१ तत्त्व-सन्दर्भः १९९५

ŚRI TATTVA SANDARBHA of ŚRILA JIVA GOSVĀMĪ The First Book of the ŚRI-SAT-SANDARBHA Translation & Commentary Satya Nārāyaṇa Dāsa Kundali Dāsa Śrila Prabhupada has often glorified Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi for his wonderful accomplishment-Śrī-Sad-Sandarbha (The Six Essences) In the Caitanya-caritāmṛta he writes: False devotees, lacking the conclusion of tran- scendental knowledge, think that artificially shedding tears will deliver them. Similarly, other false devotees think that studying books of the previous ācāryas is unadvisable, like studying dry empiric philosophies. But Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi, following the previous ācāryas, has inculcated the conclusions of the scriptures in the six theses called the Sat-sandarbhas. False devotees who have very little knowledge of such conclusions fail to achieve pure devotion for want of zeal in accepting the favorable di- rections for devotional service given by self- realized devotees. Such false devotees are like impersonalists, who also consider devotional service no better than ordinary fruitive actions. Here Śrila Prabhupada asserts that the conclusions of the scriptures are in the Sat-Sandarbhas. Devotees eager to be fortified with these conclusions will there- fore pay close attention to the presentation of the Sandarbhas in English, complete with illuminating com- mentary on the words of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi. Such scrutinizing study is especially cherished by devotees who are dedicated to the preaching mission of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Today, sadly, even among those in the direct line of Jīva Gosvāmī, study of the Sandarbhas is neglected. Śrila Prabhupada, however, before embarking on his mission to bring Kṛṣṇa con- sciousness to the Western world, prepared himself by studying the Sat-Sandarbhas and has encouraged his followers to do the same. Śri Tattva-Sandarbha is the first of the Six Sandarbhas. For ease of com- prehension these six treatises may be listed as follows:

1. Tattva-Sandarbha (Discourses on Truth) 2. Bhagavata-Sandarbha (Discourses on God) 3. Paramātma-Sandarbha (Discourses on the Absolute) 4. Kṛṣṇa-Sandarbha (Discourses on Kṛṣṇa) 5. Bhakti-Sandarbha (Discourses on Devotional Service) 6. Priti-Sandarbha (Discourses on Love) In these six discourses Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi systematically presents the conclusions of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava philosophy known as acintyabhedā- bheda tattva. In Tattva-Sandarbha he lays the foundation for his presenta- tion of the other Sandarbhas by es- tablishing the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava epis- temology, or means of knowledge. He proves that for the student interested in knowledge of the Absolute Truth, which is beyond sense perception and mental speculation, the valid means to get knowledge is by sabda- brahman and that the Vedas are the supreme pramāṇa (proof). He then explains the practical dif- ficulties in understanding the Vedas, and establishes that study of the Purānas is the solution, for they are as good as the Vedas, indeed they are the fifth Veda. Then by process of elimination he shows that among the Puranas only sättvika Purāņas give clear knowledge of the Absolute and (continued) among them Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the supreme. It is the essence of the Vedas because it is based on the Gayatri mantra and is the natural com- mentary on the Vedanta-sūtras. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī explains. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as it is. To this end he uses a flawless technique, one that leaves no room to doubt the va- lidity of his conclusions. First he has us consider the heart of the original writer, Śrīla Vyāsadeva, and the heart of the speakers, Śukadeva and Sūta Gosvāmīs. In light of that he analyzes the Bhāgavatam incontrovertibly es- tablishing the purpose of this topmost pramāṇa. During this analysis Śrī Jīva soundly refutes the impersonalism of Sankaracarya with logic and scriptural references. Other highlights of Śrī Tattva- Sandarbha are: The characteristics of the ātmā are explained; Buddhism is refuted; the soul is established as conscious, eternal, unchanging, and distinct from the body; an analysis of the ten topics of Srimad-Bhāgavatam as enumerated by Sukadeva and Sūta Gosvāmis to show the harmony be- tween these two foremost authorities on the Bhāgavatam; and that the real purpose of the Bhāgavatam is to ex- plain Lord Krsna. Altogether, Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha has sixty-three anucchedas, or sec- tions. Out of these the first eight verses are invocatory. Sections nine to twenty-eight discuss Bhagavata epistemology. Section twenty-nine to the end explain prameya, or what is the knowable object of knowledge. JĪVA INSTITUTE FOR VAISNAVA STUDIES All Glories To Śrī-Śrī Rādhā-Govindadeva! ŚRĪ TATTVA-SANDARBHA The First Book of the Śrī Bhāgavata-Sandarbha also known as Śri Sat-Sandarbha by Aṣtottara-śata Śrī-Śrīmad Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī Prabhupāda Translation and Commentary Śri Satya Nārāyaṇa dāsa Head of Sanskrit Dept. Bhaktivedanta Swami International Gurukula, Vrndāvana Śri Kundali dāsa Śrī Gopīparāṇadhana dāsa Sanskrit Editor Śrī Dravida dāsa Śrī Kūrma-rūpa dāsa English Editors …. ! Interested readers are invited to correspond with the publishers at this address: JIVA INSTITUTE FOR VAISNAVA STUDIES Śrī-Śrī Kṛṣṇa-Balarama Mandir Ramana Reti, Vṛndāvana Mathurǎ Dist., U.P., 281124 India Telephone: 91-565-442904 Fax: 91-129-295547 E.Mail: Snd e jiva-ernet-in

T GLORIFICATION OF ŞAT-SANDARBHA sandarbha yena nādhītā stasya bhagavate śramah sandarbha yena cādhītā nästi bhāgavate bhramaḥ Without studying the Sat-Sandarbhas one must struggle to understand the message of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and he still may not succeed. One who has studied the Sat-Sandarbha, however, will have no mis- givings about the essence of the Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to offer my sincere respects to my teacher His Holiness Śāstri Mahārāja, who explained the esoteric meaning and importance of the Sandarbhas to me without inhibition. With- out his doing so, I would not have dared to make this effort. Although he has many other important affairs, he saw to it that my classes went on without interruption. By his blessings, guid- ance, and well-wishes I am able to venture on this project. I always seek the guidance and blessings of this exceptional Vaisnava scholar. My sincere thanks to Śrīman Kundali Prabhu who not only worked laboriously to help me shape the book through its many successive drafts but also helped with many managerial and practical aspects of the project. I pray that he will always give me his association. His grace Kūrma Rūpa Prabhu keyed in the handwritten manu- script, did the layout, design, and index. I am grateful to him for his kind help. Kundali Prabhu and Kurma Rūpa Prabhu are like two pillars supporting the Sandarbha edifice. Coincidentally, Kundali is also a name of Śeșa, who supports the universe on His many heads, and Kūrma is the name of the tortoise incar- nation who supported the Mandara mountain used for churning the ocean to extract nectar. My deep regards go to His Holiness Dhanurdhara Swami, Principal of the Bhaktivedanta Swami International Gurukula, Vṛndāvana for supporting me in my studies. I thank Śrī Purusottama Dāsa for editing the Devanagari and Pundarika Vidyanidhi Dāsa for proofreading. Two of my students Jalandhar and Nandu helped me in a variety of ways for which I thank them. I pray that they will grow into scholarly devotees and continue rendering service to the movement of Lord Caitanya. Finally, I would like to thank my many friends and well-wish- ers whose names are not included, but to whom I am indebted for their practical and moral support. Satya Nārāyaṇa Dāsa vi DEDICATION vraja-bhaktireva vedäntaḥ śrī-gaura eva radhākāntaḥ prācārīti yena siddhāntaḥ ratvidaṁ mudam tasya sväntaḥ Devotional service to Lord Kṛṣṇa in the mood of the residents of Vraja is the ultimate conclusion of all the Vedas and Vedic literature. Lord Kṛṣṇa, the sweetheart of Srimati Rādhārānī, the supreme heroine of Vraja, is Śrī Gaurānga Māhāprabhu. To the one who vigorously preached His philosophy, His Divine Grace Śrila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, may he be so pleased with this work that he feels ecstasy in his heart. vii Preface… Mangalācaraṇa Introduction……… Invocation One …. Contents xi XV xvii 1 Invocation Two … 6 Qualifications of the Reader …….. Invocaton Three……. The Source of Sri Şat-Sandarbha Homage to Śri Gopala Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmi Homage to the Teachers 8 … 9 ..10 11 13 The Essence of Śri Sat-Sandarbha …14 Vaisnava Epistemology ..17 The Vedas Are the Original Source of Knowledge 27 The Authority of the Vedas… …35 Difficulties in Studying the Vedas…. …39 The Itihāsas and Purānas Are Vedic 46 52 …… …68 ……..84 The Itihāsas and Purāņas Are the Fifth Veda ………. Origin of the Itihāsas, Purānas, and Vedas is the Same .57 The Compiler of the Itihāsas and Purāņas is Unique 63 Three Divisions of the Purānas. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the Best of All Purāņas ………….. 73 Bhāgavatam is Natural Commentary on Vedānta-sūtra .. 79 The Characteristics of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam…… Bhāgavatam Establishes the Meaning of Mahabharata..93 Bhāgavatam is the Essence of all Vedic Literature ….98 Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is Luminous Like the Sun ………… 117 Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the Topmost Vedic Scripture…. 127 Śukadeva Gosvāmi is the Best Scholar of Bhāgavatam131 Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is Self-Sufficient……. Methodology of the Șat-Sandarbha ….. The Source of References An Analysis of Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmi’s Faith …. Analysis of Śrila Vyasadeva’s Trance Part I …. Analysis of Śrila Vyasadeva’s Trance Part II viii 135 140 144 148 153 163 The Living Entity is Distinct From the Lord Māyā is a Devotee of the Lord… ………… 169 176 The Jiva is Conscious and Distinct from the Lord…….. 184 The Jiva is Not the Supreme Brahman …… 186 191 The Jiva is not Merely an Upādhi … Flaws in Pratibimba-vāda and Pariccheda-vāda ……….. 193 Refutations of Pratibimba-vada and Pariccheda-vāda I 200 Refutations of Pratibimba- and Pariccheda-vādas II ….206 Inconsistencies in Monism……………………………….. ……. … 209 Vyāsadeva’s Experience Does Not Support Monism …215 The Meaning of Monistic Statements Monistic Statements Need Interpretation Devotional Service is the Abhidheya Love of God is the Goal of Life The Definition of Abhidheya ….218 222 226 228 232 Devotional Service Frees One From Material Miseries.237 Love of God is Superior to the Bliss of Brahman ……… 243 Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam Attracts Even Ātmārāmas ………… 247 The Subject of the Sat-Sandarbha….. Absolute Reality is Nondual Consciousness The Meaning of Monistic Statements… Characteristics of the Soul ………….. The Soul is Distinct From the Body Summary of Śri Pippalāyana’s Teachings……… 257 259 263 274 280 ..287 Ten Topics of Bhagavatam Describe Supreme Lord….. 289 Defining the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam’s First Nine Topics… 295 Definition of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam’s Tenth Topic ….301 The Lord is the Ultimate Shelter The Jiva is Not the Ultimate Shelter….. 303 307 Sūta Gosvāmi Lists the Ten Topics of Bhāgavatam…… 311 Sūta Gosvāmi Defines the Topics of Bhāgavatam …….. 319 Conclusion…. Appendix One 328 341 Dispute Over the Length of the Bhāgavatam ……………. 344 Bibliography….. Index …. 394 ..397 ixPREFACE It is a matter of great pleasure that the first of the six Sandarbhas is now available to the English speaking world. This is the first time the Sandarbhas are being translated into English by a follower in the disciplic succession of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī Prabhupada. The present work follows the format used by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in his works-with the original Devanāgarītext, transliteration into Roman text, then commentary-except that we chose not to include the word-for-word meaning. Most of the Sandarbhas are in prose and where Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi quotes verses he often gives the word-for-word meaning in his explanation, so it would unecessarily expand the size of the book to include the word-for-word as well. The completion of this first volume is a matter of great per- sonal satisfaction and will surely bring pleasure to the hearts of Śrila Prabhupada’s many sincere followers throughout the world. The primary references for this translation and commen- tary, besides the comments of Jiva Gosvāmi himself, were the only two commentaries available on the Tattva- Sandarbha. One is by Śrīpāda Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa and the other by Śrī Rādhā Mohan Gosvāmī Bhattacārya. This is the only Sandarbha on which they comment. Jīva Gosvāmī only comments on the first thirteen sections and then on sections 61 and 63. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s comments are brief, for he says in the beginning: älasyādapṛvṛttiḥ syāt pumṣām yad-grantha-vistare ato’tra gūḍhe sandarbhe tippanyalpā prakāśyate If the commentary is extensive, then out of lethargy people will not study it; therefore I am composing a brief gloss on this esoteric Sandarbha. Though his words are brief, Śrīpāda Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa has commented on the entire Tattva- Sandarbha and so has Śrī Rādhā Mohan Gosvāmi. Their xi xii Preface commentaries help us to understand the difficult and esoteric meanings of Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi’s statements. Many of our readers know of Śrila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. After the six Gosvāmīs, he was one of the great scholars and prolific writersin the line of succession from Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. In his youth he studied the philosophy of Madhvācārya and was a devout follower of Tattva-vāda. Later he had the chance to hear the Sat- Sandarbhas from Śri Rādhā Damodara Dāsa. Baladeva was so impressed by the philosophy in the Sandarbhas, he em- braced Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism wholeheartedly and settled in Vṛndāvana where he came under the care of Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravarti Thakura, another prominent scholar and writer in the Gauḍīya line. In contrast to Baladeva, not much is known about Rādhā Mohan Gosvāmī except that he wrote his commentary about fifty years after Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa. According to his concluding remarks he is a descendent in the family of Advaita Acārya. He was a renowned scholar and logician. Of the available commentaries, his is the most extensive. His scholarship in Gauḍīya philosophy and insight into the Sandarbhas is evident from his illuminating comments. Un- fortunately not much is known about him or his other works. This translation and commentary is primarily the work of Satya Nārāyaṇa Dāsa, who studied the Sat-Sandarbhas un- der the tutelage of His Holiness Haridāsa Sastri Mahārāja, one of the greatest contemporary Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava schol- ars. Every evening for two years Šāstrī Mahārāja spent two hours tutoring him on the Sandarbhas. Since he is a dedi- cated scholar of the Sandarbhas, Satya Nārāyaṇa was most fortunate to learn under his guidance and following the prin- ciple of reference to guru, śāstra and sadhu, has tried to faithfully convey what he has learned from Śästrī Mahārāja that is consistent with the teachings of the sastra, and the prominent ācāryas of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradaya. The Bhaktivedanta Purports to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, in which His Divine Grace, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada 3 } Śri Tattva-Sandarbha xiii made extensive use of the Sat-Sandarbha, figures promi- nently as a reference to confirm the siddhānta as presented here. Kuṇḍalī Dāsa has contributed in helping to organize the flow of the commentaries on each text, by giving critical feed- back to Satya Nārāyaṇa to make sure that what he finally presents is precisely his intention, and by adding to the com- mentaries as well. Often these additions inspired Satya Nārāyaṇa to further elaborate on his original draft. In this way a dynamic exchange brought out more nunances of understanding which was beneficial to us and will surely be beneficial to our readers. For the information of the reader, Śāstrī Māhārāja is the first person to present all six Sandarbhas in Devanagari script along with commentaries in Hindi. As a non-English speaker, he is very pleased that Satya Nārāyaṇa undertook the render- ing the Sandarbhas in English complete with commentary. A few words on the nature of translating may be helpful. We have tried to keep as close as possible to the original translation of the individual words, but this is not always possible. Sometimes the literal English meaning does not convey the author’s intention. Consequently, when differ- ences occur between the word-for-word meanings and the corresponding translation, it is intended. Also, according to context, the same word may be translated differently at dif- ferent places to bring out the varied shades of meaning. The individual words of a compound word have some- times been translated in the plural although they appear as singular in the original. This has to do with the rules govern- ing compound words. Another consideration is that in San- skrit some words, called vākyālaṁkāra, exist only for the beauty of the sentence. They convey no specific meaning when translated. A pronoun when repeated twice in a sen- tence may have a different meaning than in its usual sense. To make things even more complex, there is liberal usage in Sanskrit of indeclinables such as ädi, iti, ca, and others. These words have their own idiosyncracies. Out of these the translation of iti (lit. etc.) is the most baffling because it Xiv Preface is commonly used in Sanskrit, but its literal rendering into English does not make for lucid prose; the work would be peppered with “etceteras” with no clear cut meaning to the reader. We have tried not to dwell too much on these details, but to present the Sandarbhas in a way that conveys the enliv- ening spirit of the original. The reader need not dwell on mismatches between various word-for-word meanings. As for translations of already familiar verses from Śrimad- Bhāgavatam and other sources, verses in Sanskrit invari- ably have more than one meaning. This will be readily ap- parent when readers see that sometimes Jīva Gosvāmî gives more than one explanation of certain Bhagavatam verses. And of course the atmarāma verse serves as a familiar ex- ample of such multiple meanings, for Lord Caitanya gave at least sixty-one interpretations to this one verse. These mean- ings all depend on the context and emphasis the commen- tator is seeking to bring out. When a verse is quoted in a particular context, the author has a particular meaning in mind. Hence, to avoid ambiguity many such verses have been translated to suit the context, otherwise we have ei- ther quoted directly from the works of Srila Prabhupada, or used his as the basis for the translation. Finally we must confess our own frailties in presenting this immense scholarly work in English. Although our at- tempt may be considered audacious, we do so with the bless- ings and encouragement of our preceptors and many in the community of Vaiṣṇavas. This work of Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī is immaculate, and any discrepencies that have crept in is only due to our imperfections. We alone are responsible for them. We pray that Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi, the Vaiṣṇava community, and gentle scholars will forgive our shortcomings. We wel- come any critical response that will enable us to improve any future editions. Hare Kṛṣṇa. Satyanarayan dam Kundala dasa MANGALACARANA -1- bhakteḥ svarupa-danena modam rati sva-sevakān svaminam bhakti-svarupa-damodaram vayam numaḥ I pay my most humble obeisances at the feet of His Holi- ness Śri Bhakti Svarupa-dāmodara Swami, who grants bliss to his servants by giving them devotion unto Lord Sri Kṛṣṇa. -2- rådha-kṛṣṇa-devâlayāḥ sthāpitam yena bhūtale bhaktivedanta svāmī sa mām anugṛhṇātu sadâ May His Divine Grace, Śrīla A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who established temples of Rådhȧ-Kṛṣṇa all over the world, be always merciful unto me. -3- vande’ham śri-guroḥ-śnyuta-padakamalaṁ śrīgurūn vaiṣṇavāmś ca śrī-rūpam sāgrajātam saha-gana-raghunathānvitam tam sa-jivam sādvaitam savadhūtam parijana-sahitam kṛṣṇa-caitanya-devam śrī-rädhä-kṛṣṇa pādān sahagaṇa-lalitā-śrī-viśākhānvitāmś ca 1 offer my respectful obeisances unto the lotus feet of my initiating spiritual master, unto all my other preceptors and all the Vaisnavas. I bow down unto the lotus feet of Śrila Rúpa Gosvāmi, Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmi, Śri Raghunatha Dāsa Gosvāmi, Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi, Śrī Gopala Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmi, and Sri Raghunath Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmi, along with their associates, like Śrī Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmi. I of- fer my respectful obeisances unto the lotus feet of Śrī Advaita Acarya Prabhu, Śri Nityananda Prabhu, who is an avadhūta, and Lord Śri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, along with their associ- ates like, Śri Gadadhara Pandita and Śrīvāsa Thakura. My most humble obeisances are unto the lotus feet of Lord Sri Kṛṣṇa, Śrīmati Radhika and all the gopis, headed by Srimati Lalita and Srimati Viśākhā. XV xvi Mangalàcaraṇa -4- antaḥ kṛṣṇam bahirgauram darsitāngādi-vaibhavam kalau sankirtanādyaiḥ smaḥ kṛṣṇa-caitanyamāśrītaḥ We, in Kali-yuga, take shelter of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya by congregational chanting of the holy names. He is blackish within but golden without and manifested the opulence of His beautiful bodily limbs to common people. [T.S.2] -5- hastamalakavattattvam śrimad-bhāgavatasya yaḥ darśayāmāsa jivebhyaś tam śrījiva-prabhum bhaje I worship Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi Prabhupada, who revealed the essence of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to the people just as one will show a fruit of myrobalan kept on one’s palm.’(From Bălatoşani) -6- kṛpayādhyāpayāmāsa bhāgavat-sandarbhan yaḥ vmdāranye vijayatām śri-haridāsa-sastri sah May Śrī Haridāsa Sastri who mercifully taught me the Sat- Sandarbhas be always glorious in the holy land of Śri Vṛndāvana. 1 “The fruit of myrobalan kept on one’s palm,” is a phrase used in Sanskrit to typify that which is clearly seen and easily understood. INTRODUCTION By nature living entities are inquisitive. This trait finds its greatest development in homosapiens. People want to know about themselves and the environment in which they live. Those with a finely developed intelligence naturally go fur- ther in this inquiry. They deliberate on the meaning of life, the afterlife, the origin and purpose of creation, and so on. Indeed we have information that at the dawn of time this question arose in the mind of Lord Brahma, the first person. According to Vedic history, Lord Brahma was born from a lotus generated from the navel of Lord Visņu. Just after his birth, Brahmå pondered his origin and the origin of his lotus seat. He deliberated on this for many thousands of years without success. Finally he heard a voice directing him to perform penance. Brahma then meditated for a long time and eventually the knowledge he sought was revealed to him from within his heart. Inspired by this experience he began his task of creating, for he is responsible for the act of the secondary creation-populating the universe. Brahma’s first offspring directly learned about the cre- ation and its purpose from him. They were also given the Vedas, which Brahmā had received from Kṛṣṇa. Even then the sons of Brahmå preferred to follow different sections of the Vedas. Broadly speaking the teachings of the Vedas can be divided into two paths, pravṛtti märga and nivṛtti märga, or the path of regulated sense enjoyment and the path of renunciation. In either case the goal is one: to be- come free from the miseries of birth, death, old age, and disease. As time passed, religion and philosophy developed un- der the heads of different schools, because according to people’s psychophysical nature, various means of salvation gained prominence at different times and in different places. Just as seeds in the ground sprout under suitable condi- tions, so different philosophies become popular when the atmosphere is conducive. Traditionally, six systems of phi- losophy-Nyaya, Vaiseṣika, Sankhya, Yoga, Purva Mimāmsā xvli xvili Introduction and Uttara Mimämsä have always existed. Although we have many philosophies in the world at present, when compared, they are found to be merely variations of the original six systems of philosophy, for history repeats itself; and so we find there’s nothing truly original in the realm of thought. In time, old ones get revived and revitalized under different names by various sages and philosophers. Five thousand years ago, after Lord Kṛṣṇa’s departure for the spiritual world, Śrila Vyasadeva had a vision of the future of society. He saw a world sunk to the depths of igno- rance and spiritual bankruptcy, as we are now experienc- ing. Feeling concern for the welfare of humanity Vyasadeva recorded the Vedas, which up to that time had been passed down from guru to disciple by oral tradition. He compiled the Purānas and Mahābhārata especially for the people of the current age. Still, even after compiling the many voluminous works of Vedic knowledge, Vyasa was dissatisfied. He felt something lacking. While in this dejected spirit, his spiritual master, Śri Nārada Muni, came to him and pointed out that although Vyăsa had performed great labor by compiling the Vedas, he had encouraged people to progress by fruitive activity, speculative knowledge, and mystic yoga. Nowhere had he explained in a direct and systematic manner the glories of pure devotional service to the Lord, which is the topmost method of elevation. Nārada told Vyāsa that if he would com- pile a work giving exclusive attention to the glories of the unlimited Supreme Personality of Godhead in an uncom- promising manner, that would relieve his distress. Śrila Vyasa, determined to fulfill the order of his spiritual master, sat in a trance of devotion and fully realized the Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead, along with His multifarious potencies and activities. Based on this direct experience he composed his final literary masterpiece, the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. As kāvya, poetic literature, it is a su- perb accomplishment. As a work of philosophy, it is unsur- passed. One finds that all the philosophies and religious systems of the world are reconciled in the eighteen thousand Śri Tattva-Sandarbha xix verses of the Bhāgavatam. The essence of all Vedic wis- dom is in this final composition of Veda Vyasa, who is the literary incarnation of God. Hence Srimad-Bhāgavatam is glorified as the ripened fruit of the tree of Vedic knowledge and the representative of God in book form. The claim that if one knows the Bhagavatam, nothing remains to be known is not an overstatement. The Śrimad- Bhagavatam elevates the sincere student beyond mere ab- stract philosophy to direct realization of the Absolute Truth. Even an illiterate person becomes learned by regularly hear- ing the Bhagavatam from the lips of a qualified speaker. Hearing the Bhāgavatam frees one from all fear, illusion, and lamentation. But a good text requires an expert teacher to mine its riches. Knowing this, Vyasa entrusted the Srimad- Bhagavatam to his son, Sukadeva Gosvāmi, who had no material attachments and thus no motive to adulterate the pure message of the book under any pretext. Sukadeva mastered the subject matter and became the expert reciter of the glories of Lord Sri Kṛṣṇa, the Absolute Truth. So much so, Vyasadeva himself, the original compiler, was eager to hear Bhāgavatam from Sukadeva’s lips; and when Sukadeva spoke Bhāgavatam to Parikṣit Mähārāja, Vyasa joined the audience. Before the appearance of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, mokşa, or liberation, was considered the goal of life, but this is not the ultimate principle in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. In fact mokṣa is decried in the very beginning of the book, dharma projhitaḥ kaitavaḥ atra, “In this beautiful Bhāgavatam all cheating religious principles have been kicked out.” Com- menting on this verse (Bhåg. 1.1.2), Sridhara Svāmi writes, pra-śabdena mokṣa-abhisandhirapi-nirastaḥ:“The prefix pra in the word projhitaḥ denies even the desire for liberation (as a principle of the supreme religion).” Instead, Bhāgavatam espouses prema, love of Kṛṣṇa, as the ultimate end. More specifically, love of God in the intimacy of spontaneous devotional service, as opposed to love of God in majestic splendor, which is ruled by rigid XX Introduction following of rules and regulations. This central message of Bhāgavatam was stressed by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu as surpassing all other considerations and this was under- stood by the six Gosvārīs of Vṛndāvana, who were His loyal followers. They wrote many books to disseminate His teach- ings, and among them the six Sandarbhas of Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi are the topmost philosophical conclusions. It is only this message of love of God which can bring peace to ailing human society which is strewn with commu- nal strife, wars, terrorism, and more. The desire for libera- tion makes one very selfish and callous towards others. On the path of liberation one has to practice self-abnegation and not even accept the existence of the world as real. How then can one develop the feelings of love and compassion for others to the fullest? Negation of the world and awakening heartfelt love and compassion for others are incompatible. Any such attempt is sentimental and lacks a true spiritual perspective of the eternal nature of the Absolute Truth and its energies and one’s relationship with the whole. But when we understand that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the fountain- head of all energies, including our own selves, then we are all automatically united as members of one family under one father. It is only when we acknowledge this common father that we have the basis for universal brotherhood and the family of man. In this view there is no scope for hatred, envy, cheating, and exploitation, since no one likes to im- pose these on one’s beloved family members. Even the greatest rogue or murderer has loving sentiment towards someone, if not, then at least he has loving sentiments for his own self. Indeed, it is to serve the object of his love that he commits the lowest heinous activity. Thus one can safely conclude that the religious and irreligious man, the theist and atheist, the gentleman and rogue all work on the princi- ple of love. No one can survive without this, and when it is denied one may even commit suicide. On the other hand, one can gladly sacrifice one’s life for the pleasure of the object of love, be it a lady, family, state, or nation, although generally everyone is seeking happinessŚri Tattva-Sandarbha xxi without mixture of distress. Thus salvation, mokṣa, seems to be the highest goal, but under careful analysis it is seen that the principle of reciprocal love is higher than liberation or self-pleasure. This love finds its highest manifestation in the exchanges between the living being and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the be all and end all of every- thing. These loving exchanges emulsify into transcendental emotions of ecstatic feelings that are in direct proportion to one’s intensity of loving service to Him. It is the natural tendency of things in this world to dete- riorate and over a period of some four thousand years the clear message of Srimad-Bhāgavatam got distorted as people interpreted it to suit their personal motives. In Bhagavad-gitȧ Kṛṣṇa describes how this phenomenon oc- curs and thus He must appear from time to time to reestab- lish the pure message of the Gita. In this connection, Śrila Prabhupada writes that as soon as unscrupulous commen- tators scatter the orginal message, the need arises “to re- establish the disciplic succession.” Similarly, the lamp of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was covered with the soot of improper explanations rendered by self-interested men, and appre- ciation for the true message of the Bhagavatam diminished, although some saintly reformers were able to revive its pure message from time to time. Then about five hundred years ago Lord Sri Kṛṣṇa appeared as Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in Navadvipa, Bengal with the aim of reestab- lishing the glories of the Śrimad-Bhāgavatam by teaching its essence. Śri Śri Caitanya revealed to His followers the significance of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as the topmost Vedic literature, but except for the eight verses He composed that embody the very essence of His teachings, He did not detail His teach- ings in written form. He left that to His stalwart followers, the six Gosvāmis of Vṛndāvana. They wrote numerous books explaining the Bhāgavata philosophy from different angles. Many of their books have been lost by the ravages of time. Some of their major surviving works are Bṛhad- Bhāgavatamṛta, Vaisnava Toṣaṇī, Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, xxii Introduction Ujjvala-nilamani, Sat-Sandarbha, Krama-Sandarbha, Hari- bhakti-vilāsa, and Gopala-campu. Of all their literary works the Bhagavat-Sandarbha of Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi, popularly known as the Sat-Sandarbha, or The Six Essences, is the most systematic and exacting analysis of Śrimad-Bhāgavatam and therefore a thorough exposition of Kṛṣṇa consciousness philosophy. Hence the Sandarbhas are requisite study for any serious student of the Śrimad-Bhāgavatam, expecially for those coming in the line of Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi. Here the acintyabheda-abheda doctrine of Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has been served like a six course meal for the complete intellectual satisfac- tion and nourishment of the reader. No logical query is left unanswered in the course of explaining the transcendental nature of the Supreme Lord and the workings of His exter- nal, marginal, and internal energies. Śrila Prabhupada has spoken in a number of places about the glories of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi’s wonderful accomplish- ment. In the Caitanya-caritămṛta he wrote: False devotees, lacking the conclusion of transcendental knowledge, think that artificially shedding tears will deliver them. Similarly, other false devotees think that studying books of the previous ācāryas is unadvisable, like studying dry empiric philosophies. But Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi, following the previous ācāryas, has inculcated the conclusions of the scriptures in the six theses called the Sat-Sandarbhas. False devotees who have very little knowledge of such conclusions fail to achieve pure devotion for want of zeal in accepting the favorable directions for devotional service given by self-realized devotees. Such false devotees are like impersonalists, who also consider devotional service no better than ordinary fruitive actions. Here Śrila Prabhupada asserts that the conclusions of the scriptures are in the Sat-Sandarbha. Devotees eager to be fortified with these conclusions will therefore pay close attention to the presentation of the Sandarbhas in English, complete with commentary that further illuminates the words Śri Tattva-Sandarbha xxiit of Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi. Such scrutinizing study is especially cherished by devotees who are dedicated to the preaching mission of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Today, sadly, even among those in the direct line of Jiva Gosvāmi, study of the Sandarbhas is neglected. Śrila Prabhupada, however, be- fore embarking on his mission to bring Kṛṣṇa conscious- ness to the Western world, prepared himself by studying the Sat-Sandarbha and has encouraged his followers to do the same. Study of the six Sandarbhas also destroys the six en- emies of the human being-lust, anger, greed, illusion, envy, and madness. They impell one on the path of bhakti by in- spiring him to overcome the six types of obstacles-over- eating, over-endeavoring for mundane things, unnecessary talking, too rigid or too lax following of rules and regula- tions, associating with nondevotees, and greed for mundane achievements. Thus one realizes Lord Krsna face to face. In this way one attains the fruit of all knowledge and of the six systems of the Vedic philosophy. Śrimad-Bhāgavatam has three basic divisions- sambandha-tattva, abhidheya-tattva, and prayojana-tattva. Sambandha-tattva concerns knowledge of the relationship between Kṛṣṇa, the living entity, and Kṛṣṇa’s other ener- gies. Abhidheya-tattva explains the process of attaining the desired goal. Prayojana-tattva explains the ultimate goal. Because the Sandarbhas explain how these three are re- vealed in Śrimad-Bhagavatam, they are called the Bhagavata-Sandarbha, or the essence of the Bhāgavatam. The first four titles-Tattva, Bhagavata, Parāmātma, and Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha-explain sambandha-tattva. Bhakti- Sandarbha explains abhidheya-tattva, and Priti-Sandarbha explains prayojana-tattva. Śri Tattva-Sandarbha has sixty-three anucchedas, or sec- tions. Out of these, the first eight verses are invocatory, then sections nine to twenty-eight discuss the Bhagavata epis- temology. Section twenty-nine to the end explain prameya, or what is the knowable object of knowledge. The Table of Contents serves as a more detailed summary. xxiv Introduction Life Sketch of Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi was the youngest among the celebrated six Gosvāmis of Vṛndāvana. The exact date of his birth is not known, but is generally accepted at about 1511 in Rămakeli, West Bengal. He was the son of Anupama, the younger brother of Rūpa and Sanatana Gosvāmis. When he was about three or four years old his uncles renounced their opulent posts as ministers of the Muslim King and trav- elled to Vṛndāvana on the order of Lord Śri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Soon after this, Jiva’s father passed away while returning from Vṛndāvana with his elder brother Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmi on their way to Jagannatha Puri to visit Lord Caitanya. Jiva saw Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu when the latter vis- ited Rāmakeli on the plea of going to Śrī Vṛndāvana. This is stated in Bhakti-ratnākara by Sri Narahari Cakravarti, śrī Jīvādi sangopane prabhuke dekhilā. Śrī Jiva could not have been older than three at the time, but the vision of Lord Caitanya left an indelible impression on the child’s mind. Right from his childhood Sri Jiva had no interest in childish activities. He was keenly interested in his educational pur- suits and people were amazed at his brilliance. Even as a young child he worshiped the Deities of Krsna and Balarama with great devotion. While still a young student he mastered Sanskrit grammar, poetry, aesthetics, and so on. Then on the plea of studying neo-logic he travelled to Navadvipa, which was a famous seat of learning. At that time Lord Nityananda Prabhu was staying at the house of Śrīvāsa Pandita, and He had already predicted that soon a great person will arrive in Navadvipa. When Śrī Jiva met Lord Nityananda he fell at His feet. Lord Nityanada blessed Śrī Jiva by placing His lotus feet on his head and then out of love He embraced Śri Jīva, who swooned in ecstacy. Seeing the love of Sri Jīva, Lord Nityananda’s love welled up like an ocean tide. He took Jiva on parikrama, or circumambulation, of the holy land of Śri Tattva-Sandarbha XXV Navadvipa. That marked the beginning of the Navadvipa parikrama tradition. Soon after that, Lord Nityananda or- dered Śrī Jīva to join his two uncles, Śrī Rūpa and Śrî Sanatana, in Vṛndāvana. Śrī Jiva started for Vmdāvana. On the way he stopped in Benares, the most famous seat of learning in India. It is believed that he studied under the tutelage of Śri Madhusudana Vācaspati, a disciple of Sarvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya. Śri Jiva quickly mastered the six systems of Indian philosophy. Seeing his extraordinary brilliance, the best scholars of Benares were amazed. Upon completing his studies, Śri Jiva continued to Vṛndāvana and there took shelter of Śrī Rūpa and Sanatana Gosvāmis. From his two uncles he studied the esoteric principles of devotional service, bhakti-tattva, as taught to them by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Young Jiva assisted them in the work of writing literature, establishing temples, and discovering the places related to Lord Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes. Śrila Rūpa Gosvāmi depended on Jiva’s help in editing his books. He was the most brilliant and scholarly Vaiṣṇava of his time, nay, of all times. It is to his credit that he produced three of the greatest preachers of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, Śrīla Narottama das Thakura, Śrīnivāsa Acarya, and Śrī Syam- ananda Prabhu. Jiva Gosvāmi established the Śri-Sri Radha-Damodara temple in Vṛndāvana, one of the seven major temples of the town. According to Bhakti-ratnākara, the Deities were personally sculptured by Śrila Rūpa Gosvāmi on the order of Lord Krsna in a dream: svapanadese śrīrupa râdhā-dâmodare svahaste nirmāṇa kari dila śrījivere Being ordered by Sri-Śrī Rādha-Damodara, Rūpa Gosvāmi crafted Them in Deity form and gave Them to Jiva Gosvāmi. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmi spent his last days at this temple being served by Jiva Gosvāmī. His samādhi is in the yard to the right side of the temple. xxvi Introduction It was in the temple of Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi that the illustri- ous preacher of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, the Founder-Acarya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabh’ipada, took shelter for many years. He in turn became the great preacher of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, all over the world. His time spent at the temple of Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi in preparation to travel the world and preach to fulfill the mission of Sri Jiva Gosvāmi. After the disappearance of Rúpa and Sanatana Gosvāmis it was Jiva Gosvāmi who shone like a brilliant sun, giving light to the Gaudiya Vaisnava community. Both in Vṛndāvana and in Bengal, he was regarded as the highest authority. People travelled on foot all the way from Bengal just to con- sult him on the esoteric conclusions of Lord Caitanya’s phi- losophy. He took care of all the pilgrims from Bengal, and he had the honor of hosting Śrīmati Jāhnavā, the consort of Nityananda Prabhu. Besides maintaining temples, teaching philosophy, receiv- ing guests, and excavating the holy places, Śrī Jiva Gosvāmi composed many books as well as commentaries on the writ- ings of Śrila Rūpa Gosvāmi and on original texts like Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam. Some of his works are: 1) Śrī Harināmāmṛta Vyakaraṇam; 2) Tattva-, Bhagavat-, Paramātma-, Kṛṣṇa-, and Priti- Sandarbhas; 3) Sri Bhakti-rasāmṛtaseṣa; 4) Sarva-samvadini; 5) Madhava-mahotsava; 6) Śrī Gopala- virudăvali; 7) Sutra-mallikā; 8) Dhatu-sangraha; 9) Gopala- campu (in two parts); 10) Rādha-Kṛṣṇa arcană dipikā; 11) Śrī Rådhǎ-kṛṣṇa-kara-pada-cinha; 12) Krama-Sandarbha; 13) Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toşani; 14) Gayatri-vivṛtti; 15) Gopāla Tāpanitikā; 16) Brahma Samhita ṭīkā; 17) Bhakti-rasāmṛta- sindhu tīkā; 18) Ujjvala-nilamani ṭīkā; 19) Bhāvārtha Sūcaka Campu. All these works total 400,000 verses as stated in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta, cari-lakso grantha tenho vistara karila: In this way he expanded 400,000 verses in all his books". [Cc. Antya-lilā 4.231] Śri Tattva-Sandarbha xxvii This is equal to the eighteen Purāṇas combined. But among all his literary accomplishments the Sat-Sandarbha stand supreme. About them Śrila Kṛṣṇadās Kaviraj writes in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta [Antya-filā 4.229]: bhāgavata sandarbha nåma kaila grantha sára bhāgavata siddhantera tahan päiye pāra In particular, Śri Jiva Gosvāmi compiled the book named Bhāgavata-Sandarbha, or Sat-Sandarbha, which is the essence of all scriptures. From this book one can obtain the conclusive understanding of devotional service and the Supreme Personality of Godhead as described in the Srimad Bhagavatam. Kavīrāja Gosvāmi further says: şat sandarbha kṛṣṇa prema tattva prakasila In the Sat-Sandarbha Śri Jiva Gosvāmi set forth the truths about the transcendental love of Kṛṣṇa. [Cc.Antya-lilä 4.231] Although many essays have been written on Śrimad- Bhagavatam, no one has analyzed as finely as Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi. His approach is unique, natural, and undefeatable. Indeed, no one has tried to pick it apart. That no one has tried to date is indeed a wonder, considering that in the Sandarbhas the doctrines of all major Vaiṣṇava ācāryas are refuted or at least reduced to supporting roles next to the acintyābheda-abheda tattva. Jīva Gosvāmī has presented the message of the Srimad Bhagavatam according to the faith and experience of its writer, Śrila Vyasadeva and its prime speaker, Sukadeva Gosvāmi. This approach is unique and obviously the most natural way to present the quintessence of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which is prema, pure love of Kṛṣṇa. This is the fundamental teaching of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, which He solidly based on the Bhāgavata philosophy. Hence the Lord de- clared, prema pumartho mohan, “Love for Kṛṣṇa, prema, is the highest goal of life.” This is the subject matter of Srimad- Bhāgavatam and it is wonderfully presented in Sri Sat- xxviii Introduction Sandarbha. Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi has performed the greatest welfare to humanity by giving this gift. According to him, Śrīla Gopala Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī did the preliminary work, but did not complete his task. Later, Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi took his work and expanded it into the six Sandarbhas in a very systematic manner. Here the tenets of Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s doctrine find their fullest mani- festation. After compiling these books he also compiled a brief supplementary work on the first four books under the name Sarva-samvadini. Herein, he deals with the various prevalent systems of philosophy and establishes that acintyabheda-abheda, a term he coined for the philosophy of Mahaprabhu, is the flawless philosophical system that reveals the real heart of Śrila Vyasadeva. He also wrote Krama-Sandarbha, a verse-by-verse commentary on Bhāgavatam. Śrī Jiva Gosvāmi lived in Vṛndāvana for 65 years. In Samvat era 1653 (1596 A.D.) on the third day of the bright fortnight, in the month of Pausa, this brilliant sun disappeared from the vision of ordinary people and entered the unmanifest pastimes of Lord Kṛṣṇa. As an eternal associ- ate of Lord Kṛṣṇa, he is Vilasa-manjāri, a maidservant of Śrimati Rādhārāni. ANUCCHEDA 1 INVOCATION ONE कृष्णवर्णं त्विषाकुष्णं साङ्गोपाङ्गास्त्रपार्षदम् । यज्ञैः सङ्कीर्तनप्रायैर्यजन्ति हि सुमेधसः ॥ १ ॥ kṛṣṇa-varnam tviṣākṛṣṇaṁ sängopāngāstra-pārṣadam yajñaiḥ sankirtana-prāyair yajanti hi su-medhasaḥ “In the Age of Kali intelligent persons perform congrega- tional chanting to worship the incarnation of Godhead who constantly sings the names of Kṛṣṇa. Although His com- plexion is not blackish, He is Kṛṣṇa Himself. He is accompa- nied by His associates, servants, weapons, and confidential companions” (Bhag. 11.5.32). COMMENTARY In the Vedic culture every undertaking begins with an invo- cation, technically called mangalācaraṇa. The purpose is to invoke the blessings of the Supreme Personality of Godhead for removing any obstacle to the completion of the work. This book, Śri Sat-Sandarbha, is a detailed treatise on the Lord’s name, fame, abode, qualities, pastimes, associates, and the process of devotional service to Him. As such, it is already all-auspicious and needs no invocation. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi nonetheless performs mangalācaraṇa, following in the footsteps of the previous ācāryas and setting an ideal example for his readers. Mangalācaraṇa is of three types and may have one or more verses. The three types are: Namas-kriyatmaka-paying obeisances to one’s teacher(s) or worshipable deity, or to both. Asir-vādātmaka-praying to the Lord for His blessings, bestowing blessings upon the readers, or exclaiming “All glories to the Lord!” Vastu-nirdeśatmaka-summarizing the subject matter of the book. 2 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha The mangalācaraṇa will also describe four essential elements of a book, called anubandha-catuṣṭaya, as is described: adhikări ca sambandho viṣayaś ca prayojanam avasyam eva vaktavyaṁ śåstradau tu catuṣṭayam At its beginning a book must describe four items: the qualifications of the person who may study the book (adhikari), the connection between the book and its subject (sambandha), the subject itself (visaya or abhidheya), and what the reader will gain by reading the book and following the path it prescribes (prayojana). The purpose of delineating these four items is to create an interest in the mind of the reader, as Śrī Kumārila Bhaṭṭa states in his Śloka-värttika (1.1.17): siddhartham jñāta-sambandham śrotum śrota pravartate śästrädau tena vaktavyaḥ sambandha sa prayojanaḥ Only after knowing the purpose and relation of the book with the subject, sambandha, does a reader begin studying the book. Therefore, sambandha and prayojana must be stated at the beginning of a book. An intelligent reader will not take interest in studying a book unless he clearly knows the subject described in the book and the purpose to be achieved by understanding it. Differ- ent people have different goals, and different qualifications are needed to achieve those goals. Therefore the book must also describe the qualification needed to study it. Sambandha refers to the relation between the book and the subject matter, between the qualified reader and the goal, and between the knowledge and the book. In modern books these items are usually covered in the introduction. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī begins his mangalācaraṇa with a quo- tation from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and not with an original verse. By doing so he shows his reverence for Śrimad- Bhagavatam and his surrender to the instructions of Śrī Caitanya Mahaprabhu, for whom Śrimad-Bhāgavatam was the supreme scriptural authority. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi also implies that in the Sat-Sandarbha he will analyze the Bhagavatam and establish its superiority over all other iAnuccheda 1 3 scriptures. In addition, this verse establishes that his worshipable Deity is Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Karabhǎjana Ṛsi spoke this verse in response to Mahārāja Nimi’s question about the Lord’s color and name and the mode of worship in the various yugas. He describes the Lord’s incarnation in Kali-yuga, and in so doing he indirectly reveals that Śrī Caitanya Mahaprabhu is Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Kṛṣṇa-varam indicates one who describes the pastimes of Lord Kṛṣṇa to others or who always chants “Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa.” Śrī Caitanya Mahaprabhu certainly meets this criterion for being kṛṣṇa-vama. Vamam also means “class” or “category.” So kṛṣṇa-vamam may also indicate one who is in the same class as Kṛṣṇa. Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahaprabhu is kṛṣṇa- vama in this sense because He is nondifferent from Lord Sri Krsna. Vama also means “letter” or “word,” and thus krsna- varam also indicates one whose name has the word Kṛṣṇa in it-in this case Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya. Other meanings of varṇa are “fame,” “form,” “outward ap- pearance,” “quality,” and “ritual.” One may apply all these meanings to the phrase kṛṣṇa-vamṇam, and in all cases the meaning indicate Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahaprabhu. For ex- ample, kṛṣṇa-vamam may indicate one whose fame is like Kṛṣṇa’s or whose form is like Kṛṣṇa’s. In Sarva-samvadini, a supplementary commentary to Śrī Şat-Sandarbha by Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi, he explains that Lord Caitanya is referred to as kṛṣṇa-vama because people were reminded of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa just by seeing Him. Another rea- son is that although Śrī Caitanya displayed a golden com- plexion to the common man, to His intimate associates He sometimes appeared blackish. Finally, kṛṣṇa-vama also means one who is blackish like Kṛṣṇa, but in the case of Lord Caitanya kṛṣṇa-vama must refer to His inner complexion. This Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi explains in the next anuccheda. The compound word tviṣākṛṣṇam may be broken as tvişă akṛṣṇam, giving the meaning “whose bodily hue is not black- ish.” In Śrimad-Bhāgavatam (10.8.13), Garga Muni tells Nanda Mahārāja: 4 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha åsan varṇās trayo hy asya gṛhṇato’nu-yugam tanúḥ suklo raktas tatha pita idānim kṛṣṇatām gataḥ Your son Kṛṣṇa appears as an incarnation in every millennium. In the past he assumed three different colors-white, red, and yellow-and now He has appeared in a blackish color. According to Śrimad-Bhāgavatam, the Supreme Personality of Godhead had a white complexion when He appeared in Satya-yuga, a reddish one in Treta-yuga, and a blackish one in Dvâpara-yuga. So by the process of elimination the word akṛṣṇam, “non-blackish,” must indicate the incarnation with a yellow complexion-that is, the golden avatāra, Śrī Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Garga Muni’s mention of His yellow color “in previous yugas” may refer either to Lord Caitanya’s previ- ous appearances or to His future appearances, but Garga Muni uses the past tense because he is mentioning the yel- low incarnation along with other incarnations who had ap- peared in the past. The usage is similar to what a person might say if he saw a householder and fifteen brahmacārīs walking on the road: “The brahmacāris are coming.” Yet an- other consideration is that Gargācārya may have used the past tense to hide Kṛṣṇa’s future incarnation as Lord Caitanya. Garga’s purpose would have been to avoid con- fusing Nanda Maharaja and to play along with the Lord’s plan to appear in Kali-yuga as the channa-avatāra, or hid- den incarnation. This last reason is why the Vedic scriptures only indirectly refer to Lord Caitanya’s incarnation. In the Bhagavad-gītā (7.25) Lord Kṛṣṇa says, nāhaṁ prakȧśaḥ sarvasya yoga-maya-samavṛtaḥ: “Because the veil of Yogamǎyà covers Me, I am not manifest to everyone as I am.” This declaration specifically applies to the Lord’s ap- pearance in Kali-yuga as Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, not as the Su- preme Lord but as a devotee. Prahlåda Mahārāja also re- fers to Lord Caitanya when he says in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (7.9.38), channaḥ kalau yad abhavas tri-yugo ’tha sa tvam: “O Lord, Your incarnation in Kali-yuga is hidden, or confi- dential, and therefore you are called Tri-yuga, one who incarnates Anuccheda 1 5 in three yugas (namely Satya, Tretă, and Dvåpara].” Here the word channa (covered) also signifies that Lord Caitanya is Lord Krsna covered by the mood and complexion of Śrī Rådhikȧ. The Naradīya Purāṇa (5.47) also foretells the Lord’s appearance as a devotee: aham eva kalau vipra nityam pracchanna-vigrahaḥ bhagavad-bhakta-rupena lokan rakṣāmi sarvadā The Lord said: ‘Concealing My real identity, O vipra [Märkandeya Rşi], I appear in Kali-yuga in the garb of a devotee and always protect My devotees.’ Tvisākṛṣṇam may also be broken as tviṣā kṛṣṇam, meaning “one whose complexion is blackish.” Although Lord Caitanya’s complexion was golden, He is Lord Krsna Himself, and thus the words tvisā kṛṣṇam indicate His original form as Lord Kṛṣṇa, which He revealed only to certain devotees, such as Ramananda Raya. Sângopangastra-pårṣadam means “with His limbs, oma- ments, weapons, and associates.” According to Srila Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa, Lord Caitanya’s limbs are Lord Nityananda Prabhu and Advaita Acarya; His ornaments are Śrīvāsa Thakura, Śrīla Haridāsa Thakura, and others; His weapons are the holy names-which dispel ignorance; and His associates are Gadadhara, Govinda, and the many other devotees who stayed with Him in Jagannatha Puri. Sangopangastra-pārṣadam may also refer to Lord Caitanya’s form as Śrī Kṛṣṇa, which He showed to His intimate devotees. This form has beautiful limbs decorated with orna- ments (such as the Kaustubha gem), which act like weapons by attracting one’s mind toward Lord Kṛṣṇa and thus killing one’s demoniac mentality. The Lord’s ornaments are also as- sociates; they are persons and naturally (of course) devotees. Yajñaiḥ sankirtana-prāyair yajanti hi su-medhasaḥ means the Vedas recommend many processes for worshiping the Supreme Lord, but in Kali-yuga the wise worship Him by congregational chanting of His holy names. Even if one wor- ships the Lord by another process it must be accompanied by chanting of His names. Lord Caitanya inaugurated this pro- cess and is thus called the father of the sankirtana movement. 6 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha Su-medhasaḥ means “people of fine intelligence.” The implication is that less intelligent people will worship the Lord in other ways and that outright fools will oppose the sankirtana movement. Sankirtana is very dear to Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahaprabhu. He Himself was always absorbed in sankirtana, and He enjoined everyone to participate, de- claring it the universal remedy for all the defects of Kali-yuga. Śukadeva Gosvāmi confirms this in Bhag.(12.3.51, 52): kaler dosa-nidhe rajann asti hy eko mahân guṇaḥ kirtanåd eva krsnasya mukta-sangaḥ param vrajet kṛte yad dhyāyato viṣṇum tretāyām yajato makhaiḥ dvâpare paricaryayam kalau tad dhari-kirtanat My dear king, although Kali-yuga is an ocean of faults, there is still one good quality about this age: Simply by chanting the names of Kṛṣṇa one can become free from material bondage and be promoted to the transcendental destination. Whatever result was obtained in Satya-yuga by meditating on Visnu, in Tretâ-yuga by performing sacrifices, and in Dvâpara-yuga by serving the Lord’s lotus feet can be obtained in Kali-yuga simply by chanting the Hare Krsna maha-mantra. Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi’s worshipable Deity is Śri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Therefore he begins his topmost literary achievement by quoting a verse about Śri Caitanya from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the supreme scriptural authority for all time. This is a vastu-nirdeśātmaka mangalācaraṇa. ANUCCHEDA 2 INVOCATION Two अन्तः कृष्णं बहिर्गौरं दर्शिताङ्गादि- वैभवम् । । कलौ सङ्कीर्तनाद्यैः स्मः कृष्णचैतन्यमाश्रिताः ॥ २ ॥ antaḥ krsnam bahir gauram darsitāngādi-vaibhavam kalau sankirtanādyaiḥ smaḥ kṛṣṇa-caitanyam āśritāḥ In Kali-yuga we take shelter of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya by chant- ing the Lord’s holy names congregationally and engaging in Anuccheda 2 7 other devotional practices. He is blackish within but golden without, and He has revealed to everyone the opulences of His beautiful bodily limbs and other features. Commentary Here Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi explains the meaning of the open- ing verse. Lord Kṛṣṇa, whose complexion is blackish, cov- ered Himself with the golden complexion of Śrimati Rādhārāṇī to appear in Kali-yuga as Kṛṣṇa Caitanya. He is the Su- preme Personality of Godhead, but His purpose is to show us how to be devotees of the Lord. For this reason it is not readily apparent that He is the Supreme Lord, and so Śrīmad- Bhagavatam describes Him as “the hidden incarnation.” Or, alternatively, the words antaḥ kṛṣṇam bahir gauram may be taken to mean not that Lord Caitanya is blackish within and golden without but that He is Kṛṣṇa within though outwardly appearing as Gaura, Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi also indicates here that one can please Lord Kṛṣṇa Caitanya by chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra. Darsitāngādi-vaibhavam means that Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu manifested His opulence through His limbs and associates. His body was so beautiful that just by seeing Him people would be inspired to surrender to Him. He also manifested His supremacy through Nityananda Prabhu and other associates, who preached the chanting of the holy name. This phrase can also mean that Lord Caitanya mani- fested the greatness of His associates by engaging them in distributing love of Godhead. By using the plural form “we” in the phrase “we take shel- ter of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya,” Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi includes the readers of Sri Sat-Sandarbha. He invites them to join him in taking shelter of Lord Caitanya by participating in the sankirtana movement, the universal process for pleasing the Supreme Lord and attaining deliverance. By using the plu- ral, Śri Jiva also implies that Lord Caitanya’s teachings are not limited to a particular sect or nationality. In this annucheda Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi has described his worshipable Deity, which is a namas-kriyātmaka mangalācaraṇa. 8 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Next, he performs āśīrvādātmaka-mangalācaraṇa, invoking auspiciousness by declaring the glories of his spiritual masters. ANUCCHEDA 3 INVOCATON THREE जयतां मथुराभूमौ श्रील-रूप- सनातनौ । यौ विलेखयतस्त्तत्त्वं ज्ञापकौ पुस्तिकामिमाम् ॥ ३ ॥ jayatām mathura-bhūmau śrila-rupa-sanatanau yau vilekhayatas tattvam jñāpakau pustikām imam All glories to Śrila Rūpa and Sanatana Gosvāmis who reside in the land of Mathura! They have engaged me in writing this book to broadcast the essential truth about the Supreme Lord. Commentary Here Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī explains his reason for composing the Sat-Sandarbhas. He is doing it at the behest of his spiri- tual masters, Rūpa and Sanatana Gosvāmis, who are also his uncles. Jiva Gosvāmī studied under them, and they asked him to compile their teachings into a book for the benefit of all. This request is indicated by the word jñāpakau, which literally means “those who like to teach others.” Previously Rūpa and Sanatana were glorious in Bengal as ministers of Hussein Shah. Now they are glorious in the land of Mathura, which is itself glorious, being the place of Lord Krsna’s pastimes. To be glorious in this land means to have the wealth of kṛṣṇa-prema, love of Godhead, which is the most rare possession. To show this achievement, Jīva Gosvāmi adds the honorofic “Śrila” before their names. “Śrila” signifies that Rūpa and Sanātana Gosvāmīs are endowed with transcendental knowledge, renunciation, devotional service, and love of God. Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi prays that through the Sat-Sandarbhas these two great souls may manifest their opulence and glory for the wel- fare of others. According to Sanskrit grammatical rules, the pronoun imām (this) is used for objects near at hand. Since at this Anuccheda 4 9 point Jiva Gosvāmi is in the process of writing the Sat- Sandarbha, his mention here of pustikām imam (this book) may seem a defect. Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa comments, however, that because the book already exists within the author’s mind, his usage is proper. ANUCCHEDA 4 THE SOURCE OF SRI SAT-SANDARBHA कोऽपि तद्द्बान्धवो भट्टो दक्षिणद्विज- वंशजः । fafazu auferaquiei fokanigggðsvið: 11 8 11| व्यलिखद्ग्रंथं लिखिताद्द्वृद्धवैष्णवैः ॥ ko ‘pi tad-bandhavo bhatto dakṣina-dvija-vamsa-jaḥ vivicya vyalikhad grantham likhitad vṛddha-vaisnavaiḥ Śrī Gopala Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmi, a friend of Sri Rūpa and Śri Sanatana, born in a South Indian brāhmaṇa family, com- piled the original version of this book based on the works of venerable Vaisnavas. Commentary Śrila Gopala Bhatta Gosvāmi was the son of Venkata Bhatta, the head priest of Ranganatha Temple at Śrī Rangam, where the Śrī-Vaiṣṇava sect had its headquarters. It was in Venkata’s home that Śri Caitanya Mahaprabhu stayed for four months of the rainy season during His tour of South India. There, He and Venkata discussed philosophy, as is known from the Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-filà, chapter nine, and the Bhakti-ratnākara, first wave. At that time Gopala Bhatta was a young boy, and he learned the intricacies of Gaudiya-Vaisnava philosophy directly from Sri Caitanya. Later he studied the writings of the eminent Vaisnavas of the Śri-sampradaya. On Lord Caitanya’s order, Gopala Bhatta later moved to Vmdāvana, where he established the temple of Sri Rådhā-ramana. He is one of the great authorities on Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s teachings. 10 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha As we shall learn further on, the venerable Vaisnavas Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi refers to here as sources for Gopala Bhatta Gosvāmi include Sri Ramanujācārya, Śrī Madhvācārya, and Śridhara Svāmi. Śrila Gopala Bhatta Gosvami culled the essence from the works of these previous ācāryas and Vaiṣṇava scholars and then composed a book explaining the essential truths about Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That book is the basis for the present work. In this way Jiva Gosvāmi hints at the authenticity of his work, for by basing it on Śrīla Gopala Bhatta Gosvāmi’s book he implies that the work is authoritative, free of concocted ideas. Unfortunately, Gopala Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmi’s book, which formed the basis of Sat-Sandarbhas, is not available at present. ANUCCHEDA 5 HOMAGE TO ŚRI GOPALA BHATTA GOSVÁMI तस्याद्यं ग्रन्थनालेखं क्रान्त - व्युत्क्रान्त- खण्डितम् । qeufosteara qzafei gral fexafa fildas: || 2 11 tasyadyaṁ granthanälekhaṁ kränta-vyutkränta-khanḍitam paryȧlocyätha paryayam krtvå likhati jivakaḥ Some parts of this first book by Gopala Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmi were in correct sequence, and some were not. Some parts were incomplete or lost. Now, after careful study, Jīva is re- writing this book in the proper sequence. Commentary The question may arise, “if Gopala Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmi had al- ready composed a work on this subject, why whould Rūpa and Sanatana have engaged Jiva Gosvāmi in compiling a similar work?” Jīva Gosvāmī replies in this verse: His mis- sion is to complete the task that Gopala Bhatta Gosvāmi began and to set the material in proper order. In the previ- ous two verses Jiva Gosvāmi has already established that Anuccheda 6 11 his work is not a product of his imagination but is based on the authority of the scriptures and previous ācāryas. From this verse it appears that the work of Śrila Gopala Bhatta Gosvāmī did not take the final shape of a book, but was in the form of notes, technically called kaḍacā, and so was not arranged properly. By using the word jīvaka, Jīva Gosvāmī makes a pun on his name. Jivaka means “a petty soul,” or else it can be taken as the name of the author. Out of humility the author refers to himself here in the third person. The suffix kan is used in this context in a diminutive sense, to indicate that a humble soul is writing. As jīvānugas, or followers of Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi, we may prefer to interpret jivaka in other ways. We may, for example, apply the definition jīvān kāpayati bhāgavatārtha- pradånåndeneti jīvakaḥ: “One who makes the living beings emit ecstatic sounds by supplying them with the esoteric meaning of Srimad-Bhāgavatam [through his Bhagavata- Sandarbhas] is jivaka.” Or, alternatively, jiva-svarupa- sambandhābhidheya-prayojanān kāyati vamayatiti jīvakaḥ: “One who explains the nature of the jiva, his relation with the Lord, the process by which he can achieve the ultimate goal of life, and also that ultimate goal-such a person is jivaka.” Or, jivayati jīvān kṛṣṇa-prema-pradāneneti jivo, jīva eva jīvaka iti svårthe kan, “One who infuses life into living beings by giving them love of Kṛṣṇa is jīva or, equivalently, jivaka.” Finally, the word jīvaka may also be formed by apply- ing to the root jiv the suffix -aka in the sense of “blessing.” In this case jivaka means “the person who confers blessings on the living entities.” ANUCCHEDA 6 QUALIFICATIONS OF THE READER यः श्रीकृष्णपदाम्भोज-भजनैकाभिलाषवान् । तेनैव दृश्यतामेतदन्यस्मै शपथोऽर्पितः ॥ ६ ॥ yaḥ śri-kṛṣṇa-padambhoja-bhajanaikābhiläṣa-vän tenaiva dṛśyatâm etad anyasmai sapatho ‘rpitaḥ 2 " . 12 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha This book may be studied only by one whose sole desire is to serve the lotus feet of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa. I warn everyone else not to read it. Commentary Here Śrila Jīva Gosvami defines the adhikari, the person qualified to read Sri Sat-Sandarbha. Śrī Jīva is writing only for those whose sole desire is to serve Lord Kṛṣṇa. He bars all others from reading this work. What prompts him to do so is not fear that critics will find defects in his work; since he is working under the order and supervision of learned Vaisnavas, namely, Rūpa and Sanatana Gosvāmis; and since all his statements will be based on scripture, there is no question of defects. Rather, it is out of compassion that Jiva Gosvāmi says that the Sat-Sandarbha “may be studied only by one whose sole desire is to serve the lotus feet of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa.” His intention is to prohibit those who have no desire to engage in devotional service from reading his book. In the Sat-Sandarbhas he intends to establish the glo- ries of the Supreme Personality of Godhead with great logic and force and with scriptural reference. Such a book will dis- please those who have no desire to be devoted to the Su- preme Lord, since they cannot tolerate His glorification. If such persons happen to read this book, they may become offensive toward the Lord and His devotees and thus bring hellish miser- ies upon themselves. For their benefit, therefore, Śrī Jiva pens this statement forbidding them to read Śrī Sat-Sandarbha. In the Bhagavad-gītā (18.67), Lord Kṛṣṇa imposed a simi- lar restriction on Arjuna: idam te natapaskāya nåbhaktāya kadācana na căsuśruṣave vācyam na ca mám yo ‘bhyasuyati This confidential knowledge may never be explained to those who are not austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of Me. In this anuccheda the word eka (only) significantly means that even among those desiring to render service to LordAnuccheda 7 13 Kṛṣṇa, none should harbor personal ambition in his heart and misuse Śri Sat-Sandarbha for gaining profit, adoration, and distinction. At the same time, here Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi hints that in Sri Sat-Sandarbha he will establish service to Lord Kṛṣṇa as the supreme goal of life. ANUCCHEDA 7 HOMAGE TO THE TEACHERS अथ नत्वा मन्त्रगुरून् गुरून् भागवतार्थदान् । श्रीभागवत-सन्दर्भं सन्दर्भं वश्मि लेखितुम् ॥ ७ ॥ atha natvå mantra-gurun gurun bhāgavatārtha-dān śri-bhāgavata-sandarbham sandarbham vasmi lekhitum After offering obeisances to my initiating spiritual master and to those spiritual masters who taught me the meaning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, I wish to write this book called Śrī Bhagavata-Sandarbha. Commentary After showing reverence to his teachers, Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi names his book. He calls it Śrī Bhāgavata-Sandarbha be- cause he will explain the essential meanings of the Bhāgavata Purâṇa (Śrīmad-Bhagavatam). To explain the term sandarbha, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa quotes a well- known verse of unknown origin: güdhárthasya prakāśaś ca saroktiḥ śresthata tatha nänártha-vatvam vedyatvam sandarbhaḥ kathyate budhaiḥ A literary work that explains the confidential aspects of a subject, incorporates its essence, explains the superiority of the subject, gives its various meanings, and is worth learning is called a Sandarbha by learned scholars. The Bhagavata-Sandarbha is also called the Sat-Sandarbha because it contains six books-the Tattva-, Bhagavat-, Paramåtma-, Krsna-, Bhakti-, and Priti-Sandarbhas. Each 1 14 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Sandarbha is an analysis of the subject stated in the title, and each is based on Śrimad-Bhāgavatam. Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi also wrote a verse-by-verse commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam called the Krama-Sandarbha, and this is sometimes referred to as the seventh Sandarbha. Both Vaisnavas and others have written many essays and treatises on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, but among them these six works stand as the most exhaustive exposition of the Bhāgavata philosophy. His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada joined all the other ācāryas coming in succession after Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi in praising him as the greatest Vaiṣṇava philosopher of all time. Srila Prabhupada called Śni Sat-Sandarbha “the last word on the teachings of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu.” Thus it is clear that Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi is perfectly justified in giving the title Sandarbha to his work. In the next anuccheda, while giving blessings to his read- ers, Jiva Gosvāmi indirectly explains the subject matter of the Sat-Sandarbha, the process presented in the book by which one can attain the goal, and the goal itself. ANUCCHEDA 8 THE ESSENCE OF SRI SAT-SANDARBHA यस्य ब्रह्मेति संज्ञां क्वचिदपि निगमे याति चिन्मात्रसत्ता - प्यंशो यस्यांशकैः स्वैर्विभवति वशयन्नेव मायां पुमांश्च । एकं यस्यैव रूपं विलसति परमव्योम्नि नारायणाख्यं स श्रीकृष्णो विधत्तां स्वयमिह भगवान् प्रेम तत्पादभाजां ॥ ८ ॥ yasya brahmeti samjñām kvacid api nigame yāti cin-mātra- sattȧpy / amso yasyāṁśakaiḥ svair vibhavati vasayann eva māyām pumāmś ca / ekam yasyaiva rūpar vilasati parama-vyomni nārāyaṇākhyam / sa śrī-kṛṣṇo vidhattām svayam iha bhagavan prema tat-pāda-bhājām The feature of Lord Kṛṣṇa as pure consciousness, without any manifest characteristics, is called Brahman in some portions of the Vedas. In another feature He expands as the i Anuccheda 8 15 Purusa, who controls the external potency, Māyā, by His many plenary portions. In yet another of His principal forms He is present as Nārāyaṇa in the spiritual sky, Vaikuntha. May that Lord Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, be- stow love for Himself on those who worship His lotus feet in this world. Commentary Although one without a second, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa has limitless expansions. His feature that manifests as dazzling èffulgence, without form, qualities, or opulences, is called Brahman in some sections of the Vedas. Some transcen- dentalists worship this undivided, formless impersonal as- pect of the Absolute, considering it the ultimate reality. This feature of the Lord is described in the Taittiriya Upanisad (2.1.1), satyam jñānam anantam brahma. “Brahman is eter- nal, conscious, and unlimited.” Another aspect of Lord Kṛṣṇa is His controlling feature called the Purusa. There are three such Puruşa expansions. The first is Kāraṇodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, who lies in the Causal Ocean and is the Supersoul of the entire material creation. The Lord has only one Karaṇodakaśāyi Viṣṇu expansion, also called Maha-Viṣṇu. He is the reservior of all living enti- ties. By His glance He impregnates the material energy with souls and thus activates the otherwise inert material energy. The second Puruşa is Garbhodakaśāyi Viṣṇu, the Supersoul expansion within each of the innumerable universes. He is the source of the various filā-avatāras, the Supreme Lord’s pastime incarnations. The Supreme Lord delegates the re- sponsibility for creating this universe to Lord Brahma, who was born from the lotus flower growing from Garbhodakaśāyi Vişnu’s lotus navel. The third Puruşa is Kṣirodakaśǎyi Vişņu, who expands as the Supersoul in all life forms and indeed within every atom. These three Puruṣāvatāras are also called Sankarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha, respectively. Kṛṣṇa controls the material nature through the agency of His Purusa incarnations. 16 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha A summary description of these three Purusa manifesta- tions is given in the Satvata-tantra (1.30): vişnos tu triņi rūpāņi puruṣākhyāny atho viduḥ ekam tu mahataḥ srastr dvitiyam tv anda-samsthitam trtiyam sarva-bhūta-stham tāni jñātvâ vimucyate Lord Visnu has three forms called Purusas. The first, Mahā-Visnu, is the creator of the total material energy [mahat-tattva], the second is Garbhodakaśāyi Vişņu, who is situated within each universe, and the third is Kṣirodakaśāyi, who lives in the heart of every living being. He who knows these three is liberated from the clutches of Māyā. Beyond the material creation is the spiritual sky, or para- vyoma, which contains the various spiritual planets, called Vaikunthas. The chief Deity in the spiritual sky is Lord Nārāyaṇa, a vilása expansion of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa. The Laghu- bhāgavatāmṛta (1.15) defines a vilása form as follows: svarupam anyākāram yat tasya bhāti vilāsataḥ prayeṇātma-samaṁ śaktyā sa vilāso nigadyate When the Lord expands into a form that appears different from His original form but has almost all His original qualities, that form is called a vilåsa expansion. Lord Krsna in His two-handed form is svayam bhagavan, the original Personality of Godhead. This svayam-rupa is described in the Laghu-bhagavatāmṛta (1.12), ananyāpekşi yad rupam svayam-rupaḥ sa ucyate. “That form of the Su- preme Lord which is not a dependent expansion of some other form is called svayam-rupa, a self-sufficient form. The Lord’s svayam-rupa is grounded in itself and is the basis of all other forms. It is completely independent, second to no other form. In Sri Krsna-Sandarbha Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi will explain all this in greater detail. Here he briefly describes the essence of Śrimad-Bhāgavatam, giving us a seed that he will cultivate until it gradually grows into the tree of Śri Bhāgavata-Sandarbha. Words have an integral relationship with their meaning, or reference, and in Sanskrit linguistics this relationship is Anuccheda 9 17 called vācya-vācaka-sambandha. Similarly, a book has an integral relationship with its subject through the meanings of the words that constitute it. In the present anuccheda the phrase sa kṛṣṇaḥ indicates that svayam bhagavan, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, is the subject (visaya) of the Sat-Sandarbhas. By this phrase Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī establishes the vâcya-vācaka- sambandha between his book and the Supreme Personal- ity of Godhead, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa. The process (abhidheya) for realizing Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is devotional service to His lotus feet, a fact indicated by the words tat-pada-bhājām. The purpose (prayojana) of this pro- cess is to attain love of Godhead, indicated by the word prema. In this way Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi here alludes to the four introductory topics indicated in Anuccheda 1-the sub- ject of the book, the book’s relationship with the subject, the process of achieving the final purpose, and the final pur- pose itself. In the next anuccheda he explicitly states these four topics and explains the means of acquiring valid knowl- edge about them. ANUCCHEDA 9 VAISNAVA EPISTEMOLOGY अथैवं सूचितानां श्रीकृष्णतद्वाच्यवाचकतालक्षण-सम्बन्ध- तद्भजनलक्षणविधेय-सपर्य्यायाभिधेय-तत्प्रेमलक्षण- प्रयोजनाख्यानामर्थानां निर्णयाय तावत् प्रमाणं निर्णीयते । तत्र पुरुषस्य भ्रमादिदोष-चतुष्टयदुष्टत्वात् सुतरामलौकिकाचिन्त्यस्वभाववस्तुस्पर्शायोग्यत्वाच्च तत्प्रत्यक्षादीन्यपि सदोषाणि ॥ ९ ॥ athaivam súcitānāṁ śrī-kṛṣṇa-tad-vacya-vācakata- lakṣaṇa-sambandha-tad-bhajana-lakṣaṇa-vidheya- saparyāyābhidheya-tat-prema-lakṣaṇa-prayojanākhyānām arthānāṁ nimayāya tāvat pramāṇam nimiyate. tatra purusasya bhramādi-dosa-catustaya-duṣṭatvāt sutarām alaukikācintya-svabhāva-vastu-sparśayogyatvāc ca tat- pratyakṣādiny api sa-dosani. 18 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Four topics were suggested in the previous anuccheda: Śrī Kṛṣṇa as the subject (viṣaya), the connection between Him and the words describing Him (sambandha), service to Him as the recommended process (abhidheya or vidheya), and pure love for Him as the ultimate goal (prayojana). Now to understand these we should first determine the means of acquiring valid knowledge. Human beings are bound to have four defects: they are subject to delusion, they make mistakes, they tend to cheat, and they have imperfect senses. Thus their direct percep- tion, inference, and so forth are deficient, especially since these means of acquiring knowing cannot help them gain access to the inconceivable spiritual reality. Commentary Without knowing the purpose of a book, a prospective reader is unlikely to take a keen interest in it. Therefore in the previ- ous anuccheda Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi outlines his subject and purpose. Now, with the phrase tad-bhajana-lakṣaṇa-vidheya, he states that devotional service as explained in the Vedic scriptures is the process for achieving the final goal, prema- bhakti. But before one practices any important process he should have correct knowledge about it. Thus the need arises for discerning the various means of acquiring valid knowl- edge. This portion of Tattva-Sandarbha therefore deals with Vaisnava epistemology. Jiva Gosvāmī first establishes the validity of his means of acquiring knowledge before analyz- ing the four topics mentioned in the previous anuccheda. In English the word “knowledge” means valid knowledge. In Sanskrit, valid knowledge is called pramā, and a means of acquiring it is called pramāṇa. It can also mean “proof,” “evi- dence,” or “authority.”” Jiva Gosvāmi is concerned with establishing an infallible means of acquiring knowledge. Ordinary human beings use various means to acquire knowledge, but none of them are infallible. This fallibility is due to the four inherent defects Anuccheda 9 19 found in all ordinary humans. Without exception every ordi- nary human being has the tendency to be deluded (bhrama), to make mistakes (pramāda), has a cheating propensity (vipralipsā), and has imperfect senses (karaṇāpāṭava). Bhrama, or mistaken identification, is of two kinds. The first is identification of the body as the self. Everyone is born with this delusion, but how completely we identify with our body depends on our attachment to it. Because of this de- fect we mistake the temporary, miserable sense objects as permanent sources of pleasure. The second kind of delu- sion occurs when we think we perceive something that in fact is not present, as in the case of a mirage or hallucination. Pramāda, the second defect, is our tendency to make mistakes because of inattention. If our mind is not focused on a particular sense-the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, or skin-we do not get the knowledge it can supply. For ex- ample, we may sit through a lecture but miss portions of it because our mind is wandering. Because of this defect we tend to make mistakes. The third defect is vipralipsa, the propensity to cheat. Ma- terial conditioning causes us to falsely identify with the ma- terial body, which, being temporary, can never give us real happiness. But still out of delusion we seek happiness through sense gratification. When this fails to satisfy us, we take to cheating to improve our chances. Friends cheat friends, politicians cheat the public, and so on. Even in spiri- tual life a so-called guru will cheat his disciple by teaching some materialistic philosophy as the Absolute Truth; or an insincere disciple will try to cheat his guru by pretending to follow the guru’s orders when he’s not. This cheating pro- pensity manifests on all levels of material existence. The fourth defect is karaṇāpātava, imperfect senses. We have five perceptive senses-the eyes, ears, tongue, nose, and skin. These senses function only within a limited range. The human eye, for instance, can see light between infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths, but there are many other wave- lengths the eye cannot discern-radio waves, x-rays, and so on. Even within the visible range our eyes cannot see 20 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha clearly if the light is too bright or too dim, if the object is too far or too close, or if the eyes themselves are diseased. Upon analysis, each sense reveals a similar built-in limitation. The conclusion is that since these four defects make per- fectly reliable knowledge about material objects a rare achievement, perfect knowledge about the realm beyond our sensory inspection is altogether impossible. This premise is the cornerstone of Vedic epistemology. Of course, after ac- knowledging these four defects one will find the quest for a reliable pramāna to be an exacting challenge. Among India’s philosophical traditions there are a total of ten pramāņas, or means of acquiring valid knowledge. Each philosophical school recognizes a certain combination of these as valid and many present arguments to support its opinion. These ten traditional pramāņas, with the three most important listed last, are as follows:

