The Concept of the “Four Vaishnava Sampradayas” — its Origin, Meaning, and Inconsistency. #1
The main idea of the concept of the “Four sampradāya-s” is that four “southern” doctrines, namely Rāmānuja’s (11th–12th century), Madhva’s (13th century), Nimbārka’s (11th–13th century), and Viṣṇusvāmin’s (13th or 15th century) doctrines, continued in “northern” doctrines after a while, namely in Rāmānanda’s (15th century), Caitanya’s (16th century), Keśava Kāśmīrī’s, and Vallabha’s (16th century) doctrines (Hawley 2013b: 21).
According to the concept of the “Four sampradāya-s”, the successions of the four “southerners” date back to four celestial divinities: Lakṣmī (Rāmānuja’s Śrī sampradāya), Brahma (Madhva’s Brahma sampradāya), Sanaka (Nimbārka’s Sanaka sampradāya), and Rudra (Viṣṇusvāmin’s Rudra sampradāya). Those “northern” religious schools of the 15th–16th centuries that were connected to one of the four “southern” schools were considered to be trustworthy and also testified to the divine origins of these schools.
The earliest known source mentioning the concept of the “Four sampradāya-s” is the Sampradāya-pradīpa, which was written by Gadādhara Bhaṭṭa in Vṛndāvana in 1553 (Hawley 2013b: 33). Gadādhara claims to be a disciple of Viṭṭhalnātha, Vallabha’s son who became the leader of the Vallabhite community in 1542. The Sampradāya-pradīpa consists of five chapters, including three devoted to the four sampradāya-s. According to the author, Vallabha was Viṣṇusvāmin’s long-awaited successor who continued his legacy.
However, we barely find this idea in Vallabha’s works. Quite the opposite, while commenting on the Bhāgavata-purāṇa 3.32.37, Vallabha equates four forms of bhakti-yoga with four schools of thought (sampradāya-s), one of which is his own. At that, there is no connection to Viṣṇusvāmin’s tradition shown (Hawley 2011: 163). Moreover, this is where Vallabha associates Viṣṇusvāmin’s, Madhva’s, and Rāmānuja’s schools with three modes of nature (guṇa-s) and does so in the following (apparently, ascending) order: tamas (obviously, Viṣṇusvāmin’s school), rajas (Madhva’s school), and sattva (Rāmānuja’s school).**
*Although Vallabha is often associated with Viṣṇusvāmin, this association is quite blurred. There is no reliable information about Viṣṇusvāmin. We do not know who he was or when and where he lived. There are no confirmed Viṣṇusvāmin’s works known (Hawley 2011: 161).
**If we consider Vallabha’s commentary in general, it becomes clear that, among these three schools, Vallabha found Rāmānuja’s ideas to be the closest to his own while Viṣṇusvāmin’s ideas must have logically been the most distant to his doctrine. Another important fact should be mentioned: the last of the four schools (Nimbārka’s school) is not mentioned at all. Probably Vallabha considered himself to be the fourth school. However, we should keep in mind that this commentary mentions only three schools.
According to Gadādhara, Viṣṇusvāmin-Vallabha’s school is the most appropriate and the only true among other Vaiṣṇava schools. Gadādhara tells several intermingling stories connecting the classical times, when Viṣṇusvāmin was consecrated by Kṛṣṇa himself at the beginning of kali-yuga, and the times of Vallabha. Having described the founders of three schools (Ch. 4), Gadādhara narrates about Vallabha’s life, which is similar to Viṣṇusvāmin’s life. At that, Gadādhara draws attention to a king’s court in Southern India so perfect that its fame reached all the regions, including Vārāṇasī (where Vallabha died in 1530). Just like Viṣṇusvāmin, Vallabha was consecrated by Kṛṣṇa himself. The connection between Vallabha and Viṣṇusvāmin is so apparent for Gadādhara that he uses the same phrases to talk about Vallаbha as in the narration about Viṣṇusvāmin. For instance, the palace episode with Viṣṇusvāmin repeats in Vijayanagara (“Vidyānagar” in the text), the greatest city in India. When Vallabha came to this city, he was confident that important events were to take place there (Hawley 2011: 164).
According to Gadādhara, Vallabha heard of the debates between Śaṅkara’s followers (Advaitins) and Madhva’s followers (Tattvavādins) that took place in Vijayanagara. Vallabha also participated in the dispute on the seventh day. Gadādhara had already mentioned the number “seven”: this is how long Viṣṇusvāmin had to wait before Kṛṣṇa accepted his prayers and appeared himself. On the second “seventh” day, Vallabha enters the meeting hall. Kṛṣṇadevarāya, the ruler of Vijayanagara, understood that Vallabha was an unusual person and reverently offered a seat to him. The Advaitins had already felt victorious when Vallabha continued the debates and triumphantly won. Kṛṣṇadevarāya recognized Vallabha as the winner and ordered to hold a “golden coronation”. It could have been a ritual of bestrewing with gold (kānaka-abhiṣeka) or awarding with an amount of gold equaling the person’s weight (tulāpuruṣa), as some manuscripts describe. According to Vijayanagara’s sources, Kṛṣṇadevarāya conducted the ritual “tulāpuruṣa” just like other Vijayanagara’s rulers; however, these sources do not mention Vallabha either in connection with this ritual or in other contexts (Hawley 2011: 164).
A Tattvavādin named Vyāsa Tīrtha (1460–1539), the main judge of the debates, was so impressed by the victory of the young Vallabha that he begged him to head Madhva’s school and become the king’s priest instead of him. Hawley (2011: 178, fn. 25) refers to Vijayanagara’s chronicles, but we find no confirmation there that Vyāsa Tīrtha was Kṛṣṇadevarāya’s spiritual master although Vyāsa Tīrtha’s disciple Somanātha insisted on this (s. the Vyāsayogicarita). Ajay Rao showed in his work that Kṛṣṇadevarāya gave preference to Śrīvaiṣṇavas. The king’s spiritual master was called Veṅkaṭa Tātācārya.
Vallabha saw Bilvamaṅgala in his dream, who told him about an important mission Vallabha was to fulfill, namely to revive Viṣṇusvāmin’s spiritual tradition. Bilvamaṅgala explained: “I had to wait for 700 years for people to stop worshipping Śiva and go back to ‘the path of God’, which is worshipping Viṣṇu. The achievements of Rāmānuja, Madhva, and Nimbārka have been ineffective against Śaṅkara and Advaitins. Even some of the followers of ‘our path’ have succumbed to this filth (2.61).” Gadādhara (of course, in Bilvamaṅgala’s words) calls Vallabha “a fiery avatāra of the divine mouth” (Agni) that is able to save four hundred thousand human souls, while Vallabha’s successors can save more than three million souls. In the end, Vallabha refuses Vyāsa Tīrtha’s offer (Hawley 2011: 164–165).
In the final part of the Sampradāya-pradīpa, Gadādhara reveals the idea of his work, which is proclaiming the tie between Viṣṇusvāmin and Vallabha. This is why the mission consists in reviving Viṣṇusvāmin’s tradition. We can see this idea of reviving as part of transplanting Viṣṇusvāmin “southern” tradition to the “northern” soil. Vallabha became a great religious leader thanks to his close connection to his “southern” past. Gadādhara says that Vallabha and his doctrine were officially recognized in the south (at the very heart of the south in Vijayanagara) (Hawley 2011: 166). But what is Bilvamaṅgala’s role in Vallabha’s reviving Viṣṇusvāmin tradition and who is Bilvamaṅgala?
– –to be continued– –
