**3. When** *Not* **to Choose Sr´ ¯ıdhara**

Nevertheless, the "Why Sr´ ¯ıdhara?" question persists. As we have seen, the Vr.ndavana Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ıs 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 J¯ıva's statement

<sup>20</sup> See Rupa Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı's *Bhakti-rasam¯ r.ta-sindhu* (1.2.187): *¯ıha yasya harer d ¯ asye karma ¯ n. a manas ¯ a gir ¯ a nikhil ¯ asv apy avasth ¯ asu ¯ j¯ıvan-muktah. sa ucyate,* "One whose every effort—in mind, speech, and action, and in all circumstances—is in the service of Hari, that person is called *j¯ıvan-mukta,* liberated while living.")

<sup>21</sup> For example, J¯ıva's commentary on the first five sutras of the *Brahma-sutra ¯* (found in Paramatma-sandarbha, anuccheda 105 ¯ and translated in Gupta 2007, chp. 7) often quotes from Ram¯ anuja's ¯ *Sr´ ¯ı-bha¯s.ya*. Gopala Bha ¯ t.t.a Gosvam¯ ¯ı's *Hari-bhakti-vilasa, ¯*

the main Caitanya Vais.n. ava ritual manual, also displays the influence of Sr´ ¯ıvais.n. avism. <sup>22</sup> For a detailed discussion of the sources of J¯ıva's Vedanta theology, including ¯ Sr´ ¯ıdhara, Ram¯ anuja, Madhva, and ¯ Sa´ nkara, see ˙ Gupta (2007, chp. 3).

<sup>23</sup> See Venkatkrishnan (2015b).

<sup>24</sup> See *Caitanya-caritam¯ r.ta* 1.7.66–70, and especially 1.7.101: "Do *bhakti* for Kr.s.n. a—we're all happy about that. But why don't you study Vedanta? What's wrong with it?" Venkatkrishnan describes a similar argument against ¯ *k¯ırtana* 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 2015b, p. 155)

<sup>25</sup> 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 Vais.n. avism.

that he only accepts Sr´ ¯ıdhara in so far as his views are consistent with pure Vais.n. avism? What does J¯ıva mean by the "pure Vais.n. ava thesis" (*suddha-vai ´ s.n. ava-siddhanta ¯* ), and which "doctrines of Advaita" (*advaita-vada) ¯* , interspersed in Sr´ ¯ıdhara's commentary, does he find unacceptable?26 Centuries later, the Caitanya Vais.n. ava Vedantist Baladeva Vidy ¯ abh ¯ u¯ s.an. a describes Sr´ ¯ıdhara'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.N.K. Sharma's claim that "pure Vais.n. avism" refers to Madhva's Vedanta appears untenable ( ¯ Sharma 1981, p. 528). I would suggest, rather, that J¯ıva can find a way to incorporate nearly all of Sr´ ¯ıdhara's Advaitic statements into Caitanya Vais.n. ava theology except for those that employ Advaita theories of illusion, particularly the notion of *may¯ a¯*. The problem is not with *may¯ a¯* as the Lord's illusive power; that, indeed, is quite compatible with the Caitanya Vais.n. ava concept of *sakti, ´* Kr.s.n. a's multifaceted energies. Rather, the problem lies with *may¯ a¯* when, in J¯ıva's eyes, it is "weaponized" by Advaitins to deny the transcendent reality of Kr.s.n. a'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 Bh ¯ a¯t.t.ac¯ arya, "Bhagav ¯ an has a blissful form replete with six ¯ kinds of majesty, and you call him formless? ... Listening to the commentary of a *may¯ av¯ ad¯ ¯ı* destroys everything!" (*Caitanya-caritam¯ r.ta* 2.6.152–69).27 Indeed, it is in the context of discussions about *may¯ a¯* that J¯ıva argues against Advaita in both *Tattva-sandarbha* and *Paramatma-sandarbha ¯* , <sup>28</sup> speaking strongly against *adhyasa ¯* and *aropa ¯* (superimposition), *vivarta* (apparent transformation), *eka-j¯ıva-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 ( ¯ *aprak¯ r.ta)* and inherent to the Lord's nature (*svabh ¯ avika ¯* ).

