tÄá¹…ra madhye rÅ«pa-sanÄtana — baá¸a Å›ÄkhÄ
anupama, jÄ«va, rÄjendrÄdi upaÅ›ÄkhÄ
tÄá¹…ra - within that; madhye - in the midst of; rÅ«pa-sanÄtana - the branch known as RÅ«pa-SanÄtana; baá¸a Å›ÄkhÄ - the big branch; anupama - Anupama; jÄ«va - JÄ«va; rÄjendra-Ädi - and RÄjendra and others; upaÅ›ÄkhÄ - their subbranches.
Among these branches, RÅ«pa and SanÄtana were principal. Anupama, JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« and others, headed by RÄjendra, were their subbranches.
In the Gaura-gaṇoddeÅ›a-dÄ«pikÄ (195) it is said that ÅšrÄ«la JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« was formerly VilÄsa-mañjarÄ« gopÄ«. From his very childhood JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« was greatly fond of ÅšrÄ«mad-BhÄgavatam. He later came to NavadvÄ«pa to study Sanskrit, and, following in the footsteps of ÅšrÄ« NityÄnanda Prabhu, he circumambulated the entire NavadvÄ«pa-dhÄma. After visiting NavadvÄ«pa-dhÄma he went to Benares to study Sanskrit under MadhusÅ«dana VÄcaspati, and after finishing his studies in Benares he went to Vá¹›ndÄvana and took shelter of his uncles, ÅšrÄ« RÅ«pa and SanÄtana. This is described in the Bhakti-ratnÄkara. As far as our information goes, ÅšrÄ«la JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« composed and edited at least twenty-five books. They are all very much celebrated, and they are listed as follows: (1) Hari-nÄmÄmá¹›ta-vyÄkaraṇa, (2) SÅ«tra-mÄlikÄ, (3) DhÄtu-saá¹…graha, (4) KṛṣṇÄrcÄ-dÄ«pikÄ, (5) GopÄla-virudÄvalÄ«, (6) RasÄmá¹›ta-Å›eá¹£a, (7) ÅšrÄ« MÄdhava-mahotsava, (8) ÅšrÄ« Saá¹…kalpa-kalpavá¹›ká¹£a, (9) BhÄvÄrtha-sÅ«caka-campÅ«, (10) GopÄla-tÄpanÄ«-á¹Ä«kÄ, (11) a commentary on the Brahma-saá¹hitÄ, (12) a commentary on the Bhakti-rasÄmá¹›ta-sindhu, (13) a commentary on the Ujjvala-nÄ«lamaṇi, (14) a commentary on the YogasÄra-stava, (15) a commentary on the GÄyatrÄ«-mantra, as described in the Agni PurÄṇa, (16) a description of the Lord’s lotus feet derived from the Padma PurÄṇa, (17) a description of the lotus feet of ÅšrÄ«matÄ« RÄdhÄrÄṇī, (18) GopÄla-campÅ« (in two parts) and (19-25) seven sandarbhas: the Krama-, Tattva-, Bhagavat-, ParamÄtma-, Kṛṣṇa-, Bhakti- and PrÄ«ti-sandarbha. After the disappearance of ÅšrÄ«la RÅ«pa GosvÄmÄ« and SanÄtana GosvÄmÄ« in Vá¹›ndÄvana, ÅšrÄ«la JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« became the ÄcÄrya of all the Vaiṣṇavas in Bengal, Orissa and the rest of the world, and it is he who used to guide them in their devotional service. In Vá¹›ndÄvana he established the RÄdhÄ-DÄmodara temple, where, after retirement, we had the opportunity to live from 1962 until 1965, when we decided to come to the United States of America. When JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« was still present, ÅšrÄ«la KṛṣṇadÄsa KavirÄja GosvÄmÄ« compiled his famous Caitanya-caritÄmá¹›ta. Later, ÅšrÄ«la JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« inspired ÅšrÄ«nivÄsa Ä€cÄrya, Narottama dÄsa ṬhÄkura and DuḥkhÄ« KṛṣṇadÄsa to preach Kṛṣṇa consciousness in Bengal. JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« was informed that all the manuscripts that had been collected from Vá¹›ndÄvana and sent to Bengal for preaching purposes were plundered near Viṣṇupura, in Bengal, but later he received the information that the books had been recovered. ÅšrÄ« JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« awarded the designation KavirÄja to RÄmacandra Sena, a disciple of ÅšrÄ«nivÄsa Ä€cÄrya’s, and to RÄmacandra’s younger brother Govinda. While JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« was alive, ÅšrÄ«matÄ« JÄhnavÄ-devÄ«, the pleasure potency of ÅšrÄ« NityÄnanda Prabhu, went to Vá¹›ndÄvana with a few devotees. JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« was very kind to the Gauá¸Ä«ya Vaiṣṇavas, the Vaiṣṇavas from Bengal. Whoever went to Vá¹›ndÄvana he provided with a residence and prasÄdam. His disciple KṛṣṇadÄsa AdhikÄrÄ« listed all the books of the GosvÄmÄ«s in his diary.
