*Article* **Why Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı? 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:** Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı's commentary on the *Bhagavata Pur ¯ a¯n. <sup>a</sup>*, called *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika¯* and composed sometime between the mid-fourteenth to the mid-fifteenth centuries, has exerted extraordinary influence on later *Bhagavata ¯* commentaries, and indeed, on Vais.n. ava traditions more generally. This article raises a straightforward question: "Why Sr´ ¯ıdhara?" Focusing on the Caitanya Vais.n. ava tradition, particularly J¯ıva Gosvam¯ ¯ı, for whom Sr´ ¯ıdhara is foundational, we ask, "What is it about Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı's commentary—both stylistically and theologically—that made it so useful to Caitanya Vais.n. avas and other *Bhagavata ¯* commentators?" This question, to the extent that it can be answered, has implications for our understanding of Sr´ ¯ıdhara's theology as well as the development of the early Caitanya Vais.n. ava tradition, but it can also lend insight into the reasons for Sridhara's influence more ´ generally in early modern India.

**Keywords:** Sr´ ¯ıdhara; Bhagavata; Pur ¯ a¯n. a; commentary; Caitanya; Gaud.¯ıya; Vais.n. avism; J¯ıva Gosvam¯ ¯ı

#### **1. Introduction**

Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı's commentary on the *Bhagavata Pur ¯ a¯n. <sup>a</sup>*, called *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika¯* and composed sometime between the mid-fourteenth to the mid-fifteenth centuries, has exerted extraordinary influence on later *Bhagavata ¯* commentaries, and indeed, on Vais.n. ava traditions more generally. Subsequent commentators on the *Bhagavata Pur ¯ a¯n. a* are consistently aware of, and often deeply engaged with, the *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika¯*. This is particularly true of the Caitanya Vais.n. ava commentaries by Sanatana ¯ Gosvami, J ¯ ¯ıva Gosvam¯ ¯ı, Vi´svanatha Cakravart ¯ ¯ı, and others, but also to a lesser extent V¯ıraraghava ¯ Ac¯ arya's ¯ Sr´ ¯ıvais.n. ava and Vijayadhvaja T¯ırtha's Dvaita commentaries.1 Sr´ ¯ıdhara's outsize, although not universal,2 influence becomes further evident as we move to vernacular commentaries on the *Bhagavata ¯*

<sup>1</sup> B.N.K. Sharma writes that there are a "couple of indications" that Vijayadhvaja was acquainted with Sr´ ¯ıdhara's commentary, as seen in the former's commentary on BhP 2.9.31. Sharma surmises that "Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svamin was more or less a contemporary ¯ of Vijayadhvaja." (Sharma 1981, pp. 458–59).

<sup>2</sup> Vallabhac¯ arya's ¯ *Subodhin¯ı* commentary is either unconcerned with or dismissive of Sr´ ¯ıdhara. For instance, Sr´ ¯ıdhara regards the essential *Bhagavata ¯* to consist of four verses spoken by Vis.n. u to Brahma (2.9.32–35), whereas Vallabha points to all seven ¯ verses of Vis.n. u's speech (2.9.30–36) (Joshi 1974). Furthermore, Anand Venkatkrishnan (2018) argues that a tradition of *Bhagavata ¯* interpretation in Kerala, beginning with Laks.m¯ıdhara, author of the *Amr.ta-tarangin ˙ ¯ı* commentary, was independent of Sr´ ¯ıdhara.

and derivative works, such as Bahira J ¯ ataveda's Marathi commentary, ¯ *Bhairav¯ı*, <sup>3</sup> and Vis.n. upur¯ı's anthology of *Bhagavata ¯* verses, called *Bhakti-ratnaval ¯ ¯ı*. 4

