The “schism” among Vaisnavas

[Guest guest]

 

This “schism” among different groups of Vaisnavas seems to happen in a specific period of the Vaisnavism’s renascence in the medieval Vraja.

 

The "schism" between the Radha Vallabhis and the Gaudiyas are now events that have been somewhat lost in time, the Gaudiyas have tried to reclaim Prabodhananda, but it would appear that at one time they disowned him.

 

Besides the rupture between Gaudiyas and Radha-Vallabhis the rupture between Gaudiyas and Sri Vallabhacarya’s sampradaya is given in some details by a Pusti-marga source, as follows:

 

“One must remember that there are only two Mahaprabhus of the highest order - Sri Chaitanya and Sri Vallabha. Both had profound love for Hari and both worked tirelessly to consolidate the path of devotion in an age full of fear and persecution for the Hindus.

 

“ These two great men did have some personal dealings and discussions. Sri Vallabha was impressed enough with his followers to appoint them as the main priests in his new temple of Sri Nathaji (Govardhan-Dharan as He was than known).

 

“Sri Vallabha had respect for Sri Chaitanya and gave the Gaudias special place in his temples. It seems like the conceit that later crept in the mind-set of the Gaudias made the two sects and their leaders fall out and the Gaudias were expelled from Pushti Marg. That may account for derisory remarks in later works of the Gaudias.

 

“Sri Vallabha met one of the goswamis in Mathura. The two men disagreed on a single point - Gaudia principle being "if you can think of the Lord for but a moment, even the time it takes for a seed of mustard to roll off a bull's horn (ie no time at all), you will enter Vaikuntha." Sri Vallabha's viewpoint was "If you forget the Lord, even for a fraction of the time it takes a muster seed to roll off a bull's horn, you will enmesh yourself in the cycles of samsara. For certain this kind of controversy can not cause any rupture in Vaisnavas’ relationship, and the dealings between Gaudiyas and Sri Vallabha’s followers were always very friendly at that time.

 

“ As Sri Vallabha gave the Gaudias special place in his temples, they managed to keep their posts under Sri Vallabha’s successor - Sri Gopinathji. Later, in Sri Gusaiji's time (Sri Vallabha's second son), there was some disagreement as to the type / quality of seva being offered. The head priest was accused of secretly offering puja and prasada (that should have been for Sri Nathaji) to a small icon of a devi (Radha) he concealed in his hair. He would take this devi out at the times of offering a meal and place her before the Lord Sri Nathaji.

 

“According to Sri Vallabha’s instructions the worship of Radha is not a Vaisnava conduct, it is a sakta interpolation in seva, as no Vaisnava group would worship a sakti in the same manner as Hari Himself (There is not a second Hari).

 

“Gusaiji took this to be an affront and removed Gaudia priests from the temple service. There was a violent reaction to the sackings and their huts were burned down. Matter went up to the court of the local ruler. However, he ruled that Gusaiji was in charge of the temple and as such could hire and fire as he sees fit. The Gaudiya priests have not been hired by Pushti Marg Havelies since that time.

 

“The Gaudiyas' compendium of theology (Sri Caitanya Caritamrta) was written short after this incident. In this book, Sri Vallabhacarya is offended and placed in many ridiculous positions before Sri Caitanya.

 

“During the 18th century there were some run-ins between the sects in various places - one was at Jaipur. The king there was once a Pushti Marg vaishnav. Later, the family converted to Gaudia sampradaya. The Goswami in charge of the Nidhi-svarupa moved to Bikaner and later back to Vraj

 

[Guest guest]

The schism between Vallabhins and Gaudiyas is particularly meaningful, as it evidences a new theology raised by Gaudiyas that wasn’t present within Gaudiyas’ sect before, during the time of the friendly relationship between Vallabha and the Gaudiya Goswamis from Vrindavana, such as Rupa, Sanatana and Raghunatha dasa.

 

The Vallabhins were complying that the Gaudiya pujaris were secretly worshiping a devi (Radha) together with Krsna, and according to Sri Vallabha’s instructions the worship of Radha is not a Vaisnava conduct, as it is a sakta interpolation in seva, and no Vaisnava group would worship a sakti in the same manner as Hari Himself (There is not a second Hari).

