The Conversion of Sarvabhauma
The Master went in an ecstatic mood to the temple of Jagannath, and was
beside Himself with love at the sight of the god. He rushed to embrace
the image, but fell down on the temple floor, senseless with devotion.
Happily Sarvabhauma noticed Him, and stopped the door keeper
(_Parichha_, mace-bearer) who was about to beat the Master. Sarvabhauma
marvelled exceedingly as he gazed on the beauty of the Master and His
transport of love. The hour of _bhog_ arrived, yet the Master did not
come to His senses. Sarvabhauma then thought of a plan, and had Him
conveyed by his disciple the door-keeper to his house and laid Him down
on a clean spot. But the Master showed no respiration, no heaving of the
chest. The Bhattacharya grew alarmed. He held a fine piece of cotton to
the Master's nose; it stirred, and he was reassured. The Bhattacharya
sat musing thus, "This is the _sattvika_ form of the passion for
Krishna. It is named the "bright-pure" (_sudipta sattvika_), and is
displayed only by a devotee who has attained to constant realization
(_nitya-siddhi_). This ecstasy is possible only in one whose devotion
is extreme. I wonder to see it manifested in an [ordinary] man's
person."
While he was pondering thus, Nityananda and the others arrived at the
main gate, and overheard the people talking among themselves, "A
_sannyasi_ came here and swooned away at the sight of Jagannath; he is
still in a trance. Sarvabhauma has conveyed him to his own house." They
knew from this that it was the Great Master. Just then came there
Gopinath Acharya, the son-in-law of Visharad of Nadia, and a devotee and
acquaintance of the Master. He knew Mukunda from before, and was
surprised to see him there. Mukunda bowed, the Acharya embraced him and
asked him news of the Master. Mukunda replied, "The Master has come
here, and we with Him." The Acharya bowed to Nityananda Goswami, and
again asked them all about the Master. Mukunda said, "After taking the
monastic vow, the Master came to the Blue Mountain taking us with Him.
Leaving us behind He came to visit this temple, and we have arrived now
to seek Him. From what we have heard from others, we conclude that He is
in Sarvabhauma's house, whither He was removed on fainting at the sight
of the god. I have met you luckily, just as I was wishing for your
sight. Let us go to Sarvabhauma's house, and after seeing the Master we
shall visit the temple."
Gopinath in delight conducted them to Sarvabhauma's house, where he
beheld the Master and felt mingled joy and grief. He introduced them all
to Sarvabhauma, and took them inside. Sarvabhauma bowed to Nityananda
Goswami and saluted the others in the proper mode. Then he sent them all
in charge of his son Chandaneshwar, to the temple. They joyed to behold
the god. Nityananda went out of himself in devotion, but the others
quieted him. The servitor of the shrine presented them with the garland
and _prasad_ of the god, to their great delight. Then they returned to
the Master, and chanted the divine name loud and long. In the third
quarter [of the day], Chaitanya awoke, and rose up shouting, _Hari!
Hari!_ Reverently Sarvabhauma took the dust of His feet [to place it on
his own head], and entreated Him, "Take your midday meal soon. I shall
feed you to-day with Jagannath's _maha-prasad_." The Master quickly
came back from His bath in the sea, and feasted with His followers on
the rice, broth and other kinds of _prasad_, which Sarvabhauma served
to them from golden dishes. The Master said, "Help me with the hash of
gourd (_lau_) and other vegetables, and serve these others with cakes
and sweets." But the Bhattacharya entreated Him with folded palms, "How
has Jagannath himself fed? Do you too taste all of these," and so made
Him eat the cakes and sweets too. After the dinner, he helped the Master
to wash, then took leave to retire with Gopinath Acharya and eat their
own meals. When they returned, [the Acharya] bowed saying "I salute
Narayan," and the Master responded with "Be thy mind constant in
Krishna!" At these words Sarvabhauma knew Him to be a Vaishnav hermit.