1. Årsa: the statements of an authoritative sage or demi- god. There are many exceptional sages, such as Kapila, Gautama, and Pâtâñjali, who founded schools of philoso- phy. Naturally their opinions differ, and therefore the Mahabharata (Vana-parva 313.117) says, nāsāv ṛṣir yasya matam na bhinnam: “One is not considered a philosopher if his opinion does not differ from the opinions of other phi- losophers.” Since these philosophers are all profound think- ers, we take their utterances seriously, but an ordinary per- son can hardly determine which philospher’s opinion is con- clusive. For Vaiṣṇavas, the criterion for judging whether a particular ārṣa opinion is valid is whether it conforms to the śabdha pramāna (number 10 below).
2. Upamana: comparison. We can identify something about which we have no prior knowledge after it has been compared to a familiar object. Suppose we have seen an ordinary cow but never a gavaya (forest cow), and someone tells us that a gavaya resembles a cow. Then we may recog- nize a gavaya when we see one.
3. Arthȧpatti: presumption. This means we make an as- sumption based on a fact that is otherwise inexplicable. For Anuccheda 9 21 example, if we know that fat Devadatta does not eat during the day, we can safely assume he must eat at night. Other- wise his stoutness is inexplicable.
4. Abhāva: absence. Failure to perceive an object by the appropriate sense is considered perception of the absence of that object. For example, a book is a suitable object for visual perception, and the eye is the appropriate sense of perception. Thus when one does not see a book on an empty table one is experiencing the book’s absence. Such abhāva is classified as a separate category of perception because there is no actual contact between the sense instrument and the object, as there would be in ordinary sensory per- ception. What is perceived is the object’s absence.
5. Sambhava: inclusion. This pramana is based on com- mon experience that a larger quantity includes a smaller quantity. For example, if we know someone has one hun- dred dollars, we automatically know he has one dollar, five dollars, ten dollars, and so on. This kind of reasoning, based on the principle of inclusion, is called sambhava.
6. Aitihya: tradition. This pramāņa is applied when some accepted fact is known by common belief or tradition but the original source of that knowledge is unknown. For instance, there is a popular belief that the Pandavas built the Old Fort in New Delhi. There is no written proof or scriptural authority to support this belief, but it has been passed down for gen- erations to the present day and is universally accepted as corresponding to fact.
7. Cesta: gesture. This pramāṇa comes into play when one learns something from a knowledgeable person’s ges- tures or from symbols. For instance, we may make a “V” sign with our fingers to indicate victory, or a pujari may show the Deity mudras to convey certain messages.
8. Pratyakṣa: direct perception. Directly perceiving some- thing can be the means to either valid or invalid knowledge. But only that sense perception which leads to valid knowl- edge should be considered pramāņa. Sense perception is the principal means of acquiring knowledge in the material 22 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha world. Both theistic and atheistic philosophers accept pratyakṣa-pramaņa as one of the means to valid knowledge. Direct perception is of two types-external and internal. An external perception occurs when we acquire knowledge through the external senses. In an internal perception we acquire knowledge directly through the mind, as when we perceive emotions such as pain, pleasure, love, and hate. In the Bhagavad-gită (15.7) Lord Kṛṣṇa lists the mind as the sixth sense (manaḥ-sasthänindriyāņi). Because of our four inherent human defects, pratyakṣa is not always a reliable means of acquiring valid knowledge. Its scope is limited only to the present, since it cannot ex- tend into the past or future. Moreover, it is limited only to material things. Memory is not considered a pramāna be- cause it is only the recall of past experience. According to Śrila Jiva Gosvámi, however, perfect devotees who achieve direct perception of the Lord, His abode, and His associates through spiritual trance all have pure senses and have tran- scended the four defects. Their direct perception can ex- tend to even the past or future. For such persons, pratyakṣa is a reliable source of knowledge because their sense per- ception is completely pure. Lord Kṛṣṇa confirms this in the Ninth Chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā (9.2) when He says that “this knowledge leads to direct realization of transcendence by experience (pratyakṣävagamam).” And in the Sixth Chap- ter (Bg. 6.21) the Lord likewise assures Arjuna that in the state of transcendental trance, samadhi, a devotee acquires perfect knowledge through his purified intelligence and tran- scendental senses (buddhi-gráhyam atindriyam vetti). This experience of pure Vaisnavas is called vaidusya-pratyaksa, or mystic perception, and it is flawless.
9. Anumana: inference based on generalized experience. The word anumana literally means “knowing after” Based on repeated experience or authoritative verbal testimony, one arrives at some general principle, called vyapti (invari- able concomitance). This is the relation between a known ob- ject and an unknown object. One can then apply this principleAnuccheda 9 23 in specific cases to deduce unknown facts, just as when we deduce fire from the presence of smoke. Inference is of two kinds, for oneself and for others. An example of inference for oneself is the process of reasoning a person goes through when he repeatedly sees, in the kitchen and elsewhere, the concomitance between smoke and fire and arrives at the general principle “Wherever there’s smoke, there’s fire.” Then if he sees smoke hanging over a mountain in the distance, he may recall the principle and conclude, “There is a fire on the mountain.” Inference for others uses a five-step syllogistic formula. After arriving at an inferred conclusion for himself, a person uses this method to enable others to infer the same conclu- sion. The syllogistic format is as follows:
10. Proposition: There is a fire on the mountain.
11. Reason: Because there’s smoke.
12. General principle and example: Wherever there’s smoke, there’s fire, as in the kitchen.
13. Application: There is smoke over the mountain.
14. Conclusion: Therefore there is a fire on the mountain. If the observer mistakes clouds over the mountain for smoke or sees the smoke just after rain has extinguished the fire, his deduction that a fire is burning on the moun- tain will be wrong. If there is any error in perceiving the reason or any deviation in the universal generalization, the inference will be faulty and its conclusion unreliable. Like pratyaksa, therefore, anumana is not a foolproof means of acquiring knowledge.
15. Śabda: revealed knowledge. Śabda literally means sound, but as a pramāņa it refers to meaningful, articulate sound spoken or written by an apta-purușa, a trustworthy person, who is an authority on the matter in question. In its ultimate sense the term sabda refers to revealed knowledge about the transcendental reality that is reliable and free from defects. This kind of sabda differs from the language used in mundane transactions, called pauruşeya-sabda, and is not always reliable. For Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi, sabda-pramāṇa is restricted to the revealed knowledge of the Vedas. It is 24 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha called apauruşeya-sabda, revealed knowledge from a su- perhuman source. It originated from the Supreme Person- ality of Godhead and is received in disciplic succession through a bona fide guru. Apauruşeya-sabda is there- fore the perfect pramāṇa because it is free from the four defects. At present, people in general fail to accept the authority of apauruşeya-sabda-pramāṇa and doubt the very existence of a transcendental reality beyond the empirical world. Then there are others who accept the existence of such a reality, and may even accept the principle of hearing apauruseya- sabda-pramāṇa as a means of knowing about it, but unfor- tunately they also accept one or more pauruseya sources of śabda-pramāņa as apauruseya. Those who doubt any real- ity beyond the empirical world usually favor knowledge gained through their sensory experience. Yet like everyone else they constantly rely on knowledge imparted to them through sound. In our practical day-to-day life we depend on knowledge transmitted by parents, teachers, books, magazines, TV, radio, and numerous experts. Hearing from authorities enhances the extent of our learn- ing, and if we were to dispense with it we could not function in our complex modern society. Those who consider sen- sory experience superior to sabda forget that we gain most of our knowledge by hearing or reading, not by immediate perception. Direct experience is a great teacher, but it is nonetheless severely vitiated by the four human defects and also by the great expenditure of time it takes to acquire it. Moreover, we cannot directly experience past or future events. So even though those in the first group actually ac- cept the principle of sabda, because the sabda they accept imparts to them only empirical knowledge and is therefore all pauruseya, they remain skeptical about the existence of transcendental reality. Ultimately, no amount of raw sensory experience or pauruşeya-sabda can ever give us access to the transcendent, spiritual reality, for it is a simple fact that neither of these means is at all reliable for understanding transcendence. For that, apauruşeya-sabda-pramāņa is our 1 Anuccheda 9 25 only hope. This brings us to the second group those who accept both the existence of a transcendental reality and the principle of hearing from apauruşeya-sabda-pramâna to learn about it. For them, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi elaborately explains in the next anucchedas what constitutes genuine apauruşeya-sabda-pramăna. Unlike pratyaksa, sabda is not limited in scope only to the present time. It extends into the past and future as well. It is the most powerful tool for conveying knowledge from one person to another, especially if they are greatly separated by time or space, which is almost always the case when one wants to understand the spiritual realm. For all these rea- sons philosophers in virtually all of India’s orthodox tradi- tions accept apauruşeya-sabda-pramāņa as the flawless means for acquiring transcendental knowledge. Like other followers of India’s orthodox philosophical tra- ditions, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi, equates śabda-pramâna with the Vedas. The Vedas alone can deliver knowledge of the spiritual reality, which lies beyond our sensory perception. As explained in the next anuccheda, the Vedas are not hu- man creations; they are manifest from the Supreme Lord (vedo nārāyaṇaḥ sākṣāt; Bhag. 6.1.40), who is free from all defects. In Sarva-samvadini, while discussing the principle of sabda-pramāna, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi writes: tathapi bhrama-pramada-vipralipsā-karaṇāpāṭava-dosa- rahita-vacanātmakaḥ śabda eva můlam pramāņam. anyeṣām prayaḥ puruşa-bhramãdi-dosa-mayatayanyatha -pratiti-darśanena pramāṇam và tad-ābhāso veti purusair nirnetum aśakyatvät tasya tad-abhâvät. Although there are ten means of acquiring knowledge, sabda is the primary process because all other means are made unreliable by the four human defects. In all other processes it is difficult for an ordinary person to tell whether or not the knowledge gained is valid. Although different schools of philosophy accept various com- binations of the ten pramāņas, Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi follows in the footsteps of Madhvacārya by accepting pratyakṣa 26 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha (direct perception), anumana (inference), and sabda (re- vealed knowledge) as the only valid means of acquiring knowledge. Pratyakṣa and anumāna can serve as assis- tants to sabda, but whenever pratyakṣa and anumana con- tradict sabda, we should give preference to sabda-pramāṇa. Here are some scriptural references showing the impor- tance of these three pramāṇas: pratyakşam cănumānam ca săstram ca vividhāgamam trayam su-viditam karyam dharma-śuddhim abhipsatá A person serious about executing the responsibilities of human life should try to understand the three processes of direct perception, inference, and hearing the various Vedic scriptures. (Manu-samhita 12.105). pratyakṣeṇānumánena nigamenātma-saṁvidā ady-anta-vad asaj jñātvä niḥsango vicared iha [Lord Krsna said:] ‘By direct perception, logical deduction, scriptural testimony and personal experience one should know that this world has a beginning and an end and so is not the ultimate reality. Thus one should live in this world without attachment (Bhag. 11.28.9). In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.19.17) Lord Kṛṣṇa includes aitihya (tradition) with sense perception, inference, and sabda as a means of acquiring knowledge, but in fact aitihya is usually considered a kind of sabda, although not necessar- ily apauruşeya-sabda. By accepting only three of the ten pramāņas, Jiva Gosvāmi does not exclude the other seven. His opinion is that pratyaksa, anumāna, and sabda include the other seven pramāņas, as follows: comparison, presumption, inclusion, and gesture are kinds of anumana; absence is a kind of pratyaksa; and authoritative statements and tradition are kinds of sabda. Next, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi explains the process suitable for determining the visaya (the subject), the sambandha (the connection between the visaya and the words describing it), and the prayojana (the final goal). 27 ANUCCHEDA 10 THE VEDAS ARE THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE ततस्तानि न प्रमाणानीत्यनादिसिद्ध-सर्वपुरुषपरम्परासु सर्व्वलौकिकालौकिक-ज्ञान निदानत्वादप्राकृतवचनलक्षणो वेद एवास्माकं सर्वातीत-सर्वाश्रय-सर्वाचिन्त्याश्चर्य्यस्वभावं वस्तु विविदिषर्ता प्रमाणम् ॥ १० ॥ tatas tāni na pramāṇānīty anādi-siddha-sarva-purusa- paramparāsu sarva-laukikālaukika-jñāna-nidānatvād aprākṛta-vacana-lakṣano veda evāsmākam sarvātīta- sarvāśraya-sarvăcintyāścarya-svabhāvaṁ vastu vividisatām pramāṇam. Consequently, for us who are inquisitive about that which is beyond everything, yet the support of everything-which is most inconceivable and wondrous in nature-direct percep- tion, inference, and so on are not suitable means of gaining knowledge. For this purpose the only suitable means is the Vedas, the transcendental words that are existing without beginning. They are the source of all mundane and spiritual knowledge and have been passed down in parampara. COMMENTARY As already noted, direct perception and inference depend on sense perception, which is limited only to empirical ob- jects and vitiated by the four human defects. Thus direct perception and inference are inadequate by themselves for completely understanding anything beyond our senses. By tracing the chain of causes in material creation, we can infer that something exists beyond our sense perception, but in- ference can take us no further, leaving us unable to identify it; nor can inference yield valid knowledge about abhidheya, the process for realizing it. We can acquire such knowledge only from revealed scrip- ture, the Vedas, which come from the Supreme Lord (vedo 28 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha nārāyaṇa sākṣāt) and so are free from the four defects of human beings. The Vedas appeared from the Supreme Lord at the dawn of creation, a fact confirmed in the Svetasvatara Upanisad (6.8): yo brahmaṇam vidadhāti pūrvam yo vai vedāmś ca prahinoti tasmai. “That Supreme Lord created Brahmȧ at the beginning of creation and gave him the Vedas.” The term anádi-siddha means not created but existing with- out a beginning. As used in this anuccheda, it means that the Vedas were not written at a particular date but exist eter- nally, like the Lord. They first manifested in this universe within the heart of Lord Brahma, the oldest created being: tene brahma hṛdā ya adi-kavaye (Bhag. 1.1.1); then they were handed down through disciplic succession. The Vedas pro- vide both material and spiritual knowledge. Knowledge about such common phenomena as the trees, water, land, and sky originally came from the Vedas, along with knowledge of the divisions of duties for various people according to their psycho-physical natures. As the Manu-samhitá (1.21) states: sarvesām tu sa nāmāni karmani ca prthak pṛthak veda-sabdebhya evadau pṛthak-samsthāś ca nirmame Lord Brahmā learned the names of various objects and the duties of various classes of people from the words of the Vedas, and thus he could propagate the manifest divisions of names and duties. At the beginning of the creation, knowledge about various arts such as music, dance, singing, sculpture, science, en- gineering, and medicine was obtained from the Vedas. The whole human culture was based on Vedic knowledge. Over time, different cultures and languages developed that ob- scured the original Vedic culture. The Vedas (sabda-pramāna) are the only effective means for acquiring transcendental knowledge. The Vedas inform us about the soul’s existence beyond the body, about the planets of the spiritual world, and about the Supreme Lord, His pastimes, and other matters. All these subjects are be- yond the reach of our sensory and mental faculties. Phi- losophers such as the Buddhists, who do not accept the Anuccheda 10 29 Vedas, cannot justifiably say anything positive about tran- scendence, let alone the way to attain it without sabda. Sabda-pramāṇa is so important that although Vaiṣṇavas count Lord Buddha among the incarnations of the Lord on the strength of Vedic testimony, they reject His philosophy because it is not based on sabda-pramāna. All orthodox schools of philosophy in India, whether mo- nistic or dualistic, consider the Vedas apauruseya, not writ- ten by any mortal being. Many modern scholars, however, dispute the divine origin of the Vedas. They suggest various dates for the composition of the Vedas, and while most of them agree that the Vedas were composed before 1,500 B.C., they disagree about the exact time of their composi- tion. They have yet to arrive at a definitive conclusion. Here Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī says that the Vedas are beginningless and the source of various kinds of knowledge coming down through many schools of thought since time immemorial. The phrase sarva-purusa, “all persons" indicates that the knowledge was passed on not only by human be- ings but also by superhuman beings, such as the demigods and divine sages. These traditions of thought all originate with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is infallible in all respects and thus completely untainted by the tour human defects. Moreover, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi has already shown (in Anuccheda 9) how unreliable are the alternatives to the Vedic authority. If, as he has established, only apauruşeya-sabda can give access to transcendental real- ity, how could the Vedas then have been written or compiled by human beings? If Jiva Gosvāmi allowed that human au- thors composed the Vedas, he would be contradicting his previous dismissal of human knowledge as imperfect. One may argue that the names of the authors of the Vedas have been forgotten over time and thus it is not logi- cal to demand that the Vedas are of divine origin. This argu- ment is weak, because the Vedas have been handed down through the system of disciplic succession from antiquity to the present. The members of the upper classes, called dvijas, traditionally belong to a particular branch of the Vedas. When 30 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha studying their own branch they would learn the historical data specifically related to it. Even today, though the study of the Vedas has declined, people still know the details about their śäkhã, or branch, of the Vedas, the name of the sage originally in charge of it, and so on. Thus if the Vedas had human authors, their names would have been handed down and remembered. On the contrary, from the works of philosophers like Kumārila Bhatta it is understood that the Vedas are not hu- man compositions. Indologists accept that Kumārila lived in the sixth century A.D. At that time Vedic culture still flour- ished in India, along with the system of disciplic succession. But even then no author was ascribed to the Vedas. One may again argue that the author of the Vedas has been forgotten because it served no purpose to remember him. This is also a weak argument, since remembering the author of the Vedas is not useless. As stated above, white engaged in Vedic studies or sacrifices one recites the names of his sākhā (branch), gotra (lineage), pravara (subdivision), and so on. If the sages who propounded the various branches are remembered, why then neglect to remember the author? Of course, the author is not at all forgotten, be- cause all orthodox Vedic scholars know Him to be the Su- preme Personality of Godhead. Those scholars who contest the apauruşeya origin of the Vedas, claiming that they are human compilations, have no conclusive proof to back up their claim. Refusing to con- sider the Vedas’ own statements about their origin and pur- pose, these scholars merely assume that the Vedas are not authoritative and speculate about their true origin. Their motive is clear, for accepting the Vedic version would put an end to the speculative philosophical tradition; it would oblige them to accept the Vedic description of ultimate reality. On account of being too attached to the speculative, or ascend- ing, method of knowledge, however, such scholars and phi- losophers rather insist that the Vedas are of human origin, despite their inability to produce any proof. Indeed, the theory that the Vedas have a human author is a recent development Anuccheda 10 31 advocated by persons who do not come in disciplic succes- sion. They were mostly outsiders who refused to believe that India had anything important to offer the world in the realm of philosophy and who had their own motive for minimizing the Vedic traditions-namely, their eagerness to convert in- dia to Christianity. They certainly were not impartial judges of the Vedas’ origin. For lack of any definitive proof, therefore, and in light of the many reasonable arguments for the Vedas’ divine ori- gin, we should reject the possibility of human authorship. As demonstrated in the previous anuccheda, the senses of humans cannot approach an inconceivable object, and thus it is not even theoretically possible that the Vedas could have been composed by human beings. In addition, great scholars and saints like Śankarācārya, Madhvācārya, Rāmānujācārya, Kumārila Bhatta, and Rūpa Gosvāmī accepted the Vedas as apauruşeya and eternal. These exalted authorities are famed for their renunciation, knowledge, and selflessness. Contemporary mundane schol- ars who contest the divine origin of the Vedas naturally fail to place their faith in the opinions of these authorities, but such materialistic scholars are not free from ulterior motives, nor do their character and conduct compare favorably with those of the great saintly ācāryas. Another consideration, and an important one, is that the Vedas themselves repeatedly enjoin that one who wants to understand spiritual knowledge must first approach a guru in disciplic succession. Vedic knowledge is verifiable; it is not just a collection of abstract ideas. But to realize the truth of Vedic knowledge one must approach a bona fide guru. Mundane scholars, however, tend to be proud of their text- book knowledge and flout this requirement, all the while considering themselves authorities on Vedic knowledge. In reality, by not applying themselves to this knowledge in the prescribed way they ensure that the door to its mysteries will ever remain locked for them. The attempts of these hapless scholars to understand the Vedas without joining an autho- rized disciplic succession are like someone’s trying to taste 32 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha honey by licking the outside of a honey-filled jar. Their labor is futile, and their analysis and conclusions are useless. By contrast, the great Vaiṣṇava âcāryas all became Vedic authorities by virtue of their scrupulously following the in- junction to surrender to a guru coming in disciplic succes- sion. As far as motive and character, therefore, the evidence weighs heavily in favor of the saintly ācāryas. In any case, a seriously interested person can always take up the Vedic process himself and personally verify the Vedic conclusions. Granted, this requires some effort, and it is of course much easier to offer glib speculations denying the Vedas’ author- ity than to discipline oneself and follow their instructions. Ultimately, however, the Vedas’ scholarly detractors can never prove their claims. And even if someone proposes that just as modern sci- ence is evolving, the Vedas also evolved over a period of time, then the question arises, why in recorded history have people stopped making further refinements in the Vedas? If the Vedas indeed have a human source, they should have been revised and improved over time, and new, improved versions should be available; but this is not the case. Rather, North or South, East or West, the same standard readings of the Vedas are found, and no older or newer versions are seen anywhere. The Vedic saints have developed a meticu- lous system for protecting the word order of the Vedic texts. Changing even a single syllable is considered criminal. Thus the Vedas are rightly called śruti, or that which is heard from the guru unchanged, with proper intonation and accent of the syllables. The Vedas are unique. Can one imagine that in a par- ticular field of science or art we will reach the apex in knowledge and produce one standard book accepted by all, making all other books in that field obsolete? Is it conceivable that no one will make any further changes or additions to such a book, and that this book will become worshipable to the people interested in that field? The reasonable, unbiased answer is no, and yet this is precisely the case with the Vedas, for they are free of defects, having emanated from the perfectAnuccheda 10 33 source, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And if some- one says yes, then there is no reason for debate over the authority of the Vedas. In addition to the spiritual knowledge they contain, the Vedic literature has references to many modern scientific achievements. The Vedas have sections on astronomy, medi- cine, yoga, music, drama, dance, algebra, civil engineering, and so on. The list is long indeed. These are all arts and sciences that were practiced in India centuries before the dawn of their modern counterparts. His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada writes in his intro- duction to Śrimad-Bhāgavatam, “The authority of the Vedas is unchallengeable and stands without any question of doubt. The conchshell and cowdung are the bone and stool of two living beings. But because they have been recommended by the Vedas as pure, people accept them as such because of the authority of the Vedas.” It has been proven by scien- tific experiment that cow dung is antiseptic and medicinal. It would be simplistic, therefore, to brush aside the Vedas as manmade. Had this been the case, renowned thinkers and powerful logicians like Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi and Srila Madhvācārya would have taken no stock in them. Still one may question the eternal nature of the Vedas since the only evidence in support comes from the Vedas themselves. In logic, citing evidence that relies on itself for proof of legitimacy is called circular reasoning and is unac- ceptable. The Vedas may thus appear tainted with this de- fect of svāśraya, or begging the question, relying on them- selves to establish their own authority. Circular reasoning would be a serious defect, but a closer look shows that the Vedas are an exception to this fallacy. That the Vedas establish their own authority is not a defect; rather it is logical and sensible. It simply affirms their abso- lute, transcendental nature, since if some other source were needed to confirm the authority of the Vedas, the authority of that new source would surpass that of the Vedas. In such a case an inquisitive person would be obliged to discard the Vedas and begin all over again analyzing the new source’s 34 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha authenticity. Before long this new source would need confir- mation from yet another source. This could go on ad infinitum. But the absence of such a superior source for confirmation shows that the authority of the Vedas as apauruşeya-sabda- pramāna is final. Logically, therefore, no other pramáṇa can substantiate the Vedas. And that is why the Vedas are traditionally ac- cepted as “mother.” When a person wants to know who his father is, he cannot find out by direct perception, inference, or deduction. To know the identity of one’s father one has to accept his mother’s testimony. We similarly have to accept the revealed knowledge of the Vedas to learn about the re- ality beyond our sensory and intellectual power. The theories advanced by scholars who surmise the Vedas to be of mundane origin are unreliable and unten- able because such scholars have not studied the Vedas in a bona fide disciplic succession. Scholars who are plagued by the four human defects and impelled by ulterior motives- desires for degrees, reputation, research funding, and the like-are checked by divine arrangement from gaining real insight into the Vedas. These scholars will readily admit that to understand any complex material subject one needs the help of experts in that field, but somehow they reject the necessity of a bona fide guru for understanding the Vedas. They do not know that in the case of Vedic literature, sub- mission to a guru is an absolute requirement. This prerequi- site serves as a kind of password protecting the Vedas from insincere persons who would try to exploit or refute them. In the Bhagavad-gītā (7.25) the Supreme Lord affirms: näham prakāśaḥ sarvasya yoga-maya-samavṛtaḥ mūḍho ‘yam nabhijānāti loko mām ajam avyayam I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My Yogamāyā, and therefore they do not know that I am unborn and infallible. This statement is relevant both when the Lord comes to this world in person and when He reveals Himself in scripture. The Lord has given the conditioned souls the method by Anuccheda 11 35 which they can approach Him, and that method begins with taking knowledge from a bona fide disciplic succession. Those unwilling to thus qualify themselves can have no real access to Him, even if they study the Vedas on their own for many lifetimes. Nobody can become a surgeon by merely studying books on the subject. In summary, owing to the absence of any conclusive proof of the Vedas’ being authored by a mortal being, by the logic. known as the law of the remainder (parisesya-nyaya), on the authority of the great ācāryas and saints coming in the bona fide disciplic successions, and ultimately by accepting the tes- timony of the Vedas themselves, we must conclude that the Vedas exist eternally and are an infallible source of knowledge. Next, Srila Jiva Gosvāmi shows that inference cannot be an independent means for understanding the Absolute Truth. ANUCCHEDA 11 THE AUTHORITY OF THE VEDAS तच्चानुमतं " तर्काप्रतिष्ठानात्” [ ब्र.सू. २.१.११] इत्यादौ, “अचिन्तयाः खलु ये भावा न तांस्तर्केण योजयेत्” [म.भाभी.प, ५.२२] इत्यादौ, “शास्त्रयोनित्वात्" [ब्र.सू. १.१.३] इत्यादौ, “श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात्” [ब्र.सू. २.१.२७] इत्यादौ, “पितृ देव - मनुष्याणां वेदश्चक्षुस्तवेश्वर । श्रेयस्त्वनुपलब्धेऽर्थे सध्य-साधनयोरपि " [ भा. ११.२० ४] इत्यादौ च ॥ ११ ॥ tac cănumatam tarkåpratiṣṭhānād ity-âdau, acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāms tarkeṇa yojayed ity-ädau, śȧstra- yonitvād ity-adau, śrutes tu sabda-mulatvād ity-ǎdau, pitr-deva-manuṣyānāṁ vedas cakṣus tavesvara śreyas tv anupalabdhe ‘rthe sadhya-sadhanayor api ity-adau ca. The following scriptural statements confirm this conclusion [Anuccheda 10]: 36 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha
16. “Logic cannot provide final proof of anything” (Vedanta- sútra 2.1.11).
17. “One should not use logic to try to understand what is inconceivable” (Mahabharata, Bhisma-parva 5.22).
18. “Scriptures are the source of knowledge of the Abso- lute Truth” (Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.3).
19. “This is confirmed by the Vedas because they are the source of knowledge of the Absolute Truth” (Vedanta-sūtra 2.1.27).
20. “O Lord, Your Veda is the supreme guide for the fore- fathers, demigods, and human beings. By it they can under- stand the objects beyond sense perception, along with the highest goal of life and the means for attaining it.” (Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam 11.20.4). COMMENTARY Using scriptural evidence, Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi here confirms the conclusion about inferential knowledge he reached in the previous anuccheda. Having argued that logic is not the most reliable means of acquiring knowledge, and having used logic to establish this conclusion, he now presents appropriate Vedic references as the final proof. Again, one should not think that Jiva Gosvāmi is guilty of circular rea- soning because he resorts to the Vedas themselves to con- firm an assertion about the Vedas. The Vedas are self- luminious like the sun. Just as the sun illuminates itself, in- dependent of any other source of light, so only the Vedas can establish themselves as infallible pramāna. As explained in the previous anuccheda, this self-confirmation is not a defect in the process of sabda-pramāṇa, or verbal revela- tion, because if the Vedas indeed convey knowledge of the Absolute Truth, we can justifiably look to the Vedas them- selves to confirm their own authority. Those who have ap- proached Vedic knowledge in the prescribed way have cor- roborated by their own realization that the Vedas do describe the Absolute Truth. Another consideration is that our objective is to know the inconceivable reality, and after analyzing all sources of knowledge we find that no source but the Vedas affords us Anuccheda 11 37 the opportunity for achieving this objective. If all the best logicians, scientists, and philosophers of the past, present, and future, were to assemble and deliberate together, they would be unable to shed any light on the nature of transcen- dence. Any theory this assembly might propose would only be a subjective speculation, liable to endless refutations and counter-refutations. Understanding the futility of such a speculative approach, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi has gone directly to the heart of the matter by citing Vedic authority. Śrila Vyǎsadeva presented the conclusion of all the Vedas in concise aphorisms called the Vedanta-sutras, or the Brahma-sūtras. Sūtra 2.1.11 is tarkapratisthānāt: “Reason has no sure basis.” In other words, logic has no absolute stance because its results are always subject to revision. Both deductive and inductive reasoning are based on hu- man perception and intelligence, which are both unreliable owing to the four inherent human defects mentioned earlier. And since different people have varying capacities and types of intelligence, the opinions they derive from their own in- telligence also vary. Logical reasoning therefore has its limi- tations; it is inconclusive in transcendental matters except when supported by the scriptures. In Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.1.46), Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmi quotes a verse from Bharthari’s Vākya-padiya (1.34) to this effect: yatnenápadito py arthaḥ kuśalair anumatṛbhih abhiyukta-tarair anyair anyathaivopapādyate Expert logicians may establish their proofs with great endeavor, but these proofs will simply be contradicted by stronger logicians establishing newer conclusions. The truth of this statement is confirmed in the fields of mod- ern science and philosophy, where there is endless theoriz- ing about the origins of the universe and the meaning of life. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī also cites the Mahabharata’s state- ment that because logic is limited one should not use it to try to understand inconceivable realities. For example, by mere logic one will certainly fail to understand such child- hood pastimes of Lord Kṛṣṇa as His dāma-bandhana-līlā, in 38 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha which His mother bound Him with rope. When mother Yasoda tried to tie Kṛṣṇa to a grinding mortar, her rope was too short. She was amazed to find that when she joined all her rope together it was still too short. Yet the black thread around Krsna’s waist did not break, nor did His waist become in- flated. Such inconceivable behavior by the Absolute Person is entirely beyond the reach of all logical faculties; one can understand it only by accepting the authority of Vedic testi- mony, śabda-pramāṇa. Still, although logical reasoning is not a reliable inde- pendent method in the quest for knowledge of the absolute, this does not mean all logic is useless. The very idea that logic is not fully reliable is itself known through the use of logic supported by scriptural references. We should certainly use reason in trying to understand the statements of the Vedas. The Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad (2.4.5) thus states, ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo maitreyi: “The Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realized, and so it should be heard about, reflected on, and deeply meditated on.” Here the word mantavyah refers to logical understanding. We should apply logic to properly understand the Vedic injunctions, but we should reject logic that runs counter to their conclusions. Mere logic can never supercede the opinions of the Vedas, which are free of the human defects. While discussing this topic in Sarva-samvadini, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi quotes the Kurma Purana: púrväparavirodhena ko ’nv artho bhimato bhavet ity ȧdyam ühanam tarkaḥ śuska-tarkam tu varjayet Understanding the meaning of a scriptural passage without contradicting the statements preceding and following it is called proper logic. However, one should abandon dry logic. We find excellent examples of dry logic among speculative philosophers. These thinkers generally use reason to prove a preconceived opinion, and in their stubborn determination they of course fail to maintain any objectivity. They disregard Anuccheda 12 39 scriptural injunctions that do not support their conclusions. They have no success in applying their method to ultimate matters, because no one can penetrate the inconceivable transcendental plane by any amount of speculation. The philosophical musings of such persons amount to no more than a futile mental exercise with no tangible result. No mat- ter how profound and mesmerizing their vision, it is inevi- table that some other powerful logician will eventually de- feat them. The Vedas enjoin, therefore, that those who seek the Absolute Truth should abandon dry logic, but not all logic. Indeed, in the Bhagavad-gită (10.32) Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself declares that logic aimed at understanding the Absolute as It is presented in scripture is one of His opulences: vādaḥ pravadatām aham. “Among logicians I am the conclusive truth.”” Thus Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī is right in accepting anumāna as one of the principal means of gaining valid knowledge. Jiva Gosvāmī next cites two more Brahma-sūtras (1.1.3 and 2.1.27), which state emphatically that one can under- stand the Absolute Truth only from the revealed scriptures. He then concludes by quoting Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to show that not only human beings but even superhumans like the demigods need help from the Vedas. Thus he emphasizes the need for everyone-humans, subhumans, and superhumans to rely on the Vedas as the flawless means for understanding the Absolute Truth. In the next anuccheda Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmī begins his demonstration that the Puranas are even more important for us than the Vedas. ANUCCHEDA 12.1 DIFFICULTIES IN STUDYING THE VEDAS तत्र च वेद- शब्दस्य सम्प्रति दुष्पारत्वाद्दुरधिगमार्थत्वाच्च तदर्थनिर्णायकानां मुनीनामपि परस्पर विरोधाद्वेदरूपो वेदार्थ- निर्णायकश्चेतिहास पुराणात्मकः शब्द एव विचारणीयः । तत्र च uì ai àzpocì Her-falea: Aisfa aggeengdu vafa सम्प्रति तस्यैव प्रमोत्पादकत्वं स्थितम् । 40 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha tatra ca veda-sabdasya samprati dusparatvād duradhigamarthatvac ca tad-artha-nimāyakānāṁ muninām api paraspara-virodhād veda-rūpo vedärtha- nimāyakaś cetihäsa-purāṇātmakaḥ sabda eva vicăraniyaḥ. tatra ca yo vá veda-sabdo natma-viditaḥ so ‘pi tad-drṣtyānumeya eveti samprati tasyaiva pramotpadakatvam sthitam. Because at present it is difficult to study the Vedas in their entirety it is difficult to understand their meaning-and be- cause the great thinkers who have commented on the Vedas interpret them in contradictory ways, we should therefore study only the Itihasas and Puranas, since they are Vedic in nature and are conclusive in determining the meaning of the Vedas. Moroever, with the help of the Itihasas and Purāņas we can infer the meaning of the unavailable por- tions of the Vedas. Thus at present only the Itihasas and Purānas are the appropriate sources of valid knowledge. ANUCCHEDA 12.2 तथाहि महाभारते मानवीये च- “इतिहास-पुराणाभ्यां वेदं समुपबृहंयेत् ।" [म.भा, आ. पर्वे, १.२६७] इति, “पूरणात् पुराणम्” इति चान्यत्र । न चावेदेन वेदस्य बृहणं सम्भवति, न ह्यपरिपूर्णस्य कनक-वलयस्य त्रपुणा पूरणं युज्यते । tathā hi mahābhārate mānaviye ca- itihāsa- purāṇābhyām vedam samupabṛmhayet iti, pūraṇāt purāṇam iti cânyatra. na câvedena vedasya bṛhaṇaṁ sambhavati na hy aparipūmasya kanaka-valayasya trapuṇā pūraṇam yujyate. This is why the Mahābhārata (Adi-parva 1.267) and Manu- samhita state, “One should complement one’s understand- ing of the Vedas with the help of the Itihāsas and Purānas.” And elsewhere it is stated, “The Puranas are called by that name because they complete.” It is not possible to “com- plete” or explain the meaning of the Vedas with something Anuccheda 12 41 that is not Vedic in nature, just as it is improper to finish an Incomplete gold bracelet with lead. ANUCCHEDA 12.3 ननु यदि वेद-शब्दः पुराणमितिहासञ्चोपादत्ते, तर्हि पुराणमन्यदन्वेषणीयम् । यदि तु न, न तर्हीतिहासपुराणयोरभेदो वेदेन । उच्यते विशिष्टैकार्थ- प्रतिपादक पद-कदम्बस्या- पौरुषेयत्वादभेदेऽपि स्वरक्रम-भेदाद्भेद-निर्देशोऽप्युपपद्यते । nanu yadi veda-sabdaḥ purāṇam itihāsaṁ copădatte tarhi purānam anyad anvesaniyam. yadi tu na, na tarhitihāsa- purāṇayor abhedo vedena. ucyate visiṣṭaikārtha- pratipădaka-pada-kadambasyāpauruṣeyatvād abhede ‘pi svara-krama-bhedād bheda-nirdeśo ‘py upapadyate. But, one might object, if the literatures we know as Itihāsas and Puranas are actually part of the Vedas, there must exist other literatures which go by the same name but are not part of the Vedas; otherwise the literatures we call Itihasas and Purānas cannot be accepted as nondifferent from the Vedas. To this we reply that the Itihāsas and Purāņas are nondifferent from the Vedas inasmuch as both kinds of lit- erature have no human author and present the same object of knowledge. Nonetheless, there is some difference be- tween them with regard to intonation and word order. ANUCCHEDA 12.4 ऋगादिभिः सममनयोरपौरुषेयत्वेनाभेदो माध्यन्दिन- श्रुतावेव व्यज्यते, – “ एवं वा अरेऽस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरस इतिहासः पुराणम्” [बु.आ. २.४.१०] इत्यादिना ॥ १२ ॥ rg-ādibhiḥ samam anayor apauruṣeyatvenābhedo mädhyandina-śrutav eva vyajyate-evam và are ‘sya 42 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha mahato bhūtasya niḥśvasitam etad yad rg-vedo yajur- vedaḥ sama-vedo tharvãngirasa itihasaḥ purâṇam ity-ādinā. The Madhyandina-śruti (Bṛhad-äranyaka Up. 2.4.10) implies the oneness of the Itihasas and Purāņas with the Ṛg and other Vedasin terms of the apauruşeya nature all these works share: ‘My dear Maitreyi, the Rg, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva Vedas, as well as the Itihāsas and Purāņas, all appear from the breathing of the Supreme Being." COMMENTARY

In the previous anucchedas Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi has estab- lished that the Vedas-Rg, Yajur, Sāma, and Atharva-con- stitute the valid means of acquiring knowledge about the Supreme. Here he points out the practical difficulties involved with studying them nowadays. The first difficulty is the un- availability of the complete text of the Vedas. Originally the Veda was one, and at the advent of the current age, Kali- yuga, Śrila Vyasadeva divided it into four: vyadadhād yajña- santatyai vedam ekam catur-vidham (Bhāg. 1.4.19). Then, as explained in the Kurma Purana (Půrva 52.19-20), Vyåsadeva’s followers further divided the four Vedas into 1,130 branches: eka-vimsati-bhedena rg-vedam kṛtavän pura śākhānāṁ tu satenaiva yajur-vedam athākarot säma-vedam sahasrena sākhānāṁ prabibheda sah atharváṇam atho vedam bibheda navakena tu Formerly the Ag Veda was divided into 21 branches, the Yajur Veda into 100 branches, the Săma Veda into 1,000 branches, and the Atharva Veda into 9 branches. Each of these branches has 4 subdivisions called Samhita, Brāhmaṇa, Aranyaka, and Upanisad. So all together the Vedas consist of 1,130 Samhitas, 1,130 Brāhmaṇas, 1,130 Aranyakas, and 1,130 Upanisads-a total of 4,520 titles. By the influence of time, however, many texts have been lost. At present only about 11 Samhitas, 18 Brāhmaṇas, 7Anuccheda 12 43 Aranyakas, and 220 Upanisads are available. This consti- tutes less than 6% of the original Vedas. The second difficulty one faces in trying to study the Vedas concerns their langauge. There are two varieties of Sanskrit-vaidika (Vedic) and laukika (worldly, or ordinary)- and only the first of these is found in the Vedas. A scholar of ordinary Sanskrit must learn extra vocabulary and rules of grammar, which require years of study, in order to under- stand Vedic Sanskrit. And even when the language of the Vedic verses is fathomed, their cryptic nature makes them impossible to decipher without hearing them explained by a bona fide guru in disciplic succession. Another difficulty: Even before studying the Vedas one must study their six corollaries, or “limbs,” called Vedāngas. These six limbs are sikṣā, the science of pronunciation; kalpa, the process of performing sacrifice; vyākaraṇa, the rules of grammar; nirukta, the meanings of difficult words used in the Vedas and their derivations; jyotisa, astronomy and as- trology; and chandas, Vedic meters. Each of these limbs is extensive and requires serious study. To further complicate matters with the advent of Kali- yuga human memory has grown weaker. In former times there were no books: a student could assimilate all knowl- edge from his spiritual master simply by hearing and remem- bering. But this is no longer possible. In this age the food, water, air, and even the very ether are all polluted, and all these factors have taken their toll on human memory, mak- ing it difficult to study even the available 6% of the Vedic texts, what to speak of the entire four Vedas and their branches. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi therefore concludes that al- though the four Vedas are perfect sabda-pramāṇa, in the present age it is impractical to study them thoroughly and thereby ascertain the Absolute Truth. As an alternative, someone may suggest that since only a few of the Vedas are available and even they are difficult to understand, why not simply study the Vedanta-sutra, the definitive summary of the Vedic conclusions? To this, Jiva Gosvāmī replies that various thinkers differ about the meaning 44 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha of the Vedanta-sūtra and so this method will likely lead to confusion. Furthermore, important thinkers like Gautama, Kapila, and Jaimini adhere to other philosophies, so why should we accept only Vedanta rather than one of their theories? For all these reasons we must admit that even with the help of the Vedas and Vedanta we will not be able to under- stand sambandha, abhidheya, and prayojana. To solve this dilemma, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi proposes an alternative: study of the Itihāsas and Purānas. The Itihasas and Puranas are easier to understand than the Vedas because they are written in laukika Sanskrit, which is spoken, rather than Vedic Sanskrit, which is not. Further- more, the esoteric meanings of the Vedas are more acces- sible in the Itihāsas and Purāņas because these works are narrated in story form. And whereas only the dvijas, the twice- born Vedic initiates, are supposed to study the Vedas, that restriction does not apply to the study of the Itihasas and Purāņas; anyone may read them. Even the Purāņas’ origi- nal speaker, Sūta Gosvāmi, was not a twice-born brahmana. The Itihāsas and Puranas convey the same conclusions as the Vedas, and since they come from the same source, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they are also free from the four human defects and thus qualify as perfect sabda- pramāṇa. The Itihasas and Purāṇas should therefore be considered as reliable as the four Vedas. But although the Itihāsas and Purāņas are one with the Vedas, this does not mean they are literally identical with them. Otherwise the words Itihasa and Purana would simply be names for certain special parts of the Vedas. The Vedas are written in Vedic Sanskrit, which necessarily involves three different tone accents-udatta (high), svarita (intermediate), and anudatta (low). In the Vedic language the meaning of a word can be changed if the accent is changed. We see an example of this in the history of the demon Vṛtra, who was created by the chanting of a mantra during a sacrifice. This demon was supposed to kill Indra, but during the sacrifice the priests pronounced the mantra indra-satro vivardhasva with the wrong accent. The result was just the opposite of what was intended-Indra killed Vrtråsura. Anuccheda 12 45 Another significant difference between the four Vedas and the Itihasas and Puranas is the sequence of particular words, which is rigidly fixed in the Vedas. No one should change even one syllable of the Vedic texts, which have maintained their primeval arrangement of words since the beginning of creation. Techniques have been devised, such as pada-pâtha, krama-pāṭha, ghana-pāṭha, and jaṭā-pāṭha, for keeping the word order intact. No rewording or rearrange- ment of words is allowed in the Vedas. By contrast, the Itihāsas and Purāṇas need not be so rigidly preserved; their exact wordings are allowed to vary in different yuga cycles. Because no special techniques are used to keep the word order of the Purānas and Itihāsas intact, we find slight dif- ferences in various editions. Śrila Vyȧsa compiled the Itihasa called Mahābhārata for people of this age specifically because they are not quali- fied to understand the Vedas. This is explained in Śrimad- Bhāgavatam (1.4.25): stri-śūdra-dvija-bandhūnām trayî na śruti-gocarā karma-śreyasi mūḍhānām śreya eva bhaved iha iti bhāratam âkhyānam kṛpayā muninā kṛtam Out of compassion, the sage thought it wise to do something that would enable those who were ignorant of how to act for their own welfare to achieve the ultimate goal of life. Thus He compiled the great historical narration called the Mahabharata for women, laborers, and friends of the twice-born because they do not have access to the Vedas. Śrila Jiva Gosvami says that the Puranas are so named be- cause they make the Vedas complete. Does he mean the Vedas are incomplete? No, but the Purāṇas are a form of explanatory, supplementary literature that help us understand the terse, cryptic message of the Vedas. Like the Vedas, they convey knowledge of the Absolute Truth, and to do so they must be transcendental like the Vedas. To prove the Vedic nature of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas he gives the example of completing a golden bracelet. If a golden bracelet is incom- plete it can be completed by gold and not by lead. In other 46 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha words, the metal which will complete the bracelet must be gold. Similarly, if the Itihasas and Purāṇas complete the Vedas then they must be Vedic in nature. The Skanda Purāṇa (4.95.12 ) indicates the equally transcendental status of the Purānas, Itihāsas, and Vedas as follows: vede rāmāyaṇe caiva purane bhārate tathà ådåv ante ca madhye ca hariḥ sarvatra giyate In the Vedas, Rāmāyana, Puranas, and Mahābhārata Lord Hari is glorified everywhere in the beginning, middle, and end. The conclusion is that because the Itihāsas and Purāņas emanate from the same source as the four Vedas and have the same purport, they are also equally authoritative. Next Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī explains more about how the Itihāsas and Puranas are not inferior to the Vedas. ANUCCHEDA 13.1 THE ITIHASAS AND PURANAS ARE VEDIC अतएव स्कान्द-प्रभासखण्डे -

“पुरा तपश्चचारोग्रममराणां पितामहः । आविर्भूतास्ततो वेदाः सषडङ्ग - पदक्रमाः ॥ ततः पुराणमखिलं सर्व्वशास्त्रमयं ध्रुवम् । नित्यशब्दमयं पुण्यं शतकोटिप्रविस्तरम् । निर्गतं ब्रह्मणो वक्त्रात्तस्य भेदान्निबोधत ॥ ब्राह्मयं पुराणं प्रथमम् इत्यादि । ata eva skånde prabhasa-khande: pură tapaś cacārogram amarāṇām pitamahaḥ ävirbhūtās tato vedān sa sad-anga-pada-kramāh tataḥ purāṇaṁ akhilam sarva-śāstra-mayam dhruvam nitya-śabda-mayam punyam śata-koti-pravistaram nirgatam brahmaṇo vaktrāt tasya bhedan nibodhata brahmyam purāṇam prathamam ity-ādi. Therefore, Prabhāsa khanda, Skanda Purana (2.3.5 ) states: Anuccheda 13 47 “Long ago, Lord Brahmā, the grandfather of the demi- gods, performed severe penances, and as a result the Vedas appeared along with their six supplements and their pada and krama texts. Then the entire Purāna emanated from his mouth. Composed of eternal sound and consisting of one billion verses, it is the unchanging, sacred embodiment of all scriptures. You should know that of the various divisions of this Purana, the Brahma Purana is the first.” ANUCCHEDA 13.2 अत्र शतकोटिसंख्या ब्रह्मलोके प्रसिद्धेति तथोक्तम् । तृतीयस्कन्धे च; “ऋग्यजुः सामाथर्व्वाख्यान् वेदान पूर्व्वादिभिर्मुखैः ।” [भा. ३. १२.३७] इत्यादिप्रकरणे, “ इतिहास पुराणानि पञ्चमं वेदमीश्वरः । सर्वेभ्यः एव वक्त्रेभ्यः ससृजे सर्व्वदर्शनः || ” [ भा. ३.१२.३९ ] इति । अपि चात्र साक्षादेव वेद-शब्दः प्रयुक्तः पुराणेतिहासयोः । atra śata-koti-sankhyā brahma-loke prasiddheti tathoktam tṛtiya-skandhe-ca “rg-yajuḥ-sämätharvākhyān vedän pūrvādibhir mukhair” ity-adi-prakarane: itihāsa purānāni pañcamam vedam iśvaraḥ / sarvebhya eva vaktrebhyaḥ sasrje sarva-darśanah / ity api cātra sāksād eva veda- sabdaḥ prayuktaḥ puranetihāsayoḥ. The figure one billion cited above refers to the number of verses existing in Brahma’s domain. Srimad Bhagavatam’s Third Canto gives a similar description in the passage starting with the words rg-yajuh-sāmātharvākhyān vedan purvādibhir mukhair:“Begin- ning from the front face, Lord Brahmā, manifest the four Vedas - Rg, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva-respectively” (Bhāg. 3.12.37 ). In this passage we find the statement “Then Lord Brahma, who knows past, present, and future, created the fifth Veda- the Puranas and the Itihāsas from all his mouths.” (Bhag. 3.12.39). Here the word Veda is used specifically in refer- ence to the Itihāsas and Purāņas. 48 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 13.3 अन्यत्र च, “पुराणं पञ्चमो वेदः” 66 “ इतिहासः पुराणञ्च पञ्चमो वेद उच्यते” । [ भा. १.४.२० ] “ वेदानध्यापयामास महाभारत - पञ्चमान् ” [ मोक्षधर्मे. ३४०.२१ ] इत्यादौ । अन्यथा “ वेदान्” इत्यादावपि पञ्चमत्वं नावकल्पेत, समानजातीय निवेशितत्वात् संख्यायाः । anyatra ca-“purāṇam pañcamo vedaḥ,” “itihāsaḥ purāṇaṁ ca pañcamo veda ucyate” “vedan adhyāpayāmāsa mahābhārata-pañcamän” ity-adau. Anyatha “vedân” ity-ādāv api pañcamatvaṁ nāvakalpyeta samāna-jatiya-niveśitatvāt sankhyāyāh. And elsewhere it is said, “The Puranas are the fifth Veda,” “The Itihāsas and Puranas are called the fifth Veda” (Bhāg. 1.4.20), and “He taught the Vedas along with the fifth of their number, the Mahābhārata” (M. Bh. Moksa dharma 340.21 ). If the Itihasas and Purāṇas were not Vedic, it would have been inappropriate for the preceding verses to include them as the fifth Veda, since normally one counts together only objects of the same kind. 66 भविष्यपुराणे, ANUCCHEDA 13.4 “कार्ष्णञ्च पञ्चमं वेदं यन्महाभारतं स्मृतम्” इति । तथा च साम- कौथुमीयशाखायां, छान्दोग्योपनिषदि च “ऋग्वेदं भगवोऽध्येमि यजुर्वेदं सामवेदमाथर्वणं चतुर्थमितिहासं पुराणं पञ्चमं वेदानां वेदम्" [ ७.१.२] इत्यादि । bhaviṣya-puraṇe-“kārṣṇaṁ ca pañcamaṁ vedam yan mahābhāratam smrtam” iti. tatha ca săma-kauthumiya- śākhāyām chandogyopanisadi ca-“rg-vedam bhagavo ‘dhyemi yajur-vedam sama-vedam atharvanam caturtham itihasam purāņam pañcamaṁ vedānāṁ vedam” ity-ādi. Anuccheda 13 49 Also, the Bhaviṣya Purāņa states, “The fifth Veda, written by Śrī Kṛṣṇa-dvaipayana Vyasa, is called the Mahabharata.” Another reference is found in the Chandogya Upanisad of the Kauthumiya school of the Sama Veda: “Venerable Sir, I have studied the Rg, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva Vedas, and also the Itihasas and Purānas, which are the fifth Veda” (Kauthumiya Chandogya Upanisad 7.1.2). ANUCCHEDA 13.5 अतएव “ अस्य महतो भूतस्य " [बृ. आ. २.४.१०] इत्यादावितिहास पुराणयोश्चतुर्णामेवान्तर्भूतत्व कल्पनया प्रसिद्ध- प्रत्याख्यानं निरस्तम् । तदुक्तम्, “ब्राह्मयं पुराणं प्रथमं " Scuifa || 93 || ata eva, “asya mahato bhūtasya” ity-ādāv itihāsa- purāṇayoś caturṇām evāntar-bhūtatva-kalpanaya prasiddha-pratyākhyānaṁ nirastam. tad uktam “brahmyam purāṇam prathamam” ity-ādi. This refutes the frequently raised objection that the Itihasas and Purāņas, said in the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad to ema- nate from the breathing of the Supreme Being, are included in the four Vedas and therefore have no separate existence. The same is stated in the words “Brahma Purana is the first…” (Skanda Purāņa). COMMENTARY To substantiate the statement from the Bṛhad-aranyaka Upanisad (2.4.10) that establishes the Vedic nature of the Itihāsas and Purāņas, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi here cites more evidence from the Puranas, Itihasas, and Upanisads. From these references the following is clear: The Puranas and Itihāsas have the same source as the four Vedas and are in fact called the fifth Veda. 50 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi here refers to the frequent objection that the Itihāsas and Purānas cannot be called the fifth Veda because they are part of the four Vedas. While explaining the above-mentioned statement from the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upanisad, some followers of the Mimamsaka school claim that the words Itihasa and Purana refer to historical pas- sages found in some parts of the Vedas and not to separate works. Examples of śruti statements sometimes considered Puranic are yato va imani bhūtāni jāyante (from whom these beings take birth; Taittiriya Up. 3.1) and sa brahmaṇā sṛjati rudreṇa vilāpayati harir âdir anādiḥ (Lord Hari creates through Brahma and destroys through Rudra, but He Him- self is the beginingless source of all.) These and similar pas- sages are referred to as Purāṇa because they deal with cre- ation and destruction, which are among the subjects treated in the Puranas. Mimāmsakas further argue that over an immense pe- riod many of these original Puranic portions of the Vedas were lost, and those that remained became difficult to un- derstand. Therefore, the Mimamsakas propose, Śrīla Vyasa mercifully wrote new Itihasas and Purānas for the benefit of the unintelligent people of Kali-yuga, and this is what is de- scribed in Śrimad-Bhāgavatam (1.4.25). Hence the Itihāsas and Purānas mentioned in the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad are part of the Vedas, not independent books, and therefore it is incorrect to conclude that they are the fifth Veda. This is the Mimamsakas’ argument. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi refutes this argument with references from the Vedas as well as the Itihasas and Purānas them- selves. These citations confirm the status of the Itihasas and Purānas as the fifth Veda on the grounds that they ema- nated separately from Lord Brahma’s mouths. If they were only parts of the Vedas, there would be no reason for these authoritative scriptures to call them the fifth Veda. Moreover, there are many statements about the apauruşeya, Vedic nature of the Itihāsas and Puranas in the Vedic Samhitās, Anuccheda 13 51 Brāhmaṇas, Aranyakas, Upaniṣads, Kalpa-sūtras, Dharma- sutras, and Grhya-sutras, as well as in the Purāņas, Itihāsas, and other smrti texts. Here are a few of these statements: ṛcaḥ sâmāni chandāmsi purāṇam yajuṣā saha ucchiṣṭāj jajñire sarve divi devā divi-śritāḥ The Rg, Sama, Yajur, and Atharva Vedas appeared from the Supreme Lord along with the Puranas and all the demigods residing in the heavenly planets (Atharva Veda 11.7.24). sa bṛhatim disam anu vyacalat tam itihasaś ca purāṇaṁ ca gathaś ca itihasasya ca sa vai puraṇasya ca gāthānāṁ ca nārāśamsinâm ca priyam dhama bhavati ya evam veda. He approached the Bṛhati meter, and thus the Itihāsas, Purāņas, Gāthās, and Nārāśamsīs became favorable to him. One who knows this verily becomes the beloved abode of the Itihāsas, Purānas, Gāthās, and Nārāśamsis (Atharva Veda 15.6.10, 12). evam ime sarve vedä nirmitáḥ sa-kalpāḥ sa-rahasyāḥ sa- brāhmaṇāḥ sopaniṣatkäḥ setihäsäḥ sanväkhyātāḥ sa-puraṇāḥ, In this way all the Vedas were manifested along with the Kalpas, Rahasyas, Brahmanas, Upanisads, Itihāsas, Anvākhyātas, and Puranas. (Gopatha Brāhmaṇa, Pūrva2.10) nāma vā ṛg-vedo yajur-vedaḥ sama-veda atharvaṇaś caturtha itihasa-purāṇaḥ pañcamo vedānāṁ vedaḥ. Indeed, Rg, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva are the names of the four Vedas. The Itihāsas and Purāņas are the fifth Veda. (Chándogya Up. 7.1.4) mimāmsate ca yo vedän saḍbhir angaiḥ sa-vistaraiḥ Itihasa-puraṇāni sa bhaved veda-para-gaḥ One who thoroughly studies the Vedas along with their six limbs and the Itihasas and Puranas becomes a true knower of the Vedas. (Vyasa-smrti 4.45) All these references show that the Itihāsas and Puranas have the same source and subject as the Vedas. In the next anuccheda Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi explains why the Itihāsas and Purānas are counted as the fifth Veda. 52 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 14.1 THE ITIHASAS AND PURANAS ARE THE FIFTH Veda पञ्चमत्वे कारणञ्च वायु पुराणे [६०.१६-१८, २१-२२] सूत वाक्यम्; “ इतिहास - पुराणानां वक्तारं सम्यगेव हि । माञ्चैव प्रतिजग्राह भगवानीश्वरः प्रभुः ॥ एक आसीद्यजुर्वेदस्तं चतुर्द्धा व्यकल्पयत् । चातुर्होत्रमभूत्तस्मिंस्तेन यज्ञमकल्पयत् ॥ आध्वर्यवं यजुर्भिस्तु ऋग्भित्रं तथैव च । औद्गात्रं सामभिश्चैव ब्रह्मत्वञ्चाप्यथर्व्वभिः ॥ आख्यानैश्चाप्युपाख्यानैर्गाथाभिर्द्विज-सत्तमाः पुराण - संहिताश्चक्रे पुराणार्थ-विशारदः ॥ । यच्छिष्टं तु यजुर्वेद इति शास्त्रार्थ निर्णयः ॥” इति । pañcamatve kāranam ca vāyu-purane suta vākyam: ‘itihāsa-purāṇānāṁ vaktāram samyag eva hi māṁ caiva pratijagrāha bhagavān iśvaraḥ prabhuḥ eka āsīd yajur-vedas tam caturdha vyakalpayat căturhotram abhūt tasmims tena yajñam akalpayat adhvaryavaṁ yajurbhis tu rgbhir hotram tathaiva ca audgātram sāmabhiś caiva brahmatvam capy atharvabhiḥ akhyānais capy upåkhyānair gāthābhir dvija-sattamāḥ purāṇa-samhitaś cakre purāṇārtha-viśāradaḥ yac chistam tu yajurveda iti sāstrārtha nimayah” iti. In the Vayu Purana (60.16-18, 21-22 ) Sūta Gosvami explains why the Itihasas and Puranas are considered the fifth Veda: “Srila Vyäsadeva, the almighty Supreme Lord, accepted me [Sūta Gosvāmi] as the qualified speaker of the Itihasas and Purānas. In the beginning there was only one Veda, the Yajur Veda, which Śrila Vyasa divided into four parts. These gave rise to the four activities called catur-hotra, by means of which Śrīla Vyasa arranged for the performance of sacrifice. iAnuccheda 14 53 “The adhvaryu priests carry out their responsibilities with yajur-mantras, the hotā priests with rg-mantras, the udgātā priests with săma-mantras, and the brahmā priests with atharva-mantras.” Sūta Gosvāmi further states: “O best of the twice-born, thereafter Srila Vyasa, who best knows the meaning of the Purāņas, compiled them and the Itihasas by combining various ākhyānas, upȧkhyānas, and gāthās. Whatever remained after Vyasa divided the Vedas into four parts was also Yajur Veda. This is the con- clusion of the scriptures.” ANUCCHEDA 14.2 ब्रह्मयज्ञाध्ययने च विनियोगो दृश्यतेऽमीषाम् “यद्ब्राह्मणानीतिहास-पुराणानि ” [ सहवै . १३ . ] इति । सोऽपि नावे दत्वे सम्भवति । अतो यदाह भगवान् मात्स्ये; “कालेनाग्रहणं मत्वा पुराणस्य द्विजोत्तमाः । व्यास- रूपमहं कृत्वा सहरामि युगे युगे ॥ [ मत्स्य. पु. ५३.८-९ ] इति । । पूर्वसिद्धमेव पुराणं सुखसंग्रहणाय सङ्कलयामीति तत्रार्थः । brahma-yajñādhyayane ca viniyogo dṛśyate ‘miṣām-“yad brāhmanānitihāsa purānāni” iti. So ‘pi nāvedatve sambhavati. Ato yad äha bhagavān måtsye: “kälenâgrahaṇam matvā purāṇasya dvijottamāḥ vyāsa-rupam ahaṁ kṛtvā saṁharāmi yuge yuge” iti purva-siddham eva purāṇam sukha-sangrahaṇāya sankalayāmīti tatrārthaḥ. The Purānas are also used in the formal study of the Vedas called brahma-yajña: yad brahmanānitihāsa-purānāni. “The Itihāsas and Puranas are Vedas’ (Taittiriya Aranyaka 2.9). If the Itihåṣas and Purāņas were not Vedic, they would not be used this way in the brahma-yajña. Therefore in the Matsya Purana ( 53.8-9 ) the Supreme Lord says, “O best of the twice-born, forseeing that the Purāna 54 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha will gradually be neglected, in every age I assume the form of Vyāsa and abridge it.” In other words, Srila Vyasa con- denses the already existing Purana so that people can eas- ily comprehend it. ANUCCHEDA 14.3 तदनन्तरं द्युक्तम्; “चतुर्लक्ष - प्रमाणेन द्वापरे द्वापरे सदा । तदष्टादशधा कृत्वा भूर्लोकेऽस्मिन् प्रभाष्यते ॥ अद्याप्यमर्त्य-लोके तु शतकोटि प्रविस्तरम् । तदर्थोऽत्र चतुर्लक्षः संक्षेपेण निवेशितः ॥ [मत्स्य. पु. ५३.९-११] इति । Tad-anantaram hy uktam: । “catur-lakṣa-pramāṇena dvāpare dvāpare sadā tad astādasadhā kṛtvā bhūr-loke ‘smin prabhāṣyate adyāpy amartya-loke tu śata-koti-pravistaram tadartho tra catur-laksah sanksepena niveśitah” iti. The Matsya Purana ( 53.9-11) also states, “The Purana con- sisting of four hundred thousand verses is divided into eigh- teen parts, then it is passed on by oral recitation in every Dvȧpara-yuga here on earth. Even today the original Purāṇa of one billion verses exists in the planets of the demigods. The essential meaning of that Purana is contained in the abridged version of four hundred thousand verses.” ANUCCHEDA 14.4 अत्र तु “ यच्छिष्टं तु यजुर्वेद इत्युक्तत्वात्तस्या- भिधेयभागश्चतुर्लक्षस्त्वत्र मर्त्य लोके संक्षेपेण सार-संग्रहेण निवेशितो, न तु रचनान्तरेण ॥ १४ ॥ Atra tu “yac chiştam tu yajurveda” ity uktatvat tasyābhidheya- bhāgaś catur-lakṣas tv atra martya-loke sankṣepeņa sāra- sangraheṇa nivesito na tu racanāntareṇa. Anuccheda 14 55 Sūta’s statement that “whatever remained after Vyasa had divided the Vedas into four parts was also Yajur Veda” indi- cates that the essence of the original Purana, which was the remaining portion of the Yajur Veda; formed the abridged version of four hundred thousand verses in the world of mortals. It is not a different composition. COMMENTARY The Itihasas and Puranas are called the fifth Veda because they are derived from the original Veda, the Yajur Veda. This is explained in the section of the Vayu Purāṇa that describes the catur-hotra priests. There are four kinds of rtviks, or priests, needed to perform a Vedic sacrifice, and their duties were originally all known from the Yajur Veda. But later on the Veda was divided into four parts for easy understanding and application. The duties of the four priests-adhvaryu, udgātā, hotā, and brahma-are known from each of these four divisions. The adhvaryuis associated with the Yajur Veda, and his duties include sanctifying the sacrificial parapher- nalia and measuring the shape and size of the sacrificial arena. The udgātā priest studies the Sama Veda and chants hymns during the sacrifice to propitiate the Lord. The hotă priest decorates the altar, invokes the demigods, pours ob- lations, and chants the Rg Veda. The brahmā priest is a student of the Atharva Veda and acts as the supervisor and coordinator of sacrificial ceremonies. After Śrila Vyāsa compiled the four Vedas, there still re- mained one billion verses from the original Yajur Veda. These verses became the original Purana, which is still available on the heavenly planets. Out of compassion for the people of Kali-yuga, Vyasadeva extracted five hundred thousand essential verses from this original Purana. Four hundred thousand of these he divided into the eighteen Purāṇas. The remaining verses formed the Itihasa called Mahabharata. The Itihasa and Puranas are therefore called the fifth Veda because they were produced from the original Veda. An- other reason the Puranas and Itihasas are considered the 56 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha fifth Veda, distinct from the other four, is that the priests of the four Vedas do not use the Puranas and Itihāsas in sacrifical ceremonies, even though these works are studied along with the Vedas. In his commentary on the Visnu Purāņa (3.6.16), Śridhara Svāmi defines the terms akhyāna, upakhyāna, and gathā: svayam-dṛṣṭārtha-kathanaṁ prāhur ākhyānakaṁ budhāḥ śrutasyärthasya kathanam upåkhyanam pracaksate gáthás tu pitṛ-prthivy-adi-gitayaḥ An åkhyāna is a narration of something witnessed by the speaker, while an upåkhyāna is a narration of something the speaker has not witnessed but rather heard about. Gáthás are songs about the forefathers and earthly beings. The words yac chiṣṭam tu yajur-vedaḥ, “The remaining part was also called Yajur Veda” (Anuccheda 14.4) indicates that the Itihasas and Puranas are apauruşeya, not composed by mortals; thus they have the same authority as the Vedas, having been compiled by Śrila Vyasa from the Supreme Lord’s very breath. While compiling the Purānas and Itihāsas He included some of His own statements to make the narra- tion more easily comprehensible. For example, in the Bhagavad-gitȧ the words “Arjuna said” and “Kṛṣṇa said” are added by Śrila Vyasa to help the reader understand. But we should not consider even these added statements to have been written by a mortal being, since Vyasa is an incarna- tion of the Supreme Lord. This is evident from the verse of the Matsya Purāņa quoted in 14.3. Someone might raise the objection that from the Bṛhad- aranyaka Upanisad (2.4.10) it is clear that the four Vedas individually appeared from the Supreme Lord. Why, then, is it said that Vyasadeva divided the one Veda into four parts? We reply that while it is true that each Veda individually emanated from the Lord, originally all four Vedas were col- lectively called the Yajur Veda because that Veda is much bigger than the other three. Generally, the largest member of a set can represent the whole set. In Sanskrit this is called ådhikyena vyapadeśā bhavanti, or the law that the largest constituent represents the whole. A herd of cows with just a Anuccheda 15 57 few buffaloes in it is still called a herd of cows, and the four fingers and one thumb are still called five fingers. Because the four Vedas had become disordered, Śri Vyasa rearranged the Vedic texts to help clearly define the duties of the four sacrificial priests. How the Vedas became mixed up by the curse of Gautama Rşi will be told in Anuccheda 16. In the next anuccheda Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi further sub- stantiates his conclusion about the Vedic nature of the Itihāsas and Purānas, and he also explains the meaning of the name Veda-vyāsa. ANUCCHEDA 15.1 THE ORIGIN OF THE ITIHASAS, PURANAS, AND VEDAS IS THE SAME तथैव दर्शितं वेद- सहभावेन शिवपुराणस्य वायवीय-संहितायाम्; “संक्षिप्य चतुरो वेदांश्चतुर्द्धा व्यभजत् प्रभुः । व्यस्तवेदतया ख्यातो वेदव्यास इति स्मृतः ॥ ” “पुराणमपि संक्षिप्तं चतुर्लक्षप्रमाणतः । अद्याप्यमर्त्य-लोके अद्याप्यम- लोके तु शतकोटिप्रविस्तरम् ॥” [शिव. पु. ७.१.१.३७-३८ ] इति । संक्षिप्तमित्यत्र तेनेतिशेषः । tathaiva darsitari veda-saha-bhāvena siva-purāṇasya vāyaviya-samhitāyām: “sankṣipya caturo vedāmś caturdhā vyabhajat prabhuḥ / vyasta-vedatayā khyāto veda-vyāsa iti smṛtaḥ”/“purāṇam api sankṣiptam catur-lakṣa- pramāṇataḥ/ adyapy amartya-loke tu sata-koti- pravistaram” / sankṣiptam ity atra teneti seṣaḥ. Similarly, the Vāyaviya-samhita of the Siva Purana indicates the Vedic nature of the Puranas by discussing their appear- ance along with the Vedas: “The ingenious Lord abridged the Veda and then divided it [vyasta] into four. Therefore He became known as Veda- vyāsa. He also summarized into 400,000 verses the Puranas which still comprise one billion in the higher planets.” (Śiva Purāņa 7.1.1.37-38). 58 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Here the word sanksiptam (“condensed”) implies con- densed by Him.” ANUCCHEDA 15.2 स्कान्दमाग्नेयमित्यादिसमाख्यास्तु प्रवचन- निबन्धना काठकादिवत्; आनुपूर्वी-निर्माण-निबन्धना वा । तस्मात् क्वचिदनित्यत्व-श्रवणं त्वाविर्भावतिरोभावापेक्षया । तदेवमितिहास-पुराणयोर्वे दत्वं सिद्धम् । skāndam āgneyam ity-adi-samākhyās tu pravacana- nibandhanāh kathakādi- vad änupurvi- nirmāna- nibandhană vâ. tasmåt kvacid anityatva-śravaṇaṁ tv āvirbhâva-tirobhāvāpekṣayā. tad evam itihasa-puraṇayor vedatvam siddham. The name of a Purāṇa-Skanda, Agni, and so on-refers to its original speaker, as with the Katha Upanisad, which was promulgated by the sage Katha. Otherwise the name refers to the person who arranged the Purāṇa’s contents. The reason the Puranas are occasionally described as imperma- nent is that they are sometimes manifest and sometimes not. In this way by the arguments and evidence provided in Anucchedas 13, 14, and 15.1-2, the Vedic nature of the Itihāsas and Purāņas is established. ANUCCHEDA 15.3

तथापि सूतादीनामधिकारः सकल-निगमवल्ली - सत्फल- श्रीकृष्णनामवत् । यथोक्तं प्रभासखण्डे - — “मधुर-मधुरमेतन्मङ्गलं मङ्गलानां सकलनिगमवल्ली-सत्फलं चित्-स्वरूपम् । सकृदपि परिगीतं श्रद्धया हेलया वा भृगुवर नरमात्रं तारयेत् कृष्ण-नाम ॥” इति । tathāpi sūtādinām adhikārah sakala-nigama-valli-sat- phala-sri-krsna nāma vat. yathoktam prabhāsa-khande: Anuccheda 15 “madhura-madhuram etan mangalam mangalānāṁ sakala-nigama-valli-sat-phalam cit-svarūpam sakrd api parigītam śraddhaya helayā vā bhrgu-vara nara-mātraṁ tārayet kṛṣṇa-nāma” iti. 59 Yet Sūta and others who are not twice-born are qualified to recite the Purāņas in the same way that every person is qualified to chant Lord Kṛṣṇa’s holy name, the transcenden- tal fruit of the creeper of all the Vedas. As stated in the Prabhasa-khanda of the Skanda Purāņa: “O best of the Bhrgu dynasty, the holy name of Kṛṣṇa is the sweetest of the sweet and the most auspicious of the auspicious. It is the transcendental fruit of all the Vedas and is purely spiritual and conscious. Whoever chants it but once, whether with faith or with contempt, is liberated.” यथा चोक्तं विष्णुधर्मे; ANUCCHEDA 15.4 “ऋग्वेदोऽथ यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽप्यथर्वणः । अधीतास्तेन येनोक्तं हरिरित्यक्षरद्वयम् ॥” इति । अथ वेदार्थ निर्णायकत्वञ्च वैष्णवे : “भारतव्यपदेशेन ह्याम्नायार्थः प्रदर्शितः । वेदाः प्रतिष्ठिताः सर्व्वे पुराणे नात्र संशयः ॥” इत्यादौ । yatha coktam viṣṇu-dharme: “rg-vedo ’tha yajur-vedaḥ sāma-vedo ‘py atharvaṇaḥ adhītās tena yenoktam harir ity aksara-dvayam” iti. Atha vedärtha-nimayakatvam ca vaiṣṇave: “bhārata-vyapadesena hy āmnāyārthaḥ pradarśitaḥ vedāḥ pratiṣṭhitāḥ sarve purāṇe nātra saṁśayaḥ” ity-ādau. The Visņu Dharma Purāņa states: “A person who chants the two syllables ha-ri has already completed the study of the Rg, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva Vedas.” 60 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha And the Visnu Purāṇa affirms that the Puranas and Itihāsas establish the meaning of the Vedas: “On the pretext of writing the Mahābhārata, Śrila Vyǎsa has explained the meaning of the Vedas. Without doubt, all the ideas of the Vedas are given a firm foundation in the Purānas.” ANUCCHEDA 15.5 किञ्च वेदार्थ दीपकानांशास्त्राणां मध्यपातिताभ्युपगमे- ऽप्याविर्भावक-वैशिष्टचात्तयोरेव वैशिष्ट्यम् । यथा पाद्ये; द्वैपायनेन यद्बुद्धं ब्रह्माद्यैस्तन बुध्यते । सर्व्व-बुद्धं स वै वेद तद्बुद्धं नान्य- गोचरः ॥” ॥१५॥ kim ca vedartha-dīpakānāṁ śāstrāṇāṁ madhya- pätitābhyupagame ‘py avirbhāvaka-vaisiṣṭyāt tayor eva vaisiṣtyam. yathā pādme dvaipayanena yad buddham brahmadyais tan na budhyate sarva-buddham sa vai veda tad-buddham nānya-gocaraḥ Moreover, even if we count the Itihāsas and Purānas among the books explaining the meaning of the Vedas, still they are unique because their compiler is so glorious. The Padma Purāņa says, “Brahmà and others do not know what Bhagavan Veda-vyāsa knows. Indeed, He knows everything known to others, and He knows what is beyond everyone else’s grasp.” COMMENTARY The word sankṣiptam in the verse cited here from the Siva Purana (7.1.1.37) is significant. It means “condensed,” not “composed.” Śrila Veda-vyāsa, the literary incarnation of God, condensed the already existing Vedas. Then He took un- used verses from that abridged portion and compiled them into the Puranas. Thus He did not create the Puranas as an original composition. This confirms that the Puranas, by vir- tue of their transcendental origin, are equal to the four Vedas. They are eternal and apauruşeya. Anuccheda 15 61 One may protest that since the Puranas have names such as Skanda and Agni they must have been composed by these persons, and so they are neither eternal nor apauruşeya. But if this were the case, the Vedas themselves would have to be considered noneternal compositions since some parts have names like Katha Upanisad and Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, which refer to the sages Katha and Aitareya. The explanation is that portions of the Vedas are named *after certain sages not because they wrote those portions but because they were the main exponents of these por- tions. Since persons with names like Katha and Aitareya appear in every millennium, one should not think that before the appearence of the known Katha and Aitareya these names were meaningless words in the Vedas. In the same way, several of the Purāņas are named ei- ther after their first teacher or the person who rearranged them. It sometimes happens that over the course of time a certain Vedic work becomes less popular or is completely forgotten on this planet. Eventually some sage or demigod again speaks it, and after that it becomes known by his name. An example of this is given in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, where sage Yajnavalkya is described as receiving the Vājasaneyi- samhita of the Yajur Veda from the sun-god: “Pleased by such glorification, the powerful sun-god assumed the form of a horse, (vājin) and gave the sage Yajnavalkya the yajur- mantras previously unknown in human society” (Bhag. 12.6.73). Just as the Lord seems to take birth and disap- pear like a mortal being, the Vedic literature similarly seems to become manifest and unmanifest. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam had become unmanifest at the end of the Dväpara-yuga, five thousand years ago. At that time Nārada Muni instructed Vyasa to again reveal the Bhāgavatam. If the Bhagavatam had not existed before, Purāṇas older than the Bhāgavatam could not refer to it by name. In the Padma Purāṇa, Uttara- khanda, Gautama advises Ambarīṣa Mahārāja, who reigned in the Satya-yuga, to study Śrimad-Bhāgavatam. Thus the Puranas are eternal, but sometimes they are manifest and sometimes unmanifest in human society. As T 62 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha the Lord is independent in His appearance and disappear- ance, so by His free will He speaks the revealed scriptures through the medium of various sages and gives various names. Another objection to the Vedic status of the Itihāsas and Purāņas may be stated as follows: In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.4.25) Sūta Gosvāmī says, stri-śūdra-dvija-bandhūnām trayī na śruti-gocarā… iti bhāratam ākhyānam kṛpaya muninā kṛtam: “Women, laborers, and unqualified descendants of the twice-born have no access to the Vedas….Therefore the sage Vyåsa mercifully compiled the Mahabharata.” Since the Mahabharata, the foremost of the Itihasas, was written specifically for women and others with no access to the Vedas, how can the Itihasas be part of the Vedas? More- over, in verse 13 of the same chapter, Saunaka Ṛşi says to Sūta Gosvāmi, manye tvåṁ viṣaye vācām snātam anyatra chändasät: “We consider you expert in all subjects except the Vedas.” So if Sūta Gosvāmi was not expert in the Vedas yet was being requested to narrate the Puraņas (specifi- cally the Bhagavata Purāṇa), how can the Purāņas be part of the Vedas? Anticipating these objections, Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmī com- pares the privilege of studying the Itihāsas and Purānas to that of chanting Kṛṣṇa’s holy name, the choicest fruit of the Vedas. The holy name of Kṛṣṇa is purely Vedic, yet anyone may chant it, including those who have no right to study the Vedas. Similarly, the Itihasas and Purāṇas are also purely Vedic, yet even a sincere śūdra or outcaste can approach them, just as he or she may chant the holy name of the Lord. As one can gain all perfection simply by chanting Lord Kṛṣṇa’s holy name, which is the ultimate fruit of the Vedas, so by studying the Itihasas and Puranas, one can learn the essence of the Vedas, even without studying the Vedas them- selves. If one could not do so, then knowledge of how to attain perfection would be inaccessible to those who are barred from studying the Vedas, because they are not twice-born. Finally, even if one were to include the Itihasas and Purānas among other smrti scriptures written by saintly sages to explain the meaning of the Vedas, the Itihāsas and Purānas occupy a unique place because of the eminenceAnuccheda 16 63 of their propounder, Śrila Vyasadeva, an incarnation of the Supreme Lord. In the next anuccheda Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī elaborates on how the Itihāsas and Purāņas are superexcellent by virtue of their compiler’s divinity. स्कान्दे: ANUCCHEDA 16.1 THE COMPILER OF THE ITIHASAS AND PURANAS IS UNIQUE “व्यास-चित्तस्थिताकाशादवच्छिन्नानि कानिचित् । अन्ये व्यवहरन्त्येतान्युरीकृत्य गृहादिव ॥” इति । skände: “vyāsa-citta-sthitākāśād avacchinnâni kānicit anye vyavaharanty etāny uri-krtya grhād iva” iti. The Skanda Purana states, “Just as a person picks up things in his own house and uses them, many people have taken knowledge from the sky of Vyasa’s heart for their own use.” ANUCCHEDA 16.2 तथैव दृष्टं श्रीविष्णुपुराणे पराशर - वाक्यम्; “ ततोऽत्र मत्सुतो व्यास अष्टाविंशतिमेऽन्तरे । वेदमेकं चतुष्पादं चतुर्द्धा व्यभजत् प्रभुः ॥ यथाऽत्र तेन वै व्यस्ता वेदव्यासेन धीमता । वेदास्तथा समस्तैस्तैर्व्यासैरन्यैस्तथा मया ॥ तदनेनैव व्यासानां शाखाभेदान् द्विजोत्तम । चतुर्युगेषु रचितान् समस्तेष्ववधारय ॥ कृष्णद्वैपायनं व्यासं विद्धि नारायणं प्रभुम् । कोऽन्यो हि भुवि मैत्रेय ! महाभारतकृद्भवेत् ॥” [विष्णु पु. ३.४.२-५] इति । 64 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha tathaiva drstam srif-visnu-purane parāśara-vākyam: “tato ’tra mat-suto vyäsa aṣṭāvimśatime ’ntare vedam ekam catus-padam caturddha vyabhajat prabhuḥ yathātra tena vai vyastä veda-vyāsena dhi-mată vedās tatha samastais tair vyāsair anyais tatha mayā tad anenaiva vyāsānāṁ śākhä-bhedan dvijottama catur-yugeşu racitän samasteṣv avadhāraya kṛṣṇa-dvaipayanaṁ vyāsaṁ viddhi nārāyaṇam prabhum ko ’nyo hi bhuvi maitreya mahābhārata-kṛd bhavet” iti. We also find this statement by Parāśara Rși in the Visnu Purana (3.4.2-5), “Thereafter, during the twenty-eighth manvantara, the Lord in the form of my son Vyasa took the one Veda, consisting of four sections, and divided it into four separate parts. Just as this intelligent Vyasa divided the Veda, previously all other Vyâsas, including myself, also divided it. O best of the twice-born, understand that in every cycle of four yugas a Vyasa comes and arranges the Veda into vari- ous branches. But know, O Maitreya, that Sri Krsna- dvaipǎyana Vyasa is Lord Nārāyaṇa Himself. Who else in this world could have written the great epic Mahābhārata?” स्कान्द एव; ANUCCHEDA 16.3 “नारायणाद्विनिष्पन्नं ज्ञानं कृतयुगे स्थितम् । किञ्चित्तदन्यथा जातं त्रेतायां द्वापरेऽखिलम् ॥ गौतमस्य ऋषेः शापाज्ज्ञाने त्वज्ञानतां गते । सङ्कीर्णबुद्धयो देवा ब्रह्म- रुद्र- पुरःसराः ॥ शरण्यं शरणं जग्मुर्नारायणमनामयम् । तैर्विज्ञापितकार्यस्तु भगवान् पुरुषोत्तमः ॥ अवतीर्णो महायोगी सत्यवत्यां पराशरात् । उत्सन्नान् भगवान् वेदानुज्जहार हरिः स्वयम् ॥” इति । skånda eva: “nārāyaṇād viniṣpannaṁ jñānaṁ kṛta-yuge sthitam kiñcit tad anyathā jātaṁ tretāyāṁ dvâpare ‘khilam Anuccheda 16 gautamasya ṛşeḥ śāpāj jñāne tv ajñānatāṁ gate sankima-buddhayo devā brahma rudra-purahsarah saranyam śaraṇam jagmur nārāyaṇam anāmayam tair vijñāpita-karyas tu bhagavan purusottamaḥ avatimo maha-yogi satyavatyāṁ parāśarāt utsannan bhagavān vedän ujjahāra hariḥ svayam” iti. 65 The Skanda Purana further states, “In Satya-yuga the knowl- edge that emanated from Lord Nārāyaṇa remained pure. It became somewhat polluted in Treta-yuga and completely so in Dvǎpara-yuga. When ignorance had covered that knowledge because of Gautama Ṛşi’s curse, the demigods became perplexed. Led by Brahma and Rudra, they ap- proached Lord Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Person and fault- less protector, and told Him why they had come. On the request of the demigods, Lord Hari then descended as the great yogi Vyasa, son of Satyavati and Parâsara, and re- established the forgotten Vedas.” ANUCCHEDA 16.4 वेदशब्देनात्र पुराणादिद्वयमपि गृह्यते । तदेवमितिहासपुराण- विचार एव श्रेयानिति तत्रापि पुराणस्यैव गरिमा दृश्यते । उक्तं हि नारदीये; “वेदार्थादधिकं मन्ये पुराणार्थं वरानने । वेदाः प्रतिष्ठिताः सर्वे पुराणे नात्र संशयः ॥ पुराणमन्यथा कृत्वा तिर्य्यग्योनिमवाप्नुयात् । सुदान्तोऽपि सुशान्तोऽपि न गतिं क्वचिदाप्नुयात् ॥” इति ॥ १६ ॥ veda-sabdenātra purāṇādi-dvayam api grhyate. tad evam itihasa-purāṇa-vicāra eva śreyān iti. Tatrāpi purāṇasyaiva garima drśyate uktam hi nāradiye: “vedarthad adhikaṁ manye purāṇārthaṁ varănane vedāḥ pratisthitaḥ sarve purane nātra samsayaḥ purāṇam anyathā kṛtvā tiryag-yonim avāpnuyāt su-danto ‘pi su-santo ‘pi na gatim kvacid āpnuyāt” iti. 66 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Here the word veda also indicates the Itihāsas and Purānas. Thus it is established that studying the Itihāsas and Purāņas is supremely beneficial. And of these two, the Purāņas are more excellent. Lord Siva confirms this in the Nāradīya Purāna: “O lovely one, I consider the Purāņas more impor- tant than the Vedas because the Purāņas firmly establish all the Vedic meanings. There is no doubt of this. One who dis- respects the Puranas will take birth as a subhuman; even if he can expertly control his senses and mind, he can attain no good destination.” COMMENTARY One can know a product’s quality by assessing the status of its manufacturer. By this criterion the Puraṇas and Itihāsas are supremely excellent, since they were compiled by Lord Nārāyaṇa Himself in the form of Śrila Vyasadeva. Here Śrila Vyasa’s mind is compared to the unlimited sky, indicating that just as the sky accommodates all ob- jects, so Vyasa’s mind contains all knowledge. Another sig- nificance of comparing Vyasa’s mind to the sky is that both are the medium for sound, which is the basis of all kinds of knowledge. All other thinkers, both on this planet and on higher planets, simply make use of the knowledge Śrīla Vyǎsa has given. According to one Sanskrit saying, vyāsocchiṣṭam jagat sarvam: “The whole world tastes the remnants of Vyasa’s knowledge.” Any “new” idea one may find or con- ceive of already exists in his writings. Thus all writers through- out history have borrowed from him, directly or indirectly. According to Parāśara Muni, at the beginning of each Kali-yuga in the cycle of four yugas, a vyāsa, or “compiler,” arranges the Vedas. In the present reign of Manu, Parāśara himself was the twenty-sixth Vyasa and Śrī Kṛṣṇa-dvaipayana is the twenty-eighth. Of the twenty-eight Vyāsas who have appeared until now, Kṛṣṇa-dvaipǎyana is special because He is an incarnation of Lord Nārāyaṇa. He appeared on the request of the demigods at the end of the Dvȧpara-yuga, after a curse by Gautama Muni caused ignorance to cover the Vedic knowledge. Anuccheda 16 67 Chapter 171 of the Varaha Purana relates how during a famine Gautama Muni underwent severe austerities to please Lord Brahma. When Brahma offered Gautama a boon, the sage asked that he would be able to feed all his guests. The boon was granted, and benevolent Gautama fed his many brāhmaṇa guests for the duration of the famine. When rains finally came, the brāhmaṇas wanted to leave his hermitage. As is the custom, however, Gautama asked them to stay a little longer, and they agreed. After some time they again wished to leave, but once again Gautama prevailed on them to stay a while longer. This happened a few times. Determined to leave, the brahmanas devised a plan. They made an illusory cow and left it near Gautama’s āśrama. In the early morning, when the sage was going to bathe, the animal blocked his path, and to drive her away he threw a few drops of water at her. At the first touch of the water, the cow fell down dead. The brahmaṇas immediately raised a hue and cry, denouncing Gautama as a cow-killer. They declared, “We cannot stay here and accept food from a cow- killer,” and then they left for their respective residences. Later, Gautama performed atonement, but then by his mystic power he could understand that he’d been tricked. He then angrily cursed the brāhmaṇas that they would lose all their Vedic knowledge. In this way Vedic knowledge became covered by ignorance during the Dvapara-yuga, and thus it was nec- essary for Vyåsa to send forth the Vedas again. Lord Siva stated that the Purānas are more important than the Vedas as they explain them, yet we should not con- clude that absolutely no one should study the Vedas. Still, Vyasadeva’s verdict (in the First Canto, Fourth Chapter of the Bhāgavatam) is that people in Kali-yuga are not intelli- gent enough to understand the true message of the Vedas, especially since there exists no authentic disciplic succes- sion through which to acquire this understanding. We find, in fact, that nowadays those who attempt to study only the Vedas and Upanisads often take to ordinary, fruitive activi- ties or to meditation with the aim of merging into the imper- sonal Brahman. They do not come to the Vaiṣṇava siddhānta, the perfect conclusion of Vedic understanding, which is 68 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha realization of unalloyed devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The failure of modern-day students of the Vedas to understand this conclusion is proof that this message is not easy to discern in the present age. As Lord Krsna says in Srimad Bhagavatam (11.3.44), paroksa vādo vedo ‘yam:“The Vedas speak indirectly.” Therefore, if we wish to learn the true conclusion of the Vedas in this age, it is more practical to study the Purāņas. A serious student who wants to understand the conclu- sion of the Purāņas must still approach a guru in disciplic succession. This basic prerequisite of Vedic study is not waived when one approaches the Puranas. Indeed, Srimad- Bhāgavatam (11.3.21) emphatically declares, tasmād gurum prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam: “One who seriously wants to learn about the supreme welfare in life must take shelter of a bona fide spiritual master.” Next, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi explains the three divisions of the Purānas. ANUCCHEDA 17.1 THREE DIVISIONS OF THE PURANAS स्कान्दप्रभाप्तखण्डे ५.३.१२१-१२४ च; “ वेदवन्निश्चलं मन्ये पुराणार्थं द्विजोत्तमाः । वेदाः प्रतिष्ठिताः सर्वे पुराणे नात्र संशयः ॥ बिभेत्यल्पश्रुताद्वेदो मामयं चालयिष्यति । इतिहास - पुराणैस्तु निश्चलोऽयं कृतः पुरा ॥ यन्न दृष्टं हि वेदेषु तद्दृष्टं स्मृतिषु द्विजाः । उभयोर्यन दृष्टं हि तत् पुराणैः प्रगीयते ॥ यो वेद चतुरो वेदान्- साङ्गोपनिषदो द्विजाः । पुराणं नैव जानाति न च स स्याद्विचक्षणः ॥” इति । skände prabhasa-khande ca: “veda-van niścalam manye purāṇārtham dvijottamāḥ vedāḥ pratiṣṭhitāḥ sarve purāne nātra saṁśayaḥ bibhety alpa-śrutad vedo mām ayam cālayiṣyati itihāsa-purāṇais tu niscalo ‘yam kṛtaḥ pură Anuccheda 17 69 yan na dṛṣṭam hi vedeșu tad dṛṣṭam smrtișu dvijāḥ ubhayor yan na dṛṣṭam hi tat purānaiḥ pragiyate yo veda caturo vedän sångopanisado dvijāḥ puranam naiva jānāti na ca sa syåd vicaksanah” iti. Furthermore, the Prabhasa-khanda of the Skanda Purāṇa (5.3.121-24) states: “O best of the twice-born, I consider the meaning of the Puranas to be as well established as that of the Vedas. Without doubt, the Purāņas give a firm foundation to the Vedas. Long ago, Mother Veda once be- came afraid of those who insufficiently hear from her, and she thought, ‘This sort of person will distort my meaning.’ But then the Itihāsas and Purāņas helped Mother Veda by firmly establishing her meaning. What cannot be found in the Vedas is found in the smrti, and what cannot be found in either is clearly explained in the Purāņas. O learned brāhmaṇas, even if a person has studied the four Vedas along with the Vedāngas and Upanisads, he is not consid- ered learned unless he knows the Puranas.” ANUCCHEDA 17.2 अथ पुराणानामेवं प्रामाण्ये स्थितेऽपि तेषामपि सामस्त्येनाप्रचरद्रूपत्वात् नानादेवताप्रतिपादकप्रायत्वादर्वाचीनैः क्षुद्रबुद्धिभिरर्थो दुरधिगम इति तदवस्थ एव संशयः । atha puraṇānām evaṁ prămănye sthite ‘pi teṣām api samastyenāpracarad-rūpatvan nānā-devatā-pratipādaka- prāyatvad arvācīnaiḥ kṣudra-buddhibhir artho duradhigama iti tad-avastha eva samsayaḥ. Next, we must consider the following doubt concerning the status of the Purāṇas: Although their authority has been established [in the previous anucchedas], still it is difficult for the less intelligent men of the modern age to compre- hend their ultimate meaning. The reasons for this difficulty are that the Purāņas, like the Vedas, are only partially avail- able and that the Purānas generally try to establish the su- premacy of various deities. 70 66 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 17.3 यदुक्तं मात्स्ये [ ५३.६५, ६८-६९],– “पञ्चाङ्गञ्च पुराणं स्यादाख्यानमितरत् स्मृतम् । सात्त्विकेषु च कल्पेषु माहात्म्यमधिकं हरेः ॥ राजसेषु च माहात्म्यमधिकं ब्रह्मणो विदुः । तद्वदग्नेश्च माहात्म्यं तामसेषु शिवस्य च ॥ सङ्कीर्णेषु सरस्वत्याः पितृणाञ्च निगद्यते ॥” इति । yad uktam måtsye: “pañcāngam ca purāṇam syādākhyānam itarat smṛtam sättvikeşu ca kalpeṣu māhātmyam adhikaṁ hareḥ răjaseṣu ca māhātmyam adhikam brahmano viduḥ tadvad agnes ca māhātmyam tāmaseṣu sivasya ca sankimeşu sarasvatyāḥ pitiam ca nigadyate” iti. As stated in the Matsya Purāna ( 53.65, 68-69): “A history is called a Purana if it has the five defining characteristics; otherwise it is called an Akhyāna. The sättvic Purāņas primarily glorify Lord Hari; the rājasic Purānas, Lord Brahmā; and the tamasic Purānas, Lord Siva and Durgá, along with Agni. The Purāṇas in mixed modes glorify Sarasvati and the Pitas.” ANUCCHEDA 17.4 अत्राग्नेस्तत्तदग्नौ प्रतिपाद्यस्य तत्तद्यज्ञस्येत्यर्थः । “शिवस्य च” इति चकाराच्छिवायाश्च । सङ्कीर्णेषु —— सत्त्वरजस्तमोमयेषु कल्पेषु बहुषु । सरस्वत्याः – नानावाण्यात्मक – तदुपलक्षिताया नानादेवताया इत्यर्थः । पितृ णां - “कर्म्मणा पितृलोक” इति श्रुतेस्तत्प्रापक-कर्मणामित्यर्थः ॥ १७ ॥

aträgnes tat-tad-agnau pratipadyasya tat-tad-yajñasyety arthah. “Sivasya ceti ca kārāc chivāyāś ca sankimesu sattva-rajas-tamo-mayesu kalpesu bahusu. sarasvatyā nānā-vāṇy-ātmaka-tad-upalakṣitāyā nānā-devatāyā ity- arthah. pitrām “karmanā pitr loka” iti śrutes tat-prāpaka- karmanām ity-arthah.

Anuccheda 17

71

Here the word agni (fire) refers to the Vedic sacrifices per- formed by making offerings into various sacred fires. The word ca (“and”) in the phrase sivasya ca implies the wife of Lord Siva. Sankīmeşu (“in the mixed”) means “in the various Purānas in the mixed modes of sattva, rajas, and tamas” Here sarasvatyāḥ (“of Sarasvati”) means “of the presiding deity of speech” and, by implication, “of the various deities referred to in the numerous scriptural texts she embodies.” According to śruti, karmaṇā pitṛ-lokaḥ: “By fruitive activities one can attain the abode of the forefathers.” The word pitmam (“of the forefathers”) refers to the fruitive rituals meant for attaining the planet of the forefathers.

COMMENTARY

The verse from the Matsya Purana cited in Anuccheda 17.3 mentions five subjects that characterize a Purāna. Another verse of the Matsya Purāņa (53.65) lists those subjects:

sargaś ca pratisargaś ca vamso manvantarāni ca vamsyānucaritam caiva puráṇaṁ pañca-lakṣaṇam

The five subjects that characterize a Purana are creation, dissolution, genealogy, reigns of Manus, and the activities of famous kings.

Anucchedas 57 and 61 of Śr Tattva-Sandarbha discuss these five subjects in detail. In the verses cited above from the Matsya Purāṇa, the word kalpa means “scripture” or “Purāna.” This is one of the various meanings of this word, as listed in the Medini Sanskrit dictionary (1.21.2): kalpa śāstre vidhau nyaye samvarte brahmane dine.“Kalpa means ‘scripture,’ ‘rule,’ ’logic,’ ‘dissolution,’ and ‘day of Brahmå.”

