Inconsistencies in Caitanya Caritāmṛta ?

নানা অবজ্ঞানে ভট্টে শোধেন ভগবান্ ।

কৃষ্ণ যৈছে খণ্ডিলেন ইন্দ্রের অভিমান ॥

What follows is a critical examination of the late Vallabhite apologetic claim that "Śrīcaitanyacaritāmṛta contains multiple inconsistencies". We will keep our discussion centred around the article "How far the stories on Mahāprabhu Srī Vallabhācārya in Caitanya Caritāmr̥ta are reliable?"[https://www.pushtipedia.com/wiki/Vallabha-caitanya], there objections will be tagged as [PM] and my response will be tagged under [GM].

स्वस्त्यस्तु विश्वस्य खल: प्रसीदतां ध्यायन्तु भूतानि शिवं मिथो धिया ।

मनश्च भद्रं भजतादधोक्षजे आवेश्यतां नो मतिरप्यहैतुकी ॥

[PM] : A specific group of people within Caitanya saṁpradāya is operating under the agenda to malign the image of Srī Vallabhācārya by forging false stories and allegations on how Srī Vallabhācārya was and how was he rebuked by Sri Caitanya, how Caitanya was superior to him and up-to an extent of claiming that Srī Vallabhācārya was the disciple of one of the disciples of Sri Caitanya. Such stories are nothing but a pure lie and untruth backed by a deep conspiracy and hatred towards those who try to become an ecstatic devotee of Lord Kr̥ṣṇa. They have managed to manipulate the historical facts through their literature as done in one of their texts known as Sri Caitanya Caritāmr̥ta written by Kr̥ṣṇadāsa Kavirāj. It seems such group of people believes in claiming and obtaining the exclusive possession or control of devotion towards Srī Kr̥ṣṇa and thus believes that they own the sole right in performing the Kr̥ṣṇa devotion and that others can’t match their devotional stature. It seems that such people believe that they have monopoly in Kr̥ṣṇa devotion thereby. Let us clarify very categorically – Lord Kr̥ṣṇa and The devotion towards Lord Kr̥ṣṇa can never be anyone’s monopoly since Lord Kr̥ṣṇa himself says “nāyamātmā ca pravacanēna labhyō...” – I am achieved by those who I wish to achieve me. Thus, it's pure delusion to try to monopolize the Kr̥ṣṇa bhakti.

[GM] : It is very unfortunate that the author has imposed a sectarian and conspiratorial interpretation upon what is otherwise presented in Gauḍīya literature as a straightforward theological and historical narrative. Anyone even moderately acquainted with Vallabhite literature knows that Śrī Vallabhācārya, in his own extant works, nowhere explicitly identifies a human guru in the ordinary sectarian sense. In works such as the Tattvārthadīpa-nibandha, he reverentially refers to Śrī Vyāsa as guru, which is common among Vedāntins and cannot by itself settle historical questions regarding initiation or instruction. Furthermore, respected Gauḍīya authors such as Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī in Vaiṣṇava-vandana, Śrī Yadunātha Gāṅguli in Śākhānirṇayāmṛta, and Śrī Kavikarṇapūra in Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā mention Śrī Vallabhācārya without any trace of hostility, ridicule, or sectarian malice. To therefore allege a “deep conspiracy” on the part of the Gauḍīya sampradāya is historically unsubstantiated and rhetorically excessive. Moreover, no Gauḍīya ācārya claims monopoly over devotion to Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Gauḍīya theology certainly presents Śrī Mādhavendra Purī as the fountainhead of the unique current of ecstatic Kṛṣṇa-prema in Kali-yuga — but theological self-understanding is not the same thing as denying devotion in others. Every sampradāya naturally glorifies its own lineage in exalted terms. Indeed, even within certain Vallabhite accounts, Śrī Vallabhācārya is connected with the lineage of Śrī Mādhavendra Purī through instruction and saṁnyāsa-related associations. Whether one fully accepts those accounts or not, they cannot simply be dismissed as “forgeries” without serious textual and historical engagement.

The following part of the article is in Hindi, but my responses will remain in english.

[PM] : हमें न तो कृष्णदास कविराज से कोई आपत्ति है न ही सम्पूर्ण चैतन्य चरितामृत ग्रंथ से.. हमारी आपत्ति मात्र इसमें आते आपराधिक अंशो से है ... जिनका लेखक कोई वैष्णव द्वेषी ही हो सकता है कृष्णदास कविराज जैसा भक्त नहीं...

[GM] : "This is an infamous paradox, to the outer world they show they are not inimical to Śrī Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, but in their lairs they blaspheme him by name. So much so that a prominent descendent of Śrī Vallabhācārya took out time to write an entire sarcastic drama, caricaturing the revered personalities of Śrīman Mahāprabhu, and Gauḍīyācāryas like Śrī Jīva Gosvāmi, Śrī Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja and others"

[PM] : निस्संदेह मूल चैतन्य चरितामृत गौडिया दर्शन का अनुपम ग्रंथ रहा होगा इससे हमे कोई आपत्ति नहीं. किंतु श्रीचैतन्य के जीवन पर प्रकाश डालना इसका मुख्य विषय होने के कारण ये ग्रंथ है तो एक hagiography ही!!

[GM] : Joseph T. O'Connell in his paper "Historicity in the biographies of Caitanya" Journal of Vaisnava Studies 1.2 (1993) writes "In this essay I use the term "biography" in the sense of "sacred biography" (or the more general "religious biography"), not academic or critical biography. But I use "biography" or "sacred biography" deliberately to distinguish these accounts of Caitanya's life from what is more properly called "hagiography"".

[PM] : प्रथम तो वार्ता साहित्य में कई ग्रंथ आते हैं . इनमे चौरासी वैष्णव वार्ता, अष्टासखान की वार्ता, 252 वैष्णव वार्ता, तथा प्राचीन निज वार्ता अपने मूल प्राचीन रूप में प्राप्त हैं. इनके प्रणयिता स्वयं गोस्वामी श्रीविट्ठलनाथजी के पुत्र गोस्वामी श्रीगोकुलनाथजी हैं. "... *आज कथा को फल कहत हैं..."* इन वचनों द्वारा गोस्वामी श्री गोकुलनाथ जी ने वार्ता का प्रारंभ किया. महाप्रभु श्रीमद् वल्लभाचार्य के पुष्टी भक्ति मार्ग को किस प्रकार सूरदास प्रभृति वैष्णवो ने अपने जीवन में जिया यह वार्ता साहित्य का विषय है. ऐसे विशुद्ध वार्ता ग्रंथो का comparision वैष्णव संप्रदाय के आचार्यों को गाली देने वाले, चैतन्य चरितामृत,प्रेमविलास जैसे किसी आपराधिक ग्रंथ से किया ही नहीं जा सकता!!

[GM] : “As Sumit Sharma [Sumit Sharma is a scholar and descendant of 

Vallabhacharya from the female line. That is, he a son of a daughter (a beṭijī) of the Vallabh Kul, and is therefore revered, but not able to perform sectarian initiation.], one of my primary conversation partners in Ahmedabad, told me while preparing for a three-day long pravacan (“sermon”) on the life of Vallabhacharya: “there is not one text that tells the full life of our Shri Mahaprabhuji—all vārtā texts, as well the Vallabhadigvijaya [a Sanskrit text that I discuss in Chapter Three], must be consulted.”64 The problem with this, Sumit explained, is that “all these texts disagree with each other! Each show that Shri Mahaprabhuji was in different places doing different things with different people at different times!” Sumit went on to explain that the inconsistencies did not amount to much in terms of matters of faith—all accounts were equally sacuṁ (“true”). “The problem,” he explained, was “how to present the life of Shri Mahaprabhuji in only three days and how to not confuse devotees?” Unlike the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, which has one predominantly authoritative sacred biography, the Caitanya Caritāmṛta, for its charismatic leader Caitanya (1486–1534), Vallabhacharya’s life was never committed to writing in one widely accepted and authoritative text.66 In other words, there is no “Final Word” (as Tony K. Stewart has said about the Caitanya Caritāmṛta) for the Vallabh Sampraday.” [“Personal Communication, April 13th, 2012 ”, Emilia Bachrach (2014) "Reading the Medieval in the Modern: The Living Tradition of Hagiography in the Vallabh Sect of Contemporary Gujarat"]

[PM] : ऐसे अपराध युक्त ग्रंथ को बिना किसी ऐतिहासिक प्रमाण के दुराग्रह से सत्य मानना मूर्खता एवं अल्प बुद्धिमत्ता ही नहीं बल्कि एक महत् वैष्णव अपराध है.

