•: 130 : ■ «

Chapter - IV. . ■

/Seeds of acintyabhedabheda in Vrndavanadasa

The doctrine of Acintyabhedabheda, also known as Bengal

Vaisnavism
o o
owes its origin in Vedanto* one of' the six orthodox'

(astika) schools'of Indian Philosophy. So to have well-understan­

ding of the doctrine of Acintybhedabheda we must know what Vedanta,

as one of the six branches (sad dafesana) of Indian philosophy does

« , . ’ o a ’ ^ ■

actually mean. The term Vedanta literally means the end of the
Vedas (veda- anta). Primarily (mukhyartha) this word Vedanta stands

for the upanisads

O
since the upanisads are regarded by the orthodox
o •

Indian scholars as the end of the Vedas XHdi in different senses.

Afterwards Vedanta,.although secondarily (laksyartha), began

spreading- its denotation more widely to' include all thoughts

developed out of the‘upanisads such as Vedanta sutra, bhasya etc.

To quote from the text of'Vedantajsara : vedanto narmajpanisat -
I * o

pramanam tad upakarini sarirakasutradin^ ca . (l)

Therefore Acintyabhedabheda, as seen clearly belonging to the

Vedanta School, can ;surely claim its affiliation to the upanisads

* I ’ ' o

as'well as sarirakasutras better known as Brahmasutras or Vedanta-

sutras of Vadarayana. But we should remember in this context that

Vedanta has h.ad many different schools, although all of. them

do bear the same nomenclature Vedanta and come' under one umbrella

Vedanta. The ambiguous scriptural statements of the. upanisads,

appearing to be contradictory and at same time the Sanskrit words .

used therein possessing the potentiality of being justified .as

all nonrerroneous even according to the strict rules of tradi­

tional Sanskrit gramrner gave birth to different Vedanta schools. •

?fhat is more, the Vedantasutras of Badarayana, being

1. Sadananda, Vedantasara, ,’P. 8S

 131

very brief (alpaksaram) and appearing ambiguous at the same

*
time like the scriptural statements of the upanisads, were

liable'to different interpretations. , •

Following the footsteps of the upanisadic statements

and thereafter the vedantasutras the various commentators

(bhisyakaras) came forward to write to focus different

o

Vedanta doctrines basing only on those two types of texts,

1. e., the upanisads and Brahmasgtras,. each in their own light.

• a

Each of these Vedanta branches tried its best to justify its

. ' /

own position as the only one consistent with srutis and the

sutras in contrast with others. As an inevitable consequence

the author of each of these commentators (bhasyakaras)

o

became' the founder of a particular branch of the Vedanta

philosophy. Worthmention^ng names of such different foun-

ders of Vedanta schools are Sankara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka,

Bhaskara, Madhva, Bellabhacavya and Goswami Brothers of •

Bengal. In fact, the above.mentioned teachers became the '

founders of each school of Vedanta, such as Advaita,

__ _
Visistadvaita, Svab’navika bhedabheda, Aupacarika - bhedabheda,
Os

Dvaitavada, Suddhadvait.a and Acintya bhedabheda respectively.

But, what is the most fundamental question on which the

anove-mentioned schools or branches of Vedanta philosophy

differ from one another ? It is the nature' of relation

between jiva(individual soul) and Brahman.(God) on which the

different schools of Vedanta differ from one another. It

has been well said "But every school of Vedanta widely .

differs from other schools with regard to its view of

relation between jiva (individual soul) and Brahman '* (2).

Sankara and his followers hold that the two i.e. jiva and

Barahman are absolutely identical, (Advaita vedanta or un­

qualified monism). Ramanuja and his followers think that

the.two are identlal in a restricted and special sense

(visistinivaitavada or qualified monism).

^ a ^ . ' '

2. Sudhin Chakravarty, Philosophical Foundation of Bengal

.Vaisnavism , p. 300
 : 132

Madhva opines the self and god. are totally different entities

(Dvaita vedanta or Dualistic Vedanta), Vallabha’s theory

(Suddhadvaitap-vada or pure non-dualism) is that the individuals

who are basically pure and real are essentially one with Brahman

who is pure and one without- second. But the teachers like Nimbarka,
I ~ ^ ■

Bhaskara and Goswami brothers of Bengal in fifteenth century

prescribe a peculiar type of such a relation between self and god,

jiva and Brahman in-the Vedanta vaorld. The novel and the unique

doctrine of theirs is that there is both difference (bheda) as

well as identity (abheda) between self and.god.

We may pursue this peculiar doctrine of both difference

(bheda) and identity (abheda) between jiva and Brahman to the

extreme origin of vedanta i.e. Brahmasutras and the upanisads. Let

us first take up the case with Brahmasutras of Badarayana,

* o «

"Badarayana has mentioned the opinion of many other.acaryas in

his sutras"- (3) and it goes without saying that these Acaryas

were likely the advocates of Advaita Doctrine also.

One of such Vedanta teachers referred to in the Vedantasutra

is Asmarathya, His view is known as Bhedabheda doctrine. In the

Vedanta sutra 1.4.20 (vakyanvayadhikarana) Asmarathya has been

• • o

mentioned thus : . ' - ■ -

f W
" pratijnasiddher.lingam asmarathya". The crux of .his phi­

losophical tenets is that Brahman and jiva are neither absolu­

tely non-different, nor absolutely different. The relation is

both difference and non-difference, i.e. bheda and abheda. and

should, be illustrated as that between fire and its. spark. Spark

is not totally different from fire as fire is the source and

essence of-the spark and also the spark.is not totally identical

with fire since fire is whole,' but the sprak spark is its part.
. ' ' / >

3. 'M. T. Sahasrabudhe, A survey of the.Pre-sankara Advaifa

vedanta, p.- 54.
 : 133 :

So, we are doubtless that Asmarathya was the propagator, of -

Bhedabheda doctrine. We may consult the sub-commentary Bhamati on

Sankara’s commentary (1.4.20) Astiyatra Pratijna etc.

(l) ”yatha hi bahn.er vikara vyuccaranto visfulinga ha bahner atyantam

_ ' ° o
bhidyante taifeypanirupanatvat, napi tatotyantam abhihna bahner iva
o
paraspara vyavrttyabhava-prasangat. Tatha jivitmanopi brahmavikara
b 1 '

na Brahmano5tyan^am bhidyante cidrupatvabhavaprasangat.*

e,

..... tasmat kathancid bhedo jivatmanam abhedas ca ". Like spark,

and fire jiva'is not totally different from Brahman since Brahman

is both source and essence of Brahman, and also jiva is not totally

identical with Brahman since the relation these two have is the

relation of part and whole. Keeping in view this part and whole
y _
relation Asmarathya is also deemed as Visistadvaitavadin. Audulomi & Q ' ©

is another archaic Vedanta teacher who, although inclining towards

monism is conspicuous as supporting the doctrine of difference-in-

non-difference (bhedabheda). Audulomi is referred to in. the _

Brahmasutras: utkramisyata evamhhabadityaudulomi" (1.4.21 )H

artvijyamityaumdulomistasmai hi parikriyate (3.4.45) and

o

cititanmetrena tadatmakatvadityaudulomi (4.4.6). Vacaspati

O o

emphatically establishes the view.of Bhedabheda of Audulomi thus. :

jivo hi paramatrnanotyantam bhinna eva san dehendriyamanbuddhyupa

dhanasamparkat sarvada kalusah tasya ca jrtanadhyanadis"adhane

nausthanat samprasannasya dehendriyadisamghatat utkramisyatah

0 ' o ^ ^
paramatmanaikyopa^lpatter idam abhedenopakramanam' yatHahuh

can carat rikah :

* . . • 0

a mukter bheda eva syaj jivasya ca parasya ca

muktasya tu na bhedo’sti bhedahetor abhavatah” (4)

/ -
4. Vacaspati Misra, Bhamati, p. 415.
 134 :

Addulomi thinks that the jiv& being impure due to his association
with gross body and mind is essentially different (bheda) from pure

Brahman in the empirical stage, but in the stage of liberation

jiva becomes non-different or identical (abheda) with Brahman.

According to Audulomi the non-difference or identity between jiva

0

and Brahman means not that there is no difference between the

two but only refers to a possible future state. ■

S8 bhavisyantam abhedam upadaya

bhedakalepy abheda uktah.

(Bhamati, 1.4.21)

SO the scriptural texts like tat tvam asi* ayam atma brahma etc.

declare identity between Brahma and jiva only with the reference to

a possible such identity in future, i.e. in the state of liberation.

To trace the archaic source of the doctrine' of bhedabheda the

name of Bhartr prapa'nca also deserves to be mentioned. The Vedanta
o- • /

view of bhedabheda, so far as Acarya Bhart^praparTca is concerned,

has been partly reflected in the commentary of Sankara- on the

Brhadiranyaka Upanisad and also Anandajhana or Anandagiri’s

° ° <_ e _/ _ • _ _
commentry (Sastraprakasika) on Brhadaranyaka Varttika by
/ „ _
Sureswaracarya. Prof. M. Hiriyana read a paper before the third

oriental conference in Madras, 1924, and there he describes

Bhartrprapanca’s bhedabheda philosophy. In this context Dr.

Surendra Nath Dasgupta observes conspicuously "The doctrine of

__ . :
bhedabhedavada is certainly prior to Sankara .......... The

doctrine of Bhartrprapanca is monism, and it is of the bhedabheda

o' ‘ * - .

type.'.The _ relation between Brahman and the jiva, as that between

Brahman and the world, is one of identity in difference. An

implication of this'view is that both the jiva and the physical

world evolve out of Brahman, So that the doctrine may be described
as Brahma-parinama-vada" (5). So far it has been shown that the
&

5. Dr. S.N. Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy,

Vol. II, pp. 42-43
•3feb$ philosophical doctrine of bhedabheda of the important doctrines

of Vedanta relating to the relation between Brahman and jiva is not

the post - Sankara development, rather it has-a far distant archaic,

origin as we find from the Brahmasutras of Badarayana. What to.

speak of these-Brahamasutras alone, even one can go back further

and can find ample scriptural passages also where the doctrine of

both bheda and abheda run parallel, such as :

\

Bheda-doctrine :
(l) yathagneh ksudra visphulinga vyuccaranti evam evasmadatmanah
o o * fc

sarve pranah sarve lokah sarve dehah sarvani bhutani

* < v o'

vyuccaranti (Brhadaranyaka upanisad, 2/1/20)

o .. o 0 •

2. dva suparna sayuja sakhaya'etc. (Mundak^i upanisad 3/1/1,

0 Svetasvatara upanisad 4/6)

3. tasyaisa atma-vibrnute tanum svam, (Mundaka-upanisad 3/2/3 ... etc

O o o ° o

Abheda-doctrine :
/ . _ ■ ' •

1. tat tvam asi svetaketo (chandyogya-upanisad, 6/8/7)' t,

2. ekam eyadvitiyam (Chandogya-upanisad, 6/2/1).

' - • . 6 . /
3. aham brahmasmi (Brhadaranyaka upanisad, 1/4/10) t •
O <D 0

4. brahma veda brahmaita bhavati (Mundaka-upanisad, 3/2/9) etc.

But before diving into deeper analysis of the doctrine of bheda-

abheda as developed in post-Sankara stage through later ages we

should know both the do.ctrines bheda and abheda and- also should know

how the two sets of champions of these two extreme Vedanta doctrines

have developed their own views with the help of -both Sruti and

sutras. As for example, Madhva, belonging to 13th century is the •

chief propagator of difference (bhedayadin). According to him duality

is the reality and non-duality is a"figment of imagination. He

recognises five types of distinctions. between Brahman (Lord), and

jraa (individual soul) jiva and jiva, jiva and inanimate object

(jagat), one inanimate object and another inanimate object, and

Bhxac Brahman and inanimate object. These five types of distinctions

 : 136 :

are both real and eternal, A modern scholar most relevently comments

that - "The Madhva view presents a bold contrast to-the view of

/„ sc
Sankara- while for Sankara and his followers the world is a false

appearance in Brahman, for the Madhvas it has a reality, though not

the self-dependent.reality of Brahman" (6) In the philosophy of

V - ' ' __
Sankara-monism the distinction (bheda) being the product of maya is

also an indescribable false appearance like the worldly phenomenon.