The Purānas are divided according to the modes of mate- rial nature. The list of the Puranas belonging to each mode is given in the Padma Purana, Uttara-khanda (236.18-21):

vaiṣṇavaṁ nāradīyam ca tathā bhāgavataṁ śubham gāruḍam ca tathā pādmaṁ vārāham subha-darśane sättvikāni purāṇāni vijñeyāni śubhāni vai

brahmaṇḍam brahma-vaivartaṁ märkandeyam tathaiva ca

72

Śri Tattva-Sandarbha bhavisyam vȧmanaṁ brāhmaṁ rājasāni nibodha me matsyam kaurmam tatha laingam saivam skändam tathaiva ca agneyam ca șaḍ etăni tămasăni nibodha me [Lord Siva said:] O beautiful lady, know that the Vişņu, Närada, Bhāgavata, Garuda, Padma, and Varaha Purānas are in the mode of goodness, the Brahmaṇḍa, Brahma-vaivarta, Märkandeya, Bhavişya, Vâmana, and Brahma Puranas are in the mode of passion, and the Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Śiva, Skanda, and Agni Purāņas are in the mode of ignorance. The verses Śrila Jiva cites from the Skanda Purana imply that the Purāṇas are as good as the Vedas and should be accepted as such by anyone who accepts the authority of the Vedas. There are many commentaries on the Vedas, but the Puranas are the natural commentary because they were compiled by the compiler of the Vedas, Śrīla Vyasa. There- fore even without directly studying the Vedas, one can un- derstand their message by studying the Purāṇas alone. On the other hand, study of the Vedas in this age is incomplete without study of the Puranas; therefore studying the Puranas is even more appropriate and practical for us than studying the Vedas. Furthermore, the statement from the Skanda Purana quoted in Anuccheda 17.1-that no one can be- come learned without studying the Puranas-suggests that the Purānas are also more important than the Itihāsas. But just as we meet with difficulties in studying the Vedas in this age, we also encounter difficulties in studying the Purānas. The eighteen major and eighteen minor Purāņas constitute a vast body of literature, and there are no current disciplic successions or authentic commentaries for most of these works. Portions of some Purāņas are not available, and other Purāṇas have variant readings and interpolations. As with the Vedas, independent study of the Purāņas yields no clear conclusion, because each Purāna seems to estab- lish a different deity as Supreme. The Siva Purana proclaims Lord Śiva supreme, the Visnu Purana proclaims, Lord Visnu, and so on. For one who studies them without properAnuccheda 18 73 guidance, the result is confusion. Such a student will not know whether to worship Siva, Vishnu, Devi, or some other deity. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī gives the solution to this problem in the next anuccheda. ANUCCHEDA 18.1 ŚRIMAD-BHAGAVATAM IS THE BEST OF ALL PURANAS तदेवं सति तत् तत्कल्पकथामयत्वेनैव मात्स्य एव प्रसिद्धानां तत्तत्पुराणानां व्यवस्था ज्ञापिता, तारतम्यन्तु कथं स्यात्, येनेतरनिर्णयः क्रियेत ? सत्त्वादितारतम्येनैवेति चेत्, “सत्त्वात् सञ्जायते ज्ञानम्” [गी. १४.१७ ] इति, “सत्त्वं यद् ब्रह्मदर्शनम्” [भा. १.२.२४] इति च न्यायात् सात्त्विकमेव पुराणादिकं परमार्थ ज्ञानाय प्रबलमित्यायातम् । tad evam sati tat-tat-kalpa-kathā-mayatvenaiva måtsya eva prasiddhānāṁ tat-tat-purāṇānāṁ vyavasthā jñāpitā. tāratamyam tu katham syåd yenetara-nimayaḥ kriyeta? sattvādi-taratamyenaiveti cet “sattvat sañjāyate jñānam” iti “sattvam yad brahma-darśanam” iti ca nyāyāt sättvikam eva purāṇādikaṁ paramārtha-jñānāya prabalam ity āyātam. This being the case, [that Puranas are in various modes of nature] the Matsya Purana classifies them into three divi- sions based on the descriptions found in them. But how can we determine the relative importance of the Puranas so that we can then learn about the other subjects under discus- sion, namely, sambandha, abhidheya, and prayojana ? If we use the three modes of nature as the basis for categorizing the Puranas, depending on such statements as “the mode of goodness produces knowledge” [Bg. 14.17] and “the mode of goodness leads to realization of the Absolute Truth” [Bhag. 1.2.24], we will conclude that the Purānas and other litera- ture in the mode of goodness are superior means for gain- ing knowledge of the Absolute Truth. i 1 74 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 18.2 तथापि परमार्थेऽपि नानाभञ्ज्या विप्रतिपद्यमानानां समाधानाय किं स्यात् ? यदि सर्वस्यापि वेदस्य पुराणस्य चार्थनिर्णयाय तेनैव श्रीभगवता व्यासेन ब्रह्मसूत्रं कृतम्, तदवलोकनेनैव सर्वोऽर्थो निर्णेय इत्युच्यते तर्हि नान्यसूत्रकारमुन्यनुगतैर्मन्येत । किञ्चात्यन्तगूढार्थानामल्पाक्षराणां तत्सूत्राणामन्यार्थत्वं कश्चिदाचक्षीत, ततः कतरदिवात्र समाधानम् ? tathāpi paramārthe ‘pi nănă-bhangyā vipratipadyamānānām samādhānāya kim syāt? Yadi sarvasyāpi vedasya purāṇasya cărtha-nimayāya tenaiva sri-bhagavatā vyāsena brahma sūtram krtam, tad- avalokenaiva sarvo ‘rtho nimeya ity ucyate tarhi nanya- sutra-kāra-muny-anugatair manyeta. Kim cātyanta- gūḍhārthānām alpākṣarāṇāṁ tat-sūtrāṇām anyārthatvaṁ kaścid ācakṣīta, tataḥ katarad ivātra samādhānam? But even then, how can we reconcile the different inconclu- sive views put forward regarding the Absolute Truth? Some- one may propose study of the Vedanta-sutra as the solu- tion, claiming that Bhagavan Vyasadeva compiled the Vedanta-sūtra to present the decisive conclusion of both the Vedas and the Purānas concerning the Absolute Truth. But then the followers of sages who wrote other sūtras may be dissatisfied. Moreover, since the aphorisms of Vedanta are terse and extremely esoteric, and since they are also sub- ject to varying interpretations, someone will always express a contrary idea. What, then, can resolve disputes concern - ing the meaning of the Vedanta-sūtras? ANUCCHEDA 18.3 तदेवं समाधेयम्; — यद्येकतममेव पुराणलक्षणमपौरुषेयं शास्त्रं सर्ववेदेतिहासपुराणानामर्थसारं ब्रह्मसूत्रोपजीव्यञ्च भवदुवि सम्पूर्णं प्रचरद्रूपं स्यात् ! सत्यमुक्तम्; यत एव च सर्वप्रमाणानां चक्रवर्तिभूतमस्मदभिमतं श्रीमद्भागवतमेवोद्भावितं भवता ॥ १८ ॥ Anuccheda 18 75 tad evam samadheyam:-yady ekatamam eva purăṇa- lakṣaṇam apauruṣeyam sastram sarva-vedetihāsa- purăṇānām artha-sāram brahma-sūtropajivyam ca bhavad bhuvi sampūrṇam pracarad-rupaṁ syāt. satyam uktam. yata eva ca sarva-pramāṇānāṁ cakravarti-bhūtam asmad- abhimatam śrimad-bhāgavatam evodbhāvitam bhavatā. This problem could be solved if there were one scripture that had the characteristics of a Purana, that had no human origin, that presented the essence of all the Vedas, Itihasas, and Purāņas, that was based on the Vedanta-sutra, and that was available throughout the land in its complete form. Well said, Sir, because you have reminded us about our revered Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the emperor of all pramāņas. COMMENTARY The Matsya Purāṇa, Chapter 53, gives the number of verses in each Purana and describes the benefits of donating each one on special days. In that same chapter Sūta Gosvāmi speaks two and a half verses containing a formula for divid- ing the Purānas into three classes according to which one of the three modes of nature predominates. These three classes of Purāṇa glorify various deities, and commentators often try to establish their own favorite among these deities as supreme, arguing on the basis of logic and apparently conclusive scriptural references. One consequence of this partiality is that commentators tend to denigrate those Purāņas in a category different from their own: proponents of tămasic Purānas tend to reject the authority of the rājasic and sǎttvic Purāņas, and proponents of rājasic and sättvic Purānas likewise reject the Purāņas outside their group. But there cannot actually be several Absolute Truths; therefore the question of which Puranic deity is the one Supreme Truth remains to be settled. For the unbiased seeker of the truth, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi shows how to resolve the matter. He explains that sattva, or the mode of goodness, is clearly superior to passion and ignorance, as Lord Krsna confirms in the Bhagavad-gītā (14.17): 76 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha sattvāt sañjāyate jñānam rajaso lobha eva ca pramada-mohau tamaso bhavato jñānam eva ca From the mode of goodness, real knowledge develops; from the mode of passion only greed develops; and from the mode of ignorance develop foolishness, delusion, and ignorance. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.2.24) also states, tamasas tu rajas tasmāt sattvam yad brahma-darśanam: “Passion is better than ignorance, but goodness is best because it can lead to realization of the Absolute Truth.” In the passage where this verse appears, Sūta Gosvāmi is explaining which form of worship produces the ultimate good. His opinion is that one can achieve the ultimate good only by worshiping Lord Krsna, the personificiation of pure goodness. The citation from the Matsya Purāņa in the previous anuccheda states that the sättvic Purānas glorify Lord Hari, Kṛṣṇa. By contrast, the rājasic and tāmasic Purāņas recommend worship of other deities. Such worship is in the lower modes of nature and does not lead to realization of the Absolute Truth. Thus one can tell the modal quality of a Purana by see- ing which deity it recommends for worship. Another way to tell is by how it commences. In a sǎttvic Purāṇa a ques- tioner will approach a learned speaker and inquire from him about the Absolute Truth. The questioner may ask the speaker to elaborate on the nature of ultimate reality, the supreme religion for all, the ultimate benefit a human being can aspire for, how one should prepare for death, or a simi- lar topic. Such questions then allow the speaker of the Purāṇa full freedom to explain these topics. The speaker who is self-realized, free from all gross and subtle material desires, and concerned only with the welfare of the inquirer and those who will hear the discourse, either then or in the future, then replies with answers that are specific and un- ambiguous, leaving no room for misinterpretation or confu- sion. Examples of such sattvic Puranas include the Padma Purana, the Visnu Purana, and, most prominently, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, or Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Anuccheda 18 77 In the rājasic and tamasic Purāņas, however, the ques- tioners inquire about limited topics that do not address the ultimate concerns of life. For example, in the Linga Purana, the sages at Naimiṣāranya ask Sūta Gosvāmi to narrate the glories of Linga, Lord Siva. Although Sūta Gosvāmi has fully realized the Absolute Truth and is perfectly competent to explain it, the questions here restrict him to speaking on the particular topic of Linga. He is not free to explain the deeper meaning of life. Since all rajasic and tāmasic Purānas have this shortcoming, they cannot be reliable sources of knowl- edge about the essential topics of sambandha, abhidheya, and prayojana. The Purānas were arranged in different modes in re- sponse to the various desires and interests of the condi- tioned souls. Nevertheless, every Purana contains glorifica- tion of Lord Hari, the Absolute Truth. Śrila Veda-vyāsa in- cluded this glorification so that even persons in the lower material modes could gradually develop interest in the Su- preme Personality of Godhead while hearing or reading the tāmasic and rājasic Purāņas. Someone might object that the statement cited above concerning the classification of the Puranas according to the modes does not itself come from a sattvic Purana and so should not be taken as authoritative. We reply that this classification is supported by numerous other statements as well, including some from such sattvic scriptures as the Padma Purāṇa, which we have already cited in the previous anuccheda. Nor is it true that the Puranas in the lower modes give no valid knowledge at all, rather they give some insight into absolute reality, what to speak of the insights they give into lesser topics. In addition, no statement in the Vedic lit- erature specifically contradicts the verses cited here classi- fying the Purānas according to the modes of nature, and so we are left with no compelling reason to doubt the authen- ticity of this classification. From this analysis we can conclude that in our quest for the ultimate sabda-pramāṇa we need consider only the sättvic Purāņas. As the Padma Purāņa states, sättvikā 78 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha mokṣa-dāḥ proktāḥ: “The Purāṇas in the mode of goodness lead to liberation.” But even these sättvic Puranas have been understood in many ways by great thinkers. Some interpreters have found that they glorify the path of yoga as the best, others have concluded that they recommend bhakti as the highest path, and yet others have found that they promote the path of jñāna (knowledge) as supreme. Therefore, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi suggests the Vedanta-sūtra as a possible basis of reconciliation. The Vedanta-sutra, writ- ten by Vyasadeva, certainly incorporates the essential un- derstanding of the Vedas and the Puranas. But we must also consider that the dedicated followers of other sages who wrote philosophical sutras, such as Gautama and Patanjali, might not accept the conclusions of the Vedanta- sūtras. Even if the followers of other philsophers could be somehow convinced to change their minds by logical proof of the greater authority of the Vedanta-sutra, the situation is still problematic: The sutras of Vedanta are terse and eso- teric; and ācāryas of various persuasions have commented on them in such a way that it is difficult to decide whose opinion agrees with that of Śrila Veda-vyāsa, the author. For the seeker who has come this far along the way but finds himself sinking in the marshy confusion created by the various scriptures and their myriad commentators, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi finally points out the high ground of the Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam. The Bhagavatam has the ten characteristics of a major Purana (discussed in Anuccheda 56); it is apauruşeya; it is the natural commentary on the Vedanta- sūtra and thus constitutes the purport of all the Vedas, Itihāsas, and Purāņas; it is available in its entirety; it is re- spected by all Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, and many others; it is the most popular of the Puranas; it has an intact tradition of Vaisnava commentaries; and it is the culmination of Srila Veda-vyāsa’s literary output, being composed in His maturity. By establishing Śrimad-Bhāgavatam as the last word among Vedic scriptures, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi fulfills the will of Lord Anuccheda 19 79 Śri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who accepted the Bhāgavatam as the “spotless Purāna,” the supremely authoritative text. In the next anuccheda Jiva Gosvămi explains that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam has not been composed by a mortal and that it is the natural commentary on the Vedanta-sūtra. ANUCCHEDA 19.1 ŚRIMAD-BHAGAVATAM IS THE NATURAL COMMENTARY ON VEDANTA-SUTRA यत् खलु पुराण-जातमाविर्भाव्य, ब्रह्मसूत्रञ्च प्रणीयाप्यपरितुष्टेन तेन भगवता निजसूत्राणामकृत्रिम भाष्यभूतं समाधि - लब्ध- माविर्भावितम् । यस्मिन्नेव सर्वशास्त्रसमन्वयो दृश्यते । सर्ववेदार्थलक्षणां गायत्रीमधिकृत्य प्रवर्त्तितत्वात् । yat khalu sarva-purāṇa-jātam āvirbhāvya brahma-sūtram ca praniyāpy aparitustena tena bhagavatā nija-sūtrāṇām akrtrima-bhāsya-bhūtam samadhi labdham ävirbhāvitam, yasminn eva sarva-śāstra-samanvayo drśyate. Sarva-vedārtha sutra-laksanām gāyatrim adhikrtya pravartitatvāt. Indeed, Lord Vyasa was not satisfied even after compiling all the Purāṇas and the Vedanta-sutra. He therefore wrote Srimad Bhagavatam, which was revealed to Him in trance, as the natural commentary on His own sutras. In Śrimad- Bhāgavatam we find the consistent reconciliation of all scrip- tures. That the Bhāgavatam gives the essence of all scrip- tures is shown by its opening with the Gayatri mantra, the essential text incorporating the message of all the Vedas. ANUCCHEDA 19.2 तथापि तत्स्वरूपं मात्स्ये [ ५३.२०-२२ ]; “यत्राधिकृत्य गायत्रीं वर्ण्यते धर्म - विस्तरः । वृत्रासुर वधोपेतं तद्भागवतमिष्यते ॥ लिखित्वा तच्च यो दद्याद्धेमसिंहसमन्वितत् । 80 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha प्रौष्ठपद्यां पौर्णमास्यां स याति परमां गतिम् ॥ अष्टादशसहस्राणि पुराणं तत् प्रकीर्तितम् ॥” इति । tathāpi tat svarūpam mātsye: “yatrādhikṛtya gāyatrīṁ vamyate dharma-vistaraḥ vṛtråsura-vadhopetam tad bhāgavatam iṣyate likhitvå tac ca yo dadyad dhema-simha-samanvitam prausthapadyāṁ paumamāsyām sa yāti paramāṁ gatim aṣṭādaśa-sahasrāṇi purāṇaṁ tat prakīrtitam” iti. The characteristics of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam are further de- scribed in the Matsya Purāna ( 53.20-22 ) : “That Purana is known as Śrīmad-Bhagavatam which explains the topmost principles of religion with reference to the Gayatri mantra and which tells of the killing of the demon Vṛtra. This Purāṇa has eighteen thousand verses.1 Whoever writes out a copy of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, places it on a golden lion-throne, and presents it to a qualified person on the full-moon day of the month of Bhadra (August September) will attain the supreme goal:” ANUCCHEDA 19.3 — अत्र गायत्रीशब्देन तत्सूचकतदव्यभिचारि ‘धीमहि - पदसम्बलिततदर्थ एवेष्यते । सर्वेषां मन्त्राणामादिरूपायास्तस्याः साक्षात्कथनानर्हत्वात् । तदर्थता च, “जन्माद्यस्य यतः” “तेने ब्रह्म हृदा” [भा. १.१.१] इति सर्वलोकाश्रयत्वबुद्धिवृत्ति प्रेरकत्वादिसाम्यात् । धर्मविस्तर इत्यत्र धर्मशब्दः परमधर्मपरः, “धर्मः प्रोज्झितकैतवोऽत्र परमः " [ भा. १.१.२ ] इत्यत्रैव प्रतिपादितत्वात् । स च भगवद्ध्यानादिलक्षण एवेति पुरस्ताद्वयक्तीभविष्यति ॥ १९ ॥ 1Here it is stated that Srimad Bhagavatam has 18,000 verses. But if one counts the verses in the present edition they fall short of the figure by a few thousand verses. How to account for the difference? The solution is that one should count all the syllables in Srimad Bhagavatam includ- ing uvāca and iti statements at the end of each chapter and divide the sum by 32. This converts all the verses and prose texts of Srimad Bhagavatam into Anustup verses and the number comes to about 18,000. This is the standard system. Srimad Bhagavatam has long prose texts in the Fifth Canto. They cannot be counted as individual Anustup verses which have only 32 syllables. Anuccheda 19 atra gâyatri-sabdena tat-sūcaka-tad-avyabhicāri-dhimahi- pada-sambalita-tad-artha eveşyate sarveṣām mantrāṇām ādi-rūpāyās tasyāḥ sākṣāt kathanānarhatvāt, tad-arthată ca, “janmådy asya yataḥ,” “tene brahma hṛdā” iti sarva- lokāśrayatva-buddhi-vṛtti-prerakatvādi-sāmyāt. dharma- vistara ity atra dharma-sabdaḥ parama-dharma-paraḥ, “dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo ’tra parama” ity atraiva pratipäditatvāt. sa ca bhagavad-dhyānādi-lakṣaṇa eveti purastad vyakti-bhavisyati. 81 Here the word gayatri indicates the meaning of the Gayatri mantra, which includes the word dhimahi. Dhimahi is an in- dicator of Gayatri, implying its purport; it would be improper to directly utter Gayatri itself, the origin of all Vedic mantras. The first verse of Srimad Bhagavatam (1.1.1) alludes to the meaning of Gayatri by the phrases janmådy asya yataḥ (by Him this universe is created, maintained, and destroyed) and tene brahma hṛdā (He revealed Vedic knowledge in the heart). These phrases express the same meaning as Gāyatri, by describing the Lord as the basis of all the universes and as He who inspires everyone’s intellect. The word dharma in the compound dharma-vistara re- fers to the supreme religion, as expressed in the Bhāgavatam by the words dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo ’tra paramaḥ (Bhag. 1.1.2): “the supreme religion, devoid of all cheating propen- sities.” And, as will become clear in upcoming anucchedas, this dharma is indeed characterized by meditation on the Supreme Personality of Godhead. COMMENTARY Śrimad-Bhāgavatam contains the story of its own appear- ance as the crowning achievement of Śrila Vyasadeva’s lit- erary efforts. First Śrila Vyasadeva arranged the four Vedas, and then he composed the great epic Mahabharata for the benefit of women, sūdras, and others who cannot study the Vedas. Next he compiled the Puranas, the natural commen- taries on the Vedas, and then he provided the essence of 82 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha the Vedas and Purāņas in the Vedanta-sūtras. But even af- ter all this literary output, Veda-vyāsa felt discontented, al- though he did not know why. Then his spiritual master, Narada Muni, came to his rescue: jijñāsitaṁ su-sampannam api te mahad adbhutam kṛtavān bhārataṁ yas tvaṁ sarvārtha-paribṛṁhitam You have completed your inquiries and studies properly. You have prepared a great and wonderful work, the Mahābhārata, which elaborately explains the various goals of life. (Bhāg. 1.5.3). yatha dharmadayas carthā muni-varyānukirtitāḥ na tathā vāsudevasya mahima hy anuvarṇitaḥ O great sage, as you have broadly described the four human goals beginning with religious performances, you have not in the same way described the glories of the Supreme Personality, Vasudeva (Bhāg. 1.5.9). On Narada Muni’s instruction, Śrīla Vyāsa meditated, and while he was in trance Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was revealed to him. Thus it is clear that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which gave solace to Vyāsadeva, is knowledge descended from the tran- scendental realm. In upcoming anucchedas Śrī Jīva will show that it is also the natural commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. Various Purāņas mention the relationship between Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and the Gāyatrī mantra. Gāyatri is con- sidered the essence of the Vedas and is supposed to be recited at dawn, noon, and dusk by every twice-born person (brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, or vaiśya). According to Śrīdhara Svāmī in Bhāvārtha-dipika, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam begins with the Gāyatri mantra. Commenting on the first verse of the Bhāgavatam, he writes, dhimahīti gāyatryā prārambhena ca gāyatry-ākhyā-brahma-vidyā-rūpam etat purāṇam iti darśitam: “That the Gayatri phrase indicated by the word dhimahi begins this Purāṇa shows that this work has the nature of the brahma-vidyā [Vedic knowledge of the Su- preme] called Gayatrī.” Because Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is based on Gayatri, the cream of the Vedas, it explains theAnuccheda 19 ( 83 topmost principles of religion. The Bhāgavatam (1.1.3) thus calls itself “the ripened fruit of the wish-fulfilling tree of the Vedas” (nigama-kalpa-taror galitaṁ phalam). The recitation of Gayatri and other Vedic mantras is gov- erned by strict rules regarding the person, time, place, and purity of the chanter, but such restrictions do not apply to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Since anyone may read the Bhāgavatam, strictly speaking it would be improper for the Gāyatri mantra to appear there in its original form. Gāyatri is among the Vedic mantras, which only the twice-born are allowed to chant. That is why Śrila Vyasadeva expressed the form and idea of Gāyātrī in the Bhāgavatam without us- ing the actual mantra. Only one word from Gāyatrī, dhimahi, has been kept to indicate his intention, because it is a com- pulsory word in the mantra and carries its essence. Another reason Vyāsa did not write the original Gāyatrī in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is that doing so would have invited misinterpretation. Various schools of thought have explained Gayatri differently-as a meditation on impersonal Brahman, on the sun, on the fire-god, on Lord Śiva, and so forth. Only rarely is it understood as a meditation on the Supreme Per- sonality of Godhead, Vasudeva. But in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Śrīla Vyasadeva’s own commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, Vyāsadeva delivers the complete and unambiguous mean- ing of Gayatri in the opening verse. He reveals that Gāyatrī is a meditation on the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His eternal consort, Śrī Rādhikā. This meditation is indeed the highest dharma. In Anuccheda 105 of Śrī Paramātma- Sandarbha, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī will explain the Gayatrī man- tra in detail, and in the Kṛṣṇa-Sandarbha he will give a thor- ough analysis of the Bhāgavatam’s first verse as a medita- tion on Śrī Śrī Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa. In the next anuccheda of the Tattva-Sandarbha, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī further introduces the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, de- scribing its distinguishing features and supporting his state- ments with scriptural references. i M 84 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 20.1 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ŚRIMAD-Bhāgavatam एवं स्कान्दे प्रभासखण्डे [ ७.१.२.३९-४२] च; “यत्राधिकृत्य गायत्रीम्” इत्यादि । । “ सारस्वतस्य कल्पस्य मध्ये ये स्युर्नरामराः । तद्वृत्तान्तोद्भवं लोके तच्च भागवतं स्मृतम् ॥ लिखित्वा तच्च” इत्यादि च । “अष्टादशसहस्राणि पुराणं तत्प्रकीर्त्तितम्” इति । तदेवमग्निपुराणे च वचनानि वर्तन्ते । Evaṁ skānde prabhāsa-khaṇḍe ca—“yatrādhikṛtya gāyatrīm” ity-ādi “sārasvatasya kalpasya madhye ye syur narāmarāḥ /tad-vṛttantodbhavam loke tac ca bhāgavatam smrtam / likhitvā tac ca” ity-adi ca. - “astādaśa-sahasrāni purānam tat prakīrtitam” iti. Tad evam agni-purāne ca vacanāni vartante. In the Skanda Purāna (Prabhāsa khanda 7.1.2.39-42 ) we find a description of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam similar to the one in the Matsya Purāṇa: “The Purana known as Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam recounts the deeds of humans and demigods in the Sarasvata-kalpa, explains the supreme religion in terms of Gayatri, and narrates the slaying of Vrtrāsura. It has eigh- teen thousand verses. … Whoever writes out a copy of the Bhāgavatam, places it on a golden lion-throne, and presents it to someone on the full-moon day of the month of Bhadra will attain the supreme destination.” These verses are also found in the Agni Purāna (272.6, 7). ANUCCHEDA 20.2 टीकाकृद्भिः प्रमाणीकृते पुरान्तरे च” [ अग्नि पु. २७२.६-७]; “ ग्रन्थोऽष्टादशसाहस्रो द्वादशस्कन्ध- सम्मितः । हयग्रीव-ब्रह्मविद्या यत्र वृत्रवधस्तथा ॥ S 1.6 Anuccheda 20 गायत्र्या च समारम्भस्तद्वै भागवतं विदुः ॥” इति [ भावार्थदीपिका १.१.१] । tīkā-kṛdbhiḥ pramāṇī-kṛte purāṇāntare ca " grantho ‘stādaśa sāhasro dvādaśa-skandha-sammitah hayagriva brahma-vidyā yatra vrtra-vadhas tathā 85 gāyatryā ca samārambhas tad vai bhāgavataṁ viduḥ. iti. Yet another Purāṇa, cited by the Bhāgavatam commentator Sridhara Svāmī [ Bhāvārtha-dipikā 1.1.1], describes the char- acteristics of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam thus: “The Purāṇa known as Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam has eighteen thousand verses divided into twelve cantos, begins with Gāyatrī, describes the Hayagrīva- brahma-vidyā, and narrates the slaying of Vrtrāsura.” 66 ANUCCHEDA 20.3 अत्र “ हयग्रीवब्रह्मविद्या” इति वृत्रवधसाहचर्येण नारायणवर्मैवोच्यते । हयग्रीव - शब्देनात्राश्वशिरा दधीचिरेवोच्यते । तेनैव च प्रवर्त्तिता नारायणवर्माख्या ब्रह्मविद्या । तस्याश्वशिरस्त्वञ्च षष्ठे, “यद्वै अश्वशिरो नाम " । [भा. ६.९.५२] इत्यत्र प्रसिद्धम्, नारायणवर्मणो ब्रह्मविद्यात्वञ्चः 66 “ एतच्छ्र ुत्वा तथोवाच दध्यङ्ङाथर्वणस्तयोः । प्रवयं ब्रह्मविद्याञ्च सत्कृतोऽसत्यशङ्कितः ॥” इति स्वामिटीकोत्थापितवचनेन चेति । atra “hayagriva brahma-vidy” eti vrtra-vadha-sahacaryena nārāyaṇa-varmaivocyate. hayagriva-sabdenātrāśva-sirā dadhīcir evocyate. tenaiva ca pravartitā nārāyaṇa- varmākhyā brahma-vidyā. tasyāśva-śirastvaṁ ca saṣthe- " yad vā aśva-siro nāma” ity atra prasiddham, nārāyana- varmano brahma-vidyātvam ca: “etac chrutvā tathovāca dadhyarn atharvaṇas tayoḥ / pravargyaṁ brahma-vidyāṁ ca satkrto ‘satya-śankitah” iti svami-kotthāpita-vacanena ceti. The Hayagriva-brahma-vidyā mentioned here (meaning “the doctrine of the Supreme taught by Hayagriva”), is “the Armor + 86 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha of Nārāyana” (Nārāyana-varma), since it is narrated in the same context as the killing of Vṛtra. The word haya-grīva here refers to Dadhici, the sage with a horse’s head. He taught the knowledge of Brahman called Nārāyaṇa-varma. His accepting a horse’s head and receiving the name Aśvaśira are mentioned in the Sixth Canto of the Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam (6.9.52), where these words are spoken: “he who has the name Aśvasira.” From a verse Śrīdhara Svāmī cites in his commentary on this text of the Bhāgavatam (6.9.52), we get further confirmation that the Nārāyana-varma is in fact a standard teaching about the Absolute: “Upon hearing this and feeling honored, Dadhici, anxious not to break his promise, instructed the twin Asvinī-kumāras in the knowledge of the Pravargya sacrifice and Brahma-vidyā.” ANUCCHEDA 20.4 श्रीमद्भागवतस्य भगवत्प्रियत्वेन भागवताभीष्टत्वेन च परमसात्त्विकत्वम् । यथा पाद्मे अम्बरीषं प्रति गौतमप्रश्नः; “पुराणं त्वं भागवतं पठसे पुरतो हरेः । चरित्रं दैत्यराजस्य प्रह्लादस्य च भूपते ॥” [उ.ख.२.२.११५] तत्रैव व्यञ्जुलीमाहात्म्ये तस्य तस्मिन्नुपदेशः; “रात्रौ तु जागरः कार्यः श्रोतव्या वैष्णवी कथा | तु गीता नाम- सहस्रञ्च पुराणं शुक-भाषितम् । पठितव्यं प्रयत्नेन हरेः सन्तोषकारणम् ॥” Śrīmad-bhāgavatasya bhagavat-priyatvena bhāgavatābhīṣṭatvena ca parama-sättvikatvam. yathā pādme ambarīṣam prati gautama-praśnaḥ: “purāṇaṁ tvaṁ bhāgavataṁ pathase purato hareḥ caritram daitya-rājasya prahlādasya ca bhū-pate” tatraiva vyañjuli-māhātmye tasya tasminn upadeśaḥ: “rātrau tu jāgaraḥ kāryaḥ śrotavyā vaiṣṇavī kathā gītā nāma-sahasraṁ ca purāṇaṁ śuka-bhāṣitam pathitavyam prayatnena hareḥ santoṣa-kāraṇam” 4. ra Anuccheda 20 87 Since Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is pleasing to the Supreme Lord and is His devotees’ favorite book, it is the supremely sättvika scripture. As stated in the Padma Purāṇa, in Gautama Rṣi’s question to Mahārāja Ambarīṣa, “O lord of the earth, do you recite the Bhāgavata Purāṇa before the Deity of Lord Hari, especially the history of the king of the demons, Prahlada Mahārāja ?” (Padma Purāna, Uttarakhanda 22.115). Again, in the section glorifying the vow of Vyañjulī Mahā- dvādaśī of the Padma Purāṇa, Gautama further instructs Ambariṣa: “One should stay awake throughout that night and hear scriptures that narrate stories of Lord Viṣṇu and His devotees, especially Bhagavad-gītā, the thousand names of Lord Visnu, and the Purāṇa narrated by Sukadeva [Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam]. One should recite these with care, since they are pleasing to Lord Hari.” ANUCCHEDA 20.5 तत्रैवान्यत्र; “अम्बरीष शुकप्रोक्तं नित्यं भागवतं श्रृणु । पठस्व स्वमुखेनापि यदीच्छसि भवक्षयम् ॥” स्कान्दे प्रह्लादसंहितायां द्वारकामाहात्म्ये; 66 श्रीमद्भागवतं भक्तया पठते हरिसन्निधौ । जागरे तत्पदं याति कुलवृन्दसमन्वितः” इति ॥ २० ॥ ॥ ॥ tatraivānyatra : “ambarīṣa śuka-proktam nityaṁ bhāgavataṁ śṛṇu pathasva sva-mukhenāpi yadicchasi bhava-kṣayam” skände prahlada-saṁhitāyāṁ dvārakā-māhātmye: “śrī-bhāgavatam bhaktyā pathate hari-sannidhau jāgare tat-padam yāti kula-vinda samanvitah” And elsewhere in the Padma Purāṇa we find this statement: “O Ambarisa, if you wish to end your material existence, then every day you should hear the Bhāgavatam that was nar- rated by Sukadeva, and you should also recite it yourself.” Finally, we find the following statement in the Prahlada- samhită of the Skanda Purana, in the section describing the 88 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha glories of Dvārakā: “A person who stays up [on the night of Ekādaśi] and recites Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam with devotion be- fore the Deity of Lord Hari goes to the Lord’s abode along with all his family members.” COMMENTARY In this anuccheda Jiva Gosvāmī gives special attention to identifying Śrimad-Bhāgavatam. He does this because some scholars of his time held that the Devī Bhāgavatam, rather than Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, was actually the Bhāgavatam glo- rified in the Purāņas. Like the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the Devi Bhāgavatam is a Purāṇa with twelve cantos, 18,000 verses, and an account of Vṛtrāsura’s death, although its account of how Vrtra was killed differs from the one in Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam. Also, when some traditional scholars read in the Purāṇas that on the full-moon day of the month of Bhādra one should donate the Bhāgavatam mounted on a golden lion (hema-simha), they take this to mean the Devi Bhāgavatam. This seems quite fitting, since Devī, or Durgā, rides on a lion. (In the case of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, hema- simha is understood to mean “gölden lion-throne.”) Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī solves the controversy by citing ref- erences that list distinctive features of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: it begins with the Gayatri mantra, it contains the Hayagrīva- brahma-vidyā, the events it narrates happened in the Sārasvata-kalpa, and it was first spoken by Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī to Parīkṣit Mahārāja. Jīva Gosvāmi further supports his opinion by quoting from the Bhāvārtha-dipikā, Śrīdhara Svāmi’s commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. The Devi Bhāgavatam opens with a statement that ap- pears to be based on Gāyatrī: oṁ sarva-caitanya-rūpāṁ tām ādyāṁ vidyāṁ ca dhimahi, buddhiṁ yā naḥ pracodayāt. There are two reasons this statement should not be equated with Gayatri: First, nothing in it corresponds to the words savituḥ, vareṇyam, and bhargas from Gayatri (while in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.1.1 there is such a correspondence). Second, this statement is a meditation on Devi, but as Śrī ་ Anuccheda 20 89 Jiva will show in the next anuccheda, the object of meditation in Gayatri is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Viṣṇu. Like Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the Devi Bhāgavatam also narrates the killing of Vṛtrāsura, but in this account Indra kills Vṛtra with ocean foam empowered by Devi. Vṛtrāsura performed severe penances for hundreds of years to please Lord Brahma. When Brahmā appeared before him and of- fered a boon, Vṛtra asked that he would not be slain by any weapon made of iron or wood, or one that was dry or wet. After Lord Brahmă granted this boon, Vṛtra attacked Indra and defeated him. Indra subsequently took help from Lord Viṣṇu, who entered Indra’s thunderbolt and advised him to take the help of Devi and make a truce with Vṛtra. Indra then apparently befriended Vṛträsura. But one day at dusk Indra surprised Vṛtrāsura on a beach and slew him with his thun- derbolt covered with foam, which is not a weapon of iron or wood and is neither wet nor dry. The Devi Bhāgavatam also makes no mention of the Hayagriva-brahma-vidya (the Nārāyaṇa-varma). For all these reasons it is clear that the Bhāgavatam referred to in the verse cited by Śrīdhara Svāmī is not the Devi Bhāgavatam. Hemādrī, Ballälsena, Govindānanda, Raghunandana, Gopala Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmi, and Sanatana Gosvāmī have each written noteworthy dharma-śāstras (books and essays on religious duties), in which they quote frequently from the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam but never from the Devi Bhāgavatam. Ballǎlsena states in Dāna-ságara that only a few verses of Bhāgavatam specifically recommend acts of charity. In con- trast, the entire thirtieth chapter of the Devī Bhāgavatam’s Ninth Canto deals exclusively with the glories of giving vari- ous kinds of charity. In addition, with the exceptions of Rāmānujācārya and Nilakaṇṭhācārya, all the great saintly commentators on Prasthana-trayī either wrote about Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam directly or at least cited it as a stan- dard reference in their books. By contrast, neither Sankara, Madhvācārya, Vallabha, Lord Caitanyadeva, or any other 1 1 Literally “three basic scriptures.” They include the eleven principal Upaniṣads, the Vedānta- sutra, and the Bhagavad-gītā. 90 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha notable ācārya ever cited the Devi Bhāgavatam to support or prove any of their important statements. The ninety-sixth chapter of the first part of the Nāradīya Purāṇa lists the topics of all twelve cantos of the Bhāgavatam in order. This list fits Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, not Devī Bhāgavatam. The Padma Purāṇa (Uttara-khaṇḍa 193.3) states: purăneșu tu sarveṣu śrīmad-bhāgavatam param yatra prati-padam kṛṣṇo giyate bahudharṣibhiḥ Among all the Purāņas, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the best. In every line great sages glorify Lord Kṛṣṇa in various ways. All this leaves no doubt that the Bhāgavatam mentioned in the quoted Purāņic verses is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam and other Purāṇas mention a demon named Hayagrīva, and there is also an incarnation of Lord Viṣṇu called Hayagrīva, who had a horse’s head. But because the Hayagrīva mentioned in this section of Tattva-Sandarbha is connected with the slaying of the demon Vṛtra, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has identified him as the sage Dadhīci. As told in the Sixth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, after Vṛtra had con- quered the demigods they approached Lord Viṣṇu for help. The Lord advised the chief of the demigods, Indra, to ap- proach Dadhici and ask him for his body, which had been made firm by vows, penances, and knowledge of Brahman. The Lord told Indra to fashion from Dadhici’s bones a thun- derbolt strong enough to kill Vṛtrāsura. Dadhici had previously taught the knowledge of Brah- man to the Aśvinī Kumāra twins, although Indra had earlier forbidden him to teach them transcendental knowledge on the grounds that their medical profession disqualified them. Indra had threatened to behead Dadhici if he disobeyed, but Dadhici had already promised to teach the twins. The Aśvini Kumāras had solved Dadhici’s dilemma surgically: they severed his head and grafted a horse’s head in its place, knowing that Indra would eventually cut off that head and enable them to restore Dadhīci’s original head. Dadhīci then instructed them through the horse’s head. Dadhīci became known as Hayagrīva or Aśvaśirā (horse-headed one), and Anuccheda 20 91 the transcendental knowledge he imparted became famous as the Hayagrīva-brahma-vidyā. As expected, Indra later severed Dadhici’s horse head and the Aśvini Kumaras restored his original head. Then, on the request of the demigods, Dadhici offered his body to Indra, who used his bones to make a thunderbolt with which he killed Vṛtrāsura. Dadhīci had taught Tvaṣṭā the same knowledge he had previously taught the Asvinī Kumāras, and Tvastă in turn taught it to his son Viśvarūpa. Viśvarūpa taught it to Lord Indra as the “Nārāyaṇa Armor,” which helped Indra defeat Vṛtrāsura. Thus the Hayagrīva referred to here is Dadhici, and the Brahma-vidya is the Nārāyaṇa Armor. This is all described in the Sixth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, along with the commentaries of the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas. Anuccheda 20.5 has the term śuka-proktam, “recited by Śrī Śuka.” From this we should not infer that verses Sukadeva Gosvāmī did not speak, such as the First Canto, are not part of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. The Bhāgavatam Vyāsa revealed was complete, including future events and future statements by Sūta and Saunaka. Since Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam has been identified as having eighteen thousand verses and opening with a verse based on the Gayatri mantra, it must be that its first verse begins janmādy asya yataḥ and its last one ends. with tam namāmi hariṁ param. Of the eighteen Purāņas, six are meant for persons in the mode of ignorance, six for those in the mode of passion, and six for those in the mode of goodness, but the Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam occupies a place of honor even among the sāttvic Purāṇas. It is considered nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and therefore it is parama-sättvika, a manifestation of pure goodness without any tinge of the material modes. Hareḥ santoṣa-kāraṇam: it is pleasing to Hari, the transcendental Lord, who cannot be pleased by anything material. It is relished by His devotees, who scoff at the bliss of liberation, what to speak of the plea- sure derived from reading something mundane. For this rea- son the sage Gautama recommends reciting Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam on Ekādaśī, which is also called Hari-vasara, 92 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha the day of Lord Hari. As the Skanda Purāṇa (Viṣṇu-khanda 6.4.3) states: śrīmad-bhāgavatasyātha śrīmad-bhagavataḥ sadā svarūpam ekam evāsti sac-cid-ānanda-lakṣaṇam Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and the Personality of Godhead are always of the same nature-possessed of eternal existence, full knowledge, and complete bliss. The Padma Purāņa (Uttara-khaṇḍa 198.30) confirms this, śrīmad-bhāgavatākhyo ‘yam pratyakṣaḥ kṛṣṇa eva hi: ‘With- out a doubt Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is directly Lord Kṛṣṇa.” That Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is nondifferent from Lord Kṛṣṇa is confirmed in the Bhāgavatam itself (1.3.43), where Sūta Gosvāmī states that after the Lord’s disappearance the Bhāgavatam appeared as His representative to enlighten the ignorant people of Kali-yuga. The Padma Purāṇa also confirms the oneness of the Bhāgavatam and the Lord by com- paring the various cantos with Kṛṣṇa’s limbs: pădau yadīyau prathama-dvitīyau tṛtīya-turyau kathitau yad-ūrū nābhis tathā pañcama eva saṣṭho bhujantaram dor-yugalam tathānyau kanthas tu rājan navamo yadiyo mukhāravindaṁ daśamam praphullam ekādaśo yaś ca lalāṭa-paṭṭaṁ śiro ‘pi yad dvādaśa eva bhāti namāmi devam karunā-nidhānam tamāla-varṇaṁ suhitavatāram apāra-saṁsāra-samudra-setum bhajāmahe bhāgavata-svarūpam The First and Second Cantos of the Bhāgavatam are Lord Kṛṣṇa’s feet, and the Third and Fourth Cantos are His thighs. The Fifth Canto is His navel, the Sixth Canto is His chest, and the Seventh and Eighth Cantos are His arms. The Ninth Canto is His throat, the Tenth His blooming lotus face, the Eleventh His forehead, and the Twelfth His head. I bow down to that Lord, the ocean of mercy, whose color is like that of a tamāla tree and who appears in this world for the welfare of all. I worship Him as the bridge for crossing the unfathomable ocean of material existence. Śrimad-Bhāgavatam has appeared as His very self. Next Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi demonstrates that Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedanta-sutra. Ith 93 ANUCCHEDA 21.1 ŚRIMAD-BHAGAVATAM ESTABLISHES 66 THE MEANING OF MAHABHARATA गारुडे च; “पूर्णः सोऽयमतिशयः । अर्थोऽयं ब्रह्मसूत्राणां भारतार्थविनिर्णयः ॥ गायत्रीभाष्यरूपोऽसौ वेदार्थपरिबृंहितः । पुराणानां सामरूपः साक्षाद्भगवतोदितः ॥ द्वादशस्कन्धयुक्तोऽयं शतविच्छेदसंयुतः । ग्रन्थोऽष्टादशसाहस्रं श्रीमद्भागवताभिधः ॥” इति । gāruḍe ca: “pūrṇaḥ so ‘yam atiśayaḥ artho ‘yam brahma-sūtrāṇāṁ bhāratārtha-vinimayaḥ gāyatri-bhāsya-rūpo ‘sau vedārtha-paribrmhitah purāṇānāṁ sāma-rūpaḥ sākṣād bhagavatoditaḥ dvādaśa-skandha-yukto ‘yam śata-viccheda-samyutah grantho ‘stādaśa sahasram sri-bhāgavatābhidhah” iti. And the Garuda Purāņa states: “This Srimad Bhagavatam is the most perfect Purāna. It is the natural commentary on the Vedanta-sūtra, it estab- lishes the meaning of the Mahābhārata, it is a commentary on Gayatri, it explains and expands the meaning of the Vedas, it is the Sāma Veda of the Purāņas, and it was spoken by the Supreme Lord Himself. It has twelve cantos, hundreds of chapters, and eighteen thousand verses.” ANUCCHEDA 21.2

ब्रह्मसूत्राणामर्थस्तेषामकृत्रिम भाष्यभूत इत्यर्थः । पूर्वं सूक्ष्मत्वेन

। मनस्याविर्भूतम् तदेव संक्षिप्य सूत्रत्वेन पुनः प्रकटितम्, पश्चाद्विस्तीर्णत्वेन साक्षात् श्रीभागवतमिति । तस्मात्तद्भाष्यभूते स्वतःसिद्धे तस्मिन् सत्यर्व्वाचीनमन्यदन्येषां स्वस्वकपोल- कल्पितं तदनुगतमेवादरणीयमिति गम्यते ।

94

Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha

brahma-sūtrāṇām arthas teṣām akṛtrima-bhāṣya-bhūta ity arthaḥ. pūrvaṁ sūkṣmatvena manasy āvirbhūtam, tad eva sankṣipya sūtratvena punaḥ prakaṭitaṁ, paścād vistīrṇatvena sākṣāt śrī-bhāgavatam iti. tasmāt tad- bhāṣya-bhūte svataḥ-siddhe tasmin saty arvācīnam anyad anyeṣāṁ sva-sva-kapola-kalpitaṁ tad-anugatam evādaraṇīyam iti gamyate.

Here the words brahma-sūtrāṇam arthaḥ mean that Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedanta- sūtra. The Bhāgavatam first appeared in the heart of Śrī Vyasadeva in a subtle form. He then summarized it in the form of the Vedanta-sutra, and later he expanded it into Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as we know it. Since the Vedānta-sūtra already has a natural commentary in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, whatever recent commentators have produced from their own brains should be taken seriously only when it is faithful to the version of Srimad-Bhāgavatam.

“भारतार्थविनिर्णयः”

66

ANUCCHEDA 21.3

“ निर्णय सर्व्वशास्त्राणां भारतं परिकीर्तितम् । भारतं सर्व्ववेदाश्च तुलामारोपिताः पुरा । देवैर्ब्रह्मादिभिः सर्व्वे ऋषिभिश्च समन्वितैः ॥ व्यासस्यैवाज्ञया तत्र त्वत्यरिच्यत भारतम् । महत्त्वाद्भारवत्त्वाच्च महाभारतमुच्यते ॥”

[म.भा. आदि पर्व. १.२७२-२७४] इत्याद्युक्तलक्षणस्य भारतस्यार्थविनिर्णयो यत्र सः ।

“bhāratārtha-vinirṇayaḥ”:

“nirṇayaḥ sarva-śāstrāṇāṁ bhārataṁ parikīrtitam bhāratam sarva-vedāś ca tulām āropitāḥ purā devair brahmādibhiḥ sarvair ṛṣibhiś ca samanvitaiḥ vyāsasyaivājñayā tatra tv atiricyata bhāratam mahattväd bhāra-vattvāc ca mahābhāratam ucyate” ity-ādy-ukta-lakṣaṇasya bhāratasyārtha-vinimṇayo yatra saḥ. Anuccheda 21 95 Concerning the phrase bhāratārtha-vinimayah (Srimad- Bhāgavatam establishes the meaning of the Mahābhārata), we find the following verses describing the importance of the Mahābhārata in the Mahābhārata itself (Adi-parva 1. 272- 274): “The Mahābhārata is glorified because it contains the conclusions of all scriptures. Long ago, on the request of Śrila Vyasa, Lord Brahma and the other demigods came together with all the great sages and placed the Mahābhārata on one side of a scale and the entire Vedas on the other. The Mahabharata, it turned out, weighed more because of its greatness (mahattva) and heaviness (bhāra-vattva). For this reason it is called Mahā-bhārata.” The message of the Mahābhārata, whose importance is as described here, is made clear in the text of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. ANUCCHEDA 21.4 श्रीभगवत्येव तात्पर्य्यं हि तस्यापि । तदुक्तं मोक्ष धर्मे नारायणीये श्रीवेदव्यासं प्रति जनमेजयेन; 66 “ इदं शतसहस्राद्धि भारताख्यानविस्तरात् । आमथ्य मतिमन्थेन ज्ञानोदधिमनुत्तमम् ॥ नवनीतं यथा दध्नो मलयाच्चन्दनं यथा । आरण्यं सर्व्ववेदेभ्य ओषधीभ्योऽमृतं यथा ॥ समुद्धृतमिदं ब्रह्मन् कथामृतमिदं तथा । तपोनिधे त्वयोक्तं हि नारायण - कथाश्रयम् ॥” [म.भा. मोक्षधर्म पर्व ३४३.११-१४] इति ॥ २१ ॥ śrī-bhagavaty eva tātparyaṁ hy tasyāpi. tad uktam mokṣa- dharme nārāyaṇīye śrī-veda-vyāsaṁ prati janamejayena: “idaṁ śata-sahasrād dhi bhāratākhyana-vistarāt āmathya mati-manthena jñānodadhim anuttamam nava-nītam yathã dadhno malayāc candanaṁ yathā āraṇyaṁ sarva-vedebhya oṣadhibhyo ‘mṛtam yathā samuddhṛtam idam brahman kathāmṛtam idam tathā tapo-nidhe tvayoktaṁ hi nārāyaṇa-kathāśrayam iti. 96 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha Another reason the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam establishes the meaning of the Mahābhārata is that the message of both culminates in the Supreme Lord alone. That this is true of the Mahabharata is evinced in the Nārāyaṇīya section of the Mahābhārata’s Mokṣa-dharma portion, where Janamejaya says to Śrīla Vyasadeva: “O brāhmaṇa, abode of austerities, just as butter can be extracted from yogurt, sandalwood from the Malaya mountains, the Upanisads from the Vedas, and life-giving nectar from herbs, so by Your churn- ing the ocean of the highest knowledge with the rod of Your intelligence, this Nārāyaṇīya has been extracted from the hundred thousand verses of the Mahabhārata. The narra- tions of the Nārāyaṇīya are related to Lord Nārāyaṇa and are sweet like nectar” (Mahābhārata, Mokṣa-dharma 343.11–14). COMMENTARY Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is one of the eighteen Purāņas, but Śrīla Vyasadeva wrote it after compiling the essence of the Vedas in the Vedanta-sūtra and after composing the Mahābhārata and Purāņas. But if the eighteen Purāņas had already been compiled, does this make Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam the nineteenth? In Anuccheda 21.2 Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi explains that this is not the case. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam appeared first to Śrila Vyăsa in a concise form, as one of the eighteen Purāņas, and he composed the Vedanta-sūtra on the basis of this first edition of the Bhāgavatam. Later, when He sat in trance in pursuance of Narada Muni’s order, the expanded form of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was revealed to Him as the natural commentary on the Vedanta-sūtra. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and the Vedānta-sūtra share the same subject, the Absolute Truth, and they describe the same principles of sambandha (the relationship between the soul and God), abhidheya (the process of attaining the supreme goal), and prayojana (the supreme goal, perfect devotion to the Lord). Many ācāryas and scholars later wrote commentaries on the Vedanta-sūtra, but only those commentaries that agree with Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam—such as those of Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa—are bona fide. Anuccheda 21 97 Sūta Gosvāmī alludes to Veda-vyāsa’s composing two editions of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: sa samhitāṁ bhāgavatīṁ kṛtvānukramya cātmajam śukam adhyāpayām āsa nivṛtti-nirataṁ muniḥ The great sage Vyāsadeva, after compiling Śrīmad Bhāgavatam and revising it, taught it to His own son, Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī, who was already absorbed in self- realization (Bhāg. 1.7.8). Commenting on this verse, Śrīla Viśvanatha Cakravarti Ṭhākura writes, atas tadaiva pūrva-nirmitasyaiva śrī- bhāgavatasyānukramaṇam: “The word anukramya in this verse means that Veda-vyāsa compiled a new edition of the already existing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.” Anuccheda 21.3 relates how the Mahabharata was once shown to be literally heavier than the Vedas. This came about because the Mahābhārata, using simple narrations, elabo- rated upon and lucidly explained the concise and cryptic subject matter of the Vedas. Vyasadeva makes this point in the Mahābhārata (Adi Parva 1.62): brahman veda-rahasyam ca yac canyat sthāpitaṁ mayā sāngopaniṣadaṁ caiva vedānāṁ vistara-kriyā Lord Brahmă, in this great work [Mahabharata] I have included the secret essence of all the Vedas and of all other scriptures as well. It explains in detail the Upanisads and the six corollaries and the Vedas. Originally the Mahābhārata had six million verses, but at present only one hundred thousand are available on earth. The rest can be found on higher planets, where people have life spans and memories suitable for absorbing such large amounts of information. The distribution of the Mahābhārata’s verses is mentioned in the Mahabhārata it- self (Adi-parva 1.106-107): şaştim śata-sahasrāṇi cakārānyāṁ sa saṁhitām trimśac chata-sahasram ca deva-loke pratisthitam pitrye pancadaśa proktam gandharveṣu caturdaśa ekam śata-sahasram tu mānuseṣu pratisthitam 98 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Then Śrila Vyasadeva compiled another samhitā [Mahābhārata], containing six million verses. Of these, three million are present in the heavenly planets, one and a half million on the planet of the forefathers, and one million four hundred thousand on the planet of the Gandharvas. The remaining one hundred thousand verses are available among human beings. Although abridged, the version of Mahābhārata on this planet is the longest epic ever written. So, due to the profundity of its topics (mahattva) and its great weight (bhāra-vatva) it is known as Mahābhārata. The Mahābhārata is more versatile than the Vedas be- cause the restrictions that apply to studying the Vedas are absent with the Mahābhārata. Anyone may read and enjoy the Mahābhārata, regardless of social position or gender. However, only the Mokṣa-dharma and a few other sections of the Mahābhārata directly glorify Lord Nārāyaṇa as su- preme. Other sections mainly deal with a mixture of topics, such as fruitive rituals, politics, and charity. By contrast, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam avoids all topics not related to the glo- ries of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The entire Bhāgavatam speaks only about the glories of the Supreme Lord, and this exclusive focus makes it superior to the Mahābhārata. Thus it has been said, “Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam establishes the meaning of the Mahābhārata.” In the next anuccheda, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī cites further proof that the Bhāgavatam is the essence of all Vedic litera- ture and the topmost pramāṇa. ANUCCHEDA 22.1 ŚRIMAD-BHAGAVATAM IS THE ESSENCE OF ALL VEDIC LITERATURE तथा च तृतीये; “मुनिर्विवक्षुर्भगवद्गुणानां सखापि ते भारतमाह कृष्णः । Anuccheda 22 यस्मिन्नृणां ग्राम्यकथानुवादै र्मतिर्गृहीता नु हरेः कथायाम् ॥ इति [ भा. ३.५.१२] tathā ca trtiye: “munir vivakṣur bhagavad-guṇānāṁ sakhāpi te bhāratam āha kṛṣṇaḥ yasmin nṛṇāṁ grāmya-kathānuvādair matir gṛhītā nu hareḥ kathāyām 99 Similarly, the Third Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (3.5.12) confirms that the Srimad-Bhāgavatam establishes the mean- ing of the Mahābhārata: “Your friend, the great sage Krsna-dvaipāyana Vyasa, has already described the transcendental qualities of the Lord in His great work the Mahābhārata. But the whole idea is to draw the attention of the mass of people to kṛṣṇa-kathā through their strong affinity for hearing mundane topics.” ANUCCHEDA 22.2 | अथ क्रमप्राप्ता व्याख्या तस्माद् ] गायत्रीभाष्यरूपोऽसौ । तथैव हि विष्णुधर्मोत्तरादौ [वि.पु. १. १६५ ] तद्वयाख्याने भगवानेव विस्तरेण प्रतिपादितः । अत्र “ जन्माद्यस्य” इत्यस्य व्याख्यानञ्च तथा दर्शयिष्यते । (atha krama-prāptā vyākhyā. tasmād) gāyatrī-bhāṣya-rūpo ‘sau. tathaiva hi visnu dharmottarādau tad vyākhyāne bhagavān eva vistareṇa pratipāditaḥ. atra “janmādy asya” ity asya vyākhyānaṁ ca tathā darśayiṣyate. That the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is a commentary on Gayatri is shown in the Viṣṇu-dharmottara Purāṇa, which elaborately demonstrates, in its explanation of the Gayatri mantra (Prathama-khanda 165), that the object of meditation in the Gayatri is the Supreme Lord. We shall provide similar proofs that the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is a commentary on Gayatri when we comment on the Bhāgavatam’s first verse ( begin- ning janmādy asya). 100 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 22.3 । वेदार्थपरिवहितः वेदार्थस्य परिवृंहणं यस्मात् । तच्चोक्तम्; “इतिहासपुराणाभ्याम् ” [म.भा. आदि पर्व. १.२६७ ] इत्यादि । पुराणानां सामरूपः- वेदेषु सामवत् स तेषु श्रेष्ठ इत्यर्थः । अतएव स्कान्दे विष्णुखण्डे ; [ २.५.१६.४०,४१,४२,४४,३३] “ शतशोऽथ सहस्रैश्च किमन्यैः शास्त्रसंग्रहैः । न यस्य तिष्ठते गेहे शास्त्रं भागवतं कलौ ॥ कथं स वैष्णवो ज्ञेयः शास्त्रं भागवतं कलौ । गृहे न तिष्ठते यस्य स विप्रः श्वपचाधमः ॥ यत्र यत्र भवेद्विप्र शास्त्रं भागवतं कलौ । तत्र तत्र हरिर्याति त्रिदशैः सह नारद ॥ यः पठेत् प्रयतो नित्यं श्लोकं भागवतं मुने । अष्टादशपुराणानां फलं प्राप्नोति मानवः ॥” इति । “vedärtha-paribṛmhitaḥ-vedärthasya paribṛṁhaṇaṁ yasmāt. tac coktam — “itihāsa-purānābhyām” ity-ādi. “purāṇānāṁ sāma-rūpaḥ”-vedeșu sāma-vat sa teṣu śrestha ity arthaḥ. ata eva skände viṣṇu-khande: “śataso ’tha sahasraiś ca kim anyaiḥ śāstra-sangrahaiḥ na yasya tiṣṭhate gehe śāstraṁ bhāgavataṁ kalau katham sa vaiṣṇavo jñeyaḥ śāstraṁ bhāgavataṁ kalau grhe na tisthate yasya sa vipraḥ śva-pacādhamaḥ yatra yatra bhaved vipra śāstraṁ bhāgavataṁ kalau tatra tatra harir yāti tridaśaiḥ saha nārada yaḥ pathet prayato nityam ślokaṁ bhāgavataṁ mune aṣṭādaśa-purāṇānāṁ phalaṁ prāpnoti mānavaḥ” iti. Vedartha-paribmhitaḥ means that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam ex- plains and expands the Vedas. Purānānām sāma-rūpah (the Sāma among the Purāṇas) means that just as the Sama Veda is supreme among the Vedas, so Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is supreme among the Purāṇas. Therefore the Skanda Purana, Visnu-khanda, 5.16.40- 42, 44, 33, says, “In Kali- yuga what is the value of collecting 2 12 Anuccheda 22 101 hundreds of thousands of other scriptures if one does not keep Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam at home? How can a person be considered a Vaiṣṇava in Kali-yuga if Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam finds no place in his house? Even if he is a learned brāhmaṇa, such a person should be considered lower than a dog -eater. O learned brāhmana Narada, wherever Srimad- Bhāgavatam is present in Kali-yuga, the Supreme Lord goes there with the demigods. A person who faithfully recites one verse of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam every day, O sage, attains the fruit of reading the eighteen Purāṇas.” ANUCCHEDA 22.4 शतविच्छेदसंयुतः पञ्चत्रिंशदधिकशतत्रयाध्यायविशिष्ट इत्यर्थः, स्पष्टार्थमन्यत् । तदेवं परमार्थविवित्सुभिः श्रीभागवतमेव साम्प्रतं विचारणीयमिति स्थितम् । “śata-viccheda-samyutan” pañca-trimsad-adhika-śata- trayādhyāya-viśista ity-arthah. spastārtham anyat. tad evam paramartha-vivitsubhiḥ śrī-bhāgavatam eva sampratam vicāraṇīyam iti sthitam. The phrase śata-viccheda-samyutah (“having hundreds of divisions”) implies that the Bhāgavatam has three hundred and thirty-five chapters. The meaning of the rest of the pas- sage [quoted at the beginning of Anuccheda 21] is obvious. Thus we conclude that at the present time those who want to know the highest goal of life should deliberate on Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam alone. हेमादेर्व्रतखण्डे [१.२८] 66 ANUCCHEDA 22.5 “स्त्रीशूद्र-द्विजबन्धूनां त्रयी न श्रुतिगोचरा । कर्मश्रेयसि मूढानां श्रेय एवं भवेदिह । इति भारतमाख्यानं कृपया मुनिना कृतम् ॥” [ भा. १.४.२५ ] 102 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha इति वाक्यं श्रीभागवतीयत्वेनोत्थाप्य भारतस्य वेदार्थतुल्यत्वेन विशिष्य निर्णयः कृत इति तन्मतानुसारेण त्वेवं व्याख्येयं; भारतार्थस्य विनिर्णयो—वेदार्थतुल्यत्वेन विशिष्य निर्णयो यत्रेति । hemādrer vrata-khande: “stri-śūdra-dvija-bandhūnāṁ trayī na śruti-gocarā karma-śreyasi mūḍhānāṁ śreya evaṁ bhaved iha iti bhāratam ākhyānaṁ kṛpayā muninā kṛtam” iti vākyaṁ śrī-bhāgavatīyatvenotthāpya bhāratasya vedārtha-tulyatvena viśiṣya nirṇayaḥ kṛta iti tan- matānusāreņa tv evaṁ vyākhyeyam, “bhāratārthasya vinirnayo” - vedārtha tulyatvena visisya nirnayo yatreti. In Catur-varga cintamani, Vrata-khanda (128), Hemādri cites the following verse and attributes it to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: “Out of compassion, the great sage thought it wise to do something so that even those who were ignorant of how to act for their own welfare would be enabled to achieve the ultimate goal of life. Thus He compiled the great historical narration called the Mahābhārata for women, laborers, and friends of the twice-born, because they do not have access to the Vedas. " (Bhāg. 1.4.25). Hemādri uses this verse to demonstrate that the Mahābhārata is as valuable as the Vedas, and the phrase bhāratārtha-vinimṇayaḥ (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam establishes the meaning of the Mahābhārata) should be explained in accor- dance with this view as saying that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the literature in which the Mahābhārata’s message is con- clusively defined and shown to be equal to that of the Vedas. ANUCCHEDA 22.6 66 यस्मादेवं भगवत्परस्तस्मादेव " यत्राधिकृत्य गायत्रीम्” इति कृतलक्षणश्रीमद्भागवतनामा ग्रन्थः श्रीभगवत्पराया गायत्र्या भाष्यरूपोऽसौ । तदुक्तम् “यत्राधिकृत्य गायत्रीम् ” इत्यादि । तथैव हि अग्निपुराणे तस्या व्याख्याने श्रीभगवान् एव विस्तरेण प्रतिपादितः । । ।Anuccheda 22 103 yasmād evaṁ bhagavat-paras tasmād eva “yatrādhikṛtya gāyatrīm” iti kṛta-lakṣaṇa-śrī-bhāgavata-nāmā granthaḥ śrī- bhagavat-parāyā gāyatryā bhāsya-rūpo ‘sau. tad uktam — “yatrādhikrtya gāyatrim” ity ādi. tathaiva hi agni-purane tasyā vyākhyāne śrī-bhagavān eva vistareṇa pratipāditaḥ. Since the book named Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, characterized as “beginning with the Gayatri mantra,” is dedicated to the Personality of Godhead, it serves as a commentary on Gayatri, which is also dedicated to the Supreme Lord. This same point-that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is a commentary on the Gayatri mantra-is made in such statements as “in which [Bhāgavatam] Gayatri is introduced as the basis of discussion.”” Furthermore, the Agni Purāṇa describes the Personality of Godhead at length in the course of its exposition of the Gayatri mantra. ANUCCHEDA 22.7 तत्र तदीयव्याख्यादिग्दर्शनं यथा [अग्नि. पु. २१६.७] “ तज्जयोतिः परमं ब्रह्म भर्गस्तेजो यतः स्मृतः । " 64 इत्यारभ्य पुनराह; [अग्नि. २१६.६ - ८ ] “तज्ज्योतिर्भगवान् विष्णुर्जगज्जन्मादिकारणम् । शिवं केचित् पठन्ति स्म शक्तिरूपं वदन्ति च ॥ केचित् सूर्यं केचिदग्निं दैवतान्यग्निहोत्रिणः । अग्न्यादिरूपी विष्णुर्हि वेदादौ ब्रह्म गीयते ॥” इति । tatra tadīya-vyākhyā-dig-darśanaṁ yathā: “taj jyotiḥ paramaṁ brahma bhargas tejo yataḥ smṛtaḥ” ity ārabhya punar āha: “taj jyotir bhagavan viṣṇur jagaj- janmadi-karanam / sivam kecit pathanti sma śakti-rūpam vadanti ca / kecit sūryaṁ kecid agniṁ daivatāny agni- hotrinah / agny-adi-rupi vishur hi vedādau brahma giyate” iti. Here is a short summary of this explanation from the Agni Purāna 216.3: “That light is called the Supreme Brahman because the word bhargas [in Gayatrī] means ’effulgence.” 104 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha Then Agni says: “That effulgence is Lord Viṣṇu, who is the cause of the universal creation, maintenance, and dis- solution. Some people say " effulgence” here refers instead to Śiva, while others say it means Sakti. Others say it refers to the sun, and still others say Agni. While chanting Gäyatri, the brāhmaṇas who perform Vedic fire sacrifices (Agni-hotrīs) worship various demigods. But it is Lord Viṣṇu who is present in the forms of Agni and the other demigods, and the Vedas praise Him as the Absolute Truth, Brahman” (Agni Purāna 216.7–8). ANUCCHEDA 22.8 अत्र “ जन्माद्यस्य” इत्यस्य व्याख्यानञ्च तथा दर्शयिष्यते । “ कस्मै येन विभाषितोऽयम्” [भा. १२.१३.१९] 66 इत्युपसंहारवाक्ये च ‘तच्छुद्धम्’ इत्यादि समानमेवाग्निपुराणे [२१६. ६ ] तद्वयाख्यानम् । “ नित्यं शुद्धं परं ब्रह्म नित्यभर्गमधीश्वरम् । अहं ज्योतिः परं ब्रह्म ध्यायेम हि विमुक्तये ॥” इति । अत्राहं ब्रह्मेति । “नादेवो देवमर्चयेत्” इति न्यायेन योग्यत्वाय स्वस्य तादृक्त्व भावना दर्शिता । ध्यायेमेति अहं तावत् ध्यायेयं सर्वे च वयं ध्यायेमेत्यर्थः । atra “janmādy asya” ity asya vyākhyānaṁ ca tathā darśayisyate. “Kasmai yena vibhāsito ‘yam” ity upasaṁhāra-vākye ca “tac chuddham” ity-ādi-samānam evāgni-purāṇe tad-vyākhyānam: “nityaṁ śuddhaṁ paraṁ brahma nitya-bhargam adhiśvaram/aham jyotiḥ param brahma dhyāyema hi vimuktaye” iti. atra ahaṁ brahma iti “nādevo devam arcayet” iti nyāyena yogyatvāya svasya tādrktva bhāvanā darśitā. dhyāyemety aham tāvad dhyāyeyam sarve ca vayam dhyāyemety arthaḥ. Later, while commenting on the opening verse of the Bhāgavatam (beginning janmādy asya), we will again present the idea of the Bhāgavatam’s being a commmentary on Anuccheda 22 105 Gāyatri. Also, in one of the concluding verses of the Bhāgavatam (12.13.19, beginning kasmai yena vibhāsito), we find the phrase tac chuddham (it is pure), which is ex- actly echoed in the explanation of Gayatri in the Agni Purāṇa: “For liberation, let us meditate on the Supreme Brahman, who is eternal, pure, transcendental, always effulgent, and the supreme controller, and as we meditate let us think, ‘I am that light, the Supreme Truth” (Agni Purāna 216.6). Here the mood of thinking “I am one with Brahman” is meant to help the meditator become fit to worship the Supreme Lord, following the principle “One who is not godly cannot properly worship God.” The verb form dhyāyema (we should medi- tate) signifies that “not only I, but all of us should meditate.” ANUCCHEDA 22.9 तदेतन्मते तु मन्त्रेऽपि भर्गशब्दोऽयमदन्त एव स्यात् । ‘सुपां सुलुक्’ इत्यादिना छान्दससूत्रेण तु द्वितीयैकवचनस्य ‘अमः’ ‘सु’ भावो ज्ञेयः । यत्तु द्वादशे “ॐ नमस्ते” इत्यादिगद्येषु [भा. १२.६.६७-६९] तदर्थत्वेन सूर्यः स्तुतः, तत्परमात्म- दृष्ट्यैव; न तु स्वातन्त्रेणेत्यदोषः । । tad etan-mate tu mantre ‘pi bharga-śabdo ‘yam ad-anta eva syāt. “supām su-luk” ity ādinā chāndasa sūtrena tu dvitiyaika-vacanasya “amah” “su”-bhāvo jñeyah. yat tu dvādaśe “om namas te ity-adi gadyesu tad-arthatvena suryaḥ stutaḥ, tat paramātma-dṛṣṭyaiva na tu svätantryeṇety adoṣaḥ. According to this view, however, the word bharga in the Gayatri mantra should end with the vowel a, making the origi- nal word bharga instead of bhargas. This irregular usage of bhargas where bharga might be expected can be explained as an instance of the type given in Pānini sūtra 7.1.39, which is intended for the analysis of Vedic texts. The sūtra is supām su-luk, which means that the suffix - “am” of a singular accu- sative case may be replaced by - “su”. 106 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha In the prose section of the Twelfth Canto of the Bhāgavatam (12.6.67-72), beginning or namas te, 2 the sun is praised as the object of worship in Gāyatrī. We should understand that this passage refers to the Supersoul resid- ing within the sun rather than to the sun independently; un- derstood in this way, the statement is faultless. ANUCCHEDA 22.10 तथैवाग्रे श्रीशौनकवाक्यम् [भा.१२.११.२८]; “ब्रूहि नः श्रद्दधानानां व्यूहं सूर्य्यात्मनो हरेः ॥” इति । न चास्य भर्गस्य सूर्य्यमण्डलमात्राधिष्ठानत्वम्, मन्त्रे वरेण्यशब्देन, अत्र च ग्रन्थे परशब्देन परमैश्वर्यपर्यन्तताया दर्शितत्वात् । tathaivāgre śrī-śaunaka-vākyam: “brūhi naḥ śraddadhānānāṁ vyūhaṁ sūryātmano hareḥ iti. na cāsya bhargasya sūrya-mandala- mātrādhiṣṭhānatvam, mantre varenya-sabdena atra ca granthe para-sabdena paramaiśvarya-paryantatāyā darśitatvāt. Later in the Bhāgavatam Saunaka Rşi confirms this: “O Sūta, kindly explain to us, who are faithful, the glory of Lord Hari’s expansion as the Supersoul within the sun ” ( Bhāg.12.11.28). Similarly, one should not think that the word bharga (effulgence) in Gayatri refers only to the controller of the sun globe, since the word varenya (transcendental) in the Gāyatrī mantra and the word para in the Bhāgavatam verses cited above (1.1.1 and 12.13.19) have both been shown to refer ultimately to the transcendental opulence of the Supreme. ANUCCHEDA 22.11 तदेवमग्निपुराणेऽप्युक्तम् [२१६.१६]; “ध्यानेन पुरुषोऽयञ्च द्रष्टव्यः सूर्य्यमण्डले । 2 The BBT version of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam has a variant reading here: om namo bhagavate. Anuccheda 22 सत्यं सदाशिवं ब्रह्म तद्विष्णोः परमं पदम् ॥” इति । त्रिलोकीजनानामुपासनार्थं प्रलये विनाशिनि सूर्य्यमण्डले चान्तर्य्यामितया प्रादुर्भूतोऽयं पुरुषो ध्यानेन द्रष्टव्यः उपासितव्यः । यत्तु विष्णोस्तस्य महावैकुण्ठरूपं परमं पदं, तदेव सत्यं कालत्रयाव्यभिचारि, सदाशिव उपद्रवशून्यं, यतो ब्रह्मस्वरूपमित्यर्थः । tad evam agni - purane ‘py uktam: 107 “dhyānena puruṣo ‘yaṁ ca draṣṭavyaḥ sūrya-maṇḍale satyaṁ sadā-śivaṁ brahma tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padam” iti. tri-loki-janānām upāsanārtham pralaye vināśini sūrya- maṇḍale cantar-yāmitayā prādurbhūto ‘yam puruso dhyānena draṣṭavya upāsitavyaḥ. yat tu viṣṇos tasya mahā-vaikuntha-rūpaṁ paramam padam tad eva satyam kāla-trayāvyabhicāri sadā-śivam upadrava-śūnyaṁ yato brahma-svarūpam ity arthah. The Agni Purāna 216.16 similarly states : “One may further meditate on the Supreme Lord as present in the sun, but the final goal of life is Lord Viṣṇu’s abode, which alone is the eternal and ever-auspicious Absolute Truth.” The meaning of this verse is as follows: The Personality of Godhead should be meditated upon as the Supersoul, or inner controller, dwelling within the sun globe, where He appears so that the inhabitants of the three worlds may worship Him. This sun globe will be destroyed at the time of dissolution, but the transcendental abode of Lord Visnu, Maha-vaikuntha, is permanent, unchanging in the past, present, and future. It is also always auspicious - that is, free from all disturbance-because it is identical with the Supreme Lord’s own self. ANUCCHEDA 22.12 तदेतद्गायत्रीं प्रोच्य पुराणलक्षणप्रकरणे यत्राधिकृत्य गायत्रीमित्याद्यप्युक्तमग्निपुराणे । तस्मात्; 66 “ अग्नेः पुराणं गायत्री समेत्य भगवत्पराम् । 108 Sri Tattva-Sandarbha भगवन्तं तत्र मत्वा जगज्जन्मादिकारणम् ॥ यत्राधिकृत्य गायत्रीमिति लक्षणपूर्व्वकम् । । श्रीमद्भागवतं शश्वत् पृथ्वयां जयति सर्व्वतः ॥ " तदेवमस्य शास्त्रस्य गायत्रीमधिकृत्य प्रवृत्तिर्दर्शिता । tad etad gāyatrīṁ procya purāṇa-lakṣaṇa-prakaraṇe “yatrādhikrtya gāyatrim” ity-ady apy uktam agni-purane. tasmāt : “agneh purānam gāyatrim sametya bhagavat- parām bhagavantaṁ tatra matvā jagaj-janmādi-kāranam yatrādhikṛtya gāyatrim iti lakṣaṇa-pūrvakam śrīmad- bhāgavatam śaśvat pṛthvyām jayati sarvataḥ” tad evam asya śāstrasya gāyatrim adhikṛtya pravṛttir darśitā. After explaining Gayatri in this way, the Agni Purāṇa further elaborates on Gāyatrī in the section dealing with the char- acteristics of the Purānas, which contains the verse begin- ning yatra adhikṛtya gāyatrīm. Thus we say: “The Agni Puraṇa explains that the Gayatri mantra is dedicated to the Personality of Godhead, the source of the universe’s maintenance, dissolution, and other phases of existence. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, characterized by the phrase taking Gāyatrī as its topic,' is thus ever-glorious all over the earth." And so we have shown how it is that the beginning of this scripture [Srimad Bhagavatam] refers to Gayatri as its subject. ANUCCHEDA 22.13 यत्तु सारस्वतकल्पमधिकृत्येति पूर्वमुक्तं तच्च गायत्र्या भगवत्प्रतिपादकवाग्विशेषरूपसरस्वतीत्वादुपयुक्तमेव । यदुक्तमग्निपुराणे [ २१६. १-२ ]; 66 “ गायत्युक्थानि शास्त्राणि भर्गं प्राणांस्तथैव च । ततः स्मृतेयं गायत्री सावित्री यत एव च । प्रकाशिनी सा सवितुर्वाग्रूपत्वात् सरस्वती ॥” इति । yat tu sārasvata-kalpam adhikṛtyeti pūrvam uktam, tac ca gāyatryā bhagavat-pratipādaka-vāg-viśeṣa-rūpa- Anuccheda 22 sarasvatītvād upayuktam eva. yad uktam agni-purāṇe: “gāyaty ukthāni śāstrāṇi bhargaṁ prāṇāṁs tathaiva ca tataḥ smṛteyaṁ gāyatrī sāvitrī yatra eva ca prakāśinī sā savitur vāg-rūpatvāt sarasvati” iti. 109 Still, the statement made earlier that the subject of the Bhāgavatam is the Sarasvata-kalpa, the day of Brahma re- lated to Sarasvati—is appropriate because Sarasvati is the goddess of speech, who glorifies the Supreme Lord. Gāyatrī is also a manifestation of Sarasvati as a special verbal ex- pression establishing the Lord's glories. Thus the Agni Purāṇa says about Gāyatrī: "It is called Gāyatrī because it sings about (gāyati) or illuminates the Vedic mantras, the scriptures, the Supreme Lord, and one's intelligence. It is called Săvitrī because it reveals Lord Savita, the creator. And it is called Sarasvatī because it is the essence of speech " (Agni Purana 216.1, 2). ANUCCHEDA 22.14 अथ क्रमप्राप्ता व्याख्या; वेदार्थपरिवृंहित इति वेदार्थस्य परिवृंहणं यस्मात्, तच्चोक्तमितिहासपुराणाभ्यामिति । पुराणानां सामरूप इति वेदेषु सामवत् पुराणेषु श्रेष्ठ इत्यर्थः । पुराणान्तराणां केषाञ्चिदापाततो रजस्तमसी जुषमाणैस्तत्परत्वा- प्रतीतत्वेऽपि वेदानां काण्डत्रयवाक्यैकवाक्यतायां यथा साम्ना तथा तेषां श्रीभागवतेन प्रतिपाद्ये श्रीभगवत्येव पर्यवसानमिति भावः । तदुक्तम् [म.भा. स्व. पर्व. ६.९३ ] “वेदे रामायणे चैव पुराणे भारते तथा । आदावन्ते च मध्ये च हरिः सर्वत्र गीयते ॥” इति । प्रतिपादयिष्यते च तदिदं परमात्मसन्दर्भे । atha krama-prāptā vyākhyā. “vedārtha-paribṛṁhita iti vedārthasya paribṛṁhaṇaṁ yasmāt. tac coktam “itihāsa- purāṇābhyām” ity-ādi. “purāṇānāṁ sāma-rūpa” iti vedeșu sāma-vat purāṇeṣu śreṣṭha ity arthaḥ. purāṇāntarāṇāṁ keṣāñcid āpātato rajas-tamasī juṣamāṇais tat- 110 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha paratvāpratītatve 'pi vedānāṁ kāṇḍa-traya-vākyaika- vākyatāyāṁ yathā sāmnā tathā teṣāṁ śrī-bhāgavatena pratipādye śrī-bhagavaty eva paryavasānam iti bhāvaḥ. tad uktam "vede rāmāyaṇe caiva purāṇe bhārate tathā ādāv ante ca madhye ca hariḥ sarvatra gīyate” iti pratipadayiṣyate ca tad idam aramātma-sandarbhe. Now we will resume our sequential explanation of the terms in the passage quoted above from the Garuda Purāṇa (at the beginning of Anuccheda 21): The phrase vedārtha-paribṛṁhitaḥ, which means that the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam explains and expands the Vedas, is supported by the following statment from the Mahābhārata (Adi-parva 1.267): “One should supplement the Vedas with the Itihāsas and Purānas." The phrase purāṇānāṁ sāma-rupa means that just as the Sāma Veda is the supreme Veda, so Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the supreme Purāṇa. The idea here is as follows: The Sāma Veda reconciles the statements of the three divisions of the Vedas-karma- kāṇḍa, jñāna-kāṇḍa, and upāsanā-kāṇḍa—by showing that their message is one. Similarly, Srimad-Bhāgavatam gives the essence of all the Purāṇas as worship of the Supreme Lord although some of the Purāņas appear to be tainted with the modes of passion and ignorance. Thus it is said, "Throughout the Vedas, Rāmāyaṇa, Purāņas, and Mahābhārata, Lord Hari is glorified everywhere, in the begin- ning, middle, and end” (Mahābhārata, Svarga-parva 6.93). This we will demonstrate later, in the Paramātma-Sandarbha. ANUCCHEDA 22.15 साक्षाद्भगवतोदित इति; 'कस्मै येन विभाषितोऽयम्' इत्युपसंहारवाक्यानुसारेण ज्ञेयम् । शतविच्छेदसंयुत इति विस्तरभिया न विव्रियते । तदेवं श्रीमद्भागवतं सर्वशास्त्रचक्रवर्त्तिपदमाप्तमिति स्थिते [भा. १२.१३.१३] 'हेमसिंहसमन्वितम्' इत्यत्र 'सुवर्णसिंहासनारूढम् इति टीकाकारैर्यद्वयाख्यातं तदेव युक्तम् । । J Anuccheda 22 111 “sākṣād bhagavatodita” iti “kasmai yena vibhāṣito ‘yam” ity upasaṁhāra-vākyānusāreņa jñeyam. "śata-viccheda- samyuta❞ iti vistara-bhiya na vivriyate. tad evam śrīmad- bhāgavataṁ sarva-śāstra-cakravarti-padam āptam iti sthite "hema-simha-samanvitam" ity atra suvama-simhāsanārūdham iti tīkā-kārair yad vyākhyātaṁ tad eva yuktam. That the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is sākṣād bhagavatoditaḥ (spoken directly by the Supreme Lord) is confirmed in the verse near the end of the Bhāgavatam (12.13.19) begin- ning kasmai yena vibhāṣito, wherein it is said, “We meditate upon the Supreme Lord, who spoke this Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to Brahmă." Here we will not explain the phrase sata-viccheda- samyutaḥ (the Srimad-Bhāgavatam contains hundreds of divisions) because we are concerned that this book may become too long. In this way it has been shown that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the emperor of all scriptures. And thus it is most appropri- ate that Śrīdhara Svāmī has interpreted the phrase hema- simha-samanvitam (from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 12.13.13) to mean "mounted on a golden throne," although ordinarily it would mean "along with a golden lion." ANUCCHEDA 22.16 अतः श्रीमद्भागवतस्यैवाभ्यासावश्यकत्वं श्रेष्ठत्वञ्च स्कान्दे निर्णीतम् ; 'शतशोऽथ सहस्रैश्च किमन्यैः शास्त्रसंग्रहः' इति । तदेवं परमार्थविवित्सुभिः श्रीभागवतमेव साम्प्रतं विचारणीयमिति स्थितम् ॥ २२ ॥ ataḥ śrīmad-bhāgavatasyaivābhyāsāvaśyakatvaṁ Śresthatvam ca skände nirnītam. "śataso 'tha sahasrais ca kim anyaiḥ śāstra-sangrahaiḥ” iti. tad evam paramārtha- vivitsubhiḥ śrī-bhāgavatam eva sāmprataṁ vicāraṇīyam iti sthitam. Therefore, concluding that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the best scripture and the only one we need to study, the Skanda 112 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha Purāna states, "What need is there of accumulating hun- dreds and thousands of other scriptures?" (Skanda Purāna, Visnu-khanda 5.16.40). And thus it is established without any doubt that at present those who desire to know the Absolute Truth should deliberate on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam alone. COMMENTARY In the previous anuccheda, Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi quoted three verses from the Garuda Purāna. The first of the three was explained in that anuccheda and now he explains the other two. He first quotes a Bhāgavatam verse (3.5.12), and then another (1.4.25), which also appears in Hemādri's Catur- varga-cintāmaņi, an authoritative 13th-century work on Dharma-sastra dealing with such subjects as vratas (vows), dāna (charity), śrāddha (memorial rituals), and kāla (con- siderations of time). Jīva Gosvāmi's intention in quoting these verses is to show that the Mahābhārata is equal to the Vedas. In this part of the Catur-varga-cintāmaṇi, Hemādrī raises a question about the salvation of those who are not twice- born: Since they do not have access to the Vedas, which give knowledge about Brahman, and since knowledge of Brahman is required for salvation, how can they be saved? To resolve this question he quotes the stri-sudra- dvijabandhūnāṁ verse,(Bhāg. 1.4.25), which describes how Veda-vyāsa wrote Mahābhārata to solve this very problem. The first of the two Bhāgavatam verses cited (3.5.12) also states that Śrila Vyasa compiled the Mahābhārata for the salvation of the common man: "Your friend, the great sage Kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana Vyāsa, has already described the transcendental qualities of the Lord in His great work the Mahābhārata. But the whole idea is to draw the attention of the mass of people to kṛṣṇa-kathā through their strong af- finity for hearing mundane topics." To fulfill this plan he in- cluded the Bhagavad-gītā in the Mahābhārata. Since the Mahābhārata is considered equal to the Vedas in purpose- as is evident from the second verse (Bhag. 1.4.25), and asi Anuccheda 22 113 corroborated by Hemādri-we can deduce that the Vedas also aim at glorifying the Supreme Lord. This being so, the Gāyatrī mantra, which represents the essence of the Vedas, should also refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. It is with this understand- ing that the Skanda Purāṇa says the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which glorifies the Lord at every step, is based on Gāyatrī. Indeed, this is one of the distinctive characteristics of Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam. In the Paramātma-Sandarbha, Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi will analyze the first verse of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in terms of its being an explanation of the Gāyatri mantra. Gāyatrī is ex- plained in the concluding verses of the Bhāgavatam as well. This combination of indications from the beginning and ending verses makes it indisputably clear that the purpose of Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam is to explain the Personality of Godhead. The prevalent understanding among traditional Vedic scholars is that Gāyatrī is meant for worshiping either the sun-god or the impersonal Brahman. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi here establishes, however, that the real meaning of Gayatri is the worship of Lord Viṣṇu, who is nondifferent from Lord Kṛṣṇa. To support his opinion he cites the Agni Purāṇa, which gives Śrīla Vyasa's opinion on the meaning of Gayatri. In the Viṣṇu- dharmottara Purāṇa (165th chapter, Prathama Khaṇḍa), King Vajra asks Mārkaṇḍeya Rṣi why Gāyatri is chanted in Vaisnava sacrifices if its presiding deity is the sun-god. Märkandeya replied that Gayatri refers to Lord Viṣṇu, and then he proceeded to show how each word of Gayatri is related to Lord Visnu. He concluded with this verse: kama-kāmo labhet kāmam gati-kāmas tu sad-gatim akāmas tu tad avapnoti yad visnoḥ paramam padam A person desiring material gain or liberation in the next life can achieve either by chanting Gayatri, but the worshiper who is devoid of desires attains the supreme abode of Lord Visnu. It would not be possible to attain the Lord's abode by medi- tating on Gayatri if it did not in fact express worship of Lord 114 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha Vişnu; this accords with the Lord's statement in the Bhagavad-gītā (9.25) that "Only My worshiper attains Me." Thus Gayatri and the first verse of the Bhāgavatam are in complete agreement because they are both meditations on the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The verse cited from the Agni Purāṇa in Anuccheda 22.8, advising us to meditate on Brahman as nondifferent from ourselves, is also in agreement with the Bhāgavatam and Gayatri. The verse is meant to remind us of our spiritual na- ture, teach us a meditation that removes our bodily identifi- cation, and thus help us worship the Supreme Lord. In the later anucchedas of the Tattva-Sandarbha, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī will discuss in more detail the qualitative oneness of the jiva Brahman with the Supreme Brahman. In Anucchedas 22.9-11, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī discusses the relationship between Gāyatri and the sun. The Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam (12.6.67-72) records the sage Yājñavalkya's prayers in praise of the sun or sun-god, among which texts 67-69 explain the three legs of the Gayatri mantra. From these prayers it may seem that Gayatri is also meant for glorifying the sun-god, but Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī explains that Yajnavalkya is not worshiping the sun-god independently; rather, he is worshiping the Supersoul dwelling within the sun-god. Generally people hail a taxi driver by calling out "Taxi!" not "Taxi driver!" for they regard the driver and his taxi as one unit. Similarly, Yājñavalkya worships the sun-god while considering the "vehicle" (the sun-god) and the "driver" (the Supersoul) as one. This explanation by Jīva Gosvāmī finds confirmation in Śrī Śaunaka's question to Sūta Gosvāmī that led to the recitation of Yājñavalkya's prayers. Śaunaka ex- plicitly requests "to hear about Lord Hari, the Supersoul of the sun" (Bhāg. 12.11.28). Brāhmaṇas customarily chant Gāyatri at dawn and at dusk while facing the sun. In this way they meditate on the Supreme Lord through His energies. The logical principle working here is called candra-śākhā-nyāya, or "the example of the branch and the moon." The idea is that to show some- one the moon you may first ask him to look at a tree branch, Anuccheda 22 115 from which you may then draw his attention to the moon beyond the branch. Similarly, the process of meditating on the Lord may include allowing one's attention to be drawn to the Lord through His energies, such as the sun. It is not always practical or advisable for a twice-born brāhmaṇa to carry an actual Deity of the Lord, still he must perform his daily duty of meditating on the Lord at dawn and dusk. So the Vedas enjoin that he should meditate on the Lord through the medium of the ever-present sun, always remembering that beyond the effulgent sun is Lord Viṣṇu. This is called pratīkopāsanā. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi concludes his discussion of the rela- tionship of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam with Gayatri in Anuccheda 22.13, where he quotes a statement from the Agni Purāṇa that Gayatri is so called because it sings (gāyati) or illumi- nates the glories of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and protects (trāyate) the chanter by fixing his mind on the Lord. Gayatri is also related with the sun because one of the words used in Gāyatri is Savită, a name for the sun-god. Moreover, another name for Gāyatrī is Sāvitrī, the daughter of the sun-god. Then Gāyatri is also Sarasvati, the presiding deity of speech, because it is the sound representation of the Supreme Lord. The Skanda Purāṇa therefore states (in Anuccheda 20.1) that the Bhāgavatam is based on Gayatri (Sarasvati), it is the sound representation of Kṛṣṇa, and it re- counts events that occurred during the Sarasvata-kalpa; this implies that the Bhāgavatam's narrations glorify only Kṛṣṇa. In Anuccheda 22.4, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī resumes his analysis of each phrase of the verses from the Garuda Purāṇa quoted in Anuccheda 21. In these verses Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam is described as the Sāma Veda among the Purāņas. In Bhagavad-gītā (10.22),Lord Kṛṣṇa says, “Of all the Vedas I am the Sama Veda." Here Kṛṣṇa indicates that since the Sāma Veda is the best of all the Vedas, containing beautiful prayers glorifying the Supreme Lord, it therefore represents Him. Such glorification of the Lord is, after all, the ultimate purpose of the Vedas, as Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.2.28) states: vasudeva-parā vedāḥ. The karma-kāṇḍa and 116 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha jñāna-kāṇḍa portions of the Vedas glorify Kṛṣṇa indirectly, while the Sāma Veda glorifies Him directly, and therefore it is the most important of the Vedas. Like the Vedas, the Purāņas also glorify various deities, although their underly- ing purpose is the glorification of Kṛṣṇa, and Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam is the Sāma Veda among the Purāņas because it focuses exclusively on Kṛṣṇa. Bhāgavatam reconciles the other Purāṇas just as the Sāma Veda reconciles the various kāṇḍas of the Vedas. Thus, the Skanda Purāṇa declares, by studying Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam one gets the benefit of studying all the Puranas. The very name Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam reveals its superior position. Śrīmat means "beautiful,” and bhāgavata means "related to the Supreme Lord." Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is thus the most beautiful literary creation because it describes the beautiful pastimes of the Supreme Person. Śrīmat also means "opulent." Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is most opulent be- cause it is identical with Bhagavan, the Personality of Godhead replete with all opulences. Śata-viccheda-samyuta literally means that the Bhāgavatam 'has hundreds of sections." Although Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi does not comment in detail upon this phrase here, we may point out that most editions of the Bhāgavatam have 335 chapters, divided into twelve cantos, but some Vaiṣṇava commentators acknowledge only 332 chapters. They claim that Chapters Twelve, Thirteen, and Fourteen of the Tenth Canto are interpolations. However, such great authorities as Śrīdhara Svāmī and Vopadeva have accepted these three chapters and commented on them, and Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī has done so as well. The three chapters in question describe the killing of Aghāsura and Lord Brahma's bewilderment by Kṛṣṇa. In Chapter Twelve of the Twelfth Canto, Sūta Gosvāmī gives a list of the Lord's pastimes, and in the twenty-eighth text of that list he mentions the killing of Aghasura and Lord Brahma's bewilderment. The inclusion of the pastimes from the three disputed chapters clearly indicates that these chapters have a place in the Bhagavatam. Thus in the opinion of Śrīla THE Anuccheda 23 117 Jiva Gosvāmī the Bhāgavatam contains 335 chapters, since otherwise it will fall short of eighteen thousand verses. For a more detailed discussion of this controversy, see Appendix Two. Commenting on the phrase hema-simha-samanvitam (Bhāg. 12.13.13), which literally means "together with a golden lion," Srila Sridhara Svāmī says that simha (lion) indi- cates a simha-āsana, or Deity's throne. In other words, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam recommends that one mount the Bhāgavatam on a golden throne and then donate it. A golden throne is not recommended for any other Purāṇa. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī concludes, therefore, that just as the lion is the emperor of all animals, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the sover- eign ruler of all scriptures. Consequently it is also the sover- eign ruler among all pramāṇas, and, as the Skanda Purāna recommends, a person wishing to understand the absolute reality need not study any other scripture. Next Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmī describes how all the great ācāryas and scholars of the past held Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in the highest esteem. ANUCCHEDA 23.1 ŚRIMAD-BHAGAVATAM IS LUMINOUS LIKE THE SUN अतएव सत्स्वपि नानाशास्त्रेष्वे तदेवोक्तम्; “कलौ नष्टदशामेष पुराणार्को धुनोदितः ॥” [भा. १.३.४४] पुराणार्कोऽधुनोदितः इति । अर्कतारूपकेण तद्विना नान्येषां सम्यग्वस्तु- प्रकाशकत्वमिति प्रतिपद्यते । यस्यैव श्रीमद्भागवतस्य भाष्यभूतं श्रीहयशीर्षपञ्चरात्रे शास्त्रकथनप्रस्तावे गणितं तन्त्रभागवताभिधं तन्त्रम् । यस्य साक्षात् श्रीहनुमद्भाष्यवासनाभाष्यसम्बन्धोक्ति- विद्वत्कामधेनु तत्त्वदीपिकाभावार्थदीपिकापरमहंसप्रियाशुक- हृदयादयो व्याख्याग्रन्थास्तथा मुक्ताफलहरिलीलाभक्ति- रत्नावल्यादयो निबन्धाश्च विविधा एव तत्तन्मतप्रसिद्ध- महानुभावकृता विराजन्ते । । 118 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha ata eva satsv api nānā-śāstreṣv etad evoktaṁ—“kalau naṣṭa-dṛśām eṣa purāṇārko ‘dhunoditaḥ❞ iti. arkatā- rūpakeṇa tad vinā nānyeṣāṁ samyag-vastu- prakāśakatvam iti pratipādyate. yasyaiva śrīmad- bhāgavatasya bhāṣya-bhūtaṁ śrī-hayaśīrṣa-pañcarātre śāstra-kathana-prastāve gaṇitaṁ tantra-bhāgavatābhidham tantram. yasya sākṣāt śri hanūmad-bhāṣya-vāsanā- bhāṣya-sambandhokti-vidvat-kāmadhenu-tattva-dīpikā- bhāvārtha-dīpikā-paramahaṁsa-priyā-śuka-hṛdayādayo vyākhyā-granthās tathā muktā-phala-hari-līlā-bhakti- ratnāvaly-ādayo nibandhāś ca vividhā eva tat-tan-mata- prasiddha-mahānubhāva-kṛtā virājante. Thus while there are many authoritative scriptures, only Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam has been glorified with the statement "For the blind souls of Kali-yuga, this Purāṇa has now risen like the sun" (Bhag. 1.3.43). This comparison of the Bhāgavatam to the sun indicates that without its help other scriptures cannot illuminate the Absolute Truth. The Hayasirṣa Pañcarātra, in its chapter classifying vari- ous scriptures, describes the Tantra-bhāgavata as essen- tially a commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Among the direct commentaries on the Bhāgavatam are the Hanumad- bhāṣya, Vāsanā-bhāṣya, Sambandhokti, Vidvat-kāmadhenu, Tattva-dīpikā, Bhāvārtha-dipikā, Paramahaṁsa-priyā, and Śuka-hṛdayā; 3 there are also many works written about Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, such as Muktā-phala, Hari-līlā, and Bhakti-ratnāvalī. All these works have been produced by the most eminent thinkers of their respective philosophical schools. ANUCCHEDA 23.2 99 यदेव च हेमाद्रिग्रन्थस्य दानखण्डे पुराणदानप्रस्तावे मत्स्यपुराणीयतल्लक्षणधृत्या प्रशस्तम् । हेमाद्रिपरिशेषखण्डस्य कालनिर्णये च कलियुगधर्मनिर्णये, “कलिं सभाजयन्त्यार्य्याः [भा. ११.५.३६ ] इत्यादिकं यद्वाक्यत्वेनोत्थाप्य यत्प्रतिपादित- धर्म एव कलावङ्गीकृतः । [ संवत्सरप्रदीपे च तत् कर्त्रा 3None of these commentaries are available at present except the Bhāvārtha-dipikā of Śrīdhara Svāmī. Jai Anuccheda 23 “ शतशोऽथ सहस्रैश्च" इत्यादिकं प्राग्दर्शितं स्कान्दवचन- जातमुत्थाप्य सर्वकालदोषतः पावित्र्याय कतिचित् श्रीभागवतवचनानि लेख्यानीति लिखितानि । ] 119 yad eva ca hemādri-granthasya dāna khande purāna- dāna-prastāve mastya-puraniya-tal-laksana-dhrtya praśastam. hemadri-pariśesa khandasya kāla-nimnaye ca kali-yuga-dharma- nimaye "kalim sabhājayanty āryāh” ity- ādikaṁ yad-vākyatvenotthāpya yat-pratipadita-dharma eva kalāv angī-kṛtaḥ, (samvatsara-pradīpe ca tat-kartrā śataśo 'tha sahasraiś ca ity-ādikaṁ prāg-darśitaṁ skānda- vacana-jātam utthāpya sarva-kāla-doṣataḥ pāvitryāya katicit śrī-bhāgavata-vacanāni lekhyānīti likhitāni.) The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is also glorified in the Dana-khaṇḍa section of Hemadri's Catur-varga cintamani. His chapter entitled "Giving Puranas in Charity” praises Srimad- Bhāgavatam by noting that it possesses the defining char- acteristics specified in the Matsya Purána (53.20–22 ). In the Pariśesa-khanda of the same book, in the Kāla- nimṇaya section, where Hemādri defines the appropriate re- ligion for Kali-yuga, he quotes the Bhāgavatam verse be- ginning kalim sabhājayanty āryāh (11.5.36). In this way he recognizes as appropriate for this age only the religious prin- ciples established in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. ANUCCHEDA 23.3 अथ यदेव कैवल्यमप्यतिक्रम्य भक्तिसुखव्याहारादिलिङ्गेन निजमतस्याप्युपरि विराजमानार्थं मत्वा यदपौरुषेयं वेदान्तव्याख्यानं भयादचालयतैव शङ्करावतारतया प्रसिद्धेन वक्ष्यमाणस्वगोपनादिहेतुकभगवदाज्ञाप्रवर्त्तिताद्वयवादेनापि तन्मात्रवर्णितविश्वरूप दर्शनकतव्रजेश्वरीविस्मयश्रीव्रज- कुमारीवसनचौर्यादिकं गोविन्दाष्टकादौ वर्णयता तटस्थीभूय निजवचः साफल्याय स्पृष्टमिति ॥ २३ ॥ 120 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha atha yad eva kaivalyam apy atikramya bhakti-sukha- vyāhārādi-lingena nija-matasyāpy upari virājamānārthaṁ matvā yad apauruşeyaṁ vedānta-vyākhyānam bhayād acālayataiva śaṁkarāvatāratayā prasiddhena vakṣyamāṇa-sva-gopanādi-hetuka-bhagavad-ājñā- pravartitādvaya-vādenāpi tan-mātra-vamita-viśva-rūpa- darśana-kṛta-vrajeśvari-vismaya-śrī-vraja-kumārī-vasana- cauryadikaṁ govindāṣṭakādau varṇayatā taṭa-sthi-bhūya nija-vacaḥ sāphālyāya spṛṣṭam iti. It is widely acknowledged that Śrī Śankarācārya is an incar- nation of Lord Siva. He understood the importance of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which, with its statements about the bliss of pure devotional service that surpasses even the joy of impersonal liberation, proves bhakti to be superior to his doctrine of impersonalism. He dared not interpret the Bhāgavatam, for he recognized it as an exposition of Vedānta philosophy that is without human author. As we shall ex- plain later, on the Supreme Lord's order Sankarācārya taught his doctrine of monism to conceal the Lord's identity, but still, to make his own words successful by saying something about Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, he touched on it indirectly, de- scribing in his Govindāṣṭaka and other hymns certain pas- times of Lord Kṛṣṇa that are related only in the Bhāgavatam. These include mother Yasodā's amazement at seeing Kṛṣṇa's universal form, and His stealing the clothes of the young damsels of Vraja. COMMENTARY Although there are numerous works of Vedic literature, when Śaunaka Rşi questioned Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī about where re- ligion would take shelter now that Lord Kṛṣṇa had returned to His own abode, Sūta compared Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to the sun because it manifests the illuminating Absolute Truth that can dissipate the dense darkness of the Kali-yuga. When the sun rises, rogues and thieves hide and ordinary people become fearless and active. Similarly, when Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam is read, lust and greed leave one's heart and Anuccheda 23 121 one becomes qualified to engage in the service of the Su- preme Lord. Hence, great saints and thinkers have revered Śrimad- Bhāgavatam by writing commentaries and essays on it. This practice continues in modern times. Among such contemporary saintly persons, the most noteworthy is His Divine Grace Om Viṣṇupāda Paramahamsa Parivrājakācārya A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who was not only a scholar of the Bhāgavatam but a perfect embodiment of its teachings. He tirelessly imparted its philosophy up to his last moments before passing away. By presenting Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam in English with an elaborate commentary, he made the message of the Bhāgavatam both unmistakably clear and widely accessible for the first time. By his efforts many souls indulging in every sort of roguish vice have had a chance to read the glorious Bhāgavatam and have thus undergone a change of heart. They have left their degraded life and taken to the devotional service of Kṛṣṇa, the Su- preme Personality of Godhead. This practical evidence leaves no room for doubting the potency of Śrīmad- Bhāgavata Purāṇa. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī again refers to the Catur-varga- cintamani (Däna-khaṇḍa 7) of Hemädri, who recommends that one donate Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam after mounting it on a golden throne, and who glorifies it for having the defining characteristics described in the Matsya Purāṇa (see Anuccheda 19). While determining the religion for this age in the fourteenth chapter of Catur-varga-cintāmaņi, Pariseṣa- khaṇḍa, Hemādri quotes Bhāgavatam (11.5.36): kalim sabhājayanty āryā guṇa-jñāḥ sāra-bhāginaḥ yatra sankirtanenaiva sarvaḥ svartho 'bhilabhyate Those who are actually advanced in knowledge are able to appreciate the essential value of this Age of Kali. Such enlightened persons worship Kali-yuga because in this fallen age all perfection of life can easily be achieved by the performance of sarkīrtana. Commenting on the word sankīrtana, Hemādri declares that hari-sankirtana is the only way to reach perfection. Then he quotes the next verse (11.5.37): 122 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha na hy ataḥ paramo lābho dehināṁ bhrāmyatām iha yato vindeta paramāṁ śāntiṁ naśyati saṁsṛtiḥ Indeed, there is no higher possible gain for embodied souls forced to wander in the material world than to perform the Supreme Lord's sankirtana. By doing so one can attain the supreme peace and free oneself from the cycle of repeated birth and death. In this way Hemādri recognizes the authority of Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam in the matter of establishing the principles of religion for Kali-yuga. Śankarācārya respected Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam both by not commenting on it and by composing prayers based on its narrations. One such prayer is his Govindāṣṭaka: -1- satyaṁ jñānam anantaṁ nityam anākāśaṁ paramākāśaṁ goṣṭha-prāngaṇa-ringaṇa-lolam anāyāsaṁ paramāyāsam māyā-kalpita-nānā-kāram anākāraṁ bhuvanākāraṁ kṣamāyā nātham anathaṁ praṇamata govindaṁ paramānandam Please bow down to Govinda, supreme bliss personified. He is the Absolute Truth, as well as unlimited and eternal knowledge. Though different from the sky, He Himself is the supreme sky. Though He effortlessly rolled and frolicked in the courtyards of Vraja, He appeared to become tired. Though formless, He manifests various forms fashioned by Māyā, including the form of the universe. Though He shelters all the universes, He appears to need shelter. -2- mṛtsnām atsiheti yasoda-tāḍana-saiśava-santrāsaṁ vyādita-vaktrālokita-lokāloka-caturdaśa-lokālim loka-traya-pura-mūla-stambhaṁ lokālokam anālokaṁ lokeśam parameśaṁ praṇamata govindam paramānandam Please bow down to Govinda, supreme bliss personified. Though He is the supreme master of the universe, He seemed to become frightened like an ordinary infant when mother Yasoda chastised Him. When she asked, "Are You eating mud?" He opened His mouth to prove He had not-and showed her the fourteen planetary systems, including Lokāloka Mountain. He is the supporting pillarAnuccheda 23 for this citylike universe of three worlds. Though He is beyond all vision, He is the source of everyone's vision. -3- 123 trai-vistapa-ripu-vīra-ghnaṁ kṣiti-bhāra-ghnaṁ bhava-roga-ghnam kaivalyam navanītāhāram anähäraṁ bhuvanāhāram vaimalya-sphuța-ceto-vṛtti-viseṣābhasam anābhāsaṁ saivam kevala-śāntaṁ praṇamata govindaṁ paramānandam Please bow down to Govinda, supreme bliss personified. He relieves the earth of its burden by killing the demigods' enemies, the demons, and He grants liberation by curing the disease of materialism. Though He never needs to eat, still He eats butter, and He also devours the whole universe at the time of annihilation. Though distinct from all the shadow manifestations of this world, He manifests in the sanctified desires of a pure heart. He is most auspicious and peaceful. -4- gopālam bhū-lila-vigraha-gopalaṁ kula-gopalam gopi-khelana-govardhana-dhṛta-lila-lälita-gopālam gobhir nigadita-govinda-sphuta-nāmānaṁ bahu-nāmānaṁ gopi-go-cara-dūraṁ praṇamata govindaṁ paramānandam Please bow down to Govinda, supreme bliss personified. That protector of cows appeared in the form of a cowherd among the cowherds to perform His pastimes on earth, such as lifting Govardhana Hill to protect the cowherds and dallying with the cowherd damsels. Even the cows called Him by the name Govinda. He has unlimited names, is distinct among the cowherd boys, and is beyond sense perception. -5- gopi-mandala-gosthi-bhedam bhedāvastham abhedäbham śaśvad go-khura-nirdhūtoddhat-dhūlī-dhūsara-saubhagyam śraddha-bhakti-gṛhītānandam acintyam cintita-sad-bhāvam cintāmaṇi-mahimānaṁ praṇamata govindaṁ paramānandam Please bow down to Govinda, supreme bliss personified. He enters the assembly of cowherd damsels and divides them into groups for His pastimes. He is simultaneously one with and different from everything. He considers it His good fortune to be always smeared with the dust raised by the cows' hooves. He is pleased by faith and 124 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha devotion. Though He is inconceivable, His pastimes are the object of meditation. He is like a transcendental touchstone. -6- snāna-vyākula-yoṣid-vastram upādāyāgam upārūḍhaṁ vyāditsantir atha dig-vastră hy upādātum upākarṣantaṁ nirdhūta dvaya-śoka-vimoham buddham buddher antaḥ-stham sattā-mātra-śarīraṁ praṇamata govindaṁ paramānandam Please bow down to Govinda, supreme bliss personified. He stole the bathing damsels' clothes and climbed a tree with them, and when the naked maidens asked for their clothes back, He told them to come closer. He dispels lamentation and delusion. He is knowledge and pure existence personified, and is realized by one's intelligence, -7- kāntaṁ kāraṇa-kāraṇam ādim anādiṁ kālam anābhāsaṁ kālindi-gata-kālīyā-śirasi muhur muhuḥ sunṛtyantam kālaṁ kāla-kalātītam kalitäśeşam kali-dosa-ghnam kāla-traya-gati-hetum praṇamata govindaṁ paramānandam Please bow down to Govinda, supreme bliss personified. He is most beautiful. He is the original cause of all causes, and He has no cause. He is free from all superimpositions of illusion. He danced wonderfully on the hoods of the Kaliya serpent in the Yamuna. Though He is time, He is beyond all divisions of time. He knows everything, He destroys the defects of Kali-yuga, and He is the source of past, present, and future. -8- vṛndāvana-bhuvi vṛndāraka-gaṇa-vṛndarādhyaṁ vande 'haṁ kundäbhāmala-manda-smera-sudhānandaṁ suhṛd-ānandam vandyāśeṣa-mahā-muni-mānasa-vandyānanda-pada-dvandvaṁ vandyāśeṣa-guṇādbhiṁ praṇamata govindaṁ paramānandam Please bow down to Govinda, supreme bliss personified. He is the reservoir of all worshipable qualities. All worshipable saintly persons worship His blissful lotus feet within their hearts. He is my worshipful Lord. All the demigods and Śrīmatī Vṛndādevī as well, worship Him in the land of Vṛndāvana. His pure and beautiful smile emanates bliss like a kunda flower pouring forth nectar. He gives transcendental ecstasy to His cowherd friends. Anuccheda 23 -9- govindāṣṭakam etad adhite govindärpita-cetā yo govindacyuta madhava viṣṇo gokula-nāyaka kṛṣṇeti govindānghri-saroja-dhyāna-sudhā-jala-dhauta-samastāgho govindam paramānandāmṛtam antaḥ-sthaḥ samabhyeti Anyone who who recites this Govindāṣṭaka, who fixes his mind on Govinda, and who sweetly chants, "O Govinda, Acyuta, Madhava, Vişņu, Gokula-nāyaka, Kṛṣṇa," thus cleansing away all his sins with the ambrosial water of meditation on the lotus feet of Lord Govinda— such a soul will certainly attain Lord Govinda, the supreme, everlasting bliss of the heart. 125 The Personality of Godhead Lord Govinda ordered Śiva to take birth as Sankara to propagate impersonalism. Then Sankarācārya wrote Māyāvāda commentaries on the Vedānta-sūtra, on eleven of the principal Upaniṣads, on the Bhagavad-gītā, and on Śrī Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma. He did not interpret Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, however, because he con- sidered it very dear to the Lord and His devotees, and also nondifferent from the Lord. There can be no doubt about Lord Śiva's appreciation of the Bhāgavatam, since in the Twelfth Canto he is described as the greatest Vaiṣṇava. As such, he must be fully aware that it is the supreme pramāṇa, and so out of respect he did not interpret it. From the Padma Purāņa (Uttara-khaṇḍa 71.107) we learn how Lord Visnu ordered Śiva to propagate monism: svågamaiḥ kalpitais tvam ca janan mad-vimukhân kuru mắm ca gopaya yena syāt srstir esottarottara O Śiva, make people averse to Me by writing speculative scriptures and thus hiding My glories. In this way the world's population will increase. The import of this order is as follows: When Lord Buddha's teachings were predominant in India, people grew contemp- tuous of the Vedas and Vedic rituals. They became śūnyavādīs, or voidists, and Vedic religious practices decreased almost to nil. In this condition the people were not prepared to hear seriously about the personality of the Supreme Lord, His transcendental, eternal, blissful form, or His variegated 126 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha abode. They would have simply blasphemed these teach- ings, and then they would have been left with no way to purify their hearts. So the first task in bridging the wide gap between voidism and personalism was to reawaken people's faith in the Vedas. It was for this purpose that Sankarācārya introduced Advaita-vāda, a version of monism in between voidism and personalism. Going from the Buddhist nāsti to the Māyāvāda neti, neti—from "The Absolute is nothing" to "The Absolute is something but contains nothing"-is a simple, incremental move, for the difference between these two ideas is hardly noticeable. Still, because Śankara based his philosophy on the Upaniṣads, Vedānta-sūtra, and other Vedic works, that one step was critical in bringing the popu- lace back to accepting the authority of the Vedas. Later in the Uttara-khanda of Padma Purāṇa (236.7) Lord Śiva himself describes Advaita-vāda as veiled Buddhism: māyā-vādam asac-chāstram pracchanam bauddham ucyate. "Māyāvāda philosophy is an improper explanation of the scriptures; indeed, it is veiled Buddhism." Sankarācārya's promotion of Māyāvāda philosophy was planned by his Lord, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who recognized that until conditioned souls regained access to the Vedas, they could only speculate about transcendent reality and would have no hope of being delivered from the material world. Once Advaita Vedānta had replaced Buddhism and faith in the Vedas had been re-established, people could be brought further along the path of knowledge to an apprecia- tion for the glories of the Personality of Godhead. This would be accomplished by counteracting impersonalism with true Vaiṣṇava philosophy. Thus stalwart Vaiṣṇava ācāryas like Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, and Śrīdhara Svāmi came one after another to drive out impersonalism. In its place they re-established the principles of pure devotional service as the true spirit and intent of the Vedas and its corollary scriptures. For his part, Śrīdhara Svāmī helped the impersonalists get a taste for Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam by writing a commentary that also appealed to them. Still later, the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself came in the garb of a devotee, as Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya br Anuccheda 24 127 Mahaprabhu, and went even further. He taught that even more advanced than vaidhi-bhakti, the path of regulated devotional service, is rāga-bhakti, the path of spontaneous loving devotion to Kṛṣṇa, which one can traverse by follow- ing in the footsteps of Vṛndāvana's residents. He taught that rāga-bhakti, which is elaborately explained in the Tenth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, is the ultimate expression of prema, love of God. Since Caitanya Mahaprabhu is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who can contest His siddhānta? Rather, the gradual progression from voidism to monism to personalism to rāga-bhakti was all the Lord's plan for merci- fully saving the conditioned souls, an arrangement by which they could end the otherwise endless cycle of birth and death. Without a doubt, therefore, the Lord was not acting cruelly or capriciously when He instructed Lord Śiva to appear as Śankara and spread the false doctrine of the individual soul's absolute oneness with the Supreme. To the contrary, He did so out of His limitless mercy. In later anucchedas, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi will point out many inconsistencies between Sankara's teachings and the actual conclusion of the Vedas. In the next anuccheda he shows us the glories of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that the Bhāgavatam itself reveals. ANUCCHEDA 24.1 ŚRIMAD-BHAGAVATAM IS THE TOPMOST VEDIC SCRIPTURE यदेव किल दृष्ट्वा साक्षात् तच्छिष्यतां प्राप्तैरपि श्रीमध्वाचार्य्यचरणैर्वैष्णवमते प्रविश्य वैष्णवान्तराणां तच्छिष्यान्तरपुण्यारण्यादिरीतिकव्याख्याप्रवेशशङ्कया तत्र तात्पर्य्यान्तरलिखद्भिर्वर्मोपदेशः कृत इति च सात्वता वर्णयन्ति । yad eva kila dṛṣṭvā sākṣāt tac-chiṣyatāṁ prāptair api śrī- madhvācārya-caraṇair vaiṣṇava-mate praviśya 128 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha vaisnavāntarānām tac chisyāntara-punyāranyādi-ritika- vyākhyā-praveśa-śankayā tatra tätparyāntaram likhadbhir vartmopadeśaḥ kṛta iti ca sātvatā varṇayanti. Devotees of Lord Visnu recount that although Śrī Madhvācārya-caraṇa belonged to the direct disciplic line of Sankarācārya, upon reading the Bhāgavatam he changed his allegiance to the Vaiṣṇava school. Then, concerned that other Vaiṣṇavas might be influenced by the commentaries of other disciplic descendants of Śankara, such as Punyāranya's commentary, Madhvācārya wrote Bhāgavata- tätparya, a gloss on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that showed the proper conclusion of devotional service. ANUCCHEDA 24.2 तस्माद्युक्तमुक्तं तत्रैव प्रथमस्कन्धेः 66 " तदिदं ग्राहयामास सुतमात्मवतां वरम् । सर्व्ववेदेतिहासानां सारं सारं समुद्धृतम् ॥” [भा. १.३.४१] द्वादशे; 66 " सर्व्ववेदान्तसारं हि श्रीभागवतमिष्यते । तद्रसामृततृप्तस्य नान्यत्र स्याद्वतिः क्वचित् ॥” [भा. १२.१३.१५] tasmād yuktam uktam tatraiva prathama-skandhe: “tad idaṁ grāhayāmāsa sutam ātma-vatāṁ varam sarva-vedetihāsānāṁ sāraṁ sāraṁ samuddhṛtam" dvādaśe: "sarva-vedānta-sāraṁ hi śrī-bhāgavatam iṣyate tad-rasāmrta trptasya nānyatra syād ratih kvacit” For all these reasons, therefore, the following statements in the Bhāgavatam are appropriate. In the First Canto (1.3.41): "After extracting the cream of all the Vedas and Itihāsas, Śrī Vyasadeva imparted this Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to his son Sukadeva, the best of the self-realized souls." In the Twelfth Canto (12.13.15): "Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is indeed the essence of all Vedanta philosophy. He who is satisfied by hearing its nectar-like words takes no interest in any other literature." 129 तथा प्रथमे; ANUCCHEDA 24.3 । “निगमकल्पतरोर्गलितं फलं शुकमुखादमृतद्रवसंयुतम् । पिबत भागवतं रसमालयं मुहुरहो रसिका भुवि भावुकाः ॥' [भा. १.१.३] अतएव तत्रैव; “यःस्वानुभावमखिलश्रुतिसारमेकम् अध्यात्मदीपमतितितीर्षतां तमोऽन्धम् । संसारिणां करुणयाह पुराणगुह्यं तं व्याससूनुमुपयामि गुरुं मुनीनाम् ॥” [भा. १.२.३] इति । श्रीभागवतमतं तु सर्वमतानामधीशरूपमिति सूचकम् । सर्वमुनीनां सभामध्यमध्यास्य उपदेष्टृत्वेन तेषां गुरुत्वमपि तस्य तत्र सुव्यक्तम् ॥ २४ ॥ tathā prathame: "nigama-kalpa-taror galitam phalam / śuka-mukhād amṛta-drava-samyutam / pibata bhāgavatam rasam alayam/muhur aho rasikā bhuvi bhāvukāh” ata eva tatraiva : "yaḥ svānubhāvam akhila-śruti-sāram ekam / adhyātma- dīpam atititīrṣatāṁ tamo ‘ndham / saṁsāriṇāṁ karuṇayāha purāṇa-guhyaṁ / taṁ vyāsa-sūnum upayāmi gurum munīnām” iti. śrī-bhāgavata-matam tu sarva-matānām adhiśa-rūpam iti sūcakam. sarva-muninām sabha- madhyam adhyāsya upadeṣṭṛtvena teṣāṁ sarva-munīnāṁ gurutvam api tasya tatra su-vyaktam. And in the First Canto (1.1.3): "O expert and thoughtful men on the earth, again and again up to liberation and beyond, relish Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the mature fruit of the desire tree of Vedic literature. It emanated from the lips of Śrī Sukadeva Gosvāmi. Therefore this fruit has become even more tasteful, although its nectarean juice was already relishable for all.” Also in the same canto (1.2.3): "I offer my respectful obei- sances unto Sukadeva, the spiritual master of all sages, the son of Vyasadeva, who, out of his great compassion for those 130 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha gross materialists who struggle to cross over the darkest regions of material existence, spoke this most confidential supplement to the cream of all Vedic knowledge, the tran- scendental torchlight of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, after person- ally experiencing it." These verses imply that the teachings of Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam rule over all other philosophies. They also clearly indicate that Śrī Śukadeva, by taking the speaker's seat amidst the assembled sages as the Bhāgavatam's pre- ceptor, became the guru of everyone present. COMMENTARY Here Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī explains Madhvācārya's reason for commenting on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Šankarācārya wrote poems glorifying Lord Kṛṣṇa's pastimes as told in the Bhāgavatam, but some of his followers, not understanding his true intention, took this as a license to try to include the Bhāgavatam as part of the Māyāvāda canon. Some of them even wrote commentaries on the Bhāgavatam and some- how managed to screw out an impersonal interpretation. One such commentary was Punyāranya's, which is now lost. Śrīla Madhvācārya, wanting to protect Vaiṣṇavas from be- ing misled, wrote a gloss called Bhāgavata-tātparya. Since Jiva Gosvāmī has already shown that Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam is the topmost pramāṇa, he can now cite it di- rectly to demonstrate its own stature. Such citations will only increase a sincere reader's faith in the Bhāgavatam, and so from this point on Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmī relies on the Bhāgavatam itself as the principal source for his analysis. Here he also reveals the eminence Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam enjoys by virtue of the status of its brilliant speaker, Sukadeva Gosvāmi. Vyāsadeva taught the Bhāgavatam to Śukadeva, his most brilliant student, and Sukadeva chose to study Bhāgavatam because it is the most brilliant of books. Although Śrīla Vyāsadeva had many disciples, he gave the Bhāgavatam only to Sukadeva. Vyāsa did this not because he was partial toward his son but because Śukadeva was ātmavatām varam, "the best of the self-realized." In other Anuccheda 25 131 words, Sukadeva had no ulterior, material motives, and there- fore he could understand the true purport of the Bhāgavatam, the essence of the Vedas, Vedānta, and Itihāsas. The most important part of a tree is its sweet, juicy fruit, and so Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam has been compared to the suc- culent fruit of the tree of Vedic literature. And this Bhāgavatam fruit is even more exceptional because it has no skin or pit. In other words, there is nothing to discard in the Bhāgavatam. In this anuccheda Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi quotes two texts from the Bhāgavatam, 1.1.3 and 1.2.3, to show its impor- tance for conditioned as well as liberated souls. Because Śukadeva was completely free of selfish motives, he fully realized the Bhāgavatam's significance and so was elected to speak, even in an assembly of learned sages that included his guru and his guru's guru. The choice of Sukadeva as speaker implies that his qualifications for reciting Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam made him superior to all the other assembled sages. This is one more indication that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the foremost of scriptures and that it alone should be ana- lyzed to know sambandha, abhidheya, and prayojana. Next, Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmī shows the importance of the speaker, Śrī Sukadeva Gosvami. यतः ANUCCHEDA 25.1 ŚRI SUKADEVA GOSVĀMI IS THE BEST SCHOLAR OF ŚRIMAD-BHAGAVATAM । “तत्रोपजग्मुर्भुवनं पुनाना महानुभावा मुनयः सशिष्याः । प्रायेण तीर्थाभिगमापदेशैः स्वयं हि तीर्थानि पुनन्तिः सन्तः ॥ अत्रिर्वशिष्ठश्च्यवनः शरद्वानरिष्टनेमिर्भृगुरङ्गिराश्च । पराशरो गाधिसुतोऽथ राम उतथ्य इन्द्रप्रमदेध्मबाहौ || मेधातिथिर्द्देवल आष्र्ष्टिषेणो भरद्वाजो गौतमः पिप्पलादः । मैत्रेय और्व्वः कवषः कुम्भयोनिद्वैपायनो भगवान्नारदश्च ॥ अन्ये च देवर्षिर्ब्रह्मर्षिवर्या राजर्षिवर्य्या अरुणादयश्च । 132 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha । नानार्षेयप्रवरान् समेतानभ्यच्चर्य राजा शिरसा ववन्दे ॥ सुखोपविष्टेष्वथ तेषु भूयः कृतप्रणामः स्वचिकीर्षितं यत् । विज्ञापयामास विविक्तचेता उपस्थितोऽग्रे निगृहीतपाणिः || ” [भा. १.१९.८-१२] इत्याद्यनन्तरम्; 66 1. “ ततश्च वः पृच्छ्यमिदं विपृच्छे विश्रभ्य विप्रा इतिकृत्यतायाम् । सर्व्वात्मना प्रियमाणैश्च कृत्यं शुद्धञ्च तत्रामृशताभियुक्ताः ॥' [भा. १.१९.२४] इति पृच्छति राज्ञि; “तत्राभवद्भगवान् व्यासपुत्रो यदृच्छया गामटमानोऽनपेक्षः । अलक्ष्यलिङ्गो निजलाभतुष्ठो वृतश्च बालैरवधूतवेशः ॥” [भा. १.१९.२५ ] yatah: "tatropajagmur bhuvanam punānā mahanubhāvā munayaḥ sa-siṣyāḥ /prāyeṇa tīrthābhigamāpadeśaiḥ svayaṁ hi tīrthāni punanti santaḥ / atrir vasisthas cyavanaḥ śaradvān ariṣṭanemir bhrgur angirāś ca / parāśaro gādhi-suto 'tha rāma utathya indrapramadedhmabāhau / medhätithir devala ārstiṣeno bharadvājo gautamaḥ pippalādaḥ / maitreya aurvaḥ kavaṣaḥ kumbha-yonir dvaipāyano bhagavān nāradaś ca / anye ca devarși- brahmarsi-varyā rājarsi-varyā arunādayaś ca / nānārṣeya-pravarāṁs tān sametān abhyarcya rājā śirasā vavande / sukhopaviṣṭesv atha teṣu bhūyaḥ kṛta- praṇāmaḥ sva-cikīrṣitam yat/vijñāpayāmāsa vivikta-cetā upasthito 'gre nigrhita-pānih” ity-ady-anantaram : “tataś ca vaḥ pṛcchyam idaṁ vipṛcche viśrabhya viprā iti- kṛtyatāyām / sarvātmanā mriyamāṇaiś ca kṛtyam śuddham ca tatrāmṛśatābhiyuktāḥ” iti pṛcchati rājñi: "tatrabhavad bhagavān vyāsa-putro yadṛcchayā gām atamāno 'napeksah / alaksya-lingo nija- labha-tusto vrtaś ca bālair avadhūta-vesah. Thus it is said [in Srimad Bhagavatam 1.19.8-12]: “At that time all the great-minded thinkers, accompanied by their disciples, arrived there. On the plea of making a pilgrim'sAnuccheda 25 133 journey, such sages verily sanctify a place of pilgrimage just by their presence. From different parts of the universe there arrived great sages like Atri, Cyavana, Saradvan, Aristanemi, Bhrgu, Vasistha, Parāśara, Viśvāmitra, Angirā, Parasurama, Utathya, Indrapramada, Idhmabāhu, Medhātithi, Devala, Arstisena, Bhāradvāja, Gautama, Pippalāda, Maitreya, Aurva, Kavasa, Kumbhayoni, Dvaipāyana, and the great personality Nārada. There were also many other saintly demi- gods, kings, and special royal orders called aruṇādayas [a special rank of rājarṣis] from different dynasties of sages. When they all assembled to meet the emperor [Parikṣit], he received them properly and bowed his head to the ground. After all the rsis and others had seated themselves comfort- ably, the king, humbly standing before them with folded hands, told them of his decision to fast until death." Then the king said: "O trustworthy brāhmanas, I ask you about my duty. Please, after proper deliberation, tell me of the unalloyed duty of everyone in all circumstances, and specifi- cally of those who are just about to die” (Bhāg. 1.19.24). Then, after the king's query: "At that moment appeared the venerable son of Vyasadeva, who traveled over the earth by his will and was indifferent and self-satisfied. He did not manifest any symptoms of belonging to any social order or status of life. He was surrounded by women and children, and he appeared like an avadhūta" (Bhāg.1.19.25). ANUCCHEDA 25.2 ततरच; “प्रत्युत्थितास्ते मुनयः स्वासनेभ्यः ।” [भा. १.१९.२८] इत्याद्यन्ते; सः संवृतस्तत्र महान्महीयसां ब्रह्मर्षिराजर्षिसुरर्षिवय्यैः । व्यरोचतालं भगवान् यथेन्दुर्ग्रहर्क्षतारानिकरैः परीतः ॥ [ भा. १.१९.३० ] इत्युक्तम् ॥ २५ ॥ tataś ca pratyutthitās te munayaḥ svāsanebhya ity-ādy-ante: “sa samvṛtas tatra mahān mahīyasāṁ brahmarṣi-rājarṣi- 134 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha surarṣi-varyaiḥ / vyarocatālaṁ bhagavān yathendur graharkṣa-tārā-nikaraiḥ parītaḥ” ity uktam. /25/ After this: "The sages all rose from their seats to honor him” (Bhāg. 1.19.28). And finally: "Sukadeva Gosvāmi was then surrounded by saintly sages and demigods just as the moon is surrounded by stars, planets, and other heavenly bodies. His presence was gorgeous, and he was respected by all" (Bhag. 1.19.30). COMMENTARY After Śṛngi cursed Mahārāja Parikṣit, the king renounced his kingdom and took a vow to fast until death on the bank of the Ganges. At that time sages of all classes and orders came from various parts of the universe and assembled there. Among them were even incarnations of the Lord like Parasurama and Vyasadeva. When Parikṣit Mahārāja in- quired from them about the duties of a human being, espe- cially one who is about to die, no one gave him a definitive answer. At that time the most noble Sukadeva Gosvāmī ar- rived, and he was unanimously chosen as the right person to answer Mahārāja Parīkṣit's query. In the previous anuccheda Jīva Gosvāmī said that all the sages accepted Śukadeva as guru. In this section Jīva Gosvāmī cites the references to support his claim. Since the sages accepted Sukadeva as guru and it was Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam that he spoke in response to Parīkṣit Mahārāja's questions, we should understand that the Bhāgavatam's philosophy was accepted by all the assembled sages, who included propagators and followers of various other philoso- phies. Just as Śrīla Sukadeva Gosvāmī is like an effulgent moon among the starlike sages, so is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam among all other scriptures. Next Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī shows that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the representation of Lord Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personal- ity of Godhead. } 135 ANUCCHEDA 26.1 ŚRIMAD-BHAGAVATAM IS SELF-SUFFICIENT अत्र यद्यपि तत्र श्रीव्यासनारदौ तस्यापि गुरुपरमगुरू, तथापि पुनस्तन्मुखनिःसृतं श्रीभागवतं तयोरप्यश्रुतचरमिव जातमित्येवं श्रीशुकस्तावप्युपदिदेश देश्यमित्यभिप्रायः । यदुक्तम्; “शुकमुखादमृतद्रवसंयुतम् ” [भा. १.१.३] इति । तस्मादेवमपि श्रीभागवतस्यैव सर्वाधिक्यम् । मात्स्यादीनां यत् पुराणाधिक्यं श्रूयते, तत्त्वापेक्षिकमिति । अहो किं बहुना ? श्रीकृष्णप्रतिनिधिरूपमेवेदम् । atra yady api tatra śrī-vyāsa-nāradau tasyāpi guru- parama-guru tathāpi punas tan-mukha-nihsrtam śrī- bhāgavatam tayor apy aśruta-caram iva jätam ity evam śrī- śukas tāv apy upadideśa deśyam ity abhiprāyaḥ. yad uktam, "suka-mukhād amita-drava-samyutam” iti. tasmād evam api śrī-bhāgavatasyaiva sarvādhikyam. mātsyādīnām yat purāṇādhikyam śrūyate tat tv āpekṣikam iti. aho kiṁ bahunā? śrī-kṛṣṇa-pratinidhi-rūpam evedam. Śrī Vyasadeva and Narada Muni were present in that as- sembly. Although these two sages were Śrī Śuka's guru and grand-guru, respectively, when they heard Srimad- Bhāgavatam issuing from his lips, they felt as if they had never heard it before. For this reason it is said here that he taught this most significant wisdom even to them. As men- tioned earlier, śuka-mukhād amṛta-drava-samyutam: “The Bhāgavatam is enriched with nectarean juice from the mouth of Suka" (Bhāg. 1.1.3). Thus in this sense also Srimad- Bhāgavatam is more glorious than any other scripture. State- ments about the superiority of other Purāṇas, such as the Matsya Purāṇa, are only relatively true. What more need be said! Indeed, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the very representa- tion of Lord Kṛṣṇa. 136 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha यत उक्तं - प्रथम-स्कन्धे; ANUCCHEDA 26.2 “कृष्णे स्वधामोपगते धर्म्मज्ञानादिभिः सह । कलौ नष्टदशामेष पुराणकोऽधुनोदितः ॥ * [ भा. १.३.४४ ] इति । ॥” अतएव सर्व्वगुणयुक्तत्वमस्यैव दृष्टं “धर्म्म" प्रोज्झितकैतवोऽत्र” [भा. १.१.२ ] इत्यादिना, “ वेदाः पुराणं काव्यञ्च प्रभुर्मित्रं प्रियेव च । बोधयन्तीति हि प्राहुस्त्रिवृद्भागवतं पुनः || ” इति मुक्ताफले हेमाद्रिकारवचनेन च । yata uktam prathama-skandhe: "kṛṣṇe sva-dhāmopagate dharma-jñānādibhiḥ saha kalau nasta-drśām esa purānārko 'dhunoditah” iti. ata eva sarva-guna-yuktatvam asyaiva drstam, " dharmah projjhita-kaitavo 'tra" ity ādinā. “vedāḥ purāṇaṁ kāvyaṁ ca prabhur mitraṁ priyeva ca bodhayantiti hi prähus tri-vṛd bhāgavatam punaḥ" iti muktä-phale hemādri-kāra-vacanena ca. As the First Canto states: "This Śrīmad Bhāgavatam is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just after the departure of Lord Kṛṣṇa to His own abode, accompanied by religion, knowledge, etc. Persons who have lost their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the Age of Kali shall get light from this Purāna" (Bhāg. 1.3.43). In this way we can see that only Srimad-Bhāgavatam is full with all virtues, as stated in the second verse of the First Canto: "Here the supreme religion is explained and all cheat- ing propensities are rejected." The supremacy of the Bhāgavatam is also confirmed by the words of both Vopadeva (in his Mukta-phala) and Hemadri: “The Vedas, Purānas, and poetic works instruct one like a master, friend, or beloved, respectively, but Srimad- Bhāgavatam instructs like all three." 137 ANUCCHEDA 26.3 तस्मान्मन्यन्तां वा केचित् पुराणान्तरेषु वेद - सापेक्षत्वं, श्रीभागवते तु तथा सम्भावना निरस्तेत्यपि स्वयमेव लब्धं भवति । अतएव परमश्रुतिरूपत्वं तस्य । यथोक्तम्; 66 “ कथं वा पाण्डवेयस्य राजर्षेर्मुनिना सह । संवादः समभूत् तात यत्रैषा सात्वती श्रुति ॥” [भा.१.४.७] इति । अथ यत् खलु सर्व्वं पुराणजातमाविर्भाव्येत्यादिकं पूर्व्वमुक्तं, तत्तु प्रथमस्कन्धगतश्रीव्यासनारदसम्वादेनैव प्रमेयम् ॥ २६ ॥ tasman manyantām vā kecit purāṇāntareṣu veda- sāpekṣatvaṁ śrī-bhāgavate tu tathā sambhāvanā nirastety api svayam eva labdham bhavati. ata eva parama-śruti-rūpatvam tasya. yathoktam "katham vā pāṇḍaveyasya rājarṣer muninā saha saṁvādaḥ samabhūt tāta yatraiṣā sātvatī śrutiḥ” iti. atha yat khalu sarvam purāna-jātam avirbhāvyety- ādikaṁ pūrvam uktaṁ tat tu prathama-skandha-gata-śrī- vyāsa-nārada-saṁvādenaiva prameyam. Consequently, while some may think that other Purāņas need the support of the Vedas' authority, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam explicitly refutes the possibility that it may be dependent in this way; we thus receive the Bhāgavatam on its own au- thority. For this reason it is in fact the highest manifestation of śruti [the original Vedas]. As it is said, "How did it so hap- pen that King Parikṣit met this great sage, making it pos- sible for this Vedic text for the pure Vaiṣṇavas (sātvatī śrutiḥ) to be sung to Him?" (Bhāg.1.4.7). That Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was compiled after the other Purāņas, as mentioned earlier, is known from the dialogue between Śrī Vyāsa and Nārada Muni in the First Canto. COMMENTARY Vedic tradition recognizes three ways of teaching-like a ruler, like a friend, and like a lover. The Vedas speak in an 138 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha imperative voice, like an overlord: satyaṁ vada dharmaṁ cara. "Speak the truth and be religious" (Taittiriya Up. 1.11). The Vedas do not need to offer logical reasons for following their instructions. One is expected to obey without question. The Purānas instruct like a friend, narrating stories with moral conclusions and providing reasoned explanations when re- quired. Kavya, or poetic literature, gives counsel like a be- loved lady, speaking sweetly but indirectly. Instructions are expressed in an aesthetically pleasing way to attract the reader or hearer. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam uses all three of these methods to convey its teachings. Just as a phrase or song becomes more significant when an eminent personality quotes or sings it, so the Bhāgavatam has increased in significance because the eminent Sukadeva Gosvāmi recited it. He narrated the Bhāgavatam in such a marvelous way that both his guru, Śrīla Vyāsadeva, and his param guru, Śrī Nārada Muni, were amazed. They felt as if they had never heard it before. The customary etiquette is that a disciple should neither take a higher seat than his teachers nor speak as an au- thority in their presence. Sukadeva Gosvāmī's speaking Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in the presence of his gurus is one of the rare exceptions. Because his gurus consented to it, how- ever, Śrī Śuka is faultless, as Śrīla Viśvanatha Cakravarti Thakura points out in his commentary on Bhāgavatam 1.17.29, which describes Suka's accepting the speaker's seat. From the narrations of the Mahabharata we learn that Nārada and Vyasa were often called upon to address vari- ous audiences on the subjects of karma, yoga, and jñāna. They rarely had an opportunity to hear such an extraordi- narily pure Bhāgavata discourse. So they were moved to great ecstasy when the nectarlike juice of topics concerning the Supreme Personality of Godhead issued from the lips of Śrī Śuka, their qualified disciple. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's special greatness is thus due to its unparalleled author, its eminent speaker, and its elevated Anuccheda 26 139 audience. No other scripture in recorded history has ever had such an audience, except perhaps when Grandfather Bhisma, after the Kurukṣetra War, instructed King Yudhiṣṭhīra from his bed of arrows. Bhisma's main purpose, however, was to convince Yudhiṣṭhira to begin managing his kingdom. By contrast, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was spoken in just the opposite context: King Parikṣit, having renounced his king- dom, simply wanted to hear kṛṣṇa-kathā and in this way dis- charge the only duty of a dying man. Śrī Śukadeva thus had no need to dilute his narration with talk of lower religious principles. Therefore Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the most per- fect and complete transcendental scripture. It does not even depend on the support of the Vedas. Indeed, the sunlike Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the very rep- resentation of Lord Kṛṣṇa. The Lord possesses all good qualities, as Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī explains in Bhakti-rasāmṛta- sindhu (2.1.17): nāyakānāṁ śiro-ratnaṁ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam yatra nityatayä sarve virajante mahā-guṇāḥ Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the original Personality of Godhead, is the crest jewel of all heroes. All wonderful qualities are eternally present in Him. Since Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa, it is also a reservoir of all good qualities. When Lord Kṛṣṇa ap- peared He destroyed many demons and protected His saintly devotees. In the same way, the Bhāgavata Purāņa uproots the demoniac influence in society and protects saintly per- sons with its ambrosial narrations. Other scriptures speak about fruitive activities, impersonal Brahman, or yoga, and they may or may not say something about the transcenden- tal path of love of Godhead. But the Bhāgavatam kicks out all types of inferior, cheating religion like refuse. Only expla- nations of the absolute reality find a place in its pages. Having established Bhāgavatam as the supreme pramāṇa, in the next anuccheda Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī explains his method of analyzing it. 140 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 27.1 METHODOLOGY OF THE SAT-SANDARBHA तदेवं परमनिः श्रेयसनिश्चयाय श्रीभागवतमेव पौर्वापर्य्याविरोधेन विचार्यते । तत्रास्मिन् सर्न्दभषट्कात्मके ग्रन्थे सूत्रस्थानीयं अवतारिकावाक्यं । विषयवाक्यं श्रीभागवतवाक्यम् । भाष्यरूपा 1 तद्वयाख्या तु सम्प्रति मध्यदेशादौ व्याप्तानद्वैतवादिनो नूनं भगवन्महिमानमवगाहयितुं तद्वादेन कर्वुरितलिपीनां परमवैष्णवानां श्रीधरस्वामिचरणानां शुद्धवैष्णवसिद्धान्तानुगता चेत्तर्हि यथावदेव विलिख्यते । tad evaṁ parama-niḥśreyasa-niścayāya śrī-bhāgavatam eva paurvāparyāvirodhena vicāryate. tatrāsmin Sandarbha-şaṭkātmake granthe sūtra-sthānīyam avatārikā-vākyaṁ viṣaya-vākyaṁ śrī-bhāgavata-vākyam. bhāṣya-rūpā tad-vyākhyā tu samprati madhya-deśādau vyāptān advaita-vādino nūnaṁ bhagavan-mahimānam avagāhayitum tad-vādena karvurita-lipīnāṁ parama- vaiṣṇavānāṁ śrīdhara-svāmi-caraṇānāṁ śuddha- vaiṣṇava-siddhântānugatā cet tarhi yathāvad eva vilikhyate. So it is that we shall focus our attention on studying Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam to determine what is the ultimate good in life. While conducting this study, we shall take into consideration how Śrimad-Bhāgavatam's statements harmonize with its preceding and following texts. In these Six Sandarbhas, the statements with which we introduce our explanation of the Bhāgavatam verses will serve as the sutras, the Bhāgavatam verses themselves will serve as the scriptural text to be ana- lyzed, and the commentary on the sūtras will be the expla- nations of these verses given by the great Vaisnava Śrīdhara Svāmi. Sometimes he inserted Māyāvādī ideas into his writ- ings to make the glories of the Personality of Godhead more attractive to the minds of the impersonalists, who are now quite prevalent, especially in central India. When Śrīdhara Svāmi's commentary accords with strict Vaiṣṇava principles, we shall quote it verbatim. 141 ANUCCHEDA 27.2 क्वचित्तेषामेवान्यत्रदृष्टव्याख्यानुसारेण; द्रविडादिदेशविख्यातपरमभागवतानां तेषामेव बाहुल्येन तत्र वैष्णवत्वेन प्रसिद्धत्वात्, श्रीभागवत एव, “क्वचित् क्वचिन् महाराज द्रविडेषु च भूरिशः ” [भा. ११.५.३९] इत्यनेन प्रमितमहिम्नां साक्षात् श्रीप्रभृतितः प्रवृत्तसम्प्रदायानां श्रीवैष्णवाभिधानां श्रीरामानुजभगवत्पादविरचितश्रीभाष्यादिदृष्ट- मतप्रामाण्येन; मूलग्रन्थस्वारस्येन चान्यथा च । अद्वैत- व्याख्यानन्तु प्रसिद्धत्वान्नातिवितायते ॥ २७ ॥ kvacit teṣām evānyatra-dṛṣṭa-vyākhyānānusāreņa; dravidadi-deśa-vikhyāta-parama-bhāgavatānām tesām eva bāhulyena tatra vaiṣṇavatvena prasiddhatvāt śrī- bhāgavata eva: “kvacit kvacin mahārāja dravidesu ca bhūriśah” ity anena pramita-mahimnāṁ sākṣāc-chrī-prabhṛtitaḥ pravṛtta-sampradāyānāṁ śri-vaiṣṇavābhidhānāṁ śrī- rāmānuja-bhagavat-pāda-viracita-śrī-bhāṣyādi-dṛṣṭa-mata- prāmānyena mūla-grantha-svārasyena cānyathā ca. advaita-vyākhyānaṁ tu prasiddhatvān nātivitāyate. Sometimes we shall follow the views Śrīdhara Svāmī has expressed in writings other than his Bhāgavatam commen- tary. In other cases, we shall follow the original meaning of the text by basing our explanations on the authoritative opin- ions of the venerable Rāmānujācārya Bhagavatpāda, ex- pressed in such works as Śrī-bhāṣya. He is the renowned leader of the Vaiṣṇavas of the Śrī-sampradaya, which origi- nated directly with Goddess Lakṣmi. These great devotees are famous throughout India's southern region (Dravida- deśa) and elsewhere. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam itself states that they are well known as devotees of Visnu in the south: "O king, a few Vaiṣṇavas can be seen here and there in this age, but they can be found in abundance in the Draviḍa” (Bhāg. 11.5.39). Since the principles of advaita-vāda are already well known, we shall not discuss them at length. 142 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha COMMENTARY Here Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi explains his method of analyzing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. He plans to follow a format similar to the one Śrila Vyasadeva uses in the Vedanta-sutra. In the Sandarbhas, the introductory statements are like the sutras in the Vedānta-sūtra, the statements of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam constitute the subject to be analyzed, and Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi's comments on the Bhāgavatam's statements are like the commentary (bhāṣya) on the sūtras. Jīva Gosvāmi also indicates that his explanations are not his personal opinion or products of his imagination but are given strictly according to the opinions of the previous Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, such as Rāmānujācārya and Sridhara Svāmi. Although Sridhara Svāmī accepted the renounced order of life in Sankara's sampradāya, which opposes the person- alism of Krsna consciousness, his commentaries on Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam, Bhagavad-gītā, and Visņu Purāṇa make it obvious that he was a great Vaiṣṇava. He clearly states in his commentaries that the Lord's form, qualities, abode, as- sociates, and names are all transcendental and eternal, and that devotion to the Lord continues even after liberation. These key philosophical points are opposed to monism and reveal Śrīdhara Svāmi's true stance. Śrī Caitanya Mahaprabhu also accepted sannyāsa in Sankara's line, but from the beginning His teachings refuted the Māyāvāda doctrine. Hence, Śrī Caitanya's great respect for Śrīdhara Svāmi and his Bhāgavatam commentary is proof enough that Sridhara Svāmī was not a Māyāvāda sannyāsī at heart any more than Śrī Caitanya Mahaprabhu was. Caitanya Mahāprabhu considered all Māyāvādīs offenders at the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, yet he would not tolerate even mild or indirect criticism of Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmi. When Vallabha Bhatta told Lord Caitanya he had written a Bhāgavatam commentary that surpassed Śrīdhara Svāmi's, Lord Caitanya rebuked Vallabha and refused to hear it (see Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya 113-137). From this incident we can understand theAnuccheda 27 143 exalted status of Śrīdhara Svāmī as a surrendered, pure devotee of the Lord. We can also be certain that Jiva Gosvāmi, as a loyal follower of Lord Caitanya, held Śrīdhara Svāmi's Bhāgavatam commentary, Bhāvārtha-dīpikā, in high esteem. Thus Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi refers to Śrīdhara as parama-vaiṣṇava, a topmost devotee. In this anuccheda Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī tells why Śrīdhara Svāmi inserted some Māyāvādī ideas into Bhāvārtha-dipikā. Some of Sankara's followers developed an interest in Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam after reading his devotional poems based on the Bhāgavatam, but they still maintained their overall im- personal outlook. To attract these sannyāsīs toward the path of devotion, Śrīdhara Svāmi wrote a mixed commentary on the spotless Purāna. Just as a fisherman uses bait to catch fish, occasionally Śrīdhara Svāmi would present monistic opinions about some Bhāgavatam verses in order to attract the Māyāvādīs who liked to read the Bhāgavatam. This was merely part of his preaching strategy; it doesn't make him a Māyāvādī. Nevertheless, although Jiva Gosvāmī understands Śrīdhara Svāmi's motives, in the Sandarbhas he chooses not to cite the impersonal explanations found in the Bhāvārtha-dipikā. In fact, throughout the Sandarbhas Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmī takes every opportunity to demolish the Māyāvāda view. Clearly he does not consider the Māyāvādīs his primary audience, as Śrīdhara Svāmī must have when he wrote his commentary. Jiva Gosvāmi's intended audience is apparent from his declaration in the Anuccheda 6 of the Tattva-Sandarbha, where he says that no one should read this book who is averse to serving Lord Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet. Jīva Gosvāmi's intended audience are those already on the path of Kṛṣṇa consciousness or at least interested in taking to it. Naturally, therefore, he says here that he will quote Śrīdhara Svāmi's explanations "only when they are in accordance with pure Vaiṣṇava principles." This statement has caused some modern scholars to criticize Jīva Gosvāmi for not respecting the liberal sentiments of Śrī Caitanya Mahaprabhu, but this criticism arises from a superficial un- derstanding of Lord Caitanya's real attitude. 144 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha Śrīdhara Svāmī was not a Māyāvādī, although he did give a monistic slant to some parts of his Bhāgavatam com- mentary. Considering why Sridhara Svāmī did this in Bhāvārtha-dipikā, why should Srila Jiva Gosvami, in an en- tirely different work meant for an entirely different audience, cite those explanations that oppose the true conclusion of the Bhāgavatam and even Śrīdhara Svāmi's own convic- tions? Śrī Jīva has already established Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as the supreme authority, and from this point on he will not deal with any opinions that contradict it. He makes his policy explicit: He respects the purports of Śrīdhara insofar as they follow the spirit and intent of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam itself. In this way Śrila Jīva Gosvāmī remains true to the Vaiṣṇavism of Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmi and also to his own Gauḍīya- sampradaya. At the end of this annucheda, when Jīva Gosvāmī says he is not going to describe the details of the monistic doc- trine because they are already well known, he implies that Māyāvāda, though popular, only apparently explains the meaning of the śāstras and is not really worthy of discus- sion. He also implies that he intends to refute it. Next Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī describes the sources of evi- dence other than Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that he plans to cite in the Sat - Sandarbhas. ANUCCHEDA 28.1 THE SOURCE OF REFERENCES अत्र च स्वदर्शितार्थविशेषप्रामाण्यायैव, न तु श्रीमद्भागवतवाक्यप्रामाण्याय प्रमाणानि श्रुतिपुराणादिवचनानि यथादृष्टमेवोदाहरणीयानि क्वचित् स्वयमदृष्टाकराणि च तत्त्ववादगुरुणामनाधुनिकानां प्रचुरप्रचारितवैष्णवमतविशेषाणां दक्षिणादिदेशविख्यातशिष्योपशिष्यीभूत श्रीविजयध्वज- व्यासतीर्थादिवेदवेदार्थविद्वद्वराणां श्रीमध्वाचार्यचरणानां भागवततात्पर्यभारततात्पर्यब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यादिभ्यः संगृहीतानि । Anuccheda 28 atra ca sva-darśitārtha-viseṣa-prāmāṇyāyaiva na tu śrīmad-bhāgavata-vākya-prāmāṇyāya pramāṇāni śruti- purāṇādi-vacanāni yathā-dṛṣṭam evodāharaṇīyāni. kvacit svayam adṛṣṭākarāṇi ca tattva-vāda-gurūṇām anādhunikānāṁ pracura-pracārita-vaiṣṇava-mata- 145 viśeṣāṇāṁ dakṣiṇādi-deśa-vikhyāta-siṣyopaśiṣyī-bhūta-śrī- vijayadhvaja-vyāsatirthādi-veda-vedārtha-vidvad-varānām sri-madhvācārya-caranānām sri-bhāgavata-tatparya- bhārata-tātparya-brahma-sūtra-bhāṣyādibhyaḥ sangrhītāni. Here in the Sat-Sandarbha I will quote from the Vedas, Purāņas, and other such scriptures, just as I have seen them. I will quote these passages to verify my own interpretations, not the statements of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Some of the verses quoted here I have not seen in their original texts but have gleaned from citations in the Bhāgavata-tātparya, Bhārata-tatparya, Brahma sūtra-bhāsya, and other works by the venerable Madhvācārya, the prolific preacher of the dis- tinct Vaiṣṇava philosophy of Tattvavāda. In his line such dis- ciples and grand-disciples as Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha and Vyāsa Tirtha have appeared; very famous in the south, they are most eminent scholars of the Vedic literature and its interpretation. ANUCCHEDA 28.2 तैश्चैवमुक्तं भारततात्पयें [२.१.८]; 66 “शास्त्रान्तराणि संजानन् वेदान्तस्य प्रसादतः । देशे देशे तथा ग्रन्थान् दृष्ट्वा चैव पृथग्विधान् ॥ यथा स भगवान् व्यासः साक्षान्नारायणः प्रभुः । जगाद भारताद्येषु तथा वक्ष्ये तदीक्षया ॥” इति । तत्र तदुद्धृता श्रुतिः चतुर्वेदशिखाद्या; पुराणञ्च गारुडादीनां सम्प्रति सर्वत्राप्रचरद्रूपमंशादिकं ; संहिता च महासंहितादिका; तन्त्रञ्च तन्त्रभागवतादिकं ब्रह्मतर्कादिकमिति ज्ञेयम् ॥ २८ ॥ taiś caivam uktam bhārata-tatparye: “śāstrāntarāṇi sañjānan vedäntasya prasādataḥ 146 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha dese dese tathā granthân dṛṣṭvā caiva pṛthag-vidhān yathā sa bhagavān vyāsaḥ sākṣān nārāyaṇaḥ prabhuḥ jagāda bhāratādyeṣu tathā vakṣye tad-ikṣayā” iti. tatra tad-uddhṛtā śrutiś catur-veda-sikhādyā purāṇaṁ ca garuḍādīnāṁ samprati sarvatrāpracarad-rūpam aṁśādikaṁ samhita ca mahā-saṁhitādikā tantram ca tantra-bhāgavatādikaṁ brahma-tarkādikam iti jñeyam. In Bhārata-tātparya, Śrī Madhvācārya states, "Having un- derstood other scriptures with the help of the Vedānta-sūtra, and having looked at various kinds of scripture in different parts of the country, I shall give my explanation in accor- dance with what Śrī Vyasadeva, who is none other than the Supreme Lord Nārāyaṇa, has spoken in Mahābhārata and other works. In this description I will carefully adhere to his viewpoint" (Bhārata-tātparya 2.7.8).1 The texts we will cite from the works of Śrī Madhvācārya will include portions from such Vedic śrutis as the Catur- veda-sikhā, Purāṇic texts from unavailable parts of the Garuda Purāṇa and other works, samhita texts from the Mahā-samhita and similar works, and tantra texts from the Tantra-bhāgavatam, Brahma-tarka, and so on. COMMENTARY Since Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has proven Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to be the supreme pramāṇa, it needs no further validation. Therefore from this point onward he will quote scripture only to support his explanation. He will cite sources he has read in his own library and elsewhere, and he will also borrow references from the writings of Śrī Madhvācārya, who lived a few centuries before Jīva. Madhvācārya often quotes from books that by Śrī Jiva's time had already been lost. In Madhvācārya's time (twelfth century A.D.) there were no printing presses. He traveled the length and breadth of India collecting scriptures and philosophical books and copy- ing them by hand at the various temples and libraries he 1 The current edition of Bhārata-tātparya (Udupī, 1971), instead of "vedāntasya” reads "vedān ca asya" — "having understood the other scriptures and the Vedas by the mercy of the Lord" Anuccheda 28 147 visited. He was renowned for his photographic memory, so when he was not allowed to copy the books he found, he read them and later reproduced them from memory. In this way he amassed an immense library at his headquarters in Uḍupī, in Karṇāṭaka. Some say his library had no equal. Un- fortunately, it was destroyed by fire, and many of the books he refers to in his writings were lost forever. In several places in the Sandarbhas Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmī has to make do with the refer- ences from lost works cited from the books of Madhvācārya. Madhvācārya's Tattvavāda is by definition the philoso- phy that "everything is real": sarvam vastu satyam iti tattva- vādaḥ. The monists say that only Brahman is real, while everything else is a manifestation of Māyā. Both in his writ- ings and in public debates with the leading Māyāvādīs of his time, Madhvācārya soundly defeated the Māyāvāda philoso- phy with his Tattvavāda. By relying on books by Śrila Madhvācārya and his emi- nent followers as a principal source of evidence, Jīva Gosvāmī shows his indebtedness to them. Jīva Gosvāmī is, however, a follower of Lord Caitanya, whose teachings dif- fer from Madhvācārya's. In his Sandarbhas Śrī Jīva plans to draw from those ideas of Madhvācārya that agree with Lord Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahaprabhu's acintya-bhedäbheda philoso- phy. When examined impartially, the acintya-bhedābheda philosophy proves the best and most comprehensive expla- nation of Vedic knowledge. It is the perfect synthesis of all the Vedic literature because its propounder, Śrī Caitanya, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. When the Supreme Lord propounds a philosophy, it naturally surpasses all other systems of thought. Having established śabda-pramāṇa as the only indepen- dently valid means of knowledge, and having established Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as the topmost form of sabda-pramāṇa, here the pramāṇa section of Śri Tattva-Sandarbha ends. In the next section Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī begins discussing the prameya, or what we come to know by resorting to the top- most pramāṇa. 4.. 148 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 29.1 AN ANALYSIS OF ŚRI SUKADEVA GOSVÁMI'S FAITH अथ नमस्कुर्वन्नेव तथाभूतस्य श्रीमद्भागवतस्य तात्पर्यं तद्वक्तुर्हृदयनिष्ठापर्यालोचनया संक्षेपतस्तावन्निर्द्धारयति; [भा.१२.१२.६८ ] “स्वसुखनिभृतचेतास्तद्वयुदस्तान्यभावो अप्यजितरुचिरलीला - कृष्टसारस्तदीयम् । व्यतनुत कृपया यस्तत्त्वदीपं पुराणं तमखिलवृजिनध्नं व्याससूनुं नतोऽस्मि ॥ ॥” atha namas-kurvann eva tathā-bhūtasya śrīmad- bhāgavatasya tatparyam tad vaktur hrdaya-nistha- paryālocanayā sarkṣepatas tāvan nirdhārayati: "sva-sukha-nibhṛta-cetās tad-vyudastānya-bhāvo 'py ajita rucira lilakrsta sāras tadiyam vyatanuta krpayā yas tattva-dipam purānam tam akhila-vrjina-ghnam vyāsa- sūnum nato 'smi" Such being the status of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Sūta Gosvāmī concisely defines its basic message by turning our attention to the disposition of the heart of its speaker while offering him obeisances: “I offer my obeisances unto Srila Vyasadeva's son, who destroys all sins and whose mind was filled with the bliss of impersonal realization, being free from any other worldly thought. Yet his heart was enchanted by the beautiful pas- times of Lord Ajita, Kṛṣṇa. Out of compassion he narrated this Purāna, which illumines reality" (Bhāg. 12.12.69). ANUCCHEDA 29.2 टीका च श्रीधरस्वामिविरचिता “श्रीगुरुं नमस्करोति । स्वसुखेनैव निभृतं पूर्णं चेतो यस्य सः । तेनैव व्युदस्तोऽन्यस्मिन् भावो भावना यस्य तथाभूतोऽप्यजितस्य रुचिराभिर्लीलाभिराकृष्टः सारः स्वसुखगतं Anuccheda 29 धैर्यं यस्य सः । तत्त्वदीपं परमार्थप्रकाशकं श्रीभागवतं यो व्यतनुत, तं नतोऽस्मि इत्येषा” । 149 tīkā ca śrīdhara-svāmi-viracitā—“śrī-guruṁ namas-karoti. sva-sukhenaiva nibhṛtam pūrṇaṁ ceto yasya saḥ. tenaiva vyudasto 'nyasmin bhāvo bhāvanā yasya tatha-bhūto 'py ajitasya rucirābhir līlābhir ākṛṣṭaḥ sāraḥ sva-sukha-gatam dhairyam yasya saḥ. tattva-dīpaṁ paramārtha-prakāśakaṁ śrī-bhāgavatam yo vyatanuta tam nato 'smi ity" esă. Śrīdhara Swāmī explains in his commentary: "Sūta Gosvāmi offers obeisances to his spiritual master (Śrī Śuka), whose mind was filled only with the bliss of the self, and who had thus put aside all other thoughts. But even at that elevated stage his mind was drawn to the enchanting pastimes of Lord Ajita, and this attraction caused him to abandon his sober attachment to impersonal bliss. I offer my obeisances unto him, the speaker of Śrimad- Bhāgavatam, which illumines the supreme goal of life." ANUCCHEDA 29.3 एवमेव द्वितीये तद्वाक्यमेव; “प्रायेण मुनयो राजन्” [भा. २.१.७] इत्यादिपद्यत्रयमनुसन्धेयम् । अत्राखिलवजिन तादृशभावस्य प्रतिकूलमुदासीनञ्च ज्ञेयम् । तदेवमिह सम्बन्धि तत्त्वं ब्रह्मानन्दादपि प्रकृष्टो रुचिरलीलाविशिष्टः श्रीमानजित एव । स च पूर्णत्वेन मुख्यतया श्रीकृष्णसंज्ञ एवेति श्रीबादरायणसमाधौ व्यक्तीभविष्यति । तथा प्रयोजनाख्यः पुरुषार्थश्च तादृशतदासक्तिजनकं तत्प्रेमसुखमेव । ततोऽभि- धेयमपि तादृशतत्प्रेमजनकं तल्लीलाश्रवणादिलक्षणं तद्भजनमेवेत्यायातम् । अत्र 'ब्याससूनुम्' इति ब्रह्मवैवर्त्ता- नुसारेण श्रीकृष्णवराज्जन्मत एव मायया तस्यास्पृष्टत्वं सूचितम् । श्रीसूतः श्रीशौनकम् ॥ २९ ॥ evam eva dvitiye tad-vākyam eva “prāyeṇa munayo rājan” ity-adi-padya-trayam anusandheyam. atrākhila-vrjinam 150 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha tādṛśa-bhāvasya pratikūlam udāsīnaṁ ca jñeyam. tad evam iha sambandhi-tattvam brahmānandād api prakṛṣṭo rucira-līlā-visiṣṭaḥ śrīmān ajita eva. sa ca pūmatvena mukhyatayā śrī-kṛṣṇa-saṁjña eveti śrī-bādarāyaṇa- samādhau vyakti-bhaviṣyati. tathā prayojanākhyaḥ puruṣārthaś ca tādṛśa-tad-āsakti-janakaṁ tat-prema-sukham eva. tato 'bhidheyam api tādṛśa-tat- prema-janakaṁ tal-līlā-śravaṇādi-lakṣaṇaṁ tad-bhajanam evety āyātam. atra "vyāsa-sūnum" iti brahma- vaivartānusärena śri-kṛṣṇa-varaj janmata eva māyayā tasyāspṛṣṭatvaṁ sūcitam. śrī-sūtaḥ śrī-śaunakam. Similarly worth examining are the three verses Śrī Śuka speaks in the Second Canto that begin with prayeṇa munayo rājan (Bhāg. 2.1.7-9). In the verse under discussion (Bhāg. 12.12.69) we should understand that the words akhila- vrjinam (all inauspicious things) indicate everything contrary or irrelevant to devotional service. Therefore the subject of this book (sambandhi-tattva) is Śrīmān Ajita, who transcends the ecstasy of impersonal re- alization and is distinguished by His enchanting pleasure pastimes. Later, in the context of our discussion of Śrila Vyasa's trance, it will be made clear that in His fullest mani- festation, Lord Ajita is primarily named Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Similarly, the final goal (prayojana-tattva) is the happi- ness of love for Kṛṣṇa, which leads to the sort of attachment to Him that Śrī Śuka experienced. And thus our means (abhidheya) is service to Him, characterized by such devo- tional processes as hearing His divine pastimes; this activ- ity generates love for Him, as it did in the case of Śrī Suka. The identity of each of these three principles follows as a natural logical sequence. The phrase vyāsa-sūnum (son of Śrī Vyāsa) in Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam 12.12.69 alludes to something described in the Brahma-Vaivarta Purāṇa-namely, that Sukadeva, because of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's benediction, remained untouched by Mayā from his very birth. The verse under discussion was spoken by Śrī Śūta to Śrī Śaunaka. Anuccheda 29 COMMENTARY 151 In the preceding anucchedas, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi compared and contrasted the Vedas, Vedānta, Itihāsas, and Purāṇas to show that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the topmost pramāṇa. Now, at the commencement of his analysis of the Bhagavatam itself, he again performs mangalācaraṇa to further invoke auspiciousness for his sacred undertaking of writing the Sat- Sandarbhas. Once again he uses a Bhāgavatam verse as his invocation. By quoting from Sūta Gosvāmi's prayers to Śukadeva, Jīva Gosvāmī himself reveres Sukadeva Gosvāmī to invoke his blessings, so that Jiva may present the purport of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam without any deviation. Then he points out the tattvas of sambandha, abhidheya, and prayojana in the quoted verse. Unlike commentators who twist the Bhāgavatam's state- ments to support their own ideas, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has no interest in forcing his personal opinions on us. He wants to explain Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as it is. To this end he uses a flawless technique, one that leaves no room to doubt the validity of his conclusions. First he has us consider the heart of the original writer, Śrīla Vyasadeva, and the heart of the speakers, Sukadeva Gosvāmī and Sūta Gosvāmi. Then he analyzes the text of the Bhāgavatam in light of that exami- nation, incontrovertibly establishing the purpose of this top- most pramāṇa. In the verse quoted from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in Anuccheda 29.1, Sūta Gosvāmī reveals something about the life of Sukadeva Gosvāmī, describing how he became enchanted by the pastimes of Kṛṣṇa even while absorbed in the bliss of Brahman. Sūta's purpose was to show the firm conviction Sukadeva had in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam when he narrated it to Parīkṣit Mahārāja. Sukadeva was self-realized even while in the womb. Indeed, he was so absorbed in the bliss of Brahman that he wanted to stay there to avoid being attacked by Māyā. He left the womb only when Lord Kṛṣṇa personally assured him that Māyā would not capture him. (Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmī informs us that this description is found 152 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha in the Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa.2) As we learn from Chapter Seven of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, First Canto, and from the texts that Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī will quote below, as soon as Śukadeva took birth he left his father's hermitage for the forest. Later, when he heard a few of Vyāsadeva's disciples reciting selected Bhāgavatam verses, his mind became so enthralled that he abandoned his impersonal meditation on Brahman and began studying the Bhāgavatam under his great father. Despite all this, however, some Māyāvādīs insist that because Śrila Sukadeva Gosvāmī was attached to imper- sonal Brahman realization even before his birth, he must have remained fixed in this ideal. Therefore, they conclude, Śrīmad- Bhagavatam in fact promotes impersonalism. The prayer of Sūta Gosvāmī quoted here refutes this speculation. Another reason Śrila Jīva Gosvāmī quotes Sūta's prayer is to reveal the essential purport of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: That the happiness of Kṛṣṇa consciousnes surpasses all other kinds of happiness, including that enjoyed by merging into God's impersonal effulgence.In the Second Canto (Bhāg. 2.1.7-9), Sukadeva Gosvāmī himself confirms the superior- ity of the bliss of bhakti: prāyeṇa munayo rājan nivṛttä vidhi-ṣedhataḥ nairgunya-sthā ramante sma guṇānukathane hareḥ idam bhāgavatam nāma purāṇaṁ brahma-sammitam adhītavān dvāparādau pitur dvaipayanad aham parinisthito 'pi nairgunya uttama-śloka-līlayā gṛhīta-cetā rājarṣe ākhyānaṁ yad adhītavān O King Parikṣit, generally even the Brahman realized souls, who are above the regulative principles and restrictions, take pleasure in describing the glories of the Lord. At the end of the Dvāpara-yuga, I studied this great essence of the Vedas, named Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, from my father, Śrila Dvaipāyana Vyāsadeva. O saintly King, I was certainly situated perfectly in Brahman realization, beyond the three modes of nature, yet I was still attracted by the delineation of the pastimes of the Lord. Therefore I studied this Purāna. 2This story is not in current editions of the Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa .)Anuccheda 30 153 This incident from Sukadeva's life demonstrates the won- derful potency of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam-that it was able to captivate the heart of a Brahman realized person. In the next anuccheda, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī begins ana- lyzing the heart of Śrila Vyasadeva. ANUCCHEDA 30.1 ANALYSIS OF ŚRILA VYASADEVA'S TRANCE PARTI तादृशमेव तात्पर्यं करिष्यमाणतद्ग्रन्थप्रतिपाद्यतत्त्व-निर्णयकृते तत्प्रवक्तृश्रीबादरायणकृते समाधावपि संक्षेपत एव निर्द्धारयति; “भक्तियोगेन मनसि सम्यक् प्रणिहितेऽमले । अपश्यत्पुरुषं पूर्णं मायाञ्च तदपाश्रयाम् ॥ यया सम्मोहितो जीव आत्मानं त्रिगुणात्मकम् । परोऽपि मनुतेऽनर्थं तत्कृतञ्चाभिद्यते ॥ अनर्थोपशमं साक्षाद्भक्तियोगमधोक्षजे । लोकस्याजानतो व्यासश्चक्रे सात्वतसंहिताम् ॥ यस्यां वै श्रूयमाणायां कृष्णे परमपूरुषे । भक्तिरुत्पद्यते पुंसः शोकमोहभयापहा ॥ स संहितां भागवतीं कृत्वानुक्रम्य चात्मजम् । शुकमध्यापयामास निवृत्तिनिरतं मुनिम् ॥” [भा. १.७.४-८] tādrśam eva tatparyam karisyamāna-tad-grantha- pratipadya-tattva-nimaya-krte tat-pravaktry-sri-bādarāyana- kṛte samādhāv api sankṣepata eva nirdhārayati: "bhakti-yogena manasi samyak pranihite 'male apaśyat puruṣaṁ pūrṇaṁ māyāṁ ca tad-apāśrayām yaya sammohito jīva ātmānaṁ tri-guṇātmakam paro 'pi manute 'nartham tat-kṛtaṁ cābhipadyate anarthopaśamaṁ sākṣād bhakti-yogam adhokṣaje lokasyājānato vyāsaś* cakre sätvata-samhitām * This is a variant reading from the BBT edition which reads, lokasyājānato vidvāṁś 154 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha yasyām vai śrūyamāṇāyāṁ kṛṣṇe parama-pūruṣe bhaktir utpadyate puṁsaḥ śoka-moha-bhayāpahā sa saṁhitāṁ bhāgavatīṁ kṛtvānukramya cātmajam śukam adhyāpayāmāsa nivṛtti-nirataṁ munim” Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī elucidates the same basic message of Bhāgavatam while describing the meditative trance of its author, Śrila Vyasadeva. What Vyasadeva experienced indi- cates the principles he will later establish in his book, Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam. Śrī Sūta describes this trance in brief: "In his pure heart which was fixed on the Lord by the process of devotional service, he saw the Absolute Person- ality of Godhead along with His external energy, which was supported by Him. Due to this external energy, the living entity, although transcendental to the three modes of mate- rial nature, thinks of himself as a material product and thus undergoes the reactions of material miseries. The material miseries of the living entity, which are superfluous to him, can be directly mitigated by the process of devotional ser- vice to Lord Kṛṣṇa. But the mass of people do not know this, and therefore the learned Vyāsadeva composed this Sātvata- samhitā [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam]. Simply by giving aural re- ception to this Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, the feeling for loving devotional service to Lord Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, manifests at once and extinguishes the fire of lamentation, illusion, and fearfulness. The great sage Vyāsadeva, after composing the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and editing it, taught it to His son, Śrī Sukadeva Gosvāmi, who was situated on the path of renunciation" (Bhāg. 1.7.4-8). ANUCCHEDA 30.2 तत्र; “ स वै निवृत्तिनिरतः सर्वत्रोपेक्षको मुनिः । कस्य वा बृहतीमेतामात्मारामः समभ्यसत् ॥” [भा. १.७.९] इति श्रीशौनकप्रश्नानन्तरञ्च; 66 “ आत्मारामाश्च मुनयो निर्ग्रन्था अप्युरुक्रमे । । Anuccheda 30 कुर्वन्त्यहैतुकीं भक्तिमित्थम्भूतगुणो हरिः ॥ हरेर्गुणाक्षिप्तमतिर्भगवान् बादरायणिः । अध्यगान्महदाख्यानं नित्यं विष्णुजनप्रियः || ” [भा. १.७.१०-११] भक्तियोगेनप्रेम्ना; “अस्त्वेवमङ्ग भजतां भगवान्मुकुन्दो । मुक्तिं ददाति कर्हिचित् स्म न भक्तियोगम् ॥” [भा. ५.६.१८ ] इत्यत्र प्रसिद्धेः । tatra: “sa vai nivṛtti-nirataḥ sarvatropekṣako muniḥ kasya vā bṛhatīm etām ātmārāmaḥ samabhyasat" iti saunaka-praśnānantaram ca: “ātmārāmāś ca munayo nirgranthā apy urukrame kurvanty ahaitukīṁ bhaktim ittham-bhūta-guno hariḥ harer guṇākṣipta-matir bhagavān bādarāyaṇiḥ adhyagān mahad ākhyānaṁ nityaṁ viṣṇu-jana-priyaḥ” bhakti-yogena premnā. "astv evam anga bhagavan bhajatām mukundo muktiṁ dadāti karhicit sma na bhakti-yogam” ity atra prasiddheḥ. Śaunaka Rşi then inquires: 155 "Śrī Sukadeva Gosvāmī was engaged in renunciation and was indifferent towards everything. He was self satisfied then why did he take the trouble to undergo the study of such a vast literature?" (Bhāg. 1.7.9) Sūta Gosvāmī replies: "Even the great thinkers, the ātmārāma, though freed from all kinds of material bondage, render unalloyed devo- tional service unto the Personality of Godhead. This is be- cause the Lord possesses transcendental qualities and therefore can attract everyone, including liberated souls. Honorable Sukadeva Gosvāmi, the son of Śrila Vyasadeva, whose mind was captivated by the enchanting qualities of Lord Hari, therefore he underwent the study of this great narration [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam]. He is very dear to the devotees" (Bhāg. 1.7.10-11). 156 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha The phrase bhakti-yogena (through devotional service) [in Bhāgavatam 1.7.4] means "through love of God" since the same meaning is conveyed in the following statement: "My dear King, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Mukunda, sometimes grants liberation to those engaged in getting His favor, but He rarely grants bhakti-yoga, pure love for Him" (Bhāg. 5.6.18 ). ANUCCHEDA 30.3 प्रणिहिते समाहिते, “समाधिनानुस्मर तद्विचेष्टितम् " [भा. १.५.१३] इति तं प्रति श्रीनारदोपदेशात् । पूर्णपदस्य मुक्तप्रग्रहया वृत्त्या, “भगवानिति शब्दोऽयं तथा पुरुष इत्यपि । वर्त्तते निरुपाधिश्च वासुदेवेऽखिलात्मनि ॥” इति पाद्मोत्तरखण्डवचनावष्टम्भेन [२२६.६८ ], तथा “कामकामो यजेत् सोममकामः पुरुषं परम् ॥” अकामः सर्वकामो वा मोक्षकाम उदारधीः । तीव्रेण भक्तियोगेन यजेत पुरुषं परम् ॥" 66 [भा. २.३.९-१०] इत्यस्य वाक्यद्वयस्य पूर्ववाक्ये “ पुरुषं परमात्मानं प्रकृत्येकोपाधिम्,” उत्तरवाक्ये “पुरुषं पूर्णं निरुपाधिम्” इति टीकानुसारेण च, पूर्णः पुरुषोऽत्र स्वयं- भगवानेवोच्यते ॥ ३० ॥ pranihite samāhite, "samādhinānusmara tad vicestitam” iti taṁ prati śrī-nāradopadeśāt. pūrṇa-padasya mukta- pragrahayā vṛttyā, "bhagavan iti sabdo 'yam tathā puruṣa ity api vartate nirupādhiś ca vāsudeve 'khilātmani” iti pādmottara khanda-vacanāvastambhena, tathā : "kāma-kāmo yajet somam akāmaḥ puruṣam param akāmaḥ sarva-kāmo vā mokṣa-kāma udara-dhiḥ tīvreṇa bhakti-yogena yajeta puruşaṁ param” ity asya vākya dvayasya pūrva-vākye, "purusam parmātmānaṁ prakṛtyeko-pādhim," uttara-vākye, " purusam pūram nirupādhim," iti tikānusārena ca, pūrnah puruso 'tra svayam bhagavān evocyate. Anuccheda 30 157 The word praṇihite (fixed) means "concentrated in medita- tion." Previously, Nārada Muni had instructed Vyasadeva to "experience the pastimes of Lord Kṛṣṇa in trance" (Bhāg. 1.5.13). The word pūrṇa (complete) should be understood here in its full, unrestricted sense, as corroborated by the Padma Purāṇa (Uttara-khaṇḍa 226.68): "The words bhagavan and purusa, when free from limiting modifiers, refer to Lord Vasudeva [Kṛṣṇa], the Supersoul of all." This is fur- ther verified in Śrīdhara Svāmi's commentary on the follow- ing two verses: "One who desires sense gratification should worship the moon, but one who has no material desires worships the Supersoul. An intelligent person, whether he be full of ma- terial desires, without any material desires, or desiring lib- eration, must by all means worship only the Personality of Godhead by devotional service" (Bhag. 2.3.9-10). Śrila Śrīdhara Svāmī states that the word purusa in the first of these two verses indicates the Supersoul, whose upadhi (apparently limiting qualification) is material nature, while the same word in the second verse indicates the complete Per- sonality of Godhead, who is free from all upadhis. Thus the phrase pūrṇa-puruṣa [in Bhāgavatam 1.7.4, quoted in Anuccheda 30.1] refers to the original Personality of Godhead. COMMENTARY $0 To understand the meaning of a profound book like Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam, it is important to understand the author's faith and experience. These two factors guide his writing, and, as in this case, if the subsequent speaker of the book shares the author's faith and experience, then the author's ideas will be accurately conveyed. To understand the mind or heart of Śrīla Vyasadeva, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī analyzes Vyāsa's trance, which is the source of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and re- veals its essential idea. With this analysis accomplished, Jiva makes it the basis for his explanation of the whole Bhāgavatam. He therefore used twenty anucchedas of the Tattva-Sandarbha (30-49) just to explore the inner purpose 158 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha of Śrīla Vyāsadeva's heart and show how Śukadeva Gosvāmi's heart perfectly reflects it. In the previous anuccheda Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī described Śukadeva's heart even before beginning to analyze Śrīla Vyāsadeva's. Jīva did this to invoke the blessings of Śrī Śuka, from whom even Śrīla Vyāsadeva was eager to hear the Bhāgavatam. The description of Sukadeva in the previous anuccheda, moreover, was based on a single verse Sūta Gosvāmī spoke in glorification of his guru. By contrast, Vyāsadeva's trance is described in six verses. It was thus also more convenient for Jiva Gosvāmī to discuss Sukadeva's mood before Vyāsadeva's. In doing so he follows the sūcī- kaṭāha-nyāya, or "the principle of the needle and the kettle,"3 which means that when faced with a complex undertaking one should execute the smaller tasks first. In Bhāgavatam 1.7.4 (quoted in Anuccheda 30.1) the term bhakti-yogena means "by prema, or pure love of Godhead," because only in the state of pure love of Godhead can one see the Supreme Personality of Godhead along with His potencies. That bhakti-yogena means "by prema❞ is confirmed by the word amala, meaning "pure" and referring to the condition of Śrīla Vyāsadeva's heart. According to Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī in Bhakti-rasāmṛta- sindhu (1.2.1), bhakti is of three varieties: sa bhaktiḥ sādhanaṁ bhāvaḥ premā ceti tridhoditā. “Bhakti is of three types—sādhana, bhāva, and prema." One who attains prema-bhakti realizes Kṛṣṇa both within and without, and this realization vanquishes both his ignorance about the self and his material miseries. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī further de- scribes prema-bhakti as follows: sāndrānanda-viseṣātmā śrī- kṛṣṇākarṣiņi ca sã. “[Prema-bhakti] is specially characterized by the experience of intense bliss by its attracting Kṛṣṇa” (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.1.17). Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi concludes, therefore, that it was by the influence of prema-bhakti alone that Śrīla Vyāsa real- ized in his trance bhagavat-tattva along with māyā-tattva, 3 The basis of the principle is that when a metal-worker is given two jobs, making a needle and making a kettle, he will fashion the needle first and get it out of the way. Anuccheda 30 159 jīva-tattva, and bhakti-tattva. In other words, he saw the origi- nal Personality of Godhead, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, along with His external, marginal, and internal potencies. The material cre- ation is a manifestation of Lord Kṛṣṇa's external potency, and the living entities constitute His marginal potency. The living entities tend to be overcome and bewildered by Māyā, the Lord's external potency. In his pure state the living entity is completely free from the influence of the external potency, but when under Māyā's con- trol he considers himself material. This attitude compels him to suffer the repetition of birth and death, an unnatural disease- like condition for the living being. Vyāsadeva saw in his trance the solution to this predicament-bhakti-yoga, or devotional service unto Lord Adhokṣaja, beginning with hearing about Him. Since most of human society is ignorant of this solution, Vyasadeva composed Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to propagate it. The term bhakti-yoga mentioned in Bhāgavatam (1.7.6) refers to sadhana-bhakti, which is the stage of devotional service in practice. This stage is based on strict following of devotional regulations. In prema-bhakti, the advanced stage of bhakti-yoga, because one is free of all material contami- nation, one surely and steadily engages in devotional ser- vice with spontaneous affection. The devotee who has reached this stage of advancement generally still follows the sadhana principles, while inwardly his heart is bathed in waves of blissful emotion rising from his spontaneous mood of loving service. Śrīla Vyāsadeva composed the Satvata- samhitā,4 Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, to explain the principles of bhakti-yoga in the sadhana and prema phases, along with the intermediate phase of bhāva-bhakti, “devotional service with developing ecstasy." In the next Bhāgavatam verse (1.7.7), bhakti means prema-bhakti, because, as the verse states, only at that stage is one completely free from lamentation, delusion, and fear. The word utpadyate literally means “is generated,” but here it means "becomes manifest" because prema-bhakti, being the internal potency of the Supreme Lord cannot be gener- 4 The term "sätvata" has the same meaning as bhāgavata. "Samhita' means a compilation. 160 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha ated; rather, it appears within the heart of an advancing devotee by the blessings of the Lord and His pure devotee. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi goes on to explain that although there are various purușa incarnations of the Supreme Lord who create, maintain, and destroy this world, the term purusam pūrṇam in Bhāgavatam (1.7.4) indicates the original Per- sonality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Every word in a language has its own energy, by which it conveys meaning. Words can take on varied meanings depending on whether they exhibit their primary or their secondary energies. Each word has one primary meaning and may have several secondary meanings. When a word is not restricted by its context, one should accept its primary meaning. With the term pūrṇa- puruşa in Bhagavatam (1.7.4), the unrestricted meaning (mukhya-vṛtti) of the word pūrṇa (literally "complete" or "per- fect") indicates Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who alone is free of all limita- tions. Lord Visnu's purusa incarnations are also supreme and perfect, but They appear limited in some ways, and these limitations distinguish them from the pūrṇa-purusa. This dis- tinction is implied in the Bhāgavatam statement ete cāṁśa- kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavan svayam: "All of the above- mentioned incarnations [listed in the preceding verses] are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead" (Bhag. 1.3.28). In the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (2.1.43) Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī explains how Kṛṣṇa has four qualities that none of His expansions possess, namely His wonderful pastimes, His extraordinary associates, His en- chanting flute-playing, and His unsurpassed beauty. This explanation of the word pūrṇa is further supported by the use of the phrase kṛṣṇe parama-pūrușe in Bhāgavatam (1.7.7). Here parama-pūruṣe is in apposition to the name Kṛṣṇa, clearly indicating equivalence. Comment- ing on the use of a virtually identical term-puruşam param in the Second Canto of the Bhāgavatam (2.3.10), Śrīdhara Svāmī says that it refers to the pūrṇa-purușa, or the com- plete person. Anuccheda 30 161 Etymologically, purusa means "one who lies down in the city," the city here being a metaphor for the body. Thus the word puruşa indicates the Supersoul within everyone's body. The Supersoul is the controller of the material energy, but He is never influenced by it. Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, on the other hand, is never directly involved with the material nature at all, though He controls it through His purusa expansions. Śrīdhara Svāmī uses the word nirupādhi (free from all limiting adjuncts) in reference to Kṛṣṇa, who is not the mere puruşa but the pura-purusa. Unlike the Supersoul, who is seemingly limited by the upadhi of involvement with the material energy, Kṛṣṇa is free from all upādhis. This term, upādhi, is difficult to grasp and therefore difficult to render into English. It is variously translated as "conditioning," "limi- tation," "false designation," or "modifier." In its strict philosophi- cal usage, it means "limiting adjunct," because an upādhi's effect is to apparently modify the natural state of an object by its proximity or association, though in fact it has no inte- gral or natural relationship with the object. For example, a naturally colorless crystal will appear red- dish when held before a red flower. The reddish tinge is not part of the crystal's nature; rather, because the crystal is near the red flower, the flower "conditions" the crystal to appear reddish. In this way the crystal's redness is an upadhi, or limiting adjunct, superimposed by the flower. Similarly, the material body is an upādhi superimposed on the soul. The soul is like a crystal in that he is easily influenced, or "colored," by his association. Thus the soul's proximity to the material body causes him to become mired in material ex- istence and conditioned by the modes of nature. In reality, the soul and Supersoul are nirupādhi, without any limiting adjuncts, just like the Personality of Godhead. One might conclude that this nirupadhi condition of the soul implies his absolute equality with the impersonal Supreme. This conclusion is negated by the word yajeta (should wor- ship) in the statement yajeta puruşaṁ param, "One should worship the Supreme Person" (Bhāg. 2.3.10). The root yaj means "to worship a deity." It would be absurd to advise 162 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha someone to worship a deity who is an impersonal entity devoid of attributes. Therefore the meaning of pūrṇa-purușa is clear without resorting to the impersonal conception of the Supreme to try to explain it. When Śrīdhara Svȧmi says that the Supersoul, the puruşa, has material nature as His upādhi, one should not take this statement to mean that material nature conditions the Supersoul as it does the jīva. The intended meaning is that although He controls material nature without being in- fluenced or coming in contact with it, His very involvement with material nature seems to be an upadhi. The Supersoul is always transcendental to material nature, even though residing within it, just as a head of state always remains a free man, even when he visits the state prison. In his comment on Bhāgavatam (2.3.10), Śrīdhara Svāmī explains that the word puruşa means the Supreme Person- ality of Godhead, not the Supersoul, because that supreme person is worshiped by advanced souls desiring to enter the spiritual planets, beyond the jurisdiction of even the Supersoul. The word adhokṣaja in Bhāgavatam (1.7.6) also refers to Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Etymologically this word means "one who is beyond sense perception," but it is also a name Lord Kṛṣṇa, received after killing the demoness Pūtană. The Hari-vamsa Purāna (Viṣṇu-parva 101.30-32) confirms this: adho 'nena sayānena śakaṭāntara-cāriņā rākṣasī nihatā raudrā sakuni-vesa-dhāriņi pūtanā-nāma ghorā sā mahā-kāyā mahā-balā viṣādigdhaṁ stanaṁ raudraṁ prayacchantī janârdane dadrśur nihatām tatra rākṣasim vana-gocarāḥ punar jāto 'yam ity ahur uktas tasmād adhokṣajaḥ When baby Kṛṣṇa was sleeping in a cradle under the axle of a cart, a demoness came as the flying witch called Pūtanā to kill Him. She gave her poisoned breasts to baby Kṛṣṇa, but Krsna killed her. The residents of Vraja saw Pūtanā, who was gigantic, powerful, and terrible to look at, lying dead in the forest. But Lord Kṛṣṇa was safe,Anuccheda 31 and the people therefore called Him Adhokṣaja, He who has taken another birth under a cart’s axle. 163 The verses describing Vedavyāsa’s trance (Bhāg. 1.7.4— 7) briefly present the quintessence of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and with it the main elements of Gauḍīya Vaisnava philoso- phy. Therefore Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi says more about these verses in the next anuccheda. ANUCCHEDA 31.1 ANALYSIS OF ŚRILA VYASADEVA’s Trance PART || पूर्वमिति पाठे “पूर्वमेवाहमिहासम्” इति “तत् पुरुषस्य पुरुषत्वम्” इति श्रौतनिर्वचनविशेषपुरस्कारेण च स एवोच्यते । तमपश्यत् श्रीवेदव्यास इति स्वरूपशक्तिमन्तमेवेत्येतत् स्वयमेव लब्धम्; ‘पूर्णं चन्द्रमपश्यत्’ इत्युक्ते ‘कान्तिमन्तमपश्यत्’ इति लभ्यते । pūrvam iti pāthe “pūrvam evāham ihāsam” iti “tat purusasya puruṣatvam” iti śrauta-nirvacana-viśesa- puraskāreņa ca sa evocyate. tam apaśyat śrī-veda-vyāsa iti svarūpa-śakti-mantam evety etat svayam eva labdham. “pūrṇaṁ candram apaśyat” ity ukte “kānti-mantam apasyat” iti labhyate. Even if we consider the alternative reading of pūrvam in- stead of pūrṇam (in Bhāgavatam 1.7.4 quoted above), stil! the reference here will be to the Personality of Godhead. This is shown by the statements of Vedic śruti: “[The Lord said,] I existed here prior (pūrvam) to everything else” and “That [existence prior to everything else] is the essential characteristic of the Lord.” When it is said that Śrī Vyāsa saw the Lord, we should automatically understand that in addition Vyāsa saw Him in His svarūpa-sakti, or internal potency, just as when it is said that a person sees the full moon, the implication is that he also sees its effulgence. 164 अत एव; Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 31.2 66 त्वमाद्यः पुरुषः साक्षादीश्वरः प्रकृतेः परः । मायां व्युदस्य चिच्छक्तया कैवल्ये स्थित आत्मनि ॥” [भा. १.७.२३] इत्युक्तम् । अतएव, “मायाञ्च तदपाश्रयाम् * [भा. १.७.४] इत्यनेन तस्मिन् अप अपकृष्ट आयो, यस्याः, निलीय स्थितत्वादिति मायाया न तत्स्वरूपभूतत्वमित्यपि लभ्यते । वक्ष्यते च; “माया परैत्यभिमुखे च विलज्जमाना " [भा. २.७.४७] इति । ata eva: “tvam ādyaḥ puruṣaḥ sākṣād iśvarah prakṛteh paraḥ māyām vyudasya cic-chaktyä kaivalye sthita ātmani” ity uktam. ata eva “māyāṁ ca tad-apāśrayām” ity anena tasmin apa apakṛṣṭa āśrayo yasyāḥ niliya sthitatvād iti māyāyā na tat-svarūpa-bhūtatvam ity api labhyate. vakṣyate ca, “māyā paraity abhimukhe ca vilajjamānā” iti. Thus it is said: “You are the original Personality of Godhead, controller of all creations and transcendental to the material energy. You have cast away the effects of the material en- ergy by Your spiritual potency. You are always situated in eternal bliss in Your own Self” (Bhāg. 1.7.23). Therefore we understand the phrase māyāṁ ca tad- apāśrayam [in Bhāgavatam 1.7.4] to mean that Māyā takes shelter of Him in an inferior position, hiding from His sight; thus she does not constitute His svarūpa, or essential na- ture. As said later on, “Māyā, feeling ashamed, runs away from the Lord’s direct presence” (Bhāg. 2.7.47). 66 ANUCCHEDA 31.3 स्वरूपशक्तिरियमत्रैव व्यक्तीभविष्यति “अनर्थोपशमं साक्षाद्भक्तियोगमधोक्षजे” [भा. १.७.६] इत्यनेन “आत्मारामाश्च” [भा. १.७.१०] इत्यनेन च । पूर्वत्र हि भक्तियोगप्रभावः खल्वसौ मायाभिभावकतया | Anuccheda 31 स्वरूपशक्तिवृत्तित्वेनैव गम्यते, परत्र च ते गुणा ब्रह्मानन्दस्याप्युपरिचरतया, स्वरूपशक्तेः परमवृत्ति- तामेवार्हन्तीति । मायाधिष्ठातृपुरुषस्तु तदंशत्वेन, ब्रह्म च तदीयनिर्विशेषाविर्भावत्वेन, अपृथक्दृष्टत्वात् पृथक् नोक्ते इति ज्ञेयम् । ‘तदेतच्च द्वितीय तृतीयसन्दर्भयोः सुष्ठु प्रतिपत्स्यते’ अतोऽत्र पूर्ववदेव सम्बन्धितत्त्वं निर्द्धारितम् ॥ ३१ ॥ svarūpa-śaktir iyam atraiva vyakti-bhavisyati, “anarthopaśamam sāksād bhakti-yogam adhoksaje” ity anena, “ātmārāmāś ca❞ ity anena ca. pūrvatra hi bhakti-yoga-prabhavaḥ khalv asau māyābhibhāvakatayā svarūpa-śakti-vṛttitvenaiva gamyate paratra ca te guṇā brahmānandasyāpy 165 upari-caratayā svarūpa-śakteḥ parama-vṛttitām evārhantīti. māyādhiṣṭhātṛ-puruṣas tu tad-amśatvena brahma ca tadīya-nirviśeṣāvirbhāvatvena apṛthak-dṛṣṭatvāt pṛthan nokte iti jñeyam. tad etac ca dvitiya-tṛtīya-Sandarbhayoḥ susthu pratipatsyate ato ’tra pūrva-vad eva sambandhi- tattvam nirdhāritam. We shall explain the Lord’s svarūpa-sakti when we discuss the two verses, beginning anarthopaśamaṁ säkṣād bhakti- yogam adhoksaje and ātmārāmaś ca [Bhāgavatam 1.7.6 and 10, respectively ]. From the statement in the first of these two verses that devotionial service can subdue the material energy, Māyā, we can infer that the power of devotional ser- vice is a function of the Lord’s internal energy. The second verse implies that the qualities of Lord Hari constitute the svarūpa-śakti’s highest function, superior even to the bliss of Brahman. These verses do not separately mention Paramātmā, the Supreme Lord’s plenary portion who controls Maya, or Brah- man, the Supreme Lord’s nondifferentiated aspect. The rea- son for this omission is that Paramātmā and Brahman were seen to exist within the Personality of Godhead, not separately, a fact we will thoroughly demonstrate later, in the second and third Sandarbhas. Thus here, as before, the sambandhi-tattva, 166 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha or the essential topic of discussion in Śrimad-Bhāgavatam has been defined. COMMENTARY Some editions of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam have the word pūrvam (existing before) in place of pūrṇam in text 1.7.4; this differ- ence does not change the import of the verse. The word puruşa can also mean “He who existed prior to the creation”: purā āsīt iti purúṣaḥ. This phrase refers to the Supreme Lord as the source of everything. And this Supreme Lord is Kṛṣṇa, as He Himself confirms in the Bhagavad-gītā (10.8): aham sarvasya prabhavaḥ. “I am the source of everything.” This is the essential characteristic of the purusa. Since the adjec- tive pūrvam conveys the idea of “existing prior to everything else,” the phrase purusam pūrvam is equivalent to purusam pūrṇam insofar as both indicate the Supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa. Śrī Vyasa saw the Lord along with His potencies, just as one always sees the full moon along with its effulgent light. The energies of the Lord are always present along with Him, inasmuch as an object’s attributes are always present along with the object. In the Visnu Purāṇa (6.5.79) the attributes of Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, are listed: jnāna-śakti-balaiśvarya-vīrya-tejāṁsy aśeṣataḥ bhagavac-chabda-vācyāni vina heyair guṇādibhiḥ The word bhagavan indicates knowledge, sensory power, strength, wealth, prowess, and valor-all without limit and completely devoid of material qualities and their effects. The supreme person has multifarious potencies, of which three are primary. As the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (1.12.69) states, hlādini sandhini samvit tvayy ekā sarva-samśraye: “The hlādinī, sandhinī, and samvit potencies exist only in You [the Supreme Lord], who are the shelter of everything.” Hladini is the Lord’s pleasure potency, sandhini is His supporting po- tency, and samvit is His cognition potency. These three po- tencies constitute the Lord’s svarūpa, or essential, internal nature. Śrila Jīva Gosvāmī will give a detailed explanation of these potencies in the Bhagavat-Sandarbha. Anuccheda 31 167 Śrīla Vyāsadeva saw the Supreme Lord along with these potencies. In the spiritual sky these potencies are inherent in the Lord’s own person, but they also have their separate individual personal forms as His associates. In Anuccheda 47, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi will establish that the form of the Su- preme Lord that Śrīla Vyāsadeva saw was Kṛṣṇa in Vṛndāvana, where the Lord is always present with His most intimate devotees. Śrīmatī Rādhikā is Lord Kṛṣṇa’s personi- fied pleasure potency, and with Her the Lord performs His most intimate pastimes. It should be understood that in his trance Śrila Vyāsa also saw Śrīmati Rādhikā along with Her associates, for the Lord is never separated from His internal potencies. Besides the Lord’s three internal potencies, Vyāsa saw His external potency (Māyā) and His marginal potency (the jīvas). Māyā is not part of the Lord’s svarupa. She is person- ally present in His entourage, but she chooses to remain out of His sight. Therefore she can never influence the Lord or His internal potencies. Generally a female influences a male by appearing before him, but Māyādevī, the female, external energy of the Supreme, cannot influence the Lord. Therefore it is said that she remains out of His view. As it is said (Bhāg. 2.7.47), māyā paraity abhimukhe ca vilajjamānā: “Māyādevī stays away from the Lord, feeling ashamed to come before Him.” Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa compares Māyā to a maidservant who discharges her duties outside the king’s inner quarters. She does not have the same privi- leges as his queens, who are like the Supreme Lord’s inter- nal potencies, as they can directly associate with their mas- ter at all times. Māyā, the Lord’s external energy, is inferior to both His svarūpa-sakti and His marginal energy, the jivas. Still, she can subdue the jivas. The jiva’s vulnerability to illusion is described in Bhāgavatam (1.7.5): yayā sammohito jīva ātmānaṁ tri-guṇātmakam paro ‘pi manute ’nartham tat-kṛtam cābhipadyate Bewildered by that external energy, the living entity, although transcendental to the three modes of material هذاء 168 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha nature, thinks of himself as a material product and thus undergoes the reactions of material miseries. Although both the individual soul and the Supersoul are con- scious and reside in the same material body, only the jiva is bewildered by Maya and suffers material miseries. Māyā can- not affect the Lord because He is her master; by His incon- ceivable power He remains forever beyond her influence. In the Bhagavad-gītā (7.5) Lord Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna that His marginal energy, the jīva, is superior to His separated, material energy, Māyā. One may then ask, how does the superior jīva come under the control of the inferior nature, Māyā? The answer is twofold: because the jiva is infinitesi mal, and also because Māyā can transcend logic in her ac- tions. In the Third Canto of Srimad Bhāgavatam (3.7.9), Maitreya Muni responds to a question from Vidurā as follows: seyam bhagavato māyā yan nayena virudhyate iśvarasya vimuktasya kārpaṇyam uta bandhanam The external energy of the Supreme Lord acts contrary to logic [i.e., her behavior cannot be understood simply through logic]; otherwise, how is it possible that the living entity, who is conscious and liberated, becomes bound and miserable? Commenting on this verse, Śrīla Viśvanatha Cakravarti Ṭhākura gives an analogy: Although the sun is powerfully effulgent, still the cloud, generated from the sun’s potency, can cover the sun from the vision of a person on earth. Simi- larly, although the jiva is by nature superior to Māyā, she still has the power to cover his vision of the Lord. Another important point made in this section is that the description of Vyasa’s trance does not explicitly mention ei- ther the Supersoul or the impersonal Brahman effulgence. The Supersoul (Paramātmā) is the expansion of the Lord who presides over the affairs of the material energy. In the Bhagavad-gītā (9.10) Lord Kṛṣṇa says, mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ suyate sa-caracaram: “This material nature is work- ing under My direction, producing all moving and nonmoving beings.” Here “My” means “My expansion as Paramātmā” 1 Anuccheda 32 169 since it is through His Paramātmā feature that Lord Kṛṣṇa regulates the workings of the material world. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī points out that since Paramātmā expands from Kṛṣṇa and is entirely dependent on Him, the description of Vyasadeva’s trance need not mention Paramātmā separately. The same holds true for Brahman, which is nothing but the effulgence emanating from the Lord’s transcendental body. Like Paramātmā, Brahman has no existence independent of the Lord. Krsna confirms this in the Bhagavad-gītā (14.27): brahmano hi pratiṣṭhāham. “I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman.” According to the Nirukti dictionary, pratisthiyate asmin iti pratisthā: “Pratisthā means ‘shelter’ or ‘basis” Just as the sun globe is the basis of the sunshine, so Kṛṣṇa is the basis of the Brahman effulgence. From this analysis of Vedavyäāsa’s trance, it is clear that the central subject of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the Personal- ity of Godhead, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and that the process for attaining Him is bhakti-yoga. Brahman and Paramātmā, be- ing dependent manifestations of the Lord, cannot be sepa- rated from Him; but these two features are not the objects of Vyasadeva’s trance and so cannot be the central subjects of His greatest work, Srimad Bhagavatam. We should thus conclude that one who realizes Bhagavan, Lord Kṛṣṇa, au- tomatically realizes Brahman and Paramātmā, in the same way that one who acquires a million dollars automatically possesses all smaller sums. In the next section Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī discusses how the living entity comes to be bound up by māyā. ANUCCHEDA 32.1 THE LIVING ENTITY IS DISTINCT FROM THE LORD अथ प्राक्प्रतिपादितस्यैवाभिधेयस्य प्रयोजनस्य च स्थापकं जीवस्य स्वरूपत एव परमेश्वराद्वैलक्षण्यमपश्यदित्याह ययेति । यया मायया सम्मोहितो जीवः स्वयं चिद्रूपत्वेन त्रिगुणात्मकाज्जडात् परोऽप्यात्मानं त्रिगुणात्मकं जडं देहादिसंघातं मनुते, तन्मननकृतमनर्थं संसारव्यसनञ्चाभिपद्यते । 170 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha atha prāk-pratipāditasyaivābhidheyasya prayojanasya ca sthāpakaṁ jīvasya svarūpata eva parameśvarād vailakṣaṇyam apaśyad ity āha yayeti. yayā māyayā sammohito jīvaḥ svayam cid-rūpatvena tri-guṇātmakāj jadāt paro ‘py ātmānam tri-gunātmakam jadam dehādi- sanghātam manute tan-manana-kṛtam anartham samsāra-vyasanam cābhipadyate. The process (abhidheya) and the goal (prayojana), as we have defined them, are based on the essential difference between the Lord and the living entity. That Śrī Vyāsa saw this distinction is shown by the verse beginning yayā [Bhāg. 1.7.5]. Although the living entity is by nature pure spirit, tran- scendental to the three inert material modes, when deluded by Maya he considers himself a product of those modes, the inert material body. This delusion causes the living en- tity to suffer unwanted consequences, namely the miseries of repeated birth and death. ANUCCHEDA 32.2 तदेवं जीवस्य चिद्रूपत्वेऽपि, “ यया सम्मोहित” इति “मनुत” इति च स्वरूपभूतज्ञानशालित्वं व्यनक्ति, प्रकाशैकरूपस्य तेजसः स्वपरप्रकाशनशक्तिवत्, “अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुद्यन्ति जन्तवः " [गीता. ५.१५] इति श्रीगीताभ्यः । तदेवं ‘उपाधेरेव जीवत्वं, तन्नाशस्यैव मोक्षत्वम्’ इति मतान्तरं परिहृतवान् । अत्र “ यया सम्मोहितः” इत्यनेन तस्या एव तत्र कर्तृत्वं, भगवतस्तत्रोदासीनत्वं मतम् । tad evam jivasya cid - rūpatve ‘pi, “yayā sammohita” iti “manuta” iti ca svarūpa-bhūta-jñāna-śālitvaṁ vyanakti prakāśaika-rūpasya tejasaḥ sva-para-prakāśana-śakti-vat. : “ajñānenāvṛtaṁ jñānaṁ tena muhyanti jantavaḥ” iti śrī-gītābhyaḥ. tad evam “upādher eva jīvatvaṁ tan- nāśasyaiva mokṣatvam” iti matāntaraṁ parihṛtavān. atra “yayā sammohita” ity anena tasyā eva tatra kartṛtvaṁ bhagavatas tatrodāsīnatvam matam. Anuccheda 32 171 Furthermore, not only does the living being consist of pure spiritual consciousness, but, just as light, which consists of nothing but illumination, also has the capacity to illumine itself and other things, he has consciousness as a compo- nent of his essential nature. That the living entity possesses consciousness is implied [in Bhāgavatam 1.7.5] by the words yayā sammohitah (deluded by that [Māyā]) and manute (he considers), and confirmed by the following words from Bhagavad-gītā (5.15): “Living beings are bewildered because their consciousness is covered by ignorance.” Thus is refuted the contrary opinion that the jiva exists only as an upadhi of Brahman and that liberation is only the elimination of this upādhi. Here [in Bhāg.1.7.5] the phrase yayā sammohitah shows that Māyā alone is responsible for deluding the living being; the Lord remains uninvolved. ANUCCHEDA 32.3 वक्ष्यते च; “विलज्जमानया यस्य स्थातुमीक्षापथेऽमुया । विमोहिता विकत्थन्ते ममाहमिति दुर्धियः || ” [भा. २.५.१३] इति । अत्र ‘विलज्जमानया’ इत्यनेनेदमायाति; तस्या जीवसम्मोहनं कर्म श्रीभगवते न रोचते इति यद्यपि सा स्वयं जानाति, तथापि “भयं द्वितीयाभिनिवेशतः स्यादीशादपेतस्य " [भा. ११.२.३७] इति दिशा जीवानामनादिभगवदज्ञानमयवैमुख्यमसहमाना स्वरूपावरणमस्वरूपावेशञ्च करोति ॥ ३२ ॥ vakşyate ca: “vilajjamānayā yasya sthātum īkṣā-pathe ‘muyā vimohitä vikatthante mamāham iti durdhiyaḥ” iti. atra “vilajjamānayā” ity anenedam āyāti, tasyā jīva-sammohanaṁ karma śrī-bhagavate na rocata iti yady api så svayam jānāti tathāpi, “bhayam dvitiyābhiniveśataḥ syād iśād apetasya” iti diśā jīvānām anādi-bhagavad-ajñāna-maya-vaimukhyam asahamānā svarūpāvaraṇam asvarūpāveśaṁ ca karoti. 172 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Later Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [2.5.13] states: “The external energy of the Lord cannot stand in front of Him, being ashamed of her deeds. The less intelligent people, being bewildered by her, boast of “I” and “Mine.” Here we can infer from the phrase “being ashamed” (vilajjamānayā) that although Māyā knows that her work of bewildering the living beings does not please the Supreme Lord, still she cannot tolerate their turning their backs on Him because of ignorance which is beginningless. Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam (11.2.37) describes the result of the jivas’ turn- ing from the Lord: “When the living beings are attracted to something other than the Lord, they become fearful.” There- fore Māyā covers their real nature and entices them to iden- tify with matter.

