Chaitanya & Sridhar Svami

[jijaji]

Chaitanya & Sridhar Svami...

 

Sri Krishna Chaitanya, the famous Saint of Nadia, Bengal, India, accepted only one commentary on Bhagavata Purana as being valid. That commentary was written by the famous Sridhar Svami years before Sri Chaitanya had settled in the great city of Puri on the Western coast of India.

 

Sridhar Svami had been the 10th Shankaracarya of the Shankara Govardhan Math of Puri. Interestingly enough, despite his background, Sridhar Svami also saw the Bhagavata Purana as the shining sound incarnation of Krishna for Kali Yuga as did Sri Chaitanya.

 

Sridhar Swami, reached his intellectual peak at a hill top shrine known as Kapilash in Orissa which served as his abode in the 14th Century A.D. The treatises on "Srimad Bhagavat Geeta", "Vishnu Purana" & "Sripadyabali" were written here by Sridhar Swami during his long stay.

 

That Sri Chaitanya accepted Sridhars Svami’s commentary above all others, including Madhvas, whom Gaudiyas claim lineage from, is a puzzle in itself.

Was it because Sridhar Svamin belonged to Shankaras sampradaya, which Sri Chaitanya took Sannyass Diksha into?

Does it have anything to do with the influence Sridhar Svamis commentary had on the region where Sri Chaitanya had moved immediately after he took Sanyass? Because at the time of Sri Chaitanya’s arrival in Orrisa the whole atmosphere was steeped in the Holy memory of Sridhar Svami.

 

Sri Chaitanyas acceptance of Sridhar Svamins Bhagavatam (a known advaitin) over and above the then available Vaishnava commentaries is worthy of our investigation.

 

Sri Chaitanya came to settle in Puri after he had taken sanyass from the Advaitin Keshava Bharati. It is contended by his followers that Sri Chaitanyas reason for taking initiation from Keshava Bharati was because it was the then accepted and most known form of Sannyass at that time. They also say that Sri Chaitanya had devised a plan to save the fallen souls of Kali Yuga by taking this Sannyass, thus giving people the chance to bow to him and be saved by that very act.

 

But we ask why did Sri Chaitanyas Gurus Isvara Puri and Madhavendra Puri accept Sanyass into the Madhva Sampradaya or did they?

 

In Sri Chaitanys biographies he is described as having the ability to convert one into a devotee of Krishna, by one having a mere glance of him dancing in Kirtan. In fact whole villages were converted in this way. Why then the need to accept Sanyass from a school of thought that was opposed to his dualistic teachings of Krishna Bhakti?

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

[Guest guest]

Sri Chaitanyas acceptance of Sridhar Svamins Bhagavatam (a known advaitin) over and above the then available Vaishnava commentaries is worthy of our investigation.

 

 

Vivasnatha, who probably was one of the greatest scholars from his time all over India, also had Sridhara Swami’s commentary on Gita and Bhagavata in great esteem and respect. His own commentaries on Gita and Bhagavata are full of quotes from Sridhara Swami’s works and scarcely one may find any quote from Madhva, Ramanuja and other vaisnava-acaryas.

 

Following Vivasnatha footsteps, Baladeva has made a wonderful explanation on sayujyia, surpassing even his guru’s understanding on that topic, and totally accepting a very sensible advaita’s aspect of philosophy that is strongly rejected by the bulk of Gaudiyas and even by Madhva’s and Ramanuja’s doctrines. (See Vedanta-sutra 4.4.4 and its commentary by Baladeva)

 

It seems that the aversion towards advaita-vada is mainly prominent in some missionaries’ catechesis than an actual aspect of the real Caitanya’s teachings and early Gaudiya-vaisnavism.

 

[jijaji]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

 

It seems that the aversion towards advaita-vada is mainly prominent in some missionaries’ catechesis than an actual aspect of the real Caitanya’s teachings and early Gaudiya-vaisnavism.

Indeed..interesting to note that Mahaprabhu accepted the name Chaitanya from Keshava Bharati. Now Chaitanya is the name given to bramacharis at the famous Sringiri Math of Adi-Shankara, which Sri Chaitanya headed for shortly after his Sanyass (if he ever took Sanyass at all). It must be noted because of his acceptance of the name Chaitanya from Keshava Bharati, there is controversy in regards to him having received Sannyass at all. Some are of the opinion that he essentially accepted bramachari, thus the name Chaitanya.