Sr´ ¯ıdhara'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 Sr´ ¯ıdhara's commentary "does a disservice to Sr´ ¯ıdhara, who has not been studied in his own right by contemporary critical scholarship" (Sheridan 1994, p. 47). In other words, by assuming Sr´ ¯ıdhara's reading as natural, we ignore his genius in offering an interpretation of the Pura¯n. a that dominated the subsequent commentarial tradition. Sheridan therefore calls for further study of Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı and his commentary, which, he says, would lead to "understanding of the reason for the great authority of Sr´ ¯ıdhara's ostensibly Advaitin commentary within the later Vais.n. ava schools" (Sheridan 1994, p. 47). Indeed, despite Sr´ ¯ıdhara's inestimable influence on Vais.n. ava traditions from the fifteenth century onward, he remains an enigma for both theologians and historians of Vais.n. avism. Sr´ ¯ıdhara is generally regarded as a *sannyas¯ ¯ı* within Sa´ nkara's Advaita tradition, ˙ <sup>5</sup> and yet his predilection for *bhakti* has made him a torchbearer for Vais.n. ava commentators. In the mid-sixteenth century, the Caitanya Vais.n. ava thinker J¯ıva Gosvam¯ ¯ı acknowledges Sr´ ¯ıdhara's enigmatic theology by suggesting that "the most excellent, esteemed Vais.n. ava Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı" sometimes included nondualist views in his commentary in order to entice Advaitins to appreciate the greatness of the personal Deity.6 Sr´ ¯ıdhara himself adds to the confusion by stating that he wrote his commentary on the insistence of his *sampradaya. ¯* <sup>7</sup> Here, we will set aside questions of commentarial intent and formal affiliation, and instead attempt to answer Sheridan's call by examining Sr´ ¯ıdhara's theological standpoint and its influence on later commentators.

This article raises a straightforward question: "Why Sr´ ¯ıdhara?" Focusing on the Caitanya Vais.n. ava tradition, particularly J¯ıva Gosvam¯ ¯ı, for whom Sr´ ¯ıdhara is foundational, we shall ask, "What is it about Sr´ ¯ıdhara's commentary—both stylistically and theologically—that made it so useful to Caitanya Vais.n. avas and other *Bhagavata ¯* commentators?" This question, to the extent that it can be answered, has implications for our understanding of Sr´ ¯ıdhara's theology as well as the development of the early Caitanya Vais.n. ava 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 Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı's Advaita leanings. J¯ıva Gosvam¯ ¯ı was clearly aware of the *Bhagavata ¯* commentaries found within the Madhva school of ¯

<sup>3</sup> Madhavi Narsalay and Vrushali Potnis-Damle write, "It is thus amply clear that the *Bhairav¯ı* is based on the *Bhav¯ arthad ¯ ¯ıpika¯* ... *.* Bahira has high regard for ¯ Sr´ ¯ıdhara. This is evident from the many respectful references to Sr´ ¯ıdhara throughout his commentary on the 10th as well as the 11th *skandhas*. He addresses Sr´ ¯ıdhara as Tikaprak ¯ a´¯sabhaskara ¯ (*Bhairav¯ı* 11.10.7), Jñanar ¯ upabh ¯ askaru ( ¯ *Bhairav¯ı* 11.24.5), Samartha (*Bhairav¯ı* 11.7.1), Ach ¯ arya ( ¯ *Bhairav¯ı* 11.77.8), Haridasa ¯ (*Bhairav¯ı* 10.6.212), Yogapala ( ¯ *Bhairav¯ı* 10.43.2), Avataripuru ¯ s.a (*Bhairav¯ı* 10.1.59), Sak´ ¯ satk ¯ ar¯ ¯ı (*Bhairav¯ı* 10.1.60), Atmajñ ¯ an¯ ¯ı (*Bhairav¯ı* 10.1.59) and Jivanmukta (*Bhairav¯ı* 10.1.61). He also refers to Sr´ ¯ıdhara as guru (*Bhairav¯ı* 11.20.5) out of deep respect. Bahira likens himself to a beggar waiting for leftovers, but still in search for ¯ Sr´ ¯ıdhara's bowl (*Bhairav¯ı* 11.87.17)." (Narsalay and Potnis-Damle 2018, p. 155).

<sup>4</sup> S.K. De writes, "One of the closing verses of this work [*Bhakti-ratnaval ¯ ¯ı*] apologises for any departure the compiler might have made from the writings of the great Sr´ ¯ıdhara; and there can be no doubt adout [sic] Sr´ ¯ıdhara's influence on the work." (De 1961, pp. 18–19)

<sup>5</sup> Edelmann (2018) and Sukla (2010, pp. 13–22), following earlier authors, suggest that Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı was the abbot of an Advaita monastery in Puri, Odisha. Nevertheless, Sr´ ¯ıdhara's institutional and sampradayic a ¯ ffiliation is still a question requiring further historical research.

<sup>6</sup> J¯ıva Gosvam¯ ¯ı 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 Vais.n. ava, the revered Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svamin, only when ¯ they conform to the strict Vais.n. ava 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).

