Sampradayas and Vrindavan Part III
No one can be without an identity, but ultimate love includes the capacity to transcend identities to find oneness everywhere. And that is really the fruit of prema, without which prema has little meaning.
In other words you have to be able to find something universally true in your symbol system for you to be able to communicate with the universe, to commune with ultimate reality.
So, the story I have been sitting on at Vrindavan Today for the past month or more is that the Radhavallabhi and Gaudiya rivalry is threatening to flare up again in the courts. Some disciples of the Radha Vallabha sect have filed a case against Ananta Dasa Babaji because he published his edition of Radha Rasa Sudha Nidhi, attributing it to Prabodhananda Saraswati. His commentary, following the Gauḍīya siddhānta, makes no reference to the more than 40 commentaries written on it by adherents of the Harivamsh sect.
My own curiosity about RRSN was piqued by Ananta Das, whose introduction to the book makes an attempt to present the argument for Prabodhananda’s authorship. Later I investigated a bit more thoroughly and wrote a couple of articles about it. This was in fact the first scholarly historical piece of writing that ever got published in a reputable journal. My little spark of spirit in the world of academia.
At any rate, it was probably a foregone conclusion that I would agree with Ananta Das Baba, whom I revere like a guru. But there were other questions that came up.
My conclusions were:
* It is likely that Prabodhananda and Prakashananda are one and the same person.
* It is highly likely that Gopala Bhatta Goswami was indeed a guru of some sort at some time to Harivamsh.
* It is likely that Prabodhananda and Prakashananda are one and the same person.
* It is highly likely that Gopala Bhatta Goswami was indeed a guru of some sort at some time to Harivamsh.
* There were disagreements between the two, especially on the matter of Ekadashi, but other things related to the regulations of devotional life.
* Gopala Bhatta’s guru, Prabodhananda, took Harivamsh’s side, as is clear from statements in Prabodhananda’s writing.
* Prabodhananda showed his support to Harivamsh by writing verses in his honor, by mentioning him obliquely in Mahimamrita, and by making a gift to him of the Rasa Sudha Nidhi.
* Prabodhananda lost favor among the Gaudiyas and spent most of his time with the Radha Vallabhis, where to this day his writings are honored and have influenced the direction of the sampradaya. His name is nowhere to be found in the Chaitanya Charitamrita.
But really, what did I know of Radha Vallabhis? The closest I ever got to a Radha Vallabhi was Rupert Snell at SOAS. [And I may say that I was once mistaken for Rupert Snell when walking through Radha Vallabh Ghera many moons ago. But I digress...]
Now I look at the problem of sampradaya from a different vantage point. When I first started investigating Prabodhananda Saraswati and the Rādhā-rasa-sudhā-nidhi, I was amazed at the sheer amount of direct and circumstantial evidence that pointed to the above conclusions, and of those conclusions I still happen to be convinced even though I will admit that there is no “smoking gun” evidence.
Now I look at the problem of sampradaya from a different vantage point. When I first started investigating Prabodhananda Saraswati and the Rādhā-rasa-sudhā-nidhi, I was amazed at the sheer amount of direct and circumstantial evidence that pointed to the above conclusions, and of those conclusions I still happen to be convinced even though I will admit that there is no “smoking gun” evidence.
But now I covet the role of a peacemaker, that somehow that even in Vrindavan there is a truth that can transcend the pains of disagreement and bring us all a little closer to prema.
After all, all the sampradayas claim to be experts in prema, to have some special insights into prema, so surely this all-powerful prema will be able to transcend the historical slights and offenses that seem to become a necessary part of one’s identity and historical memory in a sampradāya.
And the problem of course is that it becomes more and more impossible to get at the truth the more it is covered with denials, the more one is attached to one's own version. And in this particular instance there is big denial on both sides. When the case first came up, I mentioned it to Chandra Prakash Sharma, who is a learned pandit initiated in the Radha Vallabhi tradition. He expressed dismay that these issues were being brought up again. He used the example of someone making dirt in the house. You don’t go showing it around, you cover it up. This is a bit of a problem in the end with coverups, because unless some kind of resolution is found, issues crop up again and again. And the hope for resolution are slight.