वैष्णव अपराध चाहे गुप्त रीति से किया जाए अथवा ढिंढोरा पीट के गलियों में गाना गा के सबके सामने किया जाए , रहेगा वह एक तुच्छ वैष्णव अपराध ही!! ऐसे घनघोर अपराधिक अंश से संयुक्त ग्रंथ को सत्य स्वीकारना अपने आप में महत् वैष्णव अपराध है साथ ही मूल प्राचीन ग्रंथ की हत्या ही है!!

बड़े दुर्भाग्य का विषय है कि ऐसे वैष्णव अपराधिक पाठ का अधिकारी आप स्वयं को माने!

[GM] : The author is just trying to indoctrinate a prejudice about Śrī Caitanyacaritāmṛta in his readers. Śrīman Mahāprabhu had met vallabhācārya in Puri is attested by their own granthas like the Saṁpradāyapradīpa, Vallabhadigvijaya etc. so much so that the dubious Vallabhadigvijaya actually used the setting of Śrīman Mahāprabhu meeting Vallabhabhaṭṭa during the rathayātrā of 1518 from Caitanyacaritāmṛta itself and wrote “kṛṣṇacaitanyamilanaṁ, rathayātrotsavo jātaḥ.” which aligns with Antyalila’s “prabhu kahe, — “keha gauḍe, keha deśāntare saba āsiyāche ratha-yātrā dekhibāre”. Whatever Śrīman Mahāprabhu said to Vallabhācārya was a response to what the later had done, Mahāprabhu didn't call Vallabhācārya a veśyā rather he said those who do not accept the authority of "Svāmi" [Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmi] are like harlots. This should be taken as an instance of nahi nindā nyāya; ‘na hi nindā nyāya’ na hi nindā nindayituṁ prayujyate, kiṁ tarhi? ninditād itarat praśaṁsitum. (Śabara-bhāṣya on Mīmāṁsā-sūtra: 2.4.21) “The criticism (nindā) is not employed to criticize. Then what [is it employed for]? To praise something other than that which is criticized.”

[PM] : हमारा प्रश्न एकमात्र यही है कि क्या इस वर्तमान प्रचलित चैतन्य चरितामृत में आते अपराधिक अंश के रचयिता कृष्णदास कविराज थे भी ? क्या प्राचीन manuscripts में यह बात पाई जाती है? क्या चैतन्य चरितामृत ग्रंथ के चोरी होने के कारण कृष्ण दास कविराज ने आत्महत्या की थी जैसा बंगाली ग्रंथ प्रेम विलास में आता है? जाहिर सी बात है ग्रंथ हीरे मोती जड़ित नहीं होते जिन्हें चोरी किया जाए ! ग्रंथ के साथ छेड़छाड़ करने के लिए ही चोरी जैसे कृत्य को किया जा सकता है! ऐसे ग्रंथ को सत्य मानना तो कृष्णदास कविराज की हत्या करने के समान है!!

[GM] : Answering the later part first. It is clear from the text that the author is illiterate in the sphere of gauḍīya history and literature, even if Premavilāsa is considered an authority, the entire context of the theft is this — "Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi sent his prominent disciples Śrī Narottama, Śrī Śrinivāsa, Śrī Śyāmānanda to bengal inorder to preach the books the gosvāmis had authored. Meanwhile upon reaching bengal, in the region of Vanaviṣṇupura ruled a king by the name Vīrahamvīra a scion of the malla dynasty. But due to the then financial situation of the region, he had kept a group of bandits and two fortune tellers, the working was that the fortune tellers would by their knowledge tell about what a traveller was carrying and the king would send his group of bandits to loot them. In a similar manner when the cart of Śrīnivāsa etc carrying the jewel like books arrived in his region, the fortune tellers told the king that the they carried large amount of jewels [they couldn't understand that they were books]. Upon opening the chests the king found out that it contained the literature of the gosvamis and turned remorsed, meanwhile Śrī Śrīnivāsa somehow recovered the granthas and made the king into his disciple." [summarization of the 13th vilāsa of Premavilāsa], historians and scholars like Śrī Bimanbihari Mazumdar in his book "śrīcaitanyacaritrer upādān" succesfully establishes that the Caitanyacaritāmṛta was completed in 1615 CE thus it was impossible that the book was sent to bengal by Śrī Jīva Gosvāmi which happened approximately in 1580s. The suicide claim has been debunked in the same work by Śrī Bimanbihari Mazumdar and in Caitanyacaritāmṛter bhūmikā by Śrī Rādhāgovinda Nātha. The oldest manuscript of the Caitanyacaritāmṛta as per Śrī Rādhāgovinda Nātha and Dimock is the Śīuri manuscript which does contain the chapters dealing with Vallabhācārya. Śrī Rādhākṛṣṇagosvāmi a custodian of the RādhāGovinda temple of Śrīla Rūpagosvāmi from the year 1643 CE who wrote the Sādhanadipīkā [quoted in the Bhaktiratnākara] in immediate times following Śrī Haridāsagosvāmi [mentioned in the group of devotees who requested Śrīla Kavirāja to write the text] ; his Guru's physical departure quotes the entire 7th chapter of the Antyalīlā in the text — "tathā hi saptama-paricchede (CC 3.7.148-173)- vallabha-bhaṭṭera haya vātsalya-upāsana bāla-gopāla-mantre teṅho karena sevana... ", even the Gaurakṛṣnodaya who dedicates it's composition to Śrīcaitanyacaritāmṛta whose two manuscripts have been found from the Oḍīyāmaṭha and from the royal library of Nayāgaḍha; does a total retelling of the incident "yadicchayāyaṁ svāmimataṁ vinā svayaṁ prabhāvato bhagavatopati kvacit, vidhāya tīkāṁ prabhave nivedituṁ praviṣṭavān vallabhabhaṭṭa udbhaṭṭaḥ... uvāca taṁ svāmivacohativarttinī tvadīyaṭīkā vyabhicārinī dvija".

[PM] : महाप्रभु श्रीमद् वल्लभाचार्य कौन हैं यह आपने अपने सुबोधिनी टीका के मंगलाचरण में स्वयं ही स्पष्ट किया है.. जिसका पुनः स्पष्टीकरण ,चैतन्य संप्रदाय के रघुनाथ दास गोस्वामी तथा विश्वनाथ चक्रवर्ती जैसे आचार्य द्वारा भी स्तुत्य- "गोस्वामी श्रीविट्ठलनाथजी" ने किया है (स्वामिनी श्रीराधाजी के भाव से पूरित वस्तुतः स्वयं कृष्ण)  !! श्रीवल्लभ तो ऐसे आचार्य हैं जिन्हें भारतवर्ष में सर्वप्रथम महाप्रभु नाम से संबोधित किया गया! जिसके ऐतिहासिक प्रमाण के रूप में "बद्रीनाथ के तीर्थ पुरोहित को दिया गया वृत्ति पत्र" आज भी विद्यमान है!! प्रसिद्ध अष्टाछापी सूरदास एवं कुंभनदासजी जैसे महान अवतारी भक्तों के गुरु महाप्रभु श्रीमद् वल्लभाचार्य को चैतन्य चरितामृत का अपराधी लेखक *वैश्या* बोलने की धृष्टता करता है, उनके रचित ग्रंथों को *फल्गु प्राय* कह निंदा करता है, उन्हें *खद्योत आकर* कहता है, उन्हें *हंस मध्ये बत्तख प्राय*  कह रहा है !! हम भी तो यही कह रहे हैं की इस प्रकार से, दैन्यता की प्रतिमूर्ति पुष्टि भक्ति के प्रवर्तक आचार्य  , वस्तुतः स्वयं कृष्ण अवतारी महाप्रभु श्रीमद् वल्लभाचार्य की निंदा करने वाला ऐसा व्यक्ति किसी भी प्रकार से वैष्णव नही हो सकता!!

[GM] : Śrī Vallabhācārya describing himself writes "arthaṁ tastya vivecituṁ na hi vibhurvaiśvānarāt vākpateranyastatra vidhāya mānuṣatanuṁ māṁ vyāsavacchrīpatiḥ", while Śrī Viṭṭhalanātha writes "agnitvaṁ varṇitaṁ te kavibhirapi sadā vastutaḥ kṛṣṇaeva". These two are contradictory in themselves nonetheless no expression as "स्वामिनी श्रीराधाजी के भाव से पूरित वस्तुतः स्वयं कृष्ण" occurs in any of those. The original photo of the said document is here — 

The expression "mahāprabhuṇām" is said to be occurring in the darker region beneath the main text of which only "śrīvallabhācārya" is visible, due to utter illegibility of the text we can't consider this any sort of a proof. Latest studies of John Stratton Hawley raise serious doubts about the affiliation of Śrī Suradāsa with the vallabhite school, unless the Vallabhites produce any counter narrative academically, the academic position remains ambiguous. 

