in sūtra (brief aphoristic) form, Raghunātha Dāsa expanded upon and related in detail to Kavirāja.

Material drawn from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. Kavirāja Gosvāmī also records what he took from Vṛndāvana Dāsa's book. Regarding the Lord's childhood, boyhood, adolescent, and youthful pastimes (i.e., up through sannyāsa) he writes:

"I have given only the outline, in brief sūtra form, of the childhood pastimes — Dāsa Vṛndāvana has already related them in full. Therefore I have condensed this līlā into a mere sūtra; to repeat it in full would only be redundant." (Cc. 1.14.91–92)

"The boyhood pastimes are of many kinds; Vṛndāvana Dāsa has already related them in full. I have therefore shown only a glimpse — they are already well known to everyone through the Caitanya-maṅgala." (Cc. 1.15.29–30)

Of the adolescent pastimes, regarding the victory over the digvijayī (the roving scholar-conqueror), he writes:

"Vṛndāvana Dāsa has related this in full, without dwelling explicitly on its finer merits and defects. I relate only that portion, offering my respects to him — [the portion concerning] how, upon hearing it, the digvijayī scholar came himself to disown his own pride." (Cc. 1.16.24–25) (see the commentary on Cb. 1.19.9)

And, summing up the entire adolescent līlā:

"All these pastimes Vṛndāvana Dāsa has already described; whatever of particular note there was, he has already brought to light." (Cc. 1.16.103)

Of the Lord's youthful pastimes, regarding the deliverance of the Qazi, he writes:

"How the unruly crowd broke down the Qazi's house and flower-garden — Dāsa Vṛndāvana has related this in full." (Cc. 1.17.136)

Vṛndāvana Dāsa simply concludes that the Lord punished the Qazi and departed (Cb. 2.23.419) without saying exactly how; Kavirāja Gosvāmī supplies that detail (Cc. 1.17.137–219; see the commentary on Cb. 2.23.419).

At the end of the Ādi-līlā, Kavirāja writes:

"I have given only a summary sūtra of this Ādi-līlā; Dāsa Vṛndāvana has related it in full." (Cc. 1.17.267)

He repeats this at the start of the Madhya-līlā:

"I have already given the sūtra of the Ādi-līlā, which Dāsa Vṛndāvana has related in full — so I have given only its outline, noting anything of particular importance within that outline." (Cc. 2.1.3–4)

In describing the Lord's final pastimes (i.e., after sannyāsa) as well, Kavirāja Gosvāmī draws on Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata:

"Now I speak the principal outline of the final pastimes — the Lord's pastimes are boundless and cannot be fully told. Whatever portion of them Dāsa Vṛndāvana has already related in full in the Caitanya-maṅgala [i.e., Caitanya-bhāgavata], of that portion I shall write only the outline here, elaborating only whatever is of particular note." (Cc. 2.1.5–7)

Of the episode of Jagannātha's cloth and Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi, which Vṛndāvana Dāsa narrates at great length in Caitanya-bhāgavata 3.11.101–75, Kavirāja gives only a summary, concluding: "Vṛndāvana Dāsa has related this in full" (Cc. 2.16.80) — adding nothing of his own "particular note" here.

He also states which portions of the final līlā, as related by Vṛndāvana Dāsa, he himself has drawn upon:

"Along the bank of the Ganges, with four companions, the Lord set out for Nīlācala by the Chatrabhoga road — Dāsa Vṛndāvana has related the Lord's journey to Nīlācala in full in the Caitanya-maṅgala." (Cc. 2.3.213–14)

Here Kavirāja does not accept the names Vṛndāvana Dāsa gives for the Lord's companions, and supplies different names (see the commentary on Cb. 3.23.5) — this being his "particular note" in this instance.

Kavirāja also draws on Caitanya-bhāgavata's account of Advaita Ācārya's invitation to the Lord: "How Ācārya Gosāñi invited the Lord, and what a downpour occurred in the course of it — Dāsa Vṛndāvana has related this in full." (Cc. 2.16.54–55)

Regarding the Lord's journey from Nīlācala into Bengal, Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes that a Muslim official brought the Lord as far as Pichaldā from Cuttack in Orissa, whereupon:

"Boarding that boat, the Lord came to Panihati, and gave the boatman His own cloth of mercy. Then Rāghava Paṇḍita came and took the Lord away; on the road the crowds pressed so thick they could barely make their way through. Staying there one night, the Lord came the next morning to Kumarhatta, where Śrīnivāsa lived. From there He went first to Śivānanda's house, and only afterward, the Lord, to Vāsudeva's house; how the Lord stayed at Vācaspati's house, and how, fearing the crowds, He came on to Kuliyā... [continuing] ...to the house of Mādhava Dāsa, Śacī's son received the sight of tens of millions of people. Staying there seven days He delivered the people, redeeming even the offenders among them. How He then came to the house of the Ācārya of Shantipur, and Śacī Mātā, meeting Him, had her sorrow dispelled; from there the Lord set off for Gauḍa, and came to the village of Ramakeli, where He met Rūpa and Sanātana, and how Nṛsiṃhānanda prepared the road — this I relate only in sūtra form. How He returned from Naṭaśālā: the Lord turned back from Naṭaśālā, and, fearing the crowds, did not go on to Vṛndāvana, but stayed ten more days in Shantipur — Dāsa Vṛndāvana has related this in full, so I have not elaborated it here; to repeat it would only make the book grow without end." (Cc. 2.16.199–213)

Vṛndāvana Dāsa, in the third and fourth chapters of his own Antya-khaṇḍa, gives the account of the Lord's journey from Nīlācala into Bengal. Kavirāja Gosvāmī gives this same account independently, both while outlining the Madhya-līlā (Cc. 2.1.140–212) and again in the sixteenth chapter of the Madhya-līlā (Cc. 2.16.90–249) — even while stating that Vṛndāvana Dāsa has already related it in full, he does not refrain from narrating this līlā himself. It is specifically regarding the ten days the Lord spent in Shantipur after returning from Naṭaśālā that Kavirāja says, "Dāsa Vṛndāvana has related this in full, so I have not elaborated it" — but for the rest of the account of the Lord's journey into Bengal, Kavirāja writes independently, because he had many "particular notes" of his own to add. A few such particulars are noted here:

1. Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes that the Lord went to Ramakeli directly from Kuliyā (Cb. 3.3.501 and 3.3.545), and from Ramakeli to Naṭaśālā, and from there to Shantipur. Kavirāja writes that the Lord went from Kuliyā to Shantipur, from Shantipur to Ramakeli by way of Naṭaśālā, and then...

2. Of the Lord's meeting with Rūpa and Sanātana during His stay at Ramakeli, Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes nothing at all — Kavirāja gives a detailed account of this meeting and the Lord's mercy upon them (Cc. Madhya-līlā, ch. 1).

3. In describing the Lord's journey from Nīlācala into Bengal, Vṛndāvana Dāsa says nothing at all about Gadādhara — though Gadādhara eagerly wished to accompany the Lord into Bengal, the Lord forbade it; Kavirāja gives a detailed account of this (Cc. 2.16).

4. When Mahāprabhu came to Cuttack, King Pratāparudra met with Him and arranged for His free passage into Bengal — Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes nothing of this; Kavirāja gives a detailed account (Cc. 2.16).

5. How the Lord came from Nīlācala to Vidyāvācaspati's house — Vṛndāvana Dāsa says nothing of this; Kavirāja gives a detailed account (Cc. 2.16).

6. Kavirāja Gosvāmī records (Cc. 2.13) that when the Lord came from Naṭaśālā to Shantipur, Raghunātha Dāsa of Saptagrāma came there to meet Him and received instruction from Him — Vṛndāvana Dāsa records none of this; in fact Raghunātha Dāsa's name is not mentioned anywhere at all in Caitanya-bhāgavata.

(b) Pastimes related at length in Caitanya-bhāgavata but entirely unmentioned in Caitanya-caritāmṛta. Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura, in the Antya-khaṇḍa of his book, describes at considerable length several pastimes that Kavirāja Gosvāmī does not mention even in passing anywhere in his Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta. A few such instances:

(1) Caitanya-bhāgavata 3.5.509–633 and 3.6.1–67 — Śrī Nityānanda's donning of ornaments, and the deliverance of thieves and bandits. According to Vṛndāvana Dāsa's account (3.5.227–32), when Nityānanda, at the Lord's command, came from Nīlācala to Bengal with Rāmadāsa and other devotees, He first arrived at Panihati and stayed three months (3.5.320–21, 3.5.332); some days later He conceived a wish to wear ornaments (3.5.333), whereupon various ornaments at once appeared and Nityānanda wore them all (3.5.334–43); thus adorned, He wandered the villages along the Ganges in the bliss of saṅkīrtana (3.5.356). This places Nityānanda's donning of ornaments some four to five months after His arrival at Panihati with Rāmadāsa and the others, by the Lord's order. From Kavirāja Gosvāmī's account, it is known that after Mahāprabhu's return to Nīlācala from South India, at the time of the first Ratha-yātrā (Śaka 1434), the Gauḍīya devotees went to Nīlācala to see Him; after the four months of the rainy season they returned home, and it was at that time that the Lord sent Nityānanda to Bengal to distribute the holy name and prema there, sending Rāmadāsa and a few other devotees along with Him (Cc. 2.25.38–44). This places Nityānanda's departure for Bengal with Rāmadāsa and the others in the latter half of Śaka 1434 — so Nityānanda's donning of ornaments would fall in the latter part of Śaka 1434, or the very start of Śaka 1435. Nor can it be said that Vṛndāvana Dāsa personally witnessed this ornament-wearing pastime himself, since, as already established, he was not even born before Śaka 1440.

(2) Caitanya-bhāgavata 3.7.8–120 — describing an objection raised before the Lord by a Brahmin, a former fellow-student of His, against the sannyāsī Nityānanda's wearing of ornaments, and the Lord's rebuke of that Brahmin.

(3) Caitanya-bhāgavata 3.10.130–48 — the episode of Keśava Bhāratī.

There are several more such instances, omitted here for brevity. In any case, the true character of these passages found in Caitanya-bhāgavata but nowhere even mentioned in Caitanya-caritāmṛta is left for the judgment of discerning readers.

(c) The character of Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own sources. For the material of the Lord's final pastimes (after sannyāsa), Kavirāja cites Svarūpa Dāmodara and the kaḍacā of [Raghunātha Dāsa] Gosvāmī.

Svarūpa Dāmodara was a resident of Navadwip and one of the Lord's most intimate, beloved associates — in his earlier life (pūrvāśrama) he was known as Puruṣottama Ācārya. He was an eyewitness to the Lord's household pastimes as well. When the Lord took sannyāsa, he too went to Kāśī and took sannyāsa, and came to Nīlācala to rejoin the Lord only after the Lord's own return there from South India. The period from the Lord's sannyāsa to His return from South India was a little over two years and two months — during this period, Svarūpa Dāmodara was not with the Lord.

When the Lord traveled from Nīlācala into Bengal, Svarūpa Dāmodara was with Him, and returned with Him as well.

When the Lord traveled from Nīlācala to western India (Vṛndāvana), Svarūpa Dāmodara remained at Nīlācala. The Lord departed after Vijayā Daśamī and returned to Nīlācala before the next Ratha-yātrā, probably in the month of Vaiśākha — so for these six or seven months, too, Svarūpa Dāmodara was not with the Lord.

Altogether, then, Svarūpa Dāmodara was absent from the Lord for roughly two years and nine months in total. He remained manifest on earth for some time even after the Lord's own disappearance. Apart from those two years and nine months, he personally witnessed all of the Lord's pastimes directly. At Nīlācala, too, he was one of the Lord's most intimate associates — during the pastimes of divine madness (divyonmāda) and the like, it was Svarūpa Dāmodara and Rāya Rāmānanda who personally attended the Lord.

Even for that missing two years and nine months, he learned the pastimes from thoroughly reliable sources. After the sannyāsa, the account of the Lord's journey from Kāṭoyā through Rāḍha to Shantipur, and from Shantipur to Nīlācala, he learned from Mukunda Datta, the Lord's own Navadwip companion who accompanied Him at that time.

For everything up to that point, Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya had been directly involved in the Lord's pastimes, and Svarūpa learned that period's events from Sārvabhauma as well. The account of the Lord's meeting with Rāya Rāmānanda during His South Indian travels, Svarūpa learned from Rāmānanda himself, his own intimate friend — the Lord met Rāmānanda both on the way to South India and again on the return journey. On the return journey, when the Lord met Rāya again at Vidyānagara, He told him the whole story of His pilgrimage: "To Rāmānanda, the Lord told all the story of His pilgrimage." (Cc. 2.9.295) And on the very day the Lord returned to Nīlācala from South India: "At midday the Lord, with His own associates, went and took alms at Sārvabhauma's house; having fed him, He made him lie down and personally massaged his feet. The Lord sent him to eat, and stayed that night at his house out of love for him; taking Sārvabhauma and His other associates, He stayed awake late into the night telling the story of His pilgrimage." (Cc. 2.9.324–27) It was from Rāya Rāmānanda and Sārvabhauma, then, that Svarūpa Dāmodara learned the account of the Lord's South Indian travels. The account of the Lord's western travels (to Vraja) he learned from Balabhadra Bhaṭṭācārya, the Lord's companion on that journey, who resided at Nīlācala. In this way it is seen that Svarūpa Dāmodara learned even the events of that missing two years and nine months from thoroughly reliable sources — and all the Lord's later Nīlācala pastimes, of course, he witnessed with his own eyes. What he had witnessed himself, and what he had learned from reliable sources, he recorded in sūtra form in his own kaḍacā. It was this kaḍacā that Kavirāja Gosvāmī obtained.

Now, regarding Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmī: he came into the Lord's presence at Nīlācala sixteen years before the Lord's disappearance, and never left Nīlācala again before that disappearance. The Lord entrusted him to Svarūpa Dāmodara's own care, and he remained with Svarūpa throughout — for these sixteen years he served the Lord intimately alongside Svarūpa Dāmodara. As Kavirāja writes: "He served intimately together with Svarūpa. (Cc. 3.6.238) Raghunātha Dāsa, Mahāprabhu's beloved servant, renouncing everything, made his home at the Lord's feet; the Lord entrusted him to Svarūpa's hand, and he performed the Lord's confidential service alongside Svarūpa. For sixteen years he performed this intimate service; upon Svarūpa's disappearance he came to Vṛndāvana." (Cc. 1.10.89–91) Raghunātha, then, was both an eyewitness to and an intimate attendant of the Lord's final sixteen years, and recorded what he had seen "briefly, though extensively" (i.e., covering many pastimes, each in brief) in his own kaḍacā (the work known as Śrī Gaurāṅga-stava-kalpataru). This same Raghunātha Dāsa was one of Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own six instructing gurus. Kavirāja obtained this kaḍacā from him directly. While writing Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Kavirāja lived at Rādhā-kuṇḍa together with Dāsa Gosvāmī himself, and it was there that he obtained Svarūpa Dāmodara's kaḍacā as well — and whatever pastimes Svarūpa Dāmodara had recorded only briefly in that kaḍacā, Raghunātha had also heard in full detail from Svarūpa's own mouth, and related all of it to Kavirāja: "Caitanya's pastimes, the essence of all jewels, were Svarūpa's own treasury, which he entrusted to Raghunātha's care; whatever of it I have heard, that I have described here, and offer it as a gift to the devotees." (Cc. 2.1.73) — needless to say, he also related to Kavirāja the detailed accounts of the pastimes Dāsa Gosvāmī had recorded in his own kaḍacā.

Thus it is seen that the material Kavirāja Gosvāmī obtained — from Svarūpa Dāmodara's kaḍacā, from Raghunātha Dāsa's own kaḍacā, and from Raghunātha's own oral account — is thoroughly reliable.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī also heard, from Raghunātha's own mouth, accounts of certain pastimes from before Dāsa Gosvāmī had even left home — such as Raghunātha's meeting with the Lord at Shantipur, his efforts to remain near the Lord's feet at Nīlācala, his meeting with Nityānanda Prabhu at Panihati, his meeting with Haridāsa Ṭhākura at Saptagrāma, and the account of Haridāsa and Māyādevī at Shantipur, and so on. Describing the Māyādevī and Haridāsa episode, Kavirāja writes: "Whatever pastimes Svarūpa Gosāñi recorded in his kaḍacā, and whatever I heard from Raghunātha Dāsa's own mouth — all these pastimes I, an insignificant soul, have written briefly, by Caitanya's mercy." (Cc. 3.3.256–57) And regarding Raghunātha's own deliverance, Kavirāja writes: "Raghunātha Dāsa himself revealed the story of his own deliverance in the Gaurāṅga-stava-kalpavṛkṣa." (Cc. 3.6.319)

Śrī Rūpa and Sanātana Gosvāmī were likewise two of Kavirāja Gosvāmī's instructing gurus, and he learned much from them as well — such as the account of the Lord's meeting with Rūpa and Sanātana at Ramakeli; the Lord's meeting with Śrī Rūpa at Prayāga on His way back from Vṛndāvana, and the instruction the Lord gave him there; the account of Vallabha Bhaṭṭa; the Lord's meeting with Sanātana at Kāśī and the instruction given there; the deliverance of Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī and other sannyāsīs; Śrī Rūpa's meeting with the Lord at Nīlācala; the Lord's discussion, with His associates, of Rūpa's play, and the writing of that play; the Lord's meeting with Sanātana at Nīlācala; and so on. Beyond these, Kavirāja's other instructing gurus — Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī, Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī, and Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī — must also have been sources for some of his accounts.

Thus it is seen that there can be no real doubt about the reliability of the material Kavirāja Gosvāmī obtained. No other biographer of the Lord had access to material of this quality — this is the truly unparalleled distinction of Kavirāja Gosvāmī's sources.

§7. Locana Dāsa Ṭhākura

His book is titled Śrī Caitanya-maṅgala, composed in Bengali in couplet (payāra) and other metres. He too follows Murāri Gupta's Kaḍacā closely in many places. But he also narrates a few episodes that directly contradict the accounts of both Murāri Gupta and Vṛndāvana Dāsa, and propounds certain doctrines that conflict with the views of all these biographers, and indeed with the views of the Vaiṣṇavas of the recognized lineage following Śrī Rūpa and the other Gosvāmīs. Kavirāja Gosvāmī never once cites Locana Dāsa's Caitanya-maṅgala anywhere in his own work.

§8. Kavi Karṇapūra

Karṇapūra was the youngest son of Śrī Śivānanda Sena, named Paramānanda Dāsa. Because Mahāprabhu never uttered the name of Paramānanda Purī Gosvāmī [out of humility, since it was His own sannyāsa-guru's name], and because the word "Paramānanda" appears in Karṇapūra's own name, the Lord always called him simply "Purīdāsa." Karṇapūra wrote two Sanskrit biographies of Gaura: the Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta-mahākāvyam and the Śrī Caitanya-candrodaya-nāṭakam.

(a) Verses from Karṇapūra's play quoted in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta. Kavirāja Gosvāmī quotes several verses from Karṇapūra's play in his own book. For example:

(1) Describing the Lord's arrival at the Ganges after His journey through Rāḍha from Kāṭoyā following His sannyāsa, Kavirāja writes: "Nityānanda Mahāśaya came forward and introduced himself to Mahāprabhu. The Lord said, 'Where are you headed, Śrīpāda?' Śrīpāda replied, 'I am going to Vṛndāvana with you.' The Lord said, 'How far is Vṛndāvana?' He replied, 'Just look — here is the Yamunā.' So saying, he brought Him to the bank of the Ganges, and in ecstatic absorption the Lord took the Ganges to be the Yamunā: 'Ah, what fortune, to behold the Yamunā!' — so saying, He offered prayers to her." (Cc. 2.3.28–25 [sic]) Kavirāja then quotes, from the play, the verse of praise to the Yamunā: "O Yamunā, radiant with the splendor of transcendental bliss..." (Nāṭakam 8.10 [sic])

Here Kavirāja takes only the Yamunā-praise verse from Karṇapūra's play; his own account of the Lord's journey through Rāḍha does not agree with Karṇapūra's account in every detail. A few illustrative differences: Karṇapūra writes that Nityānanda introduced himself to the Lord some distance before reaching the Ganges (see the passage following verse 5.9 in the play), while Kavirāja writes that Nityānanda introduced himself only upon reaching the Ganges itself (Cc. 2.3.23–24). Karṇapūra describes how, while the Lord was reciting the Yamunā-praise and bathing in the Ganges under the impression it was the Yamunā, a man came and bowed to Nityānanda, and Nityānanda told him: "Listen — Advaita's house is a short way across the river; go quickly and tell Advaita that Nityānanda has arrived nearby with a certain sannyāsī, and awaits him." The man replied, "I shall do so," and departed (play, passage between verses 5.10–11). Advaita then arrived, and Nityānanda asked him, "Advaita, has anyone been sent to Navadwip?" Advaita replied, "Of course — everyone has very nearly already arrived!" (passage between verses 5.16–17). The play states that Advaita arrived by boat. But Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes that before introducing himself to the Lord, Nityānanda first said to Advaita: "Nityānanda Gosāñi said to Ācārya, 'Go quickly, Advaita Ācārya, to your own place — I shall bring the Lord to your temple; keep a boat carefully waiting at the bank. Then go to Navadwip yourself and bring all the devotees with Śacī Mātā.'" (Cc. 2.3.18–20) According to the play, on the very day the Lord entered Advaita's house, the Navadwip devotees had already arrived at Shantipur and had darśan of the Lord after His almsgiving that same day (play 5.23–24). But Kavirāja says that Advaita brought Śacī Mātā to Shantipur only the next morning, and the devotees arrived at that same time (Cc. 2.3.134–36).

(2) In the account of the Lord's Vedānta discussion with Sārvabhauma, the Lord says: "Those scriptural statements which the Śruti calls 'nirviśeṣa' [without qualities] actually establish something 'aprākṛta' [transcendental] by negating something merely 'prākṛta' [material/mundane]." (Cc. 2.6.133) To show that Karṇapūra makes a similar statement in his play, Kavirāja quotes play-verse 6.67: "Whatever [scriptural passage] appears to negate qualities entirely in fact affirms a special [transcendental] quality; upon careful examination, its real, stronger sense is precisely this special quality." Though Kavirāja's and Karṇapūra's statements are similar in substance, the wording is not identical — Kavirāja records the account as he received it, and cites Karṇapūra's verse only in passing corroboration.

(3) Describing Svarūpa Dāmodara's meeting with the Lord at Nīlācala, and the verse of praise Svarūpa recited to the Lord, Kavirāja quotes that verse from Karṇapūra's play — "heloṣṇa-dīnita-khedayā viśadayā..." (play 8.10). But Kavirāja does not describe the meeting itself exactly as Karṇapūra does: in the play, Svarūpa recites this verse while gazing up at the sky, not while prostrated at the Lord's feet — but Kavirāja writes: "That Dāmodara came and fell prostrate; falling at His feet he began to recite the verse." (Cc. 2.10.116) So here Kavirāja takes only the verse of homage from the play, not the surrounding narrative detail.

(4) Describing King Pratāparudra's eagerness to see the Lord, Kavirāja writes that when, at Pratāparudra's request, Sārvabhauma pleaded with the Lord to grant the king an audience, the Lord refused, saying: "A renounced sannyāsī and an audience with a king — for me that is like drinking poison, the same as an audience with a woman." (Cc. 2.11.6) Here Kavirāja quotes play-verse 8.23, "niṣkiñcanasya bhagavad-bhajanonmukhasya..." When Sārvabhauma pointed out that Pratāparudra, though a king, was Jagannātha's own servant and a great devotee, the Lord replied: "Even so, a king is like a black serpent; contact with him corrupts, just as touching a wooden effigy of a woman still stirs disturbance." (Cc. 2.11.8) — and here too Kavirāja quotes Karṇapūra's play-verse 8.24, "ākārād api bhetavyaṁ strīṇāṁ viṣayiṇām api..." When Sārvabhauma reported all this to the king, the king replied: "To deliver the fallen is His very avatāra — hearing how He delivered Jagāi and Mādhāi, I know He has taken this avatāra with the vow, 'I shall deliver the world, sparing not even Pratāparudra.'" (Cc. 2.11.36–37) — and here again Kavirāja cites play-verse 8.28, "adarśanīyān api nīca-yonīn..." In this episode, the account in the play and Kavirāja's account correspond fairly closely overall.

When the Gauḍīya devotees, after the Lord's return from South India, went to Nīlācala and met with Him, the Lord said to Śivānanda: "There is a bond of affection between you and Me — I have known this from long before." Hearing this, Śivānanda Sena, overwhelmed with divine love, fell prostrate and recited a verse. (Cc. 2.11.135–36) The verse he recited is the 26th verse of Yāmunācārya's Stotra-ratna: "O Lord, though I lay lifeless in this ocean of material existence for so long, I have at last, after so long a time, obtained You as my very own; and You too have now obtained, in me, a most worthy vessel for Your compassion." This same verse of Yāmunācārya is quoted in Karṇapūra's play as well (8.[41]), placed there in Sena Śivānanda's mouth in this same episode. Here, too, some details of the play agree with Kavirāja's account, but not entirely — Karṇapūra, for instance, states that Śrī Nityānanda was present among the Gauḍīya devotees at this time (8.36), while Kavirāja states that Nityānanda had already been at Nīlācala from before.

(6) When, on His return journey from Vṛndāvana, the Lord arrived at Prayāga, Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī had also come there from Bengal; the Lord instructed him there for ten days and showed him extraordinary mercy. Of this episode Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes: "Śivānanda Sena's son, the poet Karṇapūra, has written extensively of this meeting with Rūpa in his book." (Cc. 2.19.109) In support, he quotes three verses from Karṇapūra's play: "kālena vṛndāvana-keli-vārtāṃ..." (9.38), "yaḥ prāg eva triguṇa-gaṇair gāḍha-baddho 'pi..." (9.29), and "priya-svarūpe dayita-svarūpe..." (9.30). The first two verses are spoken by the boatman, the third by Sārvabhauma. These three verses speak only of the fact of Rūpa's receiving the Lord's mercy, not of how it was shown — Kavirāja himself supplies that detailed account (see Cc. 2.19).

(7) Having described at length the Lord's instruction to, and mercy upon, Sanātana at Vārāṇasī, Kavirāja writes: "Thus I have told of the Lord's mercy upon Sanātana, hearing which the devotee's despondency is dispelled. [Sanātana] set it down himself in his own book..."

"...and in extensive detail Karṇapūra too has preserved this account of the Lord's mercy upon Sanātana in his own book." (Cc. 2.24.258–59) Kavirāja then quotes three further verses from Karṇapūra's play describing the Lord's mercy on Rūpa and Sanātana together (9.34, 9.35, 9.38) — all three spoken by the boatman — though again without any narrative detail of how that mercy was shown; Kavirāja himself supplies that detail (Cc. 2.19–24).

(8) Describing Raghunātha Dāsa's renunciation of home life, Kavirāja writes: "On this same subject, Śrī Kavi Karṇapūra too has written much of Raghunātha's glory in his book." (Cc. 3.6.259) — quoting two further verses (10.3, 10.4, both spoken by Śivānanda Sena), though again Karṇapūra gives no narrative account of the Lord's mercy upon Raghunātha, which Kavirāja himself supplies in full (Cc. 3.6).

Altogether, then, Kavirāja Gosvāmī quotes some fifteen verses from Karṇapūra's play — but not a single line from Karṇapūra's mahākāvya, which he does not even name anywhere in his Caitanya-caritāmṛta. And even the fifteen verses he does quote from the play are quoted only for their poetic expression — he draws no narrative material from the play itself; every event he narrates comes from his own established sources, and only occasionally does his account happen to resemble Karṇapūra's. Indeed, it is clear from this survey that Kavirāja's narrative would have lost nothing in completeness had he omitted these quoted verses altogether.

Since Kavirāja drew no narrative material at all from Karṇapūra's works, when he names his sources he mentions Murāri Gupta, Vṛndāvana Dāsa, Svarūpa Dāmodara, and Raghunātha Dāsa — but never Karṇapūra. The likely reason he drew nothing from Karṇapūra's books is that Karṇapūra's accounts of various events frequently do not agree with the accounts Kavirāja had himself received.

(b) The true character of Karṇapūra's own sources. One might object here: was not Karṇapūra himself the son of Śivānanda Sena, one of Mahāprabhu's most beloved associates? Did he not obtain his material directly from his own father? And was Karṇapūra not himself a special recipient of the Lord's mercy? How, then, could there be any doubt about the reliability of his account?

On this point, my submission is as follows. First, consider Śivānanda Sena himself. Vṛndāvana Dāsa never once mentions Śivānanda Sena's name anywhere in the Ādi- or Madhya-khaṇḍas of his book (i.e., in describing the Lord's household pastimes before sannyāsa). Śivānanda Sena is first mentioned in Caitanya-bhāgavata only when the Lord, having come from Nīlācala into Bengal, visited Śrīvāsa's house at Kumarhatta, and "Śivānanda Sena and other well-wishers" came there along with Vāsudeva Datta (Cb. 3.5.18) — and this is a bare mention only, with no further detail, not even that the Lord ever spoke a single word to Śivānanda. It cannot be established with certainty, from Vṛndāvana Dāsa's account alone, that Śivānanda Sena was an old and dear devotee of the Lord's from before. But Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes that at that time, going to Rāghava Paṇḍita's house at Panihati: "Staying there one night, He came the next morning to Kumarhatta, where Śrīnivāsa lived; from there He went first to Śivānanda's house, and only afterward to Vāsudeva's house." (Cc. 2.16.202–3) — which does not agree with Vṛndāvana Dāsa's account. Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes that Vāsudeva Datta, together with Śivānanda Sena, went to Śrīvāsa's house to see the Lord; but Kavirāja says the Lord went first from Śrīvāsa's house to Śivānanda's own house, and only afterward to Vāsudeva's. From Kavirāja's account it appears that Śivānanda was an old and especially dear acquaintance of the Lord — otherwise why would the Lord have gone to his house at all?

Kumarhatta is also known as Halisahar. Kanchanpalli (Kanchrapara) was Vāsudeva Datta's own family seat. Śivānanda Sena's in-laws' house was at Kanchrapara as well, and it was there that he himself resided (Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Abhidhāna).

Taken together, Vṛndāvana Dāsa's and Kavirāja's statements suggest that Śivānanda Sena resided at Kanchrapara. Just as Advaita Ācārya had one house at Shantipur and another at Navadwip, it seems Śivānanda had no such house at Navadwip — which is probably why Vṛndāvana Dāsa never mentions him in describing the Lord's Navadwip pastimes. Yet Kavirāja's account suggests that, even without a house there, Śivānanda did visit Navadwip to see the Lord — otherwise how would he have become the Lord's acquaintance and favorite at all? At the same time, it is clear that Śivānanda Sena was not an eyewitness to the Lord's entire Navadwip pastimes — so it seems unlikely that Karṇapūra could have obtained material for the household pastimes from him.

Now consider Śivānanda Sena's experience of the Lord's post-sannyāsa pastimes. Every year, together with the other Gauḍīya devotees, Śivānanda Sena traveled to Nīlācala for the Ratha-yātrā, and returned home with them after the four months of the rainy season. Whatever notable events occurred along the way, and whatever pastimes the Lord performed at Nīlācala during those few months each year, he knew directly. But he was not an eyewitness to the pastimes that occurred at Nīlācala at other times of year, nor did he have any particular opportunity to learn reliably of the Lord's pastimes elsewhere, outside Nīlācala, at other times — for the same reasons already given regarding Murāri Gupta.

So it appears that Karṇapūra could not have learned very much reliable material about Gaura's life from Śivānanda Sena.

Now consider Karṇapūra himself. He was born six or seven years after Mahāprabhu's sannyāsa, and was only seventeen or eighteen years old at the time of the Lord's disappearance. Kavirāja mentions two occasions on which Karṇapūra traveled to Nīlācala — once in his earliest infancy, and once at the age of seven — and on each occasion the Lord showed him special mercy; it is only in the context of describing this special mercy that Kavirāja mentions these two visits, so it cannot be inferred that Karṇapūra never went to Nīlācala more than these two times. In any case, whatever number of times he went there with his father, he would have witnessed only whatever pastimes occurred during those particular months — he had no special opportunity to learn reliably of the Lord's other pastimes, for the reasons already stated regarding Murāri Gupta.

From this discussion, it appears that Karṇapūra did not, in fact, have any special opportunity to learn reliable details of the Lord's pastimes.

So, although he was the son of the Lord's dear associate Śivānanda, and although he himself received the Lord's special mercy, it cannot be said that the account of the Lord's pastimes Karṇapūra records in his books is thoroughly reliable throughout.

§9. A Comparison of Karṇapūra's and Kavirāja's Accounts

In fact, the accounts of the Lord's pastimes given in Karṇapūra's books show many inconsistencies and outright contradictions with the beyond-doubt-reliable accounts given by Kavirāja Gosvāmī. A few such instances are given here as illustration.

(a) The Lord's journey through Rāḍha after taking sannyāsa. Karṇapūra's mahākāvya does not describe the Lord's journey through Rāḍha after leaving Kāṭoyā at all in the same way. According to the mahākāvya, while wandering through that region (unnamed), unable to hear the name of Hari anywhere, the Lord attempted to drown Himself in a river out of a wish to give up His body — until some boys nearby suddenly cried out the name of Hari, and the Lord melted with divine love (Mahākāvya 11.59). Verse 11.60 states that the Lord ate once along the way. Verses 11.62–63 state that the Lord Himself formed the wish to go to Advaita's house, and personally ordered Nityānanda to go to Navadwip and bring the Navadwip devotees to Advaita's house — implying the Lord retained ordinary bodily awareness at that time. Verse 11.68 states that, continuing on, the Lord Himself arrived at Advaita's house.

But Karṇapūra's play tells the story quite differently. It says nothing of the Lord attempting to drown Himself, nor of His eating along the way — instead, it states that the Lord went three full days without eating or even drinking water (play 5.6). It says nothing of the Lord Himself wishing to go to Advaita's house — instead, it is Nityānanda who cleverly arranges to bring the Lord there (play, Nityānanda's aside after verse 5.9: "Now my wish may be fulfilled, if only I can somehow bring Him to Advaita's house"). It says nothing of the Lord retaining ordinary awareness at any point during those three days — instead, it says the Lord regained a measure of ordinary awareness only when Nityānanda introduced himself, at which point He recognized Nityānanda — before that, He had not even known that Nityānanda had been with Him since Kāṭoyā (play, passage between verses 5.9–10). It says nothing of the Lord sending Nityānanda to Navadwip — instead, it says that, without the Lord's knowledge, Nityānanda sent word to Ācāryaratna to inform Advaita and the others (play 4.43), while Nityānanda himself remained with the Lord at all times. And it says nothing of the Lord Himself arriving at Advaita's house — instead, Advaita comes to the riverbank and takes the Lord onto a boat (play, passage between verses 5.13–17).

From this it is clear that Karṇapūra tells this same episode one way in his mahākāvya, and quite differently in his play.

Karṇapūra himself states, at the end of his own book, that the mahākāvya was completed in Śaka 1464 (nine years after Mahāprabhu's disappearance), while the play was completed in Śaka 1494 (or, by another reading, 1501) — meaning the play was written at least thirty years after the mahākāvya. This suggests that Karṇapūra, having later realized that his account of the Rāḍha journey in the mahākāvya was not accurate (i.e., was based on legend), gave a corrected account in the play. But neither account — neither the mahākāvya's nor, in every particular, the play's (as already shown regarding the Yamunā-praise verse [§8(a)(1)]) — agrees fully with Kavirāja's account. That the play's account agrees with Kavirāja's on some points at least suggests that Karṇapūra's play does represent his corrected understanding, and also that the play was indeed written after the mahākāvya — otherwise there would have been no occasion for such correction.

(b) Mahāprabhu's first arrival at Nīlācala. Even Karṇapūra's own account shows that Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya was directly involved in this episode — so Sārvabhauma's own testimony must be the sole authoritative account of it. Neither Karṇapūra nor Śivānanda Sena witnessed this pastime — Karṇapūra was not even born yet. What follows is the substance of what Kavirāja Gosvāmī records, based on what Svarūpa Dāmodara set down in his kaḍacā after hearing it from Sārvabhauma himself. Traveling on from Shantipur, the Lord reached Āṭhāranālā after Kamalapura, where, on the pretext of a quarrel over Nityānanda breaking His daṇḍa, He argued with His companions and told them: "I will not travel with you any further — I will go alone. Either you go ahead, or I will go ahead; whatever you say, that I shall do." Mukunda Datta then said, "Lord, you go ahead — we shall follow after." At that, the Lord ran alone toward the Jagannātha temple. Upon reaching the Jagamohana hall and beholding Jagannātha, He was overcome with divine love, and ran toward Jagannātha with both arms outstretched — but collapsed unconscious right at the temple doorway. Jagannātha's own temple guards moved to strike Him. By providence, Sārvabhauma happened to be present there at that moment, and saved Him. The Lord did not regain consciousness; meanwhile, the time for the deity's offering (bhoga) was approaching, so He could no longer be left at the temple doorway. Sārvabhauma had some of his own men carry the Lord to his own house, and, unable to detect His breathing, became extremely anxious. After Sārvabhauma had taken the Lord to his house, the Lord's companions Nityānanda, Mukunda, and the others arrived at the great Siṃha-dvāra gate of Jagannātha's temple, and heard the people there saying to one another, "A sannyāsī came..."

"...today and, upon seeing Jagannātha, fell down unconscious; Sārvabhauma has taken him to his own house." They realized: this sannyāsī must be none other than the Lord Himself — so Sārvabhauma's house was surely where He would be found. But Nityānanda and the others did not know where Sārvabhauma's house was. Just then Gopīnātha Ācārya happened to arrive at the great gate. He was a Navadwip resident who had witnessed the Lord's Navadwip pastimes and knew His true identity; he had come to Nīlācala and was living at Sārvabhauma's house, being Sārvabhauma's own brother-in-law. He already knew Mukunda Datta from Navadwip, and upon seeing him asked for news of the Lord. Mukunda told him everything — the sannyāsa, the arrival at Nīlācala, and what the local people had been saying — and Gopīnātha Ācārya then led Nityānanda and the others to Sārvabhauma's house. Sārvabhauma received them properly, and, learning they had not yet had darśan of Jagannātha, sent them to see the deity with his own son Candaneśvara. On their return they began loudly chanting the name of Kṛṣṇa at the Lord's ear. In the third watch of the day the Lord regained consciousness and ordinary awareness. Afterward they bathed in the sea, took Jagannātha's mahāprasāda that day at Sārvabhauma's own house, and Sārvabhauma arranged lodging for the Lord at his mother-in-law's house. Such is Kavirāja Gosvāmī's account.

Karṇapūra, however, writes in his mahākāvya (11.84–85) that the Lord came to Śrī Kṣetra (Puri) from Kamalapura and went straight to Sārvabhauma's house; Sārvabhauma joyfully received Him and, understanding His wish, sent Him to see Jagannātha with his own son. Seeing Jagannātha, the Lord was overjoyed, offered repeated obeisances and prayers, His eyes streaming with tears; He circled Jagannātha five times and left the temple, then stayed several days at Śrī Kṣetra with Mukunda Datta and His other devotees, continuing to see Jagannātha (Mahākāvya 12.1–9).

In his play (between verses 6.14–6.20), Karṇapūra gives yet a third version: the Lord entered Śrī Kṣetra from Kamalapura with His companion devotees; worried that, as outsiders, they might not easily obtain darśan of Jagannātha without royal assistance, they were reassured by Mukunda, who said that Gopīnātha Ācārya — Viśārada's son-in-law (i.e., Sārvabhauma's brother-in-law) and one familiar with the Lord's Navadwip pastimes — was present there and could arrange darśan through Sārvabhauma. Just then Gopīnātha Ācārya himself arrived, seeking darśan of Jagannātha; meeting Mukunda, he asked after the Lord and was told everything. He saw a sannyāsī there but did not recognize Him as the Lord until Mukunda identified Him, whereupon Gopīnātha bowed at His feet. Asked by Mukunda how they might freely obtain darśan, Gopīnātha said Sārvabhauma could arrange it, and told the Lord as much; the Lord replied, "Your wish is my wish." Gopīnātha then led them all to Sārvabhauma's door, went in and informed him, and Sārvabhauma came out with his own disciples, bowed to the Lord, and led Him inside — where, learning of the Lord's earlier life from Gopīnātha, he was filled with affection for Him, and, on hearing that free darśan of Jagannātha was their wish, instructed his son Candaneśvara: "Accompany this Śrīpāda, and see to it in every way that He may see the deity freely — let no one obstruct Him; He is My own, not some outsider."

This episode's account in the play does not agree with the mahākāvya's account in every respect, and neither of them agrees at all with Kavirāja Gosvāmī's account.

(c) The Lord's departure on His journey through South India. Since one needs Kavirāja's own account in hand to properly evaluate what Karṇapūra says in his mahākāvya on this point, Kavirāja's account is given first.

Summarizing Kavirāja Gosvāmī's account in Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.6 and 2.8: having learned the Lord's background and observed His humble nature, Sārvabhauma had developed great affection for Him, and, concerned about how a young sannyāsī could properly maintain his vows, resolved: "I shall have him constantly hear Vedānta, and lead him onto the path of renunciation and Advaita [monism]." One day, after seeing Jagannātha together with Sārvabhauma, the Lord came to Sārvabhauma's own house. Seating Him there, Sārvabhauma said: "Hearing Vedānta is the duty of a sannyāsī — you must hear Vedānta continuously." The Lord replied, "Please be gracious to me — whatever you say, that is my duty." (Cc. 2.6.113–14) Sārvabhauma then began expounding Vedānta (i.e., the Brahma-sūtra as explained by Śaṅkara's commentary) to Him. For seven days the Lord simply sat and listened without comment, good or bad. On the eighth day Sārvabhauma said, "For seven days you have heard Vedānta without saying whether you understand or not — I cannot tell whether you follow it." The Lord replied, "I am unlearned, and simply listen at your command, as befits a sannyāsī's duty — I cannot follow the meaning you give it." Sārvabhauma said, "One who says 'I don't understand' asks again to understand — but you simply sit in silence, and I cannot tell what is in your heart." The Lord then replied: "I do understand the plain meaning of the sūtras clearly — it is your commentary that confuses my mind. The sūtras' own meaning is self-evident; your commentary [Śaṅkara's bhāṣya] obscures that very meaning." (Cc. 2.6.115–23) The Lord then began to expound the meaning of the aphorisms of the Brahma-sūtra Himself, following the primary sense of the Vedic statements — refuting each of Sārvabhauma's proposed positions and objections, however many he raised, and establishing instead: "Bhagavān is the object of relationship (sambandha); bhakti is the process (abhidheya); and prema is the goal (prayojana) — these are the three things the Vedas teach. Whatever else anyone says is mere speculation, imposing figurative interpretation onto self-evident Vedic statements." (Cc. 2.6.160–63)

Hearing all this from the Lord, Bhaṭṭācārya was struck with the greatest astonishment, speechless with wonder. The Lord said, "Bhaṭṭācārya, do not be so amazed — bhakti unto Bhagavān is the supreme goal of human life; even the self-satisfied sages are drawn to Him — so inconceivable are the qualities of the Lord." (Cc. 2.6.165–67) At this point the Lord cited the famous tenth verse of the Seventh Chapter of the First Canto of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: "Even self-satisfied sages, free from all material bondage, feel unalloyed devotion for Lord Kṛṣṇa; such are the transcendental qualities of the Lord." (Bhāg. 1.7.10)

Hearing this verse from the Lord, Bhaṭṭācārya said, "I wish to hear the meaning of this verse." The Lord said, "First tell me your own interpretation; afterward I shall say whatever I know." Bhaṭṭācārya then expounded the verse according to the methods of logic, giving it various interpretations in nine different ways. Hearing this, Mahāprabhu smiled slightly and said, "Bhaṭṭācārya, I know you to be Bṛhaspati himself — no one else can expound scripture like this. But though you have interpreted it with such scholarly brilliance, this verse holds yet another meaning besides." At Bhaṭṭācārya's request the Lord then gave His own explanation, differing entirely from all nine of Bhaṭṭācārya's readings: taking each of the eleven words of the verse in turn, He determined the precise meaning of each individually, and, giving primary weight to the word "ātmārāma," arrived at eighteen further shades of intended meaning. (Cc. 2.6.168–76)

Hearing the Lord's own explanation of the verse, Bhaṭṭācārya was astonished, and, recognizing the Lord to be Kṛṣṇa Himself, reproached himself: "Not knowing Him to be Kṛṣṇa Himself, I have committed a grave offense out of pride." Humbling himself, he took refuge at the Lord's feet, and the Lord, moved to show him mercy, first revealed to him His four-armed form, and then His own dark, flute-bearing form. Seeing this, Sārvabhauma fell prostrate, then rose and offered prayers with folded hands; by the Lord's grace, all truths were revealed to him, and he glorified the greatness of the holy name, of prema, and of Kṛṣṇa's mercy, composing a hundred verses in less than an hour — verses even Bṛhaspati himself could not have composed so quickly. Hearing them, the Lord joyfully embraced him, and Bhaṭṭācārya, overwhelmed with divine love, lost outward consciousness — weeping, trembling, his hairs standing on end, drenched in tears and perspiration, dancing, singing, and falling again and again at the Lord's feet, until the Lord calmed him. Once composed, Bhaṭṭācārya offered further extensive prayers... Hearing these prayers, Mahāprabhu returned to His own lodging, and the Ācārya [Sārvabhauma] had Him served alms through his own household. (Cc. 2.6.180–95)

The narrative continues: the next day the Lord went to see Jagannātha at the deity's morning rising, and was given prasāda-garland and rice by the priests; delighted, he tied the prasāda-garland in his cloth and hurried to Bhaṭṭācārya's house, arriving there at dawn just as Bhaṭṭācārya awoke chanting "Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa." Bhaṭṭācārya, seeing the Lord waiting outside, rushed out to bow at His feet; before Bhaṭṭācārya could even offer a seat, the Lord placed the prasāda in his hands. Overjoyed, Bhaṭṭācārya — without even his morning bath or teeth-cleaning — began eating it, citing a verse justifying such immediate consumption of Kṛṣṇa-prasāda regardless of time or place (a verse from the Skanda Purāṇa). Seeing this, Mahāprabhu's mind was filled with joy; overcome with love, He embraced Bhaṭṭācārya, and the two of them danced together, each melting the other's heart by mutual touch, both flooded with tears, trembling, and perspiration in their bliss. The Lord then exclaimed: "Today I have effortlessly conquered the three worlds; today I have, as it were, ascended to Vaikuṇṭha; today all my desires are fulfilled — Sārvabhauma has attained faith in mahāprasāda! Today, without pretense, you have become Kṛṣṇa's own; Kṛṣṇa, without pretense, has become gracious to you. Today your bodily bondage is broken; today you are freed from māyā's bonds; today your mind has become fit to attain Kṛṣṇa — you have taken mahāprasāda without concern for caste-purity rules!" From that day, Bhaṭṭācārya's pride was broken; he knew nothing but devotion to Caitanya's feet, and expounded scripture in no way except in accordance with the principles of bhakti. (Cc. 2.6.196–214)

The next day, Bhaṭṭācārya went to see Jagannātha but, not finding the deity visible, came instead to the Lord, offered obeisances and many prayers, and, humbly confessing his own past faults, expressed a wish to hear of the finest process of devotional practice; the Lord taught him the chanting of the holy names (Cc. 2.6.216–18), reciting the famous "hare-nāma" verse and expounding it at length, to Bhaṭṭācārya's continued amazement (Cc. 2.6.219). The Lord then told Sārvabhauma to go see Jagannātha; Sārvabhauma, taking two associates, Jagadānanda and Dāmodara, with him, brought back a large quantity of the finest prasāda after seeing Jagannātha, giving two portions to two brāhmaṇas to carry, and enclosing two Sanskrit verses on a palm leaf addressed "to the Prabhu," which he sent via Jagadānanda. When Mukunda Datta received the note and found the two verses written on it, he showed it first to the devotees, who committed the verses to memory; the Lord, upon reading them, tore up the letter. (Cc. 2.6.223–29) The two verses were the well-known "vairāgya-vidyā-nija-bhakti-yogam..." and "kalāv apy anuṣṭhita-bhakti-yogaṃ..." — verses in praise of Sārvabhauma's own transformation, declaring him now the Lord's foremost devotee, with none but Mahāprabhu as his object of worship: "Śrī Caitanya, Śacī's son, the abode of all good qualities — this alone is my meditation, my chanting, my refuge." (Cc. 2.6.230–32)

Some time later, Sārvabhauma came again to the Lord, and after offering obeisances, began reciting a verse from the Bhāgavata's prayers of Brahmā, but reversed the last two syllables at the verse's end. (The verse he recited was: "O Lord, one who accepts, without complaint, the fruits of his own past deeds, offering You mind, words, and body, and lives for the sake of others, attains the qualification for Your..." Bhāg. 10.14.8 — the correct final word being "mukti-pade" [the state of liberation]; Sārvabhauma instead recited "bhakti-pade" [the state of devotion].) The Lord pointed out: "The correct reading is 'mukti-pade' — why have you recited 'bhakti-pade'? What is your intention?" Bhaṭṭācārya replied: "Liberation is not really the fruit of devotion — it is merely the punishment reserved for those hostile to the Lord: whoever denies the reality of Kṛṣṇa's form, or opposes and reviles it, receives as his 'punishment' merger into Brahman (brahma-sāyujya) — that is not the true fruit for one who practices devotion. Even granting that liberation is of five kinds — sālokya, sāmīpya, sārūpya, sārṣṭi, and sāyujya — a devotee might, on rare occasion, accept the first four if they involve continued service to the Lord, but the very word 'sāyujya' [merging, loss of individual identity] fills a devotee with dread and aversion, worse than the fear of hell." (Here a further Bhāgavata verse is cited as scriptural proof.) The Lord then said: "There is yet another meaning to 'mukti-pada': the phrase can also mean 'the Supreme Lord Himself' — for He whose very feet [pada] are liberation [mukti] is Himself called Mukti-pada; alternatively, the word may modify 'the ninth pada' [an alternate grammatical construction] or refer to the abode of liberation. Either way it still says 'Kṛṣṇa' — why then did you alter the reading?" Sārvabhauma replied: "I simply could not bring myself to utter that word ['mukti'] — even though I know your meaning is contained within it... the very word fills me with dread, while the word 'bhakti' fills me with joy to speak." Hearing this, the Lord laughed with a delighted heart and embraced Bhaṭṭācārya firmly, declaring: "Whoever reads or teaches Māyāvāda [impersonalist Vedānta] — let him hear of Caitanya's mercy through this man!" (Cc. 2.6.231–50)

All this has been the account of events before the Lord's journey to South India. Now, from Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.7, the account of the journey itself is given.

Having thus liberated Sārvabhauma, the desire arose in the Lord to travel south. On the full moon of Māgha (i.e., the last day of Māgha, Śaka 1432) He set out, and by Phālguna had settled at Nīlācala; at the end of Phālguna He witnessed the Dola-yātrā festival there, dancing and singing in ecstatic absorption. Having thus delivered Sārvabhauma, at the start of Vaiśākha (Śaka 1432) He resolved to go south. (Cc. 2.7.2–5) The Lord wished to travel alone; His companion Nityānanda, after much persuasion, got Him to agree to take along a Brahmin named Kṛṣṇadāsa. The Lord then went with His companions to Sārvabhauma's house; Sārvabhauma rose, offered obeisances, seated Him, and after discussing various topics on Kṛṣṇa, the Lord said: "Your brother-in-law [Viśvarūpa] took sannyāsa and went south — I must go in search of him. Give me your leave; I shall go south and, by your blessing, return safely." Hearing this, Sārvabhauma was overcome with grief, clasped the Lord's feet and said, sorrowfully: "After many lifetimes of merit I obtained your company, and providence has now torn it from me. If a thunderbolt fell on my head, or my son died, I could bear it — but I cannot bear separation from you. You are the independent Lord and will surely go regardless — but stay just a few more days, that I may see your feet a little longer." Moved by his humility, the Lord relented and stayed a few more days. After four days, the Lord Himself asked leave to depart; Bhaṭṭācārya, at the Lord's insistence, agreed, and accompanied Him to the Jagannātha temple for a final darśan and blessing; the priest brought a garland and prasāda for the Lord, who, joyfully accepting it, set off south in bliss with Bhaṭṭācārya and His other companions, circling Jagannātha first, and proceeding along the seashore toward Ālālanātha. (Cc. 2.7.40–58) At Sārvabhauma's instruction, Gopīnātha Ācārya went ahead to bring loincloths and Jagannātha's prasāda for the Lord; Sārvabhauma also earnestly requested the Lord to be sure to meet Rāya Rāmānanda, who held office at Vidyānagara on the bank of the Godāvarī, and not to dismiss him as a mere worldly official. (Cc. 2.7.60–62) The Lord agreed, embraced Sārvabhauma in farewell — at which Sārvabhauma fainted and fell to the ground — and, without looking back, continued swiftly on His way (2.7.70), with Nityānanda and His other companions, while Gopīnātha Ācārya caught up with the loincloths and prasāda and joined them; that night was spent together at Ālālanātha in joyful discussion of Kṛṣṇa (2.7.74), and the next morning, after bidding the devotees farewell with embraces — at which they too fell to the ground in separation, while the Lord did not look back — the Lord went on alone; the grieving devotees returned to Nīlācala the following day. (Cc. 2.7.88–92)

Having thus departed, the Lord toured the whole of South India as far as Setubandha Rāmeśvaram and returned to Nīlācala only two years later — Kavirāja Gosvāmī's account gives no indication whatsoever that the Lord ever returned briefly to Nīlācala and went south again during this period.

Now, what Karṇapūra's mahākāvya says of this same episode is given in summary (mahākāvya chapter and verse numbers noted in brackets):

Karṇapūra writes that Sārvabhauma thought to himself: "This noble young man of high lineage — how will he, in this age of Kali, endure the arduous path of asceticism?" (12.15) "Therefore I shall have him hear Vedānta from me, and through the flavor of renunciation and the single-minded knowledge of Brahman as an impersonal reality, set him on the path to liberation." (12.16) Perceiving Sārvabhauma's intention, the Lord, feeling compassion for him, smiled inwardly to Himself. (12.17) One day, Śrī Gauracandra came with His devoted followers to Sārvabhauma's house (12.18); Sārvabhauma rose, offered obeisances, gave Him a fine seat, and, sitting himself, humbly said: "My students are studying Vedānta here; you, most worthy, please listen — this will soon dispel any misgivings between us. I have studied this Vedānta myself and taught it many times," and had his students begin reciting before the Lord. (12.19–21) As Sārvabhauma expounded with growing boldness, Gauracandra gently began to interject His own reading (12.22), saying: "What is this you say? What is the prima facie view here, and what conclusion do you draw? This is not the true meaning of the Vedānta scripture — please hear what I propose instead." (12.23) So saying, the Lord refuted Sārvabhauma's monism and set forth His own devotional doctrine (12.24), establishing His position through the full range of scriptural proof and the various functions of word-meaning — direct sense, figurative sense, and so on (12.25). Sārvabhauma raised objection after objection, sophistry after sophistry, each refuted in turn by the Lord, and Sārvabhauma would raise the point anew, only to be refuted again (12.26); their debate continued a long while (12.27), until Sārvabhauma, astonished and agitated, thought to himself: "Who has appeared here to test my intellect — is this Bṛhaspati himself? Such debates I have always won, and even Bṛhaspati's own reasoning could not defeat my intellect's ocean — this one is merely a youth; how much could he possibly have studied or taught? I had the power to defeat him, and yet I could not." (12.28–30)

"...So this must surely be Kṛṣṇa Himself — there can be no other explanation; His very character reveals it." Thinking thus, Sārvabhauma, his body thrilling with emotion, bowed to the Lord of his own heart (12.31); with tear-filled eyes and hairs standing on end, he began to pacify the Lord with prayers and prostrations, and the ocean of mercy that is the Lord became gracious toward him (12.32); the Lord showed him His four-armed form, radiant as a hundred million suns, and Sārvabhauma, still more overjoyed, offered praise (12.33) — praise, Karṇapūra says, that not even Bṛhaspati himself, with all his eloquence, could have matched (12.34).

This is as far as the mahākāvya's account of events before the Lord's departure south goes. The earlier part of this account (verses 12.17–23) does not agree with Kavirāja Gosvāmī's account at all. The subsequent verse 12.24 suggests the Lord entered the debate with Sārvabhauma of His own accord, almost eager to display His scholarship — but Kavirāja's account is quite different: he says that only after seven days of silently hearing Vedānta without comment, when Sārvabhauma pressed Him for a reason, did the Lord say, "I listen only as befits a sannyāsī's duty; I cannot follow the meaning you give it," adding, in characteristic humility, "I am unlearned." Only then, when Sārvabhauma remarked that one who fails to understand normally asks questions, and that he could not read the Lord's heart, did the Lord begin expounding the Brahma-sūtra Himself — not before. What follows in the mahākāvya's verses 12.25–26, though given only in outline, is not inconsistent with Kavirāja's more detailed account. But the transformation of Sārvabhauma described in the mahākāvya's verses 12.28–32 [happening immediately, on the same occasion] does not match Kavirāja's account, according to which that transformation occurred much later.

Now, the account of the Lord's departure for South India from the mahākāvya continues. The very next verse after the last one cited states: "Thereafter, Gauracandra, having spent a few more days at Nīlācala, resolved to go south, and all the devotees, chanting the holy name, followed after Him." (12.35) After going some distance, the Lord bid all the devotees farewell; along the way, a Brahmin named Gopīnātha [note: not the same Gopīnātha Ācārya] offered obeisances to Him (12.36). Seeing a small book of prayers in Gopīnātha's hand as He walked, the Lord, moved by affection, took it from his hand; the Lord's other following devotees then also caught up with Him (12.37). Once they had all gone on ahead, the Lord sat alone beneath a tree, opened the little book, and gazed at it for a long while with great delight (12.38); somewhere in it He saw the word "Kṛṣṇa" (12.39), and upon seeing it fell to the ground overwhelmed with divine love, His body bathed in streaming tears, losing outward consciousness (12.40). Wishing to show mercy to Sārvabhauma even before this happened...

...with a heart overwhelmed and a voice choked with emotion, the Lord said: "Alas! I have committed many offenses against the noble-hearted Sārvabhauma (12.42). Overcome by illusory pride alone, how could I abandon him and go on pilgrimage? I shall return at once to Śrī Kṣetra and serve him — he alone is truly great (12.43); I shall do nothing but serve him." So thinking, the Lord returned to Śrī Kṣetra within a single watch (12.44). Sārvabhauma at once sent a man to fetch the eminent Ācārya Gopīnātha, who hurried to Gopīnātha Ācārya and said (12.45), "Ācārya! Come quickly — Kṛṣṇa Caitanyadeva has returned here." Gopīnātha replied, "What nonsense is this you speak? The Lord departed joyfully for the south (12.46); we ourselves accompanied Him a long way before turning back. Why would He be here now?" The man insisted again and again that he spoke the truth (12.47). Gopīnātha, astonished, hurried to see for himself, and, overjoyed to find the Lord there, said affectionately (12.48), "My Lord! Why did you leave, and why have you now returned? This is most wondrous." The Lord, smiling sweetly, replied (12.49): "Ācārya, I have committed a grave offense against Sārvabhauma — out of pride I resolved to abandon him and go on pilgrimage (12.50). This great soul is truly a form of the Lord Himself, ever intent on the world's deliverance — for from his very mouth came forth a sweet verse containing the name of Kṛṣṇa (12.51); his service alone is now my duty, his service alone is, for me, service to God — this is why I have turned back from my pilgrimage (12.52)." Gopīnātha laughed on hearing all this (12.53). Then, in verses 12.54–58, Gopīnātha extols the special nature of the Lord's mercy, saying: "My Lord, I understand — you intend now to show still greater compassion to Sārvabhauma." The Lord replied, "Great one, do not speak so — his service is simply my present duty (12.59)." So saying, the Lord stayed there that day, and the next morning rose and completed His daily rites (12.60); He then entered the Jagannātha temple to take the holy name (12.61), standing behind the Garuḍa-stambha pillar with tear-filled eyes, beholding Jagannātha (12.62); after watching the morning ārati rites up through the offering of incense, and taking a little mahāprasāda, He came out (12.63) and went to Sārvabhauma's house to see him — Sārvabhauma had not yet risen from bed (12.64). Seeing the Lord, one of Sārvabhauma's servants moved to wake his master, but the Lord stopped him and remained quietly waiting near Sārvabhauma's bedroom (12.65); as Sārvabhauma turned in his half-waking sleep, the Lord, overhearing him murmur "Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa" from his lips, was filled with joy (12.66). Sārvabhauma then woke fully, saw Gauracandra before him (12.67), rose from bed and offered obeisances, and the two of them spent that time together in delighted conversation (12.68).

Sārvabhauma then took some prasāda from the fold of his own cloth into his palm (12.69) and, raising his hand, said to Him: "After you finish your daily rites, please eat this mahāprasāda at the proper time" — and gave it into His hand (12.70). Sārvabhauma, rising and taking the mahāprasāda in his own palm, thought "there is no need to delay eating mahāprasāda" (12.71), and, his body thrilling, put it in his mouth at once. Seeing this, the Lord embraced Sārvabhauma with both arms in great joy, delighting him further (12.72). Verses 12.72–75 describe the ecstatic transformations of both of them in this moment of shared love; from then on, all of Sārvabhauma's pride was gone, and he became attached, in thought, word, and deed, to Gauracandra's lotus feet (12.76).

Some other day, after the incense-ārati of Jagannātha, Sārvabhauma went to see the Lord (12.77), and, offering obeisances and prayer, said to Him with folded hands and great trepidation (12.78): "My Lord, kindly explain a certain verse to me — though I confess I am afraid even to ask (12.79)." He then recited two verses from the Eleventh Canto [of the Bhāgavatam], and the Lord explained them (12.80), giving nine different interpretations of each — Sārvabhauma was utterly captivated (12.81), and, deeply moved, offered praise to the Lord, repeatedly reproaching himself: "I am utterly foolish, there is no fool among men to match me; O Lord, I failed to recognize your true greatness (12.82)."

Sārvabhauma then took one of Mahāprabhu's associates to his own house, wrote a Sanskrit verse on a note, and, along with excellent mahāprasāda for the Lord's meal, gave it to that associate, saying, "Give this note to Mahāprabhu." (12.83–84) Mukunda Datta, seeing the note, read Sārvabhauma's two verses, wrote them down on a wall, and then handed the note to the Lord, who read the two verses aloud in a low voice (12.85) — the same two verses already mentioned, "vairāgya-vidyā..." and "kalāv apy anuṣṭhitaṁ..." (12.86–87). Upon reading them, the Lord laughingly tore the note to pieces; but everyone, having already seen it on the wall, took the two verses to heart like jewels (12.88). The next verse (12.89) extols the greatness of the Lord's mercy: Sārvabhauma, once solely devoted to the path of impersonal spirituality, would not now even hear the word "liberation" spoken — this is the mercy of the Lord Gauracandra alone (12.90).

On another occasion, Sārvabhauma, in the Lord's presence, recited a Bhāgavata verse and, misreading "mukti-pade sa dāya-bhāk" as "bhakti-pade," expressed his own delight at that reading (12.91). The Lord immediately gave a further meaning for the word "mukti"; Sārvabhauma acknowledged it, but said, "This is only because of your own brilliance that such a meaning was found (12.92) — even so, I maintain that the word ['mukti'] is inauspicious to speak, evoking impure associations" — such was the sweet exchange between them (12.93). Gauracandra then, after eighteen days at Śrī Kṣetra, set out again on His pilgrimage (12.94), taking Jagannātha's leave and departing joyfully for the south (12.95). Seeing Him go, Sārvabhauma was overcome with sorrow (12.96) and said, "My Lord, why did I not instead lose a son, or die myself? Having seen your feet, I have no strength now to bear the pain of separation from you (12.97)."

This concludes the mahākāvya's account of the Lord's departure for South India — an account that agrees not at all with Kavirāja's. This account has the Lord going a great distance, then turning back to Śrī Kṣetra upon seeing the word "Kṛṣṇa" in Sārvabhauma's booklet, having realized that Sārvabhauma's service was his sole duty — of this, Kavirāja's account contains not the slightest trace. The mahākāvya's account of the Lord giving Sārvabhauma mahāprasāda is true also in Kavirāja's version — but there, this occurred after the Vedānta debate and before the Lord's departure south, not after a false start and return. The mahākāvya's account of Sārvabhauma requesting explanation of two verses from the Eleventh Canto has no parallel in Kavirāja at all. The episode of the two verses "vairāgya-vidyā..." and "kalāv apy..." is confirmed by Kavirāja too — but again, in his account, this happened after the Vedānta debate and before the departure south. The mahākāvya's account of Sārvabhauma's misreading of the Bhāgavata verse is likewise given by Kavirāja — but again, before the departure south. Thus the mahākāvya's narrative shows a strange intermingling of various true events with inaccurate ones and mistaken chronology — precisely the marks of legend, as discussed earlier (§3).

Now, the account in Karṇapūra's play. The play does not describe the Vedānta debate between the Lord and Sārvabhauma directly, though certain statements suggest it occurred. After Gopīnātha Ācārya's conversation with Sārvabhauma about the Lord's background, Sārvabhauma remarks, "vedānta-śravaṇenāyaṁ saṁskaraṇīyaḥ" ("He must be reformed by hearing Vedānta") — a passage before verse 6.20. Gopīnātha then tells the Lord that Sārvabhauma has invited Him, along with His companions, and adds: "My Lord, Bhaṭṭācārya has a second invitation as well" — namely, to have Him take formal robes (yoga-paṭṭa) from a sannyāsī of his own lineage and "hear Vedānta" (passage before 6.26). The Lord replies, "I am fortunate — I am but a child, and he tolerates me; why do you find fault with him?" Later, on another occasion, Sārvabhauma offers the Lord obeisances and prayer, declaring in that very prayer His divinity (6.32–33). The Lord replies, "Bhaṭṭācārya, I am the object of your paternal affection — why do you say such things?" Sārvabhauma then cites various scriptural injunctions establishing Kṛṣṇa's supremacy (6.34–43), and the Lord says, "Well said, well said — now go see Jagannātha." Gopīnātha Ācārya then asks the Lord,

"Is this the very same Bhaṭṭācārya?" The Lord replies, "You are a great devotee — it is by your mercy alone that he has become so transformed" — a further expression of the Lord's humility. Gopīnātha, of course, had been with Sārvabhauma from the start — but at that earlier time he was still a follower of Śaṅkara's Māyāvāda, denying even Kṛṣṇa's transcendental reality, and did not yet accept the Lord's divinity either (passage before play 6.20). But now Sārvabhauma accepts the Lord's divinity and praises Him, acknowledging even Kṛṣṇa's personal, blissful form. This makes clear that this transformation occurred, by the Lord's mercy, after the Vedānta debate.

At the very end of the play's sixth act, Sārvabhauma takes the Lord's companions Dāmodara and Jagadānanda to see Jagannātha, and sends with them a note bearing two verses, along with prasāda, for the Lord. Mukunda takes the note and finds the two verses "vairāgya-vidyā..." and "kalāv apy anuṣṭhitam..." written on it; he copies them onto a wall and hands the note to the Lord, who tears it up upon reading it. (Note that Kavirāja does not say it was Mukunda who handed the Lord the note — he says Jagadānanda, having received it from Mukunda, gave it to the Lord, and further states that Sārvabhauma sent the prasāda by one of his own Brahmins, along with Jagadānanda and Dāmodara.) The play's seventh act then describes the Lord's departure south.

Although Karṇapūra's mahākāvya describes the Lord going some distance south, returning to Nīlācala for eighteen days, and only then departing south again, the play gives not the slightest hint of any such thing — suggesting Karṇapūra, recognizing the mahākāvya's account as inaccurate or legendary, simply omitted it in his later work. The play's account also establishes that Sārvabhauma's note with the two verses was sent to the Lord after the Vedānta debate and before His departure south.

The play also gives a very detailed account of the Lord's gift of mahāprasāda to Sārvabhauma (6.26–31) — but places it, according to the play's own sequence, after the Vedānta debate and Sārvabhauma's transformation by the Lord's mercy, and before Sārvabhauma's declaration of the Lord's divinity and Kṛṣṇa's personal form — that is, still before the departure south.

Kavirāja's account has the Lord going alone with the prasāda to Sārvabhauma's house, with none of His companions accompanying Him either before or after. But the play states that Dāmodara and Jagadānanda went with Him, followed shortly by Nīlāmbara and Mukunda, who remained concealed in Sārvabhauma's second chamber; a conversation between two of Sārvabhauma's servants is even recorded there, overheard by Gopīnātha and Mukunda. When Dāmodara later comes out, Gopīnātha meets him and, hearing the whole account from him, remarks

that he had learned it all from the servants' conversation (play, passage between 6.30–32). None of this appears anywhere in Kavirāja Gosvāmī's account at all — suggesting this portion, too, is either legendary, or was added by Karṇapūra for dramatic effect.

(d) The Lord's meeting with Rāmānanda Rāya. (To avoid excessively lengthening this book, from here on Kavirāja's couplets will be quoted only where especially needed, Karṇapūra's brief verse-paraphrases will not be given, and no exhaustive detail will be supplied on any topic — only the substance of each will be given.)

Kavirāja's account. Departing Nīlācala for South India, the Lord passed through Ālālanātha to Kūrma-sthāna, delivering the fallen brāhmaṇa Vāsudeva there afflicted with leprosy; from Kūrma-sthāna, via Kṣīra-nṛsiṁha-kṣetra, He reached the bank of the Godāvarī, danced and chanted in ecstatic absorption in a grove there, crossed to the far bank, bathed at a ghat, and sat some distance away chanting the holy name. Just then Rāmānanda Rāya arrived at that same ghat on a palanquin, to bathe, accompanied by many learned Brahmins and attendants playing music, and performed the ritual offerings prescribed by the scriptures. "The Lord, seeing him, recognized that this was Rāmarāya; the Lord's heart leapt to meet him, but He restrained Himself and remained seated. Rāmānanda, upon seeing the extraordinary sannyāsī," (Cc. 2.8.14–15) "came and offered full prostration; the Lord rose and said, 'Rise, and say Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa' — His heart yearning to embrace him. Yet He still asked, 'Are you Rāya Rāmānanda?' He replied, 'I am that same wretched hog of a servant.' The Lord then embraced him twice, and both Lord and servant lost outward consciousness in the ecstasy of love." (2.8.17–20) Regaining consciousness, each glorified the other's greatness. "Just then a learned Vaiṣṇava Brahmin came and, offering obeisances, invited the Lord to his home; the Lord accepted, knowing him to be a Vaiṣṇava, and, smiling gently, said to Rāmānanda: 'My heart longs to hear words of Kṛṣṇa from your mouth — may I see you again?' Rāya replied, 'Since you, sinner that I am, have come to purify me — a mere sight of me cannot purify my impure heart. Stay five or seven days and cleanse it — only then will my wicked mind be purified.'" (2.8.45–49) Rāmānanda then went home, and "the Lord took alms that day at that Brahmin's house; evening fell as both awaited their reunion eagerly. The Lord, having finished His evening rites, sat waiting; Rāya came with a single servant. Rāya offered obeisances, the Lord embraced him, and the two sat together in a secluded place in conversation. The Lord raised a deep question on the nature of the ultimate goal (sādhya); Rāya replied that devotion to Viṣṇu arises through performance of one's own prescribed duty (svadharma)." (2.8.51–54)

Citing scriptural verses in support, Rāya Rāmānanda spoke in turn of devotion arising from performance of one's prescribed duty, from offering the fruits of action to Kṛṣṇa, from renunciation of prescribed duty, and from devotion mixed with knowledge — but to each, the Lord replied: "This is external — say something more." Rāya then spoke of unalloyed devotion free from such mixture, and the Lord said, "This is good — say something more." Rāya then spoke first of loving devotion (prema-bhakti), and then of devotion in the mood of a servant (dāsya-prema) — and to each the Lord replied, "This is good — say something more." On the subject of prema-bhakti, Rāya cited two verses: (a) "For one whose heart has been won by love for the Friend of the distressed [Kṛṣṇa], what use has he for various ritual forms of worship? — just as, for the fully satisfied, food and drink hold no further attraction."

and (b) "Wherever a mind steeped in the mellow of devotion to Kṛṣṇa may be obtained — if need be, buy it! Even a touch of such longing cannot be had for ten million lifetimes' worth of pious deeds." Rāya then spoke of friendship-love (sakhya-prema) and parental love (vātsalya-prema); the Lord said, "This is best — say something more." Rāya then said, "Conjugal love [kāntā-prema] is the very essence of all attainable goals." (Cc. 2.8.63) In support, Rāya offered scriptural proof and reasoning. Hearing this, "the Lord said: I take this to be the settled conclusion of all that can be attained — but kindly tell me if there is anything still beyond it." (2.8.73) Rāya answered: "Among such conjugal loves, Rādhā's own love is the crown-jewel of all attainable goals, whose glory every scripture proclaims." (2.8.75) The Lord raised a further objection; Rāya, with scriptural support, satisfactorily refuted it, establishing the unrivaled supremacy of Rādhā's love. The Lord then said: "The very truths for which I came to you have now become known to me through your grace; now that I have learned the truth of the object and process of worship (sevya and sādhya), I wish to hear still more — tell me of Kṛṣṇa's own true nature, and of Rādhikā's; what is the truth of rasa, and what is the truth of prema?" (2.8.89–91) Rāya expounded these truths at length; hearing it, "the Lord said: the truth of Kṛṣṇa-Rādhā prema has now awakened in me — I wish to hear of the greatness of their mutual pastimes. Rāya replied: Kṛṣṇa is dhīra-lalita [a composed yet playful hero], whose character is one of ceaseless amorous play." (2.8.146–47) The Lord said, "This is good — say something more"; Rāya replied, "Beyond this my understanding cannot go — but there is one further matter, the culmination of amorous pastime (prema-vilāsa-vivarta) — hear it, and see whether it brings you joy or not." So saying, he sang a song of his own composition, and the Lord, overcome with love, covered Rāya's mouth with His own hand. (The song itself, beginning "pahilahi rāga nayana-bhaṅge bhela..." — describing how love first kindles through a glance, grows without limit day by day, until neither lover nor beloved remains distinct, both minds ground down by Kāmadeva, a love that seeks no messenger, desires nothing else, needs Cupid's five arrows for nothing further, until estrangement itself becomes the messenger — "is this truly the way of pure love?") Hearing it, "the Lord said: this, I am certain, marks the very boundary of all that can be attained — by your grace I now know this for certain. But no one attains the goal without the corresponding practice (sādhana) — kindly tell me, out of grace, the means of attaining it." (2.8.157–58) Rāya then spoke of practice through the path of spontaneous attachment (rāgānugā-mārga) in the mood of conjugal love. "Hearing this, the Lord embraced him, and the two wept, their arms around each other's necks; thus the night passed in the absorption of divine love, and at dawn each went to his own duties. At the moment of parting, clasping the Lord's feet, Rāmānanda Rāya pleaded: 'Surely your coming here was to show me mercy — stay ten days and cleanse my wicked mind; there is no one but you to deliver the fallen, no one but you to bestow love of Kṛṣṇa...'" The Lord replied: "Why speak of just ten days? As long as I live, I cannot bear to leave your company — you and I shall stay together at Nīlācala, and pass our days happily in discussion of Kṛṣṇa." So saying, each went to his own duties, and that evening Rāya returned; meeting again, the two sat in seclusion, joyfully engaged in questions and answers — the Lord asking, Rāmānanda answering — and so that night, too, passed in conversation. (Cc. 2.8.187–98) The questions the Lord posed to Rāmānanda were these: which learning is the essence of all learning; which fame is a soul's greatest fame; which possession is a soul's greatest wealth; which sorrow is the most grievous of sorrows; among the liberated, who is truly liberated; which song is the soul's own natural song; and among all benefits, which is the ultimate benefit for the soul; on what does a soul constantly meditate; among objects of worship, which is foremost; and what is the final destination of those who desire liberation as against those who desire devotion. Rāmānanda answered every question to the Lord's full satisfaction, and so that night too passed; at dawn each returned to his own duties.

The next evening, Rāmānanda came again to the Lord and, confessing a doubt in his heart, said: "I have one uncertainty in my heart — kindly resolve it for me. At first I saw you in the form of a sannyāsī; now I behold you as the dark cowherd boy Śyāma Himself. Before me I see, as it were, a golden doll — your whole form draped in that golden radiance, yet within it I can plainly see a flute-bearing face, restless lotus eyes shifting through many moods. Seeing you thus fills me with wonder — tell me sincerely, my Lord, the reason for this." (Cc. 2.8.220–24) The Lord, extolling the greatness of Rāmānanda's own love, explained: "Rāmānanda, your love for Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa is so deep that, by its power, you see Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa everywhere — even in Me." Rāya replied: "Enough deception, my Lord — do not hide your true form from me any longer! You have taken Rādhikā's own radiant mood upon Yourself, and have descended to taste Your own mellow of love; tasting that love is Your own confidential purpose, and, incidentally, You have filled the three worlds with love in the process. You came Yourself to deliver me — what further need is there now for this pretense?" The Lord then smiled and revealed to him His true form — the combined form of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, the King of all rasa and the embodiment of the highest divine ecstasy, as one. Seeing this, Rāmānanda fainted in bliss, his body collapsing to the ground; the Lord revived him with a touch, whereupon, seeing the Lord once more in simple sannyāsī's robes, his mind grew troubled; the Lord embraced and reassured him: "...This golden form is not Mine to let others touch — none but Rādhā's own beloved [Kṛṣṇa] may touch it; it is only that I have absorbed Myself in her mood. Since you are My very own, nothing is secret from you — though I concealed it, your power of love has revealed to you its entire meaning." (Cc. 2.8.229–40)

"In this way, ten nights the Lord passed happily with Rāmānanda, in the joyful discussion of Kṛṣṇa." (2.8.243) The next day, taking leave of Rāya, the Lord said: "...you should now give up worldly office and go to Nīlācala; I shall complete my pilgrimage and join you there before long. We two shall stay together at Nīlācala, and pass our days happily in such discussions." So saying, He embraced Rāmānanda, sent him home, and retired for the night. (2.8.247–50) The next morning the Lord set out south.

This concludes the account of the Lord's first meeting with Rāmānanda at the Godāvarī, on His way south. No one's account can carry weight in this matter beside Rāmānanda's own, since Rāmānanda was Svarūpa Dāmodara's own intimate friend — the two of them together served the Lord intimately — and whatever Svarūpa Dāmodara heard from Rāmānanda he set down in his own kaḍacā. Kavirāja Gosvāmī himself states that he composed this account of the meeting with Rāmānanda following that same kaḍacā: "Following Dāmodara Svarūpa's kaḍacā, I have related the pastime of the meeting with Rāmānanda." (Cc. 2.8.263)

On His return journey from South India, the Lord met Rāya Rāmānanda once more — so a brief account of the Lord's intervening travels is given here.

From the Godāvarī, the Lord visited, in sequence: Gautamī-gaṅgā, Mallikārjuna-tīrtha, the site of Dāsarāma-mahādeva, the site of Ahovala-Nṛsiṁha, Siddhavaṭa, Skanda-kṣetra, Trimaṭha, Siddhavaṭa again, Vṛddhakāśī, and then, from Vṛddhakāśī, a Brahmin-dominated village where He debated a Buddhist ācārya against heretical Buddhist visitors; then Tripadī-Trimalla, Pānā-Nṛsiṁha, Śiva-kāñcī, Viṣṇu-kāñcī, Trikāla-hasti, Pañca-tīrtha, Vṛddha-kola-tīrtha, the site of Pītāmbara-Śiva, Śiyāli-Bhairavī, the bank of the Kāverī, Vedāvana, the site of Amṛtaliṅga-Śiva, Devasthāna, the lake of Kumbhakarṇa's skull, and Pāpanāśana, before reaching Śrī-raṅga-kṣetra. There He spent the four months of the rainy season at the Vaiṣṇava Veṅkaṭa Bhaṭṭa's house, and taught him the correct Vaiṣṇava conclusion regarding the goddess Lakṣmī. From Śrī-raṅga He went to Ṛṣabha Parvata, where He met Paramānanda Purī, who told Him he intended to go from there via Nīlācala to Bengal; the Lord asked that he instead come from Bengal to Nīlācala and stay near Him, saying, "I too shall return there shortly from Setubandha." From there Purī Gosvāmī went to Nīlācala, while the Lord continued south to Śrī Śaila, and then, via Kāmakoṣṭhī, to South Mathurā. There, a Brahmin devotee of Rāma invited Him for alms; arriving at midday, the Lord found the Brahmin had not even begun cooking. Asked why, the Brahmin explained: "My Lord, I am an ascetic of the forest — forest provisions are hard to come by; only once Lakṣmaṇa brings wild grain, fruit, and greens can Sītā begin to cook." Pleased at learning of his devotion, the Lord waited while the Brahmin hurriedly cooked; the Lord took alms only in the third watch, while the Brahmin himself continued fasting. (Cc. 2.9.167–70) Asked why he fasted, the Brahmin explained: "Hearing that the World-Mother, Mahālakṣmī Sītā Ṭhākurāṇī, had been touched by the demon Rāvaṇa, I cannot bear to keep this body — I burn with this grief, yet my life will not leave me." (2.9.173–74) The Lord replied: "Why do you torment yourself so? Use your learning to reason it through — Sītā Devī is the Lord's own eternal consort, a form of pure transcendental bliss, beyond the reach even of ordinary senses to perceive, let alone touch. How could Rāvaṇa possibly have touched her? As Rāvaṇa approached, Sītā vanished and sent a māyā-Sītā [illusory double] in her place — it was only this māyā-Sītā that Rāvaṇa carried off. Trust my word." Persuaded by the Lord, the Brahmin devotee of Rāma then ate.

Continuing from South Mathurā, the Lord passed through Kṛtamālā, Tāmraparṇī, and Mahendra-śaila to Setubandha, bathed at Dhanus-tīrtha, saw Rāmeśvara, and rested; there, at an assembly of Brahmins, He heard a recitation of the Kūrma Purāṇa, and found that it confirmed exactly what He had told the Rāma-devotee Brahmin at South Mathurā about the illusory Sītā — citing the relevant verses from that Purāṇa. Delighted to hear this scriptural confirmation, and recalling the Brahmin Rāmadāsa's grief, the Lord borrowed the relevant page from the assembled Brahmins, had a fresh copy made for his own book, kept the original as proof, and, upon returning to South Mathurā, brought this very page to the Brahmin, who wept for joy and clasped the Lord's feet upon receiving it. (Cc. 2.9.188–96)

On the return journey from South Mathurā, the Lord passed through Tāmraparṇī, Naya-tripadī, Ciyaḍatālā, Tila-kāñcī, Gajendra-mokṣaṇa-tīrtha, Pānāgaḍi-tīrtha, Cāmtāpura, Śrī Vaikuṇṭha, Malaya-parvata, Kanyā-kumārī, and Āmalī-talā, and reached the land of Mallāra and Vātāpānī. In Mallāra territory lived the Bhaṭṭathāri (Bhaṭṭamāri) sect of sannyāsīs, who tried to entice the simple-hearted Kṛṣṇadāsa — the Lord's South Indian travel companion — with a display of "wife and wealth." Kṛṣṇadāsa, without the Lord's knowledge, went off to the Bhaṭṭathāris' quarters. Seeking him out, the Lord came to their house and said, "You too are renunciants, as I am — why do you distress me by holding my Brahmin companion?" Hearing this, all the Bhaṭṭathāris rose up armed and rushed at Him from every side — but their own weapons turned against their own bodies, cutting them to pieces, and they fled in all directions in terror; a great uproar arose in the Bhaṭṭathāri quarter as the Lord, seizing the Brahmin by the hair, led him away. (Cc. 2.9.214–16)

That same day the Lord reached the bank of the Payasvinī river, and there, from some devotees, obtained a chapter of the Brahma-saṃhitā, which He had copied; from there, via Ananta-padmanābha, Payoṣṇī, Siṁhācala Maṭha, and Matsya-tīrtha, He came to the site associated with Madhvācārya, debated the doctrine of goal and process (sādhya-sādhana-tattva) with the followers of Madhva's Tattvavāda school and humbled their pride; then via Phalgu-tīrtha, Pampā-tīrtha, Sūrpāraka-tīrtha, and Kolapura He reached Pāṇḍapura, where He met Śrī Raṅga Purī, disciple of Śrīpāda Mādhava Purī. From Pāṇḍapura the Lord went to the bank of the Kṛṣṇaveṇā, obtaining there a copy of the Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta; then via Māhiṣmatīpura and Khasthala-mukha mountain, He reached Daṇḍakāraṇya, where He sent seven tāla trees to Vaikuṇṭha [in a famous pastime]. Bathing at Lake Pampā, He passed through Pañcavaṭī, Nāsika, and Kuśāvarta (source of the Godāvarī), and arrived once more at Vidyānagara on the Godāvarī's bank.

"Once again the Lord arrived at Vidyānagara. Hearing of His arrival, Rāmānanda Rāya came joyfully to meet Him." (Cc. 2.9.290–91) The two sat and conversed on many topics, and "the Lord told him the whole story of His pilgrimage, and gave him the two books, the Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta and the Brahma-saṃhitā." (2.9.294–95) Seeing countless people gathering for the Lord's darśan, Rāmānanda went to his own house, and the Lord rose at midday to take alms. "That night Rāya came again... and the two of them spoke of Kṛṣṇa day and night; five or seven days passed in the greatest joy. Rāmānanda said: 'My Lord, with your permission I have written to the king, and the king has granted me leave to go to Nīlācala — I am preparing to depart.'

The Lord replied: 'It was for this very purpose that I came here — I shall depart for Nīlācala taking you with me.' Rāya said: 'My Lord, go on ahead to Nīlācala — I have elephants, horses, and troops to arrange for; give me a few days to settle these affairs, and I shall follow after you.' Mahāprabhu then gave him leave to follow, and set off for Nīlācala in great joy, retracing the path He had traveled before, meeting Vaiṣṇavas along the way." (2.9.300–308) Word of His approach reached Ālālanātha, and Nityānanda and the others were informed; hearing of the Lord's return, "Nityānanda Rāya rose and rushed out, overcome with love; Jagadānanda, Dāmodara Paṇḍita, and Mukunda danced along, their bodies unable to contain their joy; Gopīnātha Ācārya too went joyfully — all of them met the Lord along the way, and, overwhelmed with love, embraced Him and wept for joy. Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya too came joyfully and met the Lord at the seashore." (2.9.310–15) Thus, having completed His tour of South India, the Lord returned to Nīlācala.

Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya arranged the Lord's reunion with the Nīlācala devotees. Then: "Bhaṭṭācārya sent everyone away, and the Lord called for the Brahmin Kṛṣṇadāsa. The Lord said: 'Bhaṭṭācārya, hear this one's conduct — he went south with me, then abandoned me for the Bhaṭṭathāris; I rescued him from them. Now that I have brought him back and am releasing him from my care, let him go wherever he likes — I bear no further responsibility for him.' Hearing this, Kṛṣṇadāsa began to weep, and Mahāprabhu rose to take His midday meal." (Cc. 2.10.60–64) Nityānanda and the other companions sent Kṛṣṇadāsa to Bengal to announce the Lord's return. On hearing the news, Paramānanda Purī Gosvāmī, taking a Brahmin named Kamalākānta with him, came at once from Navadwip to Nīlācala to rejoin the Lord; in due course Svarūpa Dāmodara came from Kāśī, along with Govinda (Īśvara Purī's attendant) and Brahmānanda Bhāratī, and joined the Lord as well.

Meanwhile Rāmānanda Rāya, having handed over his post to King Pratāparudra at Cuttack, came to Nīlācala — the king himself accompanying him. Offering full prostration to the Lord, Rāmānanda said: "By your command I spoke to the king, and by your wish he released me from office; I told him I could no longer manage worldly affairs, and wished, with his leave, to remain at Caitanya's feet. Hearing your name, the king rose from his seat in joy and embraced me, saying: 'Hearing your name fills me too with the greatest love — whatever provision you need, take it; go in peace and serve Caitanya's feet.'" (Cc. 2.11.14–18) After this, Rāmānanda Rāya never again returned to Vidyānagara. When the Lord later traveled from Nīlācala into Bengal, Rāmānanda accompanied Him as far as Remuṇā: "Thus traveling, the Lord reached Remuṇā, and there took leave of Rāmānanda Rāya." (Cc. 2.16.151) Apart from this, Rāmānanda never left Nīlācala again.

This concludes the account drawn from Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta. Now the account given in Karṇapūra's mahākāvya, chapters twelve and thirteen, is discussed.

Karṇapūra's mahākāvya account, and discussion. As already noted, Karṇapūra's mahākāvya states that the Lord went some distance south, returned to Nīlācala, stayed eighteen days, and only then went south again.

On this journey, the mahākāvya has the Lord going first to Kūrma-kṣetra (12.100 — the mahākāvya does not mention Ālālanātha), delivering the leprous Brahmin Vāsudeva there (12.106–16), then reaching a grove by the Godāvarī via Nṛsiṁha-kṣetra; upon reaching the Godāvarī, deliberating within Himself whether to meet "Bhavānanda's son" [Rāmānanda], the Lord decided against it and continued south without meeting him at all (12.130–31). This account of Karṇapūra's directly contradicts Kavirāja's — who states that the Lord did meet Rāmānanda on the way south, spent ten days discussing the goal and process of devotion with him, revealed to him the combined form of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, "King of Rasa and embodiment of the highest ecstasy as one," and ordered him to resign his post and settle at Nīlācala. Karṇapūra, however, says the Lord reached the Godāvarī on His way south and continued on without even meeting Rāmānanda at all. In any case, the mahākāvya continues: the Lord reached Śrī-raṅga-kṣetra (13.3), staying the rainy season at Trimalla Bhaṭṭa's house there (13.4); when autumn came, He set out south from Śrī-raṅga and, at some place, met a Brahmin devotee of Rāma grieving that Sītā, though Lakṣmī herself, had fallen into Rāvaṇa's hands; the Lord reassured him and, drawing two verses from His own cloth, showed him the same two verses about the illusory Sītā already discussed (Mahākāvya 13.9–13). This does not match Kavirāja's account, which places the Lord's showing of that written page after His return journey (already related above) rather than on the way south.

The mahākāvya continues: farther on, the Lord had a glimpse of Paramānanda Purī, then continued south while Purī went to Nīlācala (13.15–16); further along, the Lord embraced seven tāla trees, which immediately flew off into the sky, leaving the place empty (13.17–18). Continuing on, the Lord encountered some heretics (pāṣaṇḍīs) who tried to entice His companion Kṛṣṇadāsa away with promises of easy heaven, causing Kṛṣṇadāsa some hesitation; the Lord rebuked the heretics, used His own power to turn them away somewhat, and, smiling at their misconduct, continued on toward Setubandha without saying anything further to Kṛṣṇadāsa (13.20–30). This does not match Kavirāja's account either, which attributes this enticement to the Bhaṭṭathāris, not to Buddhist heretics (pāṣaṇḍī generally denotes Buddhists) — and Kavirāja never mentions any debate with Bhaṭṭathāris at all, while Karṇapūra never mentions the Lord actually rescuing Kṛṣṇadāsa from these heretics (Kavirāja, by contrast, is explicit that the Lord did rescue him from the Bhaṭṭathāris and took him along).

The mahākāvya continues: from Setubandha, after seeing Rāmeśvara and Raghunātha's famous causeway, the Lord retraced His path, saw Śrī Raṅgadeva again, and reached the Godāvarī once more, where He met Rāmānanda (13.32–34) — going, this time, to Rāmānanda's own house (13.35, "jagāma tad-veśmani"). Kavirāja never states that the Lord ever visited Rāmānanda's house — in his account the first meeting occurred at the Godāvarī on the way south, the Lord stayed with an inviting Brahmin (not at Rāmānanda's house) both then and on the return, and Rāmānanda came to meet Him there each time.

The mahākāvya then has Rāmānanda reciting, at the Lord's request, a series of verses — first one on renunciation, which the Lord dismisses as "external, quite external" (13.38–40); then a verse on devotion beginning "nānopacāra..." (the very verse already discussed), which the Lord again calls merely "external" and asks him to continue (13.41–43); then, after falling at the Lord's feet, the song "pahilahi rāga..." describing the supreme culmination of the love between the divine hero and heroine (13.44–46), at which the Lord, in supreme joy, cries "this is beyond all else" and embraces Rāmānanda (13.47), staying with him a few more days before returning to Nīlācala to witness the Snāna-yātrā festival (13.47–50).

This account has serious problems. Kavirāja places this whole conversation on the journey south, not on the return, and Karṇapūra's own claim that the Lord never met Rāmānanda on the way south contradicts his placing this dialogue on the return journey — an inconsistency in Karṇapūra's own narrative. Kavirāja never mentions the "external, quite external" renunciation-verse; in his account, after progressing through several stages of devotion the Lord calls merely "external," Rāmānanda arrives at the "nānopacāra" verse and the Lord responds not with "external" but with warm approval ("this is good — say more") — the opposite of what Karṇapūra reports (and indeed Karṇapūra himself elsewhere calls this verse "devotion-establishing," so it is hard to see why the Lord would dismiss it as merely external). Karṇapūra also skips, between the "nānopacāra" verse and the "pahilahi rāga" song, the entire intervening sequence Kavirāja describes in careful, deliberate order — devotion in the moods of servant, friend, parent, and finally conjugal lover; the special supremacy of Rādhā's love within conjugal love, established against the Lord's own raised objection; and the exposition of the truths of Kṛṣṇa, Rādhā, rasa, and prema culminating in Kṛṣṇa's dhīra-lalita nature — all of which is necessary to properly establish that Rādhā's love is the very pinnacle of all love. Without this sequence, the whole progression loses its coherence, and the crowning significance of Rādhā's love is never properly established — Karṇapūra's account remains incomplete, exactly as would be expected of an account built up from scattered fragments heard out of context and stitched together by conjecture — precisely the hallmark of legend discussed earlier (§3), even though, of course, those who record such legend never recognize it as such themselves.

The mahākāvya's account continues: returning from South India, the Lord witnessed the Snāna-yātrā; the next morning He went to see Jagannātha but, the deity being in seclusion ("garbha") at the time, was denied darśan and, greatly distressed, hurried out toward Ālālanātha; the devotees, searching for Him everywhere, could not find Him and returned sorrowfully to Śrī Kṣetra (13.57–59) — while the Lord, by that same road, had in fact gone to the Godāvarī and rejoined Rāmānanda, spending "four months, and some months more" in pleasant conversation with him (13.60), returning to Śrī Kṣetra with Rāmānanda only in the early winter (13.61). This account directly contradicts Kavirāja's, according to which Rāmānanda came to Nīlācala with King Pratāparudra just a few days after the Lord's return from South India and never went back to Vidyānagara again, since he had already resigned his post — so a further meeting at the Godāvarī afterward is simply impossible. This portion of the mahākāvya, too, bears the clear marks of legend, as do several further passages later in the mahākāvya, which are omitted here for brevity.

Karṇapūra's play, discussed. The play's seventh act opens with the king asking Sārvabhauma whether the Lord will return; Sārvabhauma assures him He will, since His companions remain behind, and explains that he has sent a few suitable Brahmins to accompany Him only as far as Setubandha. While they speak, those very Brahmins return from the Godāvarī and report:

the Lord went from Ālālanātha to Kūrma-kṣetra, delivered the leprous Brahmin there, and continued via Nṛsiṁha-kṣetra to the Godāvarī, where a Brahmin invited Him and Rāmānanda Rāya came to meet Him. Asked to "say something," Rāmānanda recited a verse on renunciation ("mano yadi na nirvṛttam...", play 7.7), which the Lord called merely "external"; the Lord then posed Rāmānanda a series of questions (on learning, fame, wealth, sorrow, liberation, benefit, meditation, dwelling-place, hearing, and worship) closely paralleling those in Kavirāja's account; Rāmānanda's answering verses (7.11, 7.12, 7.13) are each in turn dismissed by the Lord as merely "of similar import" or "mere poetry," until, after some thought, Rāmānanda recited a further verse (7.14) at which the Lord fell into a state resembling either intense absorption or emotional collapse, and Rāmānanda, clasping His feet, wept. A visiting Brahmin then remarked that evening had come, the Lord rose for His evening duties, and the reporting Brahmins, having offered their own obeisances, departed for home that same day. This concludes the returning Brahmin's report.

Later in the same act, the minister Malla Bhaṭṭa of the Karnataka king reports that in South India, ascetics of the paths of works and knowledge alike, upon merely seeing the Lord, spontaneously abandoned their own doctrines and adopted His — and that the Karnataka king himself, hearing this, had disguised himself and followed the Lord in secret to observe His pastimes directly, following Him all the way to Setubandha and back, and, witnessing His extraordinary and wondrous character, forgot all his own troubles.

One day, the Lord, absorbed in chanting the holy names, His body marked with tears, trembling, and thrilling hairs, walked on unaware of His surroundings. Some heretics, seeing Him and taking Him for an ordinary Vaiṣṇava sannyāsī, thought that if they offered Him "Bhagavān-prasāda" He would surely accept it, and brought Him a plate of food unfit even for a dog. Hearing the words "Bhagavān-prasāda," the Lord took the plate in His raised hands and continued on — whereupon a bird swooped down and carried the plate away from His hands.

On another occasion, the Lord happened upon a Brahmin who was constantly chanting the name of Rāma; the Lord passed on, but on His return found the same Brahmin now chanting the name of Kṛṣṇa instead. Asked why, the Brahmin explained: "I have chanted Rāma's name since childhood — but from the moment I saw you, Kṛṣṇa's name began to come from my mouth, and I cannot stop it even by force of will. My Lord, this is your influence alone."

Elsewhere, the Lord found a Brahmin, ignorant of the meaning of the words, reciting the Gītā incorrectly, yet visibly moved to tears and trembling as he did so. Asked what the verses meant, the Brahmin replied, "I understand nothing of the meaning — but for as long as I recite, I behold Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself, dark as a tamāla tree, whip in hand upon Arjuna's chariot." The Lord said, "Brahmin, you are the truest qualified reciter of the Gītā," and embraced him — a joy greater even than what the Brahmin felt in his recitation itself; the Brahmin, overcome, cried, "Master, you are that very Kṛṣṇa!" and fell at His feet.

The play's eighth act then covers the Lord's return to Nīlācala, His lodging at Kāśī Miśra's house, Sārvabhauma's introductions of the Nīlācala devotees, His darśan of Jagannātha, the arrival of Paramānanda Purī, Svarūpa Dāmodara, and Brahmānanda Bhāratī, the approaching Ratha-yātrā, the arrival of the Gauḍīya devotees, the Lord's cleaning of the Guṇḍicā temple with the devotees, and His ecstatic states before the chariot during the festival — all given briefly.

Discussion of the play's account. A few illustrative discrepancies between the play and the mahākāvya on this same material: the mahākāvya has the Lord not meeting Rāmānanda on the way south but only on the return from Setubandha; the play has Him meeting Rāmānanda on the way south, with no mention of any meeting on the return. The mahākāvya has the Lord, immediately after the Snāna-yātrā on His return from South India, going via Ālālanātha to Vidyānagara and spending several months with Rāmānanda — the play gives no hint of this at all, suggesting Karṇapūra recognized it as legendary and dropped it from the later work. The verses quoted in the meeting-with-Rāmānanda episode differ entirely between the mahākāvya and the play. The mahākāvya has the discussion taking place at Rāmānanda's own house over several days; the play has it taking place at the Godāvarī itself (not at Rāmānanda's house), in a single afternoon. The mahākāvya's several days at Rāmānanda's house become, in the play, a single Brahmin's invitation and single day's visit — again suggesting correction of a legendary detail. Further such discrepancies are omitted for brevity.

The disagreement between the mahākāvya and Kavirāja's account has already been shown. Now the play is compared with Kavirāja directly. None of the verses given in the play's meeting-with-Rāmānanda episode appear in Kavirāja's account at all — though Kavirāja does cite the mahākāvya's "nā so ramaṇa" song, the play's partial Sanskrit rendering of that same song ("sakhi na sa ramaṇo nāham...") is not a translation of the whole song, and the play's further verse "ahaṃ kāntā kāntas tvam iti..." appears in neither the mahākāvya nor Kavirāja. The questions the Lord poses to Rāmānanda in the play do match those in Kavirāja's account — but Kavirāja places this question-and-answer exchange on a day after the "nā so ramaṇa" song was sung, while the play places it a day before. The play has the whole meeting and discussion take place at the Godāvarī, in a single daytime session ending by afternoon; Kavirāja has it take place at night, over ten days, at the house of the Brahmin who had invited the Lord. Further minor discrepancies are not detailed here.

The play (eighth act) also has the Lord, on returning from the south, asking Mukunda where Nityānanda had gone during His absence, and being told Nityānanda had gone to Bengal, intending to return with Advaita and the others once the Lord's own return became likely; Gopīnātha Ācārya, introducing the assembled Gauḍīya devotees to King Pratāparudra, identifies "this is Advaita, this is Nityānanda" among them, and Śivānanda Sena as well — implying Nityānanda accompanied the Gauḍīya devotees to Nīlācala at that time, and that Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, upon meeting them, "approached, bowed to Nityānanda, and embraced Advaita." This clearly implies Nityānanda went to Bengal after the Lord's departure south and returned with the other Gauḍīya devotees only after the Lord's return. But Kavirāja states unambiguously that Nityānanda never left Nīlācala at all during the Lord's South Indian tour — indeed, Karṇapūra's own play, in its sixth act, has "Gaṅgā" state that Nityānanda, Jagadānanda, Dāmodara, and Mukunda were the Lord's four companions on the journey from Shantipur to Nīlācala, and in the seventh act has Sārvabhauma tell King Pratāparudra, when asked whether the Lord would return from the south, "Of course — His companions are right here" — both statements placing Nityānanda at Nīlācala throughout, directly contradicting the eighth act's own account. The play thus contradicts itself. Kavirāja also records that, on hearing the Lord had reached Ālālanātha on His return, Nityānanda rushed out almost deliriously with three other companions to greet Him — so there can be no doubt that the play's (self-contradictory) account here is either inaccurate or legendary. And yet Karṇapūra's own father Śivānanda was, by the play's own account, among the Gauḍīya devotees present at the time — Śivānanda would have known the truth directly. This makes clear that Karṇapūra did not, in fact, get this particular detail about Nityānanda from his own father. Several further such instances exist in Karṇapūra's works — matters Śivānanda would have known firsthand, yet which Karṇapūra reports inaccurately, such as the mahākāvya's account of the Lord's mercy toward King Pratāparudra — omitted here for brevity.

§10. The True Character of Karṇapūra's Material

In any case, this discussion of Karṇapūra's work shows that many of his accounts bear the clear marks of legend.

These cannot be dismissed merely as differences of scholarly opinion, since reasoned differences of interpretation are only possible regarding the intended sense of some statement or word — and even then, more than one view may sometimes deserve respect — but there can be no room for differing "opinions" about an actual historical event. The true account of an event can only be one thing, not several. That the sun rises in the east is simply a fact; if someone, pointing south, says "the sun rises this way," no one would accept this as a legitimate alternative view — everyone would simply say he has lost his bearings.

Nor can such discrepancies be explained away by appeal to "different cosmic cycles" or "different manifestations" of the pastimes, since all the early biographers of Gaura describe, so far as possible, the very same manifestation of the Lord's pastimes performed in this present cosmic cycle (kalpa) and this same universe — so there is no possibility of any fundamental discrepancy in the accounts of Gaura's pastimes as actually manifested in this cycle and this universe.

In any case, this comparison of Karṇapūra's mahākāvya and play against Kavirāja's account shows that in many places Karṇapūra's statements do not agree with Kavirāja's, and in some places directly contradict them; and that many of Karṇapūra's accounts show the clear marks of legend, as has been demonstrated throughout this discussion. The discussion so far has concerned the Lord's pastimes after leaving household life; one example is given here to show that even in describing the Lord's household pastimes, some of Karṇapūra's statements are legendary. In his mahākāvya (5.82–88) Karṇapūra states that Śacī Mātā fell to the ground and offered obeisances to the Lord, who placed His own feet upon her head — a detail found neither in Murāri Gupta's Kaḍacā nor in any other early biography of Gaura, and there can be no doubt this statement is inaccurate. All this suggests why, when naming the sources of his own material, Kavirāja Gosvāmī never mentions Karṇapūra: because he drew no material from Karṇapūra's works at all.

Legend, of course, always arises from some fragment of a genuine event — so even legendary accounts retain some grains of truth. This is precisely why Kavirāja's account sometimes agrees with Karṇapūra's in places — but this does not license the conclusion that Kavirāja drew any of his material from Karṇapūra's books.

This discussion has also shown that, for the Lord's household pastimes, Kavirāja Gosvāmī drew on nearly the entirety of Murāri Gupta's Kaḍacā and, following it, of Caitanya-bhāgavata; for the pastimes after sannyāsa, he drew only on eyewitness testimony received through Svarūpa Dāmodara, Raghunātha Dāsa, and Rūpa-Sanātana and the others, accepting no other source at all. Since the entirety of Kavirāja Gosvāmī's account of the Lord's pastimes rests on eyewitness testimony,

his account is therefore thoroughly reliable throughout — and wherever any other account disagrees or conflicts with his, that other account is likely to be legendary.

Now, the true character of the sources of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata itself is discussed.

§11. The True Character of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata's Material

As already noted (§2b), it is necessary to test whatever material in Caitanya-bhāgavata rests on later, non-eyewitness testimony against the beyond-doubt-reliable material established through Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own eyewitness sources. Doing so, one finds that Caitanya-bhāgavata does contain a number of passages that appear to be legendary in origin.

§12. Passages in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata Inferred to Be Legendary

The following passages in Caitanya-bhāgavata are inferred to be of legendary character, each identified by its couplet location, with the commentary at the couplet noted where the reasoning is given in full:

In the Madhya-khaṇḍa: (a) the Lord's journey to, stay in, and departure from Kāśī after leaving Nīlācala (2.19.105–6); (b) the Lord's mention, before taking sannyāsa, of two further avatāras of His own, both to the devotees (2.26.11–12) and to Śacī Mātā (2.26.46).

In the Antya-khaṇḍa: (c) Keśava Bhāratī's accompanying the Lord from Kāṭoyā after sannyāsa (3.1.22–23); (d) the Lord's order to Candraśekhara to go to Navadwip from Kāṭoyā, and Candraśekhara's journey there (3.1.24–30); (e) the Lord's visit to Vakreśvara during the Rāḍha journey (3.1.61); (f) the Lord's rest and meal at a village during the Rāḍha journey (3.1.71–82); (g) Jagannātha's command to the Lord to proceed to Nīlācala (3.1.87–88); (h) the Lord's bathing in and praise of the Ganges, mistaking it for such at journey's end (3.1.99–118); (i) the Lord's rest with Nityānanda at a village (3.1.121); (j) the Lord sending Nityānanda to Navadwip and going Himself to Kuliyā, and Nityānanda's arrival at Navadwip (3.1.124–215); (k) the Lord's departure for Nīlācala after only a single day at Shantipur (3.2.5–27); (l) the Lord's companions on the journey to Nīlācala (3.2.35); (m) who carried the Lord's daṇḍa on the road to Nīlācala (3.2.201); (n) several incidents on the road to Nīlācala (3.2.200–420); (o) the visit of Nityānanda and the Lord's other companions to Sārvabhauma's house (3.2.444–49); (p) the conversation between the Lord and Nityānanda at Sārvabhauma's house (3.2.471–87); (q) Sārvabhauma's instruction to the Lord (3.3.10–157); (r) Dāmodara Paṇḍita's arrival at Nīlācala (3.3.176); (s) the Brahmacārī's residence at Nīlācala (3.3.177–78); (t) Nityānanda's mounting Jagannātha's throne, embracing "Balarāma," and taking the garland (3.3.183–93); (u) the Lord's lodging at Nīlācala (3.3.194–99); (v) the meeting of Advaita and Mādhavendra (3.4.425–36); (w) King Pratāparudra's first darśan of the Lord (3.5.138–206); (x) Rūpa and Sanātana's residence at Nīlācala (3.9.57); (y) Rūpa and Sanātana's arrival at Nīlācala and their receiving Advaita's mercy (3.10.233–68); (z) Nityānanda's journey to Nīlācala before the Ratha-yātrā (chapter 3.8, see commentary at 3.8.162).

Further detail on these is unnecessary here. As already noted (§6b), several episodes are related at length in Caitanya-bhāgavata that Kavirāja Gosvāmī does not mention at all — and, as already shown in discussing Karṇapūra's material (§10), such discrepancies cannot be resolved by appeal to differing opinion, differing cosmic cycles, or differing manifestations of the pastimes.

§13. Lack of Historical Sequence in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata

In many places, Caitanya-bhāgavata does not preserve the true historical sequence of events. A couple of examples: Kavirāja Gosvāmī's account has the Gauḍīya devotees' very first visit to Nīlācala occurring only after the Lord's return from South India; but Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura places their first visit only after the Lord's later journey from Nīlācala into Bengal and back. Murāri Gupta's Kaḍacā records that Murāri himself recited the Rāmāṣṭaka to the Lord at Navadwip, in Śrīvāsa's courtyard (Kaḍacā 2.7); but Vṛndāvana Dāsa places this recitation at Advaita's house in Shantipur, during the Lord's later journey from Nīlācala into Bengal. Many further such breaks in chronological sequence occur in Caitanya-bhāgavata. That Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura himself was not concerned with strict sequence, he states outright: "I do not know the proper order of these matters — I simply sing of Kṛṣṇa's glory as it comes to me." (2.19.260) "I do not know the sequence of these matters — I simply relate Caitanya's glory as it comes." (3.4.514)

Kavirāja Gosvāmī, by contrast, related the Lord's pastimes strictly in the order he had heard them from the devotees themselves, as he states outright: "Now I relate the connected sequence of Caitanya's pastimes." (Cc. 1.1.35) "The Lord's household pastimes are called the Ādi-līlā; the final period has two further names, Madhya-līlā and Antya-līlā. All the Lord's activities within the Ādi-līlā, Murāri Gupta strung together in sūtra form; and the Lord's final pastimes, Svarūpa Dāmodara strung together within a book. Having seen and heard the sūtras of these two, the Vaiṣṇavas [Kavirāja himself] describe them in proper sequence." (Cc. 1.13.13–16)

Thus it is clear that Kavirāja Gosvāmī preserved the true historical sequence throughout his account of the Lord's pastimes — a sequence no other biographer's work preserves with the same care.

§14. [The Incompleteness of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata as a Biography]

At the very start of his book, in stating his sūtra (outline) of what he intends to cover, Vṛndāvana Dāsa mentions the Lord's journey to Vārāṇasī (1.1.150), His journey on to Setubandha (1.1.151), His many pastimes in the Braja-Mathurā region and the deliverance of Rāmānanda Rāya (1.1.151–52), and, after His return from Vārāṇasī to Nīlācala, His eighteen years' residence there. This shows he originally intended to describe all these pastimes — otherwise he would not have mentioned them at all in his outline. It was the ancient custom for a book's opening to state everything the book would cover, and for its close to give, again in outline, exactly what topic was covered in which chapter. Yet Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura, having listed these pastimes at the outset of the Antya-khaṇḍa, never actually narrates a single one of them anywhere in his book — so, in this respect, his book remains incomplete.