To be sure, Sr´ ¯ıdhara himself is not keen on "weaponizing" *may¯ a¯*. He often explains *may¯ a¯* as the veiling, multi-faceted power of the Lord, without recourse to heavyweight Advaita terminology. He repeatedly misses opportunities to discuss *avidya,¯ aropa, anirvacan ¯ ¯ıya, vivarta, upadhi, ¯* 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 Pur ¯ a¯n. a*, can remove living beings' ignorance. The verse is crucial to J¯ıva's argument for the *Bhagavata's ¯* supremacy as scripture, but the verse is also susceptible to Advaita theories of ignorance. In his commentary, Sr´ ¯ıdhara explains *may¯ a¯* as follows: "The Lord, who possesses all *saktis ´* , who knows everything, who has an eternally manifest, supremely blissful form (*svarupa ¯* ), controls *may¯ a¯* by his knowledge-´s*akti*. The living being ... is bewildered by the Lord's *may¯ a.¯* " Sr´ ¯ıdhara follows this with a quotation from Vis.n. usvam¯ ¯ı describing the Lord's powers of knowledge and bliss. Finally, Sr´ ¯ıdhara offers two verses—presumably of his own composition—in praise of the man-lion *avatara, ¯* Nr.simha: "The one who controls *may¯ a¯* is the Lord, and the one pained by her is the living being ... . We praise Nr.hari, who continually delights with his own *may¯ a¯*."<sup>29</sup> This, indeed, comes close to the Caitanya Vais.n. ava understanding of *may¯ a¯* as the Lord's *sakti. ´*

When, however, the opportunities become impossible to ignore, Sr´ ¯ıdhara offers 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 *may¯ a¯*

<sup>26</sup> *tad-vyakhy ¯ a tu samprati madhya-de´ ¯ sadau vy ¯ apt ¯ an advaita-v ¯ adino n ¯ una ¯ m bhagavan-mahim ˙ anam avag ¯ ahayitum tad-v ¯ adena ¯ karvurita-lip¯ına¯m parama-vai ˙ s.n. avan¯ a¯m ´ ˙ sr¯ıdhara-svami-cara ¯ n. an¯ a¯m ´ ˙ suddha-vais.n. ava-siddhant ¯ anugat ¯ a cet tarhi yath ¯ avad eva vilikhyate. ¯* (*Tattva-sandarbha, anuccheda* 27).

<sup>27</sup> *s. ad. -ai´svarya-purn ¯ . ananda-vigraha y ¯ a¯nh˙ ara ¯* /*hena-bhagavane tumi kaha nir ¯ ak¯ ara ¯* ... *may¯ av¯ adi-bh ¯ as¯.ya ´sunile haya sarva-na´¯sa.* <sup>28</sup> See *Tattva-sandarbha, anucchedas* 34–44 and *Paramatma-sandarbha, anuccheda ¯* 105.

<sup>29</sup> *anarthopa´samam s ˙ ak¯ s. ad bhakti-yogam adhok ¯ s. ajelokasyaj¯ anato vidv ¯ a¯m´ ˙ s cakre satvata-sa ¯ mhit ˙ am¯* (Bhagavata 1.7.6) ¯ *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika:¯ etad uktam bhavati—vidya-uaktya m ˙ ay¯ a-niyant ¯ a nity ¯ avirbh ¯ uta-param ¯ ananda-svar ¯ upa ¯ h. sarva-jñah. sarva-´saktir ¯ı´svaras tan-mayay ¯ a¯ sammohitas tirobh ˙ uta-svar ¯ upas tad-vipar ¯ ¯ıta-dharma j ¯ ¯ıvas tasya ce´svara bhaktya labdha-jñ ¯ anena mok ¯ s.a iti. tad uktam˙ vis.n. u-svamin—hladiny ¯ a sa ¯ mvid-a´ ˙ slis.t.ah. sac-cid-ananda ¯ ¯ı´svarah. . svavidy ¯ a-sa ¯ mv˙ r.to j¯ıvah. samkle´ ˙ sa-nikarakara ¯ h. . tatha—sa ¯ı´so yad-va´se may¯ a sa j ¯ ¯ıvo yas tayardita ¯ h. . svavirbh ¯ uta-par ¯ ananda ¯ h. svavirbh ¯ uta-sudu ¯ h. kha-bhu¯h. . svad¯ r.g-utthaviparyasa-bhava-bhedaja-bh ¯ ¯ı-´sucah. . man-mayay ¯ a jus ¯ . ann aste tam ima ¯ m nr ˙ .-harim numah ˙ . . ity adi. ¯*

upon me, the transcendent Brahman." For an Advaitin, this verse offers an irresistible opportunity to expound a theory of superimposition. As Anand Venkatkrishnan points out (Venkatkrishnan 2015a, pp. 49–50), none other than the thirteenth-century Hemadri, author of the ¯ *Kaivalya-d¯ıpika¯* commentary on the *Bhagavata-mukt ¯ aphala, ¯* seizes this verse to discuss the rope-snake metaphor. But Sr´ ¯ıdhara nearly avoids the matter altogether, glossing "this *sat* and *asat*" as "these gross and subtle bodies," "my *may¯ a"¯* 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 Vais.n. ava can live with.

