—o)0(o--
Keeping Faith with Kheturi.
Most of the world’s major religions held a major council of some sort in their early history that had tremendous significance in their development. Buddhists had three significant councils that had a great impact on the Sangha’s development, on its canon and doctrine, and which confronted heresies, other doctrinal controversies or schisms. Christianity also had many such councils in its early days, the most significant of which was the one held at Nicea, which settled once and for all the Christological questions about the exact nature of Christ and the Trinity and established fundamental Christian doctrines in the famous Nicean Creed.
As with most new religious movements, the center of spiritual inspiration for the Gaudiyas was a person, Chaitanya himself, and even though he was far away in Jagannath Puri, the Bengali Vaishnavas’ yearly pilgrimages kept their focus clearly on him. The preachers of the new religion could glorify him and focus primarily on Harinam sankirtan as a revolutionary new way of organizing their society spiritually. Nityananda and Adwaita Prabhus both had their own personal charisma, as did Narahari and many others who had come into contact with Mahaprabhu.
Even so, Gaudiya Vaishnavism never had any central authority. It developed three basic poles or mandalas—Nabadwip (or Gauda), Puri, and Vraja—each with its own ethos. But Bengal (Gauda) was always the most important of these, because it was the principal source of converts and of spiritual leadership.
Orissan Chaitanya Vaishnavism quickly fell under the dominance of the Pancha Sakhas, and although the Orissans continued to revere Mahaprabhu and the Bhagavatam, their spiritual and cultural connection to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas was always arm’s length. And, as the Gaudiyas considered the Pancha Sakha to be heterodox, the two cultures developed independently of one another. Thus, for instance, most in Orissa think of Jagannath Das as Radha, and have little or no reverence for Nityananda, Adwaita, or Gadadhar.
Vrindavan was mostly important as a destination for renounced Bengali Vaishnavas, and although there have always been a certain number of foreigners entering the sampradaya, the domination of Bengalis is a fact. This may be one of the reasons that a distance was kept by some important non-Bengali converts in Braj, like Prabodhananda, Harivams and others. Even today, though Bengali and Hindustani Chaitanya Vaishnavas show public respect for one another, social interaction and even the cultures of the two groups are quite different.
Bengal was the place where the most significant conversion activity took place—but even here, we must remember that Mahaprabhu stayed in Nabadwip a mere thirteen months after inaugurating the Sankirtan movement. His main activity there was within a fairly small circle of close associates.
According to the Chaitanya Bhagavata, even though Murari, Srivas and Gadadhar were the first to “discover” Mahaprabhu, they made a point of informing Adwaita as soon as possible, and he was the one who came and with the namo brahmaNya-devAya verse gave approval to the idea that Nimai was the yugavatar. Nityananda came along a short time later, and in this case, it was Mahaprabhu who gave recognition to him in the Vyasa Puja celebration.
But look at the difference between Murari’s account and Vrindavan Das’s, written twenty or thirty years later. The latter is full of warnings not to criticize or condemn, nor to think that there is enmity between Gadadhar, Nityananda and Adwaita. And yet, though Vrindavan Das seems to be seeking some conciliation between the factions, he never mentions Narahari once, and also speaks unfavorably about “Gauranga-nagara.” (Murari only mentions Narahari once, 4.17.13) Little wonder that Lochan Das found it necessary to write another biography of Chaitanya in which Narahari could find a place.
Prema-vilasa, written by Nityananda Das, a disciple of Jahnava Mata, also writes negatively about Adwaita Prabhu and his penchant for reading and lecturing from the Yoga-vasistha. Vrindavan Das tells us that Mahaprabhu criticized Adwaita for this practice when he was in Nabadwip, but Nityananda Das indicates that he continued doing so even after Mahaprabhu had gone to live in Puri and that many Vaishnavas were puzzled by this behavior and complained. The author of that work further emphasizes that this was one of the impetuses that led to the advent of Srinivasa Acharya and Narottam Das.
