A. The Gosvāmīs
The Gosvāmīs are the gurus of the sect and constitute its principal class. The name, often written Gosāin, is common to all, or nearly all, the Vaishnava sects.
Its original meaning was "master of the cows”, but the term now simply designates a religious preceptor.
The basis of the supremacy and importance of this class is the guru padāśraya doctrine, held in common with many Hindu sects; a doctrine which exalts the Guru into a position almost divine and insures for him veneration abject and unqualified.
The position of Guru among the Chaitanyas is hereditary;
so that a Gosvāmī family becomes a sort of closed corporation, possessing a vested interest which is passed on from generation to generation.
1. Original and Development.
The Gosvāmī families owe their hereditary position to the circumstances of their origin. Most of these families, certainly the most important, are descended from the immediate disciples of Chaitanya.
The traditional source of the apostolic succession was a hierarchy made up of the original
- 6 Gosvāmīs of Vrindāvan,
- 8 Kavi Rājas (bards), and
- 64 Mahantas (heads of monasteries).
As the great majority of these worthies were honoured as celibates, it seems a strange proceeding to ascribe to them the founding of the Gosvāmī lines.
As a matter of fact, the leading Gosvāmī families are descendants of the two leaders of the sect, Chaitanya's right-hand men, Nityānanda and Advaita.
The orthodox test of a Gosvāmī of the sect is that he be descended from a disciple of Chaitanya himself. There are numerous exceptions to this, however, as we shall see.
The descendants of Nityānanda have maintained the primacy in the sect gained by him down to the present day. Three distinct lines claim descent from Nityānanda:
- those living at Khardaha, near Barrackpore, the place where Nityānanda and his famous son resided and built temples;
- those of Goishpur, in the Malda district;
- and those of Lata, in the Burdwan (Bardhaman) district.
Members of this flourishing house are found all over Bengal. All three branches give different genealogies to substantiate their claims.
In Bengal the Khardaha Gosvāmīs are in the ascendant, but at Vrindāvan the Lata line takes precedence. There they are the owners of the Śiṅgaravata maṭha, a Chaitanya shrine, and are known as the Śiṅgaravata Gosvāmīs.
Some cast doubt on all these genealogies, on the ground that Nityānanda’s son, Virabhadra, had no descendants.
But however spurious the lineage may be, the fact remains that the Khardaha Gosvāmīs have the lion's share of the patronage of the sect, and are able to maintain themselves in wealth and ease.
A source of considerable income is revealed by the fact that most of the public women of Calcutta are disciples of these Gosvāmīs.
Often the property of these unfortunates is made over at death to their Gurus, and this, in addition to the generous yearly fees received from them, makes no inconsiderable share of the income that flows into the coffers of these Gosvāmīs.
The Nityānanda and Advaita Gosvāmīs are looked upon with more reverence than is accorded to any other Gosvāmī families. The lesser Gosvāmīs acknowledge members of these two groups as their own gurus.
In this matter the Nityānanda Gosvāmīs hold the pre-eminence, for most of the Gosvāmī families of Bengal owe some allegiance to Nityānanda as the organiser of the sect.
The descendants of Advaita have always been held as next in importance among the gurus of the sect.
There are now many branches of this family:
Śāntipura, in the Nadia district of Bengal, where Advaita lived, is still their centre, and they are known as the Śāntipura Gosvāmīs.
True to the characteristics that distinguished the two leaders, their descendants have continued to exhibit sharp differences:
The Śāntipura Gosvāmīs are more conservative and orthodox from the viewpoint of Hindu society than the Nityānanda Gosvāmīs, and they have refused to minister to, or admit into the sect, the lower castes and immoral elements of the population, who have traditionally found help at the hands of Nityānanda's descendants.
Of late years, indeed, differences have developed among the Nityānanda Gosvāmīs themselves over the admittance of low castes, a minority being opposed to it.
A third line of importance is that of the Bāghnāpāra Gosvāmīs, who trace their descent from Vamśīvādana Chatterji, known as Vaṁśī Dās, one of the few Brahman disciples and followers of Chaitanya.
Readers will remember it was to this disciple's care that Chaitanya committed his mother and wife on his departure from home.
There are only two families in this house, so it is not an extensive body like the two others mentioned. Traditions of scholarship have always been maintained among them, a distinction by no means true of all Gosvāmīs.
The late head of this house in Calcutta, Bepin Behari Gosvāmī, one of the last of the old order of Vaishnava pandits, died in 1919 at the ripe age of 71. His son, Bhāgavata Kumāra Gosvāmī Śāstrī, Ph.D., Professor in Hugli College, is now head of the family.