Vṛndāvana Dāsa in fact ends his book with the episode of Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi's remark on Jagannātha's cloth at the Oḍana-ṣaṣṭhī festival, and Vidyānidhi's subsequent chastisement-turned-mercy from Jagannātha and Balarāma. Kavirāja Gosvāmī gives a brief account of this same episode as well (Cc. 2.16.75–80).

When did this Vidyānidhi/Oḍana-ṣaṣṭhī episode actually occur? Kavirāja Gosvāmī records that once, when the Gauḍīya devotees were taking leave of the Lord after a Ratha-yātrā visit, "the man from Kulīnagrāma made the same request as the previous year: 'My Lord, instruct me in my duty'" (Cc. 2.16.68) — "as the previous year" referring to the year immediately following the Lord's return from South India, Śaka 1434; so this repeated request was made in Śaka 1435. In answer that year, "the Lord said: serve the Vaiṣṇavas and chant the holy name — do both, and you will soon attain Kṛṣṇa's feet. He asked: who is a Vaiṣṇava, what marks him? The Lord, smiling, knowing his heart, replied: one in whose mouth the name of Kṛṣṇa is constant — he is the best of Vaiṣṇavas, worship at his feet. The following year they asked again, and the Lord taught the gradation among Vaiṣṇavas: whoever's mere sight brings Kṛṣṇa's name to your own lips — know him to be the foremost Vaiṣṇava. The Lord thus described, in order, three grades: Vaiṣṇava, Vaiṣṇava-tara, and Vaiṣṇava-tama." (Cc. 2.16.69–74)

Regarding these three grades: in the first year (Śaka 1434) the Lord had said, "whoever's mouth utters Kṛṣṇa's name even once is worthy of the highest worship" (2.15.107) — the general mark of a "Vaiṣṇava." In Śaka 1435 the answer was "one in whose mouth Kṛṣṇa's name is constant" (2.16.71) — "Vaiṣṇava-tara." And "the following year," Śaka 1436, the answer was "one whose mere sight brings Kṛṣṇa's name to another's lips" (2.16.73) — "Vaiṣṇava-tama."

It is immediately after stating this final, third-year gradation that Kavirāja Gosvāmī gives the Oḍana-ṣaṣṭhī/Vidyānidhi account: "All the other Vaiṣṇavas then set out for Bengal; Vidyānidhi alone remained at Nīlācala that year. He formed a bond of friendship with Svarūpa, and the two of them stayed together discussing Kṛṣṇa. Gadādhara Paṇḍita again gave him further instruction. On the day of the Oḍana-ṣaṣṭhī festival, the pilgrims saw Jagannātha wearing a woman's garment — Vidyānidhi's mind grew disturbed at the sight. That very night Jagannātha and Balarāma came to him, and the two brothers, laughing, mounted him and rode him; his cheek swelled, yet Ācārya [Vidyānidhi] felt inward joy. Vṛndāvana Dāsa has related this in full." (Cc. 2.16.75–80)

This shows that the Oḍana-ṣaṣṭhī/Vidyānidhi episode occurred in Śaka 1435. After telling this, Kavirāja Gosvāmī then writes: "In this way, four years of Mahāprabhu's time passed; two years were spent going south and returning; two more years He wished to go to Vṛndāvana, but Rāmānanda's insistence would not let Him depart. In the fifth year the Gauḍīya devotees came; after seeing the Ratha-yātrā, they did not stay, but returned to Bengal." (Cc. 2.16.83–85) — "the fifth year" meaning the fifth year after the Lord's sannyāsa, Śaka 1436. That year, once the Gauḍīya devotees had left after the Ratha-yātrā, the Lord expressed to Sārvabhauma and Rāmānanda His wish to travel to Vṛndāvana via Bengal; they told Him: "You cannot travel before the rains — once Vijayā-daśamī comes, you must surely go." The Lord agreeably waited out the rainy season and set out on Vijayā-daśamī. So the Lord departed Nīlācala for Bengal on Vijayā-daśamī of Śaka 1436, and returned to Nīlācala before the Ratha-yātrā of Śaka 1437.

Although Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura ends his book, in the eleventh and final chapter of the Antya-khaṇḍa, with the Śaka 1435 Oḍana-ṣaṣṭhī episode, he had already — breaking chronological sequence — described the Lord's Śaka 1436 journey into Bengal earlier, in the third, fourth, and fifth chapters of the Antya-khaṇḍa. But he narrates absolutely none of the Lord's pastimes from any time after Śaka 1436 — just as, already noted, he narrates none of the Lord's South Indian pastimes prior to Śaka 1435 either.

The Lord's disappearance occurred in Śaka 1455. So the nineteen years of pastimes from Śaka 1436 to Śaka 1455 go entirely undescribed in Caitanya-bhāgavata — that is, of the twenty-four years of the Lord's life after sannyāsa, Vṛndāvana Dāsa describes only five, leaving nineteen years untouched. This makes it perfectly clear that Caitanya-bhāgavata is an incomplete work.

On this point, Kavirāja Gosvāmī himself writes: "Vṛndāvana Dāsa composed the Caitanya-maṅgala, describing all of Caitanya's pastimes there in outline, then afterward filling in the detail. But Caitanya-candra's pastimes are boundless and endless, and in describing them the book grew and grew; seeing how it was growing, his mind grew hesitant, and some pastimes noted in his own outline he left undescribed — absorbed in describing Nityānanda's pastimes, Caitanya's own final pastimes were left remaining." (Cc. 1.8.40–44) Here Kavirāja Gosvāmī himself calls Caitanya-bhāgavata by the name "Caitanya-maṅgala."

Considering the detailed accounts given by the various biographers of Gaura together, it becomes clear that both Caitanya-bhāgavata and Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta are, each in its own way, incomplete works. Caitanya-bhāgavata gives a detailed account of the Lord's household pastimes, which Caitanya-caritāmṛta covers only briefly or in passing; Caitanya-caritāmṛta gives a detailed account of the Lord's final pastimes after sannyāsa, which Caitanya-bhāgavata omits almost entirely.

So, in terms of detailed coverage, both books are incomplete — though Caitanya-caritāmṛta does at least give detailed coverage of the sannyāsa episode itself and the Lord's Bengal journey, even if most of the remaining post-sannyāsa pastimes go unrecorded there too. To know the Lord's pastimes in full detail, a study of both books together is necessary.

§15. The Language of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata

The language of Caitanya-bhāgavata is, on the whole, lucid, sweet, and deeply moving. But here and there occur statements whose individual words are not difficult, yet whose intended meaning is nearly impossible to grasp — such passages require careful attention to context, or comparison with parallel statements in other texts, to determine the author's meaning. A few examples are noted here (with reference to the fuller discussion at each verse's own commentary): 1.2.217; 1.2.285 (and the closing couplet of every chapter); 1.3.74; 1.6.6; 1.6.64; 1.7.21, 23; 1.10.323; 2.25.167; 2.26.57; 2.23.69; 2.22.115; 3.8.96; 3.9.100; and 3.11.93.

(b) Words used in obsolete senses. Several words in Caitanya-bhāgavata are used with meanings no longer current, such as: avadhi (in the sense "in comparison with," 2.11.20); ādi-vṛddha ("from beginning to end," 2.19.24); utthiṣṭha ("disturbance," 1.11.101); vivartana (a specific form of dance/service/worship, 2.6.231); pānthana ("wondrous beauty," 2.23.180); vinaya ("without justice," 3.10.290); sattva ("divinity," 3.10.322); kāpaḍi ("deceiver," 3.11.44); and others, discussed at their respective locations.

(c) Dialectal and corrupted (apabhraṃśa) forms. Old Bengali texts naturally contain no shortage of dialectal and corrupted forms, and Caitanya-bhāgavata shows an abundance of these — many apparently belonging to the eastern dialects. They are too numerous to list here. For readers' convenience, a few words with specialized meanings — found not only in Caitanya-bhāgavata but in various other old texts as well — are noted: kene meant, in old usage, what we now express by kena ("why, for what reason"); while kena itself, in old usage, did not carry our modern sense at all, but was actually the true Sanskrit instrumental singular of kim, meaning "by what means, in what way" — and it is in exactly this sense that Caitanya-bhāgavata always uses kena. Similarly, sabe is used in the sense "only, solely," while sabhe means "everyone, all people." Caitanya-bhāgavata also uses the word ekeśvara in several places — not, as the compound might suggest, "the one God" (eka + īśvara), but simply "alone, solitary." Several further such words are explained at their respective places in the commentary.

(d) Sandhi (euphonic combination) forms not current in Bengali. According to the grammatical sandhi-rule "lopaḥ śākalyasya," when a different vowel follows a word ending in visible "e," that final "e" may become either "a" alone or "aya" (with the "a" joining the preceding syllable and the following vowel remaining as "a") — e.g., sakhe + ūhanam becomes either sakha ūhanam or sakhayūhanam. Such sandhi is common in Sanskrit but never occurs in Bengali — except that Caitanya-bhāgavata shows at least one instance of it: "saṃkramaṇa-uttarāyaṇa-divase" (2.26.57), formed by treating saṃkramaṇe + uttarāyaṇa-divase as saṃkramaṇa uttarāyaṇa-divase in the Sanskrit manner.

(e) The charge of harsh language. Caitanya-bhāgavata contains, in several places, a recurring line to this effect:

"If, even after all such forbearance, some wretch still slanders, then strike him hard upon the head!" (1.6.426; 1.12.156; 2.11.64; 2.18.221; 2.23.520; 3.7.129)

Some modern critics, taking this couplet out of the context in which it is spoken, without regard to what occasions it, have concluded that Vṛndāvana Dāsa here displays harshness or intolerance. In fact this is not an expression of intolerance or arrogance at all — it is an expression of grief (see the commentary at 1.6.426).

Vṛndāvana Dāsa was a special recipient of Śrī Nityānanda's mercy, His own initiated disciple, and a devotee of the highest order — harshness or intolerance is simply not conceivable in such a person. Under the influence of māyā, ordinary worldly people develop a false sense of identification with the body, from which arise various adventitious forms of pride; when that pride is wounded, intolerance or arrogance results. But those in whose hearts genuine devotion has arisen through spiritual practice — who have thereby transcended māyā's influence — lose that bodily false identification entirely, along with any trace of adventitious pride. Such souls consider themselves lower than everyone else, even lower than a worm in stool, and remain unmoved even by worldly provocation; harshness is, for them, utterly inconceivable. Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura was an extraordinarily qualified devotee — the very idea of intolerance or arrogance arising in him is unimaginable, as already discussed regarding his extraordinary humility (§1f).

One who, out of sheer humility, never once identifies himself anywhere in his book, and reveals his own mother's name only as the occasion of Nityānanda's mercy toward him — such a person cannot be believed to have expressed intolerance or arrogance. He was, rather, deeply concerned for everyone's spiritual welfare, and it was seeing the plight of those turned away from devotion that grieved his heart — the statement in question expresses that grief alone, not intolerance or harshness (see the commentary at 1.6.426).

§16. The Greatness of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata

The worth and greatness of any book lies in how fully and properly it accomplishes what it sets out to establish. If its central subject is properly established, then even the presence of a few difficult expressions, difficult words, breaks in chronological order, or even incompleteness as a full biography, does not diminish the book's greatness.

The discussion in the sections that follow (§§20–51) will show that everything Caitanya-bhāgavata teaches on the various points of doctrine is in complete agreement with the later ācāryas — so, notwithstanding everything said in §§13–15 above, the greatness of Caitanya-bhāgavata remains undiminished. Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes: "Nityānanda, the indwelling witness, playfully instructed me to write something of Caitanya's character in a book" (1.12.143) — and although he did write such a book accordingly, it is clear from his own account that his chief purpose, in describing Caitanya's character, was to glorify Gaura-Nityānanda, the devotees, and devotion itself — and this purpose his book fully accomplishes, leaving nothing wanting. This is why it has been said that, notwithstanding everything discussed in §§13–15, the greatness of Caitanya-bhāgavata remains undiminished.

Even the passages inferred to be legendary do not diminish the book's greatness, since the glory of Gaura-Nityānanda expressed even in those passages is not itself unreal — the very same glory is found expressed, too, in passages whose reliability is beyond question. Even if a branch from a neem tree falls, carried by the wind, onto a mango tree, the mango tree remains a mango tree, and its sweetness is not thereby diminished.

Caitanya-bhāgavata's greatness is truly unparalleled, for the following reason. The biography of Gaura preceding Caitanya-bhāgavata was Murāri Gupta's Kaḍacā, which described the Lord's household pastimes only briefly, in sūtra form. Vṛndāvana Dāsa, by contrast, describes those same pastimes at length, and in doing so reveals the glory of Gaura-Nityānanda and of devotion and the devotees in an unparalleled way. Even compared with Karṇapūra, Vṛndāvana Dāsa seems to have a special distinction in glorifying Gaura: he grounds that glory always in the pastimes themselves, showing precisely which glory is revealed in which pastime, leaving no room for anyone to question the claimed glory — whereas Karṇapūra's works, while not entirely lacking such description, contain very little of it; and it would hardly be an exaggeration to say Karṇapūra's works lack altogether the kind of extensive, absorbing account of Nityānanda's own pastimes and glory that Vṛndāvana Dāsa provides. Because of the sheer extent and richness of his description of Gaura-Nityānanda's pastimes, the glory of devotion and the devotees arises spontaneously throughout Caitanya-bhāgavata in a way that Karṇapūra's briefer, less extensive works simply do not achieve to the same degree.

For all these reasons, it can be said that Caitanya-bhāgavata possesses a quality unparalleled even in Murāri Gupta's earlier Kaḍacā, or in the work of Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own contemporary Karṇapūra. The book's wide circulation is itself a shining testament to its popularity and greatness. In that era there was no printing press — anyone wishing to study a book privately had to have it hand-copied, and without genuine devotion to the task, no one would undertake the labor and expense of copying so vast a work as Caitanya-bhāgavata. Yet this book reached even distant Vṛndāvana — and its wide circulation within Bengal even before that can easily be imagined.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own account shows that the Vaiṣṇavas resident in Vṛndāvana studied this book with the greatest enthusiasm, captivated by its sweetness. Even today, in many places, many Vaiṣṇavas read this book daily, are moved to tears and trembling in the reading of it, and some even worship the book itself as a form of Śrī Caitanya — all further testimony to Caitanya-bhāgavata's greatness.

[The book's] account of the Lord's pastimes is beautifully arranged, and through that narration the secret of the religion Mahāprabhu preached, and the truth of Gaura-Nityānanda, are beautifully revealed as well — a quality found in no earlier biography of Gaura, not even in Caitanya-caritāmṛta itself.

Caitanya-bhāgavata has yet another unparalleled distinction: among the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, it was Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura who, through the words of Mahāprabhu and the devotees and in his own words, was the very first to teach that both Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Śrī Gaurāṅga are equally the object of relationship (sambandha-tattva), equally worthy of worship, that both their divine abodes and the attainment of service to both are desirable for the soul, that service oriented solely toward the Lord's own pleasure is the soul's true, natural duty, that prema alone is the one essential requirement for attaining such service, and that to attain that prema, one must practice devotion in the mood of spontaneous attachment (rāga-mārga) oriented solely toward the pleasure of Gaura-Kṛṣṇa. He was likewise the very first to teach that, compared to prema or such Kṛṣṇa-pleasing service, both material enjoyment and liberation are utterly insignificant, and that mokṣa is not the soul's true, natural goal at all (see §51 below).

By the mercy of Śrī Śrī Gaura-Nityānanda, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura has, in his book, revealed the glory of Gaura-Nityānanda, of devotion, and of the devotees in so captivating a manner that anyone who reads this book with faith — even a follower of an opposing doctrine — may find his heart melting, and his very outlook transformed.

Here is quoted what Kavirāja Gosvāmī himself says of Caitanya-bhāgavata (which he calls "Caitanya-maṅgala"):

"O deluded people, hear the Caitanya-maṅgala, by which you will know the whole of Caitanya's glory! As Vedavyāsa told Kṛṣṇa's pastimes in the Bhāgavata, so Vṛndāvana Dāsa is the Vyāsa of Caitanya's pastimes. Vṛndāvana Dāsa composed the Caitanya-maṅgala, hearing which destroys all inauspiciousness — by which the glory of Caitanya and Nitāi is known, by which the boundary of the conclusions of Kṛṣṇa-bhakti is known. Whatever is the essence of all devotional conclusions in the Bhāgavata, he has extracted and written down, knowing it fully. If even a heretic or a Muslim hears the Caitanya-maṅgala, he becomes a great Vaiṣṇava that very instant. No ordinary mortal could compose such a book — this glorious book's speaker, through Vṛndāvana Dāsa's mouth, is Caitanya Himself. Ten million obeisances at Vṛndāvana Dāsa's feet — by composing such a book he has delivered the world. Nārāyaṇī, the receiver of Caitanya's remnants — from her womb was born Śrī Dāsa Vṛndāvana. How wondrous is his account of Caitanya's character — hearing it purifies the three worlds!" (Cc. 1.8.29–38)

Kavirāja Gosvāmī also records how eagerly the Vaiṣṇavas of Vṛndāvana relished Caitanya-bhāgavata, and how, since Vṛndāvana Dāsa, absorbed in describing Nityānanda's pastimes, had been unable to complete the account of Caitanya's final pastimes, they themselves commanded Kavirāja Gosvāmī to complete that account in a manner worthy of Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own sweet narration:

"...absorbed in describing Nityānanda's pastimes, Caitanya's own final pastimes were left remaining; the residents of Vṛndāvana longed to hear an account of those remaining pastimes." Kavirāja then names, at length, the devotees of Vṛndāvana who commanded him to write — the temple of Govindadeva and its glorious service; its superintendent Śrī Paṇḍita Haridāsa, of universal renown, forbearing, peaceful, generous, grave, sweet-spoken, gentle in action, ever mindful of everyone's welfare, free from envy or malice, possessing all fifty ordinary qualities of Kṛṣṇa Himself; his disciple Ananta Ācārya, absorbed in Kṛṣṇa-prema, magnanimous and noble; his own dear disciple Paṇḍita Haridāsa, whose faith in Caitanya-Nityānanda was supreme, who delighted above all in Caitanya's character, who saw only the good in Vaiṣṇavas, never their faults, who pleased the Vaiṣṇavas in thought, word, and deed, who continually heard the Caitanya-maṅgala and, by his grace, so did all the assembled Vaiṣṇavas, brightening the whole assembly with his words like the full moon, increasing the devotees' joy with the nectar of his own qualities — this same Haridāsa, out of great mercy, commanded Kavirāja to complete the account of Gaurāṅga's final pastimes; Kāśīśvara Gosāñi's disciple Govinda Gosāñi; Govinda's own peerless dear servant; Yādavācārya Gosāñi, Rūpa's own companion, greatly delighted in Caitanya's character; Paṇḍita Gosāñi's disciple Bhūgarbha Gosāñi, whose mouth spoke of nothing but Gaura; his disciples Govinda-pūjaka Caitanyadāsa, Mukundānanda, and the devoted Cakravartī Kṛṣṇadāsa; Ācārya Gosāñi's disciple Cakravartī Śivānanda, whose heart held Caitanya-Nityānanda always; and all the other devotees resident in Vṛndāvana — all of them longed to hear the final pastimes, and mercifully commanded me; at their word I write, shamelessly. Meditating on Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own lotus feet, taking his permission, I write for everyone's welfare — Vṛndāvana Dāsa is the Vyāsa of Caitanya's pastimes; without his mercy, no one else can reveal it. (Cc. 1.8.44–77)*

That the Vṛndāvana devotees who constantly relished Caitanya-bhāgavata were no ordinary people is made abundantly clear by this very passage from Kavirāja Gosvāmī — which is why it has been quoted here in full, in his own words, rather than merely paraphrased. These great devotees were so captivated by Vṛndāvana Dāsa's sweet account of Gaura's early pastimes that they themselves commanded Kavirāja Gosvāmī to complete the account of the final pastimes in a manner worthy of it — there can be no doubt that it was Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's own narration that first kindled their eagerness to hear of the remaining pastimes. All this itself testifies to the unparalleled greatness of Caitanya-bhāgavata. And Kavirāja Gosvāmī himself undertook to describe the Lord's final pastimes only after meditating upon and receiving Vṛndāvana Dāsa's permission, relying on his mercy — this too is a further testament to the greatness of Vṛndāvana Dāsa's book.

Caitanya-bhāgavata is, moreover, the very first biography of Gaura written in the Bengali language — of which Kavirāja Gosvāmī says, "No ordinary mortal could compose such a book — this glorious book's speaker, through Vṛndāvana Dāsa's mouth, is Caitanya Himself." The venerable Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura has, in this unparalleled book, expressed in beautifully simple language the deep secret of Vraja-prema, the conclusions of pure devotion as taught in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, and the sweet pastimes of Śrī Śrī Gaura-Nityānanda. Alongside his poetic gift, the author displays extraordinary scholarship and many-sided genius throughout the book.

The book is also studded, here and there, with a great deal of historical material. Those interested in the social, economic, political, and religious conditions of Bengal some four and a half centuries ago will find a study of Caitanya-bhāgavata of considerable value. On this point, the following passage — quoted in the Śrī Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Abhidhāna (Part 2, p. 1555) from a work titled Bāṅgālā Sāhitya — is worth reproducing here:

"Caitanya-bhāgavata is one of the finest historical works in the Bengali language. Whatever ancient history of Bengal one wishes to reconstruct, on whatever subject, one will need to draw material from Caitanya-bhāgavata in greater or lesser measure. Gathering up even what it records of the contemporary anti-Vaiṣṇava society of the time would yield a valuable page of Bengal's social, political, and popular history. A devoted reader who reads Caitanya-bhāgavata again and again, with humility, will glimpse, through tears, its beautiful form — amid the harsh, indignant prose of that age, the image of Śrī Caitanya Prabhu stands out drawn with the touch of a master painter, luminous as a marble statue, vivid as a portrait." (Bāṅgālā Bhāṣā o Sāhitya)

§17. The Extent of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata

To give a sense of Caitanya-bhāgavata's size, its counts of verses (śloka) and couplets/tripadīs (payāra-tripadī) are given here. In total, the Ādi-khaṇḍa contains 3,172 couplets and 49 Sanskrit verses across its twelve chapters; the Madhya-khaṇḍa contains 5,451 couplets and 36 verses across its twenty-six chapters; and the Antya-khaṇḍa contains 3,164 [sic — likely 3,640 or similar, OCR uncertain] couplets and 35 verses across its eleven chapters. (The original gives a detailed chapter-by-chapter breakdown of these counts, omitted here as a reference table of limited interest to the English reader.) In total, then, Caitanya-bhāgavata comprises somewhere in the range of twelve thousand couplets and roughly 120 Sanskrit verses (107 of them distinct, some repeated more than once — the appendix's verse-index gives the opening words of each) — a work of very considerable size.

§18. The Date of Composition of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata

The author says nothing at the end of his book about when it was written, so there is no way to know the date with certainty.

Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura writes, already in the Ādi-khaṇḍa, "Glory, glory, glory to Mahāprabhu Gauracandra! You gave, and you took away, Prabhu Nityānanda!" (1.6.434) — and says the same again in the Antya-khaṇḍa (3.7.132) — suggesting the book was written after Nityānanda Prabhu's own disappearance, though nothing more precise can be drawn from this.

Of his mother Nārāyaṇī Devī he writes, "even today [adyāpiha] this remains a byword among Vaiṣṇavas" (2.2.318–19) — the word "even today" suggesting she was no longer living when he wrote, though again this yields no precise date.

Elsewhere, in the Antya-khaṇḍa, Mahāprabhu tells Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita, "Live happily at home, Śrīnivāsa — I myself will come to your door" (3.5.63), on which Vṛndāvana Dāsa comments, "even today, by Caitanya's mercy, all manner of things still arrive at Śrīvāsa's door in this way" (3.5.69) — which could mean either that Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita was still living when this portion was written, or that, by Mahāprabhu's continuing grace, provisions still arrived at his door even after his passing. Either reading leaves the date of composition undetermined, since the date of Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita's own disappearance is not known with certainty either.

For lack of decisive evidence, various respected scholars have proposed differing dates for Caitanya-bhāgavata's composition, based on their own reasoning — summarized here from the noted researcher Dr. Bimanbihari Majumdar's Śrī Caitanya-caritera Upādāna (pp. 186–92): Śrī Jagadbandhu Bhadra and Śrī Acyutacaraṇa Chaudhuri hold the book was composed in Śaka 1457; Śrī Sukumar Sen holds that "the book was probably begun before Śrī Caitanya's own disappearance, and completed before the birth of Nityānanda Prabhu's son Vīracandra Gosvāmī"; Dr. Dineshchandra Sen holds it was composed in 1573 CE (Śaka 1495); Śrī Ramagati Nyayaratna holds it was composed in Śaka 1470.

Dr. Majumdar himself concludes, refuting the arguments of others, "the provisional conclusion is that Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata was composed in 1546 CE" — essentially adopting Nyayaratna's dating.

Needless to say, all these dates are merely conjectural, and scholars disagree with one another's reasoning. Sukumar Sen's claim that "the book was probably begun before Śrī Caitanya's own disappearance" runs into the problem, already shown, that Vṛndāvana Dāsa was under fourteen or fifteen years old at the time of Caitanya's disappearance — could the book plausibly have been begun even earlier than that? Sen's further claim that it was "completed before the birth of Vīracandra Gosvāmī" seems to rest merely on the fact that Caitanya-bhāgavata never mentions Vīracandra Gosvāmī at all — but as already shown (§14), Vṛndāvana Dāsa ends his book with the events of Śaka 1435, by which time Nityānanda had not even married yet, so how could Vīracandra Gosvāmī possibly have been born? There is simply no evidence in Caitanya-bhāgavata itself that supports the claim that it was finished before Vīracandra's birth. Dr. Majumdar's own arguments for his "provisional conclusion" could equally be refuted by others — indeed he seems to have anticipated this himself, given his own use of the qualifier "provisional."

In any case, the question of Caitanya-bhāgavata's date of composition remains unresolved, and since no evidence adequate to settle it is known to us, we too leave the matter there.

§19. The Title of Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's Book

A good deal of legend and popular tradition surrounds the title of Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's book.

The Prema-vilāsa (chapter 19) states: "Caitanya-bhāgavata was originally called Caitanya-maṅgala — the elders of Vṛndāvana gave it the name Bhāgavata."

Kavirāja Gosvāmī, in his own Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, refers to this book many times — always as "Caitanya-maṅgala," never once as "Caitanya-bhāgavata." This much is consistent with the Prema-vilāsa's claim that the book was originally titled Caitanya-maṅgala — but Kavirāja Gosvāmī nowhere states that it was the elders of Vṛndāvana who renamed it Caitanya-bhāgavata.

Dr. Bimanbihari Majumdar, in his Śrī Caitanya-caritera Upādāna (pp. 258–59), quotes a passage from a work titled Rāḍha-khaṇḍera Prācīna Vaiṣṇava. According to this account, Ṭhākura Narahari Sarkar instructed Locana Dāsa Ṭhākura to show his own newly-composed Śrī Caitanya-maṅgala to Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura. Seeing in Locana Dāsa's book the line "Undivided are Caitanya Deva and the avadhūta Ṭhākura — I bow to Śrī Nityānanda, son of Rohiṇī," Vṛndāvana Dāsa was so pleased that he told Locana Dāsa: "From today, let your book be named Śrī [Caitanya-]maṅgala, and let my own Śrī Caitanya-maṅgala be renamed Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata."

By the time this exchange took place, Vṛndāvana Dāsa's Caitanya-maṅgala was already widely known among the Vaiṣṇavas, and its fragrance had reached even the Vaiṣṇavas resident in Vṛndāvana — which is why Kavirāja Gosvāmī describes Vṛndāvana Dāsa's book as "Caitanya-maṅgala." But since Locana Dāsa's book portrayed Gaura and Nityānanda as one undivided form, Vṛndāvana Dāsa — whose very life was devoted to Nityānanda — felt boundless gratitude toward him, and so drew up a formal declaration: "I have described the Lord's divinity; Locana has described His sweetness — therefore let my book be named Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata." Seeing this declaration, the Gosvāmīs resident in Vṛndāvana were greatly pleased.

A few points for the reader's own consideration are offered here.

First, regarding the Prema-vilāsa's claim: researchers agree without dispute that much of the Prema-vilāsa is a later interpolation, and there is no reliable evidence that the particular couplet quoted above is original to it — so no firm conclusion can rest on this statement alone.

As for the Rāḍha-khaṇḍera Prācīna Vaiṣṇava account: Locana Dāsa's own Caitanya-maṅgala contains numerous statements and at least one doctrine that neither Vṛndāvana Dāsa nor the Vaiṣṇavas of the recognized lineage following Rūpa and the other Gosvāmīs accept. Given this, whether it is credible that Vṛndāvana Dāsa would have renamed his own book on the strength of a single line proclaiming Gaura and Nityānanda's non-difference is left to the reader's own judgment.

The account states that "the Gosvāmīs resident in Vṛndāvana were greatly pleased" upon seeing Vṛndāvana Dāsa's "declaration" — but it does not actually state that they renamed the copy of Vṛndāvana Dāsa's book already in their possession to "Caitanya-bhāgavata." Had they done so, one would expect that change to appear in the copy that had reached Vṛndāvana. It has already been noted (§16) how eagerly the Vaiṣṇavas of Vṛndāvana studied this book — so it is not unreasonable to suppose many copies of it circulated in Vṛndāvana and nearby regions. But it is hard to credit that every single person who obtained such a copy also received word of Vṛndāvana Dāsa's declaration and dutifully struck out "Caitanya-maṅgala" in favor of "Caitanya-bhāgavata" in their own copy.

The same account also states that, by the time Vṛndāvana Dāsa drew up his declaration, his Caitanya-maṅgala was already widely circulated among the Vaiṣṇavas — so it must have spread widely within Bengal as well. If the book had reached distant Vṛndāvana, it is not unreasonable to assume it had already achieved wide circulation within Bengal beforehand. But it is hard to believe Vṛndāvana Dāsa's "declaration" itself achieved similarly wide circulation — he had no way of knowing

who had obtained copies of his book, nor is it likely that everyone who had a copy received it directly from him. A book spreads by copies of copies of copies — so it would not have been possible for Vṛndāvana Dāsa to send his declaration to everyone who had a copy. There was no newspaper in that era through which such an announcement could have been circulated. So, if the book's original title really had been Caitanya-maṅgala, one would expect at least some surviving manuscript bearing that title to have turned up somewhere by now. Yet, despite the extensive manuscript-collecting efforts of many individual researchers and literary institutions to date, no manuscript titled "Caitanya-maṅgala" and attributable to Vṛndāvana Dāsa is known to have been found. This strongly suggests that Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's book was titled "Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata" from the very start, not "Śrī Caitanya-maṅgala."

A book's greatness and popularity do not depend on its title alone, but chiefly on its content and how well that content is presented. Multiple authors, even in ancient times, composed different works under the very same title: Locana Dāsa wrote a "Śrī Caitanya-maṅgala," and so did Jayānanda. Vṛndāvana Dāsa wrote a "Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata," and so, separately, did the Odia poet Īśvaradāsa. The Śrī Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Abhidhāna records two different works titled "Gaurāṅga-līlāmṛta" (one by an unknown author, one by Śrī Kṛṣṇadāsa) and two titled "Gaurāṅga-vijaya" (by Paramānanda Gupta and by Cūḍāmaṇi Dāsa respectively); multiple authors have likewise written works called "Vidyā-sundara" and "Manasā-maṅgala." Even when multiple authors share a title, each work retains its own due standing among readers. So even if Vṛndāvana Dāsa's and Locana Dāsa's books had shared the very same title from the start, readers would still have given each its own proper due — there would have been no compelling reason for Vṛndāvana Dāsa to rename his own book simply upon seeing Locana Dāsa's later "Caitanya-maṅgala." It therefore seems clear that Vṛndāvana Dāsa's book was titled "Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata" from the very beginning.

One might then ask: if the book was titled "Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata" from the start, why does Kavirāja Gosvāmī call it "Caitanya-maṅgala" again and again, never once "Caitanya-bhāgavata"?

My submission on this point is as follows. It may simply be that, since Vṛndāvana Dāsa's book proclaims Śrī Caitanya's glory (māhātmya), Kavirāja Gosvāmī calls it "Caitanya-maṅgala" in the same sense that a work proclaiming the glory of the goddess Caṇḍī is called a "Caṇḍī-maṅgala," or one proclaiming Manasā's glory a "Manasā-maṅgala" — a generic descriptive term, not a proper title. Vṛndāvana Dāsa himself uses the phrase "Caitanya-maṅgala-saṅkīrtana" for kīrtana glorifying Caitanya — writing, of Nityānanda and Gadādhara Paṇḍita, "then the two Lords settled together in one place, and sat down for Caitanya-maṅgala-saṅkīrtana" (3.8.123). So even though Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's book was named "Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata," Kavirāja may simply have been describing it, in this generic sense, as glorifying Caitanya's greatness — which fits with the fact, already noted, that no manuscript titled "Śrī Caitanya-maṅgala" and attributable to him has ever been found.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own statement, "As Vedavyāsa told Kṛṣṇa's pastimes in the Bhāgavata, so Vṛndāvana Dāsa is the Vyāsa of Caitanya's pastimes" (Cc. 1.8.30), may itself hint at the title "Caitanya-bhāgavata." Whether his other statement, "O deluded people, hear the Caitanya-maṅgala, by which you will know the whole of Caitanya's glory" (Cc. 1.8.29), hints at his reason for calling it "Caitanya-maṅgala," is left to the reader's own judgment. Dr. Majumdar himself, on different grounds, concludes on page 260 of his own book: "It seems to me that Vṛndāvana Dāsa's book was titled Caitanya-bhāgavata from the very start."

§20. Gaura-tattva in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata (§§20–43)

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura nowhere in his book takes up any single doctrine for sustained, continuous discussion in one place — his supreme absorption was in narrating the pastimes of Śrī Śrī Gaura-Nityānanda. It is only through what he reveals — through the mouths of Gaura and Nityānanda themselves, through the devotees' prayers, and in his own words, scattered throughout the course of his narrative — that his views on the various points of doctrine can be determined. In many places, through prayers, through incidental remarks, and through direct statement, he reveals the truth of Śrī Gaurāṅga's nature in this way. The following sections take up and discuss these scattered revelations in turn.

§21. Gaurāṅga's Identity as Kṛṣṇa Himself (§§21–24)

Direct statements proclaiming Gaura's identity with Kṛṣṇa. In numerous couplets the author explicitly calls Śrī Gauracandra "Kṛṣṇa" outright — a representative sample of locations is given here: 1.1.106, 1.1.125, 1.2.79, 1.8.262 (as "Vanamālī-Kṛṣṇa"), 1.8.265, 1.9.143 (as "Vasudeva-Nanda's son"), 1.10.4, 2.1.485, 2.8.287, 2.22.14, 2.23.285 (as "Kaṃsāri," slayer of Kaṃsa), 2.23.462 (as "Dvārakā-vihārī Kṛṣṇa"), 2.24.15 (as "Madana-gopāla"), 3.10.170 (as "Vṛndāvana Rāya"), 3.10.370, and elsewhere.

§22. Gaura's Identity with Kṛṣṇa Revealed by Association with Kṛṣṇa-Themes

In several passages, Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura establishes Gaura's identity with Kṛṣṇa by bringing up Kṛṣṇa-related material directly in the course of describing Gaura. A few instances:

(a) "This same Gauracandra, when He was born in Gokula..." (1.6.487) — for it was Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa who was born in Gokula.

(b) During His wanderings through town, when the Lord came to a cowherd's house, one cowherd said to Him: "All the rice from my house that you ate before — don't you remember it?" (1.8.119) — meaning Gauracandra had, in an earlier age (Dvāpara), eaten a cowherd's rice — again identifying Gauracandra as none other than Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

(c) "Just as He once wandered through Madhupurī [Mathurā], Śrī Śacīnandana performs that very pastime again" (1.8.145) — meaning that whatever pastime Vrajendra-nandana Kṛṣṇa performed going from Gokula to Mathurā, Śacīnandana [Gaura] is performing the corresponding pastime at Navadwip — again declaring Śacīnandana's identity with Kṛṣṇa.

(d) One day the Lord approached a supposed omniscient man and said, "You claim to know everything — tell me, what was I in a former birth?" — whereupon the "omniscient" man, out of good fortune, meditated inwardly and instantly beheld the Gopāla-mantra: a four-armed dark form bearing conch, disc, mace, and lotus, marked with Śrīvatsa and the Kaustubha jewel, radiant with great light; at night he saw the Lord in a prison-house, His parents before Him offering prayer; then saw a father carrying an infant son in his arms; then that same night saw the child carried away to Gokula; and then saw a bewitching dark-complexioned figure at the horizon's edge, a churning-rod at his waist, fresh butter in both hands (1.8.155–60) — here too, Śacīnandana Gaurahari's identity with Kṛṣṇa is proclaimed.

(e) "He who once, with the Yadus, at Dvārakā, sported in the water — this very same twice-born king [now plays the same pastime]" (2.23.197) — here too Gaura's identity with Kṛṣṇa is declared.

(f) "Just as, on the Yamunā's bank, the children once gathered in a circle for water-play, so now all the Vaiṣṇavas gathered together, joined hands in a circle. In Bengal this water-play is called 'kayā' — this very game the Lord first began there, clapping and calling out 'kiya kayā' upon the water, the Vaiṣṇavas striking the water like drums — everyone taking on the mood of Gokula's children, the Lord Himself the very incarnation of Gokulacandra." (3.9.112–16) Here too Gaura's identity with Kṛṣṇa is proclaimed.

Further such statements occur elsewhere in Caitanya-bhāgavata.

§23. Gaura's Identity with Kṛṣṇa Revealed through Prayers and Acts of Worship

(a) The prayers of Brahmā and the other gods to the infant Gaura in Śacī's womb. As Gaura entered Śacī's body, Brahmā and the other gods prayed:

"Glory, glory to the embodiment of all truth! Glory, glory to the all-willing Supreme Lord! You who dwell within countless millions of universes, You have now manifested in Śrī Śacī's womb. (1.2.149–50) You who can destroy the entire universe by your will alone — could You not have slain Kaṃsa and Rāvaṇa by a mere word? Yet You descended into Daśaratha's and Vasudeva's own houses to slay them there. (1.2.152–53) In the age of Kali You take a golden form as a Brahmin, to teach the saṅkīrtana-dharma hidden even from the Vedas. (1.2.163) Bringing with You all the loveliness and artful sweetness of Your pastimes, You once sported abundantly at Gokula in the form of Kṛṣṇa." (2.1.73)

All these statements proclaim Śacīnandana's identity with Kṛṣṇa Himself.

(b) Advaita's worship of the fainted Gaura in his own house. One day Gaurasundara, with Gadādhara, visited Advaita Ācārya's house in Navadwip; Advaita was then absorbed in worshiping Śrī Kṛṣṇa with water and tulasī leaves. "The moment He saw Advaita, Viśvambhara Prabhu fell to the ground unconscious. By the power of his own devotion, mighty Advaita understood everything at once: 'This is my very Lord of life!'" (2.2.130–31) Advaita then took all the items he had gathered for Kṛṣṇa's worship and used every one of them to worship the feet of the fainted Gaura instead:

"Not having prepared a full worship-arrangement at that moment, Ācārya Gosāñi took pādya, arghya, and ācamana water right there and worshiped Caitanya's feet with them; with scent, flowers, incense, and lamp offered at His feet, he bowed again and again, reciting this verse." (2.2.134–36)

The verse of homage Advaita recited to Gaura was: "Obeisances to the God of the brāhmaṇas and cows, the well-wisher of the whole world; obeisances again and again to Kṛṣṇa, to Govinda." (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 1.19.65) Advaita "recited this verse again and again at His feet, and, recognizing his own Lord, wept; he washed both feet with the water of his own eyes, and stood before them with folded hands." (2.2.137–38)

Through the power of his own devotion, Advaita directly perceived that this Viśvambhara Gauracandra was none other than his own beloved Lord of life, Śrī Kṛṣṇa — which is why he worshiped Gaura while reciting the very verse "namo brahmaṇya-devāya."

(c) Advaita's worship of Gaura after witnessing His divine opulence. When the Lord first revealed Himself, He one day sent Rāmāi Paṇḍita to bring Advaita Ācārya from Shantipur to Navadwip. Overwhelmed with love at witnessing the Lord's extraordinary divine opulence, Advaita was told by the Lord, "Worship me." Advaita then:

"Receiving the Lord's command in the greatest joy, worshiped Caitanya's feet in every possible manner — washing His feet with scented water, then pouring further scented water fully over His lotus feet; dipping fresh tulasī buds in sandalwood paste and offering them with arghya at His feet; worshiping with the five items — scent, flowers, incense, lamp — while a great stream flowed from his eyes in love; lighting a five-wick lamp and praying again, and finally proclaiming victory with cries of 'jaya, jaya'; having thus worshiped His feet in the full sixteen-part rite, he offered garland, cloth, and ornaments once more; then, with a joyful heart, performed worship according to the pauline rite, reciting this verse in full prostration: 'Obeisances to the God of the brāhmaṇas and cows, the well-wisher of the whole world; obeisances again and again to Kṛṣṇa, to Govinda' — reciting this verse first in homage, and afterward offering further prayers drawn from various scriptures." (2.6.104–11)

Having directly perceived, through transcendent realization, that the Lord was Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself, Śrī Advaita worshiped, bowed to, and praised Him accordingly.

(d) A Vedic Brahmin's declaration. After witnessing the infant Gaura's divine opulence, a Vedic Brahmin exclaimed: "Glory to the child Gopāla!" (1.3.294)

(e) Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita's praise of Gaura. After witnessing Gaura's divine opulence, Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita, bowing to Gaura with the Bhāgavata's Brahmā-stuti verse beginning "naumīḍya te 'bhra-vapuṣe..." (Bhāg. 10.14.1), said:

"Obeisances at Viśvambhara's feet, whose complexion outshines a fresh raincloud, wearing yellow garments; obeisances at Śacī's son's feet, adorned with a fresh guñjā-garland and peacock feather; obeisances at the feet of Gaṅgādāsa's own disciple [note: likely a scribal reference], garlanded with forest flowers, carrying yogurt-rice in hand... bearing the marks of flute, staff, and horn — to You, at Your very feet, my obeisances. You whom all four Vedas proclaim as 'the son of Nanda' — it is You, at Your feet, my obeisances." (2.2.269–74)

This prayer proclaims Gaura's identity as Nanda's son, Kṛṣṇa Himself.

(f) The devotees' prayers at the time of the Lord's great self-revelation. At the time of the great manifestation (mahā-prakāśa) in Śrīvāsa's house, the devotees prayed to the Lord: "Glory, glory, glory to the Lord of all beings!... Glory to the primal cause, glory to the father of all!... Glory, glory, protector of Veda, dharma, and the saintly! Glory, glory, root and life of the Brahman absolute itself!... Glory, glory, deliverer from the witch Pūtanā's deceit!" (2.9.53–67) This prayer, too, proclaims Gaura's identity with Kṛṣṇa.

(g) Śrīdhara's praise. Śrīdhara, the poor plantain-seller, praised the Lord: "Glory, glory, Lord of countless millions of universes! Glory, glory, born from the womb of blessed, saintly Śacī! You who once graced Gokula village, are now the very lord of Navadwip!... In devotion Bhīṣma once defeated You in battle; in devotion Yaśodā once bound You with rope; in devotion Satyabhāmā once sold You [in a pastime]; by the force of devotion You once carried a cowherd woman's burden on Your own shoulder; You whom countless millions of universes bear in their thought — You Yourself once carried the burden as the cowherd boy Śrīdāma!" (2.9.201–14) This praise, too, proclaims Gaura's identity with Kṛṣṇa.

(h) Haridāsa Ṭhākura's praise of Gaura. At the time of the Lord's great manifestation, Śrīla Haridāsa Ṭhākura praised Gaura: "O Father Viśvambhara, Lord of the universe, have mercy on this sinner — I have fallen at your feet." (2.10.57) "When wicked Duryodhana and Duḥśāsana brought Draupadī to be disrobed in the assembly, and, in her distress, she remembered You, by the power of that remembrance You became her endless garment." (2.10.63–64) "When Yudhiṣṭhira's sons feared Durvāsā's curse, You mercifully appeared to them in the forest: 'Do not worry, Yudhiṣṭhira — see, I am here; I shall accept the sage's [remaining] alms myself, you need only wait.' Only a single leaf of spinach remained in the pot; You ate it with satisfaction, to protect Your own servant — and at once all the assembled sages' bellies swelled with fullness, and, just so, all the sages fled in haste to the water." (2.10.72–75)

Here too Gaura's identity with Kṛṣṇa is proclaimed.

(i) Mukunda Datta's praise. At the time of the Lord's great manifestation, Mukunda Datta praised the Lord: "Duryodhana beheld Your universal form, which even the Vedas struggle to find. (2.10.214)" "You who once set out to abduct Rukmiṇī. (2.10.217)" "As the hunchback woman, the sacrificial wives, the city women, and the garland-maker — wherever they beheld Your manifestation, through devotion they attained You; witnessing this, Kaṃsa died on the spot in disbelief." (2.10.227–28)

Here too Gaura's identity with Kṛṣṇa is proclaimed.

(j) Jagāi and Mādhāi's praise. Having realized the Lord's true nature, Jagāi and Mādhāi said in praise: "That deliverance You gave us — the Lord calls it 'the deliverance of the sinless.' If You say that even Kaṃsa and the other demons attained Your feet, even in hatred — consider how many countless kings there were who thought of You constantly with proper kṣatriya hostility in battle, fearing You always... We are no fit comparison even to the demoness Pūtanā, let alone to Agha, Baka, and the other great demons You slew." (2.13.270–79) Here too Gaura's identity with Kṛṣṇa is proclaimed.

§24. Śacī's and Jagannātha Miśra's True Identities, Proclaiming Gaura's Identity with Kṛṣṇa

Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura identifies Śrī Jagannātha Miśra with Nanda and Vasudeva, and Śrī Śacī Mātā with Devakī and Yaśodā. "In Navadwip lives the eminent Jagannātha Miśra, devoted to his own duty like Vasudeva himself." (1.2.132) "Whether Kaśyapa, Daśaratha, Vasudeva, or Nanda — all of them, O Jagannātha Miśracandra, are fully present in you." (1.2.134)

Gaurasundara Himself says to Śacī Mātā: "You once became Devakī at Mathurā, imprisoned in Kaṃsa's inner chamber — even there you were my mother; you are that same Devakī, and I am Devakī's son." (2.26.44–45) "You are the mother of the universe, embodying devotion alone; you are called the form beyond the guṇas. You are devotion to Viṣṇu personified, the very power from which everything arises. You are Gaṅgā, Devakī, Yaśodā, Devahūti; you are Pṛśni, Anasūyā, Kauśalyā, Aditi." (3.4.242–45)

All these statements proclaim Gaurasundara's identity with Kṛṣṇa.

§25. Gaura Declared to Be the Supreme Brahman (§§25–27)

Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura, both directly and indirectly, calls Gaura the Supreme Brahman (para-brahma). For example: "Viśvambhara, the Supreme Brahman, embodied in sacred sound." (2.1.166) "Endless obeisances at Jagannātha Miśra's feet — father of the Lord of countless millions of universes." (1.6.78) "Śrī Caitanya Hari, Lord of countless millions of universes." (1.10.88) — for it is the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān, alone, who is "Lord of countless millions of universes." "Accepting the grief of separation from His beloved, He remained silent — He who is the essence of all the Vedas." (1.10.174) — for the Supreme Brahman alone is the essence, the true subject, of all the Vedas. "Caitanya, the crown-jewel atop the four Vedas." (1.2.211) "That very Lord whom the four Vedas seek, sleeps in Śacī's courtyard." (1.6.147) "Glory to Jagannātha's son, the great Supreme Lord!" (1.2.1) — for it is the Supreme Being alone whom the Śruti calls "Maheśvara." Many further such statements occur.

§26. Gaura's Divinity as the Supreme Brahman Declared Through His Identity with Every Form of God

From such scriptural statements as "the unborn is born in many ways" and "though one, He appears manifold," it is known that the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa, has existed from time immemorial, self-manifest in boundless divine forms. When He descends into a given universe, all those divine forms descend and remain present within Him (see the commentary at 1.8.97) — this is a distinguishing mark of the Supreme Brahman Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa alone, found in no other divine form. Svayaṁ Bhagavān, once descended into a universe, reveals within Himself, on various occasions and for various purposes, one or another of these divine forms — becoming absorbed in the mood of whichever form He reveals. It is precisely this that proves Para-brahma Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa's identity with every form of God. Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura shows that this very mark is present in Śrī Gauracandra as well. A few such statements:

(a) Sarasvatī's declaration to the digvijayī scholar. The goddess Sarasvatī told the touring scholar-conqueror, regarding Śrī Gaurāṅga: "Whatever joy or sorrow all beings from Brahmā downward experience, O Brahmin, know it all to be by His command. Whatever avatāras you have heard of, from the Matsya onward — know, Brahmin, that this very Lord is all of them, and there is no other. He it is who, as the Boar, upheld the earth; He who, as Nṛsiṁha, protected Prahlāda; He who, as the Dwarf, took Bali's very life, from whose toenail the Ganges was born; He who, descending at Ayodhyā, slew wicked Rāvaṇa through boundless pastimes; He who is called Vasudeva's son — now delights, as a Brahmin's son, in debate." (1.9.138–43)

(b) Brahmā and the gods' praise of Gaura in Śacī's womb. "Though a single command of yours could deliver countless universes, yet You Yourself descend, to teach all dharma and sanctify the earth. In Satya-yuga, taking a fair white form, You taught austerity by Your own asceticism, wearing deerskin, staff, water-pot, and matted locks, establishing dharma as a brahmacārī. In Tretā, taking a beautiful red form, You became the sacrificial Puruṣa, taught the dharma of sacrifice, performing sacrifice yourself with kuśa grass and ladle in hand, becoming the officiating priest to lead all others in sacrifice. In Dvāpara, taking a divine, cloud-dark form, You taught the dharma of worship, house to house, bearing your own marks of yellow cloth and Śrīvatsa, accepting worship as a great king. In Kali, taking a golden form as a Brahmin, You teach the saṅkīrtana-dharma hidden even from the Vedas. How many are Your unlimited avatāras — who has the power to count them? As the Fish You sport in the deluge waters; as the Tortoise You are the support of all beings; as Hayagrīva You rescue the Vedas and slay the primal demons Madhu and Kaiṭabha; as the Boar You rescue the earth; as Nṛsiṁha You tear apart Hiraṇyakaśipu; deceiving Bali, You take the wondrous form of a Dwarf; as Paraśurāma You rid the earth of kṣatriyas; as Rāmacandra You destroy Rāvaṇa; as Halāyudha [Balarāma] You sport without end; as the Buddha You reveal the dharma of compassion; as Kalki You destroy the barbarians... Bringing with You all the loveliness and artful sweetness of Your pastimes, You once sported abundantly at Gokula in the form of Kṛṣṇa." (1.2.155–73)

(c) Advaita's praise. After witnessing Gaura's divine opulence, Advaita Ācārya praised Him: "Glory, glory, Mahāprabhu, resting upon the endless serpent-bed! Glory, glory, glory, refuge of every soul! You are Viṣṇu, You are Kṛṣṇa, You are Nārāyaṇa; You are the Fish, the Tortoise, the eternal one. You, Lord, are the Boar, You are the Dwarf; age after age You protect the Vedas. You are the slayer of the demon race, Jānakī's own life; You are the giver of boons to Guha, the deliverer of Ahalyā. You took avatāra for Prahlāda's sake, killing Hiraṇyakaśipu under the name Nṛsiṁha. Crown-jewel of all gods, best of the twice-born, You are the one now dining here at Nīlācala. All four Vedas search for You in vain, and here You are, hidden, come to this very place!" (2.6.116–22)

(d) Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita's praise. Praising Gaura, Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita said: "You are Viṣṇu, You are Kṛṣṇa, You are the Lord of sacrifice; the water that has washed Your feet is the greatest of holy places, the Ganges itself. You are Jānakī's beloved, You are Nṛsiṁha; Brahmā and Śiva themselves are but bees at Your feet. You are the goal of Vedānta, You are Nārāyaṇa; You deceived Bali by becoming a Dwarf. You are Hayagrīva, You are the life of the universe; You are the moon of Nīlācala, the deliverer of all." (2.2.276–79)

Further citation is unnecessary. All these prayers show that Prabhu Gauracandra is self-manifest as every divine form. That these are not mere poetic exaggeration by devoted admirers is proven by the fact that Śrī Gauracandra actually revealed Himself, on various occasions, in various divine forms — as shown from Caitanya-bhāgavata in the following section.

§27. Gaura's Self-Revelation in Various Divine Forms

A list of occasions, with citations, on which Śrī Gaura revealed one or another divine form within Himself:

(a) revealing Śrī Kṛṣṇa's form to a Vedic Brahmin in childhood (1.3.263–70); (b) revealing the six-armed form to Śrī Nityānanda (2.5.88–90); (c) revealing the six-armed form to Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya (3.3.101–2); (d) revealing the Nṛsiṁha form to Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita (2.2.55–59); (e) revealing the Boar form in Murāri Gupta's house (2.3.18–24); (f) revealing an extraordinary form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa to Advaita Ācārya (2.6.74–85); (g) revealing the form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa to Śacī Mātā (2.8.63–66); (h) revealing the form of Śiva upon a devotee's shoulders (2.8.96–101); (i) revealing the combined form of Kṛṣṇa-Balarāma to Śrīdhara (2.9.190–95); (j) revealing the form of Rāma-Lakṣmaṇa-Sītā to Murāri Gupta (2.10.6–10); (k) revealing a four-armed form to Mādhāi (2.10.193–95); (l) the manifestation of the power of Rukmiṇī herself at Candraśekhara Ācārya's house (chapter 2.13); (m) revealing the universal form to Advaita and Nityānanda (2.23.47–60).

Whoever witnessed the Lord in any of these forms gained direct, unshakable realization of that form's reality. This self-revelation of the Lord in so many different divine forms itself proclaims Śrī Gaurāṅga's identity with every divine form — that is, His identity as the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān, none other than Nanda's own son.

In some places, it is true, Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura also calls this same "Nanda's son," Śrī Kṛṣṇa, "Vasudeva's son" — but in each such case, his intent is only that this same Nanda's son descended, in the form of Vasudeva's son, into Kaṃsa's prison; this is clear from the "omniscient man's" own statement, already quoted (§22d).

But even while calling Śrī Gaurāṅga "Nanda's son," Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura also attributes to Gaura certain moods and pastimes that Nanda's-son-Kṛṣṇa does not, and cannot, possess. These are discussed in the sections that follow (§§28–35).

§28. Śrī Gaurāṅga's Devotional Moods

Caitanya-bhāgavata describes, in many places, Śrī Gaurāṅga's own moods as a devotee. A few such passages are given here. After returning from Gayā, the Lord revealed Himself; He displayed devotional moods both before and after that self-revelation.

Devotional moods before the self-revelation

(a) Chanting "harāye namaḥ kṛṣṇa" with His students. After returning from Gayā, the Lord — overwhelmed with divine love — suspended His teaching for ten days. Afterward, sitting with His students, after various discussion, He told them: "For so long now we have only studied and heard — now perform Kṛṣṇa-kīrtana fully." His students asked, "What kind of saṅkīrtana?" And Śrī Śacīnandana Himself taught them: "Harāye namaḥ kṛṣṇa yādavāya namaḥ, gopāla govinda rāma śrī-madhusūdana." Showing them the tune, clapping His own hands, the Lord Himself led the kīrtana with His students; the very Lord of kīrtana performed kīrtana Himself, all His students singing in a circle around Him. Absorbed in the very mellow of His own name, the Lord rolled in the dust in ecstasy, crying "Speak! Speak!" and falling in every direction, the earth seeming to crack beneath His repeated falls. Hearing the commotion, the whole town of Navadwip came running to the teacher's house; the neighborhood Vaiṣṇavas, too, came at once upon hearing the kīrtana. Witnessing the Lord's ecstatic absorption, all the devotees marveled among themselves at this most wondrous sight." (2.1.397–406)

Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself never claps His own hands and performs "Kṛṣṇa"-kīrtana together with others, nor does He fall into such ecstatic absorption — and yet Gauracandra, though identical in essence with Śrī Kṛṣṇa, performed "Kṛṣṇa"-kīrtana in just such ecstatic absorption. This is a mark of His devotional mood.

(b) At Śuklāmbara's house. After returning from Gayā, the Lord one day arrived at the brahmacārī Śuklāmbara's house, where devotees were also present. Seeing Him, they "received Him with the greatest respect and affection — though the Lord showed no outward awareness at all. The moment He saw the assembled devotees, He began reciting a verse describing the marks of devotion: 'I have found my Lord — where has He gone?' — so saying, He fell embracing a pillar, and the pillar of the house broke from the force of His absorption; crying 'Where is Kṛṣṇa?' He fell with hair loose and disheveled." (2.1.80–83) After a while He regained some outward awareness, but soon began weeping loudly again, crying "Kṛṣṇa!" — "'O Kṛṣṇa, my Lord, where have You gone?' — so saying, the Lord fell to the ground once more..." while the assembled devotees, gathered round, wept along with Him. (2.1.87–89)

Afterward, the Lord said to Gadādhara: "Gadādhara, you are fortunate — even from childhood your heart was fixed on Kṛṣṇa. My own life has passed in vain pursuits; I obtained a priceless treasure, and let it slip away through my own days' faults." So saying, Viśvambhara fell to the ground, His body — worthy of all worship — rolling in the dust; again and again He lost, and again and again regained, outward awareness, His face and mouth saved from injury only by providence; His eyes, flooded with tears of love, could not open; His lips could utter only "Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa." Clutching His companions' necks, Viśvambhara wept: "Where is Kṛṣṇa? Friends, tell me quickly!" (2.1.95–100)

Such longing, such weeping, such overwhelming love for Kṛṣṇa is simply not possible for Kṛṣṇa Himself to feel — for love directed toward Kṛṣṇa cannot exist within Kṛṣṇa; it exists only within a devotee. Yet it is precisely this that is displayed by Śrī Gaurāṅga, who is identical in essence with Kṛṣṇa.

(c) Serving the devotees at the Ganges ghat. "When the Lord went each morning to bathe in the Ganges, He would meet the assembled Vaiṣṇavas along the way; seeing Śrīvāsa and the others, the Lord would bow to them, and the devotees, pleased, would bless Him: 'May you have devotion at Kṛṣṇa's feet — speak Kṛṣṇa's name, hear Kṛṣṇa's name; worship Kṛṣṇa, child, and all becomes true; without worshiping Kṛṣṇa, child, no learning avails; Kṛṣṇa alone is the father of the universe, Kṛṣṇa alone is life itself — worship Kṛṣṇa's feet steadfastly, child.' Hearing their blessing, the Lord felt great joy, and, raising His sacred face to look on them, said: 'You alone can give a true blessing — why should anyone else bestow grace? You alone can teach devotion to Kṛṣṇa; Kṛṣṇa shows mercy to one who serves His servants. You must teach me the religion of Viṣṇu — only then will I understand my own proper duty; by serving you I shall attain devotion to Kṛṣṇa.' So saying, right there, He would clasp someone's feet, wring out someone's wet cloth with His own hands, or personally hand someone a fresh dhoti; give someone kuśa grass or Ganges clay; some days He would even carry someone's basket to their home. All the Vaiṣṇavas would cry out in distress, 'What are you doing, Viśvambhara, what are you doing!' In this way, Viśvambhara became, every single day, the very servant of His own servants." (2.2.34–47)

Here too the Lord's devotional mood — His intense longing to worship Kṛṣṇa — is displayed.

(d) Kīrtana at His own house. "Every evening, all the devotees would gather, little by little, at the Lord's own house; the venerable Mukunda would begin reciting verses in the mood of devotion — the very sound of Mukunda's blessed voice was enough to send the crown-jewel of Brahmins [the Lord] into absorption. Crying 'Say Hari!,' the Lord would begin to roar, falling in every direction, impossible for anyone to hold; fear, laughter, trembling, perspiration, hairs standing on end, roaring — every emotion displayed at once. Witnessing this wondrous sight, the devotees sang on in joy — the Lord's ecstasy of love knows no restraint. The whole night would pass as if a single moment; only toward dawn would the Lord regain some measure of outward awareness. In this way Śrī Śacīnandana performed kīrtana ceaselessly, night after night, at His own house." (2.2.13–20) Here too the Lord's devotional mood is expressed.

Devotional moods after the self-revelation

(e) Kīrtana in Śrīvāsa's courtyard. After His self-revelation, the Lord one day told the devotees: "Hear this, the essence of all mantras — why should even a single night pass idly among us? Tonight, all of you, resolve upon this: we shall perform the auspicious rite of kīrtana. Performing saṅkīrtana together with everyone, we shall bathe in the Ganges that is devotion incarnate. Let the world be delivered by hearing Kṛṣṇa's name — for others' sake alone are you all my very treasure and life." Hearing this, all the Vaiṣṇavas rejoiced, and Mahāprabhu began His divine kīrtana pastimes — nightly kīrtana at Śrīvāsa's temple, and some days at Candraśekhara's house. (2.8.106–11)

In this way the Lord performed kīrtana with the devotees for a full year before taking sannyāsa: "For a year and some months He performed kīrtana in this manner." (2.23.43)

(f) Kīrtana on Hari-vāsara nights. "On the sacred night of Hari-vāsara, the Lord, the very life of the universe, began the rite of Hari-kīrtana with dance; in blessed Śrīvāsa's courtyard the auspicious rite began, and the sound of kīrtana rose — 'Gopāla, Govinda!' From dawn Viśvambhara danced on, group after group of fine singers joining in turn. (2.8.138–40) All sang kīrtana as Gauracandra danced; mighty Nityānanda held Him as He wheeled about, and Advaita, unnoticed, gathered the dust of His feet." (2.8.142–43) — and so on.

Here too the Lord's devotional mood is displayed.

§29. Śrī Gaurāṅga's Mood of Rādhā (§§29–30)

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa nowhere states outright that Mahāprabhu was absorbed in the mood of Rādhā. The word "Rādhikā" occurs only once in his entire book, and even there not in reference to Mahāprabhu but to Gadādhara Dāsa: "Gadādhara Dāsa took on the mood of Rādhikā." (3.5.238) Nor does the word "Rādhā" appear anywhere else in Caitanya-bhāgavata that we have found. One of the Lord's pastimes he calls a pastime "in the mood of the gopīs" (2.25.178) rather than explicitly "in the mood of Rādhā" — yet this very pastime is, in substance, a Rādhā-mood pastime. Caitanya-bhāgavata describes the Lord's Rādhā-mood pastimes in many places; a couple are noted here.

(a) At Candraśekhara Ācārya's house. While dancing before the Lakṣmī-deity image at Candraśekhara Ācārya's house, the Lord, in a moment of absorption, "said, 'Come, dear friend, let us go to Vṛndāvana' — revealing then the mood of the beautiful girl of Gokula." (2.18.143) The "beautiful girl of Gokula" is Śrī Rādhā — this passage speaks directly of the Lord's mood of Rādhā.

(b) Chanting "gopī, gopī." One day, Mahāprabhu, chanting "gopī, gopī, gopī" instead of the name of Kṛṣṇa, flew into great anger upon hearing Kṛṣṇa's name spoken: "'What kind of Kṛṣṇa is this of yours — a great thief! A deceitful, wicked cheat — who would even worship him? Out of jealous rage he cut off a woman's nose and ears; like a common bandit he took Bāli's life by stealth. What business do I have even with talk of that thief? Chase away anyone who speaks his name!'" (2.24.16–19) Here the mood of Śrī Rādhā, in Her formidable, imperious aspect (durjaya-mānavatī), is expressed (see commentary at 2.24.16).

(c) Chanting "Vṛndāvana, gopī, gopī." "One day, the Lord of the universe, absorbed in the mood of a gopī, chanted ceaselessly, 'Vṛndāvana, gopī, gopī!' By some chance a student happened by and, not understanding His mood, replied: 'Why do you say gopī, gopī, fallen Nimāi? Abandon gopī, gopī and say Kṛṣṇa instead — what merit is there in the name gopī, gopī? The Vedas declare merit lies in the name of Kṛṣṇa.'" Not understanding the Lord's altogether different mood, this ignorant student provoked the Lord to reply: "'That thief Kṛṣṇa — who worships him? Ungratefully he killed Bāli without cause; out of jealousy he cut off a woman's nose and ears; he took Bali's entire kingdom and banished him to the netherworld — what good would come to me from taking his name?'" — so saying, Mahāprabhu, absorbed in the mood, seized a pillar and rushed to strike the student. (2.25.178–85)

Here too the mood of Śrī Rādhā in her formidable, imperious aspect is expressed (see commentary at 2.24.16).

§30. Śrī Gaurāṅga's Blazing Sāttvika Transformations

Several passages in Caitanya-bhāgavata describe the Lord's pastimes in terms that reveal the arising, within Him, of the "blazing" (sudīpta) form of the sāttvika-bhāvas [the eight involuntary bodily transformations of ecstatic love described in rasa-śāstra]. The author himself, of course, never uses this technical term — he simply records, in his own words, what eyewitnesses told him, and since his informants themselves likely lacked the technical vocabulary to identify what they had witnessed as specifically "sudīpta sāttvika," Vṛndāvana Dāsa naturally does not use that term either — just as, in describing the Lord's Rādhā-mood absorption, he never uses the words "Rādhā-bhāva" outright. He simply set down the symptoms as reported to him, without attempting a technical diagnosis — probably because his own overwhelming absorption in narrating the pastimes left no room for such analysis. This does not diminish the weight of his account in the least — if anything, it enhances it.

To understand that the Lord did indeed experience this blazing sāttvika-bhāva, some knowledge of its defining marks is necessary — briefly explained here.

The nature of sudīpta sāttvika-bhāva. Eight involuntary transformations arise from the deepest love (prema) directed toward Kṛṣṇa: tears, trembling, hairs standing on end, perspiration, choked voice, paralysis, change of bodily color, and fainting (loss of all bodily movement and mental awareness) — these eight are called the sāttvika-bhāvas, the "eight sāttvikas."

Depending on the intensity of the underlying love in the heart, these Kṛṣṇa-related sāttvika transformations manifest in the body with correspondingly varying intensity, passing through five successively stronger stages: smoky (dhūmāyita), kindled (jvalita), radiant (dīpta), blazing (uddīpta), and fully blazing (sudīpta).

A sāttvika-bhāva that manifests only faintly, whether alone or mixed with another, and can still be concealed, is called "smoky."

If two or three sāttvika-bhāvas arise at once, and can still be concealed only with effort, they are called "kindled."

If three, four, or five sāttvika-bhāvas arise at once and cannot be restrained or concealed at all, they are called "radiant."

If five, six, or all of the sāttvika-bhāvas arise together and reach their highest pitch, they are called "blazing" (uddīpta).

"Sudīpta" (su + uddīpta) means "excellently blazing" — when, in mahābhāva (the love felt by Kṛṣṇa's own beloved gopīs), all the sāttvika-bhāvas together reach the very pinnacle of blazing intensity, they are called sudīpta sāttvika (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.3.47).

The signs of this "sudīpta" intensity are as follows: tears flow from the eyes like a river's current, sometimes like a jet from a syringe; in trembling, the teeth chatter audibly, each tooth seeming to move independently; in the thrilling of hairs, the flesh at the hair-roots rises like boils, or like the base of silk-cotton thorns; in perspiration, sweat pours out copiously and with great force; in choked voice, no word at all can be uttered — at most one or two syllables, or sometimes only a bare "go, go"; in paralysis, the body becomes rigid and motionless as wood or stone; in change of color, the bodily complexion is altered entirely; in fainting, the breath grows so faint it seems to have ceased altogether, even the pulse in the abdomen disappearing.

Sāttvika-bhāva blazes to this degree in no one but Śrī Rādhā. In separation from Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the sāttvika-bhāvas reach this "sudīpta" intensity in Śrī Rādhā alone — never in any other gopī, and certainly never in Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself (see Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi, Sthāyi-bhāva-prakaraṇa, verse 132 and its commentary; and §40 below). So if this same sudīpta intensity of sāttvika-bhāva is observed in Mahāprabhu, there can be no doubt whatsoever about His absorption in the mood of Rādhā. The passages in Caitanya-bhāgavata showing this blazing sāttvika-bhāva in Śrī Gaurāṅga are now presented.

Instances of blazing sāttvika-bhāva in Śrī Gaurāṅga

(a) Blazing tears in separation from Kṛṣṇa. "Crying 'Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa,' the Lord weeps; His mother watches the whole courtyard fill with His tears. 'Where is Kṛṣṇa, where is Kṛṣṇa,' the Master cries — and with each utterance His love grows still greater." (2.1.42–43) Here blazing tears in separation from Kṛṣṇa are displayed.

(b) Blazing tears, trembling, thrilling, and fainting. After beholding Viṣṇu's lotus feet [at Gayā], on the Lord's return, Śrīmān Paṇḍita described His condition to the assembled devotees: "...wherever He beheld some wondrous sight, He began speaking of Kṛṣṇa; the moment He tried to take the name of the Lord's holy feet, the whole place filled with the water of His eyes. His whole body trembled violently, thrilling all over with gooseflesh; crying only 'Alas, Kṛṣṇa!' He fell to the ground, all bodily strength gone, fainting; after a while His awareness startled back; then, saying 'Kṛṣṇa' once more, He began to weep, as if the goddess Gaṅgā herself had come to meet Him." (2.1.61–65) Here blazing tears, trembling, thrilling, and fainting are all displayed.

(c) Blazing fainting, tears, trembling, and thrilling regarding Ratnagarbha Ācārya. On hearing, from a Brahmin's recitation, the Bhāgavata verse beginning "śyāmaṁ hiraṇya-paridhiṁ..." (10.23.22) as spoken by Ratnagarbha Ācārya, the Lord's students described His condition thus: "'...such wonder! Such trembling, such tears, such thrilling as yours — we have never witnessed the like anywhere. Yesterday, as you sat pondering over the manuscript in town, a certain Brahmin recited a Bhāgavata verse; hearing it you fainted, all life seemingly gone from your body — we were astonished. Regaining consciousness you wept, as if you had met the Ganges herself. Then such trembling came upon you that a hundred men together could not hold you still; thrilling arose from head to foot, your golden radiance drenched in saliva, sweat, and dust.'" (2.1.347–53) Here fainting, tears, trembling, and thrilling — all blazing — are displayed.

(d) Blazing tears, trembling, thrilling, paralysis, and fainting. "Mahāprabhu Viśvambhara performed kīrtana daily with all the Vaiṣṇavas. (2.2.158) His supreme absorption was beyond compare, and the devotees themselves could not fully grasp what they witnessed — who can describe the ecstasy that would come upon Him, the very Lord Himself calling it boundless? A hundred men could not hold His trembling; from His eyes flowed what seemed a hundred rivers; His body would thrill like the surface of a jackfruit, and again and again He would burst into loud, joyous laughter; at times He would faint in bliss for a full hour, and upon returning to awareness would speak of nothing but Kṛṣṇa; His roars were enough to split the ears that heard them, and by His mercy all His devotees are delivered; His whole body would turn rigid as a post one moment, and the next grow soft as butter." (2.2.160–66) Here trembling, tears, thrilling, fainting, and paralysis — all blazing — are displayed, along with loud laughter and roaring befitting such intensity.

(e) Blazing perspiration, trembling, and fainting during Hari-vāsara kīrtana. During kīrtana on the sacred Hari-vāsara night: "Whenever the Lord fainted in bliss, everyone would fearfully chant 'Hari' at His ear; again and again His whole body trembled violently, as a child's teeth chatter in bitter cold; again and again great sweat poured over His body, as if the Ganges herself, personified, had entered it; at times His limbs burned like fire, drying up sandalwood paste the instant it touched Him; again and again a wondrous, heavy sighing overcame Him, and everyone would move to one side, away from before Him." (2.8.156–60) Here perspiration, trembling, and fainting — all blazing — are displayed, together with the fierce heat and sighing of Rādhā's own anguish in separation.

(f) Blazing tears, trembling, thrilling, and fainting. "Whenever anyone, in whatever way, simply said 'Hari,' the Lord, hearing it, would fall, forgetting Himself entirely; great trembling, tears, thrilling over His whole body — He would roll in the dust of the town in great abandon. That ecstasy which would bless even Brahmā to witness, the people of Navadwip beheld in multitude; seeing His deep swoon at last, all His servants gathered, gently lifted Him, and carried Him home." (2.24.9–12) Here tears, trembling, thrilling, and fainting — all blazing — are displayed.

(g) Blazing tears at Kāṭoyā. Arriving at Kāṭoyā to take sannyāsa, the Lord told Keśava Bhāratī: "You alone can give me my beloved Kṛṣṇa — Kṛṣṇacandra dwells within you always." (2.26.151) Then, absorbed in love, the Lord began to dance, and Mukunda and the other devotees began to sing: "Indescribable was the stream from the Lord's eyes — how could it be told even by a mouth with endless tongues? As He whirled in dance the water flew, and in that very water everyone present bathed; everyone was drenched in the Lord's tears of love, men and women, young and old alike, all crying 'Hari, Hari!'" (2.26.157–59) Here blazing tears are displayed.

(h) Blazing tears at Chatrabhoga. After sannyāsa, on the road from Shantipur to Nīlācala, when the Lord reached Chatrabhoga, after taking alms: "...absorbed, rinsing His mouth, He repeated again and again, 'How much farther to Jagannātha?' The moment Mukunda began kīrtana, the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha began to dance; all the fortunate residents of Chatrabhoga watched the very Lord of Vaikuṇṭha's pastimes dance before them. Tears, trembling, roaring, thrilling, paralysis, sweat — who can say how many transformations arose? What wondrous stream of love flowed from His eyes — as if the Ganges herself had descended in the month of Bhādra! As He whirled in dance the water flew, and in that water everyone bathed. This I call the very avatāra of love itself — such power exists in none but Caitanyacandra." (3.2.119–25) Here blazing tears are displayed.

(i) All sāttvika-bhāvas blazing at once on the seashore. After arriving at Nīlācala: "In this way the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha dwelt by the seashore with all His companions; every night, in the deepest privacy, He performed kīrtana there with great eagerness. The Lord, master of ecstatic dance, danced in the mellow of His own love, and all who watched floated in bliss; hairs standing on end, tears, trembling, roaring, cries, sweat, and many colors of complexion, moment by moment — every single devotional transformation, all at once, appeared fully in the Lord's own body; every devotional transformation there embodied, each one a portion of the Lord's own being, a form of the highest transcendental knowledge." (3.3.201–6) Here, the "arising" of every devotional transformation (i.e., every sāttvika-bhāva) "at once" and "fully" describes precisely the blazing form of all eight sāttvikas together — and "many colors" here refers specifically to blazing change of bodily color.

(j) Blazing tears, trembling, thrilling, and fainting at Ramakeli. When the Lord, traveling from Nīlācala into Bengal, reached the village of Ramakeli, the town's watchman, reporting the Lord's appearance to the local ruler, said: "His whole body is softer than fresh butter, yet, wondrous to say, He falls again and again to the ground in a strange sport — falling a hundred times in one place, hard enough to break stone, yet His own body shows no wound; the hairs on the sannyāsī's body stand constantly on end, thrilling like the surface of a jackfruit; at times such trembling comes upon this sannyāsī that no ordinary person could hold Him still; the water from His two eyes is a wonder to see — how many rivers flow, I cannot say; at times He breaks into such laughter that He cannot stop laughing for a full hour; at times, hearing kīrtana, He faints entirely, and everyone grows afraid, seeing no awareness left in Him at all." (3.4.35–41) Here thrilling, trembling, tears, and fainting — all blazing — are displayed.

(k) King Pratāparudra's own witness of blazing love. Watching the Lord dance from a hidden vantage point at Nīlācala, King Pratāparudra described what he saw: "Hidden, the king watched the Lord dance — most wondrous, the like never before seen. An unbroken stream flowed from His holy eyes; trembling, sweating, changing color, thrilling, moment by moment; such falls the Lord took to the ground that none could watch without fear; such roaring the Lord let out that Pratāparudra covered his own ears on hearing it; at times He wept so in separation that the king saw, as it were, a river flowing upon the earth. So many, such boundless transformations — who could count how many arose, how many passed?" (3.5.148–53) Here blazing tears especially are displayed — and many further such passages exist besides.

All this shows that, on many occasions, the sāttvika-bhāvas blazed to their fullest intensity within Śrī Gaurāṅga. Since such blazing sāttvika-bhāva is possible in no one but Śrī Rādhā, it is thereby made perfectly clear that Śrī Rādhā, too, is present within Śrī Gaurāṅga, who is Himself identical in essence with Śrī Kṛṣṇa — that is, Śrī Gaurāṅga is, in a single body, the combined form of Vrajendra-nandana Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Śrī Rādhā together.

That Caitanya-bhāgavata also indicates, in various indirect ways, Gaura's nature as this combined form of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa is now shown.

§31. Śrī Gaurāṅga as the Combined Form of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa (§§31–36)

Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura nowhere states outright that Śrī Gaurāṅga is the combined form of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa — but certain specific statements he makes about Śrī Gaurāṅga make clear that this is indeed what he understood Him to be. The blazing sāttvika-bhāva already discussed is one such indication; several further statements are now taken up and discussed (§§32–36).

§32. Two Verses from Śrīmad Bhāgavatam

In introducing the reason for Śrī Gauracandra's descent, Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura first gives the reason for Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own descent: "For what reason does Kṛṣṇacandra take avatāra? Who has the power to know that truth? Yet the Bhāgavata and the Gītā themselves tell it, and I set down here the purpose for which He takes avatāra." (1.2.13–14)

He then quotes two verses of the Gītā on the reason for Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa's descent: "yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata..." (Gītā 4.7) and "paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām..." (Gītā 4.8), and paraphrases their meaning: "Whenever righteousness declines, and unrighteousness daily grows in power, then, to protect the saintly and destroy the wicked, Brahmā and the other gods petition the Lord at His feet, and the Lord, to establish the dharma proper to the age, descends to the earth with His full retinue."

Vṛndāvana Dāsa then states the reason for Śacīnandana Gauracandra's own descent:

"in the age of Kali, dharma has [declined]..." — [the OCR here is too damaged to render the couplet reliably] — but it is made perfectly clear from what follows that Śrī Śacīnandana descends "for the sake of kīrtana."

In support of this, the author then quotes two further verses of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam:

"O Uddhava, thus in Dvāpara-yuga [I appear] for the world's welfare; hear now how, in Kali-yuga too, [I appear] through various tantric means." (Bhāg. 11.5.31)

and the celebrated verse:

"In the age of Kali, intelligent people worship, through saṅkīrtana-sacrifice, the incarnation of the Lord who constantly chants the name of Kṛṣṇa; who is of a golden (kṛṣṇa-varṇa, or 'complexion described by Kṛṣṇa') complexion though not literally dark-skinned (tviṣā akṛṣṇam); and who is accompanied by His own limbs, weapons, and associates." (Bhāg. 11.5.32)

The author then continues: "In the age of Kali, Śrī Caitanya Nārāyaṇa revealed Hari-saṅkīrtana as the one dharma for all; the Lord, with His full entourage, descended in the age of Kali to uphold the dharma of saṅkīrtana." (1.2.20–21)

This famous Bhāgavata verse, "kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākṛṣṇaṁ...," describes both the true nature and the proper mode of worship of the divine form that descends specifically to propagate Hari-saṅkīrtana in the age of Kali — and Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura himself identifies this very form as none other than Śacīnandana Gauracandra. According to this verse, the essential truth of that form is that He is "kṛṣṇa-varṇa" (of Kṛṣṇa's own hue/description) yet "tviṣā akṛṣṇa" (not literally dark-complexioned), and accompanied by His own limbs, weapons, and associates; and the proper worship of Him is through saṅkīrtana as the principal offering.

This verse is discussed at much greater length in the commentary at 1.2.5–6 (see there for the fuller discussion). The gist of that fuller discussion is given here.

The divine form spoken of in the "kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākṛṣṇaṁ" verse is Svayaṁ Bhagavān, Vrajendra-nandana Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself — who, though naturally dark-complexioned (śyāma-varṇa or kṛṣṇa-varṇa), here has a visible hue (kānti) described as "not dark" — golden or yellow. He is further "sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣada" — meaning His very body, and its limbs, function as His own weapons and associates.

To understand "sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣada" properly, two Śruti statements must be considered. The Muṇḍaka and Maitrāyaṇī Upaniṣads both speak of a golden-hued (rukma-varṇa) Puruṣa, the Lord and doer of all, and call Him "brahma-yoni" — the source or womb of the impersonal Brahman spoken of elsewhere in the Śruti. This term "brahma-yoni" itself proclaims this golden Puruṣa's status as Svayaṁ Bhagavān, the Supreme Brahman. The Gītā states, "brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham" — "I am the very foundation of Brahman" — identifying Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself as this same source, this brahma-yoni. But Śrī Kṛṣṇa is dark or blue-complexioned, while the Puruṣa these two Upaniṣads call "brahma-yoni" is golden-hued. One might ask: are there then two "brahma-yonis," one dark and one golden? But there cannot be two brahma-yonis, since the term means precisely the Supreme Brahman, and the Supreme Brahman cannot be more than one — He is "eko 'py advitīyam," one without a second. The resolution is this: Para-brahma Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa has, from time immemorial, been self-manifest in boundless divine forms; this "golden Puruṣa" is one such form within that boundless array, and, being Himself brahma-yoni, He too possesses the full status of Svayaṁ Bhagavān. That is, among the Lord's various forms, it is specifically the Kṛṣṇa-form and this golden form that are Svayaṁ Bhagavān — Vāsudeva, Nārāyaṇa, Rāma, Nṛsiṁha, and the other forms are not.

The same Śruti passage further states that whoever beholds this golden Puruṣa has all his previously accumulated sin and merit (i.e., all karma and its fruits arising from māyā) instantly washed away, utterly destroyed, leaving not a trace of māyā's influence — and that person simultaneously attains prema, becoming, in his capacity to bestow love, equal to the golden Puruṣa Himself: "When the seer beholds the golden, active, controlling Puruṣa, the very source of Brahman, then the wise one, having washed away both sin and merit, freed from all taint, attains the highest state of equality." (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.3) This Śruti passage also shows that this golden Puruṣa does indeed descend into the universe — otherwise how could ordinary, māyā-bound souls, still bound by sin and merit, ever behold Him? And since the mere sight of Him frees everyone from māyā's bondage instantly — even purifying a demon of his own demonic nature — and bestows prema, it is clear that He descends into the universe precisely in order to bestow prema indiscriminately through the mere sight of Himself. When Svayaṁ Bhagavān descends into a universe, He descends together with His own associates, who assist in fulfilling His purpose there; He also employs weapons to slay demons, which likewise serve that same universal purpose. But since the mere sight of this golden Puruṣa's own body and limbs is enough to dispel a demon's demonic nature and grant him prema instantly, it follows that His very limbs themselves function as His weapons and associates. This is precisely why Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, following the sense of this Śruti passage, calls Him "sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣada" — He whose own limbs are present as weapons together with His associates.

Regarding the phrase "tviṣā akṛṣṇam" ("not dark in complexion") in the verse, the fuller discussion shows: it is precisely because Śrī Kṛṣṇa, naturally dark-complexioned, is embraced over His entire body by the golden-complexioned Śrī Rādhā that Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa takes on a golden (or yellow, or fair) complexion (see the full verse-commentary for details).

In this way it becomes clear that the divine form spoken of in the Bhāgavata verse "kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākṛṣṇaṁ" is the combined form of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa — none other than the golden Puruṣa spoken of in the Śruti. And Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura has told us that this very form is Śacīnandana Gauracandra (the verse-commentary further demonstrates that every mark attributed to Him in these Śruti and Bhāgavata passages — golden complexion, and being "sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣada" — is indeed present in Śrī Gaurāṅga).

The word "kṛṣṇa-varṇam" in the verse can also mean "one who describes (varṇayati) Kṛṣṇa" — that is, one who glorifies and chants the names and qualities of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Yet the verse simultaneously tells us that, in essence, He is Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself, the combined form of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, a special manifestation of Kṛṣṇa's own self. His chanting the names and qualities of Kṛṣṇa reveals His own devotional nature as well — He experiences supreme bliss both in chanting and in hearing Kṛṣṇa's own names and qualities. This is precisely why His worship is through offerings centered on saṅkīrtana — for the very purpose of worship is to please the object of worship.

This also shows that the divine form described in this verse is the one to be worshiped in the age of Kali, and since saṅkīrtana is His principal mode of worship, it naturally follows that He would propagate saṅkīrtana Himself. Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura tells us that this very form spoken of in the verse is Śacī's son Gauracandra — and since the form in this verse is the combined form of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, it follows directly from Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own statement that Śrī Gaurāṅga is the combined form of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa.

§33. A Statement in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata [Directly Using the Verse's Language]

Of Śrī Gaurāṅga, Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura writes: "The Lord dances amid His own limbs, weapons, and associates." (2.23.153) And elsewhere: "Along the Ganges bank, the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha goes dancing amid His own limbs, weapons, and associates." (2.23.236)

Here too the author directly uses the phrase "sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣada" from the "kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākṛṣṇaṁ" verse itself — confirming once again that Śrī Gaurāṅga is the very combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form spoken of in that Bhāgavata verse.

(a) A further statement from Śrīdhara's mouth. Śrīdhara told Mahāprabhu: "Keeping devotion hidden within your own body, thus it has now come out into the open, here at Navadwip. (2.9.211) Having conquered everywhere for devotion's sake, you go about the earth with devotion hidden within." (2.9.216)

Here Śrīdhara says that Gauracandra keeps hidden, within His own body, "bhakti" — that is, prema-bhakti. Only one who truly possesses a thing can keep it hidden; the question of concealing something one does not possess simply cannot arise. Śrīdhara says prema-bhakti exists within Śrī Gaurāṅga. This indicates more than merely Śrī Gaurāṅga's identity with Kṛṣṇa — for Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself does not possess prema or prema-bhakti directed toward Śrī Kṛṣṇa; that devotion exists, in its fullest form, in Śrī Rādhā alone. Already established is that Śrī Kṛṣṇa is present within the form of Gaura — Śrīdhara's statement now shows that Śrī Rādhā, the very possessor of that treasury of devotion, is present within Him as well; it is precisely because He possesses Rādhā's own treasury of devotion that devotion resides within Gaura. Thus Śrīdhara's statement, too, confirms that Śrī Gaurāṅga is the combined form of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa.

§34. The Indiscriminate Bestowal of Prema

No divine form other than Svayaṁ Bhagavān Vraja-vihārī Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself can bestow Vraja-prema — pure love utterly free of any awareness of divine opulence — since this particular treasure belongs to Vraja alone; no other divine form has access to it, nor can any other form bestow it. Hence it is said: "Padmanābha [Viṣṇu] has many avatāras, all of them auspicious in every way — but who besides Kṛṣṇa bestows prema even upon a mere creeper?" (cited in Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta, Pūrva-khaṇḍa 5.37) — "Though Padmanābha's avatāras are many, and all bring universal blessing, is there any among them besides Kṛṣṇa who bestows prema even upon a mere vine? [i.e., no one else does.]"

But even though Svayaṁ Bhagavān in His Kṛṣṇa form is the bestower of prema, He does not bestow it indiscriminately — He weighs worthiness. So long as any trace of desire for material enjoyment (bhukti — pleasure in this life or the next, even heavenly pleasure) or desire for liberation (mukti — any of the five kinds) remains in a practitioner's heart, He does not grant Vraja-prema. As Śukadeva told Parīkṣit: "O King, Mukunda, the Lord, is easily accessible as the very deity, kinsman, and dear master of the Yadus and yourselves — for such devoted souls the Lord sometimes grants even liberation, yet does not always grant the yoga of devotion [prema-bhakti] itself." (Bhāg. 5.6.18) This verse shows that Mukunda grants liberation to those who worship Śrī Kṛṣṇa, but does not always grant them bhakti-yoga (prema-bhakti) — that is, so long as desire for enjoyment or liberation remains in the heart, Śrī Kṛṣṇa withholds prema. The goddess Pārvatī herself has said the same: "So long as the demoness of desire for enjoyment or liberation dwells in the heart, how can the supreme rise of the bliss of prema [alternate reading: bhakti] ever occur there?" (Padma Purāṇa, Pātāla-khaṇḍa 46.62)

Yet this same Vrajendra-nandana Śrī Kṛṣṇa distributes prema indiscriminately in another, distinct form of Svayaṁ Bhagavān — as He Himself told Vyāsadeva: "O Brahman [Vyāsa], in certain ages of Kali I Myself, having accepted the sannyāsa order, cause sin-afflicted men to receive devotion to Hari." (cited at Cc. 3.15 [OCR uncertain], from an Upapurāṇa) — "In certain ages of Kali, I Myself descend and, taking sannyāsa, cause even sin-afflicted people to accept Hari-bhakti (prema-bhakti)." He grants Hari-bhakti — prema-bhakti — even to sin-afflicted people, and they accept it. In certain ages of Kali, taking the sannyāsa order, Śrī Kṛṣṇa grants prema-bhakti even to the sin-afflicted. This shows that, at such times, He bestows prema-bhakti on everyone indiscriminately — without weighing spiritual practice, without regard to desires for enjoyment or liberation. Ordinarily, no one can attain prema so long as māyā's influence remains active in the heart, so long as the fruits of sin and merit remain, or so long as desires for enjoyment or liberation persist; only through spiritual practice can māyā's influence be dispelled, and only by a guru's mercy can such desires be removed. But Kṛṣṇa Himself says that in certain ages of Kali (not all), He, in the form of a sannyāsī, bestows prema even upon the sin-afflicted — and it is easily understood that such people, being sin-afflicted, remain in māyā's grip. Even genuine practitioners typically still harbor desires for enjoyment or liberation, removable only through a guru's mercy. But if, in certain ages of Kali, Kṛṣṇa as a sannyāsī bestows prema even upon the sin-afflicted, then by the same logic (a fortiori) He surely bestows it upon sincere practitioners who still harbor such desires as well. This shows that at such a time, through some inconceivable power of His own, people's very bewilderment by māyā, their accumulated karma of sin and merit, and their desires for enjoyment and liberation are all simultaneously dispelled, and they attain prema-bhakti at once.

But this manner of indiscriminately bestowing prema on people high and low alike — without requiring the "price" of spiritual practice, giving prema freely to whomever, however unworthy — is itself a specific mark unique to the golden Puruṣa of the Śruti and the "sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣada" form of the Bhāgavata

— that is, unique to the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form (see §32 above). If this same mark is found in Śrī Gaurāṅga, that too shows Śrī Gaurāṅga to be the combined form of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa.

That Śrī Gaurāṅga is Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself has already been shown from Caitanya-bhāgavata's own statements; and that, having descended into this universe, He took sannyāsa is known to everyone. That Śrī Kṛṣṇa does indeed take sannyāsa in one of His forms is confirmed by the Mahābhārata's Sahasra-nāma-stotra itself: "Golden-complexioned, golden-limbed, of noble form, anointed with sandalwood, He performs sannyāsa, is peaceful, tranquil, devoted to steadfastness and peace."

In any case, that Śrī Gaurāṅga did indeed possess this mark — distributing prema indiscriminately to whomever, however unworthy — is confirmed by many statements in Caitanya-bhāgavata. A few are given here.

(a) The prayer of Brahmā and the other gods. Praising the infant Gaura in Śacī's womb, Brahmā and the gods said: "In the age of Kali, taking a golden form as a Brahmin, He teaches the saṅkīrtana-dharma hidden even from the Vedas. (1.2.163) Through saṅkīrtana the whole world will be filled; house to house the spread of prema-bhakti will occur. (1.2.175) Who has the power to describe this glory, Lord — You will freely distribute devotion to Viṣṇu, hidden even from the Vedas! Keeping hidden that very devotion that even liberation cannot buy, You will give it for the very purpose we all now pray for. Such a treasure You alone can give the world, Lord — Your own compassion is the sole cause of it." (1.2.181–83)

(b) The author's own statement. "Thus the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha, at Navadwip, taking the form of a householder Brahmin, studies. His avatāra's very purpose is to reveal prema-bhakti — nothing else is His intent." (1.1.5–6)

(c) The divine voice at Gayā. After Śrī Gaurāṅga received initiation from Īśvara Purī at Gayā, when He rushed off, as if maddened, toward Mathurā, a divine voice told Him: "Do not go to Mathurā now, crown-jewel of Brahmins — the time for that will come, go then; for now, return to your own house at Navadwip. You are the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha Himself, descended with all Your associates to deliver everyone — you shall perform saṅkīrtana filling every universe, and distribute the treasure of prema-bhakti to the world." (1.12.128–31)

(d) The Lord's own statement to Advaita. The Lord told Advaita: "I shall spread kīrtana house to house, till the whole world dances in My glory; even Brahmā, Śiva, and Nārada perform austerities for such devotion — that very devotion I now declare I shall distribute freely." Advaita said, "If you distribute devotion so freely, you will give it even to women, śūdras, and fools..." "...let even an outcaste dance, singing your name and glory!" Hearing Advaita's words, the Lord cried out — "Yes! Your very wish shall be granted!" (2.6.163–68)

Caitanya-bhāgavata contains further such statements. All these show that Śrī Gaurāṅga's very appearance was for the purpose of distributing prema-bhakti indiscriminately, to whomever — a truth affirmed by the devotees in prayer, by the divine voice itself, and by Śrī Gaurāṅga's own words. That He did indeed distribute prema in this indiscriminate way is now shown from actual instances.

§35. Śrī Gaurāṅga's Indiscriminate Distribution of Prema

(a) Ratnagarbha Ācārya. Ratnagarbha Ācārya attained prema upon receiving the Lord's embrace. When he recited the Bhāgavata verse "śyāmaṁ hiraṇya-paridhiṁ..." (10.23.22): "Seeing his devotional recitation, the Lord, pleased, embraced him; receiving the embrace of the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha, Ratnagarbha was instantly filled with prema." (2.1.299–300)

As already shown from the Muṇḍaka Śruti passage, mere sight of the Lord can grant prema — but this depends entirely on the Lord's own will. According to His will, He sometimes grants prema by mere sight, sometimes through an embrace, and sometimes through instruction in the chanting of Kṛṣṇa's name. Were the Lord not capable of granting prema indiscriminately, no one could attain it merely by receiving His embrace.

(b) Nārāyaṇī Devī. When the Lord said to the four-year-old Nārāyaṇī Devī, "Nārāyaṇī! Weep, crying Kṛṣṇa's name!" she was instantly overcome with Kṛṣṇa-prema (2.2.318–22).

(c) The Lord's granting of prema to Jagāi and Mādhāi (chapter 2.13).

(d) His granting of prema to Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya (3.3.104–7).

(e) His granting of prema to countless people at Vidyāvācaspati's house (3.3.318–33).

(f) His granting of prema, through the mere sight of Him, to hundreds of thousands of people at Kuliyā village (3.3.365–431).

Many further such instances exist. All this shows that the Lord, in various ways, bestowed prema indiscriminately upon countless people — which in turn confirms that this same Śrī Gaurāṅga is the golden Puruṣa of the Śruti and the "sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣada" form of the Bhāgavata — the combined form of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa (see §32 above).

§36. Gaura's True Identity Revealed through the Mention of His Divine Abode

Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura calls Gaura's abode of Navadwip "Śvetadvīpa." For instance: "The Lord of Vaikuṇṭha, Viśvambhara Prabhu, dances now in Navadwip — 'Śvetadvīpa' is Navadwip's own name, to be revealed by the Vedas hereafter." (2.23.289) And, during the deliverance of the Qazi, amid the town kīrtana, absorbed in love: "Someone cried, 'I am a Vaiṣṇava of Śvetadvīpa!'" (2.23.318)

The significance of this. Kavirāja Gosvāmī states: "Above all else is Śrī Gokula, the abode of Vraja's people — called Śrī Goloka, Śvetadvīpa, and Vṛndāvana; unlimited, all-pervading, coextensive with Kṛṣṇa's own transcendental body, pervading above and below without limit; it manifests within a given universe by Kṛṣṇa's own will — it is a single, undivided reality, with no second form." (Cc. 1.5.14–16) This shows that Śrī Gokula, Goloka, Śvetadvīpa, and Vṛndāvana are all names of Svayaṁ Bhagavān Vrajendra-nandana Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own transcendental abode — an all-pervading reality, always and everywhere present, yet, like Kṛṣṇa's own transcendental form, not visible to ordinary eyes. When Śrī Kṛṣṇa, by His own will, descends into a given universe (becoming visible to that universe's inhabitants), His abode too, by that same will, manifests and becomes visible there as well. And just as Śrī Kṛṣṇa is self-manifest in forms such as Nārāyaṇa, Lord of Vaikuṇṭha, His abode Goloka is likewise self-manifest as the abode proper to each of those respective forms: "Vaikuṇṭha and the other [abodes] are but a fraction of Vṛndāvana's own glory on this earth." (Padma Purāṇa, Pātāla-khaṇḍa 3.89) Just as those other divine forms are partial manifestations of Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself, so their abodes, such as Vaikuṇṭha, are partial manifestations of the true abode, Vṛndāvana, itself.

A Ṛg Veda mantra states: "That is your dearest abode, O [Viṣṇu], where the many-horned, tireless cattle graze — there indeed shines forth the highest station of Him of far-reaching glory." (Ṛg Veda 1.154.6) A similar statement occurs in the Yajur Veda as well. This Ṛg Vedic mantra speaks of Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa's abode Goloka, and confirms that this abode is all-pervading (see the full discussion of this Vedic passage in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava-darśana 1.1.95).

In any case, it has already been shown that Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura states outright that Śrī Gaurāṅga is Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa — so it follows that Śrī Gaurāṅga's own abode, Navadwip, is likewise Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own abode Śvetadvīpa (that is, Goloka-Gokula-Vṛndāvana). This mention of the abode may simply confirm, once again, Śrī Gaurāṅga's identity with Kṛṣṇa — or it may carry a further significance. As already established from Caitanya-bhāgavata's own statements, Śrī Gaurāṅga is not merely Śrī Kṛṣṇa, but the combined form of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa — a particular manifestation of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself. If so, His abode Navadwip would likewise be a particular manifestation of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's abode Śvetadvīpa (i.e., Goloka-Vṛndāvana) as it exists specifically in relation to that Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa combined form. If this further significance is accepted, it too confirms that Śrī Gaurāṅga is a particular manifestation of Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa — the combined form of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa.

§37. Gaura's True Identity Revealed through His Extraordinary Transformations of Love

After returning from Gayā, the Lord performed kīrtana nightly with the devotees in Śrīvāsa's courtyard. During that kīrtana: "However Prabhu Gauracandra danced, the devotees sang along in the greatest bliss. On the sacred night of Hari-vāsara, the rite of Hari-kīrtana began, and the Lord, the very life of the universe, began to dance; in blessed Śrīvāsa's courtyard the auspicious rite began, and the sound of kīrtana rose — 'Gopāla, Govinda!' From dawn Viśvambhara danced on, group after group of fine singers joining in turn. (2.8.137–40) All around rang the sound of 'Govinda,' as Śacī's son danced in delight, and all His companions were swept away with Him — 'Hari, Rāma, Rāma, Rāma!' — this same refrain. When the Lord wept, He would weep for a full watch, rolling on the ground, His hair coming loose and unbound. (2.8.146–48) Sometimes He would cry out loudly of His own accord, as if to split the universe itself; sometimes His body would seem to bear the weight of the entire universe, impossible for any attendant to hold; sometimes it would grow lighter than cotton, and everyone would joyfully carry Him upon their shoulders, circling the courtyard as if in celebration. Whenever the Lord fainted in bliss, everyone would fearfully chant 'Hari' at His ear. Again and again great trembling would seize His whole body,"

"like a child's teeth chattering in bitter cold [an instance of sudīpta trembling] — again and again great sweat would pour over His body, as if the Ganges herself, personified, had entered it [sudīpta perspiration] — at times His limbs would burn like fire, drying up sandalwood paste the instant it touched Him [intense anguish of separation] — again and again a wondrous, heavy sighing would overcome Him, and everyone would move away to one side [a mark of intense separation's sorrow]." (2.8.152–60) Various moods continued to arise within the Lord: "Whatever mood arose, each was more wondrous than the last; the son of Jagannātha danced in the bliss of His own name. Again and again hiccups seized His whole frame, and He could not remain still, falling to the ground; His golden body would, moment by moment, show many colors [sudīpta change of complexion]; moment by moment His two eyes would grow twice their size. Transcendent in Vaiṣṇava absorption, the Lord spoke things beyond ordinary description." (2.8.180–83) "All around, the auspicious Hari-saṅkīrtana rang out, and in the midst of it danced Jagannātha Miśra's own son. (2.8.192) This is what the Bhāgavata foretold for the age of Kali — I know this to be Vyāsa's very intent" (2.8.199 — referring, again, to the "kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākṛṣṇaṁ" verse) — "He whose service even Śaṅkara and Nārada sought, forsaking all their own opulence to become His servants in delusion — that same Lord now Himself takes up a straw between His teeth, begging for the mood of a servant, forsaking every pleasure. (2.8.206–7) The Lord, crown-jewel of Gaura, dances in the mood of a servant, amid the loveliest sound of kīrtana on every side. (2.8.214) Gauracandra, the very life of the universe, dances on, His absorption without end, moment after moment; such transformations as are never described or heard of even in the Bhāgavata itself, Śacī's son now reveals. Moment by moment His whole body turns rigid as a post [sudīpta paralysis], not moving even a hair's breadth; that same body, moment by moment, turns soft as if boneless, like butter. Sometimes His limbs appear two or three times their natural length, sometimes shrunk far smaller than natural [His hands, feet, and other limbs sometimes lengthening two or threefold, sometimes shrinking to extreme shortness]. Sometimes He sways as if drunk, laughing, His body swaying in constant bliss [at times a memory of Kṛṣṇa arises even in separation, and the very thought of reunion with Kṛṣṇa brings supreme joy]." (2.8.218–23)

Discussion. The passages quoted from Caitanya-bhāgavata are now discussed. Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura states repeatedly that Mahāprabhu danced and performed kīrtana absorbed in a devotional mood. He also calls Him "the life of the universe" (2.8.138), Śacīnandana who cries "Gopāla, Govinda" (2.8.139) and "Hari, Rāma, Rāma, Rāma" (2.8.147), and says "Jagannātha's son dances in the bliss of His own name" (2.8.180) — showing that this same Jagannātha's son, dancing and performing kīrtana in devotional absorption, is Himself none other than "Gopāla Govinda" — Vraja-vihārī Śrī Kṛṣṇa — for it is explicitly said that "Gopāla Govinda" is His own name.

Further, statements like "at times His limbs would burn like fire, drying up sandalwood paste the instant it touched Him; again and again a wondrous, heavy sighing would overcome Him" (2.8.159–60) show that the mood of intense separation was also present within the Lord. This shows that Mahāprabhu Śrī Gaurāṅga, though Himself Vraja-vihārī Śrī Kṛṣṇa, was, in His devotional mood, absorbed in the pain of intense separation, hearing and chanting Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own names such as "Gopāla, Govinda." Through this devotional hearing and chanting of the names, sāttvika-bhāva arose within Him, and the sāttvika transformations of trembling, perspiration, change of complexion, and paralysis reached their fully "blazing" (sudīpta) intensity (see the marks of sudīpta sāttvika-bhāva discussed in §30 above). But it has already been shown that such blazing sāttvika-bhāva is impossible in anyone but Śrī Rādhā, and even in Śrī Rādhā occurs only during separation from Śrī Kṛṣṇa (§30 above). Since this very blazing sāttvika-bhāva — possible only in Śrī Rādhā, and only in separation from Kṛṣṇa — is observed in Śrī Gaurāṅga, it follows beyond doubt that Śrī Rādhā, too, is present within Śrī Gaurāṅga. And since Vṛndāvana Dāsa also states that Śrī Gaurāṅga is Vraja-vihārī Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself, his own account makes it perfectly clear that Śrī Gaurāṅga is the combined form of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa — and it is precisely because the mood of separation from Kṛṣṇa arose within the Rādhā-aspect present in that combined form that the sāttvika-bhāvas blazed to their fullest intensity.

Such blazing intensity of sāttvika-bhāva is not, in itself, unusual for Śrī Rādhā — in separation from Kṛṣṇa it is, in fact, entirely natural to Her. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam and the scriptures following it do describe Śrī Rādhā's own blazing sāttvika-bhāva. But Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura writes: "Such transformations as are never described or heard of even in the Bhāgavata itself, Śacī's son now reveals." (2.8.219) What kind of wondrous transformation, unknown even from the Bhāgavata's own account of Rādhā in Vraja, does he mean? Vṛndāvana Dāsa himself tells us: limbs lengthening two or three times their natural size, or shrinking to extreme shortness (2.8.222); the eyes sometimes doubling in size (2.8.182); and so on. Vṛndāvana Dāsa states that these wondrous transformations of love appeared in the Lord's body specifically at Navadwip, in Śrīvāsa's courtyard. Kavirāja Gosvāmī, too, records that such wondrous transformations continued to appear in the Lord even later, during His residence at Nīlācala after sannyāsa, writing: "Such a mood as is never seen among men nor heard of in any scripture, this crown-jewel of sannyāsīs now reveals." (Cc. 3.14.76) Among the scripturally unprecedented states of the Lord that Kavirāja Gosvāmī describes, those corresponding to what Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura describes here are quoted: "The Lord's fallen body stretched five or six hands long, unconscious, no breath stirring at the nostrils; each hand and foot stretched a full three hands, the joints separated, only the skin remaining taut like a drum-head over each stretched joint. (Cc. 3.14.60–63) Within His belly, His hands and feet showed dark as Kṛṣṇa's own form; foam at His mouth, His body thrilling, His eyes streaming tears; He lay unconscious like a hollow gourd — outwardly inert, yet inwardly overwhelmed by boundless emotion." (Cc. 3.17.15–16) The eyewitness Dāsa Gosvāmī himself records this same pastime of the Lord's in his own Śrī Gaurāṅga-stava-kalpataru. Both Dāsa Gosvāmī and Kavirāja Gosvāmī state that this condition would sometimes come upon the Lord specifically through the mood of Śrī Rādhā, anguished in separation from Kṛṣṇa.

One might now ask: Śrī Rādhā's own mood of separation from Kṛṣṇa is, after all, a mood belonging properly to Vraja — so why, if Rādhā, present within Śrī Gaurāṅga, becomes absorbed in that Vraja-mood, does this produce the described wondrous transformation of limbs — a transformation not recorded of Śrī Rādhā in Vraja itself?

[The text continues into a doctrinal explanation, taken up in the following section, of why this extraordinary bodily transformation is unique to Gaura's manifestation of Rādhā's mood rather than occurring in Vraja itself.]

The answer seems to be this. In the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form of Śrī Gaurāṅga, Kṛṣṇa is present within, and Rādhā without — Rādhā's own golden form, melted by the force of Her love, embraces Kṛṣṇa's dark form on every side with Her own limbs. So whatever limb of Śrī Gaurāṅga becomes distorted is, in truth, Kṛṣṇa's own limb. When a joint separates, it is Kṛṣṇa's own limbs on either side of that joint that pull apart from one another — while the skin covering the joint, which is in truth Rādhā's own limb, does not separate, though it too stretches and distorts somewhat. This shows that the prema which surges up in Rādhā at the intensity of Her anguish in separation from Kṛṣṇa is powerful enough to pull apart Kṛṣṇa's own limbs — a force even the all-powerful Kṛṣṇa Himself cannot fully resist, though for Rādhā it is not quite as irresistible, since Her own limbs, too, become somewhat distorted and slackened by it. It seems that Rādhā's very purpose, in this, is to make Kṛṣṇa Himself directly experience the wondrous power of Her own love. And even though His limbs are pulled apart in the process, Kṛṣṇa feels no pain in this at all — only supreme bliss. When the Lord's form shrinks and contracts, one limb drawing into another, Rādhā's own limb — His skin — likewise slackens correspondingly; and here too Kṛṣṇa feels no pain, only supreme bliss, since the very love of Rādhā's that produces this condition in Kṛṣṇa is, in its own essential nature, itself bliss (see the commentary at 2.1.45). This is precisely why Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes that even as the Lord lay unconscious, shrunk like a gourd — "outwardly inert, yet inwardly overwhelmed with bliss" (Cc. 3.17.16). (A fuller discussion of this topic is found in Manträ 12.4b [reference as given in the original].)

In any case, this discussion of Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's account of Mahāprabhu's wondrous elongation and contraction shows that such transformations of love are possible only for the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form — confirming that Śrī Gaurāṅga is that very form, and that this wondrous transformation itself stands as powerful proof of Gaura's identity as the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form.

§38. The Mystery of Śrī Gaurāṅga's Devotional Mood

The name for love directed toward Kṛṣṇa is bhakti, or prema-bhakti. The fullest form of this love always resides in Śrī Rādhā alone. The technical name for the particular stratum of love present within Her is mādana — the very fullest, most completely unfolded stratum of prema. Since this mādana gives rise to every possible mood of love, it can also be called "prema itself" (svayam-prema). Just as the divinity of Svayaṁ Bhagavān is itself the very source of the divinity present in all His other forms, so too the prema of mādana is the very source of every other stratum of prema. Such prema, or bhakti, exists in no one but Śrī Rādhā — She is the crown-jewel of all devotees, and the fullest devotional mood resides in Her alone. Since Śrī Gaurāṅga is Śrī Kṛṣṇa combined with Rādhā, the fullest devotional mood resides in Him as well. This is the deep mystery of Śrī Gaurāṅga's own devotional mood — a mood that belongs, in truth, to Hari's own essential nature.

§39. The Mystery of Śrī Gaurāṅga's Indiscriminate Bestowal of Prema

As already noted, the fullest prema resides in Śrī Rādhā alone. That which is imperishable and inexhaustible is called "full" or "fullest." "Taking the full from the full, only the full remains" (Śruti). Prema which, however freely and completely spent, remains as full as before — this alone is called full or fullest prema. Śrī Rādhā is the possessor of just such a full, undivided treasury of prema, and Śrī Gaurāṅga, being combined in form with Rādhā, is likewise the possessor of that same undivided treasury.

Since it is a function of the hlādinī (pleasure-giving) potency, Kṛṣṇa-prema or Kṛṣṇa-rati is, in its own essential nature, bliss itself: "Rati [devotional attachment] is, in its essential form, bliss itself" (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu). Prema is inherently supremely sweet, a wonder beyond description to taste. And the more concentrated prema becomes, the greater its sweetness grows — just as sugarcane juice, the more it is boiled down and concentrated, grows correspondingly sweeter to the taste. Śrī Rādhā's mādana-prema is the most concentrated, most intensely distilled stratum of prema there is — so its sweetness, its wonder of taste, is unsurpassed by anything else. Being combined in form with Rādhā, Śrī Gaurāṅga is the possessor of this same supremely sweet, full, wondrous treasury of prema — and He is also its taster. For it is a property inherent in prema's own nature that, wherever it resides, it causes itself to be tasted in myriad ways (see Manträ 12.4a). Indeed, one very reason for Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own union with Rādhā in a single form is precisely to taste Rādhā's own prema (see Manträ 12.1, 4).