Complaints about Nityananda also were manifold. Adwaita, who according to the Chaitanya Bhagavata asked for prema to be given even to the lowborn and the outcastes, seemed to have some problem with Nityananda’s level of sadachara. His return to grihastha life, especially one that was conspicuously opulent in style, attracted the criticisms of many Brahmins. One reason for this, which still affects Nityananda’s descendants, was his exact caste status. Nityananda’s father was an Ojha, or “medicine man,” in an area that was likely outside strong Brahminical culture.
Birbhum is near the Santal Paragana and Jharkhanda areas, which is strongly tribal even today, what to speak of 500 years ago. Despite travelling with a sannyasi from childhood, his Brahmin credentials were likely suspect. Establishing them eventually became necessary in order to gain respectability for the Chaitanya sampradaya in general. Marrying into a Brahmin family would have been an easy way to establish a Brahmin identity, since if one segment of the Brahmin community accepted him, it would mean de facto acceptance. Nevertheless, it is clear from Chaitanya Charitamrita and elsewhere that Adwaita, at least, was not altogether comfortable with Nityananda’s position caste status—even though these statements are passed off as good-humored banter among friends. Caste as an issue in Gaudiya Vaishnavism has always been problematic, as anyone who knows Indian society will be able to attest.
But these were the likely criticisms levelled against Adwaita and Nityananda by partisans, some of whom want to attribute their own leaders with equal or even superior status to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu himself.
In all this, the position of the Gaura Nagaras, for whom Gadadhar was the symbolic (rather than real) leader, was not negligible. And then there were many other minor leaders with their own charisma who were also building up their own bases and claims to guruship, but whose individual expressions were challenged by those (such as Nityananda’s disciples) who claimed some kind of monopoly on access to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
By the end of the 1560’s, nearly 35 years had passed since the time of Mahaprabhu’s disappearance and it was clear that any remaining associates were not much longer for the world. It became clear that something needed to be done, for the sampradaya was in great risk of splintering into quarrelling factions and falling into irrelevance.
If we look at the written material that would have been available at this time, the texts representing these various schools, we get a bit of a better idea of the problem. They are philosophically very thin. In the Gadadhar article and above, we find many indications of the hold that the Yoga Vasistha seemed to have over Bengali Hindus of the time. Though Vrindavan Das clearly indicates that the Nityananda Vaishnavas rejected the impersonalist doctrine, I would venture to say that in the interactions with the expert Nyaya and Vedanta philosophers of Nabadwip and elsewhere, they, and even the Brahmin converts following Srivas and Adwaita, would have had a hard time presenting a persuasive competing vision. All they had was their enthusiasm and their faith in their charismatic leaders.
As such, the Chaitanya movement was principally one of piety and zeal. We could say that it was overbalanced toward religion’s emotional or sentimental side. Claims of superiority and inferiority, as the above cursory discussion and the Gadadhar article show, were more about jockeying for ontological position through interpreting Chaitanya’s role as avatar and the specifics of a particular associate’s type of relationship to or degree of intimacy with Chaitanya.
With the departure, one by one, of these charismatic leaders, it became clear that there was a crisis.
—o)0(o--
In the accounts of the lives of the three second-generation saints, Srinivas, Narottam and Shyamananda, we are informed right away that this was the situation: Srinivas, especially, is described wandering from one holy site to another, hoping to get the association of one or the other of Mahaprabhu’s companions, and each time missing the opportunity by a few days or months. Though most of these near-misses were exaggerated, authors like Narahari Chakravarti are simply trying to tell us that Mahaprabhu’s associates were quickly disappearing, and that this was a terrible disappointment to him and everyone else.
According to the Chaitanya Charitamrita, Mahaprabhu instructed Rupa and Sanatan to write scriptures on philosophy and sad-achara, but clearly writing these works was only a first step—finding worthy students to master them and then disseminate them was also necessary.
Srinivas, Narottam Das and Shyamananda spent several years in Braj, studying, doing bhajan, and imbibing the Vrindavan mood. We should not underestimate the effect that residence in the dry, hot climate of Braj had on these young Bengalis. This was a foreign land for them, and though the Goswamis were leading contributors to the Braj Krishna bhakti culture, they were not alone in it.