The first thing I would do, though, is to suggest to the Gaudiyas that they concede that Rādhā-rasa-sudhā-nidhi, whether we believe that Prabodhananda is the author or not, is Hit Harivamsh Goswami’s book. In my opinion, Prabodhananda Saraswati gave this book to Hit Harivamsh Goswami and told him to make it his. It was his gift. It is unlikely that Harivamsh Goswami’s followers will accept this version, but it is important that the Gaudiyas make this concession. Because what it means is that there is a particular siddhānta, a particular philosophical vision of Rādhā-dāsya in the Sudhā-nidhi that differed from the mainstream of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
And that vision is illustrated in Rādhā-rasa-sudhā-nidhi and the accompanying canon that has grown in the Radha Vallabhi world, which is quite rich and extensive. For Gaudiya Vaishnavas to appropriate Prabodhananda Saraswati’s work because he is a follower of Chaitanya misses the point about how the work became the backbone of a sampradāya that denies any connection to Chaitanya whatsoever. Historically Gaudiyas were in tacit agreement with this modus operandi and there was a de facto boycott of RRSN and many other books by PS until he was rediscovered in 19th and 20th centuries.
So let us start by granting that Prabodhananda Saraswati, the author of Caitanya-candrāmr̥ta, at some point broke ranks with Chaitanya’s followers to the point that he even supported Hit Harivamsh who then severed himself completely from the Chaitanya tradition.
And the problem of course is that it becomes more and more impossible to get at the truth the more it is covered with denials, the more one is attached to one's own version. And in this particular instance there is big denial on both sides. When the case first came up, I mentioned it to Chandra Prakash Sharma, who is a learned pandit initiated in the Radha Vallabhi tradition. He expressed dismay that these issues were being brought up again. He used the example of someone making dirt in the house. You don’t go showing it around, you cover it up. This is a bit of a problem in the end with coverups, because unless some kind of resolution is found, issues crop up again and again. And the hope for resolution are slight.
The first thing I would do, though, is to suggest to the Gaudiyas that they concede that Rādhā-rasa-sudhā-nidhi, whether we believe that Prabodhananda is the author or not, is Hit Harivamsh Goswami’s book. In my opinion, Prabodhananda Saraswati gave this book to Hit Harivamsh Goswami and told him to make it his. It was his gift. It is unlikely that Harivamsh Goswami’s followers will accept this version, but it is important that the Gaudiyas make this concession. Because what it means is that there is a particular siddhānta, a particular philosophical vision of Rādhā-dāsya in the Sudhā-nidhi that differed from the mainstream of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
And that vision is illustrated in Rādhā-rasa-sudhā-nidhi and the accompanying canon that has grown in the Radha Vallabhi world, which is quite rich and extensive. For Gaudiya Vaishnavas to appropriate Prabodhananda Saraswati’s work because he is a follower of Chaitanya misses the point about how the work became the backbone of a sampradāya that denies any connection to Chaitanya whatsoever. Historically Gaudiyas were in tacit agreement with this modus operandi and there was a de facto boycott of RRSN and many other books by PS until he was rediscovered in 19th and 20th centuries.
So let us start by granting that Prabodhananda Saraswati, the author of Caitanya-candrāmr̥ta, at some point broke ranks with Chaitanya’s followers to the point that he even supported Hit Harivamsh who then severed himself completely from the Chaitanya tradition.
It is of course quite possible that Harivamsh never separated himself quite as severely as has come to be the tradition, that it was a gradual transition. After all, Prabodhananda continued in several of his books to write verses to Mahaprabhu. And there are individuals like Bhagavanta Mudita who are self-described Gaudiyas and were yet very close to the Radha Vallabhis. Gaudiyas and Radha Vallabhis have been next-door neighbors for hundreds of years and there became a modus vivendi, a kind of agreement on common things, like greeting people with “Jai Radhe!” and so on.
A knowledge of and appreciation for each others’ traditions is also a mark of learned Vrindavan society. And the Radha Vallabhis probably did influence the Gaudiyas in the same way that the whole of Braj influenced the Gaudiyas. The term “cross cultural influences” comes to mind. Nevertheless a clear separation is there.
A knowledge of and appreciation for each others’ traditions is also a mark of learned Vrindavan society. And the Radha Vallabhis probably did influence the Gaudiyas in the same way that the whole of Braj influenced the Gaudiyas. The term “cross cultural influences” comes to mind. Nevertheless a clear separation is there.
When Hit Harivamsh says his guru is Radha, his mantra is Radha, his service is Radha and so on, then he is making a statement of breaking away from one tradition and creating his own independent self-manifested or “charismatic” legitimacy. In a way, Harivamsh is doing something similar to what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu himself did, only he is doing it to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. This is what the Gaudiyas cannot forgive him for.
I want to tell a little story, related. These past few days I have been mulling these things on my daily walk through the Banke Bihari part of town, then through Radha Vallabh town on my way to Radha Damodar, and then back. I have, as already stated, been reading a chapter of Charitamrita at Kaviraj Goswami’s samadhi. I have been a selective reader of CC and I thought to read it through from beginning to end and that is at present the centerpiece of my sādhana.
