Post by Jagannāth Miśra Dās on Feb 23, 2024 12:34:44 GMT -6
When I was living in the ISKCON Krishna-Balarāma Mandira in Bhubaneśwar, Orissa, I several times heard devotees ask Gaura Govinda Mahāraja why there were no names of the Oriya associates of Gourānga Mahāprabhu mentioned in the chaitanya-caritāmrita. Gaura Govinda Swāmī would invariably always answer by saying: “there was ill-feeling between the Gauḍiyā and Oriya vaisṇavas.” We were all left wondering how this could be!? Having translated a book called the vaisṇava-līlāmrita written by Mādhava Pattanāyaka, who was the personal secretary to none other than the illustrious Rāmānanda Rāya, and also a sisya of Gadādhara Paṇdita, I think I have may stumbled across some plausible reasons which may perhaps explain this “ill-feeling.” Mādhava Pattanāyaka wrote the vaisṇava-līlāmrita in 1534 in the Oriya language. Being a contemporary of Mahāprabhu, a resident of Purī, and Rāmānanda Rāya’s secretary, he is generally acknowledged as someone who actually witnessed Gaurānga’s līlā. Jiva Goswāmī writes in his vaisṇava-vandanam: “vande-param-bhāvena-mādhavam-pattanāyakam” Translation: “my salutations to Mādhava Pattanāyaka, who is possessed of a magnificent bhāva.”
Personally speaking, it makes no sense at all to me how there could have been, or can still be, any divide between Bengali and Oriya devotees. For centuries fierce battles have raged over the territorial boarders that would separate and define the ever fluctuating geographical line between Bengal and Orissa, and these disputes find an odious parallel with the silly divide that exists between England and Scotland. There was a time, for example, when Purī was part of Bengal. Yet, acknowledging the fact that vaisṇavas in general have no problem at all with the Yādava clan slaughtering each other in a drunken brawl, the quarrelsome divide between the Gauḍiyā's and Oriya’s should perhaps seem not so implausible?
Here are several reasons given by Mādhava Pattanāyaka in his vaisṇava-līlāmrita for the unhappy spirit of discord that prevailed between the Gauḍiyā’s and the Oriya’s in Nīlācala during the time of Chaitanya. This is introduced in the beginning of Chapter six of the vaisṇava-līlāmrita and continues into the seventh chapter. First of all I will present the list of the reasons, then we shall refer to the text itself for more insight.
(1)The debate and controversy concerning the trifling yet subtle question of the mahā-mantra (should hare-krishna or hare-rāma be uttered first) was decidedly stained by the polemic acrimony between the Gauḍiyā and Oriya vaisnavas. Chaitanya upholds the hare-rāma order of utterance, effectively making the Oriya vaisnavas the victorious faction, which further aggravated their racial and xenophobic tension. (2) The altercation between the Gauḍiyā Śivānanda Sena and the Oriya Kāñiyā Kuntiyā over the gainful branch of commerce generated by escorting pilgrims to and from Purī to Bengal. (3) Chota Haridās was a Gauḍiyā, and Mādhavi Dāsī an Oriya. Although it was Chaitanya who initially invited Mādhavī Dāsī, an accomplished singer and poet of exquisite sensibility, into his inner kīrtan circle, yet Chota Haridās proves incapable of restraining the wanderings of fancy and betrays his want of discretion. Chaitanya outright abandons him, resulting in his disgraced exile and suicide. (4) Sivānanda Sena calls all the Gauḍiyās together emboldening their partisan spirit and further inflames the already kindled fire of their resentment with the breath of invectives aimed at Chaitanya’s singular affection for the Oriya Atibadi Jagannāth Dās by saying that (5) he (Atibadi Jagannāth Dās) had not received diksa yet; and (6) that Chaitanya always addresses him as “Swāmī.” (7) Sincere overtures toward a negotiation of peace were proposed to Chaitanya, suggesting that he go in person and petition the disgruntled Gauḍiyās (who had left Purī and where now on route to Bengal because they were upset for the above mentioned reasons) to return to Purī, but Chaitanya declines the invitation unless the Oriya Atibadi Jagannāth Dās accompanies him.(8.) Chaitanya bestowing the gauḍiyā-sudra Raghunāth Dās Goswāmī with a govardhana-śilā aggravates some of the oriya-smartas. (9) Rāmānanda Rāya cautions the Gajapati Pratāprudra that the Gauḍiyā’s may misconstrue the facts of Chaitanya’s demise to the melcha king of Bengal, and thereby excite the possibility of war. Clearly suggesting that Rāmānanda Rāya, an Oriya, distrusted the Gauḍiyās in general.
The following short paragraph, which I translated from the introduction to the vaisnava-lilāmrita, was written by Dr. Ghana Syam Ratha.
“Both the Gauḍiyā and the Oriya vaisṇavas seem guided by passion, instead of principle, and could not maintain their argument without losing their temper, or assert their freedom without violating their friendship. Śivānanda Sena soon contrives to seduce the partiality of the Gauḍiyās and augment the zeal of faction with well timed insinuations, yet it appears to be merely the obscure malice of a few bigoted and angry Gauḍiyās bent on avenging private injuries, and who then desert Purī in a self imposed and jealous ostracism, obliging themselves to return with indignant rumours to their native country. Their internecine division seems puerile at best. We can surely lament that the same people, who had the same God, the same religion, the same worship, should be divided by such inconsiderable distinctions, and separated by such an abject and baleful prejudice. It seems that whenever the spirit of partisanship, at once so credulous and so crafty, has insinuated itself into the noble mind, it insensibly corrodes the vital principles of virtue and veracity. This simple narrative of discord and schism distracted the peace and dishonoured the triumph of vaisṇavism in Nīlācala in the early 1500’s.”
