Part Four of Acintya-bhedābheda: Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī and Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Caturtha Siddhānta
Fourth Conclusion
Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī’s adherence to the line of Madhva in his maṅgalācaraṇa
The authors of granthas and commentators on such works provide some indication of their intentions and the subject of their granthas via their maṅgalācaraṇas. Because Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya has not done a maṅgalācaraṇa for this book, we can find no clear declaration of its subject. He has not been able to establish Acintya-bhedābheda with the vāda, or theory, he has posited in the very title of his book—“Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda.” Mostly he has gone to great effort to establish that Śrīman Mahāprabhu’s sampradāya is an advaita-vādī lineage and not the Brahma-Mādhva-Gauḍīya-sampradāya.1 In the thirteenth prasaṅga of this “Vāda” text, on page 239, Vidyāvinoda has brought up this topic in a most shameless and audacious manner. I am quoting a few portions of that here with the aim of demolishing his most ignoble intentions:
“The main arguments against the Śrī Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya’s inclusion in the Mādhva-sampradāya have been presented below as follows:
“1 | (a) There are six categories of differences between the Mādhva-sampradāya and Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya: (1) sādhya, (2) sādhana, (3) śāstra, (4) iṣṭa, (5) bhāṣya, and (6) vāda. [The author (Śrīla Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava Gosvāmī) writes: “We will demonstrate with evidence that in each of these categories, there is no difference between the two sampradāyas.”]
“(b) How can Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanyadeva, who is the lord and master of the founders of the four sampradāyas, become subservient to one of them? [Author: “We will lay out the refutation to this argument as well later on.”]
“(c) Śrī Mahāprabhu cannot refute the Mādhva doctrine and then be a part of that lineage. Therefore the Śrī Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya cannot be called the Śrī Brahma-Mādhva-Gauḍīya-sampradāya. It is an independent sampradāya founded by Śrī Gauracandra.”
______________
1 The main arguments in this connection, against the Śrī Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya’s inclusion in the Mādhva-sampradāya, are laid out as follows:
“There are numerous references in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Madhya 8.45, 123; Antya 7.16) and Śrī Caitanya-candrodaya-nāṭaka (5.28, 29; Behrampur edition, 401 Śrī Caitanyābda) that tell us Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya-deva was a sannyāsī of the kevalādvaita-sampradāya and the guru of Śrī Caitanya-deva’s sannyāsa pastimes, Śrī Keśava Bhāratī, was also a kevalādvaita-vādī. Besides Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya-deva referring to himself as a māyāvādī-sannyāsī, the sannyāsī-guru of the māyāvādīs in Kāśī, Prakāśānanda, addresses Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya-deva, saying: “keśava bhāratīra śiṣya, tāhe tumi dhanya – You are blessed to be the disciple of Keśava Bhāratī,” “sāmpradāyika sannyāsī tumi raha ei grāme – You are a sannyāsī of a recognized lineage; you should stay in this village.” (Cc. Ādi 7.66–67) “Śrī Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, after first having Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya-deva’s darśana in Purī said: “bhāratī sampradāya,—ei hayena madhyama | – This Bhāratī lineage is second-class.” (Cc. Madhya 6.72) “nirantara ihāke vedānta śunāibo | vairāgya-advaita-mārge praveśa karāibo || kahena yadi, punar api yoga-paṭṭa diyā | saṁskāra kariye uttama sampradāye āniyāi || – I will recite Vedānta to him ceaselessly and help him enter the path of renunciation and monism. If he wants, I will perform his sannyāsa ceremony again and transfer him into the highest order of sannyāsa.” (Cc. Madhya 6.75–76) “In Purī, Śrī Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya-deva revered Śrī Brahmānanda Bhāratī like a guru, and when He saw Bhāratī wearing a deerskin like the māyāvādī-sannyāsīs, He asked, “bhāratī gosā̃i kene paribena cāma? – Why would Bhāratī Gosā̃i wear deerskin?” There are also the statements of Śrī Brahmānanda Bhāratī himself: “ājanma karinu mui ‘nirākāra’ dhyāna | tomā dekhi’ ‘kṛṣṇa’ haila mora vidyamāna | kṛṣṇa-nāma sphure mukhe mane netre kṛṣṇa | tomāke tad-rūpa dekhi’ hṛdaye—satṛṣṇa. bilvamaṅgala kaila yaiche daśā āpanāra | ihā dekhi’ sei daśā haila āmāra || ‘advaita-vīthī-pathikair-upāsyāḥ, svānanda-siṁhāsana-labdha-dīkṣā | haṭhena kenāpi vayaṁ śaṭhena, dāsīkṛtā gopa-vadhu-viṭena |’ – From birth I engaged in meditation on the formless brahman. Seeing you, however, Kṛṣṇa appeared to me. Kṛṣṇa’s name appeared in my mouth and His form before my mind and eyes. Seeing You to be just like Him, my heart is thirsting to serve You. I have become just like Bilvamaṅgala. ‘Although revered by monists and initiated to sit upon the throne of self-bliss, I have somehow been made a maidservant of a cunning boy who jokes with the gopīs.’” (Cc. Madhya 10.175–78) “It is clear from these statements that Śrī Keśava Bhāratī, Śrī Brahmānanda Bhāratī, and Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya-deva all manifested pastimes of accepting sannyāsa in the kevalādvaita-vādī lineage.” (—from pages 246–247 of Vidyāvinoda’s Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda, 13th chapter)
[The author of these articles (Śrī Paramagurudeva) writes: “If we follow Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya’s reasoning that Mahāprabhu became part of the kevalādvaita-vādī lineage because He took sannyāsa from the advaita-vādī Keśava Bhāratī, we can mention that Madhvācārya himself also took sannyāsa at the age of twelve from the kevalādvaita-vādī Acyuta Prekṣa. In that case, you would have to say that Śrī Madhva is also part of the kevalādvaita-vādī-sampradāya! So what then is stopping Mahāprabhu from also being part of the Madhva-sampradāya? Both were part of Śaṅkara’s advaita-vādī lineage. On the other hand, it would not be an overstatement to say that since Śrī Madhvācārya adopted an ekadaṇḍa as per Śaṅkara lineage traditions, Mahāprabhu Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya-deva followed in Śrī Madhva’s footsteps and accepted ekadaṇḍa-sannyāsa from Keśava Bhāratī. This serves only to bolster and confirm the fact that Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇavas are following in the guidance of Madhvācārya.]
_________________
Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya has cited as proof for the above section (c) an official Sanskrit vyavasthā-patra [“manifesto”] circulated by Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa Basu Mahāśaya, the adhyakṣa (overseer) of Cuttack’s Rāsabihārī Maṭha, in Issue 9|4 of their 1926 ‘Vīrabhūma’-Patrikā (pages 188-89). Vidyavinoda Mahāśaya’s text often quotes evidence of this caliber. One of the main hubs of the prākṛta-sahajiyās in Orissa is this Rāsabihārī Maṭha. How can the dogma of its overseer, Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa Basu, be accepted as proper pramāṇa? It looks rather shameful to us to have to establish a conclusion based on the word of someone of lesser reputability in order to shore up one’s own fallacious doctrine. There is a proverb in English: “A drowning man catches at a straw.”
If Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa Basu Mahāśaya’s Sanskrit document is so authoritative and the object of Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya’s adoration, what objection can there be to the vyavasthā-patra of Śrī Śrī Gaura-Govindānanda Bhāgavata Svāmī, founder of Navadvīpa Dhāma’s Śrī Guru Āśrama,a personality who is a much more revered and renowned tyāgī-sannyāsī and a widely acclaimed scholar? When all the Vaiṣṇavas of Navadvīpa requested this Svāmījī to present a refined analysis as refutation of the vyavastha-patra circulated by the Cuttack Rāsabihārī Maṭha, said Svāmījī composed and circulated the following vyavastha-patra, which establishes that the root of Śrīman Mahāprabhu’s Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya is Śrī Madhvācārya and that is where the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya has originated. The vyavastha-patra document written in Sanskrit śloka format is quoted here below, with translation:
mukhyena sampradāyitvaṁ sampradāya-vidyaṁ naye |
sampradāyi-guror-dīkṣā-mantra-grahaṇato bhaveti || 1 ||
According those who are authorities on the various sampradāyas (spiritual lineages), one’s connection to a particular sampradāya is established by the acceptance of dīkṣā-mantra from a guru who is part of a bona fide disciplic succession in that line.
śiṣṭa-paramparācāryaopadiṣṭa-sārga eva hi |
sampradāya iti khyātaḥ sudhībhiḥ sampradāyibhiḥ || 2 ||
The traditionalists (sampradāyis) who are of refined perspective assert that the path taught by the ācārya who is a bona fide heir to a śiṣṭa-paramparā (a properly taught disciplic succession) is called a “sampradāya.”
śiṣṭatvaṁ nāma cāmnāya-prāmāṇyābhyupaganta tā |
vedanāṁ viṣṇu-pāramyāt śiṣṭo vaiṣṇava ucyate || 3 ||
Accepting the evidence of the Vedas is śiṣṭatva [“discipline”], and all the Vedas convey the supreme knowledge of Viṣṇu. Therefore, only Vaiṣṇavas who are intent on the worship of Viṣṇu are referred to as śiṣṭa.
atat-paramparatvena vaiṣṇavatvaṁ na siddhyati |
avaiṣṇavopadiṣṭenetyādi-śāstra-prakopaṇāt || 4 ||
Those who do not maintain the sanctity of Vaiṣṇava paramaparā cannot authenticate their status as Vaiṣṇavas because there are severe spiritual risks associated with hearing mantra from those who are not genuine Vaiṣṇavas.
tasmāt śiṣṭānuśiṣṭānāṁ paramparāṁ rirakṣiṣuḥ |
svaniḥśvasita-vedopi gauro mādhva-mataṁ gataḥ || 5 ||
That is why He who is the author of the Vedas, Gaurahari, from whose breath the Vedas have emanated, wanted to maintain the śiṣṭa-taught disciplic succession and therefore accept the Mādhva lineage.
sarva-jagad-guruḥ śrīmad-gaurāṅgo loka-śikṣayā |
purīśvaraṁ guruṁ kṛtvā svīcakre sampradāyakam || 6 ||
As guru of the whole world, Śrīmad Gaurāṅga-deva chose Īśvara Purī as his guru and accepted a sampradāya in order to teach the people of the world to do the same.
kaścin-mata-viśeṣo ’pi nirastas-tattva-vādinām |
śrīmad-gaurāṅga-devena sampradāyasya tena kim || 7 ||
Even though Śrīmad Gaurāṅga-deva refuted some specific concepts of the tattvavādīs who were following the Mādhva doctrine, how does that affect his position in the sampradāya? In other words, having a philosophical difference with members of one’s sampradāya does not abolish one’s position in the sampradāya.
sampradāyaika-dīkṣāṇāṁ mithaḥ kiñcin-matāntarāt |
śākhā-bhedo bhaven mātraṁ sampradāyo na bhidyate || 8 ||
Even if members of the same sampradāya have some disagreement, that does not divide the sampradāya; all that happens is different branches form.
rāmānandī yathā rāmānujīyāntargato bhavet |
nimbārka-sampradāye ca hari-vyāsādayo yathā || 9 ||
Even though the Rāmānandīs have their own unique ideas, they are included among the Rāmānujīs; and in the Nimbārka-sampradāya, even though Hari-Vyāsa and others have some philosophical differences, they are considered part of the Nimbārka-sampradāya.
gauḍīyas-tattva-vādī ca tathā mādhva-mataṁ gatau |
na hy atra bādhakaḥ kaścit dṛśyate tattva-vittamaiḥ || 10 ||
In the same way, both the Gauḍīya-sampradāya and the Tattvavādīs are adherents of the Mādhva-mata, or Madhva’s philosophy; scholars cognizant of tattva do not see any reason for this not to be so.
tuṣyatv iti matenāpi sampradāya-viniścaye |
svīkṛtaṁ sādhakatvena cet sādhyādi-vivecanam |
tathāpy atyanta-bhedo na śrī gaura-mādhvayor mate || 11 ||
But, as per the nyāya of “tuṣyatu-durjana,” if it please the wicked to accept distinctions between the sampradāyas based on the sādhyādi (ultimate goals, etc.) of the various practitioners, then too there is no significant difference between the mata of Gaura and Madhva.
madhva-mate ca yā muktiḥ sādhyatvena prakīrttitāi |
viṣṇvañghri-prāpti-rūpā sā bhāṣya-kṛd-bhiḥ pradarśitā || 12 ||
The mukti that is talked about in Madhva’s doctrine as the ultimate sādhya has been explained by commentators to refer strictly to the interpretation of mukti as viṣṇupada-lābha – “obtaining the feet of Viṣṇu.”
sādhanaṁ cārpitaṁ karma jīvādhikāra-bhedataḥ |
svīkṛtam api madhvena bhakteḥ śraiṣṭhaṁ bahu-stutam || 13 ||
Though Madhva accepted that for certain jīvas, according to their eligibility, offering the fruits of their karma can be a form of sādhana, he has praised the superiority of bhakti in many places.
pramāṇaṁ bhārataṁ mātraṁ madhva-mate ’nṛtaṁ vacaḥ |
yat tena trividhaṁ proktuaṁ mukhyaṁ śabda-pramāṇakam || 14 ||
The idea that in Madhva’s mata only the pramāṇa (evidence) of Mahābhārata is accepted is a lie, because he accepted three forms of pramāṇa, naming śabda-pramāṇa as the main source of evidence.
śrīman-nartaka-gopāla-sevā yena pratiṣṭhitā |
iṣṭatvena kathaṁ tasya nirṇīto dvārakāpatiḥ || 15 ||
How does one come to decide that the iṣṭadeva of someone who has established the service of Śrīman Nṛtya-Gopāla (“The Dancing Cowherd Boy”) is actually Dvārakāpati Śrī Kṛṣṇa?
niścito dvārakādhīśo yadyapi vā kṣatiḥ kutaḥ |
yo nanda-nandanaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sa eva dvārakāpatiḥ |
svarūpayor-dvayor-aikyaṁ kṛṣṇatvamaviśeṣataḥ || 16 ||
And even if the Lord of Dvārakā is proven to be his iṣṭadeva, what is the harm in that? Nanda-nandana Śrī Kṛṣṇa is Dvārakāpati. In other words, these two forms of Kṛṣṇa are nondifferent. Both svarūpas are one, and both are Kṛṣṇa.
līlābhimāna-bhedena pūrṇatamś ca pūrṇakaḥi |
na tu svarūpato bhedas tayor asti kathañcana || 17 ||
Depending on the sense of self that Kṛṣṇa has in a particular setting (līlābhimāna), sometimes He is pūrṇatama (fullest) and sometimes pūrṇatara (“more full”). That is all. There is no differentiation present in His actual svarūpa.
bhedābheda-mataṁ yac cācintyākhyaṁ kīrttyate budhaiḥ |
śrī caitanya-matābhijñaiḥ tac ca madhva-mateṅgitam || 18 ||
The philosophy of oneness and difference (bhedābheda) that is dubbed “acintya” (inconceivable) is extolled by those familiar with Śrī Caitanya’s mata. Indications of the same concept are found in Madhva’s mata.