I have been remarking to myself as I go along how Kaviraj Goswami is himself consciously engaged in sampradāya formation at a very basic level. Indeed, the Charitamrita is the scriptural backbone of the Gaudiya tradition, even more so than the Bhagavatam.
The day before yesterday I went to check out Shyama Kunj. It is in one of the alleys in Dussayat and so even though I often walk through that neighborhood, I had never gone there. In Rishikesh I knew the ashram of the same guru, Kishori Sharan Baba, which was dear to me because it had an authentic Vrindavan mood there in Yogiland. So I am familiar with this particular branch of the Radha Vallabh sampradaya and have some friendly relations with them.
When I went there the other evening, I received an invitation from Netra Das, the Mahanta, to take prasad the next day. I had forgotten it was ekadashi and I accepted.
Now I will be quite honest with you and admit that I have been extremely lax in following ekadashi. Here at Jiva I follow most of the time because they make ekadashi prasad, but otherwise, I barely bother. But this business of ekadashi fasting appears to be one of the most significant differences between the two sampradayas that is cited.
According to Krishna Das in his Bengali Bhakta Mal, Gopala Bhatta told Harivamsh off for taking pan on ekadashi. Harivamsh seems to have felt that Gopala Bhatta was missing the point of raganuga bhakti. At any rate, I accepted the invitation, and found myself publicly flaunting my own sampradaya’s rules by accepting grains and so on.
The stricter Nimbarkis and Ramanandis who had also been invited took just a couple of bananas. The pranami was only 20 rupees, but I guess they came for the company. There were no Gaudiyas there besides myself and one other baba who did not look particularly connected, nor particularly strict. I pacified my guilt feelings, which in true honest confession I was not feeling so acutely, and carried on with my daily reading of Chaitanya Charitamrita.
I was on chapter 15 of the Adi Lila, perhaps the shortest chapter in the whole book. A large portion of it is Nimai as a still pre-school child admonishing his mother to observe ekadashi and her meek acceptance of his good instruction. The synchronicity reverberated.
I want to tell a little story, related. These past few days I have been mulling these things on my daily walk through the Banke Bihari part of town, then through Radha Vallabh town on my way to Radha Damodar, and then back. I have, as already stated, been reading a chapter of Charitamrita at Kaviraj Goswami’s samadhi. I have been a selective reader of CC and I thought to read it through from beginning to end and that is at present the centerpiece of my sādhana.
I have been remarking to myself as I go along how Kaviraj Goswami is himself consciously engaged in sampradāya formation at a very basic level. Indeed, the Charitamrita is the scriptural backbone of the Gaudiya tradition, even more so than the Bhagavatam.
The day before yesterday I went to check out Shyama Kunj. It is in one of the alleys in Dussayat and so even though I often walk through that neighborhood, I had never gone there. In Rishikesh I knew the ashram of the same guru, Kishori Sharan Baba, which was dear to me because it had an authentic Vrindavan mood there in Yogiland. So I am familiar with this particular branch of the Radha Vallabh sampradaya and have some friendly relations with them.
According to Krishna Das in his Bengali Bhakta Mal, Gopala Bhatta told Harivamsh off for taking pan on ekadashi. Harivamsh seems to have felt that Gopala Bhatta was missing the point of raganuga bhakti. At any rate, I accepted the invitation, and found myself publicly flaunting my own sampradaya’s rules by accepting grains and so on.
The stricter Nimbarkis and Ramanandis who had also been invited took just a couple of bananas. The pranami was only 20 rupees, but I guess they came for the company. There were no Gaudiyas there besides myself and one other baba who did not look particularly connected, nor particularly strict. I pacified my guilt feelings, which in true honest confession I was not feeling so acutely, and carried on with my daily reading of Chaitanya Charitamrita.
I was on chapter 15 of the Adi Lila, perhaps the shortest chapter in the whole book. A large portion of it is Nimai as a still pre-school child admonishing his mother to observe ekadashi and her meek acceptance of his good instruction. The synchronicity reverberated.
But I have already gotten into the habit of looking at Krishnadas in something of a different way. Whatever historical truth is there in Chaitanya Charitamrita, you can be sure it is serving Kaviraj Goswami’s sectarian agenda. This is not a negative comment on sectarianism. He is engaged in the work of sampradāya creation, which requires differentiation.
And here is something that we know: the central point of the Gaudiya sampradaya is the divinity of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, and not Radha and Krishna alone. And, by the way, we follow ekadashi.
All this will require clarification. Let’s hope my intelligence is clear enough to go on with it without causing more disturbance than peace. Jai Radhe!
Comments