Sri Chaitanya in the Bhavishya Purana

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Some people have blindly claimed Sri Chaitanya is only mentioned in Puranas from Bengal. I have replied that we have in our library many South Indian manuscripts that contain these predictive verses of Sri Chaitanya, texts that could not have been interpolated by Bengali followers of Chaitanya. Now it appears that even the Nag publishers edition of Bhavishya Purana also contains these chapters predicting Sri Chaitanya.

 

Nag publishers only prints "critical editions" of the Puranas. This means they take many manuscripts of a Purana from different parts of India, and they keep only those portions which are present in all the manuscripts. In this way the local variations are removed and only the universally accepted main body of the text is published.

 

The following message was sent by H.K. Susarla:

 

I've got the Nag Publishers edition of the [bhavishya] Puraana. Nag usually tries to publish "critical editions" of texts, if memory serves. That being said, I was able to locate the chapters using your coordinates. I have them as Pratisarga Parva, Chaturtha khanda, adhyaaya 19 and 20

(Bhavishya Puraana 3.4.19-20).

 

The titles of these adhyaayas are as follows:

 

19: kR^iShNachaitanyayaj~naa.nshashiShya balabhadra viShNusvaami madhvaachaaryaadicharitravR^ittaantavarNanas shlo 66

 

20: kR^iShNachaitanyachiiratravarNane jagannathamaahaatmyavarNanam

shlo 91

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 10-02-2001).]

[shvu]

 

If Chaitanya's name is explicitly mentioned in the BP, then how are the following questions answered?

 

1. Why didn't Madhva et al., notice this point and state there was another avatar of Vishnu in Kali-yuga besides the Buddha?

 

2. If Vyasa felt it apt to mentioned Chaitanya by name in the BP, why did he leave out his name in the Vishnu Purana and the Bhagavatam?

 

3. If his name is mentioned so clearly in the BP, what is the reason behind the Gaudiyas calling him a "hidden" avatar?

 

The simple answer to all these questions is, the BP was interpolated after chaitanya. But if someone has an alternate plausible answer, I would be very interested to know more.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

Jndas: Some people have blindly claimed Sri Chaitanya is only mentioned in Puranas from Bengal.

 

Satyaraj: We had never stated that in these forums. We were asking from the sruti sources of Caitanya?s divinity. We had stressed that a sound evidence would be a reference from sruti made before his advent and easily available nowadays.

 

These evidence from sruti texts were given, but none of them were plausible, as they weren?t even remotely connected with this subject matter and some were simply non-existent.

 

So, we may question:

 

1) Why to provide such non-plausible evidences?

 

2) What are these Puranas from Bengal?

 

3) You are arguing that this BP is a bona fide evidence. But, what is the age of these manuscripts? Are they dated before Caitanya?s advent? How can you prove the fact that they are ancient than Caitanya?

 

We also had extensively discussed the proofs that Gaudiyas had pointed out from several smrtis, Itihasas, and Pañcaratras but none of them were conclusive, as most were simply made after Caitanya?s advent, and many were clear interpolations, and others had simply disappeared from the mentioned texts.

 

One example of this sort of disappearance is the large narrative made by Locana das in his Caitanya-mangala, where he gives several details on Caitanya?s avatara from a dialog between Siva and Parvati found in Padma Purana. But nowadays no version of the Padma Purana present this narrative.

 

[shvu]

 

Jndas: Some people have blindly claimed Sri Chaitanya is only mentioned in Puranas from Bengal.

Satyaraj: We had never stated that in these

forums.

 

That was me. I have stated that many times.

 

You are arguing that this BP is a bona fide evidence. But, what is the age of these manuscripts? Are they dated before Caitanya?s advent? How can you prove the fact that they are ancient than Caitanya?

There certainly was a Bhavishya Purana before the time of chaitanya, as the list of 18 puranas is found in the Bhagavatam and also in the Vishnu Purana. But the content of the present day version of BP is what is dubious. It is impossible for the BP to have had Chaitanya's name, for all the reasons, I have mentioned above. The same logic applies to the present day versions of the Brahma vaivarta Purana, which mentions Radha.

 

Cheers

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

1. Why didn't Madhva et al., notice this point and state there was another avatar of Vishnu in Kali-yuga besides the Buddha?

Read the two chapters of Bhavishya Purana referenced above. These questions are answered therein.

 

These two chapters describe Sri Chaitanya's meeting the acharyas of the four sampradayas in his aprakata-lila (unmanifested pastimes) and his instructing them.

 

2. If Vyasa felt it apt to mentioned Chaitanya by name in the BP, why did he leave out his name in the Vishnu Purana and the Bhagavatam?