[PM] : महाप्रभु श्रीमद् वल्लभाचार्य के प्रिय श्री चैतन्य तो पुष्टिमार्गीय ग्रंथों में महा भक्त के रूप में स्वीकार्य रहे हैं एवं उनके अनुयाई षड गोस्वामी भी परम सिद्ध भक्तों के रूप में वार्ता साहित्य में स्वीकार्य हैं किंतु चैतन्य चरितामृत जैसे भ्रष्ट ग्रंथ को सत्य मानने से एवं प्रवचनों में इसके अपराध पूर्ण अंश को बार-बार कहने से विषाक्त वातावरण बना है!!

[GM] : Recognizing a jewel as a jewel does not increase the glory of the jewel — it is already precious by its very nature. If a person is able to recognize it, the credit belongs not to the jewel, but to the discernment of the one who recognized it. And if someone mistakes it for a mere stone and dismisses it, the value of the jewel is not diminished in the slightest; rather, it only raises questions about that person’s judgment and vision. Therefore, if Puṣṭimārga texts honour Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and the Ṣaḍ-Gosvāmīs as exalted devotees, their greatness is not increased thereby — it was already self-established. Rather, such recognition reflects the generosity of vision and devotional discernment of the Puṣṭimārga ācāryas themselves. Similarly, if the Gauḍīya tradition expresses theological disagreement with Śrī Vallabhācārya in certain contexts, that does not diminish his greatness in the least. The worth of great souls does not depend upon the acceptance or rejection of any particular sampradāya "na karhicij janeṣv abhijñeṣu sa eva go-kharaḥ". Anyways the vārtās contain many blasphemous stories which the modern day apologists dodge by blaming the narrative tradition. 

[PM] : प्रथम तो चैतन्य चरितामृत में आते इस प्रसंग की ऐतिहासिकता किसी भी प्रकार से सिद्ध होती ही नहीं. क्योंकि इस प्रसंग का वर्णन एकमात्र चैतन्य चरितामृत में ही प्राप्त होता है तथा अन्य किसी भी बंगाली , उड़िया अथवा संस्कृत भाषा में लिखे गए  ग्रंथ में तथा संपूर्ण पुष्टिमार्गीय साहित्य में ऐसे किसी प्रसंग का कोई उल्लेख नहीं प्राप्त होता और तो स्वयं इस ग्रंथ की भी प्राचीन प्रतियों में यह प्रसंग प्राप्त है अथवा नहीं यह भी पुष्ट नहीं है.

[GM] : This meeting of Śrīman Mahāprabhu and vallabhācārya in Puri is mentioned in Sampradāyapradīpa, Vallabhadigvijaya of the vallabhites and texts like Caitanyacakḍā, Gaurakṛṣṇodaya etc. of the Gauḍīyas and third party evidence like Mādālapañji [temple records of Jagannātha Puri]. Obviously, the temple record won't record the entire conversation, and if it had done so how respectable would it have been for the vallabhites ?, Thus meeting in puri is indeed established as an historical fact.

[PM] : यदि इस प्रसंग की रचना किसी वैष्णव व्यक्ति ने किसी सत्य घटना के आधार पर की होती तो उसे अवश्य ही यह तो ज्ञात होता कि जिनका वह वर्णन कर रहा है वह विष्णुस्वामी संप्रदाय के आचार्य ,साक्षात राधा कृष्ण के विरहाग्नि स्वरूप महाप्रभु श्रीमद् वल्लभाचार्य हैं. जिन्हें स्वयं श्री कृष्ण ने साक्षात प्रकट होकर ब्रह्म संबंध मंत्र दीक्षा दे पुष्ट भक्ति मार्ग का प्रवर्तन किया तथा जो सूरदास जी एवं कुंभानदास जी जैसे महान अवतारी भक्तों के गुरु हैं. एक वैष्णव लेखक इन तथ्यों को छुपाने की चेष्टा कभी भी नहीं कर सकता ....

[GM] : The Viṣṇusvāmi connection remains academically challenged by GH Bhatt. Śrī Vallabhācārya in his subodhini called the bhakti of Viṣṇusvāmi tāmasika and mentioned himself as being distinct from Viṣṇusvāmi's sampradāya. "te ca sāmprataṁ viṣṇusvāmyanusāriṇaḥ, tattvavādinaḥ rāmānujāśceti tamorajaḥsatvairbhinnaḥ, asmatpratipāditaśca nairguṇyaḥ, evaṁ caturvidho 'api bhagavatā pratipāditaḥ "abhisandhyāya yo hiṁsām"..." [Subodhini 3.32.37], earlier he had described the meaning of "tāmasa" in regard to bhakti, there he further divides tāmasa-bhakti in 3 kinds "tāmasatāmasa", "rājasatāmasa" and "sāttvikatāmasa" — "tatra prathamaṁ tāmasān bhaktibhedānāha— abhisandhyāyeti, śatruṇāṁ hiṁsāmuddiśya yastu mayi bhāvaṁ bhakti kuryāt, sa tāmasatāmaso bhavati, tasmāddambhena yaḥ karoti parapratāraṇārtha sa rājasatāmasaḥ, parasya buddhirdhanaṁ cā 'pahriyate iti tāmasatvam, mātsaryena parotkarṣāsahanena lokānāmasādhāraṇabuddhinivṛttyarthaṁ yo mayi bhāvaṁ kuryātsa sātvikatāmasaḥ"[Subodhini 3.29.8]. However Lālubhaṭṭa in recent times in his prameyaratnārnava has given an alternate explanation "vrajasthānāṁ tāmasatvaṁ trividham..." he primarily explains it being "unaware of bhagavad mahātmya", "avihitabhaktirasānubhavasādhanarūpaṁ pāribhāṣikamekam, dharmaviśeṣarūpaṁ dvitīyam, bhagavanmāyākṛtaṁ tṛtīyaṁ ca", "tāmasā hi haṭhapradhānāsteṣāṁ yatrāgraḥ patati sa na gacchati, jñānarahitā mugdhāśca bhavanti, jñānarahitatvādeva lokavedaollaṅghanaṁ kurvanti, vrajasthā api bhagavati paramāgrahavanto līlānupayuktajñānaśūṇyāḥ, "evaṁ madarthojjhitalokavedasvānāmiti"vākyābhagavadarthaṁ lokavedollaṅghanaśīlāścetyetāvaddharmasāmyena tāmasatvamucyate". Which is tainting his explanation with apasiddhāntadoṣa. "एक वैष्णव लेखक इन तथ्यों को छुपाने की चेष्टा कभी भी नहीं कर सकता", in contrary this can be a proof of absence too. The 1544 epigraphic record says noting of Viṣṇusvāmi connection or winning any debate in Vijayanagara. Many of the key events of Puṣṭimārga are just based on hearsay, such as the debate in the court of vijayanagara etc. Thus, being a Vaiṣṇava one is not automatically obliged to follow any random story famous in the market. The brahmasaṁbandha dīkṣā narrative is absent in Vallabhadigvijaya, also the siddhānta rahasya says nothing of any mantra being received from Kṛṣṇa, rather it only says that Brahmasambandha must be performed of deha and the jīva abiding within, the navaratnam too doesn't mention any explicit dīkṣā. Against Lālu Bhaṭṭa's understanding writes Gosvāmi Śyāmamanohar in his introduction to Rāsapañcādhyāyī which will be engaged with in another blog. 

[PM]: लेखक को इस बात का ज्ञान होता की सतत भगवान्नाम लेना श्रीवल्लभ के मूल सिद्धांतों में से एक है. किंतु इसके धूर्त लेखक ने तो श्रीवल्लभ को अपने ही मूलभूत सिद्धांत पर प्रश्न चिन्ह लगाते बता दिया है!

लेखक को इस बात का ज्ञान होता की श्रीवल्लभ द्वारा रचित सुबोधिनी तो कभी पूर्ण ही ना हो पाई तथा पुरी प्रवास के समय तो दशम स्कंध प्रारंभ तक नहीं हुआ था जो श्रीवल्लभ इसे चैतन्य को जबरन सुनने का प्रयास करते!!