(1)The debate and controversy concerning the trifling yet subtle question of the mahā-mantra. Should the mahā-mantra begin with hare-krishna or hare-rāma, what should be uttered first? The following verses are taken from the beginning of chapter six of the vaisṇava-līlāmrita.
suṇa sādhave ehu rasa
mahā-mantrara je rahasya (1)
hare rāma ba hare-krushna
e gheni kandala bhiāṇa (2)
śivānanda bole hare-krushna
kāhñiyā bole hare-rāma (3)
(Verses 1-18 describe the dispute and settlement centring around the mahā-mantra. Prolonged debate ensues amongst the śrī-ksetra (Purī) Oriya and Gauḍiyā vaisṇavas as to whether hare-rama or hare-krsna should be uttered first in the mahā-mantra. Śivānanda Sena and others endorse the hare-krishna variant, whereas Kāhñiyā Khuntiya and others comprise an assembly advocating the hare-rāma version. The two parties approach Swarūpa Dāmodhara to resolve the controversy. Swarūpa ushers them into the presence of Atibadi Jagannāth Dās, who solicits the assistance of Chaitanya in this confrontation. To settle the affair Chaitanya invites Rāya Rāmānanda, Vasudeva Sārvabhauma and Kāśi Miśra. Everyone gathers in a mandapa in the northern area of the temple to deliberate upon the matter. Chaitanya is nominated as Head of this highly celebrated disputation. After a protracted, logical and analytical deliberation, Chaitanya pronounces his verdict favouring the hare-rama rendition, which is already prevalent in Nilacala, having been passed down through the ages. Still, Śivānanda Sena argues that hare-krishna has been circulating in Bengal for a long time too. Chaitanya confesses he has no objection to hare-krishna being presented in Bengal. After this hare-rāma was ingrained in Orissa, and hare-krishna into Bengal, which seems to meets with, and find concord with all present, at least for some time.)
Listen! O righteous people, and now we shall savour the rasa which is connected to an incident that arose regarding the mystery of the mahā-mantra. Is it hare-rāma, or is it hare-krishna? This became an issue which gave rise to much acrimonious altercation. Śivānanda insists on hare-krishna. Kāhñiyā insists on hare-rāma.
mantrara aga kisa hoi
e gheni tarka upajayai (4)
bahuta kalaha se kale
swarūpa pase jai hele (5)
swarūpa bole cala jiba
swāmī parusaru bujhiba (6)
The point of contention arose as to what should be uttered first in the mahā-mantra engendering much argument at this time. The issue was brought before Swarūpa who proposed that they approach Swāmī (Atibadi Jagannāth Dās) for clarification.
swāmī boile bhala hela
prabhuku hakāra boila (7)
prabhu hakāre rāmarāye
sārvabhauma kāśi miśrae (8.)
uttara parusa mandapare
mela hoile sarvajane (9)
Swāmī said: “Better that we summon Prabhu (Chaitnaya.)” Prabhu then calls for Rāma Rāya, Sārvabhauma and Kāśi Miśra. They all gather together on the northern mandapa.
ananta acyuta kāhñāi
śivānanda je govindai (10)
prabhuku sabha mukhya kale
bicāra karaho boile (11)
sārvabhauma je harerama
gadādhara je harekrusna (12)
Congregated there was Ananta, Acyuta, Kāhñāi, Śivānanda and Govinda. Prabhu (Chaitanya) was elected to preside over and judge the proceedings. Sārvabhauma is a proponent for hare-rāma whereas Gadādhara Paṇdita promotes hare-krishna.
kāśi miśra bole ksetrare
hare-rāma mantra pracale (13)
bahuta jukti tarka hela
sese prabhu je sunaila (14)
hare-rāma mantrati sara
nilacale ehu pracara (15)
ethaku ana ki kariba
ādya hare-krusna chāḍiba (16)
Kāśi Miśra contends that the hare-rāma mantra has already been widely proclaimed in the ksetra. After much debate and reasoning Prabhu pronounces his judgement commending the excellence of the hare-rama-mantra which has been broadcast in Nīlācala. Adding that: “From today onwards why chant in any other manner!” Followed by an exhortation to completely renounce the hare-krishna version.
śivānanda bole gauḍare
harekrusna adya pracare (17)
prabhu boile kahu bhala
gauḍe harekrusna hela (18.)
Yet when Śivānanda petitions for the liberty to propagate the hare krishna rendition in Bengal, Prabhu says: “This is also fitting and proper. So let hare-krsna spread in Bengal.”
THE END.
(2) The altercation between the Gauḍiyā Śivānanda Sena and the Oriya Kāñiyā Kuntiyā over the gainful branch of commerce generated by escorting pilgrims to and from Purī to Bengal.
(Verses 19-25: Every year on the occasion of the ratha-yātrā Śivānanda Sena brings pilgrims from Bengal to Puri. Kāhñiyā Kuntiyā also escorts pilgrims from the north as a financial enterprise. This is their means of livelihood. Once in Purī a quarrel erupts between Śivānanda Sena and Kāhñiyā Kuntiyā as to who is to host a certain band of pilgrims. It is only Kāśi Miśra’s unbiased arbitration that finally dissipates the dispute. Both Śivānanda’s and Kāhñiyā’s band would stay in Purī for the ratha-yātrā and also pass the caturmasa in Purī.)
ethu antare suna bartta
śivānanda jahin ananta (19)
rathaku darsani aniba
masabadi ksetre rahiba (20)
darsaniā se anilara
kaudi karai bebhara (21)
Now listen to what happened next. Śivānanda would bring pilgrims to see the ratha-yātrā and they would remain for the whole month in Purī. The pilgrims were chaperoned in exchange for money.
kāhñiyā eha na sahila
bole darsani ghenipala (22)
kāhñiyā anile saheka
daraśanīnku basa delaka (23)
lagila kandola bahuta
kāśi miśra hoe madhystha (24)
kāśi miśra je sambarile
gola na kara ethe bhale (25)
Kāhñiyā could not endure this as he also played the host to pilgrims. Kāhñiyā would gather up to a hundred pilgrims and make all the provisions for their accommodation. Much quarrel ensued between them, and Kāśi Miśra conducted himself as an impartial judge and patiently bore their exchange persuading them not to squabble.
(We must surely be allowed to wonder if this could possibly be one of the reasons why Nityānanda kicked Śivānanda for making him wait around for accommodation, for he was, after all, charging money for his service.)
THE END.
(3) Chota Haridās was a Gauḍiyā and Mādhavī Dāsī an Oriya. Although it was Chaitanya who initially invited Mādhavī Dāsī, an accomplished singer and poet of exquisite sensibility, into his inner kīrtan circle, yet Chota Haridās proves incapable of restraining the wanderings of fancy and betrays his want of discretion. Chaitanya outright abandons him, resulting in his disgraced exile and suicide.
