Are the dīkṣā and dīkṣā-mantra of Caitanya’s school fruitless? Is Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇnavism really linked with the Madhva school? (Part 2)
The Four Vaiṣṇava Sampradāyas
The essence of the concept of “Four Sampradāyas” is that the four “southern” teachings — Rāmānuja, Madhva, Nimbārka and Viṣṇuswāmī — after some time found their continuation in the “northern” teachings of Rāmānanda, Caitanya, Keśava Kāśmīrī and Vallabha.
The disciplic successions of the four “southerners”, according to the concept of the “Four Sampradāyas”, go back to the four divinities: Lakṣmī (Rāmānuja’s Śrī-Sampradāya), Brahmā (Madhva’s Brahmā-Sampradāya), Sanaka (Nimbārka’s Sanaka-Sampradāya) and Rudra (Viṣṇuswāmī’s Rudra-Sampradāya). The connection of the “northern” religious schools of the 15th and 16th centuries with one of the four “southern” schools proved the authority and validity of the “northerners” and also proved to the divine origins of the “northern” schools.
Many followers of Caitanya have heard the stanza attributed to the Padma-purāṇa and quoted by the Gauḍīya ācārya and contemporary of Jīva Gosvāmī, Kavikarṇapūra, in the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā: “In the age of Kali, four sampradāyas — Śrī-, Brahmā-, Rudra- and Sanaka- will emerge,” so says the Padma-purāṇa: ‘In Kali the four founders will appear – Śrī, Brahmā, Rudra, and Sanaka — the Vaiṣṇavas who purify the earth.’”
One of the main purposes of the idea of the Bhakti Movement and the purpose of the concept of the “Four Sampradāyas” is to show how the southern teachings and traditions of Rāmānuja, Nimbārka, Madhva and Viṣṇuswāmī, after several centuries, moved to the north and established themselves there in a new form, and that these “northern” schools had long-standing origins in the south and did not appear out of nowhere.
But there are no any proofs that in the past there were no other Vaiṣṇava schools in the South India besides the ācāryas mentioned in the concept of the “Four Sampradāyas” (namely: Rāmānuja, Madhva, Nimbārka, Viṣṇuswāmī). There were such schools.
One more nuance. The presented structure of the four sampradāyas: Lakṣmī, Brahmā, Sanaka, Rudra has several flaws. Even the founders and successors of the sampradāyas are different in different periods and in different sources. For example, Vallabha replaces Viṣṇuswāmī or Vallabha side by side with Keśava Kāśmīrī.
The existence of only four Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas is a North Indian figment of imagination. But whose?
Sampradāya-pradīpa
The earliest known work on the concept of the “Four Sampradāyas” is Gadādhara Bhaṭṭa’s Sampradāya-pradīpa. From the Sampradāya-pradīpa we know that the author wrote it in Vṛndāvana in 1553. Gadādhara describes himself as a disciple of Viṭṭhalanātha, son of Vallabha, who became the leader of the Vallabha community in 1542. Sampradāya-pradīpa consists of five chapters, three of which deal with the four sampradāyas.
The purpose of the author of Sampradāya-pradīpa is to tell the story of how Vallabha became the heir and successor of the Viṣṇuswāmī-Sampradāya and that the teachings of this school and the Viṣṇuswāmī-Vallabha-Paramparā are the only respected paramparā in the world of competing Vaiṣṇava communities. Vallabha, according to the author, was the long-awaited successor of Viṣṇuswāmī and continued his work. However, one hardly catches such an idea in Vallabha’s own writings. On the contrary: in his commentary on the Bhāgavata-purāṇa 3.32.37, Vallabha identifies the four forms of bhakti-yoga with the four schools of thought (sampradāyas), one of which he himself represents. There is no mention of any affiliation with the Viṣṇuswāmī tradition. Vallabha also associates the schools of Viṣṇuswāmī, Madhva and Rāmānuja with the guṇas in the following ascending order: tamas (school of Viṣṇuswāmī), rājas (school of Madhva) and sattva (school of Rāmānuja).
Vallabha’s attaching the guṇas to the sampradāyas is rather unflattering. Vallabha characterises his own philosophical position as śuddhādvaita. If we consider Vallabha’s commentary as a whole, of the three schools listed, Vallabha considered Rāmānuja’s ideas the closest to his own, and Viṣṇuswāmī’s ideas the most alien. One more important detail should be noted — the fourth of the four sampradāyas (Nimbārka-Sampradāya) is not mentioned at all. Vallabha considered himself to be this fourth sampradāya. In the same commentary Vallabha speaks only of three sampradāyas. Already in other works Vallabha pays attention to the “hierarchy of philosophical systems” and regards them as lower level due to his inability to focus on Kṛṣṇa.
For Vallabha himself, the formula of “Four Sampradāyas” was not fixed but floating, sometimes including four and sometimes three sampradāyas.