Even in ordinary worldly experience, we see that one who becomes enraptured by tasting something supremely sweet naturally wishes to share that taste with others — though, since worldly things are limited in quantity, he cannot give it to everyone. As already shown, the treasury of prema that Śrī Gaurāṅga possesses, and constantly tastes, is full — undivided, imperishable, inexhaustible — and its sweetness is likewise boundless. So His eagerness to let everyone taste that sweetness is entirely natural, and, since that treasure of prema is imperishable, there is no reason for any hesitation in distributing it — that is, His overwhelming eagerness to share it with everyone has no cause to restrain itself. This is why His eagerness to bestow prema on everyone, indiscriminately, remains boundless at all times — He distributes prema freely to whomever, and in doing so feels supreme bliss Himself. It is precisely because He is the combined form of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa that Śrī Gaurāṅga is capable of bestowing prema indiscriminately on anyone at all. This is the mystery of His indiscriminate bestowal of prema — and this too is a property inherent in His own essential nature.

§40. Śrī Gaurāṅga's Opulence and Its Mystery

(a) The wondrousness of His opulence. Mahāprabhu Śrī Gaurāṅga revealed His divine opulence (aiśvarya) on many occasions, sometimes in most wondrous forms — as, for instance, before a Vedic Brahmin. This Brahmin worshiped Bāla-Gopāla Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and had, on three occasions, offered food while reciting the Bāla-Gopāla-Kṛṣṇa mantra — and on all three occasions, a naked child Nimāi had come and eaten the offering. Seeing this happen a third time, the Brahmin cried out in distress, whereupon: "The Lord said: 'O Brahmin, you are generous indeed! You called Me, and I came — what fault is there in Me? Chanting My own mantra, you summoned Me; I could not help but come to you. You constantly long to see Me — so I have let you see Me now.' At that moment the Brahmin beheld a most wondrous, extraordinary sight: an eight-armed form bearing conch, disc, mace, and lotus; in one hand butter, which He ate, while with two other hands He played the flute; Śrīvatsa and the Kaustubha jewel shining on His chest amid a jeweled necklace, His whole body adorned with bejeweled ornaments; a fresh guñjā-garland and peacock feather crowning His head, His moon-face with reddish lips; His two lotus eyes swaying as He laughed, a Vaijayantī garland and shark-shaped earrings swinging; His lotus feet adorned with jeweled anklets, their nail-light dispelling all darkness. The Brahmin saw a wondrous kadamba tree there, saw Vṛndāvana itself, heard the cries of birds; on every side he saw cowherd men, gopīs, and cows — everything he had ever meditated upon, he now beheld directly. Seeing this wondrous opulence, the Brahmin fainted at once in bliss." (1.3.266–77)

This shows that the Vedic Brahmin beheld a most wondrous, unprecedented form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa — an eight-armed Kṛṣṇa — and that too in Vṛndāvana, beneath a kadamba tree, surrounded by cowherds, gopīs, and cows, with two hands eating butter, two playing the flute, and the remaining four bearing conch, disc, mace, and lotus. In Vṛndāvana, Kṛṣṇa is always two-armed; even at Mathurā and Dvārakā He is ordinarily two-armed, occasionally four-armed — but no scripture anywhere speaks of an eight-armed Kṛṣṇa. This is a truly wondrous thing. The simultaneous butter-eating and flute-playing, in the very same form and at the very same moment, is itself a wondrous mingling of His childhood and adolescent pastimes; and the presence of conch, disc, mace, and lotus alongside the butter-eating and flute-playing is itself a wondrous mingling of the Vraja-līlā and the Dvārakā-līlā. Is this extraordinary account, then, merely Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own invention? It cannot be — for Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja himself accepts and briefly confirms this same episode: "Three times He ate the guest-Brahmin's food; afterward, in secret, He delivered that Brahmin." (Cc. 1.14.34) Kavirāja Gosvāmī would never have accepted a fabricated account of a false event. So what, then, is the reason for this wondrousness? That is now explained.

The Purāṇas show that when the Lord reveals some aspect of His opulence, that revelation is sometimes accompanied by an equally wondrous and unusual combination of further opulences. This is seen, too, in the Bhāgavata's account of Brahmā's bewilderment (Brahma-mohana-līlā). We ordinarily know of only a single Nārāyaṇa, not of countless Nārāyaṇas; and we know that countless millions of universes exist under that single Nārāyaṇa's dominion — but we do not ordinarily know of countless Nārāyaṇas, each with his own countless millions of universes under him; nor do we ordinarily know that, within each of the countless universes under a single Nārāyaṇa, every being from Brahmā down to a blade of grass simultaneously takes personified form, in that very place, to offer that universe's own Nārāyaṇa prayers of praise. Yet all of this is seen in the Brahma-mohana-līlā. Brahmā saw that every calf and every cowherd child accompanying Śrī Kṛṣṇa had become a jewel-bedecked, yellow-silk-clad, four-armed Nārāyaṇa bearing conch, disc, mace, and lotus — and that under each such Nārāyaṇa were countless millions of universes, and that within each universe, everyone from Brahmā downward had taken personified form, simultaneously, in the very same place, offering prayers to that universe's own presiding Nārāyaṇa.

Since Kṛṣṇa had many calves and cowherd companions with Him, Brahmā thus beheld countless Nārāyaṇas at once. Here too, this manifestation of opulence, and this convergence of multiple opulences together, was equally wondrous and unprecedented.

There seems to have been a specific reason for this wondrous, unprecedented display of opulence in the Brahma-mohana-līlā as well: Brahmā, wishing to witness Kṛṣṇa's supreme glory, had stolen Kṛṣṇa's cowherd companions and their calves — and it was to fulfill Brahmā's own wish that Kṛṣṇa displayed such wondrous, unprecedented opulence.

The opulence and convergence of opulences witnessed by the Vedic Brahmin in Caitanya-bhāgavata is, likewise, just as wondrous and unprecedented as that displayed in the Brahma-mohana-līlā — and this wondrousness, too, has its reason. Vṛndāvana Dāsa states that the Vedic Brahmin "beheld whatever he meditated upon" (1.3.270); and the Lord Himself told the Brahmin, "You constantly long to see Me — so I have let you see Me now" (1.3.262). The meaning of these two statements is this: that Brahmin was a worshiper of Bāla-Gopāla, so the primary object of his meditation was Bāla-Gopāla — Yaśodā's own darling, the butter-loving child Kṛṣṇa. Along with the memory of this Bāla-Gopāla, it likely also occurred to him that this same Bāla-Gopāla had descended in Kaṃsa's prison bearing conch, disc, mace, and lotus — and whenever this thought was present in his mind, his meditation was, in effect, upon the conch-disc-mace-lotus-bearing Kṛṣṇa as well. So whenever he thought of the butter-eating Kṛṣṇa, he was meditating on Bāla-Gopāla; and, thinking of Bāla-Gopāla, other pastimes of Śrī Kṛṣṇa — His boyhood and adolescent pastimes, His dress and ornaments, His companions — would also come to his mind, and at those moments his meditation was, in effect, on Kṛṣṇa in those various pastime-forms. Likely, too, he sometimes wished to see other things as well. It was to fulfill all these various desires and objects of the Brahmin's meditation at once that the Lord showed him everything together, in a single form, at a single moment — hence the wondrousness. Such wondrous and unprecedented manifestation and convergence of opulence is seen, too, in the revelation of the six-armed form and other such forms.

(b) Kṛṣṇa and Gaurāṅga both display fully human pastimes and a fully human self-conception. Śrī Kṛṣṇa's pastimes are fully human (nara-līlā), and He maintains a fully human self-conception (nara-abhimāna). Though Svayaṁ Bhagavān, He considers Himself simply a man (nara), not God — and He does not regard Himself as possessing any opulence at all (see the discussion of the word "Jagannāthasuta" in the commentary at 1.1.2). His own eternally-established associates — whether Nanda and Yaśodā, or Subala and Madhumaṅgala, or Śrī Rādhikā and the other gopīs — are all personified forms of His own essential potency, and thus not ordinary conditioned souls (jīva-tattva) at all; and yet even they think of themselves simply as "men" (or women), and think of Kṛṣṇa, too, as simply one of themselves — a "man." But even though Kṛṣṇa considers Himself a "man," and even though His own eternally-established associates consider Him a "man" as well, He is, in reality, Svayaṁ Bhagavān — so the fullest opulence must still be present within Him, since the Lord's opulence is itself a form of His own essential potency, and therefore inherent in His very nature.

Serving the Lord, or assisting in His pastimes, is itself a function inherent in that opulence's own nature — and this is seen even within the Vraja-līlā itself. Every single pastime of Vraja contains within it a display of opulence. Yet neither Kṛṣṇa's own associates, nor Kṛṣṇa Himself, regard that opulence as "Kṛṣṇa's own opulence" — indeed, Kṛṣṇa Himself does not even become aware that such opulence has manifested at all, and in some cases even His own associates remain unaware of it. Take the rāsa-līlā, for instance. The rāsa dance began with a hundred million gopīs. Each gopī, having obtained her own beloved Kṛṣṇa entirely to herself, felt the wish to please Him through wholehearted, personal service — and this wish to please Kṛṣṇa was, in truth, simply the gopīs' own love for Him. Through the combined power of this love, arising simultaneously in a hundred million gopīs at once, Kṛṣṇa Himself, moved by love, also wished to be present, individually and separately, beside each and every one of those hundred million gopīs at the very same time, to please each of them simultaneously. Knowing His wish, His own opulence-potency manifested Kṛṣṇa individually beside each of the hundred million gopīs — yet neither Kṛṣṇa nor any single gopī became aware that this had happened. Each gopī, absorbed entirely in her own service to her own beloved, whom she believed she alone possessed, had neither occasion nor inclination to look elsewhere or to inquire whether Kṛṣṇa was present with any other gopī as well; nor did she have any means of discovering it. Kṛṣṇa's own state was exactly the same. Had they known that Kṛṣṇa was present with every single gopī at once, the rāsa dance itself could never have taken place — everyone would have been overcome with astonishment and awe instead. This account shows that it was this potency — knowing Kṛṣṇa's own wish — that manifested His opulence of its own accord, thereby serving Kṛṣṇa by fulfilling His own desire. This is Kṛṣṇa's own pastime-assisting potency, also called yoga-māyā, or līlā-śakti.

Even when no such wish arises at all in Kṛṣṇa's own mind, evidence shows that this līlā-śakti still assists His pastimes whenever the need arises — as in the slaying of the demon Aghāsura. On the day of Aghāsura's death, Kṛṣṇa was accompanied by countless calves and countless cowherd children. Driving the calves ahead of them, the cowherd boys advanced, admiring the beauty of the hills, when at one point they saw what seemed to be part of a mountain shaped like an enormous serpent, lying with its mouth agape, its upper lip touching the sky, its tongue lying on the ground like a broad path. They discussed among themselves this strange shape of the mountainside, and, curious to explore the cave, sent the calves in first and followed. Kṛṣṇa was behind them. Overhearing their talk, Kṛṣṇa grew anxious for them, realizing this was no mountain formation at all, but the demon Aghāsura in the form of a vast serpent, lying with mouth open to devour them all. Alarmed, He hurried after the boys — but they had already entered the demon's belly. As Kṛṣṇa advanced as far as the demon's throat, His own body expanded to such a vast size that the suffocating demon died.

What is to be noted here is this. First, Śrīmad Bhāgavatam gives no hint whatsoever that Kṛṣṇa ever consciously wondered whether this was a mountain formation or something else — yet He somehow knew it was Aghāsura, without any indication of how He came to know it; He simply knew. Second, when Kṛṣṇa advanced to the demon's throat, no wish arose in Him that His body should expand to a vast size — one who considers Himself simply "a man" could hardly have such a wish arise in Him at all — and yet His body did expand, choking the demon's breath. Even without His own wish arising, His līlā-śakti itself informed Him that this was Aghāsura, and, at the proper moment, caused His own body to expand — showing that even though Kṛṣṇa does not consider Himself to possess any opulence, His opulence, or līlā-śakti, sometimes manifests its own power on its own initiative in the service of His pastimes, whether or not any wish of His has consciously arisen.

Now consider Śrī Gaurāṅga in this same light. Śrī Gaurāṅga is Śrī Kṛṣṇa combined, in a single body, with Śrī Rādhā. Kṛṣṇa's pastimes are fully human, and He holds a fully human self-conception; so does Rādhā. It follows easily that Śrī Gaurāṅga, too, holds fully human pastimes and a fully human self-conception. And yet, being Svayaṁ Bhagavān, His opulence must still be present — and His līlā-śakti will, whether or not any wish consciously arises in Him, extend its influence exactly as needed, whenever His pastimes require it.

(c) Conclusion — Śrī Gaurāṅga's opulence, and its mystery. Though Svayaṁ Bhagavān, Mahāprabhu Śrī Gaurāṅga holds a fully human self-conception, and His own essential nature is devotional — the mood of a servant (see §28 above). Yet much opulence has manifested within Him (see §27 above), and the mood of the gopīs, too, appeared within Him — itself, in truth, a variety of devotional mood.

Śrīla Murāri Gupta writes of the Lord in his own kaḍacā: "Sometimes in the mood of the gopīs, sometimes in the mood of a servant, sometimes in the mood of the Lord Himself — this self-controlled, self-satisfied Lord instructs His own people accordingly." (Kaḍacā 3.31.7) The kaḍacā further states: "Sometimes, in the mood of the Lord, He grants various boons to His servants, and in this way, taking many different forms, instructs the people through His dancing." (Kaḍacā 2.4.4) And: "Sometimes, imitating various avatāras for the sake of instructing people, He sports accordingly." (Kaḍacā 1.16.13)

Murāri Gupta's statements show that one purpose of the Lord's manifesting opulence was to instruct His own people, grant various boons to devotees, and teach the world at large. But since He held a fully human self-conception, it was not possible for Him to manifest such opulence of His own initiative — just as with Kṛṣṇa's own manifestations of opulence, Śrī Gaurāṅga's manifestations of opulence, too, are the work of His līlā-śakti.

Just as, in the Vraja-līlā, the līlā-śakti manifested Kṛṣṇa's opulence while still preserving His human self-conception intact (see Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava-darśana, Part 1, §12.137, pp. 354–74) — with Kṛṣṇa Himself remaining unaware that any opulence had even manifested — so too with Śrī Gaurāṅga. A few statements from Caitanya-bhāgavata illustrate this.

"Once the mood of the Lord had subsided, in the presence of the assembly, the Lord, as if unaware of everything, asked His own devotees: 'Have I shown some improper agitation? If so, tell me, and let me die on the spot. Kṛṣṇa is my very life's treasure, Kṛṣṇa is my dharma; you are my brothers, my friends, birth after birth. I have no refuge but Kṛṣṇa's service — tell me if I have shown any other inclination.' Fearful, all the Vaiṣṇavas fell silent, none of them able to speak." (2.16.32–36)

In these couplets, the author tells us that the mood of a servant, or devotee, is the Lord's own heartfelt, essential nature — and that were this devotional mood ever interrupted, even briefly, the Lord would be ready to give up His very life. The mood of the Lord (aiśvarya, opulence) is, in this sense, the very opposite of the mood of a servant. The Lord regarded such Lordly opulence as a mere "adventitious agitation" (upādhika cāñcalya) — "upādhika" meaning that which does not belong to one's own essential nature but arrives from outside (see commentary at 2.16.35). Since the mood of a devotee-servant was His own essential nature, and Lordly opulence was contrary to it, the Lord called that opulence "adventitious," and its manifestation mere "agitation." So whenever He had been absorbed in Lordly mood — that is, whenever His līlā-śakti had manifested His opulence — and that mood had then subsided, He would ask the devotees: "Have I shown some adventitious agitation? You are my eternal companions, birth after birth — if I ever abandon my devotional mood for something adventitious, you must tell me; there is no purpose in living once fallen from Kṛṣṇa's service; the instant I learn I have fallen from it, I shall give up My life at once." Hearing this, the devotees grew terrified and could say nothing — for they had, of course, just witnessed Him manifest opulence; if they told Him so, He might, for all they knew, actually resolve to give up His life.

Vṛndāvana Dāsa also gives a specific instance from one particular day. Absorbed in Lordly mood, the Lord once declared: "At the very start of My kīrtana-mission, I shall spread kīrtana house to house; whoever offends My devotees, out of pride in learning, lineage, knowledge, or austerity, that wretch shall not receive prema-yoga from Me — instead, into hell I shall cast him, along with Brahmā himself [if he offends]." Hearing this, all the devotees floated in bliss; after a moment Śrī Śacīnandana grew composed again. "Have I shown some agitation?" the Lord asked. The devotees replied, "Nothing adventitious at all." The Lord then embraced them all in love: "Never accept any offense of mine, at any time." (2.5.50–55)

Here, when the devotees answered the Lord's question by saying "nothing adventitious at all," the Lord took this to mean He had displayed nothing but His devotional mood, and joyfully embraced them. This shows that the Lord retained no memory whatsoever of what He had done while in Lordly mood — only a vague sense that He had done something, which is precisely why He felt the need to ask the devotees at all.

In the first of these two passages from Caitanya-bhāgavata, the Lord asks the devotees whether He has shown "adventitious agitation" only after that Lordly mood has "subsided" — that is, only once He has regained ordinary outward awareness. In the second, He asks "have I shown some agitation?" only once He has "grown composed again" — again, only after regaining outward awareness. In both cases, the question comes only after outward awareness returns. As already shown, the Lord retained no memory at all of having manifested Lordly mood or opulence — only a vague sense that He had done something. Why only a vague sense?

As already explained, it is the līlā-śakti that manifests the Lord's opulence — the Lord never knowingly manifests it Himself — which is why He cannot even be aware that such a manifestation has occurred. Even this vague sense, upon regaining awareness, that He had done "something," is itself the work of the līlā-śakti — which, in order to make brilliantly clear that the Lord's own essential nature is devotional, planted this vague impression in His mind, prompting the essentially devotional Lord to ask His devotees about His own "agitation."

In any case, this discussion shows that the Lord never manifests opulence of His own conscious will. Whenever some wish arises within the Lord — or sometimes even when no wish arises at all — His own līlā-śakti manifests opulence as His pastimes require. This also shows that whenever manifesting opulence is needed to fulfill the Lord's own wish, the līlā-śakti manifests it accordingly; and even when no wish of the Lord's has arisen, the līlā-śakti still manifests His opulence as needed — whether to show mercy to devotees, to instruct the world, or to fulfill some other purpose connected with the Lord's descent into this world.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own account confirms this same power of the Lord's līlā-śakti. He writes that at Nīlācala, before the Ratha-yātrā chariot, the Lord "sometimes appears as a single form, sometimes as many forms — the Lord manifests power exactly as the occasion requires. In His pastime-absorption the Lord has no awareness of Himself at all — knowing His wish, the līlā-śakti accomplishes it. Just as Vṛndāvana once performed the rāsa and other pastimes, so Gaura performs supernatural pastimes moment by moment." (Cc. 2.13.63–65)

Kavirāja Gosvāmī also records that, one day, the Lord danced with the Gauḍīya devotees while circling Jagannātha's temple at Nīlācala: "After Mahāprabhu had danced a while, He stood behind the temple to continue kīrtana; four groups sang loudly on four sides, while Gaura Rāya danced His fierce tāṇḍava dance in the center. After dancing a long while the Lord grew still, and instructed four great devotees to dance in His place — Advaita Ācārya leading one group's dance, Nityānanda Rāya another, Vakreśvara Paṇḍita a third, and Śrīvāsa a fourth. Standing in the middle, Mahāprabhu watched — and there, too, a manifestation of His opulence occurred: as the four groups danced and sang on every side, each dancer, watching, felt certain that the Lord was watching him alone." (2.11.207–16, continuing) The Lord's own wish to watch all four dances at once — known to the līlā-śakti — was thus fulfilled by her; yet the Lord Himself remained unaware of this power of His own līlā-śakti at work: "How He could see in every direction at once, this He did not know."

(d) The difference between how the residents of Vraja and the residents of Navadwip each perceive that opulence. A few related words are offered here on how Kṛṣṇa's Vraja associates and Gaura's Navadwip associates each experience His opulence differently.

As already shown, Kṛṣṇa's Vraja associates, even when they witness His opulence, never regard it as "Kṛṣṇa's own opulence," and never think of Kṛṣṇa as Bhagavān. But when this same Kṛṣṇa descends at Navadwip, together with those same associates, in the form of Śrī Gaurāṅga, and His līlā-śakti manifests His opulence there, His associates do perceive that opulence as His own opulence, do regard Him as Svayaṁ Bhagavān, and do worship Him with various offerings and prayers accordingly — as seen at the time of the Lord's great self-manifestation and elsewhere. What is the reason for this difference?

The reason for this seems to be found in Caitanya-bhāgavata's own account. After returning from Gayā, the Lord showed the greatest reverence and devotion toward the Navadwip devotees, telling them, "By serving you I attain devotion to Kṛṣṇa" (2.2.43), and: "So saying, He would clasp someone's feet right there; wring out someone's wet cloth with His own hands, or personally hand someone a fresh dhoti" (2.2.43–44). Of all this, the author writes: "Thus Gauracandra teaches everyone about Bhagavān, personally performing service to the Vaiṣṇavas Himself; He carries baskets, He carries cloth, feeling no shame in it at all." (2.2.56–57) The Lord Himself demonstrated, through His own conduct, that service to the Vaiṣṇavas is necessary for attaining Kṛṣṇa.

The Lord Himself personally served tulasī and worshiped Govinda: "After bathing, Viśvambhara returned home; His students went each to their own homes. Changing His clothes and washing His feet, He watered and tended the tulasī plant; performing Govinda's worship according to proper rite, the Lord then sat down to take His meal." (2.1.183–85) The Lord is Himself Śrī Govinda — He has no need whatsoever to worship Govinda for His own sake. His engaging in devotional practice was solely to instruct ordinary souls.

This shows that the Lord's purpose, in personally practicing what He taught, was to instruct the souls of this world in devotional practice — and this was itself one of the worldly purposes of His descent. Because He had adopted the mood of a devotee, engaging in devotional practice was possible for Him at all, and so He could teach it to the world by His own personal example.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī puts the same substance into Kṛṣṇa's own mouth: "Never have I given prema-bhakti so freely — yet without devotion the world cannot endure. Everyone worships Me only through regulated devotion, and regulated devotion has no power to attain the mood of Vraja. The whole world is caught up in awareness of My opulence, and I take no pleasure in a devotion diluted by such opulence-awareness. Worshiping Me with such opulence-awareness, through regulated practice, one reaches Vaikuṇṭha and attains one of the four kinds of liberation. (Cc. 1.3.12–15) [Therefore] I shall inaugurate saṅkīrtana as a pair [Gaura-Nityānanda], and, bestowing the four moods of devotion, set the world dancing. I shall Myself adopt the mood of a devotee, and Myself, by My own practice, teach devotion to everyone — for dharma cannot be taught unless one practices it oneself. (Cc. 1.3.17–19) The dharma proper to each age is established through a partial incarnation — none but Myself can give Vraja-prema; for that purpose, taking My own devotees with Me, I shall descend to the earth in various sporting forms." (Cc. 1.3.20–21)

When Bhagavān descends into a universe, His own associates likewise assist in fulfilling His purpose there. The Lord Himself engaged in devotional practice, and had His associates do so as well — and it was through this that He taught devotional practice to the souls of the world.

The Bhāgavata's "kṛṣṇa-varṇa" verse shows that the Lord is Himself the object of worship in the present age of Kali (see the discussion at 1.2.5–6). Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura, too, speaks in many places of the worship due to Śrī Gaurāṅga, and states that Śrī Gaurāṅga is Himself sambandha-tattva — and therefore an object of worship (see §51a below). So worship of Śrī Gaurāṅga is itself necessary for attaining the highest spiritual goal. But since the Lord is Himself essentially devotional in nature, He cannot instruct others to worship Him — this must be accomplished through His devotees, who teach the world to worship Gaura by their own personal example. But this is possible only if they themselves perceive Gaura's opulence, or divinity — for otherwise, worshiping and praising Him as Bhagavān would not be possible for them either, and so they could not model such worship for the world. It is precisely to fulfill this purpose that the līlā-śakti causes Gaura's own associates to perceive His opulence and divinity.

Śrī Gaurāṅga, in His Kṛṣṇa aspect, is not essentially devotional — so engaging in devotional practice is not appropriate for Him, nor is teaching it by personal example; hence there is no occasion for His own associates to model such practice either. This is why the question of causing Kṛṣṇa's own Vraja associates to perceive His opulence or divinity simply never arises for the līlā-śakti in Vraja.

§41. Śrī Gaurāṅga Called "Vaikuṇṭhanātha," "Nārāyaṇa," and Similar Names

The discussion in §§21–27 has already shown that Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura calls Śrī Gaurāṅga the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa; and §§29–37 have shown that Caitanya-bhāgavata speaks of Śrī Gaurāṅga as the combined form of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa.

And yet it is also true that Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura, in many places, calls Śrī Gaurāṅga "Nārāyaṇa," "Vaikuṇṭhanātha," "Vaikuṇṭha-nāyaka," and similar names — a representative sample of such occurrences: "Nārāyaṇa" (1.9.155, 1.9.159, 1.12.106, 2.18.222); "Vaikuṇṭhanātha" (1.9.4, 1.10.158, 1.12.4, 1.12.130, 2.23.296); "Crown-jewel of Vaikuṇṭha" (1.8.280, 2.9.75); "Vaikuṇṭha-nāyaka" (numerous locations across the book); "Lord of Vaikuṇṭha," "Master of Vaikuṇṭha," "Ruler of Vaikuṇṭha," "Rāya of Vaikuṇṭha," "Lakṣmīkānta," "Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa," and so on, throughout.

Taken at face value, all these names would ordinarily refer to the four-armed Nārāyaṇa, Lord of the transcendental Vaikuṇṭha. But it has already been shown that Vṛndāvana Dāsa, in many other places, calls Śrī Gaurāṅga Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself, and that his account of Gaurāṅga's pastimes establishes His identity as the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form — so it is simply not credible that, in these instances, he actually intends the ordinary four-armed Vaikuṇṭha-Nārāyaṇa. Rather, in every one of these instances, he intends Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself — and, in some cases, the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form. This is now demonstrated.

"Nārāyaṇa" is indeed the name of the four-armed Lord of Vaikuṇṭha — but it is also a name of Svayaṁ Bhagavān, Nanda and Yaśodā's own son. Uddhava himself calls Nanda-Yaśodā's son "Nārāyaṇa," addressing Nanda and Yaśodā: "Surely you two are the most praiseworthy of embodied souls in this world, O giver of honor, since your devotion is fixed on Nārāyaṇa, the guru of all." (Bhāg. 10.46.30) And in Brahmā's own prayer, in the verse beginning "nārāyaṇas tvaṁ na hi..." (Bhāg. 10.14.14), Brahmā calls Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself the original Nārāyaṇa (mūla-Nārāyaṇa), and calls the well-known four-armed Nārāyaṇa merely one of Kṛṣṇa's own partial forms (see Śrīdhara Svāmī's commentary there). So Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Nārāyaṇa, and the four-armed Lord of Vaikuṇṭha is but His own partial manifestation. Since Vṛndāvana Dāsa elsewhere identifies Śrī Gaurāṅga as Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa, wherever he calls Him "Nārāyaṇa," he must intend this same original Nārāyaṇa, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa — for he states clearly elsewhere that this same Śrī Gaurāṅga is the very support of all divine forms, which the four-armed Vaikuṇṭha-Nārāyaṇa alone could not be.

Considering the meaning of the word "Vaikuṇṭha" itself confirms that Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa is likewise intended wherever Vṛndāvana Dāsa calls Śrī Gaurāṅga "Vaikuṇṭhanātha" and similar names. "Vaikuṇṭha" refers both to the transcendental abode beyond māyā and to any transcendental divine form beyond māyā (see commentary at 1.1.109) — so "Vaikuṇṭha-nāyaka," "Vaikuṇṭha-adhīśvara," and similar terms can equally mean "Lord of every transcendental abode." Vṛndāvana Dāsa does indeed call the Lord "Sarva-vaikuṇṭhādi-nātha" (Lord of Vaikuṇṭha and every abode): "With His devotees, by the seashore, the Lord of all the Vaikuṇṭhas sports in kīrtana; the Lord made His dwelling by the sea, sporting there in the ocean of devotional bliss." (3.3.254–55) As already shown, the one who "sports in the ocean of devotional bliss" is the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form — and it is precisely this form that Vṛndāvana Dāsa calls "Lord of Vaikuṇṭha and every abode." He could never be simply the four-armed Vaikuṇṭha-Lord, since the Vaikuṇṭha-Lord is not Kṛṣṇa, and there could be no possibility of His ever uniting with Rādhā. "Lord/Master of Vaikuṇṭha" can equally mean the ultimate source of every divine form — and the ultimate source of every divine form is none other than Para-brahma Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form of Śrī Gaurāṅga; the four-armed Vaikuṇṭha-Lord cannot be that ultimate source.

This same intended meaning is confirmed by examining the specific contexts in which Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura calls Śrī Gaurāṅga "Vaikuṇṭhanātha" and similar names. A few instances:

In the divine voice's own words, Vṛndāvana Dāsa records regarding Śrī Gaurāṅga: "You are Śrī Vaikuṇṭhanātha, descended with all your associates to deliver everyone; you shall perform saṅkīrtana filling every universe, and distribute the treasure of prema-bhakti to the world." (1.12.130–31) Distributing the treasure of prema-bhakti to the world is the work of the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form — it cannot be the work of the four-armed Vaikuṇṭha-Lord.

Vṛndāvana Dāsa also writes that, hearing the ceaseless sound of Hari's name from every mouth in every town, "Vaikuṇṭhanātha Prabhu Viśvambhara, hearing it, felt His whole body filled with joy." (2.23.296) Here the Lord is called "Vaikuṇṭhanātha" — and it is stated, in the same passage, that upon seeing this same "Vaikuṇṭhanātha," "countless millions of the townsfolk of Navadwip became maddened with the mellow of Kṛṣṇa-love." (2.23.312) The Vaikuṇṭhanātha whose very sight maddened countless millions with Kṛṣṇa-prema can only be the Lord of infinite Vaikuṇṭhas, Kṛṣṇa united with Rādhā — never the four-armed Vaikuṇṭha-Lord.

The devotees, in prayer, call Him "the crown-jewel of the fully manifest Vaikuṇṭha" (2.9.75) in the same passage where He is worshiped by the ten-syllable Gopāla-mantra and called the "deliverer from the witch Pūtanā's deceit" (2.9.60) — there can be no doubt this is Svayaṁ Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa Himself, called here "the crown-jewel of Vaikuṇṭha," not the four-armed Vaikuṇṭha-form — "crown-jewel of Vaikuṇṭha" meaning the crown-jewel of every divine abode, or of every divine form: Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself.

Of Tapana Miśra, it is said: "So saying, the Lord embraced him, and the Brahmin's body thrilled with love; receiving the embrace of the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha, the Brahmin felt supreme bliss." (1.10.145–46) The very embrace whose mere touch made Tapana Miśra's body thrill with love could only be that of the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form called "Vaikuṇṭha-nāyaka" here — not the four-armed Vaikuṇṭha form.

Of Ratnagarbha Ācārya: "Seeing his devotional recitation, the Lord, pleased, embraced him; receiving the embrace of the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha, Ratnagarbha was instantly filled with prema." (2.1.299–300) The very embrace whose mere touch filled Ratnagarbha "full with prema" could only be that of the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form — "Lord of Vaikuṇṭha" here meaning the Lord of every divine abode and form, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Himself.

Of Śuklāmbara Brahmacārī: "The fortunate Śuklāmbara rolls upon the ground; the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha happily eats cotton [in his ecstatic offering]." (2.16.132) Here the Lord tells Śuklāmbara: "My avatāra is to distribute prema-bhakti; birth after birth you are My own loving servant." (2.16.135) The "Lord of Vaikuṇṭha" whose avatāra's purpose is "to distribute prema-bhakti" can only be the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form, never the four-armed Vaikuṇṭha form.

"...the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha sports in the mellow of prema." (2.8.325) Such sporting "in the mellow of prema" is possible only for the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form, not for the four-armed Vaikuṇṭha form — so here too "Lord of Vaikuṇṭha" refers to the combined form.

Further examples are unnecessary. This discussion shows that wherever Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura uses names like "Vaikuṇṭhanātha," he intends Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself — in some places, specifically Kṛṣṇa united with Śrī Rādhā — never the four-armed Vaikuṇṭha-Nārāyaṇa.

In some places, Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura also calls Mahāprabhu "Tridaśera Rāya" (Lord of the thirty gods, i.e., Indra/the celestials' king — used here to mean "the highest Lord").

During the manifestation of the Lord's opulence at Navadwip, in the episode of Advaita's meeting with Him, it is said: "The Lord of the thirty roared, and rose to sit upon Viṣṇu's couch: 'The barber comes, the barber comes,' He cried again and again — 'I wish the barber to come see my divine form. (2.6.61–62) Every night the barber attends on Me; he is staying now at Nandana Ācārya's house — I have sent Rāmāi to find him and test him (i.e., Advaita, disguised). Go quickly and bring him here; I have spoken this myself, with joyful face.'" (2.6.67–69) Hearing the Lord's command from Rāmāi, Advaita came with his wife to the Lord: "He came to the fearless feet, and stood before Him, beholding a form unlike any in the whole universe." (2.6.73) The wondrous form Advaita beheld, "unlike any in the whole universe," was itself one of Kṛṣṇa's own extraordinary forms (see 2.6.74–85). Whoever revealed Himself in the form of Kṛṣṇa can be none other than Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself — and it is precisely He who is here called "Tridaśera Rāya," a term which, in its true sense, refers to Svayaṁ Bhagavān Himself (see commentary at 1.8.40).

The word "Tridaśera Rāya" also occurs in the letter Rukmiṇī Devī wrote to Śrī Kṛṣṇa: "Forgive my impertinence, O Lord of the thirty — I could not restrain my heart from merging with You." (2.18.80) Here too, Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself is called "Tridaśera Rāya."

In some places, Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura also has Mahāprabhu Himself call Him "Kṣīrodaśāyī" [the form of Viṣṇu reclining on the ocean of milk] — for example, in Lordly mood, the Lord tells Śrī Advaita: "I lay sleeping within the ocean of milk; My sleep was broken by the roar of your own love." (2.6.94) It is the Kṣīrodaśāyī form present within the Lord whose words the līlā-śakti here voices through the Lord's own mouth (see commentary at 2.6.94). Similar statements occur elsewhere as well.

All this discussion makes perfectly clear that wherever Vṛndāvana Dāsa calls Mahāprabhu "Vaikuṇṭhanātha" or similar names, or "Tridaśera Rāya," or "Kṣīrodaśāyī," he intends, in every such instance, Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own true nature — in some places specifically the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form — never anything else. This same understanding of Gaura runs consistently through the entirety of his book, from beginning to end.

§42. The Mystery of Śrī Gaurāṅga's Slaying of Demons

In introducing the reason for Śrī Gaurāṅga's descent, Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura quotes the two verses of the Gītā (4.7–8) and the two verses of the Bhāgavata (11.5.31–32) already discussed (§32 above). The Gītā verses show that whenever righteousness declines and unrighteousness rises, Śrī Kṛṣṇa descends age after age to protect the saintly, destroy the wicked, and re-establish dharma. The Bhāgavata verses show that in the present age of Kali, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa descends in a golden form to chant Kṛṣṇa's own names and glories, His very limbs functioning as weapons and associates — that is, He is "sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣada." As already explained (§32), the Muṇḍaka and Maitrāyaṇī Upaniṣads state that mere sight of this golden Puruṣa frees anyone — even a demon — completely from the fruits of accumulated karma, granting instant prema. This golden Puruṣa of the Upaniṣads is the very "sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣada" form of the Bhāgavata — and this form is Śrī Gaurāṅga (see the discussion at 1.2.5–6).

When Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa descended into this universe, He slew demons such as Kaṃsa, and Kaṃsa's own Cāṇūra, Muṣṭika, Baka, and Aghāsura, and propagated the dharma of that Dvāpara age. Śrī Rādhā, the supremely compassionate possessor of the full and undivided treasury of prema, never took anyone's life at all — Her supreme joy, it seems, lay only in bestowing prema upon every soul, expressing Her own compassion in that way alone.

Śrī Gaurāṅga is the combined form of that same Kṛṣṇa and that same Rādhā. To destroy the demonic Jagāi and Mādhāi, He summoned His own discus — and it seems His Kṛṣṇa-nature came to the fore in that moment. Yet He did not take their lives — instead He destroyed their demonic nature and granted them prema even Brahmā and the other gods find rare to attain. Here, it seems, His nature as the golden Puruṣa of the Upaniṣads and the "sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣada" form of the Bhāgavata — that is, the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form — came to the fore instead.

This shows that Śrī Gaurāṅga, the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form, does not take a demon's life, but rather destroys the demon's demonic nature and grants him prema instead. This is the true mystery of Śrī Gaurāṅga's "slaying" of demons — not the destruction of the demon's life, but the destruction of his demonic nature, and the bestowal of love. One whose demonic nature is destroyed forever is, by definition, no longer a demon at all.

This is why a devotional poet has written: "In avatāras such as Rāma, wielding various weapons in anger, You destroyed demons; but now, wielding no weapon, taking no one's life, You purify the hearts of all instead." For one whose mere sight destroys a demon's very demonic nature, the question of taking that demon's life simply cannot arise — nor can the question of wielding weapons to slay demons arise at all.

§43. Conclusion — Gaura-tattva in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata

The substance of what the discussion in §§20–42 has shown about Gaura-tattva in Caitanya-bhāgavata may be summarized as follows: Śrī Gaurāṅga is Vrajendra-nandana Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself — but He is not merely Śrī Kṛṣṇa; He is, in a single form, the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form. It is precisely because He is this combined form that Śrī Gaurāṅga possesses His characteristic devotional mood and His capacity to bestow prema indiscriminately — taking no demon's life, but destroying his demonic nature and granting him love instead. His descent, with Brahmā and His full retinue, was for the sole purpose of propagating the name-saṅkīrtana proper to the age of Kali, distributing prema indiscriminately to whomever, and teaching the true spiritual practice by His own personal example.

§44. Agreement Between Murāri Gupta's and Vṛndāvana Dāsa's Statements on Gaura-tattva

What Śrīla Murāri Gupta says of Gaura-tattva in his own kaḍacā is now discussed. Throughout the kaḍacā, in many places, he addresses Gaura by various names denoting Godhead — too numerous to list exhaustively here, but representative examples include: Akhileśvara ("Lord of all," 2.8.26), Acyuta (1.15.6), Aja ("the unborn," 2.10.13), Īśvara (2.5.20), Jagatpati/Jagadādi/Vibhu ("Lord/origin/all-pervading Lord of the universe," 1.1.2), Jagadīśvara (2.6.25), Janārdana (1.6.8), Jagad-yoni/Aja/Svayam-prabhu ("source of the universe, unborn, self-luminous," 1.2.11), Madhusūdana (2.8.2), and simply "Bhagavān" itself (used repeatedly throughout — e.g. 1.13.29–30, 1.14.10, 1.14.17, 2.2.21, 2.2.25, 2.4.21, 2.5.31, 2.6.2, 2.6.14, 2.6.18, 2.7.19, 4.2.10), "Anādi Bhagavān" ("the beginningless Lord," 2.10.6), and, most explicitly, "Svayaṁ Bhagavān" itself (1.12.19, 2.18.10; and, at 2.13.5, "Svayaṁ Bhagavān, self-satisfied, the supreme cause of the universe"). He is also called "Śrī Kṛṣṇa" outright in several places (1.7.25, 1.14.11, 2.1.8, 2.18.14), including as "the Kṛṣṇa whom Yaśodā once bound for breaking a clay pot in Dvāpara" (1.6.12), "Vanamālī Kṛṣṇa" (2.10.14), and "Rādhikā's own Lord of life" (4.8.6). He is called "Śrī Hari" or "Hari" throughout dozens of verses, and "Svayaṁ Hari" at several points (1.8.15, 1.10.17, 2.14.3), and also "Nanda-kiśora" (4.2.11).

This survey shows that Murāri Gupta, throughout his kaḍacā, consistently proclaims Śrī Gaurāṅga's divinity and His identity as Nanda's son, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. He also calls Śrī Gaurāṅga "Rādhikā's own Lord of life." That Śrī Gaurāṅga manifested various avatāras (divine forms) within Himself is likewise stated by Murāri Gupta (1.16.13), who records specific instances of such self-manifestation — the Nṛsiṁha form (2.11.8), the Śiva form (2.11.13–17), the Baladeva form (2.14.1–15), the Kṛṣṇa form (2.11.3–4), and others — all of which likewise proclaim Śrī Gaurāṅga's status as Svayaṁ Bhagavān, Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself.

Vṛndāvana Dāsa, too, states this same identity of Śrī Gaurāṅga with Kṛṣṇa (see §§21–24 above).

Murāri Gupta also speaks of Śrī Gaurāṅga's devotional mood (see 1.16.12–13, 2.1.19–30, 2.2.1–4, etc.), and of His being overwhelmed with love, His tears and other sāttvika transformations (see 2.1.10, 2.1.19–20, 2.2.5–7, 2.3.24, etc.), calling Him "the very ocean of the nectar of devotional mellows" (2.3.2). He also calls Him "Kṛṣṇa manifesting the mood of the gopīs" (2.10.15), "Kṛṣṇa manifesting the mood of a gopī" (2.15.7), "delighting in the mellow of Rādhikā" (3.15.18), "one absorbed in Rādhā's mood, enraptured with the mellow of sweetness" (3.15.23), "Śrī Nanda's own son manifesting the mood of the gopīs" (3.1.18), "the body of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa combined" (3.1.18), and "manifesting the moods of both, on account of Rādhā and Mādhava's oneness" (4.8.10). All this shows that, in Murāri Gupta's own kaḍacā too, Śrī Gaurāṅga is not merely Śrī Kṛṣṇa, but Kṛṣṇa combined, in a single body, with Śrī Rādhā — and it is for this very reason that His devotional mood, His mood as a gopī, His mood as Rādhā, and His being overwhelmed with love, all arise within Him.

Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura says exactly the same (see §§28–31 above).

On the reason for Śrī Gaurāṅga's descent, Murāri Gupta's kaḍacā states: Śrī Gaurāṅga descended to distribute prema-bhakti and propagate kīrtana (2.2.9); He taught the chanting of the holy name so that people might follow the dharma proper to their age (1.1.4–5); He made the three worlds devoted to Hari-saṅkīrtana (1.2.2); He personally practiced devotion Himself, thereby teaching devotional practice to the people (1.2.13); and, personally tasting the sweetness of Vṛndāvana, He caused His devotees to taste it as well (1.2.13).

Vṛndāvana Dāsa likewise states that Śrī Gaurāṅga, descending to inaugurate saṅkīrtana, propagated kīrtana and gave prema-bhakti to everyone, taught devotional practice to the souls of the world by His own personal conduct, and propagated the chanting of the holy name of Hari everywhere.

Murāri Gupta states that Śrī Gaurāṅga slew no one, but rather purified even demons' hearts (1.3.21) — a statement fully in agreement with Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own account (see §42 above).

This discussion shows that Murāri Gupta's statements on Gaura-tattva are in complete agreement with Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own. Murāri Gupta, having directly witnessed Mahāprabhu's pastimes and thereby gained direct realization of His true nature, generally set that realization down in his kaḍacā only in brief, sūtra form; Vṛndāvana Dāsa, working from the detailed accounts he received from eyewitnesses, has given a somewhat fuller account of the Lord's true nature. There is no difference at all between the two regarding the doctrine itself — the only difference lies in the manner of its telling, one in brief outline, the other in somewhat greater detail.

§45. Agreement Between Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja's and Vṛndāvana Dāsa's Statements on Gaura-tattva

What Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī says of Gaura-tattva in his own Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta is now discussed. Kavirāja Gosvāmī expounds Gaura-tattva at very great length; a few representative statements are quoted here as illustration.

"Svayaṁ Bhagavān is Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Truth — full knowledge, full bliss, the supreme greatness. He whom the Bhāgavata calls 'Nanda's son' — that same Kṛṣṇa has descended as Caitanya Gosāñi." (Cc. 1.2.5–6)

Quoting verses from the Brahma-saṃhitā, the Gītā, and the Bhāgavata on this same point of doctrine, Kavirāja Gosvāmī concludes: "That very Govinda is directly Caitanya Gosāñi — none is as merciful as He, in delivering the souls of this world." (Cc. 1.2.14)

Citing scriptural proof, Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes: "The truth beyond duality, beyond mere knowledge, is Kṛṣṇa's own essential form; Brahman, Ātmā, Bhagavān — these three are but [three aspects of] His form." (Cc. 1.2.5) And further: "That very Kṛṣṇa, source of all avatāras, Vrajendra-kumāra, has Himself descended in the form of Caitanya. This is Caitanya Gosāñi's own established truth: Svayaṁ Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa, Vrajendra's son." (Cc. 1.2.9, 1.2.102)

These statements of Kavirāja Gosvāmī show that Svayaṁ Bhagavān — the truth beyond duality and beyond mere knowledge, Vrajendra-nandana Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself — is Śrī Caitanya, or Śrī Gaurāṅga. Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura, too, has already been shown to say exactly this.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī further writes: "Rādhā is the full potency, Kṛṣṇa the fully potent — the two are not different, as scripture establishes; like musk and its fragrance, ever inseparable, like fire and its flame, never distinct — Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are thus, ever a single essential form; to taste the mellow of pastime, they take two bodies. To teach prema-bhakti, He Himself descends, taking on both Rādhā's mood and Her very radiance; in the form of Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, He has taken avatāra." (Cc. 1.4.86–87) And still more explicitly: "Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are one soul bearing two bodies, sporting with one another, savoring the mellow between them; that same pair is now, as one, Caitanya Gosāñi — the two have become a single place to savor that mellow." (Cc. 1.4.49–50)

These statements make clear that Kavirāja Gosvāmī understood Śrī Caitanya or Śrī Gaurāṅga to be not merely Śrī Kṛṣṇa, but Kṛṣṇa combined, in a single body, with Śrī Rādhā — the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form. It has already been shown that Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's own account leads to exactly this same conclusion.

Kavirāja writes that Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa "became one, to taste that mellow together" (Cc. 1.4.50). Exactly which mellow, and why Kṛṣṇa united with Rādhā in a single form to taste it, Kavirāja explains at great length (see Cc. 1.4.52–224). There it is explained that three desires of Kṛṣṇa's remain unfulfilled within the Vraja-līlā itself: to know the true greatness of Rādhā's love; to know the true nature of His own sweetness; and to know the particular joy Rādhā Herself experiences in tasting that sweetness. In Kṛṣṇa's own words, Kavirāja writes: "These three longings of Mine remain unfulfilled — they cannot be tasted through a nature foreign to hers. Without adopting Rādhikā's own mood and Her very radiance, these three joys can never be tasted; taking on Rādhā's mood, and Her very complexion, I shall descend to taste these three joys." (Cc. 1.4.98, 1.4.113) The phrase "cannot be tasted through a nature foreign to hers" (1.4.98) means this: the sole means of tasting Kṛṣṇa's own sweetness is love directed toward Kṛṣṇa — "That love, mature and pure, is the very cause of tasting Kṛṣṇa's sweetness" (Cc. 1.4.94) — but such love directed toward Kṛṣṇa cannot exist within Kṛṣṇa Himself; it exists only within His devotee-associates, and among them, most fully within Rādhā. So Rādhā alone tastes Kṛṣṇa's sweetness in its fullest form. Kṛṣṇa is the very object of that love, while Rādhā and the other gopīs are its receptacles — and only love of the receptacle-type can taste Kṛṣṇa's sweetness; love of the object-type cannot. Since the love within Kṛṣṇa Himself is necessarily of the object-type, it is, with respect to tasting His own sweetness, a "foreign nature" — unsuited to the task. In truth, the unfulfilled desire to taste His own sweetness is Kṛṣṇa's own principal longing; His other desires are secondary to it. To taste His own sweetness in its fullest form, Kṛṣṇa must become the receptacle of Rādhā's own love — and to become that receptacle, union with Rādhā in a single form is unavoidable. This is precisely why Kṛṣṇa, united with Rādhā in a single form, became Śrī Gaurāṅga.

Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī says exactly this in his own kaḍacā as well: "Rādhā is the transformation of love for Kṛṣṇa, the hlādinī potency itself; though one soul with Him, She once, long ago on this earth, took a separate body. That same pair, now called Caitanya, manifest, has attained oneness — I bow to that form of Kṛṣṇa, suffused with the radiance of Rādhā's own mood." And: "What is the greatness of Rādhā's love, unknowable even through analysis? What is My own sweetness, tasted by that love? And what is that joy of Hers, tasting My own nature? Out of longing to know these, suffused with Her very mood, the moon of Hari was born in the ocean of Śacī's womb."

It is on the basis of these very verses from Svarūpa Dāmodara's own kaḍacā that Kavirāja Gosvāmī gives the fuller account already discussed.

The very Six Gosvāmīs of Vraja — Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own instructing gurus, contemporaries of his own time — likewise affirmed this same doctrine. This is clear from the two verses of Śrīpāda Rūpa Gosvāmī's own Śrī Caitanyāṣṭaka that Kavirāja Gosvāmī quotes in establishing Śrī Gaurāṅga's identity as the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form:

"He who is the ultimate refuge of the celestial lords, the very culmination of the Upaniṣads' sages' endless bowing, the very distillate of the love of all the lotus-eyed cowherd maidens — that Caitanya — when will He again grace the sight of my own eyes?" (First Caitanyāṣṭaka, verse 2)

and

"That deity, of Caitanya's own form, who, curious to taste some other mellow of love hidden within the hearts of His own devotees, now reveals His own inherent radiance for all to see here on earth — may He show us the greatest mercy." (Second Caitanyāṣṭaka, verse 3)

Śrīla Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmī, in his own Śrī Gaurāṅga-stava-kalpataru, records many of Mahāprabhu's own pastimes of divine madness (divyonmāda) — and in doing so, Dāsa Gosvāmī too proclaims Śrī Gaurāṅga's identity as the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form, since such divine madness is possible in no one but Śrī Rādhā.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī also records that Mahāprabhu revealed Himself to Rāya Rāmānanda as "the King of rasa and the highest ecstasy in a single form" — that is, as the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form (see Cc. 2.8.220–40), and states outright that he composed this account of the Lord's pastime following Svarūpa Dāmodara's own kaḍacā (Cc. 2.8.263). This shows that Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own account is in complete agreement, not only with Kavirāja Gosvāmī, but with Svarūpa Dāmodara and the Rūpa-Raghunātha line of Gosvāmīs as well, regarding Śrī Gaurāṅga's identity as the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form.

Kavi Karṇapūra, too, speaks of Śrī Gaurāṅga's identity as the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form: "Where Brahmānanda itself plays but as one peak, where a pair of birds called Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa nest, their two natures made one — whose very shadow dispels the exhaustion of worldly existence, the very cause of the devotees' fulfillment — such a wish-fulfilling tree named Caitanya has appeared in this world." (Cc. Nāṭaka 1.7) On this point, too, Vṛndāvana Dāsa is in agreement with Karṇapūra.

In any case, on the reason for Śrī Gaurāṅga's descent, Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes: "This avatāra is to propagate the name and prema" (Cc. 1.4.8); "To teach prema-bhakti, He Himself descends, taking on both Rādhā's mood and Her very radiance; in the form of Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, He has taken avatāra." (Cc. 1.4.86–87) He further writes: "Thus Caitanya-Kṛṣṇa, the full Godhead... descended for two reasons, with His devotees — to taste prema and name-saṅkīrtana Himself, and through that very means, to spread kīrtana even among the outcastes, stringing a garland of holy name and prema and adorning the world with it. Thus, adopting the mood of a devotee, He personally practiced devotion, and thereby propagated it." (Cc. 1.4.33–37) On this point too, Kavirāja Gosvāmī's statements are in complete agreement with Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī also speaks of Śrī Gaurāṅga's indiscriminate bestowal of prema. Regarding the Bhāgavata's "kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ..." [verse, he writes]: "His splendor is directly that of molten gold, whose radiance dispels the darkness of ignorance; to destroy the sinful darkness of conditioned souls, His limbs, weapons, and associates take countless forms. Whatever action opposes devotion, whether ordinary duty or its transgression, is destroyed by the power of His very name — His very name is that supreme, saving power. Raising His arms, crying 'save, save!', He gazes with eyes of love; destroying all sin, He floods everyone with prema. Whoever beholds His holy limbs and sacred face has his sin destroyed and receives the treasure of prema. In other avatāras He comes with armies and weapons; Caitanya-Kṛṣṇa's army is His own limbs — His limbs themselves are His weapons, accomplishing His own purpose." (Cc. 1.3.46–52)

These statements, too, speak of Śrī Gaurāṅga's indiscriminate bestowal of prema — since Śrī Gaurāṅga, through the mere sight of Him, dispels the sins of anyone at all and grants instant prema. Here too Kavirāja Gosvāmī is in complete agreement with Vṛndāvana Dāsa (see §§34–35 above).

Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes that Mahāprabhu, "thus adopting the mood of a devotee, personally practiced devotion, and thereby propagated it" (Cc. 1.4.37) — speaking here of Mahāprabhu's devotional mood, exactly as Vṛndāvana Dāsa does (see §28 above). Kavirāja states that Mahāprabhu "personally practiced devotion, and thereby propagated it" — and Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own account shows exactly this as well (see §40d above).

This discussion shows that on Gaura-tattva, the reason for Gaura's descent, Gaura's indiscriminate bestowal of prema, Gaura's devotional mood, and His teaching of devotional practice through personal example, there is no difference whatsoever between Kavirāja Gosvāmī's statements and Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's own account — complete agreement is found throughout.

§46. A Discussion of Dissenting Views

(a) The editorial remarks in the third edition of Prabhupāda Atulakṛṣṇa Gosvāmī's edition of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. These editorial remarks reveal that Prabhupāda, having been bedridden with illness for four years, had, at his own instruction, Śrīla Satyendranātha Basu, M.A., B.L., handle the proofreading and related work for this third edition. The "editorial remarks" in question are Basu's own composition — his name appears beneath them — and there is no way of knowing whether Prabhupāda himself approved these particular remarks.

In one place in these editorial remarks, Basu writes:

"On reading Caitanya-bhāgavata and the later biographical and doctrinal works, one particular idea stands out clearly. Śrīla Kavi Karṇapūra and the Gosvāmīs have revealed a particular truth about Śrī Caitanya-tattva: that Śrī Nanda-nandana Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the source of all avatāras, the very propagator of pure conjugal mellow, took on Śrī Rādhikā's own mood and radiance and descended in the form of Śrī Gaurāṅga — this is stated, sometimes by hint and sometimes openly, throughout these works... But nowhere in Śrīla Caitanya-bhāgavata is this doctrine of Śrī Caitanya-tattva — this verse 'rādhā-bhāva-dyuti-sumbalitaṁ naumi taṁ kṛṣṇa-svarūpam' or anything resembling it — to be found... Did the incarnation of Vyāsa, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa, then simply not know this truth? And if he did know it, why did he not reveal it? We believe Caitanya-bhāgavata is the very first biography of Śrī Caitanyadeva in the Bengali language. Before it, there was no established custom of writing down, in the conversational vernacular, matters meant for scholarly readers...

...he did not reveal it [this doctrine]. This is why Caitanya-bhāgavata particularly propagates the pastime-narrative of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, or Śrī Nārāyaṇa, primarily in terms of divine opulence [rather than intimate sweetness]. Whatever gap Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa left in the detailed exposition of Śrī Caitanya-tattva, Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, having received direct instruction from the Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana, completed."

Since it seemed likely that others besides Basu might hold this same view of Caitanya-bhāgavata — especially given that these remarks appear in the "editorial statement" of Prabhupāda Atulakṛṣṇa Gosvāmī's own edited work — it has seemed necessary to say a few words on this point here.

Basu writes: "Nowhere in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata is this doctrine of Śrī Caitanya-tattva — this verse 'rādhā-bhāva-dyuti-sumbalitaṁ naumi taṁ kṛṣṇa-svarūpam' or anything resembling it — to be found."

My submission on this point is as follows. It is true that Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura nowhere states outright, in so many words, that Śrī Gaurāṅga is "the form of Kṛṣṇa suffused with the radiance of Rādhā's mood" — nor does he anywhere state outright that Śrī Gaurāṅga is the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form. But it has already been shown at length (§§20–43 above) that in his narration of Śrī Gaurāṅga's pastimes, he does in fact convey exactly this doctrine of Śrī Gaurāṅga's identity as the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form. So Basu's claim that "though Caitanya-bhāgavata boldly glorifies Caitanya's pastimes, Vṛndāvana Dāsa does not reveal the deep mystery underlying those pastimes" does not seem to have any real merit — nor does his further claim that "whatever gap Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa left in the detailed exposition of Śrī Caitanya-tattva, Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī... completed" appear to hold up either. For there is no evidence that Kavirāja Gosvāmī reveals any truth about Gaura-tattva that Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura does not himself already convey. The many pastimes of Rādhā-mood that Vṛndāvana Dāsa describes at length, up through the Lord's sannyāsa, Kavirāja Gosvāmī does not describe in comparable detail; conversely, Kavirāja gives an extensive account of the pastimes of divine madness (divyonmāda) after sannyāsa, including instances of incoherent, rapturous speech (pralāpa) — which Vṛndāvana Dāsa's account does not mention. The likely reason for this is that such incoherent speech is only one of several possible marks of divine madness, not present in every instance of it — Kavirāja himself does not claim that incoherent speech occurred during the pastime of the Lord's wondrous elongation and contraction, for instance. It seems that the pre-sannyāsa divine-madness pastimes Vṛndāvana Dāsa describes simply did not happen to include incoherent speech, which is why he does not mention it. Both authors, in any case, describe the Lord's pastimes of divine madness — so Kavirāja Gosvāmī's account of divine madness is not, in substance, anything new; incoherent speech during divine madness is merely one particular variety of it. Of the Lord's final pastimes, Kavirāja writes: "Such a mood as is never seen among men nor heard of in any scripture, this crown-jewel of sannyāsīs now reveals..." (Cc. 3.14.76)

In describing the Lord's Navadwip pastimes, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa says exactly the same: "Such transformations as are never described or heard of even in the Bhāgavata itself, Śacī's son now reveals." (Cb. 2.8.219; see §37 above). This shows that Kavirāja Gosvāmī reveals no truth about Gaura-tattva that Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa had not already revealed himself.

That Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, "having received direct instruction from the Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana," "completed" whatever gap "Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa left" regarding "Śrī Caitanya-tattva," is likewise not borne out by facts — as Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own statements show. Kavirāja never says that the Vṛndāvana devotees commanded him to write in order to fill some gap in Vṛndāvana Dāsa's exposition of Gaura-tattva. Instead he writes: "O deluded people, hear the Caitanya-maṅgala, by which you will know the whole of Caitanya's glory." (Cc. 1.8.29) This very statement shows that Vṛndāvana Dāsa left no gap whatsoever in glorifying Śrī Caitanya. He says the same again: "Vṛndāvana Dāsa composed the Caitanya-maṅgala, hearing which destroys all inauspiciousness — by which the glory of Caitanya and Nitāi is known..." (Cc. 1.8.31–32) Of the Vṛndāvana devotees' actual command to him, Kavirāja writes: "Caitanyacandra's pastimes are boundless and endless; [Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa,] in describing them, found the book growing and growing; seeing how it was growing, his mind grew hesitant, and some pastimes noted in his own outline he left undescribed — absorbed in describing Nityānanda's pastimes, Caitanya's own final pastimes were left remaining; the residents of Vṛndāvana longed to hear an account of those remaining pastimes." (Cc. 1.8.42–45) "...and all the other devotees resident in Vṛndāvana, all of them longed to hear the final pastimes, and mercifully commanded me; at their word I write, shamelessly." (Cc. 1.8.66–67)

These statements of Kavirāja Gosvāmī's make perfectly clear that Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa left no gap whatsoever in revealing Gaura-tattva — the only gap he left was in narrating Gaura's final pastimes, and it was specifically to fill that gap that the Vṛndāvana devotees commanded Kavirāja Gosvāmī to write.

Basu further writes: "Caitanya-bhāgavata particularly propagates the pastime-narrative of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, or Śrī Nārāyaṇa, primarily in terms of divine opulence."

My submission on this point is as follows. Basu does not specify exactly where in Caitanya-bhāgavata "the pastime-narrative of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, or Śrī Nārāyaṇa, primarily in terms of divine opulence, is particularly propagated." Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura's book propagates, from beginning to end, the pastime-narrative and the doctrine of Śrī Śrī Gaura-Nityānanda specifically — he does not "particularly propagate" any independent pastime-narrative of "Śrī Kṛṣṇa, or Śrī Nārāyaṇa, primarily in terms of divine opulence." Wherever he speaks of Kṛṣṇa, it is always in the context of establishing Gaura-tattva, and his mentions of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own pastimes, through the glorification of various devotees, are always brief allusions, not detailed narration — without which Gaura's own true nature could not have been properly revealed. And in some places, the devotees' prayers of praise to Gaura mention, in passing, the deliverance of Ajāmila and similar figures, without extended narration — mentioned solely to display the glory of Gaura's own Nārāyaṇa-nature's name; without even this much, Gaura's own glory and true nature could not have been fully revealed. Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura nowhere propagates any independent pastime-narrative of Śrī Kṛṣṇa or Śrī Nārāyaṇa at all.

It cannot be denied that Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa, in narrating the Lord's mahā-prakāśa and similar pastimes, does display Gaura's opulence. But that opulence, too, belongs to Śrī Gaurāṅga Himself — or to the Śrī Kṛṣṇa present within Śrī Gaurāṅga — not to Śrī Nārāyaṇa, since Nārāyaṇa is not Svayaṁ Bhagavān and cannot possess such opulence. Had Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa not spoken of Gaura's opulence at all, Gaura's own identity as Kṛṣṇa, as Svayaṁ Bhagavān, and as the Supreme Brahman, could never have been properly revealed. Murāri Gupta, who preceded Vṛndāvana Dāsa, likewise speaks of this same opulence in Śrī Gaurāṅga. Murāri Gupta set down in his kaḍacā exactly what he had directly witnessed in Gaura's pastimes, and the direct realization he gained from witnessing it; and Vṛndāvana Dāsa, following the detailed accounts he received from eyewitness devotees, gives a fuller account of that same reality. Murāri Gupta and Vṛndāvana Dāsa both simply relate what actually happened. They narrated these opulence-filled pastimes precisely in order to make known that Gaura's status as Svayaṁ Bhagavān, the Supreme Brahman, and Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself, was revealed through them.

Since Śrī Gaurāṅga is Svayaṁ Bhagavān, the Supreme Brahman, the fullest opulence must necessarily be present within Him, and, by the power of His līlā-śakti, that opulence will manifest as needed. Murāri Gupta and Vṛndāvana Dāsa have simply shown that it did indeed manifest.

The foundation of all of Svayaṁ Bhagavān's pastimes — even His purely sweet, intimate pastimes — is His own divinity or opulence. Even in describing the rāsa-līlā, the crown-jewel of all pastimes, supremely pure and sweet, Vyāsadeva and Śukadeva both call Śrī Kṛṣṇa "Bhagavān," "Brahman," "Viṣṇu," and so on, and speak of the extraordinary manifestation of opulence that establishes His status as Svayaṁ Bhagavān. Without this, the rāsa-līlā would not be a divine pastime at all — it would become merely the amorous play of some ordinary worldly hero and heroine.

Even those who desire to serve Vrajendra-nandana within His own sweet, intimate pastimes take up that devotional practice only after first knowing "kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam" — that Kṛṣṇa possesses the fullest opulence — and it is with that knowledge that they worship, bow to, and pray at Śrī Kṛṣṇa's feet as Bhagavān. Of course, once such devotees become fully absorbed in service to Śrī Kṛṣṇa within their own inwardly-conceived spiritual body, immersed in the pastime-mellow of their heart's desire, forgetting themselves entirely, no thought of Kṛṣṇa's divinity or opulence remains present to their minds — and even though that opulence continues to exist, they no longer seek it out at such moments. But this does not mean that Śrī Kṛṣṇa's opulence has vanished altogether. Those who swim in a vast lake, lost in the bliss of the water, forgetting all else, likewise lose all awareness of the lake's shore during their play — and yet the lake does not thereby cease to have a shore; once their play ends, they return to stand upon it once more. So too, once a devotee's absorption in pastime subsides, they return again to praising Śrī Kṛṣṇa and praying at His feet with awareness of His divinity. It is precisely because Śrī Kṛṣṇa is Svayaṁ Bhagavān, the Supreme Lord, possessor of the fullest opulence, that His activities are called "līlā" (divine play) at all — as He Himself declares: "janma karma ca me divyam" (Gītā 4.9) — "My birth and My activity are both divine."

The same holds true for Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Gaurāṅga.

Had His opulence not been described, and only His devotional pastimes told, people would have taken Him for merely some particular worshiper within the ordinary material world, and His pastimes in the mood of Rādhā would have seemed nothing more than the delusions of some ordinary madman — no one would have recognized these as the pastimes of Svayaṁ Bhagavān Gaurasundara at all. So Murāri Gupta's and Vṛndāvana Dāsa's descriptions of Śrī Gaurāṅga's opulence were not merely unnecessary — they were, in fact, indispensable for revealing Śrī Gaurāṅga's own essential truth.

In any case, it seems Basu formed his impression because Caitanya-bhāgavata calls Śrī Gaurāṅga "Nārāyaṇa" in many places, and concluded that Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa was thereby narrating the opulence-centered pastimes of the four-armed Vaikuṇṭha Nārāyaṇa. But it has already been shown (§41 above), with reference to Caitanya-bhāgavata's own statements, that wherever Vṛndāvana Dāsa calls Śrī Gaurāṅga "Nārāyaṇa," he intends Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself — and, in some places, specifically Kṛṣṇa united with Rādhā in a single form. In none of those places is the pastime of Vaikuṇṭheśvara Nārāyaṇa being narrated — it is always the pastime of Kṛṣṇa's own essential form, or of Kṛṣṇa's form united with Rādhā, that is being told.

(b) The book Śrī Caitanya-caritera Upādāna. This book was written by Dr. Bimanbihari Majumdar and published by Calcutta University (1939). The extraordinary patience and diligence Majumdar brought to his survey of numerous books and essays on Mahāprabhu, written in various languages, is amply evident from his book itself.

In discussing Caitanya-bhāgavata, however, Dr. Majumdar makes several claims that are painful for devotees to read. A couple are noted here.

In one place (p. 188 of his book), Majumdar writes: "Murāri Gupta, Śivānanda Sena, Svarūpa Dāmodara, and other associates of Śrī Caitanya did indeed proclaim Śrī Caitanya to be Kṛṣṇa — but they did not attempt to force his biography wholesale into the mold of Kṛṣṇa-līlā. Vṛndāvana Dāsa was the first to make such an attempt, and that is precisely why his book is named Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata."

Majumdar writes elsewhere: "Vṛndāvana Dāsa has forced Viśvambhara Miśra's biography, prior to his journey to Gayā, into the mold of Kṛṣṇa-līlā." (p. 197)

But even granting, for argument's sake, that Vṛndāvana Dāsa did attempt to force Śrī Caitanya's — or Viśvambhara Miśra's — biography into the mold of Kṛṣṇa-līlā, could one not equally ask: into whose mold did Vyāsadeva and Śukadeva themselves force their own narration of Kṛṣṇa-līlā? In truth, neither Vyāsadeva nor Śukadeva forced their account of Kṛṣṇa-līlā into anyone's mold at all — they simply related what had actually happened. And regarding Śrī Caitanya, too, Vṛndāvana Dāsa simply related what had actually happened, as he heard it from the devotees' own mouths.

Murāri Gupta set down in his kaḍacā precisely what he had directly witnessed and experienced. In the very first and second verses of the very first canto of his kaḍacā, Murāri Gupta himself calls

Gaura "Jagatpati," "Jagadādi," and "Hari." In kaḍacā verse 12.11, he likewise calls Viśvambhara, Viśvarūpa's younger brother, "Jagad-yoni," "Aja," and "Svayam-prabhu."

In describing Viśvambhara's own appearance, Murāri Gupta writes, in kaḍacā 1.5.2–5: "The imperishable Lord entered Jagannātha Miśra's own mind, and that great splendor He then placed within Śacī Devī's heart — whereby Śacī Devī became exceedingly radiant." Śrīmad Bhāgavatam and similar texts say exactly this same thing regarding Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own appearance.

Just as Brahmā and the other gods offered prayers to Devakī's womb in Kaṃsa's prison, Murāri Gupta likewise describes Brahmā and the gods offering prayers to Śacī's womb (kaḍacā 1.5.6–14).

The very signs that Śrīmad Bhāgavatam records at the time of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's appearance, Murāri Gupta describes as occurring, correspondingly, at the time of Gaura's own appearance (kaḍacā 1.5.15–22).

To use Dr. Majumdar's own language: did Murāri Gupta not, here, "force" the narrative of Gaura's birth-pastime "into the mold" of Kṛṣṇa's own birth-pastime? Given this, how can Majumdar claim that it was Vṛndāvana Dāsa who first attempted to force Gaura's pastimes into the mold of Kṛṣṇa-līlā? In truth, the question of "forcing into a mold" does not arise at all in this matter — Murāri Gupta and Vṛndāvana Dāsa alike simply related what had actually happened.

The phrase "forced into a mold" suggests that Majumdar's underlying claim is really this: that "Viśvambhara Miśra" was merely an ordinary human being, and that Vṛndāvana Dāsa tried to set him up as Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself. But this same Vṛndāvana Dāsa uses the harshest possible language against false avatāras (see 1.10.81–86 and 2.23.479–89) — whether it is credible that this very same Vṛndāvana Dāsa himself attempted to set up a false avatāra of his own is left to the reader's own judgment.

Dr. Majumdar's remarks here seem likely to have been shaped by the behavior of modern-day self-proclaimed "avatāras" and their followers. But the Śruti itself provides one means of distinguishing a true divine form from a false one. The Śruti states that upon beholding the true, transcendent Svayaṁ Bhagavān, the knot of the heart is severed, all doubts vanish, and all one's karma is exhausted (that is, false identification with the body, attachment to bodily and worldly things, and desire for gain, worship, and prestige are all thoroughly dispelled): "The knot of the heart is severed, all doubts are cut away, and one's karmas are exhausted, when that transcendent Being beyond the material and the immaterial is beheld." (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 2.2.8)

Do the followers of modern-day "avatāras," who constantly behold their chosen "avatāra," show any of these Śruti-described marks? Do the "avatāras" themselves show these marks? Quite the opposite is generally seen instead — a hunger for gain, worship, and prestige.

But that these very marks were indeed present in those who beheld and experienced Śrī Gaurāṅga is confirmed by Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own account. Murāri Gupta, too, experienced Gaura's true nature directly, and, fearing "what if the Lord should disappear," had procured a sharp blade beforehand, intending to end his own life rather than survive the Lord's departure — a man attached to his own body and bodily pleasures would never have been ready to give up his life so readily. Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita, too, never made any effort at all to secure his family's material livelihood, nor did the thought ever occur to him — states impossible for one still bound by bodily identification. One day, while Mahāprabhu was dancing in bliss at Śrīvāsa's house and Śrī Rāma and the other devotees performed kīrtana in supreme joy, the women within Śrīvāsa's own house began wailing, having discovered his son had passed away. Hearing the cries, Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita went in, found his son dead, and consoled the women, saying: "You all know Kṛṣṇa's glory — restrain your weeping, forgive your hearts. Even the greatest sinner, hearing His name but once at the hour of death, attains Kṛṣṇa's abode. That very Lord dances before us now in person, while Brahmā and His other servants sing His glory — what cause is there to grieve, when it was at such a moment that this child departed? When shall I ever again attain such fortune as this child's — only then shall I consider myself fulfilled... Let no one else hear of this, lest it disturb the Lord's joy in dancing; if the Lord regains outward awareness upon hearing this commotion, I shall drown myself in the Ganges this very day." (2.25.29–36) Reassured by Śrīvāsa's words, the women grew calm, and he himself returned to the kīrtana, where "Śrīvāsa performed saṅkīrtana in supreme bliss, his joy growing greater and greater still." (2.25.38) It was because Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita's own heart-knot had been thoroughly severed by his direct realization of the Lord's true glory that his worldly attachment to his own son had likewise vanished — he could console the weeping women as he did, and, even having just seen his son's death, return to the Lord's kīrtana in supreme bliss, his joy only increasing further.

Furthermore, the Lord revealed, on many occasions, that every other divine form is present within Śrī Gaurāṅga — proof of His status as the source of every divine form, the Supreme Brahman Himself. Śrīla Murāri Gupta directly witnessed and experienced this, and recorded it in his kaḍacā; Vṛndāvana Dāsa, too, received these accounts from eyewitnesses and related them at length in his Caitanya-bhāgavata. Has any such glory ever been seen in any of today's self-styled "avatāras"? Have Mahāprabhu's own wondrous transformations of love ever been witnessed in any of them? Do these self-styled avatāras display the ordinary physical marks common to divine forms — eternal youthfulness, no facial hair, agelessness, freedom from death, an unblemished body four hand-spans in height, and so on? All this is itself evidence that Śrī Gaurāṅga is indeed Svayaṁ Bhagavān. By Śrīman Nityānanda's own mercy, Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura gained direct realization of Gaura's true nature and glory, which is why, following Murāri Gupta, he set down his account of the Lord's divinity — the inclination to fabricate a false avatāra simply has no place in him at all.

Elsewhere, Majumdar writes: "Caitanya-bhāgavata's historical value is diminished for a further reason.

By the time Vṛndāvana Dāsa undertook to write his book, Caitanya's identity with Kṛṣṇa had already become firmly established as doctrine. The poet took Nimāi's identity with Kṛṣṇa as settled and described His childhood pastimes accordingly, etc." (p. 196)

Majumdar himself states that Vṛndāvana Dāsa composed his book after Mahāprabhu's disappearance (in 1548 CE, or Śaka 1470 — p. 192). By his own reasoning, then, it was only after the Lord's disappearance that "Caitanya's identity with Kṛṣṇa became firmly established."

He further writes: "In judging the historical value of Caitanya's pastimes, I shall regard Murāri's account of the Navadwip-līlā as the most authoritative of all; wherever Murāri's statements conflict with anyone else's account, I shall accept Murāri's." (p. 81) Yet this very Murāri whom Majumdar so trusts already calls Nimāi, in the first and second cantos of his own kaḍacā (both covering the Navadwip pastimes), "Bhagavān," "Svayaṁ Bhagavān," "the beginningless Lord, supreme cause of the universe," "Śrī Kṛṣṇa," "Vanamālī Kṛṣṇa," and so on (see §44 above). This makes it perfectly clear that Murāri Gupta and the other devotees had already directly realized the Lord's identity as Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa during the Navadwip pastimes themselves — while Majumdar, disregarding Murāri Gupta's own testimony, claims that this identity was only "firmly established" fifteen years after the Lord's disappearance, at the time Caitanya-bhāgavata was composed. Majumdar's real meaning seems to be that it was through the efforts of Vṛndāvana Dāsa and others that "Caitanya's identity with Kṛṣṇa became firmly established" — that is, not a real, actual identity, but merely a doctrine of identity propagated in books, made credible to ordinary people.

Dr. Majumdar also does not consider several of Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own accounts to have any historical value (pp. 197–99). But the historicity of these very accounts is confirmed by the fact that Kavirāja Gosvāmī, recognizing their factual reality, mentions them in his own book as well. As already shown (§§6–12 above), wherever Vṛndāvana Dāsa's accounts do not agree with what Kavirāja Gosvāmī received, Kavirāja simply does not include them.

In any case, had Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa's Caitanya-bhāgavata really been full of unhistorical fabrications, and merely an attempt to establish the ordinary human Viśvambhara Miśra as an identity with Kṛṣṇa, would it really have retained such widespread reverence down to the present day, despite the total absence of any organized effort to promote it — or would it instead have survived only in the private collections of a few scholarly critics, like Govinda Dāsa's kaḍacā or Jayānanda's Caitanya-maṅgala? This is left to the reader's own judgment.

A few of Dr. Majumdar's statements have now been discussed; further discussion is unnecessary. In closing, our submission is this: the proper aim of studying any book should be to understand the author's own intent and subject matter — that alone gives the study its worth. Without keeping this aim in view, an attempt to expound a book's meaning will not reveal the book's own intent at all —

it will only reveal the critic's own preconceptions. Analyzing only the discarded husk of a sugarcane stalk, setting aside its very juice, can never reveal the true nature of the sugarcane itself.

§47. Nityānanda-tattva in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata

To keep this Introduction from growing still longer, the remaining doctrines will not be discussed at the same length as Gaura-tattva — the author's intent will instead be conveyed as concisely as possible, in a few words each.

The author, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura, in the invocation (maṅgalācaraṇa) of his book, describes the glory and true nature of Balarāma, stating that this same Balarāma is present as Anantadeva and as "Śeṣa" (Cb. 1.1.46–55). He then states that this same Balarāma is Śrī Nityānanda: "Just as 'dvija,' 'vipra,' and 'brāhmaṇa' are different names for the same thing, so too are 'Nityānanda,' 'Ananta,' and 'Baladeva.'" (1.1.59)

From the dream Mahāprabhu had regarding Śrī Nityānanda's arrival at Navadwip, which He related to the devotees the next day, it is likewise clear that the Lord identified Nityānanda with Vraja's own Balarāma (2.3.141–49).

Elsewhere too Mahāprabhu identifies Nityānanda with Vraja's Balarāma: "Sitting in Nanda's cowpen, in the bliss of Vṛndāvana, you have, in your own delight, put on ornaments. (3.8.64) Seeing all the boys gathered around you, my mind takes them for Śrīdāma, Sudāma, and the rest; all the children of Vṛndāvana's play, I see, are with you now. That same mood, that same radiance, that same all-power — I see it in every limb, that same devotion of Nanda's cowpen." (3.8.67–69)

Murāri Gupta, too, calls the avadhūta Nityānanda "the elder brother of blue-clad Kṛṣṇa, bearing club and plow and staff" — that is, Balarāma (kaḍacā 2.9.11–12).

Kavirāja Gosvāmī likewise states: "Kṛṣṇa, Svayaṁ Bhagavān, source of all avatāras — Balarāma is His second body; a single essential form, in but two or three separate bodies, an expansion assisting Kṛṣṇa's own pastimes. That same Kṛṣṇa is Caitanyacandra at Navadwip; that same Balarāma is, with Him, Śrī Nityānanda." (Cc. 1.5.3–5)

Following Svarūpa Dāmodara's own kaḍacā, Kavirāja Gosvāmī gives an extensive account of Balarāma-tattva in the fifth chapter of the Ādi-līlā, and states that this same Balarāma is Śrī Nityānanda. This shows complete agreement between Vṛndāvana Dāsa and Kavirāja Gosvāmī on Nityānanda-tattva as well.

Caitanya-bhāgavata calls Balarāma the very truth of Godhead (īśvara-tattva) Himself: "The primal deity, the great yogī, the Lord, the Vaiṣṇava" (1.1.36). Kavirāja Gosvāmī says the same: "Kṛṣṇa, source of all avatāras, is Svayaṁ Bhagavān; Balarāma is His second body — a single essential form in two separate bodies, an expansion assisting Kṛṣṇa's pastimes." (Cc. 1.5.3–4)

Caitanya-bhāgavata shows that, though Godhead Himself, Balarāma is nonetheless essentially devotional in nature. He serves Kṛṣṇa in many ways: "As friend, brother, fan-bearer, bed, escort; as house, umbrella, garment, every ornament and seat — He Himself serves in every form." (1.1.31–32) Balarāma also serves as Kṛṣṇa's own mount, in the form of Garuḍa: "As a portion of Ananta, mighty Garuḍa, in sportive delight, carries Kṛṣṇa about." (1.1.33) And, as the thousand-headed Anantadeva, immersed in the mellow of devotion, He continuously glorifies Kṛṣṇa's own fame: "He whom everyone worships, the great Ananta, thousand-mouthed Lord, immersed in devotional mellow; with a thousand mouths he ceaselessly sings Kṛṣṇa's glory, the primal deity, bearer of the earth." (1.1.35, 1.1.38) Śrī Balarāma is also the agent of creation, maintenance, and dissolution: "Creation, maintenance, dissolution, and every quality of matter — all arise and pass away by His mere glance." (1.1.39) In this role, Balarāma serves Kṛṣṇa by carrying out His commands regarding creation, maintenance, and dissolution. And, as the thousand-hooded Ananta, He bears the earth itself upon His head: "He who bears the boundless earth, with its mountains and seas, upon His head, to sustain it — like a single grain upon one hood of His thousand hoods, unaware even of His own boundless power." (1.1.46–47) This too is service, carrying out Śrī Kṛṣṇa's command for the world's maintenance.

This same Śrī Balarāma is Śrī Nityānanda — and so Nityānanda, too, is both the very truth of Godhead and essentially devotional in nature. This is why Caitanya-bhāgavata calls Śrī Nityānanda "the great serpent-lord of the earth" (1.1.164), "the ocean of mercy, giver of devotion, the very abode of the Vaiṣṇavas" (1.2.36), "the abode of Ananta" (1.2.124), and "the ocean of mercy, the very life of the devotees, Balarāma" (1.2.127), among other such names.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī says the same in his own Caitanya-caritāmṛta. One name of Balarāma is Saṅkarṣaṇa — He is the original Saṅkarṣaṇa: "Śrī Balarāma Gosāñi, the original Saṅkarṣaṇa, serves Kṛṣṇa by taking five forms; He Himself assists Kṛṣṇa's own pastimes, performing the work of creation in four bodies — carrying out His command in matters of creation and the rest, and, in the form of Śeṣa, performing manifold service to Kṛṣṇa — tasting the bliss of serving Kṛṣṇa in every one of His forms." (Cc. 1.5.6–9) The "four bodies" through which Balarāma "performs the work of creation" are: Saṅkarṣaṇa of the transcendental realm, Nārāyaṇa reclining on the Causal Ocean (Mahā-Viṣṇu), Nārāyaṇa reclining within the womb of the universe (Garbhodakaśāyī), and Nārāyaṇa reclining on the ocean of milk (Kṣīrodakaśāyī) (Cc. 1.5.3, 7, 15–16). Citing scriptural proof in Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.5, Kavirāja Gosvāmī explains: the original Saṅkarṣaṇa Balarāma's own expansion is the Saṅkarṣaṇa of the four-fold expansion at Dvārakā; his expansion is the Saṅkarṣaṇa of the transcendental four-fold expansion; his expansion is Nārāyaṇa reclining on the Causal Ocean; his expansion is Nārāyaṇa reclining in the universe's womb; and his expansion is Nārāyaṇa reclining on the ocean of milk. So these four forms connected with the work of creation — the transcendental Saṅkarṣaṇa, the Causal-Ocean-reclining, the womb-reclining, and the milk-ocean-reclining forms — are all partial expansions of the original Saṅkarṣaṇa, Śrī Balarāma Himself. Kṣīrodakaśāyī is the maintainer of the universe; this same Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, in the form of Śeṣa, bears the earth: "In the form of Śeṣa he bears the earth — no one knows any other support for the world beneath it; the thousand hoods of his boundless serpent-form gleam brighter than the sun; fifty million yojanas wide is the earth, yet it rests, on a single hood of his, like a mere mustard seed. That very Ananta Śeṣa is an incarnation of devotion, knowing nothing but service to the Lord; with a thousand mouths he sings Kṛṣṇa's glory, ceaselessly, without end; even Sanaka and the other great devotees hear from his own mouth, as he glorifies the Lord, floating in the bliss of prema. Umbrella, sandals, bed, pillow, garment; dwelling-place, sacred thread, throne — in all these forms he serves Kṛṣṇa, and, having become Kṛṣṇa's own remainder, bears the name 'Śeṣa' [remainder]. That very Ananta is but a single fragment of Balarāma's own being — such is Prabhu Nityānanda; who can fathom His own play?" (Cc. 1.5.100–108)

Kavirāja Gosvāmī further speaks of Balarāma's devotional mood: "What need to speak further — Baladeva Mahāśaya, whose very mood is pure friendship and parental love, considers Himself but a servant." (Cc. 1.6.63–64) "The original incarnation of devotion is Śrī Saṅkarṣaṇa" (Cc. 1.6.98); "The original devotional self-conception belongs to Śrī Balarāma; all His own expansions follow that same mood." (Cc. 1.6.75)

Since this same devotionally-absorbed Balarāma is Nityānanda, Nityānanda too is devotional in nature: "...revealing pastimes of every avatāra to everyone... In this way Nityānanda's manifestations are boundless; in that same mood He calls Himself Caitanya's own servant." "Sometimes as guru, sometimes as friend, sometimes in the mood of a servant — as once, in three such moods, He sported in Vraja: sometimes as a bull locking horns with Kṛṣṇa in play, sometimes massaging Kṛṣṇa's own feet as servant; considering Himself a servant, He knows Kṛṣṇa as Lord, considering Himself but a fragment of Kṛṣṇa's own fragment." (Cc. 1.5.116–20) "Caitanya is that very Kṛṣṇa, Nityānanda is Rāma [Balarāma]; Nityānanda ever fulfills Caitanya's own desire." (Cc. 1.5.134)

This shows that, though the very truth of Godhead, Śrī Nityānanda is nonetheless devotional in nature — and on this point, too, Kavirāja is in complete agreement with Vṛndāvana Dāsa.

(a) Śrī Nityānanda's Glory. Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa devotes particular attention, throughout his book, to describing Śrī Nityānanda's glory. His account shows that Nityānanda floated, almost constantly, in an ocean of loving bliss, rarely retaining ordinary outward awareness at all.

The sixth chapter of the Ādi-khaṇḍa of Caitanya-bhāgavata shows that Śrī Nityānanda's devotion to God was present from earliest childhood — He would act out divine pastimes with children His own age; this alone was His childhood play, and even then He would be so overwhelmed with ecstatic love, weeping such rivers of tears, that the other children would watch in wonder; sometimes He would even lose outward consciousness entirely and faint, showing hardly any sign of life in His body.

Playing in this way until the age of twelve, Nityānanda left home with a sannyāsī and spent twenty years alone wandering various holy places, taking sannyāsa Himself along the way — though, so overwhelmed was He with Kṛṣṇa-prema that He could not always even observe the outward disciplines of that order, and became a wandering avadhūta beyond ordinary distinctions: "He wandered the holy places as an avadhūta" (1.6.333). During His pilgrimage, the mere sight of Śrīpāda Mādhavendra Purī sent Śrī Nityānanda into an unconscious swoon of love; when the two regained awareness, they embraced each other's necks and wept, rolling on the forest ground, roaring in the ecstasy of Kṛṣṇa-prema, rivers of loving tears flooding the earth beneath them, trembling, tears, and thrilling without end (1.6.359–66). When Nityānanda later arrived at Nīlācala and beheld Jagannātha, He fainted at once in bliss, and upon regaining awareness showed trembling, sweat, thrilling, tears, falling, and roaring beyond description (1.6.401–2). Throughout His twenty years of pilgrimage, this wondrous absorption in love remained with Him.

During His wanderings He also visited Mathurā, and came finally, once more, to that same region (Vraja-maṇḍala). There He dwelt continuously in Vṛndāvana, so absorbed in Kṛṣṇa that He lost all awareness of day and night; He took no food, only occasionally milk, and that too only if someone offered it unasked (1.6.406–7). Absorbed in Kṛṣṇa-prema, He had no sense of hunger or thirst. It seems He wandered everywhere there searching for His own beloved Kānāi [Kṛṣṇa]; as if possessed by the very mood of the Dvāpara age itself, He would sport ceaselessly in the waters of the Kālindī, playing with children in Vṛndāvana (1.6.411). Searching for his beloved Kānāi, it occurred to Him at last that this same beloved had now descended at Navadwip in the form of Gauracandra: "Gauracandra now dwells secretly at Navadwip — this thought arose in Nityānanda-svarūpa's own mind" (1.6.408). Yet He reasoned: "When the Lord Himself reveals Himself there, I shall go and render my own service then" (1.6.409) — and so did not come to Navadwip at once, but stayed on at Mathurā (Vṛndāvana): "Resolving thus, Nityānanda Rāya did not leave Mathurā for Navadwip." (1.6.410) But even then He remained absorbed in the mood of Balarāma from that Dvāpara age: roaring as He beheld what seemed His own former birthplace, ceaselessly absorbed in a childlike mood, with no other thought arising, playing in the dust within Vṛndāvana, making no effort even to seek food, rolling about in childlike abandon (2.3.115–17) — though He was then thirty-two years old, He retained no awareness of this at all, still absorbed entirely in a child's own mood and conduct.

Meanwhile, after returning from Gayā, Śrī Gauracandra had revealed Himself. Sensing this within His own heart, Śrī Nityānanda came to Navadwip and settled at Nandana Ācārya's house. Learning of this, the Lord went with the devotees to Nandana Ācārya's house, and there they found: "seated, a jewel among men, whom all beheld as if a very Koh-i-Noor; His absorption imperceptible, impossible to fathom, His face full of meditation, ever smiling." (2.3.177–78) Nityānanda was still so overwhelmed with love that He had not even the slightest trace of outward awareness — He did not even know that the Lord and the devotees had come to that very place.

Mahāprabhu then asked Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita to recite a Bhāgavata verse, and Śrīvāsa recited the verse describing Śrī Kṛṣṇa's beauty, "barhāpīḍaṁ naṭa-vara-vapuḥ..." (Bhāg. 10.21.5). "The moment Nityānanda heard the verse recited, He fell unconscious, senseless." (2.4.88) At the Lord's request Śrīvāsa recited the verse again and again; hearing it, Nityānanda gradually regained awareness — but even as the recitation continued, His love surged up uncontrollably: roaring, crying out, leaping, rolling on the ground, weeping — He grew so agitated that the devotees, try as they might, could not calm Him. Mahāprabhu then took Him onto His own lap, and, perhaps having at last found His own beloved Kānāi's embrace, Nityānanda grew perfectly still, lying motionless in Mahāprabhu's lap — showing, even at Nandana Ācārya's house, this same wondrous absorption in love.

The very next day was the Āṣāḍha full moon — the day prescribed for sannyāsīs to perform Vyāsa-pūjā, and Nityānanda too was a sannyāsī. But so lost was He in loving absorption that He seemed to have forgotten Vyāsa-pūjā entirely; Mahāprabhu Himself reminded Him of it, and it was arranged that Nityānanda's Vyāsa-pūjā would take place at Śrīvāsa's house, with Śrīvāsa himself officiating. Both Gaura and Nityānanda were overwhelmed with love: "In the love of ages past, Caitanya and Nitāi, each meditating on the other, danced together in one place; one would roar, another cry out, one would faint, another weep; trembling, sweat, thrilling, tears, fainting in bliss — who can describe such transformations of the Lord? In supreme bliss the two rolled together on the ground, each unaware of himself in his own pastime; outward awareness gone, their garments barely staying on, the Vaiṣṇavas trying, but unable, to hold them still." (2.5.21–27) After the kīrtana, the Lord and devotees returned to their own homes, but Nityānanda remained at Śrīvāsa's house; absorbed in some mood, that same night "Nityānanda roared and broke His own daṇḍa and kamaṇḍalu" (2.5.64). The next morning, arriving on hearing the news, the Lord found "Nityānanda, still without outward awareness, laughing uncontrollably" (2.5.68). The Lord then took the daṇḍa in His own hand and went with Nityānanda to bathe in the Ganges; when restless Nityānanda would not listen and, spotting a crocodile, tried to seize it, causing Gadādhara and Śrīnivāsa to cry out in alarm, the Lord's own single roar and the words "Come quickly, Vyāsa-pūjā awaits!" were enough to restore some composure, and Nityānanda rose, bathed, and returned home with the Lord (2.5.69–75).

After Vyāsa-pūjā, Śrīvāsa brought a garland and gave it into Nityānanda's hand, saying, "Take this garland, recite the verse, and bow to Vyāsa — scripture enjoins that one offer the garland oneself" (2.5.81–82). But Nityānanda, hearing this, only cried out in agitation, unable to follow what was said, gazing about in every direction with the garland still in hand; Śrīvāsa, distressed, called out to the Lord, "Your own Śrīpāda here will not worship Vyāsa!" Hearing this, Viśvambhara Prabhu rushed forward at once, and, taking the garland from Nityānanda's hand, placed it Himself upon His own head (2.5.81–88).

The Vyāsa-pūjā kīrtana then began, and in that kīrtana too, "Nityānanda and Gauracandra danced there together — two brothers maddened with love, neither retaining outward awareness." (2.5.151)

All this shows that from His earliest childhood through this stay at Śrīvāsa's house, Nityānanda remained in this same state of loving absorption, as Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own account makes clear throughout.

In any case, Nityānanda then began to live at Śrīvāsa's house, calling Śrīvāsa's own wife, Mālinī Devī, "Mother," and remaining constantly absorbed in a childlike mood — day and night unaware of Himself, He would take milk continually from Mālinī's own breast;

sometimes no milk would come, yet merely touching it seemed enough — a wondrous, inconceivable power Mālinī herself witnessed, and, at Caitanya's own instruction, told no one of it, but continued to see in Him only a child (this shows that the līlā-śakti manifested some measure of opulence even in Nityānanda, the very truth of Godhead Himself). Absorbed in this childlike mood, "He would not even lift rice to His own mouth — Mālinī fed Him as if He were her own son." (2.11.30) In this childlike absorption He would wander about naked, dance, laugh, sometimes scatter food about the room while eating.

One day Mahāprabhu told Nityānanda: "Listen, Nityānanda — do not ever quarrel with anyone, and do not act so restlessly in Śrīvāsa's house." Hearing this, Nityānanda, remembering Viṣṇu, replied: "You will never find such restlessness in me — you must not think of everyone as being like yourself." Viśvambhara said, "I know you well." Nityānanda said, "Then tell me my fault, let me hear it." Gauracandra, laughing, said, "What fault? You've caused a food-shortage in every house!" Nityānanda said, "Only a madman would say such a thing — is this just a pretext to deny me my rice?" (2.11.12–17) The Lord said, "I hear of your ill repute — that is exactly why I correct you." Nityānanda, laughing, said, "Very well then — if you see restlessness, correct me always; you have just now declared me restless" — and, so saying, the Lord Himself laughed uproariously. In bliss, unaware what He was doing, He stripped naked and tied His cloth about His head, leaping about laughing, wandering the whole courtyard swaying unsteadily (2.11.19–23). Crying out, Viśvambhara said, "What is this you are doing — this is no fit conduct in a householder's home!" — "You yourself just called me a madman — now your own words have undone themselves! What shame is there in the words of one who has no outward awareness at all?" — Nityānanda floated on in the ocean of bliss, while the Lord Himself took hold of Him and dressed Him again — such is the inconceivable nature of Nityānanda's own conduct (2.11.25–28).

All this makes clear that even Nityānanda's own conversations with the Lord occurred while He remained absorbed in mood, without any outward awareness at all.

One day, while the Lord sat with Viṣṇupriyā Devī at home to entertain Śacī Mātā, "Nityānanda, overwhelmed with bliss, came restlessly to the Lord's house, and, absorbed in a childlike mood, stood there naked, feeling no shame at all in His loving absorption. The Lord said, 'Nityānanda, why are you naked?' Nityānanda answered only 'oh, oh!' The Lord said, 'Nityānanda, put on your cloth.' Nityānanda said, 'Today I must go.' The Lord said, 'Nityānanda, why do you do this?' Nityānanda said, 'I cannot eat anymore.' The Lord said, 'Why do you say one thing and then another?' Nityānanda said, 'I have already gone ten or twelve times.' (2.11.70–75) In the mood of Caitanya, Nityānanda Rāya hears one thing, says another, and wanders about laughing; the Lord Himself rose and dressed Him again, while Padmāvatī's own son [Nityānanda], with no outward awareness, laughed on." (2.11.78–79)

All this shows that during His stay at Navadwip, Śrī Nityānanda remained almost constantly without outward awareness, absorbed in love. Though thirty-two or thirty-three years old, He remained absorbed in a childlike mood, considering Himself a mere infant — sitting in Mālinī Devī's lap, taking milk from her breast, letting her feed Him rice by hand, going about naked with His cloth tied about His head like a child's headscarf, laughing uproariously; when bathing in the Ganges, swimming about like a mere boy, and trying to catch hold of any crocodile He saw.

Devotees who witnessed such conduct felt only the greatest joy, their reverence and devotion toward Nityānanda never once diminished. During the Lord's kīrtana-dances with the devotees, Nityānanda too would dance in that same loving absorption.

But worldly people devoid of devotion could not comprehend the mystery behind Nityānanda's conduct — they took the love-maddened Nityānanda for an ordinary madman, and reviled Him for it. During Advaita and Nityānanda's loving "quarrels," Advaita would praise Nityānanda even while seemingly reproaching Him (see §48a below) — but taken at face value, Advaita's ironic praise of Nityānanda would sound like actual reproach; and worldly people, devoid of devotion, unable to sense the mystery of the natural affection between Advaita and Nityānanda, took such irony literally, and found in it further material for reviling Nityānanda.

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa records such worldly reviling of Nityānanda in many places, and warns readers of its terrible consequences.

Śrī Nityānanda is Vraja's own Balarāma. Balarāma is the original incarnation of devotion, so Śrī Nityānanda is likewise the original incarnation of devotion. He is "the ocean of mercy, giver of devotion" (1.2.36, 1.2.127), "the ocean of mercy, the very life of the devotees, Balarāma" (1.2.127). Without the mercy of Nityānanda-svarūpa Balarāma, no one can attain the pure devotion of Vraja. This is why Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes: "Crossing beyond material existence into the ocean of devotion — whoever wishes to dive there, let him worship Nitāi-cānda. See directly, all of you, in these three worlds — it is through Nityānanda's door alone that the treasure of prema is attained. Nityānanda Rāya is Caitanya's foremost devotee, on whose very tongue Caitanya's own fame resides; day and night the Lord speaks only of Caitanya — worship him, and Caitanya-bhakti is attained." (1.6.417–19) Vṛndāvana Dāsa further writes: "Whatever devotion the Bhāgavata attributes to the gopīs, everyone attains that same devotion through Nityānanda." (3.5.303) — that is, even the loving devotion of Vraja's own conjugal mood is attained only through Śrī Nityānanda's mercy. Śrīla Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura, who received initiation from Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī in a later generation, says the same in his own Prārthanā: "Nitāi's lotus feet, cooling as ten million moons, whose very shade gives rest to the world — without such a Nitāi, brother, Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa cannot be attained; hold fast to Nitāi's own feet. Whoever lacks that connection has wasted his birth in vain, a wretched, degraded fool. Whoever fails to speak Nitāi's name, absorbed instead in worldly pleasure — what use is scholarly learning to him? Maddened with pride, holding only the appearance of Nitāi's feet, mistaking falsehood for truth — Nitāi's mercy alone will bring one Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa in Vraja: hold fast to Nitāi's own feet." For all these reasons, Kavirāja Gosvāmī too writes: "Therefore I say again, raising my arms — worship Caitanya-Nityānanda, abandoning false argument." (Cc. 1.8.12) That utter ruin follows from failing to accept Śrī Nityānanda, Kavirāja Gosvāmī states as well.

Before his own journey to Vṛndāvana, Kavirāja's brother had been invited to a night-long kīrtana at the house of Mīnaketana Rāmadāsa, one of Nityānanda Prabhu's own dear disciples, where some dispute arose between them over Śrī Nityānanda. Kavirāja's brother held firm faith in Śrī Caitanya, but only a lukewarm regard for Śrī Nityānanda — which grieved Mīnaketana Rāmadāsa deeply. Kavirāja writes of this: "I then rebuked my own brother: 'The two brothers [Caitanya and Nityānanda] are a single truth, equally manifest — if you do not accept Nityānanda, your ruin is certain. Faith in one, disregard for the other — your proof is worth no more than half an eggshell; or, refusing both, you are simply a heretic; accepting one and rejecting the other is nothing but hypocrisy.' Enraged, Rāmadāsa broke his own flute and left — and that was the moment my own brother met his ruin." (Cc. 1.5.152–56) On the occasion of his own brother's failing, Kavirāja Gosvāmī here rebukes all who refuse to accept Śrī Nityānanda, and states plainly the ruin that follows.

Since worshiping Nityānanda is indispensable to attaining the highest spiritual truth, the catastrophic result of reviling Him follows easily. This is precisely why Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa, like Kavirāja Gosvāmī, rebukes those who, failing to understand the meaning of Nityānanda's conduct, reviled Him — thereby warning the souls of the world of the terrible consequence of such reviling. It is not merely because Nityānanda was Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own initiating guru that he rebukes those who revile Him — he does so out of consideration for Nityānanda's own essential truth.

Though Śrī Nityānanda is, in essence, Balarāma Himself, He possesses one wondrous distinction beyond Balarāma. Baladeva, as Balarāma, is Vraja-vihārī Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own associate; as Nityānanda, He is Śrī Gaurāṅga's own associate. Whichever form one serves as associate, one's glory is expressed in a manner suited to that form's own pastimes. So whatever distinctive quality Śrī Gaurāṅga possesses beyond Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Nityānanda-svarūpa's own glory will likewise possess a corresponding distinction beyond Balarāma-svarūpa's. As already shown, Svayaṁ Bhagavān in His Kṛṣṇa form does not bestow prema on anyone indiscriminately — but Svayaṁ Bhagavān in His Śrī Gaurāṅga form distributes prema indiscriminately to whomever. So Balarāma, the ocean of mercy and giver of devotion, cannot, however much He might wish, bestow prema indiscriminately on anyone — since to attempt such indiscriminate bestowal would run contrary to the very will of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, whose associate He is. The duty of an associate is precisely to assist the Lord's own pastimes in accordance with the Lord's own will. So, within the Vraja-līlā, Balarāma-svarūpa's ocean of mercy remains bounded by the wall of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own discernment regarding worthiness in the matter of bestowing prema. But when that same Balarāma becomes, as Nityānanda, the associate of that same Kṛṣṇa's own Gaurāṅga form, His ocean of mercy is no longer bounded by that wall of discernment at all — since Kṛṣṇa descends as Śrī Gaurāṅga specifically to distribute prema indiscriminately. This is why Śrī Balarāma, as Śrī Nityānanda, has likewise distributed Vraja-prema indiscriminately to everyone. Such is Śrī Nityānanda's mercy — a quality entirely natural to His own essential truth.

It is this very glory of Śrī Nityānanda that the devotional poet describes:

"Nitāi, jewel of virtue, my own Nitāi, jewel of virtue — flooded the earth with a great flood. Bringing the flood of prema, Nitāi came to Bengal; the devotees were submerged in it, and the poor and lowly floated along too. He makes no distinction between the poor, the lowly, the fallen, and the wretched — he begs, on behalf of them all, for the prema so rare even for the gods. Breaking through the dam of his own bound-up mercy, he sends the arrow of the nectar of prema flying from house to house." (Locana Dāsa Ṭhākura)

§48. Advaita-tattva in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata

Of Śrī Advaita and Śrī Nityānanda, Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura writes: "Advaita and Nityānanda Rāya — one and the same form, appearing as two, in Kṛṣṇa's own pastime. (2.6.147) Know Nityānanda and Advaita to be undivided love itself." (2.6.150)

This shows that Śrī Nityānanda and Śrī Advaita are, in essence, one and the same truth, manifesting in pastime as two separate forms — that is, Śrī Advaita is one manifestation of Śrī Nityānanda. Since Śrī Nityānanda is Vraja's own Balarāma, Śrī Advaita is likewise a manifestation, form, or portion of that same Balarāma.

Elsewhere, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa has Mahāprabhu Himself declare this: "Angered by Advaita's own words, Viśvambhara, in fury, extolled Advaita's own greatness at length: 'You who could destroy the entire universe, yet find no remedy in your own heart even now! (2.16.61) You are called an ascetic, sannyāsī, sage, yogī — yet you will not destroy a single soul with your own trident!'" (2.16.63)

Here the Lord calls Advaita "Śūlapāṇi" — Śiva, the bearer of the trident. Śiva is himself the agent of the universe's destruction at the time of dissolution.

Elsewhere, too, the Lord speaks in this same vein — of Śrī Advaita, Mahāprabhu says: "It occurs to My mind that the Ācārya is Maheśa [Śiva] Himself. (3.4.466) I have understood — the Ācārya is an avatāra of Maheśa; this Mahāprabhu declares again and again." (3.4.468) Here too the Lord calls Advaita Ācārya Maheśa, or Śiva.

Murāri Gupta likewise calls Advaita Ācārya "born as a partial manifestation of Īśvara" (kaḍacā 2.6.48) and "a portion of the Lord Himself" (2.8.29). Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa calls Śrī Advaita a manifestation or portion of Balarāma — which agrees with the kaḍacā's own statement, since if Advaita is a portion of Balarāma, he is necessarily a portion of Godhead, Balarāma Himself being, as already shown (§47), the very truth of Godhead.

Although Advaita Ācārya is a portion of Godhead — and therefore himself divine in essence — Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura shows, in many places in his Caitanya-bhāgavata, that he was nonetheless essentially devotional in nature. A few instances are given here.

Even before the Lord's self-revelation, Advaita Ācārya worshiped Kṛṣṇa and discussed Kṛṣṇa-topics with the devotees (1.5.27–36).

When the devotees grew distressed at seeing the worldly indifference of the people around them, Advaita Ācārya comforted them, saying: *"You shall all surely attain the highest bliss. I have long felt a wish in my heart, and I sense that Kṛṣṇacandra has now revealed Himself — soon, singing of Kṛṣṇa in supreme joy, you shall behold Kṛṣṇa Himself, right here.

Taking you all with me, we shall have Kṛṣṇa's own sport — and then Advaita will become a pure servant of Kṛṣṇa indeed."* (1.5.103–106)

After the Lord's return from Gayā, "seeing the Lord's own display of love, all the devotees were struck with the greatest wonder; in the greatest satisfaction, they all went and told Advaita everything they had witnessed. (2.2.3–4) Hearing it, Advaita grew greatly delighted, and, deeply moved, began to speak" (2.2.7) — telling them of a dream he had had the previous night, in which Viśvambhara had explained to him the meaning of a Gītā verse and told him the reason for His own descent (2.2.8–19). Advaita then told the devotees: "I feel the greatest joy hearing this — bless me all, saying 'so be it.' May everyone receive Kṛṣṇa's own grace, may the whole world become maddened with Kṛṣṇa's name." (2.2.26–27)

Caitanya-bhāgavata also gives an extended account of how Advaita Ācārya, having directly realized the Lord's true nature, worshiped and praised Him (2.6.71–129), and danced in ecstatic absorption during the Lord's kīrtana as well (2.6.137–44).

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa further writes: "service at Caitanya's feet is his only task" (2.10.141); "Advaita's Lord is Gaura" (2.10.152); "'Our Lord is Gaurāṅga Sundara Himself' — saying this brought Advaita the greatest joy" (2.10.161); and elsewhere.

Śrī Advaita was Śrīpāda Mādhavendra Purī's own disciple, and the Lord accordingly regarded him with the respect due a guru. When the Lord remained in His own natural devotional mood, He would not allow Advaita to touch His feet; and Advaita, fearing this might trouble the Lord, refrained from doing so as well. But "whenever the Lord fell into a swoon of absorption, Advaita would go to His very feet, prostrate himself fully, and wash His two feet with the water of his own eyes; sometimes he would wipe them and place the dust upon his own head, sometimes perform the full six-part worship rite." (2.16.44–46)

Caitanya-bhāgavata contains many further statements on Advaita's devotional mood; further citation is unnecessary here.

Now Kavirāja Gosvāmī's statements on Advaita-tattva are discussed.

Śrīla Svarūpa Dāmodara writes, in his own kaḍacā, on Advaita-tattva: "He who, as the creator of the universe, brings forth this world through māyā — Mahā-Viṣṇu — his very avatāra is this Īśvara, Advaita Ācārya. I take refuge in that Advaita Ācārya, the Lord's own incarnation of devotion, called 'Advaita' [non-different] on account of his identity with Hari, and 'Ācārya' on account of his teaching devotion." (Cc. 1.1.12–13) Here Śrīla Svarūpa Dāmodara states that Advaita Ācārya is the avatāra of Mahā-Viṣṇu, who reclines upon the Causal Ocean — and since that Causal-Ocean-reclining form is itself the very truth of Godhead, Advaita too is the truth of Godhead, is Himself divine. But though divine, Śrī Advaita is an incarnation of devotion, essentially devotional in nature — and it is precisely because he is essentially devotional that he teaches devotion to Kṛṣṇa.

This shows complete agreement between Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa's account and Śrīla Svarūpa Dāmodara's own.

It is on the basis of these very verses of Svarūpa Dāmodara's that Kavirāja Gosvāmī expounds Advaita-tattva in chapter 1.6 of his own Caitanya-caritāmṛta, rendering the substance of Svarūpa Dāmodara's two verses as follows:

"Advaita Ācārya Gosāñi is directly the Lord Himself, whose glory lies beyond the reach of ordinary souls to grasp. Mahā-Viṣṇu performs the work of creating the universe; his direct avatāra is Advaita Ācārya. That same Puruṣa who creates and maintains through māyā, who in pastime creates unlimited universes, manifests unlimited forms by His own will, entering each universe in a separate such form — Advaita is a portion of that very Puruṣa, no different from Him at all, His body undivided from that Puruṣa's own. Taking pradhāna [the material substrate] as His aid, He fashions countless millions of universes by His will. Auspicious is the universe's Advaita, the very abode of auspicious qualities, ever of auspicious character, whose very name is auspicious. With countless portions, countless potencies, countless avatāras, that Puruṣa creates the whole of material existence." (Cc. 1.6.3–10)

Mahā-Viṣṇu, reclining on the Causal Ocean, creates countless millions of universes; that same Viṣṇu, as the Puruṣa reclining within the womb of each universe, is present in every one of those countless universes individually. Śrī Advaita is a portion of this very Mahā-Viṣṇu. Since a portion and its source are not different in essential nature, Mahā-Viṣṇu and Advaita are likewise not different in essential nature. Mahā-Viṣṇu creates the countless illusory universes with the aid of māyā; Advaita, the abode of auspicious qualities, assists Mahā-Viṣṇu's work of creation by taking on pradhāna, the material component of māyā.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī explains in detail exactly how Śrī Advaita assists Mahā-Viṣṇu in the work of creation: "Just as māyā has two components, the efficient and the material cause — māyā being the efficient cause, and pradhāna the material — so too the Lord as Puruṣa takes two forms and creates the universe using both the efficient and material causes. The Puruṣa Himself is the efficient cause of the universe; as Advaita, He becomes the material cause, Nārāyaṇa Himself. In His efficient-cause aspect, He casts His glance upon māyā; as Advaita, the material cause, He creates the universe of Brahmā. Though the Sāṅkhya school holds pradhāna to be the [sole] cause, the universe is never truly created from mere inert matter — the Lord infuses His own creative power into pradhāna, and only then, by the Lord's own potency, does creation occur; it is in the form of Advaita that He infuses that power — therefore Advaita is the principal cause. Advaita Ācārya is the creator of countless universes, and also the sustainer of one particular universe-form. He is the principal 'limb' (aṅga) of that Nārāyaṇa — and the Bhāgavata itself uses the word 'aṅga' to mean 'portion.'" (citing here the verse from Brahmā's prayer, Bhāg. 10.14.14) "The Lord's own limb, or portion, is itself fully spiritual and blissful, utterly untouched by māyā — this very verse establishes it. Why is he called a 'limb' rather than simply a 'portion'? Because 'limb' implies something even less separate than 'portion.' Advaita, the very abode of auspicious qualities, is Mahā-Viṣṇu's own portion — his very name 'Advaita' [non-dual] signifies his complete non-difference from the Lord." (Cc. 1.6.11–22)

The substance of these statements is this: Vedānta teaches that Īśvara is both the efficient cause and the material cause of the universe together. Directly, Mahā-Viṣṇu reclining on the Causal Ocean is the actual efficient and material cause of the universe — as Mahā-Viṣṇu Himself He is the efficient cause, and as Advaita He is the material cause. Creating the illusory universe requires māyā in her material aspect; māyā, too, has two functions, efficient and material — but since the true efficient and material cause is Īśvara Himself, māyā is only a secondary efficient and secondary material cause. Being inert, māyā has no power to act on her own — it is Īśvara who infuses māyā with creative power and thereby renders her capable of creation. As Mahā-Viṣṇu, the principal efficient cause, He infuses power into māyā's efficient aspect; as Advaita, He infuses power into māyā's material aspect. So, as Advaita, Mahā-Viṣṇu is the principal material cause of the universe. Though both infuse power into māyā, neither is Himself a material, illusory substance — both are fully spiritual and blissful: Mahā-Viṣṇu is spiritual bliss itself, and His portion Śrī Advaita is likewise spiritual bliss itself. Since Śrī Advaita is not different from the Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu, his name is "Advaita" [Non-Dual].