jīvānāṁ brahma-vaijātye guṇāṁśatvād-abhinnatā |
pratiyogitva-bhedatve cinmātratvāt-tadekatā || 19 ||
Because the jīvas are different from brahma in certain ways, the jīvas have been referred to as the guṇāṁśa of brahma, meaning that they are not different from brahma, and though there are some qualitative differences between them, because their essence is spiritual, they are nondifferent, as aṁśas, or expansions.
tad-vyāpyatva-tadāyatta-vṛttikatvādi-hetutaḥ |
sāmānādhikaraṇyañca gosvāmi-madhvayoḥ samam || 20 ||
This is because that which is pervaded by something else and is functionally dependent on that thing is simply nondifferent from it. This is why both the Gosvāmīs and followers of Madhva see the uniformity of the individual soul (jīva) and brahma in similar ways.
vicāra-mātra-naipuṇyaṁ śakti-śaktimator iha |
gaura-kṛpodbhavo ’cintya-vādo gosvāmibhiḥ smṛtaḥ |
tattva-nirdhāraṇe mukhyaḥ kāraṇavāda ucyate || 21 ||
The Gosvāmīs have extolled acintya-bhedābheda-vāda, the idea of inconceivable oneness and difference between energy and its possessor, and this is a concept that has arisen by the grace of Gaura. This is simply the finesse of His reasoning. In reality, He has deemed a form of kāraṇa-vāda (causality) to be of primary significance in determining tattva.
parākhya-śaktimad brahma nimitta-kāraṇaṁ bhavet
upādānantu tad-brahma jīva-pradhāna-śakti-yuk |
iti kāraṇavāde ’pi hy ubhayor matayoḥ samam || 22 ||
As the abode of parā-śakti (supreme energy), brahma is the efficient cause, and as the embodiment of the jīvas and the material energy of māyā, brahma is also the immediate, material cause. There is similarity between the doctrines (of the Gauḍīyas and the Mādhvas) in regard to this sort of theory of casuality as well.
śrī govindābhidhaṁ bhāṣyaṁ pramāṇaṁ yadi manyate |
prameya-ratna-siddhānta-niṣkṛṣṭā tat-samāhṛtiḥ || 23 ||
vakti śrī-gaura-sammatiṁ madhvaḥ prāhetyupakrame |
yadi bopekṣyate kaiścit tar hy arddha-kukuṭṭīnayaḥ || 24 ||
And if Śrī Govinda-bhāṣya is accepted as an authoritative source of evidence, then one can find these essential concepts collected in Prameya-ratnāvalī. There, in a single verse, Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣāna commences with “śrī madhvaḥ prāha – thus spake Śrī Madhva” and concludes with “hariḥ kṛṣṇa-caitanya-candraḥ,” having explained that the philosophy of Madhva is the philosophy of Gaura. If someone is to neglect this conclusion, then they have succumbed to the fallacy of “arddha-kukkuṭī – half a chicken.” In other words, to accept one fact but not another concommitant one is “half-a-chicken logic.” This is sort of philosophy is antithetical to the reasoning of śāstra.
The points presented in the above twenty-four verses are worthy of careful contemplation in a preliminary discussion about the Gauḍīyas’ inclusion in Mādhva’s sampradāya. The reputed Haridāsa Dāsa Mahāśaya’s Śrī Śrī Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava Sāhitya, which was published in two parts at around 500 pages and furnishes the contents of Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya’s pages, quotes the abovementioned verses in the context of describing Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu’s Prameya-ratnāvalī. Haridāsa Dāsa has accepted the critical analysis of Śrī Gaura-Govindānanda Bhāgavata Svāmī’s mīmāṁsā-patra as pramāṇa and Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya cites evidence from this same book [of Haridāsa Dāsa] and uses it in varous places in his ‘Vāda’ book. Even though Haridāsa Bābājī Mahāśaya’s writings contribute to Sundarānanda’s works, in the first khaṇḍa of Śrī Śrī Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava Sāhitya, page 112, he writes a short article titled: “Why Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda is part of Śrī Madhva’s philosophy.” There he contradicts Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya and has adhered to the conceptions of Śrīla Baladeva.
Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya himself wrote a book called Vaiṣṇavācārya Śrī Madhva. Supati-rañjana Nāga, M.A., B.L. Mahodaya has published this book on February 8, 1939 from Puranapaltan, P.O. Ramaṇā (Dhaka). The book is written on the premise that Śrīman Mahāprabhu was part of Śrī Madhvācārya’s sampradāya. Vidyāvinoda’s current ‘Vāda’ book attempts a total refutation of this Vaiṣṇavācārya Śrī Madhva book. I will lay out the various contradictory conclusions in these two books and demonstrate how fully deluded Vidyāvinoda is, how his intellect appears to have become partially malformed. No conclusion or conception stemming from the writings of such a bewildered, deluded person is even slightly acceptable for educated society. If the Indian legal system had the right sort of law in place for punishment of such crimes, then he could be brought before a court of justice and efforts could be made to reform him. In fact, I am calling on the special insights of expert logicians and legislators to help in this matter.
Śrī Jīva’s Loyalty to Śrī Madhva in Tattva-sandarbha
In Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmipāda’s Ṣat-sandarbha, the Tattva-sandarbha is the first. Though he delivers a maṅgalācaraṇa in each Sandarbha, in the maṅgalācaraṇa to Tattva-sandarbha, he outlines the subject of the whole body of work. What is to be discussed here is how Śrīla Jīvapāda has demonstrated his loyalty to the Mādhva-sampradāya. In the thirteenth section of his Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda, page 241, 4th Anuccheda, Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya brings up five arguments titled “(ka), (kha), (ga), (gha), and (ṅa),” and wants to claim that the crown jewel of Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-ācāryas, Śrīla Jīvapāda, does not acknowledge any sort of connection between the Mādhva-sampradāya and Gauḍīya-sampradāya in his maṅgalācaraṇa to Tattva-sandarbha. Furthermore, he tries to establish that Śrīla Baladeva Prabhu has forced the mention of Madhva and his sampradāya in his commentary to Tattva-sandarbha. Of those (ka), (kha), (ga), (gha), and (ṅa) points, first we will discuss (ka) and (kha) here:
“(ka) The difference between Śrī Śrī Jīvapāda’s invocation in the maṅgalācaraṇa to Tattva-sandarbha and Śrīla Baladeva’s invocation.
“(kha) The difference between Śrī Jīvapāda’s and Śrīla Baladeva’s interpretations of the word “vṛddha-vaiṣṇavaiḥ” in Tattva-sandarbha (4th Anu).”
It is very surprising that Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya has sought and extracted a difference between Śrīla Jīvapāda’s invocation and that of Śrīla Baladeva! First of all we need to discuss what he means by difference. He keeps belting out nondual advaitavādī words like advayatva, abhedatva, advitīyatva, etc. everywhere, so it is no meager feat that he has managed to extract this disparity despite being so absorbed in nonduality—especially since he is not even willing to accept that the jīva and prakṛti are different tattvas. Though para-tattva (the Absolute Truth) is one undivided substance, the notion of jīva-tattva and prakṛti-tattva having their own existence within that whole is perfectly in alignment with all śāstras. But Vidyāvinoda does not even want to give jīva and prakṛti the title of tattva. This alone is a matter of great wonder. Do none of the concepts presented by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī and others enter the caverns of his ears? In his introduction to his Vāda book, he prints the following in bold on page V: “If we give jīva and prakṛti the title of tattva like various Vaiṣṇava ācāryas have done, then we have to accept more than one tattva, which infringes on the concept of advaita.” On page IX of his introduction, he writes: “Vastu or tattva is not dual.” As he concludes his fourteenth chapter on page 271, he writes: “Tattva is one; not two.” On the same page he reiterates his previous point: “If we refer to jīva and prakṛti as tattvas, this infringes on the concept of nonduality.” In this way, in various places he has accepted the oneness of vastu in the advaita-vādī fashion while rejecting the notion that jīva and prakṛti can be separate tattvas.
