1 Gaudiya Vaishnava History – The Goswamis as pioneers

To see notes, click here

Hare Krishna. Thank you very much everyone for joining today. Today we begin this course on the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism where we’ll be discussing about how in the Gaudiya history the message of bhakti has been passed down over generations but anytime I’m not audible means the host can let me know.
We will have question answers at the end. So let me give a broad outline of what I’m going to discuss in these four sessions. So essentially the Gaudiya Vaishnav tradition, the way we’re going to discuss it, it starts from Shri Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and then we have Shri Prabhupada and then we have our current Shri Prabhupada.
His con is there. Now of course there are other branches of Gaudiya Vaishnavism also which are there existing. So we will focus on certain key historical movements in the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the Acharyas who dealt with those challenges.
So we’ll focus on first of all the Goswamis. So Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his immediate succession, the Goswamis, that will be the focus of our first session. Then the second session will be focussing primarily on Vishwanath Chakravarthy Thakur and Baladeva Vidyabhushan.
So especially our focus will be on Baladeva Vidyabhushan. Then in the third session we’ll be focussing on Bhakti Vinod Thakur and within that we’ll talk to some extent about Bhakti Saraswati Thakur also. But the next session will be about Bhakti Siddhanta and then we will be talking briefly about Shri Prabhupada and how his work manifested the culmination of all these generations of work.
And when we are discussing this, so today our session will focus on Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the Goswamis. And while discussing this, we’ll be focussing on one key principle that Shri Prabhupada defines realisation. What does realisation mean? He defines the first canto in the Narad Vyasa Samvat and we could depict what Prabhupada says in terms of a diagram.
Prabhupada says if this is the message of scripture and then these are the interests of the audience. So he says realisation means to speak the message of scripture in a way that is interesting for the audience. If we speak only the message of scripture but it has no interest to the audience, then it’s not helpful.
If we speak only the interest of the audience but don’t speak scripture, that’s not also helpful. So if you do either one, if it’s only scripture, the result is that we become irrelevant to the audience. While you’re speaking, what has that got to do with me? On the other hand, if we speak only audience interest, the only interest of the audience, then what happens is basically scripture and tradition, the scripture becomes irrelevant to us and scripture becomes irrelevant to all the audience also because we’re just speaking what a pandering to them basically.
So what we need is both. We need to stay connected with the scripture that is through faithfulness. Every acharya in the tradition has to be faithful to stay connected with scripture.
So faithfulness, we can say, it links us with scripture and then we have to be resourceful. Resourcefulness, the Bhagavad Gita calls it a nakshim, that connects us with the audience, the audience interests. And now what exactly is the audience interest? What is the teaching of scripture? How can the two be brought together? That is the challenge for every acharya.
So we will be having some incidents from the acharyas like we discussed, but here the history that we are going to discuss is focussing more on the challenges in maintaining this link that the acharyas faced. So let’s look at the historical context when the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition emerged. So we won’t go too much into specific historical dates, but our focus is more on the historical context.
Now Chaitanya Mahaprabhu appeared in 1486. Now when he appeared at that time, what was the situation? Now we can look at the situation in many different contexts. For many of us who are in India from a Vedic background, we may immediately know the political context.
Political context was that there was Islamic rule in India. Then beyond that, that’s one particular context. Now when we look back, often that is a prominent thing in historical memory of Indians or followers of Sanatan Dharma that there was so much pillaging and destruction of temples and it was a very dark period in the history of India, especially for followers of Sanatan Dharma.
That is true, but we will see that that context did not mean much for Mahaprabhu and his followers. Not too much, but not too much. Now we could also look at the philosophical context.
Philosophical context means that what were the prominent philosophical ideas at that time. So in terms of philosophical context, we had within the Vedic tradition, the Dvaita versus Advaita. And it’s not only Dvaita versus Advaita, it is more like personalist versus impersonalist debate.
Because although the Dvaitins were the most prominent among those who debated impersonalists, but personalists were also the Sri Vaishnavas and they are Vishishta Advaita. So there was a philosophical context, it was there was a debate between the Dvaitavadis and the Advaitavadis. Now, if we look at another context over there, then we have the context wherein we can consider the cultural context.
I’ll explain what this means. In the cultural context, this was a time when Kavya Ataka was flourishing, especially in Bengal. And the Rasa tradition, Rasa was a very, very prominent thing at that time.
The Rasa tradition was there. I’ll explain what the Rasa tradition is shortly. Then beyond that, we can look at the devotional context.
The devotional context means that in the mediaeval times, Bhakti was flourishing, there was a Bhakti resurgence that was there. It started a few centuries before Mahaprabhu appeared and this was what spread rapidly across India. When Mahaprabhu appeared around that time, before that time, after that time, there were various saints who appeared in various parts of India.
In Maharashtra, there was Tukaram Maharaj. In North India, there was, not exactly that time, there were saints like, there was a resurgence in the Ram Bhakti through the Ramcharitmanas. So Bhakti was flourishing all over the world.
So now, when Mahaprabhu appeared and Mahaprabhu gave his teachings, so depending on the context we are talking about, the teachings need to be presented appropriately to each context. Right now also, if we are trying to share Krishna Bhakti, if we are going to speak to people who are, say, educated in English and people who are coming from a very rational, educational background, then we have to present Bhakti in a particular way. If we are talking to people who come from a very pious background, then for them, they don’t need to be convinced about Bhakti.
They need just to be primarily facilitated in the practise of Bhakti. So there are many of these contexts that were there. Now, beyond this, that one context is still influential, which was what we can call as the religious or the technical word in English is the ecclesiastical context.
Ecclesiastical means basically religious administration, religious hierarchy. Religious administration means who are the religious authorities. So this is basically the Brahminical social structure that was there.
Brahmanas had a lot of influence. As you can see, in the political context, the Brahmanas didn’t have much influence. In the philosophical context, there was more of a theological.
When I’m talking Brahminical structure, it’s more about the rituals that were practised. So Brahmanas can refer to intellectuals who teach philosophy. Brahmanas can also refer to priests who do particular rituals.
So there were a particular set of rituals still going on. So there were these various contexts that were there. And at different times, Mahaprabhu and his followers needed to do different things to connect with different people in different contexts.
And at one level, Caitanya Mahaprabhu in the Gaudiya tradition is understood to be the Supreme Lord Krishna. At the same time, neither he constantly emphasised that he is God. In fact, practically, he very rarely emphasised he is God.
He is considered Channa Avatar. And even if he claimed to be God, not necessarily everybody would immediately accept him to be God. So he also had to, in one sense, use his intelligence and his omnipotence, which he concealed over here most of the time, to connect with different people in different ways.
So let us look at what Mahaprabhu and his followers did in their particular context. And these broadly five contexts, we will come back to these contexts in the later part of our discussion also. We will not discuss all five for each Acharya, but each particular historical time and the Acharyas at that particular time.
Certain contexts became much more important at particular times. Mahaprabhu appeared in Bengal. Now, Bengal, if we see at that time, the Chaitanya Bhagwat, Chaitanya Charita Amrit described that, oh, there was so many people who were doing rituals in the form of bathing in the Ganga or even reciting the Bhagavatam.
