Srila B.P. Puri Maharaja<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe\u00a0sampradaya<\/em>\u00a0institution has existed in this holy land of Bharata since time immemorial. The wordsampradaya<\/em>\u00a0is a passive nominal formation from the Sanskrit verb root, sam-pra-da (‘to hand down’). Lexicographers define it as ‘the instruction that is passed down in a line of spiritual masters.’ This is also called disciplic succession or guru\u00a0parampara<\/em>, and implies that such instruction in spiritual truth is passed down personally from teacher to disciple in a direct chain (srauta-parampara<\/em>).<\/p>\nOther synonyms for this concept include\u00a0amnaya, nigama<\/em>, and the Veda. The great sage, Vyasadeva, uses the term\u00a0amnaya<\/em>\u00a0in the\u00a0Srimad Bhagavatam:<\/em><\/p>\nbharata-vyapadesena
\namnayarthah pradarsitah<\/em><\/p>\n‘By means of the Mahabharata, I revealed the ancient knowledge of the Vedas as I received it through disciplic succession.’ (SB 1.4.29)<\/p>\n
The word\u00a0amnaya<\/em>\u00a0is derived from the verb root\u00a0mna<\/em>\u00a0combined with the prefix\u00a0a<\/em>. Two definitions are given for this term: ‘that by which religious instruction is given’ or ‘that by which religious teachings are repeated over and over again.’<\/p>\nThe same word is sometimes found preceded by the\u00a0sam<\/em>– prefix (samamnaya<\/em>).1 Our most worshipable Srila Prabhupada has explained this term in his\u00a0Gaudiya-bhasya<\/em>\u00a0to\u00a0Caitanya-bhagavata<\/em>\u00a0(2.1.255):2<\/p>\n‘Srila Sridhara Svami explains the word\u00a0samamnaya<\/em>\u00a0in his commentary to the\u00a0Bhagavatam<\/em>(10.47.33) as meaning the Veda. The most perfect teaching is the one that directs us to the supreme abode of Visnu. It is that which the sages have repeated over and over again, and that by which the supreme religious teaching is given.’<\/p>\nVisvanatha Cakravarti has defined\u00a0samamnaya<\/em>\u00a0as complete knowledge (sampurno vedah<\/em>). The wordveda<\/em>\u00a0is defined as that scripture which gives us knowledge of God and religion. It is explained as follows in the\u00a0Vedanta<\/em>: ‘that divine instruction or word of God that brings knowledge of\u00a0dharma<\/em>\u00a0and Brahman into human society is called Veda.’3 Something similar is stated in the\u00a0Puranas<\/em>: ‘The Veda is the scripture that was spoken by Lord Brahma and explains\u00a0dharma<\/em>.’4<\/p>\nThe root meaning of the word\u00a0nigama<\/em>\u00a0is ’emanation’ because the four Vedas emanated from Lord Brahma’s four mouths. Another definition breaks the word down into two parts: the prefix\u00a0ni<\/em>– meaningnitaram<\/em>\u00a0or ‘forever’ and\u00a0gama<\/em>\u00a0meaning ‘explain’ (from the causative form of the verb ‘to go’); thus the scripture that forever explains the supreme truth of Brahman is called\u00a0nigama<\/em>\u00a0or Veda.<\/p>\nThe following verse is found in the\u00a0Mundaka Upanisad<\/em>:<\/p>\nbrahma devanam prathamah sambabhuva
\nvisvasya karta bhuvanasya gopta
\nsa brahma-vidyam sarva-vidya-pratistham
\natharvaya jyestha-putraya praha<\/em><\/p>\n‘Brahma appeared as the first of all the gods. He created the universe and continues to protect the earth. He taught the knowledge of Brahman [that he had received from the Lord], which is the basis of all learning, to his oldest son Atharva.’ (Mundaka Upanisad<\/em>\u00a01.1.1)<\/p>\nThen, further on in the same\u00a0Upanisad<\/em>, this statement is found:<\/p>\ntasmai sa vidvan upasannaya samyak
\nprasanta-cittaya samanvitaya
\nyenaksaram purusam veda satyam