Krishnadas shows a bit of Bengali chauvinism in the CC when he rather haughtily quotes Mahaprabhu saying that the Westerners were mUDha-anAcAra (Cc 1.10.86), but in fact, it is more likely that, at least in some respects, the opposite took place. The Bengali Vaishnavas took on a certain different spirit in contact with the Vallabhis, Radhavallabhis, Nimbarkis, Haridasis, etc., one that concentrated marvellously on Radha Krishna, that challenged and changed their perspective on Chaitanya by casting it in the Radha-Krishna mood. This mood was rather different from the somewhat diffuse Vishnu/Krishna bhakti of the Chaitanya Bhagavata, for instance.
As travellers went back and forth from Vrindavan, some of these influences began to show in the texts of Gaudiya writers like Lochan Das, but the real power of the Braj influence began to show when Jahnava herself went there and spent some time studying with Jiva Goswami.
Two of the mystery dates of Gaudiya Vaishnava history are (1) when did Narottam, Srinivas and Shyamananda return from Braja with the Goswami books, an important bit of information that would make clear exactly which books were in that first shipment, and (2) in exactly what year the Kheturi festival took place.
Rupa Goswami disappeared probably in 1558, before any of this famous triumvirate arrived in Braj. We know that all of Rupa and Sanatan’s books must have thus been available to the three acharyas, and probably the six Sandarbhas of Jiva. However, the Prema Vilasa is erroneously reports the Chaitanya Charitamrita to have been in this shipment, which would have been impossible. A number of other works by Jiva, such as Gopala Champu, as well as Krishna Das’s Govinda-lilamrita, etc., were not in this first instalment of Goswami literature.
It seems almost certain that two or three years separate the arrival of Srinivas et al in Bengal from Kheturi, enough time for Jahnava and Narottam Das to travel all around Bengal and as far as Puri in order to drum up interest in Goswami scriptures.
R.K.Chakravarty places Kheturi in about 1580, but I think this is a little too late. I am convinced that the Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika is a direct outcome of the Kheturi festival. Since it was written in 1576, it is likely that Kheturi preceded it by a year or two. The writing of Chaitanya Mangala and Chaitanya Chandrodaya in 1572 seems significant. These two works must have been in composition for some years before, but it seems that their completion might have been directly related to the festival, which was, after all, convened on the first “Gaura Purnima,” or celebration of Mahaprabhu’s appearance day. In Narottama-vilasa, it is said that Chaitanya Bhagavata and Chaitanya-mangala readings/performances formed part of the festivities.
This is important, as it is not yet clear exactly how complete the Chaitanyology* (*I coin the term as a calque on Christology, as I have Prabhupadology, in order to designate the body of discussions establishing the ontology of Chaitanya, i.e. answering the questions “Who and what was Chaitanya?”) found in the Chaitanya Charitamrita already in place at the time of Kheturi.
At any rate, the tireless efforts of Jahnava, Srinivas and Narottam made clear to the Vaishnavas of Bengal that something special was going on. Their presentation of Sanatan and Jiva’s commentaries on the Bhagavata and Rupa Goswami’s discourses on Rasa theory were clearly powerful and convincing. There was nothing in Bengal Vaishnavism at the time that could hold a place in comparison. Thus though Rupa and Sanatan are mentioned in the Chaitanya Bhagavata, in the Chaitanya-chandrodaya, they are glorified.
kAlena vRndAvana-keli-vArtA
lupteti tAM khyApayituM viziSya
kRpAmRtenAbhiSiSeca devas
tatraiva rUpaM ca sanAtanaM ca
lupteti tAM khyApayituM viziSya
kRpAmRtenAbhiSiSeca devas
tatraiva rUpaM ca sanAtanaM ca
In the course of time, tidings of Krishna’s divine sports in Vrindavan had been lost. To make them known again in detail, the Lord drenched Rupa and Sanatan with His mercy in the very land of Vrindavan. (CCN 9.38)
The principal idea of the Goswami interpretation of the Bhagavatam was the institution of a hierarchy in the different forms of God based on rasa. Of course, they shared the wider philosophical basis of Hinduism and participated in its debates—but the idea of understanding the hierarchy of divine manifestations according to rasa was both startlingly novel and persuasive.
