The Concept of the “Four Vaishnava Sampradayas” — its Origin, Meaning, and Inconsistency. #2
So, what is Bilvamaṅgala’s role in Vallabha’s reviving Viṣṇusvāmin tradition and who is Bilvamaṅgala? Gadādhara Bhaṭṭa was ready for this question. At the beginning of the third chapter, long before Bilvamaṅgala appears in Vallabha’s dream, Gadādhara says that Bilvamaṅgala is in fact three different persons. One lived in Kāśī and became the poet Jayadeva in the next life. According to Gadādhara, this Bilvamaṅgala became famous because of his relations with a courtesan named Padmāvatī, who was often called Cintāmaṇi. The second Bilvamaṅgala comes from Orissa, and he is the author of the Aṣtottara-śloka-saṅkhyātmaka-stotra. Finally, the most important Bilvamaṅgala became a prominent figure in the bhakti-movement in Northern India in the 16th century. All three Bilvamaṅgalas play an important role in the relations between the southern schools (South) and the northern schools (North) (Hawley 2011: 167).
Bilvamaṅgala from Orissa (№ 2) is placed in the city of Purī to remind of Madhva’s dispute with Jagannātha, the supreme deity of the city. The philosophical superiority of Madhva’s doctrine over Vijayanagara’s great dynasty is about to be “given” to Vallabha. At first, Jagannātha insists on his supreme power in the city of Purī and its surroundings (kṣetra). However, Madhva makes Jagannātha admit that the city’s position (Purī was a kind of an Asian Vatikan) has significantly weakened and a new salvatory abode lies in the four sampradāya-s now. He states that one can find salvation in joining one of them. Jagannatha agrees with Madhva and reveals the essence of the term vaiṣṇava, which is “an adherent of one of the four schools”. The four schools form a “quaternary” fortress (abode) obscuring the early models where the virtues of satya-yuga remain unchanged only at certain spots. The four schools formed a new image of what can be considered satya-yuga today (Hawley 2013b: 38).
The role Gadādhara assigns to Bilvamaṅgala allows us to understand some aspects of the society where Vallabha’s school and tradition (puṣṭimārga) developed. Līlāśuka Bilvamaṅgala was the author of the Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta, a work that was popular in Southern India at the end of the 14th century. According to the Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.1.120 and 2.9.309, Caitanya highly appreciated not only the Brahma-saṃhitā but also the Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta, which the Gauḍīyas associated with the elite state and royal power (2.9.325; 3.15.27). Rāmānandarāya read aloud and discussed the Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta with Caitanya. Could Gadādhara use the Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta, which is so popular in the Gauḍīya circles, to enhance Bilvamaṅgala’s role in the Sampradāya-pradīpa? (Hawley 2011: 168).
The reason why the Sampradāya-pradīpa accentuates the four schools can lie in conflicts within them. Gadādhara was Vallabhite in the first place and could not ignore the presence of Caitanya’s followers in Vṛndāvana, where he lived. The Sampradāya-pradīpa was written in 1553, exactly when Caitanya’s school was developing. Both groups tried to gain control of the Govardhananātha Temple in the middle of the 16th century. We know of cases when Vallabhites forced the Bengalis out of the temple. Mughal documents show that Caitanya’s followers had a strong position in Vṛndāvana during those years, while the Vallabhite influence, on the contrary, was very weak. Probably it was due to this reason that Rūpa Gosvāmin, the patriarch of the Gauḍīya community, did not hesitate to speak of Vallabha openly and with respect, recognizing the similarity between his own beliefs and Vallabha’s doctrine (the theologians who headed the two communities often explained texts in a similar way). This did not threaten Rūpa’s position, and Rūpa directly speaks of similarities between his own concept of rāgānugā-bhakti and Vallabha’s concept of puṣṭimārga. However, we see nothing of the kind neither in Vallabha’s works nor in the works of his followers. The Vallabhites were less tolerant of rival cults even when their text interpretations turned out to be similar, as in the case of Caitanya’s followers. By the time Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja wrote his Caitanya-caritāmṛta, the Gauḍīyas had significantly tainted Vallabha’s image. The Madhya-līlā describes Vallabha in flattering terms (2.19.62–91); however, Kṛṣṇadāsa changes his tone for blatant insults against Vallabha at the end of the book (3.7.15; 3.7.134) (Hawley 2011: 169, 179).