(Verses 26-41 Śikhi Mahānti’s sister is Mādhavī Dāsī. It seems she was a young widow. Her mind is unwaveringly resolute in the composition of devotional songs and bhakti-bhāva. She ingratiates herself with the entourage of Jagannāth Dās and Chaitanya by singing devotional songs in the most enchanting melodies, and eventually secures the commendation of Chaitanya to affiliate herself with his istha-goṣthī. Yet a handful ofChaitanya’s gauḍiyā followers entertain a contrary attitude toward this. That a female is now part of Chaitanya’s group made certain followers desirous of severing all connections with Chaitanya’s group. Jagannāth Dās understood Mādhavī’s bhakti-bhāva and he indeed supports and approves of Mādhavī’s presence. Yet in the company of women, men are naturally more susceptible to be garrulous, prone to transgress rules and lay their patience aside. Vaisṇavas are of course unpretentiously modest, yet a female in their assembly could possibly entice someone to the precipice of destruction. For a Vaisṇava, even a stone or wooden statue of woman is too base to be deliberately looked upon. Yet, despite everything, Mādhavī was after all a flesh and blood woman, and thus it is not infeasible that she could incur a breach of etiquette, and thus she did not spend much time with the group.)
bhauni śikhi mahāntira
mādhavī dāsī nāma tāra (26)
badai tahara bhagati
sankīrtanku tāra mati (27)
nāmare hoe sehu bhola
japai nāma anargala (28.)
Sikhi Mahanti’s sister was called Mādhavī. She possessed an extraordinary devotional spirit, and had given her mind entirely over to sankīrtan. She was likewise enthralled by nāma, and conducted her japa ritual without interruption or intermission.
rachila bahuta se gīta
krusna rasare apramita (29)
swāmī prabhura sannidhire
gāi gīta bhāvabhola (30)
prabhu se tāku krupa kala
ghostire basa tu boila (31)
She had personally composed numerous songs which were all overflowing with an inestimable measure of krishna-rasa. In the very presence of Swāmī and Chaitanya she would often sing her songs overcome in bhāva. Chaitanya conferred his grace upon her by extending an invitation to her to join his alliance.
istha gosthiru bhakte gale
āu na āsibu boile (32)
nārī je achi tāra pasa
heu se bhagata viśwāsa (33)
ambanta na ṭhiba ethai
prabhura paruse janai (34)
Her emergence into the assembly caused certain bhaktas to desert the istha gosthi professing that they would by no means return. It struck some bhaktas as incredulous that there was indeed a woman in the Lord’s inner circle, and they eventually likewise confessed that they would no longer frequent the gathering. This report eventually reached Chaitanya.
swāmī boila mana sala
mādhavī dāsī samatula (35)
bhagata kahinchi ki âu
tume ba bola se palau (36)
vaisṇava bhave bhola hoi
nari sannidhe sabujai (37)
Swāmī counsels them to exercise some self restraint, stating that Mādhavī Dāsī is the same as anyone else, and is to be deemed as a bhakta and as nothing else. (Swāmī Continues) “Why do you say that she should abandon our society? If you create and preserve an awareness that she is truly a vaisṇava, then her being a woman is no longer a conceivable issue.”
kastha pasana nari murtti
vaisnave adrusa atanti (38.)
rakata maunsara anga
mādhavī sata parasanga (39)
e katha sata parimasa
ta agamanaku barana (40)
mādhavī āu na āila
iṣtha gosṭhī sanga chāḍila (41)
(Swāmī says) “Yet it remains undoubtedly inappropriate for a vaisṇava to intentionally behold even a wooden or stone sculpture of a woman.” It is an undeniable certainty that Mādhavī’s human limbs are composed of blood, and in acknowledgement of this crucial and significant reality, she was thus prohibited from attending any gatherings. Mādhavī was no longer to be seen, and was conspicuous in the assembly by her absence.
(Verses 42-65: Not all gauḍiyā-bhaktas who came to Purī with Chaitanya and or who abided in Purī with Chaitanya deserved the appellation of mahāpurusa. There was one among them named Sana (Chota) Haridās who harbours lascivious intentions toward Mādhavī Dāsī. He stages repeated yet futile attempts to cohabit with her. He visits her home and gains the proximity of Mādhavī under the guise of soliciting her for rice and salt. This naturally excites some suspicion in the immediate neighbourhood. Mādhavī’s brother forbids Haridās’s visitations, but even this still proves futile. One evening encountering Haridās in his residence Śikhi Mahānti beats him. Haridās notifies the other Gauḍiyās of the assault. The Gauḍiyā’s assemblethemselves together and tell Chaitanya. Acquainted with the matter Chaitnaya announces that he will no longer look at the face of Haridas. Disgruntled and disparaged he leaves Purī and in an attempt to atone for the sin his own behaviour he throws himself in the gangā. When this news reaches the Gauḍiyā’s in Purī they decide to reject Chaitanya’s company and return to their native country. Chaitanya offers no succour or defence to the Gauḍiyā’s during this episode, which sparks more sentiments of jealousy among the Gauḍiyā servitors. Chaitanya’s intimate fellowship with the Oriya’s and in particular with Jagannāth Dās, only serves to further aggravate the Gauḍiyā’s resentment.)
prabhu sangata gauḍiyāe
sakala chaitanya nohe (42)
sakala mrugara nābhire
kasturī na thaiti bhale (43)
sakala aranya candana
na thai jana kadacana (44)
Not all those who were in Prabhu’s (Chaitanya’s) fellowship were like Chaitanya. kasturī (musk) is not necessarily to be discovered in the navel of every deer, and not all the trees in the jungle, belong to the species of sandalwood.
sakala gauḍiyā vaisṇava
nohanti prabhura swarūpa (45)
sāna haridās je name
thila se sangi purī dhāme (46)
mādhavī sange tāra bhāva
baḍila dinu dina jaba (47)
Not all the gauḍiyā-vaisṇava’s shared the same nature and temperament as Prabhu. One Sana (Chota) Haridās by name was his companion in Purī Dhām who cherished a fond affection for Mādhavī which began to grow and flourish day by day.
jae se mādhavī samipe
brutha calana kāla kete (48.)
tandula lavanara arthe
tā pāse milana turite (49)
śikhi mahānti nibārila
tathāpi jiba na chāḍila (50)
He employed many vain excuses to go to her side such as begging rice and salt, and would promptly and readily transport himself into her presence. Śikhi Mahānti forbids him to come, but still he could not check himself.
sandeha kale sāibhāi
boile eha na jogai (51)
rātri kālare dine dekhi
sāna haridāsaku nirekhi (52)
śikhi mahānti hātu māḍa
gaila haridās mūḍa (53)
Doubt circles among neighbours who condemn his antics as wholly unbefitting. Once, late in the evening, Śikhi Mahānti spied Haridās and beats him with his bear hands, and also dismissively brands him as a gross fool.
gauḍiyāmānā mela hele
prabhuku jāi janāile (54)
prabhu boila acha kala
vanche ki haridās bhala (55)
mukha tā chāhiñ na jogai
bhartsana kala anekai (56)
The Gauḍiyās unite themselves into one body and proceed to disclose the matter to Prabhu. Prabhu exclaims “As Haridās has perpetrated an act of dissembling depravity my glance shall never again fall upon his unworthy and undeserving face!” Prabhu further indulges in deriding his conduct in a variety of ways.
haridāsku bada bada
rātra prabhatu cale siddha (57)
nīlācale se na rahila
gangāre jāi jhāsa dela (58.)
sambhada paina gauḍiyā
mela hoila bicāria (59)
This outcome administered much torment for Haridās, who straight away abandons Nīlācala at the break of dawn, reflecting upon how he could no longer remain there. Taking himself to the gangā he throws himself into the current. This news reaches the Gauḍiyās who gather together and start to ponder upon what transpired.