Purana's generally deal with "history", what has already occured. It is only the Bhavishya Purana which is primarily devoted to describing the history of the future. For this reason many personalities such as Chaitanya, Madhva, Ramanuja, etc., are described in this text.

 

3. If his name is mentioned so clearly in the BP, what is the reason behind the Gaudiyas calling him a "hidden" avatar?

Sri Chaitanya is hidden because He comes in the guise of a devotee.

[Guest guest]

 

Jndas: Purana's generally deal with "history", what has already occured. It is only the Bhavishya Purana which is primarily devoted to describing the history of the future.

 

Satyaraj: This statement only exposes your deep ignorance on that topic. Texts that generally deal with “history,” that has already occurred are called Itihasas. Purana means ‘complete’ as an encyclopedic compendium, dealing with 10 basic topics. All Puranas describe the future, as one can read in the 12th Canto of the Bhagavata, in the previsions of Padma Purana, Narada Purana, Skanda Purana, and so on.

 

If you state that the Bhavisya is primarily devoted to describe the history of the future, it cannot be considered as a mahapurana, as that is not the subject matter of a mahapurana. This statement of yours only enhances the suspect that this present BP is only a bogus version from a lost ancient original Purana.

 

[jijaji]

JNDS:

Read the two chapters of Bhavishya Purana referenced above. These questions are answered therein.

 

These two chapters describe Sri Chaitanya's meeting the acharyas of the four sampradayas in his aprakata-lila (unmanifested pastimes) and his instructing them.

 

JIJAJI:

Could you please give us more on these 2 chapters, some of us don't have copies.

Also I would like to see how these two verses appear with the rest of the chapters their found in.

 

some good questions brought up here....again why would Vyasa bring him up in one Purana and not list him at all in the others lists of Avatars....?

 

For that matter why was the Chaitanya Upanishad hidden for so long but popped up suddenly in Bengal..?

 

jijaji

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Purana means ‘complete’ as an encyclopedic compendium, dealing with 10 basic topics.

The Amarkhosha defines Purana as containing

five lakshanas, not ten:

 

sargash ca pratisargash ca

vamsha manvantarani ca

vamshanu caritam capi

puranam panca lakshanam

 

1) sarga (creation)

2) pratisarga (recreation)

3) vamsha (history of the sages)

4) manvantara (periods of Manu)

5) vamshanucarita (geneology of kings)

 

It is the Srimad Bhagavatam that contains 10 unique subject matters that differentiate it form other Puranas. You can refer our newsletter article, "The ten subjects of Srimad Bhagavatam" for more information on this topic.

 

All Puranas describe the future, as one can read in the 12th Canto of the Bhagavata, in the previsions of Padma Purana, Narada Purana, Skanda Purana, and so on.

Please note my use of the english word "primarily". I said:

 

Puranas generally deal with "history", what has already occured. It is only the Bhavishya Purana which is primarily devoted to describing the history of the future.

 

Itihasa is the special glorification of a particular dynasty or individual. Both Purana and Itihasa cover histories that have already occured. The literal meaning of the word "Purana" is ancient, and we find countless variations of the same root used in common puranic texts to refer to "the ancient times". Even in the Gita it is used, yoga prokta puratanah - "this science of yoga was instructed in the ancient times..." Purana does mean "history", in addition to meaning complete.

 

Weren't you the person who a few months ago didn't know Bhavishya Purana was a maha-purana? Suddenly you've become an expert on it. Really strange. Only in Brazil these things happen.

 

If you've forgotten, that was in the thread:

http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000461.html

 

That was when you first flipped out and started on your tantra tip. That lasted all of two or three weeks before you gave that up and started the Vallabha trip. That lasted a month or so, and then you gave that up and started your shruti trip.

 

On that thread you said:

Supposedly Gaudiyas follow the Bhagavata Purana, not Visnu Purana. In Bhagavata's 12th Canto (published by BBT) there is a list of the 18 maha-puranas, and this Bhavishya Purana is not included.

But it was shown that it is in fact included not only in the list of Puranas given in Bhagavata, but also in all other major lists such as Vishnu Purana, etc.

[Guest guest]

 

 

Jndas: Sri Chaitanya is hidden because He comes in the guise of a devotee.

 

Satyaraj: That is a ridiculous argument. Sri Rama also comes in the guise of a King, and Sri Krsna as a cowherd. Buddha was a renunciant and Visnu is famous due His hidden position.