So according to Sankara all the so-called five distinctions are

unreal and false, Sankara is famous as the chief propagator of the

doctrine of non-difference (abhedavadin) According to him Brahma.:

is devoid of all three types of differences - -

sajatiya (homogeneous), Vijatiya (heterogeneous) and svagata

(internal). Both Brahman and -jiva, i.e. god and individual soul are
^ .

essentially identical. In Sankara’s Advaita doctrines

"brahma satyam jagan mithya jiva Brahmaiva naparah"

-— y —’ /
The schools of vedanta - visistadvaita, suddhadvaita,

bhedavada, acintyabhedabheda - have all united to launch a crushing

yo
attack against Sankara's theory of absolute non-difference or

non-dualism (kevaladvaitavada). On Sankara's behalf Maya has been ,

strongly advocated only to explain the phenomenon which has no

ultimate reality and therefore it is false. Sankarities state that

Maya, is a positive entity (bhavarupam yatkincit). It implies, that

0 .
Maya is admitted as' something positive which is other than another

.positive entity Brahrnan. If this be so, then Brahman can not

remain devoid of heterogeneous distinction (vijatiyabheda), since

Brahman isxsat, cit etc. v'/hereas Maya is not so..

6. Sudhin Chandra Chakrabarty, Philosophical foundation

of Bengal Vaisnavism, p. 303
 137
. • /. .

What is more, according to the strict Sankarite of absolute

non-dualism, Brahman the only reality cannot have any power as
another reality. But how can it be conceived that. Brahman is devoid
of powers, since Sankara himself, in the commentary of Brahmasutra
has evinced Brahman as•possessing.omnipotence (sarvasakti)-
"asti tavad brahma'nitya-suddha-buddha-mukta-svabhavam,
sarvajnam, sarvasaktisamanvitam brahmasabdasya hi vyutpadyamanasay
nityas'uddhatvadayo'rthah pratiyante, br hater dhatorarthanugamat
sarvasyatmatvac ca brahmastitvaprasiddhih" (7)
Does Sankara not admit here Brahma's omnipotence and omniscience?
If' so, how Sankara can retain that his absolute Brahma is inderminate
(nirvisesa)? Furtheremore, Sankara cannot say that the supra-poten-
O '

tiality of Brahman is MaylUca or illusory and therefore false having

no ultimate reality since there is no such scriptural evidences esta- •
blishing the non-reality of Brahma's power.- The scriptural statements
like- parasya saktirvividhaiva sruyate (8) etc. more emphatically
■ ’

corroborate that Brahma is possessed of supra-potence. Therefore

/
there is no reason or logic as to-the rejection of the sakti or
potence of Brahman. It is absolutely illogical as well as inconcei-
vable that Brahman is devoid of powers.' Sankara.'s denial of powers
to Brahman in order to guard Brahma.rf against all sorts of duality
has defeated its own purpose. Brahman is non-dua'l indeed, but he is
no devoid of powers. There are vollies of charges hurled against
/ e ■ V0 - '
Sankarites orj behalf of all non-Sankarite Vedanta philosophers
including even acihtyabhedabhedavadin Bengal-vaisnava-philosophers
to .whom the fundamental basis of acintya bhedabheda theory is the
/ -
doctrine of sakti which will be dealt with more elaborately later on.

7. Brahmasutra 1/1/1
/ _ /•
8. Svetasvataropanisad, 6/8
 : 138-s

In the first phase so far we find that the Vedanta.philosophy

rooted in the Upanisads and Sutras has been divided mainly into
/„ 6 /o
two camps Sankarites and non-Sankarites absolute non-qualified monism

and other than this. The latter camp again is subdivided into the

doctrines of visistadvaita, suddhadvaita, bheda*bheda and bheda. Taking

°° - /

Vedanta as a whole and one system, at one extreme is Sankara's abheda ds-

doctrine and at,another is bheda doctrine.,

The bhedabheda is again divided into three groups - svavavika

(natural) bhedabheda. o^* Nimbarka (llth-13th century),• aupacarika

(attributive) bhedabheda of Bhaskara (8th cent A.D.) and acintya -

_ . . _ _
(logically inconceivable) bhedabheda of Sricaitanya and Goswami

brothers of Bengal (15th cent A.D.).,

Both Nimbarka and Bhaskara are the preachers of dualistic non­

dualism. (Dvaitadvaita) pattern of Vedanta philosophy.. Both of them

refute absolute non-dualism of Sankara, qualified non-dualism of , .

Ramanuja, pure non-dualism of Vallava and dualism of Madhva.-

Both Nimbarka and Bhaskara -- the chief exponents of bhedabheda

think that unity and plurality are real notwithstanding admitting

bheda - abheda (difference - non-difference) relation between Brahma

and jiva, between god and individual soul. But Nimbarka and Bhaskara

differ from each other on some points too. The main point of diffe­

rence is that according to Bhaskara abheda or identity between god

and individual self is natural (svabhavika), but bheda or difference

is due to limitation (aupacarika)-” yatha ca bhagne ghate ghatakaso

■ £> 0

mahakasa eva bhavati drstatvat

o o e
evam atrapiti
4
jivaparayos
1 1
tu

svavavikobheda aupadhikas tu bhedah, sa tannivrttau nivartate” (9)

9. Bhaskarab’nasya on Brahmasutra, 4/4/4

■o
 139
Like Sankara, Bhaskara thinks that bheda is aupadhika, but unlike

Sankara, what Bhaskara emphasises is that this bheda, although .

aupadhika is real - not unreal or false creation due to the so-

called avidya or maya. According to Bhaskara aupad^ka is real, but acc

ording to Sankara aupadika like snake-rope is unreal (mithya).

According to Bhaskara the creation of this phenomenon as effect

and transformation of Brahman is as .real as Brahma as its cause'-'

brahmakaryatvat prapancasya vastutvam brahmaiva hi

Karandtmana kar^atmahivasthitam (10)

Bhattabhaskara’s inclination for bhedabheda doctrine is crystal

clear in the following statement s

'tasmat sarvam ekanekatmakam
natyanam abhinnam bhinnam va (ll)

Nimba-rka and his followers like Madhavamukunda etc. inspite

of holding the same view of bhedabheda do not- fully agree with
Bhaskara in vas^iuchas according, to Nimbarkas it is not acceptable

that non-difference -is the reality, whereas difference is due to

upadhis or limitations, because if so, then Brahma, who is unconditi­

oned and unlimited by nature becomes conditioned and limited which

is untenable in Vedanta .school. According to Nimbarkas the relation

between Brahman and jiva - God and the individual self is the

relation of both-difference and non-difference, just like t-he rela­

tion between cause and effect or the whole and the part. The patent

example of such bhedabheda-relation is jar and clay-lump. The jar

as effect is different from its cause clay, since the shape, utility
etc. of. the jar is quite different from those of the clay. But

10. Ibid, 2/1/14

11. Ibid, 2/1/18
 140 :
at the same time the jar and the clay are non-different since

the jar as effect cannot retain its existence without clay

its cause. Repudiating the view of aupacarika bhedabheda of

Bhaskara the Nimbarka Vedantists reiterate that the difference

between Brahman (cause) and jiva(effect) is natural (svabhavika),
• ir—
and.not this difference is due.to limitation (upacara) as Bhafekara

thinks, and this difference is eternal, since it is wrong to

hold following Bhaskara that in the state of liberation jiva

becomes non-different with Brahman.

Following the example of jar and clay it can be stated

here also,that as the individual possesee no existence indepen­

dently of Brahman, the relation between jiva and Brahman is non-

different. The -two are different also because of . a lot of mutual

differences in natures and attributes. Madhavamukunda, Srini-

vasacarya, etc. of Nimbarka school cannot find out any reason why

sruti-staternents announcing unequivocally "difference- relation"

between jiva and Brahma should be rather explained away instead of

being explained in proper and natural way. The Brahmasutras like

bhedavyapadesac cannyah" (1.1.21), sariras cobhayepi hi

bhedenainam adhiyate (1.2.20) etc. and»and the Sruti-Smrti-

statements like "rtarn pivantau sukrtasya loke (12 ) jnanajnanatt.

6 o 0

dvavajavisanisau (13) and —

dvav imau purusoau l$ke

ksaras caksara eva ca (14)
* 0

uttamah0 1ourusas
Q
tv anyaho '
paramatmety udahj-tah (15) etc. may be cited as a good deal of .

examples stating difference (bheda) as real, eternal and natural as

non-difference. .
\ • *

12. Kathopanisad
o.o
, 1/3/1 .
/ _ /
13. Svetasvatarapanisad, 1/3

14. Gita, 15/16

15. Ibid, 15/17 ■ ‘ •
 j 141

- The abheda sruiis are such as — tat tvam asi,

aham brah^masmi, ayam 'atmaf brahma etc.

The authors of Nimbarka school cannot understand why bheda-

/ . /
srutis should be sacrificed for the cause of abhedasrutis,
/ •

why one set of sruti-statements should be accepted at the cost

of another. It should not be so that by imagining unnecessary/

contradiction between the two sets of scriptural statements' we

should accept one and reject another - na ca tesam itaretar-

abadhyabadhakabhavo vaktum sakyah, tulyavalatvat. tatha- ca

° 0

sarvesameva svarthapramanyasiddhaya bhinnabhinnam brahma

Vedanta-sastra-visayatvenabhipretam bhagavatah' siitrakarasyaH.'(l6)

6 *> V
• ' *-“»
Dr. Asutosh Sastri in his Vedanta Darsana — Advaitavada
' ^

quotes the Brahrnasutra ubhayavyapadesa tv ahikundalavat "

(3.2.27) to show how sutrakara Vadarayana also approves both

r ' O'

bheda and abheda as natural on the similarity, of snake (ahi)

and coil (kundala). Another such sutr'a is "praka/aVrayavad via"

tejastvat (3.2.28) where the relation .of both bheda and abheda

between sun and its rays has been examplified as real and

natural. (17).

The aupadhika bhedabheda of Bhaskarq and Svavavika

• i

bhedabheda of Nimbarka underwent further development with

the holy advent of Sri Caitanya of fifteenth century and his

follower-devotees like Goswami brothers and Baladev«. Vidya-

bhusana (18th century) etc. with a revised nomenclature i.e.

acintybhedabheda.

16. Madhavamukunda, Parapaksagirivajra, p. 294

17, Asutosh Sastri, Vedanta Darsana-Advaitavada,

Vol.I, p8 347
 :'14 2 :
The unique Vedanta doctrine of Acintyabhedabheda is the

Contribution of,sacred soil of"Bengal which is more famous'as Bengal

Vaisnavism and here we find a pioneer contribution of the Goswami

e> o

brothers, especially of jiva Goswami, The Vaisnava-Vedanta teachers

of Bengal,headed by Jiva Goswami accept fully the doctrine of bheda-

bheda, i.e. difference cum non-difference relation between Jiva,and

Brahman but there the, term-bhedabheda has been precede^by a newly

* * '
coined word acintya (inexplicable) basing on a newly unfolded rela-
. / / _

tion between potence and potent (sakti-saktiman).

_
- ' -

Sri Jiva Goswami, the stalwart teacher of Bengal school of

Vaisaavism, following the footsteps of Lord Caitanya strongly holds

•©e * - ‘ - ^ ,

the view that the Reality is one without second (ekanr evadvitiyanql.

Here the doctrine of Bengal Vaisnavism apparently resembles, of

course, the doctrine of non-duality (advaitatattva) of Sankara.