 

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 11-12-2001).]

[jijaji]

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 11-12-2001).]

[Guest guest]

It must be noted because of his acceptance of the name Chaitanya from Keshava Bharati, there is controversy in regards to him having received Sannyass at all.

 

I would not question his sannyas, as many historians had accepted this event as bona fide. But I consider his sannyas mantra: “tat tvan asi” as very meaningful. It is a strong advaita-vada mahavakya and some Gaudiya-missionaries are always trying to concoct some other meaning to that sruti mantra. But Caitanya himself had stated that sruti mantras should be understood as they are, without any fallacious commentary. This mantra is quite obvious, and no fabulous interpretations can be concocted by missionaries.

 

This mantra simply stresses adherence to advaita-vada as fundamental to attain vidya. This is Chandogiya’s thesis! How one would dare to deny it?

 

 

[jijaji]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

It must be noted because of his acceptance of the name Chaitanya from Keshava Bharati, there is controversy in regards to him having received Sannyass at all.

 

I would not question his sannyas, as many historians had accepted this event as bona fide. But I consider his sannyas mantra: “tat tvan asi” as very meaningful. It is a strong advaita-vada mahavakya and some Gaudiya-missionaries are always trying to concoct some other meaning to that sruti mantra. But Caitanya himself had stated that sruti mantras should be understood as they are, without any fallacious commentary. This mantra is quite obvious, and no fabulous interpretations can be concocted by missionaries.

 

This mantra simply stresses adherence to advaita-vada as fundamental to attain vidya. This is Chandogiya’s thesis! How one would dare to deny it?

 

 

The Acharyas of Sringriri Matha assume the titles of Saraswati, Bharati and Puri. Its Ksetra is Rameswara, its presiding deity Adi Varaha, the Sakti being Kamaksi, (or Sarada according to another version). Its first Acharya was Prithividhara (who is said to be the same as Sureswaracharya). The Tirtha is Tungabhadra. The pontiffs belong to the order of Chaitanya Brahmacharis. The Matha stands for Yajurveda (Krsna Yajus), the Mahavakya (Aham Brahmasmi) being its ruling motto.

 

So it seems the mahavakya from this matha is (aham Bramasmi) where do you get (tat Tvam asi) from?

 

[Guest guest]

 

”Tat tvan asi” - Caitanya’s sannyasa mantra.

 

I would like to post a very plain and simple translation from Chandogiya Upanisad meant for beginners, present by an neo-advaita-vada school, not mayavada. See the importance of that mantra ‘tat tvan asi’ in the whole context. Without this basic realization no one can go any further.

 

 

"Long ago in India, there was a boy named Sveta-ketu (shway-ta-kay-too). He was already twelve years old, but he had not yet gone to school. Probably he had no brothers or sisters and there was so much work for him to do at home, helping his parents, that there had been no way for him to go to the house of a learned teacher, which is where the pupils studied in those days. A boy had to live with the teacher and study with him the various branches of knowledge that were taught at that time.

 

The father of this boy said to him one day, "Sveta-ketu, go to school. You are a brahmin, of a wellborn family, and no one in our family line has failed to live up to that. A brahmin must be educated and learn how to behave nobly in every respect."

 

So Sveta-ketu went off to the local teacher's house and studied the great books, called The Vedas, and similar subjects, for twelve years. In that time, of course, he had been able to master many things, so he had quite a good opinion of himself. He walked proudly and smiled very little. When, at the age of twentyfour, he had come back to his parents, they were very happy to have him home again. But his father noticed the proud attitude in the boy and decided that there was only one word for Sveta-ketu: conceited!

 

One day he said, "Well, my boy, since you consider yourself a very serious person and well educated indeed, let me now test your knowledge. Did you ever ask your teacher for that instruction by which one hears the unhearable, perceives the unperceivable, and knows the unknowable?"

 

"How, sir," the young man answered, very much surprised, "can there be any such instruction?"

 

"Why, in this way, my boy: by knowing the nature of one lump of clay, we can know the nature of everything made of clay, can we not? The shapes of other things, such as a pot, a toy elephant, etc., are just names, given to help us talk about them. The reality in them is just the clay, is it not?"

