Why Śrīdhara Svāmī? The Makings of a Successful Sanskrit Commentary

religions Article Why ´Sridhara Svami? The Makings of a Successful Sanskrit Commentary Ravi M. Gupta Department of History, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA; ravi.gupta@usu.edu Received: 1 August 2020; Accepted: 20 August 2020; Published: 24 August 2020 Abstract: ´Sridhara Svami’s commentary on the Bhagavata Purana , called Bhav¯artha-dipika and composed sometime between the mid-fourteenth to the mid-fifteenth centuries, has exerted extraordinary influence on later Bhagavata commentaries, and indeed, on Vaisnava traditions more generally This article raises a straightforward question: “Why ´Sridhara?” Focusing on the Caitanya Vaisnava tradition, particularly Jiva Gosvami, for whom ´Sridhara is foundational, we ask, “What is it about ´Sridhara Svami’s commentary—both stylistically and theologically—that made it so useful to Caitanya Vaisnavas and other Bhagavata commentators?” This question, to the extent that it can be answered, has implications for our understanding of ´Sridhara’s theology as well as the development of the early Caitanya Vaisnava tradition, but it can also lend insight into the reasons for ´Sridhara’s influence more generally in early modern India Keywords: ´Sridhara; Bhagavata; Purana; commentary; Caitanya; Gaudiya; Vaisnavism; Jiva Gosvami 1. Introduction ´Sridhara Svami’s commentary on the Bhagavata Purana , called Bhavartha-dipika and composed sometime between the mid-fourteenth to the mid-fifteenth centuries, has exerted extraordinary influence on later Bhagavata commentaries, and indeed, on Vaisnava traditions more generally. Subsequent commentators on the Bhagavata Purana are consistently aware of, and often deeply engaged with, the Bhavartha-dipika . This is particularly true of the Caitanya Vaisnava commentaries by Sanatana Gosvami, Jiva Gosvami, Visvanatha Cakravarti, and others, but also to a lesser extent Viraraghava ¯ Ac¯arya’s ´Srivaisnava and Vijayadhvaja Tirtha’s Dvaita commentaries 1 ´Sridhara’s outsize, although not universal, 2 influence becomes further evident as we move to vernacular commentaries on the Bhagavata 1 B.NK. Sharma writes that there are a “couple of indications” that Vijayadhvaja was acquainted with ´Sridhara’s commentary, as seen in the former’s commentary on BhP 2.9.31. Sharma surmises that “´Sridhara Svamin was more or less a contemporary of Vijayadhvaja.” ( Sharma 1981 , pp. 458–59) 2 Vallabhacarya’s Subodhini commentary is either unconcerned with or dismissive of ´Sridhara. For instance, ´Sridhara regards the essential Bhagavata to consist of four verses spoken by Visnu to Brahma (2.9.32–35), whereas Vallabha points to all seven verses of Visnu’s speech (2.9.30–36) ( Joshi 1974 ). Furthermore, Anand Venkatkrishnan ( 2018 ) argues that a tradition of Bhagavata interpretation in Kerala, beginning with Laksmidhara, author of the Amrta-tara˙ngini commentary, was independent of ´Sridhara Religions 2020 , 11 , 436; doi:10.3390 / rel 11090436 www.mdpi.com / journal / religions

Religions 2020 , 11 , 436 2 of 14 and derivative works, such as Bahira Jataveda’s Marathi commentary, Bhairavi , 3 and Visnupuri’s anthology of Bhagavata verses, called Bhakti-ratnavali 4 ´Sridhara’s pervasive influence has meant that scholars of the Bhagavata have tended to assume his reading as the natural sense of the text. Daniel Sheridan argues that scholarly overreliance on ´Sridhara’s commentary “does a disservice to ´Sridhara, who has not been studied in his own right by contemporary critical scholarship” ( Sheridan 1994 , p. 47). In other words, by assuming ´Sridhara’s reading as natural, we ignore his genius in o ff ering an interpretation of the Purana that dominated the subsequent commentarial tradition. Sheridan therefore calls for further study of ´Sridhara Svami and his commentary, which, he says, would lead to “understanding of the reason for the great authority of ´Sridhara’s ostensibly Advaitin commentary within the later Vaisnava schools” ( Sheridan 1994 , p. 47) Indeed, despite ´Sridhara’s inestimable influence on Vaisnava traditions from the fifteenth century onward, he remains an enigma for both theologians and historians of Vaisnavism. ´Sridhara is generally regarded as a sannyasi within ´Sa ˙nkara’s Advaita tradition, 5 and yet his predilection for bhakti has made him a torchbearer for Vaisnava commentators. In the mid-sixteenth century, the Caitanya Vaisnava thinker Jiva Gosvami acknowledges ´Sridhara’s enigmatic theology by suggesting that “the most excellent, esteemed Vaisnava ´Sridhara Svami” sometimes included nondualist views in his commentary in order to entice Advaitins to appreciate the greatness of the personal Deity 6 ´Sridhara himself adds to the confusion by stating that he wrote his commentary on the insistence of his sampradaya 7 Here, we will set aside questions of commentarial intent and formal a ffi liation, and instead attempt to answer Sheridan’s call by examining ´Sridhara’s theological standpoint and its influence on later commentators This article raises a straightforward question: “Why ´Sridhara?” Focusing on the Caitanya Vaisnava tradition, particularly Jiva Gosvami, for whom ´Sridhara is foundational, we shall ask, “What is it about ´Sridhara’s commentary—both stylistically and theologically—that made it so useful to Caitanya Vaisnavas and other Bhagavata commentators?” This question, to the extent that it can be answered, has implications for our understanding of ´Sridhara’s theology as well as the development of the early Caitanya Vaisnava tradition, but it can also lend insight into the reasons for ´Sridhara’s influence more generally in early modern India 2. Why Choose an Advaitin? The first matter that looms before us is the question of ´Sridhara Svami’s Advaita leanings Jiva Gosvami was clearly aware of the Bhagavata commentaries found within the Madhva school of 3 Madhavi Narsalay and Vrushali Potnis-Damle write, “It is thus amply clear that the Bhairavi is based on the Bhavarthadipika . . Bahira has high regard for ´Sridhara. This is evident from the many respectful references to ´Sridhara throughout his commentary on the 10 th as well as the 11 th skandhas . He addresses ´Sridhara as Tikaprakasabhaskara ( Bhairavi 11.10.7), Jñanar upabhaskaru ( Bhairavi 11.24.5), Samartha ( Bhairavi 11.7.1), ¯ Acharya ( Bhairavi 11.77.8), Haridasa ( Bhairavi 10.6.212), Yogapala ( Bhairavi 10.43.2), Avataripurusa ( Bhairavi 10.1.59), Saksatkari ( Bhairavi 10.1.60), ¯ Atmajñani ( Bhairavi 10.1.59) and Jivanmukta ( Bhairavi 10.1.61). He also refers to ´Sridhara as guru ( Bhairavi 11.20.5) out of deep respect. Bahira likens himself to a beggar waiting for leftovers, but still in search for ´Sridhara’s bowl ( Bhairavi 11.87.17).” ( Narsalay and Potnis-Damle 2018 , p. 155) 4 SK. De writes, “One of the closing verses of this work [ Bhakti-ratnavali ] apologises for any departure the compiler might have made from the writings of the great ´Sridhara; and there can be no doubt adout [sic] ´Sridhara’s influence on the work.” ( De 1961 , pp. 18–19) 5 Edelmann ( 2018 ) and Sukla ( 2010 , pp. 13–22), following earlier authors, suggest that ´Sridhara Svami was the abbot of an Advaita monastery in Puri, Odisha. Nevertheless, ´Sridhara’s institutional and sampradayic a ffi liation is still a question requiring further historical research 6 Jiva Gosvami writes in his Tattva-sandarbha: “Our interpretation of the words of the Bhagavata , representing a kind of commentary, will be written in accordance with the views of the great Vaisnava, the revered ´Sridhara Svamin, only when they conform to the strict Vaisnava standpoint, since his writings are interspersed with the doctrines of Advaita so that an appreciation for the greatness of bhagavat may be awakened in the Advaitins who nowadays pervade the central regions etc.” ( Elkman 1986 , p. 119) 7 sampradayanurodhena paurvaparyanusaratah | sri-bhagavata-bhavartha-dipikeya ˙ m pratanyate (verse 4 from the opening ma ˙ngala verses of the Bhavartha-dipika ).