<sup>7</sup> *sampraday¯ anurodhena paurv ¯ apary ¯ anus ¯ arata ¯ h.* <sup>|</sup> *sr´ ¯ı-bhagavata-bh ¯ av¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpikeyam pratanyate ˙* (verse 4 from the opening *mangala ˙* verses of the *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika¯*).

Dvaita Vedanta. He mentions Madhva's ¯ *Bhagavata-t ¯ atparya-nir ¯ n. aya* by name in his *Tattva-sandarbha*, and if we are to accept B.N.K. Sharma's dating of Vijayadhvaja T¯ırtha (fl. 1410–1450), then the latter's complete commentary, which closely follows Madhva's work,<sup>8</sup> was well established by J¯ıva's time. Furthermore, in his six-part *Bhagavata-sandarbha, ¯* J¯ıva argues forcefully against the core philosophical positions of classical Advaita,<sup>9</sup> and yet he takes the *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika¯*—which by J¯ıva's own account shows clear Advaitic tendencies—as foundational for his theological project. J¯ıva follows—indeed, reiterates—Sr´ ¯ıdhara's interpretation for almost every *Bhagavata ¯* verse he quotes. Why?

We could, of course, point to Sr´ ¯ı Caitanya's well known statement in Kr.s.n. adasa Kavir ¯ aja's ¯ *Caitanya-caritamr ¯ .ta* (3.7.133–34) that any commentary not based on Sr´ ¯ıdhara is illegitimate:

I know the *Bhagavata ¯* by Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı's grace. Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı is the *guru* of the world, and I take him as my *guru*. If you arrogantly write anything to surpass Sr´ ¯ıdhara, people will not accept such confused meanings.<sup>10</sup>

No doubt this would have been a significant factor for J¯ıva. Nevertheless, such an explanation only shifts the problem back by a generation, for we might ask the same question of Caitanya: "Why Sr´ ¯ıdhara?" Furthermore, pointing to the *Caitanya-caritam¯ r.ta* is a tad circular, for this canonical account of Caitanya's life is deeply influenced by the theology of the Vr.ndavana Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ıs, including J¯ıva himself.11

Another way in which scholars have attempted to resolve this question is by claiming that J¯ıva only pays lip service to Sr´ ¯ıdhara (because of Caitanya's insistence) and that, in fact, J¯ıva is not committed to Sr´ ¯ıdhara because of the latter's Advaita leanings. This line of thought is put forth by Stuart Elkman, building upon similar reasoning by S.K. De (1961). Elkman writes:

... it seems likely that J¯ıva's claims to follow Sr´ ¯ıdhara represent more a concession to Caitanya's beliefs than a personal preference on his own part. In actual fact, J¯ıva follows Sr´ ¯ıdhara 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 Sr´ ¯ıdhara's institutional affiliation makes him the type of Advaitin that J¯ıva argues against in his writings, and that therefore J¯ıva's use of Sr´ ¯ıdhara 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 J¯ıva's *Bhagavata-sandarbha ¯* and *Krama-sandarbha* simply does not support Elkman's view. J¯ıva quotes, paraphrases, or draws salient points from the *Bhav¯ artha-d ¯ ¯ıpika¯* nearly every time he comments upon a *Bhagavata ¯* verse in his *Bhagavata-sandarbha ¯* . J¯ıva follows Sr´ ¯ıdhara's interpretation in most cases, but when the latter's Advaita tendencies create difficulties for Vais.n. ava dualism, J¯ıva finds ways of supporting Sr´ ¯ıdhara's interpretation—first, by harnessing the Caitanyaite *bhedabheda ¯* theology (emphasizing the nondifference side) to create space for nondualist interpretations,

<sup>8</sup> See B.N.K Sharma's analysis of the relationship between Madhva's *Bhagava-tat ¯ atparya-nir ¯ n. aya* and Vijayadhvaja's *Pada-ratnaval ¯ ¯ı* (Sharma 1981, p. 458), as well as the latter's dates (p. 456).

<sup>9</sup> See, for example, J¯ıva's *Paramatma-sandarbha, anuccheda ¯* 105, for a refutation of the doctrine of *adhyasa, ¯* superimposition (Gupta 2007, pp. 174–77).

<sup>10</sup> All translations from Sanskrit and Bengali sources in this article are my own, unless stated otherwise.