' f- - • - ' •
Sri Jiva Goswami fully agrees with Sankara to determine the real

nature of Brahman as devoid of all the three kinds of distinctions

homonaeneous, heterogeneous and internal (sajatiya,. vijatiya,

/. • _ -- -

svagata).. The Sruti statement ekam evadvitiyam has been given

full honour by both the Vedanta schools,

A'dvaita of Sankara as well as Acintyabhedabheda of Jiva .Goswami,

so far as the. non-duality of Brahman is: concerned. But still there

is a subtle difference between the two. Non-duality theory of

Sankara is not identical with that of ‘Jiva Goswami-. That is why

Jiva Goswami,in his Sat-sandarbha and sarvasambadini rejects the

y O .O * * ,

' ' ft
Advaita theory, of Sankara. By .the term ’Advaya’ Gaudiya Vaisnavite
' O » <D

Jiva Goswami does not mean ’without second’, rather he means that

like Brahman there is no second reality. According to him

advayatvancasya svayanj $iddha-tadrsatadrsa-tattvant®rabhavat•(18)

18. Jiva Goswami, Tattvasandarbha, p. 117

 s 143 :
To establish the theory of non-duality from the view-point of
Acintyabhedabheda school of Vedanta, stress should-be laid on
the two words *svayamsiddha and tadrsatadrsa-tattvantarabhava.
o.o

Brahman is svayamsiddha i.e. self-sufficient and non-dependent of

O

•everything else and nothing in this, phenomenal universe, even be it

Prakrti, the primlval cause of it, is like Brahman, the.ultimate
reality, because nothing in this universe, even including that Prakrti
is either self-sufficient or non-dependent like Brahman. The Bengal
Vaisnavites say that to retain -the advaya theory of Brahman Brahman
must be shown ds' devoid of all the three kinds of distinctions.
Mutual distinction is determined between the.two things which are
mutually non-dependent (parasparanirapeksa). So there is distinction
between man and HJsrxiM mountain, but not so between self-sufficient
■ / -
self-dependent Brahman and. anything other than Him. Srimad-
Valadeva Vidyabhusanas commentary on Tattvasandarbha explains this
o' x>

Svayamsiddhattva of Brahman such as svayamsiddhateti — atmanaiva

siddham khalu svayamsiddham ucyate" (19)
^ 4 ^
But how to establish tadrsa-atadrsa - tattvantarabhava in
. ■ to

Brahman?-The Vaisnavites argue that jiva,~ the individual self, being

bo
— ./
conscious (eit) appears to be similar to Brahman (tadrsa)
• c
and there
may remain a distinction called sajatiya between jiva and Brahman.
Prakrti,
© time and space etc. being inanimate objects (acit) are
dissimilar to Brahman (qtadrsa)., and so a vijati.ya type of . distinc­
tion may be deemed between Brahman and the material world. But
both jiva and the material world Srxh — these two entities are by
no means self-snifficient as well as self.-dependent, since apart
from Brahman those two entities cannot retain their being (satta).
fhe inanimate objects of the universe are to depend on Brahman for
their appearance, existence and dissolution (.janma, sthiti, laya).
To quote from Sruti — Myato va imani bhutani j'ayante, yena jatani
jivanti, yat prayanty abhisamvisanti" (20) - '

19. Jiva Goswami, Ibid, p. 119

20. Taittiriya Upanisad, 3/1
 : 144 :

The contextual Vedantasutra Is "janamd yasya yatah” (l/i/2). Even

Sankara in his commentary (1/1/2) shows the fully'dependability of

the universe on Brahman like this : "asya jagato ...... janma-sthiti-

'bhangam yatah sarvajnat sarvasakteh karanad bhavati, tad brahmeti

vakyasesah”. Thus the whole universe comprising jiva the animate

0 0

object and time space, mountain etc. the inanimate objects cannot .

maintain either homogeneous or heterogeneous distinction from

svayamsiddha brahman and consequently Brahman is devoid of sajatiya-

vijatiya-bheda. Sri Jiva Goswami has aptly, propounded the abhedatativ.

of Brahma in his Bhagavatsandarbhiya-sarvasamvadini — “tatsvarupa-

vastvarftaranam ca tac chaktirupatvan na taih sajatiyopi bhedah. na

b c &

ca avaykta-gatajadyaduhkhadibhir vijatiyo bhedah na_ca—av-ya k t a gat a -

o O O

ja4yaduh£ h a d ibhix-vij~atiye—bhedah — svyaktasyapi tacchakti-

0 6. C

rupatvat'*. Similarly it cannot be said that Brahman-possesses

svagatabheda or internal distinction, i.e. distinction within

himself on account of distinctive and different ingredients,

because Brahman is really an indivisible substance, agd as such

Brahman is devoid of svagata bheda also which is hot accepted by

visistadvaitavadin Ramanuja. Jiva Goswami goes on contending

£>0 . * -

further denying all possibilities of having any svagata distinction

in Brahman because Brahman being fully incapable of being broken into

various elements neither five elements like earth, water etc. nor

bhagavatsvarupas which are all dependent on the Bhagavat constitute

svagata distinction.in Bhagavat or Brahman. Gold and goldring

are the stock example in this context. Gold becoming ring may ' -

appear as having internal distinction' from the ring, but actually

the ring has.no independent existence apart from its constituent -

cause (upadanakarana) gold. Therefore kundala or ring not being

.5 o o

independent of gold* cannot maintain its distinction from gold.

 : 145
Factually speaking, in ring nothing other than gold has entered
into and the ring cannot stay without gold. Similar is the case
with Brahman as there also we find that.the five elements such as
earth water etc., the finite .souls (jivatma) and the different
bhagavatsvarupas being the effect of Brahman-cannot maintain there
status independent of Brahman and therefore these cannot contribute
by any means to constitute svagatbheda iri their constituent cause
Brahman - tad evam svagatabhedajtvapariharye svarnaratnadighatitaika-
kundalavad vastvantarapravesenaiva sa -pratisedhyate iti sthitam (21).
<5 & - •O'-'

Here arises a query on behalf of the Vaisnavas — if the theory 6 o

of salcti is admitted along with the advayatativa of Vaisnavas (as

has been done by Jiva Goswami in Bhagavat sandarbhiya-sarva-sambadini
while establishing Brahman as devoid of three kinds of distinctions)
.how advayatattva and saktitattva of the Vaisnavas are interrelated
or rather how. saktitattva is the corollary of advayatfcttva whichkas
been originally accepted as the basic principle in the school of
Vedanta-Vaisnavism of Bengal. The reply is shown thus - Brahman is
non-dual. But still he may possess powers and as a result of it the•
non-dualitv of Brahman is not least affected since non-dual Brahman
■ ‘ / ■' -./••■
is one with sakti as well as inseparable from sakti and also viceversa.
This /akti is not any extra entity in addition to non-dual Brahman

who is only one and ultimate entity in Vaisnava philosophy.

— -■*' ■ f ’

Jiva Goswami admits three saktis in Brahman - Svarupa sakti,

/ ^ X . - - /
tatastha sakti orksetrajna sakti or jiva sakti, and maya. sakti or
0 / — f —
bahiranga sakti. Vaisnava vedantins,. unlike Sankara Vedantins and
i 0 1 • __

like all other non-Sankara vedantins,stick strictly to the -belief in -

the doctrine of transfusion and transdermation (parinama) instead
X" ■ ' ^ _

of Sanlcarite theory of illusion (vivarta) on the.basis of Brahmasutras

l,ike atmakrteh parinamat (1/4/26) ana atamani caivam vicitfas ca hi
(2/1/28) etc. Brahma is transfused with the different aspects of his

21. Jiva Goswami , p. 56 '

 : 146:
^ / - •

own svarupasakti or cic chakti which-are’Bhagavat Dhamans

(supre-mundame''residences), svarupas (different kinds of instinsi®

forms) and Bhagavat_parikaras (eternal associate®) etc. Similarly

- __ /

the. Jivas_ are nothing but Brahman transfused with his Jiva-sakti.

Regarding Jiva-sakti of. Brahman the verse from Srimad Bhagavad-gita -

is cited as example' rr- - .

. apareyam itas tvanyam pra-krtim biddhi me^param

• O DO

, . jivabhutam mahavaho'yayedam dharyate jagat (22)

That universe is the transfusion of Brahman1s external maya sakti is

supported by '
bhumirapo’nalo vayuh kham mano buddhireva ca, . .

ahamkara itiyam me bhinna prakrtirastadha (23)

The mayasalcti of Brahman is referred to in the Svetasvatara-

Upanisad •—

mayam tu prakrtim vidyan .

mayinam tu mahesvaram (24)

It should be noted here specifically that these, various mainfestation*

of sakti do not damage to the non-duality of Brahman as non-dual

.Brahman does not undergo any change in spite of the fact of -the

transformation of Brahman transfused with Maya-sakti and .-Jiva-sakti,

only because Brahman's svarupa-sakti remains-untouched.

- y / -

To fathom the inseparable relation between sakti .and saktiman,

potence and potent, power and possessor of power it must, be noted

-that these are not the two different and separate entities (i.e.

abheda) but still there is a lot of differences /§o far as their,

functions etc. are-concerned, and so there must be some separate

designations too, (i.e. bheda).

22. Gita, 7/5

- »

23. Ibid, 7/4

(■

24. Svetasvatara Upanisad, 4/10

 : 147
With a view to unveiling the real mystery of the exact rela-
/ / • -
tion between sakti and saktiman, power and possessor of- power,

we should conceive the relation as both difference and non­

difference (bheda and abheda). The Vedanta doctrine of bhedabheda

is not new one. It is an archaic doctrine belonging even to the

pre-christian era as referred to in the Brahmasutras. But it is

the credit of the Bengal vaisnavas that they have made it more &

strongly established on the hard.rock of saktitattva. Taking

myriad examples from our day-to-day life .they have shown that
/ _ burning /
flame (saktiman) and its/b&XXHgxpower (sakti), musk or kasturi
/ , " - • /
(saktiman) and its power of emitting scent (sakti)- these two
/ . / •
entities saktimat at one hand and sakti on another are both
burning
different and non-different each other. Flame and its/feSM2SXH!§ power

musk and its scent, sun and heat -. these two entities ,can never

be conceived as remaining separated®

The burning power, the power of emitting good smell, the power
, \

of heat - all these powers are intrinsic attribute of flame,

musk and sun respectively. Likewise the various poivers of

Brahman classfied into three i.e. svarupasakti, mayasakti and

- / ' . '

jivasakti are inseparable and intrinsic attribute of Brahman, the

possessor of power-. The absolute difference (atyanta bheda) which

is renowned as the doctrine of Madhva, is denied here, since

_ / : ■ - /
maya-sakti and jiva-sakti are not self-sufficient (svayam siddha)
r _ • °

like saktiman brahman.

' / •/
The relation of sakti and saktiman is different also,What
. / ’ X ^
-is necessary for admitting sakti in addition to saktiman if sakti

is by no means separable from saktiman ? Jiva Goswami repudiates

this charge”- iti matarn tu na vedantiriam matam, saty api

vastuni mantradina sakti-siimbhadidarsanat yuktiviruddhancaitat'h

(25)

25. Sarvasamvadini, p. 36
 148 :

Sometimes it is also found that the powers like the burning power

of flame etc. are subdued on account of the influence of some charm

or drug, whereas possessors of powers like flame etc. continue to

/ . .

exist. The good smell (sakti) though inseparably connected with musk

(saktiman) may spread outside also where the musk is not present. It

means that good smell (sakti) may sometimes retain its separate

existence also, beyond its musk (saktiman). On the basis of such a

*

lot of pragmatic instances it.is argued that the relation between

sakti and saktiman is the relation of difference also. As a result

of admitting this relation sakti and saktiman are given different

names. In conclusion - with saktiman sakti is not absolutely non-

different, nor absolutely different and'consequently the relation as

su.ch between abkti and saktiman is both difference and. non-difference.

This is the novel doctrine of Bengal vaisnavites - the novel Vedanta

doctrine of bheda.bheda or difference - non-difference strongly based

on the two other doctrine, i.e. the doctrine of nonrduality (advaya)

and that of power (sakti). Jiva Goswami's views on advayatattva and

/
saktitattva are reflected thus in his works - -

" advayam iti tasya a^handatvam nirdisyanyasya tadanyatva-

* - ^ O ~ . .
vivaksaya tacchaktitvam evangikaroti " (26)

and ” kidrsamatmanam ? svarupakhy.ajivakhyamayakhyasak.tinam

asrayam (27)
- -w - . /

Jiva Goswami elaborates clearly the vaisnava sakti-tattva in

his Sarvasamvadini vvith the help of so many - examples. The burning

in
power of a red hot iron balb extrinsic whereas that of the flame is

intrinsic. It means that power is always entangled-and entangled

inseparably with the'possessor of power. According to Jiva Goswami

z' / ■
sakti and saktiman remaining inseparably related constitute one

entity — one reality- not the separated to entities or two separated

^. ->• •
realities. The subtle philosophical acumen of Jiva Goswami is that

26. Jiva Goswami, Bhaktisandarbha, chapter VI

27. Ibid, chapter VII

 : ‘ 149 :
/ / . ' . • . .
saktiman is substantive (visesya) and its sakti is its
• o
/
attribute (visesana) constitute one concrete thing. The
Op

theory of non-duality along with that of sakti as thought of

by Bengal’s vaisnava philosopher Jiva Goswami stands firmly

o o

thus : The substantive “and the group of attributes, the substance

and the group of powers are inseparably aspects of one concrete

thing. How is it logically intelligible as well as acceptable

that such relation can stand as both difference (bheda) and non­

difference. (abheda)? How the two contradictory difference and

non-difference can reside together in one? Bengal Vaisnavas

answer -- That is why this relation is deemed by the Vaisnavas

as logically inconceivable, (acintya). Here takes birth the

V-. •

unique-and unprecedented theory of . logical inconceivability

(acintya tattva) of Bengal's vaisnava-vedanta school - as if a

to

new additional prefix to the long - going archaic doctrine of. -

bheda-abheda. \~

To lay the strong foundation of this metaphysical belief .

the vaisnava philosophers like all other philosophers eastern

■ s *

and western necessarily resort to epistemology, the theory.

of knowledge (pramana-tattva) which is according to the western

philosophers is one of the most- important and indispensable

member of the big family of.philosophy. The western philosophers

go a step further.'They consider that true metaphysics must be'

preceded by epistemology. D.M. Dutta remarks — "In western'

* ^ ’
philosophy since the days of Kant, a decided right of precedence

has been accorded to the problems and theories of knowledge,

and metaphysics has come to be built, on the results of epistemo­

logical analysis" (28) But in Indian.phylosophy this is not so.