• COMMENTARY In this anuccheda Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī shows how service to the Lord is the process of self-realization (abhidheya) and how eternal love of God is the goal (prayojana). Since love of God is eternal, the Supreme Lord and the living entities must be eternally distinct, because wherever there is ser- vice or love, the server and served or the lover and beloved must be separate individuals. According to the Māyāvādis this distinction of individual selves exists only in the conditioned (vyävahārika) stage. In the liberated (pāramārthika) stage all such distinctions dis- solve, because on that level Brahman alone exists. Impersonalists insist that since Brahman and the living be- ing are absolutely one and the same, there can be no dis- tinction of identities in the reality of Brahman. They say that when Brahman contacts Māyā, Māyā acts as an upādhi and Brahman is then known as iśvara (God) and the jivas. This state of existence is entirely false (mithyā), because Brah- man is the only reality. Iśvara and the jīvas only appear to exist by the power of illusion. Apart from these appearances, arising from Brahman’s proximity to Māyā, neither isvara nor the jivas exist. Concerning the jivas, featureless Brahman enters into delusion and displays a masquerade of forms! Anuccheda 32 173 and personalities birth after birth-and all for no reason other than Brahman’s adulteration by Maya. And this same de- luded Brahman will be redeemed when he simply gives up his false designations on the strength of acquired knowl- edge of Brahman. All this contradicts what Vyasadeva actually saw in his trance. He saw that the jīvas are intrinsically eternal spiritual entities, separate individuals in their own right. He further saw that Māyā overcomes only the jīvas, not Brahman (īśvara, the Personality of Godhead); what to speak of her overcom- ing the Supreme Lord, Vyāsa saw that Māyā could not even bare to face Him. He also saw that God Himself is not di- rectly involved with deluding the jīvas. In sum, Vyāsadeva realized that the Lord, the jīvas, and Māyā are all eternal, and that the Lord supports the other two. In Bhāgavatam (1.7.5) the words sammohitaḥ (becom- ing deluded) and manute (he thinks) are applied to the jiva, indicating that delusion and its effects-ignorance and mis- ery-are not part of his original nature. These two words also indicate that the jiva is both consciousness and the possessor thereof. As a light bulb simultaneously illuminates itself and the objects around it, so the jiva is simultaneously concious of himself and objects outside himself. In other words, cognition is an intrinsic aspect of his nature, not a tem- porarily acquired capacity, which is what the Māyāvāda doc- trine implies by positing that the jiva’s attributes are only ap- parently real (as is the jīva himself), and that to gain salvation he has to acquire knowledge of his oneness with Brahman. The theistic understanding of the jivas’ situation in this world, gleaned from analyzing Srila Vyasadeva’s trance, is that Māyā cannot tolerate the jivas’ refusal to serve her Lord. She thus covers the knowledge of such rebellious jīvas and imprisons them in material bodies. Māya’s principal func- tions are to punish and rectify the jivas who have turned away from the Personality of Godhead. Her motive is not to inflict suffering, but to encourage the fallen jīvas to seek rectification by inquiring into transcendental knowledge. Lord Kṛṣṇa therefore says in the Bhagavad-gītā (4.37) that 174 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha transcendental knowledge burns all the bonds of karma in the same way that fire burns fuel, because once a person attains transcendental knowledge, Māyā need no longer punish him. According to Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi, māyā’s conditioning of the jiva has no beginning, it is anādi. Although statements such as “she covers the real nature of the jiva” imply a be- ginning, in fact there is no beginning to the jiva’s bondage. Lord Kṛṣṇa confirms this in Bhagavad-gītā (13.20): prakṛtim puruşam caiva viddhy anãdi ubhav api vikaramś ca guņāmś caiva viddhi prakṛti-sambhavān Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature. Commenting on this verse, both Viśvanatha Cakravarti Thakura and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa have confirmed that the bondage of the jiva is beginningless. Śrīla Visvanātha Cakravarti Ṭhākura states: māya-jīvayor api mac chaktitvena anāditvāt tayoḥ saṁśleṣo’py anãdir iti bhāvaḥ. (The Lord is saying), “Because both māyā and jīva are My potencies, they both are beginningless. Thus their union is also beginningless.’ This is the sense of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s words.”” Here he is using the nyāya principle that the qualities of anādi objects are also anādi. Naturally, a beginningless object or entity cannot have a prior state of existence, for it could not be said to be beginningless. In this case the ob- jects, material nature and the jivas, are anadi, and their shared quality, separation from Kṛṣṇa, is also anādi. In fact, in the beginning of his comment on the verse he says, “In this verse Lord Kṛṣṇa is answering two questions— why or how did the union of the jiva and māyā occur? And when did it occur? He says that both of these are answered by the word anādi. For the first question anādi means na vidyate ādi kāraṇam yayoḥ, the union of māyā and jīva has no cause. The answer to the second question is also anādi, it has no beginning.” Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa, commenting on this same verse of the Bhagavad-gītā writes, evaṁ mitho vivikta-svabhāvayor Anuccheda 32 175 anādyoḥ prakṛti-jīvayoḥ saṁsargasyānādi-kālikattvam, “In this way material nature and the living entity, who have a distinct nature and who are beginningless, are united to- gether without beginning.” He uses the word anādikālikattvam, “the beginningless union of the jīva with māyā” Similarly, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swāmī Prabhupada, while commenting on the same verse writes: Both the living entities and material nature existed before this cosmos was manifested. Material nature was absorbed in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Maha-Viṣṇu, and when it was required, it was manifested by the agency of mahat-tattva. Similarly, the living entities are also in Him, and because they are conditioned, they are averse to serving the Supreme Lord. (Purport, Bg. 13.20) From this we understand that the jīvas and material nature are both eternal, although sometimes manifest and some- times wound up within Maha-Viṣṇu. Being eternal they are beginningless. And the quality of bondage is also beginningless. Just as there was no prior state of existence for material nature, similarly there was no prior condition of existence for the bound jīvas. The common example given is that of a spider, which expands its energy in the form of its web and sometimes it takes the web back into its body. Simi- larly, material nature and the jīvas in bondage are manifested and unmanifested in a cycle that is anadi, beginningless. Quoting Baladeva Vidyābhūsaṇa, Śrīla Prabhupāda explains in the introduction to Bhagavad-gītā that karma has no be- ginning, but it can end. Beginningless karma is the quality of bondage of the beginningless jīva. Srila Jiva Gosvami will explain all this in greater detail in the Paramātma-Sandarbha. He will show that according to a nyaya definition the word anadi is to be taken literally. We should note, however, this subject is inconceivable to the mundane logical faculties. Indeed, the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam confirms that māyā acts contrary to logic. (Bhāg. 3.7.9): seyaṁ bhagavato māyā yan nayena virudhyate īśvarasya vimuktasya kārpaṇyam uta bandhanam 176 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha The external energy of the Supreme Lord acts contrary to logic [i.e., her behavior cannot be understood simply through logic]; otherwise, how is it possible that the living entity, who is conscious and liberated, becomes bound and miserable? Similarly, the inconceivable Absolute Truth acts contrary to logic. Therefore one is advised not to subject the beginningless bondage of the jiva to the mundane logical faculties, but to accept the verdict of the śāstra, for Lord Krsna says in the Bhagavad-gītā (16.23) that one who does not accept the śāstra attains neither perfection, nor happi- ness, nor the supreme destination-na sa siddhim avāpnoti na sukham na parāṁ gatim. A deluded jīva retains his capacity to know the Supreme Lord. His condition is somewhat like that of a covered light bulb: the bulb’s light may not be visible beyond the covering, but it still shines within. Similarly, although the conditioned jiva’s ability to know the Lord is covered, it still exists. In this conditioned state the jīva misuses his mind and senses and misdirects his natural propensity to serve. Thus he suffers. But when he uses his mind and senses properly by practic- ing sadhana-bhakti, his true nature begins to emerge, and if he continues on the path of bhakti he attains his original iden- tity and is established in the unending bliss of prema-bhakti. In the Paramātma-Sandarbha, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī discusses this and other aspects of the jīva’s nature in more detail. One may ask why the all-powerful Lord does not stop Māyā from bewildering the jiva. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī answers this question in the next anuccheda. ANUCCHEDA 33.1 MAYA IS A DEVOTEE OF THE LORD श्रीभगवांश्चानादित एव भक्तायां प्रपञ्चाधिकारिण्यां तस्यां दाक्षिण्यं लङ्घितुं न शक्नोति । तथा तद्भयेनापि जीवानां स्वसाम्मुख्यं वाञ्छन्नुपदिशति: 66 “ दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया । Anuccheda 33 मामेव ये प्रपद्यन्ते मायामेतां तरन्ति ते ॥ " [ गीता ७.१४ ] 99 177 “सतां प्रसङ्गान्मम वीर्यसम्विदो भवन्ति हृत्कर्णरसायनाः कथाः । तज्जोषणादाश्वपवर्गवर्त्मनि श्रद्धा रतिर्भक्तिरनुक्रमिष्यति ॥ [भा. ३.२५.२५] इति च । śrī-bhagavāmś cānādita eva bhaktāyāṁ prapañcādhikāriṇyāṁ tasyāṁ dākṣiṇyaṁ langhituṁ na śaknoti. tathā tad-bhayenāpi jīvānāṁ sva-sāmmukhyaṁ vāñchann upadiśati: “daivi hy eṣā guṇa-mayi mama māyā duratyayā / mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etāṁ taranti te,” “satām prasargān mama virya-saṁvido bhavanti hrt-kama-rasāyanāh kathāh / taj-josanād āśv apavarga- vartmani śraddhā ratir bhaktir anukramiṣyati” iti ca. For His part, the Supreme Lord cannot withdraw His favor from Māyā, whom He has delegated as the controller of the material creation and who has always been His devotee. Still, He wants the jīvas to turn favorably toward Him, even if they must do so out of fear of Māyā, and therefore He in- structs them [in Bhagavad-gītā 7.14]: “This divine energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. Only those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it.” And [in Bhāgavatam 3.25.25]: “In the association of pure devotees, discussion of the pastimes and activities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is very pleasing and satisfying to the ear and the heart. By cultivating such knowledge a person gradually becomes advanced on the path of liberation and thereafter he is freed and his attraction becomes fixed. Then real de- votion and devotional service begin.” ANUCCHEDA 33.2 लीलया श्रीमद्वयासरूपेण तु विशिष्टतया तदुपदिष्टवान् इत्यनन्तरमेवायास्यति, अनर्थोपशमं साक्षादिति । 178 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha तस्माद्द्द्वयोरपि तत्तत् समञ्जसं ज्ञेयम् । ननु माया खलु शक्तिः, शक्तिश्च कार्यक्षमत्वम्, तच्च धर्मविशेषः, तस्याः कथं लज्जादिकम् ? उच्यते; एवं सत्यपि भगवति तासां शक्तीनाम- धिष्ठातृदेव्यः श्रूयन्ते, यथा केनोपनिषदि महेन्द्रमाययोः संवादः । तदास्ताम् प्रस्तुतं प्रस्तूयते ॥ ३३ ॥ līlayā śrīmad-vyāsa-rūpeṇa tu višiṣṭatayā tad upadiṣṭavān ity anantaram evāyāsyati, “anarthopaśamaṁ sākṣād” iti. tasmād dvayor api tat tat samañjasaṁ jñeyam. nanu māyā khalu śaktiḥ, śaktiś ca kārya-kṣamatvaṁ tac ca dharma- viseṣaḥ, tasyāḥ kathaṁ lajjādikam? ucyate,-evam saty api bhagavati tāsāṁ śaktīnām adhiṣṭhātṛ-devyaḥ śrūyante yathā kenopaniṣadi mahendra-māyayoḥ saṁvādaḥ, tad āstāṁ prastutaṁ prastūyate. In His pastime in the form of Śrī Vyāsa, the Lord has very explicitly instructed the living beings in this way. [i.e., that they should surrender to Him so they can transcend Māyā.] This we shall see shortly, in our discussion of the verse be- ginning anarthopaśamaṁ sākṣād (Bhāg. 1.7.6). Thus both the Lord and Māyā have acted quite properly. But, one may object, if Māyā is only an energy that has the capacity to do some work and, moreover, is just a qual- ity possessed by some entity, how then can Māyā feel ashamed and have other similar characteristics? The answer is that although Māyā is in fact an energy, we do hear from the Vedic scriptures about female deities who preside over energies residing in the Supreme Lord. We see an example of this in the dialogue between Lord Indra and Māyā in the Kena Upanisad. In any case, we shall now let this matter stand and return to the main topic of our discussion. COMMENTARY As Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmī explained in the previous anuccheda, the Supreme Lord is not pleased that Māyā has to delude the jivas; therefore Māyā feels too embarrassed to face the Lord. One may ask, “If the Lord is all-powerful, why does He Anuccheda 33 179 not intervene?” Our answer is that the Lord has appointed Māyā as the presiding deity of the material creation, and she has been performing this service faithfully from a time that is beginningless. Because she is His devotee, He kindly does not interfere with her service. But this reply may lead to a further doubt: Besides being all-powerful, the Supreme Lord is said to be unlimitedly merciful, always thinking of everyone’s welfare. Why then does He fail to stop Māyā from harassing the jivas? To this, Jiva Gosvāmī replies that even though the Lord does not stop Māyā, He teaches the jīvas how to get free from her clutches by surrendering to Him. Māyā will never again ha- rass any jīva who has taken full shelter of the Supreme Lord. Still a puzzle remains: Why does the Lord allow Māyā to create obstacles even for the jīva who wants to surrender to Him? Why does He allow her to repeatedly present various allurements that prevent the jīva from discriminating between proper and improper action and in this way baffle his at- tempts to surrender? Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī answers this question by citing the verse beginning satāṁ prasargān mama virya-saṁvido, which was spoken by Lord Kapila in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (3.25.25). This verse explains that devotees of the Lord as- sociate favorably with one another and always relish talking about the Lord’s pastimes, which are a tonic for the hearts and ears of the sick and weak jīvas. This tonic immunizes them against the disease of material illusion and gradually brings them back to the healthy condition of life, namely the Supreme Lord’s devotional service. The Lord’s only activity in the spiritual world is enjoying loving exchanges with His devotees, and His enjoyment would be disturbed by the in- trusion of unhealthy jīvas-i.e., souls who have not become completely purified of material desire and attained pure love for the Lord. Māyā therefore employs various means to make sure no unfit souls bother the Lord. Because this is her as- signed service He does not interfere. On the other hand, because of her obstacles, the jiva become cautious, and thus he becomes more attached to the Lord. In this way one 180 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha quickly attains the Lord’s feet. Obstacles make one strong, although they seem unpalatable when faced. The Personality of Godhead has not, however, employed Māyā just to inflict miseries on the jīvas. She does that, but as mentioned earlier, her real purpose is to chasten the jivas, to encourage them to turn to the Lord. The punishment she metes out serves three purposes: to give the living entities the reactions for their sinful deeds, to deter them from fur- ther transgressions, and to impel them to search for a way out of this world of suffering. Since this punishment ultimately benefits the jīvas by uniting them with the Personality of Godhead, He generally does not choose to come between the jīva and Māyā. The governor of a state will usually not interfere when the court system sends a criminal to prison. On the contrary, he may commend the policemen who cap- tured the wrong-doer. People do not think the governor is cruel to employ such able policemen, and in the end, when the criminal is rehabilitated and freed on parole, the former lawbreaker himself may thank the governor. So God’s motive for creating miseries in this material world is actually to induce them to surrender to Him and take up His loving service. Only in this way can they gain liberation from Mäyǎ’s clutches. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.87.2) Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmi confirms that this is the purpose of the creation: buddhindriya-manaḥ-prāṇān janānām asṛjat prabhuḥ mātrārtham ca bhavartham ca atmane ‘kalpanaya ca The Lord created the material intellect, senses, mind, and life airs of the human beings so that they could engage in sense gratification, undergo a cycle of repeated birth and death, enjoy heavenly pleasure, and finally come to the platform of liberation. One may still object that even if the Supreme Lord is not actively cruel, He is indifferent to the plight of the jivas. This is another mistaken notion. Far from being indifferent to the jīvas’ suffering, the Lord frequently appears in this world to enlighten the fallen populace on the pretext of educating His intimate associates such as Arjuna and Uddhava. Anuccheda 33 181 Sometimes He incarnates as Vedavyāsa or as another in- structor to preach the message of bhakti and uplift the wretched jīvas. All this He does out of His causeless mercy, because, as we have learned from the pramāṇa portion of Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha, the jīvas can never understand any- thing beyond the material world by their own endeavors. He alone gives the conditioned souls the opportunity to attain pure devotional service and associate with Him in Vaikuntha. In His appearance as Lord Caitanya He delivers kṛṣṇa prema, which is not available even to the residents of Vaikuntha. In Jaiva Dharma, Chapter Sixteen, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains that the miseries of the material world lead the jīvas to Kṛṣṇa consciousness and therefore suffering is auspicious to the far-sighted. It is the Lord’s causeless mercy. Out of His causeless mercy, the Supreme Lord gives the entrapped jīvas access to spiritual knowledge through the Vedas. As Kali-yuga began and the jīvas all but lost their ability to comprehend spiritual knowledge, He further helped them by explaining the same message in the Itihāsas and Purāņas. Finally, He revealed the essence of all knowledge in the form of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. So it can hardly be said that the Lord is indifferent to the plight of the jīvas. Once a jīva takes advantage of the Lord’s arrangement for spiritual education and comes to the point of transcen- dental realization, he need not fear any punishment for his previous misdeeds, no matter how dreadful they were. As the Lord says in the Bhagavad-gītā (4.37): yathaidhāmsi samiddho ‘gnir bhasma-sät kurute ‘rjuna jñānāgniḥ sarva-karmāņi bhasma-sāt kurute tathā As a blazing fire turns firewood to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of knowledge burn to ashes all reactions to material activities. Thus the Lord confirms that the jivas’ punishment is meant not for inflicting suffering on them, but for awakening them to the knowledge that will lead them to freedom from all suffering and eternal life in the spiritual world. Yet another doubt may be raised: If the punishment in- flicted on the jīvas is for their ultimate good, why are they also 1 182 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha allowed to enjoy in this world? If they were simply thrown into an ocean of ceaseless misery, they would have no choice but to quickly take complete shelter of the Personality of Godhead. This may be answered in two ways: First, ceaseless mis- ery is not good for developing transcendental understand- ing because one’s mind becomes too disturbed for contem- plating scriptural truths. Second, ceaseless misery is not nec- essary because any jīva with even a little rudimentary tran- scendental knowledge will realize that there is no real hap- piness in this material world. In the Bhagavad-gītā (8.15) Lord Kṛṣṇa characterizes this world as temporary and de- void of happiness: anityam asukham lokam. The so-called happiness one experiences here is nothing but a temporary cessation or diminution of misery. It is like the pleasure felt by a man who is repeatedly dunked in water and then brought to the surface just before drowning. Upon taking in the life- giving air, he feels great relief and joy, but such happiness is really only the temporary absence of continual misery. Lord Kṛṣṇa therefore advises us not to strive for the so-called happiness of this material world: sama-duḥkha-sukham dhīram so ‘mṛtatvāya kalpate. “One who remains equipoised in both misery and happiness is qualified for liberation” (Bg. 2.15). Only such a person can taste real happiness; others experience only the illusion of happiness. In conclusion, therefore, the Lord has designed a two- part program for both chastening and rehabilitating the jīvas: On the one hand, Māyā kicks them, and on the other, the Lord instructs them through various incarnations, the Vedic scriptures, and His pure devotees. Thus Māyā’s and the Lord’s actions perfectly complement each other. Although Māyā is the Lord’s material energy, she also exists in her personal form. All the energies of the Lord have their personal forms. (Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī will discuss this point in more detail in Śrī Bhagavat-Sandarbha.) That Māyā has a personal form is evident from a dialogue between Lord Indra and Māyādevi narrated in the Third Chapter of the Kena Upanisad: Once there was a war between the demigods and the demons. After a long struggle, the demigods prevailedAnuccheda 33 183 by the Supreme Lord’s mercy, but they mistakenly ascribed their victory to their own valor and became proud. To humble them, the Lord appeared before them in the guise of a yakṣa. Unable to identify the yakṣa, they appointed Agni, the fire- god, to find out who He was. When Agni asked the yakṣa to identify Himself, He placed a straw in front of Agni and said, “Burn it.” With all his power Agni could not burn the straw. Then Vayu, the air-god, was sent to identify the yakṣa, but he could not blow the straw away. Next Lord Indra ap- proached the yakṣa, but the mysterious personality disap- peared. Finally Mayadevi appeared to Indra in the form of Umā and told him that the yakṣa was in fact the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Many similar accounts in the Vedas and Purāņas show that Māyā and other energies of the Lord have their own per- sonal forms. Thus the description of how Vyasa saw Māyā stand- ing behind the Lord out of embarrassment is not figurative. Yet another question might be asked: “If Māyā, the pre- dominating deity of the material energy, can manage all her affairs, what need is there for the Paramātmā to control this world? Lord Kṛṣṇa answers this in the Bhagavad-gītā (14.4): sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya murtayaḥ sambhavanti yāḥ tāsām brahma mahad yonir aham bija-pradaḥ pitā It should be understood that all species of life, O son of Kunti, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed-giving father. Just as a woman cannot conceive a child without the help of a potent man, Māyā cannot manage the material world with- out the help of the Paramātmā. Māyā has her innate poten- cies for serving the Supreme Lord, but still she needs His help in carrying out her duties. For this reason Vyāsa saw that she was dependent on the Lord, a fact Kṛṣṇa confirms in the Bhagavad-gītā (9.10) when He says that this material nature, which is one of His energies, is ultimately working under His direction. The next anuccheda further explains Śrī Vyāsa’s trance. C 184 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 34 THE JIVA IS CONSCIOUS AND DISTINCT FROM THE LORD तत्र जीवस्य तादृशचिद्रूपत्वेऽपि परमेश्वरतो वैलक्षण्यं, तदपाश्रयामिति, यया सम्मोहित इति च दर्शयति ॥ ३४ ॥ tatra jīvasya tādṛśa-cid-rūpatve ‘pi parameśvarato vailakṣaṇyaṁ “tad-apāśrayām” iti “yayā sammohita” iti ca darśayati. Like the Lord, the jīva is purely spiritual, yet still he is differ- ent from the Lord. This truth is indicated by the words tad- apāśrayam (Māyā is outside Him yet supported by Him), [Bhāgavatam. 1.7.4] and yayā sammohito (deluded by Māyā), [Bhāgavatam. 1.7.5]. 4 COMMENTARY In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.7.4) the words used to describe Māyā’s relationship with the Lord are tad-apāśrayam. This phrase indicates that in his trance Śrīla Vyasadeva saw that the Supreme Personality of Godhead supports Māyā and that she has no influence over Him. The prefix apa means “separate” and “inferior.” Māyā is separate from the Lord in the sense that she is not one of His internal energies. That she is ashamed to appear in front of the Lord indicates she is inferior to both Him and His internal potencies. For this reason she cannot influence Him, though she is dependent on Him. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, she is compared to a maidservant who works outside the inner apartments of a king. While unable to influence the Lord or His internal poten- cies, Māyǎ can influence the jiva, as the words yaya sammohitaḥ indicate. Being part and parcel of God, the jīva is conscious by nature, yet he is not all-powerful like God. The Supreme Personality of Godhead’s power is unlimited, while the jiva’s potency is limited. The Lord controls Māyā, but she controls the limited jīvas when they are not united Anuccheda 34 185 with the Personality of Godhead in bhakti-yoga. Just as sparks separated from a fire lose their brilliance but not their existence, so the living beings separated from the Lord are forgetful of their nature and are absorbed in illusion. The Supreme Lord, however, is never affected by illusion. Thus jīvas are different from the Lord, though they are qualita- tively equal, as both are spiritual. Commenting on Bhāgavatam (1.7.4), Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa points out that besides seeing the Personal- ity of Godhead, Māyā, and the jīva, Śrīla Vyāsa also saw the time energy, as indicated by such verbs as apasyat (he saw), sammohitaḥ (he is bewildered), and manute (he considers). How is this? Because all these verbs indicate action, which in turn implies the influence of time. As the Bhāllaveya-śruti states, atha ha vāva nityāni puruṣaḥ prakṛtir ātmā kālaḥ: “The Lord, material nature, the living entity, and time are certainly all eternal.” Time’s eternality is also mentioned in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (1.2.26): anadir bhagavān kālo nănto ‘sya dvija vidyate avyucchinnās tatas tv ete sarga-sthity-anta-samyamāḥ [Parāśara Muni said:] O twice-born Maitreya, supremely powerful time has no beginning or end. Thus the cycle of creation, maintenance, and annihilation continues perpetually. And in the Bhagavad-gītā (13.20) Lord Kṛṣṇa says : prakṛtim puruşaṁ caiva viddhy anādī ubhāv api vikārāmś ca guṇāmś caiva viddhi prakṛti-sambhavān ‘Know that both the material nature and living entity are beginningless. Also know that the transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature.” In commenting on this verse in Särärtha-varṣiņi, Śrīla Viśvanatha Cakravarti Thakura says, māyā-jīvayor api mac- chaktitvena anāditvāt tayoḥ saṁśleśo ‘py anādir iti bhāvaḥ: “[Lord Kṛṣṇa says:] Since both Maya and the jiva are My energies, both exist without a beginning. Therefore the jiva has been in contact with Māyā without a beginning.” It follows 186 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha from this that the jīva’s karma has been acting without a beginning as well. Śrila Vyasadeva acknowledges that this is the nature of karma in Vedānta-sūtra (2.1.35): na karmāvibhāgād iti cen nānāditvāt.. “One might object that the law of karma cannot explain inequality in the universe otherwise everyone should be equal to begin with. But this objection is not valid, since the cycle of creation has no beginning. Inasmuch as cre- ation has no beginning, karma also has no beginning.” Apart from karma, which has an end, the other four en- tities Śrīla Vyāsa saw-the Personality of Godhead, the jīva, material nature, and time-are eternal, without beginning or end. Of these four, the Supreme Lord and the jīva are both conscious spirit, but the Lord is infinite and the jīva is atomic in size. Time is not conscious, but it is free from the control of the material modes. It is the basis of the threefold division of past, present, and future. The material energy is inert and is composed of three modes-goodness, passion and ignorance. Matter thus undergoes transformations in time and is the medium through which we perceive the three divisions of time. Although karma has been controlling ev- ery conditioned soul without beginning, it can be terminated for jīvas who perfect the practice of devotional service to Lord Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Śrīla Vyāsadeva also saw this and to enlighten the conditioned jivas about these all-important topics, he compiled the Satvata-samhita, Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam. In the next eight anucchedas, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī shows that Śrī Vyasa’s experience contradicts the popular monistic philosophy of Śrī Sankarācārya. ANUCCHEDA 35 THE JIVA IS NOT THE SUPREME BRAHMAN यर्ह्येव यदेकं चिद्रूपं ब्रह्म मायाश्रयतावलितं विद्यामयं, तर्ह्येव तन्मायाविषयतापन्नमविद्यापरिभूतञ्चेत्ययुक्तमिति जीवेश्वरविभागोऽवगतः । ततश्च स्वरूपसामर्थ्यवैलक्षण्येन Anuccheda 35 तद्वितियं मिथो विलक्षणस्वरूपमेवेत्यागतम् ॥ ३५ ॥ 187 yarhy eva yad ekaṁ cid-rūpaṁ brahma māyāśrayatā- valitaṁ vidyā-mayaṁ tarhy eva tan māyā-viṣayatāpannam avidyā-paribhūtaṁ cety ayuktam iti jīveśvara-vibhāgo ‘vagataḥ. tataś ca svarūpa-sāmarthya-vailakṣaṇyena tad dvitayam mitho vilakṣaṇa-svarūpam evety āgatam. If it is indeed true that the one undivided Brahman, whose very nature is pure spirit, is the foundation of Maya and also embodies the liberating force of knowledge, then it is illogi- cal to say that the very same Brahman falls under Māyā’s influence and is overcome by ignorance. Thus we can un- derstand that the jiva and the Supreme Lord are separate entities. Since both their identities and their capabilities are different, the jiva and the Lord are essentially distinct. COMMENTARY Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī has carefully analyzed Śrila Vyasadeva’s trance, and now, on the basis of that analysis, he presents arguments against the Māyāvāda theory of the absolute oneness of the Supreme Soul and the jiva souls. The ideas of the Māyāvādīs are completely antagonistic to devotional service and are therefore one of the greatest obstacles on the path of real spiritual progress. Śrīla Raghunatha dāsa Gosvāmi compared impersonalism to a tigress who devours one’s spiritual life. He said, kathāḥ mukti-vyāghryā na śṛṇu kila sarvātma-gilanīḥ (Manaḥ-sikṣā 4), “My dear mind, never listen to talk about liberation, which is like a tigress who swal- lows everything, including the self.” Śrī Caitanya Mahaprabhu also sternly warned those who aspire to understand the Personality of Godhead in truth. He said, māyāvādi-bhāṣya sunile haya sarva-nāśa (Cc. Madhya 6.153): “Hearing Māyāvāda philosophy completely destroys one’s spiritual life.” Ultimately, he said, because the Māyāvādīs describe absolute reality as featureless they are the greatest offenders against Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Lord. Śrī Madhvācārya presented forceful refutations of the Māyāvāda theory in a similar vein. One of his most impressive 188 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha efforts in this line was his Māyāvada-khandanam. In this and other works he exposed the Māyāvādīs’ misuse of gram- matical analysis and their faulty logic, which they resort to in their vain attempt to prove the absolute nondifference be- tween Brahman and the jiva. In this same mood, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi will refute the Māyāvāda theory in the next few anucchedas and conclude by exhorting his readers to further investigate the Māyāvādis’ “unintelligible concoctions.” In other words, Jīva Gosvāmī expects the followers of Śri Gauranga Mahaprabhu to con- sider it their duty to defeat the impersonalists’ word jugglery in as many ways as possible. When the Māyāvādīs are so thoroughly exposed that not one of the pillars supporting their errant doctrine is left standing, then only fools will fall prey to their misleading ideas. The impersonalists headed by Śrī Sankarācārya base their tenets on the Vedanta-sutras and the eleven principal Upanisads, and they also try to support their arguments with the statements of the Bhagavad-gītā. Jīva Gosvāmī contends, however, that their interpretations contradict what Śrila Vyasadeva experienced in trance, which is narrated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the essence of the Upanisads, the Vedānta-sutra, and the Purānas. Māyāvādīs claim that ultimate reality is nondual, pure consciousness, without form or attributes. They try to define ultimate reality only in negative terms, and so they repeat the aphorism neti neti, 1 “Not this, not that.” To support their arguments they cite such Vedic declarations as sarvam khalv idam brahma (Indeed, all this is Brahman, Chandogya Up. 3.14.1), ekam evādvitiyam (Brahman is one without a sec- ond, Chandogya Up. 6.2.1), vijñānam ānandam brahma (Brahman is consciousness and bliss, Brhad-aranyaka Up. 3.9.28), and neha nānāsti kiñcana (Ultimately no variety exists in this world, Bṛhad-aranyaka Up. 4.4.19). But then to explain the obvious variety in this world, the Māyāvādīs are forced to introduce the idea of some 1 The real meaning of neti neti is “not this much”, implying that the Lord is not limited to this phenomenal world but exists beyond it. A description of this is given in Bhag. 2.2.18. Anuccheda 35 189 beginningless entity called Mayȧ, or illusion. The Māyāvādīs say that this Māyā cannot be defined as either existing or not exisiting. They further say that Māyā has two aspects- vidya (knowledge) and avidya (ignorance). Somehow or other some part of Brahman comes in contact with Māyā, and the result is illusion for that portion of Brahman. Brahman con- tacts both vidya and avidya. When the totality of Brahman contacts vidya, isvara, the personal Godhead, comes into being. And when small parts of Brahman contact avidyā, they become the jivas. According to the Māyāvāda doctrine, the difference be- tween iśvara and jiva is not intrinsic or eternal; it is due only to upadhis, or the apparent limitations of Brahman by Maya’s vidya and avidya potencies. When a jiva acquires spiritual knowledge and thus removes these upadhis from himself, he realizes himself to be the unlimited, nonvariegated Brah- man. This attainment is supposed to be the perfection of spiritual life. In support of this concept, the Sankarites quote the Vedic statement ṛte jñānān na muktiḥ: “There is no lib- eration without knowledge.” A favorite analogy the Māyāvādīs use to explain how unlimited Brahman becomes limited as the jivas is that of the sky and clay pots. Just as the vast sky seems to become limited in a pot and is then known as “the sky in the pot,” so the unlimited Brahman seems to become limited by the jivas’ subtle and gross material bodies. When a pot is broken there is no longer a distinction between the sky in the pot and the all-pervading sky, and similarly when a jiva’s false identity is dissolved he no longer appears different from Brahman. Actually, the Māyāvādīs explain, the apparent distinction between the sky in the pot and the all-pervading sky did not really exist even when the pot was intact, and in the same way the difference between the individual self and the total Supreme is always illusory. The monists even see confirma- tion of all this in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, as in the final instruc- tions from Sukadeva to Parikṣit Mahārāja: (Bhag. 12.5.5); ghate bhinne yathākāśa ākāśaḥ syād yathā purā evam dehe mṛte jivo brahma sampadyate punaḥ 190 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha When a pot is broken, the portion of sky within the pot remains as the element sky, just as before. In the same way, when the gross and subtle bodies die, the living entity within again becomes the Supreme. Later in the same set of instructions, Sukadeva says, aham brahma paraṁ dhāma brahmāham paramam param evam samikṣann ātmānam ātmany adhāya niskale ‘I am the Absolute Truth, the supreme abode, and that Absolute Truth, the supreme destination, is me.’ Meditating like this, merge yourself into that nameless universal self (Bhag. 12.5.11). These statements need proper explanation, but when the Māyāvadīs explain them they do so without regard to the actual context. In fact, only by taking them out of context can one translate them as shown above. In Anuccheda 52 of the Tattva-Sandarbha, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi will briefly dis- cuss why such verses seem to have an impersonal slant, and in Paramåtma-Sandarbha, (72-84), he will give a more detailed discussion. Here Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi begins countering the Māyāvāda philosophy by establishing the essential distinction between jiva and isvara. His first point is, as we have learned from the account of Vyasadeva’s trance, that Māyā controls only the jiva and not the Supreme Lord. Indeed, Māyā is depen- dent upon the Lord and completely controlled by Him. The same Brahman cannot be the controller as well as the con- trolled, because ignorance and knowledge cannot exist si- multaneously in the one undivided reality, just as light and darkness cannot occupy the same point in space. The jiva’s abilities and qualities are different from those of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This difference, moreover, is not a product of illusion. By constitution the jiva is atomic in size, and thus he is vulnerable to Māyā’s inconceivable influence when he disassociates himself from the Supreme Lord. But by surrendering to the Lord he can free himself from the shackles of Māyā. Śrīla Vyasa saw all this in His trance. Anuccheda 36 191 In the next anuccheda, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī states that the difference between the jiva and the Lord is real and not just empirical. ANUCCHEDA 36 THE JIVA IS NOT MERELY AN UPADHI न चोपाधितारतम्यमयपरिच्छेदप्रतिबिम्बत्वादिव्यवस्थया तयोर्विभागः स्यात् ॥ ३६ ॥ na copādhi-tāratamya-maya-pariccheda-pratibimbatvādi- vyavasthaya tayor vibhāgaḥ syât. Also, the Mäyävädis cannot explain this difference between the jiva and the Lord simply as a division or reflection of Brahman into a hierarchy of upādhis. COMMENTARY The Māyāvāda philosophers hold that there is one reality– the formless, indivisible, non-variegated, impersonal Brah- man-and they have various theories for explaining the ap- parent existence of jiva and isvara. The two theories men- tioned in this section-pariccheda-vāda and pratibimba- vāda are the most prevalent, and both have been ex- pressed in several modified forms. According to the pariccheda-vāda, the one indivisible Brahman appears di- vided into many embodied jivas because of various upādhis, just as the one great sky (mahākāśa) appears divided by being contained in various pots (ghaṭākāśa). This theory proposes that no real difference exists be- tween the sky inside a pot and the sky ouside. The distinc- tion is assumed only for practical purposes. Once the pot is broken, the sky inside and the great sky are one, removing the apparent distinction. Similarly, the proponents of pariccheda-vāda say there is no difference between Brah- man and the embodied jiva. The jiva’s limiting adjunct, his subtle body, is actually a false covering superimposed on the jiva after he comes into contact with Maya’s avidya potency, 192 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha and it is this false covering alone that makes him appear to be separate from Brahman. Thus when Brahman is limited by subtle bodies it becomes the jivas. But when it is limited by vidyȧ it is called isvara. This doctrine of separation was formu- lated by Văcaspati Miśra, the ninth-century author of the Bhâmati commentary on Sankara’s Vedanta-sūtra-bhāṣya. According to pratibimba-vada, when the formless, undi- vided Brahman is reflected in the various subtle bodies made of avidya, it appears to be many, just as the one sun re- flected in various receptacles of water appears to be many. In this analogy, the sun is not influenced by the agitation of the water in which it is reflected, although the reflection is influenced. Similarly, Brahman is never influenced by the changes undergone by its reflections, the jivas. Indeed, the happiness and distress the jivas experience are only illu- sions resulting from their conditioned, or reflected, state. When the jiva frees himself from illusion and achieves lib- eration, he reverts to his original Brahman consciousness. This is one Māyāvāda version of how the jivas come into being. According to the proponents of pratibimba-vāda, the same Brahman that becomes the jivas when reflected in Maya’s avidya potency becomes isvara, the creator Godhead, when reflected in her vidya potency. By virtue of this contact with Maya, Brahman assumes a personal but temporary form that, unlike the jiva, is immune to Maya’s influence. Nonetheless, Brahman’s manifestation in the per- sonal feature of isvara is the work of Māyā and is inferior to the all-pervading Brahman. The pratibimba-vādīs say that all the incarnations of God described in the Vedic literature, are manifestations of isvara-resulting from Brahman com- bining with Māyā’s vidyā potency. Like the jīvas, such per- sonal manifestations of God have subtle and gross bodies, but unlike the jivas They neither accept their bodies because of past karma nor are they bound by the reactions of Their activities. Thus jīva and isvara are distinct. The Māyāvādīs try to support their ideas by citing scrip- ture. For example, from the Suka-rahasya Upanisad (2.12) they quote, kǎryopādhir ayam jīvaḥ kāraṇopādhir išvaraḥ: “The jīvaAnuccheda 37 193 is a reflection [of Brahman] in the antaḥ-karana, or heart, and the iśvara is a reflection in Māyā,” 2 Also: yatha hy ayam jyotir ātmā vivasvän apo bhittvå bahudhaiko ’nugacchan upadhina kriyate’bheda-rupo devaḥ ksetresv evam ajo ‘yam ātmā. “Just as the one effulgent sun appears as many when reflected in many pots of water, so the one unborn ātmā, Brahman, appears to be many be- ings when reflected in many bodies.” (This is quoted by Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa in his Tattva-Sandarbha commentary.) Some monists also cite Śrimad-Bhagavatam in support of their pratibimba-vāda and pariccheda-vāda: na hi satyasya nänätvam avidvän yadi manyate nänätvam chidrayor yadvaj jyotisor vätayor iva This is certain: There is no variety in the Absolute Truth. If an ignorant person thinks there is, his understanding is just like thinking there is a difference between the sky above and the sky in a pot, or between the Sun and its reflection in water, or between the air outside the body and the air inside (Bhag. 12.4.30). Śrila Jiva Gosvâmi, following in Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s footsteps, contends that Śri Vyasadeva’s experience in trance contradicts both of these Māyāvāda doctrines-pratibimba- vāda and pariccheda-vāda. This contradiction is evident from the analysis Jiva Gosvāmi has already presented, but in the upcoming anucchedas he will further point out the specific de- fects in these doctrines. ANUCCHEDA 37 FLAWS IN PRATIBIMBA-VADA AND PARICCHEDA-VÄDA तत्र यद्युपाधेरनाविद्यकत्वेन वास्तवत्वं, तर्ह्यविषयस्य तस्य परिच्छेदविषयत्वासम्भवः । निर्धर्मकस्य व्यापकस्य निरवयवस्य 2 The real meaning is that the iva is conditioned by the material body, which is a product (karya) of Maya, and the Lord as a Purusa incarnation has Māyā (kāraṇa) as His upȧdhi, but she never influences Him. 3 For the real meaning of this verse see Anuccheda forty-two. 4 The implication of this verse is that there is one Absolute Personality of Godhead, who manifests in many svamsa and vibhinnāṁsa forms, but all these expansions are nondifferent from Him. 194 Sri Tattva-Sandarbha च प्रतिबिम्बत्वायोगोऽपि उपाधिसम्बन्धाभावात्, बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभेदाभावात् दृश्यत्वाभावाच्च । उपाधि- परिच्छिन्नाकाशस्थज्योतिरंशस्यैव प्रतिबिम्बो दृश्यते, न त्वाकाशस्य, दृश्यत्वाभावादेव ॥ ३७ ॥ tatra yady upadher anāvidyakatvena vāstavatvam tarhy avisayasya tasya pariccheda-viṣayatvāsambhavaḥ. nirdharmakasya vyāpakasya niravayavasya ca pratibimbatvāyogo ‘pi upadhi-sambandhabhāvād bimba-pratibimba-bhedabhāvād dṛśyatvābhāvāc ca. upādhi-parichinnākāśa-stha-jyotir-amsasyaiva pratibimbo drsyate na tu ākāśasya dṛśyatvābhāvād eva. If we assume that these upādhis are empiricially real and not illusory, still, because Brahman is not affected by any- thing, it cannot be delimited by them. Moreover, Brahman can cast no reflection because it is devoid of attributes, all- pervading, and indivisible. Since Brahman has no attributes, it can have no relation with upadhis; since it is all-pervading. it cannot be divided into an object and its reflection; and since it is indivisible and uniform, it cannot be seen. Brah- man resembles the sky in this respect: Because the sky is invisible, reflections are cast not by the sky itself but by lim- ited luminous parts of the sky, namely, the heavenly bodies. COMMENTARY In monism, existence (satta) is understood on three differ- ent levels-pratibhāsika (merely apparent reality), vyāvahārika (ordinary, empirical reality), and pāramārthika (absolute reality). Pratibhâsika existence is perceived in such states as dreams and illusions but ceases when normal con- sciousness returns. One may, for example, mistake a rope for a snake in semidarkness, but this misperception ceases as soon as light is shed on the rope. Therefore, the rope perceived as a snake was merely an apparent reality, pratibhāsika-satta. It is not an empirical reality because it is private and temporary. Anuccheda 37 195 According to the Māyāvādīs, empirical reality, vyāvahārika-sattâ, refers to our perception of the material world in ordinary waking consciousness. Ultimate reality, pāramârthika-saftă, is present in all objects of the material world, pervading them as the blissful source of all manifest varieties. In Drg-dṛśya-viveka (20) Sankarācārya writes: asti bhāti priyam rūpaṁ nāma cety aṁśa-pañcakam adya-trayam brahma-rupam jagad-rupam tato dvayam Objects in the material world have five characteristics- existence, perceivability, attractiveness, form, and name. Of these, the first three belong to Brahman and the others to the world. The last two items, form and name, are products of Mayâ and thus constitute only the empirical reality; they do not exist on the absolute level. They are manifest only as long as one has not realized Brahman. The other three are Brah- man itself as perceived in empirical reality. The Māyāvādis claim that the pāramārthika-sattá, or absolute reality, is impersonal Brahman, which, unlike the other two realities, cannot be negated by experience and scriptural authority. Just as dreams cease when one wakes, the material world will cease to exist when one becomes Brahman realized. There is no higher reality than absolute Brahman, no higher existence that can negate the real ex- istence of Brahman in the past, present, or future. On the level of Brahman existence, there is no distinction between knowledge, the knower, and the object of knowledge. All three fuse into one absolute reality. The two lower realities, pratibhāsika and vyāvahārika, are not perceived on this level of consciousness. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi refutes both the pariccheda-vāda (the theory of division) and the pratibimba-vada (the theory of reflection) by considering the Sankarites’ explanation of the upâdhis covering Brahman as features of the two lower re- alities: These upadhis can never be real aspects of the ab- solute reality, since that would introduce duality on the non- dual plane. In the case of pariccheda-vāda, the upadhis can be either empirical reality (anāviḍyaka) or apparent reality 196 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha (āvidyaka). Śrila Jīva Gosvāmī shows the fault in both of these alternatives. If the upadhis are empirically real, Brahman still cannot be limited by them because pure Brahman is unconditioned by anything else, empirical or otherwise. In the Bhagavad- gītā (13.13) Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa confirms this: jñeyam yat tat pravakṣyāmi yaj jñātvāmṛtam aśnute anadi mat-param brahma na sat tan nåsad ucyate I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. Brahman, the supreme spirit, beginningless and subordinate to Me, lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world. Thus no upadhis can limit Brahman. But in the opinion of Sankarācārya, this Gita verse says, “I shall tell you that which has to be known, knowing which one attains immortality; it is the beginningless, supreme Brahman, which is said to be neither being nor nonbeing.” Commenting on this verse Śankara writes: idam tu jñeyam atindriyatvena sabdaika-pramāna- gamyatvän na ghaṭādi-vad ubhaya-buddhy-anugata- pratyaya-visayam ity ato na san na asad ity ucyate. yat tv uktam viruddham ucyate jñeyam tan na sat tan na asad ucyate iti. na viruddham. “anyad eva tad viditäd atho aviditàd adhi” iti śrute. But this knowable Brahman, being beyond the reach of the senses, can be understood only by means of hearing revealed knowledge from scripture. Therefore, unlike the clay pot, etc., it can never be said to exist or not exist, thus it can never be called sat or asat. Objection: But what you said about Brahman, the object of knowledge that it is neither existent nor nonexistent- is contradictory. Answer: No, it is not, because the śruti states: ‘That [Brahman] is different from the known and from the unknown, for it is beyond both. (Kena Up. 1.3) So, according to the Mayavādis’ own version, Brahman is be- yond sense perception, beyond empirical existence and non- existence. Such being the case, if the upadhis of Brahman are Anuccheda 37 197 empirically real, they can never limit the undivided and indi- visible Brahman and produce the jivas. Therefore the Vedas say, agrhyo na grhyate: “The untouchable [Brahman] can- not be perceived” (Bṛhad-aranyaka Up. 9.26). Brahman, being indivisible, cannot be broken or delimited into jīvas the way one might break a large stone into pebbles. If we hypothetically grant that upådhis can divide Brah- man into jivas, then neither the jīvas nor Brahman itself should be called eternal. But the Bhagavad-gītā, which the Māyāvādīs accept as authoritative, describes both the jiva and Brahman as eternal. In Chapter Thirteen, text 20, Lord Kṛṣṇa says that the jiva is anadi, beginningless. The same is stated in texts 20-24 of the second chapter. Śrila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa states that even if the above point is overlooked, other inconsistencies abound in the Māyāvāda conception: The jivas and the isvara move from one place to another, but Brahman is all-pervading. Somehow portions of Brahman become limited by upādhis to manifest as the jivas. When a given jīva moves from one place to another, either Brahman also moves along with it or it does not. But Brahman’s moving from place to place is impossible, because when something moves it leaves one location and then occupies another, where it was absent before. It is absurd to propose this situation for Brahman, since Brahman is always present everywhere. On the other hand, if Brahman does not move with the jīvas, we must assume that when a jiva is moving from place to place its upadhi constantly delimits new portions of Brah- man, simultaneously releasing the previously delimited por- tions. This reduces Brahman, the absolute reality, to a toy in the hands of its upådhis, a proposal that is also absurd. If it is instead proposed that all of Brahman is grasped by its upādhis, the problem of movement can be solved, but then there remains no Brahman free from upâdhis, mean- ing that there is no chance for the jivas’liberation or for use- ful discussion of philosophy; all of existence would consist of deluded Brahman, and there would be no liberated do- main to aspire for. 198 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha If it is countered that Brahman is not the basis for its upādhis and thus jivas can move independently of Brah- man, this means that even at the liberated level these inde- pendent upǎdhis will continue to exist. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi concludes that the interpretation of pariccheda-vāda in terms of Brahman’s upādhis being em- pirically real is invalid. He then goes on to refute pratibimba-vāda, the theory of reflection. Brahman, Śrila Jīva states, can cast no reflec- tion in its upādhis, or subtle bodies of material existence, because Brahman is devoid of all attributes. Only an object possessing attributes like form and color can cast a reflection. If an object is invisible, how can it be reflected in anything? If it is countered that the sky, although invisible, casts a reflection in water, Jīva Gosvāmī replies that it is in fact the stars and planets in the sky that cast reflections in water, not the sky itself. If the sky could cast a reflection, then the wind would also be able to cast one, because air is a grosser element than sky. According to modern science, the bluish background seen behind the visible bodies in the firmament is an optical illusion created by refracted sunlight passing through the atmosphere. No concrete, underlying object is there to cast a reflection, only the invisible firmament. Hence, the analogy comparing Brahman to the sky being reflected in water is inappropriate. Furthermore, it was already shown that, according to the Māyāvādīs, Brahman is beyond empirical existence and non- existence and thus also beyond sensory perception. It is fool- ish to then propose that Brahman reflects as the jivas. But Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī is willing to grant the opposition a respite and hypothetically accept their premise that Brahman can re- flect in upadhis, in which case all-pervading Brahman must also exist in the upădhis, in which it supposedly reflects. But if the reflected object, Brahman, is already present in the reflecting medium, the upadhis, how will it reflect there? As a mirror cannot reflect in itself, so Brahman cannot re- flect in itself. Even if somehow it manages to reflect in itself, how will it be possible to distinguish the reflected Brahman 1 Anuccheda 38 199 from the original Brahman already present in the upȧdhis? How can the reflected Brahman be singled out to be termed jiva and made to suffer? What was His offense? Why is it that the reflected Brahman becomes affected by upādhis and not the original Brahman, although the reflection is no different from the original? The Māyāvādīs have no consis- tent answer to these questions. They have also told us that Brahman has no internal parts: nişkalam niṣkriyam sāntam. “Brahman contains no limbs or parts. It is inactive and peaceful” (Śvetāśvatara Up. 6.79). But a formless, indivisible object cannot have a rela- tion with any upadhi, real or imaginary, and thus it cannot reflect in any medium. In response, the monists cite the analogy of a clear crystal that appears red when placed in front of a red flower. Just as the red color, which is formless and indivisible, is reflected in the crystal, so it is possible for Brahman to be reflected in its upădhis. But this is a faulty argument. The red color in this analogy belongs to the flower, which projects its image through the crystal, thus we perceive only the flower’s color in the crystal. The color exists simply as the flower’s at- tribute and cannot sustain itself independently. A flower, moreover, has shape, parts, and attributes. In sum, neither the color nor the flower compares adequately to Brahman. Therefore, like the analogy of the reflected sky, the Māyāvādīs have also applied this analogy incongruously. The śruti says, asango hy ayam puruṣaḥ: “Brahman is free from any relation or association” (Brhad-aranyaka Up. 4.3.15). Therefore Brahman cannot engage in any relation- ship with a reflecting medium. The Māyāvādīs interpret the word asanga here as meaning “devoid of real relations.” This implies that Brahman can have nonreal relations or asso- ciations, created by Maya. As already shown however, form- less Brahman has no ability to manifest a reflection in an empirically real medium or have any other relation with such a medium. This impossibility is even more definite with re- spect to unreal relations with unreal mediums. The Praśnopanisad (4.10) confirms this when it states, tad acchayam aśariram alohitam: “That Brahman casts no 200 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha shadow, has no body, and is colorless.” We can thus con- clude that upadhis-whether real or unreal-can never im- pose themselves on pure Brahman. They affect only the deluded jivas. In the next anuccheda Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi presents more arguments against the Māyāvāda doctrine, hypothetically considering Brahman’s upādhis as real. ANUCCHEDA 38 REFUTATIONS OF PRATIBIMBA-VĀDA AND PARICCHEDA-VADA तथा वास्तवपरिच्छेदादौ सति सामानाधिकरण्यज्ञानमात्रेण न तत्त्यागश्च भवेत् । तत्पदार्थप्रभावस्तत्र कारणमिति चेदस्माकमेव मतसम्मतम् ॥ ३८ ॥ tathā vāstava-paricchedâdau sati sāmānādhikaraṇya- jñāna-mātreṇa na tat-tyāgaś ca bhavet. tat-padartha- prabhāvas tatra kāraṇam iti ced asmākam eva mata- sammatam. Moreover, if there were empirically real upadhis delimiting Brahman (pariccheda) or acting as the medium of its reflec- tion (pratibimba), a person could not escape from them sim- ply by knowing he is one with the Supreme in essence. And if the monists propose that freedom from upȧdhis is due to the influence of the supreme entity, who is called tat, then they agree with us! COMMENTARY Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī here exposes further complications that arise from accepting Brahman’s upadhis as empirically real. The monists believe that a va can become free from the bondage of his upadhis by becoming educated through the śrutis. This is their idea from the following śruti statements: Tat tvam asi: “Thou art that” (Chandogya Up. 6.8.7). Tad ātmānam eva vedäham brahmāsmi: “It knew Itself: ‘I am Brahman” (Brhad-aranyaka Up. 1.4.10). Anuccheda 38 201 Tat tvam asy-ādi-vākyebhyaḥ jñānaṁ mokṣasya sādhanam:“The means to liberation is knowledge arising from dictums such as ‘Thou art that” (Bṛhan-naradiya Pur. 35.68). Brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati: “He who knows that Brahman becomes Brahman” (Mundaka Up. 3.2.9). Tarati śokam atma-vit: “The knower of the Self transcends grief” (Chandogya Up. 7.1.3). Thus, with the apparent support of Vedic scripture, the Māyāvāda school claims that liberation is achieved through knowledge. Indeed, the śruti says, tam eva viditvå ati mṛtyum eti/nānyaḥ panthã vidyate ‘yanaya, “Only by knowing that [Brahman] can one transcend death; there is no other way to cross over.” (Śvetāśvatara Up. 3.8, 5.15). And in the Bhagavad-gītā (4.37) Lord Kṛṣṇa says: yathaidāmsi samiddho ‘gnir bhasma-sāt kurute ‘rjuna jñānāgniḥ sarva-karmāņi bhasma-sāt kurute tathā As a blazing fire turns firewood to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of knowledge burn to ashes all reactions to material activities. Continuing the idea, in the next two verses (Bg. 4.38-39), the Lord says, na hi jñānena sadṛśam pavitram iha vidyate: “Nothing is as purifying as knowledge;” and jñānam labdhvā parām sāntim acirenádhigacchati: “Having attained this knowledge, one quickly attains the supreme peace.” In effect, the Māyāvādīs think the jiva is like an infant who has gotten lost in a busy public place and is then found by some poor man. As a result of this misfortune, com- pounded by ignorance of his true identity, the baby grows up in a humble setting as the child of the poor man. Later the child may be recognized by a servant of his father. As soon as he comes to realize that he is the son of a wealthy man, all his poverty vanishes. He does not have to toil hard to get rid of this poverty. In fact, he was never really poor, just ignorant, and thus simply coming to a proper understanding of his real identity was sufficient to reverse the situation. Another example: A person forgets that he put his watch in his pocket and searches for hours without any luck. Finally, 202 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha a friend comes along and sees the watch strap sticking out of his pocket and tells him, “Your watch is in your pocket.” At once the person has the watch and his anxiety is gone. Knowledge alone was sufficient to relieve his distress. Similarly, the Māyāvādīs say, the jiva is nothing but de- luded Brahman. As soon as he realizes this by properly hear- ing the Vedic instructions, he becomes liberated. He then understands that Brahman is not distant from him, for in fact he himself is Brahman. His only obstacle was ignorance, which hearing the Vedas has now removed. Of course, for the process to be effective one’s heart must be pure, and to achieve this purity Śrīpāda Sankarācārya recommends the sādhana-catuṣṭaya, or “fourfold practice,” consisting of dis- crimination, dispassion, “the six achievements,5 and eager- ness for liberation. According to Sankara, one of the four mahā-väkyas, or essential statements of all Vedic instructions, is tat tvam asi. “You are that [Brahman].” This statement underlines the one- ness of the jiva with Brahman. But, we have to ask, since Brahman is all-pervading and all-knowing while the jiva is atomic and limited in knowledge, how can they be the same? To this the Māyāvādīs reply that tat tvam asi should not be understood in its primary, literal sense but only in a second- ary sense. One can recognize the actual oneness between the jiva and Brahman when one puts aside their opposing qualities omnipresence and omniscience versus atomic size and limited knowledge-and recognizes only their mu- tual quality of consciousness. This process is called bhāga- tyāga-lakṣaṇā, or applying a metaphorical meaning to a phrase by avoiding part of a word’s literal meaning or some of its qualifications. This is used in Bhagavad-gitä when Lord Krsna addresses Arjuna as purusa-vyäghra, tiger among men. Arjuna is not a tiger. But to call him tiger implies that he has some characteristics of a tiger, such as bravery. But he does not have other qualities such as ferociousness. Thus one can realize the true oneness between Brah- man and jīva only when one puts aside the upadhi that 5 The six achievements are control of mind, control of senses, faith, stability of mind, renuncia- tion, and tolerance.Anuccheda 38 203 limits Brahman into becoming a jiva. To help in this realiza- tion, the guru instructs the disciple, “You are that.” Since the śruti statements cannot be meaningless, Sankara contends, this is the only way to understand this mahā-vākya. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi answers this whole argument by point- ing out that even when a jiva is absorbed in hearing the Vedic sound conveying the knowledge that he is one with Brahman, the upadhi covering the jiva, which is empirically real, will not magically dissolve. A man bound by chains will not become free just by meditating that his fetters are cut. A rabbit will not turn into an elephant just by meditating, “I am an elephant, I am an elephant.” Such achievements would be possible only if the upadhis were merely apparent. An intoxicated office clerk may think he is the President of the United States, but when he becomes sober he understands he is just an office clerk. If the upadhis covering Brahman are real, the task of removing them is not so easy. Mere knowledge is not sufficient to liberate the jiva from Màyȧ. If knowledge alone were actually sufficient for liberation, why do the scriptures recommend various austerities, penances, and rituals for self-purification? The Māyāvādīs can only say that these are preliminary steps for purifying the heart, for qualifying one to understand the meaning of the śrutis’ mahā-vākyas. But according to the śāstras, knowledge (vidya) and ignorance (avidya) are both products of Māyā. So even if a jīva, by studying Vedic texts, gets rid of his avidya with the help of vidyā, he will still be bound by vidya. How will he do away with this other upādhi, vidya? Until he is free from all upadhis he cannot realize Brahman, which is beyond both vidyā and avidyā. Lord Kṛṣṇa discusses this point with Uddhava in the Elev- enth Canto of the Bhagavatam (11.11.3): vidyavidye mama tanú viddhy uddhava saririnām mokṣa-bandha-kari ādye māyaya me vinirmite O Uddhava, both knowledge (vidya) and ignorance (avidya), which cause liberation and bondage to the human beings, are two primordial energies created by My Māyā. 204 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Here the Lord explicitly states that vidya is also a product of Mãyȧ. When He says that vidyā gives liberation, He does not mean that vidyā alone can grant it, because no one can become free from Mayȧ without surrendering to the Supreme Lord. He emphatically declares this to Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gītā (7.14): daivi hy eṣā guna-mayī mama māyā duratyayâ mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etām taranti te This divine energy of Mine, Māyā, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to surpass. Those who have only My shelter can easily cross beyond it. The term vidya means “knowledge” and also “devotion.” In Upanisadic statements such as tam eva viditvå ati mṛtyum eti, the word viditvä (after knowing) really means “by being devoted to Him, fully knowing His essence;” it does not mean having knowledge without devotion. Lord Kṛṣṇa confirms this in the Bhagavad-gītā (4.9): janma karma ca me divyam evam yo vetti tattvataḥ tyaktvă deham punar janma naiti mām eti so ‘rjuna One who knows in reality the transcendental nature of My birth and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains Me, O Arjuna. Here the same root, vid (to know), is being used, and in this context it means “knowing with devotion.”’ Material knowledge is a feature of Māyā, whereas tran- scendental knowledge about the Lord is manifested by the illuminating power of bhakti, an aspect of the Supreme Lord’s internal potency. Spiritual knowledge is inseparable from bhakti. The process of hearing or in other words receiving knowledge is in fact listed first among the nine processes of devotional service. A passage from the Bṛhad-aranyaka Upanisad (4.4.21) bears out the conclusion that vidya indi- cates knowledge with devotion: vijñāya prajñam kurvīta. “Af- ter knowing, one should practice wisdom.” Here the word used for wisdom, prajñā, conveys the same meaning as Anuccheda 39 205 vidya, and so the sentence indicates, “After knowing Him, one should practice devotion.” Also, in the Bhagavad-gītā (9.2) the Lord says, rāja-vidyā, “This is the king of knowledge.” From the context it is evident that here vidya means “devotional service.” Thus it is devotional service and not mere knowledge that cuts the bonds of Māyā, as stated in the Bhagavad- gitā: daivi hy eṣā guṇa-mayi (7.14), and confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā (11.53-54): näham vedair na tapasă na dänena na cejyaya śakya evam-vidho drastum drṣṭavān asi mām yathā bhaktyä tv ananyayā śakya aham evam-vidho ‘rjuna jñātum draṣṭum ca tattvena pravestum ca parantapa The form you are seeing with your transcendental eyes cannot be understood simply by studying the Vedas, nor by undergoing serious penances, nor by charity, nor by worship. It is not by these means that one can see Me as I am. My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding. If the Māyāvādīs respond by suggesting that it is possible for the jiva to remove all upadhis and become Brahman by the mercy of the all-powerful and benign Brahman, Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi is glad to accept this idea, since it amounts to sur- rendering to the Vaisnava view. The monists insist that Brah- man is devoid of all attributes and potencies, but if that same Brahman is now required to bless the jiva, then it has to have some potency, namely mercy. By allowing featureless Brahman to have any potency at all, the Māyāvādīs conform to the Vaisnava definition of Para-brahman as Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In that case, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi says, asmākam eva mata-sammatam, “Their view then agrees with ours.” In the Bhagavat-Sandarbha Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi will prove that even for Brahman realization one must take shelter of the Supreme Lord. Next, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi exposes the fallacies of the second alternative, that Brahman’s upadhis are unreal. 206 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 39 FURTHER REFUTATIONS TO PRATIBIMBA-VADA AND PARICCHEDA-VĀDA उपाधेराविद्यकत्वे तु तत्र तत्परिच्छिन्नत्वादेरप्यघटमानत्वादा- विद्यकत्वमेवेति घटाकाशादिषु वास्तवोपाधिमयतद्दर्शनया न तेषामवास्तवस्वप्नदृष्टान्तोपजीविनां सिद्धान्तः सिध्यति, घटमानाघटमानयोः सङ्गतेः कर्तुमशक्यत्वात् । ततश्च तेषां तत्तत् सर्वमविद्याविलसितमेवेति स्वरूपमप्राप्तेन तेन तेन तत्तद्व्यवस्थापयितुमशक्यम् ॥ ३९ ॥ upādher āvidyakatve tu tatra tat-paricchinnatväder apy aghaṭamānatvad āvidyakatvam eveti ghaṭākāśādiṣu vāstavopādhi-maya-tad-darśanayâ na teṣām avāstava- svapna-drstantopajīvinām siddhantaḥ sidhyati ghaṭamānāghaṭamānayoḥ sangateḥ kartum aśakyatvāt. tataś ca teṣām tat tat sarvam avidya-vilasitam eveti svarūpam aprāaptena tena tena tad tad vyavasthāpayitum aśakyam. Conversely, if the upadhis are only apparently real, then Brahman’s delimitation (pariccheda-vāda) and reflection (pratibimba-vāda) are also only apparently real, since these processes do not in fact occur. Because in this case the Māyāvādīs’ doctrine is based on the analogy of an unreal dream state, such analogies as that of the pot and the sky, which involve real upadhis, cannot serve to establish it. No proper analogy can be drawn between real and unreal things. Therefore the Māyāvādīs’ theories of division and reflection are nothing but the play of illusion, unprovable by their faulty application of analogies. COMMENTARY In previous anucchedas, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has shown that if Brahman’s upadhis are empirically real one cannot satis- factorily explain the existence of either the jivas or the iśvara. Anuccheda 39 207 Now he will consider the Sankarites’ second option, that Brahman’s upâdhis are only apparent. In this anuccheda the upâdhis are called avidyaka, or “illusory,” a specific ref- erence to pratibhāsika reality as defined in Māyāvāda theory. In this context the Sankarites do not intend “illusory” to mean altogether nonexistent, for nonexistence can never give rise to either the jiva or the iśvara. Rather, they say, Brahman’s upādhis are “illusory” in the sense that they exist on neither the empirical nor the absolute level. They are an intangible, appar- ent reality, akin to dreams, misperceptions, and hallucinations. The objects one sees in dreams, misperceptions, or hal- lucinations are intangible. In a dream one may eat a big feast, for example, but upon waking up one will still feel hun- gry; the feast appears real only while dreaming. Similarly intangible or misperceived or imagined objects, such as a “snake” that is in fact a rope; fear of the snake will persist only as long as the misperception or hallucination contin- ues. This kind of illusory reality (pratibhāsika-sattā) is inferior to the empirical world and the absolute reality. Nonetheless, the Māyāvādīs posit that such apparent upadhis can cause Brahman to take on the characteristics of the jivas and isvara. The first step in refuting this erroneous theory is to point out that an effect is always dependent on its cause and that specific effects arise from specific causes. For example, one cannot make water taste sweet by adding salt. It follows, therefore, that if the upãdhis imposed on Brahman are only apparent realities, then they cannot produce empirical real- ity. A daydream may be a pleasant reverie, but no one gains any real benefit by imagining he has been crowned emperor of the world. Instead, as the daydreamer whiles away the time he may lose an opportunity for gaining some practical benefit in the real world. However much he dreams, his ap- parent reality will never become empirically real. In the context of discussing real upadhis, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi has already refuted the two analogies the Māyāvādīs use to explain pratibimba-vāda and pariccheda- văda-the analogy of the sun reflecting in many waterpots and that of the sky becoming delimited by a pot. These 208 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha analogies are also inappropriate here. The Māyāvādīs may justifiably presume the sky to be empirically real and thus delimitable by such an upadhi as a pot. But Brahman is nei- ther empirical nor divisible, and therefore it is impossible for empirical upȧdhis to delimit it. Any delimitation of Brahman can occur only on the level of mere appearance, not in em- pirical reality. Such a pratibhāsika delimitation, unreal in the empirical sense, will not help explain how the jivas and the isvara come into being on the empirical plane. This leaves no consistent explanation of how indivisible, formless Brah- man can be divided into the jivas and the iśvara by either empirical or apparent upādhis. A good analogy must be as similar as possible to what it illustrates. The greater the similarity, the stronger the anal- ogy. But the analogy of the sky and the pot is not similar enough to the situation the Māyāvādīs apply it to: While the sky and Brahman are similar, the sky’s upadhi, the pot, is em- pirical, while Brahman’s upādhis must be merely apparent. The impersonalists compare this world to a dream to show its illusory nature, that it does not really exist. But it is unjustifiable to equate the dream world (apparent reality) with the external world (empirical reality) in order to reach this conclusion. If a person commits murder in a dream he is not punished for it, but in the empirical world he risks pun- ishment for such an act. So it is improper to say that the world is just a dream. Sin and piety, which pollute or purify the heart of an actor, are not applicable to acts done in dreams; they give their bitter and sweet fruits only in the empirical world. The analogy of a dream, therefore, is not adequate for explaining the appearance of the material world from Brahman. The Vedic scriptures present the dream anal- ogy only to illustrate the temporary nature of this world, and thus inspire a sense of detachment from materialism in those desiring to walk the path of transcendence. The Māyāvādīs’ only other alternative is to assign Brah- man to empirical (vyāvahārika) reality by placing it in the same class as the sky, to which the Vedas compare it. But that leaves us with no absolute reality, in which case the Anuccheda 40 209 whole idea becomes absurd, because, logically, absolute reality must exist, and the Vedas and numerous saintly per- sons confirm this. Thus all these arguments fail to establish the doctrines of pariccheda and pratibimba, which are thus left as nothing more than mental exercises for impersonal speculators. They provide no sound explanation of how pure Brahman, by adulteration with upadhis, manifests as many, namely as iśvara and the jivas. Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi offers still more refutations of impersonalism in the next anuccheda. ANUCCHEDA 40 INCONSISTENCIES IN MONISM इति ब्रह्माविद्ययोः पर्यवसाने सति यदेव ब्रह्म चिन्मात्रत्वेना- विद्यायोगस्यात्यन्ताभावास्पदत्वाच्छुद्धं तदेव तद्द्योगादशुद्धया जीवः पुनस्तदेव जीवाविद्याकल्पितमायाश्रयत्वादीश्वरस्तदेव च तन्मायाविषयत्वाज्जीव इति विरोधस्तदवस्थ एव स्यात् । तत्र च शुद्धायां चित्यविद्या, तदविद्याकल्पितोपाधौ तस्याम् ईश्वराख्यायां विद्येति तथा विद्यावत्त्वेऽपि मायिकत्वमित्य- समञ्जसा च कल्पना स्यादित्याद्यनुसन्धेयम् ॥ ४० ॥ iti brahmāvidyayoḥ paryavasane sati yad eva brahma cin- mātratvenāvidya-yogasyātyantābhāvāspadatatvāc chuddham tad eva tad-yogad aśuddhyā jīvaḥ punas tad eva jīvāvidyā-kalpita-māyāśrayatvād iśvaras tad eva ca tan-maya-visayatvāj jīva iti virodhas tad avastha eva syāt. tatra ca śuddhāyām city avidyā tad-avidyā-kalpitopādhau tasyām iśvarākhyāyām vidyeti tatha vidya-vattve ‘pi māyikatvam ity asamañjasă ca kalpana syad ity-ady anusandheyam. In this way, by basing their ideas on Brahman and avidyā alone, the Māyāvādīs contradict themselves when they say that the one undivided Brahman, pure by virtue of being unadulterated consciousness and thus altogether free from 210 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha contact with avidyå, is nonetheless polluted by contacting avidya and thus becomes the jiva. Then again, the Māyāvādīs say that same Brahman becomes the personal Godhead who serves as the basis of Māyā, the illusion concocted from the jiva’s avidya. And under the influence of Maya, Brahman supposedly again becomes the jiva. Here we have avidya within the pure spiritual being (Brahman), vidya within the upȧdhi called God, who is concocted by that avidya, and an illusory status of that same Godhead, who is the proprietor of vidyā. We should carefully study how these and other similarly manufactured ideas are simply incoherent. COMMENTARY In the previous anucchedas Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi has refuted the two main theories of monism, pariccheda-vāda and pratibimba-vāda. He showed that neither of these consis- tently explain the empirical world and the presence of the jīvas and God within it. Now Śrila Jīva Gosvāmī points out in more detail the fallacies in these theories. He argues that even if we accept either the pariccheda-vāda or the pratibimba-vāda as a description of how Brahman becomes divided into the many jivas, still the contradiction between Brahman’s perfection and the superimposition of avidya will remain unresolved. How can Brahman, which is indivisible pure conscious- ness, have portions that fall under the rule of Māyā and think themselves jivas? Knowledge and delusion cannot share the same location, just as light and darkness cannot both be present in the same place. Being indivisible, Brahman cannot become fragmented to manifest the jivas. Moreover, the absolute existence cannot include Māyā (avidyā), only Brahman. For Māyā to be involved with Brahman, either Brah- man would have to degrade itself to Māyā’s empirical level so it could be adulterated by upadhis, or else Māyā would have to elevate herself to the absolute of Brahman so that she could influence it. The first of these alternatives is im- possible because Brahman is without attributes and cannot change. The second alternative amounts to dualism, because Anuccheda 40 211 then Māyā and Brahman would have equal status on the plane of absolute reality. This, of course, contradicts the basic prin- ciples of monism. Under pressure of these arguments, the impersonalists may try to placate us with the claim that the vital issue at hand is not precisely how the jiva came under the influence of Māyā, but simply that he is now suffering in illusion. The house of material existence is now on fire; we do not have time to search out Maya’s origin but should try to escape the fire quickly before it devours us, before we lose the opportu- nity of human life. Even if we grant this point, the Māyāvādīs must still con- vince us that the end they want us to seek, impersonal lib- eration, is in our best interest. This they cannot do. Our house may be on fire, but it does not follow that we should panic and jump out the first available window to our certain death. As Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī indicates here, the Māyāvādīs say that after Brahman comes under the influence of avidyā, he is called jiva. Then this jiva creates Māyā by his imagination. A portion of Brahman next gives shelter to Maya and be- comes known as isvara, or the Supreme Lord. From that point on Māyā follows iśvara’s dictates and controls the jiva, who is Brahman covered by Mãyã. So isvara is the basis of Māyā, and the jiva is her visaya, or object of action. This is self-contradictory. This explanation is plagued with the logical fault called anyonyaśraya-dosa, or “the defect of mutual dependence:” Maya’s existence supposedly origi- nates from the jiva, and the jiva’s existence also originates from Maya. This means that without Maya there is no jiva and without jiva there is no Māyā. In addition, a part of Brah- man supposedly becomes isvara by contacting Māyā, but then Māyā becomes subordinate to this isvara. In this view even God cannot come into existence without the involve- ment of the finite living beings, who are themselves depen- dent manifestations of Māyā. So ultimately isvara is depen- dent on Māyā for His existence. Another absurdity in the pariccheda-vāda and pratibimba-vāda presentations is the claim that Māyā has 212 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha two features-vidyā and avidya. The upadhi delimiting Brah- man as isvara is supposedly Maya’s vidya portion, which is predominantly in the mode of goodness, while the upādhis limiting Brahman as the jivas constitute her avidyā portion. In this way, iśvara is the basis of the jivas’illusion despite His being the embodiment of perfect knowledge, but the Māyāvādīs cannot explain how Maya’s division into vidya and avidyå comes into existence. Certainly Brahman, being devoid of qualities, cannot create this division. The modes of nature are always mixed with each other. There are no pure modes anywhere. This is confirmed in Sankhya kārikā (12) anyonyābhibhaváśraya-janana-mithuna-vṛttayaḥ. The modes have the nature to subdue each other, to support each other, to produce material objects by combining with each other and to remain mixed with each other. Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmī advises us to study other inconsis- tencies like these in Māyāvāda philosophy. For example, we should consider the following questions: If originally only featureless Brahman and nothing else exists, where does avidyǎ come from? Or, if avidya can bind Brahman, isn’t it more powerful than Brahman? The Mayàvâdis compare Brahman to a spider that weaves its own web and somehow gets bound by it, but this analogy presents Brahman as pos- sessing attributes and potencies, revealing a tacit accep- tance of the Vaiṣṇava dualistic understanding. We should also consider the following conundrums: (1) Since Brahman is unlimited and devoid of parts, it cannot possibly cast a reflection. (2) Brahman is described as pure awareness, but in order to function, awareness needs an object apart from itself. There is no meaning to knowledge without a known object. And when there is an object, abso- lute oneness is negated, because there is the multiplicity of knower, knowledge, and known. (3) Brahman’s existence proves that it is potent, because anything that exists neces- sarily has some kind of energy or attributes. Thus there is duality between Brahman and its potencies or attributes. From Sankhya philosophy we understand that the pri- meval pradhāna generates the mahat-tattva, which thenAnuccheda 40 213 gives rise to false ego. Granted that, as the Māyāvādīs say, a jīva can dissolve his false ego by cultivating spiritual knowl- edge, but even so, the other two basic elements of material nature-mahat-tattva and pradhana-will remain undis- solved. How will the egoless jiva transcend the mahat-tattva and pradhana to realize Brahman? Egolessness is not au- tomatically equivalent to liberation, since at the time of uni- versal annihilation, when the conditioned jīvas merge into the body of Mahā-Viṣṇu, they are devoid of false ego but still bound by their karma. A word has an inherent relationship with its meaning. According to Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi in Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākāraṇa (2.1), a word that refers to something denotes either an ob- ject, a quality, a class, or an activity. Certainly the word “Brah- man” represents neither a class nor an activity. If Brahman were a quality, there would have to be another object which possessed that quality, since no quality can exist without belonging to some object. If, as the last alternative, Brah- man is an object, then it must possess qualities because an eternal object cannot exist without qualities. In either case, Brahman enters into a duality. Māyāvādīs explain this material world on the basis of Máyȧ, which is neither sat (real) nor asat (unreal). They say that Māyā is thus inexplicable (anirvacaniya). But in the Bhagavad-gitā (2.16) Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa recognizes only two categories, sat and asat. nåsato vidyate bhāvo nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ ubhayor api drsto ’ntas tv anayos tattva-darśibhiḥ Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that the unreal (asat) has no existence and the real (sat) has no nonexistence. There is no mention here or in any other bona fide scripture of an inexplicable third mode. Thus there is no foundation for the Māyāvādīs’ concept that Mãyǎ and the material world gen- erated from her belong to some inexplicable third category. To prove their contention that the material world is inex- plicable (anirvacaniya or mithya), neither real nor unreal, the 214 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Sankarites cite the well-known example of the rope and the snake. In semi darkness, a rope may be mistaken for a snake. They say if the snake perceived in the rope were completely nonexistent (asat), no one would ever mistake a rope for one in semi-darkness, because a nonexistent thing can never be perceived. So the “snake” is not nonexistent, but still it cannot be considered real (sat) either, because in sufficient light no snake will be seen. Thus there must be a third cat- egory, separate from both sat and asat. This third category is anirvacaniya, inexplicable, and to it the Sankarites assign Māyā. The truth, however, is that one need not resort to the Māyāvāda philosophy to explain the rope being mistaken for a snake. The snake and the rope are both real. A person who mistakes a rope for a snake must have previously ex- perienced a real snake, and the conditions must be insuffi- cient for correct perception. His experience of snakes, there- fore, will cause his mind to superimpose the impression of a snake on the rope in semi-darkness. By contrast, someone who has no experience of snakes will never mistake a rope for one. An infant, for example, will never mistake a rope for a snake. Thus there is no inexplicable third category in ma- terial existence, as the Māyāvādīs claim. Since Māyāvādīs accept only Brahman as the ultimate reality, they say that even scriptures that teach such state- ments as tat tvam asi (You are that) are true only empirically. Although such declarations have the power to uplift those who hear them, they are not absolutely true. In this way the Sankarites reveal yet another inconsistency in their system. If the scriptures are only empirically real, how can they el- evate anyone beyond Māyā? By this logic even the enlight- ened writings of such liberated souls as Yajnavalkya and Śankara are unable to liberate their readers, for, not being absolute, they must be full of relative imperfections. In truth the jiva is not, as the Mâyâvādīs say, merely an adulterated version of Brahman. As the Supreme Lord states in the Bhagavad-gītā (15.7), mamaivāmśo jiva-loke jiva- bhūtaḥ sanātanah: “The jiva is My eternal fragment.” Thus the jiva can never lose his identity by merging back into the Anuccheda 41 215 Brahman it supposedly really is. When wheat berries and rice grains are mixed, they do not merge into one another and lose their separate identities. We can easily distinguish the wheat from the rice. If, however, we mix papaya seeds with some similar-looking black peppercorns, we may have difficulty distinguishing between them. Still, this does not mean they have lost their distinct identities. Likewise, when water and ink are mixed, each substance retains its separate identity. Only because it is difficult for us to distinguish between them do the two liquids appear to have merged. The water molecules and the ink molecules have not merged to become all ink, all water, or something else. One indication that the substances do not merge is that when a glass of ink is poured into a pail of water, the total volume of liquid increases by one glass, and the same happens when a glass of water is poured into a pail of ink. In neither case do the substances merge. Similarly, the jivas cannot merge into Brahman and lose their identity. Of course, if a jīva wants to feel that he has merged with Brahman and he performs the appropriate spiri- tual practices, the all-merciful Supreme Lord will help that jiva imagine he has attained literal oneness with Him. In re- ality, God and the jivas are always distinct, and the Lord and His pure devotees are always aware of this distinction. Having established that the Māyāvādīs’ philosophy is op- posed to the truths revealed in Vyasadeva’s meditative experi- ence, and having highlighted some of the prominent defects in their logic, Śrīta Jiva Gosvāmī next argues that the monistic conclusion also contradicts the experience of Sukadeva Gosvāmi, the principal speaker of Srimad-Bhāgavatam. ANUCCHEDA 41 ŚRILA VYASADEVA’S EXPERIENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT MONISM किञ्च यद्यत्राभेद एव तात्पर्य्यमभविष्यत्तर्ह्येकमेव ब्रह्माज्ञानेन भिन्नं, ज्ञानेन तु तस्य भेदमयं दुःखं विलीयत 216 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha इत्यपश्यदित्येवावक्ष्यत् । तथा श्रीभगवलीलादीनां वास्तवत्वाभावे सति श्रीशुकहृदयविरोधश्च जायते ॥ ४१ ॥ kim ca yady atrâbheda eva tätparyam abhavisyat tarhy ekam eva brahmājñānena bhinnam jñānena tu tasya bheda-mayam duḥkham viliyata ity apasyad ity evāvakṣyat. tathā śrī-bhagaval-filādīnāṁ vastavatvābhāve sati śrī-śuka-hrdaya-virodhaś ca jāyate. Futhermore, if the jivas’ absolute oneness with Brahman were the actual purport of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Sūta Gosvāmi would have said that Śrila Vyasadeva saw in his trance how the one Brahman becomes divided because of ignorance, and how knowledge dispels the suffering caused by this duality. And if the Supreme Lord’s pastimes and quali- ties were unreal, what Śri Sukadeva experienced in his heart would be invalidated. COMMENTARY Having presented his logical refutations of monism, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi now proceeds to disprove it by reference to sabda- pramāṇa, scriptural evidence. This is the Vedic system. Logic by itself cannot give us an understanding of the Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead. In transcendental mat- ters such as this, the final authority is always scripture. Scrip- tural evidence is so decisive that even if a certain claim de- fies logic but is supported by śabda-pramāṇa, it should be accepted as conclusively true. Any standard of truth lower than this would be inconsistent with Vedantic epistemology, which is based on the axiom that the Vedas emanate from the Absolute and are thus infallible. Earlier, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī showed that Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam is the supreme pramāṇa. Now he tests mo- nism on the authority of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam’s test. The essential message of the Bhāgavatam is found in the verses narrating what Śrila Vyasa saw in trance-the Supreme Per- sonality of Godhead along with His internal potencies and His external potency, Mayă. Vyasa did not see a non Anuccheda 41 217 differentiated Brahman being overpowered by Māyā and turn- Ing into many jivas. Rather, he saw that the jiva is distinct from the Supreme Lord and is captivated by Māyā because he thinks himself independent of the Lord. Vyasadeva thus saw that the cause of the jiva’s suffering is his false sense of independence. At the same time, he saw that the solution to the jiva’s predicament is devotional service to the Supreme Person (bhakti-yogam adhokṣaje), not imagining a state of oneness with Him. Sūta Gosvǎmi’s prayers to Sukadeva Gosvāmī, his spiri- tual master, confirm that merging with impersonal Brahman is an inferior goal. While speaking Śrimad-Bhāgavatam to the sages at Naimiṣāraṇya, Sūta Gosvāmi specifically men- tions that originally Sukadeva was absorbed in the bliss of Brahman. Later his heart was captivated when he heard selected Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam verses describing the pastimes and attributes of Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Śukadeva was so entranced that he thoroughly studied the description of the Lord’s pastimes in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and later he excelled in narrating the Bhāgavatam. Therefore it is said that the Bhāgavatam, which is the ripened fruit of the tree of Vedic literature, became even more relishable when it emanated from the mouth of Sukadeva. Śuka means “parrot,” and Sukadeva’s name alludes to the well-known fact that fruits become sweeter after being pecked by parrots. When the fruit of the Bhagavatam was touched by Sukadeva Gosvāmi’s lips and then tasted by Parikṣit Mahārāja, it became sweeter than ever. Śrīla Sukadeva Gosvāmi’s attraction to the Bhāgavatam indicates that the pastimes and attributes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are both real and completely tran- scendental; otherwise a liberated soul like Sukadeva, who was beyond all mundane desires, would have never taken an interest in them. Sukadeva Gosvami, the most eminent of all Brahman-realized transcendentalists, demonstrated by his own behavior the falsity of the idea of absolute oneness between the Lord and the jivas. Thus, we can conclude that the keys to the doctrine of monism-pariccheda-vāda and pratibimba-vâda-are 218 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha supported neither by logic nor by the scriptures, at least not by the supreme scriptural pramāṇa, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Māyāvādīs derive their opinions only from word jugglery and the distortion of scriptural truths, with the result that the in- nocent who hear their explanations become confused. Next, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī explains the purpose of the monistic statements found in the Vedic scriptures. ANUCCHEDA 42 THE MEANING OF MONISTIC STATEMENTS तस्मात्परिच्छेदप्रतिबिम्बत्वादिप्रतिपादकशास्त्राण्यपि कथञ्चित्तत्सादृश्येन गौण्यैव वृत्त्या प्रवर्तेरन् । “अम्बुवदग्रहणात्तु न तथात्वम्” [ब्र.सू. ३.२.१९] “वृद्धिहासभाक्त्वमन्तर्भावादुभयसामञ्जस्यादेवम्” [ ब्र.सू. ३.२.२० ] इति पूर्वोत्तरपक्षमयन्यायाभ्याम् ॥ ४२ ॥ tasmāt pariccheda-pratibimbatvādi-pratipadaka-śāstrāṇy api kathañcit tad-sādṛśyena gaunyaiva vṛttyä pravarteran. “ambu-vad-agrahaṇāt tu na tathatvam;” “vrddhi-hrása- bhāktatvam antar-bhāvād ubhaya-sāmañjasyâd evam” iti pūrvottara-pakṣa-maya-nyāyābhyām. Therefore scriptural passages that appear to favor such doc- trines as pariccheda-vāda and pratibimba-vāda must be un- derstood in a secondary sense-that is, as expressing some sort of similarity between the Supreme’s relation to the mani- fest world and the ordinary processes of division and reflec- tion. The Vedanta-sūtra confirms this idea: “The water in a pond covers the land underneath and thus delimits it from the rest of the earth, but Brahman cannot be delimited in this way to be- come a jiva. No, the reference to delimitation is appropriate not in its primary sense but in its secondary sense, that of the water delimiting larger and smaller areas of land. This interpretation fulfills the purpose of the scriptural passages, and thus it is appropriate to compare Brahman to land” (Vs. 3.2.19, 20). The first of these sūtras gives an opponent’s objection, and the second replies to that objection. Anuccheda 42 COMMENTARY 219 The Māyāvādīs accept the Vedas as the supreme authority and cite them profusely in support of their opinions. Indeed, many of the Vedic references they quote may seem to sup- port their theories, but here Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi explains how to correctly understand the apparently monistic statements in the Vedas. In Sanskrit, words have two kinds of meaning-primary, called mukhya-vṛtti, and secondary, called gauņi-vṛtti. Vedic philosophers say that by the will of the Supreme Lord each word has some particular potency, which creates a specific relationship between the word and its meaning. For example, the word “cow” has a potency by which it refers to a particu- lar entity having four legs, a tail, two eyes, a dewlap, an udder, and other features. Sometimes, however, in a par- ticular context a word’s primary meaning fails to convey a relevant sense. In such cases we should conclude that the expression is figurative and accept some appropriate sec- ondary meaning. Whenever the primary meaning of a scrip- tural statement is inappropriate, there must be a secondary meaning intended, because scriptural statements, being apauruşeya and thus free of defects, cannot be meaning- less. In the Bhagavad-gītā Lord Kṛṣṇa addresses Arjuna as purusa-vyäghra, “tiger among men.” In its primary sense the word “tiger” refers to a ferocious animal with claws and fangs. Arjuna was certainly not such an animal, but since Lord Kṛṣṇa’s words cannot be meaningless, the need arises for a figurative interpretation of puruṣa-vyāghra. Here the phrase is a metaphor, in which the Lord is calling Arjuna a tiger only to indicate his courage and prowess as a warrior. The word “tiger” in this phrase applies to these two characteristics that the tiger and Arjuna have in common, not to the primary sense of a tiger’s shape, habits, and so forth. In the same way, Vedic texts that appear to support mo- nistic ideas should not be abandoned as ambiguous babblings just because their primary meaning contradicts the conclusion of Srila Vyasa’s trance. Rather, we should 220 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha interpret these statements in a way consistent with the un- derlying purport of the Vedas. Accepting them literally will lead to confusion, and rejecting them outright may lead to contempt for the apauruşeya-sabda. In the opinion of Śrila Jīva Gosvāmī, one must search for secondary meanings that agree with Śrila Vyasa’s experience. To support this judgment, Śrila Jīva Gosvāmī refers us to Vedanta-sutras 3.2.19 and 20. The Vedanta-sutra is divided into four chapters (adhyāyas), each having four sections (pâdas). These are further divided into adhikaraṇas. Each adhikarana includes a topic statement from the Upanisads, followed by a doubt concerning that statement, then an opponent’s position (pūrva-paksa), then the right conclusion (siddhanta), and finally sangati, a demonstration of how the adhikarana relates to other adhikaranas. Some sutras are simply antitheses that represent the opinions of various sages and philosophers. These are always followed by siddhanta-sutras. Sūtra eighteen of Chapter Three, second pada, establishes that the purpose behind mentioning the jiva as a reflection of Paramătmă is not to show that Paramātmā becomes the jiva by reflection, but to show that Paramātmā is different from the jiva just as any real object is different from its reflection. If an object and its reflection were absolutely nondifferent, they could not be distinguished from each other. Thus the meta- phor of the sun and its reflection in water is used to estab- lish not the oneness of Paramǎtmȧ and sīvātmā, but just the opposite. Sūtra 3.2.18 states, ata eva copamā sūryakādi- vat: “Therefore, the analogy of the sun and its reflection shows the difference between the Supersoul and the soul.” A doubt may then be raised: “This very analogy proves that the Paramătmă reflects in avidya and appears to be- come the jiva. What’s wrong with this interpetation?” The next sūtra (3.2.19) answers this doubt. It proves that the jiva is not a reflection of Brahman by pointing out that an upådhi cannot delimit Brahman the way water can delimit land. While commenting on this sūtra (Vs. 3.2.19) in Govinda- bhāṣya, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa explains that since Anuccheda 42 221 Brahman is all-pervading, no object can possibly be distant from Him. Therefore, while the sun can cast a reflection in water because it is some distance from the water, Brahman can cast no reflection in anything because it is all-pervad- ing. Therefore the jiva cannot be a reflection of Brahman. Although the claim of this sūtra 19 is valid, it does not agree with those scriptural statements that seem to indicate the jiva is a reflection of Brahman. It is in this sense that Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi calls this sūtra a pūrva-paksa, an oppo- nents argument. But if Brahman does not reflect as the jiva the way the sun reflects on water, what do the śruti state- ments to that effect actually mean? They must have some reasonable purpose. In sûtra twenty Vyasadeva responds with the siddhanta, or conclusion. Although the comparison of the sun and its reflection with Brahman and the jiva is not true when interpreted literally, it is true when we consider the secondary characteristics of the analogy: The sun is great like Brahman, and its reflection is small like the jiva. Why do we give this secondary meaning? In order to uphold the scripture’s conclusions, the overarching, consistent message of the Vedas and corollary literature. Other valid meanings of this analogy are as follows: (1) The jivas’ pains and plea- sures do not affect Brahman, just as disturbances in a re- flection of the sun do not affect the sun itself. (2) As a reflec- tion of the sun is dependent on the sun, so the jīvas are dependent on Brahman. (3) The jivas are localized like the sun’s reflections, while Brahman extends everywhere as the sun does through its heat and light. If we were to similarly analyze the remaining Brahma- sūtras, as well as the Vedas and Puranas, we would dis- cover that all the scriptural statements indicating nondifference between God and the living entity, when un- derstood in such a secondary sense, prove to be based on some common attributes between the analogy and its sub- ject, and are faithful to the conclusion of the Vedas. The Vedic texts never propose complete oneness between Brah- man and the jiva. Such a proposal would make the whole body of Vedic scripture self-contradictory; it would reduce 222 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha the Vedas to babble, a waste of time for anyone wanting to study them for spiritual enlightenment. One may here raise the objection, “Instead of rejecting the primary sense of the monistic statements found in sastra, why not accept them and instead reinterpret those state- ments that teach dualism?” The answer is that the under- standing derived from such an approach would contradict Śri Vyasa’s experience, which is the nucleus for the Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam, the topmost pramāṇa. Next, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi explains the nondifference of the Supreme Lord and the jiva from the Vaisnava point of view. ANUCCHEDA 43 MONISTIC STATEMENTS NEED INTERPRETATION तत एवाभेदशास्त्राण्युभयोश्चिद्रूपत्वेन जीवसमूहस्य तदेकत्वेऽपि दुर्घटघटनापटीयस्या स्वाभाविकतदचिन्त्यशक्तया स्वभावत एव तद्रश्मिपरमाणुगणस्थानीयत्वात्तद्वयतिरेकेणाव्यतिरेकेण च विरोधं परिहृत्या मुहुरपि तदेतद्वयाससमाधिलब्ध- सिद्धान्तयोजनाय योजनीयानि ॥ ४३ ॥ tata evābheda-śåstrăṇy ubhayoś cid-rūpatvena jīva- samuhasya tad-ekatve ‘pi durghata-ghatana-paṭīyasyā svābhāvika-tad-acintya-saktyā svabhāvata eva tad-rasmi- paramāņu-gaṇa-sthāniyatvāt tad-vyatirekeṇāvyatirekena ca virodham parihṛtyägre muhur api tad-etad-vyāsa- samadhi-labdha-siddhanta-yojanaya yojaniyāni. Therefore scriptural statements referring to the jivas as nondifferent from Brahman should be reconciled so as to agree with the conclusions Vyasa came to in his trance. This is accomplished by first removing the apparent contradic- tion in the jivas’ being both different and nondifferent from Brahman. We should understand from the statements teach- ing nondifference that the jivas are one with Brahman in that both are pure spiritual entities; yet by Brahman’s incon- ceivable, natural potency, which makes even the impossible possible, the jivas are also innately distinct from Brahman inAnuccheda 43 223 terms of their being His parts, like the infinitesimal rays of the sun’s light. COMMENTARY Here Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi gives his definitive opinion about the relation between the jivas and the Supreme Lord. Both the Lord and the jivas are naturally conscious beings, and it is primarily this common trait that the Vedic literature refers to when it speaks about their oneness. The purpose of these statements is to help us understand the Supreme Personal- ity of Godhead, who is beyond our experience. We know we are conscious, so to give us some idea of His nature the Vedas employ various analogies and metaphors to show that the Lord is conscious like us. Thus in these descriptions, jīvas are sometimes described as nondifferent from Him. Thus we should never misunderstand the Vedic state- ments about oneness to mean that the Lord and the jiva are one in all respects. When we read “He was a tiger in battle,” we do not think that a man actually turned into a tiger. Rather, we accept a secondary meaning and understand that in battle the man was as ferocious as a tiger. We must accept similar secondary meanings for the statements in the Vedic literature about oneness of the jiva and Brahman. Our con- clusion must be consistent with the principles derived from Śrila Vyasadeva’s trance. Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi is a follower of Srimad Bhagavatam’s acintya-bhedabheda philosophy, which he alludes to in the last sentence of this anuccheda. Acintya-bhedābheda means “inconcievable, simultaneous oneness and difference” be- tween the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the living entity, or in other words between the energetic source and its energy. The energy cannot exist without the energetic and is thus in one sense identical to it. At the same time, the energy can be said to be different from the energetic source because the energy is dependent on the energetic and the energy’s activities are perceived to be separate from the ener- getic. Logically, such a relation is ultimately inconceivable. The jīvas are like atomic rays of light in relation to the sunlike Lord. As the Svetasvatara Upanisad (6.8) states, 224 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha parasya saktir vividhaiva śrüyate: “The Supreme Lord has manifold energies.” Just as the rays of sunlight are neither completely different from nor exactly the same as the sun, so the jivas are simultaneously one with and different from the Lord. The Vedas’ descriptions of nondifference refer to the qualitative oneness of the Lord and the jivas, and the Vedas’ descriptions of difference refer to their quantitative difference. The Brhad-aranyaka Upaniṣad (2.1.20) gives an anal- ogy to help us understand: yathāgneḥ visphulingā vyuccaranti evam eva asmād ātmanaḥ sarve prāṇāḥ sarve lokāḥ sarve devāḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni vyuccaranti: “Just as sparks emanate from a fire, so all these vital airs, planets, demigods, and living beings come from the Personality of Godhead.” Sparks are obviously different from the fire that manifests them, but because they have in minute quantity such fiery qualities as heat and light, they can be said to be “one with” the fire as well. In the same way, the jivas can be said to be simultaneously different from and one with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Any apparent inconsis- tency in this relationship is resolved by the inconceivable creative energy of the Supreme Lord, which can make the impossible possible. One should not confuse this inconceivable nature of the Lord with the inexplicable (anirvacaniya) nature that the Māyāvādīs ascribe to Māyā. They say that Māyā is neither sat (real) nor asat (unreal) and is hence indescribable. Vaisnavas, however, do not say that the Lord and His ener- gies are indescribable, for the scriptures describe both. In- stead Vaiṣṇavas say that because the Lord’s nature and qualities are inconceivable to our limited mind and intellect, He can be understood only through sabda-pramāṇa. Some of the Lord’s inconceivable features are mentioned in the Isopanisad (5): tad ejati tan naijati tad dure tad v antike tad antarasya sarvasya tad u sarvasyāsya bahyataḥ The Supreme Lord walks and does not walk. He is far away but He is very near as well. He is within everything, and yet He is outside of everything. Anuccheda 43 225 Śrila Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa gives us another analogy to help us understand acintya-bhedabheda-tattva: A fair- skinned brāhmaṇa boy and a dark-skinned brāhmaṇa boy are the same in terms of caste but are different as individu- als. Similarly, the Supreme Lord and the jiva are one in that they both have consciousness, but they are different in that the Lord is the all-pervading, all-knowing, independent con- troller of Mäyå, whereas the jiva is localized and may be the ignorant, dependent, slave of Māyā. Sometimes the Vedas equate the jiva with Brahman be- cause he is subservient to Brahman. The principle behind this idea is not unfamiliar. An ambassador, for example, is in one sense equal to the chief of state he represents, and because of this any respect or disrespect shown to him re- bounds upon his master. The reason people accept a rough equivalence between the two is that the ambassador has some of the master’s power, but no one would ever foolishly consider them identitical in all respects. The Māyāvādīs err by choosing to see just one side of the situation and em- phasizing only the nondifference between the jiva and Brahman. One should not deal with the Vedas according to the logic of ardha-kukkuti, accepting only statements favor- able to one’s viewpoint and rejecting opposing ones. The Vedas have statements declaring both the difference and the nondiffference between Brahman and the jiva. These seemingly contradictory views can most naturally be recon- ciled by the application of the acintya-bhedabheda philoso- phy. This doctrine of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu is the great- est gift of philosophy to the world. His teachings do not con- tradict any Vedic scripture or authentic point of view; rather, they resolve the apparent contradictions in the Vedic litera- ture in accordance with the Vedas’ final conclusions. His teachings are the natural and direct explanation of the Vedic literature. 1 Ardha-kukkuṭi-nyaya, or ’the logic of half a hen,” refers to the philosophy of the foolish farmer who hoped to profit by cutting off the head of his egg-laying hen so he wouldn’t have to feed her. The same logic is applied by a person who accepts only the parts of scripture he agrees with and rejects the rest. 226 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha In summary, what follows are the ideas underlying the Vedic statements that speak of the oneness of Brahman and the jīvas, employing the analogies of reflection and delimitation:

1. The jiva, like Brahman, is by nature purely conscious. 2. The jiva, like Brahman, is distinct from matter. 3. The jiva is one of Brahman’s energies.
2. The jiva is eternally dependent on Brahman.
3. The jiva can never be absolutely one with the Brahman. 6. The jiva is constitutionally the eternal servitor of Brahman. 7. The analogies of reflection and delimitation help us understand the purely spiritual nature of Brahman. In the Paramātma-Sandarbha Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi will further describe the living entity and his relationship with the Supreme Lord. In the next anuccheda he summarizes the facts con- ceming abhidheya, the process for realizing this subject. ANUCCHEDA 44 DEVOTIONAL SERVICE IS THE ABHIDHEYA तदेवं मायाश्रयत्वमायामोहितत्वाभ्यां स्थिते द्वयोर्भेदे तद्भजनस्यैवाभिधेयत्वमायातम् ॥ ४४ ॥ tad evam māyāśrayatva-māyā-mohitatvābhyām sthite dvayor bhede tad-bhajanasyaivābhidheyatvam āyātam. Since the Supreme Lord and the jiva thus have distinct identi- ties, the Lord being the foundation of Mãyă and the iva being deluded by her, we can conclude that devotional service to the Lord is the only recommended method for self-realization. COMMENTARY After refuting monism, Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmī continues to ana- lyze Śrila Vyasadeva’s trance. Śrila Vyasadeva saw that the Supreme Lord is the foundation of Māyā: māyāṁ ca tad- apāśrayām (Bhag. 1.7.4). He also saw that only the living entity is deluded by Maya: yayā sammohito jīvaḥ (Bhag. 1.7.5). Thus the Supreme Lord and the iva are naturally Anuccheda 44 227 distinct, for the Lord never comes under Maya’s spell. The Lord can never turn into a jiva, and the jiva can never turn into God. Śrila Vyasadeva also saw that the means for the jiva’s release from bondage is devotional service to the Su- preme Lord: bhakti-yogam adhokṣaje (Bhag. 1.7.6). In this anuccheda the word eva in the phrase (tad bhajanasya eva) means “only” and indicates that no pro- cess other than bhakti-yoga can cut the bonds of Māyā. No other method, not even jñâna-yoga or aṣṭānga-yoga, is po- tent enough to permanently relieve the jivas’ miseries. As Lord Krsna declares in the Bhagavad-gītā (7.14): daivi hy eṣā guṇa-mayi mama māyā duratyayā mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etām taranti te. My divine energy, Māyā, cannot possibly be overcome by anyone except the person who surrenders unto Me. Other paths may at best elevate a person to the mode of goodness by purifying his heart of the lower modes, but they cannot elevate him to full transcendence without the merci- ful help of bhakti. Nārada Muni confirms this in his teachings to Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja (Bhag. 7.15.28): sad-varga-samyamaikāntāḥ sarvā niyama-codanāḥ tad-anta yadi no yogan avaheyuḥ śramāvahāḥ The only purpose of all the injunctions in the scriptures is to conquer the six enemies in the form of lust, anger, greed, delusion, pride, and envy or to control the five senses along with the mind. Even after achieving this if one does not engage in devotional service then all his endeavors are merely labor and thus fruitless. Sage Camasa says that without devotional service to the Lord one will fall down from one’s position-na bhajanty avajānanti sthānād bhṛṣṭāḥ patanty adhaḥ (Bhag. 11.5.3). In this anuccheda the word bhede (difference) is also significant. By using it, Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi emphasizes that unless the jiva clearly understands he is both different from and subordinate to the Supreme Lord, he will not become interested in pursuing devotional service. This conviction is 228 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha essential for advancement in spiritual life. The natural ten- dency of a conditioned soul is to think himself the controller, the lord of all he surveys, and this delusion makes him loathe the very idea of surrendering to the Lord. Indeed, this ten- dency to control remains a great peril even for those actively engaged in bhakti-yoga, because the jivas’ desires to control are deep-rooted and can sprout forth at any time, choking off the tender creeper of devotion. Unless a candidate for unal- loyed bhakti vigilantly guards against residual desires to be the master of all, these desires will likely manifest themselves and slow his progress toward pure Kṛṣṇa consciousness. In the next anuccheda Śrila Jiva Gosvȧmi concludes this part of his discussion with a reference to the prayojana, or final goal, of bhakti-yoga.

• ANUCCHEDA 45 LOVE OF GOD IS THE GOAL OF LIFE अतः श्रीभगवत एव सर्व्वहितोपदेष्टुत्वात् सर्व्वदुःखहरत्वात्, रश्मीनां सूर्य्यवत् सर्वेषां परमस्वरूपत्वात्, सर्वाधिक-गुण- शालित्वात्, परमप्रेमयोगत्वमिति प्रयोजनञ्च स्थापितम् ॥ ४५ ॥ ataḥ śrī-bhagavata eva sarva-hitopadestṛtvât sarva- duhkha-haratvād raśmīnām sūrya-vat sarveṣām parama- svarūpatvät sarvadhika-guna-śälitvāt parama-prema- yogatvam iti prayojanam ca sthāpitam. From the above discussion we can see that the Personality of Godhead is the most deserving recipient of perfect love because He instructs all people about their ultimate welfare, He removes all sorrows, He is everyone’s Supreme Self (like the sun in relation to its rays), and He is perfectly endowed with all wonderful qualities. Thus is established the final goal of all endeavor (prayojana). COMMENTARY NOR The Vedas provide education in religious practice (dharma), economic development (artha), regulated sense enjoyment Anuccheda 45 229 (kāma), and ultimately liberation from the cycle of birth and death (moksa). These four are known as the puruṣārthas, or goals of human life. On the basis of logic or scriptural authority, every school of Indian philosophy tries to direct the jivas toward liberation, which puts an end to all miseries. Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s teachings, however, lead beyond liberation. When Sanatana Gosvāmī approached Śri Caitanya to inquire about spiritual life, his first question was “What is my duty after liberation?” This question was revolu- tionary. Before this, almost no one would inquire about a fifth puruṣārtha; liberation was considered the ultimate goal. But Lord Caitanya explained to Sanatana that prema, love of God, is the fifth and ultimate goal of life (pañcama- puruṣārtha): prema pum-artho mahan. Lord Caitanya es- tablished this puruşartha with reference to the Vedas, and in the course of doing so He relied especially on “the spot- less Purāņa,” Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, promoting it as the ulti- mate scriptural authority. Along with the final goal of pure love of God, Śri Caitanya also established that Lord Krsna is the most complete manifestation of God and therefore the most perfect object of loving devotional service. Prior to Lord Caitanya, Vaiṣṇavas generally rendered rev- erential devotional service to the Supreme Lord in His opu- lent feature. Only a few rare souls knew the true conclusion of the Vedic teachings. Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, how- ever, revealed to all His followers the fifth goal-love of God- and ordered them to propagate it everywhere. If a person makes prema his ultimate goal in life, he will not detest the material world (as impersonalists do) because he will ap- preciate it as the creation of his beloved Lord. Following the example of Śrī Caitanya Mahaprabhu, à devotee should see everything in this world in relation to the Supreme Lord and use whatever he can in His devotional service. One who adopts this correct outlook will quickly be endowed with all good qualities. The evil traits of lust, greed, envy, and so on will depart from him. Treating every living being as part and parcel of the Lord, he will become everyone’s well-wishing friend and not think of harming or exploiting anyone, even in his dreams. 230 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha With the followers of Lord Caitanya able to cultivate such an attitude, it is clear that His teachings are the most sub- lime, practical, and versatile of all spiritual philosophies. Al- though these teachings seem to emphasize giving up this world and going to the spiritual world, their real essence is to give up attachment to the material world independent of the Lord. Thus following these instructions improves the qual- ity of life here. Lord Caitanya’s teachings are thus suitable for all people to study and practice, regardless of caste, creed, or nationality. By contrast, when a spiritual practitioner’s final objective is liberation, he will almost never develop a loving relationship with the Supreme Lord. Rather, he will attempt to use the Supreme Lord to achieve his goal. It is not uncommon to find liberationists who at first wor- ship the Deity forms of Radha-Kṛṣṇa and then discard these forms at a supposedly higher stage when they imagine they have advanced to the level of Brahman realization. Such deluded souls think that because they have achieved one- ness with the Supreme they no longer require the Deity forms. For the Māyāvādīs, then, the Lord is nothing more than a means to liberation, and thus their impersonalistic philoso- phy is the ultimate form of selfishness and blasphemy. Based on detachment and introversion, their doctrine cannot bring warmth and sympathy, compassion and serenity, into hu- man society. It only depersonalizes human life. A pure devo- tee advancing on the path of loving devotional service is not inclined to demand anything of his Lord, not even liberation. He desires only to please his worshipable Lord eternally. To that end he cheerfully tolerates any tribulation. Such uncon- ditional love is in fact the prayojana, or goal of life, promoted by Srimad-Bhāgavatam. Although in the previous anuccheda Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi said that a jiva should worship the Lord to get free from the clutches of Māyā, here he goes further: he rejects liberation as the prayojana and hints at a new goal: love of Godhead, prema-bhakti. Śrī Jiva will give his full discussion on prema- bhakti in Priti-Sandarbha. In this anuccheda he gives four reasons why the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the Anuccheda 45 231 most suitable object of love. First, is that the Supreme Lord is always thinking of every iva’s welfare. Therefore He fre- quently teaches the conditioned souls various ways to bet- ter themselves. He comes Himself to give direct instruction, as He did when he taught Arjuna on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra and, as Veda-vyāsa, He compiled the Vedic lit- erature. To preach His message He also sends His devo- tees to this material world as good-will ambassadors. Even on the material level the Supreme Lord takes care of all liv- ing beings by impartially supplying them with such essen- tials as light, air, water, and food. Even atheists and agnos- tics are provided for. Second is that He relieves the miseries of the conditioned souls by helping to liberate them from illusion. To take advan- tage of this help, however, the jivas must surrender to Him: sarva-dharmän parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja aham tvām sarva-pāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi mã śucaḥ Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear (Bg. 18.66). Third, is that Sri Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the ultimate svarupa, or Self, of all beings, just as the ultimate basis of the sun’s rays is the sun globe. The sun’s rays always depend on the sun, and they are glorious only in relation to the sun. In the same way, the jivas perpetually depend on the Personality of Godhead and become glori- ous only when they relate with Him through bhakti-yoga. Just as: rivers naturally seek the ocean and become finally calm when they reach that goal or as; an object thrown into the air, will be spontaneously attracted to return to the earth. So Kṛṣṇa, the ultimate superior being, is the ideal person in whom all jivas may repose their love. Fourth, is that Kṛṣṇa possesses all wonderful, matchless qualities to their fullest extent. Of all the Supreme Lord’s own direct manifestations, His original two-handed form as a cowherd boy is the most beautiful and attractive. Thus Śrila 232 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Rūpa Gosvāmī writes in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (1.2.59).2 siddhantatas tv abhede’pi kṛṣṇa-śrīsa-svarupayoḥ rasenotkṛsyate kṛṣṇa-rupam esa rasa-sthitiḥ Although in principle there is no difference between the personalities of Lord Kṛṣṇa and Lord Nārāyaṇa, the husband of the goddess of fortune, still Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s form is the unparalleled reservoir of rasas. This, indeed, is the law of rasas. Śrila Vyasa saw this same Kṛṣṇna in His trance, along with all His personal attributes and potencies. He saw that love of Kṛṣṇa is the ultimate goal of life: krsne parama-puruse bhaktiḥ (Bhág. 1.7.7). Thus we can conclude by logic and by scriptural analysis that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the supreme object of love. He is the prayojana, the ultimate goal of life. Next Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi explains the importance of sadhana- bhakti, devotional service in practice. ANUCCHEDA 46.1 THE DEFINITION OF ABHIDHEYA तत्राभिधेयञ्च तादृशत्वेन दृष्टवानपि यतस्तत्प्रवृत्त्यर्थं श्रीभागवताख्यामिमां सात्वतसंहितां प्रवर्तितवानित्याह, अनर्थेति । भक्तियोगोऽत्रश्रवणकीर्त्तनादिलक्षणः साधनभक्तिः योगोऽत्र; न तु प्रेमलक्षणः । अनुष्ठानं द्युपदेशापेक्षं, प्रेम तु तु तत्प्रसादापेक्षमिति । । tatrābhidheyaṁ ca tādṛśatvena drsṭavān api yatas tat- pravṛtty-artham śrī-bhāgavatakhyām imām sātvata- samhitam pravartitavān ity āha anartheti. bhakti-yogo ’tra śravaṇa-kirtanādi-lakṣaṇaḥ sadhana-bhaktiḥ, na tu prema-lakṣaṇaḥ, anuṣṭhānam hy upadeśāpekṣaṁ prema tu tat-prasādāpekṣam iti. In trance Śrila Vyasadeva also perceived the process of self- realization (abhidheya), as described above (in Anuccheda 44). 2 For more details refer to The Nectar Of Devotion, by His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.Anuccheda 46 233 Then, to propagate it he composed for the saintly Vaiṣṇavas this scripture called Srimad Bhagavatam. Śrī Sūta Gosvāmi describes all this in the verse beginning anartha- (Bhag. 1.7.6). In this verse the word bhakti-yoga refers to sādhana- bhakti, regulated devotional service, which is characterized by hearing, chanting, and so on, and not to prema-bhakti, devotional service in pure love of God. This is the correct meaning because sadhana-bhakti depends on instruction, while love of God depends only on the Lord’s grace. ANUCCHEDA 46.2 तथापि तस्य तत्प्रसादहेतोस्तत्प्रेमफलगर्भत्वात् साक्षादेवा- नर्थोपशमनत्वं, न त्वन्यसापेक्षत्वेन, “यत् कर्म्मभिर्यत् तपसा ज्ञानवैराग्यतश्च यत्” इत्यादौ, [भा. ११.२०.३२] “सर्व्वं मद्भक्तियोगेन मद्भक्तो लभतेऽञ्जसा । स्वर्गापवर्गम्” [भा. ११.२०.३३], इत्यादेः । ज्ञानादेस्तु भक्तिसापेक्षत्वमेव, ‘श्रेयः सतिं भक्तिम्’ [भा. १०.१४.४ ] इत्यादेः । अथवा; अनर्थस्य संसारव्यसनस्य तावत् साक्षाद् अव्यवधानेनोपशमनं, सम्मोहादिद्वयस्य तु प्रेमाख्यस्वीयफलद्वारेणेत्यर्थः । अतः तु पूर्व्ववदेवात्राभिधेयं दर्शितम् ॥ ४६ ॥ tathāpi tasya tat-prasāda-hetos tat-prema-phala- garbhatvāt sākṣåd evānarthopaśamanatvaṁ, na tv anya- sāpekṣatvena, “yat karmabhir yat tapasă jñāna- vairāgyayataś ca yat” ity-adau, “sarvam mad-bhakti- yogena mad-bhakto labhate ‘ñjasā svargāpavargam” ity- ādeh. jñānādes tu bhakti sāpeksatvam eva, “sreyah-srtim bhaktim,” ity-adeh. athavā anarthasya samsāra- vyasanasya tavat sākṣād avyavadhänenopaśamanam sammohādi-dvayasya tu premākhya-sviya-phala- dvārenety arthaḥ. ataḥ pūrva-vad evātrābhidheyam darsitam. Even so, sādhana-bhakti, being the means for gaining the Lord’s grace, ultimately matures into love of Godhead. Thus it is said that sadhana-bhakti directly removes the jiva’s 234 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha miseries (anarthopaśamam sākśād), without depending on anything else. As the Lord states in the Srimad-Bhāgavatam (11.20.32-33), “Whatever one desires, be it to achieve heaven, liberation, or residence in My abode, that can be obtained by fruitive activities, penance, knowledge, detach- ment, mystic yoga, charity, religious duties, and all other means of perfecting life. All this is easily achieved by My devotee through loving service unto Me, if somehow or other My devotee desires it.” By contrast, methods such as culti- vating knowledge depend on devotional service for success, as shown in such statements as the following (Bhag. 10.14.4): “My dear Lord, devotional service unto You is all auspicious. If someone gives up that path and engages in the cultivation of impersonal liberation, he will simply un- dergo a troublesome process and will not achieve his de- sired result. As a person who beats an empty husk of wheat cannot get grain, one who endeavors for impersonal libera- tion, abandoning Your devotion, gains only trouble.” Another meaning of anarthopaśamam sākṣād is that sādhana-bhakti, without relying on any intermediate process, directly counteracts material miseries, but only pure love of God, the mature fruit of sadhana-bhakti, can counteract the two fundamental faults of bewilderment and misidentification. Thus abhidheya is expressed here (Bhag. 1.7.6) as it was before (Anucchedas 29 and 32). COMMENTARY In Anuccheda 44 Jiva Gosvāmi concluded from his analysis of Śrila Vyasa’s trance that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam’s abhidheya- tattva is devotional service to the Supreme Lord. Vyasadeva also saw in His trance that the miseries of the jīvas can be vanquished by bhakti-yoga alone, and this practice of bhakti- yoga will further lead to pure love of Godhead, which brings one direct realization of the Lord. To broadcast this knowl- edge, Vyasadeva compiled the beautiful Bhāgavatam and taught it to his son, Sukadeva Gosvāmi. The word bhakti- yoga is used twice in the Bhāgavatam verses describing Śrila Vyasadeva’s trance. Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi says that the Anuccheda 46 235 first occurrence of this word (Bhag. 1.7.4) refers to sponta- neous devotional service in full realization of prema, because only on that level of pure love can one have direct personal realization of the Supreme Lord. The second occurrence (Bhag. 1.7.6) refers to devotional service in practice, sadhana-bhakti. Unlike, prema-bhakti, sādhana-bhakti must be learned from scriptures and saintly persons; it is motivated for the most part by scriptural injunc- tions. As the devotee performs the regulated practice of bhakti, his heart is gradually purified and he becomes fit for spontaneous devotional service in love of God. Only in this sense can it be said that sadhana-bhakti matures into prema- bhakti. But in fact prema, the internal potency of the Lord, manifests in the aspiring devotee’s heart only by the grace of the Lord and His pure devotee. In the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu Srila Rūpa Gosvāmī states that devotional service which is executed by the senses and which matures into bhava-bhakti is called sadhana-bhakti (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.2): kṛti-sādhya bhavet sadhya-bhāvā sā sādhanābhidhā nitya-siddhasya bhāvasya prakatyam hṛdi sadhyată Devotion which is accomplished by the activities of the senses and which matures into bhāva-bhakti, is called sådhana-bhakti. The appearance of eternally existing sentiment of devotion (bhāva) in the heart is called the fruition of devotion. When bhava-bhakti intensifies it is called prema-bhakti. The only difference between the two is the degree of intensity: bhāva-bhakti is the immature state of prema-bhakti. Bhāva- bhakti is like the dawn, prema-bhakti like high noon. Thus Śrila Rūpa Gosvāmi defines prema-bhakti as follows (Bhakti- rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.4.1): samyan-masṛnitasvanto mamatvātiśayānkitaḥ bhāvaḥ sa eva sändrātmā budhaiḥ prema nigadyate When bhava becomes very dense and the devotee’s heart melts completely out of intense love and great attachment to the Lord learned scholars call that state prema. 236 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha Because devotion belongs to the internal potency (svarupa- śakti) of the Supreme Lord, it is as potent as He is and can certainly fulfill all a devotee’s desires. A pure devotee has no desire except to render service to the Lord, but if some- how he does have some other desire, he need not take to any process to fulfill it other than bhakti. This is the supreme independence of pure devotional service. On the other hand, other processes, such as jñāna-yoga or aṣṭānga-yoga, de- pend on the grace of bhakti for success. Without the merci- ful glance of devotion, none of these processes can ever give the practitioner his desired fruit, what to speak of love of God. Just as the body and senses are worthless without the soul, so these paths are worthless without devotion. After listing various demigods one may worship to fulfill material de- sires, Srimad Bhagavatam concludes (Bhag. 2.3.10): akāmaḥ sarva-kāmo vā mokṣa-kāma udara-dhiḥ tivrena bhakti-yogena yajeta purusam param An intelligent person, whether he is full of various types of material desires, without any material desires, or desirous of liberation, must by full attention worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This statement reveals that bhakti-yoga is the key to fufilling all desires, whether spiritual or mundane. Śrila Rūpa Gosvāmi confirms this in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (1.2.251): kintu jñāna-virakty-ādi-sadhyam bhaktyaiva sidhyati, “Indeed, only with the aid of bhakti can one attain the fruits available through the cultivation of knowledge, detachment, and so on.” The knowledge and detachment mentioned here are not those related with the Lord and His devotional service. Indeed, the Bhāgavatam verse (10.14.4) quoted in this anuccheda makes it explict that knowledge of impersonal Brahman is certainly among those items not related to the Lord and His devotional service. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.7.6) states, anarthopaśamaṁ sākṣād bhakti-yogam, “Bhakti-yoga directly mitigates the miseries of the conditioned soul.” Śrila Jīva Gosvāmī gives two explanations of the word sākṣād (direct) in this context. Anuccheda 47 237 He says that sadhana-bhakti unaided by any other process directly removes all worldly miseries such as mental and physical disturbances caused by the dualities of heat and cold. In the second sense, he says that sādhana-bhakti di- rectly removes material miseries, because it naturally ma- tures into prema-bhakti without external aid. Thus it is not wrong to say that sadhana-bhakti directly mitigates all miseries. In the next anuccheda Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi discusses the prayojana-tattva as Vyasadeva realized it. ANUCCHEDA 47.1 DEVOTIONAL SERVICE COMPLETELY FREES ONE FROM MATERIAL MISERIES अथ पूर्ववदेव प्रयोजन स्पष्टयितुं पूर्वोक्तस्य पूर्णपुरुषस्य च श्रीकृष्णस्वरूपत्वं व्यञ्जयितुं, ग्रन्थफलनिर्देशद्वारा तत्र तदनुभवान्तरं प्रतिपादयन्नाह, यस्यामिति । भक्तिः प्रेमा, श्रवणरूपया साधनभक्तया साध्यत्वात् । उत्पद्यते आविर्भवति । तस्यानुषङ्गिकं गुणमाह शोकेति अत्रैषां संस्कारोऽपि नश्यतीति भावः । “प्रीतिर्न यावन्मय वासुदेवे न मुच्यते देहयोगेन तावत्” [भा. ५.५.६] इति श्रीऋषभदेववाक्यात् । atha pūrva-vad eva prayojanam ca spaṣṭayitum pūrvoktasya pūrṇa-purusasya ca śrī-krsna-svarūpatvam vyañjayitum grantha-phala-nirdeśa-dvära tatra tad- anubhavântaram pratipadayann áha “yasyām” iti. bhaktiḥ prema śravana-rupaya sadhana-bhaktyā sādhyatvāt. utpadyate ǎvirbhavati. tasyānuṣangikam guṇam âha sok eti atraiṣām samskāro ‘pi nasyatīti bhāvaḥ, “pritir na yāvan mayi vasudeve na mucyate deha-yogena tāvat” iti śrī-rṣabhadeva-vākyȧt. Next, to clarify the final goal (prayojana), as described in Anuccheda 45, and to affirm that the pūra-purusa men- tioned above (in Bhāg. 1.7.4) is in fact Lord Krsna, Sūta Gosvami speaks the verse beginning yasyām (Bhāg. 1.7.7). 238 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha While describing the effect of hearing Srimad Bhagavatam in this verse, he reveals another of Śrila Vyasadeva’s real- izations. In this verse the word bhakti refers to pure love of Godhead, because that is the goal achieved through ex- ecuting the devotional practice of hearing. The word utpadyate (is generated) here means “becomes manifest .” And the manifestation of pure love of Godhead is soka-moha- bhayāpaha, that is, it destroys all lamentation, illusion, and fear, the implication being that even their subtle remnants are destroyed. This is confirmed by the words of Śri Rṣabhadeva: “Therefore, until one has love for Lord Vasudeva, who is none other than Myself, he is certainly not delivered from having to accept a material body again and again” (Bhāg. 5.5.6). ANUCCHEDA 47.2 परमपुरुषे पूर्वोक्तपूर्णपुरुषे । किमाकारे ? इत्यपेक्षायामाह कृष्णे । ‘कृष्णस्तु भगवान् स्वयम्’ [भा. १.३.२८ ] इत्यादि शास्त्रसहस्रभावितान्तःकरणानां परम्परया तत् प्रसिद्धिमध्यपातिनाञ्चा संख्यलोकानां तन्नामश्रवणमात्रेण यः प्रथमप्रतीतिविषयः स्यात्, तथा तन्नाम्नः प्रथमाक्षरमात्रं मन्त्राय कल्प्यमानं यस्याभिमुख्याय स्यात् तदाकारे इत्यर्थः । आहुश्च नामकौमुदीकाराः, “कृष्णशब्दस्य तमालश्यामलत्विषि यशोदायाः स्तनन्धये परब्रह्मणि रूढिः” इति ॥ ४७ ॥ parama-pūruṣe pûrvokta-pūrṇa-puruse. kim-ākāre ity apekṣāyām āha kṛṣṇe. “kṛṣṇas tu bhagavan svayam” ity-ādi-śăstra-sahasra-bhävitäntah-karaṇānām paramparayā tat prasiddhi-madhya-pātinām cāsankhya- lokānām tan-nāma sravana-mātrena yah prathama-pratiti- visayaḥ syāt tatha tan-namnaḥ prathamāksara-mātram mantraya kalpyamanam yasyābhimukhyāya syat tad- ākāre ity arthah. āhus ca nāma kaumudi kārah, “krsna- śabdasya tamāla-syāmala-tvişi yasodāyāḥ stanan-dhaye para brahmani rūdhih” iti. Anuccheda 47 239 In this verse (Bhag. 1.7.7) the word parama-puruse (for the Supreme Person) refers to the same pura-purusa (com- plete person) mentioned earlier (Bhåg. 1.7.4). What is His form? To this, Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī replies, “Kṛṣṇa.” In other words, for those whose hearts are enriched with thousands of scriptural statements such as kṛṣṇas tu bhagavan svayam (Krsna is the original Personality of Godhead, in Bhag. 1.3.23), and for those who are attracted to His glories and fame by hearing through a bona fide disciplic succession, as soon as they hear His name their minds are filled with His presence. And as soon as such persons chant the first syl- lable of His name while uttering His mantra, the Lord’s at- tention is also drawn to the chanter. That is the form de- noted by the word Kṛṣṇa in this verse (Bhag. 1.7.7). This is confirmed by the author of Nama-kaumudi: “The conven- tional meanings of the name Kṛṣṇa are ‘one who is black like a tamåla tree,’ ‘He who was breast-fed by Śri Yasoda,’ and ’the Supreme Brahman’.” COMMENTARY In Anuccheda 45 Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī summarized Śrila Vyasadeva’s realizations concerning prayojana-tattva. Sūta Gosvāmi reaffirms these realizations in Bhagavatam (1.7.7), where he states that just by listening to the Bhagavatam one will attain love of Godhead. Bhakti here must refer to love of Godhead and not sadhana-bhakti, devotional ser- vice in practice, since hearing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is itself the sädhana. In this verse the verb utpadyate (is generated) means not that love of God is created anew but that it be- comes manifest in the heart. Because love of God is the Lord’s internal potency, it is never created. As a concomi- tant effect of love of God, the devotee is freed from all lam- entation, delusion, and fear. Indeed, even their dormant seeds are destroyed, so powerful is love of Kṛṣṇa. The root cause of a jiva’s misery is his forgetfulness of the Lord, but when he attains love of God he never forgets the Lord. 240 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha One who attains love for Kṛṣṇa loses interest in all kinds of other pleasures, including even the bliss of impersonal realization. All his doubts are vanquished, all his desires completely satisfied. Nothing can disturb him or deviate his mind from devotional service. In this regard, Śríla Rūpa Gosvāmī writes (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2. 58): tatrapy ekāntinām śrestha govinda-hṛta-ṁänasāḥ yeṣām śrīśa-prasado’pi mano hartum na šaknuyat Among the various kinds of unalloyed devotees of the Lord, the best are those whose hearts Lord Govinda has captured. Indeed, they have no attraction or desire even for the favor of Lord Narayana, the husband of the supreme goddess of fortune. A side benefit of such pure love of Kṛṣṇa, as Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī mentions in Anuccheda 47.1, is that even the seeds of lamentation, delusion, and fear are destroyed. These seeds are rooted deeply in the soil of bodily attachment, and by quoting Lord Rṣabhadeva here, Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi emphasizes that there is no way to eradicate this bodily at- tachment other than by becoming attached to Kṛṣṇa. One easily attains this prayojana of attachment to Kṛṣṇa by hear- ing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Vyāsadeva saw all this in his trance. Kṛṣṇa, referred to in Bhagavatam (1.7.7) as parama- puruşa, the Supreme Person, is identical with the pura- purusa whom Vyasa saw along with His potencies. In Anuccheda 30 Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī has already explained that this pūrṇa-purusa is the original Personality of Godhead. Now he identifies that Supreme Person as Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmî next explains who that Kṛṣṇa is, because history records various Kṛṣṇas. For example, Arjuna was also called Kṛṣṇa, as shown in Bhāgavatam (1.8.43), where Śrīmati Kuntidevi addresses Lord Krsna as Kṛṣṇa-sakhā, “the friend of Kṛṣṇa [Arjuna].” And Vyasadeva was also some- times called Krsna. Nonetheless, as soon as Vaisnavas com- ing in the authorized lines of disciplic succession hear the name “Krsna,” the form that immediately comes to mind is Lord Kṛṣṇa’s, not Arjuna’s or Vyasa’s or that of any other person or object of the same name. According to Śrila Anuccheda 47 241 Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa, this is the spontaneous experience of eminent persons like Sūta Gosvāmi, Saunaka Rşi, and Jayadeva Gosvāmi. Thus the conventional meaning of the name Krsna is the two-handed Lord Krsna who appeared as a cowherd in Vraja. As was described earlier, words may have various sec- ondary meanings in addition to their primary ones. The pri- mary meaning of a word is the image that comes to the mind upon first hearing or reading it, before any related thought or analysis can modify its meaning. Thus the pri- mary meaning of the name “Kṛṣṇa” is Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Śrī Lakṣmidhara Pandita, while commenting on the meanings of various names of the Lord in Nama-kaumudi, defines “Kṛṣṇa” as “He who is black like the tamala tree.” In Vaisnava literature, Kṛṣṇa’s bodily hue is often likened to the color of the tamāla tree, which is commonly found in the Vṛndāvana area. Just defining Krsna’s complexion, however, leaves open the possibility that the Kṛṣṇa referred to is the son of Devaki in Mathură and Dvaraka. Therefore Lakṣmidhara further specifies the mean- ing as “the one who was suckled by Śrīmati Yaśodā.” This fixes the primary meaning of “Kṛṣṇa” as the young cowherd son of Yasoda in Vṛndāvana, since the older Kṛṣṇa of Mathurā does not drink mother Yasoda’s breast milk. If doubts still linger that this Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord-since there could always be someone else named Kṛṣṇa from Vṛndāvana who has a blackish complexion and a mother named Yasoda- Lakṣmidhara further limits the meaning of “Kṛṣṇa” to “the Supreme Brahman,” the Personality of Godhead. In Sanskrit, words have a derived meaning (yaugika), which may sometimes differ from its conventional usage (rūdhi). The rūdhi, or conventional meaning, is always the primary meaning. In cases where the primary meaning dif- fers from the derived meaning, the primary meaning always subdues the derived meaning: yogad rudhir baliyasi. In the case of the name “Kṛṣṇa.” the derived meaning is also the Supreme Person, as the Mahabharata (Udyoga-parva 70.5) explains: 242 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha kṛşir bhu-vacakaḥ śabdo naś ca nirvṛti-vācakaḥ visņus tad-bhāva-yogac ca kṛṣṇo bhavati śāśvataḥ The syllable ‘krs’ denotes existence, and the syllable ’na’ denotes bliss. The eternal Lord Krsna is also always Viṣṇu in both these senses. The Amara-kośa Sanskrit dictionary (1.18) states, vişnur nārāyaṇaḥ krsno vaikuntha vistara-śraväḥ: “The names Viṣṇu, Nārāyaṇa, Kṛṣṇa, and Vaikuntha are synonymous.” One may say that these are names of Viṣṇu, but after listing thirty-nine such names, the Amara-kosa states, vasudevo ‘sya janakaḥ:“His father is Vasudeva.” By way of further con- firmation that Krsna is Supreme, the author then immedi- ately lists the names of Lord Balarama, Kṛṣṇa’s brother. Śrila Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa quotes the following verse in his commentary on Sri Vişnu-sahasra-nāma (20), while defining the name “Kṛṣṇa”: kṛşir bhu-vacakaḥ sabdo nas ca nirvṛti-samjñakaḥ tayor aikyam param brahma kṛṣṇa ity abhidhiyate The syllable ‘krs’ means ’existence,’ and the syllable ’na’ means ‘bliss.’ The combination of these two is ‘Kṛṣṇa,’ the name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead (Gopala-tapani Up. Purva 1.1). In this way the conventional and the derived meanings of the name “Krsna” are the same-the two-handed cowherd boy who is the son of mother Yasoda and the Supreme Godhead. Since Vyasadeva saw this particular Kṛṣṇa in his trance, the ultimate goal of life must be to attain love of Kṛṣṇa. The next point Śrila Jīva Gosvāmī makes is that when the word Krsna is uttered in a mantra, as in the Hare Krsna maha-mantra, this sound attracts the attention of Lord Krsna Himself the very moment the first syllable is vibrated. This is so because the name “Kṛṣṇa” is identical with the person Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. For verifica- tion we can examine the experience of many realized souls who attained perfection by chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra. The Visnudūtas stated this to the Yamadūtas: nama- vyȧharaṇam vişnor yatas tad visaya matiḥ: when one chantsAnuccheda 48 243 the name of Lord Visņu, His attention is drawn towards the chanter” (Bhāg. 6.2.10). In the next anuccheda Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmī explains that the bliss derived from love of Godhead is far superior to that derived from impersonal realization. ANUCCHEDA 48 LOVE OF GOD IS SUPERIOR TO THE BLISS OF BRAHMAN अथ तस्यैव प्रयोजनस्य ब्रह्मानन्दानुभवादपि परमत्वमनुभूत- वान् । यतस्तादृशं शुकमपि तदानन्दवैशिष्टयलम्भनाय तामध्यापयामासेत्याह, स संहितामिति । कृत्वानुक्रम्य चेति प्रथमतः स्वयं संक्षेपेण कृत्वा, पश्चात्तु श्रीनारदोपदेशादनुक्रमेण विवृत्येत्यर्थः । अतएव श्रीमद्भागवतं भारतानन्तरं कृतम् यदत्र श्रूयते, यच्चान्यत्राष्टादशपुराणानन्तरं भारतमिति, तद्द्वयमपि समाहितं स्यात् । ब्रह्मानन्दानुभवनिमग्नत्वात् निवृत्तिनिरतं सर्वतो निवृत्तौ निरतं तत्राव्यभिचारिणमपीत्यर्थः ॥ ४८ ॥ atha tasyaiva prayojanasya brahmānandānubhavād api paramatvam anubhutavan. yatas tādṛśam sukam api tad- ananda-vaisistya-lambhanaya tām adhyāpayāmāsety āha, “sa samhitām iti krtvānukramya ceti prathamatah svayam sankṣepeṇa kṛtvā paścât tu śrī-nāradopadeśād anukramena vivṛtyety arthah, ata eva śrimad-bhāgavatam bhāratǎnantaram kṛtam yad atra śruyate yac cānyatrāṣṭādaśa- purāṇānantaram bhāratam iti, tad dvayam api samāhitam syāt. brahmanandānubhava- nimagnatvät nivṛtti-niratam-sarvato nivṛttau niratam tatrāvyabhicāriņam apity arthaḥ. Śrila Vyasadeva experienced that this final goal [the bliss of pure love of God] is superior to even brahmananda, the happiness derived from realizing the impersonal aspect of the Supreme. This we know because Vyasadeva taught Śukadeva Gosvāmi Śrīmad-Bhagavatam so he could taste 244 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha 1 the special bliss derived from love of Godhead, even though Sukadeva was already absorbed in brahmananda. Sūta Gosvāmi states this in the verse beginning sa-samhitām (Bhag. 1.7.8). In this verse the phrase kṛtvānukramya (after compiling and revising) indicates that Vyasadeva first wrote Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in an abbreviated form and that later on, after being instructed by Śrī Nārada Muni, he expanded and rearranged it. Thus two apparently contradictory state- ments are reconciled-one found here (in the Bhāgavatam) saying that the Bhāgavatam was composed after the Mahābhārata, and the other found elsewhere (in the Skanda Purāṇa, Prabhasa-khaṇḍa 2.94), saying that the Mahābhārata was compiled after the eighteen Purāņas. The word nivṛtti-nirata (attached to renunciation) implies that because of his absorption in the bliss of Brahman, Śrī Śukadeva was living a life of complete renunciation, from which he never deviated. COMMENTARY One of Śrila Vyasadeva’s most profound realizations described in Śrimad-Bhagavatam was that bhakty-ananda, the bliss derived from rendering loving devotional service to Kṛṣṇa, is superior to brahmananda, the bliss derived from merging into the impersonal Brahman. Śrila Rūpa Gosvāmi confirms this superiority in Bhakti-rasämṛta-sindhu (1.1.38): brahmanando bhaved esa cet parårdha-guni-kṛtah naiti bhakti-sukhambhodheḥ paramāņu-tulām api Even if the happiness of Brahman realization is multiplied trillions of times, it would not equal even a single drop of the ocean of the bliss derived from devotional service. Indeed, the bliss of pure devotional service always minimizes the happiness of Brahman realization. A father naturally wants to give his son the best thing he has. Thus Šrila Vyasadeva taught Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to Sukadeva Gosvāmi. But being Vyasadeva’s son was not Sukadeva’s only qualification. Perfectly fixed in renunciation, he had no Anuccheda 48 245 material desires (nivṛtti-níratam). In other words, he had no ulterior motive that would have led him to misconstrue the meaning of Śrimad-Bhāgavatam for material gain, either gross or subtle. It is for this reason that Srila Vyasadeva regarded Sukadeva as the most qualified of his disciples to hear the Bhāgavatam, and by choosing him for this great honor Vyasadeva set the standard for all future students and speakers of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. In this anuccheda Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi also resolves a con- troversy concerning the order in which Śrimad-Bhāgavatam and the Mahabharata were composed. In the passage begin- ning with the following two verses, the Bhāgavatam itself says it was composed after the Mahābhārata: stri-südra-dvija-bandhūnām trayi na śruti-gocară karma-sreyasi mudhānām sreya evam bhaved iha iti bharatam ākhyānam kṛpaya muninā kṛtam evam pravṛttasya sadā bhūtanam śreyasi dvijāḥ sarvātmakenāpi yadā nātuṣyad dhṛdayam tataḥ Women, the laborer class and dvija-bandhus (those born in the upper three classes but not following their respective duties) have no right to study the Vedas. Therefore out of compassion for them Śrila Vyasa compiled Mahābhārata so they, who are bewildered about their real welfare, may achieve the ultimate goal. O dvijas, although Śrila Vyasa in this way was always fully engaged in the welfare of all living beings, His heart was not satisfied. (Bhag. 1.4.25-26). When Vyasa was thus feeling dissatisfied, Narada Muni came and requested him to compose Śrimad-Bhāgavatam. Else- where, however, it is stated that the Mahabharata was spo- ken after all eighteen Purānas. Śri Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa, commenting on this anuccheda, cites the Matsya Purana (53.70): aṣṭādasa-puraṇani kṛtvā satyavati-sutaḥ cakre bharatam akhyānam vedärthair upabṛmhitam After compiling the eighteen Puranas, Vyasadeva, the son of Satyavati, composed the great history called the Mahabharata, which serves as a commentary on the Vedas. 246 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha To resolve this apparent contradiction in the chronology, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi explains that Śrila Vyasadeva originally com- posed the Bhāgavatam in an abbreviated form. Later he compiled the Mahābhārata out of compassion for those who cannot study the Vedas. But even after completing this great epic, Vyāsa still felt a void in His heart. Thereafter Nārada Muni instructed him to produce a new, expanded edition of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the one currently available. Moreover, from Srimad-Bhāgavatam (1.3.43), quoted be- low, we can understand that this later edition was composed after Lord Kṛṣṇa’s disappearance from the earth. Earlier Vyasa had composed the Mahabharata for the welfare of people in the grip of Kali. Parikṣit Mahārāja’s chastisement of Kali occurred after the dialogue between Narada Muni and Śrila Vyasadeva, since it was the spread of Kali’s influ- ence that had saddened Vyasa. Prior to Kali’s appearance Vyasadeva had no reason to feel dissatisfied, since Lord Kṛṣṇa was still present along with all religious principles. The Bhāgavatam (1.3.43) confirms that this later edition of Srimad-Bhāgavatam manifested before the brāhmaṇa boy Śrngi had cursed Mahārāja Parikṣit, an event that occurred after the disappearance of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa: kṛṣṇe sva-dhāmopagate dharma-jñānādibhiḥ saha kalau nasta-dṛśâm esa purâṇarko ‘dhunoditaḥ This Bhāgavata Purana is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just after the departure of Lord Krsna to His own abode, accompanied by religion, knowledge, etc. Persons who have lost their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the Age of Kali shall get light from this Purána. In this connection, by referring to the statements of Sūta Gosvāmi in the First Canto, Chapter Four, one can summa- rize the chronology of the Vedic literature in Kali-yuga as follows: First, Śrila Vyasadeva edited the one Veda, the origi- nal Yajur Veda, into four Vedas. He then abridged the one billion verses of the Puranas into eighteen Purānas consist- ing of a total of about four hundred thousand verses. These included Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in its original, abbreviated Anuccheda 49 247 form. Then Vyāsa composed his epic work, Mahābhārata, after which he distilled its essence along with that of the Vedas, and Puranas into the Vedanta-sutras. Finally He com- posed His most significant work, the full Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which is Vyǎsadeva’s own commentary on the Vedanta-sutra. Some traditional scholars believe there were two ver- sions of Mahabharata. They say it was first compiled soon after the Vedas in one hundred sections, and later Veda- vyāsa reduced it to a hundred thousand verses in eighteen sections after compiling the eighteen Puranas. In the Mahābhārata, Adi-parva (10.5) it says that Śrila Vyasa com- piled a samhita with six million verses, of which he gave one hundred thousand to human beings. This Mahabharata was first recited by the sage Vaisampayana to King Janmejaya, Parikṣit’s son. Another reference traditional scholars give to support their contention that there were two versions of the Mahābhārata is the Bṛhad-aranyaka Upanisad verse cited in Anuccheda 12 (Ba. Up. 2.4.10) This verse lists the scrip- tures the Supreme Lord exhaled, including the Itihāsas, which are listed before the Puranas. If this is accepted, then the reconciliation will be that although the Mahābhārata was compiled before the Puranas, it was made popular after them. This is known from Mahâbhārata itself. Janamejaya was the first to hear Mahābhārata from Vaisampāyana. The Purānas were recited much before this. Lord Balarama killed Roma- harṣaṇa Sūta, while he was reciting the Puranas at Naimisaranya. This happened even before Janamejaya’s fa- ther was born. Next Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi shows that Śrila Vyasadeva’s realization in trance constitutes the epitome of all philoso- phies, as confirmed by Suta Gosvāmi. ANUCCHEDA 49.1 ŚRIMAD-BHAGAVATAM ATTRACTS EVEN ĀTMĀRĀMAS तमेतं श्रीवेदव्यासस्य समाधिजातानुभवं श्रीशौनकप्रश्नोत्तरत्वेन विशदयन् सर्वात्मारामानुभवेन सहेतुकं सम्वादयति, 248 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha आत्मारामाचेति । निर्ग्रन्थाः विधिनिषेधातीताः, निर्गताहङ्कारग्रन्थयो वा । अहैतुकीं फलानुसन्धिरहिताम् । अत्र सर्वाक्षेपपरिहारार्थमाह; इत्थम्भूत आत्माराम णामप्या- कर्षणस्वभावो गुणो यस्य स इति । tam etam sri-veda-vyāsasya samādhi-jātānubhavam sri- saunaka-praśnottaratvena visadayan sarvātmārāmānubhavena sa-hetukam samvådayati ātmārāmāś ceti. nirgrantha vidhi-nisedhātītā nirgatāhankāra granthayo vā. ahaitukim phalābhisandhi- rahitām. atra sarvākṣepa-parihārārtham āha ittham-bhūta ātmārāmāṇām apy akarṣaṇa-svabhâvo guno yasya sa iti. In reply to a question posed by Sri Saunaka (Bhāg. 1.7.9), Sūta Gosvāmi speaks the verse beginning ātmārāmaś ca (Bhāg. 1.7.10), further explaining what Srila Vyasadeva ex- perienced in trance and showing logically how it is consis- tent with the experience of all sages who take pleasure in the self. In this verse, the word nirgranthāh (free from bond- age) means either “beyond the rules and regulations de- scribed in the scriptures” or “free from the knot of false ego. " The word ahaitukim (causeless) means “not desiring any results.” And to put an end to all doubts, Sri Suta says, “In- deed, the nature of Lord Hari is such that even atmárāmas feel attracted to Him.” ANUCCHEDA 49.2 तमेवार्थं श्रीशुकस्याप्यनुभवेन सम्वादयति, हरेर्गुणेति । श्रीव्यासदेवाद् यत्किञ्चित् श्रुतेन हरेर्गुणेन पूर्वमाक्षिप्ता मतिर्ब्रह्मानन्दानुभवो यस्य सः, पश्चादध्यगात् महद्विस्तीर्णमपि । ततश्च तत्सङ्कथासौहार्द्दन नित्यं विष्णुजनाः प्रिया यस्य तथाभूतो वा, तेषां प्रियो वा स्वयमभवदित्यर्थः । अयं भावः ब्रह्मवैवर्त्तानुसारेण पूर्वं तावदयं गर्भवासमारभ्य श्रीकृष्णस्य स्वैरितया मायानिवारकत्वं ज्ञातवान् । ततः स्वनियोजनया श्रीव्यासदेवे नानीतस्य तस्यान्तर्दर्शनात्तन्निवारणे } Anuccheda 49 सति, कृतार्थम्मन्यतया स्वयमेकान्तमेव गतवान् । तत्र श्रीवेदव्यासस्तु तं वशीकर्तुं तदनन्यसाधनं श्रीभागवतमेव ज्ञात्वा, तद्गुणातिशयप्रकाशमयांस्तदीयपद्यविशेषान् कथञ्चित् श्रावयित्वा तेन तमाक्षिप्तमतिं कृत्वा, तदेव पूर्णं तमध्यापयामासेति श्रीभागवतमहिमातिशयः प्रोक्तः । " 249 tam evārtham śrī-śukasyāpy anubhavena samvadayati harer guneti, śrī-vyāsa-devād yat kiñcic chrutena harer gunena purvam āksiptā matir brahmanandānubhavo yasya saḥ. paścåd adhyagad mahad vistimam iti, tataś ca tat-sankatha-sauhärdena nityam viṣṇu-janāḥ priya yasya tathā-bhūto vă teṣām priyo vā svayam abhavad ity arthah. ayam bhāvo; brahma-vaivartānusāreṇa pūrvam tāvad ayam garbha-vāsam ārabhya śri-kṛṣṇasya svairitayā māyā-nivārakatvam jñātavān. tataḥ sva-niyojanayā śrī- vyāsa-devenānītasya tasyāntar-darśanat tan-nivärane sati kṛtārtham manyatayā svayam ekāntam eva gatavān. tatra śrī-veda-vyāsas tu tam vasi-kartum tad-ananya-sādhanam śri-bhāgavatam eva jñātvā tad-gunātiśaya-prakāśa- mayāms tadīya-padya-viseṣān kathañcic chrāvayitva tena tam ākṣipta-matim kṛtvā tad eva pūmam tam adhyāpayāmāseti bhāgavata-mahimatisayaḥ proktah. In the next verse (Bhag. 1.7.11, beginning harer guṇā), Sūta reiterates this idea by relating Sukadeva Gosvāmi’s experi- ence. First, when Sukadeva Gosvāmī heard Śrīla Vyāsadeva recite a few selected Bhagavatam verses describing Lord Hari’s attributes, Sukadeva’s attention was drawn away from the bliss of impersonal Brahman and his heart was capti- vated. Later, Sukadeva studied the complete Bhāgavatam, despite its vast size. Thereafter, Lord Visnu’s devotees be- came very dear to him, and his affection for them grew as he daily discussed the Lord’s pastimes with them. Or else the word visņu-jana-priya means that he became dear to them. The purport is as follows: The Brahma-vaivarta Purana1 relates how Śrī Sukadeva, even while in the womb of his mother, realized that Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa could completely dispel 1This story is not in current editions of this Purana. 250 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Māyā’s influence by virtue of His independence. Subsequently, on Sukadeva’s request, Vyasadeva brought the Lord to His hermitage, and when Sukadeva saw Lord Kṛṣṇa before him even as he lay within the womb, he became free from Māyā’s influence. Considering his life successful, Sukadeva at once departed alone. Thereafter Śrila Vyāsadeva, knowing that he could control Sukadeva only with Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, somehow made him hear some selected Bhāgavatam verses describing Lord Kṛṣṇa’s superexcellent characteristics. In this way he captivated Sukadeva’s heart, and later he taught him the entire narrative. Thus the supreme glory of Srimad- Bhāgavatam is established. ANUCCHEDA 49.3 तदेवं दर्शितं वक्तुः श्रीशुकस्य वेदव्यासस्य च समानहृदयम् । तस्माद्वक्तुर्हदयानुरूपमेव सर्वत्र तात्पर्यं पर्यालोचनीयं, नान्यथा । यद्यत्तदन्यथा पर्यालोचनं, तत्र तत्र कुपथगामितैवेति निष्टङ्कितम् । श्रीसूतः ॥ ४९ ॥ tad evam darsitaṁ vaktuḥ śrī-śukasya śri-veda-vyāsasya ca samâna-hṛdayam. tasmād vaktur hṛdayānurūpam eva sarvatra tätparyam paryālocaniyaṁ nānyatha. yad yat tad-anyathā paryālocanaṁ tatra tatra kupatha-gāmitaiveti nistankitam. śrī-sūtaḥ. From the above we can see that the speaker (Sukadeva Gosvāmi) and Śrīla Vyasadeva had the same realizations. And therefore we should always study the message of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in the light of Sukadeva’s realizations, not otherwise. By implication, we should consider any other explanations merely speculative and thus deviant from the correct understanding. The verse under discussion (Bhag. 1.7.11) was spoken by Śrī Sūta Gosvāmi. COMMENTARY In Anuccheda 29, to explain the essence of Śrīmad- Bhagavatam, Jiva Gosvāmi first analyzed Sukadeva’s heart Anuccheda 49 251 as described in the Bhagavatam. Then he analyzed Śrila Vyasadeva’s experience in trance, on the basis of which Vyasa wrote Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Jīva Gosvāmi concludes the discussion of the present anuccheda by confirming the outcome of these analyses with the words of Sri Sūta Gosvāmi in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.7.10), the famous “ātmārāmā verse.” What follows is a list of the major points to be derived from his analysis:

1. The Personality of Godhead is endowed with multifarious potencies in three categories-internal, external, and marginal.
2. The chief and original form of God is Śrī Kṛṣṇa, but Kṛṣṇa also manifests countless other expansions. 3. Neither the Supreme Lord’s Supersoul manifestations nor the impersonal Brahman are independent of Him. 4. The finite living entities are different from the Supreme Lord in their personal identity; they can never be one with Him in an absolute sense.
3. Māyā is the external energy of the Lord, deluding those living entities who turn their backs on Him.
4. Màyã is a devotee of the Lord and is always subservient to Him.
5. Mâyǎ cannot influence the Lord and His internal potencies.
6. The jivas can become free from the bondage of Māyā only by surrendering to the Lord and engaging in His devotional service.
7. Hearing the Srimad Bhagavatam is devotional service to the Lord and can thus end the jiva’s miseries.
8. The bliss one derives by engaging in devotional service to the Lord is so superior to the happiness derived from the realization of impersonal Brahman that even self-satisfied sages (âtmarâmäs) become attracted to the Lord’s attributes and pastimes.
9. The purpose of human life is to attain love of God, the mature fruit of devotional service in practice (sādhana- bhakti).
10. Devotional service is supremely independent, like the Personality of Godhead; it does not need the support of any other method. 252 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha When Sūta Gosvāmī finished describing Śrila Vyasadeva’s trance, Saunaka Ṛşi asked him, “If Sukadeva Gosvāmi was completely renounced, having no interest in anything by vir- tue of being absorbed in the bliss of the self, what caused him to study this lengthy Bhāgavata Purāṇa?” Sūta Gosvāmi replied with these two verses (Bhág. 1.7.10-11): “All differ- ent varieties of ātmārāmas (those who také pleasure in the ātmā, or spirit self), especially those established on the path of self-realization, though freed from all kinds of material bondage, desire to render unalloyed devotional service unto the Personality of Godhead. This means that the Lord pos- sesses transcendental qualities and therefore can attract everyone, including liberated souls. The heart of the tran- scendentally powerful Śri Sukadeva Gosvāmi was captivated when he heard a description of Lord Hari’s attributes and pastimes, and therefore he undertook the study of this great narration, Śrimad Bhagavatam. This made him very dear to the devotees of Lord Visnu.” By this answer Sūta Gosvāmi confirms all the realizations of Śrila Vyāsadeva and Sukadeva Gosvāmī. First, Sūta states a general principle, that many self-satisfied persons, although liberated from material bondage, are still eager to engage in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Then he mentions Sukadeva Gosvāmī as a specific instance of this principle’s application. Thus, Sūta Gosvāmi establishes that Sukadeva Gosvami was not the only liberated person who became attracted to the Per- sonality of Godhead’s service. On the contrary, Sukadeva’s experience is corroborated by many other ātmārāmas, dem- onstrating that the only reason one would reject the bliss of Brahman realization and take up devotional service must be the wonderful, all-attractive attributes of Lord Hari. By this explanation Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī shows conclusively that Sukadeva Gosvāmi, Śrīla Vyasadeva, and Sūta Gosvāmi shared the same realizations. Therefore these realizations should form the basis of any genuine study and explanation of Śrimad-Bhāgavatam. Interpretations based on something else must be considered deviant from the scripture’s intended meaning. Previously, in Anuccheda 27, Śrila Jīva GosvāmiAnuccheda 49 253 disclosed that Sridhara Svāmi inserted some monistic ideas into his commentary on Śrimad-Bhāgavatam. Śrīdhara Svāmi did this as a preaching strategy to attract the Māyāvādīs to the Bhāgavata philosophy. Jiva Gosvāmi said there that in such instances he would give his own explanations. A recent scholar has critized Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi for this policy, labeling him an opportunist who accepted only those statements that supported his opinion and belittled other statements by declaring that they were made with ulterior motives and were not actually Śrīdhara Svāmi’s opinion. This scholar suggests that Jiva Gosvāmī is not a true follower of Śri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who highly revered Śrīdhara Svȧmi’s Bhāvārtha-dipikā. But in this anuccheda Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi further clari- fies his policy: He accepts any explanation that complements the realization of Śrila Vyasadeva, Šukadeva Gosvāmi, and Sūta Gosvāmi—that pure devotional service to Lord Kṛṣṇa is the ultimate goal of life. That this policy reflects the real desire of Lord Caitanya will be recognized by everyone who knows that Śri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was the leading oppo- nent of impersonalism. In debate He defeated two of the leading Māyāvādīs of His time, Prakāśānanda Sarasvati and Vasudeva Sarvabhauma. He frequently condemned the Māyāvāda interpretation of the Vedanta-sútra. In light of His teachings and example, for Him to embrace a Māyāvādī commentary on Śrimad-Bhāgavatam is unlikely and not at all credible. Vaiṣṇavas coming in disciplic succession do not have the slightest confusion on this point. Lord Caitanya revered Śrīdhara Svāmi’s commentary because Śridhara was in fact a great Vaisnava, and his commentary was the best because he kept the natural sense of the Bhagavatam and his con- clusions support the Vaisnava siddhānta. Thererfore it should be obvious to anyone who reads his commentary that what- ever impersonal explanations Sridhara Svami gave did not express his true heart. For example, while commenting on the first verse of the Bhagavatam he states, śrimad-bhagavad-guna-anuvamana- 254 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha pradhānam bhāgavata-śāstram: “Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was written chiefly to provide descriptions of the Supreme Lord’s qualities.” In the next verse, while commenting on the word vāstavam, he writes, vāstava-sabdena vastuno’msojivaḥ, vastunaḥ śaktirmāyā ca, vastunaḥ kāryam jagat, tat sarvam vastv eva:“The word vastava indicates that the jiva is part of the Absolute, Māyā is the energy of the Absolute, and the material world is the creation of the Absolute. All this is real.” This and many similar statements throughout Sridhara Svāmi’s Bhāgavatam commentary make foolish any doubt about his status as a pure Vaiṣṇava. And it is equally foolish to criticize Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi for not using the impersonal portions of Sridhara’s commentary here in Sat-Sandarbha. One can fathom the true essence of Srimad Bhagavatam only from the viewpoint of Śrī Vyasa and Sukadeva Gosvāmi. Because Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi held this opinion, he is a true scholar of the Bhāgavatam and a true follower of Śri Caitanya, who desired to see the Bhagavatam established as the final word in philosophy throughout the world. Jiva Gosvāmī was neither a blind follower of Śri Caitanya Mahaprabhu nor a blind scholar foolishly trying to understand the supreme scripture without accepting the standard authorities in disciplic succession. Jiva Gosvāmi was the leading disciple of Śrila Rúpa Gosvāmi and Śrīla Sanatana Gosvāmi, two principal follow- ers of Śri Caitanyadeva. The Lord personally instructed them in the science of devotional service and ordered them to write books setting forth His precepts. This they did in a most wonderful way, explaining the intricacies of bhakti-yoga so that no follower in their line would have to speculate or mis- interpret the teachings of Lord Caitanya. Rūpa and Sanatana personally trained Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. They were so pleased with him that they made him the edi- tor of many of their books. We have no reason, therefore, to doubt that Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi loyally followed in the foot- steps of Śrila Rūpa and Sanatana Gosvāmis and therefore of Lord Caitanya. The ultimate proof of this is that one can find no contradictions between the writings of Rūpa and Sanatana and those of Jiva Gosvāmi. Anuccheda 49 255 Indeed, earlier in Tattva-Sandarbha Jiva Gosvāmi declared that he was writing this work under their order. Moreover, he succeeded Śrila Rúpa and Sanatana Gosvāmis as leader of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas in Vṛndavana, Bengal, and Orissa. This universal recognition of his leadership was explicit acknowledgement of his stature as a dedicated follower of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. We learn from Śrimad-Bhāgavatam (1.2.2) that Śukadeva Gosvāmi left his father’s house immediately after his birth. According to the Brahma-vaivarta Purāņa, when Sukadeva was still in his mother’s womb he could understand the peril of living in the material world and the risk of being capti- vated by Mayå. He also knew that Kṛṣṇa can counter Maya’s charms, and therefore he had his father bring Lord Kṛṣṇa from Dvårakā. Only when the Lord Himself promised to pro- tect Sukadeva from Māyā he agreed to take birth, and even then he immediatley left home to enter the forest. Out of natural affection, Śrīla Vyasadeva followed him, calling him to come back, but Sukadeva was completely unattached to material life and paid his father no heed. Vyasadeva was deeply disappointed, since he wanted to teach Sukadeva Śrimad-Bhāgavatam. This was the only reason he wanted Sukadeva back not that he was attached to him as his son. Śrī Vyasa knew that only a person like Śuka, who is com- pletely detached from sense enjoyment, is qualified to un- derstand the true message of Srimad Bhagavatam and would not misuse it for material gain. To entice him to return home, Vyasa had some of his disciples recite verses from the Bhagavatam whenever they went to the forest to collect fire- wood. Once when they were singing these verses, Sukadeva Gosvāmi heard them. At once his heart was captivated, and he followed the students back to Śrī Vyasa. Then Sukadeva, who had already put aside his attachment to the impersonal Brahman, learned the complete Śrimad-Bhāgavatam from Śrila Vyǎsadeva. At present there is no scriptural reference indicating which verses captivated Śrī Sukadeva, but some Vaisnava schol- ars state that they included the following three: 256 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha yam manyase mătuleyam priyam mitram suhṛt-tamam akaroḥ sacivam dūtam sauhṛdad atha sărathim O King, that personality whom, out of ignorance only, you thought to be your maternal cousin, your very dear friend, well-wisher, counselor, messenger, benefactor, etc., is that very Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa (Bhag. 1.9.20). aho baki yam stana-kala-kūtam/jighamsayapayayad apy asādhvi lebhe gatim dhätry-ucitam tato ’nyam/kam và dayālum saranam vrăjema Alas, how shall I take shelter of one more merciful than He [Kṛṣṇa], who granted the position of mother to the she-demon Pūtană although she was unfaithful and she prepared deadly poison to be sucked from her breast? (Bhag. 3.2.23) barhāpīḍam nata-vara-vapuḥ karnayoḥ karnikāraṁ bibhrad väsaḥ kanaka-kapiśam vaijayantim ca mālām randhran venor adhara-sudhayapurayan gopa-vṛndair vṛndaranyam sva-pada-ramanaṁ prāvisad gita-kirtiḥ Wearing a peacock-feather ornament upon His head, blue kamikāra flowers on His ears, a yellow garment as brilliant as gold, and a Vaijayanti garland, Lord Kṛṣṇa exhibited His transcendental form as the greatest of dancers as He entered the forest of Vṛndāvana, beautifying it with the marks of His footprints. He filled the holes of His flute with the nectar of his lips, and the cowherd boys sang His glories (Bhag. 10.21.5). These verses describe Lord Kṛṣṇa’s love for His devotees, His mercy even toward His enemies, and His incomparable charm and beauty. The history of Sukadeva Gosvāmi de- scribed in the Mahabharata differs from that narrated above. Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa explains that the two accounts de- scribe events from different days of Lord Brahmå. Having ascertained the prameya of Śrimad-Bhāgavatam-that is, what one should learn from it-Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmī next says something about the format of Śri Sat-Sandarbha. 257 ANUCCHEDA 50 THE SUBJECT OF THE SAT-SANDARBHA अथ क्रमेण विस्तरतस्तथैव तात्पर्यं निर्णेतुं सम्बन्धाभिधेयप्रयोजनेषु षड्भिः, सन्दर्भैर्निर्णेष्यमाणेषु प्रथमं यस्य वाच्यवाचकतासम्बन्धीदं शास्त्रं, तदेव ‘धर्मः प्रोज्झितकैतवः’ इत्यादिपद्ये सामान्याकारतस्तावदाह ‘वेद्यं वास्तवमत्र वस्तु [भा. १.१.२ ] इति । । टीका च, ‘अत्र श्रीमति सुन्दरे भागवते वास्तवं परमार्थभूतं वस्तु वेद्यं, न तु वैशेषिकादिवद्द्रव्यगुणादिरूपं इत्येषा । श्रीवेदव्यासः ॥ ५० ॥ atha krameṇa vistaratas tathaiva tätparyaṁ nimetum sambandhābhidheya-prayojanesu sadbhiḥ sandarbhair nimeşyamāṇesu prathamam yasya vācya-vācakatā- sambandhidam śāstram tad eva, “dharmaḥ projjhita- kaitava” ity ādi-padye sāmānyākāratas tāvad āha, “vedyam vāstavam atra vastu” iti tikā ca, “atra śrimati sundare bhāgavate vâstavam paramartha-bhūtam vastu vedyam na tu vaiseṣikādi-vad dravya-guṇādi-rúpam ity esá. sri-veda-vyāsah. Hereafter, to systematically and thoroughly delineate the message of Śrimad-Bhagavatam, we shall explain in these six Sandarbhas the principles of sambandha, abhidheya, and prayojana, one after the other. This first book, Tattva- Sandarbha, discusses the connection between the subject being described and the text describing it. This connection is mentioned in general terms in Bhāgavatam (1.1.2) with the words vedyam vāstavam atra vastu: “Here the factual reality is to be known.” Commenting on this part of the verse, Śrila Śridhara Svămi writes, “Here in this beautiful Bhāgavatam the ultimate reality in its highest manifestation is to be known, not reality in terms merely of substance, qualities, and so on, as taught by the Vaiśesikas and others.” This verse (Bhāg. 1.1.2 ) is spoken by Sri Vedavyāsa. 258 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha COMMENTARY Here Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī informs us that in the six Sandarbhas he will explain in detail the same sambandha-, abhidheya-, and prayojana-tattva that Śrī Vyasadeva and Sukadeva Gosvȧmi realized. He briefly mentioned them in Anucchedas 8 and 9, and now he will elaborate on them on the basis of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. The Tattva-, Bhagavat-, Paramātma-, and Krsna-Sandarbha treat sambanda-tattva. The Bhakti- Sandarbha discusses the abhidheya-tattva, and Priti- Sandarbha deals with prayojana-tattva. The Tattva-Sandarbha introduces the subject matter of the six Sandarbhas by establishing the authority of Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam and saying something about its origin and con- tent. As mentioned earlier, the relationship of a subject with its description is technically called the väcya-vācakatā sambandha. The subject of Srimad Bhagavtam is revealed in its very second verse: vedyaṁ vāstavam atra vastu: “The absolute reality is made understandable herein.” As we have already discussed, reality manifests on various levels, but Śrimad-Bhagavatam enlightens us about the ultimate reality, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who encompasses and reconciles all other realities. In contrast to Śrila Vyasadeva’s presentation in the Bhāgavatam, the philosophies formulated by other ancient sages, such as Gautama and Kanāda, incompletely describe reality. Gautama, in his system of Nyāya philosophy, says that by understanding the empirical means and objects of knowledge one can be freed from material miseries. And Kanāda, in his system of Vaiṣeśika philosophy, which was briefly alluded to at the end of this anuccheda, recognizes seven categories of existence: dravya (substances), guna (qualities), karma (motions), sāmānya (general categories), viśesa (particularities), samavāya (inherence) and abhāva (non- existence). Within these seven categories the Vaiseṣikas try to explain all of reality. But although the scientific study em- bodied in philosophies like Nyaya and Vaiseṣika may lead to realization of reality on some level, this is far different from realization of the Absolute Reality which Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam Anuccheda 51 259 makes available. Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi explains the nature of this reality in the next anuccheda. ANUCCHEDA 51 ABSOLUTE REALITY IS NONDUAL CONSCIOUSNESS अथ किंस्वरूपं तद्वस्तुतत्त्वमित्याह; ’ वदन्ति तत्तत्त्वविदस्तत्त्वं यज्ज्ञानमद्वयम् [भा. १.२.११] इति । ज्ञानं चिदेकरूपं । अद्वयत्वञ्चास्य स्वयंसिद्धतादृशाता- दृशतत्त्वान्तराभावात्, स्वशक्तयेकसहायत्वात्, परमाश्रयं तं विना तासामसिद्धत्वाच्च । ‘तत्त्वम्’ इति परमपुरुषार्थताद्योतनया परमसुखरूपत्वं तस्य बोध्यते । अतएव तस्य नित्यत्वञ्च दर्शितम् । श्रीसूतः ॥ ५१ ॥ atha kim-svarūpam tad vastu-tattvam ity āha: “vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvam yaj jñānam advayam” iti. jnanam cid-eka-rūpam advayatvar cāsya svayam- siddha-tādṛśātādṛśa-tattvāntarābhāvāt sva-śakty-eka- sahāyatvät paramāśrayam tam vinā tāsām asiddhatvāc ca. tattvam” iti parama-purusārthata-dyotanayā parama- sukha-rūpatvam tasya bodhyate. ata eva tasya nityatvam ca darśitam. śri sūtah. “What is the nature of this Absolute Reality?” “The knowers of that Absolute Reality call it nondual con- sciousness.” (Bhag.1.2.11). Here the word jñāna refers to that entity whose nature is exclusively pure consciousness. This pure spirit is called nondual for the following reasons: (1) there is nothing else, either similar or dissimilar, that is self-existent; (2) it takes support only from its own poten- cies; and (3) these potencies can have no existence without it as their absolute foundation. The term tattva here implies the idea of the supreme goal of human life. Thus we under- stand that this tattva, or Absolute Reality, is the embodiment of the highest bliss and is therefore also eternal. Śrī Sūta spoke the verse under discussion. 260 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha COMMENTARY In the last anuccheda Śrila Jiva Gosvȧmi stated that the Absolute Reality is to be known from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. This naturally raises the question, “What is the essential nature of this Absolute Reality?” In reply, Jīva Gosvāmī quotes Śrīmad-Bhagavatam which says the Absolute Real- ity is nondual (advayam), or in other words one without a second. There cannot be more than one Absolute Reality, because as soon as there were a second one the first one would no longer be absolute. That the Absolute Reality is nondual, however, does not mean that nothing else exists. Rather, the word “nondual” indicates two things: First, the Absolute Reality is self-existent, meaning that it is grounded in itself and depends on no external support; second, nothing else can exist independent of this nondual reality’s support. In Vedic philosophy, an object is considered nondual if it is free of three kinds of difference-those among objects of the same class, those among objects of different classes, and those between an object and its parts. A difference be- tween objects of the same class is called sajātīya-bheda. Even though two chairs may look the same, function the same, and belong to the class called “chair,” they still differ as individual chairs. A change in one will not directly affect the other. A difference between objects of different classes is called vijātiya-bheda. For example, a chair is different from a table in its appearance and function. Finally, a difference between an object and its parts is called svagata-bheda. If all the parts of a chair are scat- tered, the chair will no longer exist. For example, the vari- ous parts of a chair can be removed and replaced without changing the chair’s identity. Thus the parts are indepen- dent from each other and from the object, the chair. In this way the chair is not self-existent. These three kinds of difference give rise to the duality we observe throughout material nature. They do not exist, however, on the absolute plane; thus Sūta Gosvāmi calls the pure consiousness (Absolute Reality) jñānam advayam, Anuccheda 51 261 nondual consciousness. The Lord’s body and its limbs are each fully conscious and potent and therefore nondifferent from Him. For this reason it is said that in Lord Krsna there exists no difference of the svagata-bheda type. Even when the Supreme Personality of Godhead ex- pands into forms such as Rāmacandra and Balarama, these svåmsa (selfsame) expansions remain nondifferent from the Lord’s original self. Still, while He is not dependent on Them, They are dependent on Him. Since the Lord and His svaṁśa expansions belong to the same class, no difference of the sajātīya-bheda type is found in Him. Material nature, being inert, belongs to a class of exist- ence different from that of the dynamic Personality of Godhead. This might lead one to conclude that there is vijātiya-bheda between Him and material nature. Neverthe- less, since material nature’s existence is not independent or separate from Him, there is ultimately no difference of vijätiya- bheda between Him and His material expansions. Energy cannot exist without its source. The finite living entities belong to the marginal potency of the Supreme Lord. Thus one may view them in two ways, as belonging to the same class as the Lord, because they are conscious like Him, and as belonging to a different class because their size and potency is very small. From both view- points the jivas are fully dependent on the Supreme Lord, so there exists none of the three types of difference between them and the Lord. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi concludes, therefore, that although the Lord’s energies serve Him in various ways, they have no existence separate from Him (tam vină tasām asiddhatvāt). Just as a spider weaves a web with a special substance it produces and then makes the web its home, so Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the personified nondual Absolute Reality, employs His own energies to manifest the spiritual realm, where He resides. These energies are part of His internal nature and have no independent existence. The word jñānām (knowledge) also means conscious- ness, because knowledge depends on consciousness. In the verse under discussion, jñānam means “consciousness.” 262 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Its significance here is that the nondual reality is conscious- ness and also conscious, just as the sun is light and also luminous. Because the word jñānam refers to the Absolute Reality, this nondual consciousness must have perpetual existence (sat) as a characteristic. And because the word tattvam indicates the supreme objective of life, it follows that this nondual reality must also be characterized by bliss (ānanda), since all living beings seek pleasure, whether they know it or not. From direct perception, logical analysis, and scriptural authority we can understand that the ultimate motivation in all activities is the pursuit of happiness. This is the basic purpose underlying creative and destructive processes and all personal relationships. As the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad (2.4.5) states, na vă are patyuḥ kāmāya patih priyo bhavaty ātmanas tu kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavati: “My dear, the hus- band is not loved for his own sake, but for the sake of the self.” Here the word “self” refers to either the jiva or the Su- preme Lord. In our conditioned state, the self we perceive is ourself, the jiva. We become attached to someone or some- thing because we derive happiness from loving that person or thing. This feeling of happiness comes from our sense of possession–the notion that the object of love is “ours”-not from the person or the object itself. The truth of this principle is shown by the common experience that material happiness naturally decreases when our sense of possession diminishes. By contrast, in the liberated state we realize that our ul- timate Self is the Supreme Lord. When we act solely on the basis of this understanding, we become the Lord’s pure devo- tees, and then we render service only for His pleasure and desire nothing in return. Even if the all-attractive Lord treats us roughly, we are still happy, for we have abandoned all fears and cares in our loving relationship with Him. Lord Caitanya demonstrated this standard when He prayed (Śiksāṣṭaka, 8): äśliṣya vā pāda-ratam pinaṣṭu mām adarśanan marma-hatam karotu vâ yatha tatha va vidadhatu lampato mat-prana-nathas tu sa eva näparaḥAnuccheda 52 I know no one but Krsna as my Lord, and He shall remain so even if He handles me roughly by His embrace or makes me broken-hearted by not being present before me. He is completely free to do anything and everything, for He is always my worshipable Lord, unconditionally. 263 In conditioned life we do not know that Kṛṣṇa is the supreme object of love and the source of all bliss. Rather, we mistake ourselves for the source of bliss. To enlighten us about Him- self, Kṛṣṇa instructs us in the Bhagavad-gită (10.8-9): aham sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvam pravartate iti matva bhajante mám budha bhava-samanvitāḥ mac-città mad-gata-praná bodhayantaḥ parasparam kathayantaś ca mám nityam tuşyanti ca ramanti ca I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts. The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me. Thus there is an inherent relationship between jñāna (knowl- edge), sat (eternal existence), and ananda (bliss). This rela- tionship is clearly indicated in such śruti statements as vijñānam ānandam brahma: ‘Brahman is pure consciousness and bliss” (Brhad-aranaya Up. 3.9.34). Thus the nature of the nondual consciousness described in this verse has been designated sat-cit-ånanda, “permanent existence, knowledge, and bliss.” In this anuccheda Jiva Gosvāmi presented his thesis, that jñāna is eternal. In the next anuccheda he will explain the pūrva-pakṣa, or rebuttal to the belief that consciousness is momentary. ननु ANUCCHEDA 52.1 THE MEANING OF MONISTIC STATEMENTS नीलपीताद्याकारं क्षणिकमेव ज्ञानं दृष्टं तत् पुनरद्वयं नित्यं ज्ञानं कथं लक्ष्यते, यन्निष्ठमिदं शास्त्रम् ? इत्यत्राह; 264 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha ‘सर्ववेदान्तसारं यद्ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वलक्षणम् । वस्त्वद्वितीयं तन्निष्ठं कैवल्यैकप्रयोजनम् ।’ [भा. १२.१३.१२] इति । सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ [ तैत्ति. २.१.१] इति यस्य स्वरूपमुक्तम्, ‘येनाश्रुतं श्रुतं भवति’ [ छान्दो, ६.१.३] इति, ‘यद्विज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानं प्रतिज्ञातं ’ ‘सदेव सौम्येदमग्र आसीत्’ [ छान्दो. ६.२.१] इत्यादिना निखिलजगदेककारणता, “तदैक्षत बहु स्याम् ” [छान्दो. ६.२.३] इत्यनेन सत्यसङ्कल्पता च यस्य प्रतिपादिता, तेन ब्रह्मणा स्वरूपशक्तिभ्यां सर्वबृहत्तमेन सार्द्धम्, ‘अनेन जीवेनात्मना ’ इति तदीयोक्ताविदन्तानिर्देशेन ततो भिन्नत्वे ऽप्यात्मतानिर्देशेन तदात्मांशविशेषत्वेन लब्धस्य बादरायणसमाधिदृष्टयुक्तेरत्यभिन्नतारहितस्य जीवात्मनो यदेकत्वं, ‘तत्त्वमसि’ [छान्दो. ६.८.७] इत्यादौ ज्ञाता तदंशभूत- चिद्रूपत्वेन समानाकारता, तदेव लक्षणं प्रथमतो ज्ञाने साधकतमं यस्य; तथाभूतं यत् सर्ववेदान्तसारमद्वितीयं वस्तु; तन्निष्ठम्, तदेकविषयमिदं श्रीभागवतमिति - प्राक्तनपद्य- स्थेनानुषङ्गः । nanu nila-pītādyākāraṁ kṣaṇikameva jñānam dṛtam, tat punar advayam nityam jñānam katham lakṣyate, yan nistham idam śāstram? ity atrāha; “sarva-vedanta sāram yad brahmātmaikatva laksanam / vastv advitiyam tannistham kaivalyaika-prayojanam” iti. “satyam jñānam anantaṁ brahma” iti yasya svarūpam uktam, “yenāśrutaṁ śrutaṁ bhavati” iti, “yad-vijñānena sarva-vijñānam pratijñātam,” “sad eva saumyedam agra āsīd❞ ity-ādinā nikhila-jagad-eka-kāraṇatā, “tad aikṣata bahu syām” ity anena satya-sankalpată ca yasya pratipădită tena brahmaṇā svarūpa-saktibhyām sarva- brhattamena sārdham, “anena jivenātman” eti tadiyoktāv idanta nirdeśena tato bhinnatve ‘py atmata-nirdeśena tad- ātmāmśa-viseṣatvena labdhasya bâdarāyaṇa-samadhi- drsta-yukter aty-abhinnata-rahitasya jivātmano yad ekatvam, “tat tvam asi” ity-adau jñātā tad-amsa-bhūta-cid- Anuccheda 52 rūpatvena samānākāratā, tad eva lakṣaṇam prathamato jñāne sädhakatamaṁ yasya, tathā-bhūtaṁ yat sarva- vedānta-sāram advitiyam vastu, tan-nistham tad-eka- vişayam idam śrī-bhāgavatam iti prāktana-padya- sthenänuṣangaḥ.. 265 One may question: But events of consciousness are seen to exist only briefly, taking the shape, say, of a blue object one moment and a yellow object the next. How then can consciousness be called the nondual and eternal theme of this scripture [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam]? Sūta Gosvāmī replies: “This Bhagavatam is the essence of all Vedānta philosophy because its subject matter is the Absolute Truth, which, while nondifferent from the spirit soul, is the ultimate reality, one without a second. The goal of this literature is exclusive devotional service unto that Supreme Truth” (Bhåg. 12.13.12). The śruti has defined the nature of this Absolute Truth (Brahman): “The Supreme Brahman is infinite truth and knowledge” (Taittiriya Up. 2.1.1). That Brahman is the sole cause of the entire creation is shown by such śruti state- ments as “By hearing about which [Brahman] everything is heard” (Chandogya Up. 6.1.3), “By knowing which [Brah- man] everything is known,” and “My boy, in the beginning there was only sat, the eternal reality” (Chandogya Up. 6.2.1). That the Supreme Brahman achieves everything simply by His desire is shown by the statement “He glanced and de- sired, ‘Let Me become many” (Chandogya Up. 6.2.3). In the statement, “Along with this individual living entity, I shall manifest name and form” (Chandogya Up. 6.3.2), the living entity (jiva) is mentioned in connection with and as belonging to the Supreme, which is called Brahman because it is greater than all else in essence and potencies; here the pronoun idam (this) differentiates the jiva from Brahman, but the word átmanā (self) indicates that the jiva is part and parcel of Brahman. According to what was revealed in Śrila Vyasadeva’s trance, the living entity is one with the Supreme Brahman in the sense of not being completely different from Him. Such śruti statements as tat tvam asi (You are that, 266 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha Chandogya Up. 6.8.7) reveal that the oneness of the Su- preme Brahman with the jiva consists of their both being purely spiritual by virtue of the jiva’s status as a particle of the Supreme Brahman. Understanding this truth helps one acquire preliminary knowledge of the Supreme Brahman. The entity thus designated as the Supreme Brahman, who is the essence of all the Upanisads and is one without a sec- ond, is the focus of interest and exclusive subject matter of this Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Here we understand “this Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam’ to be implied by the syntatic connection with that same phrase in one of the preceding verses (Bhag. 12.13.10). ANUCCHEDA 52.2 यथा जन्मप्रभृति कश्चिद्गुहगुहावरुद्धः सूर्यं विविदिषुः कथञ्चिद्गवाक्षपतितं, सूर्यांशुकणं दर्शयित्वा केनचिदुपदिश्यते ‘एष स’ इति एतत्तदंशज्योतिः समानाकारतया तन्महाज्योति- र्मण्डलमनुसन्धीयतामित्यर्थस्तद्वत् । जीवस्य तथा तदंशत्वञ्च तदचिन्त्यशक्तिविशेषसिद्धत्वेनैव परमात्मसन्दर्भे स्थापयिष्यामः । yathā janma-prabhṛti kaścid grha-guhavaruddhaḥ suryam vividişuḥ kathañcid gavākṣa-patitam sūryāṁśu-kaṇam darśayitva kenacid upadiśyate “eşa sa” ity etat-tad-amsa- jyotiḥ-samānākarataya tan mahā-jyotir-mandalam anusandhiyatām ity arthas tad-vat. jivasya tatha tad- amśatvam ca tad-acintya-sakti-viseṣa-siddhatvenaiva paramǎtma-sandarbhe sthāpayiṣyámaḥ. The following analogy helps clarify the above idea. Suppose a person has been kept in a dark room from birth and has never seen the sun. When he wants to know what the sun is, someone points to a ray of sunlight passing through a window grating and says, “That is the sun. Try to understand that the sun is a great orb of light, and this ray, is just a small portion of the same substance.” In the Paramātma- Sandarbha we will establish that the jiva is similarly a frac- tional portion of the Supreme Brahman, manifested by one of His inconceivable potencies. 267 ANUCCHEDA 52.3 तदेतज्जीवादिलक्षणांशविशिष्टतयैवोपनिषदस्तस्य सांशत्वमपि क्वचिदुपदिशन्ति । निरंशत्वोपदेशिका श्रुतिस्तु केवलतन्निष्ठा । अत्र ‘कैवल्यैकप्रयोजनम्’ इति चतुर्थपादश्च कैवल्यपदस्य शुद्धत्वमात्रवचनत्वेन, शुद्धत्वस्य च शुद्धभक्तित्वेन पर्यवसानेन प्रीतिसन्दर्भे व्याख्यास्यते । श्रीसूतः ॥ ५२ ॥ tad-etaj-jīvādi-lakṣaṇāṁśa-visiṣṭatayaivopanisadas tasya sāmsatvam api kvacid upadisanti. niramsatvopadeśikā śrutis tu kevala-tan-nisthā. atra “kaivalyaika-prayojanam” iti caturtha-pādaś ca kaivalya-padasya suddhatva-mätra- vacanatvena suddhatvasya ca suddha-bhaktitvena paryavasänena priīti-sandarbhe vyākhyāsyate. śrī-sūtaḥ. Thus when the Upanisads say that the Supreme Brahman has parts, they mean that one of His characteristics is to be endowed with the part-and-parcel living beings and other energies. Conversely, when the śrutis speak of Him as hav- ing no parts, they are focusing on His exclusive essence. In the fourth line of the Bhāgavatam verse (12.13.12), namely kaivalyaika-prayojanam, the word kaivalya (oneness) sim- ply means “purity.” Later, in the Priti-Sandarbha, we will show that this purity is none other than pure devotional service. The verse under discussion (Bhag. 12.13.12) was spo- ken by Śri Sūta Gosvāmi. COMMENTARY In the last anuccheda Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī established that the Absolute Truth is eternal, nondual consciousness. One sect of Buddhists, the Kṣaṇika-vijñāna-vādīs, raise an objection to this conclusion. Their doctrine states that there is only one reality, consciousness, which is changing at ev- ery moment, and that there is no difference between knowl- edge and the object of knowledge. Just as the things we see in our dreams do not exist outside our consciousness, so the distinctions between knowledge and the object of 268 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha knowledge in our waking life do not exist. When we see a blue object, our consciousness is blue. If we next see a yel- low object, the blue consciousness is destroyed and our con- sciousness changes to yellow. How, then, can conscious- ness be called eternal? This is their objection to Jiva Gosvāmi’s conclusion that the Absolute Truth is eternal. The Vijñāna-vādīs reason that an eternal object cannot be the cause of anything since a cause generally transforms into its effect. For example, since milk transforms into yogurt, it cannot be eternal. Similarly, nondual consciousness, being the cause of everything, must undergo transformation and therefore can- not be eternal. Further, they say, everything is changing at every moment, although we may not notice the moment-by- moment change, just as we do not notice the moment-by- moment growth of plants or our bodies. To the Vijñāna-vādīs’ argument Śrila Jīva Gosvāmī re- plies not with a logical refutation but by quoting Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam, the supreme pramāṇa. The Bhāgavatam verse given here (12.13.12) explains that the nondual reality is characterized by oneness of the Supreme with individual selves. This oneness of reality is not the Buddhists’ one- ness of momentary consciousness and its objects. This re- ality is advaya-jñāna, the essence of the Upanisads and the subject matter of Srimad-Bhāgavatam; it is not momentary, but eternal, conscious, and blissful by nature; it is the cause of everything in the universe; and it can achieve everything simply by its will. All this implies that the advaya-jñāna is endowed with multifarious potencies. It is called Brahman because it is the greatest and because it can make others great: bṛhattväd bṛmhaṇatvac ca yad brahma paramam viduḥ (Visņu Pur. 3.3.21). The various śruti statements cited in this anuccheda describe all these characteristics of Brah- man. So the theory of consciousness of the Kṣanika-vijñāna- vādīs does not agree with either śruti or Srimad Bhagavatam. The Vijñāna-vādīs’ theory of reality is based on their as- sumption that there is no absolute pure consciousness. The Vijñāna-vādīs do not know that the absolute reality is a person Anuccheda 52 269 possessing acintya-sakti, inconceivable potencies, through which He causes everything while remaining unaffected. As the Isopanisad declares in its opening verse: om purṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idam pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evavasiṣyate The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the complete whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the complete whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance. The Vijnana-vådis’ view is based on a material concep- tion of changing consciousness. Their understanding does not apply to the absolute realm. While in our ordinary expe- rience material energy is in a constant state of flux, the Lord and His internal energies are not under the same system of natural laws that govern material nature. The example of the spider cited in the previous anuccheda also applies here: The spider produces a special substance withinin itself, weaves its web with it, later draws the substance back within itself, all without undergoing any transformation. To understand the Absolute Truth, we must first shed all our preconceived notions based on material conditioning and simply hear from authentic spiritual authorities in disciplic succession. The Vedic literature therefore recommends that even if one is highly qualified by good birth, good education, and so forth, he still should present himself as ignorant and foolish at the feet of a bona fide spiritual master, inquire from him submissively, and render service to him. This is the correct process for cleansing one’s heart and mind of mate- rial contamination; a sincere candidate for spiritual life who follows this process can gradually gain full realization of the Absolute Truth. The Vijñāna-vādīs, being followers of Lord Buddha, re- ject the Vedas, but as seen from the above discussion, they end up with a hopelessly muddled explanation of 270 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha transcendental reality. They say consciousness is momen- tary. If this were true, then consciousness could not be the cause of anything, because according to the Nyaya school of logic, a cause has to exist for at least two moments. It must exist as the cause for the first moment and then trans- form or produce the result in the next moment. And if our consciousness is existing for only one moment at a time, we cannot remember our past experiences, since there would be no continuity from one moment’s consciousness to an- other moment’s consciousness. A person who has experi- enced an activity can recall it later on, but if consciousness is momentary there is nothing to recall in the next moment’s consciousness. This is certainly contrary to everyone’s experience. Nor can the Vijñāna-vādīs’ idea of the external world with- stand the test of logic. They say that the external world is a manifestation of momentary consciousness. Here the ques- tion may be asked, whether things perceived as external are one with momentary consciousness or different from it? If they say the external objects are separately real, then they are agreeing with the Vaisnava opinion and are contradict- ing their own statement that the apparently external objects are only a manifestation of internal consciousness. If they say that the external objects are one with internal conscious- ness, in practice there will be no way to distinguish between the momentary, internal consciousness and the objects it perceives. Also, there will be no standard to separate, say, blue consciousness from yellow consciousness, and thus there will be rampant confusion in our perceptions. As is known from both reason and direct experience, consciousness always has a subject (one who is conscious) and an object (what one is conscious of). If momentary con- sciousness alone is real, where are its subject and object? To this the Vijñāna-vādīs offer no satisfactory answer. If nei- ther external objects nor the internally perceived objects, such as happiness and distress, are different from the per- ceiver, then who is doing the perceiving? Everyone’s com- mon experience is that the perceiver, the perceived, and the perception are distinct. 1 Anuccheda 52 271 In this anuccheda Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī again clarifies that the oneness of the jiva and Brahman spoken of in the śruti is not meant to be understood as absolute oneness. After all, śruti contains such statements as anena jīvenātmanānupraviśya nama-rūpe vyākaravāṇi:“Along with this jiva I shall enter as Paramåtmå and create name and form” (Chåndogya Up.6.3.2). Here the pronoun anena (this), implies that the jiva is different from “I”, the speaker, (God). Nonetheless, the jiva is described elsewhere as part and parcel of Brahman, a conclusion confirmed by Śrila Vyȧsa’s trance. The reconciliation of this apparent contradiction is, as we have discussed before, that the jiva and Brahman are one in the sense of their sharing the common characteristic of consciousness, but are different in their individual identi- ties and potencies. If a man says that Texans and New York- ers are one, we understand him to mean they are from the same country, not that they have no separate identities. The Лīvas are parts of Brahman, the whole. This is the oneness of Brahman with its parts, its energies, which is the fundamental teaching of the Upanisads and Śrīmad- Bhagavatam. The idea is that in general the part is depen- dent on the whole and helps it function. When separated from the whole, the part becomes as useless as a finger lopped off the hand. In the same way, the relation between the jivas and the Supreme Lord, who is known as Brahman in the Upanisads, is that of the servants and the served. The jivas have no independent existence. All their problems begin when they start considering themselves independent of the Supreme Lord. Correctly understanding the oneness between Brahman and the jivas is a fundamental step in understanding the nature of Brahman. Every jiva directly experiences his own consciousness, and the Upanisads, on the basis of the one- ness of Brahman and the jivas, instruct the jivas to extrapo- late from that experience some idea of the nature of Brah- man. To illustrate this, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi gives the analogy of a man born and bred in a cavelike room who has never seen the sun. To educate this man about the sun, someone may point to a ray of sunlight seeping into his dark room 272 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha through a tiny opening and tell him, “This single ray of light is from the sun, an enormous sphere that emanates count- less similar rays.” From this information the man can get some idea of what the sun is like. The Upanisads use this same method to in- struct the jivas about Brahman’s status as pure conscious- ness. Indeed, the jivas are like atomic rays emanating from the sunlike Brahman. The sun’s rays are not completely dif- ferent from the sun, because they originate from the sun; but they are also not absolutely one with the sun, because they can be seen apart from the sun and because they do not have the complete potency of the sun. Similarly, the jīvas are neither completely one with Brahman nor completely different from Brahman. In Sarva-saṁvādinī, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi calls this relationship between the jiva and Brah- man acintya-bhedabheda, “inconceivable, simultaneous oneness and difference.” Owing to this relationship, Brah- man is described as advaya-jñāna, or nondual conscious- ness, which is the subject of Śrimad-Bhāgavatam. Thus the word Brahman-as used in the Upanisads and Śrimad-Bhāgavatam should not be misunderstood as meaning Brahman without qualities. The Māyāvādīs insist on this wrong understanding. But logically such an imper- sonal Brahman cannot exist, because to exist would require the attribute of existence, which implies potency, which in turn implies duality-Brahman plus attributes. Māyāvādīs, however, abhor duality in the absolute realm. Therefore in no Vedic literature does the word Brahman mean impersonal Brahman in the sense that they intend. To clarify this, Sūta Gosvāmī says, brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate: “This nondual consciousness is called Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān.” Here Sūta Gosvāmi does not say that the Absolute Truth is also called jiva. He includes only these three names of that nondual consciousness which Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam identifies as Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Abso- lute Truth appears differently to the practitioners of various1 Anuccheda 52 273 spiritual processes, but the Absolute Truth itself does not change. This is the significance of the word sabdyate (it is designated). Brahman described in the Vedic scriptures is Bhagavan, the Supreme Person, Kṛṣṇa. In the śruti we find two types of statements concerning the relationship between the jivas and Brahman: Those des- ignating the jiva as part of Brahman and those that indicate his oneness with Brahman. The real distinction between these kinds of statements is only one of emphasis on either difference (bheda) or nondifference (abheda). Statements in the Vedic scripture such as nityo nityānāṁ cetanas cetananâm: “That one eternal conscious being is the sup- port for the many eternal conscious beings” (Katha Up. 2.2.13) belong to the bheda class. Statements such as sarvam khalv idam brahma “Indeed, all this is Brahman,” belong to the abheda class. The word kaivalya in the Bhāgavatam text 12.13.12 prop- erly means “pure devotion.” Although impersonalists com- monly use this term to mean final emancipation, or merging into Brahman, their usage is absurd because there is no real merging into impersonal Brahman. Kaivalya means lib- eration, but the real mark of liberation is pure devotional ser- vice, not merging into Brahman. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi will ex- plain this more fully in the Priti-Sandarbha. To summarize, statements in the Vedic scriptures de- scribing the oneness of Brahman and the jivas serves one or more of the following purposes:
11. To distinguish both Brahman and the jivas from inert matter by pointing to consciousness as their common quality.
12. To show that the jivas are fractional parts of the Supersoul.
13. To teach that the jivas are dependent on the Supersoul. 4. To indicate that by becoming an unalloyed devotee, a jiva can become powerful like the Supreme Lord.
14. To show that living in the material world is not the natural, healthy condition of the jiva.
15. To show that the jiva, whether in conditioned life or in 274 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha liberation, has no independence from the Lord.
16. To establish that Brahman is the only self-existent reality. No statements in the Vedic scriptures about the oneness of Brahman and the jivas assert absolute oneness between them. To know the Supersoul, one must first understand the nature of the individual self, the jiva. Thus in the next anuccheda Śrila Jiva Gosvāmî begins explaining the char- acteristics of the self. ANUCCHEDA 53.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOUL तत्र यदि त्वंपदार्थस्य जीवात्मनो ज्ञानत्वं नित्यत्वञ्च प्रथमतो विचारगोचरः स्यात्तदैव तत्पदार्थस्य तादृशत्वम् सुबोधं स्यादिति तद्बोधयितुं ‘अन्यार्थश्च परामर्श’ [ब्र.सू. १.३.२० ] इति न्यायेन जीवात्मनस्तद्रूपत्वमाह; [भा. ११.३.३८] “ नात्मा जजान न मरिष्यति नैधतेऽसौ 66 न क्षीयते सवनविद्व्यभिचारिणां हि । सर्वत्र शश्वदनपाय्युपलब्धिमात्रं प्राणो यथेन्द्रियबलेन विकल्पितं सत् ॥ " tatra yadi tvam-padarthasya jīvātmano jñānatvam nityatvam ca prathamato vicara-gocaraḥ syat tadaiva tad- padarthasya tādṛśatvam su-bodham syad iti tad bodhayitum “anyārthaś ca paramārśa” iti nyāyena jivātmanas tad-rūpatvam āha: “nātmā jajana na marisyati naidhate ‘sau na kṣiyate savana-vid vyabhicāriņām hi sarvatra sasvad anapayy upalabdhi-matram prano yathendriya-balena vikalpitam sat” The jiva is designated tvam (you) in the statement tat tvam asi (You are that ). If one first understands that “you” is con- scious and eternal, then one can easily understand how the Supreme Brahman (fat) has a similar nature. The Vedanta- sūtra (1.3.20) states: “One contemplates the jīva in order to Anuccheda 53 275 know the other, the Supreme.” in accordance with this rea- soning. Pippalayana Yogendra establishes this point by de- scribing the jiva as having the same nature as tat when he says to King Nimi (Bhāg. 11.3.38 ): “The soul was never born and will never die, nor does it grow or decay. It is actually the knower of the youth, middle age, and death of the material body. It can thus be understood to be pure consciousness, existing everywhere at all times and never being destroyed. Just as the life air within the body, although one, becomes many in contact with the various material senses, so the soul appears to assume various material designations in contact with its material bodies.” ANUCCHEDA 53.2 , आत्मा शुद्धो जीवः, न जजान न जातः, जन्माभावादेव तदनन्तरास्तितालक्षणो विकारोऽपि नास्ति । नैधते न वर्द्धते; वृद्ध्यभावादेव विपरिणामोऽपि निरस्तः । हि यस्मात्, व्यभिचारिणां आगमापायिनां बालय्वादिदेहानां देवमनुष्याद्याकारदेहानां वा, सवनवित् तत्तत्कालद्वष्टा; नह्यवस्थावतां द्रष्टा तदवस्थो भवतीत्यर्थः । निरवस्थः कोऽसावात्मा ? अत आह, उपलब्धिमात्रं ज्ञानैकरूम् । कथम्भूतम् ? सर्वत्र देहे, शश्वत् सर्वदा अनुवर्त्तमानमिति । । ātmā śuddho jīvaḥ na jajāna na jāto janmābhāvād eva tad-anantarāstitā laksano vikāro ‘pi nāsti. naidhate na vardhate vṛddhy-abhāvåd eva vipariņāmo ‘pi nirastaḥ. hi yasmāt. vyabhicāriņām āgamāpāyināṁ bāla-yuvādi- dehānām deva-manusyādy-ākāra-dehānāṁ vā. savana-vit tat tat kāla-drastā na hy avasthāvatām drastā tad avastho bhavatity arthah. niravasthah ko ‘sāv ātmā. ata āha upalabdhi-matram jñānaika-rūpam. katham-bhūtam. sarvatra dehe sasvat sarvadā anuvartamānam iti. Here ātmā means “the pure self,” and na jajāna means “he was never born.” Since he has no birth, the self is also free from the next transformation, sustained existence. Naidhate 276 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha means “he does not increase.” Since he does not increase, he does not undergo transformation. The word hi means “because,” the idea of logical reason. Vyabhicärinâm means “of all impermanent things,” namely the various physical con- ditions of the living enitity’s body in childhood, adolescence, and so on, or else the living entity’s bodies in the various species of life-demigods, humans, and others. The self is the savana-vit, the witness of each of these stages of life. Certainly this witness is not subject to the varying condi- tions which he merely observes. To the question “What is the nature of this unchanging self?” Pippalāyana says, “It is pure consciousness, nothing but awareness.” How does it exist? “It is eternally present throughout the body” ANUCCHEDA 53.3 ननु नीलज्ञानं नष्टं, पीतज्ञानं जातम्, इति प्रतीतेर्न ज्ञानस्यानपायित्वम् ? तत्राह, इन्द्रियबलेनेति, सदेव ज्ञानमेकमिन्द्रियबलेन विविधं कल्पितम् । नीलाद्याकारा वृत्तय एव जायन्ते नश्यन्ति च न ज्ञानमिति भावः । अयमागमा- पायितदवधिमेदेन प्रथमस्तर्कः । द्रष्टृदृश्यभेदेन द्वितीयोऽपि तर्कोः ज्ञेयः । व्यभिचारिष्ववस्थितस्याव्यभिचारे दृष्टान्तः प्राणो यथेति ॥ ५३ ॥ I nanu nila-jñānam naṣṭam pita-jñānam jātam iti pratiter na jñānasyānapāyitvam? taträha indriya-baleneti. sad eva jñānam ekam indriya-balena vividham kalpitam. nilady- ākārā vṛttaya eva jāyante naśyanti ca na jñānam iti bhavaḥ. ayam agamapâyi-tad-avadhi-bhedena prathamas tarkaḥ. drastr-dṛśya-bhedena dvitiyo ‘pi tarko jñeyaḥ. vyabhicăriṣv avasthitasyāvyabhicare dṛṣṭantaḥ prano yatheti. “But how can we consider consciousness eternal, since we experience that after our consciousness of something blue dis- appears our consciousness of something yellow appears?” Pippalȧyana answers, indriya-balena “by the power of the senses,” indicating that although consciousness is always Anuccheda 53 277 present and is one, the power of the senses makes it ap- pear variegated. In other words, it is not consciousness it- self that appears and disappears; rather, what appears and disappears is the various mental states in the form of per- ceptions of something blue and so on. Thus the first reason (presented to help identify the Ab- solute Reality) is based on the difference between the things that appear and disappear and that which is not subject to such changes. The second reason is based on the differ- ence between the observer and the objects he observes. The example of the life air shows how something unchang- ing can exist in the midst of ephemeral objects. COMMENTARY The Vedic statements that describe nondifference between the jiva and Brahman do so in reference to the common attributes of both. One popular example of such a state- ment is tat tvam asi: “You are that.” Here the words tat and tvam signify Brahman and the jīva, respectively, who both possess the attribute of consciousness. The idea is that if the jiva’s spiritual nature is understood then the nature of Brahman is easily grasped. This is the idea behind the analogy Śrila Jīva Gosvāmī gave in the pre- vious anuccheda, in which the man in the cave learns about the nature of the sun by being instructed about the sun-ray. This technique of similarity has also been used in the Vedānta-sūtra (1.3.20), anyārthaś ca parāmarśaḥ: “One re- flects [on the jiva] for the sake of understanding the other [Paramâtmā].” Śrila Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa comments: “This sūtra re- fers to the dahara-vidya portion of the Chandogya Upanisad (8.1), which describes meditation on the Supersoul in the small space (dahara) within the heart. The body of the wor- shiper is considered the city of Brahman, within the dahara of which lies the Supersoul. The worshiper is supposed to meditate on the eight qualities belonging to the Supersoul. These eight qualities are listed in the Chandogya Upanisad (8.7.1), ‘The Supersoul is free from sin, old age, death, 278 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha sorrow, hunger, and thirst. He has unfailing desires and un- failing determination.’ But further along (Chåndogya Up. 8.12.13), mention is made of a blissful one who rises out of the body, attains to the light, and becomes situated in his own real nature. He is called the purusottama.” This purusottama, according to Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa, is the jiva who has attained perfection by acquiring transcenden- tal knowledge of the Lord. This raises an obvious doubt: Why in the midst of this description of the dahara, dealing with meditation on the Supersoul, is the jiva mentioned? To answer this doubt, the above sūtra (Vs. 1.3.20) gives the answer, anyārthaś ca parāmarśaḥ: “The reference to the jiva in the dahara-vidyā is not simply to convey knowledge about the jiva, but to lead to knowledge about the Supersoul; for by knowing the Supersoul, the jiva attains his real nature.” In Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam (11.3.38), Pippalayana Yogendra similarly in- structs King Nimi about the jiva to educate him about the nature of the Lord. The purpose of the verse by Pippalayana is to distinguish the self from the body. The body undergoes six types of change. These are listed in the Nirukta (1.1.2), jāyate ‘sti vardhate vipariņamate ‘pakṣiyate nasyati ca: “The body takes birth, exists for some time, grows, undergoes changes, dwindles, and finally dies.” The soul, however, does not undergo any of these changes, as Lord Kṛṣṇa confirms in Chapter Two of the Bhagavad- gità. The argument for the soul not undergoing the six changes is that he is the continuous observer of all these changes. A man sitting in a moving airplane and unable to look out the window cannot fathom its speed, but a man on the ground observes it. Similarly, we do not feel the earth rotating because we are standing on it, but the astronauts can easily see this from space. The objection of the Kṣanika-vijñāna-vādīs discussed in the previous anuccheda-namely that consciousness is only momentary-is repeated here (in Anuccheda 53.3) and an- swered differently. The momentary consciousness of which they speak actually consists of changes in one’s mental state. It is produced by the senses interacting with the external Anuccheda 53 279 world. Consciousness itself is constant. The Vedanta explains that when a person looks at an object there arises a particu- lar mental state, called vṛtti, which the soul perceives. The mental state itself is not the perceiver. But the Buddhists, lacking all knowledge about the soul, mistake this tempo- rary, ever-changing vṛtti, which is noneternal ever-constantly changing, for real consciousness. This point is further clarified with the analogy of the life air. Air is one, but air within the body has various names, such as prāṇa, apāna, and samāna, according to the func- tion it performs. Similarly, the soul is one, but while in the body it manifests consciousness, which appears many-branched and ever-changing. For example, sweetened cow’s milk gives rise to different mental states when perceived with different senses: to the eyes it is white, to the tongue sweet, and so on. So it is only the mental state, affected by varieties of sense perception, that appears and disappears. The living entity is a fractional part of the Supreme Lord, and since the Lord is conscious and eternal, the living entity must have these qualities as well, in as much as a gold nugget shares the qualities of the mother lode. The purpose of explaining the conscious and eternal quality of the soul with logic and personal experience is to help us develop an understanding of the Supersoul. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi derives two arguments from the words of Pippalǎyana (Bhag. 11.3.38), both of which serve to dis- tinguish the soul from the material body. The first argument is based on the changes occurring in the material body. We see these changes as time progresses, but upon reflection we can understand that we ourselves have not changed. We know ourselves to be the same person. Since the at- tributes of changelessness and transformation cannot si- multaneously be attributed to the same object, the unchang- ing soul must be distinct from the changing body. The second argument is based on the distinction be- tween the perceiver and the perceived. The body and mind cannot be the observer, because they are objects of percep- tion. Thus the perceiver, the soul, must be different from them. : 280 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha In the next anuccheda Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi gives further logic to help distinguish the self from the body. ANUCCHEDA 54.1 THE SOUL IS DISTINCT FROM THE BODY दृष्टान्तं विवृण्वन्निन्द्रियादिलयेन निर्विकारात्मोपलब्धिं दर्शयति ; [भा. ११.३.३९] ‘अण्डेषु पेशिषु तरुष्वविनिश्चितेषु प्राणो हि जीवमुपधावति तत्र तत्र । सन्ने यदिन्द्रियगणेऽहमि च प्रसुप्ते कूटस्थ आशयमृते तदनुस्मृतिर्नः ॥

35 अण्डेषु अण्डजेषु । पेशिषु — जरायुजेषु । तरुषु उद्भिज्जेषु । अविनिश्चितेषु — स्वेदजेषु उपधावति — अनुवर्त्तते । dṛṣṭāntam vivṛvann indriyādi-layena nirvikārātmopalabdhim darśayati; andesu pesisu tarusv aviniściteṣu prāņo hi jīvam upadhāvati tatra tatra / sanne yad indriya-gane ‘hami ca prasupte kūta-stha aśayam rte tad-anusmrtir nah / andesu anda jesu. pesisu jarāyu-jesu. tarusu udbhij jesu. aviniścitesu sveda-jesu. upadhāvati anuvartate. Expanding further on this example (in Anuccheda 53.3). Pippalāyana Ṛsi uses the analogy of the senses’ dissolu- tion to demonstrate the soul’s changelessness: “The spirit soul is born in many different species of life within the mate- rial world. Some species are born from eggs, others from embryos, others from the seeds of plants and trees, and others from perspiration. But in all species of life the prana, or vital air, remains unchanging and follows the spirit soul from one body to another. Similarly, the spirit soul is eter- nally the same despite its material condition of life. We have practical experience of this. When we are absorbed in deep sleep without dreaming, the material senses become inac- tive, and even the mind and false ego are merged into a dormant condition. But although the senses, mind, and false Anuccheda 54 281 ego are inactive, one remembers upon waking that he, the soul, was peacefully sleeping” ( Bhāg. 11.3.39). Here andesu means “among those born from eggs,” peśişu means “among those born from wombs,” tarusu means “among those born from plants,” aviniściteṣu means “among those born from perspiration or heat,” and upadhāvati means “follows.” ANUCCHEDA 54.2 एवं दृष्टान्ते निर्विकारत्वं प्रदर्श्य दान्तिकेऽपि दर्शयति, कथं ? तदैवात्मा सविकार इव प्रतीयते यदा जागरे इन्द्रियगणः, यदा च स्वप्ने तत्संस्कारवानहङ्कारः । यदा तु प्रसुप्तं, तदा तस्मिन् प्रसुप्ते, इन्द्रियगणे सन्ने — लीने, अहमि अहंकारे च सन्ने – लीने, कूटस्थः - निर्विकार एवात्मा । कुतः ? आशयमुते - लिङ्गशरीरमुपाधिं विना विकार- हेतोरुपाधेरभावात् इत्यर्थः । evam dṛstante nirvikäratvaṁ pradarsya dārṣṭāntike ‘pi darśayati. katham. tadaivātmā sa-vikāra iva pratiyate, yadā jāgare indriya-ganah, yadā ca svapne tat- samskaravan ahankäraḥ, yada tu prasuptam tada tasmin prasupte indriya-gane sanne line ahami ahankäre ca sanne line kuta-stho nirvikāra eva ātmā kutah ? āśayam rte linga-sariram upādhim vinā vikāra-hetor upādher abhāvād ity arthah. Having thus shown the changeless quality of the life air, sage Pippalȧyana now compares it with the soul and in this way demonstrates that the soul is also changeless. How is this? The soul appears to be changing either when he is in con- tact with his senses during waking consciousness or when he is connected only with his ego while sleeping and dream- ing, when his ego is filled with impressions from the waking state. But when the soul is in deep sleep, the senses and ego become temporarily submerged or dissolved, and only the changeless, essential soul remains. How does he re- main? Asayam te: “without the containing vessel” the 282 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha limitation of the subtle body. That is to say, he is free from the upadhis that impose changes upon him. ANUCCHEDA 54.3 नन्वहङ्कारपर्यन्तस्य सर्वस्य लये शून्यमेवावशिष्यते, क्व तदा कूटस्थ आत्मा ? अत आह, तदनुस्मृतिर्नः; तस्य- अखण्डात्मनः सुषुप्तिसाक्षिणः स्मृति नः अस्माकं जाग्रद्रष्टृणां जायते; “एतावन्तं कालं सुखमहमस्वाप्सं, न किञ्चिदवे दिषम् ” इति । अतोऽननुभूतस्य तस्यास्मरणादस्त्येव सुषुप्तौ तादृगात्मानुभवः, विषयसम्बन्धाभावाच्च न स्पष्ट इति भावः । nanv ahankara-paryantasya sarvasya laye sünyam evāvaśisyate kva tadā kūta-stha ātmā. ata āha tad- anusmṛtir naḥ tasyakhaṇḍātmanaḥ suṣupti-sākṣinaḥ smṛtir naḥ asmākam jāgrad-drastṛṇām jāyate, “etāvantam kālam sukham aham asvapsaṁ na kiñcid avedişam” iti. ato ’nanubhūtasya tasyāsmaraṇād asty eva suṣuptau tādṛg- ātmānubhavaḥ, visaya-sambandhābhāvāc ca na spaṣṭa iti bhāvah. But, one may object, when everything up to and including the ego is dissolved, only a void should remain. Why then is it said that even at this time the changeless soul is present? Pippalayana answers, tad-anusmrtir nah: “We have remem- brance of it.” When we, the perceivers of waking life, wake up from deep sleep, we all remember ourself as the con- stantly existing soul who witnessed the condition of deep sleep. We say, “I slept happily for so long and was not aware of anything.” Since a person cannot remember what he has not experienced, the soul must perceive the experience of deep sleep, though this experience is indistinct because he is cut off from the objects of external sensation. ANUCCHEDA 54.4 अतः स्वप्रकाशमात्रवस्तुनः सूर्यादेः प्रकाशवदुपलब्धि मात्रस्याप्यात्मन उपलब्धिः स्वाश्रयेऽस्त्येवेत्यायातम् । तथा चAnuccheda 54 श्रुतिः; “यद्वै तन्न पश्यति पश्यन् वै द्रष्टव्यान्न पश्यति, न हि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते” [बु.आ. ४.३.२३] इति । अयं साक्षिसाक्ष्यविभागेन तृतीयस्तर्कः । दुःखिप्रेमास्पदत्वविभागेन चतुर्थोऽपितर्कोऽवगन्तव्यः ॥ ५४ ॥ 283 ataḥ sva-prakāśa-mātra-vastunaḥ sūryādeḥ prakāśa-vad upalabdhi-mātrasyapy åtmana uplabdhiḥ svāśraye ‘sty evety āyātam. tatha ca śrutiḥ, “yad vai tan na paśyati pasyan vai draṣṭavyān na pasyati na hi drastur drster viparilopo vidyate” iti. ayam sākṣi-sākṣya-vibhāgena tṛtiyas tarkaḥ. duḥkhi-premaspadatva-vibhāgena caturtho ‘pi tarko ‘vagantavyaḥ. We can therefore conclude that the soul, who is pure aware- ness, is also aware of itself, just as an entity such as the sun, which is in substance pure light, also reveals itself by that light. We find the following confirmation in śruti, “It is true that he [the soul] does not see or rather, although seeing, he does not see externally visible objects. But it is not possible to remove the seer’s sight altogether” (Bṛhad- aranyaka Up. 4.3.23). That the soul is aware even during deep sleep is the third argument for the distinction between the soul and the body; it is based on the distinction between the witness and the objects witnessed. We can also under- stand the fourth argument, which is based on the distinction between the unhappy sufferer and the focus of ecstatic love. COMMENTARY In the previous anuccheda Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi cited the anal- ogy of the life air given in Śrimad-Bhāgavatam (11.3.38) to show the changeless nature of the soul. The following verse (Bhag. 11.3.39) develops the analogy further. There Pippalǎyana explains that the life air continuously follows the soul into various species of life, which falls into four cat- egories based on their source of birth. The life air enters the various bodies and seems to undergo transformations, but in fact it remains unchanged. For example, the life air may 284 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha occupy the body of an ant in one life and that of an elephant in a different life, yet all the while the life air remains un- changed. Similarly, the soul appears to undergo changes in association with the many states and shapes of his succes- sive bodies, but in fact he remains unchanged. The soul experiences three states of consciousness while in the body-the awake state, the dream state, and the state of deep, dreamless sleep. During the waking state a jīva is conscious of his gross body, gross senses, and mind, and his consciousness seems divided and channeled by the mind and senses. In the dreaming state the gross senses be- come inactive, or, to be more precise, the mind loses con- tact with them, and thus the jiva is also not aware of the gross senses or gross body. Through dreams, the jiva per- ceives various impressions created in the subconscious mind during the awake state, and because of the jiva’s attach- ment to these impressions, his consciousness seems to undergo transformation. In the state of deep, dreamless sleep the soul loses contact even with the mind, and thus he is not conscious of either his gross or subtle body. According to śruti, in dreamless sleep the mind enters into the puritati nerve in the heart: atha yadă susupto bhavati yadā na kasyacana veda hită nāma nadyo dva-saptatiḥ sahsrāni hṛdayat puritatam abhipratisthante, tabhiḥ pratyavasṛpya puritati sete. When fast asleep, the soul does not know anything. At that time the mind removes itself from the seventy-two thousand nerves (hita) spreading out from the heart and enters into the nerve called puritati, where it rests. (Bṛhad- āranyaka Up. 2.1.19). Feelings of happiness and distress are states of the mind and therefore part of the subtle body. This is described in Bhagavad-gitȧ (13.7). “Desire, hatred, happiness, distress, the aggregate [the physical body], the life symptoms, and convictions-all these are considered, in summary, to be the field of activities and its interactions.” As mentioned above, in deep sleep the soul loses contact with the mind and feels no material happiness or distress, no desires or Anuccheda 54 285 hatred. He tastes only the bliss of the self. But this does not mean that the soul becomes liberated in deep sleep. He is still bound by his subtle desires, which return him to the dreaming and wakeful states. The Buddhists object that the soul cannot exist in deep sleep. When there is no experience of the senses or the mind, why not assume that only “void” remains during deep sleep? The answer is “Because we recollect the experience of deep sleep.” After waking from deep sleep a person may declare, “I have slept happily and wasn’t aware of anything.” Since someone cannot recollect something without having experienced it, the person who perceived himself in deep sleep and the person who remembers this experience must be identical. Thus the happiness of deep sleep was experi- enced by the same person who recalls it upon awakening, but his recollection is hazy because during deep sleep his link with the mind and senses was broken. The implication here is that although there is no false ego manifest during deep sleep, the soul’s real ego remains, for this is his true and inseparable identity. So there is no possibility of voidness during deep sleep, as the Buddhists claim, or that the soul becomes mere consciousness with- out individuality, as the Māyāvādīs claim. This argument es- tablishes that the soul’s quality of cognition is an essential aspect of its nature. Thus it is not true that the soul acquires cognition only when conditioned, nor is it true that he re- mains solely as pure consciousness in the unconditioned state. As the sun illuminates both itself and other things as well, the soul can always know both himself and other things. The soul does not need help from the gross external senses to know itself, just as one does not need a lamp to see the sun. This quality of cognition stays with the soul throughout all states of existence, even when he inhabits lower spe- cies, just as a light bulb continues to emit light even when enveloped by a nearly opaque covering. The covering simply limits and distorts the light’s diffusion. Of course, it is the Supreme Lord who grants the soul his self-luminous nature, 286 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha and so we should not wrongly think the jiva is a completely independent entity. The passage from the Bṛhad-araṇyaka Upaniṣad quoted in this anuccheda states, “He [the soul] certainly does not see.” This statement refers to the soul in deep sleep. At that time the soul does not see anything because he is detached from the mind and senses; this does not mean, however, that his power of perception is lost. Thus the passage fur- ther says, “Although seeing, he does not see externally vis- ible objects.” In the previous anuccheda Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi showed that the soul is distinct from the body. He substantiated this conclusion by citing the analogy of the life air. Here he has further shown that the soul is distinct both from the body and from the Supersoul. He gave four arguments, and the first two were discussed in the commentary on Anuccheda 53. The third argument is based on the difference between the witness and the witnessed. During deep sleep, when the soul ceases to identify with the mind and senses, he witnesses his own self, and he can recollect this experience upon awakening. This phenomenon proves the changeless nature of the soul by showing that it is distinct from the ever- changing body and senses. The fourth argument is based on the fact that it is not the Supersoul but the jiva who suffers the material tribulations, although both dwell in the same body. The Supersoul is the witness of both the soul and the activities of the soul’s mate- rial body. As we have pointed out, in the state of dreamless sleep the soul becomes temporarily disassociated from his subtle and gross body, but still the body does not die. This indicates that the breathing, heartbeat, blood circulation, and other vital functions continue by the grace of the Supersoul. Another inference we can draw is that the soul is depen- dent on the Supersoul, because if the soul were completely independent he would not choose to revert to a state beset with suffering, but in fact he cannot stop this reversion, be- ing caught up in the states of material existence-awake, Anuccheda 55 287 dreaming, and deep sleep. Therefore, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmicon- cludes, the Supreme Lord is the fitting object of love, since he is totally free from material bondage. In the next anuccheda Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī summarizes these points. ANUCCHEDA 55 SUMMARY OF ŚRI PIPPALAYANA’S TEACHINGS तदुक्तम्; “अन्वयव्यतिरेकाख्यस्तर्कः स्याच्चतुरात्मकः । 31414191Pagafentaa gemì 47: 11 zegzufannia faatisfq Ħataen i साक्षिसाक्ष्यविभागेन तृतीयः सम्मतः सताम् ॥ दुःखिप्रेमास्पदत्वेन चतुर्थः सुखबोधकः । " इति श्रीपिप्पलायनो निमिम् ॥ ५५ ॥ tad uktam: “anvaya-vyatirekākhyas tarkaḥ syac catur-ätmakaḥ âgamāpāyi-tad-avadhi-bhedena prathamo mataḥ drastr-drsya-vibhāgena dvitiyo ‘pi matas tathā sākṣi-sākṣya-vibhāgena tṛtiyah sammataḥ satām duḥkhi-premäsapadatvena caturthah sukha-bodhakaḥ” iti. śrī-pippalayano nimim. [These arguments] can be summed up as follows: Here we have four kinds of arguments in the modes of both exclusion and inclusion. The first argument is based on the difference between what takes birth and dies and what does not. The second is based on the difference between the seer and the seen. The third is based on the difference between the witness and the witnessed. The fourth argu- ment, given to aid our understanding, is based on the differ- ence between the miserable sufferer and the focus of pure love. This verse under discussion (Bhag. 11.3.39 cited Anuccheda 54.1) is spoken by Śri Pippalȧyana to King Nimi. 288 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha COMMENTARY Here Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi summarizes the conclusions of the last two anucchedas. According to Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, in this anuccheda the word tarka (literally “reasoning” or “logic”) means “inference,” which is one topic of epistemology. In the reasoning presented in this anuccheda, Jiva Gosvāmi uses inference both positively and negatively. Positively, there is the general principle that when a soul and a body combine, changes occur that the soul perceives. Negatively, one never perceives either changes in the soul or changelessness in the body. Thus by both positive and negative analysis we can infer that the body and the soul are distinct. We can apply a similar analysis to the other three argu- ments set forth in this anuccheda. Here we use logic to infer the difference between the body and the soul; understand- ing this difference is the first rung on the ladder of transcen- dental realization. We can also use logic to infer the differ- ence between the soul and the Supersoul; understanding this difference is the necessary foundation of bhakti-yoga. Here we are not employing dry logic, which is based on a limited mortal’s mental wrangling, but rather transcendental logic, which is founded on the authority of Srimad- Bhāgavatam’. The scripture and sages encourage sincere souls who seek to distinguish reality from illusion to use their intellect for this purpose. Only the body takes birth, grows old, becomes diseased, and dies. The soul perceives all these changes, and when he identifies himself with his body he experiences them as miseries. Although distinct from his body, because of false ego the jiva becomes attached to his body and its by-prod- ucts and thus experiences the body’s happiness and dis- tress. The Supersoul witnesses the embodied soul’s miser- ies but does not experience them Himself. Unperturbed by the actions and reactions of material bodies, the Supersoul is always distinct from the jivas and is the suitable object of their love. We can infer the existence of the Supersoul from Anuccheda 56 289 the fact that the soul does not create the elements needed for the maintenance of his body and that material nature, being inert, cannot create anything without the help of a sentient being. What’s more, the soul takes no part in main- taining the material body during deep sleep, when he is com- pletely aloof from it. In this way, knowing the characterstics of the jiva and his relationship to the body can help us understand something of the Supersoul and Brahman. And taking into account the common quality of consciousness shared by the jiva and Brahman, the latter can be identified as the nondual reality, the subject of Srimad Bhagavatam. All these conclusions are based on an analysis of the individual va’s situation. Now Śrila Jīva Gosvāmī begins a new analysis, based on the total situation of the universe. ANUCCHEDA 56.1 THE TEN TOPICS OF BHAGAVATAM DESCRIBE THE SUPREME LORD एवम्भूतानां जीवानां चिन्मात्रं यत् स्वरूपं, तयैवाकृत्या तदंशित्वेन च तदभिन्नं यत् तत्त्वं तदत्र वाच्यम् इति व्यष्टिनिर्देशद्वारा प्रोक्तम् । तदेव ह्याश्रयसंज्ञकम् । महापुराणलक्षणरूपैः सर्गादिभिरर्थैः समष्टिनिर्देशद्वारापि लक्ष्यत इत्यत्राह द्वाभ्याम; 66 “ अत्र सर्गो विसर्गश्च स्थानं पोषणमूतयः । मन्वन्तरेशानुकथा निरोधो मुक्तिराश्रयः ॥ दशमस्य विशुद्धयर्थं नवानामिह लक्षणम् । वर्णयन्ति महात्मानः श्रुतेनार्थेन चाञ्जसा ॥” [ भा. २.१०.१-२] evam-bhūtānāṁ jīvānāṁ cin-matram yat svarūpaṁ tayaivākṛtayā tad-amsitvena ca tad-abhinnam yat tattvarn tad atra vācyam iti vyaşți-nirdeśa-dvārā proktam. tad eva hy āśraya-samjnakam. mahapurana laksana-rūpaih 290 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha sargādibhir arthaiḥ samaşti-nirdeśa-dvārāpi lakṣyata ity atraha dvābhyām. “atra sargo visargaś ca sthānam poṣaṇam utayah manv-antareśānukatha nirodho muktir ȧśrayaḥ / daśamasya viśuddhy-arthaṁ navānām iha lakṣaṇam/vamayanti mahātmānaḥ śrutenârthena căñjasā.” By describing the characteristics of the soul, whose nature is pure consciousness, we have in effect described the Su- preme Brahman, the subject of Srimad-Bhāgavatam, from the individual (vyaşti) viewpoint. This is so because the Su- preme Brahman is nondifferent from them, being the com- plete whole from whom they emanate in the form of His indi- vidual partial expansions. Indeed, He is called the āśraya, the fountainhead of all existence. The same nondual reality, Brahman, is also characterized in aggregate (samaşti) cos- mic terms in the list of a major Purāņa’s ten topics, begin- ning with primary creation. This list is given in the following two verses: This Śrīmad-Bhagavatam describes ten subjects: sarga (pri- mary creation), visarga (secondary creation), sthāna (main- tenance), poṣaṇa (mercy), úti (desires), manv-antara (reigns of Manus), īsānukathā (pastimes of the Lord and His devo- tees), nirodha (annihilation), mukti (liberation), and ǎśraya (the substratum or ultimate shelter). To clarify the meaning of the tenth subject, the great souls describe the character- istics of the first nine subjects by prayers, and also by indi- rect and direct explanations. (Bhag. 2.10.1-2). ANUCCHEDA 56.2 मन्वन्तराणि चेशानुकथाश्च मन्वन्तरेशानुकथाः । अत्र सर्गादयो दशार्था लक्ष्यन्त इत्यर्थः । तत्र च दशमस्याश्रयस्य विशुद्धयर्थं तत्त्वज्ञानार्थं, नवानां लक्षणं स्वरूपं वर्णयन्ति । नन्वत्र नैवं प्रतीयते ? अत आह, श्रुतेनश्रुत्याकण्ठोक्तयैव स्तुत्यादिस्थानेषु अञ्जसा साक्षाद्वर्णयन्ति, अर्थेन तात्पर्यवृत्त्या च तत्तदाख्यानेषु ॥ ५६ ॥ Anuccheda 56 291 manv-antarāņi ceśānukathaś ca manv-antareśānukathāḥ. atra sargādayo daśārtha lakṣyanta ity arthaḥ, tatra ca daśamasyāśrayasya viśuddhy-artham tattva-jñānārthaṁ, “navānāṁ lakṣaṇam” svarūpam vamayanti. nanv atra naivam pratiyate? ata āha, “śrutena” śrutyā kanthoktyaiva stuty-ädi-sthāneṣu, “añjasā” sākṣād vamayanti, “arthena” tätparya-vṛttyä ca tad-tad-akhyānesu. Many-antareśānukathāḥ is a compound of manv-antara (pe- riods of Manus) and iśānukathāḥ (narrations of the Lord’s pastimes). The Srimad-Bhāgavatam discusses ten topics, begin- ning with creation, but the sages’ real purpose in describing the characteristics of the first nine is to give us systematic, lucid knowledge of the tenth. One might object here that the presentation of the other nine topics does not seem to ex- plain the tenth; we reply that in the Bhāgavatam the sages explain the tenth topic both directly, by the explicit utterance of prayers and other statements, and indirectly, through the implied purport of various historical accounts. COMMENTARY In previous anucchedas Šrila Jiva Gosvāmi defined the cen- tral focus of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam by examining the faith and spiritual experiences of Sūta Gosvāmī, Šukadeva Gosvāmī, and Śrila Vyǎsadeva. In the course of this exposition he explained the nature of the jiva. He then went on to analyze the second verse of Srimad-Bhāgavatam, which declares that the Absolute Reality is the subject matter of the Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam. To further define that Reality he also referred to the Bhāgavatam verse (1.2.11) beginning vadanti tat tattva-vidaḥ, which names the three main aspects of the one nondual, supreme consciousness (advaya-jñāna). He pro- posed that to understand this nondual consciousness we should first understand the individual jīva, and therefore he discussed the jiva’s position on the basis of two Bhāgavatam verses (11.3.38, 39) by Pippalāyana Ṛṣi. 292 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha The basic ideas established so far concerning the jiva are that he is conscious, able to know himself and other things, distinct from the material energy, and free of the six types of bodily transformation. The analysis up to this point has thus been from the vyasti perspective, focusing on the situation of the individual jīvas. Now Jiva Gosvāmī begins explaining the Absolute Real- ity from the viewpoint of the aggregate-the samasti per.. spective-and he bases his explanation on the ten topics treated in the Bhāgavatam’s twelve cantos. First he quotes two verses by Sukadeva Gosvāmî (2.10.1-2), the second of which states that the reason scripture describes such topics as creation, maintenance, annihilation, and liberation is to help us understand the ultimate topic, the Supreme Lord. Indeed, these other topics are but descriptions of the Su- preme Lord’s manifold potencies. The Lord is the fountain- head of all these phenomena, and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam ex- plains them just to illustrate His special characteristics. In some places the Bhāgavatam introduces prayers to the Supreme Lord in the course of describing one or more of the other nine topics, and in these prayers the Supreme Person Himself is the object of description. In other places the Lord is described directly, as in the dialogue between Vidura and Maitreya and that between Kapila and Devahūti. In yet other places, the Bhāgavatam glorifies the Lord indi- rectly through historical episodes, such as the accounts of how the Lord saved Parikṣit Mahārāja from Asvatthāmā and of how Sukadeva Gosvāmi was captivated when he heard verses about Lord Krsna’s attributes. In this way Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi shows that the purpose of the nine preliminary subjects discussed in the Bhāgavatam is to explain the tenth, the advaya-jñāna, which is also called the aśraya, the foun- tainhead of everything. Every person has two types of characteristics-svarūpa (personal) and tatastha (marginal)—and the Supreme Per- sonality of Godhead is no exception. In our present condi- tioned state we have no experience of His personal features. If we hear these described without proper commentary we may misunderstand them owing to our strong material conditioning.Anuccheda 56 293 But we can more easily understand either from the aggre- gate or the individual viewpoint-the Lord’s marginal char- acteristics manifested within the material nature, for they are within the scope of our personal experience. Śrila Vyasadeva uses the same approach in the Vedanta- sutra. After designating Brahman as the subject of the book in the first sutra-athāto brahma-jijñāsā: “Now, therefore, in- quire into Brahman”-he begins discussing the Lord’s mar- ginal characteristics in the next sūtra-janmādy asya yataḥ: “From Him come the creation, maintenance, and destruc- tion of the universe.” Srimad Bhagavatam discusses ten topics in a similar way; the first nine-the Lord’s marginal characteristics-are presented to help us understand the tenth, the aśraya. This asraya will be identified as Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa later in the Sandarbhas. The first nine topics of Srimad Bhagavatam deal with various potencies of the Lord, such as His creative po- tency, sarga-sakti. Understanding these topics helps us ap- preciate the Supreme Lord as the possessor of these po- tencies. Then we properly comprehend His personal fea- tures and pastimes, which are narrated in the Tenth Canto. Without studying the nine preliminary topics of the Bhagavatam, we run the risk of viewing His form and pas- times superficially and concluding that Kṛṣṇa is an ordinary human being endowed with some extraordinary powers. But this is far from the truth. Lord Kṛṣṇa therefore says in the Bhagavad-gitāă (9.11): avajānanti mām mūḍhā mānuşim tanum áśritam param bhāvam ajananto mama bhūta-maheśvaram Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be. By contrast, the Lord describes those who do understand His transcendental nature as follows: janma karma ca me divyam evam yo vetti tattvataḥ tyaktvå deham punar janma naiti mam eti so ‘rjuna 294 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha One who knows in truth the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna. Therefore, wishing to lead us to the highest plane of transcen- dence through a proper understanding of the Bhāgavatam’s tenth subject, the summum bonum, Sukadeva Gosvāmi ex- plains the first nine items. Clearly, then, we should study the Bhāgavatam in the order Sukadeva Gosvāmi presented it— from the first verse onward. Unfortunately, unscrupulous persons do not study the Bhagavatam verse by verse, canto by canto, but rather jump to the Tenth Canto. Yet they still pose themselves as learned scholars of the Bhāgavatam. Another failing of these false Bhagavatam scholars is their neglect of the mandatory requirement that one must hear the Bhāgavatam at the feet of a bona fide guru coming in Vaisnava disciplic succession. Because of this omission they cannot properly relish the ripened fruit of the Vedic tree of knowledge. To all such persons Lord Kṛṣṇa declares in the Bhagavad-gītā (7.25): nähaṁ prakāśaḥ sarvasya yoga-maya-samávṛtaḥ mūḍho ‘yam nābhijānāti loko mam ajam avyayam I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent, For them I am covered by My Yogamāyā, and therefore they do not know that I am unborn and infallible. The most basic requirement for spiritual study, stipulated in all Vedic scripture, is that one must respectfully approach a bona fide spiritual master, humbly serve him, and submis- sively inquire from him. Then all the secrets of the Vedic teachings will be revealed. This injunction applies to every student, even those who are great intellectuals. The Svetāśvatara Upanisad (6.28) therefore states: yasya deve parâ bhaktir yathā deve tathā gurau tasyaite kathitä hy arthaḥ prakāśante mahātmanaḥ Only unto those great souls who have implicit faith in and devotion to both the Supreme Lord and the spiritual master are all the imports of Vedic knowledge revealed. Anuccheda 57 295 Nothing is revealed to the student without the grace of the spiritual master. Therefore to disregard the principle that one must approach a spiritual master to understand the Abso- lute Truth is to disrespect the Vedic teachings from the out- set and ensure failure. Lord Kṛṣṇa confirms this in the Bhagavad-gītā (16.23): yaḥ śāstra-vidhim utsrjya vartate kâma-kärataḥ na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukhaṁ na parāṁ gatim He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination. Therefore, to unravel the mystery of Srimad Bhagavatam, one should follow in the footsteps of the previous ācāryas and refrain from jumping to the esoteric pastimes described in the Tenth Canto. In the next anuccheda Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī begins ex- plaining each of the ten topics by quoting their definitions from Śrimad-Bhāgavatam. ANUCCHEDA 57.1 DEFINING THE SRIMAD BHAGAVATAM’s FIRST NINE TOPICS तमेव दशमं विस्पष्टयितुं तेषां दशानां व्युत्पादिकां सप्तश्लोकीमाह; “भूतमात्रेन्द्रियधियां जन्म सर्ग उदाहृतः । ब्रह्मणो गुणवैषम्याद्विसर्गः पौरुषः स्मृतः ॥” [ भा. २.१०.३ ] भूतानि खादीनि मात्राणि च शब्दादीनि, इन्द्रियाणि च । धी— शब्देन महदहङ्कारौ । गुणानां वैषम्यात्परिणामात् । ब्रह्मणः परमेश्वरात् कर्तुर्भूतादीनां जन्म सर्गः । पुरुषो वैराजो ब्रह्मा, तत्कृतः पौरुषः; चराचरसर्गो विसर्ग इत्यर्थः । 296 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha tam eva daśamam vispaṣṭayitum teṣām daśānāṁ vyutpādikām sapta-slokim āha: “bhūta-mātrendriya-dhiyām janma sarga udährtaḥ brahmano guna-vaiṣamyād visargaḥ paurusaḥ smrtaḥ” bhūtāni khādīni, mātrāņi ca sabdādīni indriyāni ca. dhi- śabdena mahad-ahankarau. guṇānām vaisamyāt pariņāmāt. brahmaṇaḥ parameśvarāt kartur bhūtādinām janma sargaḥ, puruso vairājo brahmā tat-kṛtaḥ paurusaḥ, caracara-sargo visarga ity arthaḥ. To elucidate the tenth subject, Śrī Šukadeva Gosvāmi speaks seven verses defining each of the ten. [Four of the seven verses are as follows (Anucchedas 57.1-3):] “The primary creation of the five gross elements, the five subtle sense objects, the five senses, the mahat-tattva, and the false ego, resulting from the disturbance in the material modes’ equilibrium caused by the Supreme Lord, is known as sarga. The secondary creation, effected by Lord Brahma, is called visarga” (Bhag. 2.10.3). The bhūtas mentioned here are the five gross material elements, beginning with ether. The matras are the subtle elements-sound and so on. The indriyas are the percep- tive senses. The word dhi (intelligence) indicates the totality of unmanifest matter, together with false ego. Brahman, the supreme controller, generates these physical and nonphysi- cal elements by causing the modes of material nature to become imbalanced and produce transformations. This is called sarga (“creation). Puruşa means Vairāja, or Brahmā. Since he is the vairāja-purusa, or “universal person,” his cre- ation is also called paurusa. Visarga is the sending forth of moving and nonmoving living beings. ANUCCHEDA 57.2 “स्थितिर्वैकुण्ठविजयः पोषणं तदनुग्रहः । मन्वन्तराणि सद्धर्म ऊतयः कर्मवासनाः ॥ अवतारानुचरितं हरेश्चास्यानुवर्तिनाम् । पुंसामीशकथाः प्रोक्ता नानाख्यानोपबृंहिताः ॥ " Anuccheda 57 [भा. २.१०.४-५] वैकुण्ठस्य भगवतो विजयः सृष्टानां तत्तन्मर्यादापालनेनोत्कर्षः, स्थितिः स्थानम् । ततः स्थितेषु स्वभक्तेषु तस्यानुग्रहः पोषणम् । मन्वन्तराणि तत्तन्मन्वन्तर- । स्थितानां मन्वादीनां तदनुगृहीतानां सतां चरितानि तान्येव धर्मस्तदुपासनाख्यः सद्धर्मः । तत्रैव स्थितौ नानाकर्मवासना ऊतयः । स्थितावेव हरेरवतारानुचरितं अस्यानुवर्त्तिनाञ्च कथाः ईशानुकथाः प्रोक्ता इत्यर्थः । “sthitir vaikuntha-vijayah posanam tad anugrahah manv-antarāṇi sad-dharma ūtayaḥ karma-vāsanāḥ avatārānucaritam hares casyānuvartinām pumsām īsa-kathāḥ proktā nānākhyānopabṛmhitaḥ” vaikunthasya bhagavato vijayaḥ sṛṣṭānāṁ 297 tat tan-maryādā pālanenotkarsah, sthitih sthanam. tatah sthitesu sva-bhaktesu tasyānugrahah posanam. manv- antarāni tat-tan-manv-antara-sthitānām manv-ādīnām tad- anugṛhītānāṁ satam caritani täny eva dharmas tad- upāsanākhyah sad-dharmah. tatraiva sthitau nānā karma- vāsanā ūtayah. sthitav eva hareravatārānucaritam asyānuvartinam ca kathā īśānukathaḥ prokta ity arthaḥ. “Sthiti is the victory of Lord Visņu, and poṣaṇa is the grace He bestows on His devotees. The word manv-antara indi- cates the principles of transcendental religion, while uti re- fers to desires for material activities. Iśānukathā indicates the various descriptions of the Lord’s pastimes in His incar- nations and also the descriptions of His faithful devotees’ activities” (Bhāg. 2.10.4-5). Sthiti (maintenance) is vaikuntha-vijaya, “the victory of Lord Vaikuntha,” the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In other words, sthiti indicates the supreme glory of the Lord shown by His maintaining all created beings in their respec- tive situations under His laws. Posanam (sustenance) indi- cates how He maintains His devotees by bestowing His grace on them. Manv-antarani (periods of Manus) indicates the histories of the Manus and other saintly kings who rule dur- ing the Manus’ reigns and also the histories of other saintly 298 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha people who live during those periods and receive the Su- preme Lord’s special favor. The deeds of these saints are themselves religious standards, establishing the sad-dharma (transcendental religion) of worshiping the Lord. With regard to universal maintenance, ūti (impetuses for action) are de- sires for various fruitive activities. Iśānukathāḥ (narrations about the Lord) are historical accounts of the Lord’s pas- times in His various incarnations, as well as accounts of His faithful followers’ activities. ANUCCHEDA 57.3 “निरोधोऽस्यानुशयनमात्मनः सह शक्तिभिः । मुक्तिर्हित्वान्यथारूपं स्वरूपेण व्यवस्थितिः ॥” [भा.२.१०.६] स्थित्यनन्तरञ्चात्मनो जीवस्य शक्तिभिः स्वोपाधिभिः सहास्य हरेरनुशयनं, हरिशयनानुगतत्वेन शयनं निरोध इत्यर्थः । तत्र हरेः शयनं प्रपञ्चं प्रति दृष्टिनिमीलनं, जीवानां शयनं तत्र लय इति ज्ञेयम् । तत्रैव निरोधेऽन्यथारूपमविद्याध्यस्तमज्ञत्वादिकं हित्वा स्वरूपेण व्यवस्थितिर्मुक्तिः ॥ ५७ ॥ “nirodho ‘syānusayanam ātmanaḥ saha saktibhiḥ muktir hitvānyatha-rupaṁ svarūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ” sthity-anantaram catmano jivasya saktibhiḥ svopādhibhiḥ sahāsya harer anuśayanam hari-śayanānugatatvena śayanam nirodha ity arthaḥ. tatra hareḥ sayanaṁ prapancam prati drşti-nimilanam jīvānāṁ sayanam tatra laya iti jñeyam. tatraiva nirodhe ’nyatha-rupam avidyadhyastam ajñatvādikaṁ hitvā svarūpena vyavasthitir muktih. “The merging of the living entity, along with his conditioning, with the mystic lying down of Maha-Viṣṇu is called the wind- ing up of the cosmic manifestation [nirodha]. Liberation [mukti] is the permanent situation of the form of the living entity after he gives up the changeable gross and subtle material bodies” ( Bhāg. 2.10.6). Anuccheda 57 299 When annihilation occurs after a period of universal maintenance, Lord Hari goes to sleep and the jivas follow Him along with their energies, their upadhis. This is called nirodha (winding up). Lord Hari’s “going to sleep” consists of His closing His eyes to the material creation, and the jivas’ “going to sleep” consists of their merging into Lord Hari. If a jiva in that merged state has freed himself from his false, acquired nature-the ignorance and other qualities super- imposed on him by material illusion-he attains his original nature; this is called mukti (liberation). COMMENTARY Understanding the Supreme Lord means knowing Him along with His potencies, just as understanding the sun means knowing it along with its potency, sunshine. According to the Second Canto of Śrimad-Bhāgavatam, Tenth Chapter, the material world is a creation of the Lord and reflects His per- sonality. This world perpetually goes through cycles of cre- ation, maintenance, and annihilation. During annihilation all the material elements are unmanifest because they have merged into the original, dormant state of material nature, called prakrti or pradhana. In this phase the three modes of nature are in balance and thus inactive. At the end of the period of annihilation the Supreme Lord agitates the modes of nature by glancing upon them, and then the first stage of creation begins. This agitated state of the material modes is called the mahat-tattva, which, when further activated by the time factor, gives rise to material ego, ahankara. From ahankära come the five subtle elements (smell, taste, form, tactility, and sound), the five gross material elements (earth, water, fire, air, and ether), and the five perceptive senses (the senses of smell, taste, vision, touch, and hearing). This phase of creation is called sarga, or the primary creation. The subsequent creation is conducted by Lord Brahma and is called visarga, or the secondary creation. Brahma is also called Purusa or Vairāja. 300 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha Lord Visnu oversees the maintenance of the rules and regulations governing universal affairs, and this maintenance is called sthiti or sthanam. The maintenance function shows Vişnu’s preeminence over Lord Brahma and Lord Siva, who are in charge of the secondary creation and destruction, respectively. For sthiti the Lord incarnates in every millen- nium, as He states in the Bhagavad-gītā (4.8): paritrāṇāya sádhūnām vināśāya ca duşkṛtām dharma-samsthapanärthaya sambhavami yuge yuge To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to re-establish the principles of religion, I advent myself millennium after millennium. And the grace the Lord showers on the pious is called poṣaṇa. Each day of Lord Brahma contains fourteen periods, each of which is ruled over by a Manu. The Manus are godly per- sons empowered to look after the welfare of all human be- ings. The activities of each Manu, along with the deeds saintly people perform during the Manu’s reign, constitute manv- antara. How these saintly persons behave and worship is called sad-dharma. Impelled by their karma, living beings perform various material activities during the sthiti, or maintenance, of the creation, and these activities give rise to various desires for further material activities. These desires, in the form of im- pressions within the mind, are called úti. The descriptions of the Lord’s pastimes with His associates during His incarna- tions in the material world are called īsānukathâ. The cre- ation cycle begins when the Lord glances at material na- ture; sa ikṣata lokān nu sṛjeti, sa imāl lokān asṛjata: “He glanced and desired to create people. Indeed, He created them” (Aitareya Up. 1.1). When it is time for annihilation, the Lord turns His eyes away from the creation; and this turning away is called His sleep, or cosmic rest. Then all the material elements be- come unmanifest in the reverse order in which they ap- peared, and material nature then remains in equilibrium. At that time the jivas give up their gross bodies, but they remain Anuccheda 58 301 conditioned by their subtle bodies, which are composed of their karmic impressions. This inactive state of the jīvas is called sleep, corresponding to the Lord’s sleep, and this phase of existence is called nirodha. When the time comes for the creation cycle, the jivas receive bodies according to the karma they accrued in the previous cycle. During the maintenance period, if a living being takes to the devotional service of the Lord and attains perfection he is freed from both his subtle and gross bodies and is situated in his origi- nal nature. This condition is called mukti, which is also a type of nirodha; but, in contrast to the nirodha that occurs at the time of universal annihilation, when the jīva attains mukti he is not compelled to take birth again in the material world. Rather, all his miseries come to an end and he enters the spiritual planets, where he resides in his eternal, spiritual form. One can attain this state of eternal liberation only by practicing devotional service to Lord Kṛṣṇa, as Śrīla Vyāsadeva saw in His trance. The Supreme Lord, the tenth topic discussed in Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam, is the foundation of the other nine topics. The situations these topics comprise all occur by His potency; indeed, the very reason why the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam de- scribes these topics is to help us come to know the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for a person is known by His works and attributes. In the next anuccheda Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī defines the âśraya-tattva, the fountainhead of all existence, who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. 66 ANUCCHEDA 58 DEFINITION OF SRIMAD-BHAGAVATAM’S TENTH TOPIC आभासश्च निरोधश्च यतोऽस्त्यध्यवसीयते । स आश्रयः परं ब्रह्म परमात्मेति शब्द्यते ॥” [भा.२.१०.७ ] आभासः सृष्टिः, निरोधो लयश्च यतो भवति, अध्यवसीयते उपलभ्यते जीवानां ज्ञानेन्द्रियेषु प्रकाशते च स ब्रह्मेति 302 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha परमात्मेति प्रसिद्ध आश्रयः कथ्यते । इति शब्दः प्रकारार्थस्तेन भगवानिति च । अस्य विवृतिरग्रे विधेया ॥ ५८ ॥ “ābhāsaś ca nirodhaś ca yato ‘sty adhyavasiyate sa āśrayaḥ param brahma paramātmeti sabdyate” ābhāsaḥ sṛṣṭir nirodho layaś ca yato bhavati adhyavasiyate upalabhyate jīvānāṁ jñânendriyeṣu prakāśate ca, sa brahmeti paramātmeti prasiddha āśrayaḥ kathyate. iti-sabdaḥ prakārārthas tena bhagavān iti ca. asya vivṛttir agre vidheya. “The supreme one, who is celebrated as the Supreme Be- ing or the Supreme Soul, is the supreme source of the cos- mic manifestation, as well as its reservoir and winding up. Thus He is the supreme fountainhead, the Absolute Truth” (Bhag. 2.10.7). In this verse the ābhāsa (appearance) is of the material creation, and the nirodha (cessation) is its dis- solution. The word yataḥ refers to the one from whom the creation emanates, by whom it is made perceivable to the jivas’ senses (adhyavasiyate), and in whom it is dissolved. That renowned fountainhead of existence–the āśraya—is known as Brahman (the Supreme Truth) and Paramātmā (the Supersoul). Here the word iti expresses the idea of a complete category, thus implying that Bhagavan, the Su- preme Personality of Godhead, is included as well. Later we shall explain the aśraya in detail. COMMENTARY The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam’s description of the aforemen- tioned ten subjects culminates in the description of the åśraya-tattva. A book that treats too many subjects will be- wilder the reader and make it difficult for him to ascertain its ultimate purpose. This is clearly not the case with the Bhāgavatam, however, for as stated here, the shelter of all the topics is the Supreme Lord. None of the other subjects can be described without reference to the Lord, and indeed the whole reason why Śrila Vyasadeva included them was to throw light on the Lord’s energies and activities. In otherAnuccheda 59 303 words, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is really about only one topic- the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Lord creates the world, maintains it, and supplies the living beings with the senses and intelligence to per- ceive it. He blesses these suffering jivas with the Vedic in- structions, so that the seriously inquisitive can understand Him. He also blesses them with the association of His devo- tees. Despite these blessings, most jivas remain engaged in material activities, but some develop a desire to know the Lord. These can. receive His grace and eventually attain mukti, liberation, which entails becoming situated in one’s own svarupa, or original nature. This is possible only by the Lord’s mercy, which in turn, is available only to one who under- stands in truth the aśraya-tattva described in Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam. Thus it is rightly said that the purpose of the other nine topics is to explain the tenth, the aśraya, who is the source of creation and annihilation. The aśraya is called Brahman by followers of jñāna-yoga and Paramatmå by followers of aṣṭānga-yoga. The word ca (and) in this verse (Bhag. 2.10.7) indicates the topics of the Bhāgavatam not explicitly mentioned in the verse, such as poṣaṇa. The word iti indicates Bhagavan, the term that the followers of bhakti-yoga use to designate the aśraya. Thus this verse echoes the verse quoted earlier, vadanti tat (Bhag. 1.2.11), which states that the nondual supreme consciousness is called Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavan. In the next anuccheda Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmī gives further arguments to support the proposition that the Su- preme Lord is the aśraya, or shelter of everything. ANUCCHEDA 59.1 THE LORD IS THE ULTIMATE SHELTER स्थितौ च तत्राश्रयस्वरूपमपरोक्षानुभवेन व्यष्टिद्वारापि स्पष्टं दर्शयितुमध्यात्मादिविभागमा ह; 304 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha “ योऽध्यात्मिकोऽयं पुरुषः सोऽसावे वाधिदैविकः । यस्तत्रोभयविच्छेदः पुरुषो ह्याधिभौतिकः ॥ एकमेकतराभावे यदा नोपलभामहे । त्रितयं तत्र यो वेद स आत्मा स्वाश्रयाश्रयः || ” [भा. २.१०.८-९ ] sthitau ca tatrāśraya-svarupam aparokṣānubhavena vyaṣṭi-dvārāpi spaṣṭam darśayitum adhyātmādi-vibhāgam āha : “yo ‘dhyatmiko ‘yam purusah so ‘sav evadhidaivikah yas tatrobhaya-vicchedaḥ puruso hy adhibhautikaḥ ekam ekatarābhāve yadā nopalabhāmahe tritayam tatra yo veda sa ātmā svāśrayāśrayaḥ” Śukadeva Gosvāmī next discusses the divisions of ādhyatmika, ädhidaivika, and adhibhautika. He does this to clarify the aśraya’s nature during the period of maintenance which he describes by referring to direct, common experi- ence of the individual microcosm. “This ādhyatmika-purusa is the same as the adhidaivika- purusa, and he who creates the differentiation between these two is called the adhibhautika-purusa. In the absence of any one of these we do not perceive the other two. He who knows these three is the Lord, who, being independent of every- thing else, is the support of His own self and the true āśraya” (Bhāg. 2.10.8–9 ) . ANUCCHEDA 59.2 योऽयमाध्यात्मिकः पुरुषश्चक्षुरादिकरणाभिमानी द्रष्टा जीवः, स एवाधिदैविकश्चक्षुराद्यधिष्ठाता सूर्यादिः । देहसृष्टेः पूर्वं करणानामधिष्ठानाभावे नाक्षमतया करणप्रकाशकर्तृत्वाभिमानि- तत्सहाययोरुभयोरपि तयोर्वृत्तिभेदानुदयेन जीवत्वमात्राविशेषात् । ततश्चोभयःकरणाभिमानितदधिष्ठातृदेवतारूपो द्विरूपो विच्छेदो यस्मात् स आधिभौतिकश्चक्षुर्गोलकाद्युपलक्षितो दृश्यो देहः पुरुष इति पुरुषस्य जीवस्योपाधिः । “स वा एष पुरुषोऽन्नरसमयः ” [ तैत्ति २.१.१] इत्यादि श्रुतेः ॥ ५९ ॥ Anuccheda 59 305 yo ‘yam ȧdhyatmikaḥ purusaś cakṣur-ādi-karaṇābhimānī draṣṭā jivaḥ, sa evādhidaivikaś cakṣur-ady-adhiṣṭhātā súryādiḥ. deha-sṛṣṭeḥ pūrvam karaṇānām adhiṣṭhānābhāvenākṣamatayā karaṇa-prakāśa- kartṛtvābhimāni-tat-sahāyayor ubhayor api tayor vṛtti- bhedānudayena jīvatva-mātrāviseṣāt. tatas cobhayaḥ karaṇābhimani-tad-adhisthātr-devată-rupo dvi-rúpo vicchedo yasmāt sa adhibhautikaś cakṣur-golakādy- upalakṣito dṛśyo dehaḥ purusa iti puruṣasya jivasyopādhiḥ. “sa vă eșa puruso ’nna-rasa-mayaḥ” ity-adi-śruteḥ. The jiva, the seer, who identifies himself as the owner of his eyes and other senses, is the adhyatmika person. He is indeed also the adhidaivika person, for like the sun and other deities presiding over the eyes and other senses. Before the physical body is created, the senses have nowhere to reside and so cannot act. Consequently, at this point the ādhyatmika and ādhidaivika persons are indistin- guishable, since there has yet to appear a distinction be- tween the functions of the ordinary jīvas, who consider them- selves independent actors and the illuminators of their senses, and the deities who help them. And that person from whom arises the conception of duality between the pre- sumed owner of the senses and their presiding deities is called adhibhautika, the visible body consisting of the eye- ball and other physical sense organs. This physical body is said to be a “person” because it is an upâdhi superimposed upon the real person, the jiva. The śruti states, “This [ādhibhautika] person consists of food and vital fluids” (Taittiriya Up. 2.1.1). COMMENTARY In the previous anuccheda Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi showed that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the aśraya-tattva, the support of everything, even from the macrocosmic view- point. Now he further explains that the Lord is the support of each individual in their day-to-day sensory experiences. ! 306 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha The originally pure living being who misidentifies himself with the senses is called the adhyatmika-purusa, the pre- siding deities of the senses are called the adhidaivika-purusa, and the visible physical body, along with the sense objects, is called the adhibhautika-purusa. The adhibhautika-purusa creates the distinction between the adhyatmika-puruşa and the adhidaivika-purusa. Before the birth of one’s body, one cannot distinguish the latter two purusas because they are merged as if they are the same jiva. In this regard Śripada Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa writes, dehotpatteḥ pūrvam api jivena sårdham indriyāni tad- devatāś ca santy eva: “Even before the creation of the gross body, the senses and their presiding deities are present with the jiva.”” At this stage there is no distinction between the deities and the jivas, because no physical body exists yet. When the physical body comes into existence the senses come and sit in it, and their respective presiding deities take charge of them. At that time one can distinctly perceive the activi- ties of the presiding deities. The eyes, nose, and other senses that we see in the physical body are not the real senses: rather, they are the seats for the actual senses, which are subtle. Lord Kṛṣṇa confirms this in the Fifteenth Chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā. After asserting that the living entity is His eternal fragmental part, the Lord states that the jīva attracts the mind and five senses, which are situated in material nature, meaning that the jiva accepts them as his own. Kṛṣṇa then says that when the soul quits his body he carries his five senses and mind from their seats into his next body, just as the air carries aromas. Obviously, at the time of death the visible nose and eyes do not disappear. Rather, the subtle senses situated in them, along with the mind, are carried away by the soul. The physical body is also called purusa, or “person,” because the soul identifies himself with it. This illusion prompts a person to say “I am sick,” when actually his body is sick. All bodily designations, such as “small man,” “tall man,” “American,” “Indian,” “boy,” and “girl,” are based on Anuccheda 60 307 the jiva’s illusion that he is the material body. The Upanisad statement Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi quoted in this anuccheda con- firms the usage of the term purusa for the body. In the next anuccheda Jiva Gosvāmi explains the second of the two Bhāgavatam verses (2.10.9 ) he quoted in Anuccheda 59.1. ANUCCHEDA 60.1 THE JIVA IS NOT THE ULTIMATE SHELTER ‘एकमेकतराभावे’ इत्येषामन्योन्यसापेक्षसिद्धत्वे नानाश्रयत्वं दर्शयति ; तथाहि दृश्यं विना तत्प्रतीत्यनुमेयं करणं न सिध्यति, नापि द्रष्टा, न च तद्विना करणप्रवृत्त्यनुमेयस्तदधिष्ठाता सूर्यादिः, न च तं विना करणं प्रवर्तते, न च तद्विना दृश्यम् इत्येकतरस्याभावे एकं नोपलभामहे । तत्र तदा तत् त्रितयमालोचनात्मकेन प्रत्ययेन यो वेद साक्षितया पश्यति, स परमात्मा आश्रयः । तेषामपि परस्परमाश्रयत्वमस्तीति तद्व्यवच्छेदार्थं विशेषणम् स्वाश्रयोऽक्यनन्याश्रयः, स चासावन्येषामाश्रयश्चेति । तत्रांशांशिनोः शुद्धजीव- परमात्मनोरभेदांशस्वीकारेणैवाश्रय उक्तः । “ekam ekatarābhāve” ity esām anyonya sāpeksa - siddhatvena anâśrayatvaṁ darśayati. tathā hi dṛśyam vinā tat-pratity-anumeyam karaṇam na sidhyati napi draṣṭā na ca tad vinā karana-pravrtty-anumeyas tad adhisthātā suryadiḥ, na ca tam vinā karanam pravartate na ca tad vinā dṛśyam ity ekatarasyābhāve ekaṁ nopalabhāmahe. tatra tada tat tritayam âlocanâtmakena pratyayena yo veda sākṣitayā paśyati sa paramātmā āśrayaḥ. teṣām api parasparam àśrayatvam astiti tad-vyavacchedârtham viseṣaṇam svāśrayo ’nanyāśrayaḥ, sa cāsāv anyeṣām āśrayaś ceti, tatrāmśāmsinoḥ śuddha-jiva-paramåtmanor abhedāmsa-svīkāreṇaivāśraya uktaḥ. The verse beginning ekam ekatarābhāve ( Bhāg. 2.10.9) shows how the fact that all of these [purusas] are mutually 308 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha dependent in effect means that none of them is the aśraya. The explanation is as follows: Without the presence of the visible object there is no basis for the existence of either the sense organ (whose presence is inferred from perception of the object) or the seer. And without the seer, the sun-god and other presiding deities of perception also have no ba- sis for existing. Without the presiding deity of sight, the sense of sight cannot act, and without the sense of sight there can be no perception. Thus in the absence of any one [of the three purusas] we cannot find either of the others. Such being the case, the one who knows all three of these, per- ceiving them visually as their witness-namely-the Supersoul is indeed the actual āśraya, or shelter. In refu- tation of the idea that the three purusas are shelters for one another, the Supersoul is specifically characterized as svåśraya, His own shelter, meaning that He has no other shelter and is consequently the shelter of all others. In this context, the living entity is also called aśraya, but only in the sense of emphasizing the partial nondifference between the pure jiva and the Supersoul, who are related as part and whole respectively. ANUCCHEDA 60.2 अतः ‘परोऽपि मनुतेऽनर्थम् [भा. १.७.५] इति, “जाग्रत्स्वप्नसुषुप्तञ्च गुणतो बुद्धिवृत्तयः । तासां विलक्षणो जीवः साक्षित्वेन विनिश्चितः ॥ " [ भा. ११.१३.२७] इति । ‘शुद्धो विचष्टे ह्यविशुद्धकर्तुः [भा. ५.११.१२] इत्याद्युक्तस्य साक्षिसंज्ञिनः शुद्धजीवस्याश्रयत्वं न शङ्कनीयम् । अथवा, नन्वाध्यात्मिकादीनामप्याश्रयत्वमस्त्येव ? सत्यम्; तथापि परस्पराश्रयत्वान्न तत्राश्रयताकैवल्यमिति ते त्वाश्रयशब्देन मुख्यतया नोच्यन्ते इत्याह एकमिति । atah “paro ‘pi manute ’nartham” iti, jāgrat svapna susuptarn ca gunato buddhi-vrttayah i Anuccheda 60 tāsām vilakṣaṇo jīvaḥ sākṣitvena viniścitaḥ” 309 iti “suddho vicaste hy aviśuddha-kartuḥ” ity-ady-uktasya sākṣi-samjninaḥ śuddha-jivasyāśrayatvaṁ na śankaniyam. athava nanv ādhyātmikādinām apy âśrayatvam asty eva. satyam, tathāpi parasparāśrayatvān na tatrāśrayatā- kaivalyam iti te tv åśraya-sabdena mukhyatayã nocyanta ity ǎha ekam iti. The pure jiva is designated as the witness in such state- ments as “Although transcendental, he considers himself a material product” (Bhag. 1.7.5); “Wakefulness, dream, and deep sleep are the functions of the mind, caused by the modes of material nature. The individual soul has been as- certained to be distinct from these functions, as their wit- ness” (Bhag. 11.13.27); and “The pure one witnesses the actions of the impure agent, the mind” (Bhag. 5.11.12). Al- though being characterized thus, it cannot reasonably be pro- posed that the pure jiva, known as the witness, is the aśraya. Alternatively, one might propose that the aspects of ādhyātmika and so on are also asrayas. We answer that this is true, but still, since they are dependent on each other, none of them are exclusively the aśraya; as the verse begin- ning ekam (Bhag. 2.10.9) states, it is not in the direct, pri- mary sense that they are referred to as aśrayas. ANUCCHEDA 60.3 तर्हि साक्षिण एवास्तामाश्रयत्वम् ? तत्राह, त्रितयमिति । स आत्मा साक्षी जीवस्तु, यः स्वाश्रयोऽनन्याश्रयः परमात्मा, स एवाश्रयो यस्य तथाभूत इति । वक्ष्यते च हंसगुह्यस्तवे; ‘सर्वं पुमान् वेद गुणांश्च तज्ज्ञो न वेद सर्वज्ञमनन्तमीडे’ [भा. ६.४.२५ ] इति । तस्मात् ‘आभासश्च’ इत्यादिनोक्तः परमात्मैवाश्रय इति । श्रीशुकः ॥ ६० ॥ tarhi sākṣina evāstām āśrayatvam, tatrāha tritayam iti. sa ātmā sākṣi jīvas tu yaḥ svāśrayo ’nanyāśrayaḥ paramātmā sa evăśrayo yasya tathā-bhūta ity anayor bhedaḥ. vakşyate ca hamsa-guhya-stave: 310 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha “sarvam puman veda guṇāmś ca taj-jño na veda sarva- jñam anantam ide” iti. tasmād “ābhāsas ce” ty-adinoktaḥ paramātmaivāśraya iti. śri-sukaḥ. “Then let the witness (the pure jiva) be the aśraya, or shel- ter.” In answer, the words beginning tritayam are spoken: The ātma, or self, is the witness, but he is sheltered by svāśraya (who is his own shelter), the Supersoul, who has no other âśraya; this is the difference between the two. Simi- larly, the Hamsa-guhya prayers (Bhag. 6.4.25) says, “A per- son who knows the modes of nature may know everything about them, but he does not know the all-knowing one. I worship that unlimited Lord.” Thus the Supersoul, described in such statements as the one beginning ābhāsaś ca (Bhāg. 2.10.7, Anuccheda 58), is alone the aśraya. The verse under discussion (Anuccheda 60.1, Bhag. 2.10.9) was spoken by Sri Suka. COMMENTARY 一般 Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi shows here that except for the Lord none can be the aśraya, the tenth topic of Śrimad-Bhāgavatam. From a cursory look the jivas and presiding deities of the senses appear to be the aśrayas. The jiva, or conditioned soul, is the ȧśraya for his gross body, and the presiding dei- ties are the āśraya for the senses. But none of them can be independent ȧśrayas. For example, without a gross body the conditioned jiva would be unable to see a flower be- cause the distinction between the presiding deity of the eyes and the jiva would not then be manifest. On the other hand, if the body is manifest, then the senses come and sit in their respective seats and are presided over by their respective demigods. Still, if the demigods do not provide support, the senses cannot perceive. The presiding deity of the eye, for example, is the sun. Without the sun’s light the eye cannot perceive visible objects, even with the jiva’s support. For proper perception all three supports must be present: the jiva (the adhyatmika-purusa), the gross body (the adhibhautika-purusa), and the demigods (the adhyatmika- Anuccheda 61 311 purusa). The one who witnesses all the activities of these three purusas is the Paramātmā, who is the aśraya for Him- self as well as the jiva. He is the ultimate āśraya. Although the jiva witnesses his own various mental states, he is not their ultimate basis. Sometimes the jiva is referred to as the āśraya in consideration of his being a minute fraction of the Lord and thus nondifferent from Him, but the jiva is never the aśraya in the primary sense. The jiva is the marginal energy of the Supreme Lord, the energetic, and as such the jiva is always dependent on Him. Still, because the jiva is part and parcel of the Lord, he has some of His characteristics in very minute degree, just as a drop of ocean water has some of the ocean’s qualities. But only some-the ocean has waves, tides, and storms, none of which a single drop can accommodate. Also, unlike the drop of ocean water, the ocean shelters the whole oceanic world and is suitable for sailing or surfing. Similarly, the Su- preme Lord is the shelter and source of happiness of all existence, a position no sane jiva can claim. Thus the jiva, although one with the Lord in some respects, should not be considered the object of worship independent of the Lord, who is the basis of all existence. The Lord is the Supreme substratum or shelter for Himself as well as others. This is the import of Sukadeva Gosvāmi’s statements explaining the various topics treated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śrila Sūta Gosvȧmi will now draw the same conclusion from a slightly different angle while explaining the characteristics of a Maha- purāṇa. ན་་ས་ ANUCCHEDA 61.1 ŚRI SŪTA GOSVAMI LISTS THE TEN TOPICS OF ŚRĪMAD-BHAGAVATAM अस्य श्रीभागवतस्य महापुराणत्वव्यञ्जकलक्षणं प्रकारान्तरेण च वदन्नपि तस्यैवाश्रयत्वमाह, द्वयेन; 46 “सर्गोऽस्याथ विसर्गश्च वृत्ती रक्षान्तराणि च । 312 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha वंशो वंशानुचरितं संस्था हेतुरपाश्रायः ॥ दशभिर्लक्षणैर्युक्तं पुराणं तद्विदो विदुः । केचित् पञ्चविधं ब्रह्मन् महदल्पव्यवस्थया ॥” [भा. १२.७.९-१०] अन्तराणि मन्वन्तराणि । asya śri-bhāgavatasya mahá-purăṇatva-vyañjaka- lakṣaṇam prakārāntareṇa ca vadann api tasyaivāśrayatvam áha dvayena : “sargo ‘syatha visargaś ca vṛtti rakṣāntarāṇi ca vamso vamśānucaritam samsthā hetur apāśrayaḥ dasabhir lakṣaṇair yuktam purāṇam tad-vido viduḥ kecit pañca-vidham brahman mahad-alpa-vyavasthayā” antarāni manv-antarani. In the following two verses Śrī Sūta Gosvămi describes the characteristics of Srimad-Bhāgavatam that qualify it as a Mahā-purāṇa, and in so doing he affirms in a different way that the Supreme Lord alone is the āśraya : “O brahmana, authorities on the matter understand a Purana to contain ten characteristic topics: sarga, the creation of this universe; visarga, the subsequent creation of worlds and being; vrtti, the maintenance of all living beings; rakṣā, the protection of all living beings, antarani, the rule of various Manus, vamśa, the dynasties of great kings; vamśānucarita, the activities of such kings; sarsthā, annihilation; hetu, motivation; and apāśrayā, the supreme shelter. Other scholars state that the Maha-purāṇas deal with these ten topics while lesser Purānas may deal with only five” (Bhāg. 12.7.9-10). Here the word antaraṇi refers to periods of Manus. पञ्चविधं; ANUCCHEDA 61.2 64 सर्गरच प्रतिसर्गश्च वंशो मन्वन्तराणि च । वंश्यानुचरितञ्चेति पुराणं पञ्चलक्षणम् ॥” इति केचिद्वदन्ति । स च मतभेदो महदल्पव्यवस्थयामहापुराण- मल्पपुराणमिति भिन्नाधिकरणत्वेन । यद्यपि विष्णुपुराणादावपिAnuccheda 61 313 दशापि तानि लक्ष्यन्ते, तथापि पञ्चानामेव प्राधान्येनोक्तत्वात् अल्पत्वम् । pañca-vidham : “sargaś ca pratisargaś ca vamŝo manv-antarāni ca vaṁśānucaritam ceti purāņam pañca-lakṣaṇam” iti kecid vadanti. sa ca mata-bhedo mañad-alpa- vyavasthaya mahā-purāṇam alpa-purāṇam iti bhinnadhikāraṇatvena. yady api viṣṇu-purăṇādāv api daśāpi tāni lakṣyante tathāpi pañcānām eva prådhånyenoktatvād alpatvam. According to some, a Purana has five characteristics: “The five characteristics of a Purana are sarga, creation; pratisarga, annihilation; vamsa, genealogy; manv-antarăņi, the reign of Manus; and vaṁśānucaritam, the activities of dy- nasties of kings and successions of saints” (Matsya Pur. 53.65). This difference of opinion is due to the different topics that characterize greater and lesser Purāņas. Although Puranas such as the Visnu Purana discuss all ten topics, these Purānas are still considered lesser because they dis- cuss only five of the topics in depth. ANUCCHEDA 61.3 अत्र दशानामर्थानां स्कन्धेषु यथाक्रमं प्रवेशो न विवक्षितः, तेषां द्वादशसंख्यत्वात् । द्वितीयस्कन्धोक्तानां तेषां तृतीयादिषु यथासंख्यं न समावेशः; निरोधादीनां दशमादिषु अष्टमवर्द्धम्, अन्येषामप्यन्येषु यथोक्तलक्षणतया समावेशनाशक्यत्वादेव । atra daśānām arthānāṁ skandheṣu yatha-kramam praveśo na vivakṣitas teṣām dvādaśa-sankhyatvāt. dvitiya- skandhoktānām teṣām tṛtiyādiṣu yatha-sankhyam na samāveśaḥ, nirodhādīnām daśamādiṣv aṣṭama-varjam anyeṣām apy anyeşu yathokta-lakṣaṇataya samāveśanāśakyatvād eva. In Śrīmad-Bhagavatam there is no intention of discussing the ten topics consecutively, one per canto; after all, the Bhāgavatam has twelve cantos. Nor should one think that 314 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha because the ten topics are listed in the Second Canto they can be found one after another from Canto Three to Twelve, because the three topics of nirodha, mukti, and asraya can all be found in the Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Cantos. Nor will one find the remaining topics in order in the other can- tos, with the exception of the Eighth Canto. तदुक्तं श्रीस्वामिभिरेव; ANUCCHEDA 61.4 “ दशमे कृष्णसत्कीर्त्तिवितानायोपवर्ण्यते । धर्मग्लानिनिमित्तस्तु निरोधो दुष्टभूभुजाम् ॥” इति, ‘प्राकृतादिचतुर्द्धा यो निरोधः स तु वर्णितः ।’ इति । अतोऽत्र स्कन्धे श्रीकृष्णरूपस्याश्रयस्यैव वर्णनप्राधान्य॑ तैर्विवक्षितम् । उक्तञ्च स्वयमेव ‘दशमे दशमं लक्ष्यमाश्रिताश्रय- विग्रहम्’ इति । एवमन्यत्राप्युन्नेयम् । tad uktam śrī-svāmibhir eva: “daśame kṛṣṇa-sat-kirti-vitānayopavamyate dharma-glani-nimittas tu nirodho duşta-bhū-bhujām” iti “prākṛtādi-caturdha yo nirodhaḥ sa tu varitaḥ” iti. ato ’tra skandhe śri-kṛṣṇa-rúpasyāśrayasyaiva vamana- prādhânyam tair vivakṣitam, uktam ca svayam eva : “daśame daśamam lakṣyam āśritāśraya-vigraham” iti. evam anyatrapy unneyam. Śrila Śrīdhara Svāmī also indicates this [absence of a strict correspondence between the topics and cantos of the Bhāgavatam]: “To spread Lord Kṛṣṇa’s glories, the Tenth Canto describes how unrighteous rulers suffered annihila- tion (nirodha) because they deviated from religious prin- ciples.” And, “The four types of annihilation of the total ma- terial nature were already described earlier in the Bhāgavatam.” (Bhāvārtha-dipikā 10.1.1). Here Śridhara Svami’s intention is to show that the Tenth Canto primarily discusses the aśraya, the form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. As Sridhara Svămi himself states, “The subject of the Tenth Anuccheda 61 315 Canto is the tenth topic, the Supreme Lord, who shelters His dependent devotees” (Bhāvārtha-dipikā). We can draw similar conclusions about the other cantos. ANUCCHEDA 61.5 अतः प्रायशः सर्वेऽर्थाः सर्वेष्वेव स्कन्धेषु गौणत्वेन वा मुख्यत्वेन वा निरूप्यन्त इत्येव तेषामभिमतम् । ‘श्रुतेनार्थेन चाञ्जसा’ [भा. २.१०.२] इत्यत्र च तथैव प्रतिपन्नं सर्वत्र त तत्-तत्सम्भवात् । ततश्च प्रथमद्वितीययोरपि महापुराणतायां प्रवेशः स्यात् । तस्मात् क्रमो न गृहीतः ॥ ६१ ॥ ataḥ prāyaśaḥ sarve ‘rthāḥ sarveşv eva skandheṣu gauṇatvena vã mukhyatvena vā nirūpyanta ity eva teṣām abhimatam. “śrutenārthena cāñjasā” ity atra tathaiva pratipannam sarvatra tat-tat-sambhavät. tataś ca prathama-dvitīyayor api mahā-purāṇatāyāṁ praveśaḥ syāt. tasmāt kramo na grhitaḥ. Thus in Sridhara Svami’s view virtually every canto touches on all ten topics, either directly or indirectly. It is in the same light that we should understand the statement “these topics are described here either directly or indirectly” (Bhag. 2.10.2), since we actually do find these topics discussed both di- rectly and indirectly throughout the Bhāgavatam. And for the same reason we should recognize that the First and Second Cantos also belong to this Maha-purana. Therefore we do not accept the idea that these topics are discussed in a strict sequence. COMMENTARY Previously Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi showed that Sūta Gosvāmi, Śukadeva Gosvāmī, and Śrīla Vyasadeva all agreed about what is the essential message of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Here Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmī reiterates this conclusion by citing Sūta Gosvāmi’s statements regarding the characteristics of a Maha-purāṇa. Although the ten topics by Śri Sūta seem to 316 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha differ from those by Śukadeva Gosvāmi, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi shows that in essence they are the same. In the Bhåvårtha- dipikā, while commenting on verse 12.7.9 of Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam, Śridhara Svami offers the following reconcilia- tion between Sukadeva’s list and Sūta’s list: “Sarga and visarga are found in both lists. Sthanam in the first list is called vṛtti in the second, posana is called rakṣā, ūti is called hetu, manvantara is called antara, and īsānukathā is called varśa and vamśānucaritam. Nirodha and mukti are both called samstha in the second list.” (Mukti can also be counted as one of the four types of annihilation mentioned in Anuccheda 63.) See Table I, page 317 for a comparison of the two lists. A Mahā-purâṇa deals extensively with these ten topics, while a lesser Purāṇa deals with only five-sarga, creation; pratisarga, dissolution; varsa, the genealogies of kings or sages; manv-antaras, the reigns of Manus; and vamśānucarita, the histories of various sages, kings, and incarnations. In the course of discussing these five topics, a lesser Purāṇa will discuss all ten topics of a Mahā-purāṇa, but a lesser Purana concentrates only on the five listed above; this differ- ence in how extensively the ten topics are treated consti- tutes the principal distinction between a Mahā-purāṇa and a lesser Purāṇa. Table II illustrates in what context a lesser Purana discusses the ten characteristics of a Maha-purāna. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam contains twelve cantos, but the list of a Maha-purana’s topics is in the Second Canto. From this, plus the fact that the first two cantos seem in some ways introductory, some scholars conclude that the Bhāgavatam explains these ten topics successively in each canto from the Third onwards. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has no regard for this theory. Since a Mahā-purāņa treats ten topics, if the first two cantos of Bhagavatam described none of these, then the Bhāgavatam proper would have only ten cantos. It is obvi- ous enough, however, that the First and Second Cantos dis- cuss at least sarga, visarga, and rakṣā. Earlier Śrila Jīva Gosvāmī listed the defining character- istics of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and among these were its Anuccheda 61 317 TABLE I Ten Topics in the Bhagavatam Śukadeva Gosvāmi

