Srila Baladeva Bidyabhusana Prabhupada
Among the Vaishnavas, the compiler of Sri Sri Gaudiya commentary of the Vedanta Sutra and the topmost Jewel of the Shyamanandi Branch of Gaudia Vaishnava Sampradaya, Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada is like the effulgent Sun, illuminating at its brightest. Along with being the tallest scholar, he was the protector and the savior of Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya (Tradition) when the real threat and challenges were thrown.
The identity of the Gaudiya Sampradaya, as the fifth, the best & the purest Vaishnava tradition, was all but lost at the thought-provoking meeting of the topmost scholars of four Sampradayas of Vaishnavas at Galta near Jaipur, in Rajasthan in the year 1718 AD. The assembled scholars desired to examine the sampradaya’s commentary on Vedanta Sutra along with leading Sruti & Smriti to check the authenticity of the philosophy of the Gaudia Sampradaya. Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had ruled that Srimad Bhagwatam is the real commentary on Vedanta Sutra. None of the scholars of the tradition had, therefore, written any commentary on Vedanta Sutra.
A real emergency had arisen!
A Commentary on Vedanta Sutra, which truthfully presents Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s philosophy of simultaneous one and different, so-called, achintya bhed abhed siddhant, had to be immediately composed and furnished to the scholars. Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada had just a fortnight to present his- yet to be composed- commentary for the critical review of the topmost Vaishnava scholars. Commentaries on foremost sruti and smriti were also asked for. Otherwise, there was a real danger of Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s tradition, although the best and the purest, not getting official Vaishnava recognition.
It was left to the genius of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada to prove that the Gaudiya Vaishnava Tradition, the one propagated by Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, was the Best & the Purest in philosophy and established it as an independent Fifth Sampradaya. He did this in a way, which can only be termed as miracle. Sri Radha Govindaji blessed him to compile not only the commentary of Vedantsutra, aptly named Govinda Bhashya -the ultimate treatise under Nyaya- but also commentary on Sri Gopal Tapani Upnisad & Isopanisad, both part of smriti and Sri Gitabhoosan which is considered part of sruti. He did this almost impossible task just in a fortnight!
The exalted scholars of other sampradaya, who were present at Galta meeting, were not just amazed to see this brilliant exposition of Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s siddhant, but were even desirous to become disciple of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada. The King of Jaipur bestowed him the title of Vidyabhusana (The shining light of all the Knowledge). All the assembled Vaishnava scholars had accepted, in the presence of the then King of Jaipur, Gaudia Vaishnava Tradition as the purest and independent fifth Vaishnava Sampradaya.
It is, however, shocking that many learned Vaishnavas now recognize only four authentic Vaishnava Sampradaya and consider Gaudia Vaishnava Sampradaya as a part of Madhva Sampradaya. To rub salt to the wound, many quote Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana prabhupada - obviously out of context- and call him the original scholar from the line of Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu to propagate the view that Gaudia Vaishnavas are an extension of Madhvas.
If that were the case, what was the necessity for the Lord Sri Govindaji himself to inspire Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada to write a new commentary on Vedanta Sutra to elucidate teachings of Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu for Gaudia vaishnava Sampradaya while Srila Madhvacharya’s commentary on Vedanta Sutra already existed?
Any in-depth analysis will reveal hardly any concurrence in the siddhant, conclusion and method of worship between Madhva Sampradaya and the one Gaudia Vaishnava Sampradaya propagated by Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu himself had deprecated many conclusions of Srila Madhvacharya.
We shall now explain some basic and irreconcilable differences between Gaudia Sampradaya and Madhva Sampradaya.
1. FIRST- Srila Madhvacharya considers and worships Lord Sri Narayan of Vaikutha as the supreme personality of Godhead. He brushes aside Krishnastu Bhagvan Svayam- the conclusion of sruti and smriti that Lord Sri Krishna is the supreme personality of Godhead. Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his Gaudia followers, however, accept this Vedic injunction and Lord Sri Krishna is their worshipable deity.