The sahajiyÄs level three accusations against ÅšrÄ«la JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ«. This is certainly not congenial for the execution of devotional service. The first accusation concerns a materialist who was very proud of his reputation as a great Sanskrit scholar and approached ÅšrÄ« RÅ«pa and SanÄtana to argue with them about the revealed scriptures. ÅšrÄ«la RÅ«pa GosvÄmÄ« and SanÄtana GosvÄmÄ«, not wanting to waste their time, gave him a written statement that he had defeated them in a debate on the revealed scriptures. Taking this paper, the scholar approached JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« for a similar certificate of defeat, but JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« did not agree to give him one. On the contrary, he argued with him regarding the scriptures and defeated him. Certainly it was right for JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« to stop such a dishonest scholar from advertising that he had defeated ÅšrÄ«la RÅ«pa GosvÄmÄ« and SanÄtana GosvÄmÄ«, but due to their illiteracy the sahajiyÄ class refer to this incident to accuse ÅšrÄ«la JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« of deviating from the principle of humility. They do not know, however, that humility and meekness are appropriate when one’s own honor is insulted but not when Lord Viṣṇu or the ÄcÄryas are blasphemed. In such cases one should not be humble and meek but must act. One should follow the example given by ÅšrÄ« Caitanya MahÄprabhu. Lord Caitanya says in His Åšiká¹£Äá¹£á¹aka (3):
tṛṇÄd api su-nÄ«cena taror iva sahiṣṇunÄ
amÄninÄ mÄna-dena kÄ«rtanÄ«yaḥ sadÄ hariḥ
“One can chant the holy name of the Lord in a humble state of mind, thinking himself lower than the straw in the street. One should be more tolerant than a tree, devoid of all sense of false prestige, and should be ready to offer all respect to others. In such a state of mind one can chant the holy name of the Lord constantly.†Nevertheless, when the Lord was informed that NityÄnanda Prabhu was injured by JagÄi and MÄdhÄi, He immediately went to the spot, angry like fire, wanting to kill them. Thus Lord Caitanya has explained His verse by the example of His own behavior. One should tolerate insults against oneself, but when there is blasphemy committed against superiors such as other Vaiṣṇavas, one should be neither humble nor meek: one must take proper steps to counteract such blasphemy. This is the duty of a servant of a guru and Vaiṣṇavas. Anyone who understands the principle of eternal servitude to the guru and Vaiṣṇavas will appreciate the action of ÅšrÄ« JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« in connection with the so-called scholar’s victory over his gurus, ÅšrÄ«la RÅ«pa and ÅšrÄ«la SanÄtana GosvÄmÄ«.
Another story fabricated to defame ÅšrÄ«la JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« states that when ÅšrÄ«la KṛṣṇadÄsa KavirÄja GosvÄmÄ« showed him the newly-completed manuscript of ÅšrÄ« Caitanya-caritÄmá¹›ta, JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« thought it would hamper his reputation as a big scholar and therefore threw it into a well. ÅšrÄ«la KṛṣṇadÄsa KavirÄja GosvÄmÄ« was greatly shocked, according to this story, and he died immediately. Fortunately a copy of the manuscript of ÅšrÄ« Caitanya-caritÄmá¹›ta had been kept by a person named Mukunda, and therefore later it was possible to publish the book. This story is another ignominious example of blasphemy against a guru and Vaiṣṇava. Such a story should never be accepted as authoritative.
According to another accusation, ÅšrÄ«la JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« did not approve of the principles of the parakÄ«ya-rasa of Vraja-dhÄma and therefore supported svakÄ«ya-rasa, showing that RÄdhÄ and Kṛṣṇa are eternally married. Actually, when JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« was alive, some of his followers disliked the parakÄ«ya-rasa of the gopÄ«s. Therefore ÅšrÄ«la JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ«, for their spiritual benefit, supported svakÄ«ya-rasa, for he could understand that sahajiyÄs would otherwise exploit the parakÄ«ya-rasa, as they are actually doing at the present time. Unfortunately, in Vá¹›ndÄvana and NavadvÄ«pa it has become fashionable among sahajiyÄs, in their debauchery, to find an unmarried sexual partner to live with to execute so-called devotional service in parakÄ«ya-rasa. Foreseeing this, ÅšrÄ«la JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« supported svakÄ«ya-rasa, and later all the Vaiṣṇava ÄcÄryas also approved of it. ÅšrÄ«la JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« was never opposed to the transcendental parakÄ«ya-rasa, nor has any other Vaiṣṇava disapproved of it. ÅšrÄ«la JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« strictly followed his predecessor gurus and Vaiṣṇavas, ÅšrÄ«la RÅ«pa GosvÄmÄ« and SanÄtana GosvÄmÄ«, and ÅšrÄ«la KṛṣṇadÄsa KavirÄja GosvÄmÄ« accepted him as one of his instructor gurus.
