Is it a Curse in Disguise?

[kingcobra]

For one thing it raises some questions about Ramananda Raya and those dancers. Given what we know of the cultural context of the text, what are we to make of those passages? Was he just immersed in the leela or was there something else going on there? Was he actually a tAntrik or sahajiya? Did the sahajiya branch of CV take their cue from him and other tAntriks that were in the medieval CV community?

CB has a very different tone than CC. Nityananda plays a more prominent role and there is an entirely different dynamic portrayed between him and Advaita.

Another problem is the poetic liberties taken by Krishnadas, which are being taken literally by current day fundamentalists like those over at IGM.

On the other hand, the tAntrik elements of Vaishnavism are exalted in the dual avatAra theme. The union of shakti and shaktiman also symbolizes the ida and pingala of the yoga darshan. Bhakti schools, although they have developed a new style of sAdhana that emphasizes nama japa over yajnas, Asanas and mudrAs, etc. sprang forth from a culture rife with tAntrik influences.

CC takes the theology of BP to its logical conclusion. The mood of separation set up in the 10th Canto is personified in the person of Caitanya and he represents a coincidentia oppositorum: the Divine Couple occupying the earthly vessel of flesh and blood while experiencing the intensity and sweetness of that mood.

Despite the problematic nature of sections of the text, it should be placed in a prominent place on one's shelf next to the writings of Sanatan, Rupa and Jiva, IMO.

[subaldas]

It is certainly a more developed theological work than the earlier biographies (?) in setting out the divinity of Chaitanya. In it we have the Chaitanya of faith more perhaps than the historical Chaitanya.

Regarding Ramananda, I find that pastime fascinating and absorb its meaning into my saddhana. Being in gopi bhav certainly involves being in a heightened state of erotic awareness. Some claim Nityananda, Jahnava Ma, Ramananda and others were sahajiyas. I am interested in knowing more about this. What does it mean that Nityananda was an "avadhuta"? Even Krishna Das Kaviraj has been accused of being a sahajiya. I consider myself a sahajiya if you take it in its true broader meaning of following the natural way. Like the tantrics, I blur the distinction between matter and spirit being engaged in the transformation of matter into spirit. I incorporate general principles without a lot of formal ritual within a monogamous marriage.

Jagat pointed out that the leadership of Chaitanya was not certain until Keturi. It was then that the pancha tattwa was formed and each assigned their place. This kind of information is most helpful. Anymore that can be brought out in this regard would be much appreciated. If you are still in touch with Jagat, I think it would be great if he were on this forum also. I know he has much to offer.

[kingcobra]

Nitai may have his number. I think the one I have for him is outdated. He knows alot about the sahajiya branch of CV. Avadhuta means wandering sAdhu, and in CB Nityananda is often referred to as an avadhuta.

[Nitaidas]

There is a story told in some circles that when Sri Jiva saw the Cc, he became very angry and threw it in the Yamuna. The story goes on to say that when he saw that it floated and started to move upstream he changed his opinion of it.

This is just a story and its source is not particularly reliable. Still, one wonders if there is not a kernel of truth in this story. Now Krsnadas Kaviraj finished it in 1612 or 1615 so it is unlikely that Jiva was around to see it finished, but perhaps he was around when KK started it and was indeed not happy with it.

Now why might he not have been happy with it?

[Nitaidas]

I don't really believe the story is true. It may have recorded a genuine dissatisfaction, however. As for the CC going to Bengal with all the other Gosvamin texts as the BR says, we pretty much know that is not true. The CC was not completed until long after the episode of the book transport. It could not have been with them in the 1570s or 80s when the books were sent.

Still, I think one of the issues Sri Jiva may have had with the CC is precisely that it was in Bengali. What books did the Gosvamins write in Bengali? They consciously preferred Sanskrit not only because it was the language of culture, but also the universal language. People from all over India could read Sanskrit. The CC adds a dimension of parochialism and sadly chauvinism that the Gosvamins and perhaps Sri Caitanya himself did not like. They wanted to place Krishna before the eyes of all, not just Bengalis. I think the CC may have been good for Bengal but bad for the rest of the world. Yes, it gave access to anyone who knew Bengali to some vastly oversimplified ideas from the Gosvamins, some of which are true enough, some of which are suspect. I am not sure, for instance, of the propriety of KDK's equating Brahman with the tanu-bhA of Krsna. I have not yet seen that in any of the Gosvamin granthas. The worst influence, though, of the CC is it inhibited CVs from going on to study the works of the Gosvamins. Why put in all the work of learning Sanskrit to do that when something like a reader's digest or cliff's notes version was available in sections of the CC? The result is that people cite it instead of the Gosvamins and think they are thus teaching the thoughts of the Gosvamins. The Gosvamins went to all the work of even writing a grammar as a bridge to their works and of course to the Bhagavata and other texts, but who travels that course now?

