An understanding of the epistemic hierarchy that the sampradāya’s founding ācāryas have established and how it applies to the international community today is essential to any discussion concerning the siddhānta of Gauḍīya Vedānta. In other words, discussion of Gauḍīya Vedānta is most productive when it is not merely a whimsical exercise of releasing whatever śāstric quotation one deems most convenient for one’s personal purposes. It is a sacred exercise that invokes conclusive truths by employing śāstra-yukti, or logic that is supported by scriptural revelation. That said, revelation itself is a thorny arena that requires an understanding of its structure and gradations. And while Gauḍīya Vedānta is one of many Vedāntic schools with its own epistemic hierarchy, I will first briefly describe the main method through which most Vedāntins arrive at their particular conclusions, and then I will establish why and how Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas embrace a slightly different but no less remarkable system.

Humans are inherently inquisitive, their inquiries extending beyond those of the animal kingdom to include exploration into the nature of their origin. Among those who ardently pursue this question some become transcendentalists, and among them some pursue bhakti. But what is the very genesis of bhakti? Where does it come from? For the inquisitive devotee, this important etiological question naturally arises.

In chapter 2, we learned that bhakti begets bhakti and thus bhakti serves as both the way and the goal, a dynamic goal that is ever-increasing. Furthermore, the bearers of bhakti are the sādhus, in whose saṅga bhakti flows unimpeded from their hearts into the hearts of others. However, in a famous śloka from the Bṛhad-nāradīya Purāṇa (4.33) it appears that the association of sadhus itself is a result of sukṛti:

bhaktis tu bhagavad-bhakta-saṅgena parijāyate sat-saṅgaḥ prāpyate puṁbhiḥ sukṛtaiḥ pūrva-sañcitaiḥ

Bhakti manifests by way of association with bhaktas of Bhagavān. [Such] sat-saṅga is attained by living beings’ previously accumulated sukṛtis.

Among a few other ancient Vedic records, it is here that the term sukṛti appears in relation to how bhakti reaches the jīvātmā, apparently contradicting my original postulate by positing that a jīva obtains sādhu-saṅga/bhakti “through the accumulated effect of its sukṛti.” Thus it seems there is some further cause for bhakti other than bhakti itself. In order to solve this conundrum, the meaning of sukṛti needs to be explained.

Although the three previous chapters make it clear that bhakti is not inherent in the jīva and that bhakti-tattva and jīva-tattva belong to two distinct categories of śakti-tattva, given that this topic is often misunderstood, it is important to examine the topic not only head on but also from different angles. Thus, in this and the following chapters I will proceed to consider the subject in light of other related topics in an effort to shed further light on the inherited nature of bhakti. In this chapter we will discuss bhakti in terms of it being the essence of Kṛṣṇa’s svarūpa-śakti.

As I have shown in the first four chapters of this book, there is considerable scriptural reasoning supporting the idea that bhakti is not inherent in the jīva. Although I will continue plumbing the depths of this rich topic, let us for a minute focus this discussion in a slightly different direction that is nonetheless connected to our main subject: If bhakti is not inherent but actually inherited, is that the case also with prema, rasa, and our siddha-svarūpa?

In the previous chapters, I have tried to establish how, according to Gauḍīya revelation, bhakti is not inherent in the jīva. Bhakti, the essence of the svarūpa-śakti, comes to us from bhakti itself. Also, I have shown that if bhakti is not intrinsic to the constitution of the jīva-śakti, the same holds true for prema and rasa, the soul’s ultimate experience in relation to Bhagavān in transcendence. Although one naturally implies the other—thus the non-inherence of bhakti should thereby naturally prove the non-inherence of rasa and prema as well—in this chapter I will continue to elaborate on this idea from a further soteriological perspective, analyzing the original source of our siddha-deha, or perfected spiritual body.