28. D.M.Dutta, six ways of knowing, 8x p. 31.

 : 150. :
\ i

In Indian philosophy there is not absolute necessity of epis­

temology being precedent of metaphysics. In Indian philosophy

metaphysics has generally preceded epistemology. On Indian /•

soil "philosophy springs/from spiritual disquiet at the existing

order of things” (29) The Indian philosophers with a view to

unveil.ing the mys'tery behind began the study of Reality and

consequently it is metaphysics, not epistemology which dawns

first the mind of Indian philosophers. To know ‘Reality1 is

the first and spontaneous inclination of their mind.. Later oh,

in natural course of their philosophical pursuit for reality,

they gradually lean towards the study of knowledge.. In Indian

philosophy there is no hard and fast rule that epistemology must

precede metaphysics as the western philosophers think.

But still the Indian philosophers must not be misunderstood

that they ignore epistemology, on the contrary, they think that

the edifice of metaphysics itiust be built on the solid rock of

epistemology. How the study of metaphysics is bifurcated to the

chanel of epistemology in natural course may be evinced from '

Vedanta Paribhasa, an unparalleled epistemological monographic

work from the standpoint of Sankara vedanta where we find that

the study of reality is- immediately but necessarily being

v '• ■
followed by the study of knowledge
— w <•—' __
iha khalu dharmarthakmamoks&khyesu
* <0
caturvidhapurusarthesu
° ’ o • ' *

i • ... • —

moksa eva paramapurusarthah ....... . sa ca brahma-jteanat'

& o a*

iti brahma, tajjnanam/ ca'tatpramanam ca sapraparTcam nirupyate

© © « o .

tatra pramayah karanam pramanam (30) ■

.r •. „ O t> ’

29. Dutt & Chatterjee, An introduction to Indian philosophy, p.15

30. Dharmarajaradhvarindra vedanta Paribhasa, Chapter-I

S
 : ,-,151 :

The epistemological study in Indian philosophy, with the

rivetted eye to discover the prameya padartha, ' comprises, the study

of prama (valid knowledge}, pramana (means of valid knowledge) and

pramanya (validity of knowledge). Prameya or reality, however

o .

conceived differently in the different schools of Indian philosophy

is nothing but the object of. prama, the valid knowledge (pre means

prakrs&a or valid and ma means knowledge). But prama of prarneya

o c?

is possible only through some means which are called pramana -

(pramayah karanam pramanam), and the study of epistemology in

Indian philosophy is mainly the study of pramana', and therefore in

Indian philosophy pramanatattva is the synonym of the western

©

terminology ’epistemology*. ' .

Regarding the number of pramanas epistemologists of Indian

philosophy disagree with one another as exhibited in (l) Tarkika-

raksa of Varadarajcu” pratyaksam ekam carvakah” (31) etc. There the

© O' o 0

statement "abhavasasthany etani bhatta vedantinas tatha” means

* & «* © t) o,

that the vedantins and.the followers of Kumarila Bhatta are the

C ©

advocates of six pramanas — perception (pratyaksa), inference

° a
• S .
(anumana), verbal testimony (sabda), comparison

(upamana), postulation (arthapatti) and non“Cognition(anupalabdhi).

But it is queer that Jiva GosvJami, the chief exponent of ^:he

philosophy of Bengal vaisnavism which originally adhers to Vedanta

o©
system of Indian philosophy is non-commital of the number of

pramanas.
© He only opines that the pramanas
© as perception etc are
9
not considered adequate to determine para mart ha', the supreme

reality, since these are all defective and unreliable. Baladeva

Vidyabhusana comments on' the passage.of Tattvasandarbha —

o © .'
“tatas tani na pramanani. tato .bhramadidosayogat, tani pratyaksadin

paramarthapramakaranani na bhavanti.” (32) ,

/
31. Varadaraja, Tarkika_jcaksa,.p,
to
56

3'2. Tattvasandarbha, p.10

 c

: 152 : .
Only sabda or the Veda should be relied upon, because the Veda

is free from all sorts of error, deception,'unrealiability and

/ ■ -
insufficiency of the senses etc. Sabda alone is regarded.as

the only.valid pramana - veda evasmakam ........... vastu-

vividisatam pramanam (33) . * .

But by this the Bengal vaisnavas do not mean that other pramanas

are totally neglected. They mean that these pramanas can claim

to be the means of valid knowledge,- only if these are subsidiary

_ / -

to the Vedas. As. for example, arthapatti, especially srutarthapatti

(the fifth pramana) has been accepted vyith fullest, zeal and

adoration to make their metaphysical foundation more stable and

durable with the help of scriptural testimony (srutipramana).

Following Mimamsakas (both Prabhakara and Bhatta schools) and -

Vedahtins v/ho accept postulation as dintinctive pramana postula­

tion or arthapatti may be explained thus: Arthapatti is the

necessary supposition of a fact which is unperceived in order to e

explain a particular phenomenon which is perceived and at the same

time which demands explanation (34). This process of explaining

an otherwise inexplicable phenomenon by the affirmation of the

explaining fact^is called arthapatti. Kumarila Bhatta ia his

o Q
/ ' .

Slokavarttika explains thus

"pramanasatkavijnato yatrartho nanvatha bhavet

adrstam kalpayed aiiyam sarthapattir udahrta . (35)

. ^ ^ .

Salikanatha, the follower of Prabhakara -

Mimamsa school explains thus

vina kalpanayarthena drstenanupapannatam

nayata drstam artham ya sarthapattis tu kalpana (36)

t » c

33.. Jiva Goswami, Ibid p. 21

34. Dutta Chatterjee, An introduction to Indian philosophy p.372

35. Kumarila Bhatta, Arthapatti chapter verse 1.

o o
f - _ ^

36. Salikanatha Prakaranapancika, p. 113

 : 153 s

Prof. D.M. Dutta clearly explains the nature of postulation or

arthapatti thus "When a known fact cannot be accounted for without,

another fact, we have to assume or postulate the existence of that

other fact. This process, -in which knowledge of the fact to be

explained leads to the knowledge of the fact that explains it, is

called arthapatti. The etymological meaning of the word''arthapatti'

is the assumption, supposition, or postulation of a fact ” (37)

Artha means fact, and apatti means kalpana or supposition.

This is the. etymological meaning of arthapatti. The utility of

arthapatti has been explained further - (l) In fact, all necessary

indispensable suppositions, such as power or potential energy in

things necessary for explaining their facts, the law of karma

■ " \

necessary .for explaining the. ..otherwise,- inexplicable -good and bad

lucks of persons and the existence of god for explaining the distri­

bution of fruits in accordance with an individual’s actions, etc.

are cases of Arthapatti” (38)- .

Dharmarajaddhvarindra explains arthapatti thus •

upapadyajnanena upapadakakalpanam arthapattih (39)

\ °

The Mimamsakas and also the Vedantins accept two kinds of

arthapatti-drstarthapatti and srutarthapatti. Former is employed to

* o o

explain something which is perceived such, as fatness in a man who

is fasting by day.

To reconcile the two contradictory facts fatness.(pinatva) and

fasting (abhunjanatva) in De^adatta, the fact of his eating at

night is postulated. Fatness is upapadya and eating at night is

upapadaka. The author of Vedantaparibhasa-states - yatha ratri-

• o

- -- ^ — - /
bhojanena vina diva abhunjanasya pinatvam anupapannam iti tadrsam

pinatvam upapadfjyam, yatha va ratribh@janasyabhave tadrsapinatvasya

anupapattih iti ratribhoja^am ttxxracfcrxbhajaHasyabhsrscgxfca upapadakam

(40) Srutarthapatti is employed to explain the meanings of words, .

37. D.MJDutta, six ways of knowing,•p.237

38. D.M.Dutt, Ibid, p.246

t

39. Vedanta paribhasa, p.144

t -

40. Ibid, p. 145 •

 . ' . : = 154 s

and this is again of two kinds abhidfaananupapatti and .

•abhihitanupapatti. Jiva Goswami accepts abhihitanupapatti type

of srutarthapatti. The example is like this : The scriptural

declaration is that by performing the jyotistoma sacrifice one can

go to heaven (svargakamo jyotistomena yajeta). Here some lasting

Bo -
' ' f

unperceived merit termed as apurva generated by that sacrifice

must be. assumed otherwise how can it be so that sacrifice, which

is momentry., can be the cause of one's life in heaven, . unless it

is. assumed that it leaves some lasting merit behind while passing

away - atra svargasadhanasya ksanika jagatasya anupapattya

madhyavarttyapurvam kalpyate. (41) -

In the empirical world the.existence of powers in things is

known only by arthapatti pramana and not by any other pramanas

like perception and inference. Neither perception, nor inference

nor so -any other pramanas can tell us i*/hy sugar is sweet'. The

power of generating sweetness lying in the thing sugar must be

postulated through arthapatti pramana otherwise how can we say

that sugar is sweet ?_ Similarly how can w.e say that quinine

is bitter, tamarind is sour ? Visnupurana

0
declares
- 0 ^ -
’
/ _____ .

saktaya^i sarvabhavanam

acintyajnanagocarah (42)
f.

The difference-noh-difference relation between sakti and.

f — ■ - *

saktiman3i.e>;i the thing possesing power is acintya. The acintya-

tattva in-the" vaisnava metaphysics generally means "the doctrine

o o

of logically inconceivavility" but in Indian epistemological

terminology it is nothing but arthapatti pramana of the Indian -

o

philosophers. Jiva Goswami explains thus s "loke sarvesam

,* <* o
___ ■_/
bhavanam pavakasya usnatasaktivad acintyais cintayitum a#kyah
Cs O O . A. .

kevalarthapattijnanagocarah" (43). Similarly the difference-

o
• . ■ ■ ’ i i -

non-difference relation between sakti and saktiman Brahman is to

41. Vedantaparibhasa, p.148 o'

42. Visnupurana, 1/3/2

43. Kramasandarbha on Bhagava'ta XI, III, 37

 : 155 :

be conceived only by one pramana and that is arthapatti, and to be

/ /
more specific, it is srutarthapatti and abhihita' type of srutarthapatti

since as Jiva' Goswami,explains the aforesaid relation between sakti

;' - / ... ' / _
(Jiva-sakti .etc.) on one hand and saktiman Bhxx Brahman on the other

can only be understood through a lot of scriptural evidences like

sruti and smrti.

©
To be more clear, Jiva Goswami
'
has justified.thei
/ _
use of ’acintya’ by means of srutarthapatti. type of arthapatti

backed by scriptures. But the advocates of Bengal Vaisnavism school

following Jiva Goswami, besides sruits, also- includes some puranas

like Bhagavata as having equal status of authentic testimony like

sruti. The scriptural evidences are as following :

parasya saktirvibidhaiva

sruyate (44)

brhac ca tad divyarn acintyarupam (45)

° ■

. .
acintyah sa atma sa vijneyah (46)

hrt-pundarikam virajam visuddham t .