Religions 2020 , 11 , 436 3 of 14 Dvaita Ved¯anta. He mentions Madhva’s Bhagavata-tatparya-nirnaya by name in his Tattva-sandarbha , and if we are to accept B.NK. Sharma’s dating of Vijayadhvaja Tirtha (fl. 1410–1450), then the latter’s complete commentary, which closely follows Madhva’s work, 8 was well established by Jiva’s time Furthermore, in his six-part Bhagavata-sandarbha, Jiva argues forcefully against the core philosophical positions of classical Advaita, 9 and yet he takes the Bhavartha-dipika —which by Jiva’s own account shows clear Advaitic tendencies—as foundational for his theological project. Jiva follows—indeed, reiterates—´Sridhara’s interpretation for almost every Bhagavata verse he quotes. Why? We could, of course, point to ´Sri Caitanya’s well known statement in Krsnadasa Kaviraja’s Caitanya-caritamrta (3.7.133–34) that any commentary not based on ´Sridhara is illegitimate: I know the Bhagavata by ´Sridhara Svami’s grace. ´Sridhara Svami is the guru of the world, and I take him as my guru . If you arrogantly write anything to surpass ´Sridhara, people will not accept such confused meanings 10 No doubt this would have been a significant factor for Jiva. Nevertheless, such an explanation only shifts the problem back by a generation, for we might ask the same question of Caitanya: “Why ´Sridhara?” Furthermore, pointing to the Caitanya-caritamrta is a tad circular, for this canonical account of Caitanya’s life is deeply influenced by the theology of the Vrnd¯avana Gosvamis, including Jiva himself 11 Another way in which scholars have attempted to resolve this question is by claiming that Jiva only pays lip service to ´Sridhara (because of Caitanya’s insistence) and that, in fact, Jiva is not committed to ´Sridhara because of the latter’s Advaita leanings. This line of thought is put forth by Stuart Elkman, building upon similar reasoning by SK De ( 1961 ). Elkman writes: . . it seems likely that Jiva’s claims to follow ´Sridhara represent more a concession to Caitanya’s beliefs than a personal preference on his own part. In actual fact, Jiva follows ´Sridhara on only the most minor points, ignoring all of his Advaitic interpretations . . ( Elkman 1986 , p. 180) 12 Elkman and De’s argument is grounded on two assumptions that turn out to be suspect, namely, that ´Sridhara’s institutional a ffi liation makes him the type of Advaitin that Jiva argues against in his writings, and that therefore Jiva’s use of ´Sridhara must be nothing more than a “concession” on “the most minor points.” We shall address the first assumption in due course, but as for the second, we can note here that a careful reading of Jiva’s Bhagavata-sandarbha and Krama-sandarbha simply does not support Elkman’s view. Jiva quotes, paraphrases, or draws salient points from the Bhavartha-dipika nearly every time he comments upon a Bhagavata verse in his Bhagavata-sandarbha . Jiva follows ´Sridhara’s interpretation in most cases, but when the latter’s Advaita tendencies create di ffi culties for Vaisnava dualism, Jiva finds ways of supporting ´Sridhara’s interpretation—first, by harnessing the Caitanyaite bhedabheda theology (emphasizing the nondi ff erence side) to create space for nondualist interpretations, 8 See B.NK Sharma’s analysis of the relationship between Madhva’s Bhagava-tatatparya-nirnaya and Vijayadhvaja’s Pada-ratnavali ( Sharma 1981 , p. 458), as well as the latter’s dates (p. 456) 9 See, for example, Jiva’s Param¯atma-sandarbha, anuccheda 105, for a refutation of the doctrine of adhyasa, superimposition ( Gupta 2007 , pp. 174–77) 10 All translations from Sanskrit and Bengali sources in this article are my own, unless stated otherwise 11 See, for example, Krsnadasa Kaviraja’s prayer to R upa Gosvami (Jiva’s uncle) at the end of nearly every chapter of the Caitanya-caritamrta Krsnadasa also names all six Gosvamis of Vrndavana, including Jiva, as his siksa-gurus, from whom he has received instruction (1.1.35–37) 12 The polarization of Caitanya and ´Sridhara on one side and Jiva on the other is derived from SK. De, the author of Early History of the Vaisnava Faith and Movement in Bengal De writes: “It is our impression that Caitanya could not have been such an anti-´Sa ˙nkara as depicted by Krsnadasa Kaviraja. The Kaviraja, however, is careless enough to give us a rough idea as to what Caitanya’s metaphysics could possibly have been when he makes Caitanya ridicule Vallabha Bhatta for di ff ering from ´Sridhara’s commentary on the Bhagavata , and says that ´Sridhara was ‘Jagad-guru.’” ( De 1961 , p. 151). Since the Gosvamis’ writings were the most important theological source for Krsnadasa, Elkman extends De’s polarity by replacing Krsnadasa with Jiva, in opposition to ´Sridhara and Caitanya.

Religions 2020 , 11 , 436 4 of 14 and second, by layering atop ´Sridhara an alternate interpretation that is more appropriate to Caitanya Vaisnavism 13 In essence, Jiva functions as an interpreter of ´Sridhara—explaining and expanding his ideas, clarifying ambiguities, rereading him in light of Caitanya Vaisnava theology, and resolving potential theological conflicts, but never “ignoring” him, as Elkman suggests 14 Kiyokazu Okita finds a similarly complex dynamic at work in the Krama-sandarbha, where Jiva sometimes follows ´Sridhara exactly ( Okita 2014 , p. 82), sometimes diverges from him (p. 104), and occasionally fills in ambiguities (p. 122), but always works hard to show his conformity with ´Sridhara (pp. 105, 123). Okita concludes that given “the fact that Jiva was aware of Madhva’s works,” it is striking “how much attention he pays to ´Sridhara’s commentary” (p. 124) So the question remains: how are we to make sense of Jiva’s commitment to ´Sridhara, given the latter’s Advaitic tendencies? Perhaps the real problem lies with the question itself, which presupposes hard boundaries between dualism and nondualism, static conceptions of sampradaya a ffi liation, and normative notions of what constitutes Advaita and Vaisnava. These reifications have led many to express surprise at ´Sridhara’s devotional theology despite his Advaita a ffi liation, or Caitanya’s rejection of mayavada despite his love for ´Sridhara, or Jiva’s frequent use of the Bhavartha-dipika despite his commitment to “pure Vaisnavism.” Michael Allen has recently called for a broadening of our understanding of Advaita Vedanta, to include not only “a received canon of Sanskrit philosophical works,” such as those of ´Sa ˙nkara and Mandana Misra, but also “narratives and dramas, ‘syncretic’ works blending classical Vedantic teachings with other traditions, and perhaps most importantly, vernacular works . . ” ( Allen 2017 , p. 277) 15 This larger world he calls “Greater Advaita Vedanta,” and he includes ´Sridhara Svami within it 16 Although Allen intentionally leaves the boundaries of this world fuzzy, he suggests that “the acceptance of mayavada , or illusionism, might provide a useful touchstone for determining how deep the influence of Advaita Vedanta runs in a given work” ( Allen 2017 , p. 293). If that is the case, then we will need to leave out the canonical Caitanya Vaisnava texts from this rubric, as mayavada is unacceptable to all of them Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the early theologians of the Caitanya school were actively engaged with the Advaita tradition, freely borrowing key ideas and terminology. After all, the doctrine of acintya-bhedabheda includes abheda, nondi ff erence, as one of its key components, even if it is preceded by bheda , or di ff erence. In his Bhagavata-sandarbha, Jiva is quite happy to adopt concepts from Advaita theologies, including the notion of a kevala-visesya Brahman, 17 an unattributed, transcendent reality that would have been anathema to Ram¯anuja; the possibility of jivan-mukti , liberation while living; the categories of svar upa-laksana (essential characteristics) and tatastha-laksana (contingent characteristics) to describe the nature of Brahman; 18 and the insistence that ultimate reality is nondual ( advaya ) 19 and thus all beings are part of Krsna’s nature, an idea quite unacceptable to Madhva. Each of these concepts is developed di ff erently than in classical Advaita Vedanta, but each also represents a choice on the part 13 For examples of both these dynamics at work in Jiva’s relationship with ´Sridhara, see the section “Svami and Gosvami” in Gupta ( 2007 , pp. 65–84) 14 On a few occasions, Jiva does directly contradict ´Sridhara when the latter’s Advaitic statements become impossible to harmonize with Caitanya Vaisnava theology, as we shall discuss later in this article. However, Elkman’s example of Jiva refuting ´Sridhara (in Tattva-sandarbha, anuccheda 60) turns out to be based on a misreading of the Sanskrit As Gupta ( 2007 , pp. 77–80) shows, anuccheda 60 is a fine example of Jiva functioning as an interpreter of ´Sridhara, a ffi rming ´Sridhara’s interpretation and then redeploying it in the service of Caitanya Vaisnava theology 15 Venkatkrishnan has argued along similar lines: “Instead of assuming the coherence of Advaita Ved¯anta as school of philosophy, and singling out individual authors for their deviations from a norm, we might instead consider the tradition itself fragmented and fractured” ( Venkatkrishnan 2015 a , p. 234) 16 Allen remarks, “The degree of Advaitic influence in ´Sridhara’s commentary has been debated; . . Without entering the debate, I might simply note that much hinges on how broadly Advaita Vedanta is defined.” ( Allen 2017 , p. 292, n 38) 17 See Bhagavat-sandarbha, anuccheda 3: ar upa ˙ m pani-padady asa ˙myutam itida ˙m brahmakhya-kevala-visesyavirbhava-nistham 18 See Jiva Gosvami’s Paramatma-sandarbha, anuccheda 105 19 The insistence on an ultimate, nondual reality is grounded on the Bhagavata Purana 1.2.11, “Knowers of reality declare that reality to be nondual consciousness, called ‘Brahman,’ ‘Paramatma,’ and ‘Bhagavan.’” This verse is crucial for Caitanya Vaisnava theology, for it simultaneously a ffi rms the singular nature of Divinity while also introducing distinctions within him, thus leading to the doctrine of acintya-bhedabheda.

