Despite all the present evidence, someone may persist in their objection, saying again (since there is really no other possible argument to this topic) that if Mahāprabhu wanted an aprakaṭa nitya Navadvīpa to be preached about and embraced, he would have taught Rūpa and Sanātana about it. But since his śikṣā to them is set in stone in Caitanya-caritāmṛta,[1] wherein nothing is said about this goal, it does not matter if some other ācāryas spoke about it in full detail, because there should be a theological hierarchy. Therefore, if the Goswāmīs did not speak about this possibility, then it cannot be plausible.
Although we have already answered this objection from many angles, we may add that a separate sādhana for an aprakaṭa Gaura līlā is not something that Mahāprabhu (nor the Goswāmīs) had to outline separately, as this was not considered necessary. The experience of it will be a natural byproduct of embracing the very same sādhana that was indeed outlined by both Gaura and the Goswāmīs, which in turn corresponds with a particular destiny in transcendence, both in Vraja and in Navadvīpa. This becomes apparent in the well-known Gaura gāyatrī, which, as with any gāyatrī-mantra, includes a classical triple segmentation corresponding to sambandha (theory), abhidheya (practice), and prayojana (ultimate goal). Its last section invites its chanter to “be inspired by Gaura to perpetually worship him”—tan no gauraḥ pracodayāt.[2] Because Gaura līlā is quite esoteric and confidential, it is no wonder that some of its intricate points were not overtly stated at the very beginning of the Gauḍīya sampradāya.[3] But they are still considerably evident if one has received the eyes to see them.
While a strong emphasis on the Goswāmīs’ books and position as śāstric authorities is totally understandable (and necessary) for any Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava, we should be careful not to, in the name of fidelity to them, easily dismiss universally accepted personalities, such as Gopāla-guru Goswāmī, Dhyānacandra Goswāmī, and Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, or their writings, wherein they clearly speak about an aprakaṭa Gaura līlā. And even if the Goswāmīs do not overtly say that there is an ongoing Gaura līlā in the spiritual domain,[4] they do not overtly say that there is not such a līlā either. In their unique writings, we find a unique sādhana that, when properly applied, will give us insights into the possibility of an aprakaṭa Gaura līlā, insights that many mahājanas have unanimously had and that do not go against the Goswāmīs’ teachings. We are not proposing ideas that contradict the Goswāmīs’ conclusions (such as the gaura-nāgara-bhāva doctrine). Rather, we are presenting a natural development of revelation coming from the application of truths that the Goswāmīs stated cryptically. An example of this is Caitanya-caritāmṛta, in which its author speaks in full detail about a whole galaxy of theological and ontological points regarding Gaura and his līlā that were not unpacked in such a way by the Goswāmīs.[5]
The Goswāmīs spoke primarily about Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, but they did so in such a way that the reader would look for a Gaura līlā to make up for the “failure” of Kṛṣṇa līlā. Someone following in the footsteps of the Goswāmīs will eventually realize the necessity of an aprakaṭa Gaura līlā, as we have explained.[6] If some Vaiṣṇavas do not personally relate to this theological necessity, that does not speak of a lack of insight in bhajana on their part. Rather, it indicates particular bhakti-saṁskāras received in specific association, which will naturally emphasize certain aspects of the līlā. From these bhakti-saṁskāras, unique realizations will come in a very specific way that they will naturally perceive as true, favorable, and ideal.[7] Gauḍīya Vedānta constitutes a spacious house in which the whole Vaiṣṇava world can live, with rooms available for every nuance and difference that we can possibly think of in terms of bhāva, as long as that bhāva is expressed in the context of proper siddhānta.[8] And if it is, this is to be celebrated by all, as these instances are a rare but valuable ornament in our worldwide devotional community.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that ācāryas such as Jīva, Rūpa, and Sanātana Goswāmīs are the final (and original) authorities to settle differing opinions in our Gauḍīya sampradāya. What they have said is our ultimate siddhānta because they were directly linked with Śrīmān Mahāprabhu, the founder of our particular lineage. If we accept that Śrī Caitanyadeva is the founder of our sampradāya, then we have to take the Goswāmīs’ opinion as paramount since they were personally trained by Mahāprabhu, who sent them to Vraja and specifically tasked them with writing the foundational books of our devotional school. The Goswāmīs are our supreme scriptural authority, and we should know how to deal with all of the possible implications of what they have said.