[GM]: Vallabhācārya mainly focused on arcanamārga and not saṁkīrtana [the yugadharma] that is why in the Bhaktamāla in regard to the father and son duo is written "tehiṃ māraga ballabha bidita pṛthu padhati parāyana", "ballabhasuta bala bhajana ke kalijuga meṃ dvāpara kiyo .", the pramāṇas given in support of Nāmajapa being integral part of Vallabhasaṁpradāya are "तस्मात सर्वात्मना नित्यं श्री कृष्ण: शरणं मम। वदद भिरेव सततं स्थेयमित्येव मे मति:।। (नवरत्नं) सर्वदा सर्व भावेन भजनीयो व्रजाधिप:। (चतु:श्लोकी) तावदानंद संदोह कीर्त्यमान:सुखाय हि।। (निरोधलक्षण)" none of these are sambodhanātmaka. 

[PM]: लेखक को इस बात का ज्ञान होता की श्रीवल्लभ द्वारा रचित सुबोधिनी तो कभी पूर्ण ही ना हो पाई तथा पुरी प्रवास के समय तो दशम स्कंध प्रारंभ तक नहीं हुआ था जो श्रीवल्लभ इसे चैतन्य को जबरन सुनने का प्रयास करते!! लेखक को यह ज्ञान होता की श्रीवल्लभ ने अपने सर्वप्रथम ग्रंथ तत्वार्थ दीप निबंध से लेकर सुबोधिनी में भी स्वयं किशोर भाव- माधुर्य भाव को सर्वोच्च फल के रूप में बताया है . लेखक को यह ज्ञान होता की श्रीवल्लभ प्रारंभ से ही श्रीकृष्ण के किशोर गोपाल सहित सभी स्वरूपों की सेवा समस्त भावों के साथ करने का प्रचार करते आ रहे हैं ना कि केवल मात्र वात्सल्य अथवा बालभाव से! लेखक को यह ज्ञान होता की श्रीवल्लभ विष्णु स्वामी संप्रदाय के आचार्य होने के नाते अष्टादशाक्षर गोपाल मंत्र द्वारा दीक्षित हैं तथा स्वयं श्री कृष्ण द्वारा प्रदत्त ब्रह्म संबंध मंत्र से भी दीक्षित हैं जिसका उल्लेख श्री वल्लभ ने स्वयं ही सिद्धांत रहस्य ग्रंथ में किया है! किंतु धूर्त लेखक द्वारा इन तथ्यों के विपरीत गाली गलौज से परिपूर्ण मनगढ़ंत अनर्गल बातें लिख दी गई है.

[GM] : Where does the Caitanya caritāmṛta say that Vallabhabhaṭṭa had completed the entire commentary ?, rather it says "“bhāgavatera ṭīkā kichu kariyāchi likhana āpane mahāprabhu yadi karena śravaṇa”" "I[Vallabhabhaṭṭa] have written some commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam,” he said. “Would Your Lordship kindly hear it?”". Actually Vallabhācārya was confused between many a rasas. That is why nor could he understand the unique rasa stature of Bhakti, and even in that Bhakti, there are five different bhāvas. His elder son Śrī Gopinātha in his sevādipīkā has suggested a person-based rasa with the person's status being a widow or a married woman, determining their rasa with Kṛṣṇa "sadhavā bhatṛbhāvena vidhavā putrabhāvataḥ". The letter to Narottama, Ujāgara and others only says that he was a follower of Viṣṇusvāmi's Maryādā maybe he was a generational initiate in that Line, yet the saṁpradāyapradīpa says that Viṣṇusvāmi worshipped Bhagavān in vātsalya rasa. And mere worship of kaiśora deities prove nothing for one may remain in vātsalyabhāva and still worship adolescent Kṛṣṇa, for children are always the recipient of vātsalyarasa from their parents "navyena yauvanenāpi dīvyan goṣṭhendra-nandanaḥ | bhāti kevala-vātsalya-bhājāṃ paugaṇḍa-bhāg iva ||", "kṛṣṇa-rāmau pariṣvajya pitarāv abhivādya ca na kiñcanocatuḥ premṇā sāśru-kaṇṭhau kurūdvaha, tāv ātmāsanam āropya bāhubhyāṁ parirabhya ca yaśodā ca mahā-bhāgā sutau vijahatuḥ śucaḥ". Yet Vallabhaṭṭa remained confused his whole life. What is the proof that he had the aṣṭadaśākṣara gopālamantra ? the Viṣṇusvāmi saṁpradāyins primary worship Śrī Nṛsiṁha by aṇuṣṭubha vidyā. We know from Sri Caitanya Caritamrta Antya 7.148— “vallabha-bhaṭṭera haya vātsalya-upāsana bāla-gopāla-mantre teṅho karena sevana” “Vallabha Bhaṭṭa was accustomed to worshiping the Lord as child Kṛṣṇa. Therefore he had been initiated into the Bāla-gopāla mantra and was thus worshiping the Lord.” Pustimargis on the other hand claim that, Vallabhacharya was already worshipping Madanmohana ji of Sri Yajnanarayana Bhatta which has ubhayanayika svarupa [puṣṭimārgi literature does not agree on this detail, some even don't mention the origin of this svarūpa, this argument thus stands no chance].  

They ask then which Balagopala Mantra was being chanted by Vallabhacharya while worshipping Madanmohan Ji ?  Actually it was the “caturakṣara-mantraṃ” viz “klim krsna klim” whose dhyana includes— 

śrīmat-kalpa-dru-mūlodgata-kamala-lasat-karṇikā-saṃsthito yas

tac-cākhyālambi-padmodara-vigalad-asaṅkhyāta-ratnābhiṣiktaḥ |

hemābhaḥ sva-prabhābhis tri-bhuvanam akhilaṃ bhāsayan vāsudevaḥ

pāyād vaḥ pāyasādo 'navarata-navanītāmṛtāśī vaśī saḥ ||

āraktodyāna-kalpa-druma-śikhara-lasat-svarṇa-dolādhirūḍhaṃ

gopābhyāṃ preṅkhyamānaṃ vikasita-nava-bandhūka-sindūra-bhāsam |

bālaṃ nīlāla-kāntaṃ kaṭi-taṭa-viluṭhat kṣudra-ghaṇṭāvaṭāḍhyaṃ

vande śārdūla-kāmāṅkuśa-lalita-galā-kalpa-dīptaṃ mukundam ||

May be basing on the same Dhyana Sri VitthalaGusain Ji sang— “प्रेंख पर्यंकशयनम् | चिरविरहताप हरमति रुचिर मीक्षणं प्रकट प्रेमायानम् ||...व्रजयुवति ह्रद्यकनकाचलानारोढु मुत्सुकं तव चरण युगलम् | तेन मुहुरुत्र मनभ्यासमिव नाथ सपदि कुरुते मृदुल मृदुलम् ||” Or there is another mantra which is based on Vatsalyaupasana— oṃ namo bhagavate nanda-putrāya ānanda-vapuṣe śrīṃ gopī-jana-vallabhāya svāhā || nanda-putrāya śyāmalāṅgāya bāla-vapuṣe kṛṣṇāya govindāya gopījanavallabhāya svāhā ||  The dhyana goes as this — “dakṣiṇe ratna-caṣakaṃ vāme sauvarṇa-vetrakam | kare dadhānaṃ devībhyām āśliṣṭaṃ cintayed dharim ||”.

So he must be referring to either of these mantras when Vallabhacharya says — “śrīgopīpativandine sumanasi brahmāmṛtasyandine”, Which Purushottamācārya glosses as “atra gopīpativandin ity anena paramparayā (ācāryapitūr lakṣmaṇabhaṭṭasya) viṣṇusvāmimatānuvartigopālōpāsakatvaṃ sūcitam.” However, Purushottamācārya appears not to have been aware that the madanagopāla-mantra understood by him as belonging to the Viṣṇusvāmi lineage was in fact received by Vallabhācārya from Śrī Gādādhara Paṇḍita Gosvāmin, rather than being derived from the Viṣṇusvāmi paramparā. This attribution is further complicated by the fact that the Viṣṇusvāmi tradition is often characterized in doxographic sources such as the account of Sākārasiddhi “saccinnityanijācintyapūrṇānandaikavigrahaṃ nṛpāñcasyāhaṃ vande śrīviṣṇusvāmisammatam” in the Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha as being primarily oriented toward Nṛsiṃha worship, which does not straightforwardly align with the Gopāla-centric mantra tradition in question. The time window (CE 1668 [1675] -1781) of Purusottamacarya’s activities overlaps with the emergence of four vaisnava sampradaya “movements” by Savai Jai Singh ji.