But the Chaitanya Bhagwat says that there was no bhakti to Krishna even when the recitation of the Bhagavatam was going on. And this is how degraded the society was. People were worshipping Chashti and Kali, but they were not worshipping Krishna.
This was the misfortune. Because of such misfortune, Mahaprabhu had to come. Now, if we consider, even when Advaita Acharya calls Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, please come, or calls the Supreme Lord to descend, the Lord Descended Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, his focus is not so much on, oh, these Muslims are destroying our temple, they’re doing this, they’re doing that.
Therefore, you need to come. His appeal is, oh, people are so lost. People are so forgetful of the ultimate teaching of the Vedas.
Please come and redeem those teachings. So, the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition has a particular emphasis. So, let’s look at the emphasis from this contextual perspective.
Now, Mahaprabhu, if we consider what he offered, now he offered something in each of these contexts to various people. So, if you look at the political context, there were a few encounters. There was an encounter with Shyamkazi where Thakur said this was the first civil disobedience movement.
The terminology that was used later on for agitating against the British authorities, the terminology which had been used by the Britishers themselves for their historical political agitations. Bhaktivinoda Thakur used that same terminology and he used that terminology for a struggle that had happened long ago. So, but the point was that was one struggle.
There were a few other encounters with the Pathans who became Vaishnavas. But apart from that, there’s not much interaction. Now, later on, of course, there is.
We will come to that part later. But at this point, when we talk about the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, so what did Mahaprabhu emphasise? We all know Mahaprabhu’s life. He lived for 48 years and he was out of that 24 years, he was in Mayapur.
And out of that, actually for 20 years, he established himself in scholarship. He became a fearless and fearless scholar. He was fearless.
He did not afraid of even facing somebody like Keshav Kashmiri. Keshav Kashmiri was a world defeating champion in scholarship. And while he was in Mayapur, he was fearless.
He was young, but he was extremely scholarly. And then from then onwards, he started manifesting his bhakti. Now, in bhakti manifesting for the four years in 24 to 30, he was travelling.
During this time, he had the South India tour first and the North India tour. And then after that, till the age of 48, he was in Puri. And while he was in Puri, he did focus primarily, not so much on preaching to new people, but entering deeper and deeper into the hearts of his devotees.
The various devotees from various parts of the world, especially the Goswamis from Vrindavan would come and Mahaprabhu would meet them. And while meeting them, Mahaprabhu would actually enter deeper into their hearts with his affection as well as his instructions. So in the middle six years of his life, he was travelling, he was primarily preaching.
Later on, he was primarily connecting people with his followers. It was more of a period of, you could say, the first, this was expansion. And then here there was consolidation.
So now, Mahaprabhu departed in 48. We will focus on Mahaprabhu, but we are focussing on the Acharyas primarily. So Mahaprabhu departed at the age of 48.
In many ways, it was a very sudden departure. He was very young and he had not given much indication to anyone that he intended to depart. It was a devastating event, his sudden departure.
And historically speaking, at that time, generally for a succession to happen properly, there are three things required. There have to be people who are appointed as successors, there have to be papers, that means the will has to be there, the successors have to be appointed, the papers into the will has to be there, and then processes. Processes means some kind of organisational structure is there, some kind of system by which how power will be transferred, how things will move onwards.
Now, in the case of Mahaprabhu, Mahaprabhu did not do any of these things. So how the Gauriya Vishnu tradition succeeded itself is survived and not just survived but thrived, that itself is a miracle. So now Mahaprabhu had, of course, unofficial, many followers who became successors, but Mahaprabhu did not appoint the successors.
Mahaprabhu, there was no will that he wrote. His writings themselves were quite few. There are some other works that are attributed to him, but their authorship is often debated.
And of course, he did not set up any organisational structure. So now, how did things move forward from there? So this is where the vital role of the Goswamis comes in. The Goswamis were extremely learned.
The Srinivasa Tattva Upanishad and Goswami were extremely learned. They were also very experienced. Rupesh Narada Goswami, they were rulers.
They were part of the ruling administration. They were ministers in the cabinet of Nawab Hussain Shah. And this was not an appointment that they had got just by heredity.
They had got it purely by their merit. They were so meritorious. So they were expert people.
Now, when they came to Vrindavan, they started consolidating Mahaprabhu’s legacy in terms of writing. And through that, they started presenting Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Now, generally speaking, if you consider down to our times, Ashwaprabhupada is definitions of success.
There are many definitions. Prabhupada gave us the seven purposes of his scorn. But if you look at his practical emphasis, he talked about three main things.
How many devotees are made, how many books are distributed, and how many temples are built. So these are three broad definitions of success. Now, the Goswamis, they were very learned scholars.
They were not exactly preachers. They would travel around and they would do vigorous preaching. That had been done by Mahaprabhu.
That had been done by Nityananda Prabhu. That was done in its own way. Now, that’s why the temples were concerned.
Mahaprabhu told the temples be built in Vrindavan. But Bengal, because it was under Muslim rule, Mahaprabhu did not mention anything about building temples to his followers in Vrindavan, in Bengal. Now, Orissa, there was, of course, the Puri temple.
But that was not a question. Because it was a celebrated temple, there were always attacks and the rulers had their challenges over there. But Mahaprabhu did not emphasise building of temples at that particular time.
And Vrindavan, at that time, was almost like a lost place. Of course, Vrindavan is the birthplace of Krishna, appearance place of Krishna. And we can’t say it was a lost place.
But Mathura was quite prominent. And when Mahaprabhu came to Vrindavan, it was he who discovered Radha-Kund at that time. And then the Goswamis were told to find the historical places and discover them and build temples.
So Mahaprabhu, especially for the Goswamis, he gave building temples, this was a mission, and writing books, that was the mission. Now, this was the time when the devotees, they, like followers, were there in Bengal. And there it went on to Bengal and some of us in Orissa.
The followers were naturally happening through the Gaur Leela, through the remembrance of the pastimes of Mahaprabhu, through the extraordinary activities that he had done. Mahaprabhu had become almost like a worshipable saint and deity for people over there. And it was very common.
So there were followers were there in Bengal and Orissa. It was not that in Vraja, a lot of people became devotees of Mahaprabhu. There were devotees of Krishna.
Of course, it is Krishna’s holy place. Mathura is also Krishna’s holy place. There were Krishna devotees.
The Goswamis had a particular work that they were Brahminical people, they were intellectuals. And they focused on particular things based on what Mahaprabhu wanted them to do and also based on what they recognised needed to be done. So Mahaprabhu met with Rupa Goswami, he met with Rupa Goswami, he met both of them together earlier, but especially he gave instructions during his North India tour to the two Goswamis and they internalised those instructions.
And whenever any tradition, any movement has to spread, that time it has to connect with a receptive audience. So what was that receptive audience? The two main groups of followers, one in Vrindavan and the second will put Orissa and Bengal together at one place. Now, relatively speaking, the Brahminical orthodoxy was much more in Vrindavan.
It was already a holy place. I mean, it’s a significant holy place. Then there are already people who are considered authorities over there.
The authorities could be, whenever there’s a holy place, there are generally two kinds of authorities. There are the saints who, by their devotion, they attract people. And then there are the priests.
The priests are in charge of the temples. The priests are the people who perform the rituals. When somebody’s child is born, you have to give the name to the child or you have to perform the Vibhaha Samskara.