Religions 2020 , 11 , 436 5 of 14 of the early Caitanya Vaisnava theologians to not only engage with, but to also adopt concepts from, a tradition whose soteriology they rejected Take for example, the notion of jivan-mukti . R upa Gosvami defines it quite di ff erently from the way it is understood in Advaita Vedanta, 20 but his use of the concept nevertheless represents something significant; R upa could have just as easily rejected the possibility of jivan-mukti altogether, as does Ramanuja, whose influence is strongly felt in other ways within early Caitanya Vaisnava theology 21 Along similar lines, R upa and Jiva are willing to accept the possibility of a state of liberation, namely, sayujya-mukti, where the individual experiences a state of ontological oneness with Brahman—similar to the way in which Madhus ¯udana Sarasvati describes sayujya-mukti ( Lutjeharms 2018 , p. 397). The Gosvamis regarded such a state as extremely undesirable for a bhakta, but they a ffi rmed its possibility nonetheless. As Rembert Lutjeharms has shown, “the consistent attempt to make space for the experiences of the Advaitins among early Chaitanya Vaishnava theologians seems particularly remarkable” because it forces them to “relinquish” the term moksa to the Lutjeharms ( 2018 , p. 403) We shall give one last example: Jiva Gosvami, in his commentary on the third aphorism of the Brahma-s utra, accepts ´Sa ˙nkara’s interpretation of ´sastra-yonitvat, namely, that Brahman is the source of scripture, even though this interpretation is rejected by both Ramanuja and Madhva. Jiva’s theology takes an eclectic approach toward other Vedantins, 22 and he was working in a milieu where Advaitins were innovative, bhakti -oriented, and open to practices of kirtana 23 We see evidence of this milieu in the Caitanya-caritamrta, where Krsnadasa describes a debate between Caitanya and an erudite Advaita sannyasi of Benaras, Prakasananda Sarasvati. When he meets Caitanya, Prakasananda presents a social argument against kirtana , but not a philosophical one; he praises bhakti as salutary and pleasing, but objects to Caitanya engaging in public singing and dancing in the company of sentimental commoners, instead of studying Vedanta among his sannyasi peers 24 Indeed, the religious landscape in which early Caitanya Vaisnavas flourished was saturated with an Advaita that was itself saturated with Krsnabhakti 25 Lutjeharms lists no less than twenty-two sannyasi companions of Caitanya who possibly belonged to an Advaita order, as Caitanya himself did ( Lutjeharms 2018 , pp. 401–2) Seen in this context, ´Sridhara’s commitment to Vaisnavabhakti, Caitanya’s commitment to ´Sridhara, and Jiva’s skillful ease in harmonizing ´Sridhara’s Advaita with Caitanya Vaisnava theology—all become less of a surprise and less of a problem 3. When Not to Choose ´Sridhara Nevertheless, the “Why ´Sridhara?” question persists. As we have seen, the Vrndavana Gosvamis are adept at adopting elements of Advaita that are suitable to their theology. But they are not Advaitins, and there are limits to their willingness to walk that path. What then do we make of Jiva’s statement 20 See R upa Gosvami’s Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.2.187): iha yasya harer dasye karman.a manasa gira nikhilasv apy avasthasu jivan-muktah. sa ucyate, “One whose every e ff ort—in mind, speech, and action, and in all circumstances—is in the service of Hari, that person is called jivan-mukta, liberated while living.”) 21 For example, Jiva’s commentary on the first five sutras of the Brahma-s utra (found in Paramatma-sandarbha, anuccheda 105 and translated in Gupta 2007 , chp. 7) often quotes from Ramanuja’s ´Sri-bhasya . Gopala Bhatta Gosvami’s Hari-bhakti-vilasa, the main Caitanya Vaisnava ritual manual, also displays the influence of ´Srivaisnavism 22 For a detailed discussion of the sources of Jiva’s Vedanta theology, including ´Sridhara, Ramanuja, Madhva, and ´Sa ˙nkara, see Gupta ( 2007 , chp. 3) 23 See Venkatkrishnan ( 2015 b ). 24 See Caitanya-caritamrta 1.7.66–70, and especially 1.7.101: “Do bhakti for Krsna—we’re all happy about that. But why don’t you study Vedanta? What’s wrong with it?” Venkatkrishnan describes a similar argument against kirtana in the writings of Anantadeva of Benaras in the late sixteenth century—an argument that Anantadeva rejects. “The opponent here concedes that the public act of devotional singing may be accorded scriptural sanction, but only for those who do not belong to the three self-appointed upper classes Bhakti in the opponent’s eyes is not an activity suited to the serious, scholarly lifestyle of the Brahmin.” ( Venkatkrishnan 2015 b , p. 155) 25 See Friedhelm Hardy’s well-known 1974 article for a discussion of Advaita’s development in relation to South Indian bhakti as well as Bengal Vaisnavism.