That said, I must also say that the CC is a great text. In spite of its flaws it did much to spread CV in Bengal and give those who read it at least a smattering of Gosvamin thought. That smattering was far better than nothing. In fact, it probably brought the Gosvamins into the center of the tradition. The other biographies portray them as rather marginal and indeed they were outsiders, having come so late to the movement. On the other hand, I think the CC kept CV from developing a strong secondary and tertiary set of visionaries and getting a strong foothold in other parts of India like say Nimbarka, Vallabha, Ramanuja, and even Madhva did.

[Nitaidas]

madanmohandas said:

Somebody once expressed a doubt regarding the authenticity of the CC in regard to the teachings, particularly to Rupa and Sanatan, where Gaurangadeva is represented as citing verses from the Goswami's books that were not yet composed. Personally I don't find that a problem, because even if it were so, its quite likely that his words were to that effect.

Here's a passage from Pope's Essay on Criticism. Its not quoted with any motive other than sharing the delight. I've adapted names.

You then whose judgment the right course would steer,
Know well each Ancient's proper character:
His fable, subject, scope in every page;
Religion, country, genius of his age:
Without all these at once before your eyes,
Cavil you may, but never criticise.
Be Vyasa's works your study and delight,
Read them by day, and meditate by night;
Thence form your judgment, thence your maxims bring,
And trace the Muses upward to their spring.
Still with itself compared, his text peruse;
And let your comment be the Himalayan Muse.

(In the original it's Homer and the Mantuan Muse)

Well, there is certainly something to be said for reading a text in its own terms, comparing it to nothing but itself, but I am not sure what that would be. No text was born in a vacuum and without an author or group of authors. They all lived in the world and were influenced by the societies and intellectual trends of their times. The texts themselves are constantly pointing beyond themselves as in the Bhagavata when the Purusa comes up so much and other clear references to Upanisadic passages and other texts, even Jaina ones. In addition, the text assumes a certain kind of knowledge in its readers and the absence of that knowledge seriously impairs the ability of a reader to understand what the author of the text wishes to communicate. I think it is very naive to think that one can read a text in its own terms and without referring to other texts and authors and really get the full meaning of the text, whether one meditates on it or not.

Take the Bhagavata for instance. It claims to be by VyAsa, but how is it by VyAsa when VyAsa is himself a character in the text. Would VyAsa have referred to himself as a mahAmuni as he does in the second verse and at other places? It is said that Vyasa composed the text and taught it to Zuka, but Zuka does not show up until the end of the first book. So who composed the first book which is not insubstantial. And once Zuka arrives he enters into a dialog with ParIkSit responding to his questions. Are we to believe that VyAsa knew exactly what questions ParIkSit would ask and taught Zuka each an every response? So in what sense was VyAsa the author? It make no sense. How do we arrive at this conclusion? By listening to the text very carefully, more carefully than those who claim to be taking it in its own terms, perhaps. References to the Buddha (350 BCE) and to Jainas (400-350 BCE) and perhaps to the Alvars (700-900 CE) and various and sundry kings of relatively recent times bring its composition 5000 years ago into serious question. I don't see how an attentive reader can ignore these things.

The questions to be asked of a text are who wrote it, when and for whom. The ostensible answers given by the text itself cannot always be trusted. But there are other answers the text provides that do give us indications of the true answers to those questions.

[subaldas]

Which are?

[gerard]

admin said:

Still, I think one of the issues Sri Jiva may have had with the CC is precisely that it was in Bengali. What books did the Gosvamins write in Bengali? They consciously preferred Sanskrit not only because it was the language of culture, but also the universal language.

True, but it was just at that time in North India that that situation started to change, the vernaculars started to come into their own. Krsnadas KG started to write the Cc in 1574, the exact same year Tulsidas Goswami started to write his Ramacaritmanas. Zeitgeist also influences the Indian saints. Sri Caitanya was the exact contemporary of Martin Luther.