In Gadādhara’s opinion, the Viṣṇuswāmī-Vallabha-Sampradāya is the most honourable and the only true one among the other Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas. Gadādhara tells several intertwining stories linking the classical times, when Viṣṇuswāmī was initiated by Kṛṣṇa himself at the beginning of the kali-yuga, and the times of Vallabha. After describing the founders of the three sampradāyas, Gadādhara narrates the life of Vallabha, who follows the life path of Viṣṇuswāmī. In doing so, Gadādhara focuses on a certain flawless royal court in South India, whose perfection was so flawless that its fame spread to all parts of the world, including Vārāṇasī (the place of Vallabha’s death in 1530).
Like Viṣṇuswāmī in his time, Vallabha too was initiated by Kṛṣṇa himself. The connection between Vallabha and Viṣṇuswāmī is so obvious to Gadādhara that he repeats almost verbatim in the story of Vallabha the expressions from the story of Viṣṇuswāmī. The scene in the palace involving Viṣṇuswāmī is now repeated in Vijayanagara (in the text: Vidyanagara — “city of knowledge”), the greatest city in India. Vallabha came to this city convinced that it was there that important events were to take place.
The Vijayanagara was already in the 15th century the second largest medieval state and city in the world after Beijing. In addition, it had long resisted the hordes of Muslim invaders. For Hindu history, it is not just a state and a city — it is the last great bastion of dharma defence.
Vallabha, according to Gadādhara, learnt of the debate taking place in Vijayanagara between the followers of Śaṃkara (Advaitins) and Madhva (Tattvavādins). On the seventh day Vallabha also took part in the disputation. The number “seven” has already been mentioned by Gadādhara: it was the number of days Viṣṇuswāmī had to wait until Kṛṣṇa accepted his prayers and revealed Himself. On the second “seventh day”. Vallabha enters the assembly hall. Kṛṣṇadevarāya, the ruler of Vijayanagara, realised that Vallabha was an unusual person and honourably offered him a seat in the hall. The Advaitins were already virtually celebrating victory, but Vallabha continued the debate and won it victoriously, proclaiming the true Advaita superior to Śaṃkara’s Advaita by focusing on prema. Kṛṣṇadevarāya recognised Vallabha as the winner.
Vyāsatīrtha (1460–1539; Tattvavāda), the chief judge of the debate, impressed by the victory of young Vallabha, begs Vallabha to head the Madhva-Sampradāya and become the king’s confessor instead of himself. Vyāsatīrtha lived in Vijayanagara and was a very famous person not only in the religious circles of the time.
At night Bilvamaṅgala appeared to Vallabha in a dream and told him of the important mission Vallabha had to fulfil — to revive the spiritual tradition founded by Viṣṇuswāmī: “I had to wait 700 years for people to stop honouring Śiva and return to the ‘path of god’ — honouring Viṣṇu. Rāmānuja, Madhva and Nimbārka are not in a position to oppose anything to Śaṃkara and the Advaitins. Even some of the followers of ‘our way’ have succumbed to this corruption,” Bilvamaṅgala explained. Gadādhara (in Bilvamaṅgala’s words, of course) calls Vallabha the “fiery avatāra of the divine mouth” (Agni), capable of saving four hundred thousand human souls, and Vallabha’s descendants more than three million. In the end Vallabha refused Vyāsatīrtha’s offer.
In the concluding part of the Sampradāya-pradīpa, Gadādhara reveals the intent of his work — to proclaim the succession and link between Viṣṇuswāmī and Vallabha. Hence the mission of revival of the Viṣṇuswāmī-Sampradāya. In the idea of “revival” one can see the process of transferring the “southern” tradition of Viṣṇuswāmī to “northern” soil. Vallabha became a great ācārya because of his close connection with his “southern” past. Gadādhara claims that it was in the south (and not just in the south, but in the heart of the south), in Vijayanagara, that Vallabha and his teachings were officially recognised.
But what role does Bilvamaṅgala play in Vallabha’s revival of the Viṣṇuswāmī tradition, and who is he anyway? At the beginning of chapter three, long before Bilvamaṅgala appears in Vallabha’s dream, Gadādhara says that Bilvamaṅgala is actually three different persons. One lived in Kāśī, becoming in his next life the poet Jayadeva. The second Bilvamaṅgala is a native of Orissa. And finally, the third and most important Bilvamaṅgala was a significant figure of the Bhakti Movement in the North India in the 16th century. All three Bilvamaṅgalas play an important role in South–North relations.
Further more. The Orissa Bilvamaṅgala (№ 2) is placed in Purī to recall the dispute between Madhva and Jagannātha, the supreme deity of that city. The philosophical supremacy of Madhva’s teachings over the great Vijayanagara dynasty is about to be “handed over” to Vallabha. At first Jagannātha insists on his supreme authority over the city of Purī and its neighbourhood (kṣetra). However, Madhva forces Jagannātha to recognise that the role of Purī (a kind of Asian Vatican) has weakened considerably and the only Four Sampradāyas are now the new saving abode. Salvation can be found by becoming a member of one of them. Jagannātha agrees with Madhva and reveals the essence of the term “vaiṣṇava” — an adept of one of the Four Sampradāyas. The Four Sampradāyas form a “quadruple” fortress (abode), eclipsing the earlier models in which the virtues of satya-yuga retain their pristine form only in selected places. The Four Sampradāyas form a new image of what today might be considered as satya-yuga.