O © o • 0 6

' .. S . s'
vicintya madhyok visadam visokam ' ■
4 & -
acintya'mavyaktam anantarupam- (47) . '

apanipado’yam acintya-saktih (48)

o

acintyarupam divyam

sarvesvaram acintvam asariram (49)

kavim puranam anusasitaram

sarvasya dhataram acintyarupam (50)

/ • -

A good number of sruti-passages may be quoted to- show how two

contradictory things may reside in one Supreme and this is logically

inconceivable apanipadojavano grahita pasyatyacaksuh sa srtojotyakarnah

” , , Boo. 0 °

/>d— ■ - —■
sa vetti vedyam
* © na ca tata?asti.
vetta '
: tam ahur agryam purusam py®*s&m mahant.am " (51)

/
44. Svetasvaropanisad, 6/8
v

45. Mundakopanisad, 3/1/7

o 0 *

46. Mandukyopanisad, 7
* ' ■ 6 1) t

47. Kaivalyopanisad, 1/6 •

48. Ibid, 2/21 ^
49. Subalopanisad, 8
50.. Gita± 8/9 ’
51, Svetasvata-ropanisad 3/19, 20
 "tad ejati tan naijati tad dure tad antike (52)

tad an&arasya•sarvasya tadu sarvasyasya vahyatah "

All these sruti passages are conspicuous to show how

/ / • •
saktiman'Brahman's sakti is logically inconceivable. Smrti passa­

ges quoted below are :

at®rkya-sahasra_saktih (53)
* ' Cy . '
tasmai samunnaddha-viruddha-saktaye

namah parasmai- purusaya vedhase (54)

c o

acintyah^chalu ye bhavah na tamstark'ena yojayet (55)

Even Sankaracarya, the chief exponent of absolute monism

/ ' . -

speaks highly of this aci.ntya sakti of saktiman Brahman.in his

t_ — ■ w c. s 2 , __ _
sariraka - commentary on Brahaaasutra-srutes tu sabdamulatvat
• ‘ _ _ / _ (2,1.27)-
"laukikanam api manimantraasadhiprabhrtinam desakalanimitta-
’ I - - .
vaicitrya-vasat saktayo viruddhanam anekakarya-vigaye drsyante,
„ _ - / ■' ^
ta api tavan nopadesam ant&rena6
ke’galena tarkena
t»
avagantum
‘£>
sakyante

...... acintyaprabhavasya brahmano rupam Vina sabdena nirupyate

° o

tathahuh pauranikah acintyah khalu ye bhava na tamstarkena

yojayet prakrtibhyah parafn yac . ca tad. acintyasya lakganam iti

_ n S . MM, T* MM. > ( O
tasmat sabdamula eva atindriyartha yathatmyadhigamah (Sankara -

commentary, 2.1.27)

Govindananda1s Ratnaprabha sub-commentary runs thus : "yada

laukikanam pratyaksa-drstanam api saktir acintya, tada sabdaika-

■samadhigamyasya brahmanah kimu vaktavyam "

To quote from Visnupurana :

o t> *

yatdto brahmanas tasu

o
_ _ _ ; .
sargadya bhavasaktayah

bhavanti tapatam srestha

pavakasya yathosnata (56)

s

/ -/ ■
52. Svetasvataropanisad 3/19,20.
—/ *
53. Isopanisad, 5
54. Bhagavatapurana, 3/33/3 /
55. Ibid, 4/17/33
56. Mahabharata, 6/23/17
 157:
Even the staunch dualist Madhvacarya stresses on the-incon­
ceivability of power, of Brahman":- .
. /
na ca isvarapakse ayam virodah.,--sabdamulatvat ca na
yuktivirodah (57)
Sb how the two incompatible categories of difference-and
non-difference can belong to one and^the same thing is not a
oroblem for the Bengal vaisnava philosophers, since that one
e> o
/• — ' - ' /

saktiman posseses a gMjsraHxk supra-natural sakti which should be

- ' ^ J _ ' ' ■

known as virodha-bhanjika sakti - the supramundane power of

breaking, i.e. reconciling the so-called contradiction. The
- / -t
versified recast of this virod’navanjika sakti of saktiman
Brahman is- to be sought in Srimanmaha-*prabhu siksa :-
virodhabharijikasaktiyuktasya saccidatmanah
■ vartante yugapaddharmah ,parasparavirodhinah (58) and
also in SrisamksepaSbhagavatamrta :
© © ®
ekatvam ca 1prthaktvam
e» ’
t> e
ca
■ - / • _ ■
tathamsatvam
o
utamsita
c

tasminnekatra nayuktam .
acintyanantasaktitah (59)
The reconcilation of the above-mentioned contradiction which
is logically inconceivable indeed can also be examplified :.
mayatatajmidam sarvam • .
jagad avyaktamurtina .; '
matsthani sarvabhutani • .
na eahamtesv
O
avasthitah6
- -r ' ^ Sr.
na ca matsthani bhutani pasya me yogam aisvar^m
bhutabhrn na ca bhutastho mamitma bhutabhavanah (60) •

57. Madhvacommentary, 2/1/27 • ’ '

58. Gaurkishor Bhaktivihod, 4/38
59. ^ri Rupagoswami, Laghubhagavatamrta,,p.149
o
60. Gita , 9/4 ,5 '
 V

: 158

This acintyatattva in the doctrine of acintyabhedabheda was first,

declared by Lord Cai tanyadeva in fifteenth century and.it has

attaind^ fullest culmination at the hands of Goswami Brothers of

Bengal Sri Rupa Goswami, Sri Sanatana Goswami, and. their nephew Sri.

Jiva Goswami in the,loth century A. D., Sri Sanltana Goswami in

. Brhadhhagavatamrta and Vaisnavato.sahi, Sri Rupa Goswami in

0 o ^e>o & a

Samksepabhagavatamrta, Sri Jiva Goswami.in his Sandarbha treatises

* o o

and Sarvasamvadini have elaborated further the theory of acintya in

o " \ ' •
negative sense t* that which cannot be determined by logic or reason.

Sridharasvami in the commentary of Visnupurana says - acihtyam tarka-

saham yaj - jnanam, the knowledge which cannot stand tarka or logic

(cf Brahmasutra tarkapratisthanat -—2/1/11). Sankarecarya also

realises the insufficiency and utter inability of logic to establish

'the Supreme Reality (para-tattva), .

So he comments : (2/1/11)
. “itas^ ca nagamagamye arthe kevaQena tarkena pratyavasthatavyam.

yasman niragamah purusotpreksamatranibandhanas tarkah apratisthita

bhavanti, utpreksaya nirankusatvat, tatha, hi kaiscid abhiyuktair/

1,

yatnena utpreksitastarka^abhiyuktatarairanyaih rebhasyamana drsyante;

tair api utpreksitah santa'statonyair ahhasyanta iti na pratisthitatvam

* co • . ■ o o ©

tarkanam sakyam asrayitum, purusamativairupyat” (6l)

But unlike Sridharasvami, Sri Jiva Goswami takes ‘acintya’

absolutely in the positive s&nse and explains it as durghataghatakatvam

• . - o o

hy acintyatvam (62)

The best scriptural example of this durghataghatarsidhika acintya

pakti is Talavakariya-kenopanisad - where we find the su'pramundane

power of Absolute is inconceivable even for the divineMties like

_ , - '

Agni, Aftc Vayu etc. — tasmai trnara.

o o o
nidadhavaetad daheti tadupaprey'aya
/ /_ ••

sarvajayjena tan na sasaka dagdhum &&. tata eva nivavrte naitad ■

* ' o

asakat vijnatum yad etad yaksam iti (63)

61. Brahmasutra, 2/1/11

62. Bhagavatasandarbha,, chapter XVI
63. - Kenopanisad, 3/10. .
 159 :
/
Nor should the doctrine' of acintya be mistaken as Sankara’s

anirvacya tattva which pinpoints the indescribable nature of

-w— — — A
Maya, as Maya, by nature, is indescribable both as sat as asat—

sad asadbhyam anirvacyam. So in the school of Vaisnava Vedanta

thinkers acintya is not anirvacya, but sabdapramanavedya and the

edifjice of acintya bhedabhedatattva with the strong epistemo­

logical foundation of the pramana -of srutarthapatti stands

o’ -

with, its victorious and glorious pinac'le erect.

In this context acintyabhedabheda doctrine of the Gaudiya -

vaisnava school of Bengal as. developed by Goswami Brothers,

°° _ / o
especially by Jiva- Goswami, must be distinguished from Sankara -

monism so far as advayajnanatattva is concerned, since this

/

identical phrase has been accepted and used by the latter also.

According to Sankara mohists, Brahman is knowledge itself,

1 . /
without sakti,. for if the existence of sakti in Brahman is
/ ■ ■

admitted, then sakti as an extra entity different from Brahman

is to be admitted. This goes against monism. But according to

Jiva Goswami,' Brahmari can be advaya-tattva inspite of posse-

• / /
sing sakti, since there is no- duality as such between sakti

and saktiman.)According to.Jiva Goswami Bhagavat is the ultimate

i
reality and Brahman, is the undifferentiated (nirvisesa) state

of Bhagabhat. It has been correctly stated "Brahman is unqualifi

ed but Bhagavat is infinitely qualified by an infinity of-

blessed and perfect attributes. In Bhagavat all the saktis are

energized into a dynamic state, while in Brahman they remain

in a potential state. Therefore, Brahman, is not predictable as

a ’knower', though he is essentially knowledge, but Bhagavat

being in possesion of activated saktis is omniscient, omnipotent

etc.” (64) But the Paramatman who comes between is the inner-

controller, possesor of adequate maya-sakti and a part of cit-

sakti "kevalam. jnanam brahmeti. sabdyate (65)

64. A.K.Mazumder Caitanya his life and doctrine, p.273

65. Bhagavatasandarbha , chapter VI

 : 160 :
To know acintya theory more distinctively Vallabha‘s

suddhadsaita or pure non-dualism also must have to be studied.-

"Vallabha too like the Vaisnava Goswamins rejects Sankara’s doctrine

» o “

of Maya and thereafter falsity of the world.-According to Vallabha

Brahman is.saccidananda. The finite souls and the inanimate world are

essentially one with Brahman and have no separate existence. "This

the relation between Brahman-and the finite■souls, according to

Vallabha, is neither the relation of a real substrate to an indescri­

bable appearance, nor the relation of a substantive, to an adjective

qualifying it, .but the relation of the unlimited to the limited. (66).

5dMs He does not believe, as Ramanuja does, that jiva is an adjective

of Brahman, but it is. consubstantial with Brahman. Like Ramanuja,.

Vallabha views Brahman as a whole and the finite selves are parts.

But, being off the track of Ramanuja, he strongly opines that the-

finite souls (jivatma) are "identical essence" with the whole Brahman

- The pivotal point of acintya-bhedabheda i-s the relation between

Brahman and jiva which has been clearly expressed by the scriptural

statement "that tat tvam asi" - "That^Thou art" occurring in

^ehanfilLogya upanisad. Monist Vedantin Sankara takes this scriptural

text as anouncing identity in toto between jiva and Brahman.

Subsequent Sankara-followers establish this identity by deducting the

two incompatible determinants ’tat*, the individual and ’tvam1 the

universal and retaining the common factor caitanya, the- consciousness

This is the case of jahat-ajhat-laksana. Ramanuja, the exponent of

o ■ ©
/ •
visistadvaita^-doctrine explains the scriptural statement as saying
o ©•

that the two. terms tat add tvam .which are differently qualified but

are the same at bottom. According to the Madhvas, the scriptural

text tat tvamasi does not mean identity between Brahman and jiva. It

simply means that the jiva has for its essence qualities similar to

those of Brahman. Madhvas being Vedavadins_analyse the scriptural

statement thus "sa atma atat tvarn asi" meaning "that (universal

soul) thou.art not ", Vallabha holding the view of pure identity

between jiva and Brahman interprets the scriptural text as

•implying real non-difference between jiva and. Brahman, since

in the state of liberation, the soul becomes one'with Brahman,

But according to acintya-^edaisfpdavadins it is the relation of

priti (love) between the individual soul (jiva) and the ultimate

reality (Brahman). According to the Gaudiya-vaisnavas, tat tvam

asi is not a mahavakya (one of the four great scriptural'

statements) rather it is a partial, truth, where as pranava, i.e.
✓ o

the mystic syllable ' aum* is really the essential basis of the

Veda's. •
While winding up.the discussion on acintya-bhedabheda

doctrine of the neo-vaisnava school, the contribution of Valadeva

o t> . . ,

vidyabhusana belonging to eighteenth century must also be taken

O o

into consideration Baladeva Vidyabhusana has summarised the

o o

principal views of the system of Bengal Vaisnavism in his

Pram'eya-ratnavali and accepted the fun__damental principles of

Bengal Vaisnavism in. his Govindabhasya and Siddhantaratnavaii.
• ^ o o O • *

Bhiadeva was influenced to some extent by Madhva as he emphasized

- / -

the difference of isvars, jiva and the world from 'one another.

But still he introduced the concept of visesa in.suksma-

© •

commentary oh Govindabhasya of the Brahmasutra 3/2/31 |o

p

explain difference into non-difference. By'introducing the category

of Visesa, while explaining acintya sakti he has made himself

distinctive and different from his predecessor Vrndavana Goswamins.

' *• * o
• ' / ~

No doubt he has borrowed the category of visesa from Madhava

" - o ^

system, still it is exposed that he got the idea of visesa

 162 :

through his teacher Radha Damodara, the author of the vedanta

/ 7"
syamantaka who introduced the category of visesa in Gaufliya Vaisnavism

to explain acintya s'akti. A modern scholar throws light on visesa thus

....visesa is not exactly a difference, yet it performs the func­

tions of a difference and produces the consciousness of a difference

where really none exists” (67) This is practically the definition

given by Jayatirtha and is exactly this definition which Baladeva us.ed

when he tried to explain on a logical basis the exact" nature of the

Supra-logicality (acintya) and tva The author further states that

visesa, according to Radha Damodara and Baladeva is a substitutive and

- D

demonstrative difference, and key to the power by which there is a

■ /

realization of difference in non-difference, and this power of visesa

, D

is inherent in the Lord, who as Bhagavat, exhibits Himself as the

Brahman and paramatman.