\nprovaca tam tattvato brahma-vidyam<\/em><\/p>\n‘The learned spiritual master who has realized Krsna should properly instruct the peaceful and self-controlled disciple in the knowledge of Brahman, i.e., knowledge combined with love for Krsna, by which he can be attained.’ (Mundaka Upanisad<\/em>\u00a01.2.13)<\/p>\nThe\u00a0Srimad Bhagavatam<\/em>\u00a0is the essence of all the Veda and\u00a0Vedanta<\/em>. There, Krsna tells Uddhava,<\/p>\nkalena nasta pralaye vaniyam veda-samjnita
\nmayadau brahmane prokta dharmo yasyam mad-atmakah
\ntena prokta sva-putraya manave purvajaya sa
\ntato bhrgv-adayo grhnan sapta-brahmarsayas tatha<\/em><\/p>\n‘In the course of time, the Vedic message was lost in the great flood of universal destruction. Then I once again spoke this religious knowledge about myself to Brahma, who told it to his oldest son Manu. Then Bhrgu and the seven great sages received it from him.'(SB 11.14.3-4)<\/p>\n
This topmost religion related to the Lord himself has been kept intact to the present day through the institution of disciplic succession, the holy chain of the\u00a0sampradaya<\/em>. Outside of the\u00a0sampradaya<\/em>, it is difficult if not impossible to come into contact with these pure teachings. That is why the\u00a0Padma Purana<\/em>states:<\/p>\nsampradaya-vihina ye mantras te nisphala matah
\natah kalau bhavisyanti catvarah sampradayinah
\nsri-brahma-rudra-sanakah vaisnavah ksiti-pavanah
\ncatvaras te kalau bhavya hy utkale purusottamat<\/em><\/p>\n‘Any mantra that does not come in disciplic succession is considered to be fruitless. Therefore, four divine individuals will appear in the age of Kali to found disciplic schools. The founders of these four Vaisnava\u00a0sampradayas<\/em>\u00a0are Laksmi or Sri, Brahma, Rudra and Sanaka Rishi, and the\u00a0acaryas<\/em>\u00a0of the Kali Age who follow their lines will appear in the holy city of Purusottama in Orissa.’<\/p>\nThe great Gaudiya\u00a0acarya<\/em>, Baladeva Vidyabhusana quotes these two verses in his book,\u00a0Prameya-ratnavali<\/em>, citing the\u00a0Padma Purana<\/em>\u00a0as their source. In the 1927 edition of the\u00a0Prameya-ratnavali<\/em>, two commentaries were published:\u00a0Kanti-mala<\/em>\u00a0by Krsnadeva Vedanta-vagisa and\u00a0Prabha<\/em>\u00a0by Aksaya Kumara Sastri.5 Both these commentaries confirm that they come from the\u00a0Padma Purana<\/em>. Narahari Cakravarti (also known as Ghanasyama Dasaa), the son of Jagannatha Cakravarti, a disciple of Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, also quoted these two verses in his\u00a0Bhakti-ratnakara<\/em>\u00a0(5.2111-2) and attributed them to the\u00a0Padma Purana<\/em>.<\/p>\nFinally, there is the testimony of Kavi Karnapura, also known as Puri Dasaa,6 the youngest son of Mahaprabhu’s intimate associate Sivananda Sena, who paid his obeisances to Mahaprabhu, calling him the ‘the family’s worshipable Deity’ (kuladhidaivata<\/em>7). In his\u00a0Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika<\/em>\u00a0(21-22), Karnapura both quotes a part of these verses and attributes it to the\u00a0Padma Purana<\/em>:<\/p>\npradurbhutah kali-yuge catvarah sampradayikah
\nsri-brahma-rudra-sanaka-hvayah padme yatha smrtah
\natah kalau bhavisyanti catvarah sampradayinah
