03-25-2005, 10:28 PM
Radhamohana wrote a commentary on Jiva's Tattvasandharbha around 1770.
Radhamohana's own views regarding the relationship between the Gaudiya
Vaishnava position and that of the various other Vaishnava schools are
best seen in his remarks on Tattvasandharbha 20:
"After groupng together the various different view-points found in the
doctrines of Sridhara and other respected philosophers, Jiva presents his
viewpoint, making it clear that he does not belong to the tradition of any
one of them.
Here, the system of Shankara known as Mayavada, which deals with the
unqualified Brahman, is not considered, since it contradicts the bhakti
scriptures of Jiva's school. Shankara, however, also demonstrated the
significance of Bhagavata by describing in his poetry such events as Krishna's
theft of the Gopi's clothes etc. There consequently developed a split
within Shankara's school on account of the bhakti-oriented doctrines which
he passed on to his disciples, the devotional group of Advaitins being known
as 'Bhagavatas', and the others as 'Smartas'.
Of these, Sridhara is an adherent of the 'Bhagavata' tradition. However,
since he places special emphasis on Narayana, even in his Bhagavata
commentary, Jiva only follows him where he stresses that form of Bhagavat
which is taught in the Bhagavata, and shows special devotion to him.; Jiva
does not accept Sridhara's doctrine in its entirety.
The same is the case with the qualified non-dualist and devotee of Narayana,
Ramanuja, who considers Narayana to be bhagavat himself. Ramanuja also
considers the universe to be a transformation of the insentient portion
of the Lord, but denies that prakrti is the material cause of the universe.
The whole of Ramanuja's doctrines are also not consistent with the
significance of the Bhagavata. However, by accepting certain portions of his
views in the text, such as his refutation of Mayavada, his conception of the
jiva, his belief in the reality of the universe, etc, Jiva has strengthened
Ramanuja's own position.
Similarly, the doctrines of the dualist, Madhva, are not accepted in their
entirety. According to Madhva, Vishnu is bhagavat himself. Furthermore, since
Madhva accepts Laksmi as Visnu's prinicpla sakti, he cannot consider the
Gopis to represent the highest saktis. Consequently we find in his bhasya that
knowledge is the chief means to liberation, and that liberation is the
highest goal of life. Jiva does, however, accept certain portions of Madhva's
doctrines, such as the belief that bhagavat possesses attributes, that prakrit
is eternal, that the universe is transformation of prakrti and, thus, real,
and that the jiva, being a peripheral portion of Brahman, is distinct from
Brahman. The major difference between Jiva and Madhva lies in the fact that
Madhva does not consider prakrti to partake of the nature of Brahman.
The Dvaitadvaitavada of Bhaskara, on the other hand, which maintains that the
universe is a transformation of the sakti inherent in brahman, and that this
sakti is identical with prakrti, composed of the three gunas, is consistent
with Jiva's own position.
All of these are noble doctrines, since it is said, 'They worship bhagavat,
following a variety of different teachers.' But the doctrines of Mahaprabhu
Chaitanya are superior to all since they represent an assemblage of the
essential features of all the other schools. Thus, just as Madhva, though a
disciple of Shankara, initiated his own independent sampradaya by writing
commentaires on the Brahmasutra, etc., so also Krshna Chaitanya,though himself
an avatara of Bhagavata, accepted the indispensability of having a guru and
belonging to his sampradaya, and initaited his own school through Advaitacarya
and other intimate associates. At his own command, his doctrines were put into
concrete forms by the Goswamins; but in the case of Jiva, rather than
compose a new Brahmasutra commentary, he chose to interpret that commentary
which the Lord Narayana himself taught to Brahma, namely the Bhagavata
Purana."
It is remarkable that Radhamohun did not consider Chaitanya to be part of the Madhva lineage but regarded his doctrines to be superior to everybody else. Radhamohun wrote this 40 years after Baladeva's Govinda Bhasya. What is even more peculiar that even when Gaudiya Vaishnavas publish both Radhamohun and Baladeva's commentaries on Jiva Goswami's Sat Sandharbha, they just ignore Radhamohun's clear statement that Chaitanya founded a separate Sampradaya.