 

"By knowing the nature of a nugget of gold, the nature of all gold things is known; likewise, by knowing the structure of a nailfile, we understand everything made of iron. The shapes and names we use for convenience. The reality is just the gold, or the iron."

 

"Yes, Father," said Sveta-ketu. "Surely my revered teachers did not know this; why did they not tell me? So, you please tell me about that."

 

His father agreed, and the instruction he gave his son, remembered by him and passed on to generations of students, takes up a large part of one of the Upanishads. Let's hear the beginning and a few other portions of that teaching.

 

"In the beginning, my boy," said the father, "there was just Being and nothing else. Some people said there was Nonbeing and nothing else, and that Being came out of that. But they were foolish! How could Being be produced by NonBeing?"

 

"It was just the opposite, son: in the beginning, there was just Being and nothing else. That Being felt lonely. It thought, 'Well, let me become many. Let me produce other things.' And so It produced the different elements of this universe, one after another."

 

In this way, Sveta-ketu's father went on to explain to him the various stages of creation.

 

"There is more to growing up than you may think. Facts, gathered from books and teachers are all very well, but wisdom is to know that they all come from one source."

 

You are That! tat tvan asi

 

Sveta-ketu's father continued:

 

"Every night, when they go into a state of dreamless sleep, all creatures enter again into that Being from which they have come.

Then, why do they not know it?"

 

"When the bees make honey by collecting the nectar of different trees and reduce them all to one juice, these nectars cannot say, 'I am the nectar of an orange blossom,' 'I am the nectar of a mango blossom,' etc. In the same way, my boy, all these creatures, though they have entered that Being, they cannot say what they are. When they return again to the waking state, whatever they are in this world -- a man, a tiger, a wolf, a boar, a worm, a fly, or a mosquito -- that is what they become again. They do not know that they have come back from that Being."

 

"Suppose there is a hidden treasure of gold lying buried in a field. People who do not know about it will walk again and again over that treasure and will not find it. Just so, all of us go, day after day, into the embrace of that divine Being but do not realize it. The Self of this whole universe is the same as the Seed from which it came. And you, O Sveta-ketu, are That! tat tvan asi"

 

"But, sir," asked the son, "that Being has no name or form. So, how could this universe, with all its objects having all these names, come out of that?"

 

"Bring me a fig from our figtree," his father suggested. Sveta-ketu went out and came back with a fig from the tree.

 

"Now break it."

 

"Yes, it is broken."

 

"What do you see now?"

 

"Seeds -- hundreds of them."

 

"Now break one of the seeds, son."

 

"That is difficult, sir. But here, it is done."

 

"Do you see anything inside?"

 

"No, sir, there is nothing inside."

 

"Sveta-ketu, just because you cannot see it, that does not mean that there is not a fine principle at work in the seed, which is the cause of the whole fig tree. Believe me, my boy, the Self of this whole universe is the same as the tiny seed from which it came.

And you are That! tat tvan asi"

 

Now Sveta-ketu was puzzled and had a doubt in his mind: if some principle, called Being is the cause of all this world, why do we not see that? So, he asked his father, who replied:

 

"Here is a lump of salt. Put this lump in a vessel of water, and I will see you again in the morning." His son did so. Next morning, when he came, his father asked him to bring him that lump of salt. Sveta-ketu looked into the vessel, but of course the salt had dissolved.

 

"Taste some water from the surface of the vessel," said his father, "and tell me how it is."

 

"Salty," Sveta-ketu said.

 

"Now taste a little from the other side and tell me how that is."

 

"Salty, Sir."

 

"Now carefully pour off most of the water and try a little from the bottom of the pot." This done, Sveta-ketu replied that it tasted salty too.

 

"You could not perceive the salt with your eyes, you had to apply the sense of taste. So, also, in this body of ours -- that Being is not perceived by eyes or tongue or any of the senses, but it is here nevertheless. It has to be discovered by a different means."

 

( Later he will explain the means: meditation and discrimination.)

 

"The Self of this whole universe is the same as the tiny seed it came from. And you, O Sveta-ketu, are That! tat tvan asi"

 

 

[This message has been edited by Satyaraja dasa (edited 11-12-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Jijaji: So it seems the mahavakya from this matha is (aham Bramasmi) where do you get (tat Tvam asi) from?

