Caitanya Mahaprabhu — Scriptural Proofs of His Avatarahood and Divinity. Part 2
Such attributes fit a multitude of people, including Hindus. Should we recognise these people as the Supreme God? ‘Samudrika’ – a treatise, which bears the name of the whole direction of the Indian pseudoscience of “reading a person” by his appearance: by hand, by face, by body. A mixture of physiognomy and fortune-telling. Sāmudrikā-śāstra is directly involved in astrological and divination practices. A vivid example of misconceptions. There is no scientific basis for this practice. Long and deservedly criticised by science. It differs from the scientific anthropological classification.
Get a scientific assessment of physiognomy by listening to one of the major psychological experts, Alexander Todorov of Princeton University: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFtE62MGpsk&t=394s
According to one version of the Gauḍīya concept of “descending of avatāra-s”, the God in the form of yuga-avatāra descend to earth a) every yuga (age) and b) his mission is to establish dharma for each age. Caitanya’s followers refer to Bhagavad-gītā 4.8 to support this idea. But this is just one concept, not supported by all Vaiṣṇava schools.
Strophe 4.8 is a continuation of the thought begun in strophe 4.7: “Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion – at that time I descend Myself.” (Prabhupāda’s translation). In stanza 4.7, the reason why God descends upon earth is stated: the decline of dharma (yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir), and 4.8 tells when (time) the God descends to earth: yuge yuge. Individually, yuge yuge means “in every yuga”, but only in the absence of any conditions and reservations. If conditions are present, such as “in every third yuga” or “in every yuga when the dharma decays,” then it is every such kind of yuga, not every yuga without exception. Together with yuge yuge, in a direct contextual and semantic connection, there is a clear condition that says which yuga-s are being discussed: “when dharma declines, then I myself come.”
The context and condition stated in stanza 4.7 outline the boundaries of the functionality of yuge yuge and define the characteristics of each yuga when a God descends. This is precisely the idea that can be traced in Rāmānuja’s explanation, drawing our attention to the presence of a condition as to which yuga-s are being discussed: “There is no fixed time when I descend upon earth in different yuga-s. When dharma declines, then I descend in the forms of gods, men…” (na kāla-niyamaḥ asmat…). Rāmānuja’s explanation is confirmed by the words of the Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana-parvan 13,143.011a: yadā dharmo glāyati vai…).
The Bhagavad-gītā speaks of conditions that are tied to specific events, not to units of time. In this case, the event is the decline of dharma, but the frequency with which yuga-s of declining dharma occur is not precisely stated. Decline of dharma is a natural quality of Kali-yuga, which cannot be said of the other yuga-s. Decline of dharma in these yuga-s is an extraordinary, unusual phenomenon, not cyclical and natural. Gauḍīyas’ yuga-avatāra-s are strictly “tied” to yuga-s. Four yuga-s are four yuga-avatāra-s. Usually, the avatāra-s are listed by name by the Gauḍīyas, but not the yuga-avatāra-s. The only textual proof for the Gauḍīyas of the existence of the yuga-avatāra-s is the Bhāgavata-purāṇa, or rather, four stanzas: 11.5.21, 11.5.24, 11.5.27 and 11.5.32, but they say nothing about the yuga-avatāra-s, much less give their names, and the word avatāra itself is not in this chapter of the purāṇa either.
According to the Satya-saṃhitā, which Madhva cites in his explanation of the Bhāgavata-purāṇa 2.7.20, the God does not need to descend himself, but can empower someone to fulfil a mission, including the protection of people and dharma: “In the manvantara-s (periods of protection of mankind by one Manu), the Lord resided in the cakravartin-s in His four-armed form and protected the earth by destroying evil rulers. The ascetics call the Paramātma, who resides in the cakravartin-s with a shell, a disc and a mace to give them strength and courage, Rājarājeśvara.”
The very stanza presented by Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja says nothing about Caitanya. Sūta talks about the appearance of the deity in general, not about Caitanya. Caitanya is not mentioned in the Bhāgavata-purāṇa.
On the descent of avatāra-s every yuga see my book On Some Dogmas of the Cult of Caitanya in the Light of the Madhva Teachings, p. 115.
The author of the Caitanya-upaniṣad is most likely Kedāranātha Bhaktivinoda, alias Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura (1838–1914), who passed it off as the lost Upaniṣad of the Atharvaveda. The history of the origin and content of the Caitanya-upaniṣad was examined by Jagadananda Das, outlining his research in the article An Analysis of Three Suspicious Texts (http://jagadanandadas.blogspot.com/2007/09/analysis-of-three-suspicious-texts.html). None of the numerous catalogues of Sanskrit treatises, including the Catalogus Catalogorum, mention the Caitanya-upaniṣad.
Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Madhva and their contemporaries, as well as the founders of Caitanya tradition — Rūpa, Sanātana, Jīva, Viśvanātha and Baladeva, do not mention or quote the Caitanya-upaniṣad. There is no historical trace of the existence of Caitanya-upaniṣad. We have only Bhaktivinoda’s statement that there is, or rather was, such an Upaniṣad. Any objective analysis of the Caitanya-upaniṣad will inexorably lead to the conclusion that there is something wrong with it. Its style is similar to that of the Purāṇas and has nothing to do with the style of the Śruti, in general, and the early Upaniṣads, in particular. The Caitanya-upaniṣad is absolutely not part of the Atharvaveda. The Atharvavedins themselves have never heard of it. The mention of the city of Navadvīpa (jāhnavī tīre navadvīpe) in it is also suspicious.
Unlike members of the Gauḍīya maṭha-s (Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja represented one of the maṭha) and followers of Prabhupāda (International Society for Krishna Consciousness) the traditional Gauḍīyas consider the Caitanya-upaniṣad as a recent forgery.
Textual Proofs 7–9, p. 16 are also from the Caitanya-upaniṣad. 