You are here

Chapter 4: The Conversion of Sarvabhauma

The Master went in an ecstatic mood to the temple of Jagannath, and was beside Himself with love at the sight of the god. He rushed to embrace the image, but fell down on the temple floor, senseless with devotion. Happily Sarvabhauma noticed Him, and stopped the door keeper (Parichha, mace-bearer) who was about to beat the Master. Sarvabhauma marvelled exceedingly as he gazed on the beauty of the Master and His transport of love. The hour of bhog arrived, yet the Master did not come to His senses. Sarvabhauma then thought of a plan, and had Him conveyed by his disciple the door-keeper to his house and laid Him down on a clean spot. But the Master showed no respiration, no heaving of the chest. The Bhattacharya grew alarmed. He held a fine piece of cotton to the Master's nose; it stirred, and he was reassured. The Bhattacharya sat musing thus, "This is the sattvika form of the passion for Krishna. It is named the "bright-pure" (sudipta sattvika), and is displayed only by a devotee who has attained to constant realization (nitya-siddhi). This ecstasy is possible only in one whose devotion is extreme. I wonder to see it manifested in an [ordinary] man's person."

While he was pondering thus, Nityananda and the others arrived at the main gate, and overheard the people talking among themselves, "A sannyasi came here and swooned away at the sight of Jagannath; he is still in a trance. Sarvabhauma has conveyed him to his own house." They knew from this that it was the Great Master. Just then came there Gopinath Acharya, the son-in-law of Visharad of Nadia, and a devotee and acquaintance of the Master. He knew Mukunda from before, and was surprised to see him there. Mukunda bowed, the Acharya embraced him and asked him news of the Master. Mukunda replied, "The Master has come here, and we with Him." The Acharya bowed to Nityananda Goswami, and again asked them all about the Master. Mukunda said, "After taking the monastic vow, the Master came to the Blue Mountain taking us with Him. Leaving us behind He came to visit this temple, and we have arrived now to seek Him. From what we have heard from others, we conclude that He is in Sarvabhauma's house, whither He was removed on fainting at the sight of the god. I have met you luckily, just as I was wishing for your sight. Let us go to Sarvabhauma's house, and after seeing the Master we shall visit the temple."

Gopinath in delight conducted them to Sarvabhauma's house, where he beheld the Master and felt mingled joy and grief. He introduced them all to Sarvabhauma, and took them inside. Sarvabhauma bowed to Nityananda Goswami and saluted the others in the proper mode. Then he sent them all in charge of his son Chandaneshwar, to the temple. They joyed to behold the god. Nityananda went out of himself in devotion, but the others quieted him. The servitor of the shrine presented them with the garland and prasad of the god, to their great delight. Then they returned to the Master, and chanted the divine name loud and long. In the third quarter [of the day], Chaitanya awoke, and rose up shouting, Hari! Hari! Reverently Sarvabhauma took the dust of His feet [to place it on his own head], and entreated Him, "Take your midday meal soon. I shall feed you to-day with Jagannath's maha-prasad." The Master quickly came back from His bath in the sea, and feasted with His followers on the rice, broth and other kinds of prasad, which Sarvabhauma served to them from golden dishes. The Master said, "Help me with the hash of gourd (lau) and other vegetables, and serve these others with cakes and sweets." But the Bhattacharya entreated Him with folded palms, "How has Jagannath himself fed? Do you too taste all of these," and so made Him eat the cakes and sweets too. After the dinner, he helped the Master to wash, then took leave to retire with Gopinath Acharya and eat their own meals. When they returned, [the Acharya] bowed saying "I salute Narayan," and the Master responded with "Be thy mind constant in Krishna!" At these words Sarvabhauma knew Him to be a Vaishnav hermit. He then asked Gopinath Acharya about the worldly life of the Master. The Acharya replied, "His home was at Navadwip; his father Jagannath Mishra, surnamed Purandar Mishra, gave him the name of Vishwambhar. His maternal grandfather was Nilambar Chakravarti." Sarvabhauma added "Nilambar Chakravarti! why, he was a fellow-student of my father Visharad, who, I know, had a high regard for Purandar Mishra, too. I honour both for their connection with my father."