 

Satyaraj: This statement is made in Murari Gupta’s Kadaca, II, 18. 3 and also in Kavikarnapura’s Mahavakavya 11. 41-42, and also by Locana dasa in his Caitanya-mangala Part II. They all state that the mante is tat tvan asi.

 

Kapoor stresses all the inferences that Gaudiyas had done to explain the meaning of this sannyasa-mantra, in his “Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya “ and Narayana Maharaja corroborates the same thesis in his Guru’s biography.

 

[jijaji]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Jijaji: So it seems the mahavakya from this matha is (aham Bramasmi) where do you get (tat Tvam asi) from?

 

Satyaraj: This statement is made in Murari Gupta’s Kadaca, II, 18. 3 and also in Kavikarnapura’s Mahavakavya 11. 41-42, and also by Locana dasa in his Caitanya-mangala Part II. They all state that the mante is tat tvan asi.

 

Kapoor stresses all the inferences that Gaudiyas had done to explain the meaning of this sannyasa-mantra, in his “Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya “ and Narayana Maharaja corroborates the same thesis in his Guru’s biography.

 

again....

 

The Acharyas of Sringriri Matha assume the titles of Saraswati, Bharati and Puri. Its Ksetra is Rameswara, its presiding deity Adi Varaha, the Sakti being Kamaksi, (or Sarada according to another version). Its first Acharya was Prithividhara (who is said to be the same as Sureswaracharya). The Tirtha is Tungabhadra. The pontiffs belong to the order of Chaitanya Brahmacharis. The Matha stands for Yajurveda (Krsna Yajus), the Mahavakya (Aham Brahmasmi) being its ruling motto

 

 

Satya.... The point is he accepted a Shankarite Mahavakya at the time of diksha and it has been construed to be something else. His Gaudiya Biographers have said many things that don't seen to make sense. Certainly The Sringriri Math gives the names of Chaitanya to it's bramacharis AND Bharati/Puri to it's Sannyasins.

Why was Sri Chaitanya so intent to go to Sringriri Math after his diksha? And why did he visit there at all if he was so opposed to the Advaitin doctrine and forbade his followers to not as much LOOK at a Mayavadin Sannyasin.

Some Gaudiya scholars say Keshava Bharati was a Madhva ascetic which is obviously a blunder.

 

jijaji

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 11-12-2001).]

[Guest guest]

 

Going further, the Chandogiya Upanisad narrates how Svetaketu also has learned on ‘atat tvam asi,’ or the difference between the atomic self and Hari. So, one cannot say that this Upanisad is teaching mayavada, or that dvaita-vada isn’t presented therein too.

 

Therefore, one should be aware that darsanas such as advaita-vada and dvaita-vada are always interrelated and interpolated and cannot be taken as fundamentalist doctrines, or as divisionist systems of philosophy.

 

 

[jijaji]

*

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 11-12-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Jijaji: The point is he accepted a Shankarite Mahavakya at the time of diksha and it has been construed to be something else. His Gaudiya Biographers have said many things that don't seen to make sense...

 

Satyaraj: Yes, I fully agree with you. There are countless evidences that Caitanya’s biographies should be read between the lines.

 

My own position is to accept Caitanya as a very exalted mukta, and a revolutionary teacher. The basis of his teachings should be understood through his Siksastakam and some points by Ramananda-samvada. I cannot dare to go any further.

 

Actually I cannot see too much difference between both mantras: tat tvam asi and aham brahmasmi, except concerning the whole sruti texts that they come from. Personally I feel Chandogiya meaningful than most of the other Upanisads. That’s why I prefer to meditate on ‘tat tvam asi’ as being also Caitanya’s mantra.

 

[jijaji]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Jijaji: The point is he accepted a Shankarite Mahavakya at the time of diksha and it has been construed to be something else. His Gaudiya Biographers have said many things that don't seen to make sense...

 

Satyaraj: Yes, I fully agree with you. There are countless evidences that Caitanya’s biographies should be read between the lines.

 

My own position is to accept Caitanya as a very exalted mukta, and a revolutionary teacher. The basis of his teachings should be understood through his Siksastakam and some points by Ramananda-samvada. I cannot dare to go any further.