He then asked Gopinath Acharya about the worldly life of the Master. The
Acharya replied, "His home was at Navadwip; his father Jagannath Mishra,
surnamed Purandar Mishra, gave him the name of Vishwambhar. His maternal
grandfather was Nilambar Chakravarti." Sarvabhauma added "Nilambar
Chakravarti! why, he was a fellow-student of my father Visharad, who, I
know, had a high regard for Purandar Mishra, too. I honour both for
their connection with my father."
Delighted to hear that Chaitanya was a man of Nadia, Sarvabhauma thus
addressed Him, "You are of honourable birth, and a _sannyasi_ in
addition. Make me, therefore, your personal disciple." At this the
Master cried out, "O Vishnu! O Vishnu!" and then spoke humbly to the
Bhattacharya, "You are the teacher of the world and the benefactor of
mankind. You teach _Vedanta_ and [thereby] benefit men of monastic
life. I am a young monk, ignorant of good and evil. I have sought refuge
with you, regarding you as my teacher. For your society have I come
here, hoping that you will train me in all ways. You saved me in my
great danger to-day." The Bhattacharya said, "Never go to the temple
alone, but always with me or one of my men." The Master replied, "I
shall not enter the shrine, but gaze from the Garuda [pillar in the
quadrangle]." Then Sarvabhauma addressed Gopinath Acharya, "You will be
guide to this Goswami in visiting the temple. Lodge him in the house of
my mother's sister, which is a quiet place, and look to all his needs."
So he did. Next day Gopinath took the Master to the temple to show Him
Jagannath as he rose from his bed. Mukunda Datta led Him back to
Sarvabhauma's house, who spoke thus, "This _sannyasi_ is meek in
disposition, lovely in form. I daily love Him the more. Tell me what
order He has joined and what name He has chosen." Gopinath replied, "He
has been named Shri Krishna-Chaitanya; His spiritual guide is Keshav
Bharati, blessed man!" Sarvabhauma remarked, "His name is well-chosen,
but the Bharati order is not ranked high [among the ten classes of
_sannyasis_]."
Gopinath answered, "He does not care for outward [dignity]. Hence His
indifference to the more famous orders of monks." The Bhattacharya
joined in, "Ah, He is in the full bloom of youth. How can He keep the
monastic rules? However, I shall ceaselessly teach Him Vedanta, and lead
Him on to the rank of a recluse of the Monist school (_adwaita_). If He
then wishes it, I shall robe Him anew with the yellow robe of a yogi,
purify Him, and enter Him into one of the higher orders."
Gopinath and Mukunda grieved to hear it; and the former expostulated,
"Bhattacharya! You know not His greatness. The signs of divinity have
reached their extreme limit in Him! Hence He is famed as the Great God.
But in a place of ignorance even the wise know nothing."
The [Sarvabhauma's] disciples asked, "What proof is there of His
divinity?" The Acharya replied, "The belief of the wise is proof of
divinity." The disciples objected, saying, "It is by inference that God
is recognized." But the Acharya answered, "No, God is not known by
inference, but only by those on whom He bestows His grace, even a
particle of it. Witness Brahma's praise of Vishnu in the _Shrimad
Bhagabat_, Book X. canto xiv. verse 28:
_"'Lord! true it is that knowledge can gain salvation, but Thy glories
can be known only by him who has been blessed even with a particle of
favour from Thy lotus-like feet. O Perfect Being! A man lacking Thy
grace, may be free from earthly lusts, may have studied the scriptures
for ages, but still he cannot know Thee fully!'_
"O Sarvabhauma, you may be the World's Teacher, a master of theology,
unrivalled in the world in scholarship. But you have not gained God's
grace, hence you cannot know God. I do not blame you, but the scripture
says clearly that the knowledge of God cannot come from mere
scholarship."
Sarvabhauma replied, "Weigh thy words well, Acharya! How do you prove
that you have gained God's grace?" The Acharya replied, "We know a
material thing by observing it. Our knowledge of the nature of a thing
is proved by grace. On this sannyasi's person are all the marks of
divinity. You yourself witnessed his ecstasy of spiritual love. And yet
you know not God! Such are the ways of God's illusion, materialists see
Him and yet recognize Him not!"