\nsri-brahma-rudra-sanaka vaisnavah ksiti-pavanah<\/em><\/p>\n‘The founders of four\u00a0sampradayas<\/em>\u00a0appeared in the Kali-yuga. According to thePadma Purana<\/em>, they were Sri, Brahma, Rudra and Sanaka Rishi. There it is said, ‘Therefore the Vaisnavas, Sri, Brahma, Rudra and Sanaka Rsi, will appear in the Age of Kali to purify the world by establishing the four Vaisnava\u00a0sampradayas<\/em>.”<\/p>\nGopala Guru Gosvami, an associate of Mahaprabhu and disciple of Vakresvara Pandita, also accepted this concept of the disciplic line and the principle of four distinct Vaisnava\u00a0sampradayas.<\/em><\/p>\nIn his translation and commentary on the\u00a0Prameya-ratnavali<\/em>, our most worshipable Srila Prabhupada had this to say about these verses: ‘The four Vaisnava disciplic lines trace their origins to these original spiritual masters: Laksmi, Brahma, Rudra and the four Kumaras: Sanaka, Sanatan, Sanandana, and Sanat Kumara. In the Age of Kali, four great founder-acaryas aligned themselves with these original spiritual preceptors and spread their teachings. Each of them began their preaching mission out of Purusottama-ksetra in Orissa.\u00a0Mathas<\/em>\u00a0representing each of the four\u00a0sampradayas<\/em>\u00a0had a strong presence in Puri as recently as a century ago. At certain times, one or the other of them becomes stronger and takes the lead in performing spiritual welfare work for the conditioned souls of this world.’<\/p>\nramanujam srih svicakre madhvacaryam caturmukhah
\nsri-visnu-svaminam rudro nimbadityam catuhsanah<\/em><\/p>\n‘Laksmi accepted Ramanujacarya as her representative; Brahma selected Madhvacarya. Shiva chose Visnu Svami and the four Kumaras, Nimbarkacarya.’ (Prameya-ratnavali<\/em>\u00a01.7)<\/p>\nOur worshipable predecessor, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, also wrote on this subject in\u00a0Jaiva Dharma<\/em>(Chapter 13). There, in response to the question, ‘Why is there a disciplic succession?’ he writes:<\/p>\n‘In this world, many people are contaminated by the impersonalist doctrine and thus fall into a life of sin. If there were no disciplic succession, or institution of devotees free of this contamination, then it would be very difficult for ordinary people to find saintly association. This is why the\u00a0Padma Purana<\/em>\u00a0tells us, ‘Any mantra that does not come in disciplic succession is considered to be fruitless. Therefore, four divine individuals will appear in the age of Kali to establish disciplic schools.’ Of these four schools, the oldest is the Brahma\u00a0sampradaya<\/em>. This disciplic succession has existed since the time of Lord Brahma and is still strong. Whatever scriptures\u2014whether Veda,\u00a0Vedanta<\/em>\u00a0or other\u2014are taught in a particular school maintain their original form; no interpolations are possible in these texts. Thus there can be no doubt about the mantras that are found in the books of these ancient schools. Thus a disciplic succession of saintly persons is an absolute necessity for human society and that is why the institution has existed since the earliest times.’<\/p>\nBhaktivinoda Thakura continues his discussion of the subject by asking the question, ‘Is the list of names of spiritual masters in the disciplic succession given without any breaks?’ His answer: ‘From time to time, only the more important spiritual masters’ names are included in these lists.’8<\/p>\n
Every disciple has the duty to remember the names of the spiritual masters in his disciplic succession as a part of his daily meditation. This is confirmed by Baladeva Vidyabhusana in his\u00a0Prameya-ratnavali<\/em>(1.4):<\/p>\nbhavati vicintya vidusam niravakara guru-parampara nityam
\nekantitvam siddhyati yayodayati yena hari-tosah<\/em><\/p>\n‘The learned disciple should daily remember the entire flawless disciplic succession. From them comes single-minded devotion, and from such devotion, the pleasure of Lord Hari.’<\/p>\n