In this regard, we can give the example of the Vedas, which in their own way are also our supreme scriptural authority. In their abundant pages, we will find many truths that are not clearly explained but that are properly understood from the Purāṇas and Itihāsas.[9] Similarly, those truths that have not been clearly explained by the Goswāmīs (such as that of an aprakaṭa Gaura līlā)[10] are to be understood from the writings of contemporary ācāryas, such as Gopāla-guru Goswāmī and Kavi-karṇapūra, or through later ācāryas, such as Dhyānacandra Goswāmī, Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda, and others. Thus, when we say that Rūpa, Sanātana, and Jīva constitute our topmost pramāṇa as Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, the idea is that anything that they say or that matches with what they say is totally acceptable, and anything that contradicts them is unacceptable. Following this line of thought, if previous ācāryas have said that Gaura has an aprakaṭa-līlā, this should be accepted since it does not contradict the Goswāmīs’ conclusions. Furthermore, this concept is completely in line with the Goswāmīs’ writings in relation to other avatāras and other topics mentioned in this series of articles.
Overall, the main objection to an aprakaṭa Gaura līlā is the idea of abhāva-pramāṇa, or the evidence that arises out of certain statements not being made by our original śāstra-gurus. But as we have shown, by following this logic, we are then forced to reject all of Mahāprabhu’s prakaṭa-līlā as well (since the Goswāmīs hardly wrote about it). By doing so, we would actually be incurring the fault known as avyāpti-doṣa, or the underextension of a given definition whereby plausible possibilities that should be allowed are thoroughly excluded.[11] Instead of taking this risky stance regarding the Infinite, we are advised to align ourselves with what we may call aviruddha-pramāṇa, or evidence that may not have been directly presented by the Goswāmīs but that nonetheless is “not incompatible” (aviruddha), or actually “consistent with,” their teachings.
But even beyond logical inference and śāstric interpretation, the strongest argument for a nitya Navadvīpa in eternity lies deep within the psychic domain of Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself and the main inner experience he realizes in his eternal form of Śrī Gaurāṅga—Rādhā bhāva. Although we find unlimited devotees in Vraja possessed of the topmost affection, Śrī Kṛṣṇa became exclusively obsessed with fathoming the greatness of the foremost of them, Śrī Rādhā. But since the glories and reach of her prema are unending and always expanding, it cannot be said that Kṛṣṇa was fully capable of fathoming it, even after becoming Gaura.[12] So in this particular descent as Śrīmān Mahāprabhu (who, although more successful than Kṛṣṇa in grasping Rādhā’s glories, still could not trace the ultimate limits to Śrīmati Rādhārāṇī’s ever-increasing love), Bhagavān himself gauges and relishes it forever in eternity, in a corresponding abode that allows for such an apotheosis—nitya Navadvīpa.
Thus according to the presented evidence, we must positively conclude about the eternality of Gaura līlā in the spiritual realm, a unique attainment that will duly manifest in the hearts of those practitioners who engage in sādhana here with a view to serve Śrīmān Mahāprabhu there in an aprakaṭa nitya Navadvīpa,[13] the lotus inside the lotus of Śrī Goloka Dhāma.
[1] Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.19–25.
[2] For further elaboration on this topic, see Swami B. G. Narasingha, “Śrī Gaura Gāyatrī Vijaya: Establishing the Eternality of Śrī Gaura Gāyatrī,” in Śrī Gāyatrī Mantrārtha Dīpikā (Gosai Publishers, 1999).
[3] Another well-known example of the Goswāmīs’ “not saying it all from the very beginning” is Jīva Goswāmī’s famous last words in his commentary to Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi 1.21 (wherein he mainly stresses Kṛṣṇa’s relationship of svakīyā with the gopīs instead of the classical parakīyā doctrine): “Some things I have written of my own volition, some at the behest of others. That which is consistent throughout is the former. That which is not, the latter.” In this way, we can find several instances in the scripture of loka-vicāra (public consideration/preaching strategy), based on which our ācāryas adjust certain aspects of their doctrine according to time, place, and circumstance, mostly because of their audiences’ level of qualification.