<sup>11</sup> See, for example, Kr.s.n. adasa Kavir ¯ aja's prayer to R ¯ upa Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı (J¯ıva's uncle) at the end of nearly every chapter of the *Caitanya-caritam¯ r.ta.* Kr.s.n. adasa also names all six Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ıs of Vr.ndavana, including J ¯ ¯ıva, as his *sik ´ s. a-gurus, ¯* from whom he has received instruction (1.1.35–37).

<sup>12</sup> The polarization of Caitanya and Sr´ ¯ıdhara on one side and J¯ıva on the other is derived from S.K. 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 K ˙ r.s.n. adasa Kavir ¯ aja. The Kavir ¯ aja, 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 Bhat.t.a for differing from Sr´ ¯ıdhara's commentary on the *Bhagavata ¯* , and says that Sr´ ¯ıdhara was 'Jagad-guru.'" (De 1961, p. 151). Since the Gosvam¯ ¯ıs' writings were the most important theological source for Kr.s.n. adasa, Elkman extends De's polarity by replacing Krs ¯ .n. adasa ¯ with J¯ıva, in opposition to Sr´ ¯ıdhara and Caitanya.

and second, by layering atop Sr´ ¯ıdhara an alternate interpretation that is more appropriate to Caitanya Vais.n. avism.13 In essence, J¯ıva functions as an interpreter of Sr´ ¯ıdhara—explaining and expanding his ideas, clarifying ambiguities, rereading him in light of Caitanya Vais.n. ava 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 J¯ıva sometimes follows Sr´ ¯ıdhara 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 Sr´ ¯ıdhara (pp. 105, 123). Okita concludes that given "the fact that J¯ıva was aware of Madhva's works," it is striking "how much attention he pays to Sr´ ¯ıdhara's commentary" (p. 124).

So the question remains: how are we to make sense of J¯ıva's commitment to Sr´ ¯ıdhara, 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 ¯* affiliation, and normative notions of what constitutes Advaita and Vais.n. ava. These reifications have led many to express surprise at Sr´ ¯ıdhara's devotional theology *despite* his Advaita affiliation, or Caitanya's rejection of *may¯ av¯ ada despite ¯* his love for Sr´ ¯ıdhara, or J¯ıva's frequent use of the *Bhavartha-d ¯ ¯ıpika despite ¯* his commitment to "pure Vais.n. avism." 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 Ma ˙ n. d. ana Mi´sra, but also "narratives and dramas, 'syncretic' works blending classical Vedantic teachings with other traditions, and perhaps most importantly, ¯ vernacular works ... " (Allen 2017, p. 277)<sup>15</sup> This larger world he calls "Greater Advaita Vedanta," ¯ and he includes Sr´ ¯ıdhara Svam¯ ¯ı within it.16 Although Allen intentionally leaves the boundaries of this world fuzzy, he suggests that "the acceptance of *may¯ av¯ ada ¯* , 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 Vais.n. ava texts from this rubric, as *may¯ avada ¯* 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,* nondifference, as one of its key components, even if it is preceded by *bheda*, or difference. In his *Bhagavata-sandarbha, ¯* J¯ıva is quite happy to adopt concepts from Advaita theologies, including the notion of a *kevala-vi´ses.ya* Brahman,17 an unattributed, transcendent reality that would have been anathema to Ram¯ anuja; the possibility of ¯ *j¯ıvan-mukti*, liberation while living; the categories of *svarupa-laks ¯ . an. a* (essential characteristics) and *tat.astha-laks. an. a* (contingent characteristics) to describe the nature of Brahman;18 and the insistence that ultimate reality is nondual (*advaya*) <sup>19</sup> and thus all beings are part of Kr.s.n. a's nature, an idea quite unacceptable to Madhva. Each of these concepts is developed differently than in classical Advaita Vedanta, but each also represents a choice on the part ¯

<sup>13</sup> For examples of both these dynamics at work in J¯ıva's relationship with Sr´ ¯ıdhara, see the section "Svam¯ ¯ı and Gosvam¯ ¯ı" in Gupta (2007, pp. 65–84).