And then they would perform the abhisheks in the temples. So there were these two different kinds of authorities. And then of course, there were the scholars.
And the saints could be, these three could be overlapping also. The same person could be a saint, a scholar and a priest. But it is not necessary that one person has to be all of this.
So in Vrindavan, the Goswamis faced multiple challenges, which they had to deal with. Mahaprabhu had come and gone. Mahaprabhu had been a charismatic influence while he had been there.
But he did not write any books. And without books, what were his teachings? If, say, consider now, when we as those who are trying to share Krishna Consciousness, if we didn’t have Prabhupada’s books, if imagine we had no books at all, either Prabhupada’s books or any other books, how would we have learned ourselves and how would we have taught? So for the intellectual, philosophical, theological foundation, books were vital. And the Goswamis laid that foundation.
Now, whenever any book is written, every book is a link between the audience and the teacher. The teacher could be the author and author of the book. The teacher could be the author’s teacher, whatever it is.
So who is the book being written for? This is important. And through the books, that connection is to be established. So I’ll talk about three major connections with the Goswamis established and some minor also, but their work was foundational for the spreading of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
First of all, for the survival of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and secondly, for the spreading. So the Goswamis, now I’m putting all the Goswamis together, although almost we can say that the Goswamis were in two generations. Rupa and Sanatana Goswami are relatively older Goswamis.
Raghunatha Goswami is a little older than them also. And then there is Jiva Goswami, there is Raghunatha Bhatta Goswami, Raghunatha Das Goswami, Gopal Bhatta Goswami. They were among the younger Goswamis, relatively speaking.
But now they all targeted through their writings, they connected with different audiences. They focused on making sure that the movement that Mahaprabhu had meant to start, it got solid foundations. So how did they go about doing it? Let’s look at the ritual or the religious context over there.
So when the ritual or the ecclesiastical context that is there over here. So there, Mahaprabhu had said, just chant the holy names. And Mahaprabhu had, to some extent, challenged the religious orthodoxy of his times.
There were lots of rules and regulations about who can do this, who can’t do what. When Haridas Thakur was offered the first worship, first food, it was quite a radical thing to do. In general, if the first meal is to be offered to the most respectable person and there is religious orthodoxy at that time, somebody who was born outside the Sanatan Dharma, that person was not considered at all very elevated.
So now with respect to ritual and ecclesiastical, Mahaprabhu, relatively speaking, had been moderate, you could say, moderate to conservative. He did not really challenge the existing caste hierarchy and structures. What do I mean by that? You can see that Mahaprabhu, in Puri, he didn’t insist that Haridas Thakur has to be allowed into the temple.
So Mahaprabhu also didn’t agree that, okay, he’s a fallen person. Mahaprabhu would go to take Jagannath and he would come back and he would offer the Prasad personally to Haridas Thakur. So temple conventions, Mahaprabhu accepted that.
Now similarly, when Mahaprabhu was in Varanasi, he had two followers over there, whom his plan, he had sent earlier. Tapan Mishra was one of his prominent followers. Now when Mahaprabhu was staying in Varanasi, this was, Prabhupada called it as the capital of the Mayavadis, the Vrindavan of the Mayavadis.
And any Sanyasi would come, they would scrutinise them. Just like say, when we are doing something, say, if I was a travelling speaker, if I’m giving a class, I can travel all over the world to give a class. But if I go to Mayapur and say, in Mayapur at that time, the GPC meetings are going on.
If at that time I’m asked to give a class, then there’ll be hundreds of people who’ll be scrutinising every word that I’m speaking. So Mahaprabhu was similarly scrutinised at that time. So Mahaprabhu deferred to the conventions of that time.
What was that? He stayed in the house of a disciple who was actually not a Brahmin. But every day from his house, Mahaprabhu would go to the house of a follower who was a Brahmin. And he would take food only in the house of the Brahmin.
So Mahaprabhu deferred to the purity conventions of those times. He did not challenge them. He did not counter them.
And Mahaprabhu was choosing his battles. Nobody can fight a hundred wars at the same time. You have to fight this war first, then this war, this war, this war.
So now, with respect to connecting with the ritual tradition, the key person was Gopal Bhatt Goswami. And he wrote a book. He’s the primary person behind books like Hari Bhakti Vilas and others which establish the ritual foundation for the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.
Who is a Gaudiya Vaishnava? You can talk of another philosophy. But okay, who is a Gaudiya Vaishnava? You can talk of another chanting. Who is a Gaudiya Vaishnava? What kind of rituals do you perform? What kind of puja do you do? What kind of worship do you do? What kind of standards of purity do you follow? So all those, this was a connection which was vital for gaining acceptability and respectability in those times.
Now, it was required at that time. Now, Prabhupada, when he came and he gave deity worship standards, if I give you all that was done in the past and all that the Goswami had told, all that is told in the Vedic, in the deity worship tradition, you would not be able to do it at all. But the point is, something was required to connect.
Now, this was relatively a minor, just giving this as an example. Mahaprabhu was very merciful, but he was merciful in terms of distributing the holy name to everyone. However, in many ways, Mahaprabhu was choosing these battles.
Now, there was the cultural context. Let’s look at the cultural context over here. Now, as I mentioned, during those times, the Kavya and the Nataka had grown a lot.
One of the most unique contributions of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition is manifested in the book Bhakti Rasamrut Sindhu. What is this book? The book talks about how Rasa is a means to approach the divine, to approach Krishna. Now, Rasa, this will have to understand what is going on.
India is a vast country and it had a very complex and rich set of traditions going on. So, while on one side, you could say there is a theological, philosophical tradition going on, theological tradition, that is the Advaita, Advaita, all that was there within it. But there was a parallel.
In the culture, there was this Rasa tradition. This is said to have started right from when the Devatas asked Brahmaji for a means for aesthetic entertainment and enlightenment. And that’s how what was called Natya Shastra was given by Brahmaji to the Devatas and from there, it’s come down.
And there was Bhoja and many other kings, many other pioneers in the tradition. So, they codified the rules of making a drama. So, Natya is basically about drama, but the idea went ahead.
So, now there are others also, but there was the idea of Rasa over here. Now, Rasa, what did it mean in that sense over there? That Rasa is the aesthetic experience. When a drama is performed, what is it that the audience is expected to experience? And what can those performing the drama do to enable that to be experienced? And that became a very evolved subject.
Many, many books were written, many commentaries and sub-commentaries, and there were even competing traditions within those. All of this, it was a long venerable tradition that was there. So, Rasa was basically aesthetic experience within drama.
Now, mostly in the past, whether in India or in the West, most art was pursued in a sacred context. So, dramas were also about some sacred subjects. At the same time, the subjects focused on, gave rise to different kinds of emotions that could be experienced.
Now, what we consider, if say, there is a theological tradition, there is an artistic tradition. Now, there was a bridge that was built. This was the distinctive contribution of the Gaudiya tradition.
So, in the past, Rasa was an experience in a drama, or rather experience, emotion experienced in a drama. That was the primary understanding of Rasa. What Mahaprabhu taught Rupa Goswami, and what Rupa Goswami systematised through his books was, Rasa is emotion experienced in relationship with Krishna.