It is hard to imagine the charismatic power that Jahnava, Srinivas and Narottam must have had to be able to convince their respective constituencies of the Goswamis’ vision, which ultimately won the whole Gaudiya Vaishnava world over.
The role of Jahnava Mata at the Kheturi festival should be properly highlighted. Within the Gaudiya sampradaya, diverse philosophical conceptions were coming to force, such as Gaura-nagara-bhava, Rasaraja, Gaura-paramyavada, Nitai-paramyavada, Adwaita-paramyavada, and other variations as well. …Jahnava, as the leading Vaishnava of the time, mediated on behalf of all these camps and resolved their differences to the satisfaction of the Gaudiya orthodoxy. (Steve Rosen, The Lives of the Vaishnava Saints, 91-92)
Jahnava Devi’s importance in the post-Chaitanya Vaishnava movement is evidenced by the leading role she played in organizing the Kheturi festival sometime after 1580. Three Vaishnavas organized the festival—Narottam Das of Kheturi, Srinivas Acharya of Jajigram, and Jahnava Devi of Khardaha. It is indeed significant that all three of them had been trained by the goswamis of Vrindavan. Jahnava Devi was regarded as a goddess (ishwari). She tried very hard to remove the sectarian and regional differences. Just before the Kheturi festival she ceaselessly travelled to and fro. She consulted the leaders of the different groups. She scrupulously refrained from building up a subsect of her own, though she had many disciples. The unifying character of her efforts is best seen in the Prema-vilasa of Nityananda Das, who was her disciple. The Prema-vilasa in its present form is considered apocryphal, but the work is absolutely free from sectarian bias. It puts emphasis on the activities of all groups and group leaders. (R.K. Chakravarti, Vaishnavism in Bengal, 176)
--o)0(o--
Here is some more from Chakravarti’s summary of the Kheturi preparation. This is not a pure quote as I have cut or edited here and there. I have highlighted a few points to comment on:
The big Vaishnava festival was held in Kheturi for several reasons. It would have been relatively easy for the Vaishnavas of East and North Bengal to attend the festival if it was held in Kheturi. The planners of the festival certainly attached some importance to the prospect of a necessary liaison with them. It was really necessary for the leaders of the Chaitanya movement to build up bases in North Bengal and East Bengal. It was expected that the festival would serve the purpose of an assault on the locally prominent Shakta cult. In Narottama-vilasa there is a vivid description of the barbarous behavior of the local Tantrikas. They immolated human beings on the altar of the goddess, raped virgins and created a reign of terror.
Fifty messengers were sent to different parts of Bengal. Innumerable letters of invitation were despatched. Raja Santosh Datta built many cottages for the accommodation of the guests, made arrangements for their safe transportation across the broad expanse of the Padma River, and stored provisions for them. The devout Raja and his men labored very hard to make the festival a grand success.
A huge number of Vaishnavas attended the festival, representing all the major groups. Lists of their names can be found in no less than three different books: Prema-vilasa, ch. 19, Narottama-vilasa, and Bhakti-ratnakara, ch. 10. A list of these, compiled by R.K. Chakravarti, is given at the end of this document.
Almost all of the Mahantas who had attended the earlier festivals in Katwa and Srikhanda participated in the Kheturi festival. For some unstated reasons Virabhadra did not attend, but his son Jagaddurlabha did. Only two Gopalas, or possibly three, attended. The other Gopalas were either no more when the festival was held, or unwilling to attend it.
The Kheturi festival was held with a view to propagating the Vrindavan dogma. But Vrindavan is not known to have sent to it any delegate. Only three important Vaishnavas of East Bengal were invited to attend the festival. They were Purusottama Nagara, 'wood-cutter' Jagannatha, and Puspagopla.