This discussion shows that, being an avatāra portion of Īśvara Mahā-Viṣṇu, Śrī Advaita is likewise the very truth of Godhead — is Himself God. On this point Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa is in complete agreement with Kavirāja Gosvāmī. Mahāprabhu Himself calls Advaita Ācārya "the divine Īśvara" (Cc. 1.12.32).

In the earlier discussion of Nityānanda-tattva, Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own statements were quoted showing that Mahā-Viṣṇu reclining on the Causal Ocean is a portion of Śrī Balarāma (i.e., Śrī Nityānanda). Since a portion and its source are, in truth, not different, Mahā-Viṣṇu — and therefore His own portion Advaita — and Balarāma (or Nityānanda) are likewise not different from one another. That is, Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own statements show that Nityānanda and Advaita are, in truth, not different. Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa says exactly the same: Nityānanda and Advaita are "one form, appearing as two, in Kṛṣṇa's own pastime" (2.6.147). So on this point, too, Kavirāja Gosvāmī and Vṛndāvana Dāsa are in complete agreement.

Caitanya-bhāgavata also calls Śrī Advaita "Śiva." Here too there is no real disagreement with Kavirāja. As already shown, Garbhodakaśāyī is likewise a portion of Mahā-Viṣṇu, so his own portions are, in truth, portions of Mahā-Viṣṇu as well. Kavirāja Gosvāmī states (Cc. 1.5) that the three guṇa-avatāras — Brahmā (creator), Viṣṇu (maintainer), and Śiva (destroyer) — all arise from Garbhodakaśāyī. So Śiva, the destroyer, is likewise, in truth, a portion of Mahā-Viṣṇu. Since Advaita is a portion of Mahā-Viṣṇu, there is nothing illogical or doctrinally inconsistent in Śiva's presence within him: as the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā states (verse 76), the portion resides within its source.

In any case, it has already been shown that Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa speaks of Advaita Ācārya's devotional mood; that Kavirāja Gosvāmī says the same is now shown. Kavirāja Gosvāmī speaks of Advaita Ācārya's own worship of Kṛṣṇa: "With Ganges water and tulasī, moment by moment, he offers himself, meditating on Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet." (Cc. 1.6.87) "He delivered the world by giving the gift of Kṛṣṇa-bhakti, expounding devotion through the Gītā and the Bhāgavata; none can equal him in teaching devotion, and so his very name became 'Ācārya' — guru of the Vaiṣṇavas, elder of the world; the union of these two names produced 'Advaita Ācārya.' (Cc. 1.6.23–26) Advaita Ācārya is a portion of the Lord Himself, whose truth, name, and qualities are all wondrous — by whose tulasī-water, by whose very shout, Caitanya took avatāra with His full retinue; through him the Lord's kīrtana was propagated, through him the Lord delivered the world. The Ācārya Gosāñi's own glory is boundless — how could a mere worm of a soul ever fathom its limit?" (Cc. 1.6.29–32) "The Lord regards Caitanya Gosāñi as his own guru [i.e., considers Caitanya his teacher], and considers himself Caitanya's own servant; in that self-conception as servant he forgets himself entirely, teaching every soul, 'Become Kṛṣṇa's servant.' Compared to the ocean of bliss in the self-conception of being Kṛṣṇa's servant, even the bliss of Brahman is not a single drop. I am Caitanya's servant, and Nityānanda's too — no other bliss compares to this mood of servanthood. (Cc. 1.6.38–41) Advaita Ācārya thus dances, sings, and laughs uproariously, teaching everyone: 'Become Caitanya's servant.' (Cc. 1.6.47) I am the servant of Caitanya's servant, the servant of the servant of Caitanya's own servant. (Cc. 1.6.73) The original devotional self-conception belongs to Śrī Balarāma; all his own expansions follow that same mood. (Cc. 1.6.75) Saṅkarṣaṇa's avatāra, reclining on the Causal Ocean, carries within his heart that same devotional mood; Advaita Ācārya is one of his own manifestations, his devotion ever active in thought, word, and deed. In word he says, 'I am Caitanya's follower'; in mind he ever considers himself Caitanya's devotee. With water and tulasī he serves with his body, and, propagating devotion, delivered the whole world. (Cc. 1.6.78–81) Every avatāra has a rightful claim to the mood of a devotee — no greater bliss exists than that mood. The original incarnation of devotion is Śrī Saṅkarṣaṇa; Advaita too is counted among the incarnations of devotion." (Cc. 1.6.97–98)

All this shows that, on the devotional mood of the divine Śrī Advaita Ācārya, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa is in complete agreement with both Kavirāja Gosvāmī and Svarūpa Dāmodara.

(a) The "Quarrel" Between Śrī Advaita and Śrī Nityānanda. Of Śrī Nityānanda and Śrī Advaita, Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura writes: "One truth, appearing as two, in Kṛṣṇa's own pastime" (2.6.147) — that is, in truth they are one, or non-different, manifesting in two forms to assist Kṛṣṇa's pastimes. As already shown in this section, Mahā-Viṣṇu-formed Advaita is a portion of Balarāma-formed Nityānanda; their non-difference lies precisely in the non-difference of portion and source. A limb — a hand or foot — being part of the body, is truly non-different from the body, yet is also a portion of it. A natural affection is seen between the body (the whole) and its limbs (the parts): each strives for the other's protection and well-being. In just the same way, a natural affection exists between the whole, Nityānanda, and the portion, Advaita — and this affection, too, is undivided: there is no difference at all between Advaita's love for Nityānanda and Nityānanda's love for Advaita; their mutual love is, in truth, perfectly identical. Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa says exactly this: "Know Nityānanda and Advaita's love to be undivided" (2.6.150). Yet the two would say things to each other that, taken literally, sound like mutual abuse. But this is not, in fact, abuse at all — it is irony: praise disguised as reproach, in fact a revelation of Śrī Nityānanda's own true nature. For, hearing it, Nityānanda never took offense — He only laughed with delight, and in the end the two would always embrace each other's necks warmly. A passage from Caitanya-bhāgavata confirming this is quoted here.

Knowing that Advaita Ācārya, in seeking peace of mind from Mahāprabhu, had been favoring the superiority of knowledge over devotion, the Lord, taking Nityānanda with Him, went to Shantipur one day to grant Advaita peace. That day, Advaita, Nityānanda, and Mahāprabhu sat down to eat, with Haridāsa seated at the doorway eating as well. "The meal finished, little remaining; Nityānanda fell into supreme childlike absorption — He scattered rice about every part of the house and laughed; the Lord cried 'oh no!,' and Haridāsa laughed too. Seeing this, Advaita blazed like fire in anger, and, under cover of that feigned anger [not real anger, merely its appearance], spoke of Nityānanda's own truth: 'This Nityānanda has destroyed our caste-pride! Where did this drunkard's company come from? No guru at all, yet calling himself a "sannyāsī" — no one even knows what village he was born in, no one recognizes him, no one knows his caste, wandering about swaying like a mad elephant! House to house among the westerners he's eaten his rice, and now he comes to keep company with Brahmins! This Nityānanda-drunkard will be everyone's ruin — mark my words truly, Haridāsa!' In his feigned fury Advaita stripped naked, clapped his hands and danced, laughing uproariously [impossible, if his anger had been real, to dance and laugh so]. Watching Advaita's antics, Gaura Rāya laughed; laughing, Nityānanda showed him two fingers [likely two raised thumbs, a gesture of mock defiance]. Advaita, both hands raised in feigned fury, made young and old alike laugh at the sight. After a while both regained outward awareness, rinsed their mouths, and embraced each other warmly in mutual satisfaction; Nityānanda and Advaita clasped each other's necks, both Lords overflowing with the mellow of love. These are the two arms of the Lord's own body — never for a moment are they without mutual affection. So this apparent quarrel you witness is itself Kṛṣṇa's own pastime — like child's play between Viṣṇu and His own Vaiṣṇava." (2.19.242–56)

In these words, Śrī Advaita's literal, surface meaning does sound like reproach — but in that very "reproach" he was, in fact, praising Nityānanda; the substance of that praise is briefly explained here. "Destroyed our caste-pride" — Nityānanda has destroyed our pride of birth-caste. For us Brahmins to scatter food about every room of a Brahmin's house violates social custom, risking expulsion from Brahmin society — such worry is only possible for one still holding the pride "I am a Brahmin." Śrī Nityānanda, by his mercy, has dispelled that very pride. "Where did this come from... drunkard" — here Nityānanda is called a "drunkard," though Śrī Nityānanda never actually drank alcohol; once, when a Tantric renunciant of vāma-ācāra persuasion at Lalitapura offered Gaura-Nityānanda wine during a fruit-meal, Nityānanda replied, "If you offer me that, I shall run away at once" — words impossible from one accustomed to drink. So the true, hidden meaning of "drunkard" here is "one intoxicated with the wine of divine love." "No guru" — Nityānanda is Śrī Balarāma, the very truth of Godhead; being Godhead, He is Himself the guru of the universe, and can truly have no guru of His own. "Calling himself a sannyāsī... no one knows his birth" — Nityānanda is Vraja's own Balarāma, the original incarnation of devotion, whose devotion is not acquired through any spiritual practice — it is eternally established, without beginning. So Śrī Nityānanda's devotion, too, is eternally established; He has no need whatsoever of devotional practice, and therefore no need of sannyāsa for such practice either. Like Mahāprabhu's own sannyāsa, His sannyāsa too is merely a pastime consistent with His own nature. He identifies Himself as a sannyāsī only in that spirit. "No one knows His birth" — being the very truth of Godhead, Balarāma-formed Nityānanda has, and can have, no actual birth at all — He is unborn (aja). Like Kṛṣṇa's own "birth" during His manifest pastimes, His birth too is merely an imitation of birth, not an actual human birth (see the discussion of "Jagannāthasutāya" in the commentary at 1.1.2) — so no one truly knows of His "birth," since one who is never actually born cannot have a birthplace for anyone to know; nor, having no birth, can He have any actual caste or lineage — His identification as a kṣatriya during the Dvārakā-Mathurā pastimes is merely a role assumed for the sake of pastime, a firm conviction produced by the līlā-śakti. In all these ironic phrases, Śrī Advaita was, in truth, revealing Nityānanda's own theological nature. "Swaying, wandering about" — out of overwhelming love, Nityānanda wanders about swaying everywhere; this too reveals Nityānanda's own glory. "House to house among westerners" — Śrī Nityānanda has eaten rice, house to house, at the homes of "westerners." The hidden meaning: during His twenty years of pilgrimage, Nityānanda traveled throughout all of India, not merely the west — but Advaita specifically says "westerners" because Vraja, Dvārakā, and Mathurā, Śrī Kṛṣṇa's three sacred abodes, all lie to the west of Navadwip, and their inhabitants are thus "westerners" relative to Navadwip's own residents. In Dvāpara-yuga, when Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma descended into this universe, for as long as they remained in Vraja, Balarāma too, alongside Kṛṣṇa, ate at the homes of Vraja's own Kṛṣṇa-devoted residents; and when they went to Mathurā and then to Dvārakā, Balarāma likewise ate, alongside Kṛṣṇa, at the homes of those Kṛṣṇa-devoted associates there as well. Śrī Advaita's hidden meaning is this: that very Balarāma who, in Dvāpara, ate at the homes of Kṛṣṇa's devotees in westward Vraja, Mathurā, and Dvārakā — Śrī Nityānanda is that very Balarāma, none other. In this statement, too, Śrī Advaita, in his own ironic way, revealed Nityānanda's own truth. "Now he comes... among Brahmins" — meaning that now, in the present pastime of Gaura, Nityānanda has come to Navadwip and joined company with the Brahmins there. "Nityānanda-drunkard will ruin everyone" — meaning that Nityānanda, intoxicated with the wine of prema, will indeed be everyone's "ruin," in the sense that through His own wondrous, inconceivable power He will destroy all our attachment to caste-pride, worldly possessions, and the like, and, awakening our devotion at the Lord's feet, will make us all truly fulfilled. In this statement, too, Śrī Advaita reveals Nityānanda's own glory. (A fuller discussion is available in the commentary at 2.19.245–49.) For fear of lengthening this Introduction further, no more detailed discussion of such ironic exchanges will be given hereafter.

At Śrīvāsa's house, the Lord revealed His opulence. Advaita was then at Shantipur. The Lord sent Rāmāi Paṇḍita to fetch him, telling Rāmāi to tell Advaita that Nityānanda was now at Navadwip. On arriving, Advaita found Nityānanda there and, laughing, exchanged more of this same ironic banter — calling him "drunkard" one moment, embracing him warmly the next (2.6.144–47) — again "one form, appearing as two, in Kṛṣṇa's own pastime" (2.6.147); "know Nityānanda and Advaita's love to be undivided — only the fortunate understand this avatāra; whatever quarrel-pastime you see between them, know it all to be the inconceivable sport of the Lord"; "their mutual love is like that of Ananta and Śaṅkara [Śiva] — the two dear bodies of Kṛṣṇa-Caitanya Himself" (2.6.150–52; see commentary at 2.6.151).

Kavirāja Gosvāmī records this same kind of exchange as well. The episode in Caitanya-bhāgavata occurs before the Lord's sannyāsa; Kavirāja's own episode occurs afterward — and in his account, too, both Advaita and Nityānanda engage in this same mutual irony.

After sannyāsa, leaving Kāṭoyā, the Lord wandered three days and three nights through Rāḍha in loving absorption, during which neither He nor His companions so much as touched water. Nityānanda cleverly brought the Lord to Advaita Ācārya's own house at Shantipur, where Advaita prepared a lavish meal for them. Sitting to eat, Nityānanda complained he had fasted three days and this single mouthful would not fill even half his stomach; Advaita replied that as a genuine ascetic he ought to be content with whatever a poor Brahmin's house could offer, and should abandon such greed; Nityānanda retorted that, having issued the invitation, Advaita ought to give as much as was eaten. Pleased at this exchange, Advaita — with evident affection — replied in mock reproach: "You fallen avadhūta, only concerned with filling your belly — have you taken sannyāsa merely to punish poor Brahmins? You could eat twenty measures of rice — where would I, a poor Brahmin, find that much? Eat what little you've been given and be done — don't act the madman, don't scatter it about" (Cc. 2.3.76–84; see the hidden meaning explained in the Gaura-kṛpā-taraṅgiṇī commentary). At Advaita's own urging, the Lord and Nityānanda ate heartily — yet Nityānanda still complained his stomach was not full, and, taking a handful of rice, flung it in mock anger; some grains landed on Advaita himself, who danced for joy at having been touched by the avadhūta's own leftover rice, calling it a supreme purification — while outwardly telling Nityānanda: "This is the fruit of inviting you — no wonder, given your caste and background, that you're half mad; you've soiled me with your leftovers just to make me your equal, showing no fear even though I am a Brahmin!" Nityānanda replied that this was Kṛṣṇa's own prasāda, and that calling it merely "leftovers" was itself an offense, redeemable only by feeding a hundred sannyāsīs — to which Advaita answered that he would simply never invite another sannyāsī again, since sannyāsīs were ruining all his own household customs (Cc. 2.3.76–98; see the Gaura-kṛṣṇodaya-tattva commentary for the hidden meaning).

On another day, at the time of cleaning the Guṇḍicā temple at Nīlācala, during a meal, Advaita and Nityānanda sat together in a single row; Advaita remarked, in apparent unease, that he did not know what fate awaited him for sharing a row with an avadhūta — though the Lord, being a sannyāsī, incurred no such fault from any impropriety in his food, citing the scriptural maxim "no fault touches a king" — but he, a mere householder Brahmin, risked exactly such a fault, sharing a row with one whose birth, lineage, and conduct were all unknown to him. Nityānanda replied: "You are Advaita Ācārya — pure devotion itself is obstructed by your very doctrine of non-dualism; whoever follows your philosophy accepts no second reality beside the one — so how could I possibly know what state of mind results from sitting to eat with you?" And so the two continued exchanging words, each praising the other under the guise of mutual insult (Cc. 2.12.86–93; see the Gauḍīya Kṛṣṇa-tattva commentary for the hidden meaning).

The devotees understood the true meaning behind these exchanges between Advaita and Nityānanda, and, hearing them, felt only the deepest joy at sensing the profound mutual love between the two. But worldly people devoid of devotion, unable to grasp the hidden meaning, took the words at face value — some siding with Advaita, some with Nityānanda — reviling one or the other, and thereby bringing ruin upon themselves. Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes: "Whoever fails to understand their quarrel-pastime, and takes one side, praising one and reviling the other, that person perishes." (2.6.153)

Since no one can attain prema-bhakti without Nityānanda's mercy, there can be no doubt that reviling Him brings ruin. And of Advaita, too, Mahāprabhu Himself has said: "If you wish for prema-bhakti now, then fall and clasp Advaita's own feet — Śrī Advaita Mahāśaya is the very treasurer of devotion; it is by Advaita's mercy alone that Kṛṣṇa-bhakti is attained." (3.10.251–52) — so the ruin that would follow from disrespecting Advaita, too, is easily inferred.

In any case, the loving "quarrels" between Advaita and Nityānanda are themselves simply an expression of their mutual, undivided love for one another — a quality entirely natural to their own essential truth.

§49. Gadādhara-tattva in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata

Of Gadādhara Paṇḍita Gosvāmī, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes in his Caitanya-bhāgavata: "Truly, truly, Gadādhara is Kṛṣṇa's own prakṛti [nature/potency]." (2.18.114) He further writes: "Caitanya Himself has said it again and again: 'Gadādhara is My own Vaikuṇṭha family.'" (2.18.115)

Since Śrī Caitanya is Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own abode is Goloka Vṛndāvana, Śrī Caitanya's own "Vaikuṇṭha" is likewise Goloka Vṛndāvana (see §41 above, and commentary at 1.1.109). So if Gadādhara Paṇḍita is Śrī Caitanya's own "Vaikuṇṭha family," it follows that he is one of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own Vraja associates.

Gadādhara is also called Kṛṣṇa's own "prakṛti" (2.18.114) — "prakṛti" here meaning potency, specifically the Lord's own spiritual (essential) potency, since only that potency can be Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own eternal associate.

Taken in its literal, idiomatic sense, "family" (parivāra) can also mean "wife" — the Lord's statement "Gadādhara is My own Vaikuṇṭha family" (2.18.115), in this literal sense, would mean that Gadādhara is Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own consort in Vraja — Śrī Rādhā, or one of Her companions such as Lalitā.

A further statement of the Lord's is worth considering here. Nityānanda Prabhu once brought a measure of rice from Bengal as alms for Gadādhara; when Gadādhara received it at Nīlācala, he invited Nityānanda to a meal, and, cooking, offered the food first to his own worshiped Deity, Śrī Gopīnātha. "Just then Gauracandra arrived, and, with a gracious smile, said 'Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa,' delighted to find them there. Calling out 'Gadādhara, Gadādhara,' Gauracandra respectfully bowed at Gadādhara's own feet. Smiling, the Lord said: 'Why, Gadādhara — am I not part of this invitation too? I am not different from the two of you — even without being given a share, I would eat it by your own word.'" (3.8.138–42)

Here the Lord states outright that He is not different from Nityānanda and Gadādhara. Since Nityānanda is Balarāma Himself, and Balarāma is Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own second body, it is already understood that Nityānanda is, in truth, non-different from Kṛṣṇa-formed Gauracandra. The reason the Lord is likewise non-different from Kṛṣṇa's own "prakṛti," His essential potency Gadādhara, is this: since potency and its possessor are non-different in essence, the Lord, calling Gadādhara His own essential potency, declares Him non-different from Himself. This statement of the Lord's confirms that Gadādhara is the Lord's own essential potency — one of Śrī Rādhā, Lalitā, and the other figures of the Vraja-līlā, or their combined embodiment. Kavi Karṇapūra, in his own Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā, states that a single associate of the Navadwip-līlā can correspond to more than one associate of the Vraja-līlā, and conversely that more than one associate of the Navadwip-līlā can share the mood of a single Vraja associate. Of Gadādhara Paṇḍita specifically, Karṇapūra writes (Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā 147–53): that Śrī Rādhā, formerly the very queen of Vṛndāvana in the form of pure love, is this same Śrī Gadādhara, Gaura's own beloved, known as "Paṇḍita"; that just as Svarūpa Dāmodara determined other figures of Vraja Lakṣmī, so too — just as, formerly in Vṛndāvana, Lakṣmī was Śyāmasundara's own beloved, so now that same Lakṣmī, as Gaura's Prema-Lakṣmī, is Śrī Gadādhara Paṇḍita; that Rādhā's own dearest companion Lalitā, being devoted to Rādhā, has likewise entered into him at Gauracandra's own rising; that this Gadādhara is thus none other than Lalitā, or Rādhikā's own companion — or, by his own inconceivable potency, Hari Himself became a threefold form: the friend, and Rādhikā too. Some say it was Rāmānanda Brahmacārī who was Lalitā, and this view too has merit, given the way self-manifestation can differ. Or else, Bhagavān Gaura Himself, by His own will, took a threefold form, and it is in that threefold sense that Śrī Gadādhara is said to be Śrī Rādhikā's own form.

The substance of these statements of Karṇapūra's is that Gadādhara Paṇḍita is, in truth, Śrī Rādhā Herself — and Svarūpa Dāmodara holds the same view; in his own Caitanya-candrodaya-nāṭaka he states that Lalitā, too, has entered into Rādhā-formed Gadādhara.

These statements of Karṇapūra's confirm the literal sense of the Lord's own phrase "Vaikuṇṭha family." Gadādhara Paṇḍita is, in truth, the very "family" — the wife — of the Vraja-līlā, Śrī Rādhā Herself. Śrī Śukadeva, too, calls Rādhikā and the other gopīs Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own "brides" ("kṛṣṇa-vadhvaḥ," Bhāg. 10.33.7) — "vadhū" meaning "wife" (as the grammatical rule states, "vadhū" denotes both "wife" and "daughter-in-law"). Śrī Rādhā is the essential potency in whom the hlādinī (bliss-giving) function is preeminent — and therefore, in Her essential nature, She is Kṛṣṇa's own preeminently hlādinī, essential potency. Svarūpa Dāmodara says the same: "Rādhā is the hlādinī potency, the very transformation of love for Kṛṣṇa." From the Padma Purāṇa's Pātāla-khaṇḍa, it is known that there is not even the slightest difference between Śrī Rādhā and Śrī Kṛṣṇa: "Rādhikā is the supreme goddess... She is directly Mahālakṣmī, and Kṛṣṇa is Lord Nārāyaṇa — between these two there is no difference at all, not even the slightest, O best of sages." (Padma Purāṇa, Pātāla-khaṇḍa 50.53–55) The same Purāṇa records Rādhā Herself telling Nārada: "I am also the goddess Lalitā, who is known as Rādhikā; I am also called Vāsudeva, eternal in the essence of love. Truly I am the very form of femininity; I am the eternal woman. I am also the goddess Lalitā, and I am Kṛṣṇa Himself in a male body. Between the two of us there is no difference — this is the very truth, O Nārada." (Padma Purāṇa, Pātāla-khaṇḍa 44.44–46)

As already shown, Vṛndāvana Dāsa calls Gadādhara "Kṛṣṇa's own prakṛti," and the Lord Himself calls Gadādhara His own "Vaikuṇṭha family" — and these statements from Karṇapūra, Śukadeva, and Rādhikā Herself confirm the full significance of what Vṛndāvana Dāsa and the Lord Himself have said of Gadādhara.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own statements carry this same significance. Following Svarūpa Dāmodara's kaḍacā, Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes: "Gadādhara Paṇḍita and others are the Lord's own potency." (Cc. 1.11.23) "Gadādhara and others are the Lord's own potency-avatāras, counted among His intimate devotees." (Cc. 1.7.15)

In these statements of Kavirāja Gosvāmī's, the phrase "Gadādhara Paṇḍita and others," and "Gadādhara and others," carries this significance: in the Vraja-līlā, all of Rādhā's companions and confidantes are present at Navadwip as well, each in the form appropriate to that pastime.

Śrī Rādhā has descended in the form of Gadādhara Paṇḍita. The word "and others" indicates that Rādhā's companions and confidantes, too, are present in the Navadwip-līlā, each in their own appropriate form. Gadādhara and all these others are the Lord's "own potency," His "potency-avatāras" — "own potency" here meaning precisely His own essential, intrinsic potency, His svarūpa-śakti.

This shows that, on Gadādhara-tattva too, Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura is in agreement with Kavirāja Gosvāmī, Karṇapūra, and Svarūpa Dāmodara alike.

§50. The Status of Śrīvāsa and the Other Principal Devotees in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura writes in his Caitanya-bhāgavata: *"In the age of Kali, Śrī Caitanya Nārāyaṇa revealed Hari-saṅkīrtana as the one dharma for all; the Lord, with His full retinue, descended in the age of Kali to uphold the dharma of saṅkīrtana. By the Lord's own command, all His associates took birth as human beings even before Him — whether Ananta, Śiva, Brahmā, or the great sages, whatever attendants and followers any avatāra ever had, all of them took birth as devotees; Kṛṣṇa alone knows who was born where. Some were born at Navadwip, some at Chittagong, some at Baṭa, some in Orissa, some in the west —

devotees took birth in many different places, and all converged at Navadwip. Since the Lord's own avatāra would occur at Navadwip, it was at Navadwip that they all would gather. In all three worlds there is no village like Navadwip, where Caitanya Gosāñi Himself took avatāra."*

"Every Vaiṣṇava took birth at Navadwip village — even one dearest to the Lord took no birth elsewhere. Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita, and Śrīrāma Paṇḍita, and Candraśekhara Deva, worshiped in all three worlds; he named Śrī Murāri, physician of worldly disease — all these Vaiṣṇavas took avatāra at Sylhet. Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi, foremost of Vaiṣṇavas; Caitanya's own dear Datta named Vāsudeva — all these appeared at Chittagong; Haridāsa took his avatāra at Brindaban [or a place so named]." (1.2.20–33)

These statements show that Śrīvāsa and the other principal devotees are Mahāprabhu's own eternal associates. Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa also records how, when the devotees grew greatly distressed at hearing of the Lord's intention to take sannyāsa, the Lord comforted them thus: "The Lord said: 'Why do you all worry so? Wherever you are, there I am always, every moment. You think that by taking sannyāsa I shall leave you all behind — never think this in your hearts; I shall never, for even a moment, leave you. Know that you are with Me always, in every birth — not merely this one.'" (2.26.6–9)

These words from the Lord's own mouth likewise show that His companion-devotees are His own eternal associates — a truth Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa expresses in many other places as well.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī says exactly the same. Śrīla Svarūpa Dāmodara writes in his own kaḍacā: "I bow to Kṛṣṇa [Caitanya] who embodies the five truths — devotee-form (bhakta-rūpa), devotee-essence (bhakta-svarūpa), devotee-incarnation (bhaktāvatāra), those called devotees (bhaktākhya), and those empowered as devotees (bhakta-śaktika)." (Cc. 1.1.14) In explaining this verse, Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes: *"Svayaṁ Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa is Himself the one, sole Lord — unparalleled, Nanda's own son, crown of all connoisseurs of rasa. The lovers and beloveds of Vraja, delighting in the rāsa and other pastimes — all else you see are but His own associates. That same Kṛṣṇa has descended as Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya; blessed indeed are all those associates who accompany Him. He alone is the truth of Godhead — Caitanya, the Lord; yet His own pure form is suffused with devotional mood. It is one of Kṛṣṇa's own sweet, wondrous natures — to taste His own sweetness, Kṛṣṇa Himself adopts a devotional mood; in this, Caitanya Gosāñi bears the devotee-form. His devotee-essence is His brother Nityānanda; His devotee-incarnation is Ācārya Gosāñi [Advaita] — these three truths I sing as one. One is Mahāprabhu; the other two are His own Lords, each serving Mahāprabhu's own feet. These three truths I hold as worthy of all worship; the fourth truth, of the devotees themselves, I know as the worshipers. Śrīvāsa and the countless millions of devotees — all are counted among the truth of pure devotees. Gadādhara and the rest are the Lord's own potency-avatāras, counted among His intimate devotees. With them the Lord eternally sports, with them He propagates the holy name, with them He tastes the mellow of love, with them He distributes the treasure of prema. These five truths together flood the earth,

whoever tastes however much of that mood, his thirst only grows the more; no discrimination is made, no consideration of place or worthiness — whomever he finds, to him he gives prema; plundering and feasting on that wondrous treasury, the love within it only multiplies a hundredfold."* (Cc. 1.7.5–22)

These statements show that, just as with the second, third, and fifth truths, the Lord's "eternal sport" extends also to the fourth truth — the countless millions of devotees such as Śrīvāsa — that is, Śrīvāsa and the other devotees, too, are the Lord's own eternal associates.

This shows complete agreement between Kavirāja Gosvāmī, Svarūpa Dāmodara, and Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura regarding the truth of Śrīvāsa and the other devotees.

§51. Sādhya-Sādhana-Tattva (The Goal and the Means) in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata

As seen throughout the discussion of every doctrine in §§20–50, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa nowhere gives any sustained, continuous exposition of doctrine in one place — his supreme absorption lay in describing the glory of Śrī Śrī Gaura-Nityānanda's pastimes. It is only from what he states and has others state, in various contexts within that narration, that his views on the various doctrines can be determined. The same holds for sādhya-sādhana-tattva — his views must be gathered from statements scattered throughout. Not every statement can be cited; only a representative few are given here.

Before that, a few general words on sādhya-sādhana are needed. That which is attained as the fruit of spiritual practice (sādhana) is called the "goal" (sādhya).

The Veda and the scriptures that follow it discuss, for the soul's ultimate spiritual welfare, chiefly three truths: sambandha-tattva (the truth of one's relationship), abhidheya-tattva (the truth of the process), and prayojana-tattva (the truth of the ultimate goal).

Sambandha-tattva. That with which the soul has an eternal, beginningless, unbroken relationship is sambandha-tattva — the very subject matter of the entire Veda, and, for the soul's ultimate welfare, the object of knowledge itself, the thing to be known. Vedic scripture shows that this object is the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Soul. Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own statement in the Gītā, "vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ" (15.15) — "By all the Vedas, I alone am to be known" — shows that Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself is that very Supreme Brahman, Supreme Soul, known through all the Vedas. It is with Para-brahma Paramātmā Śrī Kṛṣṇa alone that the soul has this eternal, beginningless, unbroken relationship — so He alone is sambandha-tattva, the object of knowledge, the object of worship.

The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.4.8 and 2.4.5) shows that Para-brahma Paramātmā is the soul's one and only true beloved. Since "belovedness" is, by its very nature, mutual, the soul is likewise dear to Him. So the soul's eternal, beginningless, unbroken relationship with the Supreme Brahman is precisely a relationship of mutual belovedness. This is why the Bṛhadāraṇyaka states: "One should worship the Self [Ātmā] alone as the beloved. Whoever worships the Self alone as the beloved — the beloved thing he thereby attains never perishes." (1.4.8) — meaning: one should worship Ātmā, the Supreme Soul, the Supreme Brahman, as the beloved; whoever does so attains the beloved, and what he attains is never subject to destruction (see the fuller discussion in Manträ 16.2).

The meaning of "worship as the beloved" is service oriented solely toward the beloved's own pleasure. To seek anything for oneself in exchange for such service runs contrary to the very nature of belovedness. So service to Para-brahma Paramātmā (i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa) as the beloved means service oriented solely toward Kṛṣṇa's own pleasure, with all desire for one's own enjoyment, liberation, or anything else set entirely aside. This is the soul's own true, natural duty (see Manträ 16.2).

Prayojana-tattva. But such service, oriented solely toward Kṛṣṇa's own pleasure, absolutely requires, as an unavoidable prerequisite, the desire for such service. Without that desire in the heart, service is not true service at all — it becomes as meaningless as a mechanical ritual. This very desire for service oriented solely to Kṛṣṇa's pleasure is itself called prema — love directed toward Kṛṣṇa. "That desire for Kṛṣṇa's own sensory pleasure is called by the name prema." (Cc. 1.4.141; see Manträ 16.2c) This same prema is otherwise called prema-bhakti, or bhakti — specifically, sādhya-bhakti, the devotion attained as the fruit of practice. So love directed toward Kṛṣṇa, or prema-bhakti, is itself the very goal (sādhya). Since this is the indispensable prerequisite for the soul's own natural duty — service oriented solely to Kṛṣṇa's pleasure — this prema is prayojana-tattva, the truth of the ultimate goal.

Abhidheya-tattva. That means or practice which scripture prescribes as the necessary path to attaining prema is abhidheya-tattva — the process. This abhidheya is sādhana-bhakti, devotional practice. The Bṛhadāraṇyaka likewise states: "O friend, that Self must be seen, heard of, reflected upon, and meditated upon." (2.4.5) Here, hearing, reflecting upon, and meditating upon Para-brahma Paramātmā are all spoken of — hearing, reflection, and the rest being the constituent limbs of sādhana-bhakti. The practice of sādhana-bhakti undertaken to attain prema is called nirguṇa bhakti-yoga (devotion transcending the material qualities).

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam describes the marks of nirguṇa bhakti-yoga. Lord Kapiladeva tells His mother Devahūti: "When, merely by hearing My own glories, an unbroken flow of the mind toward Me, the indwelling witness of all hearts, arises — like the unbroken flow of the Ganges' waters toward the ocean — that is declared to be the mark of nirguṇa bhakti-yoga: devotion to the Supreme Person that is causeless and unobstructed [by any perception of duality]." (Bhāg. 3.29.11–12) (Kapiladeva first describes the three guṇa-based kinds of devotion — sāttvika, rājasika, and tāmasika — and how such devotion, being touched by the material guṇas, takes many varied forms; only after this does He describe nirguṇa bhakti-yoga.) Kapiladeva further states: "Those who desire only My service reject even the five kinds of liberation — sālokya, sārṣṭi, sāmīpya, sārūpya, and ekatva [oneness] — even when I Myself offer them unasked." (Bhāg. 3.29.13) Lord Kapiladeva's statement here expresses exactly the same substance as the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad.

The Lord Himself calls the practice necessary for attaining the soul's own natural duty — service oriented solely to Kṛṣṇa's pleasure — nirguṇa bhakti-yoga. In stating the central subject of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam,

this same practice is called the "supreme dharma," and its marks are given: "Rejecting all religiosity motivated by ulterior desire, the supreme dharma for the truly saintly is set forth in this very Bhāgavatam." (Bhāg. 1.1.2)

Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda's commentary states: "Here it is declared that the supreme dharma is set forth in this glorious Bhāgavatam — 'supreme' because it thoroughly rejects deceit marked by ulterior motive; the word 'projjhita' [thoroughly rejected] here excludes even the desire for liberation, and the dharma described is one marked solely by worship of the Lord." The substance of this commentary: this Bhāgavatam sets forth the supreme dharma — that dharma which utterly rejects deceit marked by ulterior motive. Here, the word "thoroughly" indicates that even the desire for mokṣa (all five kinds of liberation) — to say nothing of dharma, artha, and kāma — must be entirely set aside. (Then for what purpose is this supreme dharma practiced?) Solely for the worship of the Lord (Para-brahma Śrī Kṛṣṇa, spoken of in the immediately preceding verse "janmādy asya yataḥ...") — this alone is the mark of the supreme dharma. (The root "rādh" means "to satisfy"; "ārādhana" means bringing about complete satisfaction — dharma marked by nothing but the complete satisfaction, the complete pleasure, of the Lord alone, is the supreme dharma.) Not merely dharma, artha, and kāma (i.e., enjoyment), but even mokṣa itself, is "deceit" — for the desire for dharma, artha, kāma, and mokṣa alike all involve seeking some result for oneself. Wherever such self-interested motive exists, that cannot be the dharma marked solely by worship of the Lord (i.e., service oriented solely to Kṛṣṇa's pleasure).

This shows that both Lord Kapiladeva's own statement and the statement of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam's central subject express exactly the meaning of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad passage: service oriented solely to Kṛṣṇa's pleasure is the soul's own natural duty, and the means to attain it is nirguṇa bhakti-yoga — the dharma of the truly saintly, free of all self-interest.

In any case, that prema cannot be attained so long as desire for enjoyment or liberation remains in the heart is confirmed by the goddess Pārvatī's own words in the Padma Purāṇa's Pātāla-khaṇḍa: "So long as the demoness of desire for enjoyment or liberation dwells in the heart, how can the supreme rise of the bliss of prema ever occur there?" (46.62)

The word "prema" does not itself occur in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, but it is found in other Śruti passages: "Yājñavalkya said: For his own ultimate welfare, a man should worship Hari with prema" (Śatapatha Śruti, cited in Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī's Bhakti-sandarbha, §234) — the substance being that the soul should worship (serve) Śrī Hari with love, for its own true welfare.

This shows, from the testimony of Śruti and Smṛti alike, that sambandha-tattva is Para-brahma Paramātmā Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the object of the soul's worship; that abhidheya-tattva is sādhana-bhakti, nirguṇa bhakti-yoga, the supreme dharma free of desire for dharma, artha, kāma, or mokṣa. The Gopāla-pūrva-tāpanī Śruti likewise states: "Om — 'ta' denotes bliss; 'sat' denotes negation of misery; the union of the two is called the Supreme, Kṛṣṇa. Om, obeisances to Him of the form of eternity, knowledge, and bliss, dark-complexioned, the doer of auspicious deeds, the guru who is the very witness of the intellect. (1.1) Devotion is His worship — worship consisting in dedicating the mind to Him alone here and in the hereafter, free of all extraneous motive." (1.3.8) The Gopāla-uttara-tāpanī Śruti likewise states

that He, the mass of consciousness, the mass of bliss, whose very essence is the single flavor of eternity-knowledge-bliss, abides in bhakti-yoga (1.8.8) — He is the object of the soul's worship. And prayojana-tattva is love directed toward Kṛṣṇa, prema-bhakti.

A few statements from Caitanya-bhāgavata are now quoted and discussed.

(a) Statements in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata indicating sambandha-tattva.

(1) Śrī Kṛṣṇa is sambandha-tattva.

(The conditioned soul, from beginningless time, out of beginningless aversion, has turned away from sambandha-tattva. Worship of sambandha-tattva — to attain Him, or His abode, or association with Him as one of His associates — is the soul's own proper duty. So whoever is spoken of as the object to be attained, or whose abode or associate-status is spoken of as the goal, and whose worship is enjoined, is to be understood as sambandha-tattva.)

To the touring scholar (digvijayī paṇḍita), Mahāprabhu says: "Brahmin! Set aside all pride, and go worship Kṛṣṇa, showing compassion to all beings." (1.9.182)

To Gadādhara Paṇḍita, the Lord says: "Gadādhara! You are blessed — from childhood your mind was fixed firmly on Kṛṣṇa." (2.1.95)

To His students, "the Lord says: 'Eternally true is Kṛṣṇa's name; in all scripture nothing but Kṛṣṇa is truly spoken of. Kṛṣṇa alone is the doer, the destroyer, the maintainer, the Supreme Lord; even Brahmā, Śiva, and the rest are but Kṛṣṇa's own servants. Whoever expounds anything else, abandoning Kṛṣṇa's own feet, wastes his birth in vain, empty talk.'" (2.1.145–47) Sambandha-tattva alone is the true subject of all scripture.

The Lord's own statement to His students: "Kṛṣṇa, the ocean of compassion, the very life of the universe, affectionate to His servants, Nanda-gopa's own son — whoever has no love or attachment for such a name as Kṛṣṇa's, though he read all scripture, comes only to a bad end. If even the poorest, most fallen soul takes the name of Kṛṣṇa, he attains Kṛṣṇa's abode, whatever his faults. (2.1.150–52) Whoever expounds scripture while abandoning worship of Kṛṣṇa, that wretch knows nothing of the true meaning of any scriptural mantra at all. (2.1.154) That same Lord who granted liberation even to the demoness Pūtanā — how can anyone abandon such a Kṛṣṇa to meditate on anything else? He who delivered even so great a sinner as the demon Aghāsura — with what possible joy could anyone abandon glorifying Him? Hear, all you brothers, this is my true word — worship the priceless treasure of Kṛṣṇa's own lotus feet." (2.1.162)

To Śacī Mātā the Lord says: "Kṛṣṇa is the father of the universe, mother — whoever fails to worship Him suffers birth after birth as a sinner disloyal to his own father. Listen with your whole heart, mother, to the soul's true fate — what misfortune befalls one who does not worship Kṛṣṇa even for a moment. (2.1.198–99) The soul is Kṛṣṇa's own servant, bound by Kṛṣṇa's māyā — such is the suffering that comes from failing to worship Him. (2.1.228) Death comes easily, and life free of sorrow, only through worshiping Kṛṣṇa, remembering Kṛṣṇa always — so worship Kṛṣṇa, mother, in the company of the saintly; think of Him in your heart, and say 'Hari' with your mouth." (2.1.231–32)

To His students the Lord says: "Such is the pure and worshipable potency of Kṛṣṇa — worship Kṛṣṇa with firm devotion, brothers all! (2.1.327) Worship, worship the feet of that same Nanda-nandana who delivered Agha, Baka, and Pūtanā. As long as breath remains in you, as long as strength remains in your body, devote yourselves to Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet. Kṛṣṇa is mother, Kṛṣṇa is father, the very treasure of life — clasp His feet and give your heart to Kṛṣṇa." (2.1.334–35)

The devotees Śrīvāsa and others instruct the Lord Himself: "Only by worshiping Kṛṣṇa does anything at all become real; without worshiping Him, no learning is worth anything. Kṛṣṇa is the father of the universe, Kṛṣṇa is life itself — worship, father, Kṛṣṇa's feet with firm resolve." (2.2.37–38)

The Lord's own command to Nityānanda and Haridāsa: "Listen, Nityānanda! Listen, Haridāsa! Proclaim My own command everywhere — go house to house begging this alone: 'Worship Kṛṣṇa, say Kṛṣṇa, learn of Kṛṣṇa.'" (2.13.6–7)

Nityānanda and Haridāsa's instruction to the townsfolk: "By His command the two go house to house: 'Say Kṛṣṇa, sing Kṛṣṇa, worship Kṛṣṇa — Kṛṣṇa is life, Kṛṣṇa is wealth, Kṛṣṇa alone is existence; say this "Kṛṣṇa," brothers, with one accord.'" (2.13.14–15)

Nityānanda and Haridāsa's instruction to Jagāi and Mādhāi: "Say Kṛṣṇa, worship Kṛṣṇa, take Kṛṣṇa's name — Kṛṣṇa is mother, Kṛṣṇa is father, Kṛṣṇa is wealth and life; it is for your very sake that Kṛṣṇa has taken avatāra — worship such a Kṛṣṇa, and abandon every wicked way." (2.13.81–82)

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own statement: "Through pride of wealth or lineage, Kṛṣṇa is never attained." (2.20.95)

On the night of leaving home to take sannyāsa, to the devotees: "The Lord commanded them all: 'Go and sing of Kṛṣṇa. Say Kṛṣṇa, worship Kṛṣṇa, sing Kṛṣṇa's name — think of nothing else but Kṛṣṇa. If any of you love Me, then sing of nothing but Kṛṣṇa; whether lying down, eating, or waking, keep Kṛṣṇa in your heart day and night, and speak Him with your mouth.'" (2.26.73–76)

To Keśava Bhāratī at Kāṭoyā, the Lord's own words: "Show me your grace, great one — you who purify the fallen, so full of compassion; you alone can give me my beloved Kṛṣṇa, my Lord of life; Kṛṣṇacandra dwells within you always. Grant me this one instruction — that I may know nothing but service to Kṛṣṇa." (2.26.250–52)

Sārvabhauma's own words to the Lord: "One who worships Kṛṣṇa without material desire — such a one alone deserves the name of a true yogī or sannyāsī." (3.3.38)

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own statement: "These matters of Kṛṣṇa are the deepest mysteries — hearing them, one attains Kṛṣṇa without fail." (3.3.146)

At Vidyāvācaspati's house: "Smiling gently, the Lord blessed everyone there: 'May your minds fix upon Kṛṣṇa. Say Kṛṣṇa, worship Kṛṣṇa, hear Kṛṣṇa's name — let Kṛṣṇa be your very life, wealth, and treasure.'" (3.3.322–23)

Bhīma Dāsa's own statement: "Service to the Vaiṣṇavas is thus the supreme means — through service to the devotees alone does everyone attain Kṛṣṇa." (3.3.477)

All these statements quoted here from Caitanya-bhāgavata show that Nanda's own son, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, is sambandha-tattva.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī says exactly this as well. Teaching Śrīpāda Sanātana Gosvāmī at Vārāṇasī, Mahāprabhu says: "In Vedic scripture there are these three: sambandha, abhidheya, and prayojana — Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa-bhakti, and prema — these three are the supreme treasures. In the Veda and all scripture that follows it, Kṛṣṇa alone is the principal object of relationship." (Cc. 2.20.126–27) Kavirāja Gosvāmī gives an extended account of this teaching on sambandha-tattva, given by the Lord to Sanātana, in chapters 20–21 of the Madhya-līlā, concluding with the Lord's own words: "Thus have I explained the truth of sambandha; the teaching of all Vedic scripture is that Kṛṣṇa alone is the essence." (Cc. 2.22.2)

This shows complete agreement between Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa and Kavirāja Gosvāmī that Śrī Kṛṣṇa is sambandha-tattva — and complete agreement, too, between Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own account and Mahāprabhu's own words.

(2) Statements indicating Śrī Gaurāṅga as sambandha-tattva. Yet Caitanya-bhāgavata also contains statements pointing to sambandha-tattva in a different sense. A few are given here.

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own statements: "Whoever hears the story of Caitanya in this Ādi-khaṇḍa, Śrī Gauracandra will surely meet him." (1.12.159) "Whoever hears these auspicious words, his mind stays fixed on Gauracandra, together with the devotees." (2.8.326)

Murāri Gupta's own words to the Lord: "Wherever you take avatāra with your associates, there, in that very place, I shall become your servant." (2.10.23)

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own statements: "Whatever glory of His you hear, know this — there is nothing beyond service to Caitanya. (2.10.154) Seeing this, whoever has no devotion to Caitanya, even conversing with him depletes one's own accumulated merit. (2.10.158) Whoever hears this excellent praise of Mukunda's, he too shall join Mukunda's own company of singers" (2.10.261 — meaning attainment of Gaura's own associate-hood, alongside Mukunda). "Through wealth, lineage, or scholarship, Caitanya is never attained — only through devotion is Caitanya Gosāñi found; even the greatest fame cannot attain Caitanya — only through devotion do the four Vedas themselves sing His praise. (2.10.276–77) Whoever bears not the name 'Caitanya's devotee' — whatever else he may be, he is worth less than a blade of grass. Nityānanda says, 'I am Caitanya's servant' — day and night the Lord reveals nothing else; by his grace one attains devotion to Caitanya — is there any calamity that worshiping Nityānanda cannot avert? (2.10.299–301) Even a bird, if it merely utters Caitanya's own name, shall surely attain Caitanya's own abode." (2.13.316)

The Lord's own words to the devotees: "Birth after birth you shall have My company; even your own servants shall witness My own sport." (2.10.285)

Nityānanda's own words to Mādhāi: "Whoever worships Caitanya, he is My very life; age after age I deliver him. If, instead of worshiping Caitanya, one worships Me, that very devotion to Me becomes, for him, a source of sorrow birth after birth." (2.15.67–68)

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own statements: "It is only by the Vaiṣṇavas' own mercy that one attains Viśvambhara — without devotion, all chanting and austerity is worthless. (2.1.268) The Lord Himself knows how to relieve His devotees' sorrows — how could a soul in sorrow fail to worship such a Lord? (3.1.270) Whoever hears this array of Caitanya's own qualities crosses over material existence and reaches Śrī Caitanya's own abode. (3.3.145) Worship, worship, brothers, Caitanya's own feet — hearing of which breaks the bonds of ignorance, remembering which dispels every affliction — worship, worship the feet of Śacī's own son! (3.3.413–14) Whoever hears these pastimes with a joyful heart attains Śrī Caitanya's own company..."

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam's verse "kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākṛṣṇaṁ sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣadam..." (11.5.32) describes the object of worship for the present age of Kali, and states that He is "sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣada." In introducing the reason for Śrī Gaurāṅga's descent, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa cites this very Bhāgavata verse — showing his own understanding that the object of worship described there is none other than Śrī Gaurāṅga Himself. "The Lord dances amid His own limbs, weapons, and associates" (2.23.153), and "Along the Ganges bank, the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha goes dancing amid His own limbs, weapons, and associates" (2.23.236) — in these statements, too, Vṛndāvana Dāsa says exactly the same. All this shows that Vṛndāvana Dāsa is speaking of the Lord's own status as the object of worship.

The statements quoted here from Caitanya-bhāgavata thus show that Śrī Gaurāṅga, too, is sambandha-tattva.

Śrīpāda Rūpa Gosvāmī, in the first Caitanyāṣṭaka of his Stava-mālā, likewise proclaims Śrī Caitanya's status as sambandha-tattva, describing Him as the very object known through the Śruti: "He who is the ultimate refuge of the celestial lords, the very culmination of the Upaniṣads' sages' endless bowing, the very distillate of the love of all the lotus-eyed cowherd maidens — that Caitanya — when will He again grace the sight of my own eyes?" (verse 2) And in the very first verse of that same Caitanyāṣṭaka, Śrīpāda Rūpa Gosvāmī likewise declares Śrī Caitanya's status as the eternal object of worship: "He who is ever worshiped by the celestial lords — Śiva, Brahmā, and the rest — bearing deep affection for Him with folded hands; who teaches His own devotees the pure formula of devotion to Himself — that Caitanya — when will He again grace the sight of my own eyes?" Here too, in declaring Śrī Caitanya's status as the eternal object of worship, Śrīpāda Rūpa Gosvāmī shows that Śrī Gaurāṅga is sambandha-tattva.

This shows agreement between Vṛndāvana Dāsa and Rūpa Gosvāmī on Śrī Gaurāṅga's status as sambandha-tattva. Śrīpāda Rūpa was one of Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own instructing gurus, and Kavirāja's own statements agree with Rūpa's — indeed, Kavirāja quotes this very verse, "sureśānāṁ durgam..." in the fourteenth chapter of his own book. In many places, Kavirāja Gosvāmī speaks of worshiping and attaining Śrī Gaurāṅga. For instance: "Whoever hears the story of the Lord's pilgrimage attains the unwavering treasure of prema at Caitanya's feet." (Cc. 2.9.332) "Whoever hears of Caitanya with faith shall surely attain prema at Caitanya's feet; and whoever fails to worship such a merciful Caitanya, though he be the very best of men, is still to be counted among the demons. Therefore I say again, raising my arms — worship Caitanya-Nityānanda, abandoning false argument." (Cc. 1.8.11–12) "Whoever hears this attains Gauracandra, and, with steady faith, attains prema-bhakti." (Cc. 2.13.199) Kavirāja Gosvāmī also quotes a statement of Śrī Nityānanda's own: "Serve Caitanya, sing Caitanya, take Caitanya's name — whoever shows devotion to Caitanya, he is My very life." (Cc. 2.11.24)

Long before Kavirāja Gosvāmī composed his Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Śrīla Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura Mahāśaya had already received initiation from Mahāprabhu's own intimate associate, Vṛndāvana-resident Śrīla Lokanātha Gosvāmī, and studied devotional scripture under Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī.

Following their own teaching, Ṭhākura Mahāśaya writes in his own Prārthanā:

"Kṛṣṇa Caitanyadeva — serve Him with devotion and full attention, the giver of the wish-fulfilling tree of prema." "O brother, worship my own Gaurāṅga's feet — failing to worship Him, I die of sorrow, drowning in this poisoned well of household life, these five vital airs of mine all burnt away." "Let me smash my head on stone, let me burn in fire — where else shall I find Gaurāṅga, treasury of all virtue?" "Failing to worship Gaura's own feet, I die — the priceless jewel of prema, I have carelessly thrown away" — and so on.

These statements of Śrīla Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura's show that he too, along with Jīva Gosvāmī, Lokanātha, and the other Gosvāmīs, held Śrī Gaurāṅga to be sambandha-tattva. On this point, complete agreement is found between Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa and all the later ācāryas.

(3) The mystery of calling both forms sambandha-tattva. It remains to consider why Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa, and, following him, Narottama Dāsa and Kavirāja Gosvāmī and all the rest, call both forms — Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Śrī Gaurāṅga — sambandha-tattva.

Śrī Kṛṣṇa is Para-brahma Paramātmā, Svayaṁ Bhagavān, and so He is sambandha-tattva; Śrī Caitanya is likewise Svayaṁ Bhagavān, so He too is sambandha-tattva. But it does not seem that both forms are called sambandha-tattva merely to convey this single fact. The real reason is explained here.

If both Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Śrī Gaurāṅga were called sambandha-tattva — that is, the proper object of worship for attaining the ultimate spiritual truth — merely because both are equally Svayaṁ Bhagavān, then it would follow that worshiping either one alone, Kṛṣṇa or Caitanya, would suffice for the soul to attain that ultimate truth, and worship of both forms together would not be necessary. But it will now be shown that Caitanya-bhāgavata's own statements indicate that worship of both forms together is indeed required.

Many statements already quoted above instruct worship of both forms; among them, many also speak of attaining both forms, and attaining the abode of both forms. A couple of these are quoted again here: "If even the poorest, most fallen soul takes the name of Kṛṣṇa, he attains Kṛṣṇa's abode, whatever his faults" (2.1.152); "Through service to the devotees alone does everyone attain Kṛṣṇa" (3.3.477) — these statements speak of attaining Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa's own abode.

Elsewhere: "Even the greatest fame cannot attain Caitanya" (2.10.277); "Even a bird, if it merely utters Caitanya's own name, shall surely attain Caitanya's own abode" (2.13.316); "It is only by the Vaiṣṇavas' own mercy that one attains Viśvambhara" (2.2.68); "Whoever hears this... attains Śrī Caitanya's own abode" (3.3.145) — these statements speak of attaining Śrī Caitanya and Śrī Caitanya's own abode.

As already shown (§36 above), Śrī Gaurāṅga's own abode of Navadwip is itself one particular manifestation of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's abode, Goloka-Vṛndāvana. So just as Śrī Gaurāṅga and Śrī Kṛṣṇa are not, in every respect, simply identical, their respective abodes are likewise not, in every respect, simply identical — and so attaining Śrī Kṛṣṇa and attaining Śrī Gaurāṅga are not quite the same thing, nor is attaining Kṛṣṇa's abode quite the same as attaining Gaurāṅga's abode. Just as Śrī Gaurāṅga possesses a distinctiveness beyond Śrī Kṛṣṇa, so too Śrī Gaurāṅga's own abode possesses a distinctiveness beyond Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own abode. It is precisely because of this distinctiveness that Caitanya-bhāgavata speaks, separately, of attaining each form and each form's own abode.

Svayaṁ Bhagavān is, in His Kṛṣṇa form, the very object of love, and, in His Śrī Gaurāṅga form, the very receptacle of love. The full purpose of attaining Svayaṁ Bhagavān's own form is realized only in attaining both forms in their own abodes — that is, in attaining service to both forms together. This is precisely why Caitanya-bhāgavata speaks of attaining both forms, and both forms' own abodes.

This is likewise confirmed by Śrī Nityānanda's own instruction. At the Lord's own command, He taught worship of Kṛṣṇa house to house at Navadwip — yet He also told Mādhāi, "Whoever worships Caitanya, he is My very life" (2.15.37). It is inconceivable that Śrī Nityānanda would have set aside Gaura's own command to propagate an instruction of His own instead — rather, for the sake of attaining service to both forms, Śrī Nityānanda instructed worship of both forms together.

The ācāryas following Vṛndāvana Dāsa say exactly the same. Narottama Dāsa, the mantra-disciple of Śrī Lokanātha Gosvāmī and student of Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī, following their own teaching, speaks in his Prārthanā both of worshiping Śrī Kṛṣṇa and of worshiping Śrī Gaurāṅga: "Let me serve Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa in life and death; behold their pastimes in their own abode day and night..." "Alas, alas, I have wasted my birth in vain — obtaining a human birth, yet failing, knowingly, to worship Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, I have swallowed poison..." — and elsewhere: "O brother, worship my own Gaurāṅga's feet — failing to worship Him, I die of sorrow, drowning in this poisoned well of household life..." He also states outright, in a prayer at his own guru Lokanātha Gosvāmī's feet, that his purpose in worshiping both forms is to attain both forms in their own abode: "O Lord Lokanātha! Keep me at your feet — if only you would look on me with your gracious glance, joyfully! Then all my heart's desires would be fulfilled, all my longing satisfied — there Caitanya is found, and there too Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa."

Śrīla Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura's Prārthanā also hints at the very manner in which the two forms are connected: "Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, the youthful divine pair, are my very life — in life and in death I have no other refuge. In a grove of blossoming kadamba trees on the Kālindī's bank, I shall seat the two of them on a jeweled dais, anoint their dark and golden limbs with sandalwood fragrance, fan them with a cāmara, and gaze upon their moon-like faces..." — praying thus for service to Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, Śrīla Narottama Dāsa concludes: "The servant of the servant of Lord Kṛṣṇa Caitanya — Narottama Dāsa longs for such service." This shows that it is specifically as "the servant of the servant" of Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Prabhu that he desires service to Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa — meaning that it is through service to Kṛṣṇa Caitanya that service to Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa becomes desirable at all. Elsewhere in his Prārthanā he says the same: "Whoever holds fast to Gaura's two feet as his own wealth, he alone knows the essence of the mellow of devotion; whoever's heart melts for Gaura's own sweet pastimes, blessed indeed is he. Whoever takes Gaurāṅga's own name attains the rise of prema; whoever, hearing it, finds his heart purified, is truly qualified for devotion... Whoever melts — becomes absorbed — in Gaurāṅga's own qualities, the eternal pastimes of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa spring to life within him; whoever dives into the waves of that ocean of Gaura-prema-rasa becomes an intimate companion of Rādhā-Mādhava. Whether at home or in the forest, whoever cries out, 'Alas, Gaurāṅga!' — Narottama begs for that person's company." These statements, too, show that only by becoming absorbed — melting — in Gaurāṅga's own qualities can the eternal pastimes of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa spring to life in the heart; only by diving into the waves of the ocean of Gaura-prema-rasa can one become an intimate of Rādhā-Mādhava; only by knowing Rādhā-Mādhava's own heart can one serve them as they truly wish. This too shows that worship of Kṛṣṇa is to be undertaken through worship of Gaura.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī, student of Śrī Rūpa and the other five Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana, says exactly the same, following their own teaching: "Kṛṣṇa-līlā's own nectar-essence flows in a hundred streams in every direction; that Caitanya-līlā is an imperishable lake — graze your mind's own swan there." (Cc. 2.25.223) Here Kavirāja Gosvāmī shows that only by roaming that imperishable lake of Caitanya-līlā can a spiritual practitioner enter whichever of the hundred streams of Kṛṣṇa-līlā he seeks — that is, only by becoming immersed in the mellow of Śrī Caitanya's own pastimes can Kṛṣṇa-līlā spring to life within. This too shows that Kṛṣṇa-worship is to be undertaken through Gaurāṅga-worship. Kavirāja Gosvāmī then glorifies this imperishable lake of Caitanya-līlā further: "The conclusions of Kṛṣṇa-bhakti, blossoming there like lotuses — taste their honey; a garden of prema-rasa's own lilies, blooming there night and day — graze your mind's own bee there. Devotees of every mood, like swans and cakravāka birds, sport there together; Kṛṣṇa's own play, the lotus-stalk always available there, feeds the devotee-swans. Go to that very lake, become a swan or cakravāka bird yourself, and sport there always — all sorrow will vanish, supreme happiness will be attained, and the flowering of prema will come effortlessly. (Cc. 2.25.225–27) The nectar-flood of Caitanya-līlā, and the camphor-essence of Kṛṣṇa-līlā — the two mingled together produce the sweetest sweetness; whoever tastes that, by the grace of the saintly and the guru, alone knows the fullness of that sweetness." (Cc. 2.25.229) Here Kavirāja Gosvāmī shows that the fullest sweetness comes only from tasting the mellow of both forms' pastimes together.

This shows that Caitanya-bhāgavata speaks of worshiping both forms, and of the fruit of doing so — and that the later ācāryas say exactly the same.

(b) Abhidheya-tattva in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. The practice conducive to attaining sambandha-tattva is called abhidheya. Since Caitanya-bhāgavata calls both Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Śrī Gaurāṅga sambandha-tattva, the abhidheya it teaches, too, is the practice conducive to attaining both forms together.

A few statements indicating abhidheya-tattva are now quoted from Caitanya-bhāgavata, with discussion where needed.

The Lord's own words to His students: "Today I have read Kṛṣṇa's own name — truly the very abode of qualities is Kṛṣṇa's own lotus feet; truly, truly, in all three worlds, Kṛṣṇacandra alone is the true reality." (2.1.190–91) Here the hearing and chanting of Kṛṣṇa's own name and qualities is spoken of — one representative instance of the ninefold practice of devotion (śravaṇa, kīrtana, and the rest).

To His students, the Lord says: "Say Kṛṣṇa, worship Kṛṣṇa, hear Kṛṣṇa's name — meditate day and night on Kṛṣṇa's own feet." (2.1.328) Here hearing and chanting Kṛṣṇa's name, and meditation on Kṛṣṇa's feet, are spoken of — both, too, limbs of the ninefold devotional practice.

The Lord further tells His students: "Clasp His feet and give your heart to Kṛṣṇa." (2.1.335) Here, too, remembrance of Kṛṣṇa (smaraṇa) — one of the nine limbs — and reflection (mananam), as spoken of in the Śruti's "śrotavyo mantavyaḥ...", are indicated.

To His own students, the Lord says: "For so long now we have only studied and heard — now perform Kṛṣṇa-kīrtana fully." (2.1.397) The students ask what manner of saṅkīrtana He means, and Śrī Śacīnandana Himself teaches them: "Harāye namaḥ kṛṣṇa yādavāya namaḥ, gopāla govinda rāma śrī-madhusūdana," clapping His own hands to show the tune, and Himself leading the kīrtana with His students." (2.1.398–400) In this same passage, the Lord tells His students, "All of you take refuge in Kṛṣṇa" (2.1.383) — instructing them in worship of Kṛṣṇa, and specifically in the practice of nāma-saṅkīrtana, itself one limb of the ninefold devotional practice.

Sent by the Lord to Advaita Ācārya, Rāmāi Paṇḍita conveys the Lord's own command: "Bring with you all the items proper for the six-limbed worship rite, and, with your wife, come at the Lord's own command." (2.6.32) Here, in commanding the six-limbed worship (ṣaḍaṅga-pūjā) of Gaura, instruction in the "arcana" (deity-worship) limb of the ninefold devotional practice is given.

When the townspeople came to the Lord: "The Lord said, 'May devotion to Kṛṣṇa be yours all — speak nothing but Kṛṣṇa's own name and qualities.' The Lord Himself instructed them all, saying, 'Hear well this great mantra of Kṛṣṇa's name: Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare, Hare Rāma Hare Rāma Rāma Rāma Hare Hare.' The Lord said, 'I have given you this great mantra — go and chant it with firm resolve; through this alone shall all of you attain every perfection — chant it always, no other rule applies.'" (2.23.73–77; see commentary) Here the Lord instructs the chanting of the sixteen-name mahā-mantra — and He gave this same instruction to Tapana Miśra as well.

Before departing Shantipur for Nīlācala, the Lord likewise told the devotees: "All of you, go sit at home and take up Kṛṣṇa's name." (3.2.24) Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya says: "One who worships Kṛṣṇa without material desire — such a one alone deserves the name of a true yogī or sannyāsī." (3.3.38) — the root "bhaj" meaning "to serve," so "bhajana" here means service; "Kṛṣṇa-bhajana" here indicates the ninefold devotional practice as a whole.

Sārvabhauma further says: "If mere deliverance through Kṛṣṇa-bhakti-yoga were the goal, then what real necessity would there be in giving up the sacred thread and tuft of hair?" (3.3.56) — here too, devotional practice itself is what is meant.

All these statements show that the ninefold devotional practice — hearing and chanting Kṛṣṇa's own names and qualities, remembering, reflecting on, and meditating upon Kṛṣṇa, and worshiping Him — is itself abhidheya-tattva.

Śrīla Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura Mahāśaya says the same in his own Prema-bhakti-candrikā: "Beholding the limbs of Kṛṣṇa's own devotees, keeping their company, hearing and chanting with faith, worship, remembrance, meditation — these nine forms of devotion are the very supreme wisdom; this devotion is the supreme cause [of attaining prema]." (1.8)

Kavirāja Gosvāmī says the same, in describing Mahāprabhu's own teaching to Śrīpāda Sanātana: "Hear now, Sanātana, the marks of sādhana-bhakti, through which the great treasure of Kṛṣṇa-prema is attained: acts such as hearing are its essential characteristic, and its incidental mark is that prema is produced through them. (Cc. 2.22.55–56) Hearing, chanting, remembering, worshiping, offering prayer, rendering personal service, friendship, and full self-surrender." (Cc. 2.22.67)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam likewise records this same ninefold devotional practice: "Hearing of and chanting Viṣṇu's glories, remembering Him, serving His feet, worship, offering prayer, servitude, friendship, and full self-surrender — if these nine limbs of devotion are practiced toward the Lord as taught by the great souls, that alone I consider the truest learning." (Bhāg. 7.5.23–24; "pāda-sevana" corresponds to "personal service" — see the fuller discussion in the commentary at Cc. 2.9.18–19)

The substance of these two verses is this: if these nine limbs of devotion — hearing, chanting, and the rest — are practiced directly, with the aim of pleasing the Lord, that practice is itself the ninefold sādhana-bhakti.

In any case, this discussion shows what Caitanya-bhāgavata teaches regarding abhidheya-tattva, and that it agrees completely with the later ācāryas, and with Śrīmad Bhāgavatam itself.

One further point deserves consideration here. Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own chapter 22 of the Madhya-līlā shows that Mahāprabhu described to Śrīpāda Sanātana Gosvāmī two kinds of sādhana-bhakti: the practice of the vidhi-mārga (the path of scriptural regulation), and the practice of the rāgānugā-mārga (the path of spontaneous attachment).

The Gītā (7.14–16) and other scriptural passages show that release from māyā's bondage — liberation — is attained only through worship of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, never otherwise. Those who take up Kṛṣṇa-worship for the sake of attaining liberation, knowing this scriptural injunction, practice what is called vidhi-mārga sādhana-bhakti — their inclination to worship arises not from any heartfelt yearning, nor from any longing for Kṛṣṇa's own service, but from scriptural rule. Practitioners of the vidhi-mārga attain the four kinds of liberation — sālokya and the rest — and go to Vaikuṇṭha; attaining Kṛṣṇa Himself, or Kṛṣṇa's own abode — that is, service oriented solely to Kṛṣṇa's pleasure — is not possible for them.

But those who take up Kṛṣṇa-worship out of sheer longing for Kṛṣṇa's own service — service oriented solely to His pleasure — practice what is called rāgānugā-mārga sādhana-bhakti. Only they can attain the exalted status of the Lord's own intimate associates. What drives their worship is simply longing for Kṛṣṇa's own service.

Which of these two forms of sādhana-bhakti does Caitanya-bhāgavata itself intend? This is now considered.

In their prayer to Śrī Gaurāṅga within Śacī's womb, Brahmā and the other gods say: "Who has the power to describe this glory, Lord — You will freely distribute devotion to Viṣṇu, hidden even from the Vedas! Keeping hidden that very devotion that even liberation cannot buy, You will give it for the very purpose we all now pray for. Such a treasure You alone can give the world, Lord — Your own compassion is the sole cause of it." (1.2.181–83) Here Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa speaks of "devotion to Viṣṇu" — that which even Brahmā and the other gods long for, and which is never given to those who consider themselves fulfilled by mere liberation. This is prema-bhakti.

In Mahāprabhu's own words to Śrīpāda Īśvara Purī, too, Vṛndāvana Dāsa speaks of prema-bhakti: "Grant me such a gracious glance that I may float forever in the ocean of Kṛṣṇa-prema." (1.12.108)

The Lord speaks the same to His own students: "All scripture — the Āgamas, Vedānta, and every school of philosophy — teaches that the treasure of devotion at Kṛṣṇa's feet is the one true goal." (2.1.148)

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa states: "Whatever devotion the Bhāgavata attributes to the gopīs, everyone attains that same devotion through Nityānanda." (3.5.303) The devotion of the gopīs is precisely prema-bhakti, oriented solely to Kṛṣṇa's pleasure.

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa also writes, in the Lord's own voice: "Devotion alone is the true goal of human life, so the Bhāgavata declares — 'the Bhāgavata's very form is prema,' say all four Vedas." (2.20.115) Here it is stated that Śrīmad Bhāgavatam itself declares devotion to be the one true goal of human existence — the sole means to attain the soul's own natural duty, service oriented solely to Kṛṣṇa's pleasure. This devotion is the very devotion the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad speaks of, oriented solely to Kṛṣṇa's pleasure, and it is the very devotion the verse "dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo 'tra..." (Bhāg. 1.1.2, already quoted) describes as free of all desire for dharma, artha, kāma, or mokṣa — that is, prema-bhakti.

This shows that Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura speaks, throughout his book, only of this prema-bhakti oriented solely to Kṛṣṇa's pleasure — nowhere does he speak of vidhi-mārga sādhana-bhakti oriented toward the four kinds of liberation. Only once the heart has been purified through rāgānugā-mārga sādhana-bhakti can Kṛṣṇa-prema — prema-bhakti — arise within that purified heart. So, even though Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa nowhere uses the specific term "rāgānugā bhakti," it is clear from the substance of what he teaches that rāgānugā-mārga sādhana-bhakti is indeed what he intends.

Śrīla Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura, too, speaks of rāgānugā-mārga worship in his own Prema-bhakti-candrikā: "The path of worship through rāga (spontaneous attachment) — this is my own considered view; this teaching is the very essence of both worldly wisdom and Vedic knowledge." (Prema-bhakti-candrikā 48) — and, having said this, he describes the particular method of the rāga-mārga in detail.

Following Mahāprabhu's own teaching, Śrīpāda Rūpa Gosvāmī likewise gives an extensive account of rāga-mārga worship in his Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu. The worship of the Vṛndāvana-resident Rūpa and the other Gosvāmīs was itself rāga-mārga worship, and practicing devotees to this day worship following that same method.

It has already been shown that Caitanya-bhāgavata states throughout that Mahāprabhu descended for the sole purpose of distributing prema-bhakti and propagating nāma-saṅkīrtana, and that Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa nowhere speaks of any practice conducive to attaining the sālokya and other forms of liberation.

That Kavirāja Gosvāmī is in complete agreement with Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura on this point, too, is shown by what he places in Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own mouth in chapter 3 of his Caitanya-caritāmṛta, introducing the very reason for Śrī Gaurasundara's appearance.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes: Śrī Kṛṣṇa, having descended into this universe in Dvāpara-yuga and sported there freely, later disappeared; sitting afterward in unmanifest Goloka, He reflected within Himself: "For a long time now I have not given the gift of prema-bhakti; yet without devotion, the world cannot endure. Everyone worships Me only through regulated devotion, and regulated devotion has no power to attain the mood of Vraja. The whole world is caught up in awareness of My opulence, and I take no pleasure in a devotion diluted by such opulence-awareness. Worshiping Me with such opulence-awareness, through regulated practice, one reaches Vaikuṇṭha and attains one of the four kinds of liberation — sārṣṭi, sārūpya, sāmīpya, sālokya — no devotee accepts sāyujya [merging], which entails oneness with Brahman. [Therefore] I shall inaugurate the dharma proper to this age, saṅkīrtana of the holy name, and, bestowing the four moods of devotion, set the world dancing. I shall Myself adopt the mood of a devotee, and Myself, by My own practice, teach devotion to everyone... The dharma proper to each age is established through a partial incarnation — none but Myself can give Vraja-prema; for that purpose, taking My own devotees with Me, I shall descend to the earth in various sporting forms." So resolving, at the first twilight of the age of Kali, Kṛṣṇa Himself descended at Nadia. Caitanya, the lion, took avatāra at Navadwip, roaring like a lion among lions, of lion-like courage." (Cc. 1.3.12–23)

The substance of these couplets: Śrī Kṛṣṇa reflects within Himself — "For a long time now I have not distributed prema-bhakti in the world. In a previous cosmic cycle, when I descended, I did distribute prema-bhakti — but not since. And yet, without prema-bhakti, the souls of the world cannot truly abide — that is, cannot remain established in their own natural duty (service oriented solely to My pleasure). Those in the world who worship along the path of devotion generally worship Me through the vidhi-mārga — but such worship along the vidhi-mārga cannot produce the qualification to attain the mood of Vraja (Vraja-prema, or pure prema-bhakti — without which the soul cannot remain established in its own natural duty). (This shows that it is Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own wish that the soul attain this prema-bhakti.) 'The whole world is caught up in awareness of My opulence' means: the minds of those engaged in vidhi-mārga worship remain mixed with awareness of My own opulence, and this awareness of opulence comes to dominate their hearts — but such awareness of opulence dilutes the love directed toward Me, preventing it from ever growing dense and concentrated. I take no pleasure in such diluted love. (This shows that dense, unadulterated love, free of any awareness of opulence, is Kṛṣṇa's own true heart's desire.) Worship along the vidhi-mārga, mixed with awareness of opulence, leads only to attaining the four kinds of liberation — sālokya, sāmīpya, sārṣṭi, and sārūpya — and to My own opulence-centered abode, Vaikuṇṭha; it does not lead to the world of Vraja. So I resolve: I shall descend, and, having descended, shall inaugurate the dharma proper to this age of Kali, nāma-saṅkīrtana, and shall distribute devotion in the four moods of Vraja — servitude, friendship, parental love, and conjugal love — so that, having attained that prema, the souls of the world may dance in the very ecstasy of that love. (This shows clearly that Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own restlessness is precisely for the sake of giving the souls of the world Vraja-prema.)

Even My own partial incarnation for this age of Kali [i.e., an ordinary avatāra] could inaugurate the yuga-dharma of nāma-saṅkīrtana — but he could not give Vraja-prema, since no form of Mine but Myself is capable of giving Vraja-prema. (This makes still more emphatic that giving Vraja-prema is Kṛṣṇa's own singular, heartfelt purpose.) I shall Myself adopt the mood of a devotee (as already shown, this devotional mood of Kṛṣṇa's own becomes possible only when He unites, in a single form, with Rādhā, crown-jewel of all devotees — so this statement shows that Kṛṣṇa resolved to descend precisely as the combined Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa form), and, by My own personal example, shall teach the souls of the world the practice for attaining Vraja-prema. I shall descend to this earth together with My own associates." Thinking thus, at the very first evening of the age of Kali, Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself descended at Navadwip in the form of Śrī Caitanya.

This discussion shows that Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own statements make it perfectly clear that Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa descended in the form of Śrī Gaurāṅga for the sole purpose of inaugurating nāma-saṅkīrtana and distributing prema-bhakti. Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own Caitanya-bhāgavata teaches exactly the same — showing complete agreement between Kavirāja Gosvāmī and Vṛndāvana Dāsa on this point as well.

As already shown, the method of practice taught in Caitanya-bhāgavata is, in substance, the rāgānugā-mārga; no instruction in vidhi-mārga worship is found there at all. But Kavirāja Gosvāmī, in the "Instruction to Sanātana" section of his own Caitanya-caritāmṛta, describing Mahāprabhu's own teaching to Śrīpāda Sanātana Gosvāmī, gives an account both of the Lord's instruction in rāga-mārga worship and of vidhi-mārga worship as well. Why does Caitanya-bhāgavata contain no mention of vidhi-mārga worship at all? The likely reason is this: as the Caitanya-caritāmṛta couplets already quoted show, the Lord's own principal purpose was to teach rāga-mārga worship, conducive to attaining prema; the account of vidhi-mārga worship is given only incidentally, in passing, and carries no real emphasis. Mahāprabhu taught Śrīpāda Sanātana at Kāśī, after His own sannyāsa, during His final pastimes, on His return journey from Vṛndāvana. As already noted, Caitanya-bhāgavata does not narrate the Lord's final pastimes at all — including, therefore, His pastimes at Vārāṇasī — which is precisely why no mention of vidhi-mārga worship is found in Caitanya-bhāgavata either.

(c) Prayojana-tattva in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. As already discussed regarding the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad passage, the thing absolutely necessary for the soul's own natural duty — service oriented solely to Kṛṣṇa's pleasure — is prema: love directed toward sambandha-tattva. This is precisely why prema is itself prayojana-tattva, the truth of the ultimate goal. Many statements in Caitanya-bhāgavata show that this is exactly Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own understanding. A few are quoted and discussed here.

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa states: "Whoever hears of the meeting of Nityānanda and Mādhavendra [Purī] attains the treasure of Kṛṣṇa-prema. (1.6.394) See directly, all of you, in these three worlds — it is through Nityānanda's door alone that the treasure of prema is attained. (1.6.417) Whoever hears of Nityānanda-svarūpa's own pilgrimage attains that same treasure of prema." (1.6.438) Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa

calls Kṛṣṇa-prema itself "the treasure" (dhana) in these statements — showing that the one thing absolutely necessary for attaining the soul's own natural duty, service oriented solely to Kṛṣṇa's pleasure, is precisely this treasure: Kṛṣṇa-prema.

In the devotees' own instruction to young Nimāi Paṇḍita, Vṛndāvana Dāsa has the devotees say: "Why does anyone study at all, if not to know Kṛṣṇa-bhakti? If not for that, what use is all this learning?" (1.8.249, 1.8.251) — Kṛṣṇa-bhakti here meaning Kṛṣṇa-prema.

The Lord's own words to the touring scholar: "Know this for certain — the true fruit of all learning is this alone: that the mind becomes fixed on Kṛṣṇa's own lotus feet." (1.9.178) The substance is exactly the same here.

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa states: "So long as one has not known the glory of the happiness of devotion, one takes even a kingdom to be true happiness. Compared to the happiness of prema, forget the happiness of a kingdom — even the happiness of liberation seems trivial to Kṛṣṇa's own followers." (1.9.194–95) The happiness of devotion is the happiness of prema; compared to the happiness of prema, not only the happiness of a kingdom (i.e., material enjoyment), but even the happiness of liberation, is utterly insignificant. This states outright the supreme status of prema as the ultimate goal of human life.

The Lord's own words to Śrīpāda Īśvara Purī: "Grant me such a gracious glance that I may float forever in the ocean of Kṛṣṇa-prema." (1.12.108)

The Lord's own words to Śacī Mātā: "Only that scripture is true which speaks of Kṛṣṇa-bhakti — any scripture that fails to do so becomes mere heresy. 'Any scripture or Purāṇa in which devotion to Hari is not to be found should not be heard at all, even were it spoken by Brahmā Himself' — so says Jaimini, in the Mahābhārata's Aśvamedhika Parva." (2.1.192) Here too the supreme status of Kṛṣṇa-bhakti, or Kṛṣṇa-prema, as the ultimate goal of human life is stated.

The Lord's own words to Śrī Nityānanda likewise indicate the supreme status of prema-bhakti as the ultimate goal: "You are the full potency itself; worshiping you, the soul attains Kṛṣṇa-bhakti. (2.4.36) That prema-bhakti is your very own; you are prema Himself — without your gift, no one attains devotion at all." (2.9.7)

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own statements: "The meeting of Puṇḍarīka and Gadādhara — whoever reads of it, whoever hears of it, attains the treasure of prema. (2.9.154) The plantain-seller Śrīdhara himself bears witness to this — he took devotion alone, disregarding the eight mystic perfections. (2.9.239) Whoever hears of this attains the treasure of prema; prema-bhakti arises at Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet — whoever does not revile a Vaiṣṇava attains Kṛṣṇa Himself. (2.9.243–44) Caste, lineage, ritual, meditation — none of these avail; without attaining the treasure of prema, one does not attain Kṛṣṇa at all." (2.10.98)

The Lord's own words: "Devotion alone is the true goal of human life, so the Bhāgavata declares — 'the Bhāgavata's very form is prema,' say all four Vedas." (2.20.115)

Sārvabhauma's own words: "Devotion at Kṛṣṇa's feet — that is the root truth for everyone. Whoever is always thus fulfilled, with no bondage inside or out, such a liberated soul practices Kṛṣṇa-bhakti — such is the wondrous, natural power of Kṛṣṇa's own qualities. (3.3.83–85) 'Even self-satisfied sages, free from all material bondage, feel unalloyed devotion for Lord Kṛṣṇa; such are the transcendental qualities of the Lord'" (Bhāg. 1.7.10) — here too the supremacy of devotion (prema) even over liberation is declared. Similar statements are cited in Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī's Prīti-sandarbha, §32.

The Lord's own words to Devānanda Paṇḍita: "Hear, O Brahmin, and expound the Bhāgavata thus: speak of nothing at all but devotion. In its beginning, middle, and end, the Bhāgavata teaches this alone: devotion to Viṣṇu is eternally established, imperishable. Throughout endless universes, devotion to Viṣṇu alone is real, retaining its full power even through the great dissolution. Such devotion — hidden even from Nārāyaṇa, who withholds it even while granting liberation itself — cannot be known without Kṛṣṇa's own mercy."

These words of Mahāprabhu's to Devānanda Paṇḍita show that devotion to Viṣṇu, or Kṛṣṇa-prema (the verse "vikrīḍitaṁ vraja-vadhūbhir idaṁ ca viṣṇoḥ..." Bhāg. 10.33.39, calls Śrī Kṛṣṇa, sporting in the rāsa-līlā, "Viṣṇu" Himself), is the sole subject of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam. To those who desire liberation, the Lord grants liberation — but not this devotion to Viṣṇu, this prema. Even the liberated themselves worship Śrī Kṛṣṇa in order to attain this very prema. This shows that this prema transcends even the four goals of dharma, artha, kāma, and mokṣa — prema is the fifth, and supreme, goal of human life, since no goal exists, or can exist, beyond it: for only upon attaining this prema can the soul attain its own natural duty, service oriented solely to Kṛṣṇa's pleasure — and beyond one's own natural duty, no further object of desire can exist for the soul. To Devānanda Paṇḍita, the Lord calls this devotion to Viṣṇu, or Kṛṣṇa-prema, "eternally established, imperishable, inexhaustible" — showing, since it is "eternally established," that it is not something newly produced; rather, once the heart is purified through the practice of sādhana-bhakti, this prema arises spontaneously within that purified heart — this too is shown by the Lord's own statement.

This shows, from various statements throughout Caitanya-bhāgavata, that Kṛṣṇa-prema is prayojana-tattva — and that the later ācāryas, and Mahāprabhu Himself in His later teaching to Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī, say exactly the same. Śrīla Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura, in the humility born of devotion, laments in his own Prārthanā: "Failing to worship Gaura's own feet, I die — the priceless jewel of prema, I have carelessly thrown away" — a statement that itself proclaims prema to be prayojana-tattva. Throughout his Prārthanā, he says again and again, "Narottama Dāsa begs for service" — and that very longing for service is itself prema. His Prema-bhakti-candrikā, too, speaks only of the devotional practice conducive to attaining this same prema.

Mahāprabhu Himself likewise tells Śrīpāda Sanātana Gosvāmī: "Now hear the fruit of devotion [the fruit of sādhana-bhakti] — prema is the true goal. (Cc. 2.23.2) Eternally established Kṛṣṇa-prema is no product of practice at all — it simply arises, spontaneously, in a heart purified through hearing and the other limbs of devotion. (Cc. 2.22.107) This is the fifth goal of human life: the very treasure of Kṛṣṇa-prema." (Cc. 2.23.52) To Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, too, the Lord calls this Kṛṣṇa-prema (or Kṛṣṇa-bhakti) the supreme goal of human life: "The Lord said: Bhaṭṭācārya, do not be so amazed — devotion to the Lord is itself the supreme goal of human life." (Cc. 2.6.166)

To the Kāśī-resident sannyāsīs led by Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, Mahāprabhu likewise says: "Love directed toward Kṛṣṇa is the supreme goal of human life, before which the other four goals are worth less than a blade of grass; the fifth goal is this ocean of the bliss of the nectar of prema, compared to which even the bliss of liberation is not a single drop. (Cc. 1.7.81–82) This fifth goal, this great treasure of prema, alone allows one to taste the very sweetness of Kṛṣṇa Himself." (Cc. 1.7.137)

Śrīpāda Rūpa Gosvāmī, in his own Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu and Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi, likewise proclaims the essential nature and glory of this prema, prayojana-tattva, the supreme goal of human life — and Kavirāja Gosvāmī, following him, speaks of this same prema throughout his own Caitanya-caritāmṛta and Govinda-līlāmṛta.

This shows that what is learned about prayojana-tattva from Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own statements in Caitanya-bhāgavata is exactly what is learned from the statements of the later ācāryas, and from Mahāprabhu's own later teaching as well. This discussion also shows complete agreement between Vṛndāvana Dāsa and the later ācāryas — and between Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own book and Mahāprabhu's own later statements — regarding sambandha-tattva, abhidheya-tattva, and prayojana-tattva alike.

This discussion also shows that both Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Śrī Gaurāṅga are sambandha-tattva, the proper objects of worship; that prema is the goal to be attained (sādhya); and that the means to attain it is sādhana-bhakti — specifically, the sādhana-bhakti of Caitanya-bhāgavata is, in substance, the sādhana-bhakti of the rāgānugā-mārga.

This discussion further shows that, among the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, it was Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura who first taught — in the words of Mahāprabhu Himself, in the words of the devotees, and in his own words — that Vrajendra-nandana Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Śacīnandana Śrī Gaurāṅga are both sambandha-tattva; that attaining both their abodes and both their service is the soul's true desire; that service oriented solely to the Lord's own pleasure is the soul's own natural duty; that prema alone is the one thing absolutely necessary for attaining such service; and that, to attain this prema, one must practice sādhana-bhakti oriented solely toward Gaura-Kṛṣṇa's own pleasure — that is, sādhana-bhakti of the rāgānugā-mārga. It was Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa who first taught that, compared to this soul's own natural duty of service oriented solely to Kṛṣṇa's pleasure, material enjoyment and liberation are utterly insignificant; that mokṣa is not the soul's own natural goal at all; but that prema alone is that natural goal — and therefore that prema alone is the fifth, and the supreme, goal of human life.

(d) Worship of the Lord Together with His Associates. One further matter deserves consideration here.

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa speaks of attaining Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa's own abode, and of attaining Gaura and Gaura's own abode. But Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Śrī Gaurāṅga are both present in Their own abodes together with Their own associates, and sport in pastime together with those same associates. So attaining Kṛṣṇa properly means attaining Śrī Kṛṣṇa as He sports in pastime with His own associates in His own abode. The true meaning of "attaining Kṛṣṇa" is attaining service to Kṛṣṇa — so the true meaning of "attaining Kṛṣṇa" is attaining service to Kṛṣṇa as He sports in pastime, together with His associates, in His own abode. In Vraja, Śrī Kṛṣṇa sports in four moods — servitude, friendship, parental affection, and conjugal love — and the associates proper to each of these four moods differ from one another. Since people differ in taste and disposition, a practicing devotee desires Kṛṣṇa's service in only one of these four moods — that is, whichever mood of service one desires, one desires service to Śrī Kṛṣṇa specifically as He sports in pastime with the associates of that particular mood. And to attain service in that particular mood, it is absolutely essential to have the boundless mercy — inconceivable to ordinary understanding —

of the associate-devotees of that same mood; Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes: "Through service to the devotees alone does everyone attain Kṛṣṇa" (3.3.477), and has Mahāprabhu Himself declare: "Hear this truth of mine, all of you, with full attention: whoever worships Me while disregarding My own servant — that wretched soul tears Me apart; his worship falls upon My body like fire." (2.19.207–8) Mahāprabhu likewise tells Śrīpāda Sanātana: "Without the mercy of the great souls, devotion is attained by no means at all — Kṛṣṇa-bhakti aside, even material existence itself cannot be overcome." (Cc. 2.22.32) Śrīmad Bhāgavatam's own verses — "O Rahūgaṇa, [the Lord] is not attained through austerity, sacrifice, ascetic renunciation, household life, the Vedas, water-rituals, or observances — but only through the dust of the feet of the great souls" (Bhāg. 5.12.12), and "Their minds never touch the feet of the Unconquerable Lord, however hard they strive, without ever seeking the dust of the feet of the truly great, wholly unattached souls" (Bhāg. 7.5.32) — say exactly the same thing.

The Lord's own associates are the very crown-jewels among His devotees, and so a practicing devotee absolutely requires the mercy of the associate-devotees of whichever mood of Kṛṣṇa's own pastimes he desires to serve — and to receive their mercy, accepting their guidance and serving them is likewise absolutely essential. This too is confirmed by the significance of Mahāprabhu's own statement to Śrīpāda Sanātana: "Following behind one's own desired, dearest associate of Kṛṣṇa's, one serves ceaselessly, with one's whole heart absorbed." (Cc. 2.22.159) So it is the practicing devotee's absolute duty to worship Śrī Kṛṣṇa together with His own associates, in the particular pastime-mood suited to his own nature — that is, to worship Śrī Kṛṣṇa sa-parikara, together with His associates.

The same holds true for worship of Śrī Gaurāṅga. That worship of Gaura, too, must be undertaken together with His own associates is likewise confirmed by Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa's own statements. Gaura's associates are Nityānanda, Advaita, Gadādhara, and Śrīvāsa and the other devotees. Mahāprabhu tells Śrī Nityānanda: "Whoever stays close to you, even for a moment — if he worships you, he is no less dear to Me than that." (2.5.99) Here is confirmation of the absolute duty to worship Nityānanda alongside Gaura. And Nityānanda and Advaita are "one form, appearing as two, in Kṛṣṇa's own pastime" (2.6.147); "Know Nityānanda and Advaita's love to be undivided" (2.6.150); of Nityānanda and Advaita, "their mutual love is like that of Ananta and Śaṅkara — the two dear bodies of Kṛṣṇa-Caitanya Himself" (2.6.152). Mahāprabhu likewise tells Śrī Advaita: "Hear this truth of mine, all of you, with full attention: whoever worships Me while disregarding My own servant — that wretched soul tears Me apart; his worship falls upon My body like fire... You are dearer to Me than My own body — should you ever be disregarded, by providence, great ruin follows." (2.19.207–11) All these statements show that service to Advaita, and to Śrīvāsa and the other devotees of Gaura, is likewise absolutely essential alongside service to Gaura Himself. Of Gadādhara Paṇḍita Gosvāmī, it is said: "Truly, truly, Gadādhara is Kṛṣṇa's own prakṛti. Caitanya Himself has said it again and again: 'Gadādhara is My own Vaikuṇṭha family.'" (2.18.114–15) Of Nityānanda and Gadādhara, Mahāprabhu says: "I am not different from the two of you" (3.8.142). All these statements show that without worshiping Gadādhara as well, one cannot attain Gaura's own favor. This shows that service to Gaura, Nityānanda, Advaita, Gadādhara, and Śrīvāsa and the other devotees together — that is, service to Gaura together with His own associates — is the practicing devotee's absolute duty.

Svarūpa Dāmodara, in his own kaḍacā, calls these five together the "Pañca-tattva" (the five truths): "I bow to Kṛṣṇa [Caitanya], who embodies the five truths — devotee-form (Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Himself), devotee-essence (Śrī Nityānanda), devotee-incarnation (Śrī Advaita), those called devotees (Śrīvāsa and the rest), and those empowered as devotees (Śrī Gadādhara)." (Cc. 1.1.14; see the fuller explanation of this verse in Cc. 1.7.4–19.)

To this day, the Vaiṣṇavas of the recognized lineage following Rūpa and the other Gosvāmīs worship Śrī Gaurāṅga, and Śrī Kṛṣṇa, together with Their own associates, exactly in this manner. This discussion shows that Caitanya-bhāgavata, too, speaks of the worship of this same Pañca-tattva.

§52. Gaura-Lakṣmī: Śrī Śrī Lakṣmīpriyā Devī

Mahāprabhu first married Śrī Śrī Lakṣmīpriyā Devī. Taken literally, "Lakṣmī" refers to the consort adorning Vaikuṇṭha's own Nārāyaṇa — but in the broader sense, any consort of the Lord is called "Lakṣmī." This is precisely why Śrī Śrī Lakṣmīpriyā Devī is called "Gaura-Lakṣmī."

Lakṣmī Devī's father's name is given as Vallabha Ācārya (1.7.55), or Vallabha Miśra (1.7.76). In an earlier pastime, he was Bhīṣmaka, Rukmiṇī Devī's own father (1.7.102). Kavi Karṇapūra writes, in his Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā, that Vallabhācārya was [in earlier pastimes] both Janaka and Bhīṣmaka (verse 44), and that Lakṣmīpriyā Devī was both Jānakī [Sītā] and Rukmiṇī (verse 45). Both these forms — Jānakī and Rukmiṇī — are thus present within Lakṣmīpriyā Devī. So Śrī Śrī Lakṣmīpriyā is not an ordinary conditioned soul at all, but the Lord's own eternally-established consort, a personified form of His own essential potency. Gaura's marriage to Lakṣmī Devī, though outwardly resembling an ordinary worldly marriage, is not, in truth, that at all.

Just as Rukmiṇī Devī is Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own eternal consort, and Sītā Devī is Śrī Rāmacandra's own eternal consort — and just as no actual marriage ceremony is needed to establish their status as consorts, and yet, when the fully human-pastimed Śrī Kṛṣṇa and fully human-pastimed Śrī Rāmacandra descend into this universe together with Their other associates, Rukmiṇī and Sītā descend as well, and, in imitation of human custom, a marriage does take place between Kṛṣṇa and Rukmiṇī, and between Rāmacandra and Sītā — so too the marriage between Śacīnandana and Lakṣmīpriyā Devī is likewise merely a pastime. Since Śrī Rāmacandra and Dvārakā's own Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa are both present within the Lord as well, it seems that, in marrying Śrī Śrī Lakṣmīpriyā Devī — who is both Jānakī and Rukmiṇī in essence — the Lord was manifesting a particular pastime corresponding to Their own earlier manifest appearances.

The līlā-śakti, on certain occasions, also manifested Lakṣmīpriyā Devī's own divine opulence. Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes: "By the Lord's side, Lakṣmī herself was present, and Śacī's own house became a realm of supreme light; wherever Śacī looked, inside or out, she could not bear to look upon that most wondrous light. Sometimes she saw a flame of fire beside her own son, and, turning away, could not bring herself to look again; moment by moment she caught the fragrance of lotus flowers, and, greatly astonished, the mother pondered always. The mother thought to herself: 'I have understood the reason for this — Kamalā [Lakṣmī] herself must be present in this very room; that is why I see this light, and smell this lotus fragrance — surely my poverty is at an end now.' ... She wondered who could be coming to enter the house, not knowing from where they all gathered." (1.7.120–26)

Lakṣmīpriyā Devī also set the very model of a devoted householder wife's service to her husband. After teaching in the courtyard school with Mukunda and the others, the Lord would take His students to bathe in the Ganges at midday: "Teaching until midday, the Lord would then take His students to bathe in the Ganges; sporting a while in the Ganges waters, He would return home and,"

"after washing His feet with water offered by Lakṣmī, and circling [some rite], sit down to eat, saying 'Hari, Hari.' Lakṣmī herself served the food, and the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha ate; the blessed mother watched, her eyes filled with the sight, to her heart's content. After eating, He would take betel-leaf, and lie down to rest, while Lakṣmī served His feet." (1.8.99–103)

Some days, ten or twenty sannyāsīs would come to the Lord's house; joyfully inviting them all to a meal, He would at once send word to His mother to prepare alms for twenty sannyāsīs. There being nothing in the house, the mother would worry to herself how she could possibly feed twenty sannyāsīs — and even as she worried, someone unknown would appear and provide everything needed at that very moment. Lakṣmī Devī, in the greatest satisfaction, would then go and cook everything specially; the Lord Himself would sit and personally serve the sannyāsīs, delighting them all, before sending them on their way. (1.10.14–19)

Whatever poor or distressed people came to the Lord's house, Lakṣmī fed and satisfied every one of them. As Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes: "Lakṣmī Devī alone cooks for all; her mind is thus filled with the highest contentment. Seeing Lakṣmī's character, fortunate Śacī's joy grows greater moment by moment." (1.10.37–38)

And again: "From dawn onward, whatever housework there is, Lakṣmī does all of it herself — that alone is her dharma. In the shrine-room she draws svastika-maṇḍalas, eagerly inscribing conch and disc; she prepares scent, flowers, incense, and scented water, arranging everything for the Lord's worship. She serves Tulasī unceasingly, and her mind is even more devoted to serving Śacī. Seeing Lakṣmī's character, Śrī Gaurasundara says nothing aloud, but his heart is well pleased. Some days, taking hold of the Lord's feet, she sits at his feet without pause. Śacī sometimes sees a wonder at her son's feet — a great effulgent flame of light burning there. Some days mother Śacī perceives the fragrance of the mahā-padma everywhere in the house, without end." (1.10.39–46)

When the Lord was about to leave for East Bengal (Pūrva-vaṅga), Śrī Gaurasundara told Lakṣmīpriyā to serve his mother without interruption. (1.10.50)

The Lord went to East Bengal. "Here in Navadvīpa, Lakṣmī, grieving within at separation from the Lord, tells no one of her sorrow. She serves mother Śacī ceaselessly; since the Lord's departure she takes no food, regarding it as a dishonor to her vow. Deeply distressed within at separation from her Lord, she weeps the whole night through; her mind finds not a moment's peace. Unable to bear separation from her Lord, she resolved to go to where he was — leaving her own outward form behind on earth, she departed most imperceptibly toward the Lord. Bearing the Lord's lotus feet within her heart, in meditation the goddess attained her departure on the bank of the Gaṅgā." (1.10.98–104, with the commentary on the payār couplets)

While the Lord was still residing in East Bengal, Śrī Śrī Lakṣmīpriyā Devī attained disappearance (antardhāna). Mother Śacī was overwhelmed and broken with grief. Not long after, the Lord himself returned home, and — "hearing of his wife's passing, Śrī Gaurāṅga Hari remained for a moment with head bowed low. Accepting the sorrow of separation from his beloved, he, the essence of all the Vedas, stayed silent. Displaying worldly grief for a moment, in imitation of ordinary custom, he then began to speak, his mind restored to patience." (1.10.173–75) The Lord then set about consoling his mother: "Mother, why grieve? What is destined must come to pass — how can it be averted? Such is the way of time: no one ultimately belongs to anyone; therefore the Vedas declare the world impermanent. This entire world is under the Lord's control; who else can bring about union and separation? This happened by the Lord's will alone — why grieve over it? How fortunate indeed is she who reached the Gaṅgā before her own husband — what wife could be more blessed than that?" (1.10.176–80) In this way, imitating ordinary human custom, the Lord consoled his mother, and in doing so also instructed the people of the world at large.

§53. Gaura-Lakṣmī: Śrī Śrī Viṣṇupriyā Devī

After returning to Navadvīpa from East Bengal, the Lord again immersed himself in scholarship. Meanwhile, mother Śacī, anxious to fill the void left by Lakṣmīpriyā Devī's passing, began searching in her own mind for a bride worthy of her son. Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes: "While the Lord was thus absorbed in scholarship, Śacī thought constantly of the marriage arrangements. Throughout all Navadvīpa, Śacī, with unceasing mind, sought at every moment a daughter fit for her son. In that same Navadvīpa lived a greatly fortunate, compassionate man named Śrī Sanātana — guileless, supremely magnanimous, devoted to Viṣṇu, given to hospitality and to the good of others, truthful, of controlled senses, born in a great lineage, known everywhere by the title 'Rāja Paṇḍita.' In worldly dealings too he was a man of the highest esteem, effortlessly supporting many. His daughter was a woman of the most excellent character, the very embodiment of Lakṣmī, mother of the world. Mother Śacī saw her at that very moment and recognized in her mind that this girl was fit for her son. From childhood the girl bathed in the Gaṅgā two or three times daily, knowing nothing but devotion to her parents and to Viṣṇu. Seeing mother Śacī at the bathing-ghāṭ day after day, she would bow at her feet without fail. Mother Śacī too, with great affection, blessed her: 'May Kṛṣṇa grant you a worthy husband!' While bathing in the Gaṅgā, mother Śacī wished in her heart, 'May this girl be joined to my son.' Rāja Paṇḍita himself, together with his family council, privately intended to give his daughter in marriage to the Lord." (1.10.218–30)

Mother Śacī sent Kāśīnātha Miśra as matchmaker to Rāja Paṇḍita Sanātana Miśra. The Rāja Paṇḍita, overjoyed, consented. The Lord's marriage took place with regal pomp; Buddhimanta Khān, of his own accord, bore the entire expense of the wedding. The name of this consort of the Lord's was Śrī Śrī Viṣṇupriyā Devī (1.10.239) — and Vṛndāvana Dāsa thereafter almost always calls Viṣṇupriyā simply "Lakṣmī," presumably because she is Gaura's own Lakṣmī. Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa compares Viṣṇupriyā's father, Śrī Sanātana Miśra, to Nagnajit, Janaka, Bhīṣmaka, and Jāmbavān (1.10.375) — which would make Śrī Śrī Viṣṇupriyā Devī comparable to the queens of Dvārakānātha Śrī Kṛṣṇa. The poet Karṇapūra, in his Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā, calls Sanātana Miśra "Satrājit" and Viṣṇupriyā Devī "the incarnation of Satyabhāmā" (47–48). As Satyabhāmā too, Viṣṇupriyā is Śrī Kṛṣṇa's queen of Dvārakā; hence she is not a jīva-tattva at all, but the very embodied form of the svarūpa-śakti, Śrī Kṛṣṇa's eternal consort. What was said earlier regarding Lakṣmīpriyā Devī's marriage applies equally here: although as an eternal consort Viṣṇupriyā had no need of marriage for the attainment of her Lord, yet following the custom prevalent in human society, the Lord — who is Dvārakānātha himself present in this human pastime (nara-līlā) — by marrying Viṣṇupriyā manifested a pastime of household life proper to his own family line. (1.10.210–11, see commentary)

Some time later the Lord went to Gayā. After his return from Gayā — "joy arose in Lakṣmī's heart; seeing her husband's face, Lakṣmī's sorrow vanished." (2.1.17) [From here Vṛndāvana Dāsa generally calls Viṣṇupriyā "Lakṣmī."]

The Lord was now in the state of Kṛṣṇa-prema-unmāda, divine madness born of love for Kṛṣṇa. He would constantly weep, crying "Kṛṣṇa! Kṛṣṇa!" — "Seeing this, mother's heart would be filled with alarm. 'Where is Kṛṣṇa, where is Kṛṣṇa,' the Lord would say, and as he spoke his love grew ever greater." (2.1.42–43) By the force of this pure, unalloyed love, mother Śacī could not understand at all the cause of the Lord's condition. "Mother could understand no reason whatsoever; folding her hands, she took refuge in Govinda." (2.1.44) Fearing that Nimāi too, like Viśvarūpa before him, might leave home and depart, mother Śacī grew anxious, and in order to draw her most beloved son's mind toward household life, she would bring Gaura-Lakṣmī Viṣṇupriyā and seat her near the Lord — but the Lord would not even glance toward Viṣṇupriyā, his mind ever absorbed in the mellow of Kṛṣṇa. "Śacī understands nothing at all of her son's true character; for her son's welfare she worships Gaṅgā and Viṣṇu. 'My husband was taken by Kṛṣṇa, my sons too were taken; only one remains to me. O Kṛṣṇa, protect this helpless one — grant that this body, with a sound mind, may remain trustworthy in my house.' Bringing Lakṣmī and seating her near her son, even so the Lord does not look her way. Ceaselessly, tearfully, he weeps, saying again and again, 'Where is Kṛṣṇa, where is Kṛṣṇa.' Sometimes he lets out a great cry, at which Lakṣmī flees in fear, and Śacī too grows afraid. At night the Lord gets no sleep, absorbed in the mellow of Kṛṣṇa; finding no peace in separation, he rises up and sits down again and again." (2.1.131–37)

From these accounts it is understood that after his return from Gayā, the Lord himself never went near Viṣṇupriyā of his own accord; even when mother Śacī brought Viṣṇupriyā and seated her near him, the Lord would not so much as glance at her. It seems the Lord did not even register that Viṣṇupriyā was present there at all — such was his supreme, all-oblivious absorption. And even when Śacī seated Viṣṇupriyā near the Lord, hearing his roar of love-madness she would flee in fear. At night too, absorbed in Kṛṣṇa-rasa, the Lord had no sleep; restless with the feeling of separation from Kṛṣṇa, he would sometimes sit, sometimes rise, and sometimes fall to the ground. Whether Viṣṇupriyā remained near him at such times is not known; even if she did, she would have had nothing to do but be overwhelmed with fear and wonder.

Even his meals he took while still absorbed in that mood. After bathing in the Gaṅgā — "having duly worshipped Govinda, the Lord came and sat in the house to dine; mother brought divine rice together with tulasī-mañjarī and set it before him." (2.1.85–86) It was mother Śacī who brought the Lord his food, not Viṣṇupriyā. "Having served the food, Śacī, mother of the universe, sat before him; from within, the chaste Lakṣmī watched." (2.1.88) At such times, in his prema-absorption, the Lord "would sometimes laugh, sometimes weep, sometimes fall unconscious; seeing Lakṣmī, he would sometimes move to strike her." (2.2.87) — This does not mean that the Lord, mistaking Lakṣmī-Viṣṇupriyā for someone else, rose up actually intending to beat her. Rather, when the Lord became absorbed in the mood of a devotee — that is, in the mood of Śrī Rādhā's proud, jealous māna — in that state, unable even to bear hearing Kṛṣṇa's name, the sight of Viṣṇupriyā would evoke a Kṛṣṇa-related jealous impulse, and he would raise his hand as if to strike, though he never actually struck her. (See the commentary at 2.2.16.)

Vṛndāvana Dāsa describes the Lord's condition at that time: "Even on returning home, there is no talk of worldly affairs; ceaselessly the outpouring of bliss-absorption manifests. How the stream of bliss flows from his divine eyes! Tear-marks upon his feet, a smile upon his face. 'Where is Kṛṣṇa! Where is Kṛṣṇa!' — this alone he says; to no other question does he give reply. Whatever Vaiṣṇava devotee he sees present, of him alone he asks, 'Where is Kṛṣṇa?' Saying this the Lord weeps profusely; whoever knows how, in that way tries to console him." (2.2.195–99) From this it is understood that the Lord at that time would not even go to his sleeping-chamber at night.

Such was the depth of the Lord's prema-absorption that even on coming home he had no attention for any worldly matter at all — hence it is easily understood that he had no attention for Viṣṇupriyā either. If anyone asked him something regarding worldly affairs, no answer would come from him; so deep was his absorption in Kṛṣṇa-prema that it seems he could not even hear such questions. Absorbed in the mood of separation from Kṛṣṇa, absorbed in the mood of Śrī Rādhā, he would say only "Where is Kṛṣṇa! Where is Kṛṣṇa!" and would ask this alone of whatever devotee he met — hence, regarding Viṣṇupriyā too, the Lord had no attention whatsoever.

Yet even though the Lord had no attention for worldly matters, mother Śacī — fearing lest Nimāi too, like Viśvarūpa, might leave home — would, in her affection, still sometimes seat Viṣṇupriyā near the Lord in hope of drawing his mind toward household life, wishing that her most beloved Nimāi would sit beside his bride. Knowing his mother's wish, Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura writes that the Lord sat near Viṣṇupriyā solely to please his mother: "One day, in his own home, Prabhu Viśvambhara sat together with Lakṣmī, supremely beautiful. Lakṣmī offered betel-leaf with the greatest delight; in the Lord's bliss, day and night were not known. When Viśvambhara would be with Lakṣmī, Śacī's heart would fill with abundant joy. Knowing his mother's happiness of heart, the Lord sat together with Lakṣmī." (2.1.66–69) — From the account that follows this passage in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, it is understood that this episode occurred one day during daylight hours. The Lord's state of mind at that time was such that, bewildered by the outpouring of prema-bliss, he had no awareness even of day and night — this is what Vṛndāvana Dāsa indicates by the words "day and night were not known." Viṣṇupriyā Devī perhaps took that bliss of the Lord's to be an ordinary, God-given delight arising from her offering of betel, and was herself overcome with joyful wonder. It does not appear, however, that even while sitting near Viṣṇupriyā and accepting the betel she offered, the Lord's bliss-absorption ever actually departed; he did this only to please his mother Śacī, though his mind remained fixed elsewhere.

After the Lord's return from Gayā — the account turns to describe how, each evening, all the devotees would come and gather at the Lord's house. "When evening came, all the devotees would come and gather at the Lord's house, and Śrī Mukunda Mahāśaya would begin to recite whatever verses are approved in the path of bhakti-yoga. Hearing such divine sound from the blessed Mukunda, that jewel among brāhmaṇas [the Lord] would become overwhelmed. Crying 'Hari bol!' the Lord would fall in every direction; none could hold him. Fear, laughter, trembling, perspiration, horripilation, and roaring — all the symptoms of ecstasy appeared at once. Seeing this wonder, the devotees sang sweetly; the Lord's prema-absorption could not be restrained. The whole night would pass as if a moment; only at dawn, with difficulty, would the Lord regain external awareness. Thus, night after night, ceaselessly, the son of Śacī performed kīrtana in his own home." (2.2.213–20) From this it is understood that at that time the Lord would not even go to his sleeping-chamber at night.