And not just in relationship with Krishna, but it is emotion that helps us come closer to Krishna and have a richer, deeper, sweeter experience of Krishna. So, for example, in a drama, we may have a particular kind of music, if we want to have a fear or horror to be triggered. We might have a particular kind of costume, like a comedian might wear, if we want laughs to be there.
So, there are different stimuli which will trigger different emotions. So, now, what the Bhaktivedanta Sambhava Sindhu teaches is that, if we can systematically provide various stimuli to our consciousness, then that can trigger emotion. And this was developed to a very sophisticated and systematic degree.
What Mahaprabhu was doing, and what Rupa Goswami was doing is, that the Rasa tradition was becoming very influential at those times, especially among the literati, among the cultured people. Mahaprabhu said that through the same things, you can experience Krishna. And this is distinctive.
Now, the concept of Rasa, the term Rasa is common. It can mean many, many different things. We probably, before we came to Bhakti, we heard Rasa in terms of Amras, mango juice or sugarcane juice, Gannaras.
So, we thought of it as juice. The term Rasa is also used in the Bhagavatam. The term Rasa is there very much.
But understanding Rasa as an experience that can be systematically cultivated and creating the stimuli around oneself by which that Rasa can be triggered. So, we had a systematic Bhakti as Bhakti. Bhakti was already there as a tradition.
And there were great saints who just were amazing in their devotion. And that common people were inspired by the saints and they would chant. But what the Gauriya Vaishnava tradition of the Bhakta Samasindhu did was, it is a systematic education and elevation of emotions.
This was something that was unprecedented. What Mahaprabhu presented is later on called by some scholars as the ascetic Vedanta. That Vedanta was primarily seen as analytical.
By analysis, you try to understand what is the nature of the ultimate reality. So, is the ultimate reality personal? Is it impersonal? Mahaprabhu’s special teaching was that, yeah, analysis is good and Mahaprabhu showed how good he could be at analysis. But this was very much opposed to analytical Vedanta.
So, analytical Vedanta was, okay, we look at the authentic statements and analyse them, deconstruct them. What does this mean? What does this mean? What does this mean? And slowly by that, we try to arrive at the ultimate truth. So, this was something very different.
So, if we understand the difference between this, if we have a rose, now we could study the rose as an artist and somebody could study the rose as a botanist. And then say, okay, this red colour is there. Okay, this red colour is coming from which chemical present within it.
Now, okay, this is a beautiful shape is there, but okay, how many, how is the intrusion structured over here? How many carpets are there? What are those statements? You go into all biological terms. And if you look at the Upanishads and the Upanishadic commentaries, there’s so many terms over there. That’s one way to study a rose.
Another way to study is the artist. The artist will also look at the shape, the artist will look at the colour, but the way of looking is very different. So, through Rupa Goswami, his primary focus was on bringing about this marriage between the Rasa tradition and the Bhakti tradition.
And that was Bhakti Rasamritha Sindhu, which later went on to be expanded as Ujjwala Nilamani. Then Jiva Goswami wrote the Durgam Sangam Mitrika on the Bhakti Rasamritha Sindhu. So, this is how we can experience the divine through Rasa.
And if you see the Chaitanya Chaitanya Amrit also, one of the characteristics of a devotee is said to be Kavi. Kavi is one who is a poet. What is the idea of poet over here? Poet is one, poetry is something which evokes emotions within our heart.
And those emotions need to be evoked and they are evoked through the Kavya and the Natak. And if we consider that when Rupa Goswami came to Puri and he presented his Natak, he had written at that time Lalita Madhava and Vidagdha Madhava. So, he presented his Natya.
And what happened? Mahaprabhu God, all the who’s who of his associates, all the extreme associates, Sarovam Bhattacharya, Sarovam Swaroop Damodar and all of them were hearing and critiquing and appreciating. They tried to critique, analyse critically, but everyone loved it. But the very fact that all of them were spending so much time on hearing a drama indicates how important Natya was for Mahaprabhu.
So, Kavya and Natya were very prominent and Mahaprabhu took the concept of Rasa and he said he can present it to Kavya and Natya. This was the cultural context. So, in the culture what cultural forms are prominent, Mahaprabhu presented Bhakti to those cultural forms and his followers systematised that.
After that, let’s look at the theological context. Theological means the philosophical, theological. There’s a slight difference.
Philosophy is more based on logic. Theology is often based on scripture plus logic. So, scripture plus logic, that is theology.
Philosophical is supposed to be the way in the West it is understood. Philosophy means you start completely without accepting anything and then by logic you try to prove everything. That’s philosophy.
That’s the way it is understood in the West. That kind of differentiation was not there so much in the Vedic tradition. But even our Acharyas, they reason based on scripture, but they are also capable of reasoning without needing scripture because there are Gnostic traditions like the Buddhists and the Jains and the Charvakwadis, they wouldn’t accept scripture and our Acharyas had to challenge and counter their arguments also.
So, in that sense, philosophy was also there. But as I said, there was the Dwaita and the Advaita was going on. And now, who are we targeting? Who are we trying to reach? If there’s an existing debate going on, which side do we fall? This side or that side or do we fall nowhere among those? We are on our own side.
So, that was the challenge. And here, while Mahaprabhu’s teachings provided a distinctive perspective on how the Dwaita and Advaita would be reconciled. At the same time, it also created certain challenges.
So, this term, that term is not used by Mahaprabhu directly. This term was coined by Shiva Goswami. And what he did at that time in his writings was that he tried to connect with different people.
And he said, okay, this is what the Advaitas teach, this is what the Dwaitas teach. And Mahaprabhu, excuse me, Mahaprabhu had done something extraordinary. Mahaprabhu, at one level, was clearly a devotee.
He was a Vaishnava, he would chant the holy names. But then, what had Mahaprabhu done? Mahaprabhu had taken Sannyas from someone who was in the Advaita Sampradaya, and he chose a person who was also a devotee. Now, if somebody is in the Advaita Sampradaya, how can he be a devotee? What happened at those times was that the Advaitins also recognised that to me, if we just teach Advaita Vata, that cannot connect with most of the Masters.
So, they also started teaching, you can practise Bhakti initially. Shankaracharya also talked about Bhakti. You practise Bhakti initially, and then you will realise that the Bhagwan you are worshipping, you and that Bhagwan, both of them are Maya, and you need to go into Brahman.
But till then you can worship Bhagwan. So, Mahaprabhu, Sannyas was from the Advaita Sampradaya. Now, his first initiation, his Nama Diksha, was clearly from a Bhakta.
Ishwara Puri is said to be from following Madhavendra Puri, who is supposed to be from that. He is said to be from the Advaita tradition, Madhava tradition. So now, that’s why when Mahaprabhu would go to different places, it is said in Jagad Chartam that when he went to Uruppi, Sannyasis saw him, Uruppi leaders thought he is Advaita Sannyasi.
They held him in scepticism. Why? Why did he seem as Advaita Sannyasi? Because his initiation had been in Advaita Sampradaya. And then later on, they understood that he is not at all a Mayavadi.
So, he is a great devotee. And even when he went to Varanasi, he chanted and danced and sung, and the Sannyasis over there, they said, okay, yeah, chanting and dancing is for common people to do, that’s fair enough. Sannyasis may also sometimes encourage people to do it.