Delighted to hear that Chaitanya was a man of Nadia, Sarvabhauma thus addressed Him, "You are of honourable birth, and a sannyasi in addition. Make me, therefore, your personal disciple." At this the Master cried out, "O Vishnu! O Vishnu!" and then spoke humbly to the Bhattacharya, "You are the teacher of the world and the benefactor of mankind. You teach Vedanta and [thereby] benefit men of monastic life. I am a young monk, ignorant of good and evil. I have sought refuge with you, regarding you as my teacher. For your society have I come here, hoping that you will train me in all ways. You saved me in my great danger to-day." The Bhattacharya said, "Never go to the temple alone, but always with me or one of my men." The Master replied, "I shall not enter the shrine, but gaze from the Garuda [pillar in the quadrangle]." Then Sarvabhauma addressed Gopinath Acharya, "You will be guide to this Goswami in visiting the temple. Lodge him in the house of my mother's sister, which is a quiet place, and look to all his needs." So he did. Next day Gopinath took the Master to the temple to show Him Jagannath as he rose from his bed. Mukunda Datta led Him back to Sarvabhauma's house, who spoke thus, "This sannyasi is meek in disposition, lovely in form. I daily love Him the more. Tell me what order He has joined and what name He has chosen." Gopinath replied, "He has been named Shri Krishna-Chaitanya; His spiritual guide is Keshav Bharati, blessed man!" Sarvabhauma remarked, "His name is well-chosen, but the Bharati order is not ranked high [among the ten classes of sannyasis]."

Gopinath answered, "He does not care for outward [dignity]. Hence His indifference to the more famous orders of monks." The Bhattacharya joined in, "Ah, He is in the full bloom of youth. How can He keep the monastic rules? However, I shall ceaselessly teach Him Vedanta, and lead Him on to the rank of a recluse of the Monist school (adwaita). If He then wishes it, I shall robe Him anew with the yellow robe of a yogi, purify Him, and enter Him into one of the higher orders."

Gopinath and Mukunda grieved to hear it; and the former expostulated, "Bhattacharya! You know not His greatness. The signs of divinity have reached their extreme limit in Him! Hence He is famed as the Great God. But in a place of ignorance even the wise know nothing."

The [Sarvabhauma's] disciples asked, "What proof is there of His divinity?" The Acharya replied, "The belief of the wise is proof of divinity." The disciples objected, saying, "It is by inference that God is recognized." But the Acharya answered, "No, God is not known by inference, but only by those on whom He bestows His grace, even a particle of it. Witness Brahma's praise of Vishnu in the Shrimad Bhagabat, Book X. canto xiv. verse 28:

"'Lord! true it is that knowledge can gain salvation, but Thy glories can be known only by him who has been blessed even with a particle of favour from Thy lotus-like feet. O Perfect Being! A man lacking Thy grace, may be free from earthly lusts, may have studied the scriptures for ages, but still he cannot know Thee fully!'

"O Sarvabhauma, you may be the World's Teacher, a master of theology, unrivalled in the world in scholarship. But you have not gained God's grace, hence you cannot know God. I do not blame you, but the scripture says clearly that the knowledge of God cannot come from mere scholarship."

Sarvabhauma replied, "Weigh thy words well, Acharya! How do you prove that you have gained God's grace?" The Acharya replied, "We know a material thing by observing it. Our knowledge of the nature of a thing is proved by grace. On this sannyasi's person are all the marks of divinity. You yourself witnessed his ecstasy of spiritual love. And yet you know not God! Such are the ways of God's illusion, materialists see Him and yet recognize Him not!"

Smilingly spoke Sarvabhauma, "We are arguing in a friendly spirit. Don't get warm. Blame me not, I am only arguing from the strict standpoint of view of Shastra. Chaitanya Goswami is [I admit] a great saint. But there is no incarnation of Vishnu in the Kali era. Hence Vishnu's epithet Tri-yug or the Lord of Three. But scripture tells us that the Kali era is without an incarnation."

Sadly did the Acharya answer, "You pride yourself on your knowledge of scripture, but you do not mind the Bhagabat and the Mahabharat, which are the chief of scriptures. Both of them assert that God will appear in the human form in the Kali era, and yet you maintain the contrary! As God will not appear in Kali for mere earthly exploits [but only for purifying faith], we call him Tri-yug. In every era Krishna appears for the spiritual needs of the age. You are a logician, and yet you do not perceive this!"

Texts quoted in support; Bhagabat, X viii. 9, XI. v. 28, 29; Mahabharat, Anushasan Parva, Dan-dharma, canto 149, v. 75-92.