Some reflections on the Mādhavī Dāsī and Chota Haridas from Chapter 6 of the vaisṇava-līlāmrita.
The caitamya-caritamrita considers Mādhavī Dāsī among four people in this world who were dear to Gaurānga. Mādhava Pattanāyaka tells us Mādhavī Dāsī was an accomplished singer and poet, yet when she becomes a profane object of abhorrence, noticed by the absence of many male vaisnava’s who had previously attended the kīrtan, she eventually was asked to leave Chaitanya’s kīrtan circle. Nothing was consummated between Mādhavī Dāsī and Chota-Haridās. Gaurānga’s character and dignity remain inviolate through out the vaisnava-līlāmrita as he scrupulously adhered, with superior sanctity and revered virtue, to the expectations of his asrama. Gaurānga was a sannyasi whose character required the most unblemished chastity, and Mādhavī Dāsī a female whose charms might excite the most dangerous emotions. The vaisnava-līlāmrita states that Gaurānga himself personally invited Mādhavī Dāsī into his kirtan circle. This conduct of Gaurānga, who was a sannyasi of approved discretion and fidelity, disclaims the ordinary maxims of reason, exciting our suspicion and eluding our inquiry. In the caitanya-caritamrita Swarūpa Dāmodhara berates Gaurānga for entertaining regular and lively chats with of a young lad, whose mother was a good looking widow, as this may excite suspicious murmurs among the people, which may perhaps be imputed as a reaction to what happened with Chota Haridas and Mādhavī Dāsī. The caitanya-caritamrita says Haridas went to Madhavi’s house under the decent pretence of begging rice, which proves enough to provoke the implacable rage of Gauranga. Although amounting only to some obscure and inconsiderable deviation from the established system of toleration, Haridās is nonetheless ostracized over his affinity for a widow. Of course Chota Haridās’s principle discretion was that he was a vairagi and his sordid behaviour, which displayed a woeful scene of intemperance, justifiably earned him the disapproving glance of Chaitanya.
THE END.
(4) Śivānanda Sena calls all the Gauḍiyās together emboldening their partisan spirit and further inflames the already kindled fire of their resentment with the breath of invectives aimed at Chaitanya’s singular affection for the Oriya Atibadi Jagannāth Dās by saying that (5) he (Atibadi Jagannāth Dās) had not received diksa yet; and (6) that Chaitanya always addresses him as “Swāmī.” (7) Sincere overtures toward a negotiation of peace were proposed to Chaitanya, suggesting that he go in person and petition the disgruntled Gauḍiyās (who had deserted Puri and where now on route to Bengal because they were upset for the above mentioned reasons) to return to Puri, but Chaitanya declines the invitation unless the Oriya Atibadi Jagannāth Dās accompanies him.
jiba ki rahiba e thane
prabhura mana hoe bhinne (60)
prabhu jahin jaga dāsaku
ati badai bolibaku (61)
ambanta se niuna kala
ambe calile taki gale (62)
(The Gauḍiyās cogitated) “Shall we remain here in Purī, or shall we go? Prabhu has estranged his heart from us, and is invariably to be found in the company of Jagannāth Dās, who he now addresses as atibada (or “the extremely great one.”) We have thus been rendered worthless. If we leave here, Chaitnaya will sustain no loss.”
anaupadesia jaga-dāsa
tahaku swāmī name ghosa (63)
ambanku upeksa se kala
etharu cala sarve jiba (64)
ratra prabhatu sarve gale
pachaku leuti naile (65)
(The Gauḍiyā’s ruminate) “Neither has Jagannāth Dās yielded himself to the formalities of initiation, and yet he is designated and widely proclaimed as “Swāmī.” Prabhu is assuredly neglecting us. Let us leave here.” As the night drew to an end and dawn arose, they all made their exit, without caring to cast a backward glance as they departed.
swāmī swarūpa damodhara
śivānanda je gadādhara (66)1
emana prabhura sannidhe
basi vicarile utpradhi (67)
śivānanda bole hakara
tohara e nohe bebhara (68.)
Swāmī, Swarūpa Damodhara, Śivānanda and Gadādhara took there seats in the assembly for deliberation. Śivānanda was summoned and blamed for operating outside of his jurisdiction.
tora nimitta ethe thile
ebe se sarve caligale (69)
e katha nohe tote bhala
leuti ana ksetra (70)
They (the Oriyas) said to Śivānanda: “You are inextricably implicated in this incident, and now they (the Gauḍiyās) have all dispersed. Your behaviour was untoward in this regard, for now (because of you) they have withdrawn from the ksetra.”
prabhu chahani swāmī mukha
swāmī je hoila vimukha (71)
boila prabhu tu na cahana
mo tahun sarve gale sina (72)
muin na jai tora tule
dakile asibe ki bhale (73)
prabhu boila lekha citi
pheriba asibe leuti (74)
Meanwhile Prabhu’s gaze unwaveringly rests on Swāmī’s face, but Swāmī keeps himself silent. Prabhu then declares: “If my sight were to be bereft of your vision, then I would surely surmise that I had forfeited my all in all.” (Chaitanya continues) “It would appear indecorous if I were to go pleading for their return without you by my side, and hence you may write a letter entreating them to come back instead.”
THE END.
(8) Chaitanya bestowing the gauḍiyā-sudra Raghunāth Dās Goswāmī with a govardhana-śilā aggravates some of the oriya-smartas.
Chapter seven begins with an account of Chaitanya gently encouraging Atibadi Jagānnath Dās, who until now had not received a mantra from a guru, to accept one from Balarāma Dās. Yet Jagānnath Dās taking a mantra from a sudra creates unrest in Nīlācala. Vasudeva Sārvabhauma, Lela Laksmidhara and several other smartas remain silent despite the strong objections from Kāśi Miśra and others. Jagānnath Dās’s inimitable character and bhakti-nistha was thought responsible for his flagrant indifference to public reproach and social condemnation. Shorty afterwards Chaitanya presents a govardhana-śilā, which had been routinely worshipped in Purī, to a sudra Raghunāth Dās Goswāmī which further exacerbates the oriya-smarats. Yet it was seen no one held Chaitanya accountable. The union of Chaitanya with Jagānnath Dās in the early 1500’s wrought a revolution in traditional caste values and time-honoured considerations.