Srila Prabhupada comments:<\/p>\n
‘The disciple purifies his own character by hearing and discussing the exemplary lives of the previous spiritual masters. As his character is purified, he identifies himself as a servant of the pure devotees. He thus receives the blessings of the Lord to engage in\u00a0bhajana<\/em>\u00a0without distractions. Narottama Dasaa Thakura says that Nityananda’s lotus feet are eternal, and the servant of Lord Nityananda is also eternal. When the living being abandons his materialistic way of thinking and takes shelter of the transcendental lotus feet of the spiritual master, he attains the eternal spiritual world and his greatest good.’ (Gaudiya-bhasya<\/em>)<\/p>\nBaladeva gives the list of names of spiritual masters (pranali<\/em>) in his disciplic succession in the\u00a0Prameya-ratnavali<\/em>:<\/p>\nsri-krsna-brahma-devarsi-badarayana-samjnakan
\nsri-madhva-sri-padmanabha-sriman-narahari-madhavan
\naksobhya-jayatirtha sri-jnanasindhu-dayanidhin
\nsri-vidyanidhi-rajendra-jayadharman kramad vayam
\npurusottama-brahmanya-vyasatirthams ca samstumah
\ntato laksmipatim sriman-madhavendram ca bhaktitah
\ntac-chisyan srisvaradvaita-nityanandan jagad-gurun
\ndevam isvara-sisyam sri-caitanyam ca bhajamahe
\nsri-krsna-prema-danena yena nistaritam jagat<\/em><\/p>\n‘I praise Sri Krsna, Brahma, Devarsi Narada and Vyasa; Madhvacarya Padmanabhacarya, Narahari, Madhava, Aksobhya, Jayatirtha, Jnanasindhu, Dayanidhi, Vidyanidhi, Rajendra, Jayadharma, Purusottama, Brahmanya, and Vyasa Tirtha. Then I worship with devotion Laksmipati and Madhavendra, whose disciples were Isvara Puri, Advaita Acarya, and Nityananda, who acted as spiritual masters to the universe. I worship Lord Caitanya, who became the disciple of Isvara Puri and saved the world with the gift of love for Krsna.’ (Prameya-ratnavali<\/em>\u00a01.7)<\/p>\nAnd Kavi Karnapura described the same Brahma\u00a0sampradaya<\/em>\u00a0in a slightly different way in the\u00a0Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika<\/em>:<\/p>\nparavyomesvarasyasic chisyo brahma jagat-patih
\ntasya sisyo narado’bhut vyasas tasyapa sisyatam
\nsuko vyasasya sisyatvam prapto jnanavabodhanat
\nvyasal labdha-krsna-dikso madhvacaryo mahayasah
\ntasya sisyo’bhavat padmanabhacaryo mahasayah
\ntasya sisyo naraharis tacchisyo madhava-dvijah
\naksobhyas tasya sisyo’bhut tac-chisyo jayatirthakah
\ntasya sisyo jnana-sindhus tasya sisyo mahanidhih
\nvidyanidhis tasya sisyo rajendras tasya sevakah
\njayadharma munis tasya sisyo yad-gana-madhyatah
\nsrimad-visnu-puri yas tu bhakti-ratnavali-krtih
\njayadharmasya sisyo’bhud brahmanyah purusottamah
\nvyasatirthas tasya sisyo yas cakre visnusamhitam
\nsriman laksmipatis tasya sisyo bhaktirasasrayah
\ntasya sisyo madhavendro yad-dharmo’yam pravartitah
\ntasya sisyo’bhavat sriman isvarakhya-puri-yatih
\nkalayamasa srngaram yah srngara-phalatmakah
\nadvaitam kalayamasa dasya-sakhye phale ubhe
\nisvarakhya-purim gaura urarikrtya gaurave
\njagad aplavayamasa prakrtaprakrtatmakam<\/em><\/p>\n‘Brahma, the master of this universe, was the disciple of the lord of the spiritual world. His disciple was Narada and Vyasa became the disciple of Narada. Suka became the disciple of Vyasa through the awakening of spiritual knowledge from him. Madhvacarya took initiation in the Krsna mantra from Vyasa. His disciple was Padmanabhacarya, whose disciple was Narahari, who was followed by Madhava Dvija. Aksobhya was his disciple, then Jayatirtha, Jnanasindhu, Mahanidhi, Vidyanidhi and Rajendra followed. Jayadharma Muni was one of Rajendra’s many disciples and Visnu Puri, the author