Religions 2020 , 11 , 436 6 of 14 that he only accepts ´Sridhara in so far as his views are consistent with pure Vaisnavism? What does Jiva mean by the “pure Vaisnava thesis” ( ´suddha-vaisnava-siddhanta ), and which “doctrines of Advaita” ( advaita-vada) , interspersed in ´Sridhara’s commentary, does he find unacceptable? 26 Centuries later, the Caitanya Vaisnava Vedantist Baladeva Vidyabh usana describes ´Sridhara’s Advaitic statements as “meat on the end of a hook, meant to lure fish” ( Elkman 1986 , pp. 119–20). What, exactly, is the meat? Given the presence of multiple influences in Caitanya theology, B.NK. Sharma’s claim that “pure Vaisnavism” refers to Madhva’s Vedanta appears untenable ( Sharma 1981 , p. 528). I would suggest, rather, that Jiva can find a way to incorporate nearly all of ´Sridhara’s Advaitic statements into Caitanya Vaisnava theology except for those that employ Advaita theories of illusion, particularly the notion of maya . The problem is not with maya as the Lord’s illusive power; that, indeed, is quite compatible with the Caitanya Vaisnava concept of ´sakti, Krsna’s multifaceted energies. Rather, the problem lies with maya when, in Jiva’s eyes, it is “weaponized” by Advaitins to deny the transcendent reality of Krsna’s form, the eternal individuality of living beings, and the substantive nature of this world, thus precluding the possibility of bhakti in the liberated state. As Caitanya says in his conversation with Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya, “Bhagavan has a blissful form replete with six kinds of majesty, and you call him formless? . . Listening to the commentary of a mayavadi destroys everything!” ( Caitanya-caritamrta 2.6.152–69) 27 Indeed, it is in the context of discussions about maya that Jiva argues against Advaita in both Tattva-sandarbha and Paramatma-sandarbha , 28 speaking strongly against adhyasa and aropa (superimposition), vivarta (apparent transformation), eka-jiva-vada (a single living being), pratibimba-vada (doctrine of reflection), and other concepts grounded in Advaitic ideas of ignorance and illusion. He dedicates significant space in the Bhagavat-sandarbha to arguing that Bhagavan and his abode, associates, and accoutrements are nonmaterial ( aprakrta) and inherent to the Lord’s nature ( svabhavika ) To be sure, ´Sridhara himself is not keen on “weaponizing” maya . He often explains maya as the veiling, multi-faceted power of the Lord, without recourse to heavyweight Advaita terminology. He repeatedly misses opportunities to discuss avidya, aropa, anirvacaniya, vivarta, up¯adhi, and the rope-snake metaphor. Take, for example, his commentary on Bhagavata 1.7.6, a verse that describes how bhakti-yoga, as taught in the Bhagavata Purana , can remove living beings’ ignorance. The verse is crucial to Jiva’s argument for the Bhagavata’s supremacy as scripture, but the verse is also susceptible to Advaita theories of ignorance. In his commentary, ´Sridhara explains maya as follows: “The Lord, who possesses all ´saktis , who knows everything, who has an eternally manifest, supremely blissful form ( svar upa ), controls maya by his knowledge-s akti . The living being . . is bewildered by the Lord’s maya ” ´Sridhara follows this with a quotation from Visnusvami describing the Lord’s powers of knowledge and bliss. Finally, ´Sridhara o ff ers two verses—presumably of his own composition—in praise of the man-lion avatara, Nrsimha: “The one who controls maya is the Lord, and the one pained by her is the living being . . . We praise Nrhari, who continually delights with his own maya .” 29 This, indeed, comes close to the Caitanya Vaisnava understanding of maya as the Lord’s sakti When, however, the opportunities become impossible to ignore, ´Sridhara o ff ers attenuated or ambiguous forays into Advaita notions of ignorance. Here is a good example: The sage Narada, speaking in verse 1.5.27, states, “I perceive that this sat and asat have been fabricated by my maya 26 tad-vyakhya tu samprati madhya-desadau vyaptan advaita-vadino n una ˙ m bhagavan-mahimanam avagahayitum tad-vadena karvurita-lipina ˙ m parama-vaisnavana ˙m sridhara-svami-caranana ˙m suddha-vaisnava-siddhantanugata cet tarhi yathavad eva vilikhyate ( Tattva-sandarbha, anuccheda 27) 27 sad.-aisvarya-purnananda-vigraha ya˙nhara / hena-bhagavane tumi kaha nirakara . . mayavadi-bhasya sunile haya sarva-nasa 28 See Tattva-sandarbha, anucchedas 34–44 and Paramatma-sandarbha, anuccheda 105 29 anarthopa´sama ˙ m saksad bhakti-yogam adhoksajelokasyajanato vidva ˙ms cakre satvata-sa ˙mhitam (Bhagavata 1.7.6) Bhavartha-dipika: etad ukta ˙ m bhavati—vidya-uaktya maya-niyanta nityavirbh uta-paramananda-svar upah. sarva-jñah. sarva-saktir i´svaras tan-mayaya sa ˙ mmohitas tirobh uta-svar upas tad-viparita-dharma jivas tasya ce´svara bhaktya labdha-jñanena moksa iti tad ukta ˙ m visnu-svamin—hladinya sa ˙mvid-aslistah. sac-cid-ananda isvarah.. svavidya-sa ˙mvrto jivah. sa ˙mklesa-nikarakarah.. tatha—sa iso yad-vase maya sa jivo yas tayarditah.. svavirbhuta-paranandah. svavirbhuta-suduhkha-bhuh.. svadrg-utthaviparyasa-bhava-bhedaja-bhi-sucah. man-mayaya jusann aste tam ima ˙m nr.-hari ˙m numah.. ity adi.

Religions 2020 , 11 , 436 7 of 14 upon me, the transcendent Brahman.” For an Advaitin, this verse o ff ers an irresistible opportunity to expound a theory of superimposition. As Anand Venkatkrishnan points out ( Venkatkrishnan 2015 a , pp. 49–50), none other than the thirteenth-century Hem¯adri, author of the Kaivalya-dipika commentary on the Bhagavata-muktaphala, seizes this verse to discuss the rope-snake metaphor. But ´Sridhara nearly avoids the matter altogether, glossing “this sat and asat ” as “these gross and subtle bodies,” “my maya” as “my ignorance ( avidya ),” and explaining that “fabricated” means that the body is not substantial or essential 30 In other words, the body is a product of the living being’s own ignorance, although the living being is in fact Brahman. This highly limited application of superimposition of the body upon the self is something any Caitanya Vaisnava can live with Occasionally, however, ´Sridhara becomes more explicit in his application of Advaita theories of illusion, and as far as I can tell, these are the only moments when Jiva directly rejects ´Sridhara’s interpretation (instead of simply layering an alternative interpretation, which Jiva does often). A good example of ´Sridhara in a sharper register is the Bhagavata’s opening verse, which provides ample opportunities for nondualist interpretation. In the third line, ´Sridhara interprets vinimaya as vyatyaya , the false appearance of one element in another, like a mirage seen on a hot surface, water seen in glass, and glass appearing like water—examples that are typically Advaitic 31 Even here, ´Sridhara does not bother to spell out a theory of illusion. Rather, he seems to assume the core concepts of classical Advaita Vedanta as a general background to his work, without feeling the need to delineate or defend them. For him, the essential point is that the world (which he alternately calls true, satya, and false, mithya ) finds its basis in the true reality of Brahman, who has the power to dispel all confusion Nevertheless, the implication of ´Sridhara’s metaphors is that the world is mere appearance, and Jiva finds this unacceptable. He comes down strongly against this view, calling it a fictitious interpretation ( kalpana-m ula ), but never mentions ´Sridhara directly, as he is usually wont to do Since the interpretation given here is based on the ´sruti , other fictitious interpretations are automatically defeated. In those interpretations, fire and the other elements, which were indicated in a general way [in the verse], are explained in a particular way. This does not please the grammarians. If this was what the Bhagavata meant, it would have said “like water in a mirage” and similarly for the other elements. Moreover, in that [incorrect] view, the threefold creation [ trisarga ] is not born from Brahman in the primary sense of the word “born”. Rather, the word janma is taken in the sense of superimposition ( aropa ) 32 At this point, Jiva presents several arguments in quick succession as to why superimposition cannot constitute the relationship between the world and Brahman. The disagreeable commentary he is referring to is clearly the Bhavartha-dipika (1.1.1) , which states: “ Vinimaya is transposition—the appearance of one thing in another. That [appearance] passes as reality because of the reality of its substrate [i.e., Brahman]. In this regard, the perception of water in fire, that is, in a mirage, is well known.” 33 30 The full verse from the Bhagavata Purana is as follows: tasmi ˙ ms tada labdha-rucer maha-matepriyasravasy askhalita matir mamayayaham etat sad-asat sva-mayayapasye mayi brahmani kalpita ˙m pare (1.5.27)The entirety of ´Sridhara Svami’s comments on this verse is as follows: priya ˙ m sravo yasya tasmin bhagavati labdha-rucer mamaskhalitapratihata matir abhavad ity anusa˙ngah.. yaya matya pare prapañcatite brahma-rupe mayi sad-asat sthula ˙m suksma ˙m caitac charira ˙m sva-mayaya svavidyaya kalpita ˙ m na tu vastuto ’stiti tat-ksanam eva pasyami 31 The relevant portion of ´Sridhara’s comments on Bhagavata 1.1.1 is as follows: satyatve hetuh.. yatra yasmin brahmani trayana ˙m maya-gunana ˙m tamo-rajah.-sattvana ˙m sargo bhutendriya-devata-rupo ’mrsa satyah.. yat-satyataya mithya-sargo ’pi satyavat pratiyate ta ˙ m para ˙ m satyam ity arthah.. atra drstantah. — tejo-vari-mrda ˙m yatha vinimaya iti. vinimayo vyatyayo ’nyasminn anyavabhasah.. sa yatha ’dhisthana-sattaya sadvat pratiyata ity arthah.. tatra tejasi vari-buddhir marici-toye prasiddha. mrdi kacadau vari-buddhir varini ca kacadi-buddhir ityadi yathayatham uhyam 32 tad evam arthasyasya sruti-mulatvat kalpana-m ulas tv anyarthah. svata eva parastah.. tatra ca samanyataya nirdistana ˙m teja-adina ˙m visesatve sa˙nkramana ˙m na sabdikana ˙m hirdayamadhyarohati. yadi ca tad evama ˙msyata tada varyadini maricikadisu yathety evavaksyata ki ˙ m ca tanmate brahmatas trisargasya mukhya ˙ m janma nasti kintv aropa eva janmety ucyate ( Paramatma-sandarbha, anuccheda 105) 33 See note 31 for the Sanskrit.