[PM] : और फिर यदि यह प्रसंग सत्य होता तथा श्री वल्लभ ने गदाधर पंडित से दीक्षा ग्रहण की होती तो वे इसका उल्लेख अवश्य करते! श्रीवल्लभ तथा गोस्वामी श्री विट्ठल नाथ जी प्रभु चरण अवश्य कहीं ना कहीं श्रीचैतन्य की भी स्तुति करते तथा स्वयं को उनका अनुयाई घोषित करते!! किंतु इसके विपरीत श्री वल्लभ ने प्रारंभ से ही स्वयं को श्री विष्णुस्वामी संप्रदाय का अनुयाई ही बताया है! एवं गोस्वामी श्री विट्ठल नाथ जी ने भी इसी बात को पुष्ट करते हुए सर्वत्र केवल और केवल महाप्रभु श्रीमद् वल्लभाचार्य की ही स्तुति करी है तथा किसी भी स्थान पर श्री चैतन्य अथवा गदाधर पंडित की स्तुति अथवा उल्लेख नहीं किया है.

[GM] : Vallabhabhaṭṭa has only praised his family especially his father, where has he mentioned "Śrī Bilvamaṅgala" or "Śrī Mādhavendra Puripāda" on which all his hagiographical agree [yet are historically untenable] that he shared some guru-śiṣya relation with them in his entire literature or where has he mentioned that he was already chanting gopālāṣṭākṣara ? That is the personal matter of Viṭṭhalanātha gusāiñ what he wishes to write and what he doesn't well by this reasoning none of Vallabha's son mentioned Vallabha being the discoverer of Śrīnāthajī, nor have they mentioned Viṣṇusvāmi atleast Vitthalanāthagusāiñ hasn't. While GH Bhatt's the denial of Viṣṇusvāmi connection remains academically unchallenged.

[PM] : मूलभूत धर्माचरण तथा वैष्णव धर्म  से संबंधित शिष्टाचार तो इस धूर्त वैष्णव अपराधी की लेखनी में प्राप्त होता ही नहीं उल्टे गाली गलौज से युक्त एक वैष्णव संप्रदाय के आचार्य की निंदा ही इसमें प्राप्त होती है! दुर्भाग्य का विषय है कि आज की गौड़ीया वैष्णव वेषधारी धूर्त मंडली,  ऐसे घटिया अपराधिक प्रसंग को सही सिद्ध करने में एडी़ चोटी का जोर लगाए पड़ी है वह भी आत्मविसंगति के मूल्य पर!!

[GM] : Empty bluffs.

[PM] : संभवत: अपने द्वारा रचित चैतन्य चरितामृत के चोरी हो जाने पर श्री कृष्ण दास कविराज गोस्वामी को श्रीकृष्णचैतन्य देव की कृपा से इस बात का पूर्वानुमान हो गया होगा कि भविष्य में किस प्रकार  गौड़ीय वैष्णव वेशधारी धूर्त मंडली उनके नाम पर वैष्णव अपराध में प्रवृत्त होगी और इसी दुख में उन्होंने आत्महत्या की होगी!! वस्तुत: श्री कृष्ण दास कविराज गोस्वामी आत्महत्या के दोषी है ही नहीं उनकी हत्या का दोष तो इस आपराधिक पाठ को सत्य मानने वाली धूर्त मंडली को ही जाता है!

[GM] : There is no authenticity of premavilāsa in this regard, śrī Bimānbihāri Mazumdar has shown the unhistoricity of the event in his magnum opus "caitanyacaritrer upādāna". If they persist with this unhistoric claim even we can suggest that Śrī Vallabhabhaṭṭa committed suicide in Kāśi [famous place for suicide as per dharmasindhu etc.] by drowning in the ganges for having had understood in which dark alley of aṅgikāra prathā etc. will his faction turn into. 

[PM] : Except the biography written by Kr̥ṣṇadāsa Kavirāj, none of the authors of biography of Sri Caitanya mentions such an incident in their versions.

[GM] : I have already shown this above.

[PM] : “वास्तविक पंथी कर्णपूर्ण ओ भावपंथी कृष्णदासेर चैतन्यलीलवर्णना विन्यासे किछु-किछु असामंजस्य विशेष करे देखबार विषय मुरारी कर्णपूर्ण ओ वृन्दावनदास बांग्लाय बसेइ ग्रन्थरचना करे छेन आर कृष्णदासश्रीधाम वृन्दावने विदग्ध वैष्णवमंडली परिवेष्टने अवस्थान करवार सुयोग पेय छेन”

(Prankishor Goswami in the editor’s note on Sri Caitanya Caritāmr̥ta)

Furthermore, there are two branches in Caitanya saṁpradāya i.e. Braj and Bang śākhās. Goswami Prāṇakiśōra in his editor's note on Caitanya Caritāmr̥ta mentions very clearly that the Braj śākhā and specifically the bhāva panthi Kr̥ṣṇadāsa Kavirāj has written the Caitanya Caritāmr̥ta which is filled with inconsistencies and written specifically with the malice and hatred towards Srī Vallabhācārya. He specifically called this particular group of people as Vidagdha maṇḍalī!! How interesting that majority of the followers in Bang śākhā within Caitanya saṁpradāya thinks that Kr̥ṣṇadāsa Kavirāj’s texts are unreliable!!

[GM]: From which angle is "विदग्ध वैष्णवमंडली" an insult ? rather koṣas say " पण्डितः । इति शब्दरत्नावली ॥" and where has Prankishor Goswami said "Braj śākhā and specifically the bhāva panthi Kr̥ṣṇadāsa Kavirāj has written the Caitanya Caritāmr̥ta which is filled with inconsistencies and written specifically with the malice and hatred towards Srī Vallabhācārya. He specifically called this particular group of people as Vidagdha maṇḍalī!!" rather he says there are certain differences within Karṇapura's work and Kṛṣṇadāsa's work it is becase that Śrī Karṇapura didn't insert much of the philosophical aspects of Mahāprabhu in his work, which is his [Prankishor's] mistake as have been dealt with in caitanyacaritāmṛter bhūmikā by RGN and CCU by BM.

[PM] : Before Srī Vallabhācārya met Gadādhara, he already wrote commentary on Srībhāgavata and in that he clearly mentions kiśōra līlā as an ultimate devotional experience and leela in phala prakaran of śrī subōdhinī!

[GM] : The author is going against his own earlier proposition viz— " लेखक को इस बात का ज्ञान होता की श्रीवल्लभ द्वारा रचित सुबोधिनी तो कभी पूर्ण ही ना हो पाई तथा पुरी प्रवास के समय तो दशम स्कंध प्रारंभ तक नहीं हुआ था जो श्रीवल्लभ इसे चैतन्य को जबरन सुनने का प्रयास करते!!"

[PM] : Srī Vallabhācārya wrote the commentary on Srībhāgavata in the later part of his life after completing several works from Tatvārthadīpanibandha, ṣōḍaśa grantha, bhāṣya on Brahmasutras and many other texts. From these texts, it becomes quiet evident that Srī Vallabhācārya accepted viṣṇusvāmi saṁpradāya ācāryatva and also founded nirguṇa śuddha bhakti saṁpradāya of Kr̥ṣṇa devotion called as Puṣṭi saṁpradāya.

[GM] : Already dealt above.

[PM] : Srī Vallabhācārya wrote commentary on Srībhāgavata based on the orders he received from Lord Kr̥ṣṇa himself. śrīdhara svāmi's commentary was a māyāvādī explanation of Lord Kr̥ṣṇa's divine līlās mentioned in Srībhāgavata which was not the honest interpretation of the scriptures. He even discontinued writing his commentary after receiving orders from Lord Kr̥ṣṇa. This suggests the sole purpose of writing the commentary was only the Kr̥ṣṇa's wish and not to brag! Srī Vallabhācārya never considered śrīdhara svāmi as his “svāmi (Master)”. Only Master he considers is Lord Kr̥ṣṇa (कृष्ण एव गतिर्मम)!