 

This kind of worship wasn’t present before that incident, and for certain it wasn’t a capital principle for Gaudiyas.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Vallabhas worship Yamuna Devi along with Govardhana. There is practically no Vedic worship devoid of a divine feminine principle.

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

 

.....the Gaudiya pujaris were secretly worshiping a devi (Radha) together with Krsna

Even the meetings

between Radha and Krishna

are a SECRET affair ........

 

 

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

...... the worship of Radha is not a Vaisnava conduct, as it is a sakta interpolation in seva, and no Vaisnava group would worship a sakti in the same manner as Hari Himself (There is not a second Hari).

 

 

 

If there is no "second" Hari,

how can one be accused of worshipping

a "second" Hari ?

 

 

 

[jijaji 0]

satya said:

The historic events narrated by Krsnadas in Caitanya-caritramrta are quite different than the same episodes narrated by Vallabha’s followers and other sectarian groups.

 

jijaji:

Can you give a few examples of such events and how some of the stories differed?

 

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 11-21-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Jndas: Vallabhas worship Yamuna Devi along with Govardhana. There is practically no Vedic worship devoid of a divine feminine principle.

 

Satyaraj: Vallabhacarya did admit Radha and other sakhis as Hari’s partners in His lilas and worshipable entities, but he has rejected the theology that try to explain these sakhis as Hari’s saktis simply because Badarayana Rsi has strongly rejected this perspective.

 

Vallabha has given more importance to Yamuna sakhi and some other swaminis than to Radha. His Yamunastakam is very famous, starting with the grace of Sri Yamunaji Sri Vallbhacharya says, “she purifies body, mind and senses. The devotee has no other desire except union with Hari and enjoyment of Hari's love after purification of heart, and change of nature.”

 

There are some subtle aspect in Vedic worship that a worshiper should be aware. For certain Hari’s partners in His lilas such as gopis are worshipable.

 

The point is that a theology or a religious process that admit the worship of such partners as Hari’s saktis is not allowed by sruti. Therefore it is a concocted process and its origin may be found in Tantras and other scriptures that aren’t Vedics. These texts are very imaginative and many schools of thought do consider this Pañcaratrika-vidya as mere superstition.

 

The theology that instructs that the worship of a sakti can give one the ‘seva’ made by that sakti, or the feeling of that sakti, is part of the sakta theology, and it was refuted by Vedavyasa himself as a non-sense. This theology is from Pañcaratrika-vidya and it is not considered as Vedic.

 

This theology was not introduced by Sri Caitanya as many use to believe. The worship of saktis, or a devi besides Hari was introduced into Gaudiya’s practices latter on Sri Caitanya’s disappearance

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jijaji: Can you give a few examples of such events and how some of the stories differed?

 

Satyaraj:

There is a prosperous Vaisnava-sampradaya in Vraja called the Radha-vallabha-sampradaya. Its founder was Harivamsa, who came to Vraj in 1533 and independently started the service of Radhavallabha in 1535.

 

His followers consider him as the joint form of Hari and His vamsa (flute). It is said that at the age of six months he has recited the Radharasasudhanidhi that was copied down by his uncle Nrsimhasrama. It is also said that he was initiated in a yugalamantra by Radha herself, who also has instructed him on where to find the deity of Rangilal.

 

When he was 32 years old he was instructed by Radha to go to Vraj, where he consecrated the idol of Radhavallabha two years latter. Like many of the spiritual leaders of the time, he played part in ‘discovering’ the old sacred spots of Vraj. Harivamsa has to his credit the discovery of sacred spots such as Vamsi-vata and Sevakuñja even today.

 

He had important associates such as Harirama Vyasa and many disciples.

 

His mood was of deep devotion towards Radha, serving the married couple (Radha-Krsna) as a sakhi with spontaneous feelings.

 

It is important to stress that Harivamsa had a complete lack of interest in the rules and regulations of vaidhi-bhakti. He has rejected all orthodox precepts and prohibitions in favor of pure devotion, and has renounced even to ekadasi days because they denied him the consumption of prasada. He has defeated ceremonialists such as Saivas and Saktas and has ignored all the samskaras rites.

 

Amongst the Gaudiyas, however, there is a tradition which tries to connects Hita Harivamsa to Gopala Bhatta Goswami. The first version of that story is found in Premavilasa by Nityananda dasa, a book made more than one hundred years after Harivamsa disappearance.