Here begins the account of the kīrtana held in Śrīvāsa's courtyard (Śrīvāsa-aṅgana). The poet Karṇapūra writes in his Caitanya-candrodaya-mahākāvya: "Gayāyā ityevaṃ..." — "Having thus gone to Gayā, the most compassionate Lord, remover of the bodily suffering of all beings, came to his own home at the close of the month of Pauṣa; then, beginning from the start of Māgha, he continuously, day after day, radiated forth manifestation and absorption through the mellow of his own kīrtana." (Mahākāvya 4.76)

Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes: "Brothers, hear now the account of the middle portion with a single mind: for about a year he performed kīrtana in this manner." (2.2.343) Where the Lord performed this "year-long kīrtana" is also known from Vṛndāvana Dāsa's account. He records the Lord telling the devotees: "Brothers all, hear the essence of the matter! Why should our nights pass in vain? From today, resolve firmly, all of you: at night we shall together perform auspicious kīrtana. Performing saṅkīrtana together with all our associates, we shall bathe in the Gaṅgā that is bhakti herself. Let the world be delivered by hearing the name of Kṛṣṇa — for the sake of others you must give your wealth and your very life." (2.8.1069) Hearing this, all the Vaiṣṇavas rejoiced, and Mahāprabhu began his kīrtana-pastimes. Every night there was kīrtana at Śrīvāsa's house, and on occasional days at Candraśekhara's house. (2.8.10–11) This kīrtana of the Lord's continued for a full year, right up until his sannyāsa — occasionally held at Candraśekhara's house, but generally always at Śrīvāsa's. The Lord took sannyāsa on the last day of Māgha in Śaka 1431, as is known from Karṇapūra's statement cited above; and since the Lord returned from Gayā at the end of Pauṣa in Śaka 1430 and performed kīrtana daily from the beginning of Māgha onward, the period from the start of Māgha in Śaka 1430 to the end of Māgha in Śaka 1431 comes to one year and a little over one month. Yet the passage of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata cited earlier shows that kīrtana took place daily at the Lord's own home immediately after his return from Gayā. From this it appears that this extra month or so was spent in kīrtana at the Lord's own house — a fact made clear by the statement of Kavirāja Gosvāmī [in Caitanya-caritāmṛta].

Vṛndāvana Dāsa did not narrate the Lord's pastimes in strict historical sequence, but Kavirāja Gosvāmī did (see §13 above). In Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.17, Kavirāja Gosvāmī records the order of pastimes following the Lord's return from Gayā as follows: the bestowal of love upon Śacī, the meeting with Advaita, Advaita's vision of the Lord's Varāha (Boar) form, the Lord's consecration/anointing by Śrīvāsa, the display of opulence while seated on a bedstead, Nityānanda's arrival in Navadvīpa, Nityānanda's vision of the Lord's six-armed form and his worship as guru, the Lord's Nityānanda-absorption, Śacī's vision of Rāma and Kṛṣṇa, the deliverance of Jagāi and Mādhāi, the mood of the seven-day fever (sāta-jvarī-bhāva), the Lord's Varāha-absorption at Murāri's house, Śuklāmbara's eating of rice, and the revealing of the meaning of the Hare-nāma verse (Cc. 1.17.8–29). Having narrated these pastimes, Kavirāja writes: "Then [i.e., after the aforementioned pastimes] the Lord performed continuous saṅkīrtana at night in Śrīvāsa's house for one full year." (Cc. 1.17.30) From this it is understood that all the pastimes named above, occurring after the Lord's return from Gayā and before the kīrtana began at Śrīvāsa's house, took place within that same slightly-over-a-month period preceding the start of kīrtana at Śrīvāsa's.

Gadādhara Paṇḍita's Nightly Attendance on the Lord

From the start of kīrtana at Śrīvāsa's house, the Lord would remain engaged in kīrtana there the entire night, returning home only at dawn after bathing in the Gaṅgā; during this period the Lord never once slept at his own home at night. It seems that in the slightly-over-a-month period before this, however, the Lord did sleep at home at night — and there is ample evidence that even then it was Gadādhara Paṇḍita who slept beside the Lord at night. Murāri Gupta writes: "Gadādhara, a brāhmaṇa of noble birth, ever remains in the great Lord's presence, established in loving devotion at his feet. 'With him at night, O most auspicious one, you should give prasāda out of affection to the Vaiṣṇavas.'" (Kaḍacā 2.3.10–11) From this it is known that Gadādhara was always with the Lord. Murāri Gupta further writes: "Gadādhara, every day, anoints the Lord's body with sandal-paste and offers garlands and the like upon his limbs with constant delight. Making a bed in the sleeping-chamber, he sleeps happily beside him, as scripture enjoins — just as, in Vraja, in the jewelled chamber, having made a bed of fresh flower-buds, Śrī Rādhā would sleep, filled with prema, near Śrī Kṛṣṇa." (Kaḍacā 2.3.15–17) From this it is known that Gadādhara daily anointed the Lord's body with sandal-paste and offered him garlands, and slept beside him at night just as Śrī Rādhā would sometimes make a bed in the jewelled chamber in Vraja and sleep near Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

The poet Karṇapūra too, in his Mahākāvya, records the same: "That best of men, Gadādhara Paṇḍita, ever remains close at hand, day after day serving with longing him who is dearer than his own life. Steadfast, eager to be near him at night, he makes his bed there; thus he continually enjoys the presence of the son of Viśvambharā." (Mahākāvya 5.128–29) From this too it is known that Gadādhara Paṇḍita was always near the Lord, and at night as well remained close by him. Karṇapūra elsewhere writes: "The glorious, great-minded Gadādhara, of most excellent character, naturally sweet-natured, sleeping near the Lord at night, would offer him the flower-garlands worn the previous day, for the pleasure of the devotees." (Mahākāvya 6.12)

Once kīrtana began at Śrīvāsa's house, of course, the Lord remained in kīrtana the entire night, and the question of sleeping at his own home then does not arise. The sleeping of Gadādhara beside the Lord at his own home, as described by Murāri Gupta and Karṇapūra, could only pertain to the slightly-over-a-month period before the start of kīrtana at Śrīvāsa's. But it has already been mentioned that for the first several days after his return from Gayā, the Lord, overwhelmed with the mood of separation from Kṛṣṇa, would stay awake through the night — sometimes sitting, sometimes rising, sometimes falling to the ground. It was presumably only after this initial state had passed that the Lord began sleeping at home at night, with Gadādhara sleeping beside him. From what point Gadādhara began this nightly attendance is suggested by an account in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes:

"One day Gadādhara came before the Lord, joyfully bringing betel. Seeing Gadādhara, the Lord asked him, 'Where is that dark, moon-faced Kṛṣṇa?' Seeing this state, everyone's heart broke; no one could find words to answer. Trembling, Gadādhara Mahāśaya said, 'Kṛṣṇa dwells ceaselessly within your own heart.' Hearing the words 'Kṛṣṇa is within,' the Lord tore his own chest with his nails. Gadādhara at once seized both his hands and, consoling him in many ways, made him still. 'Here Kṛṣṇa will come — be calm a while, Gadādhara says — I myself have seen him.' Mother [Śacī] was greatly pleased with Gadādhara, seeing in this small child such wisdom. Others, out of fear, dared not even come before the Lord — how had this child so skillfully consoled him? Mother said, 'Child, you must always remain — do not leave his company, wherever he may go.'" (2.26.200–209)

For Gadādhara, transgressing this command of mother Śacī's was unthinkable. It appears that from that very day, Gadādhara began remaining with the Lord constantly, day and night, and sleeping beside him at night — for without mother Śacī's command, no one else could have had access to the Lord's sleeping-chamber. "Gadādhara remains with the Lord at all times." (2.24.31) From the time Gadādhara began sleeping near the Lord, it is understood that Viṣṇupriyā Devī no longer slept in the Lord's chamber at night; nor, indeed, does it seem likely that she did so even before that, since the Lord, staying awake through the nights out of longing for Kṛṣṇa, would show such restlessness, and even when mother Śacī seated Viṣṇupriyā near him he would not look her way — sometimes she would flee in fear at his roar of love, and sometimes the Lord would move to strike her. It does not seem that Viṣṇupriyā would have approached the Lord during such states — especially since even mother Śacī herself feared to go before him at such supreme intensity of feeling, so it seems still less likely that Viṣṇupriyā would have gone near. Yet that she remained present in the household on other days is known from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata itself, as shown below.

One day at midday, mother Śacī had a certain vision (a dream). The next morning she told the Lord that the previous night she had seen, in her dream, Kṛṣṇa, Balarāma, Nimāi, and Nityānanda playing together most intimately. Hearing of the dream, the Lord said: "...and there is another matter — I see the form of a groom [i.e., an auspicious sign concerning marriage] — my mind, upon your dream, has grown greatly clear. Seeing this dream again and again in the guise of a food-offering [i.e., presented as an omen], I could not quite believe it, and was ashamed to tell anyone. I had had some doubt regarding your daughter-in-law; today that doubt of my mind has been dispelled.' Lakṣmī, the mother of the universe, smiles at her husband's words; standing apart (unseen), she had heard the whole account of the dream." (2.8.46–50) It seems the Lord spoke these playful words about Viṣṇupriyā for the sake of delighting his mother's heart. "Whatever outward behavior the Lord performs at any moment, it is only for the satisfaction of his mother." (2.24.28) In any case, from this account it is known that at that time too Viṣṇupriyā was present in Śacī's house — and it is known from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata that she remained there afterward as well.

That Viṣṇupriyā was present in Śacī's house even on the day of the deliverance of Jagāi and Mādhāi is likewise known from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. On the night of their deliverance, when the Lord was dancing in his own home together with the devotees, including Jagāi and Mādhāi — "mother sees her daughter-in-law within the house, and sits there, floating in an ocean of bliss." (2.13.306) That same night, the Lord also sported in the water of the Gaṅgā with Jagāi, Mādhāi, and the devotees. Returning from there — "coming home, the Lord washed his lotus feet, and offered worship at the feet of Tulasī. Viśvambhara sat down to dine; mother brought and placed the offered food before him. Offering it to the great Bhāgavata [the Lord himself, or the devotees present], the Lord of infinite universes ate. Having eaten the mahā-prasāda with the greatest satisfaction, he came and sat to cleanse his mouth. Mother gazes at her daughter-in-law, her eyes filled; her whole body immersed in an ocean of the greatest bliss." (2.13.366–70) From these accounts it is known that Viṣṇupriyā was present in Śacī's house even on the day Jagāi and Mādhāi were delivered.

From Kavirāja Gosvāmī's previously mentioned sequence of pastimes, it is known that both Śacī's dream-vision and the deliverance of Jagāi and Mādhāi occurred before the start of kīrtana at Śrīvāsa's courtyard, and that of these two, Śacī's dream-vision occurred first.

Regarding Advaita Ācārya, the Lord maintained the attitude proper to a preceptor, and for this reason the Lord would sometimes chastise him — which caused Advaita great distress. Hoping to receive the Lord's favor in the form of such chastisement, he went from Navadvīpa to Śāntipura and began to proclaim the superiority of jñāna over bhakti. Learning of this, the Lord went with Śrī Nityānanda to Śāntipura and chastised Advaita Ācārya. This account is found in chapter 19 of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. After staying a few days at Advaita's house in Śāntipura, when the Lord returned to Navadvīpa — "seeing her son, mother was overwhelmed with joy; with her daughter-in-law she performed the household's joyful rites." (2.19.270) From this it is known that Viṣṇupriyā Devī was still present in Śacī's house at that time. According to Kavirāja Gosvāmī's sequence, this event occurred after the start of kīrtana at Śrīvāsa's house.

Further, in chapter 18, the Lord's dance-pastime before Lakṣmī [Viṣṇupriyā] at Candraśekhara Ācārya's house is described. According to Kavirāja Gosvāmī's sequence, this pastime occurred well before Advaita's chastisement at Śāntipura mentioned above — indeed, long before the Lord's renunciation of household life. It is known from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata that, for the sake of witnessing this event, the families of the Lord's intimate Vaiṣṇava associates went along with mother Śacī to Candraśekhara Ācārya's house, and Viṣṇupriyā Devī went along with them as well: "Mother went along with her own daughter-in-law, to see the wondrous dance in the form of Lakṣmī. All the families of the intimate Vaiṣṇavas went along with mother to see the dance." (2.18.29–30) From this it is known that Viṣṇupriyā Devī was present in Śacī's house at this time as well. After this, no further mention of Viṣṇupriyā is found anywhere in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata.

On the night when, four daṇḍas before dawn, the Lord left home to take sannyāsa, he had — that night — not gone to Śrīvāsa's house for kīrtana, but had remained in his own home. The devotees and the townsfolk, too, came to the Lord's house and gathered with him there. Śrīdhara brought a bottle-gourd, and another brought milk. The Lord told his mother, "Cook the milk and gourd together and prepare it in the morning — joyfully Śacī went to cook." (2.26.87–88) It was mother Śacī herself who cooked. From this it may be understood that Viṣṇupriyā was not present in Śacī's house that day — had she been, she herself would have done the cooking. Mother Śacī knew that the Lord would leave home that very night: "Mother knows — today the Lord will depart." (2.26.93) It does not seem likely that, had Viṣṇupriyā been present, the aged mother Śacī, her heart heavy with sorrow, would herself have done the cooking.

In any case: "Having taken leave of them, Lord Viśvambhara, the Lord of the gods, sat down to eat. Having eaten and cleansed his mouth, Gaurāṅga Śrī Hari went to his sleeping-chamber. The Lord cast a glance upon Yogānanda; Haridāsa and Gadādhara lay down near him." (2.26.90–92) The Lord fell asleep; but "mother had no sleep, and wept without pause" (2.26.93), and "she remained sitting at the door all that while" (2.26.97). Rising when four daṇḍas of night remained, the Lord consoled mother Śacī, circumambulated her, and, placing the dust of her feet upon his head, went forth. Vṛndāvana Dāsa records no such consoling of Viṣṇupriyā Devī by the Lord. Even before the day of his departure, the Lord had consoled the devotees and mother Śacī, but there too no mention is made in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata of his consoling Viṣṇupriyā. From this it is understood that from before the day of his departure itself, Viṣṇupriyā Devī was not present in Śacī's house, but was staying at her father's house.

That Viṣṇupriyā Devī was not then present in Śacī's house is also known from another account given by Vṛndāvana Dāsa. He writes: "As the Lord departed, mother, mother of the universe, grew numb, unable to utter a word. The devotees knew nothing of all this. At dawn, having bathed, the great souls came to the Lord's house to offer their respects to him, and found mother [alone] at the outer door." (2.26.113–15) The devotees knew that the Lord would take sannyāsa, but they did not know that he would leave home that very day — only Śrī Nityānanda, mother Śacī, Gadādhara, Brahmānanda, Candraśekhara Ācārya, and Mukunda knew this (2.26.60); Śrī Nityānanda had informed these five at the Lord's own instruction.

When the devotees learned of the Lord's departure, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa describes their heart-rending cries and their distress — but here too there is no mention whatsoever of Viṣṇupriyā.

Prabhupāda Atulakṛṣṇa Gosvāmī, in a footnote to his edition of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, writes: after the couplet "All the devotees wept, falling to the ground; the Lord went away to take sannyāsa" (2.26.129) — he notes that the verses that follow are found only in the printed edition, and not even a trace of them appears in the handwritten manuscript he consulted; he then quotes these additional verses from the printed edition. These verses too speak only of the devotees' anguished cries, with no mention whatsoever of Viṣṇupriyā.

From all these accounts it is clearly understood that at the time of the Lord's departure from home, and even before that, Viṣṇupriyā Devī was not present in Śacī's house — she had gone to her father's house. It is hard to believe that the devoted Viṣṇupriyā, whose whole life was centered on her husband, would have gone to her father's house of her own will. For some reason, it must have been mother Śacī herself who sent her there. It seems likely that Viṣṇupriyā, the chaste wife of the Lord, herself felt that her presence might become an obstacle on her most beloved husband's path to the supreme goal, and so — however reluctantly — consented, at her mother-in-law's command, to go to her father's house.

A Note on Locana Dāsa's Account in Śrī Caitanya-maṅgala

Śrīla Locana Dāsa Ṭhākura, a disciple of Śrī Narahari Sarakāra Ṭhākura of Khaḍadaha, wrote a work called Śrī Caitanya-maṅgala. In it he writes: "I offer worship with one-pointed mind to Śrī Vṛndāvana Dāsa, by whose Bhāgavata-song the world was enchanted." From this it is understood that Locana Dāsa wrote his Caitanya-maṅgala only after Vṛndāvana Dāsa's Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata had become especially well known and celebrated everywhere.

In any case, Śrīla Locana Dāsa, in his work, describes Gaura and Viṣṇupriyā as being together in the Lord's sleeping-chamber on the night of Mahāprabhu's departure from home, and recounts much playful, sentimental exchange between the two. But Locana Dāsa does not say where he obtained the material for this account — nor does he say that he heard it from the mouth of his own guru, Narahari Sarakāra Ṭhākura. On this matter there exists a certain legend. Dr. Bimanbihari Majumdar, in his book Śrī Caitanya-caritera Upādāna (p. 283), records this legend as follows: upon reading Locana's book, a doubt arose in Vṛndāvana Dāsa's mind. Locana's book describes how, on the night before his sannyāsa, the Lord adorned Viṣṇupriyā Devī as the enchantress of the world (bhuvana-mohinī) and, giving her a final embrace, left home. Vṛndāvana Dāsa, the legend says, knew nothing of this event, and so it goes unmentioned in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. Seeing Locana's account, Vṛndāvana Dāsa, doubtful in his mind, asked his own mother Nārāyaṇī Devī about it, and she replied that not a single word of Locana's was an exaggeration, since she herself had been present in the Lord's house that night.

Regarding this legend, the following must be said. First, neither Vṛndāvana Dāsa nor Murāri Gupta writes anywhere that Nārāyaṇī Devī used to stay from time to time at the Lord's house; nor does Murāri Gupta or any other biographer record that she was present at the Lord's house on the night of his departure. How, then, can one believe the legend's claim that Nārāyaṇī was in the Lord's house that night?

Second, Vṛndāvana Dāsa himself writes that when the Lord returned to Navadvīpa from Gayā, Nārāyaṇī was a girl of four years; the Lord left home a year after that, so at the time of his departure Nārāyaṇī was five years old. Is it credible that a five-year-old girl named Nārāyaṇī went to eavesdrop on the intimate exchanges between the Lord and Viṣṇupriyā in the sleeping-chamber? Dr. Majumdar himself writes: "It cannot be believed that a five-year-old girl went and eavesdropped upon the amorous pastime described by Locana."

Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes that on the day of his departure, the Lord remained at his own home with the devotees and townsfolk until the second praharā of the night (2.26.89); after that he took leave of everyone, ate, and went to sleep in his chamber (2.26.90–92); he left home when four daṇḍas of night remained. From this it follows that the Lord was in his sleeping-chamber only between the latter half of the third praharā and the first half of the fourth praharā of the night. It is not credible that the five-year-old Nārāyaṇī came alone to the Lord's house at that late hour of the night merely to "eavesdrop." Moreover, she was residing at the house of her uncle Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita; it is equally incredible that her aunts would have let her go out of the house alone at that hour of night. Even if, for argument's sake, it were granted that she did go out, how could she have entered the Lord's own chamber? Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes that when the Lord went to his chamber, mother Śacī remained awake, sitting at the door; and the next morning, when the devotees came to pay their respects to the Lord, they still found mother Śacī sitting numbly at the door. If Nārāyaṇī had gone to "eavesdrop," on seeing mother Śacī sitting at the door she would most likely have turned back — and having turned back, "eavesdropping" near the Lord's chamber would no longer have been possible.

Further, does any five-year-old girl understand the meaning of a husband and wife's private conversation? Only those who understand such things would "eavesdrop" — such curiosity was not possible for Nārāyaṇī. Women "eavesdrop" chiefly to hear the words exchanged between a husband and roughly age-equal companions of his wife. Was Viṣṇupriyā of an age with Nārāyaṇī, or her companion? At Śrīvāsa's house, Nārāyaṇī had seen with her own eyes her elderly uncle Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita and others performing worship and offering prayers to the Lord; the difference in age between the Lord and Nārāyaṇī at that time was also considerable. Given this, it is inconceivable that Nārāyaṇī would even have had the impulse to "eavesdrop" at the Lord's chamber.

Third, it has already been said [in §18 above] that Vṛndāvana Dāsa wrote his Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata only after Nārāyaṇī Devī's own disappearance; and it has also been said in this section that Locana Dāsa began writing his Caitanya-maṅgala only after Vṛndāvana Dāsa's Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata had become especially well-known and celebrated everywhere. Hence, by the time Vṛndāvana Dāsa saw Locana Dāsa's book, Nārāyaṇī Devī had long since departed. How, then, could Vṛndāvana Dāsa have asked his mother Nārāyaṇī about the pastime described by Locana Dāsa, or how could Nārāyaṇī have answered such a question?

Thus it is seen that this legend has no basis whatsoever. It is well known to all that Locana Dāsa, in his Caitanya-maṅgala, attempted to propagate a new doctrine called Gaura-nāgarī-vāda [the view of Gaura as a paramour-hero, gaura-nāgara]. There can be no doubt that it was in support of this new doctrine that he invented the unreal, sentimental fantasy between the Lord and Viṣṇupriyā on the night of his departure. This account is his own fabrication, and the legend cited above is nothing more than the uncritical invention of some later follower of his doctrine. Since it stands in complete contradiction to the statements of the other Gaura-biographers — especially Murāri Gupta, an eyewitness to the Lord's pastimes — Locana Dāsa's account cannot be accepted as true.

In any case, beyond what has been said in this section regarding Śrī Śrī Viṣṇupriyā Devī, no further information about her is found in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. Murāri Gupta, however, writes in the fourteenth chapter of the fourth prakrama of his Kaḍacā that on his return from Vṛndāvana, the Lord traveled from Kāśī and came to Kuliyā-nagara near Navadvīpa. The devotees of Navadvīpa met the Lord at Kuliyā and prayed at his feet that he come to Navadvīpa. The Lord consented, went to Navadvīpa, offered daṇḍavat praṇāma at his mother's feet, and ate the food she offered. After this, the printed Kaḍacā contains a verse to this effect: "Coming in manifest form to the presence of his own beloved, Kṛṣṇa [Gaura-Kṛṣṇa], having fashioned his own image, remained there in that form, and she in the form of Lakṣmī served the Lord." (Kaḍacā 4.14.8) — that is, the Lord, appearing in manifest form before his beloved Viṣṇupriyā, established/prepared his own deity-image, and Kṛṣṇa (Gaura-Kṛṣṇa) remained present in that image, and Viṣṇupriyā, in the form of Lakṣmī, rendered service to the Lord [i.e., to that deity-form].

Regarding this statement: it has already been said earlier that the authenticity of every statement in the third and fourth prakramas of the printed Kaḍacā is not universally accepted; critics believe that many later-interpolated verses exist in these two prakramas. The account given above, from the fourteenth chapter of the fourth prakrama, is not factual — for Kavirāja Gosvāmī nowhere states that the Lord, on his way back from Vṛndāvana to Nīlācala, passed through Kuliyā and Navadvīpa. If the Lord's coming to Navadvīpa at this time is unhistorical, then his manifest appearance before Viṣṇupriyā and his bestowal of his own deity-image upon her likewise become unhistorical. It therefore seems that this account was not written by Murāri Gupta himself, but was later interpolated into Murāri Gupta's Kaḍacā by someone else.

Later still, Śrīla Narahari Cakravartī (Ghanaśyāma Dāsa), son of the brāhmaṇa Jagannātha and disciple of the Vaiṣṇavācārya Śrīpāda Viśvanātha Cakravartī, wrote a work called Bhakti-ratnākara, in which some further information about Viṣṇupriyā Devī is found.

The Bhakti-ratnākara relates that before going to Vṛndāvana, Śrīla Śrīnivāsa Ācārya went to Navadvīpa. Viṣṇupriyā... took Śrīnivāsa upon her lap and moistened him with the tears of her eyes. Then — "the goddess Viṣṇupriyā, to inform mother [Śacī], went with attentive, moonlike face to Vaṃśīvadana. Here Viṣṇupriyā speaks to her dear maidservant: 'I have seen a dream — let me tell you what is in my mind. My world-enchanting Lord, my very life-breath, came before me — how sweet was his gait! The splendor of that form would destroy the pride of Kāma himself — to what can it be compared, save perhaps the flash of lightning? His whole body anointed with fragrant sandal-paste — a myriad autumn moons seemed smeared upon him. Adorned with ornaments and fine garments, he would entice even a shy young woman past all fear. Ah, how beautiful his curling locks of hair — who would not lose himself in their fragrance? His two eyes, long, surpassing the lotus petal — none could keep composure who saw that glance. His arms hanging down to his knees, of enchanting form — how his broad chest bewitches the world! Upon that moon-face, so gentle and soft a smile — who knows what showers of nectar it would pour forth! With such great affection, seating me close beside him, he spoke to me softly, sweetly: "There is a brāhmaṇa youth named Śrīnivāsa; the sorrows he has endured are beyond telling. Today he shall come to see you — know him as your own and show him your grace." Speaking thus, revealing such great joy, he then vanished, and I awoke sitting in sorrow. I understood him to be most dear to my Lord and life-breath — I feel his arrival must be imminent.' At that moment Vaṃśīvadana informed her that Śrīnivāsa had come there from Nīlācala. Hearing this, the goddess desired to see him; Śrīnivāsa went into the goddess's presence. A stream of prema flowed ceaselessly from his eyes; rolling upon the ground, he offered profuse obeisance. Hearing Śrīnivāsa's praṇāma, the goddess, remembering Gaurāṅga, stood there in seclusion. Though her heart burned in the forest-fire of separation from the Lord, still she rejoiced upon seeing Śrīnivāsa. With maternal affection she spoke sweet words, and placed her lotus feet upon Śrīnivāsa's head. Giving the command that he be fed mahā-prasāda, she fell silent, her heart afloat in the water of her eyes. Someone gave Śrīnivāsa prasāda in private; he ate the prasāda, moistened with his own tears. Every day thereafter Śrīnivāsa had her darśana." (Bhakti-ratnākara, Fourth Wave, Baharampur edition, pp. 122–24)

From this account it is understood that Mahāprabhu, in the form of the world-enchanter, gave Śrī Śrī Viṣṇupriyā Devī his darśana in a dream. This event occurred long after Mahāprabhu's disappearance.

Having received the grace of Śrī Śrī Viṣṇupriyā Devī, Śrīnivāsa Ācārya went to Vṛndāvana; he arrived there in the month of Vaiśākha, Śaka 1514 (see the essay "The Date of the Completion of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta" in the introduction to Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, pp. 20–22). It may therefore be inferred that he came to Navadvīpa and received Viṣṇupriyā Devī's grace in Śaka 1513. Mahāprabhu's disappearance occurred in Śaka 1455; thus this event took place 58 years after Mahāprabhu's disappearance. If Viṣṇupriyā Devī was about 15 or 16 years old at the time of Mahāprabhu's departure from home in Śaka 1431, then by Śaka 1513 she would have been at least 97 or 98 years old. This shows that she remained manifest for a very long time. Regarding Śrī Śrī Viṣṇupriyā Devī, the Bhakti-ratnākara further relates: "How can it be told what the goddess's daily life was like? At separation from the Lord, sleep fled from her eyes; on the rare occasion she slept, it was upon the bare ground. Her body, once more brilliant than gold, grew utterly wan — thin as the moon on the fourteenth night of the dark fortnight. She would count the names of Hari upon a garland of tulasī, then, having counted, offer that very garland's worth of rice to the Lord, of which she would eat only the smallest portion — no one could understand how she still sustained her life. Seeing Śrīnivāsa day after day, what state she came to, who indeed could describe? Everyone then understood at once that she retained her body only out of grace toward Śrīnivāsa." (Bhakti-ratnākara, Fourth Wave, p. 124)

At what time she attained disappearance is not known. But from the account cited above, it seems that she did not remain manifest for very long after bestowing her grace upon Śrīnivāsa Ācārya.

§54. Gaura-mantra

From the discussion of the passages cited from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata in the preceding sections [§51 above], it has been established that, according to Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, both Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Śrī Gaurāṅga are objects of relationship (sambandha-tattva) and objects of worship, and that the attainment of both their abodes and both their service is the aspirant's desired goal. It has also been established that the worship of Śrī Kṛṣṇa is to be undertaken through the worship of Śrī Gaurāṅga. Indeed, in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava society the worship of both forms is current practice — the custom being to worship Gaura first, and Śrī Kṛṣṇa afterward.

Worship requires a mantra proper to the worshipped form. The worship of Śrī Gaurāṅga likewise requires a Gaura-mantra; on this point too there is no disagreement among Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas. But regarding the Gaura-mantra and its precise nature, differences of opinion do exist. One class of Vaiṣṇavas holds that, since Gaura is indeed Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Gaura should be worshipped with the Kṛṣṇa-mantra itself. Another class holds that although Gaura is truly Śrī Kṛṣṇa, he is not Śrī Kṛṣṇa alone, but Śrī Kṛṣṇa united with Śrī Rādhā; therefore, worshipping Gaura with the Kṛṣṇa-mantra cannot constitute worship of Śrī Gaurāṅga in his Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-combined form — a separate mantra is required for Gaura's worship, and such a separate Gaura-mantra is indeed found in certain scriptures.

At one place in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata it is written: "One day the Lord, with Gadādhara, went joyfully to see Advaita. Advaita, going there, saw the two — seated, engaged in the service of water and tulasī. Raising both arms, crying 'Hari! Hari!', now laughing, now weeping, forgetting his own worship — roaring like a maddened lion, and, seen in anger, like an incarnation of the great Rudra. The moment Advaita saw Lord Viśvambhara, he fell unconscious to the ground. By the power of bhakti-yoga, the mighty Advaita understood all: 'This is my very Lord of life!' He thought within himself, 'Where will the thief go today? For so long you have been stealing about in this very place — you, thief, in Advaita's own house, shall find no more room to steal! I shall now steal from the thief himself, right here!' Understanding that this was now the time to 'steal,' he at once gathered all the articles of his own worship. Taking water-vessel, offering, and rinsing-water in hand, the Ācārya Gosāñi worshipped Caitanya's feet. With scent, flowers, incense, and lamp before those feet, he bowed again and again, reciting this verse: 'Salutations to the God of the brāhmaṇas, the benefactor of cows and brāhmaṇas, benefactor of the world — salutations again and again to Kṛṣṇa, to Govinda.' Reciting this verse again and again at the Lord's feet, and now recognizing his own Lord, he wept. He washed both feet with the water of his eyes, and, arms folded, stood at the Lord's feet." (2.2.126–38)

After some time Viśvambhara regained external consciousness, and beheld Advaita Ācārya absorbed in ecstasy (2.2.142).

Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura does not record with which mantra Śrī Advaita worshipped the Lord on this occasion. But from the fact that Advaita bowed to the Lord while reciting the verse "namo brahmaṇya-devāya," it may be understood that he worshipped the Lord with the awareness that he was Kṛṣṇa; this reasoning is also confirmed elsewhere in the very couplets cited above, where he calls the Lord "my Lord of life, Śrī Kṛṣṇa."

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes elsewhere too that Śrī Advaita Ācārya beheld Mahāprabhu's wondrous form as Śrī Kṛṣṇa (see 2.6.73–91). Afterward, at the Lord's command, he worshipped the Lord "according to scriptural rite, with proper preparation." But although Vṛndāvana Dāsa does not record which mantra he used, he does record that Śrī Advaita offered daṇḍavat praṇāma to the Lord while reciting the verse "namo brahmaṇya-devāya" (see 2.6.103–12). From this it is understood that Śrī Advaita worshipped the Lord at that time with the awareness that he was Śrī Kṛṣṇa — the reason for this, it seems, being that he had at that time received the vision of the Lord's Śrī Kṛṣṇa-form specifically. Of course, when the Lord displayed such opulence and sat upon the throne of Viṣṇu at Śrīvāsa's house, at his command the devotees performed his consecration, and — "having worshipped him, all according to the rite of the eighteen-syllable Gopāla-mantra, began to recite hymns of praise." (2.9.50) Here too the Lord's worship was performed with the awareness of Kṛṣṇa, not with the awareness of the devotee-mood, Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-combined form. Citing the example of Śrī Advaita Ācārya, some indeed hold that Śrī Gaurāṅga should be worshipped with the Kṛṣṇa-mantra.

The question of the Gaura-mantra has been much debated in the past, and remains debated even now. What its true resolution is, only Mahāprabhu himself knows. We ourselves lack the competence to resolve it, and so have no inclination to attempt it. Nonetheless, for the consideration of wise devotees learned in the mysteries of worship, we wish to offer a few words at their feet on this matter.

The worship-mantra of any worshipped form is that which expresses its essential nature (svarūpa) and its devotional mood (bhāva). The mood of servitude (dāsya-bhāva), the mood of friendship (sakhya-bhāva), the mood of parental affection (vātsalya-bhāva), and the mood of conjugal love (kāntā-bhāva) — in these four moods is Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the son of Vraja's king, worshipped. Although Śrī Kṛṣṇa is one, his mood is not the same across the pastimes of these four bhāvas; and the worship-mantras of these four bhāvas are likewise not one, but distinct from each other. No one, presumably, would deny that with the mantra of the conjugal mood — that is, the ten-syllable or eighteen-syllable Gopāla-mantra — one cannot worship in the mood of parental affection, nor that with the mantra of parental affection one can worship Śrī Kṛṣṇa as he sports with Śrī Rādhikā and the other gopīs. Each bhāva's worship-mantra is precisely that which expresses the essential nature and mood of Śrī Kṛṣṇa as he delights in that particular bhāva.

Gaura's essential nature is that he is the combined form of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, and for that reason he is filled with the devotee's mood (bhakta-bhāva-maya). The Kṛṣṇa-mantra expresses neither the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-combined form nor the devotee's mood. We therefore humbly ask, at the feet of the wise devotees learned in the science of worship: how, then, can Śrī Gaurāṅga's essential nature and mood be expressed through worship of Gaura with the Kṛṣṇa-mantra?

It has already been shown that on the two occasions cited, Advaita Ācārya worshipped the Lord with the awareness of Kṛṣṇa — he did not, on those two occasions, worship Gaura with the awareness of the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-combined form. We therefore also humbly ask whether it is proper, in worship of the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-combined form, to follow the precedent of Śrī Advaita's cited conduct.

A further question: Śrīla Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura Mahāśaya, as an aspirant in the conjugal mood, using the two words expressing the Lord's essential nature — "Gaurāṅga" and "Gaura" — has said, "In the qualities of Gaurāṅga he is manifest; his eternal pastime is manifest in him," and "In the ocean of Gaura's love-mellow, whoever dives into those waves is the intimate companion of Rādhā-Mādhava." We ask whether the truth of these statements of the venerable Ṭhākura Mahāśaya can be fulfilled through worship of Gaura with the Kṛṣṇa-mantra; and likewise whether the truth of Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own statement holds — "The essence of the nectar of Kṛṣṇa's pastimes, whose hundreds upon hundreds of streams flow out in all ten directions — that essence is Gaurāṅga's pastime, an inexhaustible lake; let the swan of your mind graze there."

It is also known from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata that Śrī Advaita did attain realization of Gaura's Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-combined nature. Śrī Advaita said to the Lord: "At the start of saṅkīrtana was your descent." (2.6.124) Śrī Kṛṣṇa's descent does not occur, and never has occurred, "at the start of saṅkīrtana" — it is only the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-combined form whose descent occurs at the start of saṅkīrtana. From this it is understood that Śrī Advaita had realized that this very Lord was the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-combined form.

Again, when the Lord told Advaita to ask for a boon, Advaita replied, "What further boon shall I ask? Whatever boon I sought, I have already received it all." (2.6.158) Then Lord Viśvambhara, nodding his head, said to Śrī Advaita: "For your sake I have become manifest. House to house I shall spread the preaching of kīrtana; may the whole world dance to my fame. That devotion for which Brahmā, Śiva, Nārada and others perform austerities — such devotion I declare I shall now distribute to you." (2.6.162–64) The house-to-house spreading of kīrtana, and the distribution — indiscriminately, to all — of the devotion (that is, prema) sought even by Brahmā, Śiva, and others, is not the function of the pure Kṛṣṇa-form; it is the function of that very Kṛṣṇa-form united in a single body with Śrī Rādhā. Realizing this, Śrī Advaita said: "If you will distribute devotion, then give it even to the most foolish śūdras and the like. Let the caṇḍāla dance, singing your names and glories." (2.6.165, 167) The Lord agreed to this: "Hearing Advaita's words, the Lord accepted them, saying: 'True is your claim.'" (2.6.168) Hearing the Lord's words — "the Ācārya Gosāñi, together with his wife, was filled with joy; having obtained his heart's desire, he remained there." (2.6.176)

From this account it is known that Śrī Advaita attained realization of Mahāprabhu's Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-combined form as well. Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa does not record whether Śrī Advaita worshipped Mahāprabhu on this occasion; had he done so, it would be known with what mantra or in what mood he worshipped.

After this — that is, after his realization of the Lord's Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-combined form — when the Lord came to Bengal from Nīlācala and arrived at Śāntipura, he again performed dance and kīrtana with the devotees there (3.4.481–84). Here too it is the Lord's devotee-mood — that is, his Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-combined nature — that is manifest, not his pure Kṛṣṇa-nature, since Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself never danced and sang in saṅkīrtana with his devotees. At this time too, Śrī Advaita fed the Lord divine rice together with various sweets and preparations (3.4.497–500), and offered him "divine fragrant sandal-paste and a divine garland" (3.4.503). Here too, it is not recorded with which mantra Advaita worshipped, nor was there any particular need to record it — for the purpose of mantra-meditation is only to awaken in the mind the remembrance of the essential form of one's cherished object of worship, so that one may make one's offering to the worshipped Lord with a heart attuned to that remembered form, and to petition at the worshipped one's feet for the acceptance of one's offering — that being the purpose of presenting one's service. Where the object of worship is directly, personally present, the need for mantra-meditation may well cease to apply. If, in the Lord's absence, Śrī Advaita ever offered food to the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-combined Lord, it would be known with which mantra he offered it — but there is no way of knowing this.

It is known from Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta that Śrīla Rāghava Paṇḍita of Pāṇihāṭi would offer bhoga to Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and would also separately offer bhoga to Gaura. If he offered bhoga to Gaura with the awareness of Kṛṣṇa alone, it does not seem there would have been any point in offering it separately. But with which mantra he offered the Lord's bhoga is not known.

In truth, it is not that the Lord partakes of an offering simply because it is presented with mantra-meditation; rather, the Lord partakes of whatever is offered with love. The statement "the Lord of the immortals is not won by manifold ritual worship — love alone melts the devotee's heart" and similar statements are proof of this.

In any case, we wish to place one more matter before the feet of the wise devotees learned in the mysteries of worship. It has already been said that some hold that Śrī Gaurāṅga has a separate mantra, and that it is a scriptural mantra; opponents hold that this separate mantra is not a mantra from an authoritative scripture. We have no wish to enter into the question of whether it is indeed a scriptural mantra or not. But if someone, without worshipping Gaura with that particular mantra, instead worships Gaura using some name-mantra expressive of Gaura's essential nature, we ask the wise whether such worship would be efficacious.

In the practice of the path of bhakti, the worship of the worshipped Lord together with his associates (sa-parikara) is the enjoined form. Those who worship the son of Vraja's king in subordination to the conjugal mood also render service and worship, each according to due measure, to Śrī Rādhikā and the other gopīs alongside Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Those who worship with the mere name-mantras of Śrī Rādhikā and her companions (that is, fourth-case name-mantras such as "śrī-rādhikāyai namaḥ," "śrī-śrī-lalitā-viśākhādi-sakhī-gaṇebhyo namaḥ," "rūpa-mañjarī-gaṇebhyo namaḥ," and so on) do not consider such worship of Rādhikā and her companions with mere name-mantras to be without efficacy — if they thought it were, they would not worship with name-mantras at all.

In the same way, devotees also worship, together with Śrī Gaurāṅga, Śrī Nityānanda, Śrī Advaita, Śrī Gadādhara, Śrī Śrīvāsa, and other associate devotees. In many places, the worship of Nityānanda and the others is performed with fourth-case name-mantras alone, and devotees consider such worship efficacious. If the worship of Śrī Nityānanda and the others with name-mantras is considered efficacious, then would the worship of Mahāprabhu with some fourth-case name-mantra expressive of his Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-combined nature (such as "śrī-gaurāṅgāya namaḥ" and the like) constitute an offense, or be without efficacy?

We humbly pray that the wise devotees learned in the mysteries of worship will, out of their grace, determine the answers to the questions raised in the discussion above.

§55. What Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata Teaches the World

Through the statements of Mahāprabhu, the statements of the devotees, and the statements of the author himself, Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata offers teaching to all living beings, to the world at large. The supreme spiritual teaching is the principal teaching of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata; teaching on other matters is incidental to it.

In the preceding section [§51], through numerous citations from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, it was shown that both Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Śrī Gaurāṅga are the object of relationship (sambandha-tattva); that the soul's essential, inherent bond of dearness (svarūpānubandhī priyatva) is with both; and that loving service to both is the soul's essential, inherent duty. It was also shown there that the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-śruti itself declares that service devoted solely to Kṛṣṇa's happiness is the soul's essential, inherent duty. It was also stated there that to attain such service, the longing for such service — that is, prema — is absolutely essential. This truth of the goal (prayojana-tattva) — namely, the practice of sādhana-bhakti, the devotional discipline which the soul must undertake in order to attain prema, a discipline in which every desire but the desire for Kṛṣṇa's happiness, including all desire for enjoyment (bhukti) and liberation (mukti), is entirely renounced — this too was shown there.

That this prema, or devotion to Viṣṇu, is eternally established (nitya-siddha), imperishable, and immutable, Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata declares as well, through Mahāprabhu's own words: "Devotion to Viṣṇu is eternally established, imperishable, immutable. Throughout the infinite universes, devotion to Viṣṇu alone is true; even at the great dissolution its power remains undiminished. Nārāyaṇa, though he freely gives liberation, keeps devotion hidden and rare — such devotion is unknowable without Kṛṣṇa's own grace." (3.3.496–98) That bhakti-yoga is the means of attaining such devotion or prema, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa likewise declares: "Bhakti-yoga, bhakti-yoga, bhakti-yoga is the true wealth. This 'bhakti' (that is, bhakti-yoga) consists in remembering and weeping over Kṛṣṇa's name. Weeping while crying 'Kṛṣṇa,' one attains the Lord Kṛṣṇa himself; without worshipping Kṛṣṇa, wealth and lineage amount to nothing." (2.24.72–73)

How, by chanting the name of Kṛṣṇa, deliverance from this world may be attained is also revealed through Mahāprabhu's own words: raising his arms, he called out to the world, in Gaura's own abode: "All of you, being free of envy, chant the name of Kṛṣṇa! Whoever, being free of envy, utters the name of Kṛṣṇa even once — that person, truly, truly, I shall deliver with ease." (2.19.213–14)

The grave and terrible consequences of blasphemy (nindā) are spoken of in many places in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, and the evil consequences of blaspheming saints or Vaiṣṇavas in particular are emphasized. "He who wears the garb of an ascetic yet is a highway robber — such a slanderer and such a wicked sannyāsī are no different. Between the two, the Veda declares, the slanderer is the worse." Thus in the Śrī Nāradīya: "Better is he who openly falls and descends by his own act alone, than the hypocrite who, feigning piety, drags others down with him as well; for such crane-like hypocrites steal the wealth of the deluded with harsh, false, seemingly-pious words, as vultures tear flesh." (2.20.1–2, meaning of the verses) — People come in good faith to see an ascetic, but hearing blasphemy of the saintly, they perish outright. Hearing blasphemy of saints destroys one's accumulated merit; the four Vedas declare it brings ruin birth after birth. A highway robber kills only once, in a single lifetime, but a slanderer destroys life after life, moment after moment. Therefore a slandering ascetic is worse than a robber — more wicked even than a robber. Austerity, chanting, and the like are all Kṛṣṇa's own glory; the scriptures all declare that mere blasphemy angers Kṛṣṇa. Whoever, free of envy, utters the name of Kṛṣṇa even once [attains liberation] — but if one blasphemes even while reciting all four Vedas...

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa has said: "It is only by a Vaiṣṇava's grace that one attains Viśvambhara; without devotion, japa and tapa are of no avail whatsoever. He who commits an offense at a Vaiṣṇava's feet — even if he possesses love for Kṛṣṇa, that love is obstructed. I do not say this myself — this is the very word of the Vedas, spoken directly by the son of Śacī himself. Śacī, in whose womb Gaurachandra descended, herself once bore a past offense against a Vaiṣṇava; the Lord himself removed that offense and, in teaching everyone, bestowed prema upon his own mother." (2.22.6–10) (See the commentary on 2.22.40.)

The Lord has said: "Whoever even once blasphemes my servant — that person my own name, the wish-fulfilling tree, destroys." (2.19.209)

The Lord has also taught how the sin of blasphemy may be cleansed. One day a certain brāhmaṇa came before the Lord and said: "Not knowing the power of devotion, sinner that I am, I have blasphemed much, consuming my own ruin. 'What is there to a Vaiṣṇava in this age of Kali, what is there to kīrtana' — thus I spoke, again and again, at length. Now, Lord, let that sinner be remembered; my heart burns constantly in every way. You are the lion who delivers the fallen world — tell me how that sin of mine may be destroyed." (3.3.435–38) The Lord then told him: "Listen, brāhmaṇa! If the mouth that has eaten poison then partakes of nectar, the poison is digested and the body becomes immortal, by the power of the nectar — now hear my answer. Whatever blasphemy you spoke in ignorance, that was only your drinking of poison. Now let that same mouth drink, without pause, the supreme nectar that is Kṛṣṇa's qualities and name. The mouth with which you blasphemed the Vaiṣṇavas — with that same mouth now praise the Vaiṣṇavas. Go, brāhmaṇa, and glorify devotion beyond all else, in song and verse. In the supreme bliss and nectar of Kṛṣṇa's fame, I shall destroy every fault of your blasphemy. This I say to everyone, not to you alone — to whoever has blasphemed in ignorance. And if one never again commits the act of blasphemy, but ceaselessly praises Viṣṇu and the Vaiṣṇavas — by this means alone all such sins are dissolved, a remedy that even a hundred million acts of atonement could not achieve. Go, brāhmaṇa, go and glorify devotion — thus alone shall you be freed from every sin." (3.3.440–50) And further: if one has blasphemed a Vaiṣṇava knowingly, the Lord has taught that the offense can be cleansed only by taking refuge at that same Vaiṣṇava's feet, satisfying him, and obtaining his forgiveness for the offense. The Lord has said: "Whatever offense is committed against a particular Vaiṣṇava can be dissolved only when that same Vaiṣṇava forgives it — by no other means." (2.22.32)

There are many people who, wherever they happen to be, speak whatever suits that company — sometimes even proclaiming the superiority of the path of knowledge (jñāna-yoga) and the like over devotion. The Lord calls such people "double-dealing hypocrites" (ubhaya-jāṭhiyā) and declares that such people commit an offense against devotion itself. That such "double hypocrisy" ought to be abandoned in every respect, the Lord made known as well, in the episode concerning Mukunda Datta (see 2.10.172–90).

It is from egotism (ahaṅkāra) that the impulse to blaspheme and the like arises. Mahāprabhu has said: "The Supreme Lord cannot bear anyone's egotism. A tree laden with fruit, and a person endowed with true virtue — humility is ever their nature." (1.9.43, 45)

Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura has also taught regarding the necessity of service to the Vaiṣṇavas: "Service to the Vaiṣṇavas is greater even than service to Kṛṣṇa — the Bhāgavata and all other scriptures firmly establish this. Therefore service to the Vaiṣṇavas is the supreme means; it is through service to the devotees alone that everyone attains Kṛṣṇa." (3.3.476–77)

Mahāprabhu himself has said: "Hear this truth of mine, everyone, with attentive mind: whoever worships me while disregarding my own servant — that lowly person tears me to pieces, and his worship falls upon my body like fire." (2.19.207–8)

The teaching to abandon envy (hiṃsā) is also found in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. The Lord has said: "All the infinite universes are my own servants; therefore whoever does violence to another is himself destroyed." (2.19.231) To mother Śacī too the Lord said: "An act devoid of devotion bears no fruit whatsoever; an act devoid of devotion becomes mere violence toward others." (2.1.233)

Within every living being, without exception, Śrī Kṛṣṇa is present as the Supreme Soul (Paramātmā). Therefore, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam declares that it is one's duty to offer respectful obeisance, falling prostrate upon the ground, even to a dog, a caṇḍāla, a cow, or a donkey: "One should offer obeisance even to a dog, a caṇḍāla, a cow, or a donkey — for the Lord, present there by his portion as the individual soul, dwells within." (Bhāgavata 11.29.16; 3.29.34) Citing these two verses, Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya said to Mahāprabhu: "Regarding even a brāhmaṇa, a dog, or a caṇḍāla as equal, one should honor all and offer obeisance to all. This alone is Vaiṣṇava dharma — reverence toward all; whoever lacks faith in this is a mere hypocrite parading religion." (3.3.28–29) Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa has likewise said: "He who blasphemes no one, but only chants 'Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa' — that person shall conquer even the unconquerable Caitanya with ease. Nothing whatsoever is gained through blasphemy — all scriptures declare this; honoring everyone is itself the very dharma of the Bhāgavata." (2.10.310–11; see the commentary on 2.10.311.)

Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura has also spoken of the harm caused by regarding Vaiṣṇavas through the lens of birth-caste (jāti-buddhi). "Whatever sinner regards a Vaiṣṇava through caste-consciousness, he sinks and perishes, birth after birth, in the lowest of wombs." (2.10.151) In the commentary on this couplet, scriptural proof is given [see there]. Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa has further said: "Whatever family a Vaiṣṇava may be born into, still he is the very best — this all the scriptures declare." (2.10.99)

Throughout Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, the only path of practice ever commended is that which is conducive to the soul's essential, inherent duty — service devoted solely to Kṛṣṇa's happiness. Nowhere is any path of practice conducive to the attainment of enjoyment or liberation ever commended as favorable to attaining that service.

When the Lord, together with Śrī Nityānanda, was going to Advaita Ācārya's house at Śāntipura, he stopped along the way at the house of a sannyāsī in a village called Rāḍha. At that time the Lord did not know who this sannyāsī was. He went and — "Viśvambhara offered obeisance to the sannyāsī." (2.19.43) The sannyāsī, pleased, gave him many blessings: "May your lineage flourish through good marriage, may you attain learning." The Lord said: "Gosāñi, this is no blessing at all! The true blessing would be to say: may you attain the grace of Kṛṣṇa! The blessing of devotion to Viṣṇu is imperishable and immutable — what you have said, Gosāñi, is not worthy of you." (2.19.48–50) The sannyāsī had given the Lord a blessing conducive to happiness and comfort in this present life (that is, worldly enjoyment). The Lord said: this is not a real blessing at all — for such worldly comfort and enjoyment is not "imperishable and immutable"; only "devotion to Viṣṇu, imperishable and immutable" is a real blessing.

By this the Lord made known that enjoyment in this present life is utterly worthless, and desire for it ought to be abandoned.

On this occasion the Lord further said: "Even the Veda itself speaks of heaven, and of various worlds high and low — such is the Veda's compassion only toward the foolish. Great satisfaction lies for such people in the pleasures of sense-objects; understanding their hearts, the Veda speaks accordingly — what fault is there in the Veda?" (2.19.64–65) Those whose entire being is bodily pleasure, who are utterly attached to sense-objects, desire, like enjoyment in this life, the enjoyment of the pleasures of heaven and other higher worlds in the life to come as well. It is only to keep such people within the fold of Vedic discipline that the Veda has also prescribed the means for attaining heaven and the like. But the happiness of heaven and similar worlds is impermanent; one falls even from heaven and must take birth again. In the Gītā, Śrī Kṛṣṇa has said: when one's merit is exhausted, one must return again to the mortal world even from heaven — "kṣīṇe puṇye martya-lokaṁ viśanti." Śrī Kṛṣṇa further told Arjuna that from Brahmaloka itself, and from all the worlds between heaven and Brahmaloka, one must return again to this mortal world and fall once more into the grip of birth and death — but on attaining Kṛṣṇa there is no rebirth: "ā-brahma-bhuvanāl lokāḥ punar āvartino 'rjuna, mām upetya tu kaunteya punar janma na vidyate." (Gītā 8.16)

Thus it is understood that, like enjoyment in this life, the enjoyment of heaven and similar worlds in the next life is likewise impermanent. There is no true value in desiring an impermanent object; therefore it too must be abandoned.

On this occasion Vṛndāvana Dāsa has said: "By this example Mahāprabhu teaches everyone: without devotion, let no one desire anything at all." (2.19.59) Devotion to Kṛṣṇa alone is imperishable and immutable; therefore it alone is truly desirable. Enjoyment in this life or the next, being impermanent, cannot be a true object of desire; therefore the desire for enjoyment must be abandoned. In the phrase "without devotion, let no one desire anything," the "anything without devotion" refers to enjoyment and liberation — the four aims of life (dharma, artha, kāma, mokṣa). Dharma, artha, and kāma — this threefold group — aim at enjoyment in this life and the next; being impermanent, it must be abandoned. Liberation too, being contrary to the soul's essential duty of attaining service devoted solely to Kṛṣṇa's happiness, must likewise be abandoned. For all these reasons, Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata never commends any path of practice conducive to enjoyment or liberation.

Whatever is enjoined by the Veda is dharma; whatever is contrary to it is adharma — "vedapraṇihito dharmo hy adharmas tad-viparyayaḥ" (Bhāgavata 6.1.40; see the explanation of the verse at 1.2.3–4). Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata also makes known, both directly and by implication, that those who walk the path of pure, Vedically-enjoined devotion ought to shun the company of those who follow doctrines opposed to the Veda.

When Mahāprabhu declared the aforementioned Rāḍha-country sannyāsī's blessing to be worthless, the sannyāsī, offended, proclaimed his own greatness at length: "I do not know good from bad? Today a mere suckling child instructs me!" (2.19.77) Then — "Nityānanda said, laughing, 'Listen, Gosāñi! There is no purpose in arguing with a mere child. I myself well know your greatness — seeing me here, forgive everything.'" Hearing his own praise, the sannyāsī, pleased, at once joyfully invited them to take alms (2.19.78–80). What sort of sannyāsī this was, neither Nityānanda nor Mahāprabhu yet knew. They accepted the sannyāsī's invitation. Bathing in the Gaṅgā, the two of them sat down to take fruit and other offerings; having offered milk, curd, jackfruit and the like to Kṛṣṇa, the two Lords ate the remnants in the sannyāsī's presence. This sannyāsī, a follower of the left-hand tantric path (vāma-mārga), drank liquor, and hinted at this obliquely to Nityānanda: "Listen, Śrīpāda! Shall I bring some 'ānanda' [bliss/wine]? Where could I find a guest such as you?" (2.19.86–87) Nityānanda too was a sannyāsī; taking Nityānanda to be a sannyāsī of his own kind, the Rāḍha sannyāsī proposed to bring "ānanda." Nityānanda, having traveled through many lands and seen many kinds of sannyāsīs, understood from the sannyāsī's talk of bringing "ānanda" that this was a left-hand practitioner, a wine-drinker, a follower of doctrines opposed to the Veda. "Nityānanda, having traveled through many lands, knew all this — he understood at once in his mind that this was a wine-drinking sannyāsī. 'Shall I bring ānanda?' the sannyāsī said again and again. Nityānanda said: 'Then he is no friend of mine.'" (2.19.88–89) Then — "the Lord asked, 'What is this "ānanda" the sannyāsī speaks of?' Nityānanda replied, 'It means something like wine.'" (2.19.92) Left-hand tantric sannyāsīs call wine "ānanda." The Lord had not known this; Nityānanda made it known to him. Hearing this — "Viśvambhara, distressed, remembered Viṣṇu; performing ācamana, the Lord departed at once. The two Lords swiftly leapt into the Gaṅgā, and, floating upon its waters, went on to the Ācārya's house." (2.19.93–94)

After his sannyāsa, when the Lord was traveling from Śāntipura to Nīlācala, past Jaleśvara on the road to Bāṇeśvara, a tāntrika Śākta sannyāsī came and offered him obeisance along the way. In a playful mood the Lord addressed him with sweet words: "Tell me, tell me, where do you all live — after so long, today I have found a kinsman!" Deluded by the Lord's illusory power, the Śākta began to expound at length his own doctrine — describing all the various Śāktas dwelling in various lands, one after another, while the Lord listened, smiling. The Śākta said, "Come quickly to my monastery — we shall all make boundless 'ānanda' today!" This sinful Śākta calling wine "ānanda" — Gaurachandra and Nityānanda, understanding, smiled. The Lord said, "I shall come to make 'ānanda' — go ahead and prepare everything quickly." Hearing this, the Śākta went off rejoicing — such is the unfathomable character of the Lord in this pastime! (2.19.263–69)

The Lord, by this ruse, sent the Śākta sannyāsī on ahead to his own house, but did not go there himself. Through these two episodes the Lord made known to the people of the world that it is best to keep at a distance from those who follow doctrines opposed to the Veda.

Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes: "When in the final section the Lord traveled to Kāśī, all the sannyāsīs residing there heard of it. Hearing the news, the ascetics were greatly delighted, saying, 'We shall see Caitanya, of whom we have heard as so great a soul.' All were Vedāntins, men of knowledge, all ascetics of austerity, having dwelt in Kāśī from birth, all men of renown. Yet by one single fault the power of all their virtues was lost — they taught Vedānta, yet did not cultivate devotion to Viṣṇu. Gaurasiṃha, the indwelling witness of all hearts, knew all this — and though he went to Kāśī, he gave them no darśana at all." (2.19.100–104) These were sannyāsīs of the Māyāvāda school, followers of Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkara's Māyāvāda is, as has been discussed [see Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Darśana, third section, second part], crypto-Buddhism (pracchanna-bauddha-mata) and opposed to bhakti. For this reason, out of fear of associating with such doctrine, the Lord did not even grant them his darśana. They themselves made this known—

"...they are content, but seeing people devoid of devotion I am greatly grieved. Kṛṣṇa's processions, day-and-night Kṛṣṇa-saṅkīrtana — no one here even knows the purpose of these things. All people know only this much of dharma and duty: staying awake through the night singing songs to Maṅgala-caṇḍī. As their deity they know only the two-faced Viṣahari [the snake-goddess Manasā]; and even her they worship with the greatest arrogance. Desiring in their minds the increase of wealth and lineage, some worship demons with meat and wine. The songs of Yogīpāla, Bhogīpāla, and Mahīpāla [worldly kings] — hearing these alone delights everyone... Seeing the people, Śrī Mādhavapurī grieved — there was not one among them with whom he could exchange even a moment's word." (3.4.407–16)

By this account Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa makes known, by implication, that association and conversation should likewise be avoided with those devoid of devotion, with worshippers of non-Vedic deities, with those intoxicated solely by pleasures of this world, with yogīs who follow doctrines opposed to the Veda, with those absorbed in worldly enjoyment, and with kings and rulers wholly given over to sense-pleasure, and with those who take delight only in hearing the praises and glories of such people (see the commentary on 3.4.412).

Many such teachings beneficial to practitioners of the path of pure devotion are found in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata; for fear of overextending this essay, no more of them are cited here.

Many teachings suited to householders are also found in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. A few are noted here.

That the fulfillment of study lies only in its culmination in devotion to Śrī Kṛṣṇa is made known by Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa through the words of Śrīvāsa and the other devotees: "Who studies at all, except to know devotion to Kṛṣṇa? If that is not attained, what use is learning?" (1.8.49, 1.8.251) "Kṛṣṇa alone is true, the object sought by all scripture; the whole purpose of study is this — Kṛṣṇa alone is the essence of all scripture." (2.1.362–63)

While teaching, the Lord would first go and sit at Mukunda Sañjaya's house of worship of Caṇḍī, and only afterward would his students gradually arrive. Meanwhile, if on any day some student happened, through forgetfulness, to have no tilaka mark upon his forehead — the Lord, who established the eternal dharma (sanātana-dharma) as the foundation of all dharmas, and who, for the protection of proper social custom, never spared anyone out of misplaced shame — would at once make that student feel the shame of it, so that thereafter he never came again without performing his evening worship (sandhyā). The Lord would say: "Why, brother, do I not see the tilaka on your forehead? What is the reason for this? If a brāhmaṇa's forehead bears no tilaka, the Veda declares him fit to be treated as a cremation-ground. I understand — today you performed no sandhyā; today, brother, your sandhyā has gone barren. Go home again and perform sandhyā, and having done it, then come and study." (1.10.187–94; see the commentary on 1.10.192.)

Here the Lord makes known that a brāhmaṇa's forehead should always bear the tilaka, and that sandhyā performed without wearing the tilaka is barren, fruitless. The Lord himself wore the ūrdhva-puṇḍra tilaka: "One day the Lord was coming along the royal road, with five or seven students around him on every side — tilaka upon his forehead, a book held aloft in his hand." (1.8.242, 245; see the commentary on 1.8.245.)

At the time of the Lord's marriage to Lakṣmī, Śrī Viṣṇupriyā Devī, her father, Rāja Paṇḍita Sanātana Miśra, gave his daughter's hand in marriage desiring only Viṣṇu's pleasure: "Desiring only the pleasure of Viṣṇu, the father of Śrī Lakṣmī placed his daughter in the Lord's hand." (1.10.368) By this, the world is taught that a householder should perform all his acts desiring only Viṣṇu's pleasure.

After the disappearance of Śrī Jagannātha Miśra Purandara [the Lord's father], the Lord went to Gayā and offered piṇḍa at the lotus feet of Viṣṇu-pāda, and performed the proper śrāddha rites at the other holy sites of Gayā as well. By this the Lord taught that the performance of one's duties toward one's departed father is an essential obligation for a householder.

The Lord likewise displayed the ideal of service to the poor and to guests. Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes: "Whatever meritorious act anyone performed in Navadvīpa, they would invariably send food and cloth to the Lord's house. The Lord, most lavish, ever the Lord's own steward, would constantly reward the distressed. Seeing anyone in distress, the Lord, out of great compassion, would give food, cloth, and even coin — Gaura-Hari himself. Guests would come without end to the Lord's house; the Lord would give to each according to what was fitting. Some days ten or twenty sannyāsīs would come; the Lord himself, delighted, would invite them all. At once he would send word to his mother to prepare quickly enough alms-food for twenty sannyāsīs. Then Lakṣmī Devī would go and cook with the greatest care, and only then would the Lord come and sit down. The Lord himself would seat the sannyāsīs, satisfy them, and send them off after they had eaten. In this way, whatever guests arrived, the compassionate Lord would inquire of each of them personally. Mahāprabhu teaches this dharma to householders: service to guests is the householder's root duty. If, being a householder, one fails to entertain guests, such a person is to be counted lower than a beast or a bird. Even one afflicted by past misfortune, having nothing else, should at least offer grass, water, and a place to sit, with contentment. One should speak the truth, avoiding falsehood — yet even so, one's house should never be empty of guests. Without guile, according to one's means, whatever one can do for a guest's comfort — doing that alone, I say, constitutes devotion to the guest. Therefore the Lord himself would inquire of each guest with the greatest of care and affection." (1.10.10–26)

The Lord, through his own conduct, taught householders service to the distressed and service to guests; and Lakṣmī Devī too, through her own conduct, taught householder wives service to guests. According to scripture, service to guests is the duty of all. The Lord has declared that service to guests is the householder's root duty; for none but a householder has the opportunity or means for such service — it is presumably for this reason that Gadādhara Paṇḍita Gosvāmī has said, "The householder is the very refuge (śraya) of all festival-rites." (2.25.267)

Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata contains many more such teachings and instructions suited to householders; for brevity's sake, no more are cited here.

That unwavering steadfastness in one's own chosen practice of devotion (bhajana) is absolutely essential for the practitioner is taught through the words of Śrīla Haridāsa Ṭhākura. He has said: "Though my body be cut to pieces and my very life depart, still I shall not let the name of Hari leave my lips." (1.11.91) "Though endless misfortune come and my life depart, still I shall not let the name of Hari leave my lips." (1.11.136)

The teaching of complete dependence on the Lord (bhagavan-nirbharatā) is likewise expressed through the words of Haridāsa Ṭhākura. He has said: "Whatever the Lord causes to happen, none but he can bring it about. Whatever fruit corresponds to one's own offense, it is the Lord himself who metes it out — this alone is to be understood." Many more such teachings for the world are found in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata.

§56. Contemporary Navadvīpa

Regarding the state of Navadvīpa both before Mahāprabhu's advent and in Mahāprabhu's own time, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes in his Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata:

"Nowhere in the three worlds is there a village like Navadvīpa, where Caitanya Gosāñi took his descent. Knowing that the Lord would descend there, Providence made everything complete and placed it there beforehand. Who can measure the wealth of Navadvīpa? At a single Gaṅgā-bathing ghāṭ, a hundred thousand people bathe. People of every age, every one of a hundred thousand castes and communities — all supremely accomplished in the eyes of Sarasvatī [goddess of learning]. Everyone bears the pride of being a 'great teacher'; even children debate with senior Bhaṭṭācāryas. People come to Navadvīpa from many lands, for studying at Navadvīpa alone yields the true relish of learning (vidyā-rasa). The students there are beyond counting — a hundred thousand million teachers, beyond number. By Lakṣmī's [the goddess of fortune's] glance, everyone lives happily; time passes only in worldly transactions. The entire society was devoid of the name and devotion of Kṛṣṇa — such became the coming custom in the early age of Kali. All people knew only this much of dharma and duty: staying awake through the night singing songs to Maṅgala-caṇḍī. Someone with great pride worships Viṣahari; another makes an idol and binds it in worship. They squander their wealth on the weddings of sons and daughters — thus their time passes uselessly, so it seems, in this world. Whether they be Bhaṭṭācāryas, Cakravartīs, or Miśras, none of them understood the true purport of the scriptures. Getting hold of scripture, they engage only in such acts, and, together with their listeners, bind themselves and die in the noose of Yama. They do not expound the dharma of the age — the chanting of Kṛṣṇa's names; setting aside virtues, they speak only of others' faults. Whoever is proud of being a renunciate ascetic, in his mouth too there is no sound of Hari's name. The height of merit, for such people, is only this: at the moment of bathing they utter the names 'Govinda' and 'Puṇḍarīkākṣa.' Whoever teaches the Gītā or Bhāgavatam has no explanation of devotion on his tongue. Seeing this whole society deluded by Viṣṇu's illusory power, the devotees felt boundless grief: 'How shall these souls attain deliverance? The whole world is drowned in sense-pleasure. Even when told, no one takes up the name of Kṛṣṇa; ceaselessly they expound only learning and lineage. All the true devotees perform their own duties — worship of Kṛṣṇa, bathing in the Gaṅgā, discourse on Kṛṣṇa. Gathering together, they bless the world: "May Kṛṣṇacandra swiftly show his grace to everyone!"'" (1.2.51–73)

From this account it is known that Navadvīpa was at that time an extremely prosperous city, home to countless people of many different castes and communities. By Lakṣmī's favor, everyone lived in comfort and ease; no one wanted for food or clothing. People spent freely on their sons' and daughters' weddings and on festivals as they pleased, and had the means to do so. There were countless teachers, whose fame as scholars had spread far and wide; students came from many lands to study at Navadvīpa. Everyone believed that studying at Navadvīpa alone brought "the relish of learning" — that is, along with the completion of one's studies came the joy of true intellectual fulfillment. During the period of British rule in India, many gifted students, having completed their education here, would feel special pride upon going to England to study at Oxford or Cambridge, and upon their return home would receive special honor and esteem from all. From the account cited above, it seems that the Navadvīpa of that era was likewise the Oxford or Cambridge of Bengal. Learning flourished everywhere within Navadvīpa; hearing such discourse, even ordinary people could gain much knowledge. For this reason even children would debate with experienced Bhaṭṭācāryas. Such widespread cultivation of learning, and, as its result, such a spread of knowledge among the general populace, is an extremely rare phenomenon; the cultivation of learning was indeed an extraordinary treasure of Navadvīpa in that era. This, of course, was Navadvīpa's worldly treasure (vyavahārika vaibhava). In Āryāvarta [ancient India], though worldly treasure had its place, it was never reckoned as the primary treasure; the primacy accorded was always to spiritual treasure (pāramārthika vaibhava).

But from the account given by Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa, it is understood that the spiritual treasure of Navadvīpa in that era was not especially glorious. The root source of spiritual treasure is bhakti — that devotion by whose grace the soul, attaining the service that is its own essential, inherent duty, service devoted solely to Kṛṣṇa's happiness, becomes fulfilled. From the account of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata cited above, it is known that there were devotees in Navadvīpa at that time who honored devotion — but it seems their number was very small, for the general populace, and even renowned teachers, were turned away from the Lord (bhāgavad-bahirmukha). Their attachment was entirely to worldly matters; toward spiritual matters they had no attention whatsoever. The handful of devotees then present in Navadvīpa were themselves the tiny spark of that era's spiritual treasure — but the light of this tiny spark could not dispel the darkness of that outward-turned indifference. Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes that this small number of devotees — "even when told, no one takes up the name of Kṛṣṇa; ceaselessly they expound only learning and lineage." The scholars too proclaimed only the glory of learning and lineage; no one spoke a word regarding devotion. Indeed, even those teachers who taught devotional scriptures such as the Gītā and the Bhāgavatam did not explain their devotional import — being themselves devoid of devotion, they could not grasp the hidden mystery of these devotional texts. "Whether Bhaṭṭācāryas, Cakravartīs, or Miśras — none of them understood the true purport of the scriptures."

Vṛndāvana Dāsa also glorifies the handful of devotees who were then present in Navadvīpa. To those for whom devotion, the one truly transcendent reality, is everything, worldly treasure is of no value at all. For this reason, though the general populace of Navadvīpa at that time was rich in worldly treasure, the devotees' hearts were torn with grief at seeing their spiritual poverty; for their spiritual welfare, the devotees — "gathering together, blessed the world." What blessing did they give? "May Kṛṣṇacandra swiftly show his grace to everyone!" — O Kṛṣṇacandra, swiftly bestow such grace upon everyone that their outward-turned indifference may be dispelled and all may turn their faces toward Kṛṣṇa.

Vṛndāvana Dāsa also records the worldly splendor of Navadvīpa at the time when the Lord had already appeared but was not yet manifest [i.e., in his early childhood], as follows:

"Although Navadvīpa was a society of scholars, with tens of millions of teachers versed in the various scriptures — Bhaṭṭācāryas, Cakravartīs, Miśras, or Ācāryas, none of whom had any occupation but teaching — though each considered himself independent and supreme, none could withstand a debate on scripture even with Brahmā himself." (1.9.5–7) "Whatever scholars exist anywhere in Jambudvīpa [the known world], Navadvīpa surpasses them all — thus it was renowned throughout the world." (1.9.32) For this reason, world-conquering scholars, having defeated the paṇḍitas of other places in scriptural combat, felt especial glory only upon being able to defeat the paṇḍitas of Navadvīpa.

Vṛndāvana Dāsa relates that one such world-conquering scholar came to Navadvīpa, having gathered horses, elephants, and other trophies of victory along the way: "At that time, a great world-conquering scholar, filled with the utmost pride, arrived there. A single-minded worshipper of the Sarasvatī-mantra, he had, through japa of that mantra, brought Sarasvatī herself under his control." (1.9.19–20) Sarasvatī had granted him the boon — "'I grant you victory over all three worlds'" (1.9.22) — and having received this boon directly from Sarasvatī, the brāhmaṇa wandered from place to place, conquering all comers: "Whatever scripture came to his tongue, he would ceaselessly recite; there was none in the world who could answer him. Whoever's debate no one could understand at all, he, as a world-conqueror, wandered from place to place. He heard of Navadvīpa's great renown, that its society of scholars knew no bounds. Supremely prosperous, with horses and elephants, this world-conqueror, having defeated all others, arrived at Navadvīpa. In every house, in every scholarly assembly, throughout all of Nadia arose a great commotion: 'One who has conquered every kingdom and land and taken the victory-scroll, a world-conqueror, has come to Navadvīpa!' Hearing that this was 'Sarasvatī's boon-son,' great anxiety arose in the minds of the entire community of scholars." (1.9.24–31) Nimāi Paṇḍita defeated this world-conqueror in scriptural debate, dispelling the anxiety of the scholars and preserving Navadvīpa's good name.

§57. Contemporary Conditions of the Country

Much information about the contemporary state of the country can be learned from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. It is presented here, topic by topic.

A. The Administration. At that time, Muslim rulers held powerful sway over many parts of India, though Hindu kingdoms also existed in a few places, such as Orissa (Utkala). In Bengal, Muslim rule prevailed.

In those days monarchy alone was the prevailing form of government; democracy or republicanism was unknown. There existed then no representative institution of the people for the ruler's guidance. In matters of law-making and the like, the king held complete and sole authority.

In Mahāprabhu's time the Nawab of Bengal was Ḥusain Shāh, whose capital was the city of Gauḍa. He appointed even qualified Hindus to ministerial and other high posts in the conduct of the state. Ḥusain Shāh's chief minister was a brāhmaṇa-born man named Śrī Sanātana [later Sanātana Gosvāmī]; Sanātana's younger brother, Śrī Rūpa [later Rūpa Gosvāmī], served as Ḥusain Shāh's dabīr-khāṣ (private secretary). But the provincial governors (mulukpati) and magistrates (qāḍī) and other regional administrators were all Muslims.

It is known from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata that Ḥusain Shāh, on invading Orissa, would destroy the deity-images and temples there: "That very Ḥusain Shāh, throughout the whole land of Orissa, shattered deity-images and demolished many temples." (3.4.67) Yet in his own conduct toward Mahāprabhu, no trace of religious bigotry is found in him — indeed, quite the opposite: a generous and magnanimous nature is what appears.

When the Lord went to the village of Rāmakeli, near the city of Gauḍa, Ḥusain Shāh's kotwāl (police-chief) went and reported to the king (3.4.24). The kotwāl told Ḥusain Shāh of the Lord's wondrous transports of divine love, and concluded: "With arms raised he ceaselessly cries the name of Hari; he has no thought at all of food or sleep. People come from every direction to see him; not one of them has any wish to return home. However many yogīs and men of wisdom I have seen in my life, never have I seen or heard of anything so wondrous." (3.4.42–44)

Hearing the kotwāl's report, Ḥusain Shāh was astonished. He summoned his spy Keśava Khān and questioned him: "'Tell me, Keśava Khān — what is he like, this one they call by the name "Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya"? What is he like, what manner of man, what sort of a Gosāñi is he — you must tell me truly. People stay all around him from every direction just to see him — for what reason do they come? Tell me clearly.'" (3.4.49–51) Keśava Khān was himself a Hindu. Fearing that if he told what he truly knew of the Lord, the Muslim king — being hostile to Hindu religion — might persecute Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, he concealed the truth and gave Ḥusain Shāh a false account. "Hearing the king's question, Keśava Khān, a most virtuous man, grew afraid and spoke his answer while concealing the truth." (3.4.52) He told the king: "'Who calls him "Gosāñi"? He is just a beggar-sannyāsī, a poor wanderer from another land, living beneath trees.'" (3.4.53) — that is, he claimed Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya was no one of any particular influence, merely a beggar-sannyāsī, a poor man from elsewhere, living under trees.

Yet the Lord's supernatural influence had already worked upon Ḥusain Shāh's mind. Although out of religious fanaticism Ḥusain Shāh had shattered many Hindu deity-images and temples, that fanaticism vanished where the Lord was concerned; by the Lord's grace he came to perceive the Lord's true nature. Hearing Keśava Khān's account, the Yavana king said: "'Never call him poor — it is a grave fault even to hear such a word. He whom the Hindus call "Kṛṣṇa" and the Yavanas call "Khudā" — know for certain, all of you, that he is one and the same. In his own kingdom my command holds sway; my command is borne upon the head throughout every land. Yet even in this, my own kingdom, how many people scheme in their hearts to do me ill! Him, though, in every land, in body, word, and mind — were he not the Lord himself, why would people worship him without any material inducement? If I myself withheld their livelihood for six months, my own servants would surely find some pretext to abandon me. Even those who eat my own food, who claim to wish to serve me — even they, I know well, are seldom found reliable. Therefore know for certain that he is truly the Lord — do not disrespect him by calling him poor.'" (3.4.54–62)

As a result of this realization, Ḥusain Shāh issued a proclamation guaranteeing the Lord's safety in every respect: "The king said: 'I myself declare this to everyone: let no one dare molest him in any way. Let him remain wherever he wishes, and act according to his own scriptural discipline. Let him perform kīrtana joyfully with all the people, or remain in solitude, as he pleases. If any qāḍī, kotwāl, or anyone else says anything against him, I shall take that person's life.'" (3.4.62–66)

While the Yavana king issued this decree guaranteeing the Lord's unhindered kīrtana, it is not known that he issued any similar decree regarding Hindus in general. As a result, though it became possible for the Lord's own kīrtana to proceed freely, the same was not necessarily true for ordinary Hindus. By the Lord's order — "all the townspeople, in the greatest joy, clapping their hands, cried 'Rāma! Rāma!'... with everyone's hearts overflowing with joy — 'Hari o Rāma Rāma, Hari o Rāma Rāma' — thus the name of Brahman rose up throughout the town." (2.23.88–91) The townspeople continued this kīrtana every day thereafter. "One day, by chance, the qāḍī passed along that road and heard the sound of mṛdaṅga, cymbals, and conch-shells. Hearing the tumult of Hari-nāma on every side, the qāḍī, remembering his own scriptural law, exclaimed: 'Seize him, seize him — today I shall act! Let us see what your Nimāñi Ācārya can do today!' In an instant the townspeople fled in terror; in their great fright, some did not even bind up their hair properly as they ran. Whomever the qāḍī caught, he beat; he smashed their mṛdaṅgas and committed violence at their doors. The qāḍī declared: 'Nadia has become overrun with "Hinduism" — I shall punish this the moment I catch him. Today I let it pass, for night has fallen by chance — but the next time I catch him, I shall strip him of his caste!' In this way, day after day, the qāḍī, taking his wicked henchmen with him, would roam the town seeking to suppress the kīrtana." (2.23.100–107)

Under the administrative order of that time, "Hindu practice" — that is, Hari-nāma-kīrtana accompanied by mṛdaṅga and cymbals — was, in the eyes of the Yavana qāḍī and even in the eyes of the Yavana king, an offense punishable by law and by loss of caste-status. But merely "being a Hindu" does not seem to have been considered an offense in itself at that time.

It is not known from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata that there existed, at that time, any effort to forcibly convert innocent Hindus to Islam. Nor, conversely, was it even conceivable then for any Hindu to attempt to convert a Muslim to Hindu practice. If the child of a Muslim family, of his own accord, took up Hindu religious observances, then even the Muslim ruling power would inflict unspeakable persecution upon him — Haridāsa Ṭhākura's own case is proof of this (see chapter 1.11). But there is no evidence in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata that the general Muslim populace ever persecuted Haridāsa in any way; from this it is understood that religious fanaticism was not especially widespread among the general Muslim populace at that time. Evidence is also found in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata that certain Muslim officials cultivated genuine liberality regarding everyone's freedom of religious practice. The provincial governor (mulukpati) under whose order the qāḍī had Haridāsa Ṭhākura arrested was himself a man of generous character (see 1.11.67–97 and 1.11.146–52). At all times, among all peoples, both good and bad individuals are to be found.

In those days, the ordinary daily and periodic religious observances of Hindus do not seem to have met with any obstruction even from the fanatical Yavana qāḍī. "Mṛdaṅga, cymbals, and conch-shells exist in every house, to be sounded at the time of the Durgā-festival." (2.23.89) From this couplet it is understood that at a certain fixed time of year, Hindus would worship the Vedic goddess Durgā, and on that occasion too would sound mṛdaṅga, cymbals, and conch-shells, without the qāḍī raising any objection. It seems only Hari-nāma-kīrtana in particular provoked the qāḍī's ire. Under the administrative order of that time, so long as Hindus did not raise the "tumult of Hari-kīrtana" aloud, they faced no impediment to their settled life within the Yavana king's dominion. Since there was then no democracy, the right to dwell in peace was itself the sole civic right, and Hindus at that time did enjoy this right. The Yavana rulers of that era evidently did not regard the land under their rule as existing solely "for the enjoyment of Muslims."

B. Everyday Articles and Customs. Needless to say, all manner of cloth used in that period — cotton cloth and silk-like cloth alike — was, of course, produced in the homes of weavers (tāntis) upon the handloom. Since there was as yet no spinning-mill, thread was produced from cotton and jute by means of the spindle (takuli) and the spinning-wheel (charkā) alone.

The people of that era could produce even very fine thread (2.23.182 mentions the wearing of fine cloth). Garments of fine thread were also in use. "He wore garments of the purest, finest weave" (2.23.182) — from this it is understood that the process of thoroughly bleaching away the natural color of cotton and similar fibers was known at that time; and the mention of "cloth of divine, dyed color" at 1.10.310 shows that the process of dyeing all kinds of cloth and thread with fast colors was likewise known. Coloring the border (pāḍa) of men's and married women's garments also required such dyeing.

References to paṭ-vastra (silk-like cloth) are found in many places, such as verse 2.7.59; "paṭ" here means "cooked" [processed]. Such cloth was produced from jute and other similar plant fibers at that time. But no mention of true silk cloth (reśamī-vastra) is found in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, nor is it mentioned in any earlier ancient text; only paṭ-vastra is mentioned. From this it is understood that true silk cloth was not then in use. In truth, the production of a single silk garment requires the destruction of the lives of thousands upon thousands of living beings (silkworms); it seems it was out of fear of the sin incurred by such killing of living beings that silk cloth was not produced at that time. Considering this sin, it seems questionable whether silk cloth should even be regarded as pure.

Perfumed substances were also in use at that time. The perfume-merchants (gandha-vaṇikas) of that era knew how to prepare excellent, long-lasting fragrances. It is known from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata that once, while wandering through the town, the Lord went to a perfume-merchant's shop and asked for "good scent," and the merchant brought him "divine fragrance." When the Lord asked its price, the merchant said: "Today, sir, take this scent home and apply it — if a strong fragrance remains upon your body, then give me whatever payment your heart wishes; but if no fragrance remains upon your body at all, then—" (1.8.126–27) [give nothing].

Large and small brass water-vessels, brass betel-boxes, small brass bowls, and similar metal utensils were in use at that time (see 2.7.60–61), and wealthy people used "fine plates decorated in vermilion-brass" (2.7.58); and since there were then no carriages, the wealthy traveled by palanquin (dolā) or on horseback (2.7.66 and 1.5.19).

At that time, all brāhmaṇas wore the ūrdhva-puṇḍra tilaka on their foreheads. A forehead without tilaka was considered comparable to a cremation-ground. Performing evening worship (sandhyā) without wearing the tilaka was considered to render that sandhyā barren (see 1.10.187–94 and the commentary at 1.10.192).

From verses such as 2.23.103 and 2.23.315 of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, it is known that at that time all householder Hindu men, like women, wore their hair long. This long hair was generally kept tied up. It was groomed with oil and the like; wealthy people also used "divine-fragrance āmalakī" for this purpose (see 2.7.64).

Occasionally, a rare individual did not grow his hair at all — Śrī Advaita Ācārya, for instance. Mahāprabhu called him "bald" (nīḍa) — it seems he shaved his head, or kept his hair cut very short.

On the day of the wedding-eve ceremony (adhivāsa), it was customary to invite relatives and friends to attend, saying: "Come partake of betel-nut at the adhivāsa this evening" (1.10.58). When relatives and friends arrived at the appointed time, it was customary to give them "scent, sandalwood, betel, and a divine garland." "To each was given a garland for the neck, sandal-paste smeared upon the limbs, and a portion of betel to each guest" — this was the custom (1.10.264–65).

At the time of the "child's rising ceremony" (bālaka-utthāna-parva, that is, the ceremony of the first outing of mother and child), the female relatives would accompany the new mother to the bathing-ghāṭ. After bathing, having duly worshipped the deities, the mother would return home and give those women "puffed rice, banana, oil, vermilion, and betel with areca-nut." Such was the prevailing custom at that time (1.3.18–21).

C. Economic Conditions. In describing the splendor of Navadvīpa, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes, "By Lakṣmī's glance, everyone lived happily" (1.2.58). From this it is understood that, by the grace of Lakṣmī [the goddess of fortune], no one wanted for food or clothing; everyone lived in comfort and ease. People then had the means to spend freely on their sons' and daughters' weddings and on festivals as they wished (1.2.61–62).

It is known from the statements of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata that economic prosperity existed in Bengal even outside Navadvīpa. Once, the teacher Nimāi Paṇḍita traveled throughout East Bengal and taught many students in various places. Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa also records, in his text, how they gave the Lord his teacher's fee (guru-dakṣiṇā) upon his return home: "Hearing that the Lord would soon return home, everyone, each according to his means, brought and gave wealth — gold, silver, water-vessels, fine seats, wool blankets, garments of many kinds. Whatever excellent goods each had in his own house, everyone joyfully brought and gave to the Lord." (1.10.109–11) That people were able to bring out gold, silver, and similar valuables from their own homes willingly, according to their means, itself shows the economic prosperity they enjoyed.

In every country, at every time, some people remain poor; it would therefore not be reasonable to imagine that no one at all was poor in Bengal at that time. Virtuous people gave to the poor and distressed as well — food, cloth, and money (1.10.11–12) — so that they too were relieved of any want of food or clothing. Some brāhmaṇa-scholars, too, were poor; virtuous people extended them ample support as well, so that their poverty and distress were likewise relieved.

D. Cultivation of Learning. How extraordinarily widespread the cultivation of learning had become in Navadvīpa at that time has already been discussed (see §56 above). People came to Navadvīpa from many parts of Bengal for their education; from this it is known that a powerful zeal for learning prevailed throughout Bengal at that time. When the teacher Nimāi Paṇḍita traveled to East Bengal, many students in many places studied under him and received degrees/titles there as well. Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura writes: "Mahāprabhu entered into the land of Bengal — to this day that fortunate land of Bengal remains blessed by such fortune. Gaurachandra settled on the banks of the Padmāvatī; hearing this, everyone rejoiced greatly. 'Nimāi Paṇḍita, crown-jewel among teachers, has arrived' — this news resounded in every direction. All the fortunate brāhmaṇas came at once, gifts in hand. All came and offered obeisance to the Lord, and began to speak, most humbly: "By our great fortune your glorious arrival has come to this land. Carrying our wealth with our whole families, we would otherwise have had to travel to whomever taught at Navadvīpa to study — but such a treasure the Lord himself has brought, without effort, right to our very door." (1.10.65–72) "Now we make one request of you: grant us some portion of your learning. As a token, we shall all become your pupils; teach us, hear us, O jewel among brāhmaṇas!" (That the Lord composed a commentary on grammatical sūtras is known from verse 1.6.73: "The Lord himself composed a commentary on the sūtras.") "Accept us openly as your disciples, so that your fame may live throughout the whole world." (1.10.76–78) From these statements, the powerful eagerness of the people of East Bengal for learning is made known.

Nor was it only at the banks of the Padmāvatī that the Lord went, nor was it only the people there who showed such eagerness. The Lord went to many places throughout East Bengal, and everywhere, seeing the students' eagerness as described, he taught them. Through his skillful method of teaching, many people became accomplished scholars and earned degrees within a short span of time. Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes: "Thus did Śrī Vaikuṇṭhanātha Gaurachandra delight in the relish of learning throughout the land of Bengal. The Lord established a great assembly of learning; seeing the Padmāvatī, the Lord became absorbed in its charm. Thousands upon thousands of students gathered there — none could say who studied where. Hearing of this, all the people of Bengal came running to study at Nimāi Paṇḍita's feet. With such a gracious glance did the Lord expound the teachings that within two months everyone became learned. Hundreds upon hundreds gained their degrees and went home, while as many more came, having heard of it, to take their place. Thus did the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha establish himself in the land of Bengal through the relish of learning." (1.10.91–97)

After his return to Navadvīpa from East Bengal, the Lord, imitating the dialect of Sylhet (Śrīhaṭṭa), teased the Sylhet-born residents of Navadvīpa. From this it is known that he had also visited Sylhet, and that in journeying between the Padmāvatī and Sylhet, he had passed through and taught in many other places as well.

In any case, from the accounts cited above, it is known that a tremendous zeal for learning existed at that time not only in Navadvīpa but in many places throughout Bengal.

There was already, at that time, some development of Bengali literature, in keeping with what people considered dharma and duty, or whatever way of life was considered beneficial for the country; literature generally develops around such prevailing values. Since there was then no possibility of political agitation, there was no possibility of literature arising around political themes for anyone. That some literary creation did occur, centered around whatever the general populace considered religious duty, is known from the statements of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata itself. Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes that in that era people would stay awake through the night singing songs of Maṅgala-caṇḍī and Viṣahari (Manasā), and would also take delight in songs of "Yogīpāla, Bhogīpāla, and Mahīpāla." From this it is known that songs of Maṅgala-caṇḍī, Viṣahari, and the Pāla kings and the like were composed at that time. That these songs, which delighted the general populace, were composed in the Bengali language is easily inferred.

Though not mentioned in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, more elevated literature was also produced in that era — composed in Bengali payār and similar metres: Kāśīrāmadāsa's Mahābhārata and Kṛttibāsa's Rāmāyaṇa. The imaginative power and poetic genius of these two immortal poets have made these two works so captivating that, even to this day, they remain objects of the highest esteem in Bengali society, regarded as a wellspring of moral and religious knowledge, and in some contexts even accorded the status of scripture.

Some works of spiritual literature were also composed in Bengali at that time — the Śrī Kṛṣṇa-vijaya by Śrī Guṇarāja Khān (Mālādhara Basu) of Kulīna-grāma (a verse-rendering in payār and similar metres of the essence of the last three cantos of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam), and the Śrī Śrī Kṛṣṇa-prema-taraṅgiṇī by Śrī Raghunātha Bhāgavatācārya of Varāha-nagara near Calcutta, which offers a verse-rendering of the essence of the first nine cantos of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and a verse-translation of the ślokas of the last three cantos.

E. Social Conditions. The ordinary people of that era's society were largely absorbed in worldly pleasure alone. Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes: "The entire society was devoid of the name and devotion of Kṛṣṇa — such became the coming custom in the early age of Kali." (1.2.59) "Even when told, no one takes up the name of Kṛṣṇa; the scholars ceaselessly expound only learning and lineage." (1.2.71) The whole society was absorbed in worldly transactions; no one had any inclination toward worship of or devotion to Kṛṣṇa. Some worshipped Vāśulī [a folk deity] with various offerings; some worshipped yakṣas with wine and meat. (1.2.82–83)

The poet Karṇapūra likewise describes the social condition of the people of this era in his drama Śrī Caitanya-candrodaya: "There was no purity, no truthfulness, no self-control of mind or senses, no discipline, no patience, no forbearance, no friendliness, no compassion — alas, alas!" (2.21) "Twice-born brāhmaṇas, marked only by the sacred thread, applied their intelligence solely to the sixth duty [that is, to accepting gifts]; kṣatriyas, incapable of protecting their subjects, were kings in name only; vaiśyas had become virtually indistinguishable from Buddhists; śūdras, imagining themselves scholars, eagerly took up the role of teacher and gave religious instruction to others — such, alas, was the condition to which the four varṇas were reduced by the power of Kali!" (2.22)

The condition of the four āśramas [stages of life] had likewise become as lamentable as that of the four varṇas. Karṇapūra writes in his drama: "Some here, unfit for marriage, present themselves as brahmacārīs; householders are addicted to nothing but filling the bellies of wife and children; ah, the vānaprastha stage exists only as a word one hears spoken; wandering renunciates (parivrājakas) offer only their outer garb as proof of their identity." (2.23) — that is, some, being unfit for marriage, called themselves brahmacārīs; householders found their joy only in filling the stomachs of wife and children; the very word "vānaprastha" existed only as something heard of, no one actually retiring to the forest in that stage; and as for the fourth stage, sannyāsa, some merely donned the garb of a renunciate and, calling themselves sannyāsīs, collected money from others solely on the strength of that costume.

Regarding the logicians (tārkikas, philosophers of the Nyāya school) of that era, Karṇapūra writes in his drama: "Through mere repeated drilling in words like upādhi, jāti, anumiti, vyāpti and the like, these scholars have, from birth, strayed farther and farther from any discourse on the Lord. Whoever, in whatever school, is most skilled in mere speculative fancy is there reckoned the greatest scholar; and, alas, these logicians take their own speculative fancy itself to be scripture!" (2.4) — that is, through constant drilling in the technical terms of logic — upādhi, jāti, anumiti, vyāpti, and the like — these scholars had, from birth, strayed farther and farther from any discourse on the Lord. Wherever a logician showed the greatest skill in mere speculation, he was there reckoned the greatest scholar; and they took their own speculative fancies to be scripture itself.

Such, then, was the social condition of that era. The condition of people's religious life and practice, too, forms part of this social condition. A few words are now offered regarding the contemporary state of religious life and practice.

F. The Contemporary State of Religious Life and Practice. Not everything that people do in the name of religion is truly dharma, still less spiritual dharma (pāramārthika dharma). Whatever is enjoined by the Veda is dharma; whatever is not enjoined by the Veda, and whatever is opposed to the Veda, is declared adharma by the Veda-following scriptures (see the scriptural proofs cited in the explanation of the verse at 1.2.3–4). The Veda itself recognizes differences of eligibility (adhikāra-bheda) among aspirants; hence, although whatever is Vedically enjoined is dharma, not all Vedically-enjoined dharma is spiritual dharma in the highest sense. It has already been shown earlier [§51 and elsewhere], with citation of the testimony of the ājis-smṛti, that service devoted solely to Kṛṣṇa's happiness is the soul's essential, inherent duty; that the longing for such service — otherwise called prema, or prema-bhakti, or pure devotion (śuddhā-bhakti) — is the indispensable goal; and that the means to attaining that prema is the practice of pure sādhana-bhakti, whose defining characteristic is hearing and chanting of Kṛṣṇa's names and qualities for Kṛṣṇa's own satisfaction alone. That devotion or prema is a particular function of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own essential potency (svarūpa-śakti), not a function of the material mind. Happiness and comfort in this life, or the desire for the happiness of heaven and similar worlds in the life to come, and even the desire for liberation itself, are not conducive to the soul's essential, inherent duty — rather, they are contrary to it. All of this has been stated throughout Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. It is with all these considerations kept in mind, therefore, that the contemporary state of religious life and practice must be assessed.

Regarding the religious life and practice of the general populace of that era, Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata says: "By Lakṣmī's glance everyone lived happily; their time passed uselessly, only in worldly transaction. The entire society was devoid of the name and devotion of Kṛṣṇa — such became the coming custom in the early age of Kali. All people knew only this much of dharma and duty: staying awake through the night singing songs to Maṅgala-caṇḍī. Someone with great pride worships Viṣahari; another makes an idol and worships it with much wealth. They squander their wealth on the weddings of sons and daughters — thus the time of this world passes uselessly." (1.2.58–62) "The entire society became devoid of devotion to Hari; there was no other company or path but this. In various ways they perform festivals for their sons and the like; nothing beyond the body and the household ever occurs to them." (1.9.5–9) "Everyone, in every direction, was devoid of devotion to Viṣṇu; no one knew the true purpose of kīrtana in any form. Nowhere was any manifestation of devotion to Viṣṇu to be found." (1.11.249–50) "Kṛṣṇa-processions, day-and-night Kṛṣṇa-saṅkīrtana — no one knew the purpose of these at all. All people knew only this much of dharma and duty: staying awake through the night singing songs to Maṅgala-caṇḍī. As their deity they knew only the two-faced Viṣahari; and even her they worshipped with the greatest arrogance. Desiring in their minds the increase of wealth and lineage, some worshipped demons with meat and wine. The songs of Yogīpāla, Bhogīpāla, and Mahīpāla — hearing these alone delighted everyone. The height of merit, for such people, was only this: at the moment of bathing, to utter the names 'Govinda' and 'Puṇḍarīkākṣa.' No one knew who a 'Vaiṣṇava' was, or what saṅkīrtana was, or why Kṛṣṇa's name should be danced or wept over. Bewildered by Viṣṇu's illusory power, the people knew nothing at all — the whole world was bound fast in the mode of deep darkness (tamo-guṇa)." (3.4.408–15) and so on.

From all these statements it is understood that the general populace of that era was wholly given to bodily pleasure, intoxicated with worldly attachment, and worshipped non-Vedic deities solely for the increase of wealth, for the begetting of sons, and for the attainment of comfort and pleasure in this present life. They had no conception whatsoever of the truly transcendent reality, nor of the means to attain it. Seeing the supernatural powers of yogīs who followed doctrines outside the Veda, they were enchanted, and glorified such yogīs' greatness only in the hope that their supernatural power might increase their own worldly happiness and prosperity. The general populace did not know that such supernatural power was not itself spiritual power. Those who uttered the names of the Lord — "Govinda," "Puṇḍarīkākṣa," and the like — only at the time of bathing, and at no other time, did so, it seems, only out of mechanical habit; their minds held no true affection for "Govinda" and "Puṇḍarīkākṣa," or for such names in general. Such conduct, therefore, cannot properly be called devotion at all.

Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata also tells us what conception the people of that era held of a person who was "fortunate" or "blessed." "They call a person fortunate who rides in a palanquin or on horseback, with ten or twenty attendants running before and behind him." (1.5.19)

Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata speaks also of the scholars of that era: "Whether Bhaṭṭācāryas, Cakravartīs, or Miśras — none of them understood the true purport of the scriptures. Having taught scripture, they, together with their listeners, bind themselves and die in the noose of Yama. They do not expound the dharma of the age — the chanting of Kṛṣṇa's name; setting virtue aside, they speak only of others' faults." (1.2.63–65) "Whoever teaches the Gītā or the Bhāgavatam has no explanation of devotion on his tongue." (1.2.68) "Even when told, no one takes up the name of Kṛṣṇa; ceaselessly they expound only learning and lineage." (1.2.71)

Regarding those who wore the garb of "world-renouncing sannyāsīs," it is said: "Whoever prides himself as a world-renouncing sannyāsī, in his mouth too there is no sound of Hari. The height of merit, for such a one, is only this: at the moment of bathing, to utter the name 'Govinda Puṇḍarīkākṣa.'" (1.2.66–67) Note that Vṛndāvana Dāsa does not call such people simply "world-renouncing sannyāsīs," but "world-renouncing sannyāsīs who take pride in themselves" — that is, they merely imagined themselves to be renunciates; in truth they were mere hypocrites parading religion (dharma-dhvajī).

It is not that there were absolutely no devotees or Vaiṣṇavas in Navadvīpa, or in Bengal generally, at that time — but their numbers were extremely few. In Chittagong there were Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi and others; in Śāntipura, Advaita Ācārya and others; and in Navadvīpa itself, the family of Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita, Śuklāmbara, Khola-becā Śrīdhara, Candraśekhara Ācārya, Jagannātha Miśra Purandara, and others. They devoted themselves to their own proper duties: "All the true devotees perform their own duties — worship of Kṛṣṇa, bathing in the Gaṅgā, discourse on Kṛṣṇa." (1.2.72) "Clapping their hands together, all the devotees, gathering by themselves, would perform kīrtana." (1.11.9) "All the saintly ones, gathering together by themselves, would sing the name of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, clapping their hands." (1.11.251)

But all these true devotees were the objects of mockery and ridicule from the outward-turned people described above. "The whole world is intoxicated by the false relish of wealth and family pride; the moment they see a Vaiṣṇava, they all mock him. Seeing any Vaiṣṇava, they recite mocking Āryā-verses: 'Even ascetics, chaste women, and holy men shall go and die! We call fortunate only him who rides in a fine palanquin, with ten or twenty attendants running before and behind. As for you, weeping in the mood of a "Gosāñi" — that will hardly dispel the sorrow of your poverty! Raising a great shout again and again crying "Hari, Hari" — the Gosāñi will be pleased indeed to hear such a great racket!'" (1.5.17–21)

The outward-turned people — "upon merely hearing kīrtana, would mock it. Some would say: 'This is just a scheme to fill one's belly!' Others would say: 'What is this business — dancing about like a madman, as though weighing the merits of jñāna-yoga and sense-control!' Others would say: 'Whatever I've read of the Bhāgavata, I've never come across any injunction to dance and weep like this! Because of Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita and his three brothers, brother, we get no sleep even after eating our meal! What merit is there, pray, in softly saying "Kṛṣṇa"? What is gained by dancing, weeping, and shouting aloud?'" (1.7.82–86)

And again: "Even when all the devotees, clapping their hands, gathered by themselves to perform kīrtana, these people mocked them inwardly, saying: 'For what purpose do these people shout so loudly? "I am Brahman; the stainless one dwells within me alone" — what need, then, is there for any distinction between servant and Lord?' All the worldly people said: 'This is just a trick to get alms by begging — shouting "Hari" so as to be seen by others.' 'Let us tear down and demolish these people's houses!' — such was the scheme all of Nadia hatched together." (1.11.9–13) The outward-turned people even contemplated destroying the devotees' homes. The statement "I am Brahman" and the like seems to be, in the mouth of some scholar, an echo either of the Veda-opposed Māyāvāda doctrine, or of Veda-opposed tantric doctrine.

The outward-turned people of that era were opposed to loud saṅkīrtana. Haridāsa Ṭhākura used to perform loud saṅkīrtana. One day a certain brāhmaṇa, greatly angered by this, said to him: "'Ho, Haridāsa! What is this conduct of yours? Why do you take the Name shouting aloud? To repeat it silently within the mind — that alone is true dharma; in what scripture does it say one should take the Name shouting aloud? From whom did you learn to shout Hari's name aloud? This is a gathering of scholars — answer this!'" (1.11.265–67) Haridāsa then, citing scriptural proof, expounded the glory of loud saṅkīrtana. But — "that brāhmaṇa, hearing Haridāsa's words, spoke in anger many harsh and evil words: 'Now this Haridāsa has become the arbiter of true religion! As time goes by, I see the path of the Veda being destroyed. At the end of the age, they say, even a śūdra will expound the Veda — already I see it happening now, why wait for the end?'" (1.11.285–87) Such was the disregard even for the words of scripture among these outward-turned people.

Loud kīrtana-performers were, at that time, regarded by such people as enemies of the world, and they feared that loud kīrtana would even bring famine upon the land. Regarding the handful of brāhmaṇas who then performed loud saṅkīrtana, many people said: "'These brāhmaṇa fellows will bring ruin upon the kingdom — from them alone will come the manifestation of famine in this land! ...They go to other brāhmaṇas' houses to eat, performing devotional kīrtana under various pretexts. At the hour when the Gosāñi [Viṣṇu] sleeps, they raise a great shout, calling out his name — if his sleep is broken, the Gosāñi will grow angry, and without doubt bring famine upon this land!' Others said: 'If the price of grain rises even a little, we shall seize these fellows and beat them soundly on the shoulders!'" (1.11.253–57)

There were also, at that time, some people who were not opposed to loud kīrtana altogether, but were opposed to its being performed constantly. They believed loud kīrtana might be performed only on special occasions. "Some said: 'We shall stay awake through the night of Ekādaśī, chanting the name of Govinda aloud — but what need is there to chant it aloud every single day?' Thus spoke the whole community of moderate, middle-of-the-road people." (1.11.258–59)

The people of that era, particularly the outward-turned scholars, regarded Kṛṣṇa-kīrtana performed by lowly, disregarded people of the lower social orders as sinful and inauspicious for the country. "'Low-caste people of Rāḍha perform kīrtana of Kṛṣṇa — by this sin, Navadvīpa shall be laid waste!'" (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.17.204)

It is also known that the worship of Durgā (Durgotsava) was current in Bengal at that time, apparently performed only at one fixed season of the year. The goddess Durgā is a Vedic deity. The mṛdaṅga, cymbals, and conch-shells that the residents of Nadia kept in their homes for sounding at the time of the Durgotsava were the very instruments that, when the Lord ordered the people to begin kīrtana, they brought out and played during saṅkīrtana: "Mṛdaṅga, cymbals, and conch-shells exist in every house, to be sounded at the time of the Durgotsava; those same instruments now, at the time of kīrtana, everyone plays and sings with joyful hearts." (2.23.89–90) Mukunda Sañjaya's house, too, had a Caṇḍī-maṇḍapa [shrine to the goddess Caṇḍī], where the Lord used to teach. Outside Navadvīpa, there was a Durgā-maṇḍapa at the house of Hiraṇyadāsa and Govardhanadāsa in Saptagrāma (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.6.153), and at the house of Rāmacandra Khān of Beṇāpola as well (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.3.142).

From the account of the wine-drinking, left-hand-path sannyāsī of Rāḍha [Lālitpur] (2.19.42–94), it is known that doctrines opposed to the Veda were also current in Bengal at that time. This is also known from an account given in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta. Mahāprabhu, with his own intimate devotees, would perform dance-kīrtana every night at Śrīvāsa's house; the outer door of Śrīvāsa's house was kept shut to prevent outsiders from entering. A brāhmaṇa named Gopāla-Cāpāla, coming to see the kīrtana and finding himself unable to enter, sought to implicate Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita — who was in every respect a strict follower of Vedic practice — as a secret tāntrika: "One day a brāhmaṇa named Gopāla-Cāpāla, a leading heretic, foul-mouthed and vile, brought all the paraphernalia for the worship of Bhavānī, and at night, having smeared the ground at Śrīvāsa's door, laid a banana leaf upon it. Upon it he placed vermilion powder, turmeric, red sandalwood, and rice, and, setting a jar of wine beside it, went home." (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.17.33–36) The next morning, Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita, seeing all this, called together the respectable people of the town and said, laughing: "'Every night I perform worship of Bhavānī — behold my greatness, O wicked brāhmaṇas!'" (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.17.38) Hearing this, the respectable townsfolk cried out in dismay, saying: "'What wretch has done such a deed here?'" and then — "they called sweepers to clear it all away, and smeared that spot with water and cow-dung." (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.17.41–43) The Bhavānī whose worship-paraphernalia Gopāla-Cāpāla had arranged was the tāntrika Bhavānī; wine is forbidden in the Vedic worship of the Vedic Bhavānī [Durgā].

This tantric doctrine was current in many places outside Bengal as well at that time. After Mahāprabhu's sannyāsa, when he was traveling from Śāntipura to Nīlācala, a wine-drinking Śākta sannyāsī met him on the road to Bāṇeśvara in Orissa; and — "deluded by the Lord's illusory power, the Śākta began to expound at length his own doctrine, describing all the various Śāktas dwelling in various lands, one by one, while the Lord listened, smiling." (3.2.264–65) Here, the phrase "all the various Śāktas dwelling in various lands" indicates that tāntrika Śāktas existed in many lands of India at that time. This Śākta said to the Lord: "'Come quickly to my monastery — we shall all make boundless "ānanda" today!'" — the sinful Śākta calling wine "ānanda." Gaurachandra and Nityānanda, understanding, smiled. (3.2.266–67) From all these statements it is understood that this sannyāsī was a wine-drinking tāntrika; the Lord cleverly sent him ahead to his own monastery and himself left that place.

Regarding the people of that era who were wholly given to bodily pleasure and devoid of devotion to Kṛṣṇa, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes in one place: "The songs of Yogīpāla, Bhogīpāla, and Mahīpāla — hearing these alone delighted everyone." (3.4.412) The yogīs referred to here, it is clear from the context, were practitioners of doctrines opposed to the Veda. There exists a class of yogīs who strive to pierce the six cakras of the body and awaken the kuṇḍalinī power. The practice of the six cakras and the doctrine of kuṇḍalinī power are nowhere found in any Vedically-authoritative scripture. As a result of such practices, such yogīs attain certain supernatural powers, and for this reason outward-turned people are drawn to them. But this supernatural power is not spiritual power at all; in truth it is merely a specially developed neurological power. From Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa's statement, it is understood that such Veda-opposed practitioners of the yoga-path were held in esteem by society at that time as well.

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa also makes known that certain self-interested people of that era proclaimed themselves incarnations of God, and, preying on people thirsting for true religion yet lacking any real understanding of scripture, wrought spiritual ruin upon them (see 1.10.81–86 and 2.23.479–81). Scholars lacking true understanding of scripture, unable even to recognize that such false "incarnations" lacked even the bodily marks of the Lord's true form, were themselves deceived in spiritual matters, along with their followers, at the instigation of these frauds and their associates (see the commentary at 2.26.49, and the essay at §§5–6 above).

The poet Karṇapūra, too, in his drama Śrī Caitanya-candrodaya, has much to say about the religious practice of that era. A few passages are cited here.

Regarding a certain person seated in meditation upon a rugged stone slab on a riverbank, Karṇapūra writes: "With the tip of his tongue reaching toward the nectar-stream flowing from the moon at his forehead, eyes closed, seated in bound posture, absorbed in deep meditation — what is this disturbance of his trance, occasioned by the sound of a conch-shell blown by a young woman come to fetch water from the nearby riverbank? Ah, now I understand — this whole show of meditation was merely a performance for the sake of filling his belly!" (Caitanya-candrodaya, Act 2, verse 6) That is: he sits in yogic posture, eyes closed, meditating, showing with the tip of his tongue the flow of nectar dripping from the moon at his forehead. What is this? Has his trance been suddenly broken by some young woman coming to fetch water from the river? Ah, I understand now — this man's whole performance of yogic meditation was mere theater, only for the sake of filling his belly! Here Karṇapūra speaks of hypocritical religious pretense, making known that such people existed at that time as well. That the person Karṇapūra describes in this verse was performing the practice of the yoga-path mentioned above is known from the reference to the nectar of the moon at the forehead.

The chief purpose of pilgrimage is to attain, by the Lord's grace, the glory of the holy place and the compassion of its presiding deity. Those who travel to holy places merely to gain worldly experience through travel, in order to proclaim their own greatness, do indeed travel through many lands, but they do not truly undertake pilgrimage at all. Karṇapūra tells us that many people of this latter sort existed at that time as well: "Gaṅgā-dvāra, Gayā, Prayāga, Mathurā, Vārāṇasī, Puṣkara, Śrī-raṅga, Uttara-kośalā, Badarikā, Setu-bandha, Prabhāsa, and other such holy sites — going around this circuit of holy places three or four times in a single year, how many hundreds of years, I wonder, have already passed for people like us? Who indeed can know people such as we?" (Caitanya-candrodaya, Act 2, verse 7) — meaning, some pilgrimage-wanderer is saying: circling through Gaṅgā-dvāra, Gayā, Prayāga, Mathurā, Vārāṇasī, Puṣkara, Śrī-kṣetra, Uttara-kośalā (Ayodhyā), Badarikā, Setu-bandha, and Prabhāsa three or four times in a single year, how many hundreds of years have already passed for me in this way — who indeed can recognize people like us?

Regarding the ascetics of that era, Karṇapūra writes: "Uttering harsh cries of 'huṃ, huṃ' in a fierce and cruel voice, with a most ferocious gaze, driving people far away as he flings his feet high in the air — his forehead, upper arms, throat, neck, belly and chest all smeared with fine clay, his palms adorned with clumps of kuśa grass — he approaches, looking for all the world like Yama's own attendant given bodily form! Ah, what an age this is!" (Caitanya-candrodaya, Act 2, verse 8) — that is: uttering harsh, terrible sounds of "huṃ, huṃ" with a most cruel expression, flinging both feet high, he makes people flee far off in fear. He has smeared his forehead, upper arms, throat, neck, belly, and chest with fine clay; his palms are adorned with bundles of kuśa grass — he seems the very embodiment of Yama's servant Datta. Here too, Karṇapūra speaks of hypocritical religious pretense.