Religions 2020 , 11 , 436 8 of 14 Despite such instances of Advaitic concepts emerging in the Bhavartha-dipika , there is broad consensus among scholars that ´Sridhara Svami is not a radical nondualist 34 In his excellent study of ´Sridhara’s commentary on the catur-sloki (the four essential verses of the Bhagavata Purana , as determined by commentators), Okita finds that ´Sridhara’s theology was “closer to Ramanuja’s nondualism” ( Okita 2014 , p. 75), as ´Sridhara sometimes a ffi rms the reality of the world and at other times moves closer toward Advaitic understandings of maya ( Okita 2014 , p. 123). Sharma finds similar variance ( Sharma 1981 , pp. 458–59). Indeed, as we have seen above, it is impossible to place ´Sridhara within any predefined Vedantic system, as he moves fluidly and unapologetically from Advaita-leaning positions to more dualistic views 35 This fluidity makes the Bhavartha-dipika enticing to a broad spectrum of commentators, from a variety of sectarian backgrounds, across the subcontinent We have argued here that we must take seriously the fact that Jiva too, with his acintya-bhedabheda theology, is halfway to nondualism, and this makes ´Sridhara an easy choice—except, of course, when the choice is not easy, requiring a delicate interpretive dance on Jiva’s part. We have argued that the acceptability of ´Sridhara’s theology is dependent largely on his stance toward Advaitic theories of illusion. On the one hand, ´Sridhara’s reticence to build an Advaitic theory of maya , even when there are opportunities to do so, makes it possible for Jiva to use him as a foundation for Caitanya Vaisnava theology. On the other, when ´Sridhara does venture in the direction of maya , risking the reality of the world and the individuality of the self, we encounter the boundary that Jiva draws in Tattva-sandarbha : “Our interpretation . . will be written in accordance with the views of the great Vaisnava, the revered ´Sridhara Svami, only when they conform to the strict Vaisnava standpoint.” ( Elkman 1986 , p. 119) 4. Why ´Sridhara? The Question Revisited But we have spent much too long on the question of ´Sridhara Svami’s Advaitic tendencies and the e ff ect that those tendencies have on his status as the canonical Caitanya Vaisnava commentator. Surely, there must be other reasons for ´Sridhara’s appeal, other ways in which we can answer the question, “Why ´Sridhara?” Indeed there are, and we will now go through them more briefly First, we must note ´Sridhara’s special regard for the Bhagavata itself. The second verse of the Purana proclaims the text’s distinctiveness and preeminence: The Bhagavata is free of fraudulent dharmas , truthful in content, salutary for listeners, and productive of God’s presence in their hearts The third line raises a rhetorical question: “This beautiful Bhagavata was written by the great seer What then (is the use) of others ( ki ˙ m va paraih.) ?” 36 ´Sridhara interprets “others” as “other scriptures ( sastraih ),” and provides a detailed argument for the Bhagavata’s superiority to the entire gamut of scriptural texts, including those of the karma-kanda (Vedic ritual), jñana-kanda (philosophical), and devata-kanda (devotional) genres. The Bhagavata , he says, “is superior to all scriptures, including the three kandas, because it perfectly conveys their meaning. Therefore, this book should be heard continuously.” 37 Indeed, ´Sridhara’s conviction in the Bhagavata’s preeminence is evident in chapter 87 of Book 10, where the Vedas praise Visnu and thus implicitly accept their subordinate status to the Bhagavata Purana . ´Sridhara, who is normally brief and pointed in his comments, waxes eloquent in this chapter, ending his commentary on each verse with his own verse composition in praise of Nrsi ˙mha There is little doubt that ´Sridhara accords to the Bhagavata a privileged position above other sacred 34 For example, see De ( 1961 , pp. 17–18), Okita ( 2014 , chp. 3), B.NK Sharma ( 1981 , p. 128), Sheridan ( 1994 , pp. 58, 65), and Hardy ( 1974 , p. 32) 35 Ananta Sukla ( 2010 , pp. 74–76) argues that ´Sridhara’s theology draws from a variety of traditions, including Vaisnava, ´Saiva, ´Sakta, Vedanta and Sa ˙nkhya, and he rarely criticizes thinkers from any of these traditions Sukla ( 2010 , p. 19) also points to the Bhavartha-dipika’s third opening verse, which honors the “two Lords, Madhava and ¯ Umadhava [´Siva].” 36 dharmah. projjhita-kaitavo ’tra paramo nirmatsarana ˙m sata ˙mvedya ˙m vastavam atra vastu sivada ˙m tapa-trayonmulanamsrimad-bhagavate maha-muni-krte ki ˙m va parair isvarahsadyo hrdy avarudhyate ’tra krtibhih. susrusubhis tat-ksanat ( Bhagavata 1.1.2) 37 ´Sridhara Svami begins and ends his commentary on BhP 1.1.2 as follows: idani ˙ m srotr.-pravartanaya sri-bhagavatasya kanda-traya-visayebhyah. sarva-sastrebhyah. sraisthya ˙m darsayati . . . tasmad atra kanda-trayarthasyapi yathavat pratipadanad idam eva sarva-sastrebhyah. sraisthyam, ato nityam etad eva srotavyam iti bhavah.