Occasionally, however, Sr´ ¯ıdhara becomes more explicit in his application of Advaita theories of illusion, and as far as I can tell, these are the only moments when J¯ıva directly rejects Sr´ ¯ıdhara's interpretation (instead of simply layering an alternative interpretation, which J¯ıva does often). A good example of Sr´ ¯ıdhara in a sharper register is the *Bhagavata's ¯* opening verse, which provides ample opportunities for nondualist interpretation. In the third line, Sr´ ¯ıdhara 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.<sup>31</sup> Even here, Sr´ ¯ıdhara 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 Sr´ ¯ıdhara's metaphors is that the world is mere appearance, and J¯ıva finds this unacceptable. He comes down strongly against this view, calling it a fictitious interpretation (*kalpana-m¯ ula ¯* ), but never mentions Sr´ ¯ıdhara 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, J¯ıva 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 *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika¯* (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

<sup>30</sup> The full verse from the *Bhagavata Pur ¯ a¯n. a* is as follows:*tasmims tad ˙ a labdha-rucer mah ¯ a-matepriya´ ¯ sravasy askhalita¯ matir mamayayaham etat sad-asat sva-m ¯ ayay ¯ apa´ ¯ sye mayi brahman. i kalpitam pare ˙* (1.5.27)The entirety of Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı's comments on this verse is as follows: *priyam ´ ˙ sravo yasya tasmin bhagavati labdha-rucer mamaskh ¯ alit ¯ apratihat ¯ a matir abhavad ¯ ity anus. anga ˙ h. . yaya maty ¯ a pare prapañc ¯ at¯ ¯ıte brahma-rupe mayi sad-asat sth ¯ ula ¯ m s ˙ uk¯ s.mam caitac char ˙ ¯ıram sva-m ˙ ayay ¯ a sv ¯ avidyay ¯ a¯*

*kalpitam na tu vastuto 'st ˙ ¯ıti tat-ks. an. am eva pa´syami ¯* . <sup>31</sup> The relevant portion of Sr´ ¯ıdhara's comments on *Bhagavata ¯* 1.1.1 is as follows: *satyatve hetuh. . yatra yasmin brahman. i traya¯n. a¯m˙ may¯ a-gu ¯ n. an¯ a¯m tamo-raja ˙ h. -sattvan¯ a¯m sargo bh ˙ utendriya-devat ¯ a-r ¯ upo 'm ¯ r.s. a satya ¯ h. . yat-satyataya mithy ¯ a-sargo 'pi satyavat prat ¯ ¯ıyate tam para ˙ m satyam ity artha ˙ h. . atra dr.s.t.anta ¯ h. — tejo-vari-m ¯ r.da¯m yath ˙ a vinimaya iti. vinimayo vyatyayo 'nyasminn any ¯ avabh ¯ asa ¯ h. . sa yatha 'dhi ¯ s.t .hana-sattay ¯ a sadvat prat ¯ ¯ıyata ity arthah. . tatra tejasi vari-buddhir mar ¯ ¯ıci-toye prasiddha. m ¯ r.di kac¯ adau v ¯ ari-buddhir v ¯ ari ¯ n. i ca kac¯ adi-buddhir ity ¯ adi yath ¯ ayatham ¯ uhyam. ¯*

<sup>32</sup> *tad evam arthasyasya ´ ¯ sruti-mulatvat kalpan ¯ a-m¯ ulas tv any ¯ artha ¯ h. svata eva parasta ¯ h. . tatra ca sam¯ anyatay ¯ a nirdi ¯ s.t .an¯ a¯m teja- ˙ ad¯ ¯ına¯m˙ vi´ses. atve sankrama ˙ n. am na ´ ˙ sabdik ¯ an¯ a¯m hirdayamadhy ˙ arohati. yadi ca tad ev ¯ ama ¯ msyata tad ˙ a v¯ ary ¯ ad¯ ¯ıni mar¯ıcikadi ¯ s.u yathety evavak ¯ s.yata. kim ca tanmate brahmatas trisargasya mukhya ˙ m janma n ˙ asti kintv ¯ aropa eva janmety ucyate. ¯* (*Paramatma-sandarbha, anuccheda ¯* 105).

<sup>33</sup> See note 31 for the Sanskrit.