The following programme was adopted for the festival :
The Kheturi congregation recognised the validity of two theories. The first was the theory of the embodiment of Radha Krishna conjugality in Chaitanya. The second theory was that of Krishna's incarnation as Chaitanya. Chaitanya’s birthday was observed as Krishna's birthday. Anybody who tried to distinguish between the identities of Krishna and Chaitanya was loaded with a terrible curse.
The smarana-mangala formula was followed during the worship of the deities. The proceedings noted above were followed by a nightlong debate, the details of which are not stated.
The first Kheturi festival created a trend in kirtan music which was known as the Garanhati or Garerhati mode of kirtan. The Garerhati style, named after the Pargana Garerhat, to which Kheturi belonged, was the kirtan approximation of the classical Dhruvapada of North Indian music. The most significant feature of the style was the Gaura-chandrika. The kirtan on the sports of Krishna was prefaced by singing of songs on the lila of Gauranga in Nabadwip. Gaura-chandrika and Chaitanya worship in Kheturi signified a realistic attitude of the Vrindavan goswamis and their Bengali supporters towards the deification of Chaitanya in Bengal.
But the problem was created by the smarana-mangala time-schedule. The time-schedule prescribed for the sports of Krishna could not be easily adopted for those of Gauranga in Nabadwip. The problem was solved by Duhkhi Krishnadasa Babaji [?]. The Gaura-chandrika possibly signified a concession to the Gaura-nagara Vaishnavas or the Gaura-paramya theologians who believed in the primacy of Chaitanya. But the so-called "Gadai-Gauranga" subsect remained unhonored, because the theory of Radha Krishna conjugality in Chaitanya militated against the idea that Gadadhara Pandit was the incarnation of Radha.
The stupendous labor of Jahnava Devi, Srinivasa Acharya and Narottama Datta ultimately resulted in the dominance of the Vrindavan versions over the prevalent mystic and deviant ideas. This development certainly made the Chaitanya movement in Bengal cohesive and disciplined. But bhakti became self-centred to a considerable extent. It gradually lost its collective characteristics. After the Kheturi festival bhakti became deeply rooted in what a foreign student of Indian culture describes as "dependent psychology." That there was possibly a connection between the development of this psychology and the leadership of the aristocratic elements in the Vaishnava movement in Bengal may be stated as a cliché. But it is very difficult to identify the exact methods adopted by the Vaishnava leaders to plug the collective effusion of bhakti which was perhaps the most prominent feature of the religious movement launched by Chaitanya in Nabadwip. (R.K. Chakravarti, Vaishnavism in Bengal, 231-238)
Fifty messengers were sent to different parts of Bengal. Innumerable letters of invitation were despatched. Raja Santosh Datta built many cottages for the accommodation of the guests, made arrangements for their safe transportation across the broad expanse of the Padma River, and stored provisions for them. The devout Raja and his men labored very hard to make the festival a grand success.
A huge number of Vaishnavas attended the festival, representing all the major groups. Lists of their names can be found in no less than three different books: Prema-vilasa, ch. 19, Narottama-vilasa, and Bhakti-ratnakara, ch. 10. A list of these, compiled by R.K. Chakravarti, is given at the end of this document.
Almost all of the Mahantas who had attended the earlier festivals in Katwa and Srikhanda participated in the Kheturi festival. For some unstated reasons Virabhadra did not attend, but his son Jagaddurlabha did. Only two Gopalas, or possibly three, attended. The other Gopalas were either no more when the festival was held, or unwilling to attend it.
The Kheturi festival was held with a view to propagating the Vrindavan dogma. But Vrindavan is not known to have sent to it any delegate. Only three important Vaishnavas of East Bengal were invited to attend the festival. They were Purusottama Nagara, 'wood-cutter' Jagannatha, and Puspagopla.
The following programme was adopted for the festival :
- Installation of the stone images of Chaitanya, Vallabhikanta, Vrajamohana, Sri Krishna, Radhakanta and Radhamohan.
- Singing of kirtan.
- Observation of Chaitanya's birthday and Holi.