Religions 2020 , 11 , 436 9 of 14 texts, a stance that likely contributed to the Bhagavata’s meteoric rise as the preeminent scripture for subsequent schools of Vaisnavism 38 This regard for the Bhagavata is not to be assumed in other early commentators; Vijayadhvaja Tirtha, whose commentary would have been available during Jiva’s time, interprets the third line of the Bhagavata’s second verse di ff erently. He says, in essence: “This beautiful Bhagavata was written by the great seer [Vyasa]. What then is the point of dharmic texts written by others ( aparaih )? The other Puranas shine only as long as the beautiful and highest Bhagavatam is not visible.” 39 He leaves it at that, not comparing the Bhagavata to any texts beyond the Puranas. Another early Bhagavata commentator, Laksmidhara, does provide an elaborate argument for the Bhagavata’s preeminence in his Amrta-tara˙ngini commentary, 40 but his praise for the Bhagavata is accompanied by an ardent engagement with the classical Advaita theories of illusion, 41 which would have rendered the commentary unacceptable to most Vaisnava writers 42 A second feature of ´Sridhara’s commentary that would have made it particularly appealing to Caitanya Vaisnavas is the central place he accords to Krsna in his theology. Let us examine that verse in Book 1, chapter 3, which is of consummate importance to Caitanya Vaisnavas and which Jiva considers to be the maha-vakya , controlling thesis, of the entire Bhagavata , 43 because it establishes Krsna as the original Lord, the source of all other divinities: “These [aforementioned avataras ] are parts and portions of the Supreme Person, but Krsna is Bhagavan, the Blessed Lord, himself.” 44 ´Sridhara does two interesting things in this commentary: first, he provides a hierarchical typology of avataras that would have been of great interest to early Caitanya Vaisnava theologians, who develop this into an extensive avatara classification system. ´Sridhara tells us that some avataras are a ˙ msas (parts) of the Supreme Lord, whereas others are kala (smaller portions) and vibh utis (powers). He then gives examples of each type, explaining that Matsya and other (major) avataras are omniscient and omnipotent, but they manifest their saktis only inasmuch as is useful for their roles. Others, such as the four Kumaras, are possessed by powers of the Lord, such as knowledge, as are appropriate to their respective positions. The second task ´Sridhara takes up in this verse is to explicate the particular position of Krsna, and from a Caitanya Vaisnava standpoint, he could not have done it better. “Krsna is indeed Bhagavan, none other than Nar¯ayan.a. Because he manifests all saktis , he is the culmination of all [ avataras ].” 45 Although Caitanya Vaisnavas would regard Narayana as a portion of Krsna, ´Sridhara is halfway there: he places Krsna at the head of all avataras and identifies him with their origin, Narayana. By way of contrast, we can again point to Vijayadhvaja’s comments on this verse, where he takes the word krsna as merely a reference to Visnu’s blackish complexion ( megha-syama) , and takes particular care to 38 As Christopher Minkowski ( 2005 ) shows, by the time of Nilakantha Caturdhara, the seventeenth-century author of the Bharata-bhava-dipa commentary on the Mahabharata , the authority and status of sruti and smrti were being reversed, with smrti texts, particularly the Bhagavata Purana , bolstering the status of the Vedas rather than the other way around. See Gupta ( 2006 ) for a discussion of Jiva Gosvami’s role in this sruti-smrti reversal process 39 The relevant section of Vijayadhvaja Tirtha’s commentary on Bhagavata 1.1.2 states: ki ˙ m visiste. maha-muni-krte aparaih ki ˙m va . . tatha cokta ˙ m rajante tavad anyani puranani sata ˙m gane yavan na dr.syate saksat srimad-bhagavata ˙m param iti . . maha-munir vyasah. saksannarayanah. tena krte pran.ite . . dharmadi-kathanaih. ki ˙m va prayojanam 40 See Laksmidhara’s commentary on the Bhagavata’s second verse. I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this reference. Laksmidhara also provides an argument for the Bhagavata’s (and the Puranas’) preeminent status in his Bhagavan-nama-kaumudi, a text that was quoted appreciatively by Caitanya Vaisnavas ( Venkatkrishnan 2015 a , chp. 3) 41 In his commentary on the first verse of the Bhagavata, Laksmidhara employs and defends a panoply of Advaita concepts, including bimba-pratibimba, vivarta, anirvacaniya, mithya-jagat, and cid-eka-rasa See Venkatkrishnan ( 2018 ) for a full discussion of Laksmidhara’s engagement with Advaita Vedanta as well as other salient features of his commentary 42 The relationship between Laksmidhara and ´Sridhara is not entirely clear. Venkatkrishnan notes that, among other confluences, “the first chapter of the BNK [ Bhagavan-nama-kaumudi ] can be considered an elaboration of ´Sridhara’s brief and scattered comments on the power of the divine name into a full-fledged theology” ( Venkatkrishnan 2015 a , p. 72). On the hand, Laksmidhara’s Amrta-tara˙ngini commentary, Venkatkrishnan says elsewhere ( Venkatkrishnan 2018 , p. 55), “seems to show no awareness of ´Sridhara’s writing whatsoever.” 43 For a detailed discussion of the role of mahavakyas in Jiva Gosvami’s theology, see Aleksandar Uskokov ( Uskokov 2018 ). 44 Bhagavata 1.3.28: ete ca ˙ msa-kalah. pu ˙msah. krsnas tu bhagavan svayamindrari-vyakula ˙m loka ˙m mrdayanti yuge yuge 45 krsnas tu bhagavan narayana eva aviskrta-sarvasaktitvat sarvesa ˙m prayojanam

Religions 2020 , 11 , 436 10 of 14 identify the referent as ´Sesasayi, the Lord who lies upon the serpent ´Sesa, calling him the m ula-r upi, the original form 46 There is no interpretive space here for a Caitanya Vaisnava commentator We could point to other elements in ´Sridhara’s theology that make him appealing to Caitanya Vaisnavas, such as his discussion of the power of Krsna’s name in the Ajamila episode, 47 or the beginnings of a theory of bhakti-rasa in his commentary on Bhagavata 10.43.17 48 But in the interest of space, we shall limit ourselves to one final observation about ´Sridhara’s commentarial method that may explain his appeal not just among Caitanya Vaisnavas but among readers of the Bhagavata more generally Despite the theological choices and innovations we have documented above—that demonstrate ´Sridhara’s creative voice as a commentator—his exegetical method is more restrained than most commentators who succeed him. ´Sridhara’s word definitions and grammatical parses tend to be what one would suspect on a first reading of the verse, with little recourse to obscure etymologies or creative resolutions of sandhi . The alternative interpretations, beginning with yad va, that so delight later Bhagavata commentators are less frequent in the Bhavartha-dipika , even when there is ambiguity in grammar or sandhi . Take, for example, the second verse of the Bhagavata Purana that we examined above. Viraraghava and Vijayadhvaja give several alternate explanations of words throughout the verse, 49 placing it carefully within the theological frameworks of their own traditions, and thus both commentators have much to say on this important verse. ´Sridhara, on the other hand, o ff ers an alternative gloss to but a single word and does not acknowledge any ambiguity in sandhi This makes his comments relatively short (although still rather long by his own standard) ´Sridhara’s creative exegesis and theological digressions become even less frequent and more limited in scope as we move further into the Purana. There are, of course, exceptions to ´Sridhara’s typical brevity and exegetical restraint, most obviously in his commentary on the Bhagavata’s first verse, 50 where he o ff ers alternative interpretations of several words, along with two ways to resolve the sandhi of trisargomrsa 51 But even here, ´Sridhara is remarkably restrained compared to most other commentators, who sometimes o ff er multiple, unrelated interpretations of the entire verse, spanning several pages Indeed, the first verse receives some of the longest and most complex commentaries of any verse in the Bhagavata We can o ff er one more example of ´Sridhara’s commentarial restraint, from Book 3, chapters 15–16 of the Bhagavata Purana —the story of Jaya and Vijaya’s fall from grace. Jaya and Vijaya serve as Visnu’s attendants, guarding the innermost gates of Vaikuntha. When the four child-sages, the Kumaras, 46 Another interesting feature of Vijayadhvaja’s commentary on this verse is that he explicitly rejects the possibility of gradations of avataras (as ´Sridhara outlines) as well as simultaneous di ff erence and nondi ff erence between the Lord and the avataras (as the Caitanya theologians claim for certain kinds of avataras ). Rather, Vijayadhvaja insists that all avataras are nondi ff erent from each other and from the avatari , the original Lord Visnu. The relevant portion of his commentary on 1.3.28 runs as follows: ete sesa-sayinah. parama-purusasya sva ˙msa-kalah. svarupa ˙msavatarah. na tatra ˙msa ˙m´sina ˙m bhedah. pratibimba ˙msavat kim ukta ˙ m bhavati. krsno megha-syamah. sesa-sayi mula-rupi padma-nabho bhagavan svaya ˙m tu svayam eva na sakhisakhavat bhedabhedopiti bhavah. 47 See Bhagavata Purana , Book Six, chapters 1–3, for the story of Ajamila’s life and near-death experience Gupta and Valpey ( 2016 , chp. 13) provide an overview of multiple commentaries on this episode, focusing on the commentators’ discussion of the power of the divine names 48 Bhagavata 10.43.17 describes the di ff erent ways in which Krsna was perceived when he entered Ka ˙msa’s wrestling arena in Mathura. In his commentary on this verse, ´Sridhara immediately introduces the concept of rasa : “Bhagavan, who is the embodiment of the multitude of all rasas beginning with amorous love, appeared in accordance with the wishes of each person there, and not in his fullness to everyone . . The rasas which were manifest in the wrestlers and members of the audience are delineated in order by this verse, ‘[The rasas are] wrath, wonder, amorous love, mirth, heroism, compassion, terror, disgust, tranquility, and devotion ( bhakti ) with love ( prema ).’” 49 For example, Viraraghava writes: yad va matsara-sabdah. kamadina ˙m pradarsanarthah. sama-damady-upetana ˙m mumuksuna ˙m dharmah. ( Bhagavata 1.1.2). See note 39 above for other relevant portions of Vijayadhvaja’s commentary on Bhagavata 1.1.2 50 As mentioned above, ´Sridhara’s commentary on the ´Sruti-stuti ( Bhagavata Book Ten, chapter 87) is also unusually long and complex 51 The sandhi of trisorgomrsa can be resolved as trisargah. mrsa “the threefold creation is false,” and trisargah. amrsa “the threefold creation is not false.” This, of course, has significant theological ramifications, and ´Sridhara incorporates both interpretations into his comments.