Given this obsession with oneness, it is difficult to understand how he has discovered a disparity between Śrīla Jīvapāda’s vandanā (prayers) in the maṅgalācaraṇa to Tattva-sandarbha and Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu’s own vandanā. Where is the difference he sees? Is it in their use of language? Is the difference in typesetting or font size? Or is that Śrīla Jīvapāda writes eight verses for his vandanā in Tattva-sandarbha while Śrīla Baladeva Prabhu has commenced his commentary on Tattva-sandarbha with a vandanā of just six? Or does he actually mean there is a difference of opinion between these ācāryas who are both pārṣada-bhaktas (devotees who are direct associates of Bhagavān)? We cannot see any difference between Jīvapāda and Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu in any area. “Maṇimaya-mandira-madhye pipīlikā paśyati chidram – An ant will see the crack in a temple wrought of jewels.” This claim Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya makes simply highlights his shortcomings. Though the vulture flies high, it only seeks low-lying, foul-smelling corpses that are rotting. God forbid any sophist uses this analogy to assert the existence of cracks in the temple of Śrī Baladeva’s thought and the presence of something spoiled or decayed in his exalted life.
We cannot find the slightest disparity between the vandanā of Śrīla Jīvapāda and that of Śrīla Baladeva in their respective maṅgalācaraṇas to Tattva-sandarbha. If Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya would kindly provide some example of the disparity he refers to, then we could discuss that in detail. I hope he reads this refutation of ours and backs up his claim with proper citation of the disparity between these two supremely liberated ācāryas, specifying what kind of disparity it is that he sees and providing an example of what he means. To just say there is a difference between them will not fly. Those who have studied Tattva-sandarbha will not take his incongruous statement to be the word of Veda. Below I lay out several verses from the aforementioned vandanās side-by-side. Readers will be able to understand that there are no differences between Śrī Baladeva and Śrī Jīvapāda’s prayers.
(1) Śrīla Jīvapāda begins his Tattva-sandarbha with the words “śrī kṛṣṇo jayati – All glories to Śrī Kṛṣṇa.” This is how he commences his Sandarbha corpus. And the one and only commentator on this work, Śrī Śrīmad Baladeva Prabhupāda, has also borrowed that phrase—“śrī kṛṣṇo jayati”—at the very beginning of his ṭīkā commentary. So, in these two places at least, there is surely no difference.
(2) Śrīla Jīvapāda quotes Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.5.32) in the first verse of his maṅgalācaraṇa: “kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākṛṣṇaṁ sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣadam | yajnaiḥ saṅkīrtana-prāyair-yajanti hi sumedhasaḥ ||” And in the second verse of his maṅgalācaraṇa, he clearly explains the meaning of this citation. In other words, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has demonstrated proper etiquette by delineating the object of his worship, which is Śrīman Mahāprabhu along with His expansions and plenary portions, via the kṛṣṇa-varṇam tviṣākṛṣṇam verse. In the very first verse of his maṅgalācaraṇa, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu has followed closely in Śrīla Jīvapāda’s footsteps and prayed for divine love for Śrīman Mahāprabhu Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya and His expansions, the Prabhus “Nityānandādvaitaḥ”:
bhaktyābhāṣenāpi toṣaṁ dadhāne dharmādhyakṣe viśva-nistāri-nāmni |
nityānandādvaita-caitanya-rūpe tattve tasmin nityam āstāṁ ratir naḥ ||
(Baladeva’s ṭīkā on Tattva-sandarbha 1, Satyānanda Gosvāmī’s edition, 1318 Sāla)
Hence, we have not been able to understand what difference there is between Jīva Gosvāmī’s maṅgalācaraṇa and Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s. Rather, the current of mood flowing through both vandanās is one and the same.
(3) What Baladeva has written in his commentary on both of these verses of Śrī Jīvapāda’s invocation shows full loyalty in every respect to the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava ācāryas. What Baladeva’s ṭīkā expresses is fully in line with what has been revealed by Śrīla Jīvapāda in Krama-sandarbha, Śrī Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, and Śrī Viśvanātha Cakrvartī in Sārārtha-darśinī. What Baladeva has written even expresses nuances that were not fully developed or expressed by said previous ācāryas. In his explanation of “sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣadam,” Baladeva writes: “aṅge nityānandādvaitau, upāṅgāni śrīvāsādayaḥ, astrānya-vidyāc-chetṛtvād bhagavan-nāmāni, pārṣadā gadādhara-govindādayas-taiḥ sahitam iti mahā-balitvaṁ vyajyate |”
What Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī has written in explanation of the verse under discussion [“kṛṣṇa-varṇam…”] is, without alteration, what Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa expresses in his commentary. Śrīla Kavirāja Gosvāmī’s statements are especially worth perusal:
ācārya gosā̃i—caitanyera mukhya aṅga |
āra eka aṅga tā̃ra—prabhu nityānanda ||
prabhura upāṅga—śrīvāsādi bhakta-gaṇa |
hasta-mukha-netra-aṅga cakrādy astra sama ||
(Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi, 6.36–37)
advaita-nityānanda—caitanyera dui aṅga |
aṅgera avayava-gaṇa kahiye upāṅgai ||
aṅgopāṅga tīkṣṇa-astra prabhura sahite |
sei saba astra haya pāṣaṇḍa dalite ||
śrīvāsādi, pāriṣada-sainya saṅge laiyā |
dui senāpati bulena kīrtana kariyā ||
(Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi, 3.71, 72, 74)
Again, what difference is there between Baladeva and Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī and other ācāryas like Śrīla Kavirāja Gosvāmī?
(4) Śrīla Jīvapāda, in the third verse of his vandanā, sings the praises of Śrīla Rūpa and Sanātana and expresses how it is upon their instruction that he has written the Ṣat-sandarbha headed by Tattva-sandarbha, which delineates the subject of tattva.
In his commentary on this text, in his third verse of maṅgalācaraṇa, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa also praises Rūpa and Sanātana. Jīva Gosvāmī has referred to Rūpa and Sanātana with the adjective “tattva-jñāpakau – conveyers of tattva.” Thus he praises them as those who convey knowledge of the tattva-vastu [Absolute Truth], which is the core tenet heralded by the Tattvavādī-sampradāya. Śrīla Baladeva himself praises Śrī Rūpa and Sanātana with the words: “tattvaṁ tattva-viduttamau tau śrī-rūpa-sanātanau.”
There is no disparity here between the vandanās of Śrīla Jīvapāda and Śrī Baladeva. Rather, Baladeva conveys his profound faith and dedication to Śrīla Rūpa and Sanātana in his maṅgalācaraṇa śloka.
Here, as it is most relevant to the topic at hand, I would like submit a few points regarding Śrīla Jīvapāda’s adherence to the guidance of the tattvavādī Madhva. Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya writes in his ‘Vāda’ book that “Jīva Gosvāmī has referred to Madhvācārya as the “tattva-vāda-guru” and therefore not accepted him as the predecessor ācārya of the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya.” This is apparently why the Gauḍīyas are being presented as separate from the Madhvas. In reality, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī held tattva-vāda-guru Madhvācārya’s tattva-vāda [“realistic argumentation”] as the ideal philosophical approach, took inspiration from it to title his own work the Tattva-sandarbha, or Bhāgavata-sandarbha, and invoked verses from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam like “vadanti tat-tattva-vidas-tattvam” (1.2.11) as core sources of evidence supporting tattva-vāda. Of the four Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, only Śrī Madhva is known as the tattva-vādī. The philosophies of the other ācāryas contain some elements that are atāttvika [“unrealistic”]. The Mādhva-Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇavas are tattvavādīs. And Jīva Gosvāmī himself has established tattva-vāda. He even refers to his guru and parama-guru, Śrīla Rūpa and Sanātana, as tattva-jñāpaka ācāryas in the third verse of his maṅgalācaraṇa. The crest jewel of the Vaiṣṇava ācārya lineage, Śrīla Baladeva, echoes that sentiment and refers to Śrī Rūpa and Sanātana as the topmost among those who are acquainted with tattva. This not only reveals that, like Jīvapāda, Śrīla Baladeva adheres to Madhva’s guidance, but also, from the statement “tattva-viduttamau,” that he has expressed even more faith in Rūpa and Sanātana than in Śrī Madhva. The notion that Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇavas are also tattvavādīs has also been stated by Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya himself in his introduction to his ‘Vāda’ book, on page V: “Śrī Śrī Jīva Gosvāmipāda has established tattva-vāda as described in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.”