Despite such instances of Advaitic concepts emerging in the *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika¯*, there is broad consensus among scholars that Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı is not a radical nondualist.<sup>34</sup> In his excellent study of Sr´ ¯ıdhara's commentary on the *catur-´slok¯ı* (the four essential verses of the *Bhagavata Pur ¯ a¯n. <sup>a</sup>*, as determined by commentators), Okita finds that Sr´ ¯ıdhara's theology was "closer to Ram¯ anuja's nondualism" ¯ (Okita 2014, p. 75), as Sr´ ¯ıdhara sometimes affirms the reality of the world and at other times moves closer toward Advaitic understandings of *may¯ a¯* (Okita 2014, p. 123). Sharma finds similar variance (Sharma 1981, pp. 458–59). Indeed, as we have seen above, it is impossible to place Sr´ ¯ıdhara within any predefined Vedantic system, as he moves fluidly and unapologetically from Advaita-leaning positions to more dualistic views.35 This fluidity makes the *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika¯* 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 Sr´ ¯ıdhara an easy choice—except, of course, when the choice is not easy, requiring a delicate interpretive dance on J¯ıva's part. We have argued that the acceptability of Sr´ ¯ıdhara's theology is dependent largely on his stance toward Advaitic theories of illusion. On the one hand, Sr´ ¯ıdhara's reticence to build an Advaitic theory of *may¯ a¯*, even when there are opportunities to do so, makes it possible for J¯ıva to use him as a foundation for Caitanya Vais.n. ava theology. On the other, when Sr´ ¯ıdhara does venture in the direction of *may¯ a¯*, risking the reality of the world and the individuality of the self, we encounter the boundary that J¯ıva draws in *Tattva-sandarbha*: "Our interpretation ... will be written in accordance with the views of the great Vais.n. ava, the revered Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı, only when they conform to the strict Vais.n. ava standpoint." (Elkman 1986, p. 119).

#### **4. Why Sr´ ¯ıdhara? The Question Revisited**

But we have spent much too long on the question of Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı's Advaitic tendencies and the effect that those tendencies have on his status as the canonical Caitanya Vais.n. ava commentator. Surely, there must be other reasons for Sr´ ¯ıdhara's appeal, other ways in which we can answer the question, "Why Sr´ ¯ıdhara?" Indeed there are, and we will now go through them more briefly.

First, we must note Sr´ ¯ıdhara's special regard for the *Bhagavata ¯* itself. The second verse of the Pura¯n. a 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 (*kim v ˙ a parai ¯ h.)*?"<sup>36</sup> Sr´ ¯ıdhara interprets "others" as "other scriptures (*s´astrai ¯ h.*)," and provides a detailed argument for the *Bhagavata's ¯* superiority to the entire gamut of scriptural texts, including those of the *karma-ka¯n. d. a* (Vedic ritual), *jñana-k ¯ a¯n. da* (philosophical), and *devata-ka¯n. d. a* (devotional) genres. The *Bhagavata ¯* , he says, "is superior to all scriptures, including the three *ka¯n. d. as,* because it perfectly conveys their meaning. Therefore, this book should be heard continuously."37 Indeed, Sr´ ¯ıdhara's conviction in the *Bhagavata's ¯* preeminence is evident in chapter 87 of Book 10, where the Vedas praise Vis.n. u and thus implicitly accept their subordinate status to the *Bhagavata Pur ¯ a¯n. <sup>a</sup>*. Sr´ ¯ıdhara, 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 Nr.simha. ˙ There is little doubt that Sr´ ¯ıdhara accords to the *Bhagavata ¯* a privileged position above other sacred

<sup>34</sup> For example, see De (1961, pp. 17–18), Okita (2014, chp. 3), B.N.K. Sharma (1981, p. 128), Sheridan (1994, pp. 58, 65), and Hardy (1974, p. 32).

<sup>35</sup> Ananta Sukla (2010, pp. 74–76) argues that Sr´ ¯ıdhara's theology draws from a variety of traditions, including Vais.n. ava, Saiva, ´ S´akta, Ved ¯ anta and S ¯ a¯nkhya, and he rarely criticizes thinkers from any of these traditions. ˙ Sukla (2010, p. 19) also points to the *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika's ¯* third opening verse, which honors the "two Lords, Madhava and ¯ Um¯ adhava [ ¯ Siva]." ´

<sup>36</sup> *dharmah. projjhita-kaitavo 'tra paramo nirmatsara¯n. a¯m sat ˙ a¯mvedya ˙ m v ˙ astavam atra vastu ´ ¯ sivadam t ˙ apa-trayonm ¯ ulanam´ ¯ sr¯ımad-bhagavate ¯*