(Verses 1-18: As Swāmī Jagannāth Dās has not taken mantra-diksa several gauḍiyā-bhaktas regard Chaitanya’s camaraderie with Jagannāth Dās in a disdainful and reproachful eye. Not to mention the Mādhavī Dāsī and Chota Haridās episode, which was still productive only of animosity and discord. Jagannāth Dās declares his wish for mantra-diksa in rāga-mārga-krishna-bhajan, which perhaps initiated his disinclination to perusing his fond and rigorous study of the purāṇas. From Mādhava Pattanāyaka’s descriptions we can ascertain this may have transpired around 1517-18. Chaitanya proposes that Jagannāth Dās take a mantra from Balarāma Dās (the eldest of the Pānca Sakhā’s) who is vacana-siddha, older than Jagannāth Dās, and had attained bhakti-nistha. Swāmī receives a mantra from Balarāma Dās, yet Kāśi Miśra avowed his contempt and discharges his fury at Jagannāth Dās. The root of his choler being that an autocratic brahaman (Jagannāth Dās) took mantra-diksa from a sudra (Balarāma Dās) condemning its indecency as a degenerate trait of kali-yuga. Yet Jagannāth Dās justifies and endorses his behaviour, as caste traditions and the conspicuous divide between brāhman and sudra is an ugly and odious stain in society, being the inevitable consequence of a unanimously enforced and inbred cultural presumption. This blow to perceived social values, perhaps indicative of the unique character and state of mind of Jagannāth Dās, shines as second to none. At this juncture in time Orissa had unquestionably fallen into such a dark pit. Swami introduces this transformative amendment and sublime perception into society which remains as one of his crucial contributions still relevant in contemporary Indian society.)
suna ho carita vaisṇava
sarva vrujina nasa jiva (1)
Now listen to this vaisṇava biography which eradicates all of one’s sin and vice.
swāmī boile mantra nebi
rāgamārge krusna bhajibi (2)
chadibi sahasra purana
ethiti kisa karja puna (3)
Swāmī declared, “I shall take a mantra favourable to the prosecution of krishna-bhajan in rāga-marga hitherto resigning my studious contemplation of countless purāṇas, as what further requirement do I now have in such an enterprise?”
(note: sahasra purana (verse 3) literally means thousands of puranas. I have put countless puranas.)
prabhu boile diksa nia
balarāmathoin tu jā (4)
vacana siddha balarāma
ta tahun mantra nia puna (5)
ta tahun guru nahin âna
bhagati bhava gariana (6)
Prabhu says: “Go to Balarāma Dās and take diksa. He is vacana siddha, and a guru without resemblance or comparison. His bhakti-bhāva is genuinely glorious. Go to him and take a mantra.”
(note: vacana siddha could be translated as: “whatever he utters comes true.”)
swāmī je mantra diksa nela
balarāmaku pranamila (7)
kāṣi miṣra eha sunile
swāmīre bahu kopa kale (8.)
brahaman hoi sudramukhu
mantradiksa tu upadesu (9)
ethuti nahin abhebara
kalikalara duracara (10)
Swāmī offers his pranam to Balarāma Dās, and accepted mantra-diksa. Coming to hear of this outrages Kāśi Miśra, who directs considerable fury at Swāmī declaring: “You are a brāhman yet take mantra-diksa and receive guidance in such matters from the lips of a sudra? This is antagonistic to recognised custom, and nothing but the iniquity of the kali-kala (of the age of kali)”
swāmī boila vaisnave
dosa na badhaiti lave (11)
kiba sudra kiba brahman
manusya samasta samana (12)
nica sthanare thila ratna
grahana karibati dharma (13)
ehu mohara mana drude
guru boli Balarāma (14)
ethku tu kipan taraju
raga margena ambhe bhaju (15)
Swāmī says, “A vaisṇava has no imperfections, and it matters not whether one is a sudra or a brāhman as all humans are equal. If a jewel is kept in a low and contemptible place, it still remains our dharma to welcome it. This unfaltering resolution dwells in my heart, enabling me to acknowledge Balarāma Dās as my guru. Save your remonstrance! for now we do our bhajana in rāga mārga.”
sunile eha sārvabhauma
rāma rāya laksmidhara puna (16)
boile kichi hin na kaha
jagannāthra siddha deha (17)
kasi misraku prabodhile
Swāmīre sraddha badaile (18.)
Hearing of these events Sārvabhauma, Rāma Rāya and Laksmidhara, knowing well Jagannāth Dās inhabits a siddha-deha, remain silent. They enlighten Kāṣi Miśra in this regard, which consequently augments his (Kāṣi Miśra’s) trust in Swāmī.
(Verses 19-31: Only a few days elapse and Chaitanya now bestows a sudra, Raghunāth Dās Goswāmī, with a govardhana-śilā which was already being worshipped in Purī. Raghunāth is a steadfast and inseparable companion of Chaitanya in Nilacala, yet awarding a govardhana-śilā to a sudra and investing him with the liberty to worship it creates waves of unrest among the smartas in Nilacala. Vasudeva Sarvabhauma, Lela Laksmidhara and other principle smartas come to hear of this, yet do not react, but remain silent. Kāśi Miśra though, fails to even faintly disguise his implacable abhorrence of this transgression, and indiscreetly vents his indignation. Jagannāth Dās and Chaitanya, intent on dismantling caste dissension, were poised to strike at this all pervasive bias, yet from these verses, we see their attempts fail to have the desired impact and are insufficient to appease the jealous prejudices of the smartas. Now is when vaidhi-marga is spurned in favour of bhajan-kirtan in raga-marga. As the Panca-Sakhās immerse themselves in sankirtan with Chaitanya Mahāprabhu their hearts melt in prema, and they leave aside their love of the puranas and study of sastra. Rāma Rāya initially ignites and augments Mahaprabhu’s curiosity for krishna-bhajana in gopī-bhāva. In Nīlācala the Panca-Sakhās are enthusiastic adherents of this practice, and in Chaitanya’s personal company delve deep into raga-marga-sadhana. That raganuga-bhakti is the unique discovery of Chaitanya, or a benevolent contribution imported from Bengal, is not inscribed here. On the other hand it is initially founded and established in Nīlācala and this opinion is decisively stated herein. The Panca-Sakhās meet with Chaitanya and execute a congenial rāganuga-bhakti-sadhana animated by a spirit of resolute dedication and strictest integrity. From Mādhava Pattanāyaka’s accounts we may conjecture this happens around 1515-16 when the utkaliya-vaisnavas abandon the conventional practice of jñāna-miśra-bhakti, embracing instead the path of rāganuga-bhakti.)
e tahun kichidina ante
prabhu je raghunath dāsa (19)
hakari bole ethu nia
govardhana śilāe sambā (20)
ehuti silā śālagrāma
ehaku itara namana (21)
A few days after this episode Prabhu summons Raghunath Dās into his presence and says: “Take this govardhana śilā. Respect it as a śālagrāma śilā and offer it your prostrate pranmas.”