Smilingly spoke Sarvabhauma, "We are arguing in a friendly spirit. Don't
get warm. Blame me not, I am only arguing from the strict standpoint of
view of _Shastra_. Chaitanya Goswami is [I admit] a great saint. But
there is no incarnation of Vishnu in the Kali era. Hence Vishnu's
epithet _Tri-yug_ or the Lord of Three. But scripture tells us that the
Kali era is without an incarnation."
Sadly did the Acharya answer, "You pride yourself on your knowledge of
scripture, but you do not mind the _Bhagabat_ and the _Mahabharat_,
which are the chief of scriptures. Both of them assert that God will
appear in the human form in the Kali era, and yet you maintain the
contrary! As God will not appear in Kali for mere earthly exploits [but
only for purifying faith], we call him _Tri-yug_. In every era Krishna
appears for the spiritual needs of the age. You are a logician, and yet
you do not perceive this!"
Texts quoted in support; _Bhagabat_, X viii. 9, XI. v. 28, 29;
_Mahabharat_, Anushasan Parva, Dan-dharma, canto 149, v. 75-92.
"I need not waste these many words on you. They will bear no more fruit
than seed sown on sterile soil. When His grace is on you, you will be
convinced. Your disciple, who is plying me with all sorts of sophistic
arguments, I blame him not; he is under illusion (_maya_). As the
_Bhagabat_, Book VI. canto iv. verse 26, puts it:
_[The words of Daksha to God], I bow to the Omnipotent Supreme God,
whose power of illusion raises endless controversies among logicians
fond of dispute, and keeps their souls ever wrapt in delusion!_
"Again, the _Bhagabat_, XI. xxii. 3, [Krishna's words to Uddhava]."
Then Sarvabhauma said, "Go to the monk [Chaitanya] and invite him and
his followers to my house. First feed them with _prasad_, and then give
me lessons [in theology]!" The Acharya, being Sarvabhauma's sister's
husband, could [boldly] blame, praise, laugh at or school him.
Mukunda was greatly pleased with the Acharya's reasoning, as he was inly
grieved and angry at the speech of Sarvabhauma.
The Acharya came to Chaitanya's house and invited Him on behalf of the
Bhattacharya. As he talked with Mukunda he spoke ill of Sarvabhauma in a
pained spirit. But the Master broke in with, "Say not so. The
Bhattacharya has really favoured me; he wants to safeguard my monastic
life, and has taken pity on me out of tenderness. Why blame him for it?"
Next day, the Master visited the temple of Jagannath in the company of
the Bhattacharya, and then accompanied him to his house. The
Bhattacharya seated the Master first and began to teach Him _Vedanta_.
With mingled tenderness and reverence he said, "It is a _sannyasi's_
duty to hear the Vedanta read. You should constantly attend to it." The
Master answered, "Show me thy favour. Whatever you bid me is indeed my
duty."
For seven days did the Master thus listen to the expounding of the
Vedanta, without making any comment of His own. On the eighth day,
Sarvabhauma asked Him, "For seven days have you heard me in unbroken
silence. I know not whether you follow me or not." The Master replied,
"I am ignorant, and have not studied [the subject]. I merely listen at
your bidding. I listen only because such is a sannyasi's duty. But I
cannot follow your interpretation." The Bhattacharya retorted, "He who
is conscious of his own ignorance asks for a second explanation. But you
remain ever silent as you listen. I know not your mind's workings." The
Master replied, "I understand the verses clearly enough. But it is your
commentary that puzzles me. A commentary should elucidate the text,
whereas your exposition conceals the text! You do not expound the plain
meaning of the aphorisms, but cover them up with your fanciful
interpretation. The primary meaning is the plain sense of the terms of
the _Upanishad_, and Vyas says it in his aphorisms. You [on the other
hand] let the primary sense go, and give a conjectural secondary sense.