*maha-muni-kr ¯ .te kim v ˙ a parair ¯ ¯ı´svarah.sadyo hr.dy avarudhyate 'tra kr.tibhih. su´ ´ srus¯.ubhis tat-ks. an. at¯* (*Bhagavata ¯* 1.1.2) <sup>37</sup> Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı begins and ends his commentary on BhP 1.1.2 as follows: *idan¯ ¯ım ´ ˙ srotr.-pravartanaya ´ ¯ sr¯ı-bhagavatasya ¯ ka¯n. d. a-traya-vis. ayebhyah. sarva-´sastrebhya ¯ h. srai ´ s.t .hyam dar´ ˙ sayati . . . tasmad atra k ¯ a¯n. d. a-trayarthasy ¯ api yath ¯ avat pratip ¯ adan ¯ ad idam ¯ eva sarva-´sastrebhyah ¯ . srais ´ .t.hyam, ato nityam etad eva ´srotavyam iti bhavah ¯ .*

texts, a stance that likely contributed to the *Bhagavata's ¯* meteoric rise as the preeminent scripture for subsequent schools of Vais.n. avism.38 This regard for the *Bhagavata ¯* is not to be assumed in other early commentators; Vijayadhvaja T¯ırtha, whose commentary would have been available during J¯ıva's time, interprets the third line of the *Bhagavata's ¯* second verse differently. 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 Pura¯n. as 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 Pura¯n. as. Another early *Bhagavata ¯* commentator, Laks.m¯ıdhara, does provide an elaborate argument for the Bhagavata's ¯ preeminence in his *Amr.ta-tarangin ˙ ¯ı* commentary,<sup>40</sup> but his praise for the *Bhagavata ¯* is accompanied by an ardent engagement with the classical Advaita theories of illusion,<sup>41</sup> which would have rendered the commentary unacceptable to most Vais.n. ava writers.42

A second feature of Sr´ ¯ıdhara's commentary that would have made it particularly appealing to Caitanya Vais.n. avas is the central place he accords to Kr.s.n. a in his theology. Let us examine that verse in Book 1, chapter 3, which is of consummate importance to Caitanya Vais.n. avas and which J¯ıva considers to be the *maha-v ¯ akya ¯* , controlling thesis, of the entire *Bhagavata ¯* , <sup>43</sup> because it establishes Kr.s.n. <sup>a</sup> as the original Lord, the source of all other divinities: "These [aforementioned *avataras ¯* ] are parts and portions of the Supreme Person, but Kr.s.n. a is Bhagavan, the Blessed Lord, himself." ¯ <sup>44</sup> Sr´ ¯ıdhara 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 Vais.n. ava theologians, who develop this into an extensive *avatara ¯* classification system. Sr´ ¯ıdhara tells us that some *avataras ¯* are *am´ ˙ sas* (parts) of the Supreme Lord, whereas others are *kala¯* (smaller portions) and *vibhutis ¯* (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 Sr´ ¯ıdhara takes up in this verse is to explicate the particular position of Kr.s.n. a, and from a Caitanya Vais.n. ava standpoint, he could not have done it better. "Kr.s.n. a is indeed Bhagavan, ¯ none other than Nar¯ aya ¯ n. a. Because he manifests all *saktis ´* , he is the culmination of all [*avataras ¯* ]."<sup>45</sup> Although Caitanya Vais.n. avas would regard Nar¯ aya ¯ n. a as a portion of Kr.s.n. a, Sr´ ¯ıdhara is halfway there: he places Kr.s.n. a at the head of all *avataras ¯* and identifies him with their origin, Nar¯ aya ¯ n. a. By way of contrast, we can again point to Vijayadhvaja's comments on this verse, where he takes the word *kr.s.n. a* as merely a reference to Vis.n. u's blackish complexion (*megha-´syama) ¯* , and takes particular care to

<sup>38</sup> As Christopher Minkowski (2005) shows, by the time of N¯ılakan. t.ha Caturdhara, the seventeenth-century author of the *Bharata-bh ¯ ava-d ¯ ¯ıpa* commentary on the *Mahabh ¯ arata ¯* , the authority and status of *sruti ´* and *smr.ti* were being reversed, with *smr.ti* texts, particularly the *Bhagavata Pur ¯ a¯n. a*, bolstering the status of the Vedas rather than the other way around. See Gupta (2006)

for a discussion of J¯ıva Gosvam¯ ¯ı's role in this *sruti-smr ´ .ti* reversal process. <sup>39</sup> The relevant section of Vijayadhvaja T¯ırtha's commentary on *Bhagavata ¯* 1.1.2 states: *kim vi´ ˙ sis.t .e. maha-muni-k ¯ r.te aparaih kim v ˙ a¯* ... *tatha cokta ¯ m r ˙ ajante t ¯ avad any ¯ ani pur ¯ a¯n. ani sat ¯ a¯m ga ˙ n.e yavan na d ¯ r.syate s ´ ak¯ s.at ´ ¯ sr¯ımad-bhagavata ¯ m param iti. ˙* ... *maha-munir ¯*

