365bet娱乐

Although he was the founding figure of a great religious movement, Caitanya left no written teachings, with the possible exception of eight verses known collectively as the Siksastaka. These stanzas, however, contain no material of a doctrinal nature. 8 While his biograhpers show him giving lengthy instructions to the Gosvamins on philosophical matters, the fact is that the theological discourses attributed to him consist almost entirely of

118 direct quotations or summaries of passages from the works of the Gosvamins themselves. 9 For this reason, it is difficult to say anything positive about the metaphysical outlook of this great figure. It is worthy of note, however, that there is evidence that, even though he was a Vaisnava by birth and inclination, Caitanya may have had a sympathy for Advaitic thinking that was not shared by his followers. A detailed discussion of this question is here neither 10 possible nor appropriate. Nevertheless, it is worth treating briefly, for it points to the possibility of a continuing historical connection between bhakti and Advaita in an area where such might appear unlikely. Caitanya, it seems, had a great reverence for Sridhara Svamin, a samnyasin of the Advaitic Purt order who, as we have seen, wrote the Bhavarthadipika, without question the single most highly regarded commentary on the Bhagavata-purana 11 Krsnadasa Kaviraja describes a meeting between Caitanya and the Vaisnava philosopher Vallabha (1481-1533), during which the former soundly reprimanded the latter for his audacity in composing the Subodhint, an independent commentary on the purana that was critical of the author of the Bhavarthadlpika: You have the vanity to write your own commentary without showing respect to Sridhara, and have even criticized him! It is by the grace of Sridhara that I have understood the Bhagavata. He is a world teacher; I consider him to be my very own guru. Whatever you have written out of pride against Sridhara is wasted effort; no one will accept it. Give up your false pride and

119 follow Sridhara in your commentary. Whatever you write in accordance with Sridhara will be honored accepted by all. The authenticity of the sentiments expressed here, and perhaps also of the incident itself, is supported by the fact that they tend to contradict the school's anti-Advaitic stance and therefore would not have been included were they not a genuine memory of the tradition. It is significant, moreover, that all the Gosvamins who had occasion to deal with material from the Bhagavata-purana paid homage to Sridhara, even though their interpretations in many cases were different than his. 13 In this connection, Elkman writes: It seems likely that Jiva's claims to follow Sridhara represent more a concession to Caitanya's beliefs than a personal preference on his part. In actual fact, Jiva Follows Sridhara on only the most minor points, ignoring all of his Advaitic interpretations on the plea that they are "non-Vaisnava" and were meant merely to entice the Advaitins to study the Bhagavata 14 Radhamohana (eighteenth century), in his commentary on Jiva's Tattvasandarbha, reports that the Sankara order from a fairly early date was divided into two branches, the Smartas, who followed the path of knowledge, and the Bhagavatas, who were interested in bhakti. Sridhara belonged to the latter group. 15 He notes that Tradition has it that Sridhara's bhakti-oriented commentary on the Gita caused considerable controversy in the Samkara sampradaya in Banaras, where the orthodox at first wished to reject it. It is said, however, that the commentary was vindicated

120 through the intervention of Lord Siva himself.16 From the time of Sridhara, according to De, "a class of mysticemotional Samnyasins seems to have grown up, who found nothing inconsistent in their practices of Bhakti with their belief in Advaita Vedanta. # 17 This tradition emerges into the light of history again in the work of Visnu Purt (fourteenth century), the author of the Bhaktiratnavalt, anthology of verses from the Bhagavata-purana through which that text first became popular in Bengal. Visnu Purf was a member of the same order of Samkara monks as Sridhara. Indeed, in the closing verses of this work he apologizes for any deviation he may have made from the teachings of his illustrious 18 predecessor. The influence of this tradition of devotional Advaita samnyasins seems to have reached Caitanya himself in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century, in this case through Isvara Purf, who was Caitanya's guru, and Madhavendra Purf, who was the preceptor of Isvara and therefore Caitanya's paramaguru. Both of these figures were members of Sridhara's order. It is possible, therefore, that Caitanya's respect for Sridhara was based upon the recognition of a direct spiritual connection between himself and the great commentator, mediated by a lineage of gurus in the Advaitic Purt order. 19 For reasons such as these, De and Elkman believe that Caitanya may have been less hostile to Advaita than his followers made him out to be. On this, De writes:

121 It is our impression that Caitanya could not have been such an anti-Samkara as depicted by Krsnadasa Kaviraja. The Kaviraja, however, is careless enough to give us a rough idea as to what Caitanya's metaphysics could possibly have been, when he makes Caitanya ridicule Vallabha Bhatta for differing from Sridhara's commentary on the Bhagavata and say that Sridhara was a 'Jagad-Guru' [world-teacher]. Possibly Caitanya was a Sankarite Samyasin of the Sridhara type, although he was far ahead of Sridhara in what he understood to be the implications of Bhakti. 20 21 may be That Rupa's direct contact with Caitanya was only minimal, and that Jiva most likely had none at all, significant if we take seriously the possibility of some divergence between the views of these theologians and the outlook of the figure tradition regards as their mentor. The fact is that the Gosvamins, while writing in the name of Caitanya, make little reference to his place in their belief, and none at all to his spiritual experience, his teachings, or to any instruction they may have received from him. Instead, they construct their system on the basis of an elaborate exegesis of previously existing scriptures. "There cannot be any doubt, De writes, "that the devout life of Caitanya inspired these faithful disciples, but in the building up of their systems of theology there is no reference to the life, personality or views of Caitanya himself."22 th Caitanya's higher education appears to have been confined to the study of Sanskrit grammar, in which he became something of a specialist, and it is unlikely that he

122 studied theology. 23 At any rate it is fairly clear from his biographies that, after his religious conversion and the onset of his devotional ecstasies, he became quite indifferent to systematic philosophizing in any form, be it It is possible that he had, for this monistic or dualistic. very reason--i.e., that he was not troubled by questions of logical consistency--a willingness to accept the philosophical tensions inherent in the theistic non-dualism suggested by significant portions of the Bhagavata-purana This particular sympathy may have been overlooked by his followers in Vrndavana, trained as they were in classical Vaisnava theology. Thus Elkman writes: Though the Bhagavata embodies a variety of philosophical viewpoints, there can be no question that the doctrine of Advaita represents one of its keynotes, ; . . a fact which is clearly seen in the commentary of Sridhara. Thus, considering the harsh criticisms which Caitanya leveled at Vallabha for contradicting Sridhara's commentary, one may wonder whether Caitanya would have been any more pleased with JIva's nominal regard for Sridhara and his [JIva's] own original interpretations of the Bhagavata. 24 It must be born in mind, however, that sridhara's teaching was different in important respects from that of Samkara. 25 Hence, even if Caitanya acknowledged a spiritual or ideological link with the former and accepted his interpretation of the Bhagavata-purana, this would show only a general sympathy for monistic thinking, and not any formal adherence to the metaphysics of orthodox Advaita.