of\u00a0Bhakti-ratnavali<\/em>\u00a0and Brahmanya Purusottama, became his disciples. Vyasa Tirtha, the author ofVisnu-samhita<\/em>\u00a0was the disciple of Purusottama. Laksmipati Tirtha, a reservoir of devotion, was the disciple of Vyasa Tirtha. Madhavendra Puri was the disciple of Laksmipati, and it is by him that this religion was founded. His disciple, thesannyasi<\/em>\u00a0Isvara Puri, took up the mood of conjugal devotion, while Advaita Acarya [also the disciple of Madhavendra] took up the moods of servitude and friendship. Gaura accepted Isvara Puri as his guru, and then flooded the material and spiritual worlds [with love].'(Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika<\/em>\u00a023-32)9<\/p>\nThough there are some slight differences, one can see that these two accounts of the disciplic succession through Madhvacarya to Caitanya Mahaprabhu are substantially the same.10 Gopala Guru Gosvami accepted the same disciplic succession. Therefore, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote in hisMahaprabhura siksa<\/em>,<\/p>\n‘[In the\u00a0Tattva-sandarbha<\/em>,] Srila Jiva Gosvami first established the authenticity of received knowledge, and then that the\u00a0Puranas<\/em>\u00a0fall into this category of authoritative sources of knowledge. After that, he showed that the\u00a0Srimad Bhagavatam<\/em>\u00a0was the most authoritative of all the\u00a0Puranas<\/em>. In order to prove the superiority of the\u00a0Bhagavatam<\/em>, he cited statements by Brahma, Narada, Vyasa and Sukadeva, as well as texts written by Vijayadharma, Brahmanya Tirtha, and Jagat Guru Madhvacarya. From all these statements, it is evident that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu belonged to the Brahma\u00a0sampradaya<\/em>, as it descends through Madhvacarya. Kavi Karnapura confirmed this line of disciplic succession in his\u00a0Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika<\/em>, and the writer of the commentary on the\u00a0Vedanta<\/em>, Baladeva Vidyabhusana, did so again in hisPrameya-ratnavali<\/em>. Is there any doubt that those who do not accept this line of disciplic succession are the principal enemies of the followers of Caitanya Mahaprabhu?’<\/p>\nIn the Gaudiya Vaisnava world today, there are a few short-sighted individuals who wish to disavow any connection to the Brahma-Madhva\u00a0sampradaya<\/em>\u00a0and consider the Gaudiya disciplic succession to have come into being with Mahaprabhu himself. But we have to ask the question why Mahaprabhu accepted Madhavendra Puri into his spiritual lineage? Bhaktivinoda Thakura took up this question in hisMahaprabhura Siksa<\/em>\u00a0as well:<\/p>\n‘Nimbarka Acarya’s doctrine of ‘difference and non-difference’ (bhedabheda<\/em>) was inadequate. With the advent of Lord Caitanya and his teachings, the Vaisnava world finally received this doctrine in its complete form. Madhvacarya accepted the idea of the Lord’s eternal form of consciousness and bliss (sac-cid-ananda-vigraha<\/em>) and because this is the basis of theacintya-bhedabheda<\/em>\u00a0concept, Mahaprabhu accepted the disciplic line that came from Madhva.<\/p>\n‘Previously, the Vaisnava\u00a0acaryas<\/em>\u00a0had some technical points of difference in their teachings and this resulted in the establishment of different religious schools. Only with the advent of the Supreme Truth himself in the form of Lord Caitanya, could the lacunae in these various doctrines be corrected as a result of his omniscience. Mahaprabhu combined Nimbarka’s ‘oneness in difference’ with the concept of the\u00a0sac-cid-ananda-vigraha<\/em>\u00a0of the Supreme Lord found in Madhva’s teachings, Ramanuja’s concept of the Lord’s energy (sakti<\/em>), Visnu Svami’s idea of purified non-dualism (suddhadvaita<\/em>) and the dedication of the Lord to His own devotees (tadiya-sarvasvata<\/em>). By this most scientific doctrine, which he named\u00a0acintya-bhedabheda<\/em>, Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu showered his mercy on the entire universe.