"I need not waste these many words on you. They will bear no more fruit than seed sown on sterile soil. When His grace is on you, you will be convinced. Your disciple, who is plying me with all sorts of sophistic arguments, I blame him not; he is under illusion (maya). As the Bhagabat, Book VI. canto iv. verse 26, puts it:

[The words of Daksha to God], I bow to the Omnipotent Supreme God, whose power of illusion raises endless controversies among logicians fond of dispute, and keeps their souls ever wrapt in delusion!

"Again, the Bhagabat, XI. xxii. 3, [Krishna's words to Uddhava]."

Then Sarvabhauma said, "Go to the monk [Chaitanya] and invite him and his followers to my house. First feed them with prasad, and then give me lessons [in theology]!" The Acharya, being Sarvabhauma's sister's husband, could [boldly] blame, praise, laugh at or school him.

Mukunda was greatly pleased with the Acharya's reasoning, as he was inly grieved and angry at the speech of Sarvabhauma.

The Acharya came to Chaitanya's house and invited Him on behalf of the Bhattacharya. As he talked with Mukunda he spoke ill of Sarvabhauma in a pained spirit. But the Master broke in with, "Say not so. The Bhattacharya has really favoured me; he wants to safeguard my monastic life, and has taken pity on me out of tenderness. Why blame him for it?"

Next day, the Master visited the temple of Jagannath in the company of the Bhattacharya, and then accompanied him to his house. The Bhattacharya seated the Master first and began to teach Him Vedanta. With mingled tenderness and reverence he said, "It is a sannyasi's duty to hear the Vedanta read. You should constantly attend to it." The Master answered, "Show me thy favour. Whatever you bid me is indeed my duty."

For seven days did the Master thus listen to the expounding of the Vedanta, without making any comment of His own. On the eighth day, Sarvabhauma asked Him, "For seven days have you heard me in unbroken silence. I know not whether you follow me or not." The Master replied, "I am ignorant, and have not studied [the subject]. I merely listen at your bidding. I listen only because such is a sannyasi's duty. But I cannot follow your interpretation." The Bhattacharya retorted, "He who is conscious of his own ignorance asks for a second explanation. But you remain ever silent as you listen. I know not your mind's workings." The Master replied, "I understand the verses clearly enough. But it is your commentary that puzzles me. A commentary should elucidate the text, whereas your exposition conceals the text! You do not expound the plain meaning of the aphorisms, but cover them up with your fanciful interpretation. The primary meaning is the plain sense of the terms of the Upanishad, and Vyas says it in his aphorisms. You [on the other hand] let the primary sense go, and give a conjectural secondary sense. You reject the meanings of words as given in lexicons, and attribute to them meanings evolved from your imagination. Shruti is the chief of proofs. The primary meaning as given by Shruti can alone carry conviction.

"What are conchshells and cowdung but naturally unclean things, viz., the bone and ordure of animals? And yet they are taken as very pure, because Shruti says so. Of the spiritual truth that is held forth [in Vedanta] the meaning is plain and self-evident. Fanciful interpretation only spoils the clear sense. The sense of Vyas's aphorisms is clear like the sun; you are only enveloping it with the cloud of your conjectural commentary. The Vedas and the Purans tell us how to discern Brahma. That Brahma is [only another name for] God in His totality. The Supreme Being is full of all powers, and yet you describe Him as formless? The Shrutis that speak of Him as abstract (nir-bishesha), exclude the natural and set up the unnatural.

"From Brahma originates the Universe, it lives in Brahma, and it is merged again in the same Brahma. The three attributes of God are that He is the three cases, Ablative, Instrumental and Locative [in relation to the Universe]. These three qualities particularize God. When He desired to be many, He looked at [=employed] His natural powers. The physical mind and eye could not have then existed. Therefore, the Immaterial Brahma had an eye to see and a mind to will with. The terms Brahma means the Perfect Supreme Being (Bhagaban), and the scriptures affirm that Krishna is the Supreme Being. The meaning of the Vedas is too deep for human understanding, the Purans make their senses clear. Witness Brahma's address to God in the Bhagabat, X. xiv. 31:--

'Blessed, blessed are Nanda the cowherd and other citizens of Mathura, whose friend is the Beatific Perfect Eternal Brahma'.

