I'm not familiar with Srimanta Sankaradeva, but the idea of a pre-Chaitanya influence on Chaitanya is something I would be keenly interested in hearing more about, since it is obvious that the pre-Chaitanya philosophical roots (i.e. Radha-Krishna worship and so on) of Gaudiya Vaishnavism were obviously not inherited from Maadhvas.
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
I'm not familiar with Srimanta Sankaradeva, but the idea of a pre-Chaitanya influence on Chaitanya is something I would be keenly interested in hearing more about, since it is obvious that the pre-Chaitanya philosophical roots (i.e. Radha-Krishna worship and so on) of Gaudiya Vaishnavism were obviously not inherited from Maadhvas.
A number of practising contemporary Chaitanyaites hold the position, with reason in my personal estimation, that Chaitanya Vaishnavism (that's how academicians refer to it, for the most part) has basically nothing, or at any rate little, to do with the lineage of Madhvacarya. Have a look at http://madangopal.blogspot.com/2012/...branch-of.html, for example.
In my observation, most practitioners of Chaitanyaism who are of a pronounced intellectual or academic bent tend to subscribe to the view that the disciplic predecessors of Chaitanya such as Madhavendra Puri and Isvara Puri were initiated into a line with strong Advaitic links, and did not subscribe to Dvaita philosophy, as often argued by others, particularly the followers of Siddhanta Saraswati, although not just the latter.
Devotee-scholars like Jagadananda Das and Nitai Das have formulated strong cases against Chaitanya Vaishnavism descending from the school of the Tattvavadis. In their view, a close study of the philosophy and theology of the Goswamis and those who came shortly after them demonstrate in unambiguous terms that the opinions of Sankara and Ramanuja on certain crucial matters carry more weight than the stances held by Madhva on these same questions. Also, the high regard in which Sridhara Swami is held by Gaudiyas is common knowledge. It would indeed be somewhat unexpected to have a system of thought stemming from Madhva Vaishnavism revering a monistic theist of Sridhara's stripe to such a degree.
Just in passing, I'll also mention that, notwithstanding the oft-advertised view that Baladeva's Govinda-bhasya is the actual authoritative Bengali Vaishnava commentary on the Brahma-sutras of Badarayana, in practice, Chaitanyaite theologians seldom refer to that work at all. Arguably, Jiva Gosvami's Catuhsutri-Tika, which is part of the Sat-sandarbhas, amounts to an interpretation of the famed Sutras that is significantly more consequential to the living tradition as it is understood by people who claim allegiance to it. Radhika-ramana dasa aka Ravi Gupta has dealt with this very subject matter in his doctoral thesis, which has been published as the following book - http://books.google.mu/books?id=1RE8...other_versions.
Devotee-scholars like Jagadananda Das and Nitai Das have formulated strong cases against Chaitanya Vaishnavism descending from the school of the Tattvavadis. In their view, a close study of the philosophy and theology of the Goswamis and those who came shortly after them demonstrate in unambiguous terms that the opinions of Sankara and Ramanuja on certain crucial matters carry more weight than the stances held by Madhva on these same questions. Also, the high regard in which Sridhara Swami is held by Gaudiyas is common knowledge. It would indeed be somewhat unexpected to have a system of thought stemming from Madhva Vaishnavism revering a monistic theist of Sridhara's stripe to such a degree.
To be honest, the views of the Chaitanya school also differ from those of Raamaanuja on many key points, and obviously they differ quite a bit from Adi Shankara. I have a hard time accepting the notion that the Chaitanya tradition is more related to Adi Shankara than to Madhva. Sridhar Swami would seem to be a logical choice, but strangely none of the early Gaudiya commentators claim a paramparA link to him despite multiple chances to do so.
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
I'm not familiar with Srimanta Sankaradeva, but the idea of a pre-Chaitanya influence on Chaitanya is something I would be keenly interested in hearing more about, since it is obvious that the pre-Chaitanya philosophical roots (i.e. Radha-Krishna worship and so on) of Gaudiya Vaishnavism were obviously not inherited from Maadhvas.
I am not very smart, but what I can say is that Chaitanyaite Vaishnavism has many sources since its inception. One of tts source Scriptures are from Sri Narada Pancharatra and explains the tantric nature of Gaudiya shastra. The worship of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna probably came from Nimbadityacharya's Hamsa sampradaya, as well as the idea of Mahamantra (for Nimbarkis, they have the Yugal Mantra: Radhe Krishna, Radhe Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Radhe Radhe, Radhe Shyam, Radhe Shyam, Shyam Shyam, Radhe Radhe).
Srimanta Sankaradeva was a poet-philosopher from Assam, whose movement was quite similar to Sri Chaitanya's. Srimanta Sankaradeva made a new Vaishnavism, and called it 'Ekasarana Dharma' or neo-Vaishnavism. One of the unique components of Neo-Vaishnavism, or Assam Vaishnavism, is that they do not worship murtis or believe in them; they honour Gita and Bhagavatam, and they have kirtanghars. Sankaradeva also wrote Kirtana-ghosa and Gunamala, the Scriptures of this movement.