<sup>14</sup> On a few occasions, J¯ıva does directly contradict Sr´ ¯ıdhara when the latter's Advaitic statements become impossible to harmonize with Caitanya Vais.n. ava theology, as we shall discuss later in this article. However, Elkman's example of J¯ıva refuting Sr´ ¯ıdhara (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 J¯ıva functioning as an interpreter of Sr´ ¯ıdhara, affirming

Sr´ ¯ıdhara's interpretation and then redeploying it in the service of Caitanya Vais.n. ava theology. <sup>15</sup> Venkatkrishnan has argued along similar lines: "Instead of assuming the coherence of Advaita Vedanta 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 2015a, p. 234).

<sup>16</sup> Allen remarks, "The degree of Advaitic influence in Sr´ ¯ıdhara'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, n38).

<sup>17</sup> See *Bhagavat-sandarbha, anuccheda* 3: *arupa ¯ m p ˙ an¯. i-pad¯ ady asa ¯ myutam it ˙ ¯ıdam brahm ˙ akhya-kevala-vi´ ¯ ses.yavirbh ¯ ava-nis ¯ .t.ham.* <sup>18</sup> See J¯ıva Gosvam¯ ¯ı's *Paramatma-sandarbha, anuccheda ¯* 105.

<sup>19</sup> The insistence on an ultimate, nondual reality is grounded on the *Bhagavata Pur ¯ a¯n. <sup>a</sup>* 1.2.11, "Knowers of reality declare that reality to be nondual consciousness, called 'Brahman,' 'Paramatm¯ a,' and 'Bhagav ¯ an.'" This verse is crucial for Caitanya ¯ Vais.n. ava theology, for it simultaneously affirms the singular nature of Divinity while also introducing distinctions within him, thus leading to the doctrine of *acintya-bhedabheda. ¯*

of the early Caitanya Vais.n. ava theologians to not only engage with, but to also adopt concepts from, a tradition whose soteriology they rejected.

Take for example, the notion of *j¯ıvan-mukti*. Rupa Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı defines it quite differently from the way it is understood in Advaita Vedanta, ¯ <sup>20</sup> but his use of the concept nevertheless represents something significant; Rupa could have just as easily rejected the possibility of ¯ *j¯ıvan-mukti* altogether, as does Ram¯ anuja, whose influence is strongly felt in other ways within early Caitanya Vai ¯ s.n. ava theology.<sup>21</sup> Along similar lines, Rupa and J ¯ ¯ıva 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 Madhusudana Sarasvat ¯ ¯ı describes *sayujya-mukti ¯* (Lutjeharms 2018, p. 397). The Gosvam¯ ¯ıs regarded such a state as extremely undesirable for a *bhakta,* but they affirmed 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 *moks. a* to the Lutjeharms (2018, p. 403).

We shall give one last example: J¯ıva Gosvam¯ ¯ı, in his commentary on the third aphorism of the *Brahma-sutra, ¯* accepts Sa´ nkara's interpretation of ˙ *s´astra-yonitv ¯ at, ¯* namely, that Brahman is the source of scripture, even though this interpretation is rejected by both Ram¯ anuja and Madhva. J ¯ ¯ıva's theology takes an eclectic approach toward other Vedantins, ¯ <sup>22</sup> and he was working in a milieu where Advaitins were innovative, *bhakti*-oriented, and open to practices of *k¯ırtana*. <sup>23</sup> We see evidence of this milieu in the *Caitanya-caritam¯ r.ta,* where Kr.s.n. adasa describes a debate between Caitanya and an erudite ¯ Advaita *sannyas¯ ¯ı* of Benaras, Praka´¯sananda Sarasvat ¯ ¯ı. When he meets Caitanya, Praka´¯sananda presents ¯ a social argument against *k¯ırtana*, 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 ¯ *sannyas¯ ¯ı* peers.<sup>24</sup> Indeed, the religious landscape in which early Caitanya Vais.n. avas flourished was saturated with an Advaita that was itself saturated with Kr.s.n. a-*bhakti*. <sup>25</sup> Lutjeharms lists no less than twenty-two *sannyas¯ ¯ı* companions of Caitanya who possibly belonged to an Advaita order, as Caitanya himself did (Lutjeharms 2018, pp. 401–2).

Seen in this context, Sr´ ¯ıdhara's commitment to Vais.n. ava-*bhakti,* Caitanya's commitment to Sr´ ¯ıdhara, and J¯ıva's skillful ease in harmonizing Sr´ ¯ıdhara's Advaita with Caitanya Vais.n. ava theology—all become less of a surprise and less of a problem.