 

In that book is stated that; “Harivamsa disobeyed his spiritual master; thus though his many good qualities, they were all destroyed.” Further editions of this book contain many interpolations which expand extensively on this theme, related in Krsnadas’ Bhaktamala (1800), as follows:

 

“...Harivamsa Gowami was a disciple of Gopala Bhatta Goswami. One ekadasi day he ate the prasada betel, and because of this his guru pronounced him guilty. Gopala Bhatta chastised him; there was not the least fault in this as Gopala Bhatta was the preceptor, and moreover this was the system. After this incident Harivamsa turned against his guru. Since then they (the Radhavallabhins) do not agree with the other sampradayas in social interchanges, the partaking food and in metaphysics. A schism occurred and now there is not commensality with the other sampradayas..."

 

The latter, embellished version of Premavilasa also includes a narrative of the unsavory death of Harivamsa with some macabre details, such as how his head has chopped out from his body and threw away into Yamuna as a result of his ‘offences’ and how Gopala Bhatta has mercifully pardoned his disciple post mortem. Harivamsa’s head passed floating and shaking by Yamuna’s waves as it was offering reverences to his guru and asking for his pardon.

 

According to Harivamsas biographers he was never been the pujari of the deity of Radharamana simply because he has dead before the deity’s manifestation. They also never had mentioned any relationship between Harivamsa and Gopala Battha, what to say a guru/disciple dealing.

 

[jijaji 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Jijaji: Can you give a few examples of such events and how some of the stories differed?

 

Satyaraj:

There is a prosperous Vaisnava-sampradaya in Vraja called the Radha-vallabha-sampradaya. Its founder was Harivamsa, who came to Vraj in 1533 and independently started the service of Radhavallabha in 1535.

 

His followers consider him as the joint form of Hari and His vamsa (flute). It is said that at the age of six months he has recited the Radharasasudhanidhi that was copied down by his uncle Nrsimhasrama. It is also said that he was initiated in a yugalamantra by Radha herself, who also has instructed him on where to find the deity of Rangilal.

 

When he was 32 years old he was instructed by Radha to go to Vraj, where he consecrated the idol of Radhavallabha two years latter. Like many of the spiritual leaders of the time, he played part in ‘discovering’ the old sacred spots of Vraj. Harivamsa has to his credit the discovery of sacred spots such as Vamsi-vata and Sevakuñja even today.

 

He had important associates such as Harirama Vyasa and many disciples.

 

His mood was of deep devotion towards Radha, serving the married couple (Radha-Krsna) as a sakhi with spontaneous feelings.

 

It is important to stress that Harivamsa had a complete lack of interest in the rules and regulations of vaidhi-bhakti. He has rejected all orthodox precepts and prohibitions in favor of pure devotion, and has renounced even to ekadasi days because they denied him the consumption of prasada. He has defeated ceremonialists such as Saivas and Saktas and has ignored all the samskaras rites.

 

Amongst the Gaudiyas, however, there is a tradition which tries to connects Hita Harivamsa to Gopala Bhatta Goswami. The first version of that story is found in Premavilasa by Nityananda dasa, a book made more than one hundred years after Harivamsa disappearance.

 

In that book is stated that; “Harivamsa disobeyed his spiritual master; thus though his many good qualities, they were all destroyed.” Further editions of this book contain many interpolations which expand extensively on this theme, related in Krsnadas’ Bhaktamala (1800), as follows:

 

“...Harivamsa Gowami was a disciple of Gopala Bhatta Goswami. One ekadasi day he ate the prasada betel, and because of this his guru pronounced him guilty. Gopala Bhatta chastised him; there was not the least fault in this as Gopala Bhatta was the preceptor, and moreover this was the system. After this incident Harivamsa turned against his guru. Since then they (the Radhavallabhins) do not agree with the other sampradayas in social interchanges, the partaking food and in metaphysics. A schism occurred and now there is not commensality with the other sampradayas..."

 

The latter, embellished version of Premavilasa also includes a narrative of the unsavory death of Harivamsa with some macabre details, such as how his head has chopped out from his body and threw away into Yamuna as a result of his ‘offences’ and how Gopala Bhatta has mercifully pardoned his disciple post mortem. Harivamsa’s head passed floating and shaking by Yamuna’s waves as it was offering reverences to his guru and asking for his pardon.