You reject the meanings of words as given in lexicons, and attribute to
them meanings evolved from your imagination. _Shruti_ is the chief of
proofs. The primary meaning as given by _Shruti_ can alone carry
conviction.
"What are conchshells and cowdung but naturally unclean things, _viz._,
the bone and ordure of animals? And yet they are taken as very pure,
because _Shruti_ says so. Of the spiritual truth that is held forth [in
Vedanta] the meaning is plain and self-evident. Fanciful interpretation
only spoils the clear sense. The sense of Vyas's aphorisms is clear like
the sun; you are only enveloping it with the cloud of your conjectural
commentary. The _Vedas_ and the _Purans_ tell us how to discern
Brahma. That Brahma is [only another name for] God in His totality. The
Supreme Being is full of all powers, and yet you describe Him as
formless? The _Shrutis_ that speak of Him as abstract
(_nir-bishesha_), exclude the natural and set up the unnatural.
"From Brahma originates the Universe, it lives in Brahma, and it is
merged again in the same Brahma. The three attributes of God are that He
is the three cases, Ablative, Instrumental and Locative [in relation to
the Universe]. These three qualities particularize God. When He desired
to be many, He looked at [=employed] His natural powers. The physical
mind and eye could not have then existed. Therefore, the Immaterial
Brahma had an eye to see and a mind to will with. The terms Brahma means
the Perfect Supreme Being (_Bhagaban_), and the scriptures affirm that
Krishna is the Supreme Being. The meaning of the Vedas is too deep for
human understanding, the Purans make their senses clear. Witness
Brahma's address to God in the _Bhagabat_, X. xiv. 31:--
_'Blessed, blessed are Nanda the cowherd and other citizens of Mathura,
whose friend is the Beatific Perfect Eternal Brahma'._
"_Shruti_ itself denies to Brahma material hands and feet, and yet it
says that God moves swiftly and receives everything! Therefore,
_Shruti_ asserts Brahma to be particular (_sa-bishesha_). It is only a
fanciful interpretation as opposed to a direct one, that speaks of
Brahma as abstract (_nir-bishesha_). How do you call that God formless
who has the six qualities and is supremely blissful? You conclude Him to
be powerless, who has the three natural powers, as is evident from the
_Vishnu Puran_, VI. vii. 60 and 61, and I. xii. 41.
"God's nature consists of _sat_, _chit_ and _ananda_. The _chit_
power assumes three different forms in three aspects; it becomes
_hladini_ from the _ananda_ aspect; it becomes _sandhini_ in the
_sat_ aspect, and _sambita_ (known as knowledge of Krishna) in the
_chit_ aspect. The _chit_ power is God's very essence [or inner
nature]; the life power (_jiba-shakti_) appertains to Him only
occasionally; _maya_ is entirely outside Him [i.e., affects creation
only]. But all these three offer devotion in the form of love. The
Lord's six powers are only manifestations of the _chit_ power. And yet
you have the presumption to deny such a power? God and creation differ
as the master and the slave of illusion respectively, and yet you affirm
that creation is identical with the Creator! In the _Gita_ creation is
recognized as a force exerted by God, and yet you make such creation one
with God! See the _Gita_, vii. 4, the words of Shri Krishna to Arjun:--
_Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, sense, and self-consciousness
these eight powers (or natures) have emanated from me._
"Again, the next verse in the _Gita_:
_Valiant hero! the eight natures_ (prakriti) _about which I have
already spoken to you, are inferior. Beyond them I have a higher or
living nature which upholds this Universe._
"God's form is composed of _sat_, _chit_ and _ananda_; and yet you
assert that form to be a corruption of the _satwa_ quality! He is a
wretch who denies form to God; touch not, behold not that slave of
Death. The Buddhists are atheists from not respecting the Vedas. Atheism
in a believer of the Vedas is a worse heresy than Buddhism. Vyas
composed his aphorisms for the salvation of men, but the interpretation
of these aphorisms by the 'school of illusion' (_maya-vadi_) is the
cause of perdition.
