Sarvabhauma’s Salvation

[Madhya 6]

[6.1-6.47]

Displeased by Nityananda’s antics, Sri Caitanya decided to proceed to Jagannatha Puri alone. Upon entering the Jagannatha Temple, Sri Caitanya became overwhelmed with loving emotion and spontaneously ran to embrace the deity, but fainted in the process. Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya, who witnessed the entire incident, sensed that there was something extra special about the sannyasi, and decided to take Him home. After frantically searching for their Lord, the other devotees arrived at Sarvabhauma’s house, where they saw Sri Caitanya lying unconscious. They loudly chanted the holy name, at which point Sri Caitanya regained His sense of awareness.

The aged Sarvabhauma was a well-respected scholar of impersonal philosophy who had relocated to Jagannatha Puri. Concerned about Sri Caitanya’s spiritual welfare, Sarvabhauma insisted on philosophically educating the young renunciant in the teachings of Vedanta. Gopinath Acarya tried to impress upon Sarvabhauma that Sri Caitanya was Krishna Himself, but the impersonal teacher remained unconvinced. Gopinath explained that realisation of God required more than philosophical astuteness – devotion and mercy were key factors in the equation, and since Sarvabhauma lacked these vital elements, he could not detect the divine identity of Sri Caitanya. Gopinath then cited numerous scriptural quotations to support his claims.

Undeterred, Sarvabhauma invited Sri Caitanya to his home and began a complex philosophical discourse on Vedanta philosophy. After speaking for seven days without interruption, Sarvabhauma was perplexed by Sri Caitanya’s stone silence and questioned whether He had understood the teachings. Sri Caitanya told him that the authentic explanations were simple and clear, but that Sarvabhauma had skewed the real meaning with his fallacious interpretations. Sri Caitanya then unequivocally established the essence of Vedanta: a loving relationship with the Personality of Godhead. Citing the famous atmarama verse from the Srimad-Bhagavatam, He explained that even self-realised devotees take pleasure in varieties of devotional service to Krishna. Hearing these words, Sarvabhauma began to appreciate the extraordinary character of Sri Caitanya, and thus surrendered himself, begging forgiveness for his previous impudence. Sri Caitanya accepted the scholarly teacher’s humble sentiments and rewarded him with a divine vision of His transcendental form.

Sarvabhauma’s transformation was remarkable. He spontaneously composed one hundred verses in glorification of Sri Caitanya, began to exhibit symptoms of divine love, and grew more and more averse to anything which had even a hint of impersonal philosophy. He developed full faith in bhakti-yoga and composed two exquisite verses which encapsulated the identity and mission of Sri Caitanya. Sarvabhauma began to explain all scriptures from the devotional perspective, and upon rising every day he would immediately chant “Krishna Krishna!”

Here we find yet another discussion on impersonalism. It’s clearly a recurring theme in the text, and one may question why. Sri Caitanya explains that a personal approach to God through bhakti-yoga is not only more tangible and practical, but also more fulfilling and satisfying.

The very essence of our being is to be happy (anandamaya bhyasat) and the source of such happiness lies in relationships. For a relationship to exist there must be a subject, object and reciprocity, but impersonal notions of ‘oneness’ kill all three and therefore cheat the individual of this sublime experience. While those who tread the impersonal path of spirituality undoubtedly receive some spiritual merit, their progress is extremely slow and a great deal more troublesome. Even advanced impersonalists eventually encounter a vacuum within their heart due to the lack of transcendental reciprocation and happiness that is the yearning of every spirit soul.

After listening to Sarvabhauma for seven days without interruption, Sri Caitanya told him that the original explanations were simple and clear, but that impersonal teachers had skewed the real meaning with indirect interpretations.

Last updated