Here Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya may say that Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī has established advitīya-tattva-vāda, or advaita or advaya-tattva-vāda, through statements like “ekamevādvitīyam,” whereas Madhva has established dvaita-tattva-vāda. In the next siddhānta (chapter), we will demonstrate how there is no difference between Madhva’s dvaita-tattva-vāda and the acintya-bhedābheda-tattva of the Gauḍīyas. What remains to be said here is that Madhva is unanimously accepted as a tattva-vādī and Jīva Gosvāmī has also established tattva-vāda. This is being propounded in Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya’s own book. Thus, as there is no difference of doctrine between us, the Madhvas and Gauḍīyas, we consider both to be tattva-vādīs. That being the case, to say “tattva-vāda-guru” is to say “the guru of our sampradāya.” Since Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī calls Madhvācārya the tattva-vāda-guru more than once, he has referred to him as the guru of his [Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī’s] own sampradāya. Thus there is no reason to think of the Gauḍīya-sampradāya as separate. This much is settled.
Vidyāvinoda’s claim of disparity and the refutation thereof
On page 45 of this essay, I have referred to two of the claims Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya has made in his ‘Vāda’ book in regard to supposed differences between the vandanās of Śrīla Jīvapāda and Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhupāda. In regard to the first claim, we have provided four reasoned rebuttals why there is no difference between the prayers of Baladeva and Jīvapāda. Now, we proceed to address the second claim referred to earlier—(kha)—which attempts to say that there is a difference between Śrī Jīvapāda’s and Śrīla Baladeva’s interpretations of the word “vṛddha-vaiṣṇavaiḥ” in Tattva-sandarbha (4th Anu). We will show here that in Jīvapāda’s own Sarva-samvādinī commentary and Śrīla Baladeva’s commentary, there is absolutely no difference between the explanations of the word “vṛddha-vaiṣṇavaiḥ”—which Jīvapāda uses in the fourth verse of his Tattva-sandarbha. Vidyāvinoda has made a very inappropriate attempt to impose a perception of difference between these two ācāryas.
We will be exposing where Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya’s festering philosophical wounds are. The main purpose of his Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda book is to show that the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇavas do not have the slightest connection with Madhvācārya. In trying to establish this misguided doctrine, he does not hesitate to present Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī as an advaita-vādī and claim he has no connection to bheda-vāda. If even a scent of bheda-vāda, or dvaita-vāda, is accepted, one will have to first embrace Śrīman Madhvācārya’s lotus feet. The thought of this is utterly intolerable to Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya. His heart does not even quiver in the slightest when he claims that even Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is a monistic, advaya-vādī text. If Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is advaya-vādī, then whose is this acintya-bhedābheda-siddhānta? Why did Vidyāvinoda even title his book Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda? In the introduction to this Vāda book (page IV), he has written without hesitation, without the slightest doubt in his heart: “Advaya-tattva (monism) is the subject of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam; it does not promote dvaita or bhedavāda.”
These sorts of ideas have entered his head as a result of his animosity to his own guru. In order to solidify this concocted idea, he has tried to define even Śrī Baladeva as a bheda-vādī, or dvaita-vādī. He has tried to say that Śrī Baladeva Prabhu is a bheda-vādī following Madhva and Śrī Jīvapāda is not a bheda-vādī, but an abheda-vādī; thus, he tries to establish that Baladeva has no connection to Śrī Jīvapāda. This kind of blasphemy is only possible for antagonists of our spiritual tradition like Kālāpāhāḍa. Kālāpāhāḍa became so enamoured with a woman that he gave up hindu-dharma and adopted yavana-dharma. Then, to uproot that hindu-dharma, he launched a campaign of unspeakably wicked crimes and atrocities, the likes of which India had never seen. There was no evil he did not perpetrate, and the ghastliness of his crimes still make India’s historians tremble. Vidyāvinoda’s overseer or operator, Vāsudeva, will reap and surely is reaping the venomous results of these kinds of offenses, which are the worst kinds. Even at present these individuals are leading their lives in an utterly detestable fashion, incurring unprecedented derision from the religious community. Just Kālāpāhāḍa could not bear to hear the word “hindu,” Sundarānanda Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya has, like Kālāpāhāḍa, given up his own tradition, the Mādhva-Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya, and cannot bear to hear the names of these ācāryas. He does not even mention the name of his own exalted gurudeva, a liberated personality, revered amongst all the ācāryas that have appeared to date, the topmost Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava ācārya, worshipped by the Gosvāmī lineage: paramahaṁsa-kula-cūḍāmaṇi oṁ viṣṇupāda Śrī Śrīmad Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī. What to speak of mentioning the name of his former guru, he cannot tolerate even hearing it. So what is surprising about hearing the name of Ānanda-tīrtha Madhvācārya being particularly objectionable to him? It is likely that the acidity in his body will be agitated if he hears this name, and that his mind will become utterly disturbed.
The crest jewel of ācāryas, the one protector of the Gauḍīya-sampradāya, Śrī Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhupāda mentions Śrī Śrīmad Ānanda-tīrtha Madhvācārya’s name in the second verse of invocation to his commentary on Tattva-sandarbha. It is this reference to Madhvācārya that is the root of all the supposed difference between Śrī Baladeva and Śrī Jīvapāda. Madhvācārya’s name is the “wound” afflicting Vidyāvinoda. Below we provide Baladeva Prabhupāda’s second verse of invocation for the readers to peruse:
māyāvādaṁ yas tamaḥ stomam uccair nāśaṁ ninye veda-vāgaṁśujālaḥ |
bhaktir-viṣṇor-darśitā yena loke jīyāt so ’yaṁ bhānur ānanda-tīrthaḥ ||
Translation: “Ānanda-tīrtha, who is a veritable sun, has totally eradicated the darkness of māyāvāda with the rays of Vedic knowledge. Thus he manifested viṣṇu-bhakti to the world.” Śrī Baladeva has thus glorified Śrī Madhvācārya. It is the mention of the name Ānanda-tīrtha that Sundarānanda interprets as the reason for the differences he perceives. Can he prove that this reference of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa is unbefitting or a lie? In his third verse of his invocation, Baladeva refers to Śrīla Rūpa and Sanātana as suns destroying the darkness of māyāvāda as well. He even refers to Śrīla Jīvapāda in a similar manner of praise. If this sort of fathomless conviction in the previous Gosvāmīs expressed by Baladeva in his description of them as the topmost ācāryas and destroyers of the Sāṅkhya dvaita-vādīs and vivarta-vādīs is considered antithetical to the conceptions of the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya, then what kind of statements are we to take as favorable to the sampradāya?