There are many other Gosvāmī families in Bengal and Orissa, and also at Vrindāvan, who derive their spiritual eminence from the possession of an ancestor either associated with Chaitanya or held in great esteem in the earlier days of the sect.
One of the most numerous of these is the Gadādhar group, round about Vikrampur in the Dhaka district of Bengal.
Gadādhar was one of the best known of Chaitanya's disciples. I am told that there are as many as 40 live families of this house now, representing 27 different branches. Of these branches, however, only 6 are considered of importance
The influential Gosvāmīs of Navadvīpa, the sacred ground of the sect, are descendants of Sanātana Miśra, father of Viṣṇupriyā, the second wife of Chaitanya.
Curiously enough, they were not Vaishnavas at all, but Śaktas, and continued so until brought into the Vaishnava fold by the lucrative circumstances in which they found themselves, as possessors of sacred spots and shrines connected with the new cult.
The Śrīkaṇḍa Gosvāmīs are descendants of Narahari Sarkār, a noted singer and close friend of Chaitanya. They are Vaidyas by caste, but have always had a considerable following of Brahman disciples.
The Gosvāmīs of Kheturi and Chakhuṇḍi, in Bengal, are descendants of Narottama and Śrīnivāsa, two of the famous trio of the 17th century revival.
In Orissa the leading Gosvāmīs derive from Rasika Murāri, the young raja whose name is associated with that of Śyāmānanda in the winning of that area.
In Vrindāvan the Chaitanya Gosvāmīs trace their lineage almost wholly to the descendants of relatives of the original six Gosvāmīs.
There is a line of Bengali Gosvāmīs also in Jaipur, where the Rājā of Jaipur is a Vaishnava. These Gosvāmīs are disciples of the Bāghnāpāra Gosvāmīs of Calcutta.
At first, as we have indicated, the only Gosvāmīs recognised as gurus of the sect were those descended from the actual companions and followers of Chaitanya, who were active in the propagation of the faith. This was the orthodox test.
Exceptions were made in favour of the revered leaders of a later generation; for the honour paid to them was sufficient to raise their descendants to Guruship.
In later times, many more families laid claims to Gosvāmī honours and privileges, basing their claims on descent from relatives or no more than disciples of original Gosvāmīs.
This process has gone on, until today there are any number of Gosvāmīs in Bengal; and the process of setting up new and spurious lines is going on all the while; for there is no central authority in the sect and no means of safeguarding the doctrine of succession.
The Gosvāmī order has come to represent successful exploitation as much as anything else.
In Sylhet, a strongly Vaishnava district, formerly in northern Bengal but now included in Assam, the two Gosvāmī families that have most disciples in the district are descended from two famous worthies, named Thakurabāni and Vaishnava Roy, who were hardly more than local celebrities, although they claimed discipleship to Nityānanda and Advaita.
It is a strange fact that those who can trace descent from Chaitanya's own family - his uncle's descendants are living in Sylhet today - do not rank as Gosvāmīs of importance.
2. Functions and Relations.
The chief functions of the Gosvāmī are those involved in the discharge of his duties as a Guru:
He presides over the initiation of the young and the introduction of new members into discipleship. The discharge of these duties calls for the regular visitation of disciples, usually once each year.
Each Gosvāmī has a certain number of disciples resident over a varying extent of country.
These disciples represent the inheritance received from his predecessor, usually a father, and may be added to according to the energy and ambition of the Gosvāmī.
The annual visitation of disciples is something of an event, especially if the Gosvāmī is a man of position and his disciples are well-to-do:
He travels in state, with Brahman cook and. vairāgī servants and attendants. At the home of a disciple he is received with every mark of honour.
The inmates bow at his feet, taking the dust therefrom and placing it on their heads in the traditional mode of veneration.
He is waited upon with great deference and his feet are washed, the water being drunk by members of the family, unless their devotion has been infected somewhat by modern ideas.
Feasting occupies no inconsiderable place in the programme of the visit:
The disciple provides articles of food in quality according to his means; and the guru's cook prepares the meals.
The food is first offered to Krishna and the remains left from the Gosvāmī’s meal are distributed through the family as prasāda, after the fashion of food received in a temple from before the image.
If youths of the household are ready for initiation, the Gosvāmī performs the ceremony and gives the mantra. This is given in secret, never to be revealed on pain of disaster.
It is usually only a phrase embodying the name of Krishna, although it is supposed to express some formula of the sect. This is really the only thing that constitutes discipleship to a guru, the receipt of the mantra on initiation.
