Sastra support - Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu

[Guest guest]

On 10 Feb 2000, Radha Raman wrote:

 

> > Does anybody have a good compilation of sastric evidences supporting Lord

> > Caitanya as the Yuga Avatara as well as His being Swayam Bhagavan - and

> > specifically those mentioning His names such as Caitanya, Gaura etc. I met

> > some scholarly Hindus who question this and are not satisfied with the

> > standard quotes from SB as they don't mention Lord Caitanya's names

> > directly.

 

> Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu predicted - attached file

 

These are very good questions which I myself have often posed. I have not

reviewed yet the evidences enclosed in the attached files, and I look forward

to doing so. But based on my experience, it is unlikely that scholarly Hindus

will be satisfied with the sources which are traditionally quoted to support

Mahaaprabhu's divinity. An important question, however, is should we be

satisfied with such sources. Are we really accepting Mahaaprabhu's divinity on

the basis of an objective review of the evidence, or merely on the basis of

blind devotion to our tradition? You are right in pointing out that the

Bhaagavatam does not explicitly mention Mahaaprabhu's names, and in fact no

other tradition has come to the conclusion based on it that there is a Kali

Yuga avataara fitting Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu's description. On the other hand,

there is the Chaitanya Upanishad which explicitly speaks of Lord Chaitanya.

But then again, no one else except us has heard of this Upanishad, and the

skepticism in such uncommon Upanishads is probably not unjustified when you

consider the fact there are texts like "Allah Upanishad" out there which also

are advertised as being bona fide. Then there are numerous references in the

Puraanas to Mahaaprabhu, but every single one that I have investigated in a

modern publication of the Puraana I have been unable to find (lost verses?).

There are also quotes in various Tantras, Samhitas, Yaamala, and so on, but

again, the question is who accepts these literatures as bona fide, and on what

basis? What is the point of proving a point based on literatures which only we

accept anyway?

 

I don't have the answers to all of these questions, but I think it would be an

interesting discussion to have assuming everyone could discuss it calmly.

 

yours,

 

K