 

Actually I cannot see too much difference between both mantras: tat tvam asi and aham brahmasmi, except concerning the whole sruti texts that they come from. Personally I feel Chandogiya meaningful than most of the other Upanisads. That’s why I prefer to meditate on ‘tat tvam asi’ as being also Caitanya’s mantra.

 

Understood..however it must be noted that each Matha that was established by Adi-Shankara has it's own Mahavakya associated with it..

 

The Gaudiya's even go as far to say that Sri Chaitanya wispered a mantra that he received in a dream to Keshava Bharati before diksha asking him to initiate with the dream mantra.

But then later we see, as Satyaji pointed out, some of his other Gaudiya biographers saying that he in fact accepted a Shankarite Mahavakya....

 

The passing of Sri Chaitanya is another mystery which I will be starting a thread on this week and hope to see your participation Satyji..

 

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- Tat Tvam Asi

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 11-12-2001).]

[jijaji]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

 

My own position is to accept Caitanya as a very exalted mukta, and a revolutionary teacher.

The Saint of Nadia....

 

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 11-12-2001).]

[jijaji]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Yes, I fully agree with you. There are countless evidences that Caitanya’s biographies should be read between the lines.

 

 

So you mean that Jayanandas 'Chaitanya Mangala' wasn't the only biography that exaggerated somewhat?

 

I'm shocked!

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 11-13-2001).]

[Guest guest]

So you mean that Jayanandas 'Chaitanya Mangala' wasn't the only biography that exaggerated somewhat?

 

Can one imagine Christianity without St Paul’s proselytism? Three of the four present Gospels are meant to convey St Paul’s version on Jesus activities. No one of these Gospel writers had ever met Jesus face to face. St John has his Gospel and also one cannot say that he has pointed out with absolute fidelity all the things that he has witnessed. Jesus’ biographers had done a theology that was helpful to sustain a Church. But we cannot say that a purest spiritual doctrine was there.

 

Why to think that Caitanya’s biographies are absolutely bona fide in all aspects? Biographies are not srutis!!!

 

[jijaji]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

So you mean that Jayanandas 'Chaitanya Mangala' wasn't the only biography that exaggerated somewhat?

 

Can one imagine Christianity without St Paul’s proselytism? Three of the four present Gospels are meant to convey St Paul’s version on Jesus activities. No one of these Gospel writers had ever met Jesus face to face. St John has his Gospel and also one cannot say that he has pointed out with absolute fidelity all the things that he has witnessed. Jesus’ biographers had done a theology that was helpful to sustain a Church. But we cannot say that a purest spiritual doctrine was there.

 

Why to think that Caitanya’s biographies are absolutely bona fide in all aspects? Biographies are not srutis!!!

Well I'm not so sure the word to use is bone fide? Perhaps aparusheya!

But yes Sri Chaitanyas biographies differ widely and the stories seem to have been imbellished as time went on.

Murari gupta's work was the 1st one to record actual WITNESSED events in Sri Chaitnaya's life.

Many of those very same events recorded by Murari were embellished and exaggerated by Sri Chaitanya's later biographers.

 

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 11-14-2001).]

[Guest guest]

 

Sri Chaitanyas biographies differ widely and the stories seem to have been imbellished as time went on.

Murari gupta's work was the 1st one to record actual WITNESSED events in Sri Chaitnaya's life. Many of those very same events recorded by Murari were embellished and exaggerated by Sri Chaitanya's later biographers.

 

Svarupa’s diary is also another first hand source. We should not forget that in Medieval India (and even nowadays) biographies are actually hagiographies meant to enhance some saintly aspects of the protagonist. They also have other agendas such as to spread new philosophies and theologies.

 

Krsnadas’ work (Caitanya-caritamrta) is a typical hagiography full of sectarian theologies and philosophies. There one may find the theory of catur-vyuha (Krsna and His expansions), the theory of saktis, and the service to those saktis as a spiritual aim, that are all from Pañcaratras. These theories are explicitily rejected by Vyasadeva himself in Vedanta-sutras (2.2.42 to 46). They are not Vedic (from sruti) at all.

 

In the same environment of Vrindavana Vallabha has rejected completely all Pañcaratrika-vidya and has established Vedanta as the main source of his sect’s doctrine.

 

We cannot say that Krsnadas’ work exactly mirrors Caitanya’s doctrine. For certain it deals on a sectarian viewpoint of his teachings.