*Article* **'Locating Vis.nupriya in the Tradition': Women, ¯ Devotion, and Bengali Vais.n. avism in Colonial Times**

#### **Santanu Dey**

Department of History, Ramakrishna Mission Vidyamandira, Belur Math (An Autonomous College under University of Calcutta), Howrah 711202, India; sd.history@vidyamandira.ac.in

Received: 31 August 2020; Accepted: 20 October 2020; Published: 26 October 2020

**Abstract:** This article tries to map the gender element in Bengali Vais.n. avism by focusing on the evolution of the image of Vis.nupriya, Caitanya's second wife, as it progressed from the pre-colonial ¯ hagiographic tradition to the novel theorization of Gaura–Vis.nupriya dual worship in the colonial ¯ period. It explores the varied ways in which certain segments of educated Bengali intelligentsia actively involved in reassessing Vais.n. avism in colonial times disseminated the idea that Vis.nupriya¯ was not just a symbol of unwavering devotion, of resolute penance, and (after Caitanya's death) of ideal widowhood, but also deserved to be worshiped by Bengalis along with Caitanya as a divine couple. The article contends that while the ways of biographic imaging of Vis.nupriya reveals ¯ the fissures and frictions within the colonial Vais.n. ava reform process, it also highlights various continuities with pre-colonial strands of Vais.n. ava thought.

**Keywords:** Bengal; Vais.n. ava; colonial; gender; women; Sr¯ıkand. a; *gaura nagara v ¯ ada ¯* ; Vis.nupriya¯

#### **1. Introduction**

Bengali Vais.n. avism evolved as a heterogeneous and plural religious tradition that drew its primary, although not exclusive, inspiration from the medieval *bhakti* saint Sr´ ¯ıKr.s.n. a Caitanya (1486–1533), also known locally as Vi´svambhar, Nim ¯ ai, Gaura, and Gaur ¯ a¯nga. Over the course of the last half a ˙ millennium or so, Bengali Vais.n. avism has emerged and sustained itself as one of the most popular religious strands within Bengal beside the mélange of Saiva– ´ S´akta–T ¯ antrika belief systems. Yet, the ¯ exact ways in which female saints, female believers, and feminity as a whole have been conceptualized within the theology, belief, ritual performance, and praxis of Bengali Vais.n. avism suffers from lacuna and is an area that warrants historiographical attention.<sup>1</sup> There exists ample historical data in *panda ¯* or temple servitor records and the colonial archives to show that large numbers of Bengali women from the medieval period onwards adhered to Vais.n. ava rituals, participated in festivities, went on pilgrimages and even relocated to Vr.ndavana in north India to spend their widowed lives. However, ¯ despite this almost ubiquitous historical presence, academic study on female saints, personalities, and believers in general within the Gaud.¯ıya Vais.n. ava movement has, barring a few exceptions, been

<sup>1</sup> The role and position of women in the evolution and functioning of religious cults and traditions across the world has been a fruitful area of research under the genre of gender and feminist history. Over the course of the last half a century or so, there have been fascinating studies on several aspects of gender and its intermeshing within varied religious traditions of South Asia. Some scholars have tried to explore the role of goddesses and women broadly within the Hindu tradition (Wadley 1977; Leslie 1992; Patton 2002; Khandelwal 2004; Pinchtman 2007; Pauwels 2008; and Bose 2010) and on some distinct institutions such as the *devadasi ¯* system of temple-based female servitude (Kersenboom-Story 1987). Others have done focused research on the emergence of female voices within the early medieval South Asian *bhakti* outpourings such as by Andal and Akka Mahadev ¯ ¯ı, and also in the medieval devotional movements of North India by the Varkari *santakaviyatris* of Maharashtra and by Mirabai (Kamaliah 1977; Daheja 1990; Ramaswamy 2000; Hawley 2012; and Daukes 2014). Women mystics and Sufi shrines in India have been studied by others (Pemberton 2010). In the colonial period, several women-centric guru cults began to proliferate, and these have been studied at some length by researchers (Hallstrom 1999; Warrier 2005).

conspicuous by its absence (Brezezinski 1996, pp. 59–86; Chakrabarti 2002, pp. 85–95; Manring 2005, pp. 193–219; Ray 2014, pp. 285–303; and Bandyopadhyay 2015).2

This paper explores one facet of the gender element in Bengali Vais.n. avism by mapping the ways in which Vis.nupriya, Caitanya's second wife, was viewed over the course of several centuries from ¯ the early modern to the modern period. I attempt to look at how she figures in some of the early modern hagiographies of the tradition and the multiple ways in which her life was constructed through numerous *padas* (poems), Sanskrit *stotras* or eulogies, journalistic essays, theatrical plays, biographies, rituals, and icon-making by educated *bhadralok* intellectuals in colonial Bengal. The idea that the last quarter of the nineteenth century witnessed the resurgence of a reformist spirit among educated Bengali Vais.n. avas who reassessed the regional Vais.n. ava legacy in new ways has gained importance among recent scholars (Yati Maharaj 1980; Fuller 2003; Dey 2015; Bhatia 2017; and Sardella and Wong 2020). It seems that manuscript collection drives across rural Bengali households in the late nineteenth century led to the 'discovery' of hitherto-unknown Vais.n. ava manuscripts, as well as new versions of known manuscripts, and their subsequent publication by the printing presses began to satiate readers' reading appetites. Academic as well as religious interest among a large section of Bengali Hindu middle classes led to an ever-increasing printing drive that involved the publication of periodicals, books, lithographic paintings, etc. Within this literary public space, the dissemination of religious literature, especially through Vais.n. ava hagiographies and biographies of almost all major and minor personalities connected to the on Bengali Vais.n. ava tradition, attained a sense of urgency (Dey 2015, pp. 113–93). The modes through which images of Vis.nupriya were circulated in the public domain ¯ in colonial Bengal included the specifically modernist instruments of print and literary journalism3 on the one hand, and the urban performative stage where dramas were staged, on the other. On the whole, there seems to have been a broad transition of Vis.nupriya from an incidental and scattered ¯ mention in the hagiographical corpus of the early modern era to a much more nuanced and sympathetic concern for her worth within the tradition by the Bengali Vais.n. ava propagators of the colonial era. Building upon the information available in pre-colonial source materials, these modern biographies on Vis.nupriya began to connect, collate, and expand her life-story as a pious woman imbued with ¯ divinity. Some even went to the extent of consecrating *yugal-murtis* or idols of Gaura–Vis.nupriya as ¯ a deity-couple, thereby propagating her worship along with Caitanya as a divine pair and as His eternal counterpart. By the mid 1930s, Vis.nupriya made it to the pages of a book on ideal women of ¯ India—alongside the devotional *bhakti* proponent Mirab¯ ai (1498–1556), the eighteenth century Maratha ¯ Queen Ahily ¯ ab¯ ai Holkar (1725–95), and the nineteenth century Bengali zamindari scion R ¯ an¯ ¯ı Ra´¯smon. <sup>i</sup> (1793–1861)—for her exemplary dedication (Mukhopadhyay 1935, pp. 11–25). A similar historicizing impulse can be seen in another twentieth century work which tried to construct a historical chronology for Vis.nupriya where none existed within the sacred literature ¯ 4.

What contributed to this increased currency and prominence of Gaura–Vis.nupriya conjugal ¯ worship at the cusp of the twentieth century? What does this reveal about the nature of the colonial Vais.n. ava legacy? By looking at Vis.nupriya in the backdrop of the colonial Vai ¯ s.n. ava reform process, I

<sup>2</sup> For instance, we are yet to read a sustained research on how Bengali Vais.n. ava personalities like Caitanya and his disciples interacted with women or how women were portrayed within Vais.n. ava scriptures and hagiographical literature in the same way as gender has been studied in other major religious traditions. Such studies have been done with regard to other religious traditions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (Harris 1984; Heger 2014; Jardim 2014).

<sup>3</sup> It is curious to note that several Vais.n. ava journals carried feminine appellations such as *Sr´ ¯ı Vis.nupriya Patrik ¯ a, Vai ¯ s.n. ava Sangin ˙ ¯ı, Vais.n. ava Sevika, Sajjan To ¯ s.an¯ı*, *Sr´ ¯ı Sr´ ¯ı Vis.nupriya -Gaur ¯ a¯nga ˙* , etc., which not only reflected traditional notions of Vais.n. ava humility and selfless service towards the Vais.n. ava community, but also tried to conform to Gaud.¯ıya Vais.n. ava theological principles of *Rag¯ anuga bhakti ¯* , according to which devotees adopt a feminine love relation to god as the highest form of divine adoration (Dey 2020b, p. 32).

<sup>4</sup> The *Vais.n. ava Digdar´sin. ¯ı*, which tried to construct a historical chronology of lives and events within the Bengali Vais.n. ava tradition in the early twentieth century, mentioned 1496 as the year of Vis.nupriya's birth. Vi ¯ s.nupriya was considered as ¯ Satyabhama in Sr´ ¯ı Kr.s.n. a L¯ıla, and her father San ¯ atana Mi´ ¯ sra was King Satrajit during Brajal ¯ ¯ıla. In a similar manner it placed ¯ 1505 as the date her marriage to Caitanya and 1510 as the date of his sam. nyasa ( ¯ Adhikari 1925, pp. 29, 37, 48).

try to engage, albeit in a tentative and tangential manner, with the vexed yet enmeshed dynamics of gender, sexuality, love, and affection within the Bengali Vais.n. ava movement. Through an exposition of the Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a and the Baghn ¯ ap¯ a¯d. a traditions in the early modern era, the second section will ¯ show how these heterodox schools of thought within Bengali Vais.n. avism conceptualized devotion to Caitanya and the ways in which their theological imaginings diverged from the mainstream. The third section will discuss the early images about Vis.nupriya as it emerged in the pre-colonial sacred ¯ biographical literature, including those put forward by members of the Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a group. The fourth section contextualizes the emergence of Vis.nupriya as a biographical subject in the colonial times in the ¯ midst of varied controversial debates within Bengali Vais.n. ava traditions. Contemporary discourses regarding the supposed degeneration of Vais.n. ava society as a result of the infusion of slack sexual mores will also be mapped. The final section probes the modes and processes through which *yugal-arcana¯*, or the worship of Gaura–Vis.nupriya as a deity couple, was theorized by Harid ¯ as Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı, the most vociferous proponent of this ideal will be analyzed. This section will identify the ways in which pre-colonial notions were altered, remolded, and recast in a colonial milieu.

Scholarly reassessments of Vais.n. ava traditions during colonial times have generally been analyzed from binary standpoints; between western-educated/modernist versus traditionalist prisms (Fuller 2005), and between conservative Gaud.¯ıya versus devotional nationalistic perspectives (Bhatia 2017). Drawing upon and expanding existing research that seeks to problematize reassessments of Vais.n. avism as a coming together of *bhadralok* concerns that substantiated and validated pre-colonial conservative Gaud.¯ıya Vais.n. ava normativity (Wong 2018; Dey 2020a), I contend, although from a slightly different perspective, that prioritizing the Gaura–Vis.nupriya image in the public sphere in late nineteenth ¯ and early twentieth century Bengal by some proponents such as Haridas Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı was a deeply contested process. It not only provided scope for the deification of a historical persona alongside Caitanya, but apparently, also raised uncomfortable ethical and doctrinal challenges to normative Vais.n. ava perspectives by reifying and selectively revitalizing patently non-conformist perspectives, especially those belonging to the Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a and Baghn ¯ ap¯ a¯d. a schools from pre-colonial times. The ¯ Gaura–Vis.nupriya hypothesis of the colonial era also brought to the fore many unresolved controversies ¯ from the pre-colonial times. These controversies—for instance, the long-standing schism over the doctrinal primacy of *Svak¯ıya* versus *Parak¯ıya* love, or questions pertaining to the extent of predominance to be accorded to Caitanya's divine personality (which in turn was connected to schisms regarding the legitimacy of *Gauramantra* or an independent ritual basis for Caitanya for purposes of initiation)—had been simmering for centuries within the layers of the tradition. One may contend that these old issues gripped Bengali Vais.n. ava followers of the colonial period in new ways and led to formulations being put forward in a new garb and for a new time. It is relevant to bring the history of such debates, discordant voices, and ruptures within the academic ambit for a deeper understanding of the transformative tendencies within Bengali Vais.n. ava traditions in colonial times.

#### **2. Vais.n. ava Theology, Hagiographies, and Diverse Imaginings of Devotional Love: Sr´ ¯ıkhand. <sup>a</sup> and Baghn ¯ ap¯ ad¯ . a Schools ¯**

Bengali Vais.n. ava culture as it emerged over the course of the early modern period was a surprisingly literate culture with a vast array of theological scriptures, ritual treatises, sacred biographies, and numerous verse compositions (*padas*) for use in congregational *kirtana* songs. Texts were initially produced mostly in Bengali and Sanskrit in Bengal by local disciples of Caitanya or his acolytes such as Vr.ndavana D ¯ as, Jay ¯ ananda, Locana D ¯ as, Kavikar ¯ n. apura, and Mur ¯ ar¯ ¯ı Gupta among others. In the sixteenth century, numerous theological and ritual texts in Sanskrit and Brajabha¯s.a (a mixed variant ¯ spoken in the Braja region of Mathura-Vr.ndavana) began to be written in V ¯ r.ndavana by the group of ¯ six Gosvam¯ ¯ıs—Sanatana, Rupa, J ¯ ¯ıva, Raghunath Bha ¯ t.t.a, Gopal Bha ¯ t.t.a, and Raghunath D ¯ as. Indeed, ¯ the distribution and copying of manuscripts formed an indispensable element of its history, and its scriptures are replete with examples of what may be called a culture of literacy. Cultures of literacy and circulation of texts and ideas were quite developed even in the pre-print era in different parts

of Islamicate South Asia (Pollock 2006 and Ganeri 2011). Pollock contends that the 'distribution of scholarly works demonstrates unequivocally that as late as the early eighteenth century, in the disciplines where Sanskrit intellectuals continued to maintain control, old networks of vast circulation and readership were as yet intact' (Pollock 2001, p. 413). Perhaps, the case was not very different for the copying and circulation of Vais.n. ava manuscripts written in middle Bengali or Brajabha¯s.a. ¯ Scholars have identified in this proclivity towards manuscript publication and transmission of texts in pre-colonial times an attempt at community cohesion whereby a loosely integrated Vais.n. ava society aspired to acquire standardization with regard to theology and rituals (O'Connell 2000). Tony Stewart has convincingly demonstrated how the *Caitanya Caritam¯ r.ta* of Kr.s.n. adas Kavir ¯ aja became a model ¯ form—the 'final word', so to say—for binding the community of believers (Stewart 1999, p. 53). The fact that very little textual variation exists in the extant copies of this text across India shows that Vais.n. ava textual transmission was of an unusually high order. As Vais.n. ava texts were written, copied, and circulated among groups across Eastern and Northern India, some texts like the *Caitanya Caritam¯ r.ta* acquired centrality within the tradition.5

Pre-modern cultures of literacy, however, did not offer the means or perhaps access to produce texts by anyone and everyone.6 While the existence of an entrenched societal hierarchy meant that Brahmins retained a privileged access to literacy, it was not an entirely closed system.<sup>7</sup> Even when manuscripts were written by individuals, their circulation and acceptance by others within the tradition depended on a high level of authorial competence. Such competence derived not merely from one's literary and linguistic skills, but also upon one's aesthetic knowledge and appropriate theological grounding, what may be termed as a sort of religious *weltanschauung*. It was a combination of these qualities that enabled a text to attain legitimate status among territorially scattered groups of Gaud.¯ıya Vais.n. avas. There are several instances when texts written by disciples were rejected by others for their supposed 'incorrect' interpretation.

Bengali Vais.n. avism accords primacy to the idea of passionate devotion. In the scale of devotion, an elaborate schema of five successive stages was worked out by Vais.n. ava theologians—beginning with *s´anta ¯* (quiet meditation), through the *d*a¯*sya*, *sakhya ¯* , and *vatsalya ¯* , or the emotional realisation of servant, friend, and parent, respectively, until with ever-deepening feeling one is swept into a passionate ardour of *madhurya ¯* or loving sweetness of passion for the lover. The *bh*a¯*vas* or devotional moods exhibited by Caitanya were 'entextualized' by biographers in diverse ways, and these were later formalised by the Vr.ndavana Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ıs. Kr.s.n. adas's achievement was that he rearranged the attitudes from, ¯ what Tony Stewart states, 'a horizontal continuum of equally possible forms of divinity to a graded hierarchy of preferred forms' (Stewart 2010, p. 102), that gave importance to *m*a¯*dhurya bh*a¯*va* or mood of passionate love as the highest form of god realization.<sup>8</sup> Kr.s.n. adas's hypothesis of Caitanya as an ¯ androgynous synthesis of Radh ¯ a and K ¯ r.s.n. a made the *m*a¯*dhurya* element the 'hierarchically dominant' frame of reference for later theologians to imitate (Stewart 2010, p. 181). As recent researches about other theologians such as Kavikarn. apura show, the rasa of love—the rasa of R ¯ adh ¯ a and K ¯ r.s.n. a—is one of the most devotional moods, 'which is awakened in the devotee upon contemplating God's

<sup>5</sup> Tony Stewart considers that the *Caitanya Caritam¯ r.ta* became almost like a 'charter document' of the Vais.n. avas and became a 'tool for organizing the community'. This was because the book 'recognizes by name the major lineages central to the emerging group, identifies the biographies of Caitanya that were to be followed, provides synopses of the key Sanskrit works

of Rupa and J¯ıva Goswamin and others in the Vais.n. ava community ... , and outlines the basis for all levels of ritual practice'. <sup>6</sup> Indeed, the author of a Vais.n. ava work titled *Nabaradh ¯ atattva Nir ¯ upan ¯* by Narottam Das instructs in a couplet that the ¯ manuscript is to be kept locked up, away from the prying eyes of the uninitiated: 'Let none but your disciples see this book, Hide it away and guard it as preciously as your life' (Bhattacharya 1981, p. 26).

<sup>7</sup> Even among the six Gosvam¯ ¯ı theologians at Vr.ndavana Raghun ¯ ath D ¯ as was a kayastha who hailed from a rich landholding ¯ zamindari family of Saptagram in the Hooghly district of Bengal.

<sup>8</sup> The *Caitanya Caritam¯ r.ta* unequivocally states that *mahabh ¯ ava ¯* or the supreme emotion is the quintessence of *prema* or love (*CC Madhya lil*a,¯ *8*). However, it was also quick to distinguish that love and lust are completely different: 'The signs of *k*a¯*ma* and *prema* are different, as iron and gold are different in their true natures. Desire, love for satisfaction of one's own senses—this is called *kama ¯* . But the desire for the satisfaction of the senses of Kr.s.n. a—this has the name *prema*' (*CC Adi. 4.140–141*).

non-worldly worldly play' (Lutjeharms 2018, p. 176). The idea of embodiment is regarded as critical within various *bhakti* traditions (Prentiss 1999; Holdrege 2015; Hardy 1983). *Viraha bhakti* in particular, is regarded by Friedhelm Hardy as an 'aesthetic-erotic-ecstatic mysticism of separation' (Hardy 1983, pp. 36–43). Within Gaud.¯ıya Vais.n. ava traditions, there exists a distinction between *prakat. l¯ıla¯* (manifest play) where *gop¯ıs* of Vr.ndavana lament the agony of separation from K ¯ r.s.n. a and the *aprakat.* or *nitya l¯ıla¯* (un-manifest but eternal play) which allows them to eternally remain united with Kr.s.n. a as expressions of his *hladin ¯ ¯ı-´sakti*. This allowed theologians such as J¯ıva Gosvam¯ ¯ı in his *Bhaktirasam¯ r.tasindhu* and *Ujjvalan¯ılaman. i* to pattern Gaud.¯ıya devotion through the visualization of an eternal embodiment in *vigrahas* (idols), *parikaras* (servants), *l¯ılas¯* (sports), and *dhamas ¯* (sacred abodes) (De 1961, pp. 166–224; Holdrege 2015). A fuller exposition of the intricacies of rasa and stages of devotion within Bengali Vais.n. ava theology is beyond the scope of the present paper.

In terms of belief and faith, there existed a variety of alternatives among the varied segments of Caitanya's followers, ranging from the *Gaura nagara v ¯ ad¯ ¯ıs* (who worshipped Caitanya in the spirit of the Gop*¯ı*'s love for Kr.s.n. a) propagated by Narahari Sarkar and his disciple Locana D ¯ as of ¯ Sr´ ¯ıkhand. <sup>a</sup> in the Burdwan District of Bengal; the *Gauraparamya v ¯ ad¯ ¯ıs* (belief in the divinity of Caitanya as the supreme godhead) propagated by Gadadhar; the V ¯ r.n. davana Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı tradition of *Kr.s.n. a paramya v ¯ ada ¯* (belief in the supreme godhead of Kr.s.n. a) (Kennedy 1925, pp. 149–52; Majumdar 1959, pp. 178–79; Sanyal 1985 and Stewart 2010, pp. 99–105) and the Sahaj¯ıya Vai ¯ s.n. ava notions of physical sexo-yogic union (Dasgupta 1946, pp. 113–46; Dimock 1966, pp. 1–40). Among these, the strand represented by Narahari Sarkar, an elder contemporary of Caitanya (who became a leader in his own right) who ¯ worshipped Caitanya as a *nagara ¯* or paramour of the women of Navadv¯ıpa and was regarded by the group as a personification of Madhumati (one among the eight primary associates of Radh ¯ a) ( ¯ T. hakur ¯ 1954, pp. 99–101). This perspective came to be known by the interchangeable terms *gaura nagara v ¯ ada ¯* and *nad¯ıya n¯ agara v ¯ ada ¯* , while the attitude itself was referred to as *gaura nagara bh ¯ ava ¯* and *nad¯ıya n¯ agar ¯ ¯ı bhava ¯* , and the proponents of this view were termed *gaura nagara v ¯ ad¯ ¯ı* and *nad¯ıya n¯ agara v ¯ ad¯ ¯ı.* Narahari composed a large number of songs in which the libidinous conduct of the ladies of Navadv¯ıpa at the sight of Caitanya is highlighted (T. hakur 1954 ¯ , pp. 51–61). In the *Madhya Khan. d. a* of his *Caitanya mangala ˙* , Locana Das elaborated the physical attributes of Caitanya in an explicit form and also portrayed the ¯ intense desires that it aroused among the women of Nadiya:

'Who churned that nectar to make the butter out of which was fashioned Lord Gaura's body? Who kneaded and strained the nectar of the worlds to fashion the love Lord Gaura feels? Who, mixing together the yogurt of infatuation and the nectar of love, fashioned Lord Gaura's pair of eyes? Who, gathering the sweetest honey, fashioned Lord Gaura's soft words and sweet smile-filled speech? Who, stirring together many flooding streams of sweet nectar, fashioned Gaura's golden complexion? Who, gathering together the froth of the sweet liquid, fashioned Lord Gaura's limbs? Who anointed Gaura's limbs with the paste of lightning? Who anointed Gaura's face with the paste of moon [light]? Which sculptor fashioned Gaura's wonderful form from the clay of exquisite handsomeness? Overwhelmed by the fragrance of the lotus flowers that are Gaura's hands and feet, the shining moon on all full-moon nights weeps. The twenty nails on Gaura's fingers and toes fill the world with light, the light that gives sight to persons blind from birth. I have never countenanced such an enchanting and lovable Gaura. Gazing at His form men assume the nature of women and weep! How could women tie up their hearts [and resist loving Gaura]? Whose heart is not delighted by Gaura's playful pastimes, which is the sweetest nectar of all nectars? Who anointed Gaura's face with the paste of amorous playfulness? Unable to see His face, I weep. Who didn't draw on Gaura's forehead the rainbow with sandalwood paste? All married women, whether ugly or beautiful, yearned to touch Gaura's form. They adorned the temple of their love with jewels. Seeing Gaura's playful pastimes, these women, overcome with desire, weep. They cannot always gaze on Him, even from the corners of their eyes, yet their eyes flutter like birds to see Gaura. Understanding their thirst to gaze at Him and fulfil their desires graceful Gaura walks

very slowly. Even women of respectable households flee from their homes, the lame run and even atheists and offenders sing Gaura's glories. Rolling on the ground everyone weeps, no one is able to stay peaceful and composed. Gaura's glories have unlimited sweetness! Some run out to see Him; others embrace each other in the bliss of spiritual love, while others dance and laugh in wild abandon. Attracted by the breeze bearing the fragrance of Gaura's form women of respectable families encourage all to rush to see Him! The women of Nadiya weep as they gaze at Gaura's moon-like face streaming with tears. Their hearts became filled with love, with hairs of their bodies erect and their hearts always thinking about Gaura.' (Das 1892 ¯ , pp. 168–69)9

The Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a group was an intensely devotional body of believers who believed in according more prominence to Navadv¯ıpa than Vr.n. davana and to Caitanya than K ¯ r.s.n. a within their narratives. This Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a school seems to have been quite a large body consisting of members such as Jagadananda ¯ Pan. d. it, Ka´¯s¯ı Mi´sra, Raghunandan (son of Narahari Sarkar's elder brother Mukundad ¯ as), Locana D ¯ as, ¯ Purus.ottama, Vasu Ghosh, Gad ¯ adhar Pa ¯ n. d. it, Gadadhar D ¯ as, Siv ¯ ananda Sen, and Kavikar ¯ n. apura ¯ (Chakrabarti 1985, p. 191).10 The suggestion that Kavikarn. apura was part of the ¯ Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a group, since in his *Gauragan. odde´sad¯ıpika¯* he listed his father Sivananda Sen in between Narahari Sark ¯ ar and ¯ Mukundadas (father of Raghunandan), has recently been contested. It is suggested that although ¯ Kavikarn. apura may have had sympathies to Narahari's views early in his life, he 'does not refer often ¯ to Narahari and the Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a group, and his drama does not contain any descriptions of Gadadhara ¯ and Caitanya's love nor any passages in which he depicts Caitanya as the object of amorous love' (Lutjeharms 2018, p. 54). Texts written by their adherents in the colonial period such as *Sr´ ¯ıkhand.er Prac¯ ¯ına Vais.n. ava* by Gaurgun. ananda ¯ T. hakur rea ¯ ffirm that Caitanya invested Narahari Sarkar with the ¯ authority to spread the faith in the Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a region (T. hakur 1954 ¯ , pp. 25–26). It is regarded that Narahari and his brother Mukunda also enjoined upon the members of the Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a group to follow certain ethical ideas such as looking upon every man as a friend, reform of sinners by acts of kindness, repudiation of vanity, egoism, and ambition, the practice of austerity, simplicity and non-violence, etc (T. hakur 1954 ¯ , pp. 25–26). However, the libidinous exposition of Caitanya's godhead that was espoused by Narahari Sarkar was increasingly disapproved of by both Advaita and Nity ¯ ananda, and it seems ¯ that it was not followed in the same manner or intensity by Narahari's followers such as Ciranj¯ıva Sen. But that did not stop the Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a Vais.n. avas from spreading their *gaura nagara v ¯ ad¯ ¯ı* ideal in the rural belt of Burdwan region in the eighteenth and nineteenth century (T. hakur 1954 ¯ ; Chakrabarti 1985, pp. 198–200).11 As Tony Stewart points out, the *gaura nagara v ¯ ad¯ ¯ı* ideal 'would prove to be one of the very few instances in the early history of the movement that open conflict was recorded, and it would simmer quietly only to bubble up at critical junctures later in the tradition's history, never fully resolved' (Stewart 2010, p. 151).

<sup>9</sup> *Amiya mathiy ¯ a keb ¯ a, naban ¯ ¯ı tuli go, tah¯ ate ga ¯ d. ila Gora deha¯* / *Jagat chaniya keb ¯ a, rasa ni ¯ ngariche go, ek kaila sudhui suleh ˙ a¯* // *anurager ¯ dadhi, premar sa ¯ njana diy ˙ a, keb ¯ a p ¯ atiy ¯ ache ¯ a¯nkhi dut ˙ ¯ı* / *tah¯ ate adhik mahu, lahu lahu kath ¯ a go, h ¯ asiy ¯ a balaye gu ¯ t .¯ı gut .¯ı* // *akhan. da p¯ıju¯s. a dhar¯ a, ke n ¯ a¯ autila go, so ¯ n. ar bara ¯ n. haila cini* / *se cini ma¯d.¯ıya keb ¯ a, phe ¯ n. ¯ı tulila go, hena b ¯ aso Gor ¯ a-a ¯ nga kh ˙ ani ¯* // *Bijur¯ ¯ı bna˙ t.¯ıya keb ¯ a, g ¯ a¯ khani m ¯ ajila go, c ¯ a¯nd m ˙ ajila mukh kh ¯ ani ¯* // *labanya b ¯ na˙ t .¯ıya keb ¯ a, cit nirm ¯ a¯n. kaila, aparupa prem ¯ ar balani ¯* / *sakal pur¯ n. imar c ¯ a¯nde, bikala ˙ haiya k ¯ a¯nde, kara pada padmer ga ˙ ndhe ˙* / *kud. it.¯ı nakher chat.a jagat ¯ al¯ a kaila go, ¯ a¯nkhi p ˙ aila janamer ¯ andhe ¯* // *emon binodiya Gora, koth ¯ ao¯ dekhi je nai, apar ¯ up prem ¯ ar binode ¯* / *Purus. a prakr.ti bhabe, k ¯ a¯ndiy ˙ a¯ akul go, n ¯ a¯d.¯ı kemane mon ba¯ndhe ˙* // *sakal raser rase vilasa h ¯ r.daya khani, ke n ¯ a ga ¯ d. aila ra ¯ nga diy ˙ a¯* / *madan bna˙ t .¯ıya keb ¯ a, badan ga ¯ d. ila go, bini bhabe mo molu k ¯ a¯ndiy ˙ a¯* // *¯Indrer dhanukhani, Gor ¯ ar kap ¯ ale go ¯ ke na dil ¯ a candaner rekh ¯ a¯* / *kur¯ up¯ a sur ¯ up¯ a jata, k ¯ uler k ¯ amin ¯ ¯ı go, dui hat kari c ¯ ahe patha ¯* // *ranger mandir kh ˙ ani, n ¯ an¯ a ratna diy ¯ a go, ¯ gad. aila ba ¯ d. a anurange ˙* / *l¯ılay binodkhel ¯ a, bh ¯ aber ¯ abe´ ¯ se go, alasala jvar jvar gaye ¯* // *kulabat ¯ ¯ı kula ch ¯ a¯r.e, pangu dh ˙ aola bhare, g ¯ u¯n. a gaye ¯ asur p ¯ a¯s.n. d. a* / *dhul¯ ay lot ¯ a¯ny˙ a k ¯ a¯nde, keha sthir n ˙ ahi b ¯ a¯ndhe, Gor ˙ ag¯ u¯n. a amiya akha ¯ n. d. a* // *dhaore dh ¯ aore bali, prem ¯ anande kol ¯ akuli, keha ¯*

*nace at ¯ .t.a at.t.a hase ¯* / *su´sila k ¯ uler bahu, se bale sakale j ¯ au, Gor ¯ a-a ¯ nga-r ˙ uper b ¯ at¯ ase ¯* //. <sup>10</sup> Narahari, a member of the *vaidya* (physician) caste by birth, strongly advocated that Gadadhar and Caitanya represented the ¯ female and the male principle of Radh ¯ a and K ¯ r.s.n. a, respectively. This view contained within it homoerotic proclivities and became the kernel of a small sub-sect known as the Gadai-Gaur ¯ a¯nga sect ( ˙ Chakrabarti 1985, pp. 190–91).

<sup>11</sup> In particular, Jahnav ¯ a Devi, Nity ¯ ananda's second wife, was on working terms with Narahari Sark ¯ ar, Mukunda, and ¯ Raghunandan, and the sixteenth chapter of the *Prema-vilasa* states that she met them after returning to Bengal from Vr.n. davana ( ¯ Das 1891 ¯ , pp. 130–31). It was on her suggestions that Srinivas Acarya was sent to Vr.ndavana. ¯

Another major Vais.n. ava center came up in the late sixteenth century in Baghn ¯ ap¯ a¯d. a area of ¯ Kalna in Burdwan district of Bengal. It was set up by Ramachandra, the grandson of Vam´ ¯ s¯ıvadana Chattopadhyay and foster-child of Jahnav ¯ a, and thus shared a special relation with a line of the ¯ Nityananda branch. As Ramakanta Chakrabarti contends, they developed a distinct theology which ¯ was linked to the ideas of the Vr.ndavana Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ıs, but was at the same time aligned with a Tantrika-Sahaj¯ıya overtone ( ¯ Chakrabarti 1985, p. 257). The legends and theology of the Baghn ¯ ap¯ a¯d. a¯ Vais.n. avas are elaborated in two apocryphal works known as the *Mural¯ı vil*a¯*sa* of Rajaballabh Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı and *Vam´s¯ı Sik´sa¯* of Premadas Mi´ ¯ sra (Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1961 and Premadas Mi´ ¯ sra n.d.). According to the *Vam´s¯ı Sik´sa¯*, which is divided into four *ullasas ¯* or segments, Caitanya teaches Vam´s¯ıvadana the secrets of *Rasaraja ¯* worship. It states that Caitanya had an *antaranga ˙* (secret) form of devotion apart from the *bahira ¯ nga ˙* (external) prescriptions for the general public (Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1993, pp. 477–92).<sup>12</sup> The core of the *rasaraj¯* concept regards Kr.s.n. a as the supreme God who is the fount of all rasas. This internal worship consists of devotion towards the *Rasaraja ¯* Kr.s.n. a who is *sat-cid-ananda ¯* (in eternal bliss), whereby he eternally savors his pleasures with Radh ¯ a and the other gop ¯ ¯ıs who are His eternal wives (Chakrabarti 1985, pp. 257–74). Radh ¯ a being K ¯ r.s.n. a's *hladin ¯ ¯ı-*s´*akti* (the power which makes Kr.s.n. a relish pleasure) manifests the elements of *kampa* (tremors of love), *asru* (tears of love), *pulaka* (thrill of love), *stambha* (depths of love), *asphutavacana* (whispers of love), *unmad¯* (madness), and the like. As spelt out in the third *ullasa, ¯* Caitanya describes himself as *Rasaraja ¯* Kr.s.n. a (Chakrabarti 1985, p. 270) and one who realizes this *Rasaraja ¯* nature of Kr.s.n. a is the real *Rasika*. While some scholars have denounced these texts as later forgeries due to their numerous historical inconsistencies and Sahaj¯ıya nature ( ¯ Majumdar 1959, pp. 468–77), others contend that these were, in all probability, lineage-based interpretations of the theories propagated in the *Caitanya Caritam¯ r.ta* (Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1993, p. 481; Chakrabarti 1985, pp. 266–67). While *Rasaraja ¯* is a widely prevalent concept among the Sahaj¯ıyas and B ¯ auls of Bengal ( ¯ Das 1992) and the language and vocabulary of the *Vam´s¯ı Sik´sa,¯* especially its reference to *purus. a*-*prakr.ti* (Male and the female principles) and *linga-yoni* (male and the female reproductive organs) does seem to manifest a Tantrika/Sahaj¯ıya symbolism, Ramakanta Chakrabarti opines that the use of the ¯ *Rasaraja ¯* concept in the *Vam´s¯ı Sik´sa¯* probably signified an attempt towards acculturation and accommodation of certain select Sahaj¯ıya concepts within the Gau ¯ d.¯ıya Vais.n. ava theology by a particular Vais.n. ava circle (Chakrabarti 1985, p. 274). In the eighteenth century, Vais.n. ava Sahaj¯ıya theories were further developed in texts ¯ such as Aki ¯ ncana D ˙ as's ¯ *Vivarta-vilasa ¯* (Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1993, pp. 497–520).

Over the course of the early modern period, several texts beginning with Kr.s.n. adas Kavir ¯ aja's ¯ *Caitanya Caritam¯ r.ta* and later by Narahari Chakrabarti's *Bhakti-ratnakar ¯* and Nityananda D ¯ as' ¯ *Narottama vilas, ¯* a standard form of Bengali Vais.n. avism—a 'brahmanically-aligned Vais.n. ava normativity' (Wong 2018, p. 57) that was anti-Sahaj¯ıya in outlook had come to be established. However, other interpretations, ¯ especially those of a Sahaj¯ıya variety, remained in circulation despite their apparent marginalization ¯ from mainstream Bengali Vais.n. ava currents. As Tony Stewart has shown, even with Kr.s.n. adas's strong ¯ guiding hand, 'some later theories did survive and follow their own line of development, producing results that Kr.s.n. adas probably never envisioned' ( ¯ Stewart 2010, p. 59). Contrary to colonial accounts of the Bengali Vais.n. ava tradition that emphasise the diminishing importance of gosvam¯ ¯ı leadership in the post-*Bhakti-ratnakar ¯* period (e.g., Kennedy 1925, pp. 76–77), there is evidence of a number of gosvam¯ ¯ı srıpats or centres with large popular followings until well into the colonial period. Referencing the cases of Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a and Baghn ¯ ap¯ a¯d. a, Bhatia concludes: 'It seems obvious that some of these shripats ¯ flourished, gained disciples, ran schools, and became rich centres of Vaishnava doctrine and practice, by the mid-to late nineteenth century' (Bhatia 2017, p. 74). Let us now turn to the ways in which Vis.nupriya was portrayed within the hagiographical literature of early modern Bengal. ¯

<sup>12</sup> *Bahira ¯ ngabh ˙ ave harekrishna r ¯ am n ¯ am¯* / *pracaril ¯ a jagam ¯ ajhe Gauragu ¯ n. adham¯* // *Antarangabh ˙ ave antara ¯ nga bhaktaga ˙ n. <sup>e</sup>* / *Rasaraj-up ¯ asana ¯ karila arpane ¯* //.

#### **3. Women and Vais.n. avism: Vis.nupriya in Pre-Colonial Contexts ¯**

In the history of the Vais.n. ava movement in Bengal, the followers of Caitanya were mostly married householders (such as Advaita, Nityananda, most of the Gop ¯ alas, and ¯ Sr´ ¯ınivasa ¯ Ac¯ arya, among others), ¯ and their preaching led numerous men and women to become natural followers of the tradition in vast swathes of rural Bengal from the sixteenth century onwards. However, there were also several adherents (such as the six *Gosvam¯ ¯ı* theologians at Vr.ndavana—namely, San ¯ atana, Rupa, J ¯ ¯ıva, Raghunath ¯ Bhat.t.a, Gopal Bha ¯ t.t.a, and Raghunath D ¯ as—along with K ¯ r.s.n. adas Kavir ¯ aja, Narottama D ¯ as, and others), ¯ who adhered to the ascetic ideal.<sup>13</sup> Theoretically at least, the Vais.n. ava tradition does not valorize or discount one's marital status as a precondition for one's spiritual quest nor does it consider one's gender or social identity as a handicap in the path to salvation. Kr.s.n. a-*bhakti* alone is considered as the *sine qua non* for a devotee. There is indeed no explicit mention in the scriptures debarring women from taking up *harinam¯* , and the graphic descriptions of congregational *sank¯ırtanas*, fairs, festivities (*mahotsavs*), and pilgrimages in the works of the medieval Vais.n. ava hagiographers often show women participating in them with full vigor.

Within the hagiographic literature, however, we seldom come across individual women, apart from a few notable exceptions, aspiring for or attaining independent worth as female gurus within the tradition. However, there were many who indeed attained immense privilege and acclaim as Vais.n. ava gurus in their own right. In this context, the most deserving names are those of Ganga Dev ¯ ¯ı (daughter of Nityananda and wife of a Brahman named M ¯ adhav ¯ ach ¯ ary ¯ a who spread Vai ¯ s.n. avism in parts of Bengal); S¯ıta Dev ¯ ¯ı (wife of Advaita Ac ¯ ary ¯ a who rallied with her son Acyut ¯ ananda after the death of ¯ Advaita to provide leadership to the Advaita disciplic lineage at Shantipur in Nadiya and later became the subject of two texts, *Sitacaritra ¯* by Vis.n. udas¯ Ac¯ arya and ¯ *Sitagu ¯ n. akadamba* by Lokenath Das); J ¯ ahnav ¯ a¯ Dev¯ı (daughter of Suryadas Sarkhel and Nity ¯ ananda's second wife); Hemlat ¯ a¯ T. hakurani (daughter ¯ of Sr´ ¯ınivasa ¯ Ac ¯ ary ¯ a); and M ¯ adhav ¯ ¯ı Dev¯ı (sister of the Odiya Vais.n. ava Sikhi M ´ ahiti). Among these ¯ personalities, Jahnav ¯ a Dev ¯ ¯ı perhaps went on to achieve the greatest fame as a leader of the sect for some time, and organized the crucial gatherings known as the Khetur¯ı Mahotsavs. There were also ¯ some women poets among the early modern Bengali padavali writers such as Rami, Rasamoy ¯ ¯ı Das¯ ¯ı, Dukhin¯ı, Indumukhi, Siva Sahacar ¯ ¯ı, and Madhavi D ¯ as¯ ¯ı (Banerjee 1994) who achieved some amount of distinction.

On the basis of a comparative survey of varied Bengali Vais.n. ava scriptural/hagiographic narratives, Uma Bandyopadhyay suggests that noteworthy female Vais.n. avas in India numbered around sixty-nine, ninety-six, seventeen, ten, and thirty in the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and the nineteenth–twentieth century, respectively (Bandyopadhyay 2015).14 As far as Caitanya's interactions with women are concerned, Amiya Sen contends that 'Caitanya related to women in various ways, depending upon their age or social standing' and while he didn't have inhibitions intermixing with older women (such as Malin ¯ ¯ı Dev¯ı or S¯ıta Dev ¯ ¯ı) or young girls of Navadv¯ıpa, he maintained a self-conscious distance from adult women, especially after his ascetic vows (Sen 2019, pp. 141–42). Caitanya's reluctance to speak to or even meet women after his ascetic vows is indeed harped upon by the standard hagiographies. This may be illustrated by referring to specific textual examples. For instance, Kr.s.n. adas Kavir ¯ aja in chapter two of the ¯ *Antya L¯ıla¯* of his *Caitanya Caritam¯ r.ta* mentions how Caitanya chastised his ardent disciple Choto (Junior) Haridas for begging premium quality rice ¯ from Madhav ¯ ¯ı Dev¯ı (sister of Sikhi M ´ ahit ¯ ¯ı) at Puri.15 Caitanya remained inflexible on the point of

<sup>13</sup> Bimanbihari Majumdar estimates that almost fifty-four ascetics are mentioned in the hagiographies (Majumdar 1959, p. 568). The ascetic ideal itself is an extremely durable and resilient one within Indian traditions right from the Vedic times (Kaelber 1989; Olivelle 1992; Bronkhorst 1998; and Olson 2015).

<sup>14</sup> This statement, however, needs to be qualified by the fact that the mere mention of a female member in the textual sources, whether as mother, wife, sister, daughter, or relative or friend of an important male Vais.n. ava does not automatically elevate her into a worthy initiated Vais.n. ava. <sup>15</sup> *Prabhu kahe vairagi kare prakr ¯ .ti-sambhas¯. an.* /*dekhite na p ¯ ari ¯ ami t ¯ ah¯ ar badan ¯* //.

punishment and did not relent despite the requests of his other disciples that finally led the forlorn Choto Haridas to give up his life at Prayag (modern Varanasi). K ¯ r.s.n. adas extols this incident as an ¯ exemplary episode that 'led his disciples to give up conversation with women, even in their dreams' (Sen 2002, pp. 170–71).16 Again, in chapter twelve of the *Antya L¯ıla¯* of the *Caitanya Caritam¯ r.ta*, Kr.s.n. adas¯ mentions that when Parame´svara Das, a sweetmeat seller and a childhood acquaintance of Caitanya ¯ came to meet him at Puri along with his wife, Caitanya felt hesitant, although he did not express it openly out of love for his friend (Sen 2002, pp. 213–14).

However, several other sacred biographies show that Caitanya had not completely shunned his interactions with women. For instance, the *Sam. nyasa Kha ¯ n. d. a* Chapter XV *sloka* 20 of Jayananda's ¯ *Caitanya mangala ˙* depicts that Caitanya had food at Advaita's household at Shantipur that was served by Sita Devi and other women of the family even after renunciation (Jayananda 1971 ¯ , pp. 141–42). Again, in the *Utkala Khand. a* Chapter IX *sloka* 14–15, Jayananda states that when Caitanya went to ¯ Cuttack, he bestowed his own garland to Candrakala, the chief queen of King Prat ¯ aparudra Dev ¯ a, ¯ and instructed her to recite the name of Hari (Jayananda 1971 ¯ , p. 153).17 The editors of Jayananda's ¯ *Caitanya mangala ˙* contend that 'such descriptions were responsible for the loss of popularity of this book among the orthodox Vais.n. avas' (Jayananda 1971 ¯ , p. xxxvi). While it is evident that Caitanya usually avoided direct interactions with women as an ascetic, a complete textual censorship of his interactions or conversations with women, it seems to be in hindsight, more a reflection of the conservative mindset of the hagiographers of the post-Caitanya period than a historical attitude of the Lord himself.

Among Caitanya's two wives, his first wife Laks.m¯ıpriya, who is identified with Rukmi ¯ n.¯ı in the *Gauragan. odde´sad¯ıpika¯* (Brezezinski 1996, p. 64), died young due to a snakebite at Navadv¯ıpa while Caitanya was touring his ancestral home in Sylhet (modern Bangladesh). Jayananda, in his ¯ *Caitanya mangala ˙* , described details of Caitanya's marriage with Laks.m¯ıpriya as well her exquisite cooking ¯ abilities (*Nad¯ıya Khan ¯ d. a 34, 45, 46, 54–62*). However, nothing more is said about her by the biographers than that she was a devoted wife who fulfilled her household duties and on one occasion cooked for a large group of monks who were invited for lunch at their house (*Caitanya Bhagavata ¯ Adi ¯* .14.14–19). Vis.nupriya, as Caitanya's second wife, is given more importance in the hagiographies, as she was the ¯ one who saw his renunciation into an ascetic. She is mentioned in a wide variety of hagiographic texts such as Murar¯ ¯ı Gupta's *Kr.s.n. a Caitanya Caritam¯ r.ta* (or simply Murar¯ ¯ı Gupta's *Karcha*), Vr.ndavana D ¯ as' ¯ *Caitanya Bhagavata ¯* , Locana Das' ¯ *Caitanya mangala, ˙* Jayananda's ¯ *Caitanya mangala ˙* , and ¯ I´sana N ¯ agara's ¯ *Advaita Praka*sa among others. ´

Vis.nupriya is regarded as Bh ¯ u´ ¯ sakti (Mother Earth) and Satyabham¯ a (consort of K ¯ r.s.n. a) in her previous lives (Bandyopadhyay 2015, p. 248). Even in Kavikarn. apura's ¯ *Gauragan. odde´sad¯ıpika¯* (Sloka 47)*,* Vis.nupriya is considered as the daughter of Mah ¯ am¯ ay¯ a Dev ¯ ¯ı and the Vais.n. ava devotee Sanatan Mi´ ¯ sra, who in his previous birth was King Satrajit ( ¯ Kavikarn. apura 1922 ¯ ). The sources explicitly mention that Vis.nupriya's birth was celebrated with pomp and ¯ éclat. Vr.ndavana D ¯ as, for instance, in sloka 44-45 of ¯ the fifteenth chapter of the *Adi Kha ¯ n. d. <sup>a</sup>* portion of his *Caitanya Bhagavata ¯* states that Vis.nupriya was ¯ a *param sucarita¯* (extremely well-mannered) and a personification of Laks.m¯ı and Jaganmat¯ a (Earth ¯ Goddess) (Das 1984, p. 319). He further mentions in sloka 46 that from her childhood, Vis.nupriya used ¯ to daily bathe twice or thrice in the River Ganga and always expressed devotion towards her parents and Lord Vishnu. The *Padakalpataru* contains numerous verses explaining Vis.nupriya's progress into a ¯ teenager when she made a positive impression on Caitanya's mother, Sac ´ ¯ı Dev¯ı.18 Sac ´ ¯ı Dev¯ı, on her

<sup>16</sup> *Mahaprabhu k ¯ r.pasindhu ke p ¯ are bujhite ¯* /*nija bhakte dan. d. a kare dharma bujhaite* // *dekhi tras upajil ¯ a sab bhaktaga ¯ n.e* / *svapneo charil ¯ a¯ sabe str¯ı-sambha¯s. an.e.* What is even more striking is the fact that the elderly ascetic Madhavi Dev ¯ *¯ı* was counted along with Raya R ¯ am¯ ananda, Svarupa Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı, and Sikhi M ´ ahit ¯ ¯ı as the three and a half followers of Radh ¯ ar¯ a¯n.¯ı by no less a person

than Kr.s.n. adas Kaviraja ( ¯ *Chapter II Antya L¯ıla sloka 104–5)*. <sup>17</sup> *Raj¯ ar sateka str ¯ ¯ı pradhana Candrakal ¯ a¯* / *Gauracandra dila t ¯ are gal ¯ ar divya m ¯ al¯ a¯* //*Harinama dil ¯ a t ¯ are Caitanya Gos ¯ ain¯* / *N¯ılachale gel ¯ a¯ ratre uddeshya n ¯ a p ¯ ai¯* //.

<sup>18</sup> Chapter fifteen of the *Adi Khand. <sup>a</sup>* of the *Caitanya Bhagavata ¯* contains detailed references to Sac ´ ¯ı meeting and being impressed with Vis.nupriya during her daily journeys to the bathing ghat in Navadv ¯ ¯ıpa and finally through the mediation of the

part, had been concerned about the future of her son, especially after Laks.m¯ı Dev¯ı's death. Murar¯ ¯ı Gupta, in the thirteenth and fourteenth *svarga* (chapters) of the first *prakrama* (segment) of his *Kr.s.n. a Caitanya Caritam¯ r.ta*, details Vis.nupriya's marriage with Caitanya. Jay ¯ ananda's ¯ *Caitanya mangala ˙* too, described the details of the marriage ceremony (*Nad¯ıya Khan ¯ d. a 63 to 66*). Locana Das in the ¯ *Adi Kha ¯ n. d. <sup>a</sup>* segment of his *Caitanya mangala ˙* described the exuberant physical beauty of Vis.nupriya on the day ¯ of her marriage with the words that she 'reflected a golden hue and glowed like lightening'.<sup>19</sup> Both Vr.ndavana D ¯ as and Locana D ¯ as refer to the elaborate rituals and festivities that followed the marriage. ¯ Vr.ndavana D ¯ as goes to the extent of stating that even the gods like Brahma expressed their approval ¯ by 'showering flowers on the couple'. However, Caitanya's journey to Gaya and his gradual spiritual ¯ turn after his return to Navadv¯ıpa led him to lose interest in worldly affairs. Among the biographers, only Locana Das in the ¯ *Caitanya mangala ˙* (*Madhya Khan. d. a*) describes the couple as having spent the last night of their married life together on the same bed.20

Almost none of the early modern hagiographers mention anything substantial about Vis.nupriya¯ after Gaura¯nga took his ascetic vows, barely a year or so after his second marriage. She is described ˙ as a distraught young bride who silently remained devoted to her lost husband. Jayananda refers to ¯ her mental agony on hearing Caitanya's desire to take up renunciation (*Caitanya mangala, Vairagya ˙ Khand. a 13, 14, 15,* and *<sup>22</sup>*) and later the deep distress felt by both Sac ´ ¯ı and Vis.nupriya after Caitanya's ¯ renunciation (*Caitanya mangala ˙* , *Sam. nyasa Khan ¯ d. a 9* and *12*). Most texts mention that Caitanya enquired, respected, and even met his mother Sac ´ ¯ı Dev¯ı after taking up sam. nyasa, but he did not for once ¯ mention the name of Vis.nupriya. Kavikarnapura's ¯ *Caitanya-candrodaya-nataka* contends that Caitanya taught true renunciation to the world by renouncing the external world as well as the inner world of desires.21 The early medieval texts, however, are as important for what they state as for their silences. It is worth remembering that Kr.s.n. adas Kavir ¯ aja's magnum opus ¯ *Caitanya Caritam¯ r.ta* (CC 1.16.23) mentions Vis.nupriya only in one passing reference ( ¯ Stewart 2010, p. 159). For the Vr.ndavana ¯ Gosvam¯ ¯ıs, theological teachings about Radh ¯ a-K¯ r.s.n. a were far more important than any analysis of Caitanya's pre-ascetic marital relations. As Gaud.¯ıya theologians began to place increased importance on Caitanya as the personification of Radh ¯ a's mood ( ¯ *bhava ¯* ) and luster (*dyuti*), the role of Vis.nupriya¯ as a feminine consort almost receded from the theological (although not historical) sense. Bengali hagiographers like Vr.ndavana D ¯ as, on the other hand, mention them as the 'main ¯ *asrayas ¯* or vessels of emotion in dramatizations of his life, which traditionally end with his renunciation, *Nimai–Sa ¯ m. nyasa ¯* ' (Brezezinski 1996, pp. 64–65).

However, the idea of Caitanya's preeminence as a god unto Himself—*Gauraparamyavada*, literally meaning the Supremacy of the Golden One—and not just as an incarnation of Kr.s.n. a, also found ready acceptance within segments of Bengali Vais.n. ava imagination (Stewart 2010, pp. 57–58). They tried to frame Caitanya as a *Svayam. Bhagavan¯* or one who contained within himself all possible forms of divinity (Stewart 2010, p. 86). Some devotee disciples such as Gadadhar and Narahari Sark ¯ ar even ¯ conceived themselves as Gop¯ıs in relation to Caitanya. There was also a parallel development of the idea that Caitanya was a paramour par excellence just like Kr.s.n. a (*Nad¯ıya n¯ agar ¯ ¯ı bhava*). In fact, most of the depictions of Vis.nupriya that exist in medieval Vai ¯ s.n. ava literature originate from the hands of those belonging to the *Nad*¯ı*ya n¯ agari bh ¯ ava ¯* tradition cultivated at Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a, a town to the North

matchmaker Ka´¯sinath Mi´ ¯ sra arranged for Gaura¯nga's marriage proposal to Vi ˙ s.nupriya's father San ¯ atana Mi´ ¯ sra (Das 1984, pp. 312–32).

<sup>19</sup> Locana Das, ¯ *Caitanya mangala:Adi Khan ˙ d. a*, Slokas 107–110 '*Vis.nupriya r anga jini l ¯ akhb ¯ an son ¯ a, jhalmal kare jena tarit pratim ¯ a'¯* (Das 1892 ¯ , p. 138).

<sup>20</sup> Bimanbihari Majumdar considers that Locana Das based this interpretation on an Oriya poet M ¯ adhava's text ¯ *Caitanya vilasa ¯* , and this fact was also supposedly testified to be true by Vr.ndavana Das from his mother Narayani Dev ¯ ¯ı, who was present in Caitanya's house on the night prior to his sam. nyasa. Majumdar, however, does not accept this suggestion to be true ¯ (Majumdar 1959, pp. 275–77).

<sup>21</sup> In Act One of this work, Kali yuga foretells that 'He (Caitanya) will marry his beloved wife, the unparalleled Vis.nupriya, a ¯ portion of [the goddess] *Bhu¯*, and to reveal the teachings of renunciation he will abandon her, while he is still very young' (Lutjeharms 2018, p. 107).

West of Navadv¯ıpa in Burdwan district of Bengal. As Tony Stewart has pointed out, this 'ascendency of the erotic' is seen within some post-Caitanya commentators, especially in the works of Narahari Sarkar, Locana D ¯ as, and Narahari Chakrabarti ( ¯ Stewart 2010, pp. 139–88). The lamentation of Sac ´ ¯ı and Vis.nupriya was the subject of at least thirty-four ¯ *padas* classified separately by Jagatbandhu Bhadra in his *Gaurapadatarangini* (Stewart 2010, p. 159). Locana Das extolled in glowing terms the intimate details ¯ about Vis.nupriya's physical beauty ( ¯ *Caitanya mangala ˙* 2.4.105–21). Locana Das regarded Vi ¯ s.nupriya as ¯ Laks.m¯ı, the wife of Vishnu (*Caitanya mangala ˙* 2.4.162).

As noted earlier, most hagiographers show that Caitanya began to display signs of godliness and was worshipped as such by his followers during his lifetime. With the attainment of deeper roots by Vais.n. avism, *arca-m¯ urtis ¯* (worshipable physical images) of Radh ¯ a-K¯ r.s.n. a were set up that channelized patterns of liturgical worship through *vaidhi bhakti* or ritualized devotion based on the prescriptions of the *Haribhaktivilas*. Consecrating idols for his worship was a development that also occurred during Caitanya's lifetime. Murar¯ ¯ı Gupta mentions Vis.nupriya, in sloka eight of the fourteenth chapter of ¯ the fourth segment of his *Kr.s.n. a Caitanya Caritam¯ r.ta,* as the first person to set up an idol of Caitanya (Gupta 2009, pp. 284–87).22 Almost at the same time, other images such as a Gaura–Nitai idol was ¯ established by Gauridas Pa ¯ n. d. it (*Kr.s.n. a Caitanya Caritam¯ r.ta* 4.14.12–14). It is rumoured that a Caitanya idol was also set up at Dhaka Dakshin in Srihatta (Sylhet, Bangladesh) in the early sixteenth century. The *Bhakti-ratnakar ¯* mentions the establishment of three images of Caitanya, at Vr.ndavana by K ¯ a´¯s¯ı´svar Pan. d. it, at Sr´ ¯ıkhan. d. a by Narahari Sarkar, and at Katwa by Gadadhar D ¯ as, respectively. The same text ¯ mentions that Narottama Das set up Gaura–Vi ¯ s.nupriya idols at Kheturi ( ¯ Majumdar 1959, pp. 562–64). Later on, many other images, terracotta figures, panels, and temples dedicated to Caitanya cropped up in various parts of Bengal (Sen 2019, Appendix D). Narahari Sarkar, who had his seat ( ¯ *Sr´ ¯ıpat¯* ) at Sr´ ¯ıkhan. d. a in Burdwan district, during his last days desired to create a Vis.nupriya image and initiate a ¯ prayer dedicated to Gaura¯nga–Vi ˙ s.nupriya ( ¯ *yugal bhajan*). This was ultimately fulfilled by his disciple Raghunandan T. hakur or his son Kan¯ ai¯ T. hakur. However, it was his most illustrious disciples, Locana Das and the pada composer V ¯ asudev Ghosh, who spread this idea further (Adhikari, ¯ *Digdar´sin. ¯ı*, pp. 13–14). In fact, numerous padas or verses were dedicated to specific emotions of Vis.nupriya¯ for Gauracandra paralleling those of Radh ¯ a for K ¯ r.s.n. a, for instance, *viraha* during spring, monsoon, and winter apart from twelve-monthly *viraha* of Vis.nupriya and also verses on the specific emotions ¯ expressed by Caitanya (Ray 1897).23 Pada composers also expounded on the natural elements of Caitanya's glory as a cloud, as a river, the construction of a marketplace, as a tree, and also as the condensed form of all avatars. However, as Jan Brezezinski correctly surmises, the *gaura nagara v ¯ ad¯ ¯ıs* never attempted to pattern their devotion to Caitanya in the way of Vis.nupriya, although there is a ¯ deity of Vis.nupriya that is worshipped at ¯ Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a (Brezezinski 1996, Cf.8).

In the years following Caitanya's sam. nyasa, Vi ¯ s.nupriya led a pious life of service to her aged ¯ mother-in-law and became an ideal widow, although it does not seem that she took an active leadership role. Nonetheless, she continued to be a silent source of religious aura and living place of pilgrimage during that time.24 Jagadanand ¯ as' ¯ *Advaita Praka¯*s´*a* describes that Vis.nupriya adhered to the ideal ¯ of strict austerity: Rising early each morning before daybreak with Sac ´ ¯ı and bathing in the river Ganga, remaining indoors the entire day. Devotees would never see her face except when she came to eat, and no one heard her speak. Vis.nupriya adhered to a strict diet and ate only the remnants ¯

<sup>22</sup> *Praka´sarupe ¯ n. a nijapriyay¯ a¯h. Sam¯ıpamas¯ adya nija ¯ m. hi murti ¯ m.* // *Vidhaya tasya ¯ m. sthita es. a Kr.s.n. ah. sa Lak ¯ s.m¯ırupa ca ni ¯ s.evate prabhuma* //. <sup>23</sup> These included a very detailed explanation of varied attitudes or states such as *chinta-da ¯* s´*a¯* or worried-condition, *Jagaran-da ¯* s´*a¯*

or awake-condition, *Udbeg-da*s´*a¯* or anxious-condition, *pralap-da´ ¯ sa¯* or frantic babbling condition, *vyadhi-da*s´*a¯* or afflicted condition, *unmad-da ¯* s´*a¯* or maddened condition, *moha-da*s´*a¯* or enthralled condition, *Bhavoll ¯ asa ¯* or overflow of emotion*, samriddhiman sambhog ¯* or heightened sexual condition, *samriddhiman sambhoger rasodg ¯ ar¯* or explosion of rasa, and so on. They also composed verses on the moods of Caitanya during various periods of the day from early morning (*pratahkal-l ¯ ¯ıla¯*), afternoon (*madhyanya-l¯ıla¯*), evening (*sayank ¯ alocita- ¯ arati ¯* ), and night (*ratri-bil ¯ as and ratri-l ¯ ¯ıla¯*) (Ray 1897, Vol. 3, contents). For an

in-depth analysis of various rasas and their categories within Vais.n. ava theology see (Das 2000, pp. 179–309). <sup>24</sup> *Bhakti-ratnakar ¯* (Chapter 4) refers to Sr´ ¯ınivasa ¯ Ac¯ arya's visit to Vi ¯ s.nupriya at Navadv ¯ ¯ıpa on his way to Vr.ndavana ( ¯ Chakrabarti 1888, pp. 121–48).

of Sac ´ ¯ı's food, and spent all her time absorbed in rapt repetition of the Holy Name while looking at the image of Caitanya. Vis.nupriya took the path of austerity designated by Caitanya with utmost ¯ seriousness—placing a grain of rice in the clay pot after each completion of the sixteen names of Kr.s.n. aand, and later cooking and consuming only those grains (Brezezinski 1996).<sup>25</sup> It is relevant that some later histories of the movement, such as the *Mural¯ıvil*a¯*sa* (fourth chapter), refers to Vis.nupriya's ¯ close relations with Nityananda's second wife J ¯ ahnav ¯ a Dev ¯ ¯ı and her importance played a role in the adoption of Ramachandra as a foster-child by J ¯ ahnav ¯ a. Vi ¯ s.nupriya is also regarded to have inaugurated ¯ the worship of a Caitanya image around which numerous legends arose.26

Almost nothing is known about when Vis.nupriya left her mortal body, although there are ¯ suggestions that she ultimately merged in the idol of Caitanya at Navadv¯ıpa (Sarbadhikary 2015, p. 57) as early as 1573 (Bhattacharya 2001, p. 388) or as late as 1589 CE (Maitra 1960, p. 141). It is believed that Caitanya's image and footwear worshipped by Vis.nupriya have come down through the family ¯ lineage of her brother Jadav ¯ ac¯ arya or the latter's son M ¯ adhava Mi´ ¯ sra in present day Navadv¯ıpa at the Dhameshwar Mahaprabhu temple27, which was recognized in 2006–7 as a heritage building and continues to form an essential place of pilgrimage for devout Vais.n. avas (Maitra 1960, pp. 143–44; Sarbadhikary 2015, p. 58). There are other temples dedicated to Vis.nupriya in Navadv ¯ ¯ıpa too that encode a sacred spatial topography to the town.

#### **4. Vais.n. avas, Women's Issues, and Sacred Biographies: Retrieving Vis.nupriya in Colonial Times ¯**

Bengali Vais.n. avas actively participated in the process of public propagation of religiosity with the onset of the new technology of print. A substantial number of printed texts from the early nineteenth century publishing complex of Bat.tala in North Calcutta were reprints of manuscripts and mostly Vais.n. ava in content.<sup>28</sup> Over the course of the nineteenth century, the cheap availability of printed Vais.n. ava devotional literature had a positive impact on the dissemination of Vais.n. ava texts and ideas. Print also seems to have enabled an integration of sacred communities through new networks of readership (Fuller 2003; Bhatia 2017, pp. 124–60; Dey 2020b). Networks of readership gave visible expression to a middle-class Bengali public sphere, reiterating the link between education, service (*cakri ¯* ), and cultural production (Ghosh 2006; Mitra 2009). Print facilitated the emergence of new forms of individuality through new literary genres such as autobiographies, biographies, journals, and novels.<sup>29</sup> Scholars contend that as India entered the colonial phase, pre-colonial hagiographical traditions began to be 'supplemented, and to some extent supplanted, by a new form of biography, in which greater attention was given to complexity of character and personal motivation, to specific places and events, and to their role in shaping and explaining individual lives', but at the same time, 'modernity did not replace traditional life histories so much as recast them' (Arnold and Blackburn 2004, p. 8). It was in this historical context that sacred biographies about members of the entire Vais.n. ava hagiographical personae, including Vis.nupriya, began to circulate in the Bengali literary sphere. ¯

<sup>25</sup> This image is repeated in Chapter five of the *Prema-vilasa ¯* by Nityananda D ¯ as, in the ¯ *Bhakti-ratnakar ¯* of Narahari Kaviraj, (4.48–52), and the *Vam´s¯ı sik´sa* of Premadas Misra. ¯

<sup>26</sup> The *Vam´s¯ı Sik´sa*, which is a history of the Gosvam¯ ¯ıs of Baghn ¯ ap¯ a¯d. a, mentions that after Caitanya's renunciation, Vi ¯ s.nupriya¯ had abandoned food and drink until He appeared to her (and Vam´s¯ıvadan T. hakur) in a dream, telling her to have an image ¯ of himself carved in the margosa tree under which Sac ´ ¯ı had sat to suckle him (Premadas Mi´ ¯ sra n.d., pp. 161–62).

<sup>27</sup> The Dhameshwar temple received patronage from Manipur King Bhagyachandra and later from Guruprasad Ray, the Bhagyakul zamindar of Dhaka in the nineteenth century (Bhattacharya 2001, pp. 387–91; Sarbadhikary 2015, pp. 57–59).

<sup>28</sup> The catalogue of Bengali books published by Reverend James Long in 1855 shows that the number of Bengali titles in print was only 20 in 1820, and 50 in 1852, but the number moved up to 322 in 1857 with 6,56,370 copies (Long 1855, pp. 100–2). By 1825–26 there were around forty presses in operation in Calcutta alone. He listed that among Bengali books a considerable number related to Vais.n. ava issues. <sup>29</sup> Literary biographies have had a longer and more visible presence in Indian literary traditions, beginning probably with the

*Hars. acarita ¯* of Banabha ¯ t.t.a in the seventh century, the *Ramac ¯ arita ¯* of Sandhyakarnandi in the eleventh ¯ /twelfth century, and the *Periyapur ¯ an¯ am¯* (a Tamil compendium of Saiva poet saints) attributed to Cekkilar in the twelfth century. Around the same time, a parallel tradition of Indian Islamic hagiographies, including compilations of conversations of Sufi saints and Pirs, began to be written in Arabic and Persian.

There exists quite a large corpus of poems composed on Vis.nupriya in the periodicals of the colonial ¯ period.30 A number of plays were also written specifically about her, such as Si´ ´ sir Kumar Ghosh's ¯ *Nimai¯ Sam. ny*a¯*sa* (1899), Matilal Ray's *Nimai-Sa ¯ m. nyasa G ¯ ¯ıtabhinay ¯* (1912), Kaliprasanna Vidyaratna's ¯ *Nimai¯ Sam. nyasa G ¯ ¯ıt*a¯*bhinay* (1931), and Yoge´scandra Caudhur¯ı's *Sr´ ¯ı Sr´ ¯ı Vis.nupriya¯* (1931). We also find the composition of *stotras* (Sanskrit eulogies or hymns) in her memory coined as *Vis.nupriya stotram ¯* (Sarkar¯ 1914, pp. 1–4). The biographies on her in the colonial period, such as Rasikmohan Vidyabhu ¯ s.an's *Gaura-Vis.nupriya¯* (Vidyabhus.an 1917); Vaikunt.hanath De's ¯ *Vis.nupriya Caritam ¯ r.ta¯* (1917); *Vis.nupriya¯* by Niradasundar ¯ ¯ı Das¯ ¯ı (1913); and Vidhubhus.an Sarkar's ¯ *Vis.nupriya¯* (in two volumes in 1915 and 1926, respectively) not only encode her life in vernacular narratives, but also attempt to expand and fill in greater factual details within the episodic vignettes about Vis.nupriya's life as provided by the ¯ medieval hagiographers. While Niradasundar ¯ ¯ı Das¯ ¯ı, a Vais.n. ava widow from East Bengal, found personal empathy within the pathos experienced by Vis.nupriya, other writers tried to put forward ¯ Vis.nupriya as a biographic subject with vivid details. Although such literary liberty verged on the ¯ margins of biographic fiction, nevertheless, they are important to us, for they reveal the strategies and methods adopted by bhadralok writers of the colonial period to imbue a new sacred imagery for Caitanya's '*Priyaj¯ ¯ı,* as Vis.nupriya was a ¯ ffectionately referred to by them.<sup>31</sup> She was referred to as the 'Divine Consort' of Caitanya and as 'the principal personage in Gaura Leela'. She was also referred to as the 'perfect embodiment of womanhood and the highest ideal of all womanly attributes and devotional feeling' (Sarkar 1926 ¯ , preface). A versified narrative in 1917 entitled *Vis.nupriya Caritam ¯ r.ta¯* by Vaikunt.hanath De contended that ' ¯ Sr´ ¯ı Sr´ ¯ı Vis.nupriya is ¯ Sr´ ¯ı Caitanya's *Svak¯ıya Mahi ¯ s.¯ı* (own legitimate wife). She had been incarnated in this world in order to propagate the *mah¯ atmya ¯* (greatness) of the ideal of *patibratya dharma ¯* (devotion to one's husband)' (De 1917, preface). Furthermore, the *Amrita Baz¯ ar Patrik ¯ a¯* gave the opinion in 1926 that:

'We are charmed to see ... that Sree Vishnupriya, the representative of all the beings, went through most unbearable but self-imposed suffering and pangs of separation from her Lord only for the salvation of humankind. It thrills every heart, purifies every soul, ennobles every spirit and translates man to the Supreme region of love which is the "Sumnum Bonum" of human life' (Sarkar 1926 ¯ , Preface)

One of the trends visible in this period is to emphasize the *Navadv¯ıpal¯ıla¯*—denoting the first phase of his life at Navadv¯ıpa—as a foundational phase of Caitanya's life. This phase ended with his ascetic renunciation or *Nimai-Sa ¯ m. nyasa ¯* ,which was portrayed as an emotional watershed—a 'soteriology of loss' according to a recent scholar (Bhatia 2017, p. 3)—not just for his immediate family (Sac ´ ¯ı and Vis.nupriya); but also his followers at Navadv ¯ ¯ıpa, and by extension, for the people of Bengal. This prioritization can be seen couched within a vivid sentimental and affective narrative set in placein the 1890s with Si´ ´ sir Kumar Ghosh's multi-volume ¯ *Amiya Nimai Carit ¯* , *Lord Gaura¯nga, Or Salvation for ˙ All* and his play *Nimai-Sa ¯ m. nyasa. ¯* The latter reproduced the heart-wrenching sorrow that Vis.nupriya¯ and Sac ´ ¯ı experienced as a result of Caitanya's renunciation (Ghosh 1899). From this perspective, an imaginative and idealistic conflation was made, from individual *viraha* (love in separation) into *viraha* for the entire collective Bengali nation, and was expressed by several authors in the early twentieth century imploring Caitanya to return once more to Bengal. Conversely, they also pleaded Bengali readers to accept Caitanya as their *praner prabhu ¯* (God of their hearts). There was also a trend to regard

<sup>30</sup> A number of poems were published in the *Vis.nupriya Patrik ¯ a¯*. 'Shri Vis.nupriya r Khed', ¯ *Shri Shri Vis.nupriya Patrik ¯ a¯*, 8.2, p. 66; Nagendrabala D ¯ asi, 'Biyogini Vi ¯ s.nupriya', ¯ *BP*, 8.2, 1898, pp. 81–82; 'Vis.nupriya r Bid ¯ ay D ¯ ana', BP, 8.3, pp. 97–98; ' ¯ Sr´ ¯ıPriyaji'r ¯

Aks ¯ .ep', BP, vol. 8, no.3, p. 98. <sup>31</sup> It seems that the term *priya¯* as the suffix within Vis.nupriya's name and the Bengali term ¯ *priya* that refers to someone dear, beloved, or favorite seems to have been deployed consciously by bhadralok writers to emphasize this loving relationship between Caitanya and Vis.nupriya. ¯

Caitanya as a son of the soil (*gharer chele* and *gharer thakur ¯* ) and infuse an incipient nationalist spirit among Bengalis to regard him as their natural choice.32

Interest in Vis.nupriya was generated particularly by the nationalist-cum-Vai ¯ s.n. ava devotee Si´ ´ sir Kumar Ghosh (1840–1911) and a small group of writers attached to him—including Harid ¯ as Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı, Haridas D ¯ as, and Rasikmohan Vidy ¯ abhu ¯ s.an, among others—who wanted to memorialize Caitanya in the image of a Bengali householder and not merely as a worshipper of Radh ¯ a-K¯ r.s.n. a or the ascetic Gaura¯nga ( ˙ Bhatia 2017, pp. 124–60). Incidentally, Binodin¯ı Dasi (1863–1941), a ¯ *jat-Vai ¯ s.n. ava* courtesan, scaled great heights on the Bengali stage and even received blessings from Ramak ¯ r.s.n. a Paramahamsa (1836–1886), the revered saint of Dakshineshwar, for her emotional portrayal of Caitanya in Girish Chandra Ghosh's play *Caitanya l¯ıla¯* in 1884. A particularly poignant poem advocating the worship of the sacred duo of Caitanya and Vis.nupriya was christened as ' ¯ *Yugal Milan'* (Meeting of two lovers) and was published in the *Vis.nupriya Patrik ¯ a¯* in 189833.

'Today, Gauracandra sat on a bejewelled throne, [along with] our prosperous Vis.nupriya on his left; ¯ Priyaji's face is like the full moon Her heart is brimming with happiness and a smile on her lips; With devotees encircling them while singing praises for *Gaura*, Gadadhar and Narahari are fanning the couple with fly-whisks; ¯ Some are embalming the couple with fragrant sandalwood paste, All devotees are adrift in a flood of bliss; Some are adorning the couple with garlands of jasmine, Nityananda Prabhu is holding an umbrella over their heads; ¯ Mother Sac ´ ¯ı is floating in a sea of happiness, and she is blessing the couple with rice and *durb*a grass; ¯ With Gaura¯nga, whose appearance is beyond compare, ˙ Vis.nupriya on his left, whose beauty I can't describe; ¯ Today, Gaura-Vis.nupriya are meeting as a couple ( ¯ *yugal-milan. a*), [O devotees] make your lives successful by perceiving this wonder!34

As the poem suggests, readers were being encouraged to view the reunion of Caitanya and Vis.nupriya along with ¯ Sac ´ ¯ı and other principal disciples as if to commemorate the eternal aura of the divine bond.<sup>35</sup>

In this period, many older debates within Bengali Vais.n. avism that had remained unresolved during the pre-colonial era resurfaced in the colonial period and were played out in a far wider arena of the print-based public sphere and in front of a far bigger reader-based audience. Many of these strands had a direct bearing on the Gaura–Vis.nupriya worship that will be dealt with in the next ¯ section. One such debate pertained to the doctrinal primacy of *Svak¯ıya* versus *Parak¯ıya* love (Sen 2019, pp. 146–47). Was Kr.s.n. a married to the gop¯ıs of Vr.ndavana or not? What sort of relation existed between ¯

<sup>32</sup> (Bipin Bihar¯ı Sarkar Bhaktiratna 1916 ¯ ).

<sup>33</sup> 'Yugal Milan', *Vis.nupriya Patrik ¯ a¯*, 8.4, p. 145; 'Yugal Rupa', *Vis.nupriya Patrik ¯ a¯*, 8.5, pp. 235–37; 'Sr´ ¯ı Priyaji'r Ganer Vandana', ¯

*Vis.nupriya Patrik ¯ a¯*, 8.6, pp. 241–42. <sup>34</sup> *Aj, basilen Gauracandra ratna-si ¯ nh˙ asane ¯* / *Vis.nupriya dhan ¯ ¯ı mor basilen bame ¯* // *Priyaj¯ ¯ır mukha jena pur¯ n. imar ´ ¯ sa´s¯ı* / *hr.daye na dhare ¯ sukha mukhe mr.duhasi ¯* // *bhaktagan. a gheri gheri goragu ¯ n. a gay¯* / *Gadadhar Narahari c ¯ amara ¯ d. hulay¯* // *sugandhi candana keha day dnuhu ˙ ange ˙* / *bhasilen bhaktaga ¯ n. a sukhera tarange ˙* // *malat ¯ ¯ır mal¯ a keha d ¯ nuhu gale day ˙* / *Nityananda Prabhu chatra dharil ¯ a m¯ ath ¯ ay¯* // *Sac ´ ¯ımat¯ a¯ bhasilen sukhera s ¯ agare ¯* / *dhanye durbb ¯ a dena putra badhum ¯ ar ´ ¯ s¯ıre* // *eke ta Gaura¯nga r ˙ upera n ¯ ahika tulan ¯ a¯* / *tahe v ¯ ame Vi ¯ s.nupriya ki ¯ diba tulana¯* // *Aj, Vi ¯ s.nupriya Gaur ¯ a¯nger yugala milana ˙* / *Janama saphala kara hera re nayana* //Anonymous, 'Yugal-milan', *Vis.nupriya¯ Patrika¯*, 8.4. p. 145.