*vyasah ¯ . saks ¯ . ann ¯ ar¯ ayan ¯ . ah. tena kr.te pran. ¯ıte* ... *dharmadi-kathanaih ¯ . kim v ˙ a prayojanam. ¯* <sup>40</sup> See Laks.m¯ıdhara's commentary on the *Bhagavata's ¯* second verse. I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this reference. Laks.m¯ıdhara also provides an argument for the *Bhagavata's ¯* (and the Pura¯n. as') preeminent status in his

*Bhagavan-nama-kaumud ¯ ¯ı,* a text that was quoted appreciatively by Caitanya Vais.n. avas (Venkatkrishnan 2015a, chp. 3). <sup>41</sup> In his commentary on the first verse of the *Bhagavata, ¯* Laks.m¯ıdhara employs and defends a panoply of Advaita concepts, including *bimba-pratibimba, vivarta, anirvacan¯ıya, mithya-jagat, ¯* and *cid-eka-rasa.* See Venkatkrishnan (2018) for a full discussion

of Laks.m¯ıdhara's engagement with Advaita Vedanta as well as other salient features of his commentary. ¯ <sup>42</sup> The relationship between Laks.m¯ıdhara and Sr´ ¯ıdhara is not entirely clear. Venkatkrishnan notes that, among other confluences, "the first chapter of the BNK [*Bhagavan-nama-kaumud ¯ ¯ı*] can be considered an elaboration of Sr´ ¯ıdhara's brief and scattered comments on the power of the divine name into a full-fledged theology" (Venkatkrishnan 2015a, p. 72). On the hand, Laks.m¯ıdhara's *Amr.ta-tarangin ˙ ¯ı* commentary, Venkatkrishnan says elsewhere (Venkatkrishnan 2018, p. 55), "seems to show no awareness of *Sr´ ¯ıdhara's* writing whatsoever."

<sup>43</sup> For a detailed discussion of the role of *mahav¯ akyas ¯* in J¯ıva Gosvam¯ ¯ı's theology, see Aleksandar Uskokov (Uskokov 2018).

<sup>44</sup> *Bhagavata ¯* 1.3.28: *ete ca¯m´ ˙ sa-kalah¯. pumsah ˙ . kr.s.n. as tu bhagavan svayamindr ¯ ari-vy ¯ akula ¯ m loka ˙ m mr ˙ .d. ayanti yuge yuge* <sup>45</sup> *kr.s.n. as tu bhagavan n ¯ ar¯ ayan ¯ . a eva avis ¯ . kr.t.a-sarva´saktitvat sarves ¯ . a¯m prayojanam ˙*

identify the referent as Se´ s.a´say¯ ¯ı, the Lord who lies upon the serpent Se´ s.a, calling him the *mula-r ¯ up¯ ¯ı,* the original form.<sup>46</sup> There is no interpretive space here for a Caitanya Vais.n. ava commentator.

We could point to other elements in Sr´ ¯ıdhara's theology that make him appealing to Caitanya Vais.n. avas, such as his discussion of the power of Kr.s.n. a's name in the Ajamila episode, ¯ <sup>47</sup> 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 Sr´ ¯ıdhara's commentarial method that may explain his appeal not just among Caitanya Vais.n. avas but among readers of the *Bhagavata ¯* more generally.

Despite the theological choices and innovations we have documented above—that demonstrate Sr´ ¯ıdhara's creative voice as a commentator—his exegetical method is more restrained than most commentators who succeed him. Sr´ ¯ıdhara'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 *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika¯*, even when there is ambiguity in grammar or *sandhi*. Take, for example, the second verse of the *Bhagavata Pur ¯ a¯n. a* that we examined above. V¯ıraraghava 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. Sr´ ¯ıdhara, on the other hand, offers 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). Sr´ ¯ıdhara's creative exegesis and theological digressions become even less frequent and more limited in scope as we move further into the Pura¯n. a. There are, of course, exceptions to Sr´ ¯ıdhara's typical brevity and exegetical restraint, most obviously in his commentary on the *Bhagavata's ¯* first verse,<sup>50</sup> where he offers alternative interpretations of several words, along with two ways to resolve the *sandhi* of *trisargomr.s. a¯*. <sup>51</sup> But even here, Sr´ ¯ıdhara is remarkably restrained compared to most other commentators, who sometimes offer 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 offer one more example of Sr´ ¯ıdhara's commentarial restraint, from Book 3, chapters 15–16 of the *Bhagavata Pur ¯ a¯n. a*—the story of Jaya and Vijaya's fall from grace. Jaya and Vijaya serve as Vis.n. u's attendants, guarding the innermost gates of Vaikun. t.ha. When the four child-sages, the Kumaras, ¯