Assam Vaishnavites also emphasise the arts culture: dance, music, and plays are seen as worship of Krishna. They do not have any conception of Radharani or rasa-lila, but worship Krishna in dasya-bhava.
To be honest, the views of the Chaitanya school also differ from those of Raamaanuja on many key points, and obviously they differ quite a bit from Adi Shankara. I have a hard time accepting the notion that the Chaitanya tradition is more related to Adi Shankara than to Madhva. Sridhar Swami would seem to be a logical choice, but strangely none of the early Gaudiya commentators claim a paramparA link to him despite multiple chances to do so.
My point was not that they're more related to X or Y, rather that they certainly draw more from Advaita and Sri Vaishnavism on a number of things than they do from Madhva. A case in point would be the strong aversion to Deva-worship in Chaitanya Vaishnavism, where they undoubtedly have closer affinities with the followers of Ramanuja than with Tattvavadis, who are known to endorse the worship of divinities other than the forms of Vishnu, even whilst being unarguably Vaishnavite in orientation.
That's because the compiler of the Hari-bhakti-vilasa, the book delineating all the rituals Chaitanyaites are supposed to perform, was Gopala Bhatta Goswami, and he hailed from a Sri Vaishnava milieu in what is now Tamil Nadu. The claimed connection to Madhvacarya is also not from the Goswamis, by the way, but only appears in the Gaudiya literatures penned by people who lived after the famous six.
My point was not that they're more related to X or Y, rather that they certainly draw more from Advaita and Sri Vaishnavism on a number of things than they do from Madhva. A case in point would be the strong aversion to Deva-worship in Chaitanya Vaishnavism, where they undoubtedly have closer affinities with the followers of Ramanuja than with Tattvavadis, who are known to endorse the worship of divinities other than the forms of Vishnu, even whilst being unarguably Vaishnavite in orientation.
That's because the compiler of the Hari-bhakti-vilasa, the book delineating all the rituals Chaitanyaites are supposed to perform, was Gopala Bhatta Goswami, and he hailed from a Sri Vaishnava milieu in what is now Tamil Nadu. The claimed connection to Madhvacarya is also not from the Goswamis, by the way, but only appears in the Gaudiya literatures penned by people who lived after the famous six.
Pranams,
Just out of curiosity, what do you make of Stuart Elkman's work regarding the Madhva-gaudiya connection? I don't remember the name of the book (it may have been Jiva Gosvamin's Tattvasandarbha: A Study on the Philosophical and Sectarian Development of the Gaudiya Vaisnava Movement), but as I recall, he published as part of his thesis some non-Chaitanya evidence that there is indeed a Maadhva paramparaa link. I'm quoting from memory here, but one of the strongest pieces of evidence was an excerpt from Sri Vallabhaachaarya's biography "Do Sau Bhavan" in which Vallabha's early tutor was said to be one Maadhavendra Purii, a sannyaasi of the Maadhva line. Since Vallabha has his own sampradaaya, it would make no sense for him to falsify his early guru's paramparaa details in this way.
Of note, Kavi Karnapura gives the paramparaa link to Madhva in one his works (Gaurang-ganodesha-dIpika?) and so does Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana in his prameya-ratnaavali. Granted, they came after the 6 gosvaamiis, but I would hardly consider them minor personalities in the Gaudiiya sampradaaya.
Years ago I obtained a digital Sanskrit manuscript of a 16th century contemporary of Chaitanya who also acknowledged the paramparaa link of Chaitanya's guru to Madhva. If memory serves, this was one Hariraama Vyaasa, and he was not a Chaitanya follower but more like a fellow sishya of Ishvara purii.
All these various attempts to link the paramparaa to Madhva, both from within and from outside the tradition, can't be a coincidence. Yet I am in agreement that Chaitanya's views don't seem to have much in common with Shankara, Madhva, or Raamaanuja from what I can see. I've been told that his views on rasa theology may have been based on prevailing norms of medieval poetry at the time. His exclusive reliance on the Bhaagavata Puraana is also distinct, and not in line with the views of vedaantins prior to him. His biography indicates that he was forbidden to study vedaanta but told to chant Lord's names instead, also not exactly orthodox Vaishnava thinking. His views on the selfless nature of bhakti are of course a mirror of Raamaanuja's and the Alvars', but Radha-Krishna worship is not a feature of their tradition or of Shankara's. These are just a few impressions.