(Translator’s note; Raghunāth Dās Goswāmī’s family were tax collectors from the kayastha caste and not orthodox brāhmanas.)
sārvabhauma laksmidhara sunile
bicāre sehu mauna hele (22)
sudra hela adhikare
śālāgrāma śilā pujare (23)
sudraku vipra ki bolai
ethu ana ki sambai (24)
nahi nohiba kathā hela
kāśi miśra je kopa kala (25)
Sārvabhauma and Laksmidhara hear of this and surmise that entrusting a sudra with the privilege to perform the puja of a sālāgrāma śilā, effectively converting the sudra into a vipra, was an unparalleled act never heard of before. Notwithstanding these ruminations they remain silent. Yet Kāśi Miśra indignantly declares: “This will never be!”
acyuta ananta jasovanta
balarāma je jagannāth (26)
prabhura tule nitye rasi
sahasra purana upeksi (27)
sankirtanre mati dele
vaidhi marga se chadile (28.)
krusnara lila rasa jete
gopi bhavara parijante (29)
mane huanti sada guni
raga margaku parimani (30)
In the meantime, Acyuta, Ananta, Jasovanta, Balarāma and Jagannāth (the Panca Sakhās) pass all their time savouring rasa in Prabhu’s (Chaitanya’s) company casting aside their habitual study and reflection upon thousands of purāṇas. Discarding vaidhi-mārga their hearts are now enthralled in the praise (sankirtan) of every rasa related to krishna līlā including gopī bhāva. Thus they bathed their hearts in the sad-guna (the true and lasting virtues of krishna-līlā-rasa) as they discover the sublime heights of raga marga.
THE END.
(9) Rāmānanda Rāya cautions the Gajapati Pratāprudra deva that the Gauḍiyā’s may misconstrue the facts of Chaitanya’s death to the melcha king of Bengal, and thereby excite the possibility of war. Clearly suggesting that Rāmānanda Rāya, an Oriya, distrusted the Gauḍiyās in general.
rāma rāya se bole suna
e saba nele akarana (114)
gauḍiyā kadartha karibe
mlecha rajare khaca bolibe (115)
lagiba kandola bahuta
sunya kathaku micha sata (116)
jodibe aneka barata
sese paibu apaninda (117)
Rāma Rāya said, “listen, there is no need to take his body outside the temple, the gauḍiyās will say disgusting things and many lies to the mlecha king, and there will be an uproar, they will make nothing and falsehood to seem like the truth, and mix it with much news, and in the end you will be ridiculed.”
(Chaitanya takes his last breath inside the mandira. In the mandira at this moment is swāmī (Atibadi Jagannāth Dās)who is with Prabhu till the end. After Chaitanya’s life airs had ascended, Jagannāth Dās clasped on to the Lord and loudly wept with mournful lamentations. This happened on the aksaya-tritīyā during the brāhma-mūhurtta which would be around four a.m. in the morning, and by five a.m. the light had lit up the four directions and the crows began to crow. A few servitors had come to the mandira and Jagannāth Dās sends them to call Ramānanda Rāya who soon arrives in the mandira. Knowing that Prabhu had left, he was stunned, and all the while salt tears bedewed his cheeks. He stroked Prabhu’s limbs to see if his prāṇa had truly fled. Acknowledging Prabhu’s absence, he then has all the temple gates barred, and suspends the thākura-seva. Not even servants were allowed inside. Rāma Rāya writes an epistle and beckons a trusty messenger, who upon a horse swift and fierce did ride, relaying the news to the king and imploring his intercession. By fortune the Gajapati was already on route from Cuttack to Purī to see the candana-yātrā, and he received the letter and completed his journey to Purī within four praharas. The news of Chaitanya’s death renders the Gajapati distraught. Rāma Rāya tells him all that had happened. The question is what are they to do with his body? The king is stunned and exhausted by grief and remains silent. Rāma Rāya confides that: “no good will come from escorting the body outside the mandira because the gauḍiyā-bhaktas may misinterpret the circumstances, and the design of a conspiracy may be imputed surrounding his death before the mlecha king, exciting a suspicion with false information, which may culminate in military confrontation. Mixing truth with slander they may even offend your sovereign majesty.” Rāya continues, “As he expired inside the mandira, the body should therefore be entombed inside the mandira. O Great one! Have you not after all already declared, in a studied oration to a multitude of pilgrims in your public edict at ratha-yātrā, that Chaitanya is indeed the Lord himself? From that day onwards no one has thought of Chaitanya as a normal being. He is now in the eyes of most people a divine being. Thus it is right that you should say that Chaitanya merged into the body of Lord Jagannāth.” During the navakalevara the old and worn out vigraha of Lord Jagannāth is buried in the koili-vaikuntha. Chaitanya’s body was to be entombed in the koili-vaikuntha. This proposal finds agreement with the king and, after a serious deliberation, and a long and artful delay, arrangements to do so were undertaken. “So both agree his body to engrave, and the great temple’s womb they open to the sky, and gently lay his body in the honourable tomb.” Apart from Rāma Rāya, Swāmī Jagannāth Dās, the Gajapati and perhaps one or two other servitors no one else knew of this. (it is possible that Mādhava Pattanāyaka may have been among the other two who were involved). Hiding the actual facts, and after this clandestine burial, it was now easy to countenance the belief, and circulate the specious and pleasing tale via imperial proclamation that Chaitanya had indeed disappeared into the vigraha. It seemed necessary for them to have done this. Nobody was aware of what had truly transpired. The temple gates were unbolted and the stone slabs that sealed the grave’s portal washed down and sprinkled with water mixed with candana and karpura by the sevakas, who were admitted back into the mandira, and the festive decoration and arrangements got underway for candana-yātrā.)
THE END.
Some words on Atibadi Jagannāth Dās’s Oriya Bhāgavtam.