His functions as a religious teacher are usually fulfilled by the relation of stories from the Bhāgavata Purāṇa or the Caritamṛta, to which the whole household listens, the younger female members catching what they can from behind screens if allowed out of their secluded apartments.
Seldom is the guru sufficiently versed in the scriptures to talk with educated men, and, as for systematic teaching or instruction of disciples, there is little or nothing of the kind given.
The visit may last for several days or may be quite brief, depending very largely, one gathers, upon the opulence of the home.
Upon departure the Gosvāmī receives gifts according to the financial standing of the disciple, a money payment accompanied by ornaments and choice articles of clothing, such as dhotis and chādars. This annual gift of the disciple is called the bārṣi.
In addition to this yearly visit, the Gosvāmī usually appears at weddings, and on other special occasions, in the homes of his disciples.
On the occasion of a wedding, it is the rule that the father should present the Gosvāmī with cloth and money and beg his permission to give son or daughter, as it may be, in marriage.
In the absence of the Gosvāmī, this seeking of permission is made in advance and the gift sent, or it is collected by the Gosvāmī’s representative or by himself at the annual visit.
Similarly, on the occasion of special events in his own family he becomes the recipient of gifts from his disciples.
Most of the temples of the sect are owned by Gosvāmīs, and in connection with such establishments ākhrās, for the housing of the ascetic members of the sect, are often found.
In a general way this provision for the worship -and care of the sect may be set down as a function of the Gosvāmīs.
In some cases they assume a judicial function over their disciples, much in the nature of a village pañcāyat. In case of trouble, acting either independently or on complaint being lodged, the Gosvāmī warns offenders and, if necessary, orders fines of 1-5 rupees, according to the nature of the offence. The money thus secured is publicly spent.
Some organisation is required for the administration of a Gosvāmī’s affairs, especially if the list of his disciples is a long one. In some parts of Bengal it appears that Gosvāmīs divide their territory, and have agents to care for their interests:
A district is divided into sections, called bhabuk mahal, and to each mahal are assigned 2 representatives, whose business it is to collect fees from disciples and to propagate the faith.
These men are known as Faujdārs and Chhaṛidārs. Of all fees collected they receive a fixed percentage.
For initiation, marriage and death ceremonies the usual fee due to the Gosvāmī is Re.1-6. Of this amount the faujdār receives 4 Annas and the Chhaṛidār 2 Annas.
From the above it will be gathered that the chief relation of the Gosvāmī to his disciples is a monetary one. They constitute his chief wealth. This is evident from the way in which a Gosvāmī’s disciples are divided by his sons, in case trouble arises among them at his death.
The rich and the poor among the disciples are carefully apportioned among the sons, and they may then set up separate establishments.
The son of a Gosvāmī does not become the guru of his father's disciples, but the children of his father's disciples become his own; hence the care with which families are divided.
The disciple has little to say to this shuffling, for he is enjoined by his religion to render absolute veneration to each generation of his guru's family.
Many Gosvāmīs live entirely on the income derived from the gifts and fees paid by their disciples. In some cases, as with the Khardaha Gosvāmīs, that means a position of affluence.
The result is a largely parasitic class, making little return in the way of moral and spiritual leadership to justify their existence.
A good many of the class own temples and property connected therewith, and are not entirely dependent on the gifts of disciples. Some Gosvāmīs enjoy landed property conferred upon their forefathers by rajas or Zamindars.
Instances have not been unknown where a disreputable Gosvāmī has been ejected from such property and from his village by the zamindar.
3. Character and Standing.
It must be kept clearly in mind that, while in theory the Gosvāmīs of the sect may be Brahmachārīs (celibates), actually they are almost entirely Gṛihasthas (householders), and not ascetics. Therefore, we find them living their lives very much in accordance with the observances of Hindu society.
We shall be greatly mistaken if we expect to find exemplified among them any of the socially unorthodox practices which marked the beginnings of the movement.
As a considerable majority of the Gosvāmīs of the sect are Brahmans, it is not surprising to find that caste rules are strictly adhered to. They marry only among themselves, and according to strict Hindu usage.
Thus the members of the two leading Gosvāmī families, the Nityānanda and the Advaita lines, do not intermarry although both are Brahman, because Nityānanda was a Rārhi and Advaita a Bārendra Brahman - a geographical barrier that has become as fixed as the law of the Medes and Persians to the Brahmans of Bengal:
The two pure kulin Brahman families, those of the Bāghnāpāra and Chaṇḍanagore Gosvāmīs, pride themselves on their superior social standing, a relic of social exclusiveness dating back to the early days of Bengal.
Another group, the Jirāt Gosvāmīs are also kulins, but they are tainted socially, because of decent from Nityānanda through a daughter.