[GM] : If he had actually received orders from Śrī Kṛṣṇa he could have completed his commentary. The parts which he commented upon were very straightforward in themselves like the 1st, 2nd,3rd etc. cantos while the actual things to be explained come much later in the text like the Śrutigītā, Uddhavakṛṣṇasaṁvāda, and importantly the initial parts of the 12th canto specially the 4th and 5th chapters. Vallabhabhaṭṭa commented on none of those, thus as per the naiyāyika tradition there must have been some fault in the maṅgalācaraṇa that he couldn't complete the work "yatra ca satyapi maṅgale samāptirna dṛśyate tatra balavattaro vighno vighnaprācuryaṁ vā bodhyam.", especially the verse "arthaṁ tasya vivecituṁ na hi vibhur vaiśvānarāt vākpater anyas tatra vidhāya mānuṣa-tanuṁ māṁ vyāsavac chrīpatiḥ | dattvāsāṁ ca kṛpāvalokana-paṭur mādṛśo'haṁ mudā gūḍhārthaṁ prakaṭīkaromi bahudhā vyāsasya viṣṇoḥ priyam ||" appears to be a complete bragging because if it contained any truth then, Bhaṭṭa must have complete his work.  On the otherhand here is the maṅgalācaraṇa of Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmi— "namaḥ parama-haṁsāsvādita-caraṇa-kamala-cin-makarandāya bhakta-jana-mānasa-nivāsāya śrī-rāmacandrāya || vāg-īśā yasya vadane lakṣmīr yasya ca vakṣasi | yasyāste hṛdaye saṁvit taṁ nṛsiṁham ahaṁ bhaje || 1 || viśva-sarga-visargādi-nava-lakṣaṇa-lakṣitam | śrī-kṛṣṇākhyaṁ paraṁ dhāma jagad-dhāma nanāma tat || 2 || mādhavomā-dhavāv īśau sarva-siddhi-vidhāyinau | vande parasparātmānau paraspara-nuti-priyau || 3 || sampradāyānurodhena paurvāparyānusārataḥ | śrī-bhāgavata-bhāvārtha-dīpikeyaṁ pratanyate || 4 || kvāhaṁ manda-matiḥ kvedaṁ manthanaṁ kṣīra-vāridheḥ | kiṁ tatra paramāṇur vai yatra majjati mandaraḥ || 5 || mūkaṁ karoti vācālaṁ paṅguṁ laṅghayate girim | yat-kṛpā tam ahaṁ vande paramānanda-mādhavam || 6 ||" which part of this contains māyāvāda ? and which among the two appears to be more humble ? Because Vallabhācārya didn't base his commentary on any ancient commentary his work is considered arvācina.

[PM] : This is yet another monstrous attack questioning the character of Srī Vallabhācārya. It seems this group of people(i.e. Vidagdha maṇḍalī!) wants to issue character certificates to all those people who has self-confidence and are genuinely ecstatic and immersed into Kr̥ṣṇa Bhakti like Srī Vallabhācārya. They simply cannot stand the effect and influence of the divine attributes from other Kr̥ṣṇa devotees. Again trying to monopolize Kr̥ṣṇa Bhakti!!

[GM] : This is an emotional diversion. No one is attempting to monopolize Kṛṣṇa-bhakti, nor is the issue whether Śrī Vallabhācārya possessed self-confidence, devotion, or influence. The question is whether the extraordinary claims made on his behalf are borne out by the historical and textual evidence. Confidence by itself is not under discussion. The issue is whether that confidence was vindicated by the accomplishment of the task allegedly entrusted to him. If Śrī Vallabhācārya was uniquely commissioned by Śrī Kṛṣṇa to reveal the hidden meaning of the Bhāgavata and correct previous commentators, then it is entirely legitimate to ask why the resulting project remained incomplete. This is not a judgment upon his personal character; it is an examination of the claim itself. Moreover, the author repeatedly substitutes psychological speculation for argument. Instead of demonstrating that Śrīdhara Svāmī's commentary is Māyāvādī, instead of showing that Vallabhācārya completed the divinely entrusted mission, and instead of addressing the textual evidence cited by his opponents, he attributes jealousy, hatred, insecurity, and a desire to "monopolize bhakti" to unnamed critics. Such assertions do not answer the objections. In fact, if one wishes to speak of influence, Śrīdhara Svāmī's Bhāvārtha-dīpikā was accepted across numerous Vaiṣṇava traditions and became the standard Bhāgavata commentary for centuries. Mere influence, therefore, cannot serve as proof of theological correctness. The real issue remains unanswered: if the Lord specifically manifested Vallabhācārya for the purpose described in "arthaṁ tasya vivecituṁ na hi vibhur vaiśvānarāt...", why were major works such as the Subodhinī and Aṇubhāṣya left unfinished? Raising this question is not an attack on character; it is a request that extraordinary claims be supported by commensurate evidence.

[PM] : Will Sri Caitanya also rebuke śrīla sanātana gōsvāmī(who belongs to his own saṁpradāya and is his disciple) for writing independent commentary on Srībhāgavata and for his rebuttal on śrīdhara svāmi's māyāvādī interpretation? If not, why target Srī Vallabhācārya? Just because he had that self-confidence and spine to take-on the māyāvādīns and bring out the true essence of Srībhāgavata?!

[GM] : The Bṛhadvaiṣṇavatoṣani literally starts with "śrī-bhāgavata-siddhy-arthā ṭīkā dṛṣṭir adāyi yaiḥ । śrīdhara-svāmi-pādāṁs tān vande bhakty-eka-rakṣakān ॥" ""I bow to the feet of Śrīdhara Svāmī, who bestowed the vision of a commentary for the proper understanding (or establishment) of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavata, and who alone protected the path of bhakti.", where has Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmi written an 'independent commentary' ? Śrīman Mahāprabhu is completely fine with someone who writes their commentary basing on the Śrīdhariṭīkā, which he prescribes to Vallabhabhaṭṭa "śrīdharera anugata ye kare likhana saba loka mānya kari’ karibe grahaṇa śrīdharānugata kara bhāgavata-vyākhyāna abhimāna chāḍi’ bhaja kṛṣṇa bhagavān".

[PM] : As per the character portrayal of Srī Vallabhācārya and Sri Caitanya by Kr̥ṣṇadāsa Kavirāj, it seems based on the words of Srī Vallabhācārya, he seems to be respectful, graceful, full of gratitude, and modest. Whereas the usage of words like “prostitute” and rigidly declining to hear commentary on Srībhāgavata which is considered as the vāngmaya of Lord Kr̥ṣṇa himself, and who is being judgemental!! We do not think Kr̥ṣṇadāsa Kavirāj correctly portrayed the character of both the divine personalities! How can he portray such a non-idealistic character of Sri Caitanya?!!!

[GM] : "तृणादपि सुनीचेन तरोरपि सहिष्णुना अमानिना मानदेन कीर्तनीय: सदा हरिः" verse doesn't stop someone to call out what is right and what is wrong, Śrīman Mahāprabhu didn't say "O Vallabhabhaṭṭa you are a veśyā" rather he said those who do not accept Śrīdharasvāmi's commentary and write independently they must be considered "veśyā" he said that very indirectly "svāmī nā māne yei jana veśyāra bhitare tāre kariye gaṇana". The denial to hear the vyākhyā of Vallabhabhaṭṭa was his ego "śrīdhara-upare garve ye kichu likhibe ‘artha-vyasta’ likhana sei, loke nā mānibe". It is not the first time that Śrīman Mahāprabhu didn't hear someone work even if that is based on Kṛṣṇa actually for something to be read before Mahāprabhu, the writer would have to present it first to Śrī Svarūpa Dāmodara which is explained in the 5th chapter of the same antyalilā "gīta, śloka, grantha, kavitva — yei kari’ āne prathame śunāya sei svarūpera sthāne svarūpa-ṭhāñi uttare yadi, lañā, tāṅra mana tabe mahāprabhu-ṭhāñi karāya śravaṇa ‘rasābhāsa’ haya yadi ‘siddhānta-virodha’ sahite nā pāre prabhu, mane haya krodha".

[PM] : Inconsistencies in Caitanya Caritāmr̥ta regarding the māyāvādī interpretation of Srībhāgavata Some of the pro-māyāvādī statements found in the text are "You have dared criticize śrīdhara svāmi, and you have begun your own commentary on Srībhāgavata, not accepting his authority. That is your false pride.", "śrīdhara svāmi is the spiritual master of the entire world because by his mercy we can understand Srībhāgavata. I therefore accept him as a spiritual master", "One who comments on Srībhāgavata following in the footsteps of śrīdhara svāmi will be honored and accepted by everyone" Against-mayavadi statements Diametrically opposite stand in the same text are below – Anyone who follows the principles of māyāvāda philosophy is certainly doomed Māyāvādī philosophers are the greatest offenders to Lord Krsna Srīdhara svāmi has used the ink of māyāvāda in writing the śuddha vaiṣṇava siddhānta in his commentary I am publishing the commentary of Srībhāgavata since śrīdhara svāmi could not bring out the essence of it.