Having given several such accounts of the religious practices of that era, Karṇapūra concludes: "Apart from unconditional devotion to Viṣṇu, meditation, concentration, steadfastness, the labor of scriptural study, japa, austerity, and skillful expertise in teaching such things and the like — all of it is nothing but various means merely for filling one's own belly." (Caitanya-candrodaya, Act 2, verse 9)

The purport of Karṇapūra's statements and Vṛndāvana Dāsa's statements is one and the same.

From the accounts given here regarding the religious practice of ordinary people of that era — apart from the handful of true devotees — it is known that none of this religious practice was, in the sense discussed earlier, truly spiritual dharma. The worship of Viṣahari (Manasā) to ward off the fear of snakebite, the worship of Maṅgala-caṇḍī and Vāśulī for deliverance from worldly calamity, and the worship of Yakṣas with wine and meat for the attainment of wealth and progeny — none of this has any spiritual value whatsoever. By following doctrines opposed to the Veda, whether tantric or yogic, one may attain worldly happiness and prosperity, certain supernatural abilities, or standing and influence in society — but one cannot attain the truly transcendent reality by such means. For many, such religious observance served, in the end, only the purpose of filling the belly.

Maṅgala-caṇḍī, Viṣahari, and similar deities are non-Vedic deities. It has also been shown that Durgā-worship was performed in many places in Bengal at that time. Durgā is a Vedic deity; by her grace, liberation (mokṣa) may be attained. Although mokṣa is not desirable as the soul's essential, inherent duty, and is therefore not the truly transcendent object proper to the soul's essential nature, it is nonetheless an eternal reality (nitya vastu), not an impermanent thing like worldly enjoyment. It may be attained through the scripturally-enjoined worship of the Vedic goddess Śrī Durgā. It is known from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata that many people of that era performed the Durgotsava at a certain fixed time each year; but it is not known that anyone worshipped Durgā out of desire for liberation. The occasional, annual or biennial Durgotsava and true upāsanā (worship as an ongoing spiritual discipline) of Śrī Durgā are not the same thing — upāsanā is a daily, continuous duty.

§58. A Digression: A General Discussion of Tantra (§§58–74)

In order to understand the purport of certain statements in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, it is considered necessary to know something in general about Tantra; a number of sections are therefore devoted here to a brief digression on this subject.

A. Tantra. Tantra generally refers to a particular class of texts that assist spiritual practice (sādhana). In the titles of some of these Tantra-texts the word "Tantra" itself appears; in others it does not. Tantra is of two kinds — Veda-conforming (Vedānugata) and Veda-external or Veda-opposed (Vedabahirbhūta or Vedaviruddha).

B. Veda-conforming Tantra. Those Tantra-texts which are in harmony with the Veda and Veda-conforming scripture, with no contradiction whatsoever, are Veda-conforming. For this reason, Tantra is also called a particular branch of the Śruti: "Tantra is a particular branch of the śruti" (Śabda-kalpa-druma). The Bṛhad-Gautamīya-tantra, the Krama-dīpikā, and the Nārada-pañcarātra mentioned in the Bhīṣma-parva and Śānti-parva of the Mahābhārata are examples of Veda-conforming Tantra. Mention of Tantra is also found in the uncreated (apauruṣeya) Vedic texts themselves; there, Veda-conforming Tantra alone is meant.

C. Veda-external or Veda-opposed Tantra. Whatever Tantra is not in harmony with — indeed stands in outright contradiction to — the Veda and Veda-conforming scripture regarding fundamental philosophical truths is Veda-external or Veda-opposed Tantra. One chief characteristic of this class of Tantra is its denial that the Supreme Brahman spoken of in the Veda is the sole cause of the universe. On matters concerning the nature of the individual soul (jīva-tattva) too, this class of Tantra is found to be at variance with the Veda. These matters will be somewhat clarified in the discussion that follows.

This Veda-opposed Tantra is broadly of two kinds — Śaiva Tantra and Śākta Tantra.

[Footnote: This Nārada-pañcarātra is not available today in book form. The ancient Vaiṣṇava ācāryas cited many proof-texts from this Nārada-pañcarātra in their own works. In later times, more than one text bearing the name "Nārada-pañcarātra" has been published; these are not the same as the ancient work. Some verses of the ancient Pañcarātra are indeed found in these later texts, but much...]

§59. Śaiva Tantra

Śaiva Tantra is also called Śivāgama. From the Veda and Vedānta scripture, it is known that the Supreme Brahman spoken of in the Veda is the cause of the universe — both its efficient cause (nimitta-kāraṇa) and its material cause (upādāna-kāraṇa). Vyāsadeva himself has established this in his Brahma-sūtra.

From Śruti and Smṛti it is known that this Supreme Brahman, the cause of the universe, is Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself: "The word 'kṛṣ' signifies existence (bhū-vācaka), and the syllable 'ṇa' signifies bliss (nirvṛti-vācaka); the union of these two is the Supreme Brahman, called by the name Kṛṣṇa." (Gopāla-tāpanī Śruti 1) That all other knowledge arises from the one knowledge — that is, that knowledge of Brahman gives rise to knowledge of everything else — is one characteristic of Brahman declared throughout the Śruti. The Śruti itself declares that this very characteristic is present in Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the beloved of the gopīs: "O sages, a certain brāhmaṇa was asked: Who is the Supreme Deity? Of whom is even Death afraid? By knowledge of whom does everything become known? By whom does this universe revolve? The brāhmaṇa replied: Śrī Kṛṣṇa alone is the Supreme Deity; Death itself fears Govinda; by knowledge of the beloved of the gopīs, all other knowledge is attained; by his power alone does this universe revolve." (Gopāla-tāpanī Śruti 1)

In Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā too, the essence of all the Upaniṣads, Śrī Kṛṣṇa alone is declared to be the Supreme Brahman. The following verses from the Gītā are the proof: "You are the Supreme Brahman, the supreme abode, the supreme purifier, the eternal divine Person, the primal God, unborn, all-pervading" — Arjuna's words to Śrī Kṛṣṇa (10.12). And Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own words to Arjuna: "I am the father of this universe, the mother, the establisher, the grandfather, the object of knowledge, the purifier, the syllable Oṁ, and the Ṛg, Sāma, and Yajur Vedas themselves. I am the goal, the sustainer, the Lord, the witness, the abode, the refuge, the friend, the origin, the dissolution, the foundation, the resting-place, the imperishable seed." (9.17–18) "By all the Vedas I alone am to be known; I am indeed the author of the Vedānta and the knower of the Veda." (15.15) and so on.

The seed of these very statements exists already in the Ṛg Veda itself. In Ṛg Veda 7.99.1, Viṣṇu is declared to be the Supreme Reality; in 1.156.2, the celebration of this Viṣṇu's birth is likewise mentioned. Both Vaikuṇṭheśvara Nārāyaṇa and Śrī Kṛṣṇa are called "Viṣṇu" — but no birth-story of Vaikuṇṭheśvara Viṣṇu is known; it is Viṣṇu Śrī Kṛṣṇa who descends into the universe through the pretext of his birth-pastime. Ṛg Veda 3.164.47 speaks of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's descent into the universe. Therefore, the Viṣṇu spoken of in the Ṛg Veda is Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself. The Ṛg Veda also states this quite plainly: "Salutations to Yajñeśa, Acyuta, Govinda, Mādhava, Ananta, Keśava, Kṛṣṇa, Viṣṇu, Hṛṣīkeśa, Vāsudeva! Salutations again and again to Kṛṣṇa, Lord of the Gopīs, wielder of the discus, foe of Mura, Lord of nectar, cowherd, Govinda!" (Khila-sūkta at the end of the fifth maṇḍala of the Ṛg Veda) Here, Kṛṣṇa, called "Gopa" and "Gopīnātha," is himself called "Viṣṇu." For brevity's sake, other Ṛg-mantras concerning Śrī Kṛṣṇa are not cited here.

Thus it is seen that whatever has been discussed above concerning Śrī Kṛṣṇa's status as the Supreme Brahman has its seed already present in the Ṛg Veda. [Footnote: There are also Veda-conforming Āgamas and Nigamas, and there are also Veda-external Āgamas and Nigamas. There is also a tāntrika Āgama that bears the name of the Veda-conforming Āgama. / See note 2 regarding the "khila" designation, quoted from the Nīlakaṇṭha commentary on Mahābhārata Śānti-parva 350; and see the footnote on p. 769 of the Ṛg Veda published through the Svādhyāya-maṇḍala from Aundh in 1940.]

In any case, from the discussion above it is known that, according to the Veda, Śrī Kṛṣṇa alone is the Supreme Brahman, the cause of the universe.

But according to Śaiva Tantra, or Śivāgama, Śiva is the cause of the universe — merely its efficient cause (nimitta-kāraṇa). This is a view opposed to the Veda. The reason for saying so is now explained.

According to Vedic scripture, Śiva is a guṇāvatāra (an incarnation of a mode of nature) — he who, with the aid of the mode of ignorance (tamo-guṇa), brings about the destruction of the universe. The Vedic scriptures describe the guṇāvatāra Śiva as follows.

Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own expansion (aṁśa) is the original Saṅkarṣaṇa, Balarāma; his expansion is the Saṅkarṣaṇa of the Dvārakā catur-vyūha [four-fold emanation]; his expansion is the Saṅkarṣaṇa of the para-vyoma catur-vyūha; his expansion is Kāraṇodakaśāyī Nārāyaṇa; his expansion is Garbhodakaśāyī Nārāyaṇa; and his expansion, in turn, gives rise to Brahmā, Viṣṇu (Kṣīrodaśāyī Viṣṇu), and Śiva. Thus it is known that Brahmā, Kṣīrodaśāyī Viṣṇu, and Śiva are but expansions of expansions of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Kāraṇodakaśāyī Viṣṇu is the immediate creator of the aggregate of universes, while Brahmā is the creator of the bodies of individual souls (jīvas) and of objects for their enjoyment. Śiva is the agent of destruction, and Kṣīrodaśāyī Viṣṇu the agent of maintenance. This is known from Brahmā's own words: "I create by his direction; Hara destroys by his will; you, taking the form of the Puruṣa, wielding the three guṇas, maintain [the universe]." (Bhāgavata 2.6.32)

From this account it is known that, before the creation of the universe, Brahmā and Śiva did not yet exist. The Śruti says this as well: "There was, at first, only Nārāyaṇa alone — not Brahmā, not Īśāna [Śiva], not the waters, not fire and moon, not heaven and earth, not the stars, not the sun, not the moon." (Mahopaniṣad 1) There are further such Śruti statements as well: "In the beginning there was only Vāsudeva — not Brahmā, and not Śaṅkara"; "There was only one, Nārāyaṇa; not Brahmā, not Īśāna" — Śruti-verses quoted by Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī in his commentary on Bhāgavata 2.9.32; and "In the beginning there was only the Self, in the form of the Person — Puruṣa is indeed Nārāyaṇa alone... there was only one, Nārāyaṇa; not Brahmā, not Īśāna" — Śruti-proof quoted by Śrīpāda Viśvanātha Cakravartī in his commentary on the same Bhāgavata verse. From all these Śruti statements it is known that before creation neither Brahmā nor Īśāna (Śiva) existed. He who did not even exist before creation cannot be the efficient cause of the universe.

In his commentary on the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad's verse 1.3, "Those who, following the path of meditative yoga, beheld the Lord's own power, hidden within his own qualities — that one Lord who alone presides over all these causal principles, joined with time and the self," Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya too cites scriptural proof and says: "That power of the Supreme Lord, identical with his very Self, which is the cause of the world's creation, maintenance, and dissolution, and which takes the forms of Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva — that is what is meant. As it is said: 'Of that one Lord there are three powers, in the forms of Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva.' With his own qualities — sattva, rajas, and tamas — by rajas he is Brahmā, by sattva he is Viṣṇu, by tamas he is Maheśvara... As it is likewise said: 'That one Lord, Janārdana, alone, attains the designations Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva, which effect creation, maintenance, and dissolution.'" From all these scripturally-grounded statements of Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, it is known that Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva are the powers (śakti) of the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Lord — that the one Godhead Janārdana alone attains the designations of Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva; that is, Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva are but expansions of Janārdana himself. Through these three alone does he effect creation, maintenance, and destruction. Brahmā, by rajas, creates; Viṣṇu (Kṣīrodaśāyī Viṣṇu), by sattva, maintains the universe; and—

From all this evidence it is known that the Śiva spoken of in Vedic scripture is not the Supreme Brahman, nor the creator of the universe. It is only by the order and the power of the Supreme Brahman, the Lord himself, that he acts as the mere agent of the universe's destruction.

From the proofs cited above, it is known that the Vedic Śiva is a particular expansion of the original Nārāyaṇa, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Loving service to the one whose expansion one is constitutes the very essential, inherent duty (svarūpagata-dharma) of that expansion — just as the essential, inherent function of a tree's roots and leaves is their favorable, loving service to the tree itself. Again, it is known from the Śruti that the three-eyed, trident-bearing Śiva himself arises from Nārāyaṇa: "Thus it is recited in the Atharva-veda: they say, there was only one, Nārāyaṇa; not Brahmā, not Īśāna... From his meditation, from his forehead, arose the fierce trident-bearing Puruṣa [Rudra]... From Nārāyaṇa, Brahmā is born; from Nārāyaṇa, Rudra is born... from Nārāyaṇa, the eleven Rudras are born..." (Śruti-verse quoted in the Govinda-bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra 2.2.37, "patyur asāmañjasyāt"). Loving service to that from which one has arisen is likewise one's own essential, inherent duty. Thus it is known that loving service to Śrī Kṛṣṇa is Śiva's own essential, inherent duty — Śiva is himself filled with the devotee's mood.

That Śiva finds bliss in chanting the name of Rāma, a form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself, he has said himself to Bhagavatī [Pārvatī]: "Rāma, Rāma, Rāma — I take delight in Rāma, the delighter of the mind. O fair-faced one, the single name of Rāma equals the thousand names [of Viṣṇu]." (Padma Purāṇa, Uttara-khaṇḍa, Sahasranāma-stotra, 72.335) During the battle with Bāṇa, praising Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Śrī Śiva said to him: "I, Brahmā, the gods, and sages of pure heart, all take refuge with our whole being in you, the Supreme Self, the greatest Lord." (Bhāgavata 10.63.43) It is also known from the Bhāgavata that Śrī Śiva worships Śrī Saṅkarṣaṇa, another form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. In Ilāvṛta-varṣa, Śrī Śiva, together with Pārvatī and ten million female attendants, worships Saṅkarṣaṇa: "Surrounded by Bhavānī and her ten million female companions, the Lord Bhava there worships the Supreme Person's fourth form, made of tamas, which is his own nature under the designation of destroyer, invoking him in the form of his own trance-absorption." (Bhāgavata 5.17.16) In the verses following this in the Bhāgavata, Śrī Śiva's own hymn of praise to Saṅkarṣaṇa is also found. That Śrī Śiva meditates upon Vāsudeva is likewise stated by him to Bhagavatī: "That which is called Vasudeva is pure sattva; therein the Supreme Person is revealed without any covering. In that pure sattva, I meditate with my mind upon the Transcendent Lord Vāsudeva." (Bhāgavata 4.3.23) — Pure, unmixed sattva is called Vasudeva; in that pure sattva the Supreme Person is manifest without obstruction; I meditate with my mind upon that Transcendent Lord Vāsudeva. From the sixth chapter of the Brahma-khaṇḍa of the Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa, it is known that Śrī Śiva once prayed to Śrī Kṛṣṇa for the following boon: "May my longing for servitude to your devotion ever increase; may satisfaction arise for me in chanting your name and in serving your feet. Wandering, whether asleep or awake, ever singing your five-syllabled name [Śiva-mantra], full of auspiciousness, may I roam for ten million kalpas absorbed in meditation upon your form. May my mind never turn toward desire for enjoyment, nor toward yoga or austerity [for their own sake]. In service to you, in worship, in adoration, in chanting your name — may I find release only from the cessation of these ever-blossoming acts. Remembering and chanting your name and qualities, hearing of them, muttering them, meditating on the beauty of your form, bowing at your very feet, offering myself entirely, and daily offering you food — grant me, O Lord of boons, this ninefold characteristic of devotion."

For this very reason, in the passage of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam glorifying its own greatness, Śrī Śiva is called the greatest of Vaiṣṇavas: "As the Gaṅgā is among rivers, as Acyuta is among the gods, so is Śambhu among Vaiṣṇavas, and this [Bhāgavata] among Purāṇas." (Bhāgavata 12.13.16)

From all this Veda-conforming scriptural evidence, it is known that the Śiva spoken of in the Veda and Veda-conforming scripture, and the Śiva spoken of by the tāntrika Śaivas, are not one and the same reality. Though similar in outward form and attire, they are utterly different in their true nature and glory. Similarity of appearance does not imply identity of substance. A mango grown on a tree and a mango sculpted from clay are identical in shape, but the tree-grown mango and the clay mango are not the same thing; the clay mango does not possess the qualities of the tree-grown mango. In the same way, the Vedic Śiva and the tāntrika Śiva cannot be one and the same. The Vedic Śiva possesses all the characteristics described in Śruti and Smṛti; the tāntrika Śiva possesses none of these. Because of the similarity of outward form, a Veda-following person, prompted by the resemblance to the Vedic Śiva, might indeed worship the tāntrika Śiva's image — and such worship would, in effect, be worship of the true Vedic Śiva himself.

In any case, from what has been said so far, it is clearly understood that the Vedic Śiva is not the cause of the universe. The Śiva whom the tāntrikas declare to be the cause (efficient cause) of the universe is not the Vedic Śiva at all; therefore their view, too, is not in accord with the Veda.

There are many sects among the tāntrika Śaivas. In the view of every one of these sects, the Śiva they describe is the cause of the universe. One such sect is called the Pāśupata sect. According to this sect, the word "paśu" refers to every individual soul. In their view, Śiva alone is the Supreme Brahman, and is therefore called "Paśupati" [Lord of souls/beasts]. That this view is not in harmony with the Veda, Vyāsadeva himself has stated in Brahma-sūtra 2.2.37, "patyur asāmañjasyāt" [because of the incongruity of the Lord (being both instrumental and non-independent cause) (in the Pāśupata doctrine)]; and commentators such as Śrīpāda Śaṅkara and Śrīpāda Rāmānuja have likewise shown this view's incongruity with the Veda. In his commentary on this sūtra, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya says: "This is one of the many kinds of non-Vedic conceptions of God" — and he describes one such variety: "The Māheśvaras [Śaivas] hold that the five categories — effect, cause, union (yoga), rule (vidhi), and the end of suffering — were taught by the Lord Paśupati for the liberation of souls (paśus) from bondage; they maintain that Paśupati, the Lord, is the instrumental (efficient) cause." [footnote elaborates the technical terms] — that is, the Śaivas say that the five categories of effect, cause, yoga, injunction, and the end of suffering were taught by Paśupati for severing the bondage of souls; Paśupati Śiva is the Lord — that is, the ruler and efficient cause — of this universe. (Translation following the edition and commentary of Mahāmahopādhyāya Durgācaraṇa Sāṅkhya-Vedāntatīrtha.) Śrīpāda Śaṅkara himself states that in the Śaiva doctrine, God is conceived of in a manner external to the Veda.

On this point, we have also quoted in a footnote here what is written in the footnotes of the edition of Śaṅkara's commentary on the Brahma-sūtra edited by the learned Durgācaraṇa Sāṅkhya-Vedāntatīrtha. [Footnote: There are four sub-divisions within the Śaiva sect — Śaiva proper, Pāśupata, Kāruṇika-siddhānta, and Kāpālika. All of these follow the Āgama-scriptures spoken by Maheśvara. The twenty-four principles beginning with mahat are all "effects" (that is, they have a beginning), and their cause is Prakṛti (Pradhāna) and Īśvara. Prakṛti is the material cause, and Īśvara the efficient cause. The primary meaning of "yoga" is samādhi. "Vidhi" refers to the enjoined rites, such as the three daily bathings, to be performed. "Duḥkhānta" means liberation... "Pāśa" means bondage (being tied by the rope of saṃsāra).] From this it is known that all the sects of the tāntrika Śaivas follow the Āgama-scriptures spoken by Maheśvara. Maheśvara is Śiva; his Āgama is the Śivāgama. But the question arises: Śiva is a Vedic deity — why, then, should the Āgama he is said to have spoken be opposed to the Veda, and why should the God described in that Āgama be external to the Veda?

The Vedic scriptures themselves furnish an answer to this question. It is known from the Veda-conforming Padma Purāṇa that Śrī Kṛṣṇa once, for a certain reason, said to Śiva: "O Śiva! Through Āgamas of your own devising, turn people away from me, and conceal me as well, so that this creation may go on increasing, generation after generation." (Padma Purāṇa, Uttara-khaṇḍa, 62.31) — "Through Āgama-scriptures of your own invention, turn people away from me, and conceal me as well, so that this creation may continue to expand." It was in obedience to this command of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's that Śrī Śiva propagated the Śivāgama of his own devising. Because this Śivāgama contains an effort to turn the soul away from Kṛṣṇa, and to conceal Śrī Kṛṣṇa from the soul, it is easily understood to be opposed to the Veda; and it is likewise understood that, according to the Veda, liberation is not possible for those who follow the Śivāgama. For Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself has told Arjuna: "This divine māyā of mine, composed of the guṇas, is very difficult to overcome; only those who take refuge in me alone cross beyond this māyā." (Gītā 7.14) Needless to say, those who worship the Vedic Śiva by Vedically-enjoined means are not, according to the Veda, thereby barred from liberation.

Some among the followers of the Śivāgama also make use of haṭha-yoga; it is presumably for this reason that they are called "yogīs" and their path of practice the "yoga-mārga." This, of course, is certainly not the yoga-mārga spoken of in the Veda.

§60. Śākta Tantra (§§60–72)

According to Śākta Tantra, Śakti herself is the Supreme Brahman, the cause of the universe. According to the tāntrika Śāktas, this Śakti is Śiva's own consort-power (kāntā-śakti). There are many well-known Tantra-texts of this school — the Devī-bhāgavata, the Mahānirvāṇa-tantra, and many other Tantra-texts composed in Bengal. (That the Devī-bhāgavata is itself a Śākta Tantra-text is shown later in this essay. Regarding the Mahānirvāṇa-tantra, Professor Śrī Barendranātra Bhaṭṭācārya of Kingston Hindu College writes on p. 24 of his book Śākta Padāvalī: "It is a matter of common tradition that the Mahānirvāṇa-tantra, especially esteemed in Bengal, was composed by the guru of the great soul Rāmmohan Rāy.")

In the several sections that follow (§§61–72), the statements of a number of scholars expert in Tantra are cited and discussed.

§61. The Statements of Certain Expert Scholars Regarding Śākta Tantra, and a Discussion of Them (§§61–72)

The introduction to the ninth edition (Bhādra 1362 BE) of the book Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī edited by Swami Jagadīśvarānanda Mahārāja of the Belur Ramakrishna Math near Calcutta gives ample introduction to Śākta Tantra in what Swamiji writes there regarding this subject. The necessary portions of that introduction are therefore quoted here, with our own remarks, in certain places, given in brackets.

[Footnote: Not all the Śivāgamas found today were necessarily spoken by Śrī Śiva himself; in later times, various tāntrika Śaiva ācāryas also composed many texts of their own.]

"Just as with Hindu Tantra, there also exist innumerable texts of Buddhist Tantra. The Mūla-tantra and Samāja-tantra, the two oldest Buddhist Tantras, were composed in the first and third centuries respectively... It was in Bengal itself that Buddhist Tantra flourished most richly." (Introduction, p. 17.)

[Śrī Satyendranātha Ṭhākura, elder brother of the world-poet Śrī Rabīndranātha Ṭhākura and the first Indian to join the I.C.S., writes in the second edition of his book Bauddha-dharma that after Lord Buddha's disappearance, tāntrika ritualism entered into Buddhism. He writes: "Tantra-śāstra is essentially a method of acquiring artificial siddhis through unrestrained conduct — in time, horrific and grotesque tāntrika rites came to infiltrate the boundaries of Buddhist religion. Just as, according to Hindu belief, perfected yogīs are said to attain the eight siddhis such as aṇimā, mahimā, vyāpti and the like, so too Buddhists believe that perfected practitioners of this school attain manifold supernatural powers and become capable of performing extraordinarily wondrous feats." (p. 70) The learned Dr. Śrī Gopīnātha Kavirāja, M.A., D.Litt., of Varanasi, in his book Tantra o Āgama-śāstrera Digdarśana (published by Calcutta Sanskrit College in 1963 CE), likewise writes of the tāntrikas' extraordinary supernatural powers. Regarding the Mahāmāyā-tantra and the Śambara-tantra, he writes: "These describe the construction of illusory phenomena (māyā-prapañca). As a result of constructing such illusory phenomena, the perceiver's senses are compelled to perceive an object otherwise than it truly is — so that what is in reality a pot appears to the observer as a piece of cloth. This is somewhat comparable to present-day 'hypnotism' and similar arts of enchantment." (p. 58) Regarding the text called Yoginī-jāla-śambara, he writes: "A Tantra dominated by illusion is called śambara; in this one finds the 'net' (jāla) of the yoginīs." (p. 58) Regarding the Tattva-śambara, he writes: "This is a kind of grand illusionist art. By this art, one element is made to appear superimposed upon another — for instance, the illusion of the water-element within the earth-element, or of the earth-element within the water-element, and so on." (p. 58) Regarding the text Mahāsammohana, he writes: "This is the art of rendering a waking person asleep or unconscious. It is accomplished by evil means such as cutting a child's tongue." (p. 59) In the text called Kalāsāra is found "a description of how to enhance one's complexion"; in the Kuṇḍikāmata, "a description of the siddhi of the magic pill (guṭikā)"; in the Srotas-tantra, "an account of the siddhis of the drinking-vessel, the eye-ointment, and the magic sandal"; and in the Srotasottara-tantra, a description of "the means of beholding 64,000 yakṣiṇīs." (p. 59) The acquisition of such supernatural powers is perhaps not the tāntrikas' primary goal, but by means of it they are certainly able to astonish and attract ordinary people.]

Continuing on from the statement quoted above, Swamiji writes: "Dr. Vinayatoṣa Bhaṭṭācārya, in his book An Introduction to Buddhist Esoterism, has shown that Hindu Tantra is indebted to Buddhist Tantra on many points. In several well-known Hindu Tantras — Kālī, Tārā, Ṣoḍaśī, Bhuvaneśvarī, Bhairavī, Chinnamastā, Bagalā, Mātaṅgī, and Kamalā — this is the very group of eight forms of the Devī, whose mantras too are found already enriched in the Buddhist Tantra Sādhanamālā... Many mantras of Hindu Tantra are derived from Buddhist Tantra-mantras, being corrupted forms of them." (Introduction, p. 10.)

[Swamiji does not dispute Dr. Bhaṭṭācārya's statement; from this it is understood that he accepts it. There is good reason for this acceptance — the very testimony of Tantra-scripture itself supports Dr. Bhaṭṭācārya's claim, as is shown below.

The eminent scholar Śrī Sukhamaya Bhaṭṭācārya Śāstrī, holder of the title Saptatīrtha, writes in his book Tantra-paricaya (published from Śāntiniketan, Birbhum, in Caitra 1359 BE), citing the testimony of the Meru-tantra: "There are five kinds of vāma-mārga [left-hand path] — Kaulika, Vāma, Cīnakrama, Siddhāntīya, and Śābara." (p. 52) The Meru-tantra says these five vāma-mārgas are comparable to the five fingers of the hand: "Kaulika is comparable to the thumb, Vāma to the index finger, Cīnakrama to the middle finger, Siddhāntīya to the ring finger, and Śābara, the smallest, to the little finger — thus is the vāma-mārga fivefold." (p. 52)

Saptatīrtha further writes: "The Bhairava-tantra states: 'By the Mahācīna-krama alone does Tārā swiftly grant her fruit; by the Mahācīna-krama alone is the ritual of Chinnamastā ordained.' The worship of the goddesses Tārā and Chinnamastā through Cīnācāra (Mahācīnācāra, 'the great Chinese conduct') is capable of granting swift fruit. It is mentioned in the Tārā-tantra and elsewhere that the great sage Vasiṣṭha traveled to China and attained perfection in the worship of the Tārā-vidyā through Cīnācāra. It is stated in the Svacchanda-bhairava-tantra that in the practice of Cīnācāra, no rules of prohibition or injunction need be observed at all; the practitioner may act exactly as he pleases, with no need even of the purificatory observances enjoined by Śruti and Smṛti." (p. 52)

From Saptatīrtha's statement and citations, it is known that Śākta Tantra was current in the great land of China as well, and that the Meru-tantra, Bhairava-tantra, Svacchanda-bhairava-tantra, Tārā-tantra, and other texts all mention the Chinese tantric tradition. Among the ten Mahāvidyās, the worship of the goddesses Tārā and Chinnamastā through Cīnācāra is said to be especially fruitful. It is universally known that Buddhism was especially prevalent in China, and remains so to this day. From Saptatīrtha's book, it is also known that Chinese Buddhists became tāntrika Śāktas and performed worship of the ten Mahāvidyās as well. It is thus also understood that the Buddhist Tantra called Sādhanamālā, discussed by Dr. Vinayatoṣa Bhaṭṭācārya, was indeed current in China. Dr. Bhaṭṭācārya's claim, therefore, is not without foundation — and this is presumably the very reason Swami Jagadīśvarānanda Mahārāja did not dispute it.

On this point, the opinion of Professor Śrī Jāhnavīkumāra Cakravartī is worth noting. Professor Cakravartī is unwilling to accept that Hindu Tantra is indebted to Buddhist Tantra on many points. On p. 153 of his book Śākta Padāvalī o Śakti-sādhanā (2nd edition, 1367 BE), he writes:

[Footnote: It has been said above that "the great sage Vasiṣṭha traveled to China and attained perfection in the worship of the Tārā-vidyā through Cīnācāra." This is certainly not the Vasiṣṭha of Tretā-yuga, the sage of Śrī Rāmacandra, for that Vasiṣṭha was a strict follower of the Vedic path and was no tāntrika worshipper. No ancient authority records that he ever traveled to China.]

"From one primordial source, both Hindu and Buddhist tāntrikas adopted their conceptions of deities and modes of worship, each within the framework of their own religion. It was the matriarchal Austric and Dravidian peoples of this land who first conceived of tāntrika practice; but the principal bearers who spread this Tantra were the Mongolian or Tibeto-Chinese peoples. This people entered this land long ago, bringing the cultural traditions of China and Tibet, by way of the Brahmaputra valley through the northeastern frontier. Bengal and Assam were their chief centers of settlement. From this center, following the Himalayan foothills, they created a vast arc extending through Kashmir, Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal, Bengal, Assam, and even into Burma. Within this arc, tāntrika practice attained extraordinary spread and richness. Kāmākhyā, Sirihaṭṭa, Pūrṇagiri, and Uḍḍiyāna were their principal centers of activity. Hence it is said, 'The vidyā [tantric wisdom] was revealed in Gauḍa [Bengal]' — and this too is acknowledged in Buddhist Tantra (see the Sādhanamālā). Under this people's influence, the Hindu Āryas adopted tāntrika rites and conceptions of deities into their own religion and composed Hindu Tantras. The Buddhist tāntrikas, in turn, also absorbed tāntrika practice from this same people. Moreover, Buddhist tāntrika practice spread as far as Tibet, China, and Manchuria. The Buddhists recovered images and worship-forms of 'Mahācīna-tārā' from China, and of 'Ekajaṭā' (a form of Tārā) from Tibet. Therefore, from the very same source from which the Hindu Tantras derived their images and modes of worship, the Buddhist tāntrikas likewise derived theirs. This is precisely why there is such close resemblance between the Mahācīna-tārā and the Hindu Chinnamastā, and such correspondence between the Buddhist goddess Vasudhārā and the Hindu image of Kamalā. Since the source is one and common, it is only natural that resemblances of many kinds should exist between the two."

Our remarks: Professor Cakravartī, on p. 150 of his own book, writes: "Dr. Vinayatoṣa Bhaṭṭācārya, in the introduction to the Sādhanamālā, says: 'Hindu goddesses like Mahiṣāsuramardinī, Cāmuṇḍā, Kālī and the like — were they entirely unknown among the Buddhists?'... He says elsewhere: 'The meditation and worship of Tārā is current in Hindu Tantra as well, and comparing the two meditations, it appears that the Hindu tāntrikas adopted the worship and iconography of Mahācīna-tārā from the Buddhists. There is clear evidence of this.'" and so on. It is precisely to refute this statement of Dr. Bhaṭṭācārya's that Professor Cakravartī makes his several arguments and finally offers the account cited above. But it has already been shown, from the introduction quoted by Swami Jagadīśvarānanda, that in Dr. Bhaṭṭācārya's view the Mahāvidyās and the like of Hindu Tantra are derived from Buddhist Tantra. The point at issue, then, is:

The Mahāvidyās

Professor Cakravartī writes, on pp. 17–19 of his book, that the first propagators of mother-goddess worship were the non-Āryan Negroid, Austric, Dravidian, and Mongolian or Tibeto-Chinese peoples. At the forefront of their religion [text unclear here — "anādi" (beginningless) is not fully legible at this point] — according to him, the principal deity of tāntrika practice was established as the Mother-goddess (Mātṛkā-devī) — under the aspect of the fixed, root-sustaining power, the ruling power of fear, the controlling power of society, the Mother-goddess. But Professor Cakravartī does not say that these peoples originally conceived of the Mahāvidyās and the like. From what he writes on p. 153 of his book, it is known that Mahācīna-tārā and the other Mahāvidyās were conceptions of the Chinese people specifically. The Chinese people, too, were Buddhist. Professor Cakravartī himself writes: "Buddhist tāntrika practice spread as far as Tibet, China, and Manchuria." The question now arises: did the Chinese people conceive of the Mahāvidyās before they took refuge in Buddhism, or afterward? Professor Cakravartī's account does not tell us. If the Chinese had conceived of the Mahāvidyās before embracing Buddhism, this would surely have been the strongest evidence for Professor Cakravartī's own thesis; since he does not mention any such thing, it may be understood that the Chinese conceived of the Mahāvidyās only after taking refuge in Buddhism. The Mahāvidyās, therefore, are themselves a Buddhist conception. Swami Jagadīśvarānanda writes, in the introduction to his edition of Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī (p. 10): "Just as with Hindu Tantra, there also exist innumerable texts of Buddhist Tantra. The Mūlakalpa-tantra and Samāja-tantra, the two oldest Buddhist Tantras, were composed in the first and third centuries respectively. Several Tantra-texts, translated into Chinese and Tibetan, have been incorporated into the Chinese Tripiṭaka (Buddhist scripture). Tantra-śāstra was taught at the Buddhist universities of Nālandā and Vikramaśīlā. The Caṇḍī, a text daily recited by Hindus, was at one time also a favorite of Buddhist monks; a hand-copied Caṇḍī manuscript by a Buddhist monk, written nearly a thousand years ago, has been found in Nepal... It was in Bengal itself that Buddhist Tantra flourished most richly." Immediately after this, Swamiji quotes the previously cited passage from Dr. Vinayatoṣa Bhaṭṭācārya.

Many Chinese Buddhists studied at the universities of Nālandā and Vikramaśīlā. It is presumably they who carried the Buddhist Tantra-texts taught at those universities back to their own country, translated them into Chinese and Tibetan, and incorporated them into their Tripiṭaka. From this it might seem that Indian Buddhist Tantra-texts entered Tibet and China, and that the Chinese, in turn, adopted the Mahāvidyās conceived in the Sādhanamālā from India itself. If so, then Dr. Vinayatoṣa Bhaṭṭācārya's claim is not without foundation, and Professor Cakravartī's account does not actually refute it.

In any case, from the discussion above it is known that the Tantra-texts current in Bengal were composed on the basis of Buddhist Tantra (whether Indian or Chinese Buddhist Tantra); these Tantra-texts are therefore man-made (laukika), not uncreated (apauruṣeya) — and the original propagators of such mother-goddess worship (mātṛ-sādhanā) were non-Āryan peoples. On this matter of the non-Āryan peoples, Professor Cakravartī writes, on p. 17 of his book: Who were the first worshippers of this Nature (Prakṛti)? Two streams of tāntrika practice are found in Indian culture — "daiva, or Vedic, and āsura, or tāntrika." One is divine or Vedic, the other āsuric or tāntrika. One is male-centered, the other mother-centered. Āryan society is male-centered, its... [text unclear]... this people were the Āryas' powerful rivals, and this people has always been condemned by Āryan society. In the Veda they are called—

[Text continues at the top of the next page:] ...andhra, dasyu; they are called "anāsa" (noseless/faceless — anonymous), "śiśnadevā" (worshippers of the phallus, or foreign-worshippers), "ayajña" (non-sacrificers, uncivilized) and "anavrata" (undisciplined, lawless); in the Brāhmaṇa-texts they are called "bayāṃsi" and "antyaja" (outcastes). These are the same peoples who appear as the Rākṣasas, Daityas, Dānavas, Niṣādas, and Kirātas of the epics and Purāṇas; in history they are known by names such as Śabara, Pulinda, or aboriginal (ādivāsī) peoples.

From this account it is known that the original propagators of mother-tāntrika practice were non-Āryan peoples. Those who follow the Veda are called "Ārya." It is easily understood that their "powerful rival," the non-Āryan peoples, were opposed to the Veda. It was precisely because they were opposed to the Veda that they were always condemned in Āryan society. Hence it is understood that the mother-tāntrika practice they propagated is itself opposed to the Veda. Further, it is universally known that the Buddhists were opposed to the Veda; the ten Mahāvidyās they conceived cannot, therefore, be in accord with the Veda either. The Hindu Śākta tāntrikas have themselves adopted these Buddhist-conceived, Veda-opposed Mahāvidyās as their own objects of worship, and have likewise taken their worship-mantras — in some cases wholly, in others in corrupted form — from the Buddhists themselves. It is thus known that Śākta Tantra is opposed to the Veda and was composed by particular individuals. This, too, is what is understood from the statements of both Swami Jagadīśvarānanda and Professor Cakravartī.

Professor Brajendracandra Bhaṭṭācārya, on p. 3 of his book Śākta Padāvalī, writes: "The Ṛg Veda is the most ancient text of the Āryas. In the Ṛg Veda one finds the unrivaled dominion of male deities alone. And yet, in Indian spiritual practice, the female deity — that is, 'Śakti' — occupies a prominent place. Many surmise that Śakti entered Āryan society from a non-Āryan, mother-tāntrika community." The account given by Professor Jāhnavīkumāra Cakravartī has already been cited above [on this same point].

From Professor Cakravartī's account, some further information is also learned regarding the form and nature of the Śakti-goddesses worshipped by the Śākta tāntrikas. He writes that the Mongolian or Tibeto-Chinese people came to this land "bringing the cultural traditions of China and Tibet," and that "under this people's influence, the Hindu Āryas adopted tāntrika rites and conceptions of deities into their own religion, and composed Hindu Tantras." The Tibeto-Chinese people "conceived" their tāntrika deities in accordance with "the cultural traditions of China and Tibet." Therefore, the images of such deities are themselves the embodied forms of that people's own cultural traditions — imaginative forms born of their social customs and practices. Hence these "conceived" deities have no true, objective reality at all.

On this point, the statements in the book Śākta Padāvalī, authored by Professor Brajendracandra Bhaṭṭācārya of Gobardanga Hindu College, are also worth noting. In this book it is written: "Unable to fathom the mystery of this universe's periodic dissolution, the manifold variety of the visible world, and the birth and death of living beings, humankind, guided at first by simple intuition, conceived behind everything a series of individual deities endowed with supernatural power." (p. 1) "We cannot conceive of the state prior to creation. That great void, that great emptiness, does not fall within the compass of our imaginative power. That great void has been [personified/represented] as boundless, changeless, undifferentiated, and beyond all conception." (pp. 1–2) "It is by observing the manifold manifestation of the Almighty through the medium of nature that humankind began its worship, and this is the fundamental cause behind the conception of the various deities." (p. 2) "It was the tāntrikas themselves who conceived the form of the world-mother goddess Kālikā." (p. 1) "Kālī is herself the symbol of Prakṛti [primordial nature]. Before creation, the boundless great void — that is, the great emptiness — was covered in dense darkness. Then one day the awakening of creation occurred — creation took form from the womb of that darkness. Kālī is the symbol of that very pre-creation darkness." (p. 11) "In harmony with this terrifying backdrop, the Mother's terrifying form was conceived." (p. 16)

Regarding the ten Mahāvidyās described in Tantra, the same book states: "The described forms of these goddesses also differ from one another. Which goddess assumed which form as the symbol of which particular mood or sentiment — an explanation of this too is given in Tantra-scripture." (p. 108) "The fear and self-interest from which the maṅgala-kāvyas [medieval Bengali devotional epics] — and the deities described in them — arose, undoubtedly still existed even in the eighteenth century; but the devotional sentiment (bhakti-rasa) that sprang from that fear and self-interest changed the medium of its own expression." (p. 239) "In order to preserve the influence of their own rapidly declining religion, the tāntrika Buddhists constructed certain goddesses in imitation of Hindu religion. On the other hand, Hindu society, its self-confidence shattered by the onslaught of Muslim power, created various goddesses of its own and thereby somehow found a path for its own self-expression. Most of these newly created goddesses were of a fierce nature. Later, of course, they lost this fierceness and became peaceful — as with the goddess Caṇḍī. The goddess Kālikā is one of these fierce deities; she is a purely tāntrika goddess." (p. 244) "The fierce goddesses of the maṅgala-kāvya tradition gradually grew peaceful. It goes without saying that, against the backdrop of oppression by Muslim political power, this fierce class of goddesses, born of non-Āryan and Buddhist tāntrika influence, was later gradually transformed, under the influence of Brahmanical culture, into a class of auspicious, beneficent goddesses." (p. 246) "The stream of Pārvatī, Umā, Durgā, and Caṇḍī, merging into a single evolving Great Goddess as found in the Purāṇas and similar texts, has itself merged with the stream of the goddess Kālikā or Kālī, and in Bengal's Śakti-sādhanā, the Goddess has finally become the all-encompassing Sovereign of All (Sarveśvarī). It is worth noting, incidentally, that in the evolutionary stream of the Great Śakti, the goddess Kālikā appears as the very last development." (p. 10)

Professor Jāhnavīkumāra Cakravartī, in his book Śākta-padāvalī o Śakti-sādhanā, writes: "Every image is itself the symbol of a particular sentiment. The Hindu people are given to sentiment, and hence the images they have conceived are likewise so." (p. 139)

From all these statements, it is clearly understood that the tāntrika deities are themselves the tāntrikas' own conceptions — symbols of the tāntrikas' own currents of sentiment — and that, along with changes in the political and social currents of the country, the conceptions of these deities' forms have themselves undergone change. The very final form of this change or evolution is the goddess Kālī. Therefore these conceived deities can have no true, objective existence whatsoever.

Poet Rabīndranātha himself, in his play Rājā [The King] — or rather, in his play Visarjana [Sacrifice] — has expressed this very truth through the mouth of the Śakti-practitioner Raghupati: "Mahākālī, the very form of Time itself, stands there, her thirst-parched tongue lolling, and on every side of the world an eternal stream of blood bursts forth, like juice from crushed grapes, into her boundless skull-cup..." (Visarjana, Act 2, Scene 1) "...Where truth exists, no one knows; no one attains it. That very truth, shattering into ten million falsehoods, bursts forth; and truth thus bears the name of Mahāmāyā — whose meaning is the Great Falsehood." (Visarjana, Act 2, Scene 1)

It may be mentioned here, incidentally, that the tāntrikas, according to their own tradition — and certain modern research scholars too, following Western materialist thinkers, and perhaps under the influence of tāntrika perspectives — regard even the Brahman spoken of in the Veda, and the various māyā-transcendent forms of Godhead that this Vedic Brahman has, from beginningless time, manifested and in which he eternally abides, as themselves mere human conceptions. They regard even the Veda itself, just like the tāntrikas' own Tantra-texts, as a book composed by some particular individual. But the Veda is uncreated (apauruṣeya) and eternal; the Brahman spoken of by the Veda, and the aforementioned forms of Godhead, are likewise beginningless, unborn, eternal, embodiments of pure being-consciousness-bliss (sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha), manifest in manifold divine moods. A Veda-following practitioner may, by the Lord's grace, become suffused with some portion of one or another of these moods — but these forms of Godhead are not themselves the practitioner's own conceived symbols, nor are they themselves suffused by the practitioner's mood; rather, the practitioner is suffused by them.

The forms and appearances of the deities conceived by the tāntrikas are also strange. Some are portrayed unclothed (digambarā), some clad in animal-hide. Some are "fond of sexual union" and "engaged in the act of intercourse" with the practitioner (as with Madhumatī); some are absorbed in "reverse coition" (viparīta-saṃbhoga). The goddess Kālī herself is portrayed as engaged in reverse coition with Mahākāla. Attempts have indeed been made to give spiritual explanations for such forms and moods of the tāntrika goddesses. But such spiritual interpretation, on the one hand, itself demonstrates the unreality of these deities; on the other hand, it is merely a futile attempt to cover over what, in the judgment of Āryan Hindus, is nothing but coarse vulgarity and obscenity.

In every religious community, those who lack true spiritual understanding and discernment are always far more numerous than those who possess it; the tāntrika community is no exception to this rule. Those in the tāntrika community who are of this uninstructed, undiscerning sort care nothing for any spiritual interpretation, nor are they capable of realizing it. Only the forms seen in the deities' images, and the meditative visualizations (dhyāna) described in the Tantra-texts, occupy their minds. Nor is everyone among them a master of the senses. It is therefore not unnatural that the forms and meditative descriptions of the tāntrika goddesses should, in the minds of the majority of such unrestrained people, awaken sexual desire, and drive them toward means favorable to satisfying that desire. Although a spiritual explanation of the "pañca-ma-kāra" practice enjoined in the Veda-opposed Tantra-text Mahānirvāṇa-tantra is given in the Vijaya-tantra, such practitioners will nevertheless simply follow the Mahānirvāṇa-tantra directly — especially since the pañca-ma-kāra practice is said to grant swift perfection: "Wine, meat, fish, mudrā (parched grain), and sexual union — these five 'm's, O Queen of the gods, grant swift perfection." (Mahānirvāṇa-tantra) For these reasons, it cannot be denied that a great current of moral licentiousness flows among the unrestrained tāntrikas, and that, as a result, society in certain places has become correspondingly polluted. It is not that such licentiousness is entirely absent even among some who call themselves Veda-following practitioners — but it cannot be shown that any scriptural text of any Veda-following community of practitioners openly sanctions or encourages such licentiousness [as the Tantra-texts cited above openly do].

Swami Jagadīśvarānandajī, in his introduction to Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī, further writes:

"Although the current of Śākta sentiment has flooded the whole of India, it has flourished with particular richness in Bengal. A vast body of Śākta literature has been created in the Bengali language since ancient times." (Introduction, p. 18)

"From the fifteenth century to the nineteenth century, a vast body of Śākta literature was composed in Bengali." (Introduction, p. 18)

"Dvija Kālidāsa's Kālikā-maṅgala, Rāja Rāmasiṃha of Suṣaṅga's Bhāratī-maṅgala, ... Nārāyaṇadeva's Kālikā-purāṇa, and similar works belong to this category." (Introduction, p. 19)

"The current of Śākta-sādhanā once flowed through Bengal with tremendous force." (Introduction, p. 20)

"Among the Śākta practitioners of Bengal, the names of Rāmaprasāda of Hālisahar, Kamalākānta of Burdwan, Rājā Rāmakṛṣṇa of Natore, Vāmākṣepā of Tārāpīṭha, Paramahaṃsa Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa of Dakṣiṇeśvar, Sarvānanda Ṭhākura of Mehar, and others deserve foremost mention." (Introduction, p. 20)

"Paramahaṃsa Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's tantric sādhana was unprecedented and far-reaching in its scope. On the instruction of the Bhairavī Brāhmaṇī, he attained perfection in the practice of all sixty-four Tantras current in the Viṣṇukrāntā region... the Viṣṇukrāntā region extends from the Vindhya mountains to the land of Chittagong." (Introduction, p. 21)

[Swami Jagadīśvarānandajī has already said: "It was in Bengal itself that Buddhist Tantra flourished most richly" (Introduction, p. 10). Here he says that the current of Śākta sentiment has flourished with particular richness in Bengal (Introduction, p. 18). Does this not make clear that it is precisely the Śākta strand of Buddhist Tantra that flourished with such particular richness in Bengal? Is not the foundation of the vast body of Śākta literature composed from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century likewise Buddhist Tantra? From Professor Jāhnavīkumāra Cakravartī's account, already cited above, it is likewise known that it was under the influence of the Mongolian or Tibeto-Chinese people that "the Hindu Āryas adopted tāntrika rites and conceptions of deities into their own religion, and composed Hindu Tantras." That these Chinese peoples were Buddhist has also been shown above. Professor Cakravartī writes, on pp. 244–45 of his book, that although the sentiment of Śākta-padāvalī poetry had its seed already in the compositions of Śākta poets before the eighteenth century, the distinctive style of Śākta lyric poetry was still absent; the eighteenth century itself was the age of the full flowering and richness of Śākta-padāvalī.

Swami Jagadīśvarānandajī writes that Paramahaṃsa Rāmakṛṣṇa practiced the sādhanas of all sixty-four Tantras current in the Viṣṇukrāntā region. He further writes that the Viṣṇukrāntā region extends from the Vindhyas to Chittagong. Chittagong is itself part of Bengal. From this it is understood that Paramahaṃsadeva practiced according to these sixty-four Tantras current in Bengal. For the reasons already given, is not the foundation of these sixty-four Tantras likewise the Buddhist Tantra that flourished so richly in Bengal? Since Swami Jagadīśvarānandajī could not refute Dr. Vinayatoṣa Bhaṭṭācārya's claim, for that very reason he cannot give a negative answer to these questions either.]

Swamiji further writes, in his introduction:

"Nāgojī Bhaṭṭa was one of the foremost ācāryas of the Pāṇinian school of grammar and philosophy... Nāgojī's disciple Umānanda Nātha composed, in 1775 CE, the commentary 'Nityotsava' on the Paraśurāma-kalpa-sūtra... Nāgojī Bhaṭṭa was an unrivaled grammarian... his grandson Maṇirāma was living in 1804 CE. Nāgojī Bhaṭṭa composed nearly fifty Sanskrit works. The Kātyāyanī-tantra is his own composition. This Tantra contains a detailed mantra-classification kārikā on the Caṇḍī." (Introduction, pp. 29–30)

[Since Nāgojī Bhaṭṭa's disciple Umānanda Nātha wrote his "Nityotsava" in 1775 CE, and Nāgojī's grandson Maṇirāma was living in 1804 CE, it appears that Nāgojī Bhaṭṭa composed nearly fifty Sanskrit works, including the Kātyāyanī-tantra, sometime between the first and third quarters of the eighteenth century CE, or shortly after — that is, no more than about two hundred years before the present day. The Kātyāyanī-tantra, therefore, is not especially ancient, and was written by a particular individual — it is not uncreated (apauruṣeya).]

"Among the four types of Tantra-traditions current in India — Gauḍīya, Keralīya, Kāśmīrī, and Vilāsī — the Gauḍīya school is the most ancient and predominant of all. During the era of the Pāla kings, Tantra held immense influence in Bengal. One Tantra-text states: 'Vidyā was revealed in Gauḍa' — that is, the science of Tantra arose in Gauḍa (Bengal). The first chapter (paṭala) of the Varadā-tantra describes the Bengali alphabet. Moreover, the greater number of the ancient tāntrika pīṭhas (seats of worship) are located within the land of Bengal itself." (Introduction, p. 25)

[Through this reasoning, and with reference to a particular Tantra-text, Swamiji has himself shown that Tantra arose in Bengal itself. From this it is understood that the Tantra-texts of Bengal were written by particular individuals; and, following Swamiji's own earlier statement, it is understood that the foundation of these Tantra-texts is likewise the Buddhist Tantra that flourished so richly in Bengal. Professor Cakravartī's statement, too, supports this conclusion.]

"Bhāskara [Bhāskararāya] received initiation into the fifteen-syllable Śrīvidyā mantra from Nṛsiṃhānanda Nātha. After receiving initiation he came to be known as Bhāskarānanda Nātha... Bhāskara's commentary on the Caṇḍī, called 'Guptavatī,' is especially famous. The 'Guptavatī' was composed in 1741 CE... Among all the commentators on the Caṇḍī, Bhāskara alone wrote a commentary on the 'Rahasya-traya' [the three secret sections]; in it are found hints of the subtle principles of Śākta philosophy." (Introduction, pp. 32–33)

[Although the Caṇḍī is not, in itself, actually a Tantra-text, Bhāskara, through the tāntrika interpretation given in his Guptavatī commentary, has effectively transformed it into a Tantra-text. The tāntrika doctrine he expounds in this Guptavatī commentary is likewise not especially ancient — this commentary was composed in 1741 CE, that is, roughly two hundred and twenty-five years before the present day.]

§62. Tantra-mata Is Opposed to the Veda

We have already recorded, above, what Swamiji has written in the introduction to his edition of Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī, and our own remarks concerning it.

From the discussion of Swamiji's own statements, his acceptance of Dr. Vinayatoṣa Bhaṭṭācārya's claim, and the statements — supporting that claim — of many Tantra-texts such as the Meru-tantra and the Tārā-tantra, it has been seen that the deities of Śākta Tantra, and their worship-mantras, have been adopted from Buddhist Tantra itself — in some places unaltered, in others in a corrupted or modified form. From Swamiji's own statements, it is known that Śākta Tantra arose in Bengal itself, that many Śākta Tantra-texts were composed in Bengal, and that the foundation of all these Tantras is likewise the Buddhist Tantra that flourished so richly in Bengal. The Buddhists are opposed to the Veda; therefore the Mahāvidyās and mantras they conceived are likewise external to the Veda. The Tantra-texts composed by Buddhists, and the Tantra-texts subsequently composed in Bengal following their example, were all written by particular, specific individuals — not by any Brahman-realized Vedāntic sage. One who attains direct, immediate realization of the truth spoken of in the Veda is called a true spiritual sage (pāramārthika ṛṣi); in his statements there is no possibility whatsoever of the four defects [error, illusion, the tendency to deceive, and imperfection of the senses]. But in others, the possibility of these four defects does remain. It is therefore for the wise to consider and judge whether a text written by such an ordinary person can be a fit guide for a truly spiritual practitioner to follow.

Those whom the Śākta tāntrikas worship, and whom they call the Supreme Brahman, the cause of the universe, are said by them to be Śiva-śakti [Śiva's power/consort]. This too is a view opposed to the Veda — for, according to the Veda and Veda-conforming scripture, it is the Supreme Brahman spoken of in the Veda alone who is the cause of the universe; Vyāsadeva himself has established this in his Brahma-sūtra.

According to Vedic scripture, Śiva-śakti is the consort-power (kāntā-śakti) of the Vedic Śiva — Durgā, whose other names include Caṇḍī, Ambikā, Gaurī, Kātyāyanī, Kālī, Kālikā, Cāmuṇḍā, Pārvatī, Bhagavatī, Bhadrakālī, and so on. According to Śruti and Smṛti, she is herself a portion (aṁśa) of Śrī Rādhā, the complete potency (pūrṇa-śakti) of the all-powerful Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Regarding Śrī Rādhā, the Śruti declares: "Śyāmā [Rādhā], through her own portion, becomes the power [Śakti] known as Lakṣmī, Durgā, and the like." (Puruṣa-bodhinī Śruti of the Atharva Veda, quoted in section 222 of the book Siddhānta-ratna edited by Mahāmahopādhyāya Dr. Gopīnātha Kavirāja) From the Pātāla-khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa, it is known that Śrī Śiva said to Nārada: "The Goddess is declared to be of the very nature of Kṛṣṇa; Rādhikā is the Supreme Deity, the very embodiment of all Lakṣmīs. She is the essence of Kṛṣṇa's own delight (hlādinī); hence the wise call her Hlādinī. Her portion, divided into ten million parts, each further subdivided in unfortunate fragments, becomes the goddesses [of lesser potency]. She herself, directly, is Mahālakṣmī; Kṛṣṇa is Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Lord. Between the two of them there is not the slightest difference, O best of sages." (Padma Purāṇa, Pātāla-khaṇḍa, 50.53–55)

Beginning with Brahma-sūtra 2.2.37, "patyur asāmañjasyāt" [because of the incongruity, in the Śaiva doctrine, of the Lord as both instrumental and independent cause], through the commentaries on several successive sūtras refuting the (tāntrika) Śaiva doctrine, the author of the Govinda-bhāṣya, at the opening of his commentary on Brahma-sūtra 2.2.42, writes: "Now the doctrine of Śakti is refuted. The Śāktas hold that Śakti alone, endowed with the qualities of omniscience, true resolve, and the like, is the cause of the universe. In order to determine whether this is possible or not, Vyāsadeva introduces Brahma-sūtra 2.2.42, 'utpattyasambhavāt' [because the origination (of the universe from Śakti alone) is impossible], to refute this conclusion of the pūrva-pakṣins (that is, the Śāktas) that the creation of the universe from such a Śakti alone is possible." The Govinda-bhāṣya on this sūtra further states: "Here too, since it is opposed to the Veda, the causal status of Śakti [with regard to the universe] must be established, if at all, by inference alone." — that is, since the doctrine of Śakti-as-cause is itself opposed to the Veda, its status as the cause of the universe can only be conjectured by inference, never established by direct scriptural authority. The commentary then continues: creation of the universe from Śakti alone is not possible; a Puruṣa (Person) who bestows grace upon Śakti must necessarily be admitted. But even if one holds that it is Śakti, thus graced by the Puruṣa, that is Brahman, the defect of the Śakti-doctrine is not thereby removed. To demonstrate this, Vyāsadeva says: "Nor, again, [can Śakti be the cause,] on account of the absence of an instrument [in the impersonal Śakti]." (Brahma-sūtra 2.2.43) The commentary on this sūtra explains: even granting that a Puruṣa bestows grace upon Śakti, that Puruṣa himself possesses no instrument or organ (karaṇa) suited to the creation of the universe (since, according to the Śākta view, the ultimate Reality is formless and without qualities); hence even his "grace" is inexplicable. And if it be said that this Puruṣa possesses eternal qualities such as knowledge and will, then the Śākta doctrine itself cannot stand at all. "Or, [it might be objected that] there is no such prohibition, on account of the presence of consciousness and the like [in that Puruṣa]." (Brahma-sūtra 2.2.44) The Govinda-bhāṣya on this sūtra states: "If it be said that this Puruṣa does indeed possess eternal instruments such as knowledge and will, then this very objection is withdrawn, for this amounts to nothing but an admission of the Vedāntic doctrine of Brahman as cause — since, in that case, the creation of the universe is being attributed to precisely such a Puruṣa [that is, to a personal Brahman, not to impersonal Śakti]." That is: if that Puruṣa does indeed possess eternal knowledge, will, and instrumentality, then this simply becomes absorbed into the Vedāntic doctrine of Brahman as cause; and since creation is thereby attributed to such a Puruṣa, the doctrine of Śakti-as-sole-cause can no longer stand.

After the commentary on this Brahma-sūtra 2.2.44, at the opening of the commentary on the next sūtra, the Govinda-bhāṣya states: "He now concludes that the doctrine of Śakti alone as cause is to be disregarded entirely by those who desire the highest good (liberation)." — that is, in the concluding sūtra of this second pāda of the second adhyāya of the Brahma-sūtra, Vyāsadeva declares that the doctrine of Śakti alone as cause is to be wholly disregarded by those who desire liberation. This concluding sūtra is: "And because of the mutual contradiction [among the Śākta scriptures themselves]." (Brahma-sūtra 2.2.45) The Govinda-bhāṣya on this sūtra states: "The doctrine of Śakti is worthless, being opposed to all Śruti, Smṛti, and reasoning. As the Smṛti says: 'Śruti, Smṛti, and reasoning alike declare that the Supreme Lord is the Supreme Reality; whoever speaks contrary to this, there is none more base than he.' By the word 'and' [in the sūtra], the reason already given in the sūtra 'utpattyasambhavāt' is also included and summed up. Thus, because of the thorn-like defects found in the Sāṅkhya and similar paths, those who seek the highest good should abide only in the path of Vedānta, which is free of such defects." — In sum: being opposed to all Śruti, Smṛti, and reasoning, the doctrine of Śakti is worthless. It is declared in Smṛti-scripture that Śruti, Smṛti, and reasoning all alike declare the Supreme Lord (Īśvara) to be the Supreme Reality; none is more base than he who speaks contrary to this. In this Smṛti-verse, the word "and" incorporates by reference the reason already stated in the Brahma-sūtra "utpattyasambhavāt." Therefore, those who desire the highest good should abandon the thorn-ridden paths such as Sāṅkhya, and take refuge solely in the flawless path of Vedānta.

On this point, a verse from the Padma Purāṇa is worth noting. In the entry for the word "pāṣaṇḍa" (heretic) in the dictionary Śabda-kalpa-druma, several statements of Sadāśiva to the Goddess are cited from chapter 42 of the Uttara-khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa. The very first of these statements is: "Those who, deluded by ignorance, declare some other deity to be the Supreme Reality, apart from Nārāyaṇa, worshipped by the whole universe — they indeed are heretics (pāṣaṇḍī)." — that is, those people, deluded by ignorance, who declare some deity other than the universally-worshipped Nārāyaṇa to be the Supreme Reality, are themselves heretics.

In any case, in his commentaries on these Brahma-sūtras, Śrīpāda Nimbārkācārya too has refuted the doctrine of Śakti as cause.

A. Tāntrika Kālī Is Not a Vedic Deity

One further point deserves consideration. That Śakti which the tāntrikas declare to be the cause of the universe, and whom they worship, is "Kālī." She is Śiva's Śakti or consort. Regarding this Kālī, the Kālī-tantra states: "Seated upon the breast of Mahādeva, whose form has become like a corpse (śava-rūpa), surrounded on every side by fierce, terrifying jackals, absorbed in reverse coition with Mahākāla..." (Kālī-tantra, quoted in the Tantra-sāra, cited in the Śabda-kalpa-druma dictionary) This Kālī stands upon the breast of Mahādeva, whose form has become like a corpse; on every side of her range fierce, howling jackals; and she is engaged in reverse sexual union with Mahākāla.

It has already been shown that one of the names of the Vedic goddess Durgā is likewise "Kālī." In the Devī-māhātmya of the Veda-conforming Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa too, the Goddess is called "Kālī" in many places. But nowhere in any Veda-conforming text is it said that this Vedic Kālī ever stands upon the breast of her own husband Śiva. Nor have the tāntrikas themselves ever cited any Veda-conforming scriptural statement in support of this. This is solely the doctrine of Śākta Tantra — a Tantra which, as Swami Jagadīśvarānanda himself has stated, arose in Bengal itself. It is therefore easily understood that the tāntrikas' Kālī is not a Vedic deity. This is also known from a certain practice among the tāntrikas themselves, which is now described. Śrī Durgā is a Vedic deity; her form and mode of worship are described in the Veda-conforming Purāṇas. A certain tāntrika, called "Tantra-samrāṭ" [Emperor of Tantra], made known that even the tāntrikas perform Durgā-pūjā following the Purāṇas — but that they worship their own Kālī according to Tantra-doctrine. From this it is clearly understood that the form and mode of worship of the tāntrikas' Kālī are described in no Veda-conforming Purāṇa whatsoever; had they been so described, the tāntrikas would have performed Kālī-pūjā according to the Purāṇas as well, just as they do Durgā-pūjā. This is itself excellent proof that the tāntrika Kālī is not a Vedic deity. It is said that nowadays some tāntrikas have even begun introducing tāntrika practices into Durgā-pūjā itself.

The tāntrikas' Kālī is one of the ten Mahāvidyās — indeed the very first of them to be named. According to what has already been quoted and discussed above from Swami Jagadīśvarānandajī's introduction to the Caṇḍī, it is known that these ten Mahāvidyās, Kālī included, are themselves conceptions of the Veda-opposed Buddhists, and that Kālī's mantras too are derived from Buddhist Tantra. Since the Buddhists are opposed to the Veda, there can be no doubt whatsoever that this "Kālī," conceived by them and worshipped by Hindu tāntrikas, is not a Vedic deity at all. The Tantra-texts composed in Bengal in the tradition of Buddhist Tantra give particular prominence to the subject of Kālī; it is thus known that these Tantra-texts too are non-Vedic and opposed to the Veda. Professor Brajendracandra Bhaṭṭācārya writes, on p. 244 of his Śākta Padāvalī, that "Kālī" is a "purely tāntrika goddess" — that is, she is a conception belonging solely to the tāntrikas, with no mention of her whatsoever in Vedic texts.

Here is a statement from the aforementioned book Tantra-paricaya by the learned Sukhamaya Bhaṭṭācārya Śāstrī, holder of the title Saptatīrtha. Saptatīrtha writes: "Tantra-śāstra runs alongside the Śruti in the land of India (p. ka)... just as much may be found in Tantra-śāstra as is found in the Śruti — the Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas, Upaniṣads and the like (p. kha)." Saptatīrtha does not say that Tantra-śāstra is a limb of the Śruti, or that it follows the Śruti or the Veda. He says only that Tantra-śāstra runs alongside the Śruti, and that much may be found in Tantra-śāstra just as in the Śruti. Just as the Śruti contains much on ritual (karma-kāṇḍa) and on liberation (mokṣa), so too Tantra-texts contain much on similar subjects — but this does not make Śruti and Tantra one and the same, undifferentiated thing. The nature of liberation, and the means of attaining liberation, as described in the Śruti, are not described in the same way in Tantra-texts. Therefore, even where Tantra and Śruti do not differ on the topic under discussion in a given instance, a complete difference remains between them regarding the means (upāya) and the goal (upeya) [of spiritual life]. From this too it is known that Tantra does not follow the Veda, but is rather opposed to it.

The aforementioned Professor Jāhnavīkumāra Cakravartī writes, on p. 17 of his book Śākta-padāvalī o Śakti-sādhanā: "Two distinct streams are found within Indian culture — 'daiva' and 'āsura,' that is, 'Vedic' and 'tāntrika.' One is divine or Vedic, the other demonic or tāntrika. One is male-centered, the other mother-centered. Āryan society is male-centered; their principal deity is male. The other stream, therefore, belongs to some non-Āryan people." Professor Cakravartī has thus clearly stated that Śākta Tantra is non-Vedic.

Professor Brajendracandra Bhaṭṭācārya of Gobardanga Hindu College writes in his Śākta Padāvalī: "No path whatsoever that leads to the attainment of the highest goal (paramārtha) is itself called the 'path of Tantra.' 'Tantra' properly refers only to the mode of worship pertaining to Śiva and Śakti." (p. 22) "From which era tāntrika worship-practice has been current in India cannot be stated with any certainty. The ancient Śruti-saṃhitās mention the fourteen vidyās, but make no mention of Tantra at all. The Purāṇas too say nothing about Tantra. It is true that references to the tāntrika practices of māraṇa (killing by black magic), uccāṭana (driving away), vaśīkaraṇa (subjugation) and similar malevolent rites are found in the Atharva-veda-saṃhitā, but the other principal characteristics of Tantra are not found there. Tantra-śāstra, therefore, cannot be accepted as ancient Āryan scripture. It may be surmised, however, that practices resembling tāntrika observances were current among the Dravidian and similar peoples from ancient times, and it is generally believed that the Āryas adopted these practices and systematized them into rules. The tāntrikas themselves, of course, believe that all tāntrika practice is Vedic, and that Tantra itself originated from the Veda. It is out of the conviction that whatever is Vedically-grounded must be beyond error that they make such claims; underlying this conviction, too, is the notion that Vedic culture represents the very highest mark of civilization. For this reason they call Tantra an Āgama-scripture — a branch of the Veda." (p. 23) "Whatever debate may exist as to whether Tantra is Vedically-grounded, there can be no doubt that Tantra represents a confluence of Āryan and non-Āryan currents of thought. It was the tāntrikas themselves who conceived the form of the world-mother goddess Kālikā." (p. 10) On pp. 3–5 of his book, he shows that Śakti-worship was conceived by the mother-worshipping, non-Āryan peoples. In the Vedic age, the division of the people of India into Ārya and non-Ārya was extremely sharp, and the non-Āryas were objects of the Āryas' hostility and contempt.

Professor Bhaṭṭācārya further writes, on p. 24 of his Śākta Padāvalī: "The Mahānirvāṇa-tantra, the most celebrated Tantra-text in Bengal, itself states, regarding the efficacy of Tantra, that mantras have, over time, become as impotent as a snake stripped of its venom. In the ages of Satya, Tretā, and Dvāpara, such mantras were efficacious, but now they have become like a person possessing all the sense-organs yet incapable of performing his own proper function — this is what it observes regarding the Kali-age." Vedic mantras too, he notes, are much the same. Just as a barren woman bears no child, so too the performance of other mantric rites in this age becomes mere futile labor, yielding no fruit at all. In the Kali-age, whoever wishes to attain perfection through the injunctions of other scriptures is like a fool who, driven by thirst, digs a well on the very bank of the Gaṅgā. In the Kali-age, only the mantras enjoined in Tantra bear swift fruit; these alone are efficacious in japa, sacrifice, and every other rite. "This very statement itself proves that Tantra is not Vedically-grounded."

In any case, from the account given above, it is known that Tantra-śāstra cannot be accepted as Āryan scripture (that is, Veda-conforming scripture). The tāntrikas themselves merely believe it to be Veda-conforming; but that it is not so is shown by Professor Bhaṭṭācārya's own reference to the Śruti-saṃhitās. It has also been shown that Tantra is not Vedically-grounded.

In any case, no mention or description of the tāntrikas' ten Mahāvidyās is found in any Veda-conforming text. Only in the tāntrikas' own Muṇḍamālā-tantra is mention of the ten Mahāvidyās found (see Tantra-sāra, p. 14). It seems likely that the ten Mahāvidyās of Buddhist Tantra found their place in the Muṇḍamālā-tantra.

From the Tantra-sāra text (p. 14), it is known that according to the Mālinī-vijaya-tantra, the Mahāvidyās number twelve, not ten: namely, Kālī, Nīlā, Mahādurgā, Tvaritā, Chinnamastā, Vāgvādinī, Annapūrṇā, Pratyaṅgirā, Kāmākhyāvāsinī, Bālā, Mātaṅgī, and Śailavāsinī, and so on. According to the tāntrika text Siddha-dhāmala, the Mahāvidyās number a hundred thousand: "A hundred thousand Mahāvidyās are spoken of in Tantra and elsewhere." Among all of these, the principal ones are the ten Mahāvidyās (see p. 25 of Professor Jāhnavīkumāra Cakravartī's Śākta-padāvalī o Śakti-sādhanā).

§63. The Tāntrika Pīṭha-sthānas

One further matter deserves mention here in passing. Swami Jagadīśvarānanda, in the introduction to his edition of Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī (p. 25), writes: "The greater number of the pīṭha-sthānas [sacred seats] are located within the land of Bengal itself."

According to the tāntrika Śāktas, there are fifty-one pīṭha-sthānas. From the evidence cited in the Śabda-kalpa-druma dictionary, it is known that a description of these fifty-one pīṭhas is found in the Tantra-text called Tantra-cūḍāmaṇi. On this subject, the Śabda-kalpa-druma further notes: "Other pīṭhas and the like are to be found described in chapters 10.50–61 of the Kālī Purāṇa."

The name "Kālī Purāṇa" does not appear in the list of Veda-conforming Purāṇas and Upapurāṇas. From Swami Jagadīśvarānanda's introduction to the Caṇḍī (p. 19), it is known that Nārāyaṇadeva composed a "Kālikā-purāṇa" in the Bengali language; the "Kālī Purāṇa" mentioned in the Śabda-kalpa-druma is presumably likewise the composition of some tāntrika author.

In any case, no mention of the fifty-one pīṭhas is found in any Veda-conforming text. Swami Jagadīśvarānanda, in his introduction to the Caṇḍī (p. 22), writes: "The Caṇḍī is recited regularly at the fifty-one Devī-pīṭhas or centers of Śakti-sādhanā mentioned in the Mahābhārata." Regarding this, it must be said that certain distinguished scholars have observed that some particular accounts regarding the Devī are found only in the version of the Mahābhārata current in Bengal, and are not found in versions of the Mahābhārata current elsewhere in India. It is entirely possible that these particular passages were inserted into the Mahābhārata by some person or persons of Bengal itself.

In any case, according to the tāntrikas, the origin of the fifty-one pīṭhas is explained as follows. Bhagavatī, the wife of Śiva, was the daughter of Prajāpati Dakṣa. Dakṣa was once performing a sacrifice, to which Śiva had not been invited. But Bhagavatī became intensely eager to witness that sacrifice, and asked Mahādeva's permission — which he refused to grant. Then, in order to extract permission from her husband by frightening him, she manifested herself before Śiva in the form of what the tāntrikas call the ten Mahāvidyās. She then went to the site of Dakṣa's sacrifice; but, deeply wounded by Dakṣa's conduct there, she gave up her body on that very spot. Mahādeva, learning of this, took up the Goddess's corpse upon his own head and wandered here and there in his grief. Then, as her body was severed piece by piece by Viṣṇu's discus, wherever a portion of the Goddess's body fell, that place became transformed into a pīṭha.

No such account is found in any Veda-conforming text. The account of Dakṣa's sacrifice is related in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, cantos 4, chapters 2 through 7. That Śiva was not invited to Dakṣa's sacrifice; that Bhagavatī became intensely eager to go to her father's house; that she was refused Śiva's permission and became extremely angry as a result — all of this is indeed related in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. But no mention whatsoever is made there of her manifesting the ten Mahāvidyās. That the Goddess gave up her body at the site of Dakṣa's sacrifice, and that she was later reborn in the Himalayan region as the daughter of Menakā and once again attained union with Mahādeva, is likewise related in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. But there is nothing whatsoever in the Bhāgavatam about Śiva wandering here and there carrying the Goddess's corpse, nor about the corpse being severed by Viṣṇu's discus and its various parts falling in various places. Nor do the commentators on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam cite any similar account from any other Purāṇa or text in their commentaries. From this it is understood that no account differing from that given in the Bhāgavata is to be found in any other Veda-conforming text such as the Purāṇas. The reason for saying so is this: in many places in their commentaries on the Bhāgavatam, the commentators do cite accounts from other Purāṇas, and where such accounts differ from the Bhāgavata's own account, they attempt to reconcile the discrepancy. Had the Mahābhārata indeed contained any mention of the fifty-one pīṭhas, it would be natural to expect that the commentators would have mentioned it.

The aforementioned Saptatīrtha writes, in his book Tantra-paricaya (p. 37): "In the Bhagavatī-gītā contained within the Mahā-bhāgavata, in the dialogue between Śrī Pārvatī and Himālaya, many such statements are found. It is further stated there that the Great Śakti herself assumed the form of the ten Mahāvidyās at the time of her departure for Dakṣa's sacrifice, in order to bewilder Śiva." Here Saptatīrtha refers only to the Bhagavatī-gītā of the Mahā-bhāgavata; he mentions neither the Mahābhārata, nor Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, nor any other text. We ourselves are unfamiliar with this text he calls the "Mahā-bhāgavata." No text by this name appears in the list of Veda-conforming Purāṇas and Upapurāṇas. It seems likely that, like the Kālī Purāṇa, this too is a work composed by some tāntrika author. The reason for this surmise is as follows: in his citation, Saptatīrtha writes, "In the Bhagavatī-gītā contained within the Mahā-bhāgavata... many such statements are found" — but just before this statement, he had cited similar statements from the Picchilā-tantra, the Gāyatrī-tantra, the Navaratna, and the Saptabheda-tantra; it is these very statements, he says, that find their counterpart in the Bhagavatī-gītā of the Mahā-bhāgavata. These aforementioned Tantra-statements are not in accord with Vedic scripture; it is therefore quite possible that these Tantra-texts too were composed by tāntrikas themselves.

One further point deserves mention here. It has already been shown that the ten Mahāvidyās are themselves conceptions of the Veda-opposed Buddhists. There is therefore no possibility whatsoever that any mention of the ten Mahāvidyās would appear in any Veda-conforming text. Nor is any custom of worshipping the ten Mahāvidyās found among any Veda-conforming community of practitioners.

The ten Mahāvidyās are intimately connected with the fifty-one pīṭhas — for, according to the tāntrikas, it was precisely by manifesting herself in the form of the ten Mahāvidyās that Bhagavatī went to Dakṣa's house and gave up her body there; and as Śiva wandered about carrying the Goddess's corpse, the various portions of that corpse, severed by Viṣṇu's discus, fell in various places and transformed those places into pīṭhas. We do not know whether any such account exists in any Buddhist Tantra-text. It seems likely that it was the Hindu tāntrikas themselves who, taking the Puranic account as their occasion, wove into it certain further details of their own invention, thereby creating both the account of the origin of the ten Mahāvidyās and, in connection with it, the account of the fifty-one pīṭhas — and it was probably through their own efforts that pīṭha-sthānas came to be established, or imagined, in various places. The following account seems to support this surmise.

A. The Conception of Śrī-kṣetra [Puri] as a Pīṭha-sthāna

The text called Tantra-cūḍāmaṇi gives an account of the fifty-one pīṭhas. Regarding one of these pīṭha-sthānas, it states: "In Utkala (Orissa), the navel-region is called Virajā-kṣetra; the great goddess there is Vimalā, and Jagannātha is her Bhairava." — that is, since the Goddess's navel-portion fell at Śrī-kṣetra, that place too is reckoned a pīṭha-sthāna. At this pīṭha, Jagannātha is held to be Bhairava (that is, Mahādeva), and Vimalā Devī is held to be the Mahādevī or Bhairavī. According to the tāntrikas, at every pīṭha, Mahādeva presides in the form of Bhairava, and Mahādevī in the form of Bhairavī.

On this point, the following must be said. Mention of Śrī Jagannātha as the dāru-brahma [the "wood-Brahman," the deity embodied in sacred wood] is found already in the Ṛg Veda: "That wood-form which floats without form on the far shore of the sea — take hold of it, O son of Duḥsaha [or, 'O sufferer'], and by it go to the further shore." (Ṛg Veda 10.155.3) In his commentary on this mantra, Śrīpāda Sāyaṇācārya writes: "'Ado' — that wood-formed body of the deity known as Puruṣottama, existing in a distant place, devoid of any [ordinary] human form, floating upon the surface of the sea, upon the water, on the far shore of the ocean — 'that wood, O one afflicted by sorrow, difficult to grasp by anyone' — 'take hold of' it, that is, worship it as a support; by means of that wood-formed deity, thus worshipped, 'go to the further shore,' that is, attain the most excellent, transcendent Vaiṣṇava world, difficult indeed to cross over to." Here, the worship of the dāru-brahma (Śrī Jagannātha) is said to lead to the attainment of the most excellent Vaiṣṇava world — not to the attainment of Śiva-loka. "Vaiṣṇava-loka" means "the world belonging to Viṣṇu, or Viṣṇu's own realm." It is therefore indicated that the dāru-brahma known as Puruṣottama (Śrī Jagannātha) is none other than Viṣṇu-tattva, Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself.

In the second chapter of the Antya-khaṇḍa of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, in verses 313–392, an account from the Veda-conforming Skanda Purāṇa is related. It states that Śrī Śiva, after dwelling for a long time in Kāśī with Pārvatī, once went to Kailāsa. A king of Kāśī, called Kāśīrāja, conceived an evil intention: he began worshipping Śiva in order to defeat Kṛṣṇa in battle. Śrī Śiva appeared to the king and said, "Ask a boon." The king then said: "Grant me one boon, O Lord, at your feet: that I may defeat Kṛṣṇa himself in battle." No one has the capacity to fathom the character of Bholānātha [Śiva, "the innocent Lord"]. He said to the king: "Go forth into battle against Kṛṣṇa; I myself, with my hosts, taking up my Pāśupata weapon, shall follow behind you." The king marched against Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and Śiva went along with him. But by the power of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's Sudarśana discus, Kāśīrāja was slain, and his city of Kāśī too was reduced to ashes. Seeing this, Śiva, enraged, released his Pāśupata weapon; but seeing the blazing power of the Sudarśana, the Pāśupata weapon fled in fear. The Sudarśana then advanced toward Śiva himself, and Śiva began to flee in terror. At last Śiva realized that none but Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself had the power to protect him from the Sudarśana. He then took refuge in Śrī Kṛṣṇa and began to offer him prayers of praise. Pleased by his hymn, Śrī Kṛṣṇa withdrew the power of his discus, granted Śiva his darśana, and, referring to Śiva's own conduct, offered him some rebuke as well. Frightened, Śiva confessed his own helplessness, and finally said: "Now command me, Lord — where shall I dwell? To whom but you can I turn?" Pleased, Śrī Kṛṣṇa said to Śrī Śiva: "On the shore of the sea, beneath a banyan tree, is a place called Nīlācala — the field of Śrī Puruṣottama, a most enchanting place" — and, "there I have my secret abode (gopya-purī)." Śrī Kṛṣṇa told Śiva: to the north of my own secret abode at Śrī-kṣetra there is a divine place called Ekāmravana. "Go there with all your retinue. Ekāmravana is the name of that enchanting place — there you shall become the Lord of ten million liṅgas. That city too is beautiful, like unto Vārāṇasī itself." Śrī Kṛṣṇa then described the glory of Śrī-kṣetra. Hearing this, Śrī Śiva fell at Śrī Kṛṣṇa's feet and asked permission to dwell at Śrī-kṣetra. Śrī Kṛṣṇa embraced him and said: "Listen, Śiva! You are equal to my own body. Whoever is dear to you is dearest to me as well. Where you are, there I am too — in this there is no difference. I grant you a place in every kṣetra. You are, in every way, the guardian of every holy field belonging to me; I grant you authority over every kṣetra. Ekāmravana, which I have given to you — dwell there in complete fullness. That field is supremely dear to me; there, out of my own love, you shall dwell for all time." Thus Śrī Śiva took up residence in Ekāmravana. Ekāmravana is itself another, ancient name for Bhuvaneśvara.

From this account given in the Skanda Purāṇa, it is known that the dāru-brahma of Śrī-kṣetra, Śrī Jagannātha, is Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself, not Śiva. In order to be freed from the Sudarśana discus, Śrī Śiva took refuge in Śrī Kṛṣṇa and, offering his hymn of praise, at last said: "Forgive my fault, Lord — I have taken refuge in you." Then — "hearing Śaṅkara's hymn, the Lord of all beings withdrew the discus and appeared before him. All around, cowherd boys and gopīs shone in splendor; with a slight smile upon his lips, he spoke these words." This very Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vraja's king, surrounded by cowherds and gopīs, is present at Śrī-kṣetra in the form of Śrī Jagannātha, and there he performs, together with those very cowherds and gopīs, his own secret pastimes (gopya-līlā). It is for this very reason that he told Śrī Śiva: "there I have my secret abode." The Veda-conforming Śrī Vaiṣṇava-tantra declares: "Whatever pastimes he performs in Mathurā, Dvārakā, and Gokula, the very same pastimes does the Lord Kṛṣṇa, dwelling at Nīlācala, likewise perform." — that is, whatever pastimes he performs in Mathurā, Dvārakā, and Gokula, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa dwelling at Nīlācala performs those same pastimes there as well. Thus it is seen that the account given in the Ṛg Veda and the account given in the Skanda Purāṇa are in no way whatsoever contradictory, since the Skanda Purāṇa is itself a Veda-conforming Mahāpurāṇa. There is not the slightest contradiction regarding the essential nature (svarūpa-tattva) of Śrī Jagannātha, present at Nīlācala. Even to this very day, the service and worship of Śrī Jagannātha is performed with the awareness that he is Śrī Kṛṣṇa; it is never performed with any Śiva-mantra or tāntrika Bhairava-mantra. It is this very Jagannātha-form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa that the tāntrikas have designated as Bhairava (that is, tāntrika Śiva), thereby declaring Śrī Jagannātha's field of residence, Śrī-kṣetra, to be a tāntrika pīṭha-sthāna.

It is not the case that the tāntrikas hesitate to declare some deity to be a tāntrika Bhairava and its place of residence a tāntrika pīṭha; in some cases, it is presumably even easier for them to designate a Vedic Śiva and a Vedic goddess already established at a given site as a tāntrika Bhairava and tāntrika Bhairavī, and their site of residence as a tāntrika pīṭha — especially convenient if they are also able to gain control over the service and worship at such sites. In some cases, it is not even impossible that they may have newly established some deity's image and then declared that place to be a tāntrika pīṭha-sthāna. Whether such things have indeed occurred, or have never occurred anywhere, is something no one, I think, could say with absolute certainty.

B. A Discussion of the Devī-bhāgavata

In a text called the Devī-bhāgavata, an account is found of Śiva wandering here and there carrying the Goddess's corpse upon his shoulder, of the parts of the Goddess's body falling in various places after being severed by Viṣṇu's discus, and of those places being transformed into pīṭhas (Devī-bhāgavata 7.30.42–47). This text also provides its own list of the pīṭhas (7.30.53–84) — but here, the number of pīṭhas given is one hundred and eight, not fifty-one. Nor is there any mention in this Devī-bhāgavata of Bhagavatī assuming the form of the ten Mahāvidyās. But this "Devī-bhāgavata" is itself a Śākta Tantra-text, not a Vedic text at all. Its name, too, does not appear in the list of Veda-conforming Purāṇas and Upapurāṇas. That it is indeed a Śākta Tantra-text is amply evidenced within the very text itself. A detailed discussion is not possible here, but a few points are noted briefly.

It has already been shown, citing the statements of scholars expert in Tantra-śāstra, that the principal deity of the Veda-conforming Āryan people is male, and that the Veda and Veda-conforming texts likewise give primacy to male deities. But the principal deity of the non-Āryan peoples is female, and it was they who were the original propagators of mother-worship. It is this mother-tantra, conceived by these non-Āryan peoples, that the Hindu tāntrikas have adopted and further developed. Hence, in Hindu Tantra-texts as well, the mother-goddess is given absolute, overriding primacy, while the male deity's status is diminished. This is itself the fundamental characteristic of Śākta Tantra. This characteristic is fully and completely manifest in the Devī-bhāgavata. In this text, the Goddess's absolute, overriding glory is celebrated: it is the Goddess who creates, maintains, and dissolves the universe; the Goddess is the Supreme Brahman; Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Śiva, and the rest perform their own respective functions only by her grace. In the Devī-bhāgavata, the Goddess herself declares that before creation, she alone existed, and nothing else existed at all — and that her own name is itself the Supreme Brahman: "I alone existed before, O king of the earth; nothing else whatsoever existed. That very Self-form is consciousness and being; it bears the single name, the Supreme Brahman." (7.32.2) In all scripture she alone is declared to be the cause of all causes, the origin of all principles, the very embodiment of being-consciousness-bliss: "In all scriptures she is proclaimed the cause of all causes, the origin of all principles, the embodiment of being-consciousness-bliss." (7.32.25)

All of this is speech opposed to the Veda — the doctrine of Śākta Tantra. There can therefore be no doubt whatsoever that the Devī-bhāgavata is not a Vedic text at all, but a Śākta Tantra-text.

From the sixteenth chapter of the first canto of the Devī-bhāgavata, it is known that whatever the Goddess taught to Viṣṇu, Viṣṇu told to Brahmā, Brahmā told to Nārada, and Nārada told to Vyāsadeva. It was on this basis, the text claims, that Vyāsadeva composed this very "Devī-bhāgavata," comprising twelve cantos. From this text it is claimed that Vyāsadeva himself taught this Devī-bhāgavata to his own son, Śukadeva (1.3.36). It is further claimed that Sūta Gosvāmī was present at that time, and, having learned the truths of the Devī-bhāgavata, later narrated them to the sages headed by Śaunaka in Naimiṣāraṇya (1.2.3–4).

All of this stands in direct contradiction to the account of Purāṇic history (Purāṇetihāsa) given by Vyāsadeva himself elsewhere. Through this claim, the author of the Devī-bhāgavata wishes to have the world believe that the Devī-bhāgavata is Vyāsadeva's own composition. But there is not a shred of evidence that Vyāsadeva ever wrote any Śākta Tantra-text at all. In the Purāṇetihāsa he himself composed, he nowhere speaks of the Goddess's absolute, overriding glory; nowhere does Vyāsadeva state that the Goddess is the cause of the universe's creation, maintenance, and dissolution, or that the Goddess is the Supreme Brahman. In his Brahma-sūtra, on the contrary, he specifically refutes precisely such a doctrine.

The true state of affairs is this: some Śākta tāntrika author wrote this text, and, in order to lend it authority, proclaimed it to be Vyāsadeva's own composition. It would not be at all unnatural to surmise that some such tāntrika scholar also inserted numerous accounts concerning the Goddess into texts such as the Mahābhārata.

That Rāmacandra, on Nārada's instruction and with Nārada officiating as priest, performed the autumn (Āśvina-month) Durgā-worship for the sake of slaying Rāvaṇa is likewise related in chapter 3.30 of the Devī-bhāgavata — yet no such account exists at all in Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa.

Regarding the dharma of the Kali-age, the Devī-bhāgavata declares: meditation upon the Goddess's lotus feet (6.11.57). This too is a statement opposed to Veda-conforming scripture.

The Devī-bhāgavata states that the Goddess gave Ramākānta (Viṣṇu) a mantra of ultimate truth (4.6.59), and says that by chanting this mantra, Viṣṇu would have no fear of death, nor any fear of the power of time (3.6.60) — and that when the Goddess brings about the final dissolution of all things, Viṣṇu himself will merge into the Goddess (3.6.61). Viṣṇu's fear of death! Fear of the power of time! Viṣṇu's dissolution into the Goddess at the time of universal annihilation!! — a most extraordinary statement, utterly opposed to the Veda.

In the Tantra-sāra of Āgamavāgīśa Kṛṣṇānanda, an account is found of the six cakras — with Kailāsa, Sahasrāra, and Bindu-sthāna and the like — of the kuṇḍalinī power, and of the practice based upon these six cakras, together with the fruits of such practice; the very same account is found in the Devī-bhāgavata as well (7.35.27–62). This too is proof that the Devī-bhāgavata is itself a Veda-opposed Śākta Tantra-text. No Veda-conforming text anywhere gives instruction in practice based on the six cakras and the like, in the manner of the tāntrikas; nor is any such practice found among any Veda-conforming community of practitioners.

Such Veda-opposed statements are found in many places throughout the Devī-bhāgavata. Despite this, the Devī-bhāgavata claims that this Veda-opposed text was composed by Vyāsadeva himself. Apart from this claim made within the Devī-bhāgavata itself, if there existed any corroborating hint in any other text actually written by Vyāsadeva, then this claim of the Devī-bhāgavata's might at least be worthy of consideration. But no such hint is to be found anywhere at all. It is known from the Matsya Purāṇa and similar texts that the very Lord whose own words constitute the Veda has himself manifested the Purāṇas and similar texts in the form of Vyāsa. It is likewise known from Veda-conforming scripture — and Vyāsadeva himself has said as much — that whatever opposes the Veda is adharma. Given this, it is for the wise to judge for themselves whether it is credible that Vyāsadeva himself propagated a Tantra-text that is both opposed to the Veda and, in truth, a teacher of adharma.

And yet the tāntrikas claim that the Devī-bhāgavata is itself the "Śrīmad-Bhāgavata" belonging to the Veda-conforming eighteen Mahāpurāṇas! In more than one place within the Devī-bhāgavata itself, it is called "Śrīmad-Bhāgavata." According to the tāntrikas, the "Śrīmad-Bhāgavata" spoken of by Vyāsadeva [i.e., the actual Bhāgavata Purāṇa we know] is merely an Upapurāṇa (a secondary Purāṇa), not a Mahāpurāṇa — while this Devī-bhāgavata is the true Mahāpurāṇa!! And yet the principal characteristics of Śrīmad-Bhāgavata described in the uncreated Matsya, Vāmana, Padma, Skanda, and other Purāṇas are entirely absent from this Devī-bhāgavata.

In any case, from the brief discussion given above, it is known that the Devī-bhāgavata is a Śākta Tantra-text — neither a Mahāpurāṇa, nor a Purāṇa, nor even an Upapurāṇa. Since all Śākta Tantra-texts have been written in Bengal by particular tāntrika scholars, it may likewise be surmised that the Devī-bhāgavata too was written in Bengal by some tāntrika Śākta scholar.

§64. The Durgā-Kālī of Vedic Texts Is Not the Tāntrika Durgā-Kālī

It has already been shown that, in Veda-conforming scripture, the Vedic goddess Śrī Durgā too bears the names Kālī, Caṇḍī, Mahāmāyā, and the like. Citing these very names, the tāntrikas claim that the Durgā, Caṇḍī, Kālī and so on mentioned in their own Tantra-scriptures are also found in Vedic scripture. But identity of name does not imply identity of substance. The name of the lord of heaven, the king of the gods, is Indra. In this ordinary world too, many men bear the name "Indra." But no ordinary man named Indra in this world is the king of the gods, Indra; nor is the king of the gods, Indra, any particular man of this ordinary world. The essential characteristics of the Vedic deities and of the tāntrika deities bearing the same names are not the same.

§65. The Tāntrikas' Doctrine of Mahāmāyā-tattva

Swami Jagadīśvarānanda, in the introduction to his Caṇḍī (p. 37), writes: "Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa and Śrī Rāmaprasāda have each, in a single sentence, most beautifully clarified the truth of Mahāmāyā: Kālī herself is Brahman. That which the Vedāntins call Brahman, the tāntrikas worship as the very same reality under the name of Mahāmāyā, the world-mother. Brahman and Mahāmāyā are not different — they are one and the same."

On this point, the following must be said. It has already been shown that, according to Swami Jagadīśvarānanda's own statement, Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇadeva practiced sādhana according to the sixty-four Tantras current in Bengal, and that Śākta Tantra itself arose in Bengal; it has also already been shown that these Tantra-texts, written by particular individuals, are themselves opposed to the Veda. Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇadeva was himself a tāntrika practitioner of these Veda-opposed, man-made tāntrika doctrines. Śrī Rāmaprasāda was likewise such a practitioner. Their statements regarding Kālī and Brahman are themselves simply statements of Veda-opposed Tantra-śāstra. It has already been shown, following Swamiji's own statements, that the tāntrikas' worshipped Kālī is not a Vedic deity at all, but a deity conceived by the Veda-opposed Buddhists, and that her worship-mantras too were adopted from Buddhist Tantra itself. How, then, can she possibly be the Brahman spoken of in the Veda?

That which is the cause of the universe's creation, maintenance, and dissolution — that alone the Vedāntins call Brahman. Immediately after the Brahma-sūtra "Athāto brahma-jijñāsā" ["Now, therefore, the inquiry into Brahman"], Vyāsadeva says: "[Brahman is] that from which the origin and so forth [of this universe proceed]." (Brahma-sūtra 1.1.2) This Brahman is defined thus: "That which expands and causes to expand (bṛṃhati, bṛṃhayati) is Brahman." The Śruti characterizes this very Brahman with statements such as "that from which these beings are born" and "from bliss alone are these beings born." Apart from this Brahman, Vyāsadeva has shown, in various Brahma-sūtras and their commentaries, and Śrīpāda Śaṅkara and other ācāryas have likewise shown in their commentaries, that whatever is declared to be the cause of the universe in the Sāṅkhya, Pātañjala, Śaiva, and similar systems of philosophy is not, in truth, the real cause of the universe at all. In his commentary on Brahma-sūtra 1.4.28, "etena sarve vyākhyātā vyākhyātāḥ" ["by this, all [other systems' causal doctrines] are explained [as refuted], having [already] been explained"], Śrīpāda Śaṅkara likewise states that the views of those who declare anything other than the aforementioned Brahman to be the cause of the universe are thereby refuted as opposed to the Veda. No Vedāntic ācārya anywhere states that the Durgā or Kālī spoken of in Vedic texts is Brahman, the cause of the universe. It has already been shown that the author of the Govinda-bhāṣya and Śrīpāda Nimbārkācārya have likewise refuted the doctrine of Śakti as the cause of the universe. For all these reasons, how can Kālī — a non-Vedic deity, conceived by Veda-opposed Buddhist tāntrikas, and worshipped by Hindu tāntrika Śāktas — possibly be the cause of the universe; and how can this Kālī and the Brahman of the Vedāntins possibly be one and identical? The Vedāntins will attach no importance whatsoever to a statement such as "Kālī is Brahman, Brahman is Kālī."

§66. The Avatāras of the Mahāvidyās

In any case, it is now shown that the tāntrikas have also conceived incarnations (avatāras) of their own Mahāvidyās.

It has already been said that Kālī, Tārā, Ṣoḍaśī and the other Mahāvidyās, conceived by Buddhist tāntrikas, have found a place in the Hindu tāntrikas' "Muṇḍamālā"-tantra. From the Śabda-kalpa-druma dictionary, it is known that these same ten Mahāvidyās have found a place in the "Cāmuṇḍā-tantra" as well. In its entry on the Mahāvidyās, the Śabda-kalpa-druma first mentions the ten Mahāvidyās as described in the Cāmuṇḍā-tantra, and immediately afterward mentions certain Mahāvidyās according to the "Mālinī-vijaya-tantra." These are: Kālī, Nīlā, Mahādurgā, Tvaritā, Chinnamastakā, Vāgvādinī, Annapūrṇā, Pratyaṅgirā, Kāmākhyā, Vāsalī [or Bagalā], Bālā, Mātaṅgī, Śailavāsinī, and so on ("ityādyāḥ" — "and others"). This "and others" following the list of thirteen named Mahāvidyās indicates that there are yet further Mahāvidyās beyond those named.

In any case, having listed the Mahāvidyās according to the Mālinī-vijaya-tantra, the Śabda-kalpa-druma continues: "Their status as the ten avatāras is as follows: Prakṛti takes the form of Viṣṇu, and Maheśvara the form of Puruṣa (male); thus, through such distinctions of Prakṛti, Prakṛti has ten divisions: Kālikā is of the form of Kṛṣṇa, and Tāriṇī of the form of Rāma; Bagalā is the form of the Tortoise (Kūrma), and Dhūmāvatī the Fish (Mīna); Chinnamastā is Narasiṃha, and Bhairavī the Boar (Varāha); Sundarī is Jāmadagnya [Paraśurāma], and Bhuvaneśvarī the Dwarf (Vāmana); Kamalā is of the form of Buddha, and Durgā of the form of Kalki. The Goddess Kālī herself is Bhagavatī [the Supreme Female Divinity], while Kṛṣṇa is himself Bhagavān [the Supreme Male Divinity]... [and] in Vraja he takes the form of Kālī." (Muṇḍamālā-tantra, quoted in Śabda-kalpa-druma) The purport of this seems to be: "Prakṛti takes the form of Viṣṇu (that is, Prakṛti herself assumes the Viṣṇu-form; one meaning of the word 'Prakṛti' is the triple-guṇa-natured material nature or māyā, another meaning is 'woman'), while Maheśvara is Puruṣa (from this it is understood that the triple-guṇa-natured Prakṛti, in her Viṣṇu-form, is female, while Maheśvara, or Śiva, is male). Through such distinctions of Prakṛti, there are ten divisions of Prakṛti [as follows]: Kālikā has become the form of Kṛṣṇa — that is, Kṛṣṇa is Kālikā's avatāra; likewise Rāma is Tāriṇī's avatāra, the Tortoise is Bagalā's avatāra, the Fish is Dhūmāvatī's avatāra, Narasiṃha is Chinnamastā's avatāra, the Boar is Bhairavī's avatāra, Jāmadagnya (Paraśurāma) is Sundarī's avatāra, the Dwarf is Bhuvaneśvarī's avatāra, Buddha is Kamalā's avatāra, and Kalki is Durgā's avatāra. Kālī herself is Bhagavatī, while Kṛṣṇa himself is Bhagavān. Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa himself takes the form of Kālī in Vraja."

If, in this passage, "Kālikā" is taken to mean "Kālī," and "Tāriṇī" to mean "Tārā," then we obtain the names of eight Mahāvidyās: Kālikā (Kālī), Bagalā, Tāriṇī (Tārā), Chinnamastā, Bhairavī, Bhuvaneśvarī, Kamalā, and Dhūmāvatī. These eight Mahāvidyās belong among the ten Mahāvidyās conceived by the Buddhists and given a place in the Hindu tāntrikas' Muṇḍamālā-tantra and Cāmuṇḍā-tantra. These eight Mahāvidyās are each declared to have their own avatāras. In the proof-text quoted above, the names of two further avatāra-bearing Mahāvidyās are also given — Durgā (who takes the form of Kalki) and Sundarī (who takes the form of Paraśurāma). Neither of these names is found in the Cāmuṇḍā-tantra, nor in the Mālinī-vijaya-tantra. In the Mālinī-vijaya-tantra's list, where the word "ityādyāḥ" ("and others") indicates that certain further Mahāvidyās exist beyond those named, Durgā and Sundarī may well be included among these unnamed others.

On this point, a statement from the aforementioned Saptatīrtha's book Tantra-paricaya is worth noting. On p. 14 of this book it is written: "The word 'Śrī' is another name for the goddess Ṣoḍaśī, one of the ten Mahāvidyās. Śrī, Kāmeśvarī, Tripurā-sundarī and the like are all names of the goddess Ṣoḍaśī." If, among the avatāra-bearing goddesses named above, "Sundarī" is taken to be "Tripurā-sundarī," then, since Tripurā-sundarī is another name for the goddess Ṣoḍaśī, "Sundarī" too would be identified with "Ṣoḍaśī," one of the ten Mahāvidyās. Further, from the Tantra-paricaya itself it is known — on p. 14 of that book it is stated — that certain goddesses of the Nirvāṇa-tantra's [Nirottara-tantra's] Kula and Kālī-kula are named as follows: "Kālī, Tārā, Chinnamastā, Bhuvanā, Mahiṣamardinī, Tripuṭā [or Tripurā], Ṣoḍaśī, Vidyā, Pratāliṅgā, and..." — and it is likely this "Durgā," mentioned in this Nirottara-tantra list, who is said to have descended as Kalki. From the word "and" ("tathā"), it is understood that the aforementioned—

[Text continues at top of next page:] In any case, in speaking of the ten divisions of Prakṛti — that is, the ten avatāras — the Muṇḍamālā-tantra names these ten avatāras: (1) Kṛṣṇa (Kālikā or Kālī), (2) Rāma (Tāriṇī or Tārā), (3) the Tortoise (Bagalā), (4) the Fish (Dhūmāvatī), (5) Narasiṃha (Chinnamastā), (6) the Boar (Bhairavī), (7) Paraśurāma (Sundarī-Ṣoḍaśī), (8) the Dwarf (Bhuvaneśvarī), (9) Buddha (Kamalā), and (10) Kalki (Durgā). All of these are declared to be avatāras of the Mahāvidyās. According to the Veda, an avatāra is a portion (aṁśa) of the one whose avatāra he is. It has already been shown that nine of these ten avatāra-bearing Mahāvidyās are themselves Mahāvidyās conceived by the Veda-opposed Buddhists. And yet the Muṇḍamālā-tantra declares that these very Mahāvidyās are the source and portion-bearer of the very forms of Godhead — Kṛṣṇa, Rāma, the Fish, Narasiṃha, and the rest — spoken of in the Veda, and that Kṛṣṇa, Rāma, and the others are merely their avatāras — that is, according to the Veda's own terminology, mere "portions" (aṁśas) of these goddesses. Further, all these forms — Kṛṣṇa, Rāma, and the rest — are here declared to be mere divisions of the triple-guṇa-natured Prakṛti. This amounts to an outright denial of the very being-consciousness-bliss (sac-cid-ānanda) nature of Kṛṣṇa, Rāma, and the others as declared in the Veda.

The Muṇḍamālā-tantra states that Kṛṣṇa is the avatāra — and hence the portion — of Kālikā or Kālī. Yet it also states: "The Goddess Kālī herself is Bhagavatī; Kṛṣṇa himself is Bhagavān." According to the Veda, that one who is the source of all others — that one whose own inherent divinity is the very source of the divinity of all other forms of Godhead — is alone called "Svayaṁ Bhagavān" (the Original Personality of Godhead, God Himself). If Kṛṣṇa is merely the avatāra or portion of Kālikā or Kālī, how then can he be Svayaṁ Bhagavān? And again, if Kṛṣṇa is indeed Svayaṁ Bhagavān, and Kālī is indeed Svayaṁ Bhagavatī (the Original Divine Female), then Kālī must be the very consort (kāntā), the consort-potency (kāntā-śakti), of Svayaṁ Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa. She who is Kṛṣṇa's own consort or consort-potency can never be independent of Kṛṣṇa, nor can Kṛṣṇa ever be her avatāra or portion. In any case, immediately after the statement quoted above, the Muṇḍamālā continues: "Svayaṁ Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa himself takes the form of Kālī — in Vraja, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa becomes the form of Kālī." And yet, just before this same passage, it was also said: "Kālikā becomes the form of Kṛṣṇa — Kālī becomes Kṛṣṇa's own form." At one point it is said that Kālī herself becomes Kṛṣṇa — hence Kṛṣṇa is Kālī's portion; at another point it is said that Kṛṣṇa becomes Kālī. In one statement, Kṛṣṇa is Kālī's portion; in another, Kālī is Kṛṣṇa's portion. Are these statements not mutually contradictory? And do they not betray the errors and confusions of the Muṇḍamālā-tantra's author? Since, according to the Veda, Śrī Kṛṣṇa is Svayaṁ Bhagavān, all Vedic forms of Godhead, and all Vedic consort-potencies — including the Vedic Kālī — exist within him alone. Hence, in the sport of his own pastimes, he may manifest himself, at any time, in any form of Godhead or in any consort-potency he pleases. If he ever manifests himself in the form of Kālī, that Kālī would be the true Vedic Kālī — not the tāntrika Kālī who stands upon her husband's chest, absorbed in reverse coition.

The poet Jayadeva, in his work Śrī Gīta-govinda, offers a hymn of praise to the ten avatāras. These ten avatāras are: the Fish, the Tortoise, the Boar, Narasiṃha, the Dwarf, Paraśurāma, Rāma, Haladhara (Balarāma), Buddha, and Kalki. Jayadeva declares that Keśava himself has assumed all these forms. He also states that this Keśava is none other than Śrī Kṛṣṇa: "Salutations to you, O Kṛṣṇa, who assumed these ten forms." (Gīta-govinda 1.16) Jayadeva nowhere says that Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the avatāra or portion of any other form of Godhead. He states, rather, that these ten avatāras are themselves avatāras — portions — of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Herein Śrī Kṛṣṇa's status as Svayaṁ Bhagavān is affirmed, and this is precisely what accords with the Veda. The Muṇḍamālā-tantra, however, declares Kṛṣṇa to be the avatāra or portion of Kālikā or Kālī. This is a statement opposed to the Veda. The Muṇḍamālā-tantra makes no mention of Haladhara (Balarāma) among the ten; instead, it seats Kṛṣṇa in that place, thereby rounding out its own list of ten avatāras of the Mahāvidyās.

It is also necessary to note here that the Vedic view and the tantric view differ regarding the qualities and glory of the avatāra and the source of that avatāra (avatārī). According to the Veda, there is a distinction of quality and glory between the avatāra and its source; but according to Tantra there is no such distinction — according to Tantra, the avatāra and its source are utterly and completely identical. But if they are utterly and completely identical, why then the difference of form, and why the difference of pastime? Why does Kālī perform the rāsa-līlā in the form of Kṛṣṇa, and not in the form of Kālī herself?

It has already been shown that, according to Swami Jagadīśvarānanda, Śākta Tantra arose in Bengal itself. Through discussion of the statements in his own introduction to the Caṇḍī, it has also already been shown that the foundation of the Tantra-texts composed in Bengal is likewise the Buddhist Tantra that flourished so richly in Bengal. Swamiji himself, on p. 10 of his introduction to the Caṇḍī, writes that the two oldest Buddhist Tantra-texts are the Mūlakalpa-tantra and the Samāja-tantra, composed in the first and third centuries CE respectively. The Buddhist Tantra-text called the Sādhanamālā, which speaks of the ten Mahāvidyās, is easily understood to postdate these two oldest Tantra-texts. Whatever other Tantras were composed on the foundation of this Buddhist Tantra may be presumed to be considerably later still. It has already been shown, from Swamiji's own statement, that Nāgojī Bhaṭṭa's Kātyāyanī-tantra was composed no more than about two hundred years before the present day; it is therefore quite modern. The Śākta Tantra-texts composed in Bengal are likewise likely to be similarly modern. It seems that in these man-made, quite recent Tantra-texts, the account of Buddhist Tantra's ten Mahāvidyās has been given particular embellishment, and it is in such Tantra-texts that the Vedic forms of Godhead are declared to be avatāras of the Mahāvidyās. It appears that the very purpose of such Tantra-texts is to diminish the Vedic forms of Godhead — even the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself — in favor of the Mahāvidyās conceived by the Veda-opposed Buddhists. Even today, such conduct is to be observed among certain tāntrikas.

§67. The Yuga-dharma of Kali According to Śākta Tantra

Swami Jagadīśvarānanda, in his prefatory remarks to his edition of Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī, writes: "The present age is a most auspicious time for Śakti-sādhanā. Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, in his own life, demonstrated through his worship of the world-mother that to worship the cause of the universe in the mood of a mother is itself the true dharma of this age." Swamiji himself states that Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa was a tāntrika practitioner. According to Swamiji, tāntrika Śākta sādhana is itself the proper yuga-dharma (the religious duty proper to this age) of the present Kali-yuga. But no Veda-conforming scripture anywhere makes such a claim; rather, they declare that congregational chanting of the holy name (nāma-saṅkīrtana) is the true yuga-dharma of Kali. The Kālasantaraṇa Upaniṣad declares that the chanting of the sixteen-name, thirty-two-syllable mahā-mantra [the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra] is itself the dharma of Kali. The Veda-conforming Purāṇas likewise declare: "The name of Hari, the name of Hari, the name of Hari alone — in the Kali-age there is no other way, no other way, no other way at all." and "That which is attained in Satya-yuga through meditation upon Viṣṇu, in Tretā through sacrificial rites, and in Dvāpara through temple worship, is attained in the Kali-age through kīrtana of Hari's names." and so on.