But the real business of a Sannyasi is to come and sit and discuss Vedanta with us. Why are you not coming and doing that? Why are you doing the activity of the less intelligent people? They were dismissing Mahaprabhu as less intelligent, especially the leader among them was at that time Prakashananda Saraswati. And then when Mahaprabhu spoke to him, the time when Prakashananda Saraswati, they realised, he is real Prakash, what is real Ananda, and what is the real blessing of Saraswati? The Prakash that it fulges, that is not the ultimate reality, that comes from the form of ultimate reality.
The real Ananda is not the Brahmananda, it pales into insignificance as compared to Bhakti-Ananda. The ultimate blessing of Saraswati is not to see beyond all dualities and categories to the oneness of Brahman, but it is to develop complete love for Krishna, mudha, avasamanyita, as Krishna has been pinpointed in the Gita. So Mahaprabhu, in some ways he appeared to be an Advaithic Sannyasi, but he was not at all that.
But what were his exact teachings? This is where the Yajugoswami’s lab, because Yajugoswami took the responsibility of systematising the siddhanta that Mahaprabhu had taught. So he himself had no direct interaction with Mahaprabhu, but he heard from Rupa Goswami, he heard from Sanatana Goswami, and he had deep devotion and he also had a great scholarship. So the Sandarbhas that he wrote were the systematic philosophical codification.
Now the systematic philosophy is presented, but still its philosophy is presented in a particular way. As he moves forward, there is Krishna Sandarbha, there is Preeti Sandarbha. So ultimately what he is saying is, he is following Rupa Goswami and he is saying that we will experience the divine, we will realise the nature of the divine, not through analysis, but through opening our heart with experience.
And while this had been taught in terms of bhakti by previous Acharyas, the fact of joining with Rasa in a very systematic analytical way by Rupa Goswami, Yajugoswami carried that on in his books. Now after this, while all this was going on, there were many challenges. Actually, if you look at it from the political context, we won’t talk much, but there are some things which need to be talked about.
When the Goswamis were there, we look at the political history and then we look at the Gaudiya history. Primarily when the Goswamis were there, that broadly coincided with the rule of Akbar. Now Akbar was no saint, but relatively speaking, he was far less intolerant than any other things.
So during this time, they made sure that Vrindavan was protected, that Vrindavan, the glory of Vrindavan was re-manifested. Of course, he was not the only political ruler. At that time, there was also, relatively speaking, if you consider this on one side, the other side, there was Rajasthan, Jaipur, and there were the Rajput kings who were ruling.
They were very pious. So the Goswamis also built relationships with them. And many of these Rajput merchants or Rajput kings, they helped build the temples.
The Goswamis now, between the Rajputs and the Muslim kings, there were also tensions, but they also made alliances. Sometimes the Rajput kings fought against the Muslims, sometimes the Rajput kings worked under the Muslims. It was all complicated.
It was a delicate balancing act that the Goswamis did. And Vrindavan slowly started manifesting the glory. This was the time when the beautiful Radha Madan Mohan temple came up, the Govindji temple came up.
The Goswamis were able to build this. They didn’t go out fundraising, but by that same cleanliness, they attracted people. All of us have probably heard stories of how each of the temples was built.
I’m not going to go into those particular stories. We’re talking about the broader principle. In the political context, the Muslims, they were always unpredictable what they’re going to do.
One king might be good, but what about the next king? So the Goswamis did antagonise the Muslims, but at the same time, they befriended with the Rajputs. And then we will see later on, after Akbar, there was Shahjah, Aurangzeb came up. So now when Aurangzeb came, he devastated Vrindavan in many ways.
So much of the work of the Goswamis, that was undone. And then after that, Vishwanath Chakra Thakur had to come. And then Baldev Vijayabhushan came.
And then they again had to restore Vrindavan. That Dharmasya Glani happens, then Yadah Yadahi Dharmasya, that happens again. And then Dharmasamsthapanath.
And when the Lord comes, the Lord sends his representatives. So, but at this particular point, the Goswamis, they built some temples over here and they restored Vrindavan to its glory. This is also broadly, when I talk about political, cultural, devotional, theological, they’re not entirely non-interesting.
They relate with each other to a large degree. But to understand it, you’re looking at these images. Now there are some, in every tradition, especially in every Bhakti tradition, there are many stories about miracles.
Oh, this particular king came, this particular Muslim king came to destroy this particular temple and then this deity did this or this saint did this. And then that king was transformed. And thereafter, he did not do anything.
Now, if all these stories were to be believed, then it would seem as if not a single temple in India was destroyed. Every single temple was miraculously protected. Now, of course, we know that didn’t happen.
I’m not saying that none of these stories are true, but we can’t just say that the way our acharyas function is that they did not depend on some miraculous intervention by the Lord to protect each time some danger would be there. They were aware of the danger. They did what was feasible for them to deal with it.
As far as the Indian history goes, the first official will that is recorded in the Indian tradition, not at an individual level, but at an organisational level, temple organisational level, is actually the will written by Rupa Jiva Goswami when he departed. That, okay, what will happen to the various temples? Who will look after what? Who will take care of this? Who will take care of that? Who will address this? Jiva Goswami was very, very meticulous in this. Now, in this way, at this particular point, they were not travelling speakers.
At that time, there was no internet. At that time, there were no extensive followers who would go and distribute books. So, this was when Goswami did an enormous amount of intellectual work, but it was unknown to the world.
What to speak of the world? It was unknown even outside Vrindavan, leave alone in various parts of India. So, the next phase was vital and we’ll talk about that and then we will conclude. Now, one part of the story, the adventurousness, we know that the three followers who took the literature of the Goswamis from Vrindavan to Bengal, that Prabhupada and the devotees were the first travelling Sankirtan party and there was a threat of the king Birambir who stole it away.
All that miraculous story we know, it’s an amazing story, but what was so significant about the books of the Goswamis at that time? Why was this particular journey so important? So, if we consider that it’s wonderful to write books, it’s very important to have systematic knowledge, but unless knowledge is distributed, it’s not going to benefit you. And quite often, those who are really deep into knowledge, they have an interest in going deeper and deeper into knowledge. They don’t have the tendency necessarily to go to travel often.
So, the Goswamis focused on systematising and writing, but then somebody had to carry it for them. Now, while the Goswamis were building bridges with the various contexts at those particular times, but there was one vital bridge that was built by Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami. And he is not among the six Goswamis, but he’s also considered a Vrindavan Goswami.
And what he did shaped the direction of Gaudiya Vaishnava history there. So, basically Gaudiya Vaishnavism was going on in two different places. One was in Vrindavan, Rajya and the other was in Bengal.
It was then Orissa also, but after Mahaprabhu departed, soon Pratap Rudra could not maintain his life. After Pratap Rudra departed, then the Muslim king from Bengal attacked Orissa and devastated things in Orissa. So, things in Orissa were not that powerful at that time.
So, what had happened was, as I said in Bengal, there were followers, many, many followers of Mahaprabhu. In Rajya, there were scholars. So, now a link between the followers and the scholars had to be made.
And how was this going to be done? What was the means for this? So, the thing was, there were several challenges. In Bengal, most of the people there were interested in Katha. Even the books that were written in Bengal were primarily Katha books, not exclusively, but primarily Katha books.