I was most surprised and delighted to discover that the Oriya Bhāgavatam by Atibadi Jagannāth Dās, written in the early 1500’s in Purī Dhāma, is a faithful and true translation of the original Sanskrit Śrīmad Bhāgavatam. I say “surprised” because like most of us who spent time in the ISKCON Sri-Sri Krishna-Balarama Bhubaneswar Mandir in Orissa, the understanding was, that the Oriya Bhāgavatam was basically māyāvād nonsense. In December 2018 I got hold of a copy of the Oriya Bhāgavatam and began to read it alongside the original Sanskrit Bhāgavatam, so I could compare the Oriya translation to Vyasa’s original work. I was, as you would imagine, half expecting to find a load of additions and omissions. I was however happy to discover that it is a true and faithful translation. Having read the Oriya Bhagavatam five times now from the first canto to the twelve canto, comparing it with the original Sanskrit, I can honestly say that it is truly magnificent. This is indeed good news, something for us to be deeply proud of, and a cause of celebration. It highlights Orissa as the līlā-bhumi of Gauranga-Mahaprubhu. During the time of Chaitnaya Mahāprabhu, Jagannāth Dās’s Bhāgavatam went viral all over Orissa. Goura Govinda Swāmī was not raised by his uncles in Gadiagiri reading a bogus māyāvād Bhāgavatam, and neither did Lord Jagannāth did not allow a māyāvād tinted bogus version of the Bhāgavatam to flood the holy land of Orissa, as we were all somehow thinking. Goura Govinda Swāmī himself, whilst on pādayātrā, would, during every lecture (and I mean every lecture) mention the fact that there used to be a bhāgavad-tungi (a special small temple-like hut wherein the Oriya Bhāgavatam was kept) in every village, and he would personally lament that the tungi has been replaced by clubs wherein the boys and girls are dancing to mundane music, instead of hearing the Bhāgavatam. If the Oriya Bhāgavatam had been bogus, Goura Govinda Swāmī would have said so whilst he was preaching in the villages in front of crowds of thousands of people. My god-brother and friend Syambhu Prabhu, was always reading and quoting from the Oriya Bhāgavatam, and was one of the main preachers on our Nāmahatta programme. Goura Govinda Swāmī knew, as we all did, that he was singing verses from the Oriya Bhāgavatam, and he never objected, even when Syambhu would quote from the Oriya Bhagavatam in his presence, as he did many times. I have read Fakir Mohan Prabhu’s Phd thesis, and he devotes a whole chapter to the Panca-Sakhās and speaks very highly and favourably of Atibadi Jagannāth Dās’s Bhāgavatam translation. What Srila Prabhupada did by translating the Bhāgavatm into English for the benefit of the world in the 1960’s and 70’s, Jagannāth Dās did for the people of Orissa in the early 1500’s. Jagannāth Dās does, from time to time, add certain comments in his translation, which are not there in the original, but this just like Srila Prabhupada adding quotes from the bhagavad-gita into the Krishna-book, and such additions, though not part of Vyasa’s work, serve and aid reader’s in their understanding of the text.
Mādhava Pattanāyaka writes in chapter five of the vaisṇava-līlāmrita that Chaitanya and Jagannāth Dās are one and the same, and writes of a dialogue between them wherein Jagannāth Dās confesses that he was born from the smile of Rādhā, and that Chaitanya appeared from Krishna’s smile. Fascinated and spellbound by his revelation, Chaitanya removes a chaddar from his own shoulder and proceeds to wrap it around Jagannāth Dās’s head whilst declaring him to be “ati-bada” (very great.) Here are the passages from chapter five of the vaisnava-līlāmrita.
ethu antare suna rase
rajara anka saptabimse (109)
dine basina ekantare
prabhu swamikai pacare (110)
siddhanga bartta mote kaha
to tahun bhinna matra deha (111)
Now hear of a delectable proceeding that unfolded during the twenty seventh year of our king’s reign. One day, as they reclined in a sequestered setting, Prabhu (Chaitanya) solicits Swami in the following manner: “please enlighten me of your siddha-anga (perfected body) which you have been divorced from due to this present embodiment.”
(Verses 109 to 129 bring us into the twenty seventh year of the king’s reign in 1518 and Ill-feeling arises in the hearts of certain Bengali Vaisnava’s over the unbreakable cord of love binding Sri Caitanya and Swami Jagannath Das together. The only distinguishing factor between them being their separate physical forms. Though they seemed to be two, they really were one and entirely non-different. Such a oneness is indeed rare in any friendship. One day Chaitanya questions Jagannāth Dās regarding their previous perfected state of existence. Chaitanya is told that he emerged from Krisna’s smile and Jagannath Das appeared from Radha’s smile. Caitanya is so taken and charmed with his answer that he removes a chadder from his own shoulder and wraps it around Jagannath das’s head declaring “you are atibada (very great) for you have uttered this atibada statement”. Further adding that “from today onwards you shall beknown as atibada”. Swarupa Damodhara, Kasi Misra, Raya Ramananda, Ananta,Yosavanata, Balarama, Acyuta and other eminent Vaisnavas acknowledge and agree with Jagannath Das’s atibada appellation. From this account we see that among the Nilacala Caitanya Vaisnavas there are a few who harboured a cherished trust in Jagannath Das.)
swami boile bhala hela
prabhu bolai kaha bhala (112)
swami kahai ekantare
thileka radha parusare) (113)
krusna hun radha nohe bhinna
achai ekanta bhavena (114)
Swami says: “It was indeed excellent.” Prabhu says: “then speak to me of this excellence.” Swami then declares in an unequivocal manner: “I was with Radha. Radha and Krishna are of course identical, and persist as an indivisible entity.”
sacidananda je vigraha
radha swarupa eka deha (115)
radhaku anai hasila
krusna hasa suddha jharila (116)
krusnara hasu to janama
radha hasaru mora janma (117)
(Swami continues) “My body is everlastingly ageless, inundated with wisdom and ecstasy, and is verily a form that shares the same swarūpa as Radha. As Krishna gazes upon Radha, he smiles. Ambrosial nectar oozes from his smiles, from which you made your advent, and I from Radha’s smile made my appearance.”
kahili purva anga katha
e tahun nohai anyatha (118.)
prabhu se preme alingila
e ati badati boila (119)
tohe mohara eka prana
dehati matrika je bhinna (120)
atibada e katha kahu
atibadi helu ajahun (121)
(Swami says) “I have thus told of our purva-anga, (previous embodiment) and apart from this perception, there can be no other conclusion.” Prabhu then lovingly embraced him whilst declaring that he was “atibada” and added: “you and I are one prāṇa. The only distinction is in our bodies. I have now named you as atibada and from today onwards you will be known as atibadi”.
kandharu uttari kadila
swami mastake bhididela (122)
bole e ati badapana
swami tu mohara parana (123)
Removing an uttari (chadder) from his own shoulder Chaitanya proceeds to fasten it around Swami’s head announcing, “let this serve as a visible testimony to your illustriousness!” further uttering; “Swami! you are verily the breath of my life!”
prabhu boila swarupaku
e atibada bolibaku (124)
au jeteka bhakta mele
prabhu atibada pracare (125)
kasi misra je rama raya
balarama acuyta bedaya (126)
ananta jasovanta mele
prabhu e vartta pracarile (127)
sakale kale angikara
e atibadai bebhara (128.)