2. SECOND- Srila Madhvacharya’s opinions at certain places are contrary to not only sastras but also simultaneously breaks the heart of Gaudias. Sruti and Smriti consider Vraj Gopies as expansion of, so called, swaroop sahkti of Lord Sri Krishna. They do not possess material body and are not ordinary living entities of this material world (Gaudia Vaishnava Darshan 1-1-146). Contrary to these well established sastric injunctions, Srila Madhvacharya has called them Apsarah stri i.e. Society women of higher planets. Apsaras posse extremely beautiful female material body and give bodily pleasure to others and can roughly be compared with prostitutes of this material world. The view of Madhvacharya is reflected in his comments on Srimad Bhagwatam-
Vimuktavapi Kaminyo Vishnukama vrajstriyah I
Dveshinascha Harau nityam dveshen tamasi sthitah II
Snehabhaktah sada devah kamitven apsarah striyah I
Kaschit kaschinna kamena bhaktaya kevalayaiva tu II
Bhaktya va kaamabhaktya va moksho naanyena kenachit I
Kaamabhaktya apsarah strinamanyesham naiva kamatah II
Upasyah svasuratvena devstrinam janardanah I
Jaratvenapsarah strinam kasanchiditi yogyata II
-Madhavacharya’s commentary on S.B.(Bhagabat Tatparya)
However, Sastras confirm that the love of Vraj Gopies towards Lord Sri Krishna was devoid of any bodily attachment.( G V Darshan 1-1-154/155). Meditating on this and loudly calling “Gopi..Gopi..” Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu used to lose his external consciousness. Sastras describe, Vraj Gopies as the crest jewel among Lord Sri Krishna’s devotees. Their selfless love completely conquers Lord Sri Krishna. They are dearer to him than even Sri Lakshmiji (G V D 1-1-154). Even Sri Uddhavji and Sri Bramhaji aspire for the dust of their lotus feet ( G V D 1-1-155). Mahabhava of Gopies is not attainable even by queens of Dwarka like Sri Rukmani. Madhvacharya considers devotion of eight queens of Dwarka viz Sri Rukmani-Satyabhama etc twice as intense as Gopies. Mother Yasoda is hundred times more affectionate. In gradation of affection, Mother Devaki is ranked higher than Mother Yasoda, Sri Vasudev is ranked higher than Mother Devaki. Then comes Sri Arjun- higher than Sri Vasudev, Sri Balaram’s devotion is more passionate than Sri Arjun. Sri Bramhaji is ranked higher in devotion than Sri Balaramji. Thus, Sri Bramhaji is ranked as the Topmost devotee and is, therefore, called “Ishesh”
Krishnapriyabhyo Gopibhyo bhaktito dwigunadhikah I
Mahishyastou vinah yasta kathitah krishnavallabhah II
Tabhyah sahasrasamita Yasoda Nandagehini I
Tatohapyabhyahdhika devi Devaki bhaktitastatah II
Vasudevastato Jisnustato Ramo mahabalah I
Na tatohabhyadhikah kaschit bhaktadou Purusottame II
Vina Bramhanamisesham sa hi sarbadhikah smritah II
-Madhavacharya’s Commentary on S.B. (Bhagwat Tatparya) 11-12-22
Sri Madhvacharya ranks Vraj Gopies at the lowest in his rating of devotees and Sri Bramhaji the highest. Followers of Madhvacharya consider Sri Bramhaji as their Adi Guru, which explains their special affinity for and the allocation of the highest rank to Sri Bramhaji, although it contradicts the Shastric injunctions. Sri Bramhaji himself in Vaman Purana resolves this apparent difference in opinion. He tells to Bhrigu and other sages-
Sastivarshsahasrani maya taptam tapah purah I
Nandagopabrajstrinam padarenopalabdhye I
Tathapi na maya praptastasam vai padarenavah II
Meaning:-“In an earlier era, I prayed but could not even get the dust of the lotus feet of Vraj Gopies despite undergoing austerities for sixty thousands of years.”
Sri Bramhaji then made his famous statement-
“Naham Shivasch Shesasch Srisch tavih samah kwachit”
Meaning:- Neither me nor Sri Shivji nor Sri Sheshji nor Sri Laksmideviji can ever be equal to Vraj Gopies.”
1. In fact, least any doubt be created on the most exalted position of Sri Bramhaji’s devotion, Madhvacharya has not commented on three chapters ( 12th, 13th and 14th) of Srimad Bhagwatam which describe bewilderment of Sri Bramhaji, popularly known as “Bramha Vimohan Lila.
2. ”The exalted position of the pure love of the Vraj Gopies is best described by Srila Sanatan Goswami in Brihad Bhagwatamritam. After Sri Sukadev Goswami had concluded Srimad Bhagwatam, Devi Uttara asked her son Sri Parikshit Maharaj the essence of what he had just heard. Sri Parikshit Maharaj revealed that essentially Bhagwat Purana describes the stages of Bhakti. He told her the story of Sri Narada Muni. The Great Rishi began his search for the greatest devotee with Sri Bramha & Sri Shiva and found their devotion mixed with Karma and Gyan. He then went to Sri Prahlad (Shanta rasa), Sri Hanuman (Dashya rasa) and Sri Arjun (Sakhya rasa) before finally reaching to the greatest devotee-Sri Uddhav. SriUddhav, however, told him the conclusion that the highest level of devotion rests with Vraj Gopies.