[GM] : The pro-māyāvādi statements have no indication of accepting māyāvāda, rather it only glorifies Śrīdhara Svāmi. Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmi's stand has been explained in many a texts of the Saṁpradāya, like the Paramātmā sandarbha etc. even if there are certain apparent māyāvādi terminology or explanation in the vyākhyā of Śrīdharasvāmin still what fault does arise in him ? where has he called bhakti being a preliminary step of mukti etc. ? the absolute reality of the world isn't our primary concern, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi writes— "yataḥ satyaṃ na satyaṃ naḥ kṛṣṇa-pādābjāmodam antarā | jagat satyam asatyaṃ vā ko'yaṃ tasmin durāgrahaḥ ||". The statement "māyāvādi kṛṣṇe aparādhi" applies to a certain class of śaṅkarites who reject the attributes of Śrī Bhagavān as effects of māyā. Actually, there are two kinds of śaṅkarites one is the māyāvādins the other are the bhāgavatas which comes under the school of Viṣṇusvāmi, these Bhāgavatas have been described in the book Ancient Karṇāṭaka page 449 onwards. Nor has any Gauḍīya ācārya ever said "I am publishing the commentary of Srībhāgavata since śrīdhara svāmi could not bring out the essence of it.", this is just a misinterpretation of the verse "śrīdhara-svāmi-pādair yā vyañjitā na kvacit kvacit | seyaṁ śrī-daśama-skandha-ṭīkā vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī ||", where does it say "śrīdhara svāmi could not bring out the essence of it".

[PM] : śrīdhara svāmi says - "Upon commencing my commentary on gītā , I will justify systematically the essence of gītā based on theory proposed by bhāṣyakāra - Bhagavad pāda śrīmad śaṁkara" in his gītā bhāṣya's introduction. Further, śrīdhara svāmi describes the svarūpa of lord kr̥ṣṇa as saviśeṣa brahman which is not the ultimate reality while interpreting the śloka (13/12 of gītā). Here is śrīdhara svāmi's interpretation of the śloka - "There is a greater level of supreme reality called as nirviśeṣa rupa brahman than me (i.e. kr̥ṣṇa), who is viṣṇu."

śrīdhara svāmi, in his commentary on viṣṇu purāṇa refers to have relied upon citsukhācārya's commentary. Citsukhācārya was associated with śaṁkara from the age of 5. Further, in his commentary on śloka 1.4.40 of viṣṇu purāṇa, says "Those who views this jagata as real are ignorant and are under the influence of illusion caused by māyā"

śrīdhara svāmi, in his commentary on śrīmad bhāgavata purāṇa, says "Jagata is neither sad, asad but its sad-asad-vilakṣaṇa, similar to śukti rajata. Jagata is illusionary as it appears to be existing, to be changing, but does not exist in reality." (bhāgavata bhāvārtha dīpikā - 10.87.37). Further he says "due to many reasons, prapanca (jagata) is proven to be non-existent in reality" (bhāgavata bhāvārtha dīpikā - 12.4.29).

[GM] : "mam viṣṇoḥ paraṃ nirviśeṣaṃ rūpaṃ brahmety arthaḥ" here the brahman form is said to be "viṣṇu's", he then says nirviśeṣa means "vidhi-mukhena pramāṇasya viṣayaḥ sac-chabdenocyate | niṣedhaysa viṣayas tv asac-chabdenocyate | idaṃ tu tad-ubhaya-vilakṣaṇam |" "That which is the object of a pramāṇa (means of knowledge) through affirmation is denoted by the word sat; that which is the object of negation is denoted by the word asat. But this (Brahman) is distinct from both of these." Even though in the maṅgalācaraṇa he has accepted Śrī Śaṅkara as his ācārya still your own ācārya Puruṣottama, describes the mata of śrīdhara to be distinct of Śaṅkara and Madhusudana, "śrīdharastu sakalalokavaṁditacaraṇaḥ paramakāruṇiko bhagavān devakīnandanaḥ tattvajñāna...", "idānīṃ tasyaiva pāramārthikam asaṃsāri-svarūpam āha kṣetrajñam iti | ta ca kṣetrajñaṃ saṃsāriṇaṃ jīvaṃ vastutaḥ sarva-kṣetreṣv anugataṃ mām eva viddhi | tattvam asi iti śrutyā lakṣitena cid-aṃśena mad-rūpasyoktatvāt ādarārtham eva taj-jñānaṃ stauti |" explains that even saṁsāri jīva is a form of the Lord because both are cidsvarūpa, even Madhvācārya quotes "jīvasattāpradatvācca sadṛśatvācca keśavaḥ, kathyate tad-abhedena natu jīvasvarūpataḥ.", being cidsvarūpa if the jīva is called a form of the Lord how is it māyāvāda ? also in the varāhā purāṇa we have "svāṁśaś cātha vibhinnāṁśa iti dvidhā śa iṣyate aṁśino yat tu sāmarthyaṁ yat-svarūpaṁ yathā sthitiḥ tad eva nāṇu-mātro ’pi bhedaṁ svāṁśāṁśinoḥ kvacit vibhinnāṁśo ’lpa-śaktiḥ syāt kiñcit sāmarthya-mātra-yuk". "āyoginastvajñā bhrāntijñānena jagadrūpam bhūtamayaṁ paśyanti", once read in context of the verse can be understood correctly "paramārthas tvam evaiko nānyo 'sti jagataḥ pate tavaiṣa mahimā yena vyāptam etac carācaram yad etad dṛśyate mūrtam etaj jñānātmanas tava bhrāntijñānena paśyanti jagadrūpam ayoginaḥ jñānasvarūpam akhilaṃ jagad etad abuddhayaḥarthasvarūpaṃ paśyanto bhrāmyante mohasaṃplave ye tu jñānavidaḥ śuddhacetasas te 'khilaṃ jagat jñānātmakaṃ prapaśyanti tvadrūpaṃ parameśvara", what Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmi wants to say is kind of encapsulated in "nārāyaṇamayaṁ dhīrāḥ paśyanti paramārthinaḥ | jagad dhanamayaṁ lubdhāḥ kāmukāḥ kāminīmayam ||". Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmin has dealt with all these seemingly advaitin explanations of Śrīdhara svāmin in his sandarbhas. We end this segment with two original verses by śrīla Śrīdhara svāmin — "yat sattvataḥ sadā bhāti jagad etad asat svataḥ sad-ābhāsam asaty asmin bhagavantaṁ bhajāma tam", "yasminn udyad-vilayam api yad bhāti viśvaṁ layādau jīvopetaṁ guru-karuṇayā kevalātmāvabodhe atyantāntaṁ vrajati sahasā sindhu-vat sindhu-madhye madhye cittaṁ tri-bhuvana-guruṁ bhāvaye taṁ nṛ-siṁham". Even Citsukhācārya has in the maṅgalācaraṇa of two of his works praised Nṛsiṁha by terms like saccidānanda, svaprakāśa etc. we accept Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmi so far as it is corraborated by Śrīman Mahāprabhu's philosophy, we do not accept his statements of vivartavāda at face value because in the same Caitanyacaritāmṛta, Śrīman Mahāprabhu says that the purport of vyāsasūtras is śaktipariṇāmavāda and not vivartavāda "sūtrera pariṇāma-vāda, tāhā nā māniyā ‘vivarta-vāda’ sthāpe, ‘vyāsa bhrānta’ baliyā", "‘pariṇāma-vāda’ — vyāsa-sūtrera sammata acintya-śakti īśvara jagad-rūpe pariṇata maṇi yaiche avikṛte prasabe hema-bhāra jagad-rūpa haya īśvara, tabu avikāra". Śrīla Rūpagosvāmi doesn't accept the theory of Śrīla Śrīdhara svāmi that pralaya doesn't occur in the interval of each manvantara, citing a statement of viṣṇudharmottara Śrīla Rūpagosvāmi says it occurs in each interval.

[PM] : Sri Caitanya said below to Srī Vallabhācārya - You are a follower of Vedic principles and are a well experienced performer of many sacrifices InpraiseofSriVallabhacharya- Sri Raghunāthdās Gosvāmi says below in praise of Srī Vallabhācārya - I pay obeisance to śrīla gōpāladēva(śrīnāthajī) whose personified form of his sakti is Srī Vallabhācārya!

[GM] : From which angle does "You are a follower of Vedic principles and are a well experienced performer of many sacrifices" seem to say that Vallabhācārya was accepted by Śrīman Mahāprabhu as a topnotch vaiṣṇavācārya. And where does in the Gopālarājastotra Śrīla Raghunāthadāsa gosvāmi even mention Śrī Vallabhabhaṭṭa 

[PM] : Caitanya Caritāmr̥ta mentions father-in-law of nimāi paṇḍita i.e, father-in-law of Kr̥ṣṇa Caitanya, a normal Bengali Brahmin as Vallabhācārya, but the celebrated ācārya of viṣṇusvāmi saṁpradāya (proved by letter of Srī Vallabhācārya dated 1490 AD), ācārya and founder of Puṣṭimārga saṁpradāya (Puṣṭi Bhaktimārga started in 1492 AD after Srī Vallabhācārya received direct initiation from Lord Kr̥ṣṇa), Guru of great vaiṣṇava devotees like Kumbhanadāsa, Sūradāsa etc is not even mentioned once as an ācārya in all of its chapters. So either the writer was envious of Srī Vallabhācārya and his saṁpradāya or was unaware of contemporary historical facts. Adjoined manuscript is one of the most authentic pieces of evidence which was also approved by historians and even by the Bombay High court in 1922.