"Vyas's aphorisms accept the theory of effect (_parinam_). God is an
incomprehensible power, but He is manifested as creation. The
philosopher's stone produces gold without undergoing any change in
itself, similarly God takes the form of creation without suffering any
corruption. Objecting to this aphorism as an error of Vyas, you have set
up the theory of _bivarta_ by a fanciful interpretation [of it]. Error
consists in a creature imagining I am one with the Creator. But creation
is not unreal, it is only perishable. The great word _Pranaba_ is the
image of God; from that _Pranaba_ all the Vedas have sprung in this
world. The words Thou art That (_tat-twam asi_) when applied to
creation are only fractional (_pradeshika_), but you, without minding
the _Pranaba_, call these words the supreme truth."
Thus did the Master find a hundred faults with the fanciful
interpretation [of the Vedantists]. The Bhattacharya supported his own
position, using refutation, feint, pressure, and other logical devices.
But the Master answered them all and established His own view. The Vedas
[he maintained] assert only three things about God, _viz._, our
relation to Him, devotional exercises, and love (our need) as the fruit
of devotion. All the rest [attributed to Him] is mere conjecture. The
words of the Veda are self-evident, and should not be interpreted with
the help of conjecture. But Sarvabhauma was not to blame for it; he was
merely carrying out God's will, in expounding atheistical philosophy
based on fancy. _Vide_ the _Padma Puran_, Part II. canto 62, verse 31.
The Bhattacharya was speechless and motionless with wonder as he heard
these words. The Master addressed him, "Marvel not, O Bhattacharya! The
supreme manhood consists in faith in God. Even those who directly
commune with God (_atmaram_) adore Him, the Supreme Being's attributes
are so incomprehensible! Witness the _Bhagabat_, I. vii. 10, Suta's
words to Saunaka and others:
_'Such are the attributes of Hari that even mystical and passionless
recluses feel for Him unreasoning devotion.'_
The Bhattacharya said, "Sir, I long to hear this verse interpreted." The
Master replied, "Do you first explain it, and then I shall say what I
think of it." The Bhattacharya expounded the verse, like a logician, in
nine different ways in accordance with the scriptures. But the Master
smiled as He said, "I know, Bhattacharya, that you are a veritable
Vrihaspati, and surpass all other men in interpreting the scriptures.
But your interpretation shows mere scholarship. The verse has yet
another sense!" Then at the Bhattacharya's request the Master gave His
own interpretation; passing by the nine interpretations given by the
Bhattacharya, He gave 18 other explanations of His own. First He
determined the meaning of each of the eleven words contained in the
verse, as taken separately; then He gave different explanations in
connection with _atmaram_, laying emphasis on each of the eleven words
in succession. The Lord, His powers, and His attributes, all three are
incomprehensibly, unspeakably great! These three steal the heart of the
devotee, to the neglect of all other forms of devotion. Sanak, Shukadev
and others bear witness to this. His diverse expositions filled the
Bhattacharya with wonder, and the self-abasing belief that the Master
was Krishna indeed. "Alas!" thought he, "He is Krishna incarnate, but I
in my ignorance have grievously sinned by showing pride to Him."
Penitently he sought refuge with the Master, who graciously appeared to
him in His divine form, first as four-armed (Vishnu), then as Krishna
playing on the flute. At this vision Sarvabhauma fell prostrate on the
ground, then rose again and prayed to Him with clasped hands. The
Master's grace made spiritual knowledge illumine his heart, he now knew
the glory of God's name, faith, gift, the esoteric meanings of the
letters of the alphabet, &c. In a moment he composed a hundred verses,
such as even Vrihaspati would have failed to frame. The delighted Master
embraced him, and the Bhattacharya fainted in an ecstasy of joy,
weeping, standing still, tumbling down at the Master's feet.
The sight delighted Gopinath Acharya. The Master's disciples smiled at
the dance of Sarvabhauma. Gopinath spoke to the Master, "You have so
transformed that Bhattacharya!" The Master replied, "You are a devotee,
your society has so wrought on him through the great grace of
Jagannath." Then He composed Bhattacharya, who thereafter praised Him
long, saying, "It was a light work to Thee to save the world, in
comparison with the wonderful power Thou hast manifested in converting
me. Logic had made me hard like an ingot of iron. Thou hast, melted me.
Oh Thy wondrous might!"
The Master returned to His quarters; Sarvabhauma feasted Him by means of
Gopinath Acharya. Next day He went to Jagannath's temple, and beheld the
god rise from his bed. The attending priest presented to the Master the
garland and offered rice of the god. The Master rejoiced at it, tied the
gifts to the hem of his garment, and hastened to Bhattacharya's house.
It was dawn; Bhattacharya awoke just then and cried out "O Krishna! O
Krishna!" to the delight of the Master. Coming out Bhattacharya met the
Master, bowed at His feet in a tumult of reverence, and seated Him. The
Master untied the knot in His skirt and presented the _prasad_ to
Sarvabhaurna, who joyously ate it after reciting the following verse,
though he had not yet bathed, nor said his matin prayer, nor even
cleaned his teeth,--because Chaitanya's grace removed all stupor from
his mind.
From the _Padma Puran_, _Taste the maha-prasad as soon as you get it,
though it may be dry, stale or brought from a distance. Wait not for a
more proper time in this case._
Then, again, Hari has said, '_In tasting the maha-prasad no rule of time
or place should be observed; a good man should eat it as soon as he gets
it.'_
At this the Master was delighted and embraced Sarvabhauma in a
transport. They both danced, Master and pupil, clasping each other,
perspiring, trembling, shedding tears in ecstasy. The Master said,
"To-day have I conquered the three worlds lightly! To-day have I
ascended Baikuntha! To-day all my wishes are realized! Because
Sarvabhauma has shown faith in the _maha-prasad_. To-day you have taken
refuge in Krishna with all your heart. Krishna has taken pity on you
without any reserve. To-day he has removed your bondage to flesh; to-day
you have torn off the meshes of illusion. To-day your heart has been
made worthy to gain Krishna, because you have eaten the _prasad_ in
violation of Vedic ceremonies. As the _Bhagabat_, II. vii. 41, puts it:
_"Those whom the Lord favours and who take refuge at His feet with all
their heart and without reserve, can conquer illusion. Then they no
longer look ubon this fleshly body the food of dogs and jackals as 'I'
or 'mine'."_
So saying the Master returned home. Thenceforth Bhattacharya lost his
pride (of learning). Thenceforth he knew of nothing except Chaitanya's
feet, and expounded no scripture except that of _bhakti_. At his deep
Vaishnavism, Gopinath Acharya danced, clapping his hands and crying
_Hari! Hari!_ Next day Bhattacharya came to visit the Master, without
having first gone to Jagannath. He lay prostrate, and thanked the Master
much, penitently recounting his own former follies. As he wished to hear
of the chief means of cultivating faith, the Master instructed him by
chanting Hari's name.
_"Hari's name, Hari's name, Hari's name alone; in the Kali era there is
no other means of salvation, no other, indeed no other!" [Vrihad Narad
Puran.]_
In full detail did the Master hold forth on the meaning of the above
verse. Bhattacharya was filled with wonder. Gopinath Acharya said,
"Bhattacharya! I told you before that you would come to this!"