Murali Gupta had written his Karchas, and then Vrindavan Das Thakur had written Chaitanya Bhagwat, Lochan Das Thakur had written Chaitanya Mangal. Totally, there were 27 biographies were written. Nine of them are still extant.
Not all of them are considered equally authorised, because different people wrote things in different ways. But Mahaprabhu had a significant impact. Normally, when is the follower just can’t tolerate the idea that if this person departs, the memory of that person will also depart.
The memory at least has to stay and stay alive. So, the Kathas, the pastimes of Mahaprabhu were beautifully written in these books. And of course, because it was Bengal, everything was written in Bengali.
So, the content and the language were different. Now, Mahaprabhu had visited Vrindavan, and two months had been a spectacular time of devotion for him, as well as all those associated with him. But just one visit, he had come and he had gone.
It was not that Vrindavan suddenly became filled with Gaurav Bhakti. It didn’t happen. So, the Goswamis wrote books in Vrindavan.
They had to write for the audience that was there. They didn’t write any Gaurav Katha books. They offered their obeisances to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as their teacher.
But their books, when they wrote any Katha books, their Katha was Krishna Katha books. Gopal Champu was written over there and books like that. The 10th Character Commentary by Jeeva Goswami is there.
Rupa Goswami wrote some Leela books. But then, this was important, but much more important was the Tattva books. So, the books that they wrote on Tattva, whether it is the Ratha Tattva or the Vedantic Tattva.
So, the Tattva books. And because in Vrindavan, there are hardly any Bengalis. So, the books that were written were in Sanskrit.
So, now these two different sets of followers with two different legacies were there. And as I mentioned that Mahaprabhu had come and he had gone and he had not left any will. He had not appointed any followers.
He had not set up any processes for carrying on his teachings. So, while in Bengal, there were many followers, there was also some confusion. What exactly did Mahaprabhu teach? What did Mahaprabhu stand for? So, this is where Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami came from Bengal to Vrindavan.
He grew up in his childhood, immersed in Gaur Katha. He came to Goswamis and he learned the teachings of Mahaprabhu systematically. By learning those teachings, he then came back.
And, or rather he didn’t come back, but here he composed Chaitanya Charita Amrit. Chaitanya Charita Amrit is the book where Katha and Tattva both are combined together. Chaitanya Bhaga, Chaitanya Mangal, they are much more Katha than Tattva.
What Chaitanya Charita Amrit did was that it is a biography, that means it’s Katha, but it’s also a book of theology. If you see, normally if somebody is writing a storybook, say there is a Bhagavad Katha on Krishna Leela, on say Krishna’s Govardhan Leela. If that is the topic of a series of say seven talks or three talks, then we would expect them to focus primarily on Krishna Katha, on Govardhan Leela specifically.
At that time, they start talking about Bhagavad Gita, Rudra Gita and go deep into philosophy. That would seem inappropriate. Chaitanya Charita Amrit is a book of biography, but actually the most detailed details about it in our past time are not described in so much detail.
Beautifully described, whatever is described, magnificently beautiful. At the same time, primary focus is the conversations. So where Mahaprabhu’s narrative is narrated, but wherever there is a philosophical discussion, he zooms in.
And zooming in, there is elaborate discussion. The five great conversations of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu with Sarvam Bhattacharya, with Prakashanan Saraswati, with Rupa Goswami, with Sanatana Goswami, with Ramananda Raya. This is what Prabhupada later put together as the teachings of Lord Chaitanya.
These are what were especially significantly distinctive about the Chaitanya Charita Amrit. This level of philosophically, theologically sophisticated discussion was not there. And when the Srimad Bhattacharya, Shyamayan Pandey, Dhananjali Das, came back, the first travelling Sankirtan party, among the various books they brought back, one of the key books was actually Chaitanya Charita Amrit.
And through Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s Charita Amrit, the followers in Bengal came to know what were Mahaprabhu’s exact pastimes, what were his teachings, what did he stand for. And the Chaitanya Charita Amrit became a book that unified the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. It was considered to be the book that actually ensured the succession of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition went on.
And so there is the adventurousness by which the book came. But the adventure becomes much more significant when we understand why what they were carrying was such a great pleasure. Without that clear understanding, different people had different memories of Mahaprabhu.
Memory is a funny thing. Sometimes we remember something accurately, sometimes we don’t remember something accurately. And it’s not intentional, sometimes unintentional.
So many devotees who remember so many pastimes of Prabhupada, which are just so unlikely to have happened, because they remember it as if it’s perfectly true. It’s very difficult to say whether it happened or not. So it’s a systematic record.
So the Goswamis, in one sense, linked with the outsiders. At that time, the outsider was the Rafa tradition, the outsider was the Vedantic tradition, the outsiders were the Brahmanas, the outsiders were the political rulers and they also linked with the insiders. The insiders were the Gaudiya Vaishnava followers themselves.
When they linked with the Gaudiya Vaishnava followers, what happened was the Gaudiya Vaishnava followers became united. And that’s how the tradition continued on. Now, I did not consider one particular point, which I’ll be discussing in our next session.
So that is the specific mellow of Bhakti, of the Viraha Bhava of Radha Bhakti, of not just Bhakti for Krishna, Vishnu, Bhakti for Krishna, in the mood of Srimati Radharani, in separation from Krishna, that Parakiya Bhava and Viraha in Parakiya Bhava within Madhurya Rasa. So that, what was its significance and how that particular distinctive significance presented extraordinary opportunities, but also extraordinary challenges. And how those challenges were addressed, that we will discuss when we discuss about Vishwanath Chakratapur and Baldev Vidya Bhushan in our next session.
So I’ll summarise what we discussed today. We discussed about the Gaudiya history and we focused on the first chapter within Gaudiya history. The first chapter that we’re focussing on is the chapter of the Goswamis.
So I basically explained, based on Prabhupada’s explanation of what is the realisation that every Acharya, every living teacher has to connect the message of scripture with the audience. And there are different audiences who need to be connected with in appropriate ways. So how the Acharyas go about doing that, that’s what we said.
We had a brief overview of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s life and then after that we discussed the various context. Briefly, we discussed the ritual or the ecclesiastic context. How, what rituals do we perform? So the Hari Bhakti Vilas by the Goswamis, that’s an example of that.
Then especially we discussed about the cultural context. In the cultural context, there was this Rasa tradition. Rasa was traditionally associated with drama.
But Mahaprabhu said that it can be associated with Bhakti. Rasa can be an experience that we develop, that we, that helps us connect with Krishna. So there was again the same principle of the past and the present.
So the past was the Bhakti tradition. Now the Rasa tradition also the past, but at this particular time, the Rasa tradition had become very prominent. So the Rasa to Bhakti, that was the intersection that was brought in the cultural way.
Now with respect to the theological, now there were, there was Mahaprabhu’s teachings from the past and there were Advaitavadis and there were Dvaitavadis. There were impersonalists and there were personalists. The teaching of Achintya Bheda Bhe, that was formulated in one sense, that was to reconcile both the theological teaching, especially in terms of the Sunderbads.
Now there were some challenges came over here also, which we’ll discuss in due course. Now in the political domain, which we again discussed briefly, was that as far as there were, there was art tradition which was there and there were the Muslims on one side and there were the Rajputs on the other side. We’re talking primarily about Vrindavan.