[Nitaidas]

gerard said:

admin said:

Still, I think one of the issues Sri Jiva may have had with the CC is precisely that it was in Bengali. What books did the Gosvamins write in Bengali? They consciously preferred Sanskrit not only because it was the language of culture, but also the universal language.

True, but it was just at that time in North India that that situation started to change, the vernaculars started to come into their own. Krsnadas KG started to write the Cc in 1574, the exact same year Tulsidas Goswami started to write his Ramacaritmanas. Zeitgeist also influences the Indian saints. Sri Caitanya was the exact contemporary of Martin Luther.

This may be true, but it is unlikely that Sri Jiva would have been warm to the idea. What makes you think KDK began the work in 1574? It took him 30 years to finish it?

[Nitaidas]

madanmohandas said:

The text gets expanded through a succession of tellings. Obviously book 1 and many other sections are supplementary to the original. But the general idea is that Vyasa is responsibe for the main body of the text, and it should not be forgot that this is a re-telling by Suka with embellishments unique to him, and what Suta managed to remember he later communicated to Saunaka and the sages.

But where is that main body of text? There isn't any part of it that isn't part of the dialog between Suka and ParIkSit except for what is part of the dialog between Suta and Zaunak. What exactly did Vyasa compose? Should it not be called Suka's text since he put it in his own words in response to ParIkSit's questions? Certainly as a composite text there are possibly some very ancient kernels in it, but identifying them is not easy and anyway if I wrote a book that contained some old stories it would still be recognized as my book.

The main point is, however, that we can't take the work at face value. It itself does not allow us to do that.

[gerard]

admin said:

gerard said:

True, but it was just at that time in North India that that situation started to change, the vernaculars started to come into their own. Krsnadas KG started to write the Cc in 1574, the exact same year Tulsidas Goswami started to write his Ramacaritmanas. Zeitgeist also influences the Indian saints. Sri Caitanya was the exact contemporary of Martin Luther.

This may be true, but it is unlikely that Sri Jiva would have been warm to the idea. What makes you think KDK began the work in 1574? It took him 30 years to finish it?

Sorry, I cant right now find who said that KDK started in 1574. I knew that about Tulsidas and the two dates stuck together. It also took Tulsidas many years to write his RCM.

[Nitaidas]

gerard said:

admin said:

This may be true, but it is unlikely that Sri Jiva would have been warm to the idea. What makes you think KDK began the work in 1574? It took him 30 years to finish it?

Sorry, I cant right now find who said that KDK started in 1574. I knew that about Tulsidas and the two dates stuck together. It also took Tulsidas many years to write his RCM.

Let me know if you recover your source. I have been under the impression that KDK began the book in the late 1590s or around 1600. May have picked that up from Biman Bihari Majumdar. The finishing date was either 1612 or 1615. 1574 or there abouts is the date I associate with the composition of the Govinda-lilamrta.

The CC is no doubt one of the most important texts of the second generation. It deserves a careful translation and critical commentary. I am not pleased with the Dimock and Stewart effort. Nor am I happy with any of the others translations I have seen. There are places where KDK is clearly demented, but there are other places where the work is really superb.

[gerard]

An additional aspect of the Bhagavata which makes it difficult to assess who wrote it is the unique phenomenon (according to J.A.B. van Buitenen) that the Bhagavata which is a text purporting to belong to the Puranic tradition consciously attempted to archaize its language. Certain archaic forms can occasionally be explained by the exigencies of metre, but their number is negligible. It is pointed out that on occasion Vedic forms are borrowed along with Vedic context, as in the Pururavas legend and the Shunahshepa story. Van Buitenen quotes F.J. Meier who accuses the editor(s) of ein unglaublichen Unkenntniss der vedischen Sprache [an unbelievable ignorance of the Vedic language].
This unique tendency of the Bhagavata is diplayed with equal density throughout the text, irrespective of style or context.

F.J. Meier, "Der Archaismus in der Sprache des Bhagavata-Purana" Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik, VIII, 1931.
quoted in:
J.A.B. van Buitenen, "On The Archaism Of The Bhagavata Purana", in Milton Singer (ed.), Krishna: Myths, Rites and Attitudes", University of Chicago Press 1966.