But what is the nature of a ultimate release of jivahood as

prescribed, in acintya-bhedabheda Gaudiya school? In Buddhistic

doctrine the ultimate release is indefinable nirvana; In monist

doctrine the ultimate release is an absolute identity with Brahman in

an iridefinable state. But in the doctrine of acintyabhedabheda

Gaudiya Vaisnava of Bengal the ultimate release of jiva is his

identity with Brahman --- not in an indefinable state —~ but in

a state of immortal but equally indefinable state of.bliss —

67. A.K.Mazumder, Caitanya his life and doctrine, p, 271

 : 163 :

Now it is to be examined whether and how far this novel doctrine

of acintya-bhedabheda of Bengal - vaisnava-vedanta,has been able to

influence Caitanya literature, especially.Caitanya Bhagavata of

Vrindavana Dasa. But before this it would be wise to have a recape-

©
lulation of personal life of Sri Caitanya (see chapter II) and also

the vast treasure of precious Caitanya literature developed during and

after the life-time of Lord Sri Caitanya®

If. we are to keep any reliance upon those-who attained fame

-

as biographers of Sri'Caitanya who lived almost around the latter, we

have to note most reluctantly that there was a deplorable decadance

of both social and. religious life of Bengal. The politico-religious

life of the Hindu-society of Bengal was mostly disturbed and unsafe

.during the Muslim rule in Bengal in the medieval period. What Is more,.

the deppotic exercise.of power of the alien rule, accompanied by the:

< ' ' _
severe tyrannical oppression of the dominant brahmanism with its

conservative outlook and imperious spirit added, to .the worsening

of the situation. Minor laukika cults, such ss those of manasa",

Daksina Raya, Dharmathakura etc. prevalent in the society at-that

O o o

time, tenets and preactices by the degraded Buddhism and Tantricism,

Sahajiya and Nathism all these exercised a tremendously debasing

influence on the, ethnic life of Bengal "The times were such as needed
• - / -

a reformer and saviour" (68) Lord Sri Caitanya appeared as a reformer

and saviour In such an abnormally chaotic condition of Bengal in

the fifteenth century. /

From the most valuable materials, chiefly literary, for the

study of Caitanya’s life and his philosophical gospels, it is

/- • . . - /
known that Sri Caitanya whose'earlier name was Visvambhara the tenth
/ / _ - _

child of Jagannath Misra and Sachidevi, was born in the year 1486

A.D. at Navadvipa. During boyhood Caitanya possessed "extraordinary

precocity of intellect", and he proved himself a' "youthful prodigy,

mastering all branches of learning at the age of fifteen".

68. S.K.De., Early history of Vaisnava Faith and Movement in

Bengal, p. 29 **

{1

/
 : 164- :
' . - ' . /:
In childhood he.was sent to Visnu pandits and ,Sudarsana for elemen-

tary education and then to. Gangldasa^who was chiefly a grammarian,

s' •

for more advanced studies, While Visvambhara was still a student

his father died. He married and became a householder, set- up a p

pathasala where he got a number of students. His two orthodox

o . „ . '

biographers Vrndavana . and Easnadasa in their Caitanya-bio.graphical

r • .«»»_•
works Caitanya Bhagavata and Caitanya Caritamrta respectively ..
o

give vivid description of his dialectic exploits and scholastic , -

triumph "But a great change swiftly came over the even tenure

of his life, and when it came, it swept him.off with .its over-
^ - v
whelming for.ce" (69) Visvambhara dr Caitanya visite^ the . /
- i '

Visnu’pada temple at Gaya on the occasion of the sraddha.ceremony

.o o '

of .his father. The holy surroundings of the temple moved him

deeply and as a result his whole religious-outlook underwent a

complete change. At the mere mention of Gaya he would burst into-

tears.
■ '' ■ ' / -
After this startling incident Sri Caitanya, initiated with
Krsnamantra by Isvara Puri, came back to Navadwipa as a completely
“ - / - •
changed person. From this time onward Sri Caitanya abandoned all

pedantic_ a-s well as-worldly interests, "His attainments and

position in Navadvipa made him a very desirable accession to

the'Krsna faith, and. these together with the character of his

Poo

Bhakti made him the natural leader of the Vaisnava community.

. * 0.
The reading of the Vaisnava scriptures and signing of the name

of Krsna (i.e. samkirtana) in the evening were the.-redeeming

features of the daily programme of Vaisnavite believers of that

\ ■ ° o .

time (70). This overwhelming.change in him became the talk of

the town —

69. . S.C.Mukherjee, A study of Vaisriavism in ancient and

, medieval Bengal,, p. 75

70. Ibid, p. 166

 parama adbhut k'atha maha asambhava •
nimai pandit haila pararna vaisnava (71) ,

" This is most queer and extremely absurd incident that

Nimai Pandit has become great Vaisnava. ",

A- ■' .

But Lord Caitanya'.s uproarous neos-vaisnavi.sm movement was en­

countered with a fatal jolt from the proud.and orthodox Brahmam

■ ■ V_
scholars and Muslim' rulers. Sri Caitanya' under these odd stubborn

circumstances was. compelled to follow the path of sannyasi,'

y _ • ‘ :
Kesava bharati initiated him, as a sannyasi under the name of
/- '
Srikrsna
' ° o 0
Caitanya when he was only twenty-four years old—

cabbis vatsar ses yei magh mas ,

tar suklapakse prabhu karila sannyas.

t*
"At the end of his, twentyfourth year* in the'month of Magha,

Lord (Caitnya) entered sannyas a1 stage during the bright fort-,

night" (72)
■ i
Shortly after this he visited.venerable Advahta1s house at

Santipur, started for Puri and then went on a tour of southern

and western India. Kavi Karnapura. in his Mahakavya (XII, 94)

described that Caitanya stayed only eighteen days at Puri before

he set out for his southern pilgrimage. During his tour at South

India Caitanya discovered two-vaisnava

C c
works, viz. Krsnakar-
» o «

namrta (which is made by a member of the Nimbarka sampradaya),

.and Brahmasamhita "The passionate theme of the 'religion of love'

treated, in the Brahmasamhita and Krsnakarnamrta deepened and

° OC 0 ^ ° o ■

clarified by the vivid experiences of Sri Caitanya, marked.the

beginning of a definite.theological development " (73.)

After his south India tour Caitanya visit ed, Vrndavana. The
©

recovery of the sacred sites of Vrhdavana by the Bengal Vaisna-

O fc 6

vas is one of the most interesting events, in the history of

- /~ „ •
Gaudiya vaisnavism..Sri Caitanya directed Sanatana and Rupa,

71. Caitan^abhagavata, madhya khanda

72. Krsnadasa•Kaviraja Sri Caitanya Caritamrta, Madhyakhanda
73. S/CfMukherjee, ibid, p.168. ; -
 166

his two new disciples to make Vrndavana an acadmic and'religions

centre of his faith, of neo-vaisnavism. T-he'period round about

o 0 .

15l4 A.D. is most remarkable for the history of neo-vaisnavismi

x- ■
faith of Sri Caitanya when Lord Sri Caitanya’ converted the'
■ . ■ _ _ A* '

renowned y
Advaita Vedantist.
'
Prakasananda
;
to • Krsnabhakti.-
d,» «

Lord Sri Caitanya permanently -settled at Puri. In the words

of S.K.De "To the faithful the last twelve years of his life

consist of any orgy of devotional passion, of an exclusive madness

. ' t '

of divine love (premonmada}" (74)

• , /
This is the short life- sketch of Lord .Sri Caitanya as ;found

in the different authors works on the-basis of the materials

gleaned mainly from literary biographi-cal treatises of different

/ -
devout scholars initiated in Lord Sri Caitanya’s unparalleled

neo-vaisnavism. :

The. earliest available work (in Sanskrit) on Caitanya’s

life is Sri Krsna Caitanya-Caritamrta or simply Caitanya-caritamrta

*00- O $

by Murari Gupta. It is also known as Kadca or a brief biographical

/ account consisting of four, prakramas* and seventyeight cantos. This

work chiefly deals with the early years of' Caitanya’s life.'

through much later, but the most authoritative Bengali biography

by Krsna Das Kaviraj refers to this work , ; "•

adililamadhya prabhur yatak caritra •

sutrarupe .murari gupta.karila granthita

"Murari Gupta recorded all the biographical incidents of .

Lord in the form of aphorism in' the Adilila « • • '

Kavikarnapura based his Caitanya caritamrta ka.vya on Murari

Gupta’s Kadca, ’’It is extremely valuable as the earliest record

written by a close'associate, and in epite of its pious attitude,

it gives a vivid and somewhat human account, not too much over­

laid with theology, of the Navadvipa period of Caitanya’s life,

for which it is, with Vrndavanadasa’s biography, the best and most
o -

74. S.K.De, ibid, p.' 102-

 167

authoritative source

• Krsna dasa Kaviraja refers to-another biographical work, i.e. .

*'*’*>. .
that"of: Svarupa Damodara, although the work is lost. Next come

Caitanya-Caritamrta Mahakavya in'twenty cantos, composed nine

© •

years after CaitanyaVs death and also a drama Caitanyacandrodaya

" S—* * —^

few, years later by Paramananda Kavikarnapura as the two -most valuable

biographical works. Save, the two great stalwart-biographers

Vrndavana Dasa and Krsnadasa Kaviraja, worihmentioning smaller bio-

e> o o e> •

* • O —

graphics of Caitanya are only few. The Caitanyamangala of Locanadasa

is one of them. This work is more poetical than historical. - Jayananda’s

biographical work, also known as Caitanyamangala does not follow the.

beaten track, and gives us a few facts or traditions not recorded

elsewhere. Gobindadasa Karmakara’s Kadce. is another interesting

work ofi Lord Cairanya’s holy life. "kadaea kariya rakhi ati sangopane"

"with much secrecy I compose the biographical accounts" clearly

states that the author Govinda Dasa used to keep private notes of

Mahaprabhu with all care and regard.

All these aoove-mentioned Caitanya-biographical' works and the

like are chiefly interested to focus the supre-mundane extra-ordinary

. /- ■
holy life of Lord Sri Caitanya covering multifarious major and'minor

happenings. The authors overwhelmed with the devotional emotion have

mostly exaggerated their narrative while delineating the holy

achievements of. Mahaprabhu. Some of these authors are keen to prove

themselves poets of rare genius, some are interested to pour the

exuberance of sincere devotion for Mahaprabhu and some are eager

to present the incidents centring Lord Caitanya’s life as factual

-as possible. But none of them cares to cater any philosophical

doctrines, any metaphysical or epistemological theories-- all'

deduced from or based on neo-Caitanya vaisnavisrp. It is only the

two starwart works, one of Vrndavana Dasa, arid another of Krsnadasa

D P o ^

Kaviraja which have become conspicous with philosophical character- >

istics and these characteristics, again, are abundantly marked in.

the latter which is "complementary" to the former. But before exami-

ing and establishing this proposition we must try to penetrate

into the nature- of philosophical doctrines, in general or in

 : 168
•

particular, Lord Sri Caitanya himself preached through the gospels,

of.hisneo-Bengal-Vaisnayism. (75) It is known that there were as many

* e> © , .

as ’five’ .sects* of the vaisnavas in pre-Caitanya medieval period

'which v/ere the 'Madhva, the Sri Vaisnava, the Visnusvami., the Mimbar-
c t> o o

kite and the Vallabhacari. The Vaisnava

&
scholars
'
of Bengal
r •
discover
• ' . v
that the sect founded by Caitanya was more or less a branch- of the

Madhva sampradaya. Dr.- u. C. Sen and Kenedy have shown in their works

that Caitanya himself was brought up in Madhva tradition. Prof. Prabhat

Mukherjee has also shown that Caitanya had inclination to Madh^ism and

its.'doctrine and like the Madhvas' the Caitanyaites based their religious.

beliefs on the Srimad Bhagava (76) but as the scholars like Kenedy
✓ .

and S.K.De ..have shown that Caitanya, in course of time, tried to make

a compromise between Sankara-monism and devotional dualism and laid

the foundation of the system knows as acintya-bhedabhedavada.

Among other" salient features of caitanyasim - all more oar. less

centring round the doctrine of acintya-bhedabheda are * lila-’s - the

divine sports of Lord Krspa and his eternal consort Radha.- The ■

.fundamental theory-of Vaisnava Bhakti i.e. Priti, ’joint worship* of

! *
, 0 o
,
- *

Ra&ha and Krsna, the three stages' of gradation of one and indivisible
o o ‘

^reality such as Brahman, Paramatman and the Bhagavat etc. are other

salient features of Caitanyaism.

The greatness of the Caitanya-Caritamrta by Krsnadasa Kaviraja,

o o

the best biographical work on Lord Caitanya (2)** consists not so much
• . . ■ I

in. the literary skill or narrative interest with v/hich the story

of a great - life- is told, as in the profound scholasticism with which

it presents and exemplifies the entire theology of Bengal vaisnavism

© 0

(as propounded'.by the Vrndavana Gosvarnins) in the life of the. Master”.