First of all, I will discuss a well-known verse from Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, a paramount presentation that typifies the distilled essence of the Bhāgavata, which is the theological sequel to the Bhagavad-gītā. Caitanya-caritāmṛta is also the most authoritative hagiography on the life and precepts of Śrī Caitanya and arguably the major work that establishes what Gauḍīya orthodoxy is among the members of Mahāprabhu’s sampradāya. And it is here that we find what is probably the most cited scriptural evidence when trying to support the idea that both bhakti and prema are intrinsic in every being:

nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema ‘sādhya’ kabhu naya
śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya

Pure love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally established in the hearts of the living entities. It is not something to be gained from another source. When the heart is purified by hearing and chanting, this love naturally awakens. (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.22.107)

Although this translation seems to leave no room for any doubt, it is important to consider some key details. First, as we will see, this verse speaks to us about what sādhana-bhakti is, as well as the eternal nature of prema-bhakti. And while here it is established that divine love as a phenomenon is “eternally perfect” or “eternally established” (nitya-siddha), nowhere does the Bengali actually mention the phrase “in the hearts of the living entities.” If we would nonetheless like to consider this interpretation, we would have to conclude that the living entities referred to in this verse are not baddha-jīvas but the eternal associates of Śrī Kṛṣṇa in Vraja, the very embodiment of the highest form of divine love—nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema. Their very being (ātmā) is composed of love (rāga) for Śrī Kṛṣṇa (they are thus known as rāgātmikās), and their hearts are the perpetual reservoir of such emotions, since prema is not something that “is produced” at some point in time.

Truth be told, fully unpacking the Brahma-sūtra’s dense and concentrated message would require a whole separate work (and that is the Bhāgavata itself!), so I will present the main points of contention that are generally invoked when trying to establish bhakti as a predetermined, innate condition in the ātmā. In order to do so, I will embrace the classical method of analyzing the Sūtras’ meaning in the light of its main commentators, in this case following the lead of the Vedānta ācārya of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavaism—Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. Śrīpāda Vidyābhūṣaṇa is well-known in the constellation of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas for having continued with the legacy set by Śrīla Jīva Goswāmī in terms of both theology and comparative philosophy. While the great Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura was one of the most prolific authors succeeding the Goswāmīs in the seventeenth century, his literary contribution was very much like that of Śrī Rūpa in terms of presenting the subtleties of bhakti-rasa and abhidheya-tattva. Then came Śrī Baladeva, who complemented Cakravartīpāda’s task in a most formidable way. And it was through his works, and most especially through his Govinda-bhāṣya commentary on the Brahma-sūtra, that the Gauḍīya sampradāya came to be broadly recognized as a genuine Vedāntic school—Gauḍīya Vedānta. Since every Gauḍīya practitioner will acknowledge Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s unequaled standing as the Vedānta ācārya of their sampradāya, his Govinda-bhāṣya (as well as other works of his that I will quote later in this chapter) will serve as the main reference point in our discussion when trying to grasp the obscure and sometimes puzzling meaning of Vyāsa’s Sūtras.

Thus far, I have tried to explain the siddhānta of bhakti by way of describing the independent nature of devotion and how it chooses to come through the agency of the sādhu. Also, I have quoted pertinent and compelling sections from our founding ācāryas and their scriptures concerning śakti-tattva and the position of the taṭastha-jīva in relation to the svarūpa-śakti/bhakti-śakti. I have also tried to prove that just as bhakti is a reality that is not inherent for the taṭastha-śakti, similarly prema, rasa, and the siddha-deha are also not intrinsic to the jīvātmā. Moreover, in the two previous chapters, I presented some of the most quoted evidence against the possibility of non-inherence as well as its ultimate meaning when understood in the proper context. While doing so, I began my presentation by sharing important statements from the spotless Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the main form of revelation embraced by Mahāprabhu himself, and thus the most authoritative source of divine knowledge for members of the Gauḍīya sampradāya. At the same time, I have given śāstra-pramāṇa from other various works. And going even beyond the Bhāgavata, I have concentrated my attention on the books of our śāstra-gurus, the Six Goswāmīs. I have done so because the Goswāmī granthas are the most natural extension of both the Bhāgavata and Mahāprabhu’s own inner heart, which have been expertly disclosed by the Goswāmīs’ commentaries and original works. To this has been added the contribution of stalwarts such as Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, who has provided us with unique commentaries to the Bhāgavata and the Goswāmīs’ books.