"Shruti itself denies to Brahma material hands and feet, and yet it says that God moves swiftly and receives everything! Therefore, Shruti asserts Brahma to be particular (sa-bishesha). It is only a fanciful interpretation as opposed to a direct one, that speaks of Brahma as abstract (nir-bishesha). How do you call that God formless who has the six qualities and is supremely blissful? You conclude Him to be powerless, who has the three natural powers, as is evident from the Vishnu Puran, VI. vii. 60 and 61, and I. xii. 41.

"God's nature consists of sat, chit and ananda. The chit power assumes three different forms in three aspects; it becomes hladini from the ananda aspect; it becomes sandhini in the sat aspect, and sambita (known as knowledge of Krishna) in the chit aspect. The chit power is God's very essence [or inner nature]; the life power (jiba-shakti) appertains to Him only occasionally; maya is entirely outside Him [i.e., affects creation only]. But all these three offer devotion in the form of love. The Lord's six powers are only manifestations of the chit power. And yet you have the presumption to deny such a power? God and creation differ as the master and the slave of illusion respectively, and yet you affirm that creation is identical with the Creator! In the Gita creation is recognized as a force exerted by God, and yet you make such creation one with God! See the Gita, vii. 4, the words of Shri Krishna to Arjun:--

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, sense, and self-consciousness these eight powers (or natures) have emanated from me.

"Again, the next verse in the Gita:

Valiant hero! the eight natures (prakriti) about which I have already spoken to you, are inferior. Beyond them I have a higher or living nature which upholds this Universe.

"God's form is composed of sat, chit and ananda; and yet you assert that form to be a corruption of the satwa quality! He is a wretch who denies form to God; touch not, behold not that slave of Death. The Buddhists are atheists from not respecting the Vedas. Atheism in a believer of the Vedas is a worse heresy than Buddhism. Vyas composed his aphorisms for the salvation of men, but the interpretation of these aphorisms by the 'school of illusion' (maya-vadi) is the cause of perdition.

"Vyas's aphorisms accept the theory of effect (parinam). God is an incomprehensible power, but He is manifested as creation. The philosopher's stone produces gold without undergoing any change in itself, similarly God takes the form of creation without suffering any corruption. Objecting to this aphorism as an error of Vyas, you have set up the theory of bivarta by a fanciful interpretation [of it]. Error consists in a creature imagining I am one with the Creator. But creation is not unreal, it is only perishable. The great word Pranaba is the image of God; from that Pranaba all the Vedas have sprung in this world. The words Thou art That (tat-twam asi) when applied to creation are only fractional (pradeshika), but you, without minding the Pranaba, call these words the supreme truth."

Thus did the Master find a hundred faults with the fanciful interpretation [of the Vedantists]. The Bhattacharya supported his own position, using refutation, feint, pressure, and other logical devices. But the Master answered them all and established His own view. The Vedas [he maintained] assert only three things about God, viz., our relation to Him, devotional exercises, and love (our need) as the fruit of devotion. All the rest [attributed to Him] is mere conjecture. The words of the Veda are self-evident, and should not be interpreted with the help of conjecture. But Sarvabhauma was not to blame for it; he was merely carrying out God's will, in expounding atheistical philosophy based on fancy. Vide the Padma Puran, Part II. canto 62, verse 31.

The Bhattacharya was speechless and motionless with wonder as he heard these words. The Master addressed him, "Marvel not, O Bhattacharya! The supreme manhood consists in faith in God. Even those who directly commune with God (atmaram) adore Him, the Supreme Being's attributes are so incomprehensible! Witness the Bhagabat, I. vii. 10, Suta's words to Saunaka and others:

'Such are the attributes of Hari that even mystical and passionless recluses feel for Him unreasoning devotion.'