According to Gadādhara, Bilvamaṅgala predetermined Vallabha’s prominence among the founders of the four sampradāya-s. At that, Gadādhara did not forget about Caitanya: he called him the leader of a sub-sampradāya in Viṣṇusvāmin tradition he himself adhered to (implying that Viṣṇusvāmin tradition continues in Vallabha’s school). Gadādhara went even further and declared Vallabha to be Kṛṣṇa himself (4.55) (Hawley 2011: 170).
According to Bhatt, Vallabha describes himself in such terms several times: The Subodhinī 1.1.1.5; The Tattvārthadīpa-nibandha introductory strophe 3; The Aṇubhāṣya 2.2.26. The same idea permeates through all of the Vallabha-digvijaya (Hawley 2011: 178, fn 28).
The problem of dating of the Sampradāya-pradīpa
The Sampradāya-pradīpa itself claims to have been written in VS 1610 (1553 or maybe 1554 CE). Kaṇṭhamaṇi Śāstrī mentions four manuscripts of this treatise (two of them dated 1714 and 1722 and kept in the library of Vallabha sampradāya in Kankarauli) in the preface to his edition of the Sampradāya-pradīpa. The third manuscript is dated 1704, but it contains only the fourth chapter of the treatise. The fourth manuscript is dated 1682 (VS 1739), and it is the oldest surviving manuscript of the Sampradāya-pradīpa. We find the earliest reference to the Sampradāya-pradīpa in Śrīśa Bhaṭṭ’s commentary on the Vallabha’s Jalabheda. However, Bhaṭṭ’s work cannot be older than from the 18th century. As we can see, the gap between the oldest surviving copy of the Sampradāya-pradīpa and Bhaṭṭ’s reference is no more than fifty years (Hawley 2011: 171–172).
We should also keep in mind that the date 1553 could have been assigned to the work subsequently to enhance its authority. Hawley (2011: 172) believes that the only reason for this could have been the necessity to recognize the Vallabhite community at the court of Jai Singh II in the 18th century and find a place for it in the concept of the “four sampradāya-s” in connection to the state reforms of the Kachvāhās. However, the manuscript of 1682 (VS 1739) had been written before Jai Singh II (1699–1743) came to power. In this case, we can assume that the ongoing rivalry between religious communities in Braj (on the periphery of the Kachvāhās’ influence) led to the necessity to clearly identify the communities. Of course, intelligent advisers of Jai Singh II knew of the four sampradāya-s, which included not only Rāmānandis, but also Vallabha’s followers. Nimbārka’s and Caitanya’s followers were not taken into consideration at that moment. The Sampradāya-pradīpa was able to become a proper basis for the advisers of Jai Singh II to recognize the Vallabhites as a legitimate sampradāya. Gadādhara Bhaṭṭa from Vṛndāvana was a very appropriate person for creating a necessary text like the Sampradāya-pradīpa. At least, one Bhaṭṭa family from Vṛndāvana in the middle of the 16th century, whose offspring live in Aṭhkhambh today, were perfect candidates for Gadādhara’s family. For centuries, they traditionally married off their daughters to leading Brahmins of the Vallabhite community. These Bhaṭṭas could have been conveniently used in the opposition between sampradāya-s at the end of the 17th century. Even if the Sampradāya-pradīpa has been written as early as in 1553, these Bhaṭṭas are still good candidates for the role of people who were dissatisfied with their secondary position in the community (only direct descendants of Viṭṭhalnātha could be the heads of Vallabha’s school and community). In this connection, it should be emphasized that Gadādhara had been writing the Sampradāya-pradīpa clearly before “blood” and “hereditary” conflicts commenced. At that time, Viṭṭhalnātha was younger than forty and died in 1585 (Hawley 2011: 172).