Prabhu informed Swarupa that from hence forth Swami shall be addressed as “atibada” and Prabhu personally delivered this news to all of the bhaktas, like Kasi Misra, Rama Raya, Balarama, Acuyta, Ananta and Jasovanta. Indeed to each and every person who was part of the assembly which encompassed him. Unto them all, Prabhu proclaimed this news, and all welcomed his atibada accolade as truly befitting.
atibada katha kahila
ajahu atibada hela (129)
(Madhava Pattanayaka says) Thus I have spoken of atibada and from this day onwards he has indeed been renowned as atibada.
Some Thoughts On Rādhā Bhāvā Gaurānga .
Kavikarnapurna says that Krishna become Gaurānga when he was covered by the golden rays of all the vraja-sundarī’s, or gopī’s, and does not explicitly mention Rādhā’s effulgence and bhāvā alone, and Rupa Goswami says the same thing in his second chaitanya-astakam. Krishna tasting his own rasa is a conception formulated in, and unique to, the chaitanya-caritāmrita, (ultimately derived from his transcendental narcissism after seeing his own image reflected in a crystal pillar) whereas in the chaitanya-bhāgavat he is rolling around in the dust in akrura-bhāvā, or wildly intoxicated in balarāma-bhāvā, or perhaps madly dancing and singing in shiva-bhāvā, or weeping in gopi-bhāvā, or rendering suplications in dāsya-bhāvā. On other occasions showing four arms, six arms, and even eight arms (what is Gaurānga doing showing eight arms?) or boldly declaring “I am Nārāyana!” or revealing his form of Rāma to Muraru Gupta. Chapter ten of the madhya-līlā, chaitanya-bhāgavat (verse 285) tells us that whatever mantra a particular vaisnava chanted, Mahāprabhu appeared in that form. We discover Mahāprabhu in durga-bhāvā and rukmini-bhāva in the chaitanya-bhāgavat, never in rādhā-bhāva. Rupa Goswami’s tina-vānch, or three desires, (C.C. adi/1/6) has no ambiguity, at the same time it does not exclude anything else. Not that Rupa Goswāmi is a controlling, manipulative and domineering fairy godmother granting him three, and just three, wishes alone. Locan Dās begins his chaitanya-mangala with Nārada visiting vaikuntha and Nārāyana showing him the form of Gaurānga, how does that fit in? Perhaps it’s not as explicit as we think, or maybe we have nurtured too rigid a conception, and need to allow for the development and appreciation of other equally plausible revelations. Ramānanda Raya’s vision (C.C./M/8/282) of rasarāja and mahābhāvā, (dui eka rupa,) is perchance just as valid as the Oriya Atibadi Jagannāth Dās’s vision of Mahāprabhu being born from Krishna’s smile, as nothing in either concept makes the other invalid. Here again we find the one tattva as two, and the two as ekā, or one. Question: is there only one tattva? Rāya sees the union of Rādhā and Krishna, while Atibadi witnesses Gaura emerging from the smile of Krishna. No one can object to Atibadi’s vision. Yet some Gauḍiyās may wonder about Atibadi’s vision, but ask them to explain Swarupa Dāmodhara’s verse: (C.C./Adi/1/5) which naturally raises all kind of questions, unless it is taken figuratively, as they, according to this verse, initially start as one, and thus there is a sequence of events, so how is that eternal? It’s obviously figurative, for it is told as a sequence of events. They are all the same, they don’t “become two.” That they have now appeared “as two on earth” is where the sequence comes into play. Is Krishna assuming rādhā-bhāvā when he come as Gaurānga, or is he Rādhā and Krishna combined? It only stands up to scrutiny if you don’t take it literally, and taking it literally would mean in terms of events: he is always one and two, and has fused together again as Gaura, but Gaura has always been there. Ultimately you can’t really explain it (somehow or other) they were one, become two, and are now one again. It is rather ironic how Swarupa Dāmodhara himself is ambiguous in this verse when he would censor and berate everyone else, like the Bangali who wrote a eulogy in praise of Lord Jagannāth and Gaurānga, for something that he is basically guilty of himself. If they are one, how can they see each other in different forms? Is it one ātmā divided in two, and then become one? This verse also seems to suggest, or imply, that Gaurānga is not eternal, and also that Rādhā and Krishna are not either, and all you are left with is the ekātmā. Even the unnatojjvala-rasa verse (C.C./Adi/1/4) is wide open to interpretation, for in the chaitanya bhāgavat, as we know, Mahāprabhu wasn’t teaching anything new, but encouraging everyone in their own devotional moods, and was certainly not insisting on manjari-bhāvā-sadhana, or ever even in rādhā-bhāvā himself. The “anarpita” verb could perhaps refer to the unprecedented ecstasy that Gaurānga is giving, causing all, irrespective of their personal relationship with Hari, to dance and sing. Or perhaps Rādhā was a unique revelation to the Bengalis, or gauḍiyā-vaisnavas in particular, who were mostly tantric worshippers of the goddesses Kāli. Besides, manjari bhāvā sadhana has already been given in an explicit detailed fashion in the Padma Purana. Mahāprabhu did not introduce it, as rādhā-dāsya was already there in the Nimbarka tradition as well. Mahāprabhu, if we may accredit him with contributing anything at all, at least according to some, is the dancing, singing and weeping in ecstasy. Neither Vrindavana Dās’s chaitanya-bhāgavat or Locan Das’s caitanya-mangala present Gaurānga Mahāprabhu as being a unification of Rādhā and Krishna, and no one seems to have any objection with this, so why object to the revelation of Gaurānga and Atibadi as presented in the vaisṇava-līlāmrita? rādhā-bhāvā-gaurānga is a phenomena presented toward the end of his līlā in the chaitanya-caritamrita. Everyone needs a conception, a manner of thinking about the Deity, the object of worship. The Mahābhārata is constantly reminding us that Krishna and Arjuna are Nārā-Nārāyana, whereas Gaurānga’s biographers have presented us with many various concepts to dwell upon. What’s your favourite concept of Gaurānga? Who is he to you?
Jaya Nitia.