 

[jijaji]

Jndas: That was when you first flipped out and started on your tantra tip. That lasted all of two or three weeks before you gave that up and started the Vallabha trip. That lasted a month or so, and then you gave that up and started your shruti trip.

 

JIJAJI: Why does one have to be flipped out to investgate Tantra or Vallabha.

Satya has been into the Sruti thing for a while....

 

He rejected his Gaudiya Guru and went in search of truth from various sources, not such an unusual scenario.

 

People say he waffles from position to position, whereas I see Satya simply giving perspectives from various traditions he has investgated to help him understand the truth as a whole better!

 

jijaji

[Audarya lila]

This is a response to Jijagi's comment regarding Satyaraja.

 

I agree with what you said to a certain degree. what is the meaning of growth without constant rejection and acceptance?

 

Here is a nice quote in this regard from Sri Guru and His Grace, "Progress means elimination and acceptance. And our spiritual life must always be a dynamic thing, otherwise we shall be dead. Progress means acceptance and elimination. The scientists also say this in their theory of natural selection, 'survival of the fittest.' Nature is selecting some and eliminating others. Life is dynamic; we are living in a dynamic world. Everywhere we find acceptance and elimination. That is progress. And our life must be progressive, not static."

 

What I personally have had a hard time with in regards to Satyaraja is that he has a history of posting in a very authoritative manner and has often been very critical and used denigrating and derogatory language toward those with views that differ from his. This was true when he thought of himself as a Guadiya and continues to be true.

 

One of the problems he had with Gaudiya Vaishnavism is that his perception was that it requires an enemy - such as karmis, sahajiyas, demons, mayavadis etc. What he has failed to understand is that this is more a part of his own psychology than it ever was of any ideology that he tied himself to.

 

Anyway, my own two cents worth is that it is good to question and to try to understand and grow but we should do it in a fashion that allows the same for others and shows respect for others.

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

[Guest guest]

Jndas: The Amarkhosha defines Purana as containing five lakshanas.

 

Satyaraj: So, the Amarkhosa Dictionary is contradicting Bhagavata, as the 12th Canto clearly states that a maha-purana contains 10 laksanas and an upa-purana only 5 or less than it. This instruction is also found in Narada Purana.

 

Jndas: It is the Srimad Bhagavatam that contains 10 unique subject matters that differentiate it form other Puranas

 

Satyaraj: This is also an absurd that only a very ignorant person could state. The Bhagavata is considered as an unique Purana due its absence of any instruction on karma, jñana and moksa, as it deals on bhakti marga. Did you never have hear that from your Gaudiya-gurus?

 

Jndas Weren't you the person who a few months ago didn't know Bhavishya Purana was a maha-purana? Suddenly you've become an expert on it. Really strange. Only in Brazil these things happen.

 

Satyaraj: I might to agree with you in this point. I never was an expert in BP, as my own Gaudiya-gurus had informed me that that was a bogus Purana, full of interpolations and no one should credit it. That is why at that time I made a confusion with another Purana, that is an upa-purana. Perhaps mistakes only happen in tropical weather like Brazil and India, isn’t? I got really very surprised when a notice quotes from BP being considered as bona fide evidences on Caitanya avatara coming from my own math!!!

 

Jndas: That was when you first flipped out and started on your tantra tip. That lasted all of two or three weeks before you gave that up and started the Vallabha trip. That lasted a month or so, and then you gave that up and started your shruti trip.

 

Satyaraj: Yes, I really love trips. I am only a seeker. Seekers are looking after Hari. Finders like you already had found Him, so they are quite static in a solitary place. That is not my case. Maybe a will have trip to your asrama some day trying to find out your Hari!!! Don’t worry!

 

 

[shvu]

I am going to India next month, and will try to find a copy of the Bhavishya Purana there. Interestingly, it appears, this is the only main Purana which has not been translated into english. I find it odd, given the great curiosity people have towards knowing the future. The sanksrit copies too are not available online anywhere, and so I have to wait to get my hands on the BP.

 

My question was, why isn't chaitanya listed among the avatar lists in the Bhagavatam? The avatars are listed in at least 3 different places in the SB. Apparently it was not a secret, as Vyasa has mentioned his name explicitly in the BP.

 

Also, the founders of the 4 sampradayas are not the only people who would have studied this purana. Several other people would have studied this purana and they must have known about chaitanya, and yet they never mentioned him anywhere. [?]

 

The BP itself saying things like the avatar was a secret, Madhva knew about chaitanya, but did not tell anyone, etc is not surprising, if it is bogus. If it is real, then the above questions remain unanswered and will also mean, Madhva et al., misguided their respective followers.