3. THIRD- Madhvacharya has described moksha (salvation) as the goal of devotional services (Madhava’s comments on second Chapter of Gita as well as his comments on Srimad Bhagwatam slokas 3-15-48, 3-25-32-34). Relying on evidences of Sruti and Smriti, Srila Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has always considered Love of Godhead as the ultimate goal of devotional services.
4. FOURTH- Madhvacharya had maintained that kaivalya bhakti is the best method to attain the Salvation. He explained Kaivalya bhakti as the devotional service that is devoid of Religiosity, Desire for financial or material gains or Prestige. It only seeks salvation. Scholars from Madhva’s tradition had confirmed this doctrine to Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu at Urdupi. In contemporary context, in a letter dated March 22, 1952; Srila Vidya Samudrateerth Maharaj, then in-charge of Kanuru Math of Urdupi, had reiterated this position. This letter was in the custody of Srila Sunderananda Vidhyavinod.
Did Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu concur with this stated position of Madhva Sampradaya?
Varnashram dharma Krishne Samarpan I
Eai hai Krishner Bhakter shrestha sadhan II
Panchavidha mukti panya vaikunthgaman I
Sadhya shresth hai eai shastra-nirupan II
-(Chaitanya charitamrita-Madhya-9/238-239)
Gaudiya Sampradaya deplores even the thought of Salvation (Mukti) and considers it as a witch.
5. FIFTH- As per Madhvacharya, Lord Sri Krishna is not hat-ari-gati-dayak, meaning that he has no power to give salvation to the enemies he kills. (Madhvacharya’s Purport of SB 3-25-32-34, 3-2-24, 3-2-14 and Vedanta Sutra 3-4-40). Right interpretation of the same slokas, as per Gaudia doctrine, is just the opposite. Putana in the most glaring example of the Gaudia interpretation of these slokas.
Aho bakiyam stan-kaal-kootam,
jinghaamsayaayayad apiasaadhvi I
Levegatim dhatry-uchitaam tata’nyam
kam va dayaalum sarnam vrajemaII
-(SB 3-2-23)
Meaning:- How can anybody be more merciful than he (Lord Sri Krishna), who granted position of mother in his eternal abode, even to the one who approached to kill him because of revenge, by putting deadliest poison on her breast.
Everybody knows that one of the reasons that attracted Srila Sukadev Goswami to bhakti was the sweetness of the extreme mercy Lord Sri Krishna showered on Putana, whose avowed goal was to kill him.
6-SIXTH- Gaudias’ views on so-called namabhaas or second stage of chanting is. in the stage of namabhaas, between the offensive and offense less stages, one automatically attains the salvation.” (SB 2-2-30). Example of Ajamil is often quoted to support this view.
Madhvacharya disagrees. His purport of SB 6-2-14 states that Ajamil was liberated because he uttered “Narayan..Narayan…” with devotion and his cry for help was directed to Lord Sri Narayan and NOT his son Narayan.
This is contrary to what Srila Sukadev Goswami has stated in SB 6-1-27
Sa evam vartmano’gyo mritukaak upasthite I
Matim chakar tanye bale Narayannvye II
Meaning:-When the time of his death had arrived he called for his little son who carried the name Narayan.
Finally, Srila Sukadev Goswami’s conclusion on namabhaas is spelt in SB 6-2-49
mriyamāno harernāma grinan putropacāritam
ajāmiloha’pyagāddhāmakim punah śraddhayā grinan
Meaning:-Fearing imminent death, Ajamil chanted the holy name of the Lord, and although he cried for his son, he nevertheless returned home, back to Godhead. Therefore, if one faithfully and inoffensively chants the holy name of the Lord, where is the doubt that he will go back to Godhead?
Srila Sukadev Goswami reiterates in SB 6/2/24/25 that only after hearing the conversation from Vishnudoots and yamdoots, the glories of the name, fame, qualities and pastimes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he became a pure devotee, not before that. He then greatly regretted his past sinful activities.
”The conclusion is obvious. Madhva’s view on Ajamil episode need to be reassessed because they are contrary to statements of Srila Sukadev Goswami.
7-SEVENTH- Gaudias consider the relationship between the absolute truth and the jivas as simultaneously one (same) and different for an inconceivable reason, the so called achintya bhed abhed. On the contrary, Madhva considers them as completely different, the so-called dwait vad.
It is because of these basic differences that Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had deprecated Madhva’s views. The Gaudia Sampradaya can never be a part of Madhva Sampradaya in view of the fundamental differences described above. At no point of time, Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had either accepted or supported Madhva’s doctrine. In fact, during his pilgrimage to South India , he had refuted the views of Madhvacharya during discussions with the main theoretician (Tattvavadi Acharya) of Madhva Sampradaya.