- Holding of community feasts.
- Finalization of the arrangements for the year-long recitation of the Bhagavata Purana, Chaitanya-bhagavata, and Chaitanya-mangala.
zrI rAdhAra-bhAve magna zrI-gaurAGga-candra
sei bhAvera gIta gAyA pAiyA Ananda
zrI kRSNera janma-yAtrA vidhi anusAre
pUjaye gaurAGga-cAnd hariSa antare
kRSNa gaura eka ebe bheda buddhi jAra
se jAya narake tAra nAhika nistAra
sei bhAvera gIta gAyA pAiyA Ananda
zrI kRSNera janma-yAtrA vidhi anusAre
pUjaye gaurAGga-cAnd hariSa antare
kRSNa gaura eka ebe bheda buddhi jAra
se jAya narake tAra nAhika nistAra
The Kheturi congregation recognised the validity of two theories. The first was the theory of the embodiment of Radha Krishna conjugality in Chaitanya. The second theory was that of Krishna's incarnation as Chaitanya. Chaitanya’s birthday was observed as Krishna's birthday. Anybody who tried to distinguish between the identities of Krishna and Chaitanya was loaded with a terrible curse.
The smarana-mangala formula was followed during the worship of the deities. The proceedings noted above were followed by a nightlong debate, the details of which are not stated.
The first Kheturi festival created a trend in kirtan music which was known as the Garanhati or Garerhati mode of kirtan. The Garerhati style, named after the Pargana Garerhat, to which Kheturi belonged, was the kirtan approximation of the classical Dhruvapada of North Indian music. The most significant feature of the style was the Gaura-chandrika. The kirtan on the sports of Krishna was prefaced by singing of songs on the lila of Gauranga in Nabadwip. Gaura-chandrika and Chaitanya worship in Kheturi signified a realistic attitude of the Vrindavan goswamis and their Bengali supporters towards the deification of Chaitanya in Bengal.
But the problem was created by the smarana-mangala time-schedule. The time-schedule prescribed for the sports of Krishna could not be easily adopted for those of Gauranga in Nabadwip. The problem was solved by Duhkhi Krishnadasa Babaji [?]. The Gaura-chandrika possibly signified a concession to the Gaura-nagara Vaishnavas or the Gaura-paramya theologians who believed in the primacy of Chaitanya. But the so-called "Gadai-Gauranga" subsect remained unhonored, because the theory of Radha Krishna conjugality in Chaitanya militated against the idea that Gadadhara Pandit was the incarnation of Radha.
The stupendous labor of Jahnava Devi, Srinivasa Acharya and Narottama Datta ultimately resulted in the dominance of the Vrindavan versions over the prevalent mystic and deviant ideas. This development certainly made the Chaitanya movement in Bengal cohesive and disciplined. But bhakti became self-centred to a considerable extent. It gradually lost its collective characteristics. After the Kheturi festival bhakti became deeply rooted in what a foreign student of Indian culture describes as "dependent psychology." That there was possibly a connection between the development of this psychology and the leadership of the aristocratic elements in the Vaishnava movement in Bengal may be stated as a cliché. But it is very difficult to identify the exact methods adopted by the Vaishnava leaders to plug the collective effusion of bhakti which was perhaps the most prominent feature of the religious movement launched by Chaitanya in Nabadwip. (R.K. Chakravarti, Vaishnavism in Bengal, 231-238)
—o)0(o--
Though I can agree almost entirely with the above assessment of what transpired at Kheturi, and the account could certainly be embellished with colourful references to the original accounts, there are some things that need to be said, in particular by way of reference to the Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, which as I have said, probably came about as a result of the Kheturi festival, at which Karnapur was no doubt among the most highly venerated guests.