Of course, there was no Madhva debate in Purī with anyone in real life. All this is a religious creation and the basis for the creation of a new idea — the “Four Vaiṣṇava Sampradāyas” and the proclamation of Vallabha as Kṛṣṇa Himself.
The role assigned by Gadādhara to Bilvamaṅgala provides an insight into some of the nuances of the society in which the Vallabha-Sampradāya (puṣṭi-mārga) developed. Līlāśuka Bilvamaṅgala was the author of the Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta, a work popular in South India in the late fourteenth century. The earliest mention of Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta is cited in 1367. It is known from the Caitanya-caritāmṛta that along with the Brahmā-saṃhitā, Caitanya also held the Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta in high esteem, which was associated by the Gauḍīyas with elitism and royalty. Rāmānandarāya used to read aloud and discuss the contents of the Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta with Caitanya. Gadādhara used the Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta, which was popular in Gauḍīya circles, to reinforce Bilvamaṅgala’s role in the Sampradāya-pradīpa.
The reason for emphasising the Four Sampradāyas in the Sampradāya-pradīpa may also be due to intra-sampradāyas controversies. Gadādhara is primarily the follower of Vallabha and could not help but react to the presence of Caitanya’s followers in Vṛndāvana, where Gadādhara resided. The development of the Gauḍīya-Sampradāya was just around the time of composing of the Sampradāya-pradīpa (1553). In the mid-16th century, both religious groups were trying to gain control of the Govardhananātha temple. The story tells of fights and violent clashes between the Vallabhites and the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas.
The Mughal documents show the strong position of Caitanya’s followers in Vṛndāvana at that time, but the influence of the Vallabha’s followers was very weak. Rūpa Gosvāmī, the patriarch of the Gauḍīya community, was not shy about speaking openly and respectfully about Vallabha, recognising the similarity of his own beliefs with Vallabha’s teachings (the theologians at the head of the two communities often explained the śāstras in similar ways). Rūpa explicitly speaks of the similarity of his ideas about vaidhi-bhakti with Vallabha’s concept of maryāda-mārga. Rūpa also speaks of the similarity of his concept of rāgānuga-bhakti with Vallabha’s concept of puṣṭi-mārga.
However, we do not find anything like this in the works of Vallabha or his followers. The Vallabhites were more intolerant of rival schools, even if their interpretation of the śāstras turned out to be similar to that of other schools. By the time Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja composed the Caitanya-caritāmṛta, the image of Vallabha by the Gauḍīyas was clearly tarnished. In the Madhya-līlā of Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Vallabha is still described in flattering tones, but at the end of the book Kṛṣṇadāsa changes the flattering tone to outright insults of Vallabha.
In Gadādhara’s opinion, Bilvamaṅgala had predestined Vallabha to a prominent position among the founders of the Four Sampradāyas. But Gadādhara did not forget Caitanya either, calling him merely the leader of an upasampradāy (sub-sampradāya) in the Viṣṇuswāmī tradition of which Gadādhara himself was an adherent. Gadādhara went even further and declared Vallabha to be Kṛṣṇa himself, and the honour of declaring Vallabha to be the “son of Devakī in human form” fell to Caitanya. Vallabha describes himself several times in just such terms.
Such was the status of the Gauḍīya-Sampradāya in the earliest work containing the concept of the “Four Sampradāyas”. It is very likely that the author of the Sampradāya-pradīpa was the author of the concept of “Four Sampradāyas”. At least no other sources about it have been found to date. This concept did not exist before the 16th century.
It may be assumed that the date 1553 (1610 Saṃvat in some manuscripts) was deliberately back-dated to give the work greater authority. Of all the available reasons on the basis of various sources, the only reason for such an act could be the need to recognise the Vallabha community at the court of Jaisingh II in the 18th century and to define their place in the concept of the “Four Sampradāyas” in connection with the state reforms of the Kachavahas. It could also have been a desire to explain its place in the religious diversity and to show its sublime spiritual origin, which goes back many centuries and whose origins are in the south.
A new city, a new capital of the new state — Jaipur — was being created. Religious movements became active. There was a struggle for the patronage of the monarch, which had quite definite forms — money and privileges. The development of rivalry between the religious communities of Vraj/Braj (on the periphery of the Kachavahas’ sphere of influence) led to the need for a clear identification of the communities.
The intellectuals and advisers of Jaisingh II were aware of the Four Sampradāyas competing with each other in Vraj, whose representatives were not only Rāmānandīs but also followers of Vallabha. At that time the followers of Nimbārka and Caitanya were not included among the Four Sampradāyas at all. But the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas needed a lineage.
So, the concept of “Four Sampradāyas” appears in the 16th century and is used as a political tool in the 18th century, which Caitanya’s followers took advantage of by “attaching” themselves to the Madhva school without informing the Madhva followers. Today, not even all Madhva followers know or have heard that Caitanya’s followers are part of their tradition.