 

Anyway, I will try to find out more about the different version of the BP available currently and why it is not as commonly available as the other 17.

 

btw the Bhagavatam does talk about the future, viz., buddha avatara, characterestics of Kali-yuga, chanakya, ashoka, etc [Traditionally, SB is believed to be older than these personalities].

 

Another point of interest, is the www.gosai.com folks, have removed the portion which said "yogamaya had covered all these evidences until the 16th century", from their long list of evidences. Looks like, they changed their minds.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

There are many sastric references stating that it is very difficult to make distinctions between a mukta and Hari. Some experts use to mention that a mukta may have 55 characteristics of Hari in full, but Hari may present 64, that means 9 more than any mukta. Others say that Hari is the only possessor of Srivatsa and all the auspicious marks in His feet.

 

Undoubtedly Caitanya has presented many characteristics of a mukta, as well as Jesus, Ramakrishna, Ramanauja, San Juan de La Cruz, Mirabai and many others. His Siksastakam is the utmost expression of his satya-sankalpa feelings and it is to be considered as perfect as any sruti text. Ramananda-samvada describes the evolution a jiva until the attainment of a satya-sankalpa like his, and it is also a master piece of a very exalted mukta.

 

But the avataras are described in srutis, and even Caitanya’s followers agree in that point. So, it is a duty of Caitanya’s followers that are postulating his divinity to point out these references from sruti, found before his advent and easily available nowadays. Not evidences from dubious smrtis that even Gaudiyas use to decry such as this BP.

 

That should not be a very difficult task for Gaudiyas, as the Rig Veda (6.47.18) agrees with the ten avataras and even with the thousand avataras of Brahman and even mentions some of them.

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Undoubtedly Caitanya has presented many characteristics of a mukta, as well as Jesus, Ramakrishna, Ramanauja, San Juan de La Cruz, Mirabai and many others. His Siksastakam is the utmost expression of his satya-sankalpa feelings and it is to be considered as perfect as any sruti text. Ramananda-samvada describes the evolution a jiva until the attainment of a satya-sankalpa like his, and it is also a master piece of a very exalted mukta.

 

This is a beautifully broad summary.

 

Also, one may note that nowhere in His Sheekshaashtakam

does Mahaprabhu state that recognising his divinity

is a requisite for sucessfully chanting the Holy Name

or generally embracing the devotional path.

(Nor does He state that ascertaining any lack of his divinity

is a requisite either).

 

One wonders why the need to establish Mahaprabhu's divinity or to decline it.

 

In light of this, surely, any divinity that a close

and loving devotee may sense, intuit or realise

must be a wholly private matter between the intimate devotee

and his Lord and not at all relevant for the public promotion of His Mission.

 

 

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

talasiga@hotmail.com

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 10-04-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Talasigaji: One wonders why the need to establish Mahaprabhu's divinity or to decline it.

 

Satyaraja: That point was raised by the Tattva-vadis (Vaisnavas from Madhva-sampradaya). They were arguing that to worship a jiva instead of Hari is not considered auspicious. A mukta cannot receive the same worship of Hari’s. According to them Caitanya is only a jiva, and not Hari.

 

Therefore they had made a document sometime ago that was spread by net, summoning Gaudiyas to prove Caitanya’s divinity with solid evidences from sruti, found out before his advent and easily available nowadays.

 

This discussion is coming since that time, as many are now waiting for these proofs. Until now, the proofs from sruti pointed out by Gaudiyas were not accepted as plausible.

 

 

[shvu]

 

One wonders why the need to establish Mahaprabhu's divinity or to decline it.

In one word, politics.

 

The early Gaudiyas, wanted to come out with a new sampradaya for their new philosophy of Prema-Bhakti, rasa, bhakti > mukti, etc. But unlike the tenets of the other existing sampradayas, these were new concepts not to be found in any cannonical literature. With an attempt to overcome this problem, they claimed their founder was an avatar of Krishna, who came to teach new things. The first question people would have raised would be "no such avatar is mentioned anywhere". Their answer was "he is a secret/hidden avatar".

 

You may remember how the verse from shvetatshvatara, bhagavatam etc, were interpreted to mean they were refering to chaitanya. That is the brief background of this controversy and it has got nothing to do with Shikshashtakam.

 

Cheers

 

[talasiga]

Talasiga: One wonders why the need to establish Mahaprabhu's divinity or to decline it.

 

Shvu: In one word, politics.

 

Talasiga: So as you are declining his divinity, according to your own response as above, your position is also "political".

Q.E.D.

 

 

.

.

.