Hindu society could never excuse the gross breach of its order in the marriage of Nityānanda after having been an avadhūta ascetic, i.e. one who has cut off absolutely every tie with the world.
In spite of his great name and fame, and his place of honour in the sect, the social taint inhering in his descendants in the eyes of Hindu society has continued to this day, and has not failed to have its influence.
As a whole, the Gosvāmīs of the sect are usually in good standing in the Hindu community.
At the same time, it should be said that there has always been somewhat of a tendency to look askance at them as a class, because of the character of the lower Vaishnava adherents, and because some of them are gurus of low caste people.
Their desire to be considered orthodox is further evidenced by the fact that they all claim to be Smārta, i.e. their religions practice based on smriti (i.e. on the Śrauta and Grihya Sutras); involving usually a Śaṅkarite point of view hardly in keeping with Chaitanya' s bhakti teaching.
Brahman Gosvāmīs do not dine with non-Brahmans of this order, nor eat food cooked by non-Brahmans, even at the Mahotsava, the great feast of the sect, at which all caste differences are supposedly forgotten.
We have seen how, in certain outstanding instances in the history of the sect, saintly men of lower caste have been honoured as gurus by Brahman disciples.
But today there are not many instances of non-Brahman Gosvāmīs with Brahman disciples, only a few of the Vaidya caste retaining such disciples.
During the past dozen years there seems to have been a strong revival of Brāhmanic feeling; and therefore Brahman disciples of non-Brahman Gosvāmīs naturally find themselves in an awkward and difficult position.
Most of the non-Brahman Gosvāmīs have their disciples from among their corresponding castes. Any move towards caste, relaxation is met with determined hostility on the part of the Brahman Gosvāmīs.
We are forced to conclude that the spirit of the origin of the Chaitanya movement has little influence over the great body of the spiritual preceptors of the sect today.
In point of scholarship, the Gosvāmīs as a whole are uneducated men:
In former times there was more incentive to scholarship, and the greatest honour was reserved for those who approximated to the great ideal set up by the original scholar-saints of the sect.
But such conditions no longer obtain. Everything is against such scholarly lives.
Of the most influential body the Nityānanda Gosvāmīs of Khardaha - very few are educated even in Sanskrit, and fewer still have received a Western education.
Some members of Gosvāmī families go in for modern education, but such men seldom continue to live as gurus thereafter.
Some Gosvāmīs combine business with their Guruship. Even though engaged in shop-keeping or what not, they continue their relation to disciples.
For spiritual guidance and any real moral and social leadership in all that makes for the progress and wellbeing of society, the Gosvāmīs as a whole are not qualified.
The principle by which they function in Vaishnava society is thoroughly vicious, the basis of their Guruship being inheritance rather than qualifications for leadership.
No matter how worthless, ignorant and good-for-nothing a Gosvāmī's son may be, he becomes the object of the same reverence which his father received.
This veneration rests upon universally accepted teaching, which makes the guru the direct representative of Krishna. His wrath is more potent for evil than the displeasure of Hari himself.
Definite and explicit worship of the guru is inculcated in the ritual works which guide the daily practice of the disciple. For the devout disciple he is the vehicle of deity.
Thus securely ensconced in the superstitious awe of the laity, the Gosvāmī is not greatly concerned with fitness for leadership:
His main interest is in the preservation of his vested interests - the disciples bequeathed to him - and in the realisation of the financial assets represented by them.
Questions of moral and social import, the welfare of society, do not impinge upon the consciousness or the average Gosvāmī.
Untouched by modern education themselves, they look with disfavour on its spread among their disciples. Their interests are involved in the old order, in the continuance of an unenlightened, custom-bound community.
The degradation of much of their sect’s life, the pathetic ignorance and blind groping after religious satisfaction of their simple village folk, the evil repute of the celibate order and the lower ranks of Vaishnavism, have elicited no concerted efforts for reform from these so-called spiritual leaders.
They do not care; they have no vision of what should be. Therefore they do not and cannot lead in any real sense.
They constitute a parasitic growth that exists to feed upon the movement, of which, by reason of the vitiating doctrine common to so much of popular Hinduism, they happen to be the spiritual potentates.
Even were there enlightened vision and moral energy, there exists no means by which progressive action could be taken by the Gosvāmīs:
There is no organisation among them, no sense of coherence, no community of action.
Beyond the rather vague allegiance of most of them to the Nityānanda house, which involves no co-ordination whatever, there is no tie binding them together.
Even among the branches of the same house, there is no cohesion. Each family line goes its own way. Association for common ends, mutual interests and united action, is an idea that has never disturbed the even tenor of their ways.