Radhamohana's own views regarding the relationship between the Gaudiya
Vaishnava position and that of the various other Vaishnava schools are
best seen in his remarks on Tattvasandharbha 20:
"After groupng together the various different view-points found in the
doctrines of Sridhara and other respected philosophers, Jiva presents his
viewpoint, making it clear that he does not belong to the tradition of any
one of them.
Here, the system of Shankara known as Mayavada, which deals with the
unqualified Brahman, is not considered, since it contradicts the bhakti
scriptures of Jiva's school. Shankara, however, also demonstrated the
significance of Bhagavata by describing in his poetry such events as Krishna's
theft of the Gopi's clothes etc. There consequently developed a split
within Shankara's school on account of the bhakti-oriented doctrines which
he passed on to his disciples, the devotional group of Advaitins being known
as 'Bhagavatas', and the others as 'Smartas'.
Of these, Sridhara is an adherent of the 'Bhagavata' tradition. However,
since he places special emphasis on Narayana, even in his Bhagavata
commentary, Jiva only follows him where he stresses that form of Bhagavat
which is taught in the Bhagavata, and shows special devotion to him.; Jiva
does not accept Sridhara's doctrine in its entirety.
The same is the case with the qualified non-dualist and devotee of Narayana,
Ramanuja, who considers Narayana to be bhagavat himself. Ramanuja also
considers the universe to be a transformation of the insentient portion
of the Lord, but denies that prakrti is the material cause of the universe.
The whole of Ramanuja's doctrines are also not consistent with the
significance of the Bhagavata. However, by accepting certain portions of his
views in the text, such as his refutation of Mayavada, his conception of the
jiva, his belief in the reality of the universe, etc, Jiva has strengthened
Ramanuja's own position.
Similarly, the doctrines of the dualist, Madhva, are not accepted in their
entirety. According to Madhva, Vishnu is bhagavat himself. Furthermore, since
Madhva accepts Laksmi as Visnu's prinicpla sakti, he cannot consider the
Gopis to represent the highest saktis. Consequently we find in his bhasya that
knowledge is the chief means to liberation, and that liberation is the
highest goal of life. Jiva does, however, accept certain portions of Madhva's
doctrines, such as the belief that bhagavat possesses attributes, that prakrit
is eternal, that the universe is transformation of prakrti and, thus, real,
and that the jiva, being a peripheral portion of Brahman, is distinct from
Brahman. The major difference between Jiva and Madhva lies in the fact that
Madhva does not consider prakrti to partake of the nature of Brahman.
The Dvaitadvaitavada of Bhaskara, on the other hand, which maintains that the
universe is a transformation of the sakti inherent in brahman, and that this
sakti is identical with prakrti, composed of the three gunas, is consistent
with Jiva's own position.
All of these are noble doctrines, since it is said, 'They worship bhagavat,
following a variety of different teachers.' But the doctrines of Mahaprabhu
Chaitanya are superior to all since they represent an assemblage of the
essential features of all the other schools. Thus, just as Madhva, though a
disciple of Shankara, initiated his own independent sampradaya by writing
commentaires on the Brahmasutra, etc., so also Krshna Chaitanya,though himself
an avatara of Bhagavata, accepted the indispensability of having a guru and
belonging to his sampradaya, and initaited his own school through Advaitacarya
and other intimate associates. At his own command, his doctrines were put into
concrete forms by the Goswamins; but in the case of Jiva, rather than
compose a new Brahmasutra commentary, he chose to interpret that commentary
which the Lord Narayana himself taught to Brahma, namely the Bhagavata
Purana."
It is remarkable that Radhamohun did not consider Chaitanya to be part of the Madhva lineage but regarded his doctrines to be superior to everybody else. Radhamohun wrote this 40 years after Baladeva's Govinda Bhasya. What is even more peculiar that even when Gaudiya Vaishnavas publish both Radhamohun and Baladeva's commentaries on Jiva Goswami's Sat Sandharbha, they just ignore Radhamohun's clear statement that Chaitanya founded a separate Sampradaya.