So the Goswamis managed to ensure that the tradition not only is survived, but why would temples be built? By maintaining peace with the Muslims and by having friendship with the Rajputs. And then we discussed the Gaudiya context itself, that there was Vrindavan and there was Bengal. So and there were different languages used, Bengali and Sanskrit and there were different focus, Tattva and Leela.
So what was done was, so there was the message of Tattva that was coming from Raja and there was an interest of Katha in Bengal. So what was done was, Tattva was presented through Katha. Tattva through Katha, that is the instinctive contribution of Chaitanya, Charita Amrit and Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami.
In this way, the legacy of Mahaprabhu was systematised by the scholars in Vraja and the followers, it was taken to the followers through the medium of the Chaitanya Charita Amrit and the other works of the Goswamis. How legacy continued on will be what will be discussed in our next session tomorrow. Thank you very much.
Great. Are there any questions or comments? How was Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami able to write Chaitanya Charita Amrit? Well, he had heard of many of Mahaprabhu’s pastimes and Nityanand Prabhu’s pastimes when he was a child because at that time, Gaur, Ritai, they were very much an integral part of the culture of Bengal. But then when he came to Vrindavan, he also heard from Raghunath Das Goswami.
He had the Karchas of Murai Gupta. He had what was written based on the Karchas of Murai Gupta by Chaitanya Bhagava, Chaitanya Mangal. So he had both resources basically.
Chaitanya Charita Amrit has his own, from a historical perspective, Chaitanya Charita Amrit has three sources. One is what he had heard since childhood. Then what he heard from Raghunath Das Goswami, especially the Puri pastimes.
And then lastly was what he read in books like Chaitanya Bhagavata and Chaitanya Mangal. So these books were already written. Thank you.
So how will this course help in developing Prema Bhava for Krishna? Well, the course description was understanding how the opportunity for developing Prema has been passed down, the legacy of love has been passed down. So it is appreciation of the legacy. And the more we understand how valuable the treasure is, how many challenges were faced in bringing the treasure to us, the more we will take that treasure more seriously.
And that’s how when we appreciate it more, then we will immerse ourselves. And the more we immerse ourselves in the remembrance of the Lord, the more we will be able to relish and appreciate and immerse ourselves in bhakti. Chaitanya Charita Amrit says that don’t think, oh, this is sannyas, this is all just philosophy, what is the use of it? When we actually understand the philosophy, we understand that Krishna is so valuable, so insubstantial.
And then when we appreciate that value, we will be able to immerse ourselves in Krishna more and more. So the idea is that when we have purity, then our priti will keep us in remembrance of Krishna. But till that time, we don’t yet have purity.
At that time, then we need buddhi. It is the buddhi that keeps us fixed in remembrance of Krishna. And by that remembrance of Krishna, we will actually be able to seek, absorb and gradually develop love for Krishna.
How did Chaitanya contribute to Chaitanya Charita Amrit? That’s one of the primary sources. Krishnaswamy is very aware and respectful of the role of Vrindavan Das Thakur and he says that Mahaprabhu’s leelas say that he is Chaitanya, he is Vrindavan Das Thakur. That was his primary source material.
But Vrindavan Das Thakur doesn’t write so much about what is in the Antya Leela, although that book also has Antya Leela, but that doesn’t describe so much the ending pastimes. Vrindavan Das Thakur was in Bengal and Raghunath Das Goswami did not really spend much time in Bengal after he went to Puri. So basically, if you consider this is Bengal, this is Puri and this is Vrindavan.
So now Raghunath Das Goswami was here. Raghunath Das Goswami went from here to Puri and then from there he went to Vrindavan. Now after Mahaprabhu departed, it was such a devastation.
Mahaprabhu’s departure was a devastation. Pratap Rudra’s departure and demise was a devastation. The attack of Muslims and the pillaging of the Puri temple was a devastation.
So there’s practically no legacy left over there. So Raghunath Das Goswami felt so terrible. He wanted to end his life.
In fact, he went to Govardhan. He said, I’ll go to Vrindavan, I’ll be in Vrindavan and I’ll leap off Govardhan and end my life. What has happened over here? I can’t live here.
But then Raghunath Das Goswami requested him, you are the sole reservoir of Krishna Katha, sorry of Gaura Katha, especially Mahaprabhu’s later pastimes. The Bengali devotees would come for a few months and they would stay and behold Mahaprabhu and hear something, but they’re not there first hand. So Raghunath Das Goswami especially is the source of much of the Antya Leela.
That’s how actually speaking Chaitanya Charita Amrit, you could say Chaitanya Charita Amrit, it gets its Adi and Madhya. Much of it comes from Chaitanya Bhagwat, but the Antya primarily comes from Raghunath Das Goswami. Now, of course, it’s not just these sources.
Krishna Das Goswami also brings in the things about the philosophy and the discussions, which are not necessarily there in the other biographies. The teachings, which Mahaprabhu has given to Rupa Goswami, that he has learned from Rupa Goswami. What he has learned from Sadhana Goswami, that is there in that chapter.
So like that, he’s bringing in from various sources and integrating them in this book. Now, what was the effect of Gaudiya Vaishnavism on the world? Well, it was to Prabhupada’s credit that it was by Prabhupada’s mercy that Gaudiya Vaishnavism spread all over the world. Mahaprabhu predicted that the name of Krishna would be chanted all over the world.
So that was the effect. The spread of Gaudiya Vaishnavism across the world happened with Tushar Prabhupada. And now that is going on.
Now, at that particular time, the world was changing in many different ways. Now, there is in Europe at that particular time, you can say that’s Europe, this is India. These are not maps, but approximately in Europe at that time, there was gradually a renaissance that was happening.
Yes, there were plagues and other things were there. But the renaissance means that there were religious authorities who were there. So there were the Catholic Church was a religious authority and they had become very autocratic to some extent and corrupted also.
So there was the whole thing which reformation was there against them. So there was the reformation, the renaissance, and then there was what they call the scientific revolution. All these happened while the Gaudiya history was unfolding.
And then when the British came and colonised India, then what was happening in India and what was happening in Europe intersected. And how that intersection went through. So now at a manifest level, you could say that the same challenging at an unmanifest level or in broad parallels, the same challenging of religious authorities who had become too autocratic or corrupted, that was done by the Bhakti tradition also.
The Brahmanas to some extent, not all of them certainly, but to some extent they had become very privilege conscious and they were not only looking at the lower caste, they were looking down even at the Bhaktas. So there was a challenge to the authority. So that brought similarities there.
The manifest level, the Gaudiya Vaishnava history, the influence on the world is still unfolding and we are all a part of that history unfolding. So now, could Mahaprabhu have appointed a successor? Yes, we could say that he could have appointed it. But the point is that the way the Lord functions is often in many unpredictable ways.
So when he functions in unpredictable ways, he sometimes lets it happen as if everything is going to be ruined. Now Krishna let Draupadi come to a situation of utter helplessness. Just when everything seemed to be ruined, it was that time he intervened.
So often Krishna acts by letting situations go to the precipice. Just when it’s going to fall and everything is ruined, then Krishna intervenes and pulls things back from the precipice. So Mahaprabhu could have appointed a successor, but he did not.