Karnapur’s work contains the first textual instance of the Pancha Tattva verse that was attributed to Swarup Damodar Goswami’s Karcha. If it is indeed Swarup Damodar’s verse, it was likely brought to Bengal by Srinivas et al from Vrindavan school, or perhaps Karnapur learned of it on one of his own visits to Braj.
paJca-tattvAtmakaM kRSNaM bhakta-rUpa-svarUpakam
bhaktAvatAraM bhaktAkhyaM namAmi bhakta-zaktikam
bhaktAvatAraM bhaktAkhyaM namAmi bhakta-zaktikam
The very presence of so many Vaishnavas in Kheturi, from so many groups, indicates that something monumental was taking place. To say that "Nityananda and Advaita were consigned to limbo" or that "Gaura-Gadai worshipers were not honored" is a rather odd way of describing what happened. The Pancha Tattva verse fixes these Vaishnava leaders’ tattvas into a hierarchy. They cease being competitors in the fight for charismatic superiority and become cooperators in the divine mission. What the Chaitanya Bhagavata failed to do by way of exhortations to stop fighting, the Pancha Tattva mantra accomplished by giving them all their own unique stature.
I have explained some of this in the Gadadhar article--by placing everything in the context of the rasa tattva, the Pancha Tattva were seen as part of Mahaprabhu's external lila. However, when seen again in the light of the Vrindavan doctrines, they all were re-envisioned as participants in that aspect of the pastimes--Advaita as Yogamaya (through his energy, Sita Devi, who is Paurnamasi in Ggd), Nityananada through Jahnava, who is Ananga Manjari, Gadadhar either directly as Radha, or as Radha experiencing sakhi-bhava.
Furthermore, as I also showed in the Gadadhar article, the Gaura-chandrika is a huge concession to the Gaura-nagaras, as most of those padas approach Radha-Krishna lila through the Gaura-nagara route, rather than through the sannyasi-Gaura route. Nabadwip and not Puri is the scene of Gaura's nitya-lila. So how R.K. Chakravarti can say that the Gaura-Gadai worshipers were shunned is not clear. After all, Srinivasa was a next-door neighbor to Srikhanda; how could he have escaped their influence? Ramachandra Kaviraj, Narottam's best friend, and his brother Govinda were both Khandavasis. Chaitanya Mangala was read at Kheturi, so where were the Gadai-Gaura worshipers neglected? It is just that a place was found for them in a coordinated, persuasive ontological scheme.
Just as important, however, was the place given to Mahaprabhu's other associates--Gaura-bhakta-vrinda. Whereas their personal claims to charisma had been neglected in the big competition between the Big Two or Three, they were now all given recognition. Anyone who had associated with Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, for even a second, was recognized as glorious. gaurAGgera saGgi-gaNe nitya-siddha kori mAne. It is no accident that this line comes from a song by Narottam Das.
—o)0(o--
So what do I mean "keeping faith with Kheturi"? I mean several things.
Chakravarti, like Hitesranjan Sanyal and many other leftist Bengalis, see Kheturi and the establishment of the Goswami scriptures as a reaffirmation of Brahminical values over those of the emancipating lower classes through an egalitarian ethos led by Nityananda Prabhu. Even Marxists agree, however, that in pre-capitalist social conditions, expecting class emancipation is fantasy at best. In religious-historical terms, however, what we see is something far more standard: the routinization of charisma and other forms of institutionalization that make it possible for a religious system to grow and develop.
No one can deny that the coming of Bhaktivedanta Swami to the West resulted in an unprecedented release of new energies into Gaudiya Vaishnavism, energies that are in the process of pervading almost every nook and cranny of that world and infusing it with life—through manpower, through money, and through the influx of new ideas and approaches.
For me, the Kheturi spirit on the one hand is a recognition of the traditional process of transmission of charisma—the recognition of this organic connection to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu through his companions and their descendents. But it is also the recognition that everyone who contributes to the advancement of the cause of prema-bhakti has a place in the divine hierarchy and must be recognized.
It is also a lesson that enthusiasm alone is only part of the answer; we need intellectual answers that will guard the sampradaya’s honor and its place in the hierarchy of world religions.
This is why I think that some kind of new Kheturi may be needed one of these days, in which past values can be affirmed and renewed, solid connections rebuilt between individuals who share those core values--a kind of foundation dedicated to the central pole of this prema-dharma, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.