[4] There is a composition called Śrī Navadvīpāṣṭakam ascribed to Rūpa Goswāmī that overtly speaks about a nitya Navadvīpa, especially in its first two verses. Verse 1 refers to Navadvīpa as nitya, or eternal. Verse 2 says, “Some consider it [Navadvīpa] to be Vaikuṇṭha, while others describe it as the transcendental Goloka; but those who have realized the truth know it as Śrī Vṛndāvana Dhāma.” But since the Gauḍīyā community has not reached a universal consensus on this aṣṭakam’s authorship, I am not using it here as a main pramāṇa, or evidence.
[5] An interesting section in this regard would be the very beginning of Caitanya-caritāmṛta (its maṅgalācaraṇa, or auspicious invocation), wherein its author elaborates in detail about the ontology of each member of the Pañca-tattva.
[6] An example of this is Vṛndāvana dāsa Ṭhākura’s own statements about the eternal nature of Gaura līlā: “Although the Vedas describe the Lord’s ‘appearance’ and ‘disappearance,’ there is actually no end to his pastimes. Whenever a devotee meditates on a particular form of the Lord, the Lord appears in that form before the devotee. Thus Lord Caitanya performs these pastimes even today, and one who is fortunate can constantly see them” (Caitanya-bhāgavata, 2.23.510–511, 513).
[7] Although one may objectively speak about a hierarchy in connection to the sweetness of the experience in rasa, Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.4.43–44 establishes that, subjectively speaking, every devotee will feel that his or her own sthāyi-bhāva is the best.
[8] A good example of how real bhāva expresses itself out of the foundation of tattva/siddhānta is found in Bhagavad-gītā 10.8. In the first two lines of this verse, Kṛṣṇa speaks about knowing him as the source of everything, while in the last two lines he describes the inevitable outcome of this conclusive knowledge: such a wise person will worship him “with all his or her heart” (bhāva-samanvitaḥ).
[9] Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.1.2 says, itihāsa purāṇaṁ pañcānāṁ vedānāṁ: “The Itihāsas and Purāṇas are considered to be the fifth Veda.”
[10] Those who deny the existence of a nitya Navadvīpa in the spiritual domain support their claim on the basis that the Goswāmīs never spoke about it, and they say that all evidence supporting Navadvīpa’s eternality refers only to its being manifested perpetually on Earth. But as the Goswāmīs apparently never explicitly spoke about a nitya Navadvīpa in Vaikuṇṭha, they also never mentioned that Navadvīpa’s ascribed eternality is limited to the bhauma-līlā, which is a much more forced idea than the natural conclusion coming from hearing about Navadvīpa’s being nitya: that this abode has a permanent place in transcendence.
[11] The classical definition of avyāpti-doṣa is found in the Nyāya-Bodhinī on Tarka-saṅgraha 1, its implication referring to when a definition applies to only a part of the object being defined. A classical example to illustrate this point (also given in Nyāya-Bodhinī on Tarka-saṅgraha 1) is “to define a cow as having black color.”
[12] The uniqueness of prema’s divine dissatisfaction is beautifully depicted in Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta 1.7.135–139. There, Nārada asks Kṛṣṇa for a unique boon: “May no one ever feel he or she has enough of your mercy, your bhakti, or prema for you.” In reply to this, Kṛṣṇa says something even more astonishing: “The benediction you ask is meaningless, since the very nature of these items is dissatisfaction. That should be simply obvious.” If this criterion applies to “ordinary” prema in connection to “ordinary” devotees, what to speak of Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself as Gaura, trying to immerse himself in the depths of Rādhā’s ocean of prema! “So although my pure devotees have fully received my mercy and can deliver the whole world,” Kṛṣṇa continues, “none of them is ever satisfied. So therefore, please ask from me some other, more satisfying benediction.”
[13] In his Prema-bhakti-candrikā (verses 54–55), Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura sings thus: “That which you meditate on during your sādhana is what you will obtain in your spiritual body, for this is the method on the rāga-mārga. The goal we hanker for during sādhana will be attained with the suitable siddha-deha; the only difference is in the degree of ripeness. When one’s sādhana matures, prema will bring one to the supreme destination. This is the essence of all bhakti-tattva.”