Practice (sādhana) must be enjoined only with Brahman as its basis. Only by attaining knowledge of Brahman, or by attaining Brahman itself, can one transcend birth and death: "Knowing him alone does one cross beyond death; there is no other path to that transcendence" (Śruti); "Having attained me, O son of Kuntī, there is no rebirth" (Gītā). The essential nature of that Brahman can be known from the Veda alone. Vyāsadeva himself has stated this in the Brahma-sūtra: "Because [Brahman is known only] through scripture as its source [of knowledge]" (Brahma-sūtra 1.1.3); and Śrīpāda Śaṅkara, in his commentary, affirms the very same. In his commentary he writes: "As has been said, the Ṛg Veda and other such scriptures are the source, the cause, the means of valid knowledge of Brahman; that is, it is from scripture alone, as the valid means of knowledge, that Brahman, the cause of the world's origination and so forth, is to be known — such is the purport." Therefore, whatever is grounded in the Veda alone is dharma; whatever is not grounded in the Veda is not dharma, but adharma. "Dharma is that which is enjoined by the Veda; adharma is its opposite. We have heard that the Veda is directly Nārāyaṇa himself, self-existent." (Bhāgavata 6.1.40) In his commentary on this verse, Śrīdhara Svāmipāda writes: "'Praṇihito' means 'enjoined'; that dharma which has the Veda as its proof (pramāṇa) — this establishes both the essential nature of dharma and its valid means of knowledge, namely, that whatever has the Veda as its proof is dharma, and whatever is dharma has the Veda as its proof... 'Its opposite' means that which is forbidden by the Veda; that is adharma — meaning that the Veda's prohibition constitutes the valid proof in that case as well." From all this evidence it is known that adharma, being opposed to the Veda, cannot be accepted as dharma merely because it is not Vedically enjoined — according to the Veda, it is simply adharma. Therefore it cannot be the yuga-dharma of Kali — nor, indeed, of any age whatsoever.

§68. Tantra and Mokṣa

One further point is now discussed in passing here. The goal of both Śaiva and Śākta tāntrikas is likewise liberation (mokṣa) — freedom from the cycle of birth and death. According to the Veda, liberation cannot be attained through tantric practice. The reason for this, according to Vedic scripture, is now explained. It has already been said that only by knowing the Brahman spoken of in the Veda — only by attaining knowledge of that Brahman, only by attaining that Brahman itself — can one transcend birth and death, that is, attain liberation; there is no other path. "Knowing him alone does one cross beyond death; there is no other path to that transcendence" (Śruti); "Having attained me, O son of Kuntī, there is no rebirth" (Gītā). But the sole means of knowing and attaining Brahman is devotion (bhakti) — the bhakti spoken of in the Veda. "Through devotion he comes to know me, how great I am and who I am in truth; then, having known me in truth, he enters into me immediately thereafter." (Gītā 18.55) In three verses of the Gītā, beginning with 7.14, "This divine māyā of mine, composed of the guṇas, is very difficult to overcome...", through to 7.16, "Four kinds of people worship me...", Śrī Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna this very same truth. Praising Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Brahmā himself has declared: the sole path to the highest good is devotion; those who, abandoning that devotion, undertake hardship merely to attain impersonal knowledge (kevala-jñāna) are left, in the end, with nothing but that very hardship — like one who threshes empty husks, gaining no grain at all. "O Almighty, those who reject the path of devotion, which alone leads to the highest good, and instead undertake great austerity merely to attain a trace of impersonal knowledge — for them nothing remains in the end but hardship itself, just as for those who thresh husks devoid of grain." (Bhāgavata 10.14.4) In the Śruti, devotion itself is called the higher knowledge (parā-vidyā); it is only through this higher knowledge that the imperishable Brahman can be attained. Regarding higher and lower knowledge, the Muṇḍaka Śruti declares that the performance of Vedically-enjoined sacrifices and the like, belonging to the lower knowledge (aparā-vidyā), cannot carry one across the ocean of material existence: "Unsteady, indeed, are these sacrificial boats" (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.2.7). It is only through the higher knowledge that the ocean of material existence can be crossed, for it is through this higher knowledge (bhakti) alone that the imperishable Brahman is attained: "That higher [knowledge] by which the imperishable is attained" (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.5) ("adhigamyate" means "is attained" — Śrīpāda Śaṅkara). Another Śruti likewise declares: "Devotion alone leads him there; devotion alone grants him the vision; the Supreme Person is subject to devotion; devotion alone is supreme." (Mādhara-śruti, quoted in Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī's Bhakti-sandarbha, section 1) — Devotion alone can bring the practitioner near to the Supreme Brahman (that is, grant him realization of the Supreme Brahman's presence); devotion alone can grant the practitioner vision of the Supreme Brahman (that is, awaken his internal and external perception of the Lord). That Supreme Person is subject to devotion; devotion alone is supreme — all-capable. From this Śruti-statement it is known that liberation cannot be attained through jñāna-yoga and the like, when disconnected from devotion. This is likewise the purport of the three Gītā verses (7.14–16) cited above.

A. The Essential Nature of Vedic Devotion

From the Mādhara-śruti statement cited above, the essential nature (svarūpa-tattva) of Vedic devotion is also to be understood. How so? This is now explained. The Supreme Brahman possesses three principal potencies: the spiritual potency (cic-chakti) or superior potency (parā-śakti), the potency of individual souls (jīva-śakti or kṣetrajña-śakti), and the potency of ignorance (avidyā or māyā-śakti). "The potency called kṣetrajña [that pertaining to individual souls] is declared to be superior; devotion to Viṣṇu is thus called parā [superior]. A third potency is known as avidyā, called karma [the potency of material action]." (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.7.61) Among these three potencies, the cic-chakti is the greatest, and is therefore also called parā-śakti. This cic-chakti or parā-śakti is the natural, inherent potency of the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa — just as burning power is inherent to fire, this potency is inseparable from the Supreme Brahman's own essential nature; it is his very own svarūpa-bhūtā potency. This potency possesses the function of knowledge (jñāna-kriyā — the capacity for knowledge in all matters) and the function of power (bala-kriyā — the capacity, by mere proximity, to bring everything under control). This is known from the Śvetāśvatara Śruti itself: "His superior potency is revealed as manifold, inherent, comprising the functions of knowledge, power, and action." (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.8) Whatever the Supreme Brahman does, he does entirely by means of this cic-chakti; he depends upon this cic-chakti alone, on nothing else whatsoever — for he is supremely independent, self-sovereign (svarāṭ), his sole support being his own essential potency (this cic-chakti, being his own essential nature, is therefore also called svarūpa-śakti). Because he depends upon this cic-chakti or svarūpa-śakti alone, it may also be said that he is subject to (vaśī-bhūta) this svarūpa-śakti. But this in no way diminishes his supreme independence, since this cic-chakti or svarūpa-śakti is itself non-different from his own essential nature. He is subject solely to this svarūpa-śakti — not to any other potency, neither the jīva-śakti nor the māyā-śakti — since neither the jīva-śakti nor the māyā-śakti is his own essential (svarūpa-bhūtā) potency. The Mādhara-śruti statement cited above says he is "subject to devotion" ("bhakti-vaśaḥ puruṣaḥ") — this devotion, therefore, must itself be this very cic-chakti or svarūpa-śakti; that is, this devotion is itself a particular function of the Lord's own cic-chakti or svarūpa-śakti — it is in no way a material potency of any kind.

This cic-chakti or svarūpa-śakti has three functions: hlādinī (the potency of bliss), sandhinī (the potency of existence), and saṁvit (the potency of knowledge). Devotion is that function of svarūpa-śakti in which hlādinī and saṁvit predominate. Within the individual soul (the jīvātmā), there exists no svarūpa-śakti — and hence no function of svarūpa-śakti either. This is known from the Viṣṇu Purāṇa itself. Earth herself said to the Lord: "Hlādinī, sandhinī, and saṁvit — these are one, established in you alone, the ground of all existence. In you, free of material qualities, there is neither the tāpakarī [the tamasic potency, causing mental distress through separation from sense-objects] nor the miśrā [the rajasic potency, mixed of happiness-born satisfaction and sorrow-born distress]." (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 1.12.69) — O Lord! Your own threefold potency — hlādinī, sandhinī, and saṁvit — is established in you, the ground of all existence; the tāpakarī (the tamasic potency causing mental distress at separation from sense-objects) and the miśrā (the rajasic potency arising from sense-objects) — these two potencies do not exist in you, since you are free of material qualities such as sattva and the rest (though they do exist within the māyā-bound individual soul — translation following Śrīdhara Svāmipāda's commentary). In his commentary on this verse, Śrīdhara Svāmī writes: "Hlādinī is that which delights; sandhinī is existence (sattā); saṁvit is the potency of knowledge (vidyā-śakti) — these are the one, primary, unfailing [potency] — that is, essentially identical [with you]. 'Established in all' means that since the proper existence of everything depends on it, it is established solely in you, the ground of all existence — not in individual souls (jīvas). That threefold, guṇa-composed potency which exists in the jīvas does not exist in you. It is precisely this that is called 'tāpakarī' and 'miśrā'..." Thus it is seen that no function of svarūpa-śakti exists within the individual soul; when, through scripturally-enjoined sādhana-bhajana, the practitioner-soul's heart becomes purified, he receives this potency from the Lord himself, and only then does it manifest itself within the practitioner's heart in the form of devotion.

Thus it is known that Vedic devotion is itself a function of the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own cic-chakti or svarūpa-śakti; it does not exist within the individual soul; it is only by the Lord's own grace that the practitioner-soul receives it, and only then does the soul become eligible for devotion.

Had the individual soul possessed svarūpa-śakti or cic-chakti within itself, then neither the soul's turning away from the Lord (bhagavad-bahirmukhatā) nor its being ensnared by māyā would have been possible at all. The reason for this is now explained.

The sole direction of cic-chakti's movement is toward its possessor, the Lord — toward no other direction. Had cic-chakti existed within the individual soul, it would have driven the soul, or the soul's heart, only toward the Lord, never in any other direction, never away from the Lord — and hence the soul's turning away from the Lord would never have been possible at all. And as for why, had cic-chakti existed within the individual soul, the soul's being ensnared by māyā would likewise have been impossible — this is now explained. Māyā is composed of the three guṇas, material in nature, and opposed to spirit (cit) — just as darkness is opposed to light. Māyā and cic-chakti or svarūpa-śakti are like darkness and light. Just as darkness cannot exist where there is light, so māyā cannot exist where there is cic-chakti. And, again, nothing but cic-chakti alone can drive away māyā. It is precisely because the Lord possesses his own essential cic-chakti within himself that māyā can never even touch the Lord; it is by the influence of this cic-chakti or svarūpa-śakti alone that the Lord has kept māyā at bay for all time. This is stated in the verse explaining the meaning of the Gāyatrī, Bhāgavata 1.1.1: "By whose own [potency], illusion (kuhaka) is ever dispelled — that Supreme Truth do we meditate upon." Regarding the word "dhāmnā" here, Śrīpāda Viśvanātha Cakravartī writes: "by his own svarūpa-śakti." Accordingly, the meaning of this statement becomes: "We meditate upon that Supreme Truth (the Supreme Brahman) who, by his own svarūpa-śakti, has ever (from beginningless time, for all time) kept kuhaka (māyā) driven far away." Śrī Nārada, too, has described Śrī Kṛṣṇa as "one from whom, by his own effulgence (sva-tejasā), the influence of māyā's guṇas has been eternally banished." (Bhāgavata 10.37.22) Regarding the word "sva-tejasā" here, Śrīdhara Svāmipāda writes: "by [his] cic-chakti," and Śrīpāda Sanātana Gosvāmī writes: "by the influence of svarūpa-śakti." Accordingly, the purport of Nārada's statement is this: it is by the influence of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own cic-chakti or svarūpa-śakti that the current of māyā's guṇas remains eternally banished from him. This same truth is likewise known from Arjuna's own statement to Śrī Kṛṣṇa: "You are the Supreme Person, directly the Lord, beyond material nature; you have conquered māyā by your own cic-chakti, established in your own self, in your own absolute solitary glory (kaivalya)." (Bhāgavata 1.7.23) Because the Lord possesses cic-chakti, māyā cannot touch him; the very existence of cic-chakti compels māyā to remain at a distance.

The very meaning of the Vedic Gāyatrī likewise makes this known. Śrīpāda Sāyaṇācārya explains the original, uttered Gāyatrī-mantra as follows:

"May that god Savitṛ impel our thoughts (dhiyaḥ) — our actions, or our intellect regarding matters of dharma and the like. Of that god Savitṛ — as the indwelling impeller of all, as the creator of the universe, the Supreme Lord, the very Self of all — we meditate (dhīmahi) upon that adorable (vareṇyaṃ), worshippable and knowable radiance (bhargaḥ) — 'bhargaḥ,' from the roasting away (bharjana) of avidyā and its effects, meaning the self-luminous radiance (tejaḥ) that is the very essence of the Supreme Brahman."

According to Śrīpāda Sāyaṇa's interpretation, the general meaning of the Gāyatrī-mantra is: We meditate upon the adorable, worshippable radiance (bharga) of that Supreme Lord, the very Self of the world's creator, who impels our actions or our intellect regarding dharma and similar matters. Regarding the word "bhargaḥ," Sāyaṇa writes: "bhargaḥ, from the roasting away (bharjana) of avidyā and its effects" — that is, that which can roast away avidyā or māyā and māyā's effects is itself called bhargaḥ. That bhargaḥ is: "svayaṁ-jyotiḥ para-brahmātmakaṃ tejaḥ" — the self-luminous radiance or power that is the very Self or essential nature of the Supreme Brahman.

The word "bhargaḥ" derives from the root "bhrajj," whose meaning is "to roast" — as, for instance, rice or lentils are roasted on a frying-pan. Rice or lentils that have been roasted on a pan can never sprout again. According to Sāyaṇa's interpretation, the meaning of the word "bhargaḥ" is: that radiance or power (tejaḥ), the very Self or essential nature of the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Lord, which is capable of "roasting" māyā and māyā's effects (so that, once roasted, māyā and its effects can never sprout again, and can never again bind us) — it is upon that radiance or power that we meditate.

Now it must be considered: what is this radiance or power of the Lord's? It has already been said that the Supreme Brahman, the Lord, possesses three principal potencies: cic-chakti, jīva-śakti, and māyā-śakti. Upon which of these three potencies shall we meditate? Which potency is capable of "roasting" māyā? There is no benefit in meditating upon māyā-śakti itself, for māyā will never roast and destroy herself. Fire, by its own power, can burn and destroy every other substance, but it cannot destroy itself. Meditation upon jīva-śakti, too, is futile — for Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself has said: "This divine māyā of mine, composed of the guṇas, is very difficult to overcome" (Gītā 7.14) — for the individual soul (that is, for jīva-śakti), the divine guṇa-composed māyā is difficult indeed to remove. By process of elimination, then, only cic-chakti remains — it is this cic-chakti alone that can "roast" māyā and māyā's activity, that can completely dispel māyā and māyā's influence. This cic-chakti, too, is precisely what Śrīpāda Sāyaṇa intends; hence he describes the potency to be meditated upon as the very own being, the very essential nature (para-brahmātmaka) of the Supreme Brahman.

Through this discussion, it is known by the testimony of Śruti and Smṛti that wherever cic-chakti or svarūpa-śakti is present, māyā can neither go nor remain. Therefore, had cic-chakti existed within the individual soul, the soul's being ensnared by māyā would never have been possible at all.

From this discussion it is also known that, since nothing but cic-chakti alone can dispel māyā, the manifestation of cic-chakti within the practitioner's heart is absolutely essential for attaining freedom from māyā, or liberation. By following the Vedically-enjoined path of devoted worship (bhajana) of Śrī Kṛṣṇa (or of any one of those forms of Godhead in which Śrī Kṛṣṇa, transcendent to māyā from beginningless time, has manifested and eternally abides), the manifestation of cic-chakti within the practitioner's heart, in the form of devotion, by the Lord's own grace, becomes possible — and freedom from māyā likewise becomes possible. "Only those who take refuge in me alone cross beyond this māyā" (Gītā 7.14, Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own words). Thus it is seen that, apart from Vedically-enjoined devoted worship of the Lord, and apart from the grace of devotion — that particular function of cic-chakti — liberation is impossible. Knowledge, ritual action, and the like, disconnected from devotion, are useless for attaining liberation. This is the Veda's own conclusion regarding the attainment of liberation.

Whether liberation is at all possible through tantric practice is now considered.

Tāntrika Śaiva doctrine is founded upon the Śivāgama. It has already been shown, with citation of proof, that Śrī Śiva propagated the Śivāgama for the very purpose of turning people away from Kṛṣṇa and concealing Śrī Kṛṣṇa from them. It is thus known that the tāntrika Śaivas are themselves turned away from Kṛṣṇa (Kṛṣṇa-bahirmukha). According to the Veda, liberation cannot be possible for them. Since the tāntrikas' Śiva is not the Vedic Śiva, worship of that Śiva likewise cannot, according to the Veda, lead to liberation.

And, as has already been shown, the tāntrika Śāktas' worshipped Kālī is a Mahāvidyā conceived by the Veda-opposed Buddhists, her mantras likewise their conception. Since she, or the various forms in which she manifests herself, are not Vedic deities, worship of her, or of them, cannot, according to the Veda, lead to liberation.

It has already been shown, citing the statements of expert scholars, that the tāntrika deities have no true, objective existence whatsoever; what value, then, can their worship possibly hold? Liberation through worship of them is simply impossible.

§69. The Supreme Reality According to Tantra

The Supreme Reality (para-tattva) spoken of by the tāntrikas is not the Supreme Brahman spoken of in the Veda. According to the tāntrikas, the Supreme Reality is, in its essential nature, formless and utterly without attributes; for the benefit of practitioners, it assumes an illusory (māyā-composed) form. A few Tantra-statements and their translations, from the aforementioned Saptatīrtha's Tantra-paricaya (pp. 34–36), are quoted here.

"In the sixth ullāsa of the Kulārṇava-tantra there is likewise a statement: 'Of Brahman, who is spiritual (cinmaya), immeasurable, immovable, and bodiless, a form is conceived for the benefit of practitioners.'"

"'For the accomplishment of the worshippers' purposes, for the welfare of the worlds, and for the destruction of demons, [O Goddess,] you assume various bodies in your acts of destruction... Though possessing form, you are formless; through māyā you take on manifold forms.' (Mahānirvāṇa-tantra) — For the fulfillment of the worshippers' purposes, for the welfare of the world, and for the destruction of the demons, you assume various bodies. Though possessing form, you are formless — that is, unlike embodied living beings, you are not bound within any fixed shape. Relying upon your own māyā, you assume, at will, manifold forms."

"'She, though thus manifold, grants the practitioner's desired wish' (Picchilā-tantra) — though formless, she assumes form for the benefit of practitioners."

"'Mahāmāyā, of the nature of consciousness, the very form of the Supreme Brahman, assumes manifold forms in order to bestow grace upon her servants.' (Navaratneśvara) — that Mahāmāyā, of the nature of consciousness, the very form of the Supreme Brahman, has assumed manifold forms in order to bestow her grace upon her servants."

"'For the sake of the meditation and worship of ascetics, mantra-practitioners, men of knowledge, and yogīs, she assumes a body by means of her māyā.' (Saptabheda-tantra) — For the sake of the meditation and worship of sannyāsīs, mantra-practitioners, jñāna-yogīs, and yogīs, she takes refuge in her own māyā and assumes a body (form)." and so on.

Śrīpāda Śaṅkara, as the ācārya of Māyāvāda, holds essentially this same view regarding the Supreme Reality or Supreme Brahman. But his formless, attributeless Brahman is neither the attributeless Brahman spoken of by the tāntrikas, nor the tāntrikas' formless Śiva, nor their formless Mahāmāyā. In the Māyāvāda view too, it is the attributeless Brahman alone who, taking refuge in māyā, becomes the creator of the universe.

This view regarding the Supreme Reality is itself opposed to the Veda. The Ṛg Veda describes the all-pervading Brahman-reality Viṣṇu as "bṛhac-charīraḥ" (of vast bodily form) and "yuvā-kumāraḥ" (eternally youthful, ever a young man) (Ṛg Veda 1.155.6). Here, Viṣṇu's "vast body" is spoken of — he is not called formless; nor is it said that the formless Viṣṇu, taking refuge in māyā, became "bṛhac-charīraḥ." An ordinary man's body measures, in length and breadth, three and a half of his own hand-spans; but it is known from the Purāṇas that Śrī Kṛṣṇa's body measures, in length and breadth, four and a half of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own hand-spans. It is presumably for this reason that he is called "of vast body." The Ṛg Veda further calls this body of Viṣṇu's "yuvā-kumāraḥ" — that is, eternally youthful (nitya-taruṇa) and yet ever a young boy as well. Ṛg Veda 1.156.2 likewise calls Viṣṇu "navīyase" — ever-new, eternally fresh.

Explicit mention of the body (tanu) of the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Soul, is found in the Śruti as well: "This Self is not attained through discourse, nor through intellect, nor through much learning; he whom the Self himself chooses — by him alone is he attained; to him the Self reveals his own body (tanuṃ svām)." (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.2.3; Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.23) It is not that this body of his is illusory (māyika) — and therefore impermanent. The Śruti declares that he is the eternal among the eternal, the conscious among the conscious: "Eternal among the eternals, conscious among the conscious, the one who, though one, fulfills the many desires of the many." (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13) An illusory form for him is impossible, for māyā cannot even touch him; māyā only envelops and surrounds the illusory external universe. "By māyā indeed is all this enveloped; māyā does not touch the Self himself; therefore it is only what lies outside that is enveloped by māyā." (Nṛsiṁha-tāpanī Upaniṣad 5.1) That the Supreme Brahman is of the nature of being-consciousness-bliss (sac-cid-ānanda) is likewise known from the Śruti: "Oṁ! Salutations to Kṛṣṇa, of the form of being-consciousness-bliss, the doer of unopposed deeds, the teacher to be known through Vedānta, the witness of the intellect." (Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad 1) From the Brahma-saṁhitā, it is known that Brahmā himself declared: "Īśvara paramaḥ Kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ, anādir ādir govindaḥ sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam" — "Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Controller, has a body of eternal existence, knowledge, and bliss; he is without any origin, yet is himself the origin of everything, Govinda, the cause of all causes." From all this evidence it is known that the Supreme Brahman is not formless; he is himself sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha, the very embodiment of being-consciousness-bliss. Nowhere does the Ṛg Veda or any similar text say that he has taken refuge in māyā and assumed an illusory form.

His very body of being-consciousness-bliss is itself the proof of his savišeṣatva (his possessing personal, divine attributes). The Veda also describes his heroic prowess and his other attribute-bearing (saviśeṣa) characteristics: "Behold the deeds of Viṣṇu" (Ṛg Veda 1.22.19); "Now I shall proclaim the heroic deeds of Viṣṇu, who has measured out the earthly regions" (Ṛg Veda 3.154.1); "So great is his glory, and greater still than this is the Puruṣa" (Ṛg Veda 10.90.3); "May he not harm us, the true-natured begetter of the earth and heaven, who fashioned the vast waters and the sky" (Ṛg Veda 10.121.9); "O gods, from the eternally-manifesting Viṣṇu, unborn though born, this greatest of glories has been attained" (Ṛg Veda 7.99.2) and so on; and the Śruti statement, "from whom these beings are born," and so on; and "that from which the origin of this [universe proceeds]" (Brahma-sūtra 1.1.2), and so on. From all these uncreated (apauruṣeya) statements, it is known that the Supreme Reality spoken of in the Veda, the Supreme Brahman, is not without attributes (nirviśeṣa) but possesses attributes (saviśeṣa). This attribute-bearing nature of his is not born of māyā's influence, but is his own essential nature. In his pastimes, various manifestations of this attribute-bearing nature are displayed. His pastimes, too, are eternal like himself, transcendent to māyā. His pastimes occur through the assistance of his own essential cic-chakti. When this cic-chakti manifests itself as the potency of pastime (līlā-śakti), it is called yogamāyā. This yogamāyā, in the form of līlā-śakti, is also cic-chakti. In certain places in scripture, this yogamāyā is simply called "māyā" as well; this can be understood only by interpreting the meaning in harmony with the context and with the rest of scripture.

That the Supreme Brahman manifests his own single form in manifold ways is likewise known from the Śruti: "The one controller, the inner Self of all beings, who makes his one form into many" (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.12); "The one controller is Kṛṣṇa himself; though one, he shines forth in manifold forms" (Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad 1.5). The Śruti nowhere says that he assumes such manifold forms with the assistance of an external māyā, or that his assumption of an illusory form is only for the benefit of practitioners; the Śruti rather declares that his contact with māyā is altogether impossible. From beginningless time he stands manifest, transcendent to māyā, in his infinite forms of Godhead.

Thus it is seen that what the tāntrikas say regarding the essential nature of the Supreme Reality is opposed to the Veda; and their claim that the Supreme Reality assumes an illusory form for the benefit of practitioners is likewise opposed to the Veda.

§70. The Doctrine of the Individual Soul (Jīva-tattva) According to Tantra

The tāntrikas' doctrine of the individual soul (jīva-tattva) is likewise opposed to the Veda. In the aforementioned Saptatīrtha's Tantra-paricaya (pp. 92–94), it is stated: "It is said in the Paraśurāma-kalpa-sūtra (1.5): 'Śiva, clothed in a body, is the individual soul (jīva); without that, he is the Supreme Śiva (parama-śiva)'... Śiva is completely independent and self-sufficient. This independence of his depends on nothing else whatsoever. When Śiva himself, by his own māyā-śakti, covers over his own complete independence, that same unmanifest, dependent Śiva attains the state of an individual soul. There is no real difference between Śiva and the individual soul; this difference is merely a matter of external designation (upādhi). Śiva, conditioned by the bodily designation, is the individual soul; and the individual soul, freed of the bodily designation, is Śiva himself... It is stated in the Paramārthasāra: 'That supreme independence of Maheśa, which brings about the created universe, becomes covered over by the goddess Māyā-śakti of Śiva.' What is thus covered over, according to the Subhagodaya, is stated as follows: 'By her, this Person, of limited form, all his powers contracted, becomes, like the sun at dusk with its rays gathered in, unable even to reveal himself.' — Just as the reddened sun at dusk gathers in its own rays and thereby loses even the power to reveal itself, so too, when Śiva's entire power is thus contracted by māyā, that very Śiva attains the state of the individual soul, of limited form."

From all these statements it is known that, according to Tantra doctrine, the individual soul too is, in its essential nature, Śiva himself. Therefore, there is no real difference at all between the individual soul and Śiva.

Regarding liberation, the Tantra-paricaya (pp. 94–95) states: "Liberation is attained through the knowledge that arises as direct experience of Śiva. Śiva alone is the Supreme Soul. From the perspective of ultimate truth, Śiva and the individual soul are non-different. There is, in reality, no difference whatsoever between Śiva and any object of the visible universe. The perception of difference between Śiva and the universe is born of ignorance. When the practitioner, through his own sādhana, destroys this ignorance, he attains liberation. 'Liberation is the realization of universal identity with the Self' (Kaulopaniṣad 4) — this is the conclusion of Tantra-śāstra. Walking the path of sādhana taught by his guru, the practitioner attains, in the final state, the realization of non-duality — 'the awakening of the wisdom of oneness with all' (Kaulopaniṣad 24)."

From these statements it is known that, according to Tantra doctrine, becoming Śiva at last is itself liberation. (The Kaulopaniṣad is an Upaniṣad composed by the tāntrikas themselves, not a Vedic Śruti.)

It is now shown that what the tāntrikas say regarding the essential nature of the soul, and regarding liberation, is not in accordance with the Veda.

He who is the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Soul, is vibhu — all-pervading. The tāntrikas hold this same view. According to Tantra, since the individual soul is, in ultimate truth, "Śiva himself," the soul too is vibhu. But according to the Veda, the soul is not vibhu, but aṇu (atomic, infinitesimally small). "This Self is atomic" (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.9). The Kaṭha Upaniṣad declares the Self to be "of the measure of an atom" (1.2.8). The Śvetāśvatara Śruti states: "If the tip of a single hair is divided into a hundred parts, and each of those parts again divided into a hundred, the individual soul is equal to one such part." (5.9) — that is, the soul is as minute as one ten-thousandth part of the tip of a hair.

Vyāsadeva, too, in the following Brahma-sūtras, refutes the individual soul's supposed all-pervasiveness (vibhutva) and establishes its atomic nature (aṇutva): "On account of [the soul's] departing, going, and returning [these being possible only for something limited in size]" (2.3.19); "Also, on this view, the [experience of] the Self would not be complete [everywhere at once]" (2.3.34); "And because of its abiding differently at the extremities [i.e., in dreamless sleep and in liberation], there is a difference [between the soul and Brahman], since both states are eternal [for the soul in its true, atomic nature]" (2.3.36); "And through its own nature, [it is established] with respect to the latter two [dreamless sleep and departure]" (2.3.20); "If it be said [the soul] is not atomic, because that [scriptural text about atomicity] refers to another [i.e., to the mind] — no, because of the statement of function pertaining to another [i.e., the soul itself, in other texts]" (2.3.21); "And because of the [scriptural] designation as both [atomic and yet pervading, by means of its qualities]" (2.3.22); "There is no contradiction, just as with a fragrance [which, though confined to its source, spreads and is perceived everywhere]" (2.3.23); "If it be said that [this pervasion is impossible because of the soul's atomic] location being different [in each body] — no, because of the acknowledged [analogous location of light] in the heart [while its rays spread out]" (2.3.24); "Or, [it pervades] by its quality, like light" (2.3.25); "And, being all-pervading, [the difference in perception is] like a scent [confined at its source]" (2.3.26); "And thus [scripture] shows this too" (2.3.27); "[Scripture's] separate teaching [about the soul's smallness alongside its qualities' pervasion, indicates a distinction between the two]" (2.3.28); "But it is on account of its being predominantly characterized by that [quality of consciousness] that the soul is so designated [as pervading], just as the wise man [is spoken of as if he embraces everything through his knowledge]" (2.3.29); "And there is no fault [in the doctrine of atomicity], on account of [the soul's] existing as long as the body exists, [experience] being observed" (2.3.30); "[Its capacity for various experiences arises] on account of the manifestation of that which already exists, as with things not previously perceptible" (2.3.31); and "There would result the contingency either of the eternal perceivability or eternal non-perceivability [of the soul], or a partial restriction of one or the other, without any specific determining rule" (2.3.32). A detailed discussion of these sūtras may be found in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Darśana, Second Part, First Section, Chapter Three. That the soul's atomicity refers to a measure of size is likewise established there.

Also worth noting here are the Brahma-sūtras that speak of the distinction between the individual soul and Brahman: "And because of the [scriptural] designation of difference" (1.1.17); "And [the soul is] not the [material] body, because of the impossibility [of certain scriptural statements otherwise]" (1.2.8); "And because of the designation of doer and enjoyer [being distinct from Brahman's role]" (1.2.4); "On account of the particular word [used in scripture to distinguish them]" (1.2.5); "And because of remembrance [i.e., traditional teaching, distinguishing them]" (1.2.6); "And because of the designation of difference" (1.3.5); "And because of [Brahman's] existing and the [soul's] eating [being distinctly described]" (1.3.7); "On account of the state of deep sleep and departure [being differently described for each]" (1.3.42); "But there is a superiority [of Brahman over the individual soul], on account of the designation of difference" (2.1.22); and "But on account of the designation of a superior [reality], Bādarāyaṇa [holds this view]; for scripture shows this" (3.4.8). A detailed discussion may be found in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Darśana, Second Part, Second Section, Chapter Three.

That the individual soul does not become Brahman even in the state of liberation, and that the soul retains its separate existence, Vyāsadeva likewise states in the following Brahma-sūtras: "On account of the designation [of a distinction] even in the state of liberation" (1.3.2); "[The liberated soul's] manifestation [of qualities equal to Brahman's] occurs by its own nature, according to the scriptural statement [to that effect]" (4.4.1); "[The soul remains] liberated, on account of the [scriptural] declaration [of its continued individual existence]" (4.4.2); "[The liberated soul attains oneness] with Brahman, according to Jaimini, on the strength of scriptural statements and the like [describing this identity of qualities, not of individual existence]" (4.4.5); "There is no contradiction [between these views], since [both] are affirmed by scriptural statement, on account of [the soul's] prior existence [before liberation]; so says Bādarāyaṇa" (4.4.7); "And on account of the scriptural comparison, indeed [the liberated soul is compared to the Lord in glory, not identical with him]" (4.4.8); "And for this very reason, [the liberated soul] has no lordship over others [i.e., over the creation]" (4.4.9); "[The liberated soul possesses] the capacity for [enjoying certain lordly powers] but not [creative agency], says Bādari; for such [is what scripture teaches]" (4.4.10); "[The liberated soul possesses] this capacity, according to Jaimini, on account of the scriptural mention of optional [manifestations]" (4.4.11); "For twelve [days, as in the parallel of ritual], of both kinds, therefore Bādarāyaṇa [holds]" (4.4.12); "In the absence of a body, [enjoyment] is possible, as in dream states" (4.4.13); "In the presence of a body [it is possible], as in the waking state" (4.4.14); "[The liberated soul may enter another body] like a lamp entering [and illuminating a new space], for scripture shows this" (4.4.15); "Except the function of ruling the universe, since this is not attributed to him in that context [where liberation is discussed], and it is unsuitable [for him to have such function, being merely a portion of Brahman]" (4.4.17); and "And because of the indication of equality of enjoyment merely [not of creative function]" (4.4.21). A detailed discussion may be found in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Darśana, Second Part, Second Section, Chapter Four.

Since the individual soul retains its separate existence even in the liberated state, and a liberated soul does not become Brahman, it is established that the soul is not, in its essential nature, vibhu, but rather aṇu. Thus it is seen that the Tantra doctrine asserting the soul's all-pervasiveness is not in accordance with the Veda, but opposed to it.

Regarding the doctrine of Brahman and the doctrine of the individual soul — and hence regarding the soul's liberation as well — there is a similarity between the view of the Māyāvāda ācārya Śrīpāda Śaṅkara and the view of the tāntrikas. That the essential nature of Brahman as described by Śrīpāda Śaṅkara is not in accordance with Śruti, Smṛti, and the Brahma-sūtra has been shown in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Darśana, First Part, Second Section, Chapter Four. That the Brahman spoken of in the Veda possesses attributes (saviśeṣa), is free of material qualities but possesses transcendent (aprākṛta) qualities, has already been shown above, with citation of Ṛg-mantras, and has likewise been shown in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Darśana, First Part, Second Section, Chapters One, Two, and Three.

That Śrīpāda Śaṅkara's statement regarding the essential nature of the soul is not in accordance with the Veda has likewise been shown in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Darśana, Second Part, Second Section, Chapters Seven, Eight, and Nine. That what he says regarding the liberated soul is likewise not in accordance with the Veda has been shown in the same Part, Second Section, Chapters Five and Six.

But a question may arise: why did Śrīpāda Śaṅkara propagate a doctrine opposed to the Veda? The answer to this question is found in Veda-conforming Purāṇa itself. It has already been shown, citing evidence from the Uttara-khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa, that Śrī Śiva, on Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own order, propagated the Veda-opposed Śivāgama. Śrīpāda Śaṅkara is himself Śiva, none other. That it was Śrī Śiva himself who, in obedience to that very order, propagated the Māyāvāda scripture in the form of the brāhmaṇa Śaṅkarācārya, he himself has stated to Pārvatī: "The Māyāvāda is a secret, false doctrine — it is called crypto-Buddhism. I myself, O Goddess, have propagated it in the Kali-age, in the form of a brāhmaṇa." (Padma Purāṇa, Uttara-khaṇḍa 25.7) Here it is stated that Śaṅkara's Māyāvāda is itself a covert form of Buddhism. That this statement is not false is now shown.

The foundation of Śrīpāda Śaṅkara's Māyāvāda-bhāṣya is the Māṇḍūkya-kārikā of his own paramaguru [teacher's teacher], Gauḍapāda. In this kārikā, Gauḍapāda propagates Buddhist doctrine outright. In this kārikā he even uses the terms "vijñāna" and "citta," terms belonging to Buddhist philosophy. Śrīpāda Śaṅkara wrote a commentary on this kārikā as well, and this very kārikā formed the essential foundation of his own commentary [on the Brahma-sūtra]. For this reason his commentary [bhāṣya] is called crypto-Buddhism, and he himself is called a crypto-Buddhist. World-renowned modern scholars of philosophy have likewise called him a crypto-Buddhist, and have said that there is considerable similarity between Śaṅkara's "attributeless Brahman" (nirguṇa brahma) and the Buddhist Nāgārjuna's "Śūnya" (Void) (a detailed discussion of this matter is found in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Darśana, Third Part, Second Section, Chapter Four).

Although Śrīpāda Śaṅkara propagated Buddhist doctrine in his Māyāvāda commentary, he propagated it only by concealing it beneath the covering of the Veda. Since Brahman is knowable through the Veda alone, nothing can be stated regarding the truth of Brahman without the aid of Vedic statements. Vyāsadeva's own Brahma-sūtra, too, is founded entirely upon Vedic statements. Therefore, the Brahma-sūtra too cannot be properly interpreted without the aid of Vedic statements. Śaṅkara's own fundamental purpose was to establish an attributeless or nirviśeṣa Brahman equivalent to the Buddhists' Śūnyatā (Voidness). But in the Veda and Veda-conforming Smṛti, Brahman possesses attributes (though, of course, without any material attributes). Therefore, interpreting the Brahma-sūtra (and the Śruti as well) according to the primary, direct meaning of the Śruti would not serve his purpose. For this reason he conceived of the Veda-described attribute-bearing nature of Brahman as merely illusory (māyika), and declared that Brahman possessing such illusory attributes is the cause of the universe; and the interpretation he thus gives to the Brahma-sūtra, he himself calls the "empirical" (vyāvahārika) interpretation. Although he calls it empirical, the interpretation he gives of most of the Brahma-sūtras in his commentary is in fact in accordance with Vyāsadeva's own intent and with that of the other commentators. But wherever he found the opportunity, he expressed his own desired meaning outright. In other places, while writing "this is the empirical meaning," he nevertheless expressed his own desired doctrine, even where it does not accord with the sūtra itself. In any case, because he has concealed his own desired Buddhist doctrine beneath the cover of Vedic statements, his Māyāvāda is called "crypto-Buddhism."

§71. Sādhana According to Tantra

A few words are now offered regarding the tāntrikas' practice of sādhana. Their sādhana too is opposed to the Veda. The reason for saying so is now given.

In the aforementioned Saptatīrtha's Tantra-paricaya (p. 46), it is written: "Piercing the six cakras is the fundamental principle of tāntrika sādhana.

"There are six cakras in the body of a living being, namely: Mūlādhāra, Svādhiṣṭhāna, Maṇipūraka, Anāhata, Viśuddha, and Ājñā — these are the six cakras.

"From the crown of the head down to the base of the spine, there are six subtle nerve-cakras (nāḍī-cakras). Generally, the life-air (prāṇa-vāyu) flows through three nāḍīs, named Iḍā, Piṅgalā, and Suṣumṇā. Along the spine, in the manner of a garland strung with vertebrae, [the Suṣumṇā] is centrally located from the lower end to the top. When breath flows through Iḍā, air enters and exits through the left nostril; when it flows through Piṅgalā, through the right nostril. During the moment of transition between one nostril and the other, air briefly enters the Suṣumṇā itself. Through the practice of sādhana, the path of the Suṣumṇā becomes purified and opens; then air, flowing through it, awakens the power lying dormant within." (Tantra-paricaya, pp. 46–47)

Following the Tantra-paricaya, a description of the six cakras is now given. These six cakras are, in truth, "subtle nerve-plexuses" (that is, nerve-ganglia or plexuses of nerves). From a subtle perspective, every cakra is lotus-shaped.

Two finger-widths above the anal region, at the base of the spine, lies the Mūlādhāra cakra. It has four petals. In its pericarp resides the Svayambhū-liṅga.

Above the Mūlādhāra lies the cakra called Svādhiṣṭhāna, situated in the spine opposite the root of the genital organ. It has six petals.

The Maṇipūraka or Maṇipadma cakra is situated in the middle of the spine, opposite the navel region. It has ten petals.

Opposite the heart, in the middle of the spine, is the Anāhata cakra. It has twelve petals.

Opposite the throat, in the middle of the spine, is the Viśuddha cakra. It has sixteen petals.

The Ājñā cakra lies between the eyebrows, that is, at the very topmost limit of the spine. It has two petals.

In the Mūlādhāra cakra, encircling the Svayambhū-liṅga, the sleeping serpent-power of wisdom, the Kuṇḍalinī, lies coiled, facing downward. Regarding the essential nature of this Kuṇḍalinī power, the Śākta-krama and similar texts state: "Her radiance is like that of ten million lightning-flashes; she is subtle as a lotus-fiber; coiled three and a half times, like a serpent, she resembles a sleeping snake." When the practitioner is able to unite this power with the Supreme Śiva residing in the Sahasrāra, he becomes established in his own blissful essential nature — "Having pierced [the six cakras], one should merge [the Kuṇḍalinī] with the Supreme Peace in the Sahasrāra" and so on (Śākta-krama) — Tantra-paricaya, p. 47.

According to the Tantra-sāra, the Svayambhū-liṅga resides in the Mūlādhāra cakra, the Para-liṅga in the Svādhiṣṭhāna cakra, Śiva in the Maṇipūraka cakra, the sound-composed Bāṇa-liṅga in the Anāhata cakra, the Haṁsa in the Viśuddha cakra, and the Ātmā in the Ājñā cakra. Above the Ājñā cakra lie Kailāsa and the Bodhinī cakra; above that lie the Sahasrāra and Bindu-sthāna. In the Bindu cakra resides the Supreme Śiva.

Regarding tāntrika sādhana, what is stated, with translation, on p. 481 of the Tantra-sāra text is as follows:

"Through the pūraka [inhaling] breath, one should focus the mind upon the Mūlādhāra. Between the anal region and the base of the genitals, in the Mūlādhāra, resides the Kuṇḍalinī power; one should contract and thereby awaken this power. Then, piercing the Brahma-granthi and the Rudra-granthi [psychic knots], and piercing the Svayambhū-liṅga, the Bāṇa-liṅga, and the other liṅgas, one should lead this Kuṇḍalinī goddess up to the Bindu-cakra. Thereafter, one should contemplate this Kuṇḍalinī as united with the Supreme Śiva. From the union of the two, a nectar-essence resembling melted lac will be produced there; this nectar-essence, called Kṛṣṇā (that is, having the form of the worshipped deity), granting the perfection of yoga, that nectar should be offered to the Kuṇḍalinī to drink, that is, one should offer libation to the goddess with it, and with that dissolved nectar one should offer libation to the six deities Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Rudra, Īśvara, Sadāśiva, and Parasiva — Sāvitrī, Mahālakṣmī, Bhadrakālī, Bhuvaneśvarī, Ḍākinī, Rākinī, Śākinī, Hākinī, and so on. Thereafter the yogī should lead the Kuṇḍalinī back down to the Mūlādhāra by the same Suṣumṇā path. In this way, by practicing this daily or [regularly], one becomes freed from the sufferings of old age and the like."

Such, then, is the tāntrikas' method for becoming free of the bondage of material existence — that is, for attaining liberation. It has already been said that, according to Śākta-krama and similar Tantra-texts, the Kuṇḍalinī is a particular subtle object, resembling a slender thread, located within the Suṣumṇā nāḍī, a particular nerve. Only by uniting her with the Supreme Śiva residing in the Sahasrāra is liberation attained, according to Tantra doctrine. The mystery of the six cakras and the awakening of Kuṇḍalinī power seems, in truth, to be nothing but the development of certain neurological powers — through which the tāntrika practitioner may acquire certain supernatural abilities. Such supernatural power cannot possibly be any truly spiritual power.

It has already been shown, according to the Veda, what the true means of liberation is: liberation is utterly impossible without the assistance of devotion, that particular function of cic-chakti. In the tāntrikas' sādhana, this devotion has no place at all — for, as has already been shown, this devotion cannot arise in the heart without worship of the Brahman spoken of in the Veda. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya himself, in his commentary on Brahma-sūtras 1.2.1–7, speaks only of the worship of the Brahman described in the Veda. This is absent in the tāntrikas' sādhana; therefore the manifestation of that liberation-granting devotion is likewise impossible through this sādhana. Some tāntrika practitioners claim that the awakened Kuṇḍalinī power is itself devotion, and that liberation is therefore possible through its influence. But it has already been shown that Vedic devotion is a particular function of cic-chakti, and that this cic-chakti does not, and cannot, exist within the individual soul. According to Tantra doctrine, the Kuṇḍalinī exists within the living being's body in both its sleeping and its awakened states; therefore, according to the Veda, this Kuṇḍalinī can never be cic-chakti, nor can it ever be transformed into the liberation-granting devotion spoken of in the Veda. Therefore, according to the Veda, the tāntrikas' sādhana of piercing the six cakras is not conducive to liberation — that is, even considering the practice itself, it is seen that liberation is impossible through tantric sādhana. No community of Veda-conforming practitioners is ever seen attempting the piercing of the six cakras.

§72. Tantra Doctrine and Śrīpāda Śaṅkara

Regarding the essential nature of these three — the Supreme Brahman, the individual soul, and liberation — some Śākta tāntrikas claim that a certain agreement exists between their own philosophical position and that of the Māyāvāda ācārya Śrīpāda Śaṅkara — that their philosophical truth is endorsed by Śrīpāda Śaṅkara, and that they too, like Śrīpāda Śaṅkara, are Advaitavādins (non-dualists), worshippers on the path of knowledge (jñāna-mārga). On this matter, the following must be said.

The essential nature of Śrīpāda Śaṅkara's Māyāvāda commentary has already been discussed. In his commentary on several sūtras beginning with "patyur asāmañjasyāt," he refuted the Śaiva-Tantra doctrine as well; and from what he says in his commentary on Brahma-sūtra 1.4.28, "etena sarve vyākhyātā vyākhyātāḥ," it is known that he thereby, by implication, refuted the Śākta-Tantra doctrine as well. Therefore Śrīpāda Śaṅkara was not a tāntrika; nor were the Māyāvādins who followed him tāntrikas; nor are the Māyāvādins of the modern era tāntrikas. Their sādhana, too, is nothing like the tāntrikas' sādhana. The practice of the six cakras, the attempt to awaken the Kuṇḍalinī power, as found among the tāntrikas, is not found among them at all. The dietary practices of Māyāvādin sannyāsīs are likewise unlike those of tāntrika sannyāsīs — Māyāvādin sannyāsīs do not eat fish or meat, whereas fish and meat are not forbidden to tāntrika sannyāsīs.

And yet certain tāntrikas do not hesitate to call even Śaṅkarācārya himself, and many other people besides, tāntrikas. The aforementioned Saptatīrtha, on pp. 16–17 of his Tantra-paricaya, writes:

"Among Indian Hindu practitioner communities, followers of the tāntrika path are more numerous. It is said that Ācārya Śaṅkara himself worshipped Śrīvidyā (Tripurā-sundarī) according to tāntrika procedure. In every Śaṅkara-maṭha the Śrī-yantra is installed. Mahāprabhu Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya too received initiation from Īśvara Purī of the Śaṅkara lineage — he too was initiated with a tāntrika mantra. It is known that Ācārya Advaita, Prabhupāda Nityānanda, and other ācāryas among Caitanya's associates attained perfection through tāntrika worship. Even now their descendants receive and give initiation according to Tantra doctrine. Sādhaka Brahmānanda of Rāḍha-deśa; Ṭhākura Pūrṇānanda-giri of Mymensingh; Sarvānanda Ṭhākura, the practitioner of the ten Mahāvidyās at the Mehar-Kālī temple of Tripura; Rāghavānanda of Dhaka Mitra — all of these were adepts in tāntrika sādhana. Kṛṣṇānanda Āgamavāgīśa, the author of the Tantra-sāra and a resident of Navadvīpa, was likewise a perfected practitioner. The Śyāmā-saṅgīta of Rāmaprasāda of Hālisahar and Kamalākānta of Burdwan even now pour forth a flood of devotional sentiment into the hearts of Bengalis. These men too were tāntrika practitioners. Rāmakṛṣṇa Paramahaṃsadeva of Dakṣiṇeśvara, and his guru, the female practitioner Bhairavī Yogeśvarī; Mahārāja Rāmakṛṣṇa of Natore; the heroic practitioner Vāmākṣepā of Tārāpīṭha in Birbhum; Brahmānanda-giri of Ramna, Dhaka — all of these walked one and the same path... Reading the biographies of great souls such as Trailaṅga Svāmī and Rāmadāsa Kāṭhiyā, one likewise understands that they too advanced along the path of sādhana through the tāntrika route. It is known that even Rāja Rāmmohan Rāy performed his sādhana only after receiving tāntrika initiation."

From this account given in the Tantra-paricaya, it is claimed that Ācārya Śaṅkara, Mahāprabhu Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, Īśvara Purī, Advaita Ācārya, Nityānanda Prabhu, and the other associates of Caitanya, as well as Trailaṅga Svāmī and Rāmadāsa Kāṭhiyā, were tāntrika practitioners — just like Rāmaprasāda of Hālisahar and Rāmakṛṣṇa Paramahaṃsadeva of Dakṣiṇeśvara!! From the Tantra-paricaya, we further learn this astonishing and novel fact — that the descendants of Advaita Ācārya and Nityānanda Prabhu even now receive and grant initiation according to Tantra doctrine!! No comment is really needed on this matter. It is enough simply to say that a certain sort of person suffering from bilious disorder even sees a conch-shell as yellow.

[Footnote: The aforementioned Saptatīrtha, on p. 14 of his Tantra-paricaya, writes: "The word 'Śrī' is another name for the goddess Ṣoḍaśī, one of the ten Mahāvidyās. Śrī, Kāmeśvarī, Tripurā-sundarī and the like are all names of the goddess Ṣoḍaśī." It has already been shown that this ten-Mahāvidyā goddess Ṣoḍaśī, or Tripurā-sundarī, is likewise a conception of the Veda-opposed Buddhist tāntrikas. Did Śaṅkarācārya, then, actually worship the tāntrikas' goddess Ṣoḍaśī? In the fifth maṇḍala of the Ṛg Veda, at the end of a Khila-sūkta [supplementary hymn] (published in 1940 CE from Aundh, R.g. anta. 4-4-34), a "Śrī-sūkta" is spoken of. The goddess Śrī celebrated in this sūkta is a Vedic deity, not the Buddhist-conceived goddess Ṣoḍaśī.]

§73. On the Text of Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī

A few words are now offered regarding the text called "Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī." In the uncreated eighteen Mahāpurāṇas, within the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa, the glory of the goddess Caṇḍī is related across thirteen chapters, from chapter 81 through chapter 93. The Śākta tāntrikas have published these thirteen chapters as a separate text, giving it the name "Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī." But in the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa itself, these chapters are titled "Devī-māhātmya." Of course, the name "Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī" does not itself seem inappropriate, since it is indeed the glory of Caṇḍī that is related in it; in essence, it is a Vedic text.

Swami Jagadīśvarānanda, in his introduction to his edition of Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī, writes in one place: "Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī is Veda-grounded (vedamūlā)" (p. 9). But elsewhere he writes: "Though a portion of the Purāṇa, Caṇḍī has been accepted as a Tantra-scripture" (p. 26). The tāntrikas have, in truth, interpreted Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī entirely according to tantric doctrine, without any effort to reconcile it with other Veda-conforming texts. Moreover, at the opening of every chapter, they have inserted meditative visualizations (dhyāna) of particular tāntrika deities — that is, material has entered into the Caṇḍī that is not found in the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa at all. In this way the tāntrikas have effectively transformed the Vedic text Caṇḍī into an actually Veda-opposed Tantra-text.

Swami Jagadīśvarānanda, in his introduction to the Caṇḍī, writes: "Caṇḍī is not an interpolation into the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa; it is a genuine portion of that Purāṇa — Professor Bhandarkar has established this through various arguments" (p. 25). Since the Purāṇa is uncreated (apauruṣeya), and since Caṇḍī is a genuine portion of the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa, Caṇḍī too must be uncreated. But Swamiji, in his introduction to the Caṇḍī (p. 25), writes: "According to some, Caṇḍī originated in the Narmadā region, or at Ujjain. But Professor Dakṣiṇāraṅgana Śāstrī has refuted this view through historical argument and shown that Bengal is likely the true birthplace of Caṇḍī."

If Caṇḍī's origin in the Narmadā region or in Bengal is admitted, then Caṇḍī becomes a man-made (pauruṣeya) text, and its source-text, the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa, likewise becomes man-made. But it has already been said that the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa belongs to the uncreated eighteen Mahāpurāṇas. The Chāndogya Śruti calls the Purāṇas and the Itihāsa (the Mahābhārata) the "fifth Veda." Some modern-day researchers do not accept the uncreated status of Vedic texts such as the Veda and the Purāṇas. But beginning with Jaimini, through Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Madhvācārya and others, and even Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa of the eighteenth century CE, all have accepted the uncreated nature of the Veda. The Śruti itself declares this: "This great being's very breathing is the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sāma Veda, the hymns of the Atharvāṅgirasas, the Itihāsa, the Purāṇa..." (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Śruti); "The Itihāsa and Purāṇa are the fifth Veda among the Vedas" (Chāndogya 7.1.2). From the Matsya Purāṇa it is known that there exists a single uncreated Purāṇa, containing a hundred crore verses (Matsya Purāṇa 53.4), existing in the world of the gods. In every Dvāpara-yuga, the Lord, in the form of Vyāsa, takes four hundred thousand verses from that Purāṇa and propagates the eighteen Mahāpurāṇas on this earth (Matsya 53.8–11). Therefore these eighteen Mahāpurāṇas too are uncreated, and, according to the Chāndogya's own statement, constitute the fifth Veda; and the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa, belonging to these eighteen Mahāpurāṇas, and the Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī contained within it, are likewise uncreated, equivalent to the fifth Veda, and eternal. In Brahma-sūtra 1.3.29, "ataś ca nityatvam" ["and therefore, [the Veda's] eternality (is established)"], Vyāsadeva himself speaks of the eternal nature of the Veda, and Śrīpāda Śaṅkara, in his commentary, likewise establishes the eternality of the Veda through reasoning and scriptural proof.

If the Veda and the fifth Veda were man-made — if they were merely written by certain particular individuals, and not spoken by the Lord himself — then on what assurance could a practitioner advance along the path of sādhana at all? The authors of this mundane world record in their books only their own experience and the conclusions born of their own reflection. But what proof is there that they are themselves beyond the four defects of error, illusion, deceptive intent, and imperfection of the senses? Their own experience might well be equivalent to the "experience" of one who is himself lost and confused as to direction, and the conclusions born of their own reflection might well be erroneous. But the uncreated scriptures such as the Veda are themselves the very words of the Lord — he who is omniscient, all-knowing, and beyond all four such defects. He alone can declare the true means of attaining him. His words, therefore, are entirely reliable. Only those who believe all this can, relying upon the uncreated Vedic scriptures, advance fearlessly along the path of sādhana. No man-made scripture can ever be so reliable. Which scripture a practitioner ought to follow cannot be decided by popular vote either — the truly transcendent reality lies utterly beyond the reach of popular vote.

Not to accept the uncreated status of the Veda is itself tantamount to not accepting the Veda's supreme, overriding authority. That Swami Jagadīśvarānanda does not accept such supreme authority of the Veda is itself known from his own statements. Professor Jāhnavīkumāra Cakravartī, discussing the Devī-sūkta of the Ṛg Veda in his aforementioned book, writes on p. 21: "In truth, it is in this very sūkta that the mother-goddess of the non-Āryan peoples was first given literary expression, consecrated with the manifest-yet-unmanifest sovereignty characteristic of Āryan vision, and established in a divine form comparable to the Supreme Soul, Brahman, itself. Here she is at once transcendent to the universe and immanent within it — this is the very first written expression of the tāntrika doctrine of Śakti." From this statement of Professor Cakravartī's, it is clearly understood that, in his view, the very mystery of the non-Āryan peoples' tāntrika doctrine of Śakti has been woven into the Devī-sūkta of the Ṛg Veda — and that, therefore, the Ṛg Veda was composed only after the non-Āryan peoples' own Śakti-sādhana. The Veda, therefore, is neither uncreated nor eternal. In truth, the tāntrikas do not accept the Veda's uncreated status, nor its supreme, crowning authority, at all. Further proof of this is that, had they accepted the Veda's authority, they would have worshipped only the Vedic form of Godhead, sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha, and not the Buddhist-conceived tāntrika goddess; nor would they have proclaimed the diminishment of any Vedic form of Godhead, nor would they have made the Supreme Brahman himself, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa, offer praise to the tāntrika goddess Argalā: "O Goddess, eternally praised by Kṛṣṇa with unceasing devotion, O ever-auspicious one — grant beauty, grant victory, grant fame, destroy [my] enemies." (Argalā-stotra 21)

By Vedically-enjoined worship of the Vedic Durgā or Caṇḍī, the practitioner is capable of advancing along the path to liberation. But with the aid of man-made Tantra, the tāntrikas have transformed the text Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī into a Tantra-text. It is for this very reason that they claim: though a portion of the Purāṇa, Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī has been accepted as a Tantra-text. Whether it is proper for a practitioner desiring the truly transcendent good to follow this Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī, now transformed into a Veda-opposed Tantra-text, is a matter for the wise themselves to judge.

§74. Summary of the Discussion

It has already been said that, to understand the purport of certain statements in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, some knowledge pertaining to Tantra-śāstra is necessary. For this reason, a number of points have been discussed regarding Tantra. Our essay has grown rather lengthy; even so, not everything has been said. Nevertheless, we now refrain from further discussion. The essential conclusions to be drawn from this discussion are stated here:

(1) The four Vedas, and the Purāṇas and Itihāsa (Mahābhārata), which constitute the fifth Veda, are uncreated, spoken by the Lord himself — and are therefore entirely reliable for the practitioner.

(2) According to the Veda: whatever is Vedically enjoined is dharma; whatever is external to or opposed to the Veda is adharma.

(3) According to the Veda: any path external to or opposed to the Veda is unfavorable to the attainment of liberation.

(4) Tantra is of two kinds: Veda-conforming, and Veda-external or Veda-opposed. The Tantra mentioned in Vedic texts is Veda-conforming Tantra.

(5) Although the original Śaiva Tantra, or Śivāgama, was propagated by Śrī Śiva himself, it is conducive to turning the soul away from the Lord — and is therefore opposed to the Veda.

(6) Śākta Tantra is founded upon Veda-opposed Buddhist Tantra — and is therefore opposed to the Veda; it is not uncreated, but written by various individuals.

(7) The ten Mahāvidyās of Śākta Tantra were adopted from Veda-opposed Buddhist Tantra — and are therefore non-Vedic deities.

(8) Many mantras of Hindu Tantra are corrupted forms of mantras found in Buddhist Tantra. The mantras of the Goddess's eight forms — Kālī, Ugrā, Vajrā and the rest — are likewise derived from Buddhist Tantra.

(9) The Śakti-goddesses Caṇḍī, Kālī, Kātyāyanī, Cāmuṇḍā and others described in Vedic scripture are entirely distinct and different from the deities of the same names described in Śākta Tantra.

(10) The forms of Godhead Kṛṣṇa, Nārāyaṇa, Rāma, Viṣṇu, Śiva and others described in Vedic scripture are likewise entirely distinct and different from the forms of Godhead of the same names described in Tantra-śāstra — different despite the similarity of outward appearance. The Vedic forms of Godhead are untouched by māyā, embodiments of being-consciousness-bliss; but the forms of Godhead described in Tantra-śāstra are illusory (māyika).

(11) The Kālī worshipped by the Śākta tāntrikas, who stands upon the chest of her husband Śiva, conceived by the Veda-opposed Buddhist tāntrikas, is not a Vedic deity.

(12) The Śiva described by the Śaiva tāntrikas, and the Kālī worshipped by the Śākta tāntrikas, are likewise not the Brahman, the cause of the universe, spoken of in the Veda.

(13) The claim in Śākta Tantra that certain Vedic forms of Godhead — even the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself — are avatāras of the Mahāvidyās described in Veda-opposed Buddhist Tantra is thoroughly opposed to the Veda.

(14) The tāntrikas' account of the Goddess's manifestation in the form of the ten Mahāvidyās, and of the origin of the fifty-one pīṭhas, is found in no Veda-conforming text whatsoever. It is known from the Ṛg Veda and the uncreated Skanda Purāṇa that Śrī Jagannātha, residing at Śrī-kṣetra, is Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself. The tāntrikas, however, have declared Śrī-kṣetra to be a pīṭha-sthāna and Śrī Jagannātha to be Bhairava (Śiva).

(15) The tāntrikas' sādhana based on the piercing of the six cakras is not in accord with the Veda, but external to it; such sādhana, therefore, is unfavorable to the attainment of liberation according to the Veda.

(16) Certain supernatural powers may indeed be gained through tāntrika sādhana; but these supernatural powers are not spiritual powers at all, nor are they conducive to attaining the truly transcendent good.

(17) The sādhana of the Śaiva tāntrikas is generally called "yoga," and that of the Śākta tāntrikas "jñāna" or "jñāna-mārga." But this "jñāna" and this "yoga" are not the "jñāna" and "yoga" spoken of in Veda-conforming scripture.

(18) Those who do not accept the uncreated status of the four Vedas and of the Purāṇa-Itihāsa, which constitute the fifth Veda, hold a view that accords with neither Vyāsadeva nor any Vedāntic ācārya. If the Veda is not uncreated, there can remain no truly, wholly reliable support at all for a practitioner seeking the transcendent good.

(19) The Śākta tāntrikas have transformed the Veda-grounded text Śrī Śrī Caṇḍī into a man-made Tantra-text.

(20) The tāntrika deities are conceptions of the tāntrikas themselves; they possess no true, objective existence.

§75. The Influence of Tantra in That Era (§§75–76)

A few words are now offered regarding the influence of Tantra during that period.

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes, in many places in his Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, that both before and after Mahāprabhu's advent, one prominent element of the religious practice of the people of that era was the worship of Vāśulī (or Bāsulī). The word "Vāśulī" or "Bāsulī" is itself a corrupted form of the word "Vacchalī" or "Bāsalī." Vacchalī is a Buddhist deity; an account of her has been found in Nepal. From the statement of the Tantra-sāra, quoted in the Śabda-kalpa-druma dictionary's entry on the Mahāvidyās, it is known that, according to a certain Tantra-text, Vāsalī is herself one of the Mahāvidyās. It seems that the Buddhist deity Vacchalī, upon entering Hindu Tantra, became Vāsulī (or Bāsulī).

Some believe that "Vāsulī" is itself a corrupted form of the word "Viśālākṣī." Accordingly, the worship of Vāsulī would be the worship of the goddess Viśālākṣī. From the Tantra-sāra text (pp. 611, 612), it is known that Viśālākṣī is a tāntrika deity — garlanded with skulls, seated upon a Śiva whose form resembles a corpse. Her very "seating upon Śiva" itself shows that she is not a Vedic deity. She is a deity described in Śākta Tantra.

Worship of the tāntrika deity Vāsulī was widely current among the general populace. From this alone the influence of Tantra in Navadvīpa, and in Bengal generally, at that time is known.

When Mahāprabhu performed kīrtana with his devotees at Śrīvāsa's house, the heretics (pāṣaṇḍīs), hearing his roar of divine love, would say: "At night these people eat and drink wine — all of them know the perfection-rite of Madhumatī; reciting mantras at night, they summon five maidens." (2.8.119–20) Mahāprabhu would have the outer doors shut and perform kīrtana with his devotees inside Śrīvāsa's house. Because of this, the heretics said: "Ah brothers, now we've found the reason — this is why they shut the door for their so-called kīrtana! Reciting mantras at night, they summon five maidens; various goods come along with these women — food to eat, food to relish, perfumes, garlands, various fine clothes; after eating, they engage in various acts of lovemaking with these women. If outsiders were to see, they could not carry on their company — that is why they shut the door and indulge in all this revelry." (2.24.42–45) In both of these citations, the perfection-rite of Madhumatī is mentioned. Madhumatī is a tāntrika goddess; her mantras and related material are found on pp. 394 and 648 of the Tantra-sāra text. From the Tantra-sāra (pp. 648–49) it is known that: "By worshipping and reciting the mantra of the goddess Madhumatī, the goddess grants the practitioner her darśana, and satisfies the practitioner with sexual pleasure (rati) and food; and she daily bestows upon him daughters of the gods, daughters of demons, daughters of Gandharvas, daughters of Vidyādharas, daughters of Yakṣas, and daughters of Rākṣasas, along with various jeweled ornaments and various divine delicacies to eat. Whatever objects exist in heaven, on earth, and in the netherworld, the goddess brings and gives to the practitioner at his own command. She engages daily with the practitioner in various sports and amusements. Her mantra — praṇava, the māyā-bīja, [and] 'āgaccha anurāgiṇi maithuna-priye svāhā' — this mantra grants success in every endeavor. This all-perfection-granting goddess Madhumatī is most secret."

Since the goddess Madhumatī is thus most secret, only those who actually practice for the attainment of the Madhumatī-siddhi can know the mystery of this practice and its fruits; this is not possible for anyone else. It is thus understood that the speakers quoted in these two citations were themselves Śākta tāntrika practitioners. From these, the influence of Tantra at that time is likewise known.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes that, on hearing that a son had been born to Śacī Devī, Advaita's wife Sītā Devī came with many gifts to the Miśra household at Navadvīpa, and — "seeing the boy, calm and beautiful, the very manifest form of Gokula's own darling — his complexion, indeed, appeared quite the opposite [i.e., unusually fair]. Every limb perfectly formed, his image golden, every limb smooth and lustrous; seeing the boy's divine radiance, she was filled with great love; her heart melted with maternal affection. She placed dūrvā grass and rice-grains upon his head and blessed him again and again: 'May you both live long, brothers!' — but then fear arose in her heart, of Ḍākinī and Śākinī, and so she gave the boy the name 'Nimāi.'" (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.13.114–16) Sītā Ṭhākurāṇī, regarding Ḍākinī and Śākinī as malevolent spirits, was frightened, remembering their power; it was for this reason that she named the boy "Nimāi." Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa likewise writes that at the time of Śacī's son's naming, the chaste women present said: "Many children have been born to this couple before, but none have survived; let the name of this last-born child be 'Nimāñi.'" (1.3.45) Before the Lord's birth, mother Śacī had borne eight daughters, all of whom died. It seems the chaste women, recalling Sītā Ṭhākurāṇī's own example, believed that the daughters had been unable to survive owing to the evil eye of Ḍākinī, Śākinī, and similar spirits — for after them came the birth of Viśvarūpa. The gaze of these malevolent spirits, Ḍākinī, Śākinī, and the rest, had fallen upon Śacī Devī's eight daughters; but so that it might not fall upon this newborn child, they proposed the name "Nimāñi" for the boy. (Nimāñi — bitter like the neem tree — so that these evil spirits would have no desire for him.) This, it seems, was the intent behind the pious women's proposal. In any case, the learned men, hearing their proposal, said: "The moment this child was born, the whole land took notice: famine was dispelled, and the farmers received rain. The world grew whole again at his birth, just as the earth once was borne by Nārāyaṇa. Therefore let his name be 'Śrī Viśvambhara' — let this name too be recorded in the family genealogy. As for the name 'Nimāñi' the chaste women have proposed, let that too be a second name by which everyone shall call him." (1.3.47–50) The learned brāhmaṇas thus approved the name proposed by the pious women, and declared that everyone would call the boy by this very name, "Nimāñi." From this it is understood that the same fear of evil spirits that had arisen in the hearts of the pious women had likewise arisen in the hearts of the learned brāhmaṇas. And yet these very brāhmaṇas were themselves Veda-following, and the pious women too were the wives of Veda-following brāhmaṇas.

But it is known from p. 481 of the Tantra-sāra text that Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Rudra, Īśvara, Sadāśiva, Parasiva, Sāvitrī, Mahālakṣmī, Bhadrakālī, Bhuvaneśvarī, Ḍākinī, Rākinī, Śākinī, Hākinī and the rest are themselves the six-cakra deities conceived by the Śākta tāntrikas. Ḍākinī and Śākinī, therefore, are themselves tāntrika deities. Even though these Veda-following brāhmaṇas and brāhmaṇa-wives regarded them as malevolent spirits, it is clearly understood that, at that time, the influence of Śākta Tantra had spread, in a transformed guise, even among Veda-following brāhmaṇas themselves.

From the account, discussed in §57-F above, of the wine-drinking, left-hand-path sannyāsī of Rāḍha, and from the account in that same section of the Śākta sannyāsī on the road to Bāṇeśvara, it is likewise known that the influence of Śākta Tantra extended into Orissa and other parts of India as well.

Speaking of the religious condition of the country at that time, Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura writes, in one place in his Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata: "The songs of Yogīpāla, Bhogīpāla, and Mahīpāla — hearing these alone delighted everyone." (3.4.412) The yogīs mentioned here were tāntrika Śaiva yogīs (see the commentary on 3.4.412). All the people found delight in hearing the songs of these tāntrika Śaiva yogīs. From this it is understood that the influence of Śaiva Tantra had likewise spread very widely.

That the verses quoted in §57-F from the poet Karṇapūra's drama also refer to the tāntrikas of that era is likewise known from the verses themselves.

From this discussion it is clearly known that, at that time, the influence of Veda-opposed Tantra was extremely widespread in Bengal, and particularly in Navadvīpa. This will be further confirmed by the discussion in the following section.

§76. The Attitude and Conduct of the Tāntrikas of That Era Regarding Kīrtana

This section shows that it was precisely the tāntrikas of Navadvīpa at that time who opposed kīrtana and spoke various harsh words against those who performed it.

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa, throughout almost the whole of his Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, calls those who behaved ill toward kīrtana and the devotees who performed it "pāṣaṇḍa" or "pāṣaṇḍī" (heretics). To understand the reason for this, it is necessary to know the meaning of the word "pāṣaṇḍa." What the Śabda-kalpa-druma dictionary gives as the meaning of the word "pāṣaṇḍa" is quoted here:

"Pāṣaṇḍa: one who follows conduct opposed to the Veda; one who bears the marks of every caste; a Buddhist mendicant (kṣapaṇaka) and the like — so says Bharata. Its synonyms are: raktapaṭa [two] — so says Amara; kaulika [three]; pāṣaṇḍika [four] — so says the Śabda-ratnāvalī." After this, citing several proof-texts from chapter 3.18 of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa and the commentary of Śrīdhara Svāmipāda, it is stated that even seeing, touching, or conversing with such heretics is forbidden. Further, quoting several statements of Sadāśiva to Bhagavatī from chapter 42 of the Uttara-khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa, a description of heretics is given. Accordingly, a heretic is: (1) one who, deluded by ignorance, declares some deity other than the universally-worshipped Nārāyaṇa to be the Supreme Reality: "Those who, deluded by ignorance, declare some other deity to be the Supreme Reality, apart from Nārāyaṇa, worshipped by the whole universe — they indeed are heretics." (2) One who bears skull, ashes, and bones, wears non-Vedic marks, keeps matted hair and bark-garments without observing the vānaprastha stage, and engages in non-Vedic rites — such a one is a heretic: "Whoever bears skull, ashes, and bones, wears non-Vedic marks, keeps matted hair and bark-garments without being in the forest-dweller's stage, and engages in non-Vedic rites — such a one is indeed a heretic." (3) Those twice-born who lack the marks — conch, discus, ūrdhva-puṇḍra and the like — most dear to Śrī Hari, are likewise heretics: "Those twice-born, O Goddess, who lack the marks — conch, discus, ūrdhva-puṇḍra and the like — most dear to Hari, are considered heretics." (4) A twice-born who fails to observe the conduct enjoined by Śruti and Smṛti is a heretic, condemned by all people: "A twice-born who fails to practice the conduct declared by Śruti and Smṛti is to be known as a heretic, condemned among all people." (5) One who, abandoning Viṣṇu, the enjoyer of all sacrifices, the deity of the brāhmaṇas, performs fire-oblation or gives charity to some other deity, or who claims independence in [Vedically-enjoined] rites, is a heretic: "He who, abandoning Viṣṇu, the enjoyer of all sacrifices, the deity of the brāhmaṇas, offers oblation and gives gifts to some other deity, or who claims independence in [such] rites, is to be known as a heretic." (6) Those who, without devotion to the Lord, perform great Vedically-enjoined works out of mere self-assertion (independence) are likewise heretics: "Whatever great Vedically-enjoined work is performed out of self-assertion, without devotion to the Lord — those who do so are declared to be heretics." (7) One who regards Nārāyaṇa as equal to Brahmā, Rudra, and the other gods is always a heretic: "He who regards the god Nārāyaṇa as equal to deities such as Brahmā and Rudra is ever a heretic." (8) A twice-born who shows disregard through mind, word, and deed, who does not know Vāsudeva, is a heretic: "He who shows disregard through mind, word, and deed, and does not know Vāsudeva — such a twice-born becomes a heretic." (9) Those people devoid of the name and mantra of Śrī Hari, and excluded from proper social conduct, are heretics: "Those people devoid of the name and mantra of Hari, excluded from proper conduct, even if they be of the [proper] castes and stages of life, are declared to be heretics." After this it is stated: if the teachers (that is, brāhmaṇas) of the various castes are themselves non-Vaiṣṇava, devoid of devotion to the Lord, blasphemers of Vaiṣṇavas, harmers of living beings and eaters of flesh, and are turned away from Nārāyaṇa, they too are heretics — and so on.

From these statements of Śrī Sadāśiva, it is clearly known that followers of Veda-opposed Tantra doctrine are likewise heretics (pāṣaṇḍa). In particular, the Śabda-kalpa-druma itself gives one meaning of the word "pāṣaṇḍa" as "one who follows conduct opposed to the Veda," and another as "kaulika." Kaulika and Kaula are one and the same. From the aforementioned Saptatīrtha's Tantra-paricaya (p. 52), it is known that the practice of the left-hand path (vāmācāra) must be performed through the yoga of the five "m"s (pañca-ma-kāra). The Meru-tantra mentions five kinds of vāma-mārga, among which "Kaulika" is one such vāma-mārga. From the Śabda-kalpa-druma's discussion of the word "Kaula," it is known that the Kaulārṇava-tantra and the Mahānīla-tantra likewise mention the Kaulas. It is thus known that a Kaulika or Kaula is a follower of Veda-opposed Tantra doctrine. This is likewise known from the general meaning of the word "pāṣaṇḍa," "one who follows conduct opposed to the Veda." Followers of Veda-opposed Tantra doctrine, therefore, are indeed pāṣaṇḍas.

Now, a few statements from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata regarding those who behaved in opposition to kīrtana and the like are cited and discussed.

While the Lord was still a teacher, before his self-revelation, before he had yet propagated prema-bhakti — seeing the outward-turned indifference of the world, the devotees' hearts were greatly grieved: "Clapping their hands together, all the devotees, gathering by themselves, would perform kīrtana." (1.11.9) Hearing this kīrtana of the devotees, the outward-turned people would mock them, saying: "'For what purpose do these people shout so loudly? "I am Brahman; the stainless one dwells within me alone" — what need, then, is there for any distinction between servant and Lord?'" (1.11.10–11) It is now considered what doctrine the speakers of these words followed.

It has already been shown that a certain agreement exists between the Māyāvāda ācārya Śrīpāda Śaṅkara and the tāntrikas regarding the doctrines of Brahman and of the individual soul. Śaṅkara's conceived Brahman is utterly without attributes; the tāntrikas' conceived Brahman is likewise so. According to Śaṅkara too, there is no difference at all between the soul and Brahman; according to the tāntrikas too, there is no difference between soul and Brahman. In both doctrines, the forms of Godhead are illusory (māyika) embodiments. The Māyāvādin too says "I am Brahman"; the tāntrika too says "I am Brahman." Regarding the soul and Brahman as non-different, the Māyāvādins do not accept any served-servant relationship (sevya-sevaka-bhāva) between Brahman and the soul — nor do the tāntrikas. In the statement quoted above, it is said, "I am Brahman," and "what need is there for any distinction between servant and Lord." It must now be determined: are these the words of some Māyāvādin, or of some tāntrika?

In the entirety of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, mention of a Māyāvādin is found in only two places — at 2.3.37–38 and at 2.20.33–34. That Māyāvādin is Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, who resided in Kāśī, outside Bengal. No mention is made anywhere in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata of any Māyāvādin residing in Navadvīpa or elsewhere in Bengal. From this it is understood that the influence of Māyāvāda was not especially significant in Navadvīpa or Bengal at that time. Therefore the statements quoted above do not seem to be statements of Māyāvādins at all. One phrase among the statements quoted above clearly shows that these are not the statements of Māyāvādins. That phrase is: "the stainless one dwells within me alone" — that is, "the stainless Brahman dwells within me (that is, within my body)." Māyāvādins say "I am Brahman," but they do not say "the stainless Brahman dwells within my body" — for they do not even accept the real existence of the body at all; just as one mistakes mother-of-pearl for silver, or a rope for a snake, they regard the very notion of the body's real existence as nothing but illusion. The tāntrikas, however, do accept that their own conceived "stainless Brahman" resides at some particular location within the body.

It has already been said that, according to the tāntrikas, the Supreme Śiva resides in the Bindu-cakra, located above the Sahasrāra. This Supreme Śiva is transcendent to māyā — that is, the stainless Brahman. The Bindu-cakra, too, is located within the individual's own body; therefore the Supreme Śiva or stainless Brahman residing in the Bindu-cakra is likewise located within the soul's own body. Thus it is seen that the statements quoted above, from Caitanya-bhāgavata 1.11.11–12, are themselves statements of tāntrikas.

Thinking "I am Brahman" in this way, and having acquired some power through tāntrika sādhana, certain tāntrikas even proclaim themselves to be Bhagavān (God), and their followers too begin to worship them as such; and, in order to proclaim the superiority of their own divinity, they even become vocal in declaring the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān, spoken of in the Veda, to be inferior to themselves. Such a "Bhagavān" is, of course, a "tāntrika Bhagavān," not the Vedic Bhagavān. The characteristics of the Vedic Bhagavān are nowhere found in this tāntrika Bhagavān. The Svayaṁ Bhagavān spoken of in the Veda is a body of being-consciousness-bliss; the tāntrika Bhagavān possesses an illusory body. The Svayaṁ Bhagavān spoken of in the Veda is vijara (free of old age), vimṛtyu (free of death), apahata-pāpmā (free of sin) (Chāndogya Śruti), and anāmaya (free of disease) (Śvetāśvatara Śruti). But the tāntrika "Bhagavān" is subject to old age, death, and disease — and since disease is the fruit of sin, the very existence of disease indicates the existence of sin as well. There are even such old-age-afflicted tāntrikas who do not themselves proclaim in their own mouths that they are Bhagavān; but when their followers, in their very presence, call them Bhagavān, they do not object — rather, they feel pleasure at it.

It has already been said that Tantra-śāstra is external to the Veda, the Brahman conceived by Tantra is opposed to the Veda, and the sādhana taught by Tantra is likewise opposed to the Veda. Therefore the tāntrikas too are followers of conduct opposed to the Veda — and hence pāṣaṇḍas. For all these reasons, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa calls the opponents of kīrtana and the like "pāṣaṇḍa."

From the previously cited statement of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, it is known that the tāntrikas mocked and ridiculed the Vaiṣṇavas who performed kīrtana. The Vaiṣṇavas performed kīrtana of Kṛṣṇa's name alone, and performed it loudly, clapping their hands. At this the tāntrikas would say: "For what purpose do these people shout so loudly?"

One further account, from the period before Mahāprabhu's self-revelation, is now cited from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata:

"Thus the devotees dwelt in Nadia, while all of Nadia was intoxicated with the pleasures of wealth and progeny. Upon merely hearing kīrtana, people would mock it. Some would say: 'This is just a scheme to fill one's belly!' Others would say: 'Setting aside the discernment proper to jñāna and yoga, what is this business — dancing about like a madman?' Others would say: 'Whatever I've read of the Bhāgavata, I've never come across any path that says to dance and weep like this! Because of Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita and his three brothers, brother, we get no sleep even after eating our meal! What merit, pray, is there in softly saying "Kṛṣṇa"? What is gained by dancing, weeping, and shouting aloud?' In this way, all the sinful, heretical people, the moment they saw a Vaiṣṇava, would speak such words among themselves." (1.7.181–87)

The phrase "just a scheme to fill one's belly" itself calls the kīrtana-performing devotees mere hypocrites. The phrase "setting aside the discernment proper to jñāna and yoga" is itself a statement of tāntrikas — it has already been shown that the sādhana-path of the Śaiva tāntrikas is called "yoga," and that of the Śākta tāntrikas "jñāna" (see also the commentary on 1.7.183). The devotees, absorbed in the ecstasy of prema during kīrtana, would also dance; the tāntrikas mocked this as the dancing of a madman. The statement "Whatever I've read of the Bhāgavata" and so on is likewise strange — does one who has actually read the Bhāgavata not know that the Bhāgavata itself declares: "One who has taken such a vow, singing the names of his own beloved Lord, becomes overwhelmed, his heart melted with intense longing; he laughs aloud, weeps, cries out, sings, and dances, indifferent to worldly opinion." (Bhāgavata 11.2.40)? Regarding the statement "what merit is there in softly saying 'Kṛṣṇa'" and the like, it must be said that, according to Veda-conforming scripture, loud kīrtana is of the very highest glory (see the commentary on 2.23.76, and verses 1.11.1–3). In truth, the matter is this: the tāntrikas cannot bear the name of Kṛṣṇa; when Kṛṣṇa's name, loudly sung, enters their ears, it causes them a burning sensation in the body and an inner distress, and for this reason they cannot even sleep in peace. Even in modern times, it is known of at least one prominent tāntrika who could not bear even the sight of someone chanting the holy name of Hari — he would mock those who chanted Hari's name, and even accuse them, mockingly, of harboring intentions to steal.

How much hostility and disrespect the tāntrikas harbored toward the kīrtana and dancing of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's name, and toward those who performed such dance-kīrtana, is known from these very statements of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata: "Some said: 'Dancing is not the proper work of a brāhmaṇa. Even having studied [the scriptures], these people do such things!' Others said: 'It is not fit to look at these people at all — associating with them destroys one's whole reputation. If any respectable person sees this dance and kīrtana, he will become just like them — see for yourself! Nimāñi Paṇḍita had the finest of intellects, yet see what his mind has become through association with these people!' Others said: 'Without direct realization of the Self, what is the use of shouting out like this — don't they know this? The stainless Brahman is present within their own body — yet, having lost that very treasure in their own home, they go running off into the forest to search for it!'" (2.8.252–57)

Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita and his three brothers had performed kīrtana in their own home even before Mahāprabhu's advent; and after the Lord's self-revelation too, the Lord's kīrtana with the devotees continued at Śrīvāsa's very house. How intense was the hostility the heretics bore toward this Śrīvāsa is likewise known from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata. A few statements are cited here — first, statements from the period before Mahāprabhu's advent: "[They said:] 'Why should there be dancing for Kṛṣṇa, why kīrtana at all? Who is this "Vaiṣṇava" they speak of, and what is this "saṅkīrtana"?' The people, knowing nothing, intoxicated only by wealth and progeny — all the heretics gathered together and mocked the Vaiṣṇavas."

"The four brothers of Śrīvāsa's house, gathering in their own home when night fell, would sing Hari's name aloud. Hearing this, the heretics said: 'A calamity has occurred — this brāhmaṇa will bring ruin upon the whole village. The king of this land is most severe; if he hears of this affair, disaster will befall Nadia.' Others said: 'Let us tear down this brāhmaṇa's house from this very village and drive him out of our sight forever. Removing this brāhmaṇa will bring good fortune to the village — otherwise the Yavanas will seize the whole village.' Thus spoke all the heretics; hearing this, the devotees wept, crying only 'Kṛṣṇa!'" (1.2.105–12)

Then comes an account from the period after the Lord's return from Gayā, when he openly began his kīrtana: "Some said: 'What is this "kīrtana" — who even knows? This Śrīvāsa brāhmaṇa cooks up so much trouble! The four brothers gather together only to beg for their food, and shout out "Hari!" like madmen. What merit is there in saying it silently in the mind? What merit does the whole world gain from their shouting all night?' Others said: 'Brothers, a calamity has struck! Because of Śrīvāsa's doing, the whole land is ruined. Today I myself heard from the magistrate (deoyāna) that, by the king's order, two boats have arrived here this very day. He has heard specifically of the kīrtana in Nadia, and the king's command is to seize and suppress it. Wherever Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita flees, our own total ruin, taking us all down with him, is now at hand. At the time I myself, being outspoken, said we should tear down Śrīvāsa's house and throw it into the Gaṅgā. If we had done it then, thinking it merely a joke — now see, we all stand on the brink of total ruin!' Others said: 'What concern is it of ours? Let whoever wishes come and bind Śrīvāsa and hand him over!'" (2.2.227–36) It was precisely to intimidate Śrīvāsa and the others that the heretics spread this rumor of royal boats.

The heretics even threatened the Lord himself with the fear of the king. "All the heretics said: 'Nimāñi Paṇḍita! An order from the king is coming swiftly for you. Perform your kīrtana secretly at night, where people cannot see you, at every moment. This is not mere rumor — it has now come true; we tell you this only out of true friendship.'" (2.17.7–9)

And again: "Some said: 'What is a Vaiṣṇava in this age of Kali? Look — all you see are mere belly-worshippers!' Others said: 'Bind these people hand and foot and throw them in the water — if they survive, then indeed their village shall be called blessed!' Others said: 'Brothers, know this for certain: Nimāñi Paṇḍita will bring ruin and plunder upon this entire village!'" (2.23.9–11)

Hearing the loud kīrtana of Khola-becā Śrīdhara — "all the heretics said: 'Because of Śrīdhara's shouting, we get no sleep at night, our ears are bursting! This great peasant fellow, whose belly isn't even filled by rice-gruel, stays awake half-starved all night, howling like a madman!'"* (2.9.147–48)

The heretics regarded Śrīdhara as nothing but a hypocrite. They regarded Gaura and Nityānanda too as hypocrites. The heretics' own words: "'Nimāñi Paṇḍita, in his arrogance, will be utterly smashed to pieces at the qāḍī's very door! And this Nityānanda, wandering from town to town — just watch, one day his true colors will show themselves! To speak plainly, we ourselves are the heretics here [i.e., they sarcastically call themselves heretics for daring to speak such truth] — blessed indeed is Nadia, to have produced so many hypocrites!'" (2.23.111–13)

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes further, regarding the conduct and attitude of the heretics of that era:

"Reciting mocking Āryā-verses, the moment they saw a Vaiṣṇava, they would say: 'Even ascetics, chaste women, and holy men shall go and die! We call fortunate only him who rides in a fine palanquin or on horseback, with ten or twenty attendants running before and behind. As for you, weeping in the mood of a "Gosāñi" — that will hardly dispel the sorrow of your poverty! Raising a great shout again and again crying "Hari, Hari" — the Gosāñi will be pleased indeed to hear such a great racket!'" (1.5.18–21)

"Nowhere was any manifestation of devotion to Viṣṇu to be found; everyone mocked the Vaiṣṇavas. All the saintly ones, gathering together by themselves, would sing the name of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, clapping their hands. Even at this the wicked flew into a great rage, saying: 'These heretics, gathering with heretics, will surely destroy themselves! These brāhmaṇa fellows will bring ruin upon the kingdom — from them alone will come the manifestation of famine in this land! These brāhmaṇa fellows do all this only to beg for their food, performing devotional kīrtana under various false pretexts. During the four months of the rainy season, when the Gosāñi [Viṣṇu] is asleep, what need is there to raise such a great shout? If his sleep is broken, the Gosāñi will grow angry, and without doubt bring famine upon this land!' Others said: 'If the price of grain rises even a little, we shall seize these fellows and beat them soundly on the shoulders!'" (1.11.250–57)

When, on Mahāprabhu's order, Nityānanda and Haridāsa were going house to house preaching the name of Kṛṣṇa, — "hearing this extraordinary news, various people, in various moods, spoke various words of their own. Some said, with satisfaction, 'What is to be done, what is to be done?' Others said: 'These two are simply deranged by some mantra gone wrong. You two have gone mad from a faulty mantra — why have you come to drive us mad as well? Those who could not gain entrance through Caitanya's dancing simply go to people's houses now and shout "Beat them, beat them!" All the respectable people have gone mad — Nimāñi Paṇḍita has ruined them all!' Others said: 'These two are nothing but thieves or thieves' spies — under false pretenses they wander smeared [with sandal-paste, feigning holiness] from house to house! Why should good, respectable people put up with such a display? If they come again, we shall seize them and hand them over to the magistrate!' Hearing all this, Nityānanda and Haridāsa only laughed; by the strength of Caitanya's own command, they felt no fear at all." (2.13.20–27)

Many more such accounts are found in Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata; for the sake of brevity, no more are cited here. From the few accounts already cited, it is clearly understood how the Veda-opposed heretical tāntrikas of that era behaved toward, and how much trouble they caused, the name of Kṛṣṇa and those who performed kīrtana of Kṛṣṇa. They could not bear worship of Kṛṣṇa, devotion to Kṛṣṇa, or the name of Kṛṣṇa; hearing the loud chanting of Kṛṣṇa's name caused them a burning sensation in body and heart; they regarded the performers of Kṛṣṇa-kīrtana as the ruin of the land; they spoke of tearing down their houses and casting them into the currents of the Gaṅgā; they even contemplated lodging complaints against them at the royal court; they called them belly-worshippers, thieves, thieves' spies, hypocrites, and frauds; they even regarded Gaura and Nityānanda themselves as frauds and enemies of the country's welfare; and they threatened the devotees, and even the Lord himself, with the fear of the king. Toward the name of Kṛṣṇa, the worship of Kṛṣṇa, and the devotees of Kṛṣṇa, these tāntrikas harbored an extraordinary hostility. Their attitude and conduct caused the devotees great inner sorrow — yet the devotees bore it all, never once entering into dispute with them, but rather praying at Śrī Kṛṣṇa's feet only that these very people might attain devotion to Kṛṣṇa. For this reason, no visible conflict ever arose between the devotees and the tāntrikas.

§77. The State of the Country Under Mahāprabhu's Influence (1)

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa writes in his Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata that, after taking sannyāsa, on his way to Śāntipura, the Lord went to Phuliyā. Hearing this news, all the residents of Navadvīpa rushed toward Phuliyā for his darśana. "Hearing that the Lord was in the town of Phuliyā, all the people, filled with joy, set out to see him. Old and young, men and women alike, all went joyfully, crying 'Hari! Hari!' Even those very heretics who had once slandered him went along with their whole families, saying: 'He took secret birth in Navadvīpa, and we, not knowing him, blasphemed his very dharma. Now let us go and take refuge at his feet, so that all our offenses may be dissolved.' Thus speaking, the people went in the greatest joy — no one could say by how many roads the people streamed." (3.1.176–81)

Then — "all the people arrived at the town of Phuliyā, crying 'Hari!' aloud, as if to touch the very universe. Hearing this extraordinary, exalted sound of Hari's name, the crown-jewel of all sannyāsīs came out. What wondrous beauty was there — beyond all telling — as if ten million moons had risen at once! Ever from his divine mouth flowed 'Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare,' and as he spoke, streams of bliss flowed ceaselessly. On every side the people fell in daṇḍavat obeisance; none could even tell who fell upon whom... Seeing Gaurachandra's enchanting divine face, everyone's heart and body alike were filled to overflowing. Then the Lord, casting his glance of mercy upon them all, proceeded to Śāntipura, to the Ācārya's house." (3.1.191–202)

From this account it is known that those very heretics who had once blasphemed the Lord and the saṅkīrtana-dharma he had established felt, by the Lord's grace, intense remorse arise in their own hearts; and in order to expiate the offense they had committed, they too went to Phuliyā, and there, themselves, loudly performed the very Hari-saṅkīrtana they had once condemned; and, taking refuge in the Lord, falling prostrate to the ground, hearing the name "Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare" from the Lord's own mouth, and receiving the Lord's glance of grace, they became fulfilled. Such was the Lord's will — that even the greatest heretic could attain love of Kṛṣṇa merely by his darśana; and these very people, by that same Lord's glance of grace, were blessed indeed.

Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa further writes that once, when the Lord came from Nīlācala to the land of Gauḍa, he stayed for some time at the house of Vidyā-vācaspati. Hearing this, countless people came there for his darśana. Among them were also those who had once blasphemed the Lord and the saṅkīrtana-dharma he had preached. They said: "'This brāhmaṇa did not know his glory; there is no limit to the blasphemy he committed. Now, taking his lotus feet to my heart, I beg — how shall this sin of mine be dissolved?'" (3.2.90–91) By Vidyā-vācaspati's grace, everyone arrived at his house, and all of them — even those very slandering heretics — began to raise a great sound of Hari's name. "Hearing the sound of Hari's name, in the greatest satisfaction, they came outside, by the fortune of those very people. How enchanting was the beauty of that divine form! What comparison could there be for that form, for that very body!... Seeing the Lord, all the people on every side began, in their delight, to dance, crying 'Hari!' Falling in daṇḍavat obeisance, all of them lay upon the ground, immersed in bliss, crying 'Hari, Hari.' Raising both arms, all the people offered praise: 'Deliver us, Lord, sinners all!' The Lord, smiling gently, blessed all the people: 'May your minds be fixed on Kṛṣṇa. Say "Kṛṣṇa," worship Kṛṣṇa, sing Kṛṣṇa's name — may Kṛṣṇa become the very life, wealth, and breath of you all.' Hearing this blessing, all the people cried 'Hari!' and again and again offered him praise: 'For the deliverance of the world, you took secret birth in Śacī's house at Navadvīpa. We sinners, not recognizing you, fell into blind darkness, devouring our own selves. You, ocean of compassion, benefactor of all — show us your mercy, that we may never again forget you.'" (3.3.314–27) Thus, by the Lord's grace, even the slandering heretics attained fulfillment.

It is further known from Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata that, when Śrī Nityānanda came from Nīlācala to Bengal, on the Lord's order, to bestow the name and prema indiscriminately upon all people, he remained for some time in Navadvīpa as well, and traveled everywhere performing kīrtana with the devotees. Various kinds of people then dwelt in Navadvīpa. "Among them there were also wicked people who spoke ill of everything, in whose very shadow all virtue would vanish. Even they, by the grace of Lord Nityānanda, became devoted, without any deceit, to the path of Kṛṣṇa. Caitanya himself liberated some directly; through the agency of Nityānanda, the three worlds were delivered." (3.5.522–24)

Kavirāja Gosvāmī, too, in his Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, briefly mentions an account of this kind. Following Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa, he writes that Mahāprabhu went to Phuliyā from Vidyā-vācaspati's house: "Hearing of the Lord's arrival in the village of Phuliyā, tens of millions of people came for his darśana. In the village of Phuliyā he showed mercy upon Devānanda, and forgave Gopāla Vipra's offense against Śrīvāsa. The blaspheming heretics came and fell at his feet; forgiving their offense, he granted them love of Kṛṣṇa." (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.1.142–44) Regarding Śrī Nityānanda, Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes: "Nityānanda Rāya is the very banner of the destruction of heretics." (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.3.61)

A. The Tāntrikas' Acceptance of Vaiṣṇava Dharma, and the Waning of Tantra-dharma

From the accounts given above, it is known that those very heretics (or tāntrikas) of Navadvīpa who had once blasphemed kīrtana, the devotees, and the Lord himself, by the grace of Mahāprabhu and Nityānanda Prabhu, themselves abandoned their tantric doctrine, attained love of Kṛṣṇa, and became engaged in devotion to Kṛṣṇa.

The aforementioned Professor Cakravartī likewise writes, on p. 8 of his book: "With the advent of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Vaiṣṇava dharma itself created, for a time, tremendous inspiration and fervor throughout the land. 'Shattering every other doctrine to pieces, the Lord established everywhere the conclusions of Vaiṣṇavism' (Caitanya-caritāmṛta). As a result, many Śākta practitioners were, at this time, initiated into Vaiṣṇava dharma."

It does not seem unreasonable to surmise that news of Mahāprabhu's such influence spread throughout the whole of Bengal, and that tāntrikas in many places throughout Bengal, realizing the worthlessness of tantric doctrine, were themselves initiated into the Vaiṣṇava dharma preached by Mahāprabhu. A statement by the eminent scholar Pañcānana Tarkaratna Mahodaya, a resident of Chatal village, seems to support this surmise. This statement is now discussed.

The book called Tantra-sāra by the eminent scholar Kṛṣṇānanda Āgamavāgīśa Mahodaya is especially esteemed in tāntrika society. Everything a tāntrika needs to know is found in this book; no other text of this kind seems to exist. In the edition of this book published under Tarkaratna Mahāśaya's editorship in 1334 BE, he writes in his introduction that only two manuscript copies of this text were found. "The copying-date of one of these is Śaka 1580. Though the copying-date of the other is not recorded, from the condition of the manuscript it may be estimated to have been written some 200 years ago. Both these manuscripts are from Navadvīpa."

Mahāprabhu's disappearance occurred in Śaka 1455. The aforementioned first manuscript-copy was written in Śaka 1580, that is, 125 years after Mahāprabhu's disappearance. The second manuscript-copy was written some years after that. Tarkaratna Mahāśaya does not record that any manuscript-copy was found anywhere else in Bengal. From this it is understood that, some 125 years after Mahāprabhu's disappearance, only a small handful of people in Navadvīpa still followed the path of Tantra. It does not seem that this doctrine was especially followed elsewhere in Bengal; had it been so, manuscript-copies of the Tantra-sāra would have been found in those places as well. From this it is understood that, some 125 years after Mahāprabhu's disappearance, only a faint trickle of Tantra-dharma still flowed in Navadvīpa. That is, even up to the middle of the seventeenth century CE, Śākta dharma had not yet gained any real prominence.

§78. The Revival of Śākta Dharma in the Eighteenth Century CE

Whenever a religious doctrine spreads its influence over a great many people, it is precisely then that songs and verse-compositions (padāvalī) regarding that doctrine come to be composed. Professor Jāhnavīkumāra Cakravartī, from p. 6 of his book onward, across several pages, attempts to show that no Śākta-padāvalī was composed before the eighteenth century, and that it was only in the eighteenth century that Śākta lyric poetry attained its full flowering. Before that, it was Vaiṣṇava-padāvalī that had achieved especially wide currency.

Professor Cakravartī's view here seems reasonable. It is said that at one time countless Buddhist Sahajiyās were initiated into Vaiṣṇava dharma. Professor Cakravartī writes, on p. 28 of his book, that these Buddhist Sahajiyās "regarded as their spiritual practice the attainment of 'liberation' through a sexually-based 'yogic process,' by the union of compassion (karuṇā) and voidness (śūnyatā)... In this too are found the Śākta conceptions of the body, of the nāḍīs and cakras (lotuses), and the recognition of the primal power (mūla-śakti) as Caṇḍālī or Ḍomanī (comparable to Kuṇḍalinī)." Even after such Buddhist Sahajiyās were initiated into Vaiṣṇava dharma, they were unable to abandon their deeply ingrained tantric practices; after some time, they began practicing these tantric rites under the very guise of Vaiṣṇavism, and gradually became themselves the "Vaiṣṇava-Sahajiyās." They became wholly given over to guru-worship (guruvāda), and became entangled in the licentiousness of "guru-prasādī" and various other sexual improprieties. It is thus understood that, during this period, the pure, unblemished, śruti-grounded dharma established by Mahāprabhu had grown weak. Vaiṣṇava dharma was then weak; the Vaiṣṇava-Sahajiyās, or tāntrika "Vaiṣṇavas," being far more numerous, were then dominant. Those who had continued to follow the faint trickle of tantric doctrine mentioned earlier presumably rose to prominence again in this very climate. In this way Śākta Tantra-dharma began to spread once more. Professor Cakravartī states that this occurred in the eighteenth century CE (see p. 12 of his book).

A. Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra's Influence in the Revival of Śākta Dharma

Professor Cakravartī states, on p. 269 of his book, that it was through the direct patronage of Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra that Śākta practice gained such widespread currency in the eighteenth century. Regarding Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra, he writes: "'Kṛṣṇacandra, perfect in all sixty-four arts' — thus did the poet Bhāratacandra sing Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra's praises. That praise is no mere flattery, but truth. Mr. [Long?] Sāheb has compared Kṛṣṇacandra to the European King Augustus. In truth, the Mahārāja's love of the arts, his patronage of learning, and his cooperation with his subjects have made him immortal in the pages of history.

"Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra was the son of Mahārāja Raghunātha, the ruler of Navadvīpa. He lived from the time of Nawab Ālīvardī Khān to the reign of Nawab Mīr Jāfar. During this period he earned renown through his patronage of religion, poetry, music, and the arts. He does bear the stain, in history, of being a conspirator, but that stain has been overshadowed by his many virtues.

"Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra was himself a worshipper of Śakti. Under his direct patronage, Śākta practice gained widespread currency in the eighteenth century. He was the very first to introduce the worship of Jagaddhātrī in Bengal. The Mahārāja's encouragement behind the composition of Śākta poetry is praiseworthy — Bhāratacandra was his own court poet, and the practitioner-poet Rāmaprasāda was nurtured by his patronage."

From this account given by Professor Cakravartī, it is known that it was under the direct patronage of Kṛṣṇacandra, the ruler of Nadia, that Śākta practice gained such widespread currency in the eighteenth century CE. It was in his time, and through his own initiative, that tāntrika Śākta dharma was revived. Since he cooperated closely with his subjects and was himself devoted to the arts and a patron of learning, it is easily understood that his subjects were deeply devoted to him. There can also be no doubt that his initiative in propagating Śākta dharma received the particular support of his subjects, and that other renowned figures of that era, charmed by his virtues, likewise supported his efforts.

Regarding Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra's propagation of tāntrika Śākta dharma, a somewhat more detailed account is found in another text.

The esteemed Śrī Haridāsa Dāsa Mahodaya, in the second volume of his book Śrī Śrī Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-jīvana, writes, regarding "Totā Rāmadāsa Bābājī (Siddha)":

"The crown-jewel of the Vaiṣṇavas of Navadvīpa. It is said he was a Draviḍa brāhmaṇa, named Rāmadāsa Miśra. He came to Navadvīpa to study Nyāya-śāstra, but before completing his studies, overcome by intense renunciation, he went to Śrī Vṛndāvana. The shrine (ṭhora) south of the temple of Śrī Śrī Gopīnātha Jīu is his own place of devotional practice. After long years of devotion, Śrīman Mahāprabhu himself, in a dream, ordered him to go to Navadvīpa and personally oversee his own service (sevā). At that time the service of Mahāprabhu's deity was in great disarray. Due to the poverty of the Gosvāmīs, there was no fixed temple; the sacred image (śrī-vigraha) was carried, in rotation, to the homes of various servants and worshipped there. Indeed, at times, out of fear of Navadvīpa's heretics and the officials of the state, the sacred image had to be kept hidden. In such a state of affairs, Rāmadāsa came to Navadvīpa and took his seat beneath the daśa-aśvattha [ten-fig] tree near the Gaṅgā. Seeing the tilaka on his forehead, the garland at his throat, his renunciate garb, and his sāttvika transports, the residents of Navadvīpa took him for a madman and began, for their own amusement, to torment him — but he bore every torment with an undisturbed mind. One day, driven by curiosity, he posed one or two questions on Nyāya-śāstra to one of his tormentors. That person, unable to answer, reported this to his own teacher; the teacher, upon discovering Rāmadāsa's extraordinary genius and learning, began to engage him in scriptural discourse. It is said that one day, at dawn, seated by the Gaṅgā, two Naiyāyika scholars began a verbal duel. Rāmadāsa happened to be present at that spot. With eyes closed, arguing side and counter-side, the two continued the whole day long — Bābājī Mahāśaya, arriving in the evening, seeing their condition, resolved the dispute for them, and both were filled with the greatest joy; opening their eyes, they saw that it was a certain kanthā-clad, kara-bearing bābājī who had settled the matter for them. From this incident onward, news of his extraordinary scholarship spread in every direction.

"One day, Śrī Rāmadāsa was seated on the bank of the Gaṅgā performing his morning rites (āhnika) — some wicked person placed a garland of shoes around his neck. By chance, the Dewan Gaṅgāgovinda Siṃha was passing that very spot by boat at the time; seeing this insult to a Vaiṣṇava, he was distressed and grieved, and asked who had committed this insult against him — but Rāmadāsa, absorbed in meditation and unmoved, gave no reply at all. Gaṅgāgovinda Siṃha, mooring his boat at the ghāṭ, went and reported this complaint to Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra, the ruler of Navadvīpa. The Mahārāja himself came in person, and, hearing the account, was deeply grieved; he accepted the blame for this offense himself and begged forgiveness. On this occasion, engaging in scriptural discourse with Rāmadāsa and witnessing his extraordinary learning in Nyāya philosophy, the Mahārāja bestowed upon him the title 'Totā' [Parrot, for his eloquence]. From then on he was known as 'Totā Rāmadāsa.' He performed service to Śrī Giridhārī — this deity remained with him even beneath the tree. The Mahārāja, after several occasions of scriptural discourse with him, made an unconditional gift of six bighās of land adjoining that tree for the establishment of the Ṭhākura's āśrama. The building constructed upon this land is known to this day as the 'Baḍa Ākhaḍā' (Great Monastery); it is still occupied and maintained by the disciplic succession of Totā Rāmadāsa.

"It goes without saying that it was through his own effort and extraordinary zeal that the land of Śrīman Mahāprabhu's present courtyard and the old temple came to be built, and the sacred image was brought in triumphant procession from Mālañcapāḍā to its present location — and arrangements for its daily service were established as well." (Śrī Śrī Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-jīvana, Volume Two, pp. 134–35)

Discussion. From the account given above, it is known that "at times, out of fear of Navadvīpa's heretics and the officials of the state, the sacred image had to be kept hidden." This is itself one clear sign of Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra's own initiative in propagating tāntrika Śākta dharma. It was out of fear of persecution by him, by his officials, and by the heretical tāntrikas under his patronage, that the Gosvāmī-servants of Mahāprabhu's deity kept the sacred image hidden.

Further, regarding the episode of the garland of shoes placed around Bābājī Mahārāja's neck, Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra himself told Dewan Gaṅgāgovinda Siṃha: "For this offense, I myself am to blame." No one, surely, believes that those who placed the garland of shoes around Bābājī Mahārāja's neck were themselves Vaiṣṇavas. Even without any direct order from Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra, it was presumably his own tāntrika followers, believing that the Mahārāja would not be displeased by such conduct, who committed this act. This is precisely why the Mahārāja said, "For this act, I myself am to blame."

When the great soul Rāmadāsa first came to Navadvīpa from Vṛndāvana, those who, seeing his Vaiṣṇava garb and Vaiṣṇava demeanor, took him for a madman and tormented him, likewise appear to have been tāntrikas enjoying Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra's own indulgence and protection.

From the account given above, it is clearly understood what attitude Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra, his subordinate officials, and the tāntrikas under his patronage and protection held toward Vaiṣṇava dharma, the Vaiṣṇavas, and Mahāprabhu's own sacred image. Had there been no direct or covert signal from Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra — had there been no assurance, at the very least, that the Mahārāja would not be displeased — the royal officials and the tāntrikas would never have dared to behave in such a manner, nor would there have been any reason at all to keep Mahāprabhu's sacred image hidden out of fear of them.

From the account cited above from Śrī Śrī Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-jīvana, it is known that it was through the effort and extraordinary zeal of Totā Rāmadāsa Bābājī that Mahāprabhu's sacred image came from Mālañcapāḍā to its present location. But the details of how this image came to be at Mālañcapāḍā in the first place are not recorded in that book; this account is known from oral tradition, handed down from Totā Rāmadāsa Bābājī's own time to the present day. That traditional account is now related.

It is said that, out of fear of Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra, the Vaiṣṇavas of that era, without abandoning their own true convictions, would keep their worshipped deities hidden, and would instead keep some tāntrika yantra visible outwardly, claiming that it was this tāntrika yantra alone that they worshipped. The Gosvāmī-servants of Mahāprabhu's own deity likewise kept the Lord's sacred image hidden in a pit at Mālañcapāḍā in Navadvīpa. On the very day Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra bestowed the title "Totā" upon the great soul Rāmadāsa Bābājī, at that very time, Bābājī Mahārāja begged a single "gift" of Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra. When the Mahārāja agreed to grant whatever gift he requested, Bābājī Mahārāja took him to Mālañcapāḍā, showed him Mahāprabhu's hidden sacred image, and said: "Mahārāja! It is out of fear of you that the sacred image lies in this condition. Let this sacred image, with your support and favor, be established in a public place — this alone is the gift I beg of you." Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra, true to his earlier promise, consented, and Mahāprabhu's sacred image was thus established at its present location.

One sign of Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra's effort toward the re-establishment of tāntrika Śākta dharma still exists in Navadvīpa to this day. Even now, on the occasion of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's Rāsa-yātrā festival, many images of tāntrika deities are brought out into the streets of Navadvīpa in great procession. This festival properly belongs to the Vaiṣṇavas, not to the tāntrikas. And yet the tāntrikas do this as well. It is said that Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra himself, at great expense, instituted this practice in his own time; the tāntrikas of Navadvīpa continue to follow this same custom even now. Behind this, it seems, lies the intent to dampen the joy of the Vaiṣṇava festival in the hearts of the Vaiṣṇavas themselves.

It also seems likely that, at that time, the Vaiṣṇava Gosvāmīs of certain other places, for their own safety, likewise performed the outward worship of some tāntrika yantra or similar object. Consider, for instance, the case of Śrīman Nityānanda Prabhu's own seat, Khaḍadaha. Nityānanda Prabhu himself never established any sacred image there. It was his own son, Prabhupāda Śrī Vīrabhadra Gosvāmī, who established the sacred image of Śrī Śrī Śyāmasundara, and his own descendants continue, even now, to serve that very image. There, a yantra of Tripurā-sundarī is also present — and it has already been shown that Tripurā-sundarī is herself one of the tāntrikas' ten Mahāvidyās, the goddess Ṣoḍaśī. It is said that the present-day Gosvāmī-servants of Śyāmasundara first worship the Tripurā-sundarī yantra, and only thereafter worship Śrī Śyāmasundara — and they claim that this very Tripurā-sundarī yantra had been kept within Śrī Nityānanda's own matted locks, and that Śrī Nityānanda himself used to worship this yantra. But this account does not seem credible, for the following reasons. First, it is only tāntrikas who worship the Tripurā-sundarī yantra — no Veda-following practitioner does so. Śrī Nityānanda was not a tāntrika. Indeed, the tāntrikas of Navadvīpa themselves treated him with hostility, calling him a fraud and a thieves' spy and the like. Moreover, he was Śrīman Mahāprabhu's own intimate and most beloved associate; after his sannyāsa, the Lord sent him specifically to Bengal to distribute the name and prema. He always preached the name of Kṛṣṇa and Gaura alone, never any other doctrine. None of this is at all the conduct of a tāntrika. Professor Brajendranātha Bhaṭṭācārya Mahodaya, on pp. 26–27 of his book Śākta Padāvalī, writes: "Caitanyadeva was fiercely opposed to the grotesque practices of the tāntrikas. He addressed them as 'heretics'... The current of Caitanyadeva's magnanimous religion swept over the whole of Bengal and a vast tract of India besides. As a result, the influence of tāntrika practice diminished considerably in Bengal. It was only in the eighteenth century, when the flood-tide of Caitanyadeva's religion of prema had subsided, that the influence of Śakti-worship began once again to appear in Bengal." On p. 229 of his book he likewise writes: "This land, once inhabited by peoples of Dravidian, Mongolian, and Austric stock, one day embraced Āryan civilization. After that came the influence of Buddhism, then the influence of the tāntrikas, the Bāuls, the Nāthapanthīs, and the Muslims; and then, suddenly, one day, all of this was swept away in the flood of Mahāprabhu's religion of prema." Whether it is credible that this very Mahāprabhu entrusted the propagation of his own doctrine of Kṛṣṇa-prema to a tāntrika like Nityānanda is a matter for the wise to judge.