The conclusive part of that discussion is reproduced below-
Karma,Mukti - dui vastu tyaje bhakta-gan I
Sei dui sthapa’ tumi ‘sadhya’, ‘sadhan’II
Sanyasi dekhiya more karaha vanchan I
Nakahila teni sadhya-sadhan -laxan II
-(Chaitanya charitamrita.-Madhya 9-271/272)
Meaning:- Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said- “Both liberation and fruitive activities are rejected by devotees. Taking an opposite view, you are trying to establish them as part of the process to attain the life’s ultimate goal. Considering me a mendicant in the renounced order of life, you are trying to conceal this truth from me by using equivocal words.”
Acharya kahe-tumi yei kaha’sei satya haye I
Sarva-sastre vaisnaver ei suniscaya II
Tathapi madhvacharya ye kariyache nirbandha I
Sei achariye sabe sampradaya-sambandha II
-(Chaitanya charitamrita-Madhya 9-274/275)
Meaning:- Tattvavadi Acharya of Madhva Sampradaya replied, “I respect your opinion which is in consonance with all the revealed scriptures. But, we act in according to the practices & procedures laid down by Srila Madhvacharya.”
‘prabhu kahe-karmi, jnani-dui bhakti-hina I
Tomara sampradaye dekhi sei dui chinha II
Sabe,eka guna dekhi tomar sampradaye I
Satya-vigraha kari’isvare karaha nischaye II
-(Chaitanya charitamrita- Madhya 9-276/277)
Meaning:- Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said- “Both the fruitive workers and the speculative philosophers are considered non devotees but we see plenty of them present in your Sampradaya. The only good quality I see in your Sampradaya is that you consider the deity form same as the Lord himself”
Interestingly, in the discussion with the Topmost Scholar of Madhva Sampradaya at Urdupi, Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has referred Madhva Sampradaya in second person (You/Your etc) and never called them in first person (We/Our etc).
The learned scholars at Galta too were aware of these irreconcilable differences between the Madhva and the Gaudia linage. The very purpose of the religious debate was not to brush aside these differences but to seek Sastric justification for the views of the Gaudias- then led by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada.
The misconception that five sampradayas contradict Padma Purana’s “Sampradaya vihina….Atah kalau bhavishyanti chaturau sampradaiau...” is completely misplaced. This sloka figures neither in authentic Padma Purana nor in any other Purana compiled by Sri Vyasdev. Any past editions of Srila Navadas’ “Bhaktamaal”- another authentic source of Vaishnava tradition- never mentions that only four sampradayas will exist in Kaliyuga and the stanza “chatvarau sampradaina……” does not figure anywhere. The obvious conclusion is that someone, to limit Vaishnava traditions arbitrarily to four, had added these words later. None of the books compiled by Six Goswamis and their illustrious spiritual descendents have ever attempted to club “Achintya Bhed Abhed “with “Dwaitwad”. They do not mention that Gaudias are part of Madhav Sampradaya. Same tradition continued right up to Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada.
Many current scholars, quoting Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada out of context, consider him a protagonist for clubbing Gaudias with Madhvas. This humble author reminds all the followers of Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu that Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada compiled Govinda Bhashya and led the debate at Galta not to club the Gaudias with Madhva Sampradaya but to prove that Achintya Bhed Abhed is fifth authentic philosophy, fully conforming to all the Sastric injunctions and different from Madhva’s Dwait vad.
The Gaudia tradition commenced from that combined incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Sri Krishna and Srimati Radharani named Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and not from Sri Bramhaji- as is widely propagated. Sri Uddhav Das, disciple of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada and compiler of Upasana Paddhati has started his spiritual tradition from Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and not from Sri Brahmaji.
There appears to be wide misconception about spiritual linage of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupda. His own compilations viz, commentary of Sri Shyamananda Shatakam, the conclusive part of Sahitya Kaumudi and the beginning of the commentary on Chhandah Kaustuva- conclusively mention him belonging to Sri Shyamanandi Tradition(Guru Parampara) and started from Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, not from Sri Brahma.
The own Spiritual tradition(Sva guru parampara) started from Sri Brahma, mentioned in Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada’s Prameya Ratnavali appears to be added later by someone to established that Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was belonging to Madhva Sampradaya.
This author humbly requests all the readers to propagate FIVE Vaishnava sampradayas instead of four, and the Gaudia Sampradaya as a separate Sampradaya, not as a branch of Madhva sampradaya as per the direction of Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu to the Six Goswamis and as established by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana prabhupada.
Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada had spent about sixty years of his life as the beneficiary in the temple of his Istadeva Sri Sri Radha Shyamsundar Temple of Sevakunj, Sridham Vrindavan worshiped by Sri Shyamananda Prabhu. Much information about his life- not published earlier- has been brought into public domain for the first time.