 

 

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

talasiga@hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

The early Gaudiyas, wanted to come out with a new sampradaya for their new philosophy of Prema-Bhakti, rasa, bhakti > mukti, etc. But unlike the tenets of the other existing sampradayas, these were new concepts not to be found in any cannonical literature. With an attempt to overcome this problem, they claimed their founder was an avatar of Krishna, who came to teach new things. The first question people would have raised would be "no such avatar is mentioned anywhere". Their answer was "he is a secret/hidden avatar". (Shvu)

 

 

That is a good summary of the whole thing. In fact all the historic evidences lead to that way. Even with the help of a ‘hidden avatara’ all of these thesis are very difficult to be seriously established , as they all contradict sruti texts and can only be understood as a poetic expression of a mukta’s satya-sankalpa. Very beautiful indeed, but no serious theology can be done to follow a poetic expression. What to say a philosophical system.

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Very beautiful indeed, but no serious theology can be done to follow a poetic expression. What to say a philosophical system.

Yes, even

the poems of Vedaanta

(meaning "the end of knowledge")

are not a systematic theology to raise a philosophy

but shrooti-s to disprove what we know

to bring to an end our weight

of knowledge

 

 

Ananta Harih Om Tat Sat

 

and Good Night Friends .....

 

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

talasiga@hotmail.com

[shvu]

 

Yes, even

the poems of Vedaanta

(meaning "the end of knowledge")

are not a systematic theology to raise a philosophy

but shrooti-s to disprove what we know

to bring to an end our weight

of knowledge

Exactly.

 

[Guest guest]

Talasigaji:

 

Yes, even

the poems of Vedaanta

(meaning "the end of knowledge")

are not a systematic theology to raise a philosophy

but shrooti-s to disprove what we know

to bring to an end our weight

of knowledge

 

Satyaraj:

 

That’s why Badarayana Rsi clearly states in Vedanta that no theologies can be done to explain how Hari sports His lilas. This is completely beyond our capacity of reasoning.

 

Anyway we are allowed to worship Hari according to our limited faculties by employing mind and intelligence. Therefore theologies and philosophies are done by sages and muktas to help our limited condition. They are smrtis on srutis.

 

So, let’s discuss them and worship Hari!!!

 

BTW; I would say ‘good morning’ to you dear Talasigaji!

 

[jijaji]

Originally posted by talasiga:

Talasiga: One wonders why the need to establish Mahaprabhu's divinity or to decline it.

 

JIJAJI:

The Gaudiya Sampradaya accepts Sri Chaitanya as the avatar for the Kali Yug. He is the combined form of Radha Krishna decended to save all the fallen and give them the highest devotion to the Lord.

 

talasiga says "why the need to establish his divinity"

 

That sounds like an outsiders question? I don't get it....?

 

jijaji

[shvu]

 

This is how the list of evidences was concluded.

 

"Sri Chaitanya's incarnation was a hidden incarnation, thus He buried references to His appearance deep within the ocean of vedic texts. His desire was that His disguise would not be betrayed, so He made sure these references would remain hidden until after His incarnation was complete. These text's were always present, but by the inconceivable yoga-maya of the Lord, He covered His true identity even from the Vedic scholars and panditas. Only the pure devotees understood His actual identity."

 

Then one morning, people woke up and to their astonishment, there were a number of references to the divinity of chaitanya, which had "magically" appeared in the Atharvana Veda, Shvetashvatara, Mundaka, and many other sources. But then, who can understand the divine play of the Lord?

 

Cheers

 

[Audarya lila]

That's the problem with thinking that divinity can be captured by logic, reason and argument. Can anyone limit the unlimited?

 

Some people will not accept any scripture as 'authority', some will say 'we only accept sruti', some will say 'we accept sruti and smriti'. Whatever. No conclusive truth can be reached in this fashion.

 

When devotees used to ask Srila Prabhupada about confidential lilas of Krsna he used to answer, 'why don't you go there and find out'. The obvious implication being that experience is what a devotee should be after, not accumulating an endless array of 'facts' from various books.

 

Devotees of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu accept his divinity based on the testimony of his intimate associates. That is enough. We also accept the fact that the Vedic revelation is not static but rather dynamic and that it is revealed by one who is a realized soul.

 

The Bhagavatam speaks of Krsna coming in Kali yuga and always having the Name Krsna on his lips. He will spread that glories of the Holy Name. Gaudiya Acharyas have acertained that the Bhagavatam is speaking about Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. This cetainly seems consistent with his life and revelation as we find it in the writings of his intimate associates and followers.

 

Bottom line for all of us is to chant the Holy Names sincerely and pray for good association.

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa