Vaishnavism 2 - Universalist Radha-Krishnaism

This argues against taking Chaitanya’sbiographies literally. While having some basisin history, they are theological documentsmeant to spread the faith and portrayChaitanya in the same light as other luminariesof his time. They also differ in theirpresentation of events in Chaitanya’s life.24. Dr. Stewart: . . . people did not alwaysknow exactly how to interpret Caitanya’slife . . . certain changes have taken place inthe tradition until the community finallysettles on what it finds to be an acceptablestandard. . . . The Caitanya-caritamrita.(112)Again we see a developing tradition similarto the four gospels. What gets included in thecanon, and what is considered authoritative?Just as Chaitanya’s early followers had tointerpret who he was, we need to interpretwho he is for us. Perhaps it’s a matter ofreframing.25.“Dr. Stewart: . . . when Caitanya was firstbelieved to be God, and was written aboutin those terms--shortly after his death--youhad many people with the hope that hewould lead them to an overthrow of theincreasingly dominant Muslim community.This political dimension is most certainlypresent . . . martial images provedcompletely untenable in the socio-politicalreality of post Caitanya Bengal . . . youhave a shift from the aisvarya, thesovereign side, to an emphasis on13