116 R. Mitra— Psychological Tenets of the Vaishnavas. [No. 1, 
and on the doctrine of Bhakti some person assume that he followed the 
doctrine of Madhva Acharya. This is, however, not admitted, inasmuch as 
Chaitanya has himself said (as recorded by Krishnadasa Kaviraja, in the 
second book of the Charitamrita) that the distinctions of the adorer and 
the adored is inconsistent with pure faith.* 
He goes further and says, “ the two theories of the identity of the 
Divine and the individual soul, (ahheda) and of the radical difference 
thereof {hJiecla) have been inculcated by Yishnu Svami and others ; 
among them those who hold the identity doctrine should be known as 
following the opinion of Yishnu Svami, and those who adopt the radically 
different one follow the opinion of Madhva, and therefore they are 
called tdmasah or appertaining the quality of darkness.’’f 
This would have sufficed for an argument; but as the object of the 
writer is to reconcile all adverse opinions, and not to create dissensions, 
he goes on to say that, though apparently contradictory, the opinion of 
Madhva is not hostile, and he works out this idea by saying that S'ankara and 
others were great devotees or worshippers of Bhagavan (Yishnu), and as 
such they could not be otherwise than following the doctrine of Nim- 
baditya who gave the greatest emphasis to faith, and Madhva A'charya, 
being an immediate disciple of S'ankara A'charya, he and his later 
followers cannot have forsaken the doctrine of their philosophic tutor, 
and we are informed in the Sandarbhas, that by following the teacher- 
ship of Madhva, Chaitanya could not but continue to belong to the school 
of Nimbaditya.J He then anticipates the objection—what proof have we 
that the teachership of S'ankara and Madhva was admitted, and urges in 
reply that the Sandarbhas say so. Passages are also cited from the Padma 
Piirdna, the AgniPurdna andS'ankara’s commentary on the Vishnu-sahasra- 
ndma to prove this theory. It is argued, further, that even as S ridhara 
Svami, so has SWkara, in his work dwelt on both the doctrines of Duali¬ 
ty and Aduality, and his instructions differ only with reference to the 
mental character of his pupils, as householders or hermits, and the 
\3 
^ I rrf^QJ- 