At this point, however, the following (and reasonable) question may arise: Where are the quotations from more contemporary Gauḍīya ācāryas belonging to the Bhaktivinoda parivāra, especially beginning with its founding father, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, from whom the idea of bhakti’s inherence in the jīva seems to have originated in our sampradāya? There are two main reasons for this. First, if we intend to speak about the present topic to a wider Gauḍīya community than that of the Bhaktivinoda parivāra, we would do well to establish our points by quoting authorities that have been unanimously accepted by the whole Gauḍīya sampradāya (beginning with the Goswāmīs and ending with personalities such as Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Goswāmī, Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana). Second, when we quote Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda and his followers along with their presentation of this particular topic, there is an unfortunate twofold tendency: (1) those who do not belong to the Bhaktivinoda parivāra may reject the Ṭhākura’s presentation by considering it a totally unacceptable heterodoxy, or (2) those who do belong to his parivāra may absolutize certain relative points in his presentation, without understanding the difference between principles and details. Both of these extremes are definitely unbecoming, so in order to avoid them, I will next address the main controversial points that beg to be reconciled in this regard.

In the previous chapter, I have shown how the theory of inherence sprouted in the Gauḍīya school with Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda. Before him, not a single ācārya in the sampradāya suggested that bhakti is intrinsic to the soul’s constitution—as we have seen, quite the contrary. But I have also shown how the Ṭhākura and many of his successors not only stated this same notion but also at times established the exact opposite idea. Because siddhānta is not a cherry-picking exercise, we are advised to harmonize any apparent contradiction and thus reach a proper conclusion. Since it has been clearly demonstrated how and why bhakti cannot be inherent in the jīva in the first nine chapters of this book, the question remains as to why some of our previous ācāryas apparently presented something different. I will try to solve this riddle in this chapter and the following two, starting with whom it all began—Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura.

In spite of the fact that I have already explained why someone such as Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda would sometimes teach the idea of inherent bhakti (despite overwhelming scriptural evidence to the contrary), I have not yet plumbed the depths of the far-reaching implications of such teaching. Thus in this chapter I will try to expand on this subject, showing how these types of adjustments were in fact present even before Mahāprabhu’s times, and I will also further analyze the psychological impediments to our acceptance of the well-known phenomenon that preachers use teaching strategies.

Having gone through the many points presented in the last three chapters, some may still want to make a case for bhakti’s inherence in the jīva on the basis that whatever Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda wrote was revealed to him in samādhi, or devotional trance. I dare not disagree with them. But whatever is revealed in samādhi is not necessarily to be accepted as absolute in every time and circumstance. Samādhi can also reveal dissemination techniques. And if we realize the subtle complexity of topics such as bhakti being not inherent (especially for Westernized minds), we can then understand how some of our pūrva-ācāryas made necessary adjustments considering not only the (generally limited) adhikāra of their audience but also their own robust adhikāra—they made necessary adjustments on the basis of their own samādhi.

In the twelve previous chapters, I have tried to provide abundant and positive evidence from revelation regarding the non-inherence of bhakti in the jīva and have addressed the main arguments against this truth. I have also analyzed in detail those circumstances where some contemporary Gauḍīya luminaries have apparently presented a different version from that of the founding ācāryas of the sampradāya, the Six Goswāmīs. In doing so, I have not only emphasized the importance of resorting to śāstra-pramāṇa but also demonstrated the value of assisting it with scripture-based logic and common sense while considering the possibility that temporary adjustments may have been made in the Gauḍīya teaching in the course of its dissemination. It is also of vital importance to discern between relative details and absolute principles, the latter connected to the main source of Gauḍīya revelation and its preeminent epistemological support—the Bhāgavata and the works written as extensions of it, the Goswāmī grantha.

Although abundantly quoted throughout this book, Śrīla Jīva Goswāmī Prabhupāda once again deserves a special mention here. The tattva-ācārya of the Gauḍīya sampradāya and founding father of Bengali Vaiṣṇava theology, Śrī Jīva, among his numerous accomplishments, established through his own writings and in no uncertain terms how the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam constitutes the ultimate form of śāstra-pramāṇa for the whole Gauḍīya sampradāya, which is no small feat, as we will see.