<sup>46</sup> Another interesting feature of Vijayadhvaja's commentary on this verse is that he explicitly rejects the possibility of gradations of *avataras ¯* (as Sr´ ¯ıdhara outlines) as well as simultaneous difference and nondifference between the Lord and the *avataras ¯* (as the Caitanya theologians claim for certain kinds of *avataras ¯* ). Rather, Vijayadhvaja insists that all *avataras ¯* are nondifferent from each other and from the *avatar¯ ¯ı*, the original Lord Vis.n. u. The relevant portion of his commentary on 1.3.28 runs as follows: *ete ´ses.a-´sayina ¯ h. parama-purus.asya sva¯m´ ˙ sa-kala¯h. svarup¯ a¯m´ ˙ savat ¯ ara ¯ h. na tatra¯m´ ˙ sa¯m´ ˙ sina¯m bheda ˙ h. pratibimba¯m´ ˙ savat. kim uktam bhavati. k ˙ r.s.n. o megha-´syama ¯ h. se´ s.a-´say¯ ¯ı mula-r ¯ up¯ ¯ı padma-nabho bhagav ¯ an svaya ¯ m tu svayam eva na ´ ˙ sakhi´ ¯ sakh ¯ avat ¯*

*bhedabhedop ¯ ¯ıti bhavah ¯ . .* <sup>47</sup> See *Bhagavata Pur ¯ a¯n. <sup>a</sup>*, 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.

<sup>48</sup> *Bhagavata ¯* 10.43.17 describes the different ways in which Kr.s.n. a was perceived when he entered Kamsa's wrestling arena in ˙ Mathura. In his commentary on this verse, ¯ Sr´ ¯ıdhara 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*).'"

<sup>49</sup> For example, V¯ıraraghava writes: ¯ *yad va matsara-´ ¯ sabdah. kam¯ ad¯ ¯ına¯m pradar´ ˙ sanartha ¯ h. sama-dam ´ ady-upet ¯ an¯ a¯m mumuk ˙ s.u¯n. a¯m˙ dharmah. .* (*Bhagavata ¯* 1.1.2). See note 39 above for other relevant portions of Vijayadhvaja's commentary on *Bhagavata ¯* 1.1.2. <sup>50</sup> As mentioned above, Sr´ ¯ıdhara's commentary on the Sruti-stuti ( ´ *Bhagavata ¯* Book Ten, chapter 87) is also unusually long

and complex.

<sup>51</sup> The *sandhi* of *trisorgomr.s. a¯* can be resolved as *trisargah. mr.s. a¯* "the threefold creation is false," and *trisargah. amr.s. a¯* "the threefold creation is not false." This, of course, has significant theological ramifications, and Sr´ ¯ıdhara incorporates both interpretations into his comments.

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 Vis.n. u. Jaya and Vijaya instantly recognize their folly and repent, as Vis.n. u 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 Vis.n. u 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 Vaikun. t.ha is swift.52

The story of Jaya and Vijaya's fall from Vaikun. t.ha 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, Vis.n. u himself, or some combination of the three parties? The *Bhagavata ¯* itself incriminates different 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. Vallabhac¯ arya, for example, makes note of the fact that although ¯ Vaikun. t.ha has seven gates, the sages were able to pass through six without difficulty.53 The first six gates represent Vis.n. u'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 Vais.n. ava 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. J¯ıva takes the word *avadharya ¯* ("ascertained") to indicate that the gatekeepers had not recognized the four naked boys and thus their offense was unintentional. Vijayadhvaja says that the gatekeepers' immediate repentance shows that they were not at fault.55 When Vis.n. u beseeches the sages to make his attendants' exile short, the Vais.n. ava commentators note the Lord's heartfelt concern for his devotees. When Vis.n. u finally takes blame upon himself, by claiming that he ordained the curse, Vi´svanatha 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, Sr´ ¯ıdhara 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

<sup>52</sup> 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. Kr.s.n. a's slaying of the hateful king Si´ ´ supala, we are assured, was in fact a blessing in disguise, because ¯ Si´ ´ supala was one of the two gatekeepers, and this was his last birth on earth as a demon. But this explanation of ¯ Si´ ´ supala'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.