[GM] : It is completely the personal wish of the Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Gosvāmi whom he would consider an ācārya and whom not. How does Śrī Vallabhācārya [father in law of Śrīman Mahāprabhu] disqualify to be an Ācārya ? ācāryatva is very simply defined as "ācinoti yaḥ śāstrārtham ācāre sthāpayaty api | svayam ācarate yasmād ācāryas tena kīrtitaḥ ||". Now let me show what GH Bhatt has to say about the letter in discussion "The other evidence that has been put forth in support of the theory that Vallabhāchārya was the follower of the Vishṇusvāmī School, first appeared in one Vaishnava Magazine some seven years ago.⁷ It is said that Vallabhāchārya, when he visited Ujjain in the year 1490 A.D., saw one Brahmin named Narottama and recognized him as his Purōhita. This honour conferred by Vallabhāchārya on Narōttama has been recorded in a document written in Sanskrit in the Kanarese script by Vallabhāchārya himself wherein the latter describes himself as the follower of the doctrines of Vishṇusvāmī. This document does not seem to be reliable. Firstly, it is very strange that Vallabhāchārya, whose mother-tongue was Telugu, should write a document in the Kanarese script. One would naturally expect the Āchārya to write it in the Devanāgarī Script which was intelligible to all learned persons in the whole of India, and which was no doubt employed by the descendants of Vallabhāchārya at different times later on. Moreover, in the other similar documents written by Gopīnāthajī, the eldest son of Vallabhāchārya, recently brought to our notice, we do not get any reference to Vishṇusvāmī. It is quite probable that some one, who wanted to establish the antiquity of the school of Vallabhāchārya by connecting him with Vishṇusvāmī might have been the actual author of the document or it may be that some of the descendants of Narōttama at Ujjain, might have forged this document with a view to enjoying a high status in the society by describing his family as being once honoured by a personality no less than Vallabhāchārya. Unfortunately such cases are not rare in India. This piece of evidence, therefore, cannot disprove the hypothesis that Vallabhāchārya had nothing to do with Vishṇusvāmī." [Proceedings of Eighth All Indian Oriental Conference pg. 322-328]

[PM] : Caitanya Caritāmr̥ta never mentions Srīnāthajī along with Srī Vallabhācārya! Whereas, it was Srī Vallabhācārya who gave the sevā of Srīnāthajī to Mādhvendra Purī (his śikṣā guru) as guru dakṣiṇā after completing his learning of vaiṣṇava śāstras in 1487 A.D. It was Srī Vallabhācārya who kept Kumbhanadāsajī in kīrtana sevā of Srīnāthajī in 1492 A.D., kept Suradāsajī in sevā of Srīnāthajī in 1510 A.D. Hence stories described by Kr̥ṣṇadāsa Kavirāja in his Caitanya Caritāmr̥ta are baseless, unhistorical and misleading! Pramāṇa from śrī vallabhadigvijaya grantha, which clearly shows the fact that Srī Vallabhācārya gave seva of Srīnāthajī to Mādhvendra Purī and appointed Kumbhanadāsajī and Suradāsajī in the kīrtana sevā of Srīnāthajī.

[GM] : First of all if Caitanyacaritāmṛta can't be considered a pramāṇa on face value then why should we accept the vallabhadigvijaya a 19th century dubious text as pramāṇa by face value ? "The Vallabhadigvijaya (“Vallabh’s Victory Tour”), a hagiographic Sanskrit text, for instance, claims to have been first composed in samvat 1658 (1601 CE) by Yadunath, the sixth son of Vitthalnath. Contemporary scholars (including prominent sectarian leaders), however, are quite firm in their assertions that the text could not have been written until the turn of the twentieth century." [Reading the Medieval in the Modern: The Living Tradition of Hagiography in the Vallabh Sect of Contemporary Gujarat], GH Bhatt in his articles "Viṣṇusvāmi and Vallabhācārya" writes "While the mss of Yadunātha's Vallabhadigvjaya are not only rare but quite modern, and further the work, so important from the historical view-point is not at all referred to in any work of the Vallabha school I am, somehow or the other, ed to believe that it is a huge forgery. Some modern pandit must have compose the work and passed it off in the name of Yadunātha, the sixth son of Viṭhalanātha, with a pious wish to show the antiquity of system of Vallabhācārya.".

[PM] : Historical in-accuracies in Caitanya Caritāmr̥ta were accepted by even the founder of "Gauḍīya Maṭha" i.e. Bhakti Siddhānta ṭhākura! देखि वल्लभ भट्ट मने चमत्कार हैल। दुईपुत्र आनि प्रभुर चरणे पड़ील।। (19/108, चैतन्य चरितामृत मध्य लीला) The two sons of Vallabhācārya were Gopīnātha and Viṭhaleśvara. When Sri Caitanya Mahāprabhu visited Prayāga in the year 1434 or 1435 śakābda, Viṭhaleśvara was not yet born. Hence Caitanya Caritāmr̥ta, as written by Kr̥ṣṇadāsa Kavirāj is historically inconsistent and false! Janma patrikā of Srī Viṭṭhalanāthajī(Gusāīn jī) proves the fact that he was born years later after Kṛṣṇa Caitanya visited Prayāga.

[GM] : We have no definitive range of Mahāprabhu's yātrās so the evidence given here merely suggests that Śrīman Mahāprabhu visited Aḍel in the january of 1516. Caitanyacaritāmṛta itself has nowhere claimed that Mahāprabhu visited Aḍel exactly in 1434 śaka, thus this by itself doesn't contradict Caitanyacaritāmṛta. The "Theory of Avatara and Divinity of Chaitanya" by Janmajit Roy , pg 238-239, dates his Aḍel visit to "January, 1516 He came to Prayaga, where he imparted theological lessons to Rūpa Gosvämi. He then came to Väränasi, where he taught Sanatana Gosvämi."

[PM] : Caitanya Caritāmr̥ta wrongly represents tenets of Srī Vallabhācārya. Vallabhācārya is shown questioning Caitanya - पतिव्रता हन पतिरा नाम नहीं लय। तोमार कृष्ण नाम लहा कौन धर्म हय।। (चै° च° अंत्य लीला) Whereas in his own works Srī Vallabhācārya has already stressed on continuous Kr̥ṣṇa Nāma Jāpa. तस्मात सर्वात्मना नित्यं श्री कृष्ण: शरणं मम। वदद भिरेव सततं स्थेयमित्येव मे मति:।। (नवरत्नं) सर्वदा सर्व भावेन भजनीयो व्रजाधिप:। (चतु:श्लोकी) तावदानंद संदोह कीर्त्यमान:सुखाय हि।। (निरोधलक्षण) And many more examples are there. Hence Caitanya Caritāmr̥ta as written by Kr̥ṣṇadāsa Kavirāja is NOT based on facts!

[GM] : Has been dealt earlier.

[PM] : Writer of Caitanya Caritāmr̥ta is a vaishnav aparadhi. At several instances writer has shown his enviousness towards Srī Vallabhācārya and his sampraday. तान सब आगे भट्ट खद्योत आकार।। …राजहंस मध्ये येन रहे बक प्राय। …वैश्यार भितरे तार करिये गणन। (चैतन्य चरितामृत अन्त्य लीला अध्याय ७ )

[GM] : It [तान सब आगे भट्ट खद्योत आकार।। …राजहंस मध्ये येन रहे बक प्राय।] is nothing specially directed towards Śrī Vallabhabhaṭṭa because in the 5th chapter we find a similar fate of another puffed up scholar "śuniyā kavira haila lajjā, bhaya, vismaya haṁsa-madhye baka yaiche kichu nāhi kaya" etc. and to have called Vallabhācārya a veśyā is not the aim of Caitanyacaritāmṛta, it is just an indirect reference to him, nowhere does the Caitanyacaritāmṛta engage in independent polemics on Vallabhabhaṭṭa's theological and philosophical blunders. The aim of Caitanyacaritāmṛta is to narrate the pastimes of Śrīman Mahāprabhu, vallabhabhaṭṭa doesn't count as a main personality of the story he merely comes in 2 chapters. 

caitanyacaraṇāmbhojamakarandaliho bhaje

yeṣāṁ prasādamātreṇa pāmaro ’py amaro bhavet