- ' . ■ * / • (77)
Dr. S.K.De eulogies this superb vaisnaya work by, Krsnadasa Kaviraja
a o o .

by stating thus r”(3) ......... . sometimes, his devotional fancy'' goes to

the extreme limits ox credulity and colours.are to thickly laid.

75. Kenedy, a Study qf Vaisnavism of Bengal, -pp. 6-8

76. Cf. Vangiya sahitya parisat patrika 134 3 3.5, pp 74 ff
77. S.K.De op. cil p. 53
 : 169

This is indeed a common trait, Krsnadasa

o a
achieves smoething more -

•than this. The Vr'ndavana .Goswamins had come and occupied an

0 •

important -position in the, meantime, and they supplied' the necessary

learned theological justification to the naive popular adoration11 (78

So the work of Krsnadasa Kavixaja is more than a biography. It

' o 0 e> .
. -

caters a "complete exposition of .the scholastic-theological pre­

suppositions of Bengal Vaisnavism". Theological scholasticity

of .th®s work becomes distinct through' mainly metaphysical, logical j

and epistemological acumen and these are the characteristic features

of this biographical work. But for the influence, of Vrandavana’s

• ■ * ' l , o .

Goswamis, any such scholasticity on-the part of Krsnadasa Kaviraja

be it theological' or philosophical - .might have been Impossible*

Krsnadasa Kaviraja acknowledges the Goswamins of Vrndavana as his’

* 6 6 . ' , a

/ _ " / ■ -

Siksagurus and makes.regardful obeisance to them in almost every

chapter of. his book - , ■ .
srirup, sanatan, bhatta raghunath
- DO

srijig gopal bhatta das raghunath

^ Sj '
, ... ’ s

S -
ei chhoy guru siksaguru ye amar .
. ■> , ' * 9 "
anha.sabar padepadme koti. namas’xar (79)
P -

The instructing' spiritual masters are Rupa, Sanatana, Bhatta

Raghudatha, Srijiva, Gopala Bhatta and Raghunatha" dasa - These six

are my spiritual masters, and therefore I offer millions of respect-

, . ' ' / .. • _ . -
ful obeisances unto their lotus feet. " •

Therefore to evaluate the work Caitanya caritamrta from purely

scholastic philosophical view point we should collect some acquainta­

nces with the contribution of the six Goswamins of Vrndavanas towards

the gradual development of vaisnava philosophy comprising metaphysics

logic?epistemology etc. It is shpouded in doubt whether Sri Caitanya,

the founder of•neo-vaisnavism of Bengal ever wrote any speculative
0 u ^ 1

works to establish his "faith and gospel. To him spiritual realisation

was not a matter of speculative discussion- this.is what.exactly

Mahaprabhu realised.- Krsnadasa, being himself highly trained in
© o b ' *

78. Ibid, p. 54 _ .
79. Caitanyacaritamrta, adilila, chapter 37 *
 % 170 : .

speculative sbfaolasticity,puts in Caitanya's mouth terse phi-.-

.losophical discourses, "even though this picture of Caitanya,as

sastric pandit-is not consistent-with the general impression given

of him in the biography itself as a devoteeof grpat emotional-
capacity, surrendering hirnself more and more t'o rapturous abandon-

,-ment". Caitanya lost all zeal for scholarly pursuits and dialetic
, • ,
disputations. To him Srimad Bhagavata-was the real commentary of,

Brahmasutra., On the six Goswamins of Vrndavana Gopela Bhatta

Rathunatha Bhatta, Raghuriatha Dasa, Rupa Goswami, Sanatana Goswami and

Jiva Goswarni, Mahaprabhu’s immediate, and intimate, disciples fell the

task of systematising the neo-vaisnava doctrines with metaphysics,

logic and also epistemology. The Goswami Brothers - especially

Jiva Goswami sincerely had done this job and the Navadvipa followers

had not. As a result, in' course of time-, -beginning-from the conclu­

ding span of Mahaprabhu*s life-onwards Vrndavana, not Navadvipa - becarr

the intellectual and religious centre of neo-vatsnavism of Bengal.

So it is quite natural that Krsnadasa Kavi'raja belonging to
Vrndavana Goswami school of vaisnavism could successfully uphold

vaisnava
©° metaphysics,-
, logic and partly epistemology
- too in his un-
...
paralleled work Sri Caitanya Caritamrta which are conspicuously
\
flacking in Vrnsdivana Dasa’s Caitanya Bhagavata,-So Dr, S.K.De

states "If Vrndavanadasa’s inspiration came chiefly-from the ortho­

dox circle of Navadvipa, Krsnadasa*s inspiration came from the

* O o. 6 * • •’

scholastic Goswarnins of Vrndavana

v
and each in his own way throws
1 i ' ■ -
interesting light on different aspects of the faith and the movement.

The two works of Vrndavana dasa and Krsnadasa therefore are,in a

i o ep

sense complementary to each other as representing two distinct

traditions" (80). But what is meant by ’circle of Navaawipa to which
. ’ -' \
Vrndavana Dasa belong ? Murari,- Kavikarnapura,
o
Locana, Jayananda

and Vrndavana Dasa make a group .at Navadvipa who were concerned
«s *

with the earlier phase of Caitanya1 s life. Navadvipa tradii)mon

developed earlier than Vrndavana tradition of the ' <.
O
80. S.-K.De , ibid, 'p.57 - d
 : 171 :

GoswamiB and consequently the former was least-effected by.the

latter’s later development of subtler speculative aspect, of

neo-vaisnavism of Lord Caitanya. So it is quite natural that' on-

tological ingredients are amply found in the work of Krsnadasa

belonging to the Vrndavana school, where as, in contrast, these are

o *

.highly lacking in that of Vrndavana Dasa prominently representing the

Navadvioa school -of. neo-vaisnavism of Lord Caitanya. Dr.S.K.De’s v

1 <o o

contemplation that the work of Krsnadasa was complementary to that of

Vrndavana Dasa so far as the soeculative aspect.of Caitanya-vaisnavism

is concerned is fully,corroborated by the statement: "By this

time'several biographical works had already-been written on the life

/ _■
of Sri Caitanya by contemporary and near-contemporary scholars and

devotees. These included Sri Caitanyacarita by Murari Gupta,

Caitanyama^gala by Locana dasa, Thakura and Caitanyabhaga-feata. This

latter text, a work by Vrndavana dasa Thakura, who was then consiberec

the principal authority on Sri Caitanya*s life, was highly revered.

While composing, his important work, Vrndavana Dasa, fearing that it

■would sasapeisx become too voluminous, avoided -elaborately describing

many of the events of Sri Caitanya*s life, particularly the later ones

Anxious to hear of these later pastimes, the devotees of Vrndavana

requested Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami, whom they respected as a great

oo o

saint, to compose a book to narrate these episodes in detail. Upon

this request and with the permission and blessings of the Madana

Mohana Deity of Vrndavana, he began compiling Sri Caitanya-Carita-

©

mrta, which due to its biographical excellence and thorough expo-

0 . ,
sition of Lord Caitanya*s profound philosophy -and teachers, is
/ _
regarded as the-most significant of biographical works on Sri

Caitanya "(81). Some precious pearls of philosophical doctrines of

of Caitanya-Vaisnavisra chiefly the doctrine of ac.intyabhedabheda and

its off-shoot-doctrines .like -the doctrine of pariname (transforma­

tion) etc. apart from mere biographical accounts exaggerating or

~ r— •

non-exaggerating may be gleaned from Caitanyacaritamrta of Krsnadascu.

0 *» o c

81. A.C.Bhaktivedanta^Swami Prabhupada,

Sri Caitanyacaritamrta, p. XXXI
 i

s 172 :

Kaviraja.
„ _
radha purna-sakti krsna purna-saktiman
(? & t? o ef

dui vastu bhed nahi s^stra oaraman .

*' o
• _ mrgamada tar gandha•yaichee aviched
• £> . • ■
agni jvalate yaiche nahi kabhu bhed

radha Krsna aiche sada-ekai svarup'

O £> 0
lila-ras asvadite dhare dui rup (82)

“Sri Radha is. the full power,, and.Lord Krsna is the possessor

of full power. The two are not different, as evidenced.by the revea-

led scriptures. ■ .

They are indeed the same, just as musk and its scent are inse-

parable,' or as fire and its heat are hon-different.

' Thus Radha and Lord Krsna are one, yet they have taken two forras
O O o — x

to enjoy the mellows of . pastimes'*

/ |
In the sakti tattva of Vaisnava philosophy relating to the

original doctrine, the doctrine of■acintyabhedabheda, Radha is

speculated as Krsna’s hladini sakti, but she Is neither a part nor

° / 1
even the prpresentation of the sakti'; she is the sakti herself in
. ■ i- ,
its fullest magnitude or. in other words Sri Krsna Is the Purna-sak-
timafc Radhi is the pJrna sakti.'
; ' 0
For the doctrine of. bhedabheda conspicuously expressed in

Caitanyacaritamrta the following passages and.the like may be ■

consulted : ‘ '

jiver svarup hay krsner nityadas

■ k-rsner tatasthasakti bhedabhed prakas (83)

Oo „ © *

"It is the living entity’s constitutional position to be an

eternal servant of Kr^na, becauser he is the marginal energy of

Krsna and a mainfestation simultaneously one and different from the

* t> o

Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire, Krsna has

0 6s

three varieties of energy". ' • ' - •

82. Caitanyacaritamrta, adilala 4.

83. Ibid, madhyalila, 20

This has been previously stated how the theory of potency

' (saktitattva) as well' as the theory .of transformation (parinama-

vad'a) are inter-woven with the chief doctrine, ’acintya bhedabheda

. of Caitanya Vaisnavism and this can also be examplified through

the passage from.Caitanya Caritamrta ’

parinam vada vyasasutrer .sammata ’■

Q
< , _ ^ '_ ,
acintya saktyfe- isvar jagadrupe parin.ata

mani yaiche avikrta prasave hemab.har - . '

o o

jagadrup hay isvar-tabu avikar (84)

"The Vedanta Cfeims at establishing- the theory that the cosmic

manifestation has come into being by the transformation of the

inconceivable potency of the supreme personality of godhead*

' The touchstone, after touching iron, produces volumes of gold

without being changed. Similarly, the-supreme personality of

godhead manifests himself as the cosmic manifestation by his

inconceivable potency, yet he remains unchanged in his eternal,

transcendental "form
- / ’ -
The threefold sakt-i has been thus established : - . • /
/ '■ __
tin arose cicchakti hay-tin rup
- — . — / -
anandamse hladini sadamse sandhini
0 © o o '
i ^ ~
cidamse sambit yafe jnan kari mani
— /
antaramga cicchaktita. tafe^fia. jivasakti
O • ,

vahiranga maya tine kar'e prembhakti (85)

"The three portions of the,spiritual potency are called

hladini.(the bliss portion), sandhini (the eternity portion) and

samvit (the knowledge portion). We accept knowledge of these as

full knowledge of the supreme .personality of godhead. The spir­

itual potency of the supreme personality of godhead, also,

appears in- three phases - internal, marginal and external. These

are-all engaged in his devotional service in-love."

84. Ibid, madhyalila, Chapter VI ' -

85. Ibid, " « . VII
 : 174 :
The inconceivable energy of Brahman has been versified thus
acintyasaktye kara tumi tahar ghatan
_ O ■
ye k'araha sei kari nahika niyam (86) •
"By your inconceivable.energy you can do whatever you like and
whatever you make me do, I do without restriction".
The basic theory of advaya jnana-tattva (the theory that god is
■non-dual and knowledge itself), .has been well established in the verse
\ U'—v . .
‘ —f

advay jnanatattva krsna svayam bhagavan

O O u O *

/ __
svarupa saktirupe tar hay avasthan (87)
"Krsna himself is non dual knowledge ................ etc. "
OB° , ^
■ But-'let us contemplate whether ana how far'the chief theory'of
acintya bhedabheda of neo-vaisnavisam of Bengal originated from
Lord Sri- Caitanya has been established in CaitanyaBhagavata of .
Vrndavana Dasa, but before-that we.may recall some personal
acquaintances regarding' the author. (This has been analysed in
details in our first chapter ) ...