Second, Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura specifically states that Śrī Nityānanda was intoxicated with Kṛṣṇa-prema from his very childhood; that he remained so even after leaving home; that this condition underwent no change whatsoever even after his arrival in Navadvīpa; and that, in the end, he preached only the name of Gaura and worship of Gaura. Is any of this the conduct of a tāntrika?

Third, ancient biographical texts state: "Nityānanda Rāya is the very banner of the destruction of heretics." It was the tāntrikas who were called "heretics." If Nityānanda himself had been a tāntrika, would he have destroyed heretics?

Fourth, no ancient text records that Śrī Nityānanda wore matted locks (jaṭā). Even now, wherever sacred images of Gaura-Nityānanda are found, in none of them is Śrī Nityānanda's image shown with matted locks. The two sacred images that Śrīla Gaurīdāsa Paṇḍita of Kālnā prepared and established in his own home, having personally observed Gaura-Nityānanda before Mahāprabhu's departure from home, are still extant today — and there too, Nityānanda's head bears no matted locks.

For these reasons, the account given above, current among the present-day Gosvāmīs of Khaḍadaha, does not seem credible. Some say that this Tripurā-sundarī yantra was kept in Śrī Nityānanda's own begging-sack (jholā). This too does not seem to hold up under examination. For, had Śrī Nityānanda himself been a tāntrika, then it would indeed be plausible that this tāntrika yantra had been with him, or kept in his home. But it has already been shown that he was not a tāntrika. Even granting, for argument's sake, that this yantra had indeed been in his begging-sack, it would only be known thereby that its worship was never his own intention — for had it been, he would surely have handed it directly to Vīrabhadra Prabhu, not left it lying forgotten in a sack. It seems to us most likely that the Gosvāmīs of Khaḍadaha of that era, out of fear of Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra, themselves established and worshipped this Tripurā-sundarī yantra, and, in order to please the Mahārāja, claimed that this yantra had lain hidden in Nityānanda's own matted locks and that Nityānanda himself had worshipped it. Later Gosvāmīs, hearing this claim passed down, came to believe it as true, without ever examining whether such worship of this yantra was even conceivable for Nityānanda at all.

It is not unreasonable to surmise that similar things occurred at other places as well, just as at Khaḍadaha.

In any case, from the discussion above, it is known how Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra brought about the revival of tāntrika Śākta dharma at the time when, in the eighteenth century CE, the flood-tide of Mahāprabhu's religion of prema had subsided.

The current of tāntrika practice that Mahārāja Kṛṣṇacandra set flowing in the eighteenth century CE has, over time, come to inundate the whole of Bengal. Even in the present day, the influence of Śākta-tāntrika practice remains extremely widespread in Bengal. The majority of brāhmaṇas follow Vedic injunctions only on certain particular occasions — the sacred-thread ceremony, marriage, śrāddha rites, and the like; they perform worship of the Śālagrāma-śilā in their homes, but Nārāyaṇa, present within the Śālagrāma, is not truly the object of their worship. It is according to Tantra doctrine that they receive initiation and perform their sādhana; a tāntrika deity is their true object of worship. As a result, most Kāyasthas, Vaidyas, and others of similar standing are in a similar condition. The majority of people in other strata of society, too, are followers, in some covert form, of Tantra doctrine. People of the Aul, Bāul, Sahajiyā, and similar sects identify themselves as Vaiṣṇavas, and even claim to be worshippers of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, or of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, or of Gaura-Nityānanda — but their sādhana is in accordance with Veda-opposed Tantra doctrine. The doctrine of the body (deha-tattva) and the cultivation of the six cakras are the distinctive features of their sādhana. Their goal, too, is not at all the same as the goal of the Vaiṣṇava dharma established by Mahāprabhu. Many people in Bengal and Assam follow such doctrines. In truth, their doctrine is itself Tantra doctrine concealed beneath the covering of Vaiṣṇavism. They too propagate their own tāntrika doctrine; and various tāntrika institutions likewise propagate Tantra doctrine. According to the wishes of the person seeking initiation, some tāntrikas even give initiation into a Kṛṣṇa-mantra, a Rāma-mantra, a Narasiṃha-mantra, and the like — even though the tāntrika himself may well not be a worshipper of any of these forms. This too is a practice opposed to the Veda. One is capable of true realization only of that form of Godhead which one actually worships; therefore, it is only proper for one to give initiation into the mantra of that very form. This is likewise the Vedic custom. According to the tāntrikas, Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself is nothing but a conception of the tāntrikas — and therefore possessing no real, objective existence — an avatāra of the goddess Kālī, who stands upon the chest of her own husband Śiva, her tongue vast and lolling, absorbed in reverse coition with Mahākāla. Rāma, Narasiṃha, and the others are likewise declared to be avatāras of various other conceived Mahāvidyās. According to the Veda, there is a difference of quality and glory between the avatāra spoken of in the Veda and its source; but according to Tantra doctrine, the avatāra and its source are utterly and completely identical. Therefore the tāntrikas' Kṛṣṇa, Rāma, and the rest are themselves the tāntrika Kṛṣṇa, Rāma, and so on — not the Vedic Kṛṣṇa, Rāma, and so on. The Kṛṣṇa-mantras and the like that the tāntrikas teach are likewise mantras of this tāntrika Kṛṣṇa, and so forth. Not knowing the true mystery of Vedically-enjoined dharma and of Tantra-dharma — and especially since, unlike the Veda, Tantra doctrine imposes no strict discrimination regarding food and similar matters, nor any binding obligation of vows and fasts — and further, since, according to the Mahānirvāṇa-tantra's own claim, Vedic mantras bear no fruit in the Kali-age, while Tantra-mantras alone are held to be swiftly fruitful in this age — ordinary people, in many places, are themselves accepting the guidance of the tāntrikas. Among these tāntrikas, some even propagate fabricated slanders against Veda-grounded Vaiṣṇava dharma and similar traditions. In their view, their own doctrine is itself the proper yuga-dharma of Kali. As a result, at least in Bengal, the condition of Veda-conforming religion — that is, of the Vedically-enjoined worship of the Vedic forms of Godhead — has become truly lamentable. Nor is there any significant propagation of Vedically-enjoined religion any longer.

All of this, it seems, is the influence of the age of Kali itself. Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī told Mahārāja Parīkṣit that, in the Kali-age, the sacred thread alone will be considered the mark of brahminical status (Bhāgavata 12.2.3); that persons ignorant of dharma will ascend the seat of honor and expound religious discourse (Bhāgavata 12.2.38); and that, misled by the instigation of heretics, the people of Kali will, for the most part, cease to worship the Supreme Guru of the universe, the Lord of the three worlds, the infallible Acyuta (Bhāgavata 12.13.43) — and so on. Similar statements regarding the influence of Kali are found in other Purāṇas as well.

§79. The State of the Country Under Mahāprabhu's Influence (2)

In any case, we have digressed to speak of the contemporary influence of Tantra-dharma. The discussion of the originally proposed subject is now resumed.

Drawing upon the statements of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata and Śrī Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, a few words are now offered regarding Mahāprabhu's influence and the resulting condition of the country at that time.

Once the Lord revealed himself and, extending the power of his own grace, established nāma-saṅkīrtana, kīrtana began, on his instruction, in home after home throughout Navadvīpa. Hearing of this, the Yavana qāḍī of Navadvīpa, hostile to Hindu religion, grew extremely angry; one day he personally went to several places and smashed the mṛdaṅgas being used for kīrtana, forbade everyone from performing kīrtana, and warned that if they performed it again, he would strip the performers of their caste. Despite his prohibition, the qāḍī also appointed Yavana spies to determine whether anyone continued to perform kīrtana anywhere.

By the qāḍī's conduct and order, the outward-turned people — who had always mocked and ridiculed the kīrtana-performers — were emboldened. It has already been shown, citing the poet Karṇapūra's own statement, that there existed, at that time, no true, functioning system of varṇa and āśrama at all — for the actual distinctions of varṇa and āśrama scarcely existed in practice. Scholars turned away from the Lord propagated their own invented doctrines as scripture. Owing to these scholars' reputation for learning, ordinary people too came to regard their invented doctrines as scriptural truth. In this way, learned brāhmaṇas, relying on their scholarly reputation, and unlearned brāhmaṇas, relying merely on their sacred thread, strove to protect their own self-interest and their dominance over others. By the prestige of the sacred thread, they believed that the right to instruct ordinary people in matters of religion belonged to them alone. They propagated the doctrine that people of the lower classes had no right to Kṛṣṇa-kīrtana, that Kṛṣṇa-kīrtana was sinful and harmful to the country for such people, and they regarded loud kīrtana too as something to be feared. But seeing that, under Nimāi Paṇḍita's teaching, everyone was now performing loud Kṛṣṇa-kīrtana, they became almost frenzied, fearing that their own self-interest and the preservation of caste-prestige were now under threat. Seizing the opportunity of the qāḍī's own order, they even lodged a complaint against Nimāi Paṇḍita before the qāḍī himself. Student-scholars, too, went about all of Navadvīpa slandering the Lord and his devotees.

Those who had already begun kīrtana before this could not turn their minds away from it, despite the qāḍī's prohibition and threat of loss of caste — so utterly had their hearts been captivated by the sweetness of kīrtana. They continued to perform kīrtana at home, but softly, in secret. Learning of this, the Lord organized one great nagara-kīrtana (a public procession through the town). This nagara-kīrtana proceeded through various parts of the town toward the qāḍī's own house. Drawn by the sweetness of the kīrtana, and by the sweetness of the Lord's own dancing, absorbed as he was in prema — and above all, drawn by the power of the Lord's own grace — countless people along the way joined the kīrtana as it passed. The further the nagara-kīrtana advanced, the more the number of kīrtana-performers grew. At last the kīrtana arrived at the qāḍī's own house. In fear, the qāḍī took refuge within the inner chambers of his home. The Lord sent respectable people to bring him out. The two met and conversed. By the power of the Lord's grace, the qāḍī took refuge in the Lord and promised that he would never again obstruct kīrtana, and that he would ensure his own descendants likewise never obstructed it.

Thereafter, loud kīrtana proceeded freely and without hindrance throughout all of Navadvīpa. Gradually, the stain upon the hearts of many of the opposing critics was washed away. It has already been said that, after the Lord's sannyāsa, all the heretics attained prema by his grace. In the flood-tide of nāma-prema, "Śāntipura, on the verge of drowning, floated upon the river" — such was the condition. Immersed and re-immersed in the mellow of nāma-prema, people even forgot the distinctions of social hierarchy. A song-composer has written: "Brāhmaṇa and caṇḍāla embrace one another — when had such a spectacle ever been seen before?" True equality and true fellowship spontaneously blossomed forth.

When the teacher Nimāi Paṇḍita had earlier gone to East Bengal, he had established nāma-saṅkīrtana there as well; by the power of the Lord's grace, it had spread throughout all of East Bengal. After his self-revelation, news of the influence the Lord exerted in Navadvīpa likewise spread, by word of mouth, throughout the whole of Bengal. Everywhere, people became intoxicated with the bliss of kīrtana. By the grace of Mahāprabhu and Nityānanda Prabhu, nāma-saṅkīrtana came to be performed throughout Bengal, in town after town, village after village, in nearly every single home. In village after village, sacred images of Śrī Kṛṣṇa — and, in some places, of Mahāprabhu himself — came to be established and worshipped. The reading, teaching, and expounding of devotional texts such as Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam flourished. Plays and dramas depicting the Lord's pastimes were composed, sung, and performed. Seeing and hearing these, people were overwhelmed with the highest bliss; their bodies were adorned with tears, trembling, and horripilation. Even the Muslims, hostile as they were to Hindu religion, were not left untouched — Kṛṣṇa-song resounded everywhere, even among Muslims. As a result, the proverbial saying "there is no song without Kānu [Kṛṣṇa]" came into currency.

Many Muslims, too, embraced the religion established by Mahāprabhu. Many Muslim devotees composed songs (padas) about Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Śrī Gaura. Village poets composed, in their own rustic dialects, many songs of Kṛṣṇa-kīrtana and Gaura-kīrtana. Even now, in rural areas, these songs continue to be sung.

At the root of this extraordinary, far-reaching influence of kīrtana lay no organized propaganda effort in the modern manner. The printing press did not yet exist at that time; hence there could be no question at all of propagation through printed books, pamphlets, and periodicals. Nor was there propagation through public gatherings and speeches called by organized societies — no such custom is known to have existed at that time. It was kīrtana itself, by the power of the Lord's own grace, that became the propagator of kīrtana.

By the power of the Lord's grace, the Lord's own teaching touched the innermost depths of every heart, striking a sweet resonance upon the hidden strings of the heart's own vīṇā. In general, people desire an eternal, unbroken bliss utterly free of any trace of sorrow, and a sincere, eternal beloved. Try as they might, people never find this in the material world — for no one knows what that happiness or that beloved truly is, for which the soul harbors this eternal longing; and hence no one can adopt the true means of attaining it. Mahāprabhu made known to everyone: "O soul! That happiness for which you eternally long is none other than the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself — the very embodiment of happiness, the very embodiment of bliss, the very embodiment of rasa; nothing else. And that beloved for whom you eternally long is likewise that very Śrī Kṛṣṇa, none other. The Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa, is your sole beloved; you have no other beloved, none whatsoever. Since the very nature of dearness (priyatva) is inherently reciprocal, you too are dear to him. Your relationship with him is precisely this relationship of mutual dearness. He alone is the true object of relationship (sambandha-tattva); your bond with him is beginningless and unbroken, and he is the 'attainable relation' (prāpya-sambandha). You do not know all this only because you have forgotten him from beginningless time. You possess the essential, inherent right to become established in this essential relationship of dearness with him. Turn toward him just once; give him your heart. Śrī Kṛṣṇa and his name are non-different — indeed, for the soul, the name is even more merciful than Kṛṣṇa himself. Take refuge in nāma-saṅkīrtana. You shall attain the happiness and the beloved you have eternally desired." What the Lord thus declared is in full accord with Śruti and Smṛti; it is not a doctrine of his own invention (see the commentary on Caitanya-bhāgavata 1.2.181). By the Lord's grace, people came to understand this, and were able to perceive the worthlessness of the doctrines of the outward-turned scholars and heretics. By the Lord's grace, this teaching of his touched people's hearts, and they became intoxicated with the bliss of saṅkīrtana. Without the grace of the Lord or the grace of his devotee, the truly transcendent reality can never be realized merely by hearing instruction.

The nāma-saṅkīrtana propagated by Mahāprabhu spread, by the Lord's grace, so widely that even to this day, nāma-saṅkīrtana is found even among other religious communities. The very topic of Gaura (gaura-kathā) likewise possesses a wondrous power of attraction; even now, people's hearts are drawn to the topic of Gaura in a way that no other topic can match. Mahāprabhu is indeed the Lord of prema — but he is also the Lord of the very heart and soul of the people.

Upon the teaching of this Lord of prema and Lord of the heart, an entire culture arose in Bengal. Viewed impartially, it will be seen that, even in the present day, the culture of Bengal is, in truth, still the very culture established by Mahāprabhu. In certain quarters, of course, some today attempt to paint over that culture with a different veneer, but they have not yet succeeded in truly obscuring it.

So much, then, for Mahāprabhu's influence in Bengal. A few words are now offered regarding other parts of India.

After his sannyāsa, the Lord went and resided at Nīlācala in Orissa. He remained manifest for twenty-four years after his sannyāsa. He was away from Nīlācala for no more than about four years total, on his travels to South India and to the western regions. For the remaining nearly twenty years he stayed at Nīlācala itself. During this time his influence spread throughout the whole of Orissa; signs of this remain even to this day. Moreover, countless people from all over India came constantly to Nīlācala for the darśana of Śrī Jagannātha. Through the darśana of the Lord and by hearing his teachings, by the Lord's grace, all of them considered themselves blessed and fulfilled, and returned to their own lands bearing an unprecedented spiritual mood, which they too, so far as they were able, propagated further.

Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, master of all scriptures, was then residing at Nīlācala. This venerable, learned scholar was a renowned Māyāvāda ācārya. He had taught Śaṅkara-Vedānta to many people, and had been of great help to many sannyāsīs. He was even teaching Vedānta to the young sannyāsī Mahāprabhu himself. But in the end, by the Lord's grace, he abandoned the Veda-opposed and devotion-opposed doctrine of Māyāvāda and entered the path of pure devotion, becoming the Lord's own single-minded devotee. Thereafter he began to propagate the devotional meaning of every scripture, and became restless in his eagerness to let people taste the sweetness of devotion and of the holy name.

Mahāprabhu himself traveled the whole of South India on foot. During this journey he spread his influence throughout the whole of South India. Although he never once asked anyone directly to accept the doctrine he preached, still, by witnessing his influence and by the power of his grace, countless people — even many Veda-opposed Buddhists — fell at his feet.

Even on his journey to Vṛndāvana by way of Jhārkhaṇḍa, the Lord spread his extraordinary influence everywhere. On his return journey from Vṛndāvana, at Vārāṇasī, the principal center of Māyāvāda, the Lord bestowed his grace upon the then extremely renowned and powerful Māyāvāda ācārya Śrīpāda Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī — the very same Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī who, together with his disciples, had once mocked and ridiculed the Lord for performing dance-kīrtana while chanting Kṛṣṇa's name, and had spread slander of him everywhere — and upon his thousands upon thousands of sannyāsī-disciples as well. As a result, all of them abandoned Māyāvāda and entered the path of devotion, becoming overwhelmed with the bliss of kīrtana; Vārāṇasī itself was transformed into a "second Nadia." Through the power of grace the Lord instilled in Śrī Rūpa and Śrī Sanātana, — "from the shore of the ocean to the Himālayas, and all the holy places of Vṛndāvana, Mathurā and the rest — everything was flooded by the fruit of prema borne by these two branches. People became intoxicated by tasting the fruit of prema. The deluded and irreligious conduct of the people of the western regions — the two brothers preached to them the proper devotional conduct instead. They recovered lost holy places according to scripture, and established the worship of Śrī Mūrti [the sacred image] at Vṛndāvana."* (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.10.85–88)

The sixteen-name, thirty-two-syllable holy name propagated by Mahāprabhu is still chanted, even now, throughout the whole of India, even among other religious communities — and among these very kīrtana-performers there are perhaps even some who do not know that this very name was established by Mahāprabhu himself.

Mahāprabhu, both personally and through Śrīpāda Rūpa, Sanātana, and the others, bound the whole of India together in a single thread, in the soft, tender, and sweet bond of nāma-prema — and this bond was a bond of the heart, a bond of the very soul, a bond of love.

It has already been said that, even in the present day, the culture of Bengal remains, in essence, the culture established by Mahāprabhu. The same may be said of the culture of Orissa. And in the culture of other parts of India as well, the culture established by Mahāprabhu still flows, even now, like a hidden spring.

Throughout India, Mahāprabhu's influence touched people's hearts so deeply that texts about Mahāprabhu and the religion he preached have been composed in many regional languages as well. This was not the result of any organized effort by any central or local institution; everywhere, it was simply the spontaneously arising sentiment in the hearts of devotees relishing the mellow of devotion that gave itself expression in the form of literature. The padāvalī literature of Bengal is beyond compare; in the sheer grandeur of its sentiment, this padāvalī literature will forever remain the crown-jewel of Bengali literature.

The devotional-mellow-relishing devotees of Bengal, in their effort to give proper embodiment, through song, to the sentiments of the heart, also introduced many new rāgas, rāgiṇīs, and melodic modes.

Mahāprabhu's principal contribution is a spiritual one. On matters of worldly conduct, he gave no direct, explicit teaching. But following the teachings he did give, in connection with spiritual matters, immense benefit can be achieved in worldly affairs as well.

His spiritual contribution is the declaration of the soul's essential, inherent relationship of dearness with the Supreme Brahman spoken of in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Śruti, and the declaration of the means of becoming established in that relationship; this has already been discussed above.

One who can realize this relationship of dearness in the innermost depth of the heart can likewise realize this: that for every living being — not only human beings, but even the souls dwelling in the bodies of beasts, birds, grasses, and shrubs — the sole beloved is the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān, and every living being is likewise dear to him. One who attains realization of this spiritual truth can likewise understand that whatever is dear to one's own beloved is itself one's own beloved as well — and hence every living being becomes dear to oneself. The equality, fellowship, and magnanimity present within such a mood are beyond compare. Owing to the varying fruits of different actions (karma), differences of nature and disposition will always exist among living beings, even among human beings. But once this mood of equality, fellowship, and magnanimity is truly assimilated in the heart, then, despite such differences, a mood of equality, fellowship, magnanimity, and affection toward every single living being will spontaneously arise. The scope of this equality, fellowship, and so on, taught by Mahāprabhu, is likewise all-encompassing, surpassing every other. If Mahāprabhu's teaching is followed, a wondrous, loving harmony becomes possible even amid the manifold inequalities of worldly life, and true peace can be established in the world.

Another of Mahāprabhu's contributions is a philosophical one — the doctrine of acintya-bhedābheda (inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference). The ācāryas before Śaṅkara all spoke of some form of bhedābheda (simultaneous difference and non-difference) between the individual soul, the material world, and the Supreme Brahman; but they said nothing regarding the essential nature of that bhedābheda. After Śaṅkara, Bhāskarācārya and Nimbārkācārya, too, attempted to determine the essential nature of this doctrine of bhedābheda. Following the Lord's own teaching, Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī, showing that the essential nature described by these ācāryas is opposed to the Śruti, established the doctrine of acintya-bhedābheda. Before this, no distinctly Bengali Vedāntic doctrine had existed at all. This contribution of Mahāprabhu's is a matter of special pride for Bengal.

Yet another of Mahāprabhu's contributions lies in the field of rasa-śāstra (the science of aesthetic mellow). The earlier ācāryas had discussed only mundane rasa; they did not accept that devotion (bhakti) itself possessed the nature of rasa. Mahāprabhu demonstrated the true rasa-nature of devotion, and, following him, the Vaiṣṇava ācārya Gosvāmī-pādas who walked in his footsteps discussed bhakti-rasa at great length in their own works, with the aid of scripture and scripturally-sound reasoning — and in this way, by revealing an altogether new truth, they crowned both Bengal and the Bengali people with glory.

A most beautiful means of religious harmony (dharma-samanvaya) is also found within Mahāprabhu's teaching and conduct. According to the differing dispositions of aspirants' hearts, Vedic scripture teaches the path of ritual action (karma-mārga) and various other paths of dharma, and speaks also of their differing fruits — that is, the attainment of the heavenly worlds and the like, the fivefold liberation, and the attainment of service devoted solely to Kṛṣṇa's happiness. Mahāprabhu accepted the validity of every path taught by the Veda, and accepted the differing fruits of these differing paths as well. Although he himself preached the soul's essential, inherent duty declared in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Śruti — service devoted solely to Kṛṣṇa's happiness — he did not deny the spiritual reality of the fivefold liberation. Mahāprabhu made known to the soul both the abode and the nature of the liberation-bliss described in scripture for souls who attain the various kinds of liberation, and likewise the abode and the nature of the Kṛṣṇa-service-bliss for souls who attain the supreme liberation that is the attainment of service devoted solely to Kṛṣṇa's happiness. Considering all this, and according to the state of one's own heart, one may adopt whichever path is favorable to the attainment of that reality — whether the fivefold liberation or the attainment of service to the Lord — toward which one's own heart is drawn. In this there can be no legitimate cause for conflict among practitioners of these different paths. Even in the ordinary, worldly realm, it is seen that, according to differences of natural taste, different people love different foods and different kinds of clothing — yet no bitter enmity arises between them on that account. Thus it is seen that a most beautiful teaching of religious harmony is to be found in Mahāprabhu's own teaching. This harmony, however, is a harmony within the bounds of the Veda. In such a harmony, there is, of course, no place at all — nor can there be — for any religion external to or opposed to the Veda. For, according to the Veda, whatever is Vedically enjoined is dharma; whatever is external to or opposed to the Veda is not dharma at all, but adharma — and harmony between dharma and adharma is impossible. It has already been said that the Vedically-enjoined path alone leads to liberation; a path external to or opposed to the Veda does not, according to the Veda, lead to liberation. Therefore, in the judgment of one who seeks the truly transcendent good, there can be no coexistence or harmony whatsoever between a liberation-granting path and a path unfavorable to liberation. Just as light and darkness cannot coexist, darkness always remains outside the bounds of light.

If someone should say that such a harmony as described above is itself a harmony born of sectarian narrow-mindedness (mātuyā-buddhi), unworthy of acceptance in the present age, the reply is this: the truly transcendent reality is beginningless, eternal, everlasting, and beyond the reach of material nature, or beyond the grasp of material intelligence. So too is the Supreme Lord. Only the Supreme Lord himself knows the truly transcendent reality and the means of attaining it; unless he himself reveals it, no one can know it at all. It is for the welfare of the soul that he himself has made this known in uncreated scripture. Practitioners in every land who seek the truly transcendent good accept this. It is this very Supreme Lord who has made it known in the Veda, Vedānta, and similar scriptures. Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself told Arjuna: "I am indeed the author of the Vedānta and the knower of the Veda." (Gītā 15.15) One afflicted by the four defects — error, illusion, deceptive intent, and imperfection of the senses — cannot, through cultivation of any scripture born of merely material intelligence, ever come to know that truly transcendent reality and the means of attaining it. Therefore it has already been shown above that, in matters of religious harmony concerning the truly transcendent reality, there can be no place at all for the dharma taught by such scriptures (that which, according to the Veda, is itself adharma).

Because the truly transcendent reality is eternal and everlasting, it cannot change from age to age. Some particular changes may indeed occur, from age to age, in the scripturally-taught means of attaining it, but the truly transcendent reality itself never changes. For one who seeks the truly transcendent good, observance of scripturally-enjoined injunctions and prohibitions is certainly obligatory. Whoever, abandoning scriptural injunction, acts according to his own whim, can never attain perfection, nor happiness, nor the highest goal: "Whoever abandons the injunctions of scripture and acts according to his own desire attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the highest goal." (Gītā 16.23) Just as no respectable person would ever accept the eating of scripturally-forbidden, impure food, or adultery, or a patient's disregard of a physician's rules of prohibition and injunction as instances of true "broad-mindedness," so too, for a practitioner, the violation of scriptural injunction can never be accepted as the absence of sectarian narrow-mindedness. Even in worldly affairs, wise people regard licentiousness and violation of state law as nothing but the misuse of personal liberty. Granting equal value to Vedically-enjoined religion and to religion external to or opposed to the Veda might perhaps be acceptable in worldly, secular matters — but in truly spiritual matters, it is unacceptable.

In any case, one cannot exhaust, in speech, the account of Mahāprabhu, his grace, and the influence of his teaching. Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes that the Lord's pastimes — "have no far shore. Being merely a soul, who indeed could describe them fully? As far as the intellect can reach, I have described that much — as if I had touched but a single drop within the ocean." (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.20.71–72) Glory to Gaura!

Namas tri-kāla-satyāya jagannātha-sutāya ca sat-tyāya sad-gurave sakala-trātre te namaḥ

Anapayita-carīṃ cirāt karuṇayāvatīrṇaḥ kalau samarpayitum unnatojjvala-rasāṃ sva-bhakti-śriyam hariḥ puraṭa-sundara-dyuti-kadamba-sandīpitaḥ sadā hṛdaya-kandare sphuratu naḥ śacī-nandanaḥ

[Salutations to you, true in all three times, son of Jagannātha, ever true, true guru, protector of all — salutations to you! May Hari, who out of compassion descended in the Kali-age to bestow, at long last, the never-before-given, most exalted and radiant treasure of his own devotion, illumined by the splendor of molten gold, ever shine within the cavern of our hearts — the son of Śacī!]

(6.1.1964–13.3.1964) (19.6.1964–7.9.1964) (22.11.1964–30.12.1964)

§80. Regarding Kavirāja Gosvāmī's Citation from the Viṣṇu-sahasranāma

Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, amid the relishing devotees, who composed the Life of Caitanya — at his lotus feet, the very source of all auspiciousness, I, the lowest of the fallen, bow down.

The thousand names of Viṣṇu that the great-souled Bhīṣmadeva declared to Dharmarāja Yudhiṣṭhira are recorded in the section on the dharma of charity (dāna-dharma) in the Anuśāsana-parva of the Mahābhārata. In discussing the reason for Mahāprabhu's descent, Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, in the third chapter of the Ādi-līlā of his Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, quotes several names from this very thousand-name hymn. It has come to our attention that, on seeing how these quoted names are arranged in certain printed editions of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, some people nowadays are making unfavorable remarks about Kavirāja Gosvāmī. For this reason, we feel it necessary to offer some discussion of this matter here. The relevant passage is quoted below from a certain printed edition of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta:

"In the Kali-age, the propagation of the holy name is the proper duty of the age; for this reason the golden-complexioned incarnation of Caitanya appeared. (3.31) His color like molten gold, his body vast and grand, his voice deep as the rumble of a fresh monsoon cloud. (3.32) In length and breadth, measured by his own hands, four cubits — thus is the great person renowned. (3.33) 'Snigdha-kandarpa-parimaṇḍala' [radiant, encircled with the beauty surpassing Kāmadeva] is his name — 'Snigdha-kandarpa-parimaṇḍala' is the very abode of Caitanya's own qualities. (3.34) Arms reaching to his knees, lotus-eyed, his nose like a sesame flower, his face like the nectar-moon. (3.35) Peaceful, self-controlled, ever devoted to steadfast Kṛṣṇa-bhakti, affectionate to his devotees, of gentle disposition, equal to all beings. (3.36) Adorned with sandal-paste bracelets, decked in sandal ornaments, wearing them as he performs Kṛṣṇa-saṅkīrtana while dancing. (3.37) Taking up all these qualities, the sage Vaiśampāyana counted his name among the thousand names. (3.38) Two are Caitanya's pastimes — the first and the last; in these two pastimes, four particular names apply to each." (3.39)

In the Mahābhārata, in the dāna-dharma section, in the Viṣṇu-sahasranāma-stotra (12.7.75)—

"Suvarṇa-varṇo hemāṅgo varāṅgaś candanāṅgadī, sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ śānto niṣṭhā-śānti-parāyaṇaḥ." (8)

Given how this final Sanskrit portion of the citation above is printed, it takes on the appearance of a single verse in anuṣṭubh metre; and the number "12.7.75," preceding this Sanskrit passage, might also suggest that this number is itself the verse-number from the source-text, the Mahābhārata, and that this "75" might further create the impression that the entire Sanskrit sentence is verse number 75 of the thousand-name hymn found in the Mahābhārata. And yet no such verse, in the form given, is found anywhere in the Mahābhārata's Viṣṇu-sahasranāma. The portion "suvarṇa-varṇo hemāṅgo varāṅgaś candanāṅgadī" is in fact the first half of verse 92 of the printed Mahābhārata's Viṣṇu-sahasranāma, while the portion "sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ śānto niṣṭhā-śānti-parāyaṇaḥ" is the second half of verse 75. (Many years ago, in the Gaura-kṛpā-taraṅgiṇī commentary on Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, both verses 75 and 92 were already quoted in full, and this very point was made.)

Further, since a single number ("8") is printed immediately after this combined sentence, "suvarṇa-varṇo..." through "...niṣṭhā-śānti-parāyaṇaḥ," this too might create the impression that the Sanskrit portion is a single verse. Had the source-text's verse-numbers "92" and "75" both been written out in place of the single "75," there would have been little likelihood of creating such an impression. The number "8" printed at the very end of the Sanskrit portion is, in fact, merely a sequential reference-number for the order of the ancient texts quoted within that chapter [of Caitanya-caritāmṛta]. Since the complete Sanskrit portion actually consists of the two half-verses from verses 92 and 75 of the Mahābhārata's dāna-dharma section, had a single number ("8") not been printed at the very end, but instead one number ("8") after the first portion "suvarṇa-varṇo..." and a separate number ("9") after the second portion "sannyāsa-kṛc..." — then there would have been no possibility whatsoever of creating the impression that these two portions were the first and second halves of a single verse. But since this was not done, the sequential reference-number "8," marking the order of citations within the chapter, has only reinforced the impression that the entire Sanskrit portion is a single verse.

A. The First Accusation Against Kavirāja Gosvāmī

For all these reasons, some people nowadays believe that it was with the deliberate intent of proving that Caitanya's name is indeed found in the Mahābhārata's Viṣṇu-sahasranāma that Kavirāja Gosvāmī took two halves of two separate verses from the Mahābhārata and gave them the appearance of a single verse — and that his purpose in doing so was to make readers believe that his combined half-verses were a single verse actually found in the Mahābhārata.

Regarding this accusation against Kavirāja Gosvāmī, we offer the following. The essence of our submission is this: not a single one of the aforementioned numbers was supplied by Kavirāja Gosvāmī himself — these numbers were inserted by the editors themselves at the time of the printed editions' publication. The reason for saying so is now given.

First, let us consider the verse-numbering of the source-text, the Mahābhārata, itself. When Kavirāja Gosvāmī wrote his Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, the printing press did not yet exist; therefore no printed edition of the Mahābhārata existed at that time either. Only hand-copied manuscripts of the Mahābhārata were then current. It does not seem that ancient hand-copied manuscripts of the Mahābhārata and similar texts bore verse-numbers at all. This is because it is observed that Śrīpāda Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and other Vedānta-commentators, and, in later times, the Vaiṣṇava ācārya Gosvāmīs who received Mahāprabhu's grace — Śrī Rūpa, Sanātana, Śrī Jīva, and others — although they quote many statements from ancient Sanskrit texts such as the Mahābhārata in numerous places in their own works, nowhere cite the verse-number of the source-text; they mention only the name of the text, and sometimes, along with the name of the text, merely the name of the relevant section (prakaraṇa). Had these source-texts borne verse-numbers, they would surely have cited those verse-numbers rather than the far more cumbersome name of the section.

Multiple printed editions currently exist of the Vaiṣṇava-smṛti text Śrī Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, compiled by Śrīpāda Sanātana Gosvāmī on Mahāprabhu's order. Two such editions are discussed here: the edition edited by Paṇḍita Śrī Śyāmācaraṇa Kaviratna, published by Śrī Gurudāsa Caṭṭopādhyāya from 201 Cornwallis Street, Calcutta (1318 BE), and the edition edited by Śrīmat Purīdāsa Mahāśaya, published by Śrī Śacīnātha Caturdhurī in 1352 BE. Both texts print verse-numbers, but the verse-numbering does not correspond in every place between them. In Purīdāsa Mahāśaya's edition, every single verse bears its own separate number; but in Kaviratna Mahāśaya's edition, more than one verse sometimes shares a single verse-number. As a result, the total number of verses in each "vilāsa" section, and in the entire text, comes out considerably higher in Purīdāsa Mahāśaya's edition than in Kaviratna's. For all these reasons, it seems that the ancient hand-copied manuscripts of Śrī Hari-bhakti-vilāsa bore no verse-numbers at all; had they done so, the various printed editions, following those numbers, would show uniform verse-numbering as well.

Even the printed editions of the very ancient Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam — the Baṅgabāsī edition and the Baharampur edition — do not show uniform verse-numbering throughout. In the Baṅgabāsī edition, every single verse is given its own separate verse-number; but this is not done in the Baharampur edition. In some places in this latter edition, more than one verse shares a single verse-number; in some places one and a half verses share a single number; and in yet other places, even half a verse is given its own separate number. The reason for this is known from Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī's own statement. He himself writes, at the beginning of his commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam called Krama-sandarbha — which he wrote after his Ṣaṭ-sandarbha — and states there why he calls this Krama-sandarbha his seventh sandarbha. From his statement there, it is understood that he himself was the very first to assign verse-numbers to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. He did not assign one number to each pāda (that is, each quarter-verse), but rather one number to each full statement (vākya). At the beginning of the Krama-sandarbha commentary, after his opening invocations, he writes:

"Now, the following convention should be understood here, insofar as it is needed. The root text (mūlam) is called a verse (ślokam); the number is called an aṅka; and, along with this [convention of numbering], [I proceed with] the division into sections (paricchedas) as well. Numbers are to be assigned only at the end of statements (vākyas), not at the end of every foot (pāda). Where several feet together form a single statement, they are marked internally with dots at their heads [rather than each foot separately numbered]. Where a foot has no commentary [i.e., stands alone], that too should be joined with a number. [In marking numbers at] the end of a compound made of a numeral-word [as in 'half,' 'pair,' 'triad'], such conventions as 'ardhaka' (a half), 'yugaka' (a pair), and 'trikam' (a triad) are likewise to be understood in cases where several feet together form one statement — such designations being illustrative examples." From this statement of Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī, it is understood that the ancient hand-copied manuscripts of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam bore no verse-numbers at all. Had they done so, it would naturally be assumed that the verse-numbers given by Vyāsadeva himself had been carried down, in succession, into later manuscript copies. It is not credible that Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī would have altered verse-numbers given by Vyāsadeva himself. In any case, it seems that the Baharampur edition of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam generally follows the very verse-numbering scheme described by Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī.

It has already been shown, citing the works of Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya and others, that the manuscript copies of other ancient Sanskrit texts, such as the Mahābhārata, likewise bore no verse-numbers at all, just as with Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. It is therefore also known that, at the time Kavirāja Gosvāmī wrote his Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, the ancient hand-copied manuscripts of the Mahābhārata bore no verse-numbers at all. It is precisely for this reason that it has been stated: the source-text (Mahābhārata) verse-numbers seen, in certain printed editions of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, alongside the Sanskrit portion "suvarṇa-varṇo" and so on, were not written by Kavirāja Gosvāmī himself, but are numbers supplied by the editors at the time of the book's printing.

Nor do the couplet-numbers (payārāṅka), the source-text verse-numbers of the ancient Sanskrit texts quoted, and the sequential reference-numbers marking the order of such quoted verses within each chapter, which appear in certain printed editions of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, seem to have been written by Kavirāja Gosvāmī himself. For we ourselves have seen printed editions of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta that bear no numbers of any kind whatsoever. Two such texts are mentioned here. One is the edition edited by Śrī Vinodalāla Gosvāmī and published by Śrī Tārācānd Dāsa from 82 Āhīritolā Street, Calcutta, in 1337 BE. The other lacks its opening portion, so the editor's and publisher's names, and the date of publication, cannot be determined; but at the end of the book, a printed statement reads: "This book may be obtained by inquiring at No. 96, the residence of Śrī Babu Hariścandra Datta, Kāmār-pallī, Āhīritolā, Calcutta." These two texts differ in physical dimensions — that is, their length and breadth are not the same — and are therefore two separate publications. Neither of these two texts bears any numbers of any kind — no couplet-numbers, no source-text verse-numbers for quoted verses, and no sequential reference-numbers for the order of quoted verses within each chapter. From this it is understood that this text was printed following an ancient hand-copied manuscript that itself bore no numbers of any kind whatsoever — and therefore that Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own original text likewise bore no numbers of any kind. In any case, in both of these two texts, before the sentence "suvarṇa-varṇo..." through "...niṣṭhā-śānti-parāyaṇaḥ," the Mahābhārata's thousand-name hymn is cited as the source-text. In Śrī Vinodalāla Gosvāmī's edited text it reads: "tathā hi mahābhārate dāna-dharme śrī-viṣṇu-sahasranāma-stotre—," and in the other text it reads: "tathā hi mahābhārate dāna-dharme ekonapañcāśad-adhika-dviśatādhikādhyāye sahasranāmni." Here, from this slight difference in reading, it is understood that the model manuscripts followed by the two editors differed somewhat in their readings — though this difference in reading does not produce any difference in meaning.

While on this subject, a few words may also be offered regarding Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, composed by Śrīla Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura. The text of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata was written before that of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta. It does not seem that the original Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata bore any numbers of any kind whatsoever. The reason for saying so is this. We ourselves have seen a printed edition of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata published from the Bat-tala district of Calcutta; it bears no couplet-numbers; the names of the source-texts for verses quoted from ancient Sanskrit works are given, but no source-text verse-numbers are given, nor any sequential reference-numbers marking the order of such quoted verses across the various chapters. From this it is understood that the author, Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura, wrote no numbers of any kind whatsoever in his own text. Even the annotated edition of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata edited by Prabhupāda Śrīla Atulakṛṣṇa Gosvāmī bears no couplet-numbers. It does, however, give the source-text's verse-number in brackets before the name of each source-text for a quoted verse, and, at the end of each verse, gives a number marking its sequential place within the chapter. That the source-text verse-numbers are the editor Prabhupāda's own addition is proven by the very fact that they are placed in brackets. Nor does it seem that the numbers appearing at the end of the verses were supplied by the original author either — for, since the author never wrote any couplet-numbers at all, it seems unlikely that he would have written sequential reference-numbers for quoted verses. This is especially clear from the fact that no such numbers appear in the aforementioned Bat-tala edition.

Even in old printed editions of ancient Bengali-language texts such as Kṛttibāsa's Rāmāyaṇa and Kāśīrāmadāsa's Mahābhārata, no couplet-numbers are found. From this too it is known that Kṛttibāsa and Kāśīrāmadāsa did not write couplet-numbers in their own works. Thus it is known that, at that time, the practice of writing couplet-numbers and similar markings was not current.

For all these reasons, it has been stated: whatever numbers are found in certain present-day printed editions of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta are not the numbers supplied by Kavirāja Gosvāmī himself, but numbers supplied by the editors.

Like other printed editions of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, in the aforementioned Āhīritolā texts as well, the half-verse "suvarṇa-varṇo hemāṅgo varāṅgaś candanāṅgadī" is written first, followed by a single daṇḍa (vertical stroke, ।), and the half-verse "sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ śānto niṣṭhā-śānti-parāyaṇaḥ" is written after it, followed by two daṇḍas (॥). From this it is understood that this same arrangement was present in the manuscripts these two texts followed — and therefore in Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own original text as well. According to the convention of Sanskrit verse, a single daṇḍa follows the first half of a verse, and a double daṇḍa follows the second half — the two halves together marking a single, complete verse. Therefore, following Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own writing, it cannot be denied that these two half-verses do indeed create the impression of forming a single verse. But did Kavirāja Gosvāmī, then, do this deliberately, in pursuit of his own particular purpose, precisely in order to create the impression that these two half-verses of two separate verses were a single verse? If Kavirāja Gosvāmī had indeed done so, then the accusation raised against him, discussed above, would be proven true.

On this matter, we offer the following. From verse 39 of the very passage first quoted at the beginning of this discussion, from a certain printed edition of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, it is known that the four names "suvarṇa-varṇo hemāṅgo varāṅgaś candanāṅgadī," from the Viṣṇu-sahasranāma, are the names of Śrī Caitanya's early pastimes (ādi-līlā) — that is, the qualities and pastimes indicated by these four names are precisely those manifested in Mahāprabhu's early pastimes — while the four names "sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ śānto niṣṭhā-śānti-parāyaṇaḥ" are the names of Śrī Caitanya's final pastimes (śeṣa-līlā) — that is, the characteristics indicated by these four names are precisely those manifested in Mahāprabhu's final pastimes. Kavirāja Gosvāmī divides Mahāprabhu's pastimes principally into two parts: the early pastimes (ādi-līlā) and the final pastimes (śeṣa-līlā). What he calls the ādi-līlā is the period of the Lord's pastimes before his sannyāsa — that is, his household pastimes — and the śeṣa-līlā is the period of pastimes following the household pastimes. The ādi-līlā, of course, precedes the śeṣa-līlā. For this reason, even though "suvarṇa-varṇo hemāṅgo varāṅgaś candanāṅgadī" is the first half of verse 92 of the printed Mahābhārata's thousand-name hymn, he writes it first, since it names Mahāprabhu's ādi-līlā; and after it he writes the second half of verse 75 — which precedes verse 92 in the source-text — "sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ śānto niṣṭhā-śānti-parāyaṇaḥ," since it names Mahāprabhu's śeṣa-līlā. According to the convention of Sanskrit verse, since a single daṇḍa follows a verse's first half and a double daṇḍa follows its second half, in the original Mahābhārata text too, a single daṇḍa followed the half-verse "suvarṇa-varṇo" and so on, while a double daṇḍa followed the half-verse "sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ" and so on. Following this, Kavirāja Gosvāmī likewise wrote a single daṇḍa after the first half of verse 92, "suvarṇa-varṇo" and so on, and a double daṇḍa after the second half of verse 75, "sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ" and so on. He wrote these single and double daṇḍas simply because they were present in the original source-text he was quoting; these daṇḍas were not supplied by Kavirāja Gosvāmī himself. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that, because a single daṇḍa follows the "suvarṇa-varṇo" portion written first, and a double daṇḍa follows the "sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ" portion written immediately after it, the two portions together take on the appearance of forming a single verse. But it would not be reasonable to think that Kavirāja Gosvāmī did this deliberately, in pursuit of some particular purpose of his own, to create the false impression that two halves of two separate verses formed a single verse. He simply quoted what was actually written in the original Mahābhārata; it happened, by chance, to take on the appearance of a single verse.

Kavirāja Gosvāmī was himself a supremely realized devotee (parama-bhāgavata), the very embodied form of sincere, unfeigned humility arising from devotion itself. It is precisely for this reason that he was able to write, expressing the sentiment welling up from the innermost depths of his own heart: "I am more sinful than Jagāi and Mādhāi; I am lower than a worm in stool. Whoever merely hears my name, his merit is destroyed; whoever takes up my name, his sin increases. Who could be more wretched and worthless than I? Nityānanda is the Lord of the entire universe. Out of prema, Nityānanda is the very incarnation of mercy; he makes no distinction whatsoever between the noble and the base. Whoever falls before him first, him he delivers — and thus he delivered even so wicked a person as myself. He brought even a sinner like me to Śrī Vṛndāvana; to a wretch such as myself he gave the very feet of Śrī Rūpa." (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.5.183–88) Even after writing a text universally esteemed by all — a text saturated with the very mellow of Gaura's own life-nectar, filled with manifold philosophical discussions, philosophical conclusions, and devotional conclusions, and demonstrating an extraordinary skill in the serving of bhakti-rasa, comparable to Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta itself — he nevertheless writes, in his own text: "My writing is but the recitation of a parrot" (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.8.73); "I am the most insignificant of creatures — a mere red-vented bulbul" (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.20.81); "I write, yet this is false pride on my part" (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.20.83) — and so on. In the verse beginning "Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, amid the relishing devotees, who composed the Life of Caitanya," Śrīla Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura Mahāśaya, too, speaks of Kavirāja Gosvāmī's total immersion in the ocean of Kṛṣṇa-bhakti-rasa. It is not credible that any narrow-mindedness, deceit, or intent to defraud (viprālipsā) could have found any place at all in the heart of such a Kavirāja Gosvāmī. Nor is it credible that, driven by some ill intent, he tried to create the false impression that two portions of two separate verses of the Mahābhārata's thousand-name hymn formed a single verse. Even granting, for argument's sake, that such an ill intention might have arisen in his heart out of a desire to proclaim the glory of his worshipped Lord, Śrī Caitanya, one further point must be considered: he certainly knew that this ill intention of his would surely be detected by any inquiring reader. Setting aside someone of the pure heart, sincere devotion, and supreme god-realization of Kavirāja Gosvāmī, it seems unlikely that even any intelligent person entirely devoid of devotion, unless utterly reckless and shameless, would attempt to record and present to the public something with such a strong likelihood of his own deception being detected.

One further point deserves consideration here. It has already been said that even if he had resorted to such a stratagem for the purpose of proclaiming the glory of his worshipped Lord Śrī Caitanya, this stratagem would surely be detected by any inquiring reader. And Kavirāja Gosvāmī certainly knew as well that, were it detected, the glory of his worshipped Lord Śrī Caitanya would be diminished, that he himself would be the cause of that diminishment, and that this would constitute an offense at his worshipped Lord's own feet. It is therefore not credible that he would have presented to the general public, in written form, such a statement pregnant with deceptive stratagem.

For all these reasons, we firmly believe that the accusation raised by certain people against Kavirāja Gosvāmī, discussed above, is baseless. It seems these people have made no effort at all to truly understand the heart of Kavirāja Gosvāmī.

B. The Second Accusation Against Kavirāja Gosvāmī

In Kavirāja Gosvāmī's quoted half-verse, the reading is "sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ śānto niṣṭhāśānti-parāyaṇaḥ" — that is, in the quoted half-verse, there is no visarga after the word "śānti." As a result, the portion "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ" becomes a single compounded word. But in certain printed editions of the Mahābhārata, the reading "niṣṭhā śāntiḥ parāyaṇaḥ" is found instead — with a visarga after the word "śānti" — yielding three separate words: "niṣṭhā," "śāntiḥ," and "parāyaṇaḥ."

Seeing the visarga-bearing form of the word "śānti" in certain printed editions, the aforementioned accusers claim that Kavirāja Gosvāmī, at this point, altered the reading of the verse — replacing "niṣṭhā śāntiḥ parāyaṇaḥ" with "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ" — and they further claim that the compounded reading Kavirāja wrote, "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ," was chosen precisely because such a compounded word could then be applied to Mahāprabhu. Here too the accusers raise against Kavirāja Gosvāmī an accusation of ill intent (the ill intent of applying a name from the Mahābhārata to Śrī Caitanya) — claiming that it was driven by this very ill intent that Kavirāja Gosvāmī altered the reading of the verse.

On this matter, we offer the following. Just as certain printed texts have the visarga-bearing reading "niṣṭhā śāntiḥ parāyaṇaḥ" after the word "śānti," so too certain other printed texts show the visarga-less reading "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ." In the text called "Śrī Śrī Viṣṇu-sahasranāma," found within the dāna-dharma section of the Anuśāsana-parva of the Mahābhārata, complete with Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya's own commentary, corrected by Śrī Rāsabihārī Sāṅkhyatīrtha (holder of the titles Vācaspati, Kāvyatīrtha, Vidyāvinoda, Kaviratna, and Bhāgavatabhūṣaṇa) and published by Śrī Rāmadeva Miśra from the Śrī Śrī Hari-bhakti-pradāyinī-sabhā of Baharampur in 1316 BE, the visarga-less reading "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ" is found. In the Mahābhārata catalogued as Purāṇa No. 108(K) in the library of Calcutta Sanskrit College, corrected under the order and expense of the reigning Mahārājādhirāja Śrīyukta Āphatāba Cānda Mahatāba Bāhādur, revised by Śrī Bhārakanātha Tattvaratna, Aghoranātha Tantranidhi, and Śyāmācaraṇa Vidyālaṅkāra and printed in Śaka 1803, the visarga-less reading is likewise found: "sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ śānto niṣṭhāśānti-parāyaṇaḥ" (75.8). Further inquiry might well reveal this visarga-less reading elsewhere as well. It was because the hand-copied manuscript Kavirāja Gosvāmī consulted itself bore the visarga-less reading "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ" that he quoted it as such. Therefore, the question of any deliberate alteration of the reading does not arise at all. In certain printed editions of the Mahābhārata, verse 75 of the thousand-name hymn is also found with the reading "parāyaṇam" in place of "parāyaṇaḥ." Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya himself explains the purport of both readings, "parāyaṇam" and "parāyaṇaḥ": "'Parāyaṇam' means the most excellent abode (āyanam), free of any fear of return — read as a bahuvrīhi compound in the masculine case." From this it is understood that, even in Śrīpāda Śaṅkara's own time, both readings — "parāyaṇam" and "parāyaṇaḥ" — were current. Just as it would not be reasonable to claim that those who later wrote "parāyaṇaḥ" had thereby altered an original reading of "parāyaṇam," so too it is unreasonable to claim that Kavirāja Gosvāmī, in writing the visarga-less "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ," had altered a visarga-bearing original reading of "niṣṭhāśāntiḥ parāyaṇaḥ."

Of the two forms found in Śrīpāda Śaṅkara's commentary quoted above — "parāyaṇaḥ" and "parāyaṇam" — the word "parāyaṇaḥ" is masculine, while "parāyaṇam" is neuter. In his commentary on verse 13, which precedes the beginning of the Viṣṇu-sahasranāma proper, Śrīpāda Śaṅkara writes: "Seeing the question, 'Is there a single deity common to all these thousand names?' — since all these names indeed pertain to a single deity, wherever a masculine-gendered name-form is used, it qualifies Viṣṇu specifically as masculine; wherever a feminine-gendered word-form is used, it qualifies the deity as feminine; and wherever a neuter-gendered word-form is used, it qualifies Brahman [as neuter]." The purport is: all the names of the Viṣṇu-sahasranāma are names of one and the same deity. Some of that deity's names are expressed in masculine-gendered words, some in feminine-gendered words, and some in neuter-gendered words. Wherever a masculine-gendered word is used, its referent is the masculine-form Viṣṇu; wherever a feminine-gendered word is used, its referent is the feminine-form deity; and wherever a neuter-gendered word is used, it qualifies the neuter-gendered word "Brahman" (the names being themselves adjectives). From this statement of Śrīpāda Śaṅkara's, the reason why one of the two aforementioned names, "parāyaṇaḥ" and "parāyaṇam," is masculine and the other neuter is understood.

In any case, one further point is worth considering in connection with the main subject under discussion. The accusers claim that it was for the very purpose of applying the names in verse 75 of the thousand-name hymn to Mahāprabhu that Kavirāja Gosvāmī altered the reading of the portion "niṣṭhā śāntiḥ parāyaṇaḥ." On this we submit that there was, in fact, no need whatsoever for any alteration of the reading to serve his purpose. For, in a particular sense — that is, in a sense corresponding to Mahāprabhu's own Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-combined nature — the three names "niṣṭhā," "śānti," and "parāyaṇaḥ" can likewise be applied only to Mahāprabhu, and not to Śrī Kṛṣṇa (this will be shown in the following subsection, C). Had Kavirāja Gosvāmī seen the visarga-bearing reading "niṣṭhā śāntiḥ parāyaṇaḥ," he would simply have quoted that very reading, and his purpose would have been served equally well. There was therefore no need whatsoever for any alteration of the reading.

For the same reasons, it likewise cannot be claimed that he saw both readings but rejected the visarga-bearing reading after the word "śānti" because it was unfavorable to his purpose. Thus it is seen that no question can arise at all of any alteration or rejection of a reading by Kavirāja Gosvāmī. Nor can it be claimed that, since demonstrating the applicability of all three separate names solely to Mahāprabhu would have left the total name-count two short, he therefore rejected the visarga-bearing reading even after having seen it. The reason for saying so is given in the following subsection, C. Therefore, just as there was no need for any alteration of the reading, there was likewise no need for any rejection of a reading.

C. The Third Accusation Against Kavirāja Gosvāmī

In the visarga-bearing reading "niṣṭhā śāntiḥ parāyaṇaḥ," three separate names are found — niṣṭhā, śānti, and parāyaṇa. But in the visarga-less, compounded reading "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ," only a single name results — niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇa. The aforementioned accusers claim: the three names niṣṭhā, śānti, and parāyaṇa cannot be applied to Mahāprabhu, whereas the single name niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇa can be applied to him. It was for this very reason, they claim, that Kavirāja Gosvāmī, in pursuit of his own purpose, altered the reading and wrote the single, name-denoting compound "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ" without the visarga — as a result of which the total count of the thousand names falls two short.

On this matter, we offer the following. It has already been shown in the preceding subsection, B, that, in a particular sense, all three names of the visarga-bearing reading "niṣṭhā śāntiḥ parāyaṇaḥ" can indeed be applied to Mahāprabhu — and to Mahāprabhu alone — and that there was therefore no need whatsoever for any alteration of the reading. It is now shown that, even adopting the single visarga-less name "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ," there is no likelihood at all of the total count of the thousand names falling short.

Various scholars have counted the names of the Mahābhārata's thousand-name hymn in various different ways. Although Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, after his commentary on the very last verse of the thousand-name hymn, writes, "thus the tenth hundred of names has been expounded," yet, if one actually counts according to his own commentary, the total number of names comes to 1,003 — that is, three more than a thousand. On this point, one further matter is worth noting: no mention or commentary is found in Śaṅkara's commentary regarding the two words "amara-prabhuḥ" and "viśvakarmā" in verse 19, nor regarding the word "suparṇaḥ" in verse 34. It is only by counting these three words — "amara-prabhuḥ," "viśvakarmā," and "suparṇaḥ" — as three separate names that we arrive at Śaṅkara's total count of 1,003. Had he not regarded these three as separate names — had he instead treated "amara-prabhuḥ" and "viśvakarmā" in verse 19 as qualifying adjectives of some other pair of names mentioned in that same verse, and likewise treated "suparṇaḥ" in verse 34 as a qualifying adjective of some name there — then his total count would indeed come to exactly one thousand. Of course, he does not explicitly write, regarding the words mentioned in his commentary on verses 19 and 34, "this is a single name with a qualifying adjective." It is simply because no explicit mention is made in his commentary regarding these three words that we have stated the matter as above. But even granting that his total thereby comes to exactly one thousand, this does not resolve the underlying problem — for the following reason. In certain places, Śaṅkara first offers an interpretation of a given portion of a verse as denoting a single name, and then, immediately after, using the words "athavā" ("or") or "vā" ("or"), offers an alternative interpretation of that same portion as denoting more than one name. A single example is cited here. Regarding the word "dhāturuttamaḥ" in verse 18, he first speaks of it as a single name: "'Dhāturuttamaḥ' is a single name with a qualifying adjective, in apposition — meaning: the spiritual element (cid-dhātu), superior to all the [material] elements beginning with earth." But immediately after this he writes: "Or, [it means two names,] 'Dhātā' and 'Viriñci' [creator, i.e. Brahmā] — or, because he sustains the entire manifestation of cause and effect, he is called 'the element' (dhātuḥ), 'the utmost' (uttamaḥ) — supremely exalted among all the exalted." Here, using the word "vā," he gives two name-denoting interpretations of the portion "dhāturuttamaḥ" — "dhātuḥ" and "uttamaḥ." In five such places he speaks of five such additional names. This would bring his total count of names to more than a thousand and five. In Kālīprasanna Siṃha Mahāśaya's Bengali translation of the Mahābhārata, more than forty names beyond a thousand are found. In the second edition of "Śrī Śrī Viṣṇu-sahasranāma-stotram," edited by Śrī Gaurakiśora Gosvāmī Vedāntatīrtha of Navadvīpa and published in 1360 BE, about twenty-five names beyond a thousand are found. In the edition of the Mahābhārata edited by Śrīla Haridāsa Siddhāntavāgīśa Mahāśaya, 1,003 names are found — that is, three more than a thousand. The reason for such variation in the total count lies in the differing conventions of name-counting followed by different scholars. This is now shown with a few examples.

In his commentary on the word "pradhāna-puruṣeśvaraḥ" in verse 16, Śrīpāda Śaṅkara writes: "'Pradhāna' is nature (prakṛti) or māyā; 'puruṣa' is the individual soul (jīva); '[īśvara]' is the Lord of these two." According to him, therefore, this portion constitutes a single name — "pradhānapuruṣeśvaraḥ." But in Kālīprasanna Siṃha's text, this same portion is treated as two names: "prakṛti" and "puruṣeśvara." In verse 17, regarding "nidhir avyayaḥ," Śrīpāda Śaṅkara treats it as a single name, "avyaya-nidhi"; but Siṃha Mahāśaya, Gosvāmī Mahāśaya, and Siddhāntavāgīśa Mahāśaya all treat it as two names: "nidhi" and "avyaya." In verse 36, regarding "vācaspatir udāradhīḥ," Śaṅkara treats it as a single name: "'vācaspatir udāradhīḥ' — these two words together constitute a single name." But Siṃha Mahāśaya, Siddhāntavāgīśa Mahāśaya, and Gosvāmī Mahāśaya all treat it as two names: "vācaspati" and "udāradhī." Many further such differences in name-counting exist.

Since different scholars have counted the names in different ways, it is not at all unnatural to surmise that Kavirāja Gosvāmī, too, counted the names according to his own particular judgment. There is no way to know precisely how he counted the names, for we are not aware of any surviving discussion by him of the entire Viṣṇu-sahasranāma. According to his own method of counting, he evidently did not consider that treating "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ" as a single name would leave the thousand-name count incomplete. It was for this reason that he treated the phrase "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ" as a single name. Therefore, there seems to be no real cause for concern that, according to Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own reckoning, treating "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ" as a single name would leave the total count two names short.

Had he actually seen that this would leave the count two names short, he could easily have restored the full count simply by treating the qualifying-adjective portions of any two other qualified names elsewhere in the thousand-name hymn as two separate names instead. And again, even if he had believed that demonstrating the applicability of all three names of the visarga-bearing portion "niṣṭhā śāntiḥ parāyaṇaḥ" to Mahāprabhu alone would result in two extra names, he could equally well, in some other place in the thousand-name hymn where two adjoining words could be taken as qualifying adjectives of neighboring names, have treated those two words as such qualifying adjectives instead, thereby combining two qualified names into two single names and reducing the total count by two. Thus it is clearly understood that there was no need whatsoever, on Kavirāja Gosvāmī's part, for any alteration of the reading, nor any need for any rejection of a reading. There can be no reasonable ground whatsoever for an accusation of ill intent against him on this matter.

One further point deserves consideration here. It is claimed that the count falls two names short. What exactly does this claim mean? Does it mean two short of the count given by other scholars? Or two short of a full thousand? Even if it were two short of the count given by other scholars, Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own total count would still remain above a thousand. For, as has already been shown regarding the varying counts given by Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya and others, no one's total count falls below 1,003. Nor is there any way to claim that, by treating "niṣṭhā," "śāntiḥ," and "parāyaṇaḥ" as the single name "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ," the total falls two short of a full thousand. For there is no way of knowing the total number of names Kavirāja Gosvāmī himself would have arrived at, following his own particular method of name-counting — since no discussion of his on this matter survives at all. It does not seem that the accusers, in making this claim, gave due consideration to all these matters, but rather spoke merely on a superficial impression. Their accusation, therefore, seems baseless as well.

There is no doubt that the total number of names Bhīṣmadeva declared to Yudhiṣṭhira was indeed one thousand. But there is no way of knowing exactly how Bhīṣmadeva himself counted the names. It is for this very reason that different learned scholars have counted them in different ways. Their methods of counting are themselves founded on inference alone. Since different scholars offer different inferences, their stated totals differ as well. Even if some scholar were, by some particular method, to arrive at a total of exactly one thousand names, it still could not be said with certainty whether that particular set of one thousand names was indeed what Bhīṣmadeva himself intended — since that scholar's own counting, too, rests upon his own personal inference.

D. The Fourth Accusation Against Kavirāja Gosvāmī

In discussing the aforementioned third accusation, it was noted that the accusers claim: since the three names of the visarga-bearing reading "niṣṭhā śāntiḥ parāyaṇaḥ" — that is, "niṣṭhā," "śāntiḥ," and "parāyaṇaḥ" — cannot be applied to Mahāprabhu, it was precisely because of this that Kavirāja Gosvāmī, driven by an ill intent to serve his own purpose, altered the reading. In discussing the aforementioned second accusation, we stated that, in a particular sense, these same three names of the visarga-bearing reading "niṣṭhā śāntiḥ parāyaṇaḥ" can be applied only to Mahāprabhu. This is now demonstrated.

But before beginning discussion of the proposed subject, it seems necessary to say a few more preliminary words — otherwise some difficulty might arise in following the discussion of the proposed topic. A few points are therefore stated here quite briefly.

First, a few words regarding the Viṣṇu-sahasranāma itself. It goes without saying that these names all belong to Viṣṇu. But there is more than one form of Godhead bearing the designation "Viṣṇu" — Vaikuṇṭheśvara, the four-armed Nārāyaṇa, is called Viṣṇu; Kāraṇārṇavaśāyī, Garbhodakaśāyī, Kṣīrodakaśāyī and others are likewise called Viṣṇu. Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa, too, bears the name Viṣṇu. Further, since the word "Viṣṇu" itself indicates all-pervasiveness, all those forms in which Svayaṁ Bhagavān, the Supreme Person, has manifested himself and eternally abides from beginningless time are themselves each all-pervading and omnipresent, being different forms of the Supreme Brahman's body — hence each of them, too, is, in this sense, all-pervading, that is, "Viṣṇu." Does the Mahābhārata's thousand-name hymn, then, belong to any one particular Viṣṇu-form, or does it belong to more than one form?

The answer to this question is found in the Mahābhārata itself. From the very opening of the relevant chapter, it is known that Yudhiṣṭhira posed several questions to Bhīṣmadeva; among them, three questions are: "Who is the one deity in the world? Who is the one supreme refuge (parāyaṇam) of all beings? Praising and worshipping whom can men attain true good?" From these questions, it is known that Yudhiṣṭhira asked only about a single deity (or form of Godhead) worthy of the world's worship — not about more than one.

In answer to Yudhiṣṭhira's question, Bhīṣmadeva likewise mentions only a single deity, and he is: "the God of gods, the infinite, Puruṣottama, without beginning or end, Viṣṇu, the great Lord of all worlds, and the overseer of all worlds." (4–6) Here, all the terms from "God of gods" through "overseer of all worlds" are qualifying adjectives of one and the same form. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, too, in his commentary on verse 13, speaks of only a single deity: "Seeing the question, 'Is there a single deity common to all these thousand names?' — since [all these names] indeed pertain to a single deity..." and so on.

From this discussion it is known that the Mahābhārata's thousand-name hymn belongs to a single Viṣṇu, not to more than one.

Now the question is — who is this single Viṣṇu? Is he Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa? Or the four-armed form of Vaikuṇṭheśvara? Or someone else? To answer this question, an examination of certain names within the thousand-name hymn, and of certain statements within Śaṅkara's commentary, is required. This examination is now undertaken.

In the Viṣṇu-sahasranāma, it is observed that the same name is repeated more than once: "Īśvaraḥ" (verses 17, 22, and others), "Vedavit" (verse 27, twice), "Amoghaḥ" (verses 25, 30), "Mādhavaḥ" (verses 21, 131), "Śrīmān" (verses 16, 32, 37), "Ajaḥ" (verses 24, 35), "Satyaḥ" (verses 25, 36), and so on. The name "Viṣṇuḥ" itself, and the name "Kṛṣṇaḥ" too, are each found in more than one place. There are also several names whose spelling is not identical, but whose meaning is the same. On this point Śrīpāda Śaṅkara writes in his commentary that such repetition is not a defect — for even names of identical spelling may differ in meaning, while names of differing spelling but identical meaning, being different words, still indicate distinct names. "Repetition, even among synonymous words, is not a fault of redundancy, on account of the difference of function; likewise, though 'Śrīpati' and 'Mādhava' and the like share a common function, they are not redundant, owing to the difference of the words themselves; even where the meaning is identical, mere repetition is not itself a fault." (Śaṅkara's commentary on verse 13)

The purport of several names is now quoted here from Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya's commentary. Regarding the meaning of the name "Keśava" in verse 16, he writes: "In the Brahma Purāṇa, Nārada's words to Viṣṇu: 'Since the demon Keśī was slain by you alone, O Janārdana, therefore you shall be known in the world by the name Keśava.'" From this it is understood that this name "Keśava" belongs to none other than Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the wanderer of Vraja, the slayer of Keśī. Regarding the name "Kṛṣṇa" in verse 20, he writes: "'Kṛṣṇaḥ' is he whose very nature is eternal bliss. The word 'kṛṣ' signifies existence, and 'ṇa' signifies bliss; since Viṣṇu possesses this very nature, he is eternally Kṛṣṇa — so says the sage Vyāsa." A similar statement is likewise found in the Śruti: "The word 'kṛṣ' signifies existence, and the syllable 'ṇa' signifies bliss; the union of these two is the Supreme Brahman, called by the name Kṛṣṇa." (Gopāla-tāpanī Śruti 1) From this it is known that, here, "Kṛṣṇa" is itself a name of the Supreme Brahman, Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself. Regarding the first occurrence of the name "Vedavit" in verse 27, he writes: "'Vedavit' is he who knows the true meaning of the Veda; as the Lord himself says, 'I am the author of the Vedānta and the knower of the Veda.'" This statement of the Lord's is the verse from Bhagavad-gītā 15.15, "vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham" — Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own words to Arjuna. In this verse Śrī Kṛṣṇa says, "vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ — I alone am to be known by all the Vedas." The one sole object of knowledge of the entire Veda is the Supreme Brahman. Therefore, from this statement of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own, it is known that Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself is the Supreme Brahman, and that he himself is both the author of the Vedānta and the knower of the Veda. Thus it is known that the first occurrence of "Vedavit" in verse 27 is itself a name of the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Regarding the name "Mahā-adri-dhṛk" in verse 32, he writes: "'Mahā-adri-dhṛk' is he who held aloft the great mountains Mandara and Govardhana, for the churning of nectar and for the protection of the cows." Here too, only Kṛṣṇa, son of Vraja's king, upholder of Govardhana, is spoken of. Regarding the name "Śauriḥ," in his commentary on verse 50 he writes: "'Śauriḥ' is he who is the offspring of Śūra, in the form of Vāsudeva," and in his commentary on verse 82 he writes: "'Śauriḥ,' from being born in the lineage of Śūra." In both places, Śrī Kṛṣṇa alone is meant. Regarding the name "Dāmodara" in verse 53, he writes: "'Dāmodara' is he whose belly (udara) was bound (dāma) by Yaśodā." Here too, only Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the darling of Yaśodā, is spoken of. Regarding the name "Gopatiḥ" in verse 66, he writes: "'Gopatiḥ,' from tending cows, wearing the guise of a cowherd." Here too, only Kṛṣṇa, the wanderer of Vraja, is spoken of. Regarding the name "Gohitaḥ" in verse 76, he writes: "'Gohitaḥ,' either because he held up Govardhana for the increase of the cows, or because he is beneficial (hita) to cows." Here too, Kṛṣṇa the wanderer of Vraja is spoken of. Regarding the name "Keśihā" in verse 82, it is written: "'Keśihā' is he who slew the demon named Keśī." Here too, Kṛṣṇa the wanderer of Vraja is meant. Regarding the name "Vāsudevaḥ" in verse 87, it is written: "'Vāsudevaḥ' is the offspring of Vasudeva." Here too, Śrī Kṛṣṇa is meant. Regarding the name "Suyāmunaḥ" in verse 88, he writes: "'Suyāmunaḥ' is he who is surrounded by the beautiful (śobhanā) attendants (parivestāraḥ) associated with the Yamunā — that is, those wearing the guise of cowherds; or, 'Suyāmunaḥ' is he who is surrounded by beautiful attendants of the Yamunā, such as those seated on lotus-seats." Here too, only Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the wanderer of the Yamunā's banks, is intended. In that same verse, regarding the name "Yaduśreṣṭhaḥ," it is stated: "'Yaduśreṣṭhaḥ,' from being foremost among the Yadus" — that is, the Lord of the Yadus, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Regarding the name "Gadāgrajaḥ" in verse 94, it is written: "Or, since he was born before (agraje) the one named Gada, the younger brother of Śrī Vāsudeva, he is 'Gadāgrajaḥ.'" Here too, Śrī Kṛṣṇa alone is meant. Regarding the name "Devakī-nandana" in verse 119, it is written: "'Devakī-nandana' is he who is praised as the son of Devakī." Here too, Śrī Kṛṣṇa alone is meant. It is known from Śaṅkara's commentary that several further names in the Viṣṇu-sahasranāma explicitly, or by implication, refer to Śrī Kṛṣṇa as well.

From the commentary statements cited above, it is clearly known that some of these names refer to Vraja-pastimes, and some to the sonship of Nanda and Yaśodā — and hence to Kṛṣṇa, the wanderer of Vraja. Kṛṣṇa, the wanderer of Vraja, is himself the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān. In his manifest pastimes, when he went to Mathurā and Dvārakā, he was indeed known there as Vāsudeva, the son of Vasudeva — but even then, he did not abandon his own nature as the son of Yaśodā; therefore, even then, he was, in truth, the very Supreme Brahman, knowable by the entire Veda. In his commentary on the name "Vedavit," Śrīpāda Śaṅkara, too, by quoting the Gītā-statement cited above, has himself identified him as the Supreme Brahman.

It is known from Śruti and Smṛti that the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa, stands manifest from beginningless time in infinite forms of Godhead. The glory of the pastimes of all these forms of Godhead is, in truth, his own pastime-glory, manifest in each respective form. It is known from Śaṅkara's commentary that the Viṣṇu-sahasranāma contains many such names of these various forms of Godhead. Since these forms are themselves various forms of the Supreme Brahman, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, it is also known that the primary referent (vācya) of all these names too is Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself.

From this discussion it is known that the Mahābhārata's Viṣṇu-sahasranāma, being the name-hymn of a single Viṣṇu, belongs to that single Viṣṇu who is the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān, Viṣṇu-tattva itself, and Śrī Kṛṣṇa bearing the designation Viṣṇu — not to any other form bearing the designation Viṣṇu.

This is likewise understood with the aid of reasoning. All other forms of Godhead, apart from Śrī Kṛṣṇa, are particular manifestations of the Supreme Brahman, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, himself; hence their divinity and the rest are derived from Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself, not independent of him. Since Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān, his own divinity and the rest are self-established, independent of any other. It is precisely for this reason that, at the time of an incarnation, all other forms of Godhead come and merge into Svayaṁ Bhagavān himself in manifest form — but at the time of the descent of forms of Godhead such as Śrī Rāma or Narasiṃha, no other form of Godhead, let alone Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself, ever comes and merges into them. Since the names of these other forms of Godhead — themselves particular manifestations of the Supreme Brahman, Śrī Kṛṣṇa — are, in their respective forms, themselves names of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the ultimate referent of every one of the Lord's names is Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself. But since the Supreme Brahman, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, is not himself a particular manifestation of any other form of Godhead bearing the designation Viṣṇu, the chanting of his name alone cannot be a chanting of the name of some other Viṣṇu-designated form — for while other forms of Godhead, being particular manifestations of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, have names that are themselves particular manifestations of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own name, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, not being a particular manifestation of any other form of Godhead, cannot have a name that is itself a particular manifestation of that other form's name. Therefore, had the Mahābhārata's Viṣṇu-sahasranāma been the thousand-name hymn of some other Viṣṇu-designated form of Godhead, then, since that other form of Godhead would not be the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān, none of its names could possibly denote the Supreme Brahman or Svayaṁ Bhagavān's own divinity. But from the discussion above, it is known that certain names within the thousand-name hymn do indeed denote the Supreme Brahman and Svayaṁ Bhagavān's own divinity. From this it is clearly known — confirming what was shown earlier — that this Viṣṇu-sahasranāma is the name-hymn of a single Viṣṇu, and that this single Viṣṇu is the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān, and Śrī Kṛṣṇa bearing the designation Viṣṇu — not any other form of Godhead bearing that designation. As for the other forms of Godhead whose names are found within the Viṣṇu-sahasranāma, since they are themselves particular manifestations of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and their names too are particular manifestations of the name of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, their names, too, in their respective forms, are themselves names of Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

Thus it is known: the Mahābhārata's Viṣṇu-sahasranāma is the name-hymn of the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān, the original Nārāyaṇa, and Śrī Kṛṣṇa bearing the designation Viṣṇu — not the name-hymn of any other form of Godhead.

We now resume the discussion of our originally proposed topic. It has already been said that the referent of the Mahābhārata's thousand-name hymn, the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa, stands manifest from beginningless time in infinite forms of Godhead. Among all these infinite forms, only two forms display two particular characteristics of the Supreme Brahman and of Svayaṁ Bhagavān — the Śruti-declared characteristic of being the source (yoni) of the attributeless Brahman, and the characteristic of being the bestower of prema — these two characteristics; no other form displays these two characteristics. One of these two Svayaṁ Bhagavān forms is Kṛṣṇa, the wanderer of Vraja, the son of Yaśodā, whose complexion is dark (śyāma); the other form is the golden-hued Person (rukma-varṇa puruṣa) declared in the Muṇḍaka Śruti. The word "rukma" means "gold"; hence "rukma-varṇa" means golden-colored, or radiant like gold.

That the dark-complexioned Kṛṣṇa is himself the source or root (yoni) even of the attributeless Brahman spoken of in the Śruti is known from Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own words in Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā: "For I am the foundation of Brahman." Here the word "Brahman" does not mean the Supreme Brahman — it means the attributeless Brahman specifically. For Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself is the Supreme Brahman; how, then, could he be the foundation or root of the Supreme Brahman? Since the attributeless Brahman spoken of in the Śruti is likewise one particular manifestation of his, he can indeed be the foundation or root of the attributeless Brahman. And the Muṇḍaka Śruti likewise calls the golden-hued Person "the source of Brahman" (brahma-yoni); therefore he too is the source or root of the attributeless Brahman. This very quality, "brahma-yonitva" (being the source of Brahman), is itself one particular characteristic of being the Supreme Brahman.

Being the bestower of prema, too, is a particular characteristic of being the Supreme Brahman, or Svayaṁ Bhagavān. For no form of Godhead other than Svayaṁ Bhagavān can bestow Vraja-prema. This characteristic is present in Kṛṣṇa the wanderer of Vraja, and it is likewise present in the golden-hued Person spoken of in the Śruti.

But regarding this very quality of being the bestower of prema, the golden-hued Person possesses one wondrous distinction beyond that of Kṛṣṇa the wanderer of Vraja. Kṛṣṇa the wanderer of Vraja bestows prema only after judging the practitioner's own worthiness; he does not bestow prema upon anyone indiscriminately. But it is known from the Muṇḍaka Śruti that, merely by attaining the darśana of the golden-hued Person, any person whatsoever — even the greatest of sinners, even the greatest demon — is instantly and completely freed from all merit and sin alike, and even from māyā, the very root of merit and sin, and attains the Śruti-declared prema that is the highest form of knowledge (parā-vidyā). "When the seer beholds the golden-hued creator, the Lord, the Person, the source of Brahman, then, having shaken off both merit and sin, the wise one, now stainless, attains the supreme state of equality [with the Lord]." (Muṇḍaka Śruti 3.1.3) From this it is known that this golden-hued Person, through the mere bestowal of his darśana, bestows prema indiscriminately upon whoever he pleases. This is itself the extraordinary distinguishing feature of the golden-hued Person with regard to the quality of being the bestower of prema.

The very purport of this Muṇḍaka Śruti statement is expressed in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's verse 11.5.32, "kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākṛṣṇaṁ sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣadam" and so on. In this verse, the word "tviṣā-akṛṣṇam" expresses the "golden complexion," that is, the "rukma-varṇa," of the form of Godhead described in this verse; and the word "sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣadam" expresses the extraordinary glory declared in the Muṇḍaka Śruti statement — the bestowal of prema by mere darśana of the golden-hued Person. The Vaiṣṇava ācāryas of the original disciplic line under whom Kavirāja Gosvāmī himself received his own teaching — Śrī Rūpa, Sanātana, Śrī Jīva, and the other Gosvāmīs — have themselves declared that the form of Godhead spoken of in this verse is none other than Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa, covered over by Śrī Rādhā's own golden complexion, and that all the characteristics spoken of in this verse are manifest in Mahāprabhu himself. Following these very Gosvāmīs, Kavirāja Gosvāmī himself, in the fourth chapter of his Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, has shown: growing intensely eager to taste his own sweetness, and finding it impossible to taste the sweetness of Kṛṣṇa without the mood of a devotee, Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself, in order to become the recipient of the fullest, most complete manifestation of the prema-bhakti of Śrī Rādhā — the very origin of the boundless treasury of prema-bhakti — united with the golden-limbed Śrī Rādhā and became the golden-hued or rukma-varṇa Person. It is precisely because the golden radiance, or golden complexion, of the golden-limbed Śrī Rādhā has covered over Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own dark complexion that Śrī Kṛṣṇa, in this particular form, is golden-hued or rukma-varṇa. Kavirāja Gosvāmī has also shown that all the characteristics of this golden-hued Person are present in Mahāprabhu Śrī Gaurāṅga; hence he is none other than the "sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣadam" form described in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and the golden-hued Person of the Muṇḍaka Śruti who bestows prema indiscriminately. Because Śrī Kṛṣṇa, united in a single body with Śrī Rādhā — the very abode of the most complete prema-bhakti directed toward Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself — Mahāprabhu, too, is himself filled with the devotee's own mood, just as Śrī Rādhā is. This very quality of being filled with the devotee's mood is itself one distinguishing feature of the golden-hued Kṛṣṇa, Śrīman Mahāprabhu, as compared with the dark-complexioned Kṛṣṇa. For the dark-complexioned Śrī Kṛṣṇa possesses no devotion directed toward himself, nor can he possess it. Devotion directed toward Śrī Kṛṣṇa exists only among Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own associates; and among them, it is present in its most complete form in Śrī Rādhā alone.

Since the Mahābhārata's Viṣṇu-sahasranāma is the name-hymn of the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān, it may well contain, among its names, names of the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself, and also names of his own other form, the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān, the golden-hued Person, Mahāprabhu. To determine whether the thousand-name hymn of the Mahābhārata contains any names denoting Mahāprabhu, and, if so, which names can be applied only to Mahāprabhu, it is necessary to bear in mind the previously discussed distinguishing features of the golden-hued form as compared with the dark-complexioned form of Svayaṁ Bhagavān, the Supreme Brahman. Stated briefly, these distinguishing features are as follows:

(1) Śrī Kṛṣṇa is dark-complexioned, but Mahāprabhu is golden-hued, or golden-colored, or fair-complexioned.

(2) Mahāprabhu is filled with the devotee's mood. Although he is, in his essential nature, Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself, he nurtures devotion toward Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and, in the mood of a devotee, tastes the sweetness of his own Śrī Kṛṣṇa-form's name, form, qualities, and pastimes, by chanting of that very Śrī Kṛṣṇa-form's name, qualities, form, and pastimes.

(3) Śrī Kṛṣṇa does not bestow prema indiscriminately upon anyone; but Mahāprabhu, in the form of Śrī Gaurāṅga, bestows prema indiscriminately upon everyone.

(4) Having descended into the universe, Śrī Kṛṣṇa does not take sannyāsa; but, having descended in the form of Śrī Gaura, he does take sannyāsa.

One recognizes a form by its distinguishing characteristics. Therefore, to determine which particular names of the Mahābhārata's thousand-name hymn can be applied only to Mahāprabhu, and not to the form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, one must keep these distinguishing characteristics in view.

The names quoted by Kavirāja Gosvāmī from the Mahābhārata — "suvarṇa-varṇo hemāṅgo varāṅgaś candanāṅgadī, sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ śānto niṣṭhāśānti-parāyaṇaḥ" — are now discussed.

Suvarṇa-varṇaḥ. Here, within the word "suvarṇa," the "su" element means "excellent" (uttama), and the "varṇa" element means "letter" or "syllable" (akṣara) — just as, in words like vyañjana-varṇa (consonant letter) and svara-varṇa (vowel letter), "varṇa" means "letter." Hence the word "suvarṇa" means "excellent letters" or "excellent syllables." For the devotee, the very syllables of his worshipped Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own name are themselves the most excellent syllables of all. Therefore, for the devotee, the term "suvarṇa" refers precisely to these two syllables, "Kṛṣ-ṇa" — that is, it refers to the name "Kṛṣṇa" itself. And in the second occurrence of "varṇa" in the word "suvarṇa-varṇaḥ," the meaning is "one who narrates or describes" (varṇana-kartā). The reason for saying so is as follows. In the entry for "varṇa" in the Śabda-kalpa-druma dictionary, it is written: "The root 'varṇa' is used in the senses of praise, extension, effort, and illumination — so states the Kavi-kalpa-druma [a grammatical treatise]." (An example is given there for the sense of praise: "varṇayati, varṇāpayati kaviḥ" — 'stauti ity arthaḥ' — meaning: "the poet describes, causes to be described" means "he praises.") Regarding the word "kṛṣṇa-varṇam" in Bhāgavata 11.5.32, "kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākṛṣṇam" and so on, Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī writes: "He who describes (varṇayati) Kṛṣṇa — that is, who, overwhelmed with the joy born of remembering his own supremely blissful pastimes in that form, sings of him himself, and who, out of the greatest compassion, teaches this to all people as well — such a one is 'Kṛṣṇa-varṇam.'" Śrīpāda Viśvanātha Cakravartī likewise writes: "'Kṛṣṇa-varṇam,' from describing (varṇana) the pastimes of the Kṛṣṇa-avatāra and the like." The purport is the same in both cases. For all these reasons it has already been said that the second "varṇa" in the word "suvarṇa-varṇa" means "one who describes." Therefore the meaning of the word "suvarṇa-varṇa" is: he who describes "suvarṇa" — that is, the two syllables "Kṛṣ-ṇa," or the name "Kṛṣṇa" composed of these two syllables, or Kṛṣṇa himself, along with Kṛṣṇa's own name, form, qualities, and pastimes — such a one is "suvarṇa-varṇa."

It has already been said that names such as "suvarṇa-varṇaḥ" and "hemāṅgaḥ" are names of the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān himself. It has likewise already been said that the Supreme Brahman, Svayaṁ Bhagavān, stands manifest from beginningless time in two forms of the Supreme Brahman — Kṛṣṇa, son of Vraja's king, and the golden-hued Person, that is, Mahāprabhu Śrī Gaurāṅga. Of these two forms, the golden-hued Person, Mahāprabhu Śrī Gaurāṅga, is himself Kṛṣṇa, son of Vraja's king, united in a single body with Śrī Rādhā. It is precisely he who, overwhelmed with the joy born of remembering the supremely blissful pastimes of his own Kṛṣṇa-form as son of Vraja's king, can, in the mood of a devotee, chant the name, qualities, and pastimes of his own Śrī Kṛṣṇa-form and thereby taste their sweetness, and, driven by that same joy, can teach all people the remembrance, contemplation, and chanting of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own name, qualities, and pastimes. Kṛṣṇa, son of Vraja's king, being himself not filled with the devotee's mood, cannot do this in the mood of a devotee. Therefore the name "suvarṇa-varṇa" applies to Śrīman Mahāprabhu, and to Mahāprabhu alone — it cannot apply to Kṛṣṇa, son of Vraja's king.

Hemāṅgaḥ. The word "hema" means "gold," "rukma." He whose limbs (aṅga, that is, bodily luster) are like hema or gold — he is "hemāṅga." This name too applies to Mahāprabhu, and to Mahāprabhu alone; it does not apply to Kṛṣṇa, son of Vraja's king. For Mahāprabhu's own bodily luster is indeed golden-hued like hema, while that of the son of Vraja's king is not so — his is a dark luster.

Varāṅgaḥ. The word "varāṅga" means "he whose limbs are excellent (vara)." In beauty, sweetness, and radiant splendor, both Śrī Kṛṣṇa's limbs and Śrī Gaurāṅga's limbs are equally "varāṅga." But there is one point of difference between them. From verses 33–34 of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, quoted at the beginning of this discussion, it is known that, in length and breadth, Mahāprabhu measures four cubits by his own hand. But the body of Kṛṣṇa, son of Vraja's king, measures four and a half cubits by his own hand in length and breadth (see the commentary on Bhāgavata 10.14.14). Both bodies exceed the ordinary human body in excellence — for the ordinary human body measures only three and a half hand-spans, or seven vitastis, in length and breadth; and even the body of the present kalpa's Brahmā, though itself belonging to jīva-tattva, measures seven vitastis by Brahmā's own hand (see the commentary on Bhāgavata 10.14.14). The excellent-limbed (varāṅga) Mahāprabhu, whose body measures exactly four cubits, is himself filled with the devotee's mood; the excellent-limbed Śrī Kṛṣṇa, whose body measures four and a half cubits, is not filled with the devotee's mood. And this same Śrī Gaurāṅga, of such bodily measure, being further suffused with the mind-captivating radiance of Rādhā's own devotional mood — a radiance that captivates even the all-captivating Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own heart — has attained an extraordinary, unparalleled excellence, becoming himself the excellent-limbed one beyond compare. Hence, in this sense, "varāṅga" is itself a name of Mahāprabhu alone — it is not a name of the Śrī Kṛṣṇa-form, since Śrī Kṛṣṇa is not himself suffused with the radiance of Rādhā's devotional mood. This too is known from the very statement of Kavirāja Gosvāmī's quoted at the beginning of this discussion.

Candanāṅgadī. The word "candanāṅgadī" means "he who wears armlets of sandal-paste." In this connection, Kavirāja Gosvāmī's own statement, quoted at the beginning of this discussion, reads: "Adorned with sandal-paste bracelets, decked in sandal ornaments, wearing them as he performs Kṛṣṇa-saṅkīrtana while dancing." (3.37) It is Mahāprabhu alone who, in the mood of a devotee, performs Kṛṣṇa-saṅkīrtana, and who dances in the supreme bliss born of remembering Kṛṣṇa's name and qualities during that very kīrtana. This is not possible for Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is devoid of the devotee's mood. Therefore this name too applies only to Mahāprabhu; it cannot apply to Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

Sannyāsa-kṛt. The word "sannyāsa-kṛt" means "he who takes sannyāsa." Descending into the universe as Kṛṣṇa, son of Vraja's king, he does not take sannyāsa; it is Mahāprabhu alone who does so. That, in certain Kali-ages, Kṛṣṇa, son of Vraja's king, himself descends into the universe and takes sannyāsa — this Kavirāja Gosvāmī himself declares, on Vyāsadeva's own authority, in the third chapter of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.3:

"I have heard, in an Upapurāṇa, words of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, spoken out of grace to Vyāsa himself." (66) "Thus, in that Upapurāṇa: 'I myself, O Brahman, in a certain age, taking the āśrama of sannyāsa, shall cause the sinners of the Kali-age, newly fallen into sin, to accept devotion to Hari.'"

Kṛṣṇa, son of Vraja's king, descends only once within a single Dvāpara-yuga of an entire kalpa of Brahmā; he never descends in this form of Kṛṣṇa, son of Vraja's king, in any Kali-age. It is known from Bhāgavata 10.8.13, "āsan varṇās trayo hy asya," and so on, that it is he himself who, in the form of the golden-hued Svayaṁ Bhagavān, descends in the Kali-age immediately following the very Dvāpara-yuga in which he descended [in his dark form]. It has already been shown that this golden-hued Svayaṁ Bhagavān is Mahāprabhu Śrī Gaurāṅga himself. In Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own aforementioned statement to Vyāsadeva, it is declared that, in certain Kali-ages, Kṛṣṇa, son of Vraja's king, himself descends into the universe and takes sannyāsa, and bestows devotion to Hari (prema) indiscriminately upon fallen sinners. From the discussion above, it is known that it is precisely in the form of Mahāprabhu Śrī Gaurāṅga that he descends in certain Kali-ages and bestows devotion to Hari indiscriminately. Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself never bestows prema upon anyone indiscriminately.

From this very statement of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's, it is likewise known that it is precisely when he descends in certain Kali-ages in the form of Śrī Gaurāṅga that he takes sannyāsa. Descending in the form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, he never takes sannyāsa in any Dvāpara-yuga. Thus it is known that this name "sannyāsa-kṛt" applies only to Mahāprabhu, and not to Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

Śamaḥ. The word "śamaḥ" means the intellect's absolute fixity upon Kṛṣṇa: "Śama is the fixity of the intellect" (Bhāgavata 11.19.36, Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own words). The Kṛṣṇa-devotee believes that the Supreme Brahman, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, is his sole beloved, and that his own essential, inherent duty is nothing other than the satisfaction of Śrī Kṛṣṇa through service devoted solely to Kṛṣṇa's happiness — hence this alone is his one and only duty. Therefore his intellect, too, remains fixed solely upon Śrī Kṛṣṇa, for the sole purpose of satisfying him. Since Mahāprabhu is the recipient of Śrī Rādhā's own boundless treasury of prema-bhakti, his own śama (that is, his intellect's fixity upon Kṛṣṇa) is likewise boundless and most complete; he is himself the very embodiment of this śama. Hence one of his names is "śamaḥ." This name applies only to Mahāprabhu; it cannot apply to Śrī Kṛṣṇa, since Śrī Kṛṣṇa, not being filled with the devotee's mood toward Kṛṣṇa, cannot be the embodiment of śama in the sense described above.

Śāntaḥ. Mahāprabhu himself told Śrīpāda Rūpa Gosvāmī: "The Kṛṣṇa-devotee is desireless — hence he is 'śānta'; whoever desires enjoyment, liberation, or supernatural perfection is entirely 'aśānta' (unpeaceful)." (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.19.132) In the heart of a Kṛṣṇa-devotee, no desire whatsoever finds a place, save the desire for service devoted solely to Kṛṣṇa's happiness. Therefore the Kṛṣṇa-devotee is "niṣkāma" (desireless). The purport of the word "kāma" is to desire something for one's own sake. Enjoyment (bhukti — comfort in this life, or the enjoyment of heavenly pleasures in the next), liberation (mukti — any one of the five kinds of liberation), or supernatural perfection (siddhi — powers such as aṇimā and laghimā) — all of these are things desired by the practitioner for his own sake. The Kṛṣṇa-devotee desires none of these at all. One meaning of the word "śānta" is likewise "one who has attained upaśama" — so states Bharata, in the Śabda-kalpa-druma dictionary. He who has attained "upaśama" is "śānta." ("Upaśama" [upa + śam + al, in the sense of the action] is masculine, meaning "tranquility" — its synonyms are śamaḥ, śāntiḥ, śamadaḥ, tuṣṭākṣayaḥ — so states Hemacandra, in the Śabda-kalpa-druma.) From this it is known that he who has attained śama is himself "śānta." The meaning of the word "śama" has already been given — the intellect's fixity upon Kṛṣṇa. It is precisely because their intellect lacks fixity upon Kṛṣṇa that all who desire enjoyment, liberation, and supernatural perfection are "aśānta." Their intellect's fixity lies in the desire for enjoyment, liberation, and perfection — not in Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

Mahāprabhu, the Śrī Kṛṣṇa-form united with Śrī Rādhā, the very crown-jewel of the entire community of devotees, is himself, in the mood of a devotee, the crown-jewel among Kṛṣṇa-devotees — hence he is, in the fullest sense, "śānta." Hence one of his names is "śāntaḥ." In this sense, this name "śānta" applies only to Mahāprabhu; for the reasons already given, it cannot apply to Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

Niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ. The word "niṣṭhā" means "steadfastness in devotion to Kṛṣṇa." The meaning of the word "śānti" is as follows. It is known from the Śabda-kalpa-druma dictionary that, according to the Amarakoṣa, one meaning of the word "śānti" is "śama." The meaning of the word "śama" has already been given — the intellect's fixity upon Kṛṣṇa. The word "ayana" can mean "path," "refuge," or "attainment." Accordingly, the purport of the word "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ" is this: he for whom steadfastness in devotion to Kṛṣṇa and śānti (the intellect's fixity upon Kṛṣṇa) are the supreme (para, that is, the very best, most excellent) refuge (ayana) — such a one is "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ." This name too applies only to Mahāprabhu; for the reasons already given, it cannot apply to Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

In the visarga-bearing reading "niṣṭhā śāntiḥ parāyaṇaḥ," three separate names are found: "niṣṭhā," "śānti," and "parāyaṇaḥ." Whether these three names can be applied to Mahāprabhu is now considered.

Niṣṭhā. The Kṛṣṇa-devotee's steadfastness rests solely upon devotion to Kṛṣṇa. Hence, with respect to a devotee, the word "niṣṭhā" means "steadfastness in devotion to Kṛṣṇa" specifically. Since Mahāprabhu is the recipient of the boundless treasury of Kṛṣṇa-bhakti, his own steadfastness in Kṛṣṇa-bhakti is likewise boundless and most complete. Mahāprabhu is himself the very embodiment of such steadfastness — he is steadfastness personified. Hence one of his names is "niṣṭhā." In this sense, this name "niṣṭhā" can apply only to Mahāprabhu; for the reasons already given, it cannot apply to Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

Śāntiḥ. In discussing the visarga-less phrase "niṣṭhāśāntiparāyaṇaḥ" above, it was already shown that one meaning of the word "śāntiḥ" is "śamaḥ." It has already been said, in the discussion of the name "śamaḥ," that Mahāprabhu is the embodiment of śama, and that this is itself one of his names. In this very sense of "śama," too, Mahāprabhu is śānti personified. Hence one of his names is "śāntiḥ." For the reasons already given, this too can apply only to Mahāprabhu, not to Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

Although, in this sense of the word "śānti," "śama" and "śānti" are synonymous, according to Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya's own statement cited earlier, this does not constitute the fault of redundancy, since the words themselves (that is, their spelling) differ.

The word "śānti" may also bear a different meaning. One point must be noted here. In this context, "śāntiḥ" is a name of the all-pervading Supreme Brahman. Therefore it is proper to adopt the most all-encompassing meaning of the word "śāntiḥ" as well. In its most all-encompassing sense, the word "śānti" refers to parā-śānti, the supreme peace. It is now shown that, in this most all-encompassing sense, the word "śāntiḥ" refers precisely to the Supreme Brahman himself.

Regarding this very name "śāntiḥ" under discussion, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya writes: "The cessation of all ignorance is śānti; and this śānti is Brahman himself." Here Śrīpāda Śaṅkara identifies a particular incidental characteristic (taṭastha-lakṣaṇa) of the Supreme Brahman with Brahman, or the Supreme Brahman, himself — for it is only by the power of Brahman that the cessation of all ignorance becomes possible. A characteristic known through its effect is called an incidental characteristic. From Śrīpāda Śaṅkara's statement, it is understood that even a single incidental characteristic of Brahman can serve as a name denoting Brahman. Therefore an essential, defining characteristic (svarūpa-lakṣaṇa) of Brahman can likewise serve as a name denoting Brahman. The extraordinary distinction that an essential, defining characteristic possesses over an incidental one will be understood from the discussion that follows. In terms of essential, defining characteristic, the Supreme Brahman is sweetness (mādhurya) itself. It is precisely for this reason that the Śruti characterizes the essential nature of the Supreme Brahman through words denoting sweetness — declaring him to be the very embodiment of bliss, the very embodiment of rasa, dense with bliss, dense with rasa, and so on. That bliss which is composed of an ineffable wonder of tasting is itself called "rasa": "The essence in rasa is that very wonder, without which rasa is not rasa" (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha). The Supreme Brahman is the very embodiment of bliss, the very embodiment of rasa.

What kind of "embodiment of bliss"? — The embodiment of rasa, that is, the embodiment of that bliss composed of an ineffable wonder of tasting. Sweetness (mādhurya) is itself the essential, inherent quality or characteristic of bliss or rasa. Hence mādhurya can be called the essential, defining characteristic of the Supreme Brahman, who is himself the embodiment of bliss and of rasa. In truth, mādhurya is itself the very essence of being the Supreme Brahman. For, in every one of the forms in which the Supreme Brahman has manifested and eternally abides from beginningless time, bliss or mādhurya is present — even in the attributeless Brahman spoken of in the Śruti. But not all incidental characteristics are present in every form. And, among all these forms, the fullest, most complete manifestation of mādhurya occurs precisely in the original, unmanifested form (svayaṁ-rūpa) — the form united with itself [Rādhā]. Hence the sweetness of Svayaṁ-rūpa, the Supreme Brahman Śrī Kṛṣṇa, is such that — "whatever form, in the ten million universes and beyond, in Paravyoma, is spoken of by other forms of Godhead — that mind-captivating sweetness, chief among the chaste, of which the Vedas themselves speak, draws even those very Lakṣmīs [goddesses of fortune]." (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.21.88) Even Vaikuṇṭheśvara Nārāyaṇa is restless with longing to taste Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own sweetness — this is known from Bhāgavata canto 10, chapter 89; and it is likewise known from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that even Lakṣmī Devī, who reclines upon Nārāyaṇa's own chest, abandoning the opulent happiness of Vaikuṇṭha and the happiness derived from tasting Nārāyaṇa's own sweetness, performed severe austerities over a long period, keeping strict vows, in the hope of attaining the qualification to taste Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own sweetness: "For whose sake even Śrī, abandoning all [other] desires, performed austerities, holding firm vows for a very long time." (Bhāgavata 10.16.36) Indeed — "beholding his own beauty, even Kṛṣṇa himself is filled with wonder, and desire arises in his mind to taste it; that beauty whose very name is 'the fortune of rasa,' the eternal abode of the assembled qualities of loveliness." (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.21.86) "[He] whom, revealing the full power of his own yogamāyā appropriate to his earthly pastimes, [the sages] beheld — a wonder even to himself, the very supreme abode of his own fortune, ornament of ornaments." (Bhāgavata 3.2.12) — this verse is the proof. But it is known from scripture that those who have attained the good fortune of tasting Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own sweetness feel no restlessness of mind to taste the sweetness of any other form of Godhead, even that of Nārāyaṇa. It is they, therefore, who attain the highest peace (parama-śānti). Thus it is known: in the all-encompassing sense of the word "śānti," it is precisely the supremely sweet Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself who is "śāntiḥ." The fullest, most complete manifestation of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own sweetness — mind-captivating even to Nārāyaṇa, Lakṣmī, and the rest — occurs in his Madana-mohana form. It is only when Śrī Kṛṣṇa is in Śrī Rādhā's own presence that this Madana-mohana form manifests, by the power of Śrī Rādhā's own prema: *"When he shines forth in Rādhā's company, he is Madana-mohana; otherwise, though himself the bewilderer of the universe, he is himself bewildered by Madana [Kāma]." But the sweetness of Śrī Gaurāṅga, the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-united form, surpasses even the sweetness of the Madana-mohana form in every respect — Rāya Rāmānanda's own direct, immediate realization is proof of this.

On this very subject, Kavirāja Gosvāmī gives the following account in his Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta. One day Rāya Rāmānanda said to the Lord:

"One doubt remains within my heart; out of grace, resolve it for me with certainty." "At first I saw you in the form of a sannyāsī; now I see you in the form of the dark cowherd." "Before you I see a golden puppet-doll; your entire body is covered by its golden radiance." "Within that, I see manifest the flute-bearing face, and lotus-eyes restless with manifold moods." "Seeing you thus, I am filled with wonder — tell me plainly, my Lord, the reason for this." The Lord replied: 'Your love for Kṛṣṇa is so deep [that you see him everywhere] — know this for certain, this is the very nature of prema. The great devotee (mahā-bhāgavata) sees Kṛṣṇa's own manifestation in every moving and unmoving thing. Whether he beholds the moving or the unmoving, he does not see their outward form — everywhere, only the form of his own worshipped Lord is manifest to him. Since your own great prema is fixed upon Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, wherever you look, Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa manifests themselves to you.'" (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.8.220–28)

From this account it is known that Rāya Rāmānanda at first saw the sannyāsī Lord in the form of the dark, flute-bearing Śyāmasundara, Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself; and before that Śrī Kṛṣṇa he also saw the golden-limbed Śrī Rādhā, like a golden image. According to the proof-text "rādhā-saṅge yadā bhāti tadā madana-mohanaḥ," it was, at that moment, Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own Madana-mohana form that had become manifest. That Rāmānanda felt the greatest joy upon beholding this Madana-mohana form of his own worshipped Śrī Kṛṣṇa goes without saying. But Rāmānanda was able to restrain the intoxication born of tasting this joy — he did not then lose his own composure, but was able, quite naturally, to describe to the Lord the form he had seen. From the words the self-concealing, devotee-mood-filled Lord then spoke, in order to proclaim the glory of Rāmānanda's own deep Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-prema, it is known that the Lord wished to make known to Rāmānanda: "It is precisely because you possess such deep prema for Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa that, by the power of that very prema, you have beheld Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa in place of my own sannyāsī form." Hearing the Lord's words —

"Rāya said: 'My Lord! Set aside this excessive flattery; do not steal your own true form from before me. Having accepted Rādhikā's own radiant devotional mood, you have descended to taste your own mellow. Your own secret purpose is the tasting of prema; by your very touch you have filled the three worlds with prema. You yourself came to deliver me — now why do you conceal it? What is this conduct of yours?'"

"Then, smiling, the Lord showed him his true form — the King of Rasa and the Great Ecstasy (mahā-bhāva), united in a single form. Seeing this, Rāmānanda fainted in bliss; unable to hold his own body, he fell to the ground." (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.8.229–34)

The Lord showed Rāya Rāmānanda his own true form. That true form is "the King of Rasa and the Great Ecstasy, united in a single form" — that is, Rasarāja Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Śrī Rādhā, the very embodiment of mahā-bhāva, united in a single form: the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-united form. Rāmānanda could not restrain the intoxication born of tasting the sweetness of this form; overwhelmed by the sheer abundance of his bliss, he lost his composure and fell to the ground. And yet this same Rāmānanda, only a little while before, upon beholding Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own Madana-mohana form, had not lost his composure at all, but had been able to speak quite naturally. From this it is known that the sweetness of the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-united form far surpasses, many times over, even the sweetness of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own Madana-mohana form. The Śruti describes the Supreme Brahman as "dense with rasa, dense with bliss" — and it is precisely in Śrī Gaurāṅga, the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-united form of the Supreme Brahman, that this density of rasa, this density of bliss, this most complete density of sweetness, finds its ultimate culmination. It is in this very devotee-mood-filled, Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-united form of Śrī Gaurāṅga that the ultimate culmination occurs; in the Supreme Brahman's Śrī Kṛṣṇa-form, only the preceding stage of this development is manifest.

Śrīpāda Śaṅkara, citing one incidental characteristic, has shown that the name "śānti" denotes Brahman. In that sense, this name can be applied equally to the Supreme Brahman's Śrī Kṛṣṇa-form or to his Śrī Gaurāṅga-form. Following the reasoning he offers, the discussion conducted here shows that, in terms of the Supreme Brahman's own essential, defining characteristic — in the most all-encompassing sense of the word "śānti" — it is only the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa-united form, and hence the devotee-mood-filled Śrī Gaurāṅga, who is the true referent of this name "śānti"; Śrī Kṛṣṇa cannot be its referent.

Parāyaṇaḥ. He whose refuge (ayana) is the supreme (para, that is, the very best or foremost) — such a one is "parāyaṇa" (a bahuvrīhi compound).

To determine whether this name applies to Mahāprabhu, it is necessary to be acquainted with certain scripturally-established conclusions of the original Vaiṣṇava ācārya Gosvāmīs, and with the mode of devotional practice (bhajana) followed by the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas who, in accordance with those very conclusions, are devoted to worship.

According to them, Kṛṣṇa, son of Vraja's king, is the sole object (viṣaya) of Kṛṣṇa-directed prema, not its abode (āśraya). He is therefore the very embodiment of the object of prema, and his pastimes are accordingly of that nature. In the form of Śrī Gaurāṅga, he himself becomes the abode of that very prema; hence he is the embodiment of the abode of prema, and his pastimes are accordingly of that nature — filled with the devotee's mood.

In the service of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is solely the embodiment of the object of prema, only that service connected with the essential nature of the object of prema can be attained — service connected with the essential nature of the abode of prema cannot be attained. And in the service of Mahāprabhu, who is solely the embodiment of the abode of prema, only that service connected with the essential nature of the abode of prema can be attained — there can be no possibility of attaining service connected with the essential nature of the object of prema. Neither of these two kinds of service, taken alone, yields both forms of service at once. And yet it cannot be denied that the fullness of the attainment of service lies precisely in the attainment of both forms of service together. The attainment of both forms of service together is indeed the very aspiration of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas. Śrīla Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura Mahāśaya himself has written: "What I attain here [through Gaura], I attain there [through Kṛṣṇa] as well." Mahāprabhu Śrī Gaurasundara, the recipient of Rādhā's own boundless treasury of prema, is ever, in the mood of the object of prema, tasting the mellow of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's own name and similar pastimes. Therefore, if one can taste the manifestation [of Gaura's own inner nature], one can taste [through it] the pastimes of Śrī Kṛṣṇa as well ("in the qualities of Gaurāṅga he is manifest; his eternal pastime is manifest in him" — Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura's own words); and if one can immerse oneself in the ocean of Gaura-prema's own mellow, one can, knowing Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa's own inner heart, render them the very service they themselves desire, to their own satisfaction ("in the ocean of Gaura's love-mellow, whoever dives into those waves is the intimate companion of Rādhā-Mādhava" — the Ṭhākura Mahāśaya's own words). But since Śrī Kṛṣṇa is not himself filled with the mood of a devotee of Gaura, he does not, in the mood of a devotee, taste the name, qualities, form, and pastimes of his own Gaura-form. Therefore, even if one is immersed in the ocean of Kṛṣṇa-prema, no manifestation of Gaura-līlā can occur through that alone. For all these reasons, in order to attain both forms of service together, the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas worship both Śrī Gaura and Śrī Kṛṣṇa, taking refuge in Śrī Gaurāṅga alone. Even for the sake of pleasing Gaura himself — who is himself eager to taste Kṛṣṇa's own pastimes — worship of Śrī Kṛṣṇa is likewise necessary for practitioners who have taken refuge at Gaura's own feet. Śrī Gaurāṅga himself has taught the worship of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. In such a practice, Gaura himself is the practitioners' own supreme (para) refuge (ayana). Hence one of his names is "parāyaṇa." For the reasons already given, this name applies only to Mahāprabhu; it cannot apply to Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

Furthermore, according to Bhāgavata 11.5.32, "kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākṛṣṇam" and so on, since Śrī Gaurāṅga is the very object of worship for the Kali-age (that is, since the worship even of Śrī Rāma, Śrī Nārāyaṇa, and others is likewise enjoined only in subordination to Śrī Gaurāṅga), he is "parāyaṇa" for every kind of practitioner without exception.

Since, in the particular sense discussed above, the three names "niṣṭhā," "śāntiḥ," and "parāyaṇaḥ" apply only to Mahāprabhu, and cannot apply to the form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, had Kavirāja Gosvāmī seen the visarga-bearing reading "niṣṭhā śāntiḥ parāyaṇaḥ," he would simply have adopted that very reading and demonstrated the applicability of these three names to Mahāprabhu — and his purpose would have been served equally well thereby.

Thus it is seen that, even adopting the visarga-bearing reading "niṣṭhā śāntiḥ parāyaṇaḥ," the three names given in this reading cannot be applied to Mahāprabhu — and therefore there can be no reasonable ground whatsoever for the accusation that Kavirāja Gosvāmī, driven by ulterior motive, altered the reading of this portion of the thousand-name hymn.

Jayati jayati devaḥ suvarṇa-varṇo hemāṅgaḥ, jayati jayati devo varāṅgaś candanāṅgadī, jayati jayati devaḥ sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ śāntaḥ, jayati jayati devo niṣṭhāśānti-parāyaṇaḥ.

[Glory, glory to the Lord, of golden hue, golden-limbed! Glory, glory to the Lord, of excellent limbs, adorned with sandal-armlets! Glory, glory to the Lord, who took sannyāsa, tranquil and peaceful! Glory, glory to the Lord, whose supreme refuge is steadfast devotion and peace!]

(17.8.1965 — 21.10.1965)

Thus concludes the Introduction to Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata.

Translator's closing note: The original Bengali volume closes, after the author's final benediction verses and colophon, with a printed śuddhi-patra (errata sheet) listing typographical corrections — page and line references paired with misprinted and corrected Bengali readings — followed by several pages of endorsement letters from scholars praising the work (among them Prabhupāda Śrī Rādhāramaṇa Gosvāmī Vedāntabhūṣaṇa and Dr. Bhāgavata Kumāra Gosvāmī). Both of these back-matter sections are specific to the printed Bengali text itself — the errata correct misprints in the original typesetting, and the endorsements are personal letters of praise — and so are not part of the substantive content of Rādhāgovinda Nātha's own Introduction. They have accordingly been noted here rather than translated verse-for-verse, so that this English document preserves the complete argument of the Bhūmikā itself, from the opening front matter through this closing verse. This completes the translation of all 332 pages of the source text.

Timeline → · Cast of Characters → · Glossary → · Nityānanda's Travelogue →