<\/p>\n‘In a very short time, there will exist only one school of Vaisnava teaching, which will be named the Brahma\u00a0sampradaya<\/em>. All other Vaisnava schools will come into the fold of that one disciplic succession.’<\/p>\nSome modern researchers have not been able to find the verses attributed to the\u00a0Padma Purana<\/em>\u00a0that have been quoted above and so conclude that they are interpolations. No doubt motivated by envy of the Vaisnava religion, they thus minimize the necessity for a disciplic succession instructed in these verses. But this understanding is completely illogical.<\/p>\nOur beloved spiritual master, who has now entered the eternal pastimes of the Lord, accepted the disciplic line given by Baladeva and the concept of the\u00a0Bhagavata-parampara.<\/em>\u00a0This is the disciplic succession that we meditate on every single day. Some people do not wish to admit that Madhavendra Puri was ever a member of the Madhva\u00a0sampradaya<\/em>. On this matter, Srila Prabhupada had the following to say:<\/p>\n‘The disciplic succession of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas is the one given by Baladeva Vidyabhusana. The spiritual masters of the Madhva line are\u00a0sannyasis<\/em>\u00a0in the single-staff (eka-dandi<\/em>) tradition, most of whom take the title ‘Tirtha.’ They are generally given the name Sri Madhva, followed by their\u00a0sannyasa<\/em>\u00a0name, and then the title, Tirtha. Madhavendra Puri was a\u00a0sannyasi<\/em>, but his title was ‘Puri.’ However, this does not mean that he could not have taken\u00a0sannyasa<\/em>\u00a0in the Puri line of\u00a0sannyasis<\/em>\u00a0and still have received Pancaratrika diksa in the Madhva line.<\/p>\n‘According to the\u00a0Bhakti-ratnakara<\/em>,11 Nityananda Prabhu was a disciple of Laksmipati Tirtha. All the\u00a0acaryas<\/em>\u00a0of the main\u00a0matha<\/em>\u00a0of the Tattvavadis of the Madhva\u00a0sampradaya<\/em>\u00a0in Uttararadi (Udipi) have the Tirtha title. Thus some of the leaders of the Sahajiyas doubt the connection of the Gaudiyas to the Madhva line. But their doubts are a result of their own ignorance. For the most part, the descriptions of the disciplic succession found in\u00a0Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika<\/em>, in the works of Gopala Guru Gosvami, in the\u00a0Bhakti-ratnakara<\/em>\u00a0and the\u00a0Prameya-ratnavali<\/em>\u00a0are in agreement with each other.’<\/p>\n(The\u00a0Gaudiya-bhasya<\/em>\u00a0to\u00a0Prameya-ratnavali<\/em>)<\/p>\nLaksmipati Tirtha was the thirteenth guru in descendance from Madhva, otherwise known as Ananda Tirtha. In the\u00a0Bhakti-ratnakara<\/em>, Nityananda Prabhu is said to have been his disciple, whereas thePrameya-ratnavali<\/em>\u00a0says that he took initiation from Madhavendra Puri. The one or two other discrepancies in these guru lists are of this type.