• Vrndavanadasa
© had been the.pioneer
_ of Navadwipa school or
adi school of Caitanya vaisnavism, and one of the -two great
’ ‘ c -

Gaitahya-biographers..The biographical work of Vrndavana.Dasa.

absorbed and in course of-this eclipsed,the Sanskrit originals".
Furthermore, the work Caitanya Bhagav.ata ■ by Vrndavanadasa in
Bengal dealing'with the early part of Caitanya*s life is the
earliest, and by far the most important. This was written at the
command of Nityananaa - ' -

86..Ibid, madhyalila, chapter 16

87. Ibid., » " 17 '
nityanandasvaruppr ajna dhari sire

sutramatra likhi ami krpa anusare

•’Accepting the command, of Nityahanda on head I write by his mercy

in short form." /

It was probably written not more than fifteen years after

Caitanya’s' death, at a time when Mityananda was alive. .it is

divided into three khandas, viz. Adi ending with Caitanya’s visit tc
o &

Gaya, Madhya ending with his sannyasa and Antya dwelling on the

rest of his life. The author got inspiration, mainly from the
/- __
Srimadbhagav.ata. He visualises Lord Krsna’s early life in the
e* O ■>
/- _ •
Sximadbhagavata as the early life of Lord Caitanya which he

records 'in his. work Caitanya-Bhagavata. This 'book was highly gxfcait

extolled by the Goswamins of Vrndavana, and Kr.snadasa. accords the

e> ' o

book the status of the work by Vyasa.

caitanyacarite vyas vrndavana das. ■ -

- ' _ . • ° - ' ■ t
- "Vrndavana Das is like Vyasa in the biography of Caitanya”

To.Krsnadasa the work was still known as Caitanyamangala, but

to LoCanadasa it is known as Caijanya Bhagavata, S.K. De eulogises

the book - _ • 1

"The name itself, is indicative of its .general outlook as'well

as of its -sanctity, but apart from its. obviously enthusiastic .

devotional spirit-, the book became the most valuable and autho­

ritative record of the earlier part of Caitanya’s life at

Navadvipa, on which it practically spends all its strength .....

........... . Nevertheless, he does not, aa'Krsnadasa does,.

Wo ■

eonce'rn himself much with abstruse theology.' By his simple

narrative and picturesque presentation of men. and things, which

makes his work deservedly popular, he forcefully reproduces the

devotional atmosphere and gives a vivid picture of the men who

played an important part in the movement in its earlier stages(88’

88. Sk.K. De, Ibid, p-50

 : 176 :
So the work Caitanya Bhagavata of Vrndavana Dasa, as a truly

biographical work, is. mainly the narrative of facts exaggerated or

non-exaggerated. In contrast with Caitanyacaritamrta, Caitanya

BhaTgavata is remarkably lacking in speculative aspect, i.e. meta­

physical, logical and epistemological acumen which were very

precious addition to.Caitanya-Vai|navism of Bengal by the Goswami

brothers of Vrndavana.
O'
But.still as Lord Caitanya was the original propagator of

acintya-bhedabheda ’which in course of time became the mainstream

,- «r-■
of neo-vaisnavism, so the doctrine of acintyabhedabheda long with
t? O , '

some other offshoot doctrines are found spa.rking occasionally in

the book'Caitanyabhagavata of Sri Vrndavanadasa.

&
Vhile dwelling on the'vaisnava doctrine of acintya bhedabheda

it has been analysed that the compounded word acintyabhedabheda

consists of two words,- one . ’acintya.' and another ’bhedabheda1' which

again is compounded as ’bheda’ and-’abheda’.

-The word ’acintya’ is a very favourite term coined by the

/
Bengal vaisnavites from sruti and-smrti scriptures. This word

which was well established philosophically and theologically i.e.

mainly metaphysically, logically and epistemologically■by the

Goswami pioneers of Vrndavana schoom of neo-vaisnavism of Bengal*,

c? o°
was finely and most 'skilfully given a literary expression by

Krsnadasa Kavirajo-in his biographical work Caitanya Caritamrta,

ob* - £>

but none’ the less, this word ’acintya’ in the sense of inconcei-

vabili^y, non-debatability etc. has been used off and on in the

same sense-in Caitanya biographical/work. Caitanyabhagavata, by

Vrndavana’Dasa.,The pioneer of Navadwipa School of neo-vaisnavism

of Bengal, of course in the seed-form unlike culminated form as

in Caitanyacaritamrta. • -

In .adikhanda (First .part-),, dvitiya adhyaya' (second -chapter), of

t &

Caitanyabhagavata we find a. line -

f
 177 i

"acintya a.gamya krsna avatar Ilia".

It means ’the 7avatar-lila' i.e. the sportive-feats of incarna­

tion of Lord Krsna is inconceivable, i.e. beyond conceivability. .

coo

One verse (madhyam khan'da. / 9th chapter) states :

"jay jay acintya agamya adi antya"

It says that- the beginning and ending' of the glory pf Lord Krsna •

is acintya and t’agamya’ i.e. • inconceivable and unthinkable.

Previously it has been shown how saktitattva has been

■■ ‘ ' r ' — •
related to ’acintya-tattva’, God is saktiman and it is arduous
y ' . ■ ■ , -

to exptress his sak.ti, since it is inscrutable -

• . ^ -v „ '•
■krsner acintya- sakti bujhane na jaye" (.89)
0oO * . . . . - •
Being omnipotent' god is arbitrary. His arbitrary will is. not known

to others. It is known to him alone.

-/ _ - /
"isvarer iccha yens isvar se jane" (90)
' '

It is only isvara or god who can fathom His own will’ll

The author Vrndavana Dasa makes Lord Caitanya describe of God’s • ■

Q . • -
inscrutable arbitrariness before.his devout associates Nityananda,

Godadhara,‘Mukunda, Govinda, Jagadarianda and Brahmananda enroute

Nilachala -'

prabhu yare ye divas na likhe ahar

is^varer iccha haile sei phal dhare (91)

The gist .’is this that even if be he prince, he is to starve

provided starvation is ordained by ’prabhu’ i.e. Lord Krsna etc.

0e*
etc.............. Frution is the result of His will.

The following passages all contained in the last of the

three parts of. Caitanya Bhagavata hold the same spirit

\
.

•
|co
ON

•H

rO *H —
JC T5

^
■§:
O
-p

-p

jC

H M
CO

■p
C
CO

CO £>.

CO-
cn

W-*
CO

0
C

a:
o
u
d

0
o

s
D
1
O
PC'

-
•
>
—
V.

S
!
 : 178 :

that Lord Krsna the possesdr'of omMpotehce is the Master-Wielder

O 0 0

of his own arbitrary will

'•
S'
(i) isvarer caritra bujhite sakti.kar" ' -

"who has the‘power to realise

the (super-natural) character of god.?"

* 1 * - . '

-(ibid, last/2nd chapter)

/ ’ -

(ii) "ataev ke bujhaye isvarer sakti"

"so who realises the power of god ?"

• . . (ibid, last part/2nd chapter)

. - ~ '

(iii) "ke bujhibe isvarer caritra gahan"

"who will realise the unfathomable character of god ?"

(ibid,, last part/2nd chapter.)

^ ^
(iv) "isvarer iccha bujhivar sakti kar "

"who has the power to understand the will of god ?",

-
(ibid , • lasV part/4th chapter)
" ■ -
(v) "ei to isvarsakti bahi anya nay1! ' . . .

"this is nothing but the power of god"

(ibid, last part/4th chapter)

As in other.Caitanya biographical works so also in Caitanya-

;Bhagavata, very often Lord Caitanya has been identified with

Lord Krsna and then delineated as possessing likwise unfathomable

OQ &

supra-mundane.. power of will of sportive feats. Some specimen-

examples are cited below :.- , .

(i) "acintya caitanya rahga . •> '
bujhibe ria jay"

"The sportive will of Caitanya' which is. inconceivable can

* . not be understood" . .
(ibid, second part/7th chapter)

(ii) "acintya agamya gauracandrer.carit" '

"the activities of Gauracandra are inconceivable and

unthinkable"
. (ibid, last part/2nd chapter)
 179:

(iii) "yadi tniho vyakta na karen apanare

tave kar saktiache tahe janivar.e"

"if he (Lord Caitanya) does not manifest himself, who has

the power to know him ?"

■ (ibid, last part/3rd chapter)
The two drunken Jagai and Madhai being converted as the two

Caitanya devout burst into extolling the glory of Sri Caitanya

Mahaprabhu "toroar acintya sakti ke bfajhite pare" .

"who can understand your inconveivable power ?"

(ibid, 2nd part/12th chapter)

Now let us focus the word ."bhedabheda" interwoven most casually'with

the main texture of the biographical accounts of Lord Caitanya as

• r-\ *—
found in Caitanya Bhagavata of Vrndavaria Dasa.
r-•»

While dealing with the doctrine of acintya bhedabheda it had

been shown that the idea of part arid whole is related to this doctrine.

As for example, the relation between cla'y(part) and jar(who.le) is the

relation of both difference (bheda) and non-difference (abheda).

Through a lot of passages while tilling on the biography of Lord

Caitanya the author has sown the seeds of bhedabheda-tattva in his

Caitanya Bhagavata

(i) "paramarthe isvarer keha bhinna nay " -

(Caitanya Bhagavata, 2nd part/25th Chapter)

s' '

-The doctrine of difference-non-difference (bheda-abheda.) has

been presented with the help of the simile of ocean and wave

(ii) tabho toma haite ;se haiachi

ama.haite nahi kabhu haiyacho tumi

yena samudrer. se taranga loke bale

taranger samudra hi hay kona kale.,(ibid, 3rd part/3rd chapter)

It means wave is both different and non-different from sea,

so is jiva from God. ’

 . : l80 :

Another simile has been imagined by Vrndavana pasa for

' ' ■ 6

bhedabheda - '
"isvarer abhinna sakal bhatkagan
deher yehena baju anguli charan" (ibid, 3rd part, 7th chaptei

’it means' that jiva is both different and non-different from

god as are the limbs like foot, hand etc. from the body.

In the 4th'chapter, last part, a verse runs thus :

"eimata vaisnave vaisnave bhinna nai •

o © to ‘ .

bhinna karayeri ranga caitanya gosarTi

two vaisnavas have no difference (abheda) . It is simply

& c ‘

sportive will of Caitanya that creates difference- (bheda)". Here

vaisnava stands for jrva (individual soul),.and Caitanya for god,

O 0 ' . ■

Both bheda ana abheda (difference and non-.difference) have been

*• i
sown as seeds by the author although tbe context is is at all

philosophical, rather it is simply narrative- narrative of an

* > •.
anecdote of a v.aisnavadenouncing
6*|''
leprosy, •

Another statement - ,
"sabei vaisnavi s^akti bhed kichu nai'1

(3rd p.art/7th chapter)

is very clear regarding difference-non-difference relation between"

c { _
sakti and saktiman, since the hemistich indicates that everything
is engulfed by vaisnavi. power and there Is no bheda or diffe­
rence as such. ‘
.
. • \

”ek vastu dui bhag bhafi bujhaite" /■n.

(Last part/2nd chapter)

"to denote bhakti . (devotionalism) one entity is divided into

two**. .This philosophical comment by the author Vrndavana Dasa'

avers that the entity is one (i«e. abheda or non-difference),

but it undergoes two-fold division. '

 *. 181 :
While establishing the doctrine of. difference-non-difference it

was shown.that god is'self-dependent (svatantra) and all others

• . • >
than god is nots so. This corollary adopted and’ culminated in later
\

Vaisnavism of Bengal in fifteenth century was already foreshadowed

<w O

in Caitanyabhagavata- thus
"suna mata" isvarer adhin samsar
o

svatantra haite sakti.nahika kahar"

. ' (madhya khaada. i.e. 2nd part and 26th

■’ > Oo chapiter)
listen, oh mother, universe is dependent on fisvara,' i.e.
\ .

god. Nobody has had any power-.independent-of him".

The same spirit permeating through another verse is as'follows:

' "toijiar adhin prabhu sakal samsar ' . - •

svatantra haite sakti achaye kahar"

(2nd part/2nd chapter)

Last.but'not the least is the doctrine of non-duality of

Brahman.(ekam evadvitiyam) which is also'closely related to the

jnain doctrine of 1acintyabhedabheda' as had already been propoun­

ded in' the context of the latter. The immortal declaration by

Vrndavanadasa in the faitanayabhagavata is :

. Z , • . . '

suna bap sabarei ekai isvar,

.nam matra bhed kahe. hinduye yavane

paramarthe ek kahe korane purShe - .

*

ek suddha nitya vastu akhands avyaya "

(Adikhanda or ■ 1st, part#L4th chapter)

God is really one entity, pure' (suddha) eternal (nitya) non-.

divisible (advaya) and imperishable (avyaya) as declared in all

the religious scriptures' like -the Koran, Purina etc.

Scholars.researching in neo-vaisnavism' of•Bengal fully agree

that the big-tr.ee of the doctrine of acintyabhedabheda with its

leaves, flowers and' fruits of the different other doctrines of
/ ' ' _ (transformation)
sakti (power), advaya (non-duality) parinama/etc. flourishing
*
■under careful nursery of Gosv.aml brothers of Vrndavana school
 182 :
of Vaisnavism and Krsnadasa Kaviraja, the author of
o.O t* a o

CaitanyaCaritamrta trained in that school, had its

O -

deeply sown seed, long before, in the sacred soil of

Vrndavana- dascts Sri Caitanya Bhagavata*

O'