112 R. Mitra— Psychological Tenets of the Vaishnavas. [No. 1, 
know, and not that which was already known. The objection is met by 
the remark that Nimbaditya was an incarnation of Yishnn, and his opinion 
was therefore that of Yishnn, and Chaitanya being, likewise, an incarna¬ 
tion of Yishnn, the doctrine exponnded is of the same individnal given 
nnder different conditions, and there is therefore no following in the 
case. In order to prove that Nimbaditya was an incarnation of Yishnn> 
a verse is cited on the anthority of Hemadri, who makes the statement. 
Learned Yaishnavas, moreover, nrge that the primary object of Chaita¬ 
nya was not to incnlcate a new tenet in psychology, bnt to give wide cnr- 
rency to the doctrine of Bhakti, and it was not necessary for him, there¬ 
fore, to dwell upon universally accepted truths. 
Having answered this preliminary objection, the author cites in 
support of his opinion that Chaitanya was a Dvaitadvaitavadi, several 
authorities. The first is Yisvanatha Chakravarti who, in his commentary 
on the Bhagavata, it is said, has made the statement. The words used are, 
GhakravartihJiih svagrantlie nimhdditya-matavarttitvena mahdprabhundm 
likhandt, but no quotation is supplied. 
The next authority is Hangarama Gauda, who is said to have been 
a disciple of Chaitanya. In his case, however, there is a specific assertion. 
In his work called Nibandha he begins with the remark that “ Nimbaditya 
was the destroyer of darkness” (Nimbddityas tamodhvamsi) and ends by 
saying “ composed by a follower of the doctrine of Nimbaditya,” (Nim- 
bdditya-matavarti-virachitdydm^, and the inference from these passages is 
that since an immediate disciple of Chaitanya professed himself to be a 
follower of Nimbaditya’s doctrine, his teacher must have followed the same 
doctrine. 
The third authority is Harideva Tarkavagisa, of Saidabad, near Murshi- 
dabad, but no passage has been cited, nor is the name of his work given. 
I have not heard of this personage, and no one can give me any infor¬ 
mation about him. 
The last authority is Narayanadasa, a disciple of a disciple (anusi- 
shya) of Advaita Acharya, and a Yaishnava author of some repute. In his 
treatise on branding the body with the symbols of Yishnn, {Taptamud.rd- 
dhdrana) he makes a positive statement to the effect that Chaitanya ac¬ 
cepted the Dualastic Aduality doctrine of Nimbaditya. 
It is scarcely necessary to observe that this collection of authorities is 
poor at best, and such as it is, it may be easily set aside, both by circum¬ 
stantial evidence and by positive statements of the contemporaries of 
Chaitanya. Bhaktas believe ‘that in order to the attainment of supreme 
beatitude, they must pass through five stages or states of probation. The 
first of these is called Santa or quietism, or a state of calm contempla¬ 
tion of the Deity. The second is Ddsya or servitude, which in a more 