Religions 2020 , 11 , 436 11 of 14 arrive at these gates seeking to see the Lord, the gatekeepers turn them away, not recognizing the boys’ greatness. The sages become angry and curse the gatekeepers to fall to earth and take three successive births as demonic enemies of Visnu. Jaya and Vijaya instantly recognize their folly and repent, as Visnu hastens to the scene to resolve the situation and give the sages what they had longed for—an audience with the Lord. At this point, the sages also feel deeply remorseful for their angry behavior, but Visnu is unperturbed; he reassures both sides that all this was part of his divine plan. He asks Jaya and Vijaya to accept the curse and requests the sages to ensure that the gatekeepers’ return to Vaikuntha is swift 52 The story of Jaya and Vijaya’s fall from Vaikuntha has intrigued commentators because it demonstrates what is said to be impossible—a liberated devotee of God falling from his divine abode to earth. This is the question that occupies commentators: Did Jaya and Vijaya truly deserve to be cursed and to fall from their posts in heaven? Who is to blame for their cursing—the four child-sages, the gatekeepers, Visnu himself, or some combination of the three parties? The Bhagavata itself incriminates di ff erent individuals at various points in the story, and the commentators duly acknowledge the text’s attributions of guilt. But each commentator also has his own sense of what went wrong and who is truly at fault. Vallabhacarya, for example, makes note of the fact that although Vaikuntha has seven gates, the sages were able to pass through six without di ffi culty 53 The first six gates represent Visnu’s six excellences—majesty, strength, fame, beauty, wisdom, and renunciation—which the sages were qualified to perceive. But the Kumaras did not possess the quality necessary to enter the seventh gate, namely bhakti . Thus, even before the sages have uttered any curse, Vallabha makes it clear that the sages did not deserve to be there, and so the gatekeepers cannot truly be blamed for obstructing their path 54 Nevertheless, the gatekeepers were not entirely innocent, says Vallabha, for they harbored pride in their status as the Lord’s attendants, and pride is the characteristic quality of demons The other Vaisnava commentators tend to be less critical of the sages at the outset, but they too shift their sympathies to Jaya and Vijaya later in the story. Jiva takes the word avadharya (“ascertained”) to indicate that the gatekeepers had not recognized the four naked boys and thus their o ff ense was unintentional. Vijayadhvaja says that the gatekeepers’ immediate repentance shows that they were not at fault 55 When Visnu beseeches the sages to make his attendants’ exile short, the Vaisnava commentators note the Lord’s heartfelt concern for his devotees. When Visnu finally takes blame upon himself, by claiming that he ordained the curse, Visvanatha declares that both sides were faultless, since the entire event was set into motion by the Lord for the purpose of intensifying his loving relationships with his devotees All throughout the episode, ´Sridhara seems not to have a stake in the argument. He sticks closely to the Bhagavata’s explicit attribution of guilt, emphasizing the sages’ qualification and the 52 The story of Jaya and Vijaya is one of the few narratives to be told twice within the Bhagavata , in Books Three and Seven. In its second iteration, the story serves as part of an answer to the question of whether God behaves partially when he kills some and saves others. Krsna’s slaying of the hateful king ´Sisupala, we are assured, was in fact a blessing in disguise, because ´Sisupala was one of the two gatekeepers, and this was his last birth on earth as a demon. But this explanation of ´Sisupala’s death simply pushes the question further back in time—did Jaya and Vijaya truly deserve to be cursed and to fall from their posts in heaven? This is the question that interests commentators in their commentaries on the Jaya-Vijaya episode 53 See Vallabha’s remarkable commentary on Bhagavata 3.15.27: “Here the sages passed through six gates without lingering, but at the seventh they saw two celestial beings holding clubs. Both were of equal age and they were beautifully dressed with the most excellent crowns, earrings, and armlets.” 54 But what do we make of the Bhagavata’s statement, in 3.15.31, that the sages were most deserving ( svarhattamah.) of visiting Vaikuntha? Vallabha explains that because the sages werejñanis (men of wisdom), they were certainly more deserving than mere ascetics or others with good behavior. Even for them, however, entering the Lord’s private chambers would have been a major transgression (presumably because they were not yet devotees, as discussed above), and allowing this to happen would have been a mistake on the part of the gatekeepers. To protect both sides from this o ff ense, the sages were forbidden entry into the Lord’s private chamber 55 See Jiva’s and Vijayadhvaja’s commentaries on Bhagavata 3.15.35. The verse is as follows: “When the sages uttered these terrible words, the gatekeepers realized [ avadharya] that this was a brahmana’s curse, which cannot be counteracted by any number of weapons. The servants of Hari became very fearful and immediately fell to the ground, grasping the sages’ feet in desperation.”

Religions 2020 , 11 , 436 12 of 14 gatekeepers’ mistake 56 When the text says that the gatekeepers’ conduct was displeasing to the Lord, every commentator must explain why it was displeasing. ´Sridhara simply looks to the next chapter, where the fault is identified as disrespect of brahmanas 57 He moves with the narrative, apportioning blame as it is handed out by the text—first to the gatekeepers for insulting brahmanas (3.15.30), then to the sages for cursing two sinless persons (3.16.25), and finally to Visnu for making this part of his masterplan (3.16.26). ´Sridhara makes little attempt to harmonize these conflicting accounts of culpability and causality, focusing instead on the verse at hand and its immediate narrative context 58 5. Conclusions We have explored the question “Why ´Sridhara?” from two directions. First, we asked, “What was it about early Caitanya Vaisnava theology that made it amenable to ´Sridhara Svami?” and second, “What was it about ´Sridhara that made his work so attractive to Caitanya Vaisnava authors (and a wide variety of other commentators)?” As we attempted to answer these questions, we saw the historical and theological confluences that made ´Sridhara Svami and the Caitanya Vaisnavas residents of a shared religious landscape, while carefully noting the boundaries between them. We also studied ´Sridhara Svami’s distinctive commentarial voice, often presenting itself in paradoxical forms—his creativity as an exegete alongside his restraint, his focus on Krsna together with his theological fluidity, and his insistence on following the flow of the text along with his resistance to harmonizing it There is a conversation in the Caitanya-caritamrta that is worth noting here, for it indirectly points to these facets of ´Sridhara’s method. A Vaisnava named Vallabha Bhatta visits Caitanya and expresses his dissatisfaction with the Bhavartha-dipika : “I cannot accept ´Sridhara’s explanations He explains things by accepting whatever he reads wherever he reads it. There is no consistency [in his explanations], and therefore I do not accept him as the master ( svami ).” (3.113–114). Although couched as a criticism here, these features of ´Sridhara’s work—attention to a verse’s context, little attempt at achieving theological consistency, the lack of an easily-identifiable theological system, reticence toward conspicuous exegetical creativity, and the resulting brevity—have helped make his commentary virtuously synonymous with the plain sense of the Bhagavata in the eyes of later authors And yet there is commentarial play in ´Sridhara’s conservative method—a willingness to dance between opposing poles of dualism and nondualism, to push the boundaries of sampradaya , to dabble in emerging theories of bhakti-rasa , to follow the Bhagavata’s narratives wherever they might lead That playfulness allows ´Sridhara to write a lucid commentary and himself remain an enigma, to be claimed by all and belong to none. Perhaps Jiva was right in comparing ´Sridhara’s commentary to a casket of jewels, hiding a cintamani gem from the eyes of all who were indi ff erent to its value 59 For whether one followed ´Sridhara’s lead or resisted him, indi ff erence, it seems, was not an option Funding: This research received no external funding Acknowledgments: An earlier, much shorter version of this paper was presented at the World Sanskrit Conference in Vancouver. My sincere thanks to my fellow panelists and members of the audience, particularly Michael Allen (University of Virginia), David Buchta (Brown University), Jonathan Edelmann (University of Florida), 56 See Bhavartha-dipika 3.15.30 and 3.16.26 57 Bhavartha-dipika 3.15.30: vata-rasanan nagnan vrddhan api pañca-varsa-balakavat pratiyamanan. ca-karad ajñaya ca. askhalayata ˙m nivaritavantau. na tat skhalanam arhantiti tatha tan. aho atrapi dharstyam ity eva ˙m tesa ˙m tejo vihasya. bhagavato brahmanya-devasya pratik ula ˙ m ´sila ˙ m yayoh. 58 In our attempt to determine the reasons for ´Sridhara’s influence, we might note another fruitful area of inquiry, namely, the social networks that conveyed the Bhavartha-dipika across much of the subcontinent less than a century after its composition, drawing the attention of those who were his near-contemporaries, such as Bahira Jataveda in Maharashtra and Vijayadhvaja Tirtha in the south. At present, we know precious little about the Bhavartha-dipika’s socio-political context, its precise location of origin, or the intellectual networks that drew texts and their authors from Orissa (where the Bhavartha-dipika was presumably composed) to other parts of the subcontinent. We hope further research will shed light on these questions, although they lie outside the scope of this article 59 See Okita ( 2014 , p. 103).