<\/p>\nBaladeva Vidyabhushan’s lineage is further given as it follows on after Nityananda Prabhu: One of Nityananda Prabhu’s followers was Gauri Dasaa Pandita of Kalna, who in Krsna\u00a0lila<\/em>\u00a0was one of the twelve Gopaas, Subala Sakha. Gauri Dasaa had a disciple named Hrdaya Caitanya, who in turn initiated Dukhi Krsna Dasaa or Syamananda Dasaa, who was given instruction by Jiva Gosvami in Vrndavana. Syamananda’s disciple was Rasikananda Murari, whose grandson and disciple was Nayanananda Deva Gosvami. His disciple was Radha Damodara, a great scholar born in Kanyakubja (Kanauja) who wrote the well-reputed text,\u00a0Vedanta-syamantaka<\/em>.12 Baladeva, who won renown as the Bhasyakara for his elaborate exposition of the\u00a0Vedanta-sutra<\/em>\u00a0according to the Gaudiya understanding, was initiated by Radha Damodara Gosvami.<\/p>\nSrila Prabhupada adds,<\/p>\n
‘Sri Uddhava Dasa or Uddhara Dasa was the follower of the author of the\u00a0Govinda-bhasya<\/em>, Baladeva Vidyabhusana. Uddhava Dasa, Madhusudana Dasa and Jagannatha Dasa Babaji, all of whom adopted the lifestyle of the\u00a0paramahamsa<\/em>, followed him in preaching the path of pure devotion through their example. In the Gaudiya Vaisnava\u00a0sampradaya<\/em>, these saints are the objects of the greatest faith and reverence.’<\/p>\nThis Jagannatha Dasa Babaji, who was known widely as\u00a0vaisnava-sarvabhauma<\/em>\u00a0or ‘universal monarch of the Vaisnavas,’ is our predecessor\u00a0acarya<\/em>, who gave direction to Bhaktivinoda Thakura.<\/p>\nSri Caitanya Mahaprabhu recognized the\u00a0Bhagavatam<\/em>\u00a0to be the genuine commentary on the\u00a0Vedanta<\/em>and thus considered it unnecessary to write a separate explanation of the Brahma Sutras. The\u00a0Garuda-purana<\/em>\u00a0in particular states that the\u00a0Bhagavatam<\/em>\u00a0is the explanation of the\u00a0Vedanta-sutra<\/em>, theMahabharata<\/em>\u00a0and other historical epics; it gives the meaning of the Gayatri mantra and all the Vedic literature. However, there came a time when, by the wish of the Lord, the\u00a0acaryas<\/em>\u00a0of the Ramanujasampradaya<\/em>\u00a0in the Galta village of Jaipur created a lot of trouble by denying the validity of the Gaudiya school, which managed the service to the Govindaji deity in Jaipur, saying that it had no historical basis. They accused the Gaudiyas of not having a tie to any one of the four Vaisnava disciplic successions.<\/p>\nThough the King of Jaipur was a Gaudiya Vaisnava, he was troubled by their arguments. Word came to Visvanatha Cakravarti in Vrndavana, who was the most prominent\u00a0acarya<\/em>\u00a0of the Gaudiya school at the time. Due to his advanced age, however, Visvanatha was unable to defend the\u00a0sampradaya’s<\/em>\u00a0reputation, but sent his dear student, Baladeva Vidyabhusana and a disciple, Krsnadeva Sarvabhauma, in his place.<\/p>\nWhen the king saw these two poverty-stricken monks, he had his doubts that they would be able to debate with the learned scholars of the Ramanuja\u00a0sampradaya<\/em>. However, his anxiety was soon dispelled when he witnessed the profound scholarship of the two ascetics. Nevertheless, it was decided that until the Gaudiya school had a commentary of its own on the\u00a0Vedanta<\/em>, based on the three reliable sources (prasthana-traya<\/em>) of scripture\u2014the\u00a0Sruti<\/em>, the\u00a0Smrti<\/em>\u00a0and the\u00a0Sutras<\/em>, it would not be accepted as a legitimate\u00a0sampradaya<\/em>.<\/p>\nBaladeva asked the accusers for some time\u2014seven days according to some, three months according to others\u2014to write a Gaudiya commentary on the\u00a0Vedanta<\/em>. He then went to the Govindaji temple and prayed earnestly to the Lord, ‘O Lord, O Govindaji! I am a follower of your dear companions, Svarupa Damodara and Rupa Gosvami. Please preserve their spiritual descendants and the honor of their line.’