Bhattacharya bowed to him thankfully and replied, "The Master has
blessed me by reason of my being related to you. You are a great
devotee, and I a blind logician. For your sake has the Master favoured
me." Pleased with his meekness, Chaitanya embraced him and then said,
"Now go and see the god". Bhattacharya, after visiting Jagannath, came
home with Jagadananda and Damodar [two disciples of Chaitanya], and sent
to Chaitanya many kinds of choice _prasad_ with his own cook in their
company, and also put two verses of his own written on a palm leaf into
the hands of Jagadananda for Chaitanya. When they arrived at the
Master's house, Mukunda Datta took the letter from his hand, and wrote
the two verses on the outer wall. Then Jagadananda took the letter
inside to Chaitanya, who read and tore it up, but the followers learnt
the verses by rote from the wall. The verses are given in
_Chaitanya-chandrodaya_, Act VI. Sc. 32:
_I seek refuge with that unequalled supreme Man, who has become
incarnate as Shri Krishna Chaitanya, in order to teach passionlessness
(_bairagya_) and devotion through faith (_bhakti-yog_). May my mind,
like a bee, settle firmly on the lotus-feet of the Lord Shri Krishna
Chaitanya, who has appeared in order to revive his own bhakti-yog, which
had perished through the wickedness of ages._
Sarvabhauma became a disciple of the Master, attending to nothing but
His service. Ever did he meditate, pray, and recite the name 'Shri
Krishna-Chaitanya, the son of Shachi, the abode of virtues!' One day he
came to the Master, bowed, and recited Brahma's hymn to God from the
_Bhagabat_, changing two letters near its end. The _Bhagabat_, X. xiv.
8:
_'Lord! That man alone enters into the inheritance of Thy salvation like
a true heir, who in eager longing for the day of Thy grace passes his
life worshipping Thee with all his mind body and speech and enjoying the
fruits of his actions without being attached to them.'_
The Master interrupted him saying, "The text has Thy salvation
(_muktipada_). Why do you read it as Thy faith (_bhaktipada_)?"
Bhattacharya answered, "Salvation is not the fruit at which the faithful
fix their gaze; as for those who lack faith in the Lord, salvation
becomes a sort of punishment to them [as they are annihilated in the
Lord without being able to serve and love Him]. He who does not admit
the incarnate Krishna, and he who blames and fights against that
incarnation, both of them are punished by being merged in the Lord
(_Brahma sayujya mukti_). The devotee does not long for emancipation.
There are five kinds of salvation, _viz._, _salokya_ (living in the
same plane with God), _samipya_ (nearness to God), _sarupya_ (assuming
the same form as God), _sarshti_ (equalling the glory of God) and
_sayujya_ (absorption in the Deity). Though the first four afford means
of serving the Lord, yet true devotees seldom elect them, but they dread
and despise the _sayujya_ emancipation, preferring hell to it.
'Absorption in the abstract God (_Brahma_)' and 'Absorption in the God
clad in attributes (_saguna ishwar_)' are two forms of the same thing,
indeed the latter is worse still. _Vide_ the _Bhagabat_ III. xxix. II,
Kapila's speech to Devahuti."
The Master objected, "The term _muktipada_ has other senses too; it
means God Himself, i.e., He whose feet are the means of salvation. It
may also mean The abode of salvation, which is the 9th object [mentioned
in the _Bhagabat_, II. x. 1]. Both etymologies yield the sense of
Krishna. Why need you change the text to _Bhaktipada_?" Bhattacharya
replied, "No, I cannot adopt the reading. Though you interpret the term
_muktipada_ in the same sense of _bhaktipada_, yet the former is
objectionable as ambiguous. Though _mukti_ has five connotations, yet
its principal meaning is absorption in God. So, the word _mukti_ fills
me with fear and contempt, while _bhakti_ kindles delight in the
heart". At this the delighted Master smiled and clasped Bhattacharya
firmly to His bosom. It was a pure act of grace on Chaitanya's part that
Bhattacharya, who had been a student and teacher of the doctrine of
illusion, spoke thus. We recognize the philosopher's stone only when it
touches a piece of iron. So all men knew the Master for the veritable
Darling of Braja (Krishna) when they saw the deep the Vaishnav spirit of
[His disciple] Bhattacharya. Then did Kashi Mishra and others of the
Blue Mountain come and seek asylum at the Master's feet. I shall first
describe how Sarvabhauma served the Master, and how carefully he fed
Him. [Text, canto 6.]