 

According to Harivamsas biographers he was never been the pujari of the deity of Radharamana simply because he has dead before the deity’s manifestation. They also never had mentioned any relationship between Harivamsa and Gopala Battha, what to say a guru/disciple dealing.

That was interesting Satyji...

 

I wanted to ask you....do you have any other historical sources that describe Chaitanya and his school from the perspective of the Vallabhas, other Vaishnavas or Vedantins that were around at the time Chaitanyism became prominent in Braja..?

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 11-26-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Jiajai: I wanted to ask you....do you have any other historical sources that describe Chaitanya and his school from the perspective of the Vallabhas, other Vaishnavas or Vedantins that were around at the time Chaitanyism became prominent in Braja..?

 

{b]Satyaraj: Yes, for certain we are studding some other historical sources with a pith of salt too. As you known these historic facts and biographies are not to be taken as literal relates like we use to have in West. They are mixed with so many interpolations, and are mainly hagiographies.

 

Look at the Premavilasa, for example. At every new edition one may find an ‘enriched’ version of the same fact. Can you trust at any hagiography made by a believer or by a fanatic?

 

Many Western are now studding these historical facts with some interest. See the new thread that I had opened today made by a scholar. It seems to be familiar, isn’t? We had the same discussion on the Tantric origin of Gaudiya-vaisnavism some time ago. See a thread that I had opened named “Is Caitanya a Tantric God?” Do you remember it?

 

 

 

[jijaji 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Jiajai: I wanted to ask you....do you have any other historical sources that describe Chaitanya and his school from the perspective of the Vallabhas, other Vaishnavas or Vedantins that were around at the time Chaitanyism became prominent in Braja..?

 

{b]Satyaraj: Yes, for certain we are studding some other historical sources with a pith of salt too. As you known these historic facts and biographies are not to be taken as literal relates like we use to have in West. They are mixed with so many interpolations, and are mainly hagiographies.

 

Look at the Premavilasa, for example. At every new edition one may find an ‘enriched’ version of the same fact. Can you trust at any hagiography made by a believer or by a fanatic?

 

Many Western are now studding these historical facts with some interest. See the new thread that I had opened today made by a scholar. It seems to be familiar, isn’t? We had the same discussion on the Tantric origin of Gaudiya-vaisnavism some time ago. See a thread that I had opened named “Is Caitanya a Tantric God?” Do you remember it?

 

 

Yes I certainly do remember Satya...

 

It is interesting if we compare Murari Guptas biographies to those composed later i.e. Vrndavana das, Krishnadas, Lochandas etc..we find the same stories about Chaitanya becoming embellished with more and more miracle stories that were never mentioned by eyewitnesses like Murari.

 

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 11-26-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Jijaji: It is interesting if we compare Murari Guptas biographies to those composed later i.e. Vrndavana das, Krishnadas, Lochandas etc..we find the same stories about Chaitanya becoming embellished with more and more miracle stories that were never mentioned by eyewitnesses like Murari.

 

Satyaraj: Yes, it is just like the Buddhist masters who state that they are seeing nirvana and can describe it for their sincere and initiated followers. Many new accounts on nirvana may be added to the original texts of the sect.

 

This Gaudiya literature is considered authoritative because their authors are to be taken as self-realized seers who are witnessing those embellishments straight from a transcendental source such as their samadhi.

 

Perhaps one day the Buddhist nirvana may have an encounter with the transcendental Vraja or vice-versa!

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Perhaps one day the Buddhist nirvana may have an encounter with the transcendental Vraja or vice-versa!

 

A dear friend of mine has sent the following commentary:

 

"I was fortunate to have the association of a Swamiji who was very familiar with the teachings of Lord Buddha and very much

fond of Him became the Vraja Rasik Saint. He used to tell me that 'Nirvana' is comparable to 'switching off the light or blowing off the candle' when the Couple (Lord and His Lover) is READY to engage in making Love!!

For outsiders it seems like 'nothing' is happening while only the Lovers experience the rest!"

 

For certain another Tantric-buddhist coverted to Gaudiya-vaisnavism!I will personally take this comment with some pith of salt, as in nirvana one won't see any 'Lord' and what to say His lover.

 

Buddhist's nirvana is a kind of complete sayujiya where forms are not present at all.

 

Sayujiya plus forms and names is Vaikhunta, and also Goloka, a very imaginative conception indeed, like that of that Swami.