<sup>35</sup> Another poem mentioned how Caitanya sent a sari gifted to him by the King of Orissa, Prataprudra Deva on the occasion of ¯ Nandotsav to Vis.nupriya through the hands of his trusted disciple Svarupa D ¯ amodar. 'Prabhu-prerita Sari', ¯ *Vis.nupriya¯ Patrika¯*, 8.7, 1898, p. 289.

Radh ¯ a and K ¯ r.s.n. a? Without delving into the details, it may be surmised, that Rupa and Sanatana ¯ forwarded the parak¯ıya doctrine of the ¯ *Bhagavat Pur ¯ a¯n. a* regarding the dalliances of the cowherd Kr.s.n. a with the milkmaids of Vr.ndavana. Their nephew J ¯ ¯ıva apparently favored the svak¯ıya view, possibly ¯ following discontent among the Vaishnavas of other orders at Vr.ndavana. In divergent versions of ¯ this narrative (Burton 2000, pp. 101–15), it seems that the parak¯ıya perspective grew stronger under ¯ the guidance of men like Visvanath Cakravarthi and Baladeva Vidyabhu ¯ s.an. Despite two public contestations at Jaipur in 1719 and 1723, these issues were discussed without any fruitful outcome. The Jaipur king, Maharaja Jai Singh II, finally sent his emissary Kr.s.n. adeva Sarvabhauma to establish ¯ the svak¯ıya doctrine in Bengal. However, he was defeated in a debate with R ¯ adh ¯ amohan ¯ T. hakur. The ¯ Gosvam¯ ¯ıs of Vr.ndavana had established that aesthetic pleasure and passionate devotion could be ¯ derived more effectively, not from within relations of marital love, but from love outside or beyond such relations. The Radh ¯ a–K ¯ r.s.n. a legend achieved tremendous regional and vernacular variations both within and outside Bengal (Beck 2005)—a further analysis of which lies beyond the scope of the present paper. In the early nineteenth century, Bengali folk cultural deities such as Radh ¯ a–K ¯ r.s.n. a underwent a 'domestication' process, whereby they were de-sacralized and profanized by a host of culture-producers such as painters, singers, performers, and dancers within the family kinship-based social milieu of Bengal in the early colonial period (Banerjee 2002, p. 90).

The Svak¯ıya–Parak ¯ ¯ıya debate and its fallout on societal morals was an issue of great interest ¯ even in the nineteenth century. To early Christian missionaries, such 'immorality' was unbecoming of a religious tradition.36 Many colonial commentators opined that the Vais.n. ava choice of Radh ¯ a's ¯ love for Kr.s.n. a as an object of devotion represents an apparent contravention of ideas of 'chastity and fidelity of Indian womanhood' (Kennedy 1925, pp. 108–9).37 Notions of obscenity circulating among educated middle class Bengalis in colonial times (Banerjee 1987) assumed importance among Vais.n. ava reformers too, to sanitize their tradition from the slur of immorality (Dey 2015; Wong 2018). The idea of 'religious decline' in the sense of loss of zeal and character among Vais.n. avas and the penetration of lust (*kamukata ¯* ) within the tradition were internalized to a great extent. As one periodical in 1926 mentioned:

'The scriptures prescribe very strict rules of conduct for ascetics regarding association with women. They are to be shunned entirely- by the body (*deha*), the senses (*indriya*), the mind (*man*) and also the intellect (*buddhi*). The way in which Caitanya adhered to this prescription of asceticism is without parallel in the annals of human history. He was so cautious that he avoided using the word *str¯ı* and instead referred to them as *Prakr.ti*. Women devotees did not have the right to come in front of him- let alone converse with them; they could only look at him from afar and offer their obeisance.'38

Various nineteenth century discourses had been negatively stereotyping the Vais.n. ava society as a refuge for illicit women and portraying gosvam¯ ¯ı leaders as active participants in this illegitimate

<sup>36</sup> In a rather dismissive tone, Reverend William Ward (1769–1823) of Serampore depicted Kr.s.n. a's wanton revelry, sexual excesses, and immorality. Even his childhood pranks came up for severe castigation as 'deliberate acts of falsehood and theft'. He considered the "distinguishing vice" of the Vais.n. avas to be 'impurity, as might be expected from the character of Krishna, their favourite deity, and from the obscene nature of the festivals held in his honour' (Ward 1815, pp. 302–3).

<sup>37</sup> Kennedy stereotypes the fact in the following words: 'That something, which in the Hindu wife and mother is looked upon with the utmost abhorrence, should be chosen as the most fitting representation of religion, is, to say the least, a strange procedure. The explanation turns upon the place of marriage in Hindu society. Rarely, if ever, is it a romantic attachment, the result of love's free play, for matches are arranged by the elders and the young people concerned are only passive agents. After marriage, whether love develops or not, the whole round of wifely duties and devotion are enjoined upon the woman by sacred law. Therefore, says the Vais.n. ava apologist, the love of the wife can hardly serve as the symbol of unfettered devotion. Whereas the Hindu woman who gives herself to romantic love outside the marriage relation risks her all (sic). She gives everything that makes the life worthwhile in the abandonment of her devotion. Thus, she becomes the most fitting symbol of the soul's search after God. Radhika is the supreme symbol of this passionate love' (Kennedy 1925, p. 109).

<sup>38</sup> This is mentioned by Gopiballabh Biswas. 1926. 'Sr´ ¯ımanmahaprabhu o Varn. a´sram Dharma', *Sonar Gaura¯nga ˙* , 3.11: 653–59. In his *Sajjan To*s.*ani*, Kedarnath Datta castigated the non-Vais.n. ava behaviour of adopting the ascetic guise (*kach ¯* /*besh dharan ¯* ) as exemplified by sects such as the Kapindri, Churadh ¯ ari, and Atibadi. Their attempts to personify divinity represented the ¯ worst form of moral corruption (Dey 2020b, p. 38).

exercise.<sup>39</sup> The empirical data supplied by the Decennial census conducted by the British from 1872 onwards, which regularly returned higher numbers of female Vais.n. avas than males, furthered the notion of Vais.n. ava society as a class dedicated to sexual impropriety. This gender imbalance was explained variously by colonial ethnographers. Some like W.W. Hunter considered that couples in love against their families' wishes, destitute lower caste elderly women without social support, and men seeking 'concubinage' joined the ranks (Hunter 1877, pp. 55–58). James Austin Bourdillon, who prepared the Bengal section of the Census of 1881, put the Vais.n. ava strength in the province at 262,638 males and 305,394 females, attributing the high presence of females as a result of the unrestricted entry of prostitutes (Bourdillon 1883, p. 139). Such views were reiterated by successive Census observers such as C.J. O'Donnell in 1891 and Edward Gait in 1901. Others, like Melville Kennedy, almost echoed the official view that most women of this trade took to Vais.n. avism in order to hide their caste status. He saw some social justification that 'much of the *vairagi* life of the Vais.n. avis (female ascetics) is really a system of widow remarriage without the recognition of society' (Kennedy 1925, p. 172).

However, everything was not grim about the tradition. Certain alternate positive images of Vais.n. ava women also circulated in colonial discourses. They were regarded as transmitters of a literary culture in pre-colonial and early colonial times, almost as a precursor to and anticipating the idea of women's education in colonial times. One author in the early twentieth century stated that 'They (women) were not merely the gainers from the stimulation to education,...but there also seems to have been in this Vais.n. avism an embryonic recognition of the inherent dignity and worth of women's personality which must be called distinctive' (Kennedy 1925, p. 85). It seems that education became a mark of this sect right from the initial spread of the movement and remained so till at least the early nineteenth century. William Adam's *Second Report on vernacular education in Bengal* for 1835–38 mentions that the only exception to the almost universal illiteracy among females in Bengal is to be found among the mendicant Vais.n. avas, who could read and write and regularly instructed their daughters. Adam stated that Vais.n. avas were the 'only religious body of whom, as a sect, the practice is characteristic' (Basu 1941, p. 189).

Modernist organizations such as the Gaud.¯ıya Mat.h usually veered clear of engaging directly with gender issues. However, some institutions such as Priyanath Nandi's *Sr´ ¯ıKr.s.n. a Caitanyatattva Pracarin ¯ ¯ı Sabha¯* in the early twentieth century had taken the cue from the Brahmo movement in allowing ¯ women participation in its institutional proceedings albeit with separate seating arrangements. In fact, Nandi's wife Pramadasundar ¯ ¯ı Kr.s.n. adas¯ ¯ı of the Kumartuli Mitra family was an initiated disciple of ¯ Madhusudan Gosvam¯ ¯ı, the *sebait* (priest) of the Radh ¯ araman Jiu temple of V ¯ r.ndavana and an active ¯ member of the institution till her untimely death in 1920 (Dey 2020a, p. 63).

There was another debate relating to the extent of precedence to be accorded to Caitanya's *avataric* personality, which was in turn connected to schisms regarding the legitimacy of *Gauramantra* or an independent ritual basis for Vais.n. ava initiation (Majumdar 1959, pp. 435–40). The issue had simmered on for centuries, with the Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a group legitimizing its practice while other groups considered it an anathema. This debate assumed importance within public debates from the late-nineteenth century onwards when Si´ ´ sir Kumar Ghosh's ¯ *Vis.nupriya Patrik ¯ a¯* from Calcutta took a favourable view while the *Caitanyamatabodhin¯ı Patrika¯* from Vr.ndavana castigated such innovation. Members of the ¯ traditional Advaita lineage of Shantipur such as N¯ılaman. i Gosvam¯ ¯ı contended that only the sanctioned ten-syllable Gopalamantra was legitimate for initiation. Members of this lineage went on to issue *vyavasth ¯ apatras ¯* (religious circulars) condemning the Gauramantra and the spurious texts (including the *Advaita Praka´sa*), which propagated it as a blasphemy. Many contemporary journals such as the *Vis.nupriya Patrik ¯ a¯* of Si´ ´ sir Kumar Ghosh propagated this viewpoint ( ¯ Dasya 1898 ¯ ).

<sup>39</sup> Kaliprasanna Singha's *Hutum Pyenc˙ ar Nak ¯* s´*a¯* states that Sonag¯ achi, the prostitute quarters of Calcutta, were under the ¯ jurisdiction of one Vais.n. ava Ma Gos ¯ ain of Simla locality in North Calcutta ( ¯ Nag 1991, p. 96).

These debates had deep implications for the Gaura–Vis.nupriya dual worship program, as ¯ innovations in modes of worship were usually sneered upon by mainstream Vais.n. ava lineages.