And of course, Dityanand Prabhu was one of his successors, Dattacharya was his successor. And we have in terms of Sampradayas or the Parivars who initiated, we have the Advaita Parivar, we have Pallava Dityanand Prabhu, Advaitacharya, the other Pandits, they all initiated and they all continued on like that. So yes, that was Mahaprabhu’s way of showing how his legacy would go on even in extraordinary ways.
Now, of course, there’s not much evidence of will being written, but when books are written, books at least clearly explain what are the teachings. See, writings can be both in terms of philosophy and in terms of practise. Okay, this is what philosophy is.
This is what we stand for. These are what are, we can use the word beliefs if we want to. And there are also practises.
This is what we do. So these are our rituals, our ceremonies, our sadhana. So we need books about both.
In the Goswamis, in many ways, had to write books about both. So the will does not have to be like a necessarily legal will. Mahaprabhu didn’t have any property for him to write a will.
I was giving that as an example to illustrate that succession is such a delicate thing. That even when the will has been written, even when the will has been written still, so many problems come up. Now, did Shila Prabhupada start the will system? Possibly.
We all have to deal with the realities that we encounter in our particular situations. Bhaktivinoda Thakur, when he departed, he was a magistrate. He certainly wrote a will, but Bhaktivinoda Thakur didn’t really have any, he hadn’t started a religious organisation.
So in that sense, a will was not required. And yes, Prabhupada saw what had happened after Bhaktivinoda Thakur departed and he took new precautions. So yes, he wrote a will.
Now, is Jaideva Goswami’s Gita Govinda Rasa Shastra? Of course it is. See, there are two different things over here. One is the idea of Rasa.
The idea of Rasa itself is very much prevalent. And the idea of Rasa, as I said, it was there in the Rasa tradition, Natya tradition, it was there. Now, it is not that it was not there in the Bhakti tradition also.
In the Bhakti tradition also, it was there. Like the Bhagavatam itself uses the word Rasa. So it was there also.
But what the Gaudiya, it was more like a systematic pathway to spiritual growth through Rasa. So yes, we could say that what is described in books like Rasamukhi, Samasindhu can help us come to the level of elevated emotions by which we can appreciate books like Gita Govinda. Now, the Parkiya Rasa is a very exalted level of spiritual experience and devotional connection.
And there has to be certain refinement of emotions that can be appreciated. Say, if we consider that somebody is doing a Bharatanatyam dance and a young woman is a foot dancer and she is dancing. And when she is dancing, depending on how rasik, if there is a rasik audience, or rather how rasik is the audience, if there is no Rasa at all, none, then all that will be seen is, oh, this is a woman and I can see her bodily parts, even if they are covered, I can see it and the observer might just feel nothing but lust.
Then if there is light, then they may observe, oh, this is an expert dance. If there is some appreciation of Rasa, some understanding of how difficult dancing can be, all the dance moves are so expert, it’s so captivating, it’s so brilliant. But then if there is a deep understanding of Rasa, then we will see that it’s not just expert dance, there’s actually expert depiction of, say, if it’s Krishna Leela.
So we will not just be seeing how expertly the hand and the legs and the body is moving, but how expertly a pastime is being depicted through it. And then if somebody has the elevated emotions by which they already have some devotion for Krishna, then this becomes like a stimulus, this becomes like a deepen by which remembrance of Krishna will be triggered. And while somebody might just be inflamed by lust, by just seeing some female dancing, somebody else by the same stimuli will be just enriched with immense love for Krishna.
So the person has to become more and more Rasika. So how to develop that Rasa, how to go through the various steps of Bhakti, that is not described so much in the Gita Govinda. It is more a book of the intimate pastimes in Prakaras.
So we’ll have one or two more questions before we conclude. As far as how this will help one develop Bhakti, I don’t think this course was about developing Bhakti. This course was about understanding the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
And by understanding the history, I explained how some people might help, some people, especially those who want to appreciate the value of what they’re getting and the journey through which what we are getting has gone through and the journey that we will need to go through to carry it forward. Those who have that appreciation, they will definitely find it helpful. So now there are a couple of other questions.
Happy to be of service. How did Mahaprabhu depart from the world? Well, his departure was quite sudden and generally in the Gaudiya tradition, it is said that he entered into the deity of Tota Gopinath. There are many other stories also which are given, yes, but within the tradition that he entered into Tota Gopinath is what is generally accepted.
Of course, Ramayana Raya’s Chivanna Kallabh Natak was also Bhakti plus Rasa. So the point is not Bhakti plus Rasa. That is definitely there.
The point is more of a systematic pathway to elevate our emotions. That was distinctive in the Gaudiya tradition, the writings of Mahaprabhu. Thank you for your comments.
Now, as far as the linking of our particular tradition with any other tradition, that is a complex subject and we will discuss that tomorrow when we discuss about Bhajya Vidya Bhukshan. Essentially, while Mahaprabhu took initiation in the, we could say, from Mahatishvara Puri to Madhavendra Puri, through a particular, which he connected with Dwaita Sampradaya. But the point was that that was not the primary thing for him at that time.
It was not that he carried around a certificate, okay, you know, I am initiated in the Sampradaya, therefore accept me as authority. It was not that formalised at that time. It is not like, say, somebody, the doctor, the doctor carried around a certificate, therefore accept my authority.
I have a certificate from this particular medical college. This Mahaprabhu’s potency, Mahaprabhu’s purity, you know, even if he claimed to be affiliated with a particular tradition, that itself does not bring authenticity. And even if he makes a claim, anybody could make any claim.
So, things were not that simple. We sometimes have a very simplistic understanding. The specific forms of sannyas and rituals or particular ways in which certain things happen, those histories are quite complicated.
I do not think that that particular aspect had significant impact in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. The challenges of being recognised as an authentic tradition, they did not really centre on the specifics of the ritual of sannyas. What they centred on and how we dealt with them, how our tradition dealt with them, that we will discuss in our next section.
Good point. I’ll take the last question. So, I think I prove that there is a great influence of Panchasaka, the five saints.
Now, Odisha, as I said, what happened was that, as you rightly pointed out, the Goswami’s teachings from Vrindavan were not really that accepted over there. And every region will have its own regional saints who will become authorities or regional authorities would be there. Some of them would be considered exalted.
Some of them may not be. And some of them may be authentic. Some of them may not be that authentic.
But these things, these regional variations, they keep happening everywhere. So, Sahajiyism was a big challenge that our tradition has repeatedly faced. And I’ll be talking about Sahajiyism specifically when we talk about Bhaktasangh Swetakar and Srila Prabhupada.
So, are there specific books that Mahaprabhu wrote that the Goswamis wrote associated with the specific context? I don’t think they wrote any books for the political context. For the cultural context, they wrote the Rasa Shastra, the Srimad Bhagavad Gita. For the theological context, primarily the Sandarbhas were written.
Now, for the devotional context, for the ritual context, I talked about the Hari Bhakti Rasa and the Sardipika. So, yes, there are different books written for different contexts. So, thank you very much for your participation.
We’ll continue on tomorrow when we’ll be discussing about the challenges of restoring Vrindavan that Vishwanath Chakravorty faced when after Aurangzeb was devastated and everything. And especially the challenge that Baldev Diyabhushan encountered when the very authenticity of Radha Bhakti and the authenticity of the Gaudiya tradition was questioned by the Ramanandis in the court at Jaipur. Thank you very much.
Hare Krishna.