<\/p>\nOn the first two nights, Baladeva received only minimal directions from the Lord and was not satisfied with what he had heard. On the third night, however, the Supreme Lord gave him his full mercy and reassured him that he would be able to achieve his goal. In a very short time, Baladeva completed writing his commentaries on the\u00a0Upanisads<\/em>,\u00a0Vedanta-sutra<\/em>,\u00a0Bhagavad-gita<\/em>\u00a0and the\u00a0Bhagavatam<\/em>. He named his exposition of the\u00a0Vedanta-sutra<\/em>,\u00a0Govinda-bhasya<\/em>. This seems indeed appropriate, for it was by Lord Govindaji’s blessings and inspiration that Baladeva was able to accomplish this task.<\/p>\nThe scholars of the other\u00a0sampradayas<\/em>\u00a0were astonished by the quality of Baladeva’s commentary and were mollified by it. As a result, all opposition to accepting the Gaudiyas as a separate school orsampradaya<\/em>\u00a0stopped. This was the playful Lord Hari’s tricky way of bringing into existence a commentary on the\u00a0Vedanta-sutras<\/em>\u00a0that would give joy to the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. It is said that whenever the Lord does anything, he accomplishes many purposes by it.<\/p>\nWe believe that Baladeva Vidyabhusana, who was so blessed and dear to Lord Govinda, is sufficient authority to make an official statement on the disciplic succession and that his word should satisfy any honest and intelligent person that the Gaudiya\u00a0sampradaya<\/em>\u00a0is genuine.<\/p>\n(From<\/em>\u00a0Caitanya Vani\u00a019.5, pp. 84-89.<\/em>)<\/p>\nNOTES<\/p>\n
1\u00a0amnayate samyag abhyasyate athava amnayate upadisyate dharmo’neneti amnayah<\/em><\/p>\n2\u00a0krsnera bhajana kahi samyag amnaya | adi-madhya-ante krsna-bhajana-bujhaya |<\/em>| ‘The most perfect strands of the Vedic literature as passed down in disciplic succession direct us to worship Krsna. From beginning to middle to end, they explain only the worship of Krsna.’<\/p>\n3\u00a0dharma-brahma-pratipadakapauruseya-vakyam vedah.<\/em><\/p>\n4\u00a0brahma-mukha-nirgata-dharma-jnapaka-sastram vedah.<\/em><\/p>\n5 Calcutta (Shyam Bazar): Sanskrit Sahitya Parishad, 1927.<\/p>\n
6 Sivananda Sena had three sons, Caitanya Dasa, Sri Rama Dasa, and Sri Puri Dasa. Puri Dasa was given the name Kavi Karnapura by Lord Caitanya himself, when at the age of seven years, he recited a Sanskrit poem he had written himself (CC 3.16.65-75). It is said that this extraordinary ability came as the result of sucking Mahaprabhu’s toes as a baby (CC 3.12.50). Karnapura’s guru was Srinatha Cakravarti. He wrote ten books including\u00a0Caitanya-carita-maha-kavya, Caitanya-candrodaya, Ananda-vrndavana-campu, Alankara-kaustubha, Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, Brhad-ganoddesa-dipika, Arya-sataka, Caitanya-sahasra-nama, Sri-kesavastaka<\/em>\u00a0and a commentary on the Tenth Canto of the\u00a0Srimad Bhagavatam<\/em>.<\/p>\n7\u00a0devo nah kula-daivatam vijayatam caitanya-krsno harih. Ananda-vrndavana-campu<\/em>\u00a01.3.<\/p>\n8\u00a0Jaiva Dharma<\/em>, ed. Bhakti Dayita Madhava Gosvami. Calcutta: Caitanya Gaudiya Math, 1989. pp 213-4.<\/p>\n9 These verses are also quoted in\u00a0Bhakti-ratnakara<\/em>\u00a05.2149-2162.<\/p>\n10\u00a0Nava-ratna<\/em>, an even older text by Madhavendra Puri’s disciple Hariram Vyasa, who lived in Vrndavana and was a contemporary of the Gosvamis, also contains a list of\u00a0acaryas<\/em>\u00a0in the Brahma\u00a0sampradaya<\/em>. It is given as a citation from\u00a0
![\"puri_mj80\"](\"https:\/\/vaishnava-news-network.org\/vaisnava-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/04\/puri_mj80.jpg\")
<\/a>