The connection of the Bhaṭṭas (who were Tailangas by birth) with the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava community, as well as Vallabha’s followers is a matter of interest. We see this connection in the way the author of the Sampradāya-pradīpa is attempting to balance between these two communities, which is not linked to his undoubtedly anti-Gauḍīya views. Can it be that we deal with two Gadādharas just as we deal with three Bilvamaṅgalas? The famous Gauḍīya poet, Gadādhara Bhaṭṭa who came from the mentioned Bhaṭṭa family became a preimage for the Vallabhite Gadādhara Bhaṭṭa who was later chosen to be the author of the Sampradāya-pradīpa. Kaṇṭhamaṇi Śāstrī believed there were two different Gadādharas living in the period when the book was created, and he made an attempt to find out who was who. It is much easier to imagine a Vallabhite named Gadādhara Bhaṭṭa living in the 16th century than a Vallabhite living in Vṛndāvana at this time. We find no royal decrees (farman) directed at Vallabha by Moghuls; he lived too early for this. However, decrees concerning Vallabha’s son and his family start to appear from 1577: they do not mention Vṛndāvana, but they mention Gokula, or more precisely, lands on the opposite bank of Yamunā. The king gave lands around the mountain Govardhan to Viṭṭhalnātha’s family in 1593. On the other hand, the decree of 1565 became the earliest evidence confirming the connection between the Gauḍīyas and the famous Govindadeva temple in Vṛndāvana. Must we take all this and suggest that the Sampradāya-pradīpa is a late work pretending to be an ancient treatise? (Hawley 2011: 172–173).
It is known that some Vallabhites did not shy away from correcting history or compiling a convenient and advantageous picture using its separate episodes. Of course, we should keep in mind that Vallabhite historians are not the only ones who did this. There are similar disadvantages in the episodes of Caitanya’s life described in the works of his followers. Caitanya’s biography is often divided into līlā-s, designated as nāṭaka-s (performances, plays), which indicates that it may be somewhat different from reality. The situation with Vallabha is not like this: His followers write in the genre vārtā, presupposing that the reader is less informed of the story’s conventionality. Maybe they choose this genre intentionally to create an impression that the stories are real? If the Sampradāya-pradīpa had been written in the 17th century (the manuscript Baroda 9570 appeared in 1682) or even later, while the year 1553 had been chosen intentionally to make the work more influential, we deal with an example of pseudohistorical creation, which is seen in other traditions as well (Hawley 2011: 173).
P. Agrawal gives a good example of pseudohistorical creation concerning the events in Rāmānanda’s school in the early 20th century (Hawley 2011: 174). We also see a similar process in the works of Bhaktivinode Thakur, Caitanya’s follower, who misrepresented his own works as ancient works once lost and now found (for more details: Jagadananda Das, An Analysis of Three Suspicious Texts. See also Ch. 8 “Prophecies about Caitanya in the Upaniṣads” of my book About Some Dogmas of the Caitanya Cult in the light of Madhva’s Teachings).
“Migration” of bhakti. The Bhāgavata-māhātmya
We also find the idea of “southern” doctrines and traditions migrating towards Northern India in the Bhāgavata-māhātmya (1.48). According to the Bhāgavata-māhātmya, bhakti was “born in Dravida”, then moved north through Karnataka and Maharashtra, almost dissolved in Gujarat, and finally miraculously flourished again in Vṛndāvana. The idea given in the Māhātmya is, in many ways, different from the concept of the “four sampradāya-s”; however, they are interrelated. At the very beginning of the second chapter of the Sampradāya-pradīpa, the author quotes the words of Bhakti about itself and the history of its spreading, almost exactly repeating the words of the Bhāgavata-māhātmya. The earliest manuscripts of the Bhāgavata-māhātmya appeared in the second decade of the 18th century. Of course, we can assume that these manuscripts are the earliest surviving and the Māhātmya was written in the 16th century, which is corroborated by the description of bhakti being revived in Vṛndāvana, a city built and sanctified in the 16th century. However, this is unusual that so far we have not discovered texts of the Māhātmya dated before the 18th century. Probably the idea of bhakti spreading from south to north reflected in this work had been known in India long before the Bhāgavata-māhātmya gave it a more elegant form by making it a story told by the personified Bhakti. It is difficult to make definitive conclusions, at least until the original texts of the Sampradāya-pradīpa and the Bhāgavata-māhātmya are uncovered. However, we cannot be confident they will ever be discovered at all (Hawley 2011: 174–175).
–– to be continued ––