If Ācārya Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s name were to be struck from the list of Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, then whom are we to refer to as an ācārya? It was Śrī Baladeva who defended the honor of the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya at Galta Gaddi in Jaipur. Baladeva was sent there by Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī; this is accepted by everyone. No one has the right to undermine the significance of this historical incident. Baladeva was śikṣita (taught) by Śrīla Viśvanātha’s śikṣā and dīkṣita (initiated) in his dīkṣā (delivery of divine knowledge). That is how and why Baladeva was sent by him to defeat the members of the Śrī-sampradāya in Galta. Does this not prove that Viśvanātha Cakravartī was the one who inspired him to prove that the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇavas are followers of Madhva? Another disciple initiated by Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, Śrī Kṛṣṇadeva Sārvabhauma, accompanied Baladeva as well. Cakravartī Ṭhākura sent Śrīla Śrī Kṛṣṇadeva to aid and assist Śrī Baladeva Prabhu in the debate. Baladeva Prabhu was the most prominent disciple of Śrīla Cakravartī Ṭhākura; there is no difference of opinion in this regard. And Baladeva studied Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam from him. Śrīla Cakravartī Ṭhākura would have personally been present at this sāmpradāyika debate that arose in Galta had he not been extremely elderly and physically incapacitated. Here we have to consider what arguments he would have presented the Rāmānuja-sampradāya with if he had been there himself. Has Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya thought about this? What we mean to say is that Cakravartī Ṭhākura would have established the same conclusions that Baladeva did. Perhaps in that case Vidyāvinoda would have booted Cakravartī Ṭhākura out of the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya as well. We find essays by four different exalted personalities of immaculate character regarding Śrīla Baladeva’s life history—Śrīla Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda, Jagad-guru Oṁ Viṣṇupāda Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, the late Atulacandra Gosvāmī, and Śrīmad Viśvambharānanda Deva Gosvāmī Prabhu, the ācārya of the Śyāmānanda Vaiṣṇavas in Gopī-vallabhapura. Ācārya Baladeva was a prominent ācārya of the Śyāmānanda branch of Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇavas. There is no proof that Baladeva was previously an ācārya or initiated disciple in the Madhva-sampradāya. No one has provided any proper evidence in that regard, except for some hearsay and concocted information. The accounts of him being a Mādhva sannyāsī have always been eyed with doubt.
In the (kha) section of his Vāda book, Vidyāvinoda has cast aspersions on what Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu has written in his commentary on Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī’s use of “vṛddha-vaiṣṇavaiḥ” in his vandanā and thus referred to a difference of opinion between the two ācāryas. Below we quote Śrīla Jīvapāda’s vandanā verse along with Baladeva’s commentary:
ko ’pi tad-bāndhavo bhaṭṭo dakṣiṇa-dvija-vaṁśajaḥ |
vivicya vyalikhad granthaṁ likhitād vṛddha-vaiṣṇavaiḥ || 4 ||
Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu’s commentary is as follows:
“granthasya purātanatvaṁ sva-pariṣkṛtatvañcāḥ, ko ’pīti | tad-bāndhavas tayo rūpa-sanātanayor-bandhuḥ,—gopāla-bhaṭṭa ity arthaḥ |”
Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya has no qualms with this portion of the commentary. He only takes issue with the explanation of the word “vṛddha-vaiṣṇavaiḥ.” That portion is as follows:
“‘vṛddha-vaiṣṇavaiḥ’ śrī madhvādibhir likhitāt granthāt taṁ ‘vivicya’ vicārya sāraṁ gṛhītvā grantham imaṁ vyalikhat |”
The gist of these two sections of commentary is: “The subject of Śrīla Jīvapāda’s Sandarbhas is not a new one, but rather a very ancient one. In other words, it deals with subject of the Vedas and Vedānta. This book called Ṣat-sandarbha has been written from a thorough study of a book written by Rūpa and Sanātana’s bosom friend, the South-India-born brāhamaṇa Śrī Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, as well as from in-depth examinations of the philosophies presented by ancient, senior Vaiṣṇavas like Śrīman Madhvācārya.”
The cause for objection here is that somehow there has been a greivous impropreity committed by defining the word vṛddha-vaiṣṇavaiḥ as a reference to Śrī Madhva among other Vaiṣṇavas of past ages. Apparently, Madhvācārya’s name should have been omitted here. According to Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya, “Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu was a disciple of the Madhva-sampradāya; that is why he has defined this word like this—unjustly trying to force the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇavas into Madhvācārya’s sampradāya. In reality, there is no sign of Śrīla Jīvapāda having any sort of intention like this in his Tattva-sandarbha.” We are very surprised by these assumptions. Has Sundarānanda not seen Jīva Gosvāmī’s Sarva-samvādinī? Sarva-samvādinī is a most excellent text that serves as a commentary to the Tattva, Bhāgavat, Paramātma, and Kṛṣṇa-sandarbhas. In Sarva-samvādinī, Śrī Jīvapāda clearly mentions Madhvācārya’s name in his explanation of the word “vṛddha-vaiṣṇavaiḥ” as used in the “ko ’pi tad-bāndhavo” verse. An exalted personality like Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī could envision the future and already anticipated that heretical, demoniac individuals would delude the world with various misinterpretations of the word “vṛddha-vaiṣṇavaiḥ.” We provide below for the readers the interpretation he himself has given of this word in Sarva-samvādinī:
“ ‘ko ’pīti’—‘vṛddha-vaiṣṇavaiḥ’ śrī rāmānuja-madhvācārya-śrīdhara-svāmyādi-bhir yal likhitaṁ tad dṛṣṭvetyarthaḥi | anena sva-kapla-kalpitañca nirastam |” – The word ‘vṛddha-vaiṣṇavaiḥ’ used in the verse beginning with ‘ko ’pi’ refers to Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Śrīman Madhvācārya, Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmī and others. Tattva-sandarbha has been written after thoroughly consulting their written works. The implication is that this systematic approach negates any risk of propounding concocted conclusions via this work.”2
______________
2 Page 4 of Sarva-samvādinī, edited by Śrīyuta Rasika-mohana Vidyābhūṣaṇa, published by Rāma-kamala Siṁha from Baṅgīya Sāhitya Pariṣat Mandira, 1327 Sāla.
____________
Here I would like to draw the readers’ full attention to what Jīva says in his commentary. They can understand from this just how deceptive Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya is, how he has misled people and committed a grave offense at the lotus feet of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu. My personal assertion is that there is not even the slightest difference between this commentary of Śrīla Jīvapāda and that of Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. Śrīla Baladeva Prabhupāda has made a brief comment, writing “śrī-madhvādi,” whereas Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī has elaborated somewhat on what is meant by the word “ādi” and has therefore mentioned the name of Madhvācārya along with that of Śrī Rāmānuja, Śrīdhara Svāmī and others. Are we to assume that Baladeva Prabhu did not intend to indicate Rāmānuja and Śrīdhara Svāmī by adding the suffix ‘ādi’ to ‘madhva’? Śrīla Jīvapāda gives special deference to Madhvācārya in his explanation of the word vṛddha-vaiṣṇavaiḥ, citing his name between the other two, like the central gem of a necklace. Rāmānuja, Madhva, Śrīdhara—though the names of these three are mentioned in Sarva-samvādinī, Madhvācārya’s name being mentioned in the middle conveys that he is the central gem. ‘Śrīdhara-svāmyādi’ means Śrīdhara Svāmī + ādi—and here this word ādi refers to Rūpa and Sanātana. We have previously mentioned that Śrīla Baladeva has praised Śrīla Rūpa and Sanātana as “tattva-vid-uttama – the topmost of those acquainted with tattva.” It is highly inappropriate to accuse Śrīla Baladeva of being “overly attached” to Madhvācārya because he only referred to Madhva and used the word ādi instead of mentioning Rāmānuja and Śrīdhara’s names. On lines sixteen and seventeen of page 24 in his Vāda book, Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya has written: “Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Mahodaya’s excessive eagerness to include the Gauḍīya-sampradāya in the Mādhva-sampradāya….” We say, “If Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu is overly eager for anything, it is for the welfare of the living entities of the world. And if Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya is trying to pass off enmity of guru and lack of character as Vaiṣṇava-ness and is overly eager to exclude Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu from the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava guru-paramparā, then that is highly inauspicious for the world. An exalted personality’s eagerness to establish Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s prema-dharma throughout the world and a degenerate’s eagerness to subdue that same prema-dharma can never be on the same platform. Even if, for argument’s sake, we accept that Baladeva Prabhu was indeed over-zealous in his mention of Madhvācārya’s name, I will assert that this over-zealousness was an expression of mercy aimed at subduing the heretics like Sundarānanda Vidyāvinoda and Ananta-Vāsudeva. The things he implies in his book are highly objectionable; they reveal his baseness, and above all they are rooted in an offensive mentality. I have become compelled to refute his untouchable, unhearable, and unreadable book in order to protect the world from the clutches of this sort of Vaiṣṇava aparādhī. It is my fervent prayer at the lotus feet of Śrī Hari, guru, Vaiṣṇavas that even as I discuss this book with the aim of refuting it I am not inadvertently affected by duḥsaṅga (bad association).
If Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya had claimed there is a difference between Śrīla Jīvapāda’s commentary and that of Śrī Baladeva Prabhupāda and had cited both ṭīkās together for comparison in his book, then we would have gotten a sense of moral courage and bravery from him. But because he was over-zealous in his devious purpose, he deliberately declined to present both ṭīkās side-by-side. If he had done so, his attempts at deception would surely have been caught outright. This is precisely what is referred to as real jñāna-khalatā (intellectual villainy) and pāṣaṇḍatā (heresy).
The only evident difference between these two commentaries is that Śrīla Jīvapāda’s is more verbose, whereas Śrī Baladeva’s is brief, echoing Jīvapāda’s statement in a more concise fashion with the word “madhvādi.” The mere mention of Mādhvācārya’s name is not over-zealousness. Śrīla Jīvapāda refers to three ancient Vaiṣṇavas and gives Madhvācārya’s name the central spot between them, whereas Baladeva mentions only that central gem, of Madhvācārya’s name and refers to Rāmānuja and Śrīdhara Svāmī by the word “ādi.” What difference this creates between the two commentaries, we have not been able to understand. Whatever the case, here we conclude in brief our discussion of the (kha) section of Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya’s book.
“Sva-sampradāya-sahasrādhidaiva” and “saṁsārārṇava-taraṇī”
The objection Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya raises in the next section—(ga)—is something that causes us rather uncontrollable laughter. I have quoted his objection below:
“(ga) At the beginning of Sarva-samvādinī, Śrī Jīvapāda has referred to Śrī Gaurahari as “sva-sampradāya-sahasrādhidaiva.” Śrī Baladeva, in his Govinda-bhāṣya commentary and in the maṅgalācaraṇa to Prameya-ratnāvalī, has referred to Śrī Ānanda-tīrtha as “saṁsārārṇava-taraṇī” and deemed Śrī Gaurahari to be a member of the Mādhva-sampradāya.
(Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda—page 242)
Here Sundarānanda intends to demonstrate the difference between Śrīla Jīvapāda’s usage of “sva-sampradāya-sahasrādhidaiva” and Śrī Baladeva’s “saṁsārārṇava-taraṇī.” If this sort of difference determined the separation of mata or sampradāya, it would be impossible to establish any sort of similarity or shared identity between ācāryas and their disciples and grand-disciples. The scholars of the inimical advaita-vādī lineage are even trying to find disparity between the teachings of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī and Śrīla Kavirāja Gosvāmī. Not only that, members of the sahajiyā faction like Haridāsa Bābājī and Ananta-Vāsudeva have found differences between Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī and Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī. It is among scholars like the author of this Vāda book that such heretical notions crop up, like thinking Jīva Gosvāmī, who was Śrī Rūpapāda's devout disciple, became a svakīya-vādī and established a doctrine opposed to that of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī. Even so, in his Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda book, Sundarānanda has not determined that Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, Śrīla Kavirāja Gosvāmī and other ācāryas belong to different sampradāyas. Even though there are unique specialities (vaiśiṣṭya) to their matas, or points of view, there is no bheda, no substantive or polarizing difference that separates them. Bheda and vaiśiṣṭya are not the same thing.
Here the other point to be discussed is Śrīla Jīvapāda’s reference to Śrīman Mahāprabhu Gaurasundara as “sva-sampradāya-sahasrādhidaiva” in Sarva-samvādinī. Here Śrīla Jīvapāda means to reveal Mahāprabhu’s glories. If Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu had in any way diminished what Jīvapāda has written about Śrīman Mahāprabhu’s glories, then it would have been fitting to say there is some difference between Jīvapāda and Baladeva. But here Baladeva chose to glorify sevaka-tattva, the bhagavad-bhakta Śrī Ānanda-tīrtha with his use of the word “saṁsārārṇava-taraṇī.” There really is no context to bring up the issue of disparity between the two ācāryas. We are more than ready to insist with great intensity that nowhere has Śrī Baladeva glorified Mahāprabhu in a way that is less than Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī’s glorifications. Rather, in many places, Baladeva ascribes an even greater degree of glory to Mahāprabhu. We can show this from the maṅgalācaraṇa verse of Govinda-bhāṣya mentioned by Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya. He has chosen not to bring this to his readers’ attention. In his “Prārambhika Vākye,” in the 4th Anuccheda of his Vāda book, on page 241, he says: “If you compare Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Mahodaya’s over-zealousness and Śrī Śrī Jīvapāda’s train of thought side-by-side, you can get sense of the real history.” Though he says this, he does not actually show any statements made by Jīvapāda next to those of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. If he had shown their actual statements next to each other, he would not have been able to present such a deceptive text to society. Bravo to his audacity, bravo to his cunning style of writing!
Below we have cited the maṅgalācaraṇa verse Śrī Baladeva wrote about Śrīman Mahāprabhu in his Sūkṣmā-ṭīkā on Govinda-bhāṣya:
gajapatir anukampā-sampadā yasya sadyaḥ
samajani niravadyaḥ sāndramānandamṛcchan |
nivasatu mama tasmin kṛṣṇa-caitanya-rūpe
mati-rati-madhurimnā dīpyamāne murārau ||
(Second maṅgalācaraṇa verse by Śrī Baladeva in his Govinda-bhāṣya-ṭīkā)
May my mind dwell upon that Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Murāri who is refulgent with the utmost sweetness. By the wealth of His mercy, Gajapati Śrīla Pratāparudra has obtained the form of profound bliss, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself, and thus obtained the perfection of life.
Besides Prameya-ratnāvalī, Śrīla Baladeva Prabhu has used this śloka as the second verse of his maṅgalācaraṇa to Siddhānta-ratna. Here he has described Śrīman Mahāprabhu as “Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, who is Murāri Śrī Hari Himself and who is refulgent with the utmost sweetness.” If we compare this statement with Śrīla Jīvapāda’s “sva-sampradāya-sahasrādhidaiva,” the sweetness of Śrī Baladeva’s statement is evident—even though Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī Prabhu describes Śrīman Mahāprabhu with the following maṅgalācaraṇa of Sarva-samvādinī: “durlabha-prema-pīyūṣa-maya-gaṅgā-pravāha-sahasraṁ sva-sampradāya-sahasrādhidaivam śrī śrī kṛṣṇa-caitanya-deva-nāmānaṁ śrī bhagavantaṁ.” Here we submit to the readers that there really is no difference between the prayers of Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa and those of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī. Both have, in the same tone, praised Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu as Śrī Bhagavān Himself. Śrī Jīvapāda, at the start of Sarva-samvādinī, was commencing a dicussion of Śrīman Mahāprabhu’s tattva. Even though this is not Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s topic at the start of Govinda-bhāṣya, he sings the praises of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and His associates, albeit arguably incidentally.
Rasika Mohana Vidyābhūṣaṇa Mahāśaya has translated “sva-sampradāya-sahasrādhidaiva” as “the supreme presiding deity of His own sampradāya.” The author of this Vāda book translates it as: “the eternal presiding deity of thousands and thousands of sampradāyas He has founded.”