<sup>53</sup> 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."

<sup>54</sup> But what do we make of the *Bhagavata's ¯* statement, in 3.15.31, that the sages were most deserving (*svarhattama¯h. )* of visiting Vaikun. t.ha? Vallabha explains that because the sages were *jñan¯ ¯ıs* (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 offense, the sages were forbidden entry into the Lord's private chamber.

<sup>55</sup> See J¯ıva'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 *brahma ¯ n. a'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."

gatekeepers' mistake.56 When the text says that the gatekeepers' conduct was displeasing to the Lord, every commentator must explain why it was displeasing. Sr´ ¯ıdhara simply looks to the next chapter, where the fault is identified as disrespect of *brahma ¯ n. as*. <sup>57</sup> He moves with the narrative, apportioning blame as it is handed out by the text—first to the gatekeepers for insulting *brahma ¯ n. as* (3.15.30), then to the sages for cursing two sinless persons (3.16.25), and finally to Vis.n. u for making this part of his masterplan (3.16.26). Sr´ ¯ıdhara makes little attempt to harmonize these conflicting accounts of culpability and causality, focusing instead on the verse at hand and its immediate narrative context.<sup>58</sup>

#### **5. Conclusions**

We have explored the question "Why Sr´ ¯ıdhara?" from two directions. First, we asked, "What was it about early Caitanya Vais.n. ava theology that made it amenable to Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı?" and second, "What was it about Sr´ ¯ıdhara that made his work so attractive to Caitanya Vais.n. ava authors (and a wide variety of other commentators)?" As we attempted to answer these questions, we saw the historical and theological confluences that made Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı and the Caitanya Vais.n. avas residents of a shared religious landscape, while carefully noting the boundaries between them. We also studied Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı's distinctive commentarial voice, often presenting itself in paradoxical forms—his creativity as an exegete alongside his restraint, his focus on Kr.s.n. a 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-caritam¯ r.ta* that is worth noting here, for it indirectly points to these facets of Sr´ ¯ıdhara's method. A Vais.n. ava named Vallabha Bhat.t.a visits Caitanya and expresses his dissatisfaction with the *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika¯*: "I cannot accept Sr´ ¯ıdhara'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 (*svam¯ ¯ı*)." (3.113–114). Although couched as a criticism here, these features of Sr´ ¯ıdhara'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 Sr´ ¯ıdhara'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 Sr´ ¯ıdhara to write a lucid commentary and himself remain an enigma, to be claimed by all and belong to none. Perhaps J¯ıva was right in comparing Sr´ ¯ıdhara's commentary to a casket of jewels, hiding a *cintama ¯ n. i* gem from the eyes of all who were indifferent to its value.<sup>59</sup> For whether one followed Sr´ ¯ıdhara's lead or resisted him, indifference, 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),

<sup>56</sup> See *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika¯* 3.15.30 and 3.16.26.

<sup>57</sup> *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika¯* 3.15.30: *vata-ra´ ¯ sanan nagn ¯ an vr ¯ .ddhan api pañca-vars ¯ . a-balakavat prat ¯ ¯ıyaman¯ an. ca-k ¯ ar¯ ad¯ ajñay ¯ a ca. askhalayat ¯ a¯m˙ nivaritavantau. na tat skhalanam arhant ¯ ¯ıti tatha t ¯ an. aho atr ¯ api dh ¯ ar¯ s.t.yam ity evam te ˙ s. a¯m tejo vihasya. bhagavato brahma ˙ n. ya-devasya pratikula ¯ m ´ ˙ s¯ılam yayoh ˙ . .* <sup>58</sup> In our attempt to determine the reasons for Sr´ ¯ıdhara's influence, we might note another fruitful area of inquiry, namely, the

social networks that conveyed the *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika¯* 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 J ¯ ataveda in Maharashtra and Vijayadhvaja ¯ T¯ırtha in the south. At present, we know precious little about the *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika's ¯* socio-political context, its precise location of origin, or the intellectual networks that drew texts and their authors from Orissa (where the *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika¯* 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.

<sup>59</sup> See Okita (2014, p. 103).

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**


#### **Secondary Sources**


Sukla, Ananta Charan. 2010. *Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı: A Medieval Philosopher of Religion*. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi.


© 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://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