1. Sarga (primary creation)………..
2. Visarga (secondary creation). 3. Sthānam (maintenance)……….. 4. Poşana (sustenance)……… 5. Úti (material desires)…
3. Manv-antara (reigns of Manus)………….. 7. Isänukatha (activities of the Lord and His devotees)
4. Nirodha (annihilation)..
5. Mukti (liberation)………….
6. Aśraya (the supreme shelter). Sūta Gosvāmi … Sarga Visarga ………Vṛtti Rakṣā Hetu …. Vamsa Vamsänucarita Samsthå Samstha .Apäśraya Five Topics
7. Sarga……..
8. Pratisarga. 3. Vamsa……..
9. Manvantara…
10. Vamśānucaritam… Topics Sarga………. Visarga………. Vṛtti……. Rakṣā………. Manvantara………. Vamsa……….. Vamsanucarita. Samsthā…… TABLE || Ten Topics Sarga, Visarga, Aśraya Nirodha, Mukti Īsānukathā ..Manvantara, Sthanam Īsānukatha, Poṣaṇa, Úti, Asraya TABLE III Primarily Discussed in Cantos Two, Three Two, Three, Four Three, Seven, Eleven … Throughout ….. Eight …. Four, Nine Four, Nine Eleven, Twelve Hetu……….. Three, Eleven Apăśraya….. …. Ten 318 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha having eighteen thousand verses and twelve cantos and its beginning with a reference to the Gayatri mantra. If the first two cantos are not really part of the Bhāgavatam, then what remains would no longer fit the definition. Other scholars say that because Šukadeva speaks only from the Second Canto on, the First Canto is not part of the Bhāgavatam proper. But their opinion is countered by the same reply. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī additionally argues that the ten items of Srimad-Bhāgavatam are not described in strict sequence, one per canto. First of all, there are twelve cantos and only ten topics. If we try to resolve this dilemma by excluding two of the cantos, Śrimad-Bhāgavatam will be reduced to less than the stipulated eighteen thousand verses. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi further says that although nirodha is the eighth item, it is discussed profusely in the Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Cantos. This opinion is confirmed by Sridhara Svāmī, one of the earliest and most respected authorities on Śrīmad- Bhagavatam. According to the adherents of a successive description of the ten topics beginning from the Third Canto, the Tenth Canto should describe the eighth item, nirodha, and the Twelfth Canto the tenth item, aśraya. Undoubtedly the Tenth Canto discusses nirodha, but its principal topic is the aśraya, whom it establishes to be Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī’s opinion, which finds support from the commentary of Sridhara Svāmī, all twelve cantos of the Bhāgavatam describe all ten topics, though some cantos place more emphasis on certain topics and less on others. In Sarva-samvadini, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī specifies which topics are covered extensively in each canto. (See Table III, page 317) As mentioned before, the ultimate purpose of Śrīmad- Bhagavatam is to explain the tenth item, the aśraya, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. From the very beginning of Tattva-Sandarbha, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi has proposed that Srimad-Bhāgavatam focuses en- tirely on Lord Sri Kṛṣṇa, the supreme shelter of all existence. Anuccheda 62 319 The Bhāgavatam describes Śrī Kṛṣṇa in its beginning, middle, and end, and not just in the last canto. Śrī Jiva will explain this matter in more detail in Kṛṣṇa-Sandarbha. In the next anuccheda he presents Sūta Gosvāmi’s definitions of the first seven of the ten topics. ANUCCHEDA 62.1 ŚRI SŪTA GOSVAMI DEFINES THE TOPICS OF ŚRIMAD-BHAGAVATAM अथ सर्गादीनां लक्षणमाह; “ अव्याकृतगुणक्षोभान्महतस्त्रिवृतोऽहमः T: I भूतमात्रेन्द्रियार्थानां सम्भवः सर्ग उच्यते ॥” [भा. १२.७.११] प्रधानगुणक्षोभान्महान्, तस्मात्रिगुणोऽहङ्कारः, तस्माद्भूतमात्राणां भूतसूक्ष्माणां इन्द्रियाणाञ्च स्थूलभूतानाञ्च, तदुपलक्षिततद्देवतानाञ्च सम्भवः सर्गः कारणसृष्टिः सर्ग इत्यर्थः । atha sargādinām lakṣaṇam āha : “avyākṛta-guna-kṣobhan mahatas tri-vṛto ‘hamaḥ bhūta-mātrendriyārthānāṁ sambhavaḥ sarga ucyate” pradhana-guṇa-kṣobhān mahān tasmāt tri-guno ‘hankāras tasmād bhūta-mātrāṇāṁ bhūta-sūkṣmānām indriyāṇām ca sthūla-bhūtānāṁ ca tad-upalakṣita-tad-devatānāṁ ca sambhavaḥ sargaḥ, kāraṇa-sṛstiḥ sarga ity arthaḥ. Sūta Gosvāmī then describes the features of the ten topics, beginning with creation: “From the agitation of the original modes within the unmanifest material nature, the mahat-tattva arises. From the mahat-tattva comes the element false ego, which divides into three aspects. This threefold ego further manifests as the subtle elements, as the senses, and as the gross sense objects. The generation of all of these is called (sarga)” (Bhag. 12.7.11). The mahat-tattva comes into being when the original, dormant material nature (pradhāna) is agitated, and from the mahat comes false ego in each of the three material 320 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha modes. From this threefold ego come the subtle elements, the senses, and the physical elements. The appearance of the elements implies the appearance of their presiding dei- ties as well. All together, the appearance of these constitutes sarga, the manifestation of the subtle causes of creation. ANUCCHEDA 62.2 “पुरुषानुगृहीतानामेतेषां वासनामयः । विसर्गोऽयं समाहारो बीजाद्वीजं चराचरम् ॥” [भा. १२.७.१२] पुरुषः परमात्मा । एतेषां महदादीनां जीवस्य पूर्वकर्मवासना- प्रधानोऽयं समाहारः कार्यभूतश्चराचरप्राणिरूपो बीजाद्वीजमिव प्रवाहापन्नो विसर्ग उच्यते; व्यष्टिसृष्टिर्विसर्ग इत्यर्थः । अनेनोतिरप्युक्ता । “puruṣānugṛhītānām eteṣām vāsanā-mayaḥ visargo ‘yam samāhāro bījād bījaṁ carācaram’ puruṣaḥ paramātmā. eteṣāṁ mahad-ādīnām jīvasya pūrva-karma-vāsanā-pradhāno ‘yaṁ samāhāraḥ kārya- bhūtas caracara-prāņi-rūpo bijād bijam iva pravāhāpanno visarga ucyate. vyasti-srstir visarga ity arthaḥ, anenotir apy uktā. Sūta Gosvāmi continues: “The secondary creation (visarga), which takes place by the mercy of the Lord, is the manifest amalgamation of the desires of the living entities. Just as a seed produces addi- tional seeds, activities that promote material desires in the performer produce moving and nonmoving life forms” (Bhåg. 12.7.12). Here the word purusa (person) refers to the Supersoul, and eteṣām (of these) indicates the elements, beginning with the mahat. The primary reason the elements combine is the karma the jivas have accumulated from their previous lives. Thus the moving and nonmoving living beings take their birth in a perpetual cycle, like the generation of one seed from another. This constant flow of generated products is called visarga, secondary creation. In other words, visarga is the Anuccheda 62 321 creation of the individual organisms, and thus this discussion of visarga includes the topic of ūti (impulses for activity). ANUCCHEDA 62.3 “वृत्तिर्भूतानि भूतानां चराणामचराणि च । कृता स्वेन नृणां तत्र कामाच्चोदनयापि वा ॥” [भा. १२.७.१३] चराणां भूतानां सामान्यतोऽचराणि चकाराञ्चराणि च कामाद्वृत्तिः । तत्र तु नृणां स्वेन स्वभावेन कामाच्चोदनयापि वा या नियता वृत्तिर्जीविका कृता, सा वृत्तिरुच्यते इत्यर्थः । “vṛttir bhūtāni bhūtānāṁ carāṇām acarāņi ca kṛtā svena nṛṇāṁ tatra kāmāc codanayāpi vā” carāṇām bhūtānām sāmānyato ‘carāni ca-kārāc carāni ca kāmåd vṛttiḥ. tatra tu nmám svena svabhávena kāmāc codanayāpi vā ya niyatā vṛttir jivikā kṛtā sā vṛttir ucyata ity arthah. “Vitti means the process of sustenance, by which the mov- ing beings live upon the nonmoving. For a human being, vṛtti specifically means acting for one’s livelihood in a man- ner suited to one’s personal nature. Such action may be carried out either in pursuit of selfish desire or in accor- dance with the Vedic injunctions” (Bhāg. 12.7.13). Mobile living beings generally thrive on immobile ones, but the word ca (and) in this verse hints that, when the desire impels them, moving creatures will also subsist on other moving creatures. For human beings, however, the means of liveli- hood is prescribed according to their individual natures, on the basis of either selfish desire or scriptural injunction. All this is called vṛtti. ANUCCHEDA 62.4 “रक्षाच्युतावतारेहा विश्वस्यानुयुगे युगे । तिर्यङ्मर्त्यर्षिदेवेषु हन्यन्ते यैस्त्रयीद्विषः ॥ [ भा. १२.७.१४] यैः अवतारैः । अनेनेशकथा, स्थानं, पोषणञ्च इति त्रयमुक्तम् । 322 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha “rakṣacyutāvatārehā viśvasyānu yuge yuge tiryan-martyarși-deveṣu hanyante yais trayi-dviṣaḥ” yair avatáraiḥ. aneneśa-kathā sthānam poṣaṇam ceti trayam uktam. “In each age, the infallible Lord appears in this world among the animals, human beings, sages, and demigods. By His activities in these incamations He protects the universe and kills the enemies of Vedic culture. This is called rakṣa’ (Bhag. 12.7.14). Here the word yaiḥ (by them) means by the incarnations. This definition of “protection” (rakṣā) also incorporates the three topics isa-kathā (narrations about the Supreme Lord), sthāna (“maintenance), and poṣaṇa (nourishment). 66 ANUCCHEDA 62.5 “ मन्वन्तरं मनुद्देवा मनुपुत्राः सुरेश्वराः । ऋषयोऽंशावताराश्च हरेः षड्विधमुच्यते ॥ [भा. १२.७.१५] मन्वाद्याचरणकथनेन सद्धर्म एवात्र विवक्षित इत्यर्थः । ततश्च | प्राक्तनग्रन्थेनैकार्थ्यम् । “manv-antaram manur devā manu-putrāḥ sureśvarāḥ ṛṣayo ‘mśāvatārāś ca hareḥ ṣad-vidham ucyate” manv-ādy-acarana-kathanena sad-dharma evātra vivakṣita ity arthaḥ. tataś ca prāktana- granthenaikārthyam. “In each reign of Manu (manv-antara), six types of persons appear as manifestations of Lord Hari; the ruling Manu, the chief demigods, the sons of Manu, Indra, the great sages, and the partial incarnations of the Supreme Personality of Godhead” (Bhag. 12.7.15). From the mention here of the activities of the Manus and others, it is understood that the topic of sad-dharma (pro- gressive religious principles) is also covered. In this way this list of ten topics is equivalent to the one given earlier in the Bhagavatam.323 ANUCCHEDA 62.6 “राज्ञां ब्रह्मप्रसूतानां वंशस्त्रैकालिकोऽन्वयः । वंश्यानुचरितं तेषां वृत्तं वंशधराश्च ये ॥” [भा. १२.७.१६] तेषां राज्ञां ये च वंशधरास्तेषां वृत्तं वंश्यानुचरितम् ॥ ६२ ॥ “rājñāṁ brahma-prasūtānāṁ vaṁšas trai-kāliko ’nvayaḥ vamsyānucaritam teṣām vṛttam vamsa-dharāś ca ye” teṣām rājñām ye ca vamśa-dharās teṣām vṛttam vamsyānucaritam. “Dynasties (varsa) are lines of kings originating with Lord Brahma and extending continuously through past, present, and future. The accounts of such dynasties, especially of their most prominent members, constitute the subject of dynastic history (vaṁśyānucarita)” (Bhag. 12.7.16). Among kings, the activities of the vamśa-dharāḥ (mem- bers who propagated the dynasites) constitutes vamśānucaritam (dynastic history). COMMENTARY At the end of the Second Canto, Sukadeva Gosvāmī lists and defines the ten topics of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and in the Twelfth Canto Sūta Gosvāmī does the same. The first topic is sarga, primary creation. During total dissolution everything in the material universe becomes unmanifest, a state called prakṛti or pradhana. In this state the three modes of nature remain in a state of equilibrium. Not until the modes are agitated and put out of balance can creation begin again. This same principle applies to human beings: When a person is satisfied, peaceful, and equipoised he will not initiate some new activity; some stimulus must disturb his equilibrium and motivate him to act. One engages in sex, for example, when one’s mind and body are stimu- lated by lust or the desire to procreate. The original distur- bance in the pradhana is caused by the glance of the 324 Śrl Tattva-Sandarbha Supreme Lord, with which He impregnates prakṛti, or mate- rial nature, with the conditioned jīvas. Lord Kṛṣṇa confirms this in the Bhagavad-gītā (14.3), mama yonir mahad brahma tasmin garbham dadamy aham: “The total material sub- stance, called Brahman, is my womb, and in it I place the seed.” Here the word Brahman means prakṛti, not the Lord’s impersonal feature. The impregnated or disturbed state of prakṛti is called the mahat-tattva. When further impelled by kāla, the Lord’s time potency, the mahat-tattva gives rise to the three kinds of ahankara, or false ego. These include vaikârika ahankara, false ego in the mode of goodness; taijasa ahankara, false ego in the mode of passion; and tămasa ahankara, false ego in the mode of ignorance. Vaikārika ahankära gives rise to manas, the elemental substance of mind, and also to the presiding deities of material creation. Taijasa ahankara gives rise to buddhi, the intelligence, and also to the senses, which are of two types, perceptive and working. When the kala potency acts on the tamasa ahankára, sound comes into being, followed by ether and the ear. Under the impulse of time, ether then gives rise to tactility, and then air and skin evolve. Similarly, air gives rise to form, after which fire and the eye evolve; fire gives rise to taste, and then water and the tongue evolve; and finally water gives rise to smell, after which earth and the nose evolve. The Lord Himself performs this primary phase of creation (sarga), which includes the creation of the above elements’ presiding deities. This is in- dicated here (in Bhag. 12.7.17) by the word artha. See Table IV, page 326,for the stages of material creation in its pri- mary phase (sarga). It should be noted that the Bhagavatam distinguishes be- tween the senses and the physical sense organs, or the seats of the senses. Table IV shows that false ego in the mode of passion gives rise to intelligence and the senses. These senses are not the sense organs but rather the subtle senses, which accompany the jiva from body to body. The physical sense organs are, of course, dissolved along with the rest of the gross body at death. Anuccheda 62 325 Each of the five tan-matras, the subtle manifestations of the material elements, becomes mixed with the time energy of the Lord and gives rise to its corresponding gross element and the seat of the corresponding sense organ. (See Table V) The mahat-tattva, ahankära, mind, and intelligence are considered internal senses. These four, plus the five work- ing senses (legs, hands, anus, tongue, and genitals), the five perceptive senses (ears, eyes, nose, skin, and tongue), the five gross material objects (sky, air, fire, water, and earth), and the five subtle elements (sound, tactility, form, taste, and smell) total twenty-four elements, and the jiva and Paramātmā can be counted as the twenty-fifth and twenty- sixth. Time (kāla) is not counted separately, being an en- ergy of the Paramātmā. Because pure elements cannot be employed in the pro- cess of creation, the five gross material elements listed above must be further combined by the process called pañci- karanam. In this process each of the elements is mixed with the other four according to a certain ratio. Then Lord Brahmă, using these mixed elements, proceeds with the secondary phase of creation, called visarga. He creates the bodies of the myriad living beings according to the stored-up karmic impressions of their previous lives. Visarga includes the manifestation of Brahma’s mind-born sons-Atri, Vasistha, Dakṣa, Manu, and others. Some of these sons are Prajapatis, progenitors, whose offspring populate the universe. The phases of creation continue in cycles, one phase giving rise to the next, like one seed giving rise to another seed. The seeds in this creative process are the living entities’ fruitive activities. After sarga and visarga come vṛtti, sustenance. As stated in Srimad Bhagavatam (1.13.47), one living being is generally sustained by eating others: ahastäni sa-hastānām apadani catus-padam phalguni tatra mahatām jivo jīvasya jivanam Those who are devoid of hands are prey for those who have hands; those devoid of legs are prey for the four- legged. The weak are the subsistence of the strong and the general rule holds that one living being is food for another. 326 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha TABLE IV Prakrti or Pradhana (Balanced state of Nature) Glance of the Lord * (with Kala) Mahat-tattva (Citta) (Pradhana becomes disturbed) Ahankara (False Ego) Vaikaika Taijasa (Goodness) Mind (Passion) Intelligence Tamasa (Ignorance) Five Tan-matras & & Presiding Deities Senses (Sound, Touch, Form, Taste, Smell) and five material elements. The glance of the Lord is not produced by prakṛti or pradhana but is included here to show the sequence of events. TABLE V Tan-matra Elements Seats of Senses Sound Sky Ears Touch Air Skin Form Fire Eyes Taste Smell Water Tongue Earth Nose Usually, immovable beings are food for those that move, but some moving beings, such as tigers, prey on other moving beings. Human beings are special because they can choose what kind of food they will eat. In this matter they can be guided either by their own desires or by Vedic scriptural in- junction. Those who eat according to whim glide down to Anuccheda 62 TABLE VI 327 Manu Manu’s Corresponding Indra Name of Father Avatāra 1.Svayambhuva Brahmã Yajña Yajña
11. Svǎrocisa Agni Vibhu Rocana
12. Uttama Priyavrata Satyasena Satyajit
13. Tămasa
14. Raivata Priyavrata Priyavrata Hari Triśikha Vaikuntha Vibhu
15. Căksusa Caksu Ajita Mantradruma
16. Vaivasvata (Sraddhadeva) Vivasvăn Vāmana Purandara
17. Sāvarni Vivasvän Särvabhauma Bali 9.Dakṣa-savarni 10.Brahma-savami Upaśloka Visvaksena Varuna Rṣabha Adbhuta Sambhu 11.Dharma-savami Upaśloka Dharmasetu Vaidhrta 12.Rudra-savarni Upasloka Svadhāmā Rtadhāmā 13.Deva-sävarņi Upaśloka Yogeśvara Divaspati 14.Indra-sävarņi Upaśloka Brhadbhānu Śuci hellish species, while those who follow scripture progress toward liberation. Since Lord Viṣṇu accepts the responsibility of maintain- ing Vedic culture in the universe, He incarnates in every mil- lennium to protect His devotees and curb the demoniac. This is called raksă, protection. The Lord does not restrict His appearances only to the human species. As Prahlada Mahārāja says in his prayers to Lord Nrsimha, ittham nṛ-tiryag- rşi-deva-jhaṣāvatārair lokān vibhāvayasi hamsi jagat pratipan: “My Lord, You appear in various incarnations as a human being, an animal, a great sage, a demigod, or a fish. In this way you maintain the entire creation in different plan- etary systems and kill the opponents” (Bhag. 7.9.38). The material creation is manifest for the duration of Lord Brahma’s life, one hundred years according to his time scale, in which one day lasts for one thousand cycles of the four yugas-Satya, Treta, Dvāpara, and Kali. By human calcula- tion, therefore, a day of Brahmă lasts 4,320,000,000 years. 328 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha For managerial purposes he divides each of his days into fourteen periods called many-antaras. The person who rules during each of these periods is called Manu, who is assisted by the demigods such as Candra and Varuna; his sons; Lord Indra; the seven great sages, called saptaṛsis; and a special partial expansion of the Supreme Lord who incarnates for each particular manv-antara. The demigods and sages are all appointed for the period of one manv-antara, and the activi- ties of these great persons constitute sad-dharma, or progres- sive religious principles. At present (A.D. 1995) we are in the period of the seventh Manu, Vaivasvata Manu, more exactly in the 5,092nd year of Kali-yuga, in the twenty-eighth yuga cycle of the day of Brahma called the Svetavaraha- kalpa, during his fifty-first year. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam names the fourteen Manus, the corresponding incarnations special to their periods, and the names of Indra in their periods- See Table VI, page 327. Two prominent dynasties of kings come from Lord Brahma-the sun dynasty and the moon dynasty. The de- scription of the deeds performed by the kings appearing in these dynasties is called vamsyānucaritam. In the next anuccheda Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi explains the definitions of the remainder of the Bhagavatam’s ten topics and concludes Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha by explaining their purpose. ANUCCHEDA 63.1 CONCLUSION “नैमित्तिकः प्राकृतिको नित्य आत्यन्तिको लयः । संस्थेति कविभिः प्रोक्तश्चतुर्द्धास्य स्वभावतः ॥” [ भा. १२.७.१७ ] अस्य परमेश्वरस्य । स्वभावतः शक्तितः । ‘आत्यन्तिकः’ इत्यनेन मुक्तिरप्यत्र प्रवेशिता । “naimittikaḥ prakṛtiko nitya atyantiko layaḥ samstheti kavibhiḥ proktaś caturdhasya svabhāvataḥ” asya parameśvarasya. svabhāvataḥ śaktitaḥ, ātyantika ity anena muktir apy atra praveśitā. Anuccheda 63 329 “There are four types of cosmic annihilations-occasional, elemental, continous, and ultimate-all of which are ef- fected by the inherent potency of the Supreme Lord. Learned scholars have designated this topic dissolution (samsthā )(Bhag. 12.7.17). In this verse asya (His) refers to the Parameśvara, the Supreme Lord, while svabhāvataḥ (due to nature) means “by His energy.” The term atyantikaḥ (ultimate) implies that mukti (liberation) is included in this kind of dissolution. हेतुः ANUCCHEDA 63.2 " हेतुर्जीवोऽस्य सर्गादेरविद्याकर्मकारकः । यञ्चानुशयिनं प्राहुरव्याकृतमुतापरे ॥” [भा. १२.७.१८ ] निमित्तम्, अस्य विश्वस्य यतोऽयमविद्यया कर्मकारकः । यमेव हेतुं केचिच्चैतन्यप्राधान्येनानुशयिनं प्राहुः; अपरे उपाधि प्राधान्येनाव्याकृतमिति । “hetur jivo ‘sya sargāder avidya-karma-kārakaḥ yam cānuśayinaṁ prāhur avyākṛtam utāpare” hetuḥ nimittam. asya viśvasya. yato ‘yam avidyayā karma- kārakaḥ. yam eva hetum kecic caitanya- pradhanyenānusayinam prahuḥ, apare upâdhi- prädhänyenävyākṛtam iti. “Out of ignorance the living being performs material activi- ties and thereby becomes in one sense the cause (hetu) of the creation, maintenance, and destruction of the universe. Some authorities call the living being the personality under- lying the material creation, while others say he is the unmanifest self” (Bhag. 12.7.18). The hetu (cause) here is the nimitta, or efficient cause. Asya (of this) refers to this universe, the existence of which is due in one sense to the jivas who act in ignorance. Some call that same cause the anusayi (underlying personality), highlighting the principle of consciousness, while others call him the avyākṛta (unmanifest), focusing attention on the jivas’ upādhis. 330 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 63.3 “व्यतिरेकान्वयौ यस्य जाग्रत्स्वप्रसुषुप्तिषु । मायामयेषु तद्ब्रह्म जीववृत्तिष्वपाश्रयः ॥” [भा. १२.७.१९] श्रीबादरायणसमाधिलब्धार्थविरोधादत्र च जीवशुद्धस्वरूप- मेवाश्रयत्वेन न व्याख्यायते; किन्तु अयमेवार्थः जाग्रदादिष्ववस्थासु, मायामयेषु मायाशक्तिकल्पितेषु महदादिद्रव्येषु च, केवलस्वरूपेण व्यतिरेकः परम- साक्षितयान्वयश्च यस्य तद्ब्रह्म जीवानां वृत्तिषु शुद्धस्वरूपतया सोपाधितया च वर्त्तनेषु स्थितिष्वपाश्रयः, सर्वमत्यतिक्रम्याश्रय इत्यर्थः । ‘अप’ इत्येतत् खलु वर्जने, वर्जनञ्चातिक्रमे पर्यवस्यतीति । “vyatirekānvayau yasya jāgrat-svapna susuptisu māyā mayesu tad brahma jiva vrttisv apaśrayah” sri-bādarāyana-samadhi labdhārtha virodhād atra ca jiva- śuddha-svarūpam evāśrayatvena na vyākhyāyate. kintv ayam evārthah jāgrad-adisv avasthāsu, māyā-mayesu māyā-śakti-kalpiteṣu mahad-adi-dravyesu ca kevala- svarūpena vyatirekaḥ parama-sākṣitayānvayaś ca yasya tad brahma ca jīvānāṁ vṛttiṣu śuddha-svarūpatayā sopādhitayă ca vartanesu sthitisv apāśrayah, sarvam aty atikramyāśraya ity arthaḥ. apa ity etat khalu varjane varjanam cātikrame paryavasyatiti. “The Supreme Absolute Truth is present throughout all the states of awareness - waking consciousness, sleep, and deep sleep-throughout all the phenomena manifested by the external energy, and within the functions of all living en- tities, and He also exists separate from all these. Thus situ- ated in His own transcendence, He is the ultimate and unique shelter” (Bhāg. 12.7.19). It cannot be said that the jiva is the aśraya, even in his pure state. That would go against what Śrila Vyasadeva ex- perienced in trance. Rather, the only correct understanding Anuccheda 63 331 is as follows: The Supreme Brahman is alone in His original identity. He is always aloof from the states of consciousness known as waking, awareness, and so on, and from the mani- festations of matter, beginning with the mahat-tattva. All these are products of the external energy, that is to say, they are creations of His Māyā potency. While remaining aloof from these manifestations, He simultaneously associates with them in His feature as the Supersoul, the supreme witness. Therefore He is the basis for the jiva’s activities in both his pure and conditioned states. But in this context the word apāśraya indicates that even while He is the foundation for the jiva’s activities, He still remains transcendental to every- thing; the prefix apa refers to “abandonment,” which here amounts to the idea of transcending. ANUCCHEDA 63.4 तदेवमपाश्रयाभिव्यक्तिद्वारभूतं हेतुशब्दव्यपदिष्टस्य जीवस्य शुद्धस्वरूपज्ञानमाह द्वाभ्याम्; “ पदार्थेषु यथा द्रव्यं तन्मात्रं रूपनामसु । बीजादिपञ्चतान्तासु ह्यवस्थासु युतायुतम् ॥ farta ugı facă focal afeceri 2944 | योगेन वा तदाऽऽत्मानं वेदेहाया निवर्त्तते ॥ [ भा. १२.७.२०-२१] tad evam apăśrayābhivyakti-dvāra-bhūtam hetu-sabda- vyapadiṣṭasya jivasya śuddha-svarūpa-jñānam áha dvābhyām “padartheṣu yathā dravyam tan-mātram rūpa- nāmasu / bījādi-pañcatântāsu hy avasthāsu yutayutam / virameta yadă cittam hitvā vṛtti-trayam svayam/ yogena vă tadātmānam vedehāyā nivartate” Such knowledge of the pure nature of the jiva, who is here designated by the word hetu the cause of material existence, leads to realization of the apāśraya, or transcendental foun- tainhead of existence, as Sūta Gosvāmī states in two verses: “Although a material object may assume various forms and names, its essential ingredient is always present as the 332 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha basis of its existence. Similarly, both conjointly and sepa- rately, the jiva is always present with the created material body throughout its phases of existence, beginning with con- ception and ending with death.” “Either on the strength of one’s own power of discrimi- nation or because of one’s regulated spiritual practice, one’s mind may stop functioning on the material platform of wak- ing consciousness, sleep, and deep sleep. Then the jiva understands the Supreme Soul and withdraws from mate- rial endeavor” (Bhāg. 12.7.20-21 ). ANUCCHEDA 63.5 रूपनामात्मकेषु पदार्थेषु घटादिषु यथा द्रव्यं पृथिव्यादि युतमयुतञ्च भवति, कार्यदृष्टिं विनाप्युपलम्भात् । तथा तन्मात्रं शुद्धं जीवचैतन्यमात्रं वस्तु गर्भाधानादिपञ्चतान्तासु नवस्वप्य- वस्थासु अविद्यया युतं स्वतस्त्वयुतमिति शुद्धमात्मानमित्थं ज्ञात्वा निर्विण्णः सन्नपाश्रयानुसन्धानयोग्यो भवतीत्याह, विरमेतेति । वृत्तित्रयं जाग्रत्स्वप्रसुषुप्तिरूपम् । आत्मानं परमात्मानम् । स्वयं वामदेवादेरिव मायामयत्वानुसन्धानेन देवहूत्यादेरिवानुष्ठितेन योगेन वा । ततश्च ईहायास्तदनुशीलन- व्यतिरिक्तचेष्टायाः । श्रीसूतः । उद्दिष्टः सम्बन्धः ॥ ६३ ॥ rūpa-nāmātmakeṣu padartheṣu ghaṭādiṣu yatha dravyam prthivy-adi yutam ayutam ca bhavati karya-dṛṣṭim vinǎpy upalambhāt tathā tan-mātram śuddham jiva caitanya- matram vastu garbhadhānādi-pañcatāntäsu navasv apy avasthasv avidyaya yutam svatas tv ayutam iti suddham ātmānam itthaṁ jñātvā nirvinnaḥ sann apāśrayānusandhana-yogyo bhavatity āha virameteti. vṛtti- trayam jāgrat-svapna-susupti-rūpam. ātmānaṁ paramātmānam. svayam vamadeväder iva māyā- mayatvānusandhanena devahūty-äder ivanusthitena yogena vå. tatas cehāyās tad-anusilana-vyatirikta- cestāyāh. śri sūtah. uddistah sambandhah.Anuccheda 63 333 We can consider the substances earth, water, and so on to be either associated with their products having names and forms such as pots-or separate from them. After all, we can identify these substances even apart from their prod- ucts. In the same way, although by the force of ignorance the originally pure spirit soul becomes involved with the nine stages of life from conception to death, he can nonetheless become indifferent by understanding that he is in fact distinct from all this by virtue of his being pure spirit. Thus becoming aloof, he is then qualified to inquire about the aśraya. That is the purport of the verse beginning virameta (Bhag. 12.7.21). The vṛtti-trayam (three functional states) are the states of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. Atmānam (Self) here means the Supersoul. Svayam (by oneself) means by care- fully studying the illusory nature of the world, as the sage Vamadeva did. Yogena (by yoga) indicates that one may conduct this study by means of the meditation Śrīmati Devahūti and others practiced. Thāyāḥ nivartate (he becomes free from all actions) means that he refrains from all activi- ties other than the practice of God-realization. Sūta Gosvāmī spoke these verses. This is our explanation of sambandha, the connection between Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and the sub- ject it discusses. ANUCCHEDA 63.6 इति कलियुगपावनस्वभजनविभजनप्रयोजनावतार श्रीश्रीभगवत्कृष्णचैतन्यदेवचरणानुचरविश्ववैष्णव राजसभासभाजनभाजनश्रीरूपसनातनानुशासनभारतीगर्भे श्रीभागवतसन्दर्भे “ श्रीतत्त्वसन्दर्भो” नाम प्रथमः सन्दर्भः ॥ iti kali-yuga-pāvana-sva-bhajana-vibhajana- prayojanavatâra-śrī-sri-bhagavat-kṛṣṇa-caitanya-deva- caraṇānucara-viśva-vaiṣṇava-rāja-sabhā-sabhājana- bhajana-śrī-rūpa-sanātanānušāsana-bhārati-garbhe śri- bhagavata-sandarbhe śrī tattva-sandarbho nāma prathamaḥ sandarbhaḥ. 334 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Thus ends the Tattva-Sandarbha, the first book of the Bhāgavata-Sandarbha, which was written under the instruc- tion of Śrila Rūpa Gosvāmi and Śrīla Sanatāna Gosvāmi, the revered leaders of the universal royal assembly of Vaisnavas. They are unalloyed servants of the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the purifier of the jivas in Kali-yuga, who descended to distribute the benediction of His own devotional service. COMMENTARY The dissolution of the material creation is called samstha, of which Sūta Gosvāmi says there are four kinds-naimittika, prākṛtika, nitya, and atyantika. The dissolution that comes at the end of Lord Brahma’s day is called naimittika, or occa- sional. The dissolution of the universe at the end of Lord Brahma’s life is called prākṛtika, or complete. The inexorable moment-by-moment progression of everything in the mate- rial world toward annihilation is called nitya, or continuous dissolution. And when an individual jīva gets free from both his subtle and gross bodies and enters the spiritual sky, that is called atyantika, or ultimate dissolution, namely liberation. Having attained this state, one does not take birth again in the material world. Thus Srila Jiva Gosvāmi says that atyantika-laya includes mukti, the ninth among the ten top- ics of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam Sukadeva Gosvāmi enumerated in Anuccheda 56. In Sarva-samvadini Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi states that, in ad- dition to the dissolutions mentioned above, there is also a partial dissolution at the end of each many-antara. To sub- stantiate this statment he cites the Visnu-dharmottara Purāṇa, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and the Bharata-tȧtparya of Śrī Madhvācārya. Part of the reference from the Visnu- dharmottara Purāņa (1.75.1-2) states: vajra uvāca manv-antare pariksine yadrsi dvija jāyate samavasthā mahā-bhāga tādṛśim vaktum arhasi 1 Anuccheda 63 märkandeya uvāca many-antare pariksine deva many-antaresvarāḥ mahar-lokam athasádya tiṣṭhanti gata-kalmaṣāḥ King Vajra asked, “O brāhmaṇa, what is the situation of the world when a manv-antara ends? Please explain this to me.” Märkandeya replied, “At the end of a manv-antara, the demigods appointed for that particular many-antara, being free from sins, attain to Maharloka and reside there.” 335 Märkandeya goes on to explain that the seven sages, Manu, and Indra go to Brahmaloka, while the earth becomes submerged in a deluge. This description of the general an- nihilation at the end of each many-antara is similar to the one given in the Twenty-fourth Chapter of the Bhāgavatam’s Eighth Canto. Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi comments that the exist- ence of a dissolution at the end of each many-antara is fur- ther substantiated by the Hari-vamsa Purana and commen- taries on its chapters dealing with the subject of universal dissolution. Thus the dissolution at the end of a many-antara can be categorized as naimittika, or occasional, because it occurs repeatedly with the changes of Manus. The hetu, or efficient cause of creation, is the jiva. The Supreme Lord has nothing to gain by creating this material world. He has His own transcendental abode where He engages in loving pastimes with His dear devotees. But for the welfare of those living beings averse to His devotional service, He has cre- ated this universe, where the jivas are avidya-karma-kāraka, acting out of ignorance and sustaining the universe. In that sense the jivas are the efficient cause of the creation, even though they neither design nor produce it. As Lord Krsna states in the Bhagavad-gītā (7.5), jīva-bhutāṁ mahā-bāho yayedam dhāryate jagat: “The living entities sustain the whole material world.” The Lord’s ultimate purpose in creating the material world is to enable the vas to attain bhakti and thus get liberation from the cycle of repeated birth and death. Sukadeva Gosvāmi states this explicitly in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.87.2): buddhindriya-manaḥ-prânân janānāṁ asrjat prabhuḥ mătrărtham ca bhavartham ca âtmane ‘kalpanaya ca 336 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha The Supreme Lord created the material intelligence, senses, mind, and life airs of the living entities so that they could engage in sense gratification, undergo a cycle of repeated births to engage in fruitive activities, become elevated in future lives, and ultimately attain liberation. From this we can see that the jiva is certainly not the aśraya of the universe. According to Śrila Vyasadeva’s realization in trance, that position belongs to the Supreme Lord. But if the Lord is the asraya of this material world, wouldn’t He also necessarily be in contact with Maya and her cre- ation? In answer to this, Śri Sūta Gosvāmi says that the Su- preme Lord is apăśraya, the transcendental shelter. In other words, He is the asraya, but He is apart from Mayă. In the Bhagavad-gītā (7.4) the Lord describes His own material nature as bhinná prakṛti, His separated energy. In His origi- nal form the Supreme Personality of Godhead is completely aloof from His creation, but as the Supersoul He witnesses and controls the activities of both the jivas and Māyā. Thus by His inconceivable potency He both associates with the creation and remains aloof from it. This He also confirms in the Bhagavad-gītā (9.4): maya tatam idam sarvam jagad avyakta-mūrtinā mat-sthani sarva-bhutani na cahaṁ teşv avasthitaḥ This whole universe is pervaded by Me in My unmanifest form. All living beings are in Me, but I am not in them. Yet even though the Lord, as the Supersoul, pervades the universe and controls it, He is neither in physical contact with it nor influenced by it. In Anuccheda 53 Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi showed that knowl- edge of the pure nature of the jiva is the first step in the science of God-realization. Here in Anuccheda 63 he sub- stantiates this statement with two verses by Śrī Sūta Gosvāmi (quoted in Anuccheda 63.4). In Śrimad-Bhāgavatam (11.22.46) Lord Krsna mentions the nine states of bodily existence the jiva experiences: con- ception, gestation, birth, infancy, childhood, youth, middle age, old age, and death. Although in his conditioned state Anuccheda 63 337 the jiva seems to associate with these nine states, he never actually does. Just as clay is the essential constituent’ of a pot yet still it exists independent of the pot, so the jiva ani- mates his body yet still exists independent of the body and its nine states. When a person knows that whether awake, dreaming, or merged in deep sleep, he remains distinct from the body’s nine states he is qualified to walk on the path of God-real- ization. That is the stage of athāto brahma-jijñāsā One who knows he is distinct from the body is qualified to inquire into the Absolute Truth (V.s. 1.1.1). This anuccheda gives two processes for self-realization. The word svayam (by oneself) implies the path of jñana, in which one meditates on the self as different from everything else in the realm of Māyā. The Bṛhad-aranyaka Upanisad relates the history of a sage named Vâmadeva who followed this path, and the Eleventh Canto of Śrimad-Bhāgavatam tells of another practitioner, Dattatreya. The second process is implied by the word yogena, which means the path of bhakti. On this path one considers one- self different from the three states of existence-the waking state, the dreaming state, and the deep sleep state-and meditates on the Supersoul. This path is exemplified by Lord Kapiladeva’s mother, Śrīmati Devahūti, whose story is nar- rated in the Third Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi concludes that the aśraya of everything is Lord Śri Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead; He alone is the subject (sambandhi-tattva) of Srimad-Bhāgavatam. Now begins a summary of Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha: The first eight anucchedas, which are in verse form, make up the invocation, or mangalācaraṇa. In these verses Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi prays to his teachers and his worshipable Deity, and he also tells why he is writing the book and defines its subject and the qualifications for its readers. In Anucchedas 9 through 26 Jīva Gosvāmī discusses Gaudiya Vaisnava epistemology. He first points out that all human beings are subject to four defects that prevent them from acquiring perfect knowledge independently. Of the ten 338 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha means of gaining knowledge Śrila Jiva accepts sabda, re- vealed scripture, as supreme, for it alone can give one per- fect knowledge. He also accepts direct perception and infer- ence as valid means of knowledge if they assist sabda pramāņa. Since the Vedas are sabda-brahman, knowledge revealed by the Supreme Lord, they are the highest author- ity. But because they are now unavailable in their complete form, because they are cryptic, and because they can no longer be learned from representatives of a proper disciplic sucession of teachers, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi recommends the Puranas, which, along with the Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata, are the fifth Veda. Next Śrila Jiva shows that the Puranas have the same source, authority, and nature as the Vedas, and that, for people in this age, their simple language and universal ac- cessibility render them an even better source of knowledge than the four Vedas. But the Puranas seem to contradict one another in various ways-for example, by glorifying dif- ferent deities as most worshipable-and most of them lack a proper disciplic succession. By the process of elimina- tion, therefore, in Anuccheda 18 Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi pro- poses Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as the most suitable Purana for investigation. From Anuccheda 19 to 26 Śrila Jiva reveals the supreme qualities of Śrīmad-Bhagavatam and shows how it is the most authoritative Vedic scripture, the ripened fruit of the desire tree of Vedic knowledge. The Bhāgavatam is based on Gayatri, the essence of the Vedas; it is also the natural com- mentary on the Vedanta-sutras. In Anucchedas 27 and 28 Śrīla Jiva describes the basic scheme of the Sandarbhas, what sources he plans to refer to, and his method of analysis. From Anucchedas 29 to 63 he establishes the following principles:
18. The subject matter of Srimad Bhagavatam is Lord Krsna. 2. Lord Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead. 3. He has multifarious potencies, which are divided into three main categories-internal, external, and marginal. 4. Māyā, His external energy, works under Him, but cannot control Him. Anuccheda 63
19. The jivas have been bound by Māyā.
20. The jivas cannot transcend Māyā by their own power. 7. Surrender to the Lord is the jivas’ only means of liberation.
21. The goal of life is to attain prema, love of Kṛṣṇa. 339 To establish these eight principles, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī first examines the inner mood of Sri Sukadeva Gosvāmi, the Śri speaker of Śrimad-Bhagavatam. In Anuccheda 29 he quotes and analyzes Śri Sūta Gosvȧmi’s prayers, which describe Śukadeva’s realization and exalted position. Then, from Anucchedas 30 to 49 he examines the description of what Śrīla Vyasadeva realized in trance, which is the basis upon which he composed Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. While describing Vyasa’s trance, Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi uses logic and scriptural reference in Anucchedas 34 to 43 to decisively refute the two primary doctrines of the Māyāvādis. He also explains the real meaning and purpose behind the statements in scrip- tures describing oneness between the jiva and Brahman. From Anucchedas 50 to 52 he shows that the subject of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the nondual Supreme Reality by analyzing the second verse of its first chapter. In Anucchedas 53 to 55 he explains the nature of the jiva-namely, that the jiva, being a fractional part of Brahman, is conscious like Brahman but can never be equal to Brahman. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi explains that understanding this similarity between the jiva and Brahman is the initial step toward realizing the Absolute Truth. From Anuccheda 56 on he examines the subject matter of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam from another angle. Here he analyzes the ten topics of the Bhagavatam citing Sukadeva Gosvāmi’s list in the Second Canto and Sūta Gosvāmi’s list in the Twelfth Canto. He shows that there is no clash of either spirit or content between these two great Bhāgavatam authorities. In their descriptions of the first nine topics, both Sukadeva and Sūta convey an understanding of the multifarious po- tencies and activities of the tenth item, the shelter of all, Lord Sri Krsna. 340 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Thus from various angles Jīva Gosvāmī has established that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the ultimate scriptural authority and that it teaches the following: Sri Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, devotional service is the process for attaining the supreme goal of life, and that supreme goal is pure unalloyed love of Godhead. In the next three Sandarbhas, Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi will further elaborate on sambandhi-tattva. HARI OM TAT SAT aṣāḍhasya site pakse dvitiyāyām rathotsave grahe vede randhre netre tikeyam pūrṇatām gatā śrī-guror-mukhābjāc chrutvā śri-haridāsācchästriṇaḥ yatha-matiḥ kṛtā tīkā satām eṣā prasīdatām Thus ends the Śri Jiva Toṣaṇi Commentary on Śrī Tattva- Sandarbha, the first book of Sri Sat-Sandarbha, by Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi Prabhupada. APPENDIX ONE These are some scriptural references which establish Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. -1- divijā bhuvi jāyadhvam jāyadhvaṁ bhaktarūpiṇaḥ kalau sankirtanarambhe bhavisyami śacīsutaḥ Lord Visņu said: O demigods, in Kali-yuga take birth on the earth as devotees and perform My kirtana, then I will appear as the son of Saci Devī. (Vāyu Purāṇa, Sesa khanda 14.28) The following three references are from Bhakti-sära- samuccayaḥ written by Śrī Lokǎnandācārya, a disciple of Śrī Narahari Sarkara, who was an intimate associate of Lord Caitanya: -2- kali-ghora-tamaś-cchannan sarvācāra-vivarjitān śaci-garbhe ca sambhūya täryiṣyāmi nārada O Nārada, appearing from the womb of Śaci Devi, I shall deliver the people of Kali-yuga, who will be covered by deep ignorance and thus devoid of good behavior. (Vamana Purana) -3- mundo gauraḥ sudirghāngas trisrotastira-sambhavaḥ dayāluḥ kirttanagrähi bhavisyāmi kalau yuge In Kali-yuga I shall appear on the bank of the Ganges in a golden form with a shaved head and a tall body. I shall be merciful to people, and I will perform sankirtana. (Matsya Purana) -4- kṛṣṇa-caitanya-nämnä ye kirttayanti sakṛn-naraḥ nānāparādha-muktās te punanti sakalam jagat Persons who even once chant the name of Kṛṣṇa Caitanya become free from all offenses and purify the whole universe. (Visnu Yamala) 341 342 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha -5- Śrī Baladeva Vidyabhuṣaṇa, in his commentary on Visnu- sahasranama, explains that these six names refer to Lord Kṛṣṇa Caitanya: sannyása-kṛc chamaḥ śānto nistha-santiḥ-parāyaṇaḥ (Mahabharata, Vişņu-sahasra-nama 75) a. sannyāskṛt. one who accepts the sannyas order of life. b. samaḥ: one who deliberates on the secret prema pastimes of Lord Hari. c. santaḥ: one who ceases from all other thoughts except Krsna. d. nistha: in whom the devotees, who chiefly engage in hari kirtana, have strong faith, or one who gives niṣṭhā, strong faith in hari kirtana, to such devotees e. såntiḥ: one who silences all opposing philosophies, such as monism. f. parāyaṇaḥ: one who is the destination of devotional mellows. -6- suvarna-varno hemango varangas candanāngadi (Mahabharata, Visnu-sahasranam 92) a. suvarna varṇaḥ: one whose bodily hue is golden. b. hemångaḥ: one whose bodily limbs are attractive like gold. c. varängaḥ: one whose limbs are most beautiful. d. candanāngādi: one who wears sandalwood in place of armlets. -7- pañcābde kṛṣṇa caitanye yajñamse yajñakāriņi banga-desa-bhavo vipra iśvaraḥ śārdāpriyaḥ When Lord Krsna Caitanya, the protector of the source of sacrifices, was five years old, there was a powerful Bengali brāhmaṇa who was very dear to mother Sarasvati, the goddess of learning. (Bhavisya Purana, 4.19.6) -8- aham eva kalau vipra nityam pracchanna-vigrahaḥ bhagavad-bhakta-rūpeṇa lokan rakṣāmi sarvvadáAppendix One The Lord said: O Vipra (Märkandeya Rṣi), in Kali-yuga, concealing My identity, I appear in the garb of a devotee and always give protection to My devotees. (Naradiya Purana 5.47) -9- matvå tvan mayam ātmānam pathan dvyaksaram ucchakaiḥ gato-trapo madonmatto gaja-vad vicariṣyati Considering Himself as You (Rādhā), Krsna will loudly recite the two syllables (Krs-na). Being shamelessly intoxicated, He will wander like an elephant. (Kṛṣṇa- yamala 28.65) 343 344 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha APPENDIX TWO ANALYSIS OF THE DISPUTE OVER THE LENGTH OF THE BHAGAVATAM (332 OR 335 CHAPTERS) Some scholars disagree about the number of chapters in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. They consider chapters Twelve, Thir- teen, and Fourteen of the Tenth Canto interpolated. These chapters describe the killing of Aghasura, the stealing of the calves and cowherd boys by Lord Brahmå, and Brahma’s prayers to Lord Kṛṣṇa. The controversy is an old one and the dissenting scholars are a diverse group-some are Bhāgavatam commentators from the Pusti-márga- sampradaya of Vallabhācārya, some are from the Madhva- sampradaya, and others are from the Sri-sampradaya of Råmănujācārya. Of these, only the ācāryas of the Vallabha- sampradaya have gone to great lengths to substantiate that these three chapters are interpolated. Others have only mentioned in passing that they consider these chapters in- terpolated or have indirectly disapproved of them by not commenting on them. In contrast, Gauḍīya ācāryas, along with ācāryas of the Nimbȧrka and Sankara sampradayas, and some other well- known commentators on Śrīmad-Bhagavatam, consider the three chapters in question authentic. In the Gauḍīya line Śrila Sanatana Gosvami’s Brhad-vaisnava Toşani, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi’s Vaisnava Tosani, and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa’s Siddhanta Darpana, briefly state that the Gaudiya-sampradaya regards the three chapters as authentic. In the 19th century an acarya in the Vallabha-sampradaya, Giridhara La! Gosvāmi, wrote a lengthy essay entitled Adhyāya-traya-prakṣiptatva-samarthanam (Evidence That the Three Chapters Are Interpolated). Not only did the au- thor launch a systematic attempt to refute Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi, but he depicted him as an ācārya-drohi-one who rebels against previous ācāryas. Lal further claimed that Śrī Jiva was not even a devotee, what to speak of a recipient of Lord Appendix Two 345 Kṛṣṇa’s mercy. He wrote, " Jiva Gosvāmi is unable to under- stand the learned opinion of Sri Vallabhācārya.” There is a Sanskrit saying, ācārya kṛtvā na nivartante, “Acāryas do not return to support their writings.” Hence it is the duty of the followers to defend the valuable conclusions left by them. The three chapters in question are virtually the commentary on Vyasadeva’s statement, kṛṣṇa’s tu bhagavân svayam Kṛṣṇa is the original Supreme Person. If they are rejected, Śrila Vyasadeva’s very purpose for writing the book would not be fulfilled. Lal’s critique virtually includes all points his predecessor ācāryas gave in their attempt to establish that the Bhāgavatam has only 332 chapters. Thus, if his essay is refuted, all such lesser ones will automatically col- lapse as per the logic called pradhana-malla-barhana nyaya if the champion wrestler is defeated, then all other con- tenders are defeated. Here I shall give the gist of his views, then respond with the evidence given by the Gauḍīya ācāryas. My purpose is not to criticize those who do not accept these three chapters as part of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam; rather it is to uphold the conclusive opinion of Jīva Gosvāmi. This will do with logic, scriptural references, history, and the testimony of saintly persons. Na hi nindā nindayitum pravartate api tu vidheyam stotum, “The purpose of a cri- tique is not to find fault in others; it is to establish the proper conclusion about the subject.” The truth must be revealed to enlighten sincere students. Yena istam tena gamyatām, “Ulti- mately everyone is free to follow their desired path.” In one work which explains the gist of Srimad- Bhāgavatam, Śri Vallabhācārya explains that three types of language are used therein: (1) Samadhi bhāṣā-the lan- guage of trance; (2) Laukiki bhāṣā—the language used in material descriptions; (3) Anyabhāṣā-language other that the above two. The last two support the first. (Śrīmad- Bhāgavatartha-prakaraṇam 1.11,12): esă samadhi-bhāṣā hi vyäsasyämitatejasaḥ laukiki canyabhāṣā ca samädheḥ poşike tu te This verse indicates that in Śrimad-Bhāgavatam repeti- tions and apparent contradictions will be found owing to the 346 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha fact that it is not all written in the Laukiki bhāṣā, or the langauge of the common man. Therefore, in explaining this verse, Vallabhācārya says that in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it ap- pears there is glorification of knowledge, contradiction be- tween earlier and later parts, and defects of repetition, but in reality such is not the case. He says that this can be resolved by knowing that there are three types of languages. Here the founder of Pusti-märga has recognized two types of apparent problems: (1) contradictory parts of a story, (2) repetition of some statements. Vallabhācārya and other com- mentators recognize these apparent problems in Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam and have tried to resolve them. In light of this, it is inconsistent that some commentators insist on labeling Chapters Twelve, Thirteen, and Fourteen as spurious by cit- ing the same defects other commentators have resolved in other sections of the Srimad Bhagavatam. In the case of Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi, he has resolved these contradictions in a simple manner, and thus he sees no reason for rejecting them. Lál Gosvāmī sees this as an affront, however, and has made many harsh comments about Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi. The internal disharmony or contradiction in the Śrimad- Bhāgavatam can be resolved if it is demonstrated that these chapters have been accepted by previous ācāryas. Then there is no reason for debate. Giridhara Lal has also ac- cepted this principle. Commenting on verses 10.11.10-20 he writes: “Some commentators have explained these eleven verses and some have not, but because they are found in the books and they are not against the topic under narra- tion, we shall explain them.” Then he comments on these eleven verses although they have been left out by even Vallabhācārya. On the other hand, Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi has reconciled the apparent inconsistencies of Chapters Twelve, Thirteen and Fourteen. Therefore he says there is no reason to consider these chapters spurious. If a commentator is unable to resolve the contradiction, it is because of his deficiency in scholarship and not receiving the grace of the Lord. Amazingly, Lal tries to blame those who have solved the problem. Indeed it is Appendix Two 347 easier to label the three chapters spurious rather than delve into them and see how wonderfully they fit into Śrīmad- Bhagavatam. It is said, dhananjaye hatakasam parikṣā vidyāvatām bhagavate parīkṣā, “One’s scholarship is tested in Śrimad-Bhāgavatam just as gold is tested in fire.” To explain Lal’s objections I begin with an extract from Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi’s Vaisnava Tosani. In this way readers can have a better sense of Lal’s objections. In commenting on Bhagavatam 10.12.1 Jīva Gosvāmī writes: We see no reason why some people do not accept the three chapters, i.e. Twelve, Thirteen, and Fourteen; and the six verses beginning with 10.6.35, and verse 10.6.44 which explain the liberation of Pūtană. These pastimes are known to people all over the land by hearing from their superiors. Numerous commentators of old as well as modern ones have explained these chapters. Some of these commentaries are Vāsanā-bhāṣya, Sambandhokti, Vidvat-kamadhenu, Šuka-manohara, and Paramahamsa Priya. If someone says that these are not authentic, being unacceptable to their sampradaya, then, by the same logic, why not consider them authentic since they are accepted by other sampradayas? One cannot say that in the Srimad-Bhāgavatam Lord Kṛṣṇa is not mentioned as Aghabhid, the killer of Aghäsura, like Murabhid, the killer of Mura demon. In 3.15.23 of the Bhāgavatam He is called Aghabhit, the destroyer of the Agha demon or dispeller of sins, yan na vrajanty aghabhido racananuvadac chṛṇvanti ye’nya- visayaḥ kukatha matighṇīḥ. One cannot say that these pastimes described in the chapters in question are not mentioned in the Bhagavatam list of the Lord’s pastimes, because Śridhara Svāmi has mentioned them in his lists. Thus when Sridhara Svāmi says dvâtrimsat trisatam ca yasya vilasat śākhā, “It has 335 chapters,” he does not mention that three chapters are not included, because his commentary is available with the chapter numbers mentioned and the same verses in them. Nor should one think that some other three chapters are to be accepted as interpolated. (Supporters of the interpolation theory have translated the word dvātrimśat trisatam as 332, which it appears to be at a cursory look.) This phrase 348 1 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha has a dvandva-samasa of the words dvātrimśât (32), traya (3), and satáni (hundreds)-dvâtrimśat ca trayaś ca satāni ca and the word śatāni (hundreds) means three hundred because in Sanskrit the plural means three or more. Here the number three is indicated by the kapiñjala-alabhana nyāya,’ otherwise the plural can mean any number over two and will remain ambiguous. If it is not accepted as a dvandva-samāsa the word should become trisati according to the grammatical rules and not trisatam. These chapters should not be rejected because they go against the principle that demons killed by Krsna attain liberation. (Aghasura’s liberation is described in the Twelfth Chapter after he was killed by Lord Krsna. The Madhvites do not accept that demons Kṛṣṇa kills attain liberation. This is one of their reasons for rejecting these three chapters. They do not reject them on the claim that they were interpolated.) That the demons killed by Krsna attain liberation is described in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhagavad-gitä 16.20 states: āsurim yonim āpannā mūḍhā janmani janmani mám aprȧpyaiva kaunteya tato yanty adhamam gatim “Birth after birth, attaining the species of demoniac life, O son of Kunti, such deluded persons, not attaining Me, sink down to the most abominable type of existence.” This and other such verses state that demons go to the lower species not having attained Kṛṣna. If they had attained Kṛṣṇa, like the demons He killed, they would not go to the lower species. Thus it is said in Srimad- Bhagavatam (2.7.34,35): ye ca pralamba-khara-dardura-kesy-arista- mallebha-kamsa-yavanāḥ kapi-paundrakadyāḥ anye ca salva-kuja-balvala-dantavakra- saptokṣa-sambara-vidūratha-rukmi-mukhyāḥ ye vá mṛdhe samiti-śālina ätta-cāpāḥ kamboja-matsya-kuru-sṛñjaya-kaikayādyāḥ yasyanty adarśanam alam bala-pārtha-bhima- vyājāhvayena hariņā nilayam tadiyam Vasante kapiñjalan alabhet. According to this Vedic injunction, one should perform sacrifice in the spring season with kapiñjala birds. The number is not indicated, but because it is in the plural case, three is accepted by the Purva mimamsakas. Otherwise the statement remains unclear. Appendix Two *All demonic persons like Pralamba, Dhenuka, Baka, Keśī, Arista, Cănura, Mustika, Kuvalayapida, Kamsa, Kala- Yavana, Narakasura and Paundraka, great marshals like Sälva, Dvivida, Balvala, Dantavaktra, the seven bulls, Sambara, Vidūratha, and Rukmi, as also great warriors from Kamboja, Matsya, Kuru, Sṛñjaya and Kekaya, and other great heroes who would all fight vigorously carrying bows, either with Lord Hari directly or with Him under His names of Baladeva, Arjuna, Bhima, etc. will attain liberation being killed by the Lord.” The pastimes in the three chapters are also described in the Padma and Brahmanda Purana, therefore they cannot be rejected as if they are not mentioned in other scriptures. Also, the sites where these pastimes occured are still popularly known in Vmdāvana. We have no reason to reject the liberation of Aghasura thinking that it is not possible for a demon to achieve a destination similar to the one attained by a devotee. Besides, pure devotees do not covet such liberation, as is known from hundreds of verses. For example, Bhag. 3.15.48: nätyantikam viganayanty api te prasādaṁ kintv anyad arpita-bhayam bhruva unnayais te ye ’nga tvad-anghri-sarana bhavataḥ kathāyāḥ kirtanya-tirtha-yaśasaḥ kuśalā rasa-jñāḥ “Persons who are very expert and have knowledge of pure devotional service engage in hearing narrations of the auspicious activities and pastimes of the Lord, which are worth chanting and hearing. Such persons do not care even for Your mercy in the form of liberation, to say nothing of other less important benedictions like the happiness of the heavenly kingdom, which are destroyed just by a flick of your eyebrow.” The six verses explaining that Putană attained the position of mother should not be rejected by those who are aware of the glory of such a post, thinking that such a destination is not possible for her. It should be known that she attained such a place due to the sad-veśa, or the saintly dress of a gopi, as is clear from Bhag. 10.14.35: eşăm ghosa-nivāsinām uta bhavan kim deva räteti naś ceto viśva-phalat phalam tvad-aparam kuträpy ayan muhyati 349 350 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha sad-veṣād iva pūtanāpi sa-kulā tvām eva devâpitā yad-dhâmärtha-suhṛt-priyatma-tanaya-prāṇāśayās tvat-kṛte “My mind becomes bewildered when I think what reward other than You could be found anywhere. You are the embodiment of all benedictions. Even Pútana and her family members, in exchange for her disguising herself as a gopi (female devotee), have attained you. So what will You give to these devotees of Vṛndāvana, whose homes, wealth, friends, dear relations, bodies, children and very lives and hearts are all dedicated to You?” Here the real cause of Pūtana’s liberation was her dressing as a gopi, so only the position of gopi is being glorified. Vijayadhvaja Tirtha’s attempt to reconcile the verses describing Pútana’s liberation with his understanding is unsatisfactory. One should not be bewildered just by reading the word gopi, referring to the women whose breasts Lord Kṛṣṇa suckled during the one year period of the Brahma- vimohana-lilä, and conclude that He could not have engaged in the râsa dance with the same gopis. The gopis whose breasts He suckled were of the same age as mother Yasoda, while those with whom He danced were His age. Thus there is no contradiction. In these chapters the glories of devotion, the devotees, and the Lord have been explained in an extraordinary manner, but these can be realized only by the special mercy of the Lord, hence these are very secret pastimes, as said by Sri Suka (Bhag. 10.13.3): śṛṇusvävahito rajann api guhyam vadāmi te bruyuḥ snigdhasya śisyasya guravo guhyam api uta O king, kindly hear me with great attention. Although the activities of the Lord are confidential, I shall speak about them to you, for spiritual masters explain to a submissive disciple even subject matters that are very confidential and difficult to understand. This is enough of an explanation. In Brhad Vaisnava Toṣani, Śrīla Sanatana Gosvāmi points out that the Tattva-vādī Vaiṣṇavas, who consider liberation 1 Appendix Two 351 the supreme goal of life, are intolerant of these three chap- ters and the seven verses concerning Putana’s destination, for they describe demons attaining liberation and Lord Kṛṣṇa’s sucking the breasts of the elderly gopis. Sanatana Gosvāmī responds to the objection that Lord Kṛṣṇa cannot perform Rāsa-filā with the same gopis whose breasts He suckled when He expanded Himself into cow- herd boys during the Brahma-vimohana lilā. Those gopis are on the same level as mother Yasoda and are not the same beloved young girlfriends with whom Kṛṣṇa engaged in conjugal pastimes. As Jiva and Sanatana Gosvāmis make no mention of Vallabhācārya in their explanations, it is clear they were not trying to refute him. Sanātana Gosvami does, however, men- tion the followers of Madhvācārya known as Tattva-vadis. Considering this, the Pusti-mārga ācāryas should not be offended by Jiva Gosvāmi’s conclusion nor attack him causticly as Giridhara Läl has done. In his essay, Giridhara Lal mentions Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa making it clear that Baladeva predated him. Thus he had the advantage of hearing the previous argu- ments and counter-arguments. His critique is in Sanskrit and a complete translation would be excessive and impractical, so what follows is the gist of his arguments that the Bhagavatam has only three hundred thirty-two chapters. The response follows each point. A It is clear that these three chapters are interpolated because of two defects: former and latter statements do not match, and repetition-the same verse appears at the end of the Eleventh and Fourteenth Chapters: evam vihāraiḥ kaumāraiḥ kaumāram jahatur vraje nilāyanaiḥ setu-bandhair markatotplavanādibhiḥ In this way Kṛṣṇa and Balarama passed their childhood, below age five, in the land of Vṛndāvana playing hide- and-seek, building play-bridges, jumping about like 352 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha monkeys, and engaging in many other such games with the cowherd boys. (Bhag. 10.11.59 and 10.14.61) The first verse of the fifteenth chapter reads: śrī-suka uvāca tataś ca pauganda-vayah-śritau vraje babhuvatus tau pasu-pala sammatau gāś cârayantau sakhibhiḥ samam padair vṛndāvanam punyam ativa cakratuḥ Sukadeva Gosvāmī said: Thereafter when Krsna and Balarama reached the pauganda age (six years) while living in Vṛndāvana, the cowherd men gave Them permission to tend the cows. In this way tending the cows in the company of Their friends, the two boys made the land of Vṛndāvana most auspicious by marking it with Their lotus feet. Thus there is a proper continuity between the last verse of the Eleventh Chapter and the first verse of the Fifteenth, because the earlier verses speak of Krsna and Balarama passing the kaumāra age (below five) and the later verses speak of Their entering the pauganda age (above five). The interim three chapters describe Their kaumāra pastimes and therefore they do not fit after the above quoted final verse of the Eleventh Chapter. Thus the repetition of the same verse at the end of the Fourteenth Chapter shows that Śrī Sukadeva Gosvāmi did not speak these three chapters. Vallabhācārya says they were added later to excite people by presenting such wonderous pastimes. Śrī Sukadeva Gosvāmi, being a perfected sage cannot forget his earlier statement that Lord Kṛṣṇa gave up the kaumāra stage. Nor is it possible that he forgot to speak these three chapters and only after speaking verse 10.11.59 did he suddenly re- member to narrate them. RESPONSE Verse 10.11.59, evam vihāraiḥ kaumāraiḥ, is repeated at the end of Chapter Fourteen because of Sukadeva’s ecstacy after telling the wonderful brahma-vimohana-līlā. ŚrīlaAppendix Two 353 Vyăsadeva has declared the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the mature fruit of the tree of Vedic knowledge and it is full of rasa. In Anuccheda 29 of Tattva-Sandarbha, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī describes how Sukadeva Gosvāmi gave up his at- tachment to impersonal Brahman after hearing the beauti- ful pastimes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, sva- sukha-nibhṛta-cetās tad vyudastanya-bhavo’py ajita-rucira- filā kṛṣṭasārastadiyam (Bhag. 12.13.68). He tasted the rasa of the Bhagavatam by reciting it, and was completely im- mersed in it as is stated in the Padma Purana, Uttarakhanda, Bhāgavata-mahatmya (6.101), rasa-pravaha-samsthena śrīśukenerită katha: “The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was recited by Śri Suka, who was absorbed in the flow of rasa.” There are similar statements in the Bhāgavatam (10.80.5): sūta uväǎca visņu-rätena sampṛsto bhagavan bädarāyaṇiḥ vasudeve bhagavati nimagna-hṛdayo ‘bravit Thus questioned by King Parikṣit, the powerful sage Śukadeva, son of Vyasa, replied, his heart fully absorbed in meditation on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vasudeva. According to the rules of rhetoric, although repetition of a word or verse is considered a defect in poetry, there are certain exceptions to the rule. The Sahitya-darpaṇa (7.19), a standard work on rhetoric lists eleven exceptions: vihitasyänuvädyatve visāde vismaye krudhi dainye ’tha läṭānuprase ’nukampāyām prasādane arthäntara-sankramita-vacye harse ‘vadharane A repetition is not considered a defect in (1) restating the subject; (2) distress; (3) surprise; (4) anger; (5) dejection; (6) lâtänuprāsa (a type of alliteration); (7) showing mercy; (8) pleasing someone; (9) arthântar-sankramita-vacya- dhvani; a type of implied meaning; (10) happiness; and, (11) and confirming something. The pastimes described in Chapters Twelve, Thirteen, and Fourteen of the Tenth Canto are very wonderful and cer- tainly aroused deep ecstatic feelings in Sukadeva Gosvāmī causing him to lose external consciousness. 354 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha śri sūta uvāca ittham sma pṛṣṭaḥ sa tu badarāyaṇis tat smäritänanta-hrtäkhilendriyaḥ kṛcchrät punar labdha-bahir-drsiḥ śanaiḥ pratyaha tam bhāgavatottamottama Sūta Gosvāmi said: O Saunaka, greatest of saints and devotees, when Māhārāja Parikṣit inquired from Sukadeva Gosvāmī in this way, Sukadeva, immediately remembering subject matters about Kṛṣṇa within the core of his heart, externally lost contact with his senses. Thereafter, with great difficulty, he revived his external sensory perception and began to speak to Māhārāja Parīkṣit about Kṛṣṇa (Bhag. 10.12.44). Commenting on this verse, Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi writes that the word punaḥ (again) indicates that he went into such a state time and again. Lal comments that the word kṛcchrât (with difficulty) means that they had to play musical instru- ments to bring Sukadeva back to external consciousness. Krcchrāt kara-tāla-dundubhi-sankhadi-vadya-yutastotrādi- prayāsāt punaḥ śanair labdha bahir drsih drstiḥ yena sah. Therefore, Sukadeva’s repetition of the verse falls within one of the exceptions listed above. Hence there is no defect. Other examples of verses being repeated in the Bhāgavatam are in the Seventh Canto where Nārada Muni instructs Yudhisthira Māhārāja and repeats three verses twice (7.10.48-50 are repeated in 7.15.75-77). No commentator ever labeled these verses spurious because they are re- peated. Nårada Muni here gives instructions on vamṇāśrama-not on some wonderful esoteric pastimes of Kṛṣṇa. Still he repeats these verses to give stress. Why then should it be considered spurious if Śrī Suka repeats one verse, especially when speaking about one of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s most wonderful pastimes which bewildered even Lord Brahma and caused Sukadeva to go into ecstasy? Moreover, the last verse of the Eleventh Chapter of the Tenth Canto is not found in some editions of the Bhāgavatam. The Anvitärtha Prakāśa commentary states, ayam sloko na särvatrika, “This verse in not found in all editions.” That refutes Appendix Two 355 Lāl altogether. Still, if these three chapters were interpo- lated then it is unlikely that the person who did it would make such obvious mistakes that they could be so easily detected. Instead of writing long essays to disprove these three chap- ters, it would have been more proper for them to reject the fifty-ninth verse of the Eleventh Chapter. But as stated ear- lier, the real reason the authenticity of these chapters is chal- lenged is that they go against their philosophy. Again, verses 8.9.28 and 8.10.1 have the same meaning although composed differently. They are only separated by one verse and yet no one considers 8.10.1 interpolated. The verse arthe hy avidyamane ‘pi is spoken five! times in Bhāgavatam-once by Lord Kapila in the Third Canto, twice by Narada Muni in the Fourth Canto, and twice by Kṛṣṇa in the Eleventh Canto. This repetition is simply to give emphasis. Repetition also appears when the speaker tells about someone he has strong loving feelings for. In such cases the narrative is not handled in strict chronological order, be- cause the bhāva, or the mood of the speaker, is what guides the narration. Thus the Tenth Canto is not meticulously chro- nological, nor is it necessarily without repetition. In the Third Canto, Uddhava does not mention these B pastimes found in the disputed chapters during his meeting with Vidura. They are also not mentioned in Sūta’s list of the Lord’s activities in the Twelfth Canto, nor in Brahma’s list in the Second Canto, nor are they in the list of pastimes imitated by the gopis when Lord Kṛṣṇa disappeared from the rāsa dance. RESPONSE One should not assume that these lists intend to include all of Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes. It does not follow therefore, that since the lists given by Uddhava, Sūta Gosvāmi, and Brahmå do not include the pastimes from the disputed chapters, and that since the gopis did not imitate them, the chapters are interpolated. Sūta Gosvāmi’s list, (Bhag.12.12.27-40), is the 356 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha most exhaustive, as he gives a summary of the Tenth Canto. Still, it does not include all the pastimes described, such as: C. The Lord’s name-giving ceremony The Lord’s mercy on Kubjā The killing of the washerman The story of the Syamantaka jewel and the marriage of Jämbavati and Satyabhama The liberation of King Nrga The marriage with Laxmaṇā by shooting the fish Kṛṣṇa’s dealings with Sudāmā Vipra The Lord’s trip to Kuruksetra to meet the cowherd people The kidnapping of Subhadra The Lord’s trip to Mithila The return of the six sons of Devaki from Yamapuri The Lord’s visit to Mähä-visnu with Arjuna Lord Balarama’s pilgrimage tour The killing of Romaharṣaṇa Sūta The release of Samba from the Kauravas Those who reject aghāsura-mokṣa and brahma-mohana on the basis of their not being mentioned in any of the lists of Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes must then also consider the above four- teen pastimes spurious for the same reason, otherwise, their argument is inconsistent. The gopis and Uddhava, being guided by their bhāva (emotional state), and not by a sense of accuracy, recalled specific pastimes for their own satisfaction, so to expect a complete list from them is illogical. Except for Sūta Gosvāmi, who was giving a summary of the whole Bhāgavatam, no one was attempting to list Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes in toto. Even so, Even Sūta’s list was not all-inclusive, as already shown. C Śrīnātha Cakravarti writes in his commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, called Caitanya-mata-Mañjuṣā, that the liberation of the Yamala-arjuna trees is not mentioned in Suta’s Twelfth Canto list of the Lord’s pastimes. Similarly, the killing of Aghasura and the brahma-vimohana lilä are not included in that list, as they are very confidential pastimes. This is a hasty statement born of zeal because Brahma does mention the yamala-arjuna-filā in verse 2.7.27. T Appendix Two 357 Verse 10.26.7 states that the gopas related this pastime, and verse 10.30.23 mentions that the gopis imitated it. So even if not mentioned in the Twelfth Canto, it is mentioned elsewhere, but aghāsura-līlā is not mentioned anywhere; therefore, it is not part of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. RESPONSE Śrīnātha Cakravarti was an associate of Lord Caitanya and the initiating guru of Kavi Kamapura. Regarding the omis- sion of the Yamal-arjuna-lilā from Sūta Gosvāmi’s list, Lāl says that Śrīnātha Cakravarti made a hasty statement “be- cause of zeal,” and cites the Second and Tenth Cantos to refute him. But it is Lal who is hasty to criticize Śrinātha who only points out that the pastime is not included in the Twelfth Canto list. He does not claim that the pastime is not men- tioned elsewhere. Furthermore, in some editions of Srimad Bhagavatam aghasura and brahma-vimohana filās are mentioned in Súta Gosvāmi’s list. Therein verse 12.12.23 contains the line, aghåsurbadho dhātrā vatsapālāva-gūhanam, which trans- lates as “The killing of Aghasura and Lord Brahma’s hiding the cowherd boys.” Commentaries on this edition include Krama-Sandarbha, Särärtha Varsini, Bhakta Manoranjani, Vaisnava Toṣaṇī, Bhagavat Candrikā and so on. D The bewilderment of Brahmā goes against his own statement in the Second Canto (2.6.34): na bharati me ’nga mṛsopalakṣyate na vai kvacin me manaso mrṣà gatiḥ na me hṛṣikāņi patanty asat-pathe yan me hṛdautkanthya-vatä dhṛto harih “O Nārada, because I have caught hold of the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hari, within my heart, with great zeal, whatever I say has never proven false; nor my mind ever makes false decisions; nor are my senses ever attracted to the illusory objects. 358 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Since Brahmå has realized knowledge about the Lord, it is ludicrous for him to test Lord Kṛṣṇa (as in brahma-vimohana fīlā). Indeed Lord Brahma was already blessed by the Lord as stated below (2.9.37): etan matam samatistha parameṇa samādhinā bhavan kalpa-vikalpesu na vimuhyati karhicit O Brahmâ, just remain fixed in this conclusion by fixed concentration of mind and you will not be disturbed in the various types of creations in different kalpas. Also, it cannot be said that this blessing was applicable only in the matter of creation, since that goes against verses 30- 32 of the same chapter: yavat sakha sakhyur iveśa te kṛtah praja-visarge vibhajami bho janam aviklavas te parikarmani sthito má me samunnaddha-mado ja maninaḥ O my Lord, You have shaken hands with me just as a friend with a friend. I shall be occupied in Your service creating different types of living entities without any disturbance. I therefore pray that while engaged in this service I may not become overly proud considering myself as unborn. śri-bhagavan uvāca jñānam parama-guhyam me yad vijñāna-samanvitam sa-rahasyam tad-angam ca gṛhana gaditam maya The Personality of Godhead said: Knowledge about Me, including its realization, is most confidential. Take it from Me, along with its secret meaning and its limbs as I describe it to you. yāvān aham yathā-bhāvo yad-rūpa-guna-karmakah tathaiva tattva-vijñānam astu te mad-anugrahat By My mercy let true knowledge about Me, as I am, about My existence, form, qualities, and activities become available to you. Proof that Lord Brahma has full understanding about Lord Kṛṣṇa’s supreme position is furnished by his own words (Bhag. 2.7.27): Appendix Two tokena jiva-haraṇam yad uluki-kāyās trai-másikasya ca padā sakato ‘pavṛttaḥ yad ringatantara-gatena divi-spṛśor vā unmulanam tv itaratharjunayor na bhavyam Krsna is the Supreme Lord, otherwise how was it possible for Him to kill a giant demon like Pūtana when He was just a baby? How could He kick over a cart with His leg when He was only three months old, or uproot a pair of arjuna trees, so high that they touched the sky, by merely crawling in between them? No one else but the Lord could do such miraculous activities. 359 Thus Lord Brahmâ lacks the independence to test Lord Krsna. RESPONSE Lord Brahma was blessed by Lord Kṛṣṇa not to be bewil- dered by Mäyǎ. Moreover Brahma is in complete knowledge of Lord Kṛṣṇa. So how can Brahmå get bewildered? In Bhag. 2.9.29-30 Lord Brahma asked a boon to remain free from pride while creating. From Bhag. 2.9.37 it is clear that the Lord’s blessing protected him from Mayá only in the matter of creating and not while participating in the Lord’s pas- times. Those with a thorough understanding of the science of transcendental knowledge know that the Lord has two Māyā potencies, Mahā-māyā and Yoga-mâyă. Mahā-māyā causes bewilderment and ignorance and makes the living entity a nondevotee. Yoga-māyā also makes one forget Kṛṣṇa as the supreme master, replete with all opulences, but this is to facilitate the devotee’s participating in the Lord’s pastimes. By the influ- ence of Yoga-māyā, the devotee does not understand that Kṛṣṇa is the supreme controller and that “I am His servant,” because if devotees always think of Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Lord there could not be intimate pastimes of friendship and so forth. Only the majestic pastimes of master and servant would exist. An example of Yoga-māyā is seen in Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam 10.45.1: śrī śuka uvāca pitarăv upalabdharthau viditvä purusottamaḥ mā bhūd iti nijām māyāṁ tatāna jana mohinim 360 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Sukadeva Gosvāmī said: Understanding that His parents have become aware of His opulences, the Supreme Personality of Godhead thought that this should not be allowed to happen. Thus He spread His Yoga-māyā, which bewilders His devotees. Vallabhǎcārya divided mayà into three-vimukha-jana- mohini, or that which bewilders the nondevotees, svajana- mohini, or that which bewilders the Lord’s devotees, and sva-mohini, or that which bewilders the Lord. In Gaudiya Vaiṣṇava terminology the first is designated as Maha-măyă and the other two as Yoga-māyā. The Vaiṣṇava ācāryas have accepted similar divisions of the Lord’s māya. Thus it is not an inexplicable novelty that Brahma was bewildered by Yoga- måya so that he could enhance Lord Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes in Vraja. Giridhara Lāl’s commentary on Bhāgavatam 2.9.36 fur- ther reveals his critical nature, on account of which he forgot his own explanation. While commenting on 2.9.28, he writes that Lord Brahmå requested the Supreme Lord to bless him that in the work of creation he should not become bound by pride. In Bhåg. 2.9.36, beginning with etat, the Lord grants Brahma’s request, telling him to be fixed in transcendental meditation on the philosophy spoken of in the preceeding four verses, the Catuḥ śloki Bhāgavatam. The Lord says that if Brahma would always think in this way, he would not become possessed by lust, anger, and pride. Lal concludes “It must be understood therefore that if Brahma is overcome by lust, anger, and pride on occasion, it is from his forgetting this message.” Lai says that the Lord’s blessing applies only to the act of creation. And interestingly, he even says that sometimes because of forgetting this knowledge, Lord Brahmā may be captured by Maya, although this is the very objection he raised earlier that Brahma is blessed by the Lord and can- not be caught by Māyā. What to speak of Brahmå, even mother Yasoda was be- wildered by yogamāyā when Kṛṣṇa showed her the whole universe within His mouth (Bhag. 10.8.42): Appendix Two aham mamāsau patir esa me suto vrajeśvarasyākhila-vitta-pā satī gopyaś ca gopāḥ saha-go-dhanaś ca me yan-mayayettham ku-matiḥ sa me gatiḥ It is by the influence of the Supreme Lord’s Māyā that I am wrongly thinking I am Yasoda, Nanda Mahārāja is my husband, Kṛṣṇa is my son, I am the wife of Nanda Mahārāja, all his wealth of cows and calves are my possessions and all the cowherd men and their wives are my subjects. Actually, I also am eternally subordinate to the Supreme Lord. He is my ultimate shelter. 361 Commenting on this verse, Lål accepts that the amount of bliss mother Yasoda experiences in thinking of Krsna as her son far surpasses that experienced by considering Him the Supreme Lord. Knowing this, Lord Kṛṣṇa expanded His Vaiṣṇavi-maya which constitutes His internal potency. And further (10.8.43): ittham vidita-tattvāyāṁ gopikāyāṁ sa iśvaraḥ vaiṣṇavim vyatanon māyām putra-sneha-mayim vibhuḥ In this way when mother Yasoda, the gopi, understood the real truth, the Supreme Master, the Lord spread His Vaisnavi-māya on mother Yasoda, who was very affectionate towards Him. What’s more, even Lord Kṛṣṇa was bewildered for a muhurta (48 minutes), while fighting Sälva (Bhag. 10.77.23, 24,28): nisamya vipriyam kṛṣṇo mănuşim prakṛtim gataḥ vimanasko ghṛṇi snehâd babhāṣe prakṛto yathã katham rāmam asambhrāntaṁ jitvājeyam surāsuraiḥ śälvenālpiyasa nitaḥ pitä me balavän vidhiḥ tato muhurtam prakṛtāv upaplutaḥ sva-bodha äste sva jananuṣangataḥ mahānubhāvas tad abudhyad āsurim māyāṁ sa salva-prasṛtām mayoditām When He heard this disturbing news, Lord Kṛṣṇa, who was playing the role of a mortal man, showed sorrow and compassion. Out of love for His parents He spoke the following words like an ordinary conditioned soul, 362 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Balarama is ever vigilant, and no demigod or demon can defeat Him. So how could this insignificant Salva defeat Him and abduct My father? Indeed, fate is all powerful. By nature Lord,Kṛṣṇa is full in knowledge, and He has unlimited powers of perception. Yet for a muhurta, out of great affection for His loved ones, He remained absorbed in the mood of an ordinary human being. He soon recalled, however, that this was all a demoniac illuson engineered by Maya Danava and employed by Salva. But the ultimate answer to this question is given by Śri Šukadeva in verse 10.77.32: yat-pada-sevorjitayātma vidyaya hinvanty anadyatma-viparyaya-graham labhanta ātmiyam anantam aiśvaram kuto nu mohaḥ paramasya sad-gateḥ By virtue of self-realization fortified by service rendered to His feet, devotees of the Lord dispel the bodily concept of life, which has bewildered souls without beginning. Thus they attain eternal glory in His personal association. How then, can that Supreme Truth, the destination of all genuine saints, be subject to illusion? Sukadeva’s question is rhetorical. It means the Lord can never be bewildered by illusion, but for His pastimes He agrees to become the subject of His own yogamåyå potency. One is further advised to consider Lord Brahma’s statement in 2.7.42: yeṣām sa esa bhagavan dayayed anantaḥ sarvātmanāśrita-pado yadi nirvyalikam te dustarăm atitaranti ca deva-māyāṁ naiṣām mamāham iti dhiḥ śva-śṛgala-bhakṣye But anyone who is specifically favored by the Supreme Lord, the Personality of Godhead, due to unalloyed surrender unto the service of the Lord, can overcome the insurmountable ocean of illusion and can understand the Lord, but those who are attached to the body, which is meant to be eaten at the end by dogs and jackals, cannot do so. Whether Brahma’s bewilderment was because of his forget- fulness of the Lord or by the independent will of the Lord, itAppendix Two 363 is not against the narrations and principles established in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Further, because this pastime is related in the Padma Purana, which is accepted by Lål, as he quotes the Padma Purāņa in this regard, it cannot be against the conclusions of the scriptures. As stated earlier, when the Lord wants to enjoy His hu- manlike pastimes, He takes help from yogamāyā. Other- wise He cannot engage in pastimes like stealing butter, feel- ing hungry, and so on, because He owns everything and hunger cannot touch Him. On the words atma-māyā (Bhāg. 10.3.46), the son of Vallabhācārya, Śrī Vitthalnatha, comments: Just as the illusory energy, Maya, the cause of material bondage, makes one forget one’s real nature and causes attachment to the material world, in the same way this ātma-māyā makes a devotee forget his nature (as servant of the Lord) and causes attachment to the Lord (in a particular relationship). Because of the common attribute of making the jiva forget his identity, the atma-māyā is also called māyā. Vallabhācārya also says that māyā is of three types- svamohini, which bewilders Kṛṣṇa; svajanamohini, which bewilders the devotees; and vimukhajanamohini, which be- wilders the nondevotees. In the Gauḍīya-sampradaya, svamohini and svājanamohini corresponds to Yoga-māyā, which is the Lord’s internal potency, and vimukhājanamohini is Mahā-māyā, the external potency of the Lord. If Lord Brahma is bewildered by the internal potency of Lord Kṛṣṇa that is not out of the ordinary; it is consistent with so many other pastimes in the Srimad-Bhāgavatam. This also clears up the objection that the Lord did not keep His promise to Lord Brahma, for His promise was in reference to Māyā and not to Yoga-mâyâ. Moreover, the Lord is independent and supremely powerful. Mundane consid- erations of morality, ethics and so forth cannot be projected on Him. God is transcendental to all such considerations. Hence, even if He did not keep a promise made to Lord Brahma, there is no blemish in His divine character. Rather, it becomes yet another facet of His wonderful pastimes. In 364 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha this particular case, however, Lal is proven wrong because the Lord did keep His promise to Lord Brahmå. Lål has un- fortunately confused the Māyā sakti with the yogamâyā sakti of the Lord. E You (Jiva Gosvāmi) are jumping over your own ācāryas and thus you are a rebel, ācārya-drohi, be- cause Śri Madhvacārya, your own sampradaya ācārya, did not accept those chapters nor did Śrī Vijayadhvaja. RESPONSE Madhvācārya neither commented on these chapters nor said they were interpolated. If his not commenting on the three disputed chapters is the test of interpolation, then chapters eleven and fifteen, and many others throughout the Bhāgavatam should be considered spurious because Madhvācārya did not comment on them either. Vijayadhvaja, an ācārya in the same sampradaya, without explanation also did not com- ment on these chapters and never said they were spurious. Giridhara Lal counts Madhvācārya and Vijayadhvaja among those who regard these chapters spurious. Madhvācārya’s Bhāgavatam comments are brief and on se- lect verses, thus his neglecting to comment on these chap- ters does not substantiate Lal’s thesis. In the case of Vijayadhvaja, scholars question the edition of Bhāgavatam he commented on. In some places it shows extra verses, nay, extra chapters, and in other places many verses are missing. Even Madhvites have doubts about the edition he used. For example, the publisher of Bhāgavata tätparya of Śrī Madhvācārya has written: Although previously the original reading according to Vijayadhvaja was published, which is available, that is neither according to Vijayadhvaja nor according to Bhāṣya (Bhagavata tätparya of Madhvācārya). Vijayadhvaja’s reading is strewn with defects. In certain places it appears as if someone who did not have good knowledge of the original has interpolated it and thus it appears doubtful, not very fine, and in places even contradictory to Appendix Two Bhāgavata tâtparya…. At present the correct reading of Vijayadhvaja needs to be examined…. (Sarva Mula Grantha Volume III, Udupi, 1980.) 365 Thus writes Govindācārya, a scholarly and staunch follower of Sri Madhvācārya. Lal would not have had better access to Madhva-sampradaya’s manuscripts than this author. Śrī Madhvācārya and Vijayadhvaja do not explicitly de- clare these chapters interpolated, but from the statement of