Here we need to compare the translation of revered scholar Rasika Vidyābhūṣaṇa and that of Sundarānanda. In any case, without getting into further analysis, if we accept both translations, there is still not the slightest detectable difference between the statements made by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa and Jīvapāda. Besides, it is difficult to understand what Vidyāvinoda means by saying Śrīman Mahāprabhu is the presiding deity of thousands and thousands of sampradāyas that He has founded. There is only one sampradāya founded by Mahāprabhu, which we know as the pure Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya. But if Sundarānanda has himself become part of the sahajiyā faction and wants to establish the sahajiyās as comprising a lineage that is part of Mahāprabhu’s sampradāya, he can do so. We know well that nowadays there are many apasampradāyas (bogus lineages) spreading all over India in Mahāprabhu’s name. Of them, we see that the thirteen apasampradāyas identified by Siddha Totārāma Bābājī Mahārāja have been around for over two hundred years. The sonnet he composed in this regard is as follows:
āula, bāula, karttābhajā, neḍā, daraveśa, sā̃ī |
sahajiyā, sakhibhekī, smārtta, jāta-gosā̃i ||
atibāḍī, cuḍādhārī, gaurāṅga-nāgarī |
totā kahe,—ei terar saṅga nāhi kari ||
Besides these, there are many new apasampradāyas cropping up:
(1) kiśorī-bhajā, (2) bhajana-khājā, koto boli hāya!
(3) guru-bhogī, (4) guru-tyāgī, āra je bāhirāya ||
(4) asīmā-tyajā—praṇati-majā, āra bāsudevī khala |
(6) dārī-sannyāsī, (7) śiṣyā-vilāsī, (8) guru-prasādī dala ||
(9) upanayana-tyajā, (10) paramahaṁsa-sājā, (11) sāṅkara-varṇa jata |
(12) asat-saṅga, (13) dvipāda-bhaṅga, (14) sevāparādhī tata ||
(15) rāmadāsa, (16) haridāsa, (17) hariboliyā mata |
(18) nitāi rādhā-gaura śyāma, varṇibo vā koto ||
(19) sītā-rāmiyā, (20) rādhā-śyāmiyā, (21) sāuḍīra dala āra |
(22) ghara-pāgalā, (23) gṛhī-bāulā, saba cine uṭhā bhāra ||
(24) varṇa-virāgī, (25) āśrama-rodhī, (26) gairika-virodhī ’ṣaṇḍa |
(27) dhāmāparādhī, (28) nāmāparādhī, (29) vaiṣṇavāparādhī bhaṇḍa ||
(30) advaya-vādī—madhva-virodhī, e saba pāṣaṇḍa |
(31) kānupriyā, (32) nātha-bhāyā, ākāla kuṣmāṇḍa ||
(33) gauḍeśvara, (34) vaṁśīdhara, (35) ulaicaṇḍī-vāda |
(36) smaraṇa-panthī—adhomanthī, (37) yugala-bhajana sādha ||
(38) dādā o mā, (39) kṣepā bāmā, āra jata apasampradāya |
deśa-videśe, sādhura veśe, ghureche phirche hāya!!
pūrvakāle tero chila apasampradāya |
tina-tero bāḍala ebe dharmā rākhā dāya!!
At present, with Totā Bābājī’s thirteen apasampradāyas and thirty-nine new ones, there is a new total of fifty-two apasampradāyas that have become rather prominent. Still we cannot find thousands and thousands of sampradāyas. Some interpret the word sampradāya to refer to all the disciples in the sampradāya and their respective disciplic successions. This, to us, seems the most fitting interpretation. In that case, Śrīman Mahāprabhu is understood to be the presiding deity only of the sampradāya following His direct guidance. Thus, referring to Śrīman Mahāprabhu as “sva-sampradāya-sahasrādhidaiva” takes on a somwhat restricted scope. He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the source of all incarnations and Murāri Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself. “Keho māne, keho nā māne, saba tā̃ra dāsa – All are His servants, though some accept the fact and some do not.” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 6.83) Therefore, to think Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s hymn is different Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī’s and present it as less than is mired in aparādha. Still, Subodha Bābu’s objection may be that Baladeva was wrong to describe Śrī Gaurahari as a descendant of the Mādhva-sampradāya. We will present an extensive response to this in sections (gha) and (ṅa).
Mahāprabhu is Svayaṁ Bhagavān, Kṛṣṇacandra Himself—on this point there is no difference of opinion. To think that Svayaṁ Bhagavān cannot perform a pastime of accepting dīkṣā or śikṣā from anyone is some newfangled notion. Śrī Rāmacandra sought guidance from Vaśiṣṭha, Kṛṣṇacandra took Sāndipani Muni as guru and Śrīman Mahāprabhu received dīkṣā-śikṣā from Īśvara Purī. Doing so did not impair Their bhagavattā (Godhood) at all. Svayaṁ Bhagavān engages in such pastimes for the benefit of the living entities. Therefore, being part of a certain sampradāya does not do anything to Mahāprabhu’s bhagavattā or His tattva.
Besides this, in his maṅgalācaraṇa to his ṭīkā on his Vedānta bhāṣya, Śrī Baladeva outlines the guru-paramparā, or sampradāya, and writes the following in relation to Śrīman Mahāprabhu: “śrī kṛṣṇa-prema-dānena yena nistāritaṁ jagat – He who has delivered the world by bestowing divine love for Śrī Kṛṣṇa.” By this, Baladeva has described Śrīman Mahāprabhu as the bestower of kṛṣṇa-prema. And regarding Madhvācārya, he has said:
ānanda-tīrtha-nāmā sukhamaya-dhāmā yatir-jīyāt |
saṁsārārṇava-taraṇiṁ yam iha janāḥ kīrttayanti budhāḥ ||
This refers to Madhvācārya as the boat to ferry souls across the ocean of material existence. One personality is the bestower of kṛṣṇa-prema. The other is the deliverer of souls from saṁsāra. Whom will Vidyāvinoda Mahāśaya deem as superior? The bestowal of prema is infinitely superior to deliverance from saṁsāra. This is something every Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava will accept. What Śrīla Kavirāja Gosvāmī has written regarding the difference in the results to be reaped from mantra and mahā-mantra deserves our careful perusal:
kṛṣṇa-mantra haite haya saṁsāra-mocana |
kṛṣṇa-nāma haite pāya kṛṣṇera caraṇa ||
Kṛṣṇa’s name is the mahā-mantra, whereby one attains the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa and kṛṣṇa-prema. Śrīla Baladeva Prabhu has described Śrīman Mahāprabhu as greater than Madhvācārya with his statement “śrī kṛṣṇa-prema-dānena yena nistāritaṁ jagat.” Madhvācārya has been entrusted with the responsibility of saṁsāra-mocana, which is the function of mantra. This does not convey Madhvācārya as superior to Śrīman Mahāprabhu. Even though Bhagavān Himself has said, “Mad-bhakta-pūjābhyadhikā – The worship of My devotee is greater than worship of Me,” that does not hamper His bhagavattā; rather, it multiplies His sweetness to infinity. Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself has said: “The servant of the devotee is a devotee; the servant of Īśvara is not.”
ye me bhakta-janāḥ pārtha na me bhaktāś ca te janāḥ |
mad-bhaktāñca ye bhaktās te me bhaktatamā matāḥ ||
(Ādi Purāṇa)
Śrī Kṛṣṇa is saying to Arjuna: “O Pārtha! All those devotees who worship Me directly are not really My devotees. But those who worship My devotees are the topmost of all devotees.”
Bhagavān is subservient to His devotees. This is the foremost conception of Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇavas. This highlights the glory of Bhagavān more than anything.