Religions 2020 , 11 , 436 13 of 14 and Kiyokazu Okita (Sophia University), for their feedback on the paper. My gratitude also goes to my graduate assistant, Kirtan Patel (University of Texas at Austin), for his help with locating relevant sources Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest References Primary Sources ´Srimad Bhagavata Mahapuranam, with the Sanskrit commentaries: ´Sridhara Svami’s “Bhavarthadipika,” ´Sri Vam.sidhara’s “Bhavarthadipikaprakasa,” ´Sri Radharamanadasa Gosvami’s “Dipini,” ´Srimad Viraraghava’s “Bhagavatacandrika,” ´Srimad Vijayadhvajatirtha’s “Padaratnavali,” ´Srimad Jiva Gosvami’s “Kramasamdarbha,” ´Srimad Visvanatha Cakravarti’s “Sararthadarsini,” ´Srimad ´Sukadeva’s “Siddhantapradipa,” ´Srimad Vallabh¯acarya’s “Subodhini,” ´Sri Purusottamacarana Gosvami’s “Subodhiniprakasah.,” ´Sri Giridharalala’s “Balaprabodhini.” 1965. Edited by Krsnasa ˙nkara ´Sastri. Ahmedabad: ´Sribhagavatavidyapitha Jiva Gosvami. 1990 Bhagavatsandarbha (with the Gopalatosani Commentary of ´Syamdas) Translated in Hindi by ´Syamdas. Vrindavan, India: Vrajagaurav Prakasan R upa Gosvami. 2003 The Bhaktirasamrtasindhu of Rupa Gosvamin Translated by David L. Haberman. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts and Motilal Banarsidass Krsnadasa Kaviraja. 1996 Caitanya Caritamrta of Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami . Translated by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust Jiva Gosvami. 1999 Paramatma-sandarbha (with the Gopalatosani Commentary of ´Syamdas) . Translated into Hindi by Vrindavan ´Syamdas. India: Vrajagaurav Prakasan Secondary Sources Allen, Michael S. 2017. Greater Advaita Vedanta: The Case of Niscaldas International Journal of Hindu Studies 21: 275–97. [ CrossRef ] De, Sushil Kumar. 1961 Early History of the Vaisnava Faith and Movement in Bengal from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources Calcutta: Firma KLM Edelmann, Jonathan. 2018. ´Sridharasvamin. In Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism Online . Edited by Knut A. Jacobsen, Helene Basu, Angelika Malinar and Vasudha Narayanan. Leiden: Brill. [ CrossRef ] Elkman, Stuart Mark. 1986 Jiva Gosvamin’s Tattvasandarbha: A Study on the Philosophical and Sectarian Development of the Gaudiya Vaisnava Movement . Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Gupta, Ravi M. 2006. Making Space for Vedanta: Canon and Commentary in Caitanya Vaisnavism International Journal of Hindu Studies 10: 75–90. [ CrossRef ] Gupta, Ravi M. 2007 The Caitanya Vaisnava Vedanta of Jiva Gosvami: When Knowledge Meets Devotion London: Routledge Gupta, Ravi M., and Kenneth R. Valpey. 2016 The Bhagavata Purana: Selected Readings . New York: Columbia University Press Hardy, Friedhelm. 1974. Madhav ê ndra Puri: A Link between Bengal Vaisnavism and South Indian “Bhakti” The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1: 23–41. [ CrossRef ] Joshi, Rasik Vihari. 1974. Catuh.sloki or Saptasloki Bhagavata: A Critical Study Purana XVI, no. 1: 26–46 Lutjeharms, Rembert. 2018. "Why Do We Still Sift the Husk-Like Upanisads?" Revisiting Vedanta in Early Chaitanya Vaishnava Theology. In Text and Tradition in Early Modern North India . Edited by Tyler Williams, Anshu Malhotra and John Stratton Hawley. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 382–412 Minkowski, Christopher. 2005. Nilakantha’s Vedic Readings in the Hariva ˙msa Commentary. In Epic, Khilas, and Puranas: Continuities and Ruptures. Proceedings of the Third Dubrovnik Conference on the Sanskrit Epics and Puranas, September 2002 . Edited by Petteri Koskikallio. Zagreb: Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, pp. 411–33 Narsalay, Madhavi, and Vrushali Potnis-Damle. 2018. Rasakridavarnana—A Study of Bahira Jataveda’s Bhairavi Tika The Journal of Hindu Studies 11: 151–67. [ CrossRef ] Okita, Kiyokazu. 2014 Hindu Theology in Early Modern South Asia: The Rise of Devotionalism and the Politics of Genealogy . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Religions 2020 , 11 , 436 14 of 14 Sharma, B. N. K. 1981 History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and Its Literature from the Earliest Beginnings to Our Own Times . Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Sheridan, Daniel P. 1994. ´Sridhara and His Commentary on the Bhagavata Purana Journal of Vaisnava Studies 2: 45–66 Sukla, Ananta Charan. 2010 ´Sridhara Svami: A Medieval Philosopher of Religion . New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi Uskokov, Aleksandar. 2018. The Long and Short of It: Maha-vakya from Mima ˙ msa to Jiva Gosvamin, from the Veda to the Bhagavata Journal of Hindu Studies 11: 38–52. [ CrossRef ] Venkatkrishnan, Anand. 2015 a. Mima ˙ msa, Vedanta, and the Bhakti Movement. PhD. dissertation, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. Available online: https: // academiccommonscolumbia.edu / doi / 10.7916 / D 8 KS 6 QWV (accessed on 15 July 2020) Venkatkrishnan, Anand. 2015 b. Ritual, reflection, and religion: The Devas of Banaras South Asian History and Culture 6: 147–71. [ CrossRef ] Venkatkrishnan, Anand. 2018 The River of Ambrosia : An Alternative Commentarial Tradition of the Bhagavata Purana Journal of Hindu Studies 11: 53–66. [ CrossRef ] © 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http: // creativecommonsorg / licenses / by / 4.0 / ).

Other Religion Concepts:

[back to top]

Discover the significance of concepts within the article: ‘Why Sridhara Svami? The Makings of a Successful Sanskrit Commentary’. Further sources in the context of Religion might help you critically compare this page with similair documents:

Sanskrit, Bhakti, Krishna, Bhagavata Purana, Advaita, Vaishnavism, Vaishnava, Advaita-vedanta, Shridhara Svami, Lakshmidhara, Bhavarthadipika, Living Being, Bhaktirasa, Shikshaguru, Gaudiya, Caitanyacaritamrita, Madhavendrapuri, Shridharasvamin, Advaitin, Rupagosvami, Sanatanagosvami, Soteriology, Theology, Superimposition, Ultimate reality, Sacred text, Commentary, Opening verse, Acintya-bhedabheda, Other scriptures, Gross and subtle bodies, Transcendent reality, Other element, Philosophical position, Original Lord, Dualism, Scriptural text, Liberated state, Vaisnava tradition, Jiva Gosvami, Essential characteristic, Transcendental reality, Commentarial tradition, Influence, Illusive power, Personal deity, Mere appearance, Alternative interpretation, Alternate interpretation, Theological system, Blissful form, Salient points, Key component, Social network, Institutional affiliation, Conflicting accounts, Religious landscape, Conservative Method, Normative notion, Multiple influence.