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
I would like to share my views here. Although there are some similarities between Chaitanya Mahapravu and Sri manta Sankardeva being vaishnab as pointed out by Gaurpriya but the differences are remarkably important in their philosophy . The upashya of Sankardev eksaran namdharma is Sri Krishna . Marg- jnan misra bhakti, bhava- dasya but in case of Chaitanya mahapravu, the upashya is Radha-Krishna , Marg- prem bhakti, bhava – four ( dasya,sakhya,batsalya and madhur). Chaitanya mahapravu’s vaishnab dharma mainly speaks of madhur bhava which comes from Raganuga prem bhakti which is not seen in Sankardev. Sankardev’s vaishnab tattva is mixture of vivartavada and parinamvada but Chaitanya is pure parinamvadi.The most important is the absence of Radha in Sankardev’s vaishnab tattva . we can not think of Chaitanya mahapravu with out Radha .
The period of chaitanya was from 1485 to 1533 and that of sankardeva was from 1449 to 1568. It is clear that during first pilgrimage of sankaradev in 1482 chaitanya was not born and during sankardev’s second pilgrimage in 1539 chaitanya already left this world. Therefore there seems to be no meeting between the two great personalities of vaishnab linage . There is hardly any proof to establish that Rup-Sanatana were linked to Sankardev. Because both Rup and Sanatana went to Brindavan and wrote many vaishnab literature on the order of chaitanya mahapravu. So their pre-staying in Brindavan is not likely to happen.
It is fact that Chaitanya mahapravu is linked to Madhavendra puri ,Iswarar puri and Keshab bharati who are part of Dasanami sampradaya created by Sri Sankaracharaya. But Madhavendra puri ,Iswara puri and keshab bharati though sannyashi of the Sankaracharaya line are not found practising advaitavada or mayavada in their spiritual life. They are vaishnab and are not found of teaching Vedanta etc instead they teaches prem bhakti to Sri Krishna which is not present in advaitavada. And if we talk of Sri Chaitanya being in the line of advaita sannyashi, we may come to know his views on Sankaracharaya’s advaitavad from his discussion with Prakashananda and Sarbovoam pandit of how the meaning of Vedanta has been distorted by Sri Acharaya as revealed in Sri Chaitanya Charitamrita. Lastly chaitanya’s link in terms of vaishnab philosophy with other vaishnab sampradaya( Ramanuja-Madhva-Nimbark etc) is not free from controversy. Therefore I shall be happy to see any reliable substance in this regard. My own view is that Chaitanya mahapravu does not belong to any such vaishnab sampradaya instead Chaitanya’s vaishnab dharma is itself a sampradaya of its kind.
Just out of curiosity, what do you make of Stuart Elkman's work regarding the Madhva-gaudiya connection? I don't remember the name of the book (it may have been Jiva Gosvamin's Tattvasandarbha: A Study on the Philosophical and Sectarian Development of the Gaudiya Vaisnava Movement), but as I recall, he published as part of his thesis some non-Chaitanya evidence that there is indeed a Maadhva paramparaa link. I'm quoting from memory here, but one of the strongest pieces of evidence was an excerpt from Sri Vallabhaachaarya's biography "Do Sau Bhavan" in which Vallabha's early tutor was said to be one Maadhavendra Purii, a sannyaasi of the Maadhva line. Since Vallabha has his own sampradaaya, it would make no sense for him to falsify his early guru's paramparaa details in this way.
Of note, Kavi Karnapura gives the paramparaa link to Madhva in one his works (Gaurang-ganodesha-dIpika?) and so does Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana in his prameya-ratnaavali. Granted, they came after the 6 gosvaamiis, but I would hardly consider them minor personalities in the Gaudiiya sampradaaya.
Years ago I obtained a digital Sanskrit manuscript of a 16th century contemporary of Chaitanya who also acknowledged the paramparaa link of Chaitanya's guru to Madhva. If memory serves, this was one Hariraama Vyaasa, and he was not a Chaitanya follower but more like a fellow sishya of Ishvara purii.
All these various attempts to link the paramparaa to Madhva, both from within and from outside the tradition, can't be a coincidence. Yet I am in agreement that Chaitanya's views don't seem to have much in common with Shankara, Madhva, or Raamaanuja from what I can see. I've been told that his views on rasa theology may have been based on prevailing norms of medieval poetry at the time. His exclusive reliance on the Bhaagavata Puraana is also distinct, and not in line with the views of vedaantins prior to him. His biography indicates that he was forbidden to study vedaanta but told to chant Lord's names instead, also not exactly orthodox Vaishnava thinking. His views on the selfless nature of bhakti are of course a mirror of Raamaanuja's and the Alvars', but Radha-Krishna worship is not a feature of their tradition or of Shankara's. These are just a few impressions.
Pranam
I'm not familiar with Stuart Elkman's work and as such I cannot comment. Attached hereto is a PDF file that contains an interesting essay on the Madhva-Gaudiya connection subject, which you may have a look at if you feel so inclined. As for the remainder of the points you made, I shall get back on those later on.
Regards
All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason. - Immanuel Kant
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by philosoraptor
Re: Sri Chaitanya and Srimanta Sankaradeva
Bookmarks