But in spite of all that it should be possible to determine purpose and applications from the Bhagavata, but we will have to concentrate on the broad outlines of bhakti and also (if somebody is interested) in the interpretations of the cosmological parts. Personally I do not think those parts to be silly, I think a lot of esoteric knowledge of e.g. astronomy and evolution is hidden in those texts that will not and cannot be brought out by a linguistic or a modern darwinistic approach (both methods belong to "materialism"). Esoteric history is quite different, and too large a subject to broach here. A tiny bit is treated in Purnendu Narayana Sinha, A Study Of The Bhagavata Purana or Esoteric Hinduism" Benares 1901. But he says that 'the mysteries should be worked out by each esoteric student by himself'.

[Nitaidas]

madanmohandas said:

Anyway, that quote I made from Pope, swapping Homer for Vyasa, was only an anecdotal piece. Maybe Suka would have been better.
There is a statement by Bhaktivinoda that will really annoy you, he said that if all the scriptures were lost and only the Bhagavat remained, it would be no loss. or words to that effect.

Yes, I am familiar with the statement. I see it as just arthavAda, hyperbolic praise for the text. Not to be taken seriously. It would be a shame if all the other texts were lost. We would not see the brilliance of the author of the Bhagavata as he or she reinterprets the major insights of the older Vedantic tradition. As far as I am concerned SUta and Zuka and even VyAsa are just formalities. If one wanted to compose a PurANa one had to do it with those formalities. Otherwise one's work is not accepted or respected. The real author or authors of the Bhagavata felt the need to write the work, not a task to be undertaken lightly in those days, because they were not satisfied with what was then available, much as VyAsa is represented in 1.6 as being dissatisfied in himself with his former work. I think here we come close to viewing the motivations of the real author and we are exposed as well to the primary source of inspiration in the author (in 1.7), that samAdhi vision in which "VyAsa" sees the Lord, his MAyA, and the jIva we have been discussing in another thread. This samAdhi vision is the same as the PratibhA that Gopi Nath Kaviraj discusses in the essay I am typing up on another thread.

[Nitaidas]

gerard said:

An additional aspect of the Bhagavata which makes it difficult to assess who wrote it is the unique phenomenon (according to J.A.B. van Buitenen) that the Bhagavata which is a text purporting to belong to the Puranic tradition consciously attempted to archaize its language. Certain archaic forms can occasionally be explained by the exigencies of metre, but their number is negligible. It is pointed out that on occasion Vedic forms are borrowed along with Vedic context, as in the Pururavas legend and the Shunahshepa story. Van Buitenen quotes F.J. Meier who accuses the editor(s) of ein unglaublichen Unkenntniss der vedischen Sprache [an unbelievable ignorance of the Vedic language].
This unique tendency of the Bhagavata is diplayed with equal density throughout the text, irrespective of style or context.

F.J. Meier, "Der Archaismus in der Sprache des Bhagavata-Purana" Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik, VIII, 1931.
quoted in:
J.A.B. van Buitenen, "On The Archaism Of The Bhagavata Purana", in Milton Singer (ed.), Krishna: Myths, Rites and Attitudes", University of Chicago Press 1966.


But in spite of all that it should be possible to determine purpose and applications from the Bhagavata, but we will have to concentrate on the broad outlines of bhakti and also (if somebody is interested) in the interpretations of the cosmological parts. Personally I do not think those parts to be silly, I think a lot of esoteric knowledge of e.g. astronomy and evolution is hidden in those texts that will not and cannot be brought out by a linguistic or a modern darwinistic approach (both methods belong to "materialism"). Esoteric history is quite different, and too large a subject to broach here. A tiny bit is treated in Purnendu Narayana Sinha, A Study Of The Bhagavata Purana or Esoteric Hinduism" Benares 1901. But he says that 'the mysteries should be worked out by each esoteric student by himself'.

I agree with the first part of your statement. The archaisms of the Bhagavata is an interesting and puzzling aspect of the PurANa and make it much more difficult to understand than the other PurANas. Ingalls I believe commented that the use of the archaic Vedic forms in the Bhagavata was executed more or less correctly, so I am a little bit puzzled by Meier's statement.

As for this business about esoteric history, I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems like a recipe for delusion to me especially if it is worked out by each student himself. I tend to see the text as a verbal counterpart of that mysterious palace that Maya constructed for the Pandavas. It is full of illusions and misdirects, dead-ends and circular routes, but somewhere within it is a path that leads to a secret door behind which is its real inner meaning. One of Borghes' labyrinths also comes to mind. People have mostly failed to find that path and that door.