The Bhattacharya said, "Sir, I long to hear this verse interpreted." The Master replied, "Do you first explain it, and then I shall say what I think of it." The Bhattacharya expounded the verse, like a logician, in nine different ways in accordance with the scriptures. But the Master smiled as He said, "I know, Bhattacharya, that you are a veritable Vrihaspati, and surpass all other men in interpreting the scriptures. But your interpretation shows mere scholarship. The verse has yet another sense!" Then at the Bhattacharya's request the Master gave His own interpretation; passing by the nine interpretations given by the Bhattacharya, He gave 18 other explanations of His own. First He determined the meaning of each of the eleven words contained in the verse, as taken separately; then He gave different explanations in connection with atmaram, laying emphasis on each of the eleven words in succession. The Lord, His powers, and His attributes, all three are incomprehensibly, unspeakably great! These three steal the heart of the devotee, to the neglect of all other forms of devotion. Sanak, Shukadev and others bear witness to this. His diverse expositions filled the Bhattacharya with wonder, and the self-abasing belief that the Master was Krishna indeed. "Alas!" thought he, "He is Krishna incarnate, but I in my ignorance have grievously sinned by showing pride to Him." Penitently he sought refuge with the Master, who graciously appeared to him in His divine form, first as four-armed (Vishnu), then as Krishna playing on the flute. At this vision Sarvabhauma fell prostrate on the ground, then rose again and prayed to Him with clasped hands. The Master's grace made spiritual knowledge illumine his heart, he now knew the glory of God's name, faith, gift, the esoteric meanings of the letters of the alphabet, &c. In a moment he composed a hundred verses, such as even Vrihaspati would have failed to frame. The delighted Master embraced him, and the Bhattacharya fainted in an ecstasy of joy, weeping, standing still, tumbling down at the Master's feet.

The sight delighted Gopinath Acharya. The Master's disciples smiled at the dance of Sarvabhauma. Gopinath spoke to the Master, "You have so transformed that Bhattacharya!" The Master replied, "You are a devotee, your society has so wrought on him through the great grace of Jagannath." Then He composed Bhattacharya, who thereafter praised Him long, saying, "It was a light work to Thee to save the world, in comparison with the wonderful power Thou hast manifested in converting me. Logic had made me hard like an ingot of iron. Thou hast, melted me. Oh Thy wondrous might!"

The Master returned to His quarters; Sarvabhauma feasted Him by means of Gopinath Acharya. Next day He went to Jagannath's temple, and beheld the god rise from his bed. The attending priest presented to the Master the garland and offered rice of the god. The Master rejoiced at it, tied the gifts to the hem of his garment, and hastened to Bhattacharya's house. It was dawn; Bhattacharya awoke just then and cried out "O Krishna! O Krishna!" to the delight of the Master. Coming out Bhattacharya met the Master, bowed at His feet in a tumult of reverence, and seated Him. The Master untied the knot in His skirt and presented the prasad to Sarvabhaurna, who joyously ate it after reciting the following verse, though he had not yet bathed, nor said his matin prayer, nor even cleaned his teeth,--because Chaitanya's grace removed all stupor from his mind.

From the Padma Puran, Taste the maha-prasad as soon as you get it, though it may be dry, stale or brought from a distance. Wait not for a more proper time in this case.

Then, again, Hari has said, 'In tasting the maha-prasad no rule of time or place should be observed; a good man should eat it as soon as he gets it.'

At this the Master was delighted and embraced Sarvabhauma in a transport. They both danced, Master and pupil, clasping each other, perspiring, trembling, shedding tears in ecstasy. The Master said, "To-day have I conquered the three worlds lightly! To-day have I ascended Baikuntha! To-day all my wishes are realized! Because Sarvabhauma has shown faith in the maha-prasad. To-day you have taken refuge in Krishna with all your heart. Krishna has taken pity on you without any reserve. To-day he has removed your bondage to flesh; to-day you have torn off the meshes of illusion. To-day your heart has been made worthy to gain Krishna, because you have eaten the prasad in violation of Vedic ceremonies. As the Bhagabat, II. vii. 41, puts it:

"Those whom the Lord favours and who take refuge at His feet with all their heart and without reserve, can conquer illusion. Then they no longer look ubon this fleshly body the food of dogs and jackals as 'I' or 'mine'."

So saying the Master returned home. Thenceforth Bhattacharya lost his pride (of learning). Thenceforth he knew of nothing except Chaitanya's feet, and expounded no scripture except that of bhakti. At his deep Vaishnavism, Gopinath Acharya danced, clapping his hands and crying Hari! Hari! Next day Bhattacharya came to visit the Master, without having first gone to Jagannath. He lay prostrate, and thanked the Master much, penitently recounting his own former follies. As he wished to hear of the chief means of cultivating faith, the Master instructed him by chanting Hari's name.

"Hari's name, Hari's name, Hari's name alone; in the Kali era there is no other means of salvation, no other, indeed no other!" [Vrihad Narad Puran.]

In full detail did the Master hold forth on the meaning of the above verse. Bhattacharya was filled with wonder. Gopinath Acharya said, "Bhattacharya! I told you before that you would come to this!" Bhattacharya bowed to him thankfully and replied, "The Master has blessed me by reason of my being related to you. You are a great devotee, and I a blind logician. For your sake has the Master favoured me." Pleased with his meekness, Chaitanya embraced him and then said, "Now go and see the god". Bhattacharya, after visiting Jagannath, came home with Jagadananda and Damodar [two disciples of Chaitanya], and sent to Chaitanya many kinds of choice prasad with his own cook in their company, and also put two verses of his own written on a palm leaf into the hands of Jagadananda for Chaitanya. When they arrived at the Master's house, Mukunda Datta took the letter from his hand, and wrote the two verses on the outer wall. Then Jagadananda took the letter inside to Chaitanya, who read and tore it up, but the followers learnt the verses by rote from the wall. The verses are given in Chaitanya-chandrodaya, Act VI. Sc. 32:

I seek refuge with that unequalled supreme Man, who has become incarnate as Shri Krishna Chaitanya, in order to teach passionlessness (bairagya) and devotion through faith (bhakti-yog). May my mind, like a bee, settle firmly on the lotus-feet of the Lord Shri Krishna Chaitanya, who has appeared in order to revive his own bhakti-yog, which had perished through the wickedness of ages.

Sarvabhauma became a disciple of the Master, attending to nothing but His service. Ever did he meditate, pray, and recite the name 'Shri Krishna-Chaitanya, the son of Shachi, the abode of virtues!' One day he came to the Master, bowed, and recited Brahma's hymn to God from the Bhagabat, changing two letters near its end. The Bhagabat, X. xiv. 8:

'Lord! That man alone enters into the inheritance of Thy salvation like a true heir, who in eager longing for the day of Thy grace passes his life worshipping Thee with all his mind body and speech and enjoying the fruits of his actions without being attached to them.'

The Master interrupted him saying, "The text has Thy salvation (muktipada). Why do you read it as Thy faith (bhaktipada)?" Bhattacharya answered, "Salvation is not the fruit at which the faithful fix their gaze; as for those who lack faith in the Lord, salvation becomes a sort of punishment to them [as they are annihilated in the Lord without being able to serve and love Him]. He who does not admit the incarnate Krishna, and he who blames and fights against that incarnation, both of them are punished by being merged in the Lord (Brahma sayujya mukti). The devotee does not long for emancipation. There are five kinds of salvation, viz., salokya (living in the same plane with God), samipya (nearness to God), sarupya (assuming the same form as God), sarshti (equalling the glory of God) and sayujya (absorption in the Deity). Though the first four afford means of serving the Lord, yet true devotees seldom elect them, but they dread and despise the sayujya emancipation, preferring hell to it. 'Absorption in the abstract God (Brahma)' and 'Absorption in the God clad in attributes (saguna ishwar)' are two forms of the same thing, indeed the latter is worse still. Vide the Bhagabat III. xxix. II, Kapila's speech to Devahuti."

The Master objected, "The term muktipada has other senses too; it means God Himself, i.e., He whose feet are the means of salvation. It may also mean The abode of salvation, which is the 9th object [mentioned in the Bhagabat, II. x. 1]. Both etymologies yield the sense of Krishna. Why need you change the text to Bhaktipada?" Bhattacharya replied, "No, I cannot adopt the reading. Though you interpret the term muktipada in the same sense of bhaktipada, yet the former is objectionable as ambiguous. Though mukti has five connotations, yet its principal meaning is absorption in God. So, the word mukti fills me with fear and contempt, while bhakti kindles delight in the heart". At this the delighted Master smiled and clasped Bhattacharya firmly to His bosom. It was a pure act of grace on Chaitanya's part that Bhattacharya, who had been a student and teacher of the doctrine of illusion, spoke thus. We recognize the philosopher's stone only when it touches a piece of iron. So all men knew the Master for the veritable Darling of Braja (Krishna) when they saw the deep the Vaishnav spirit of [His disciple] Bhattacharya. Then did Kashi Mishra and others of the Blue Mountain come and seek asylum at the Master's feet. I shall first describe how Sarvabhauma served the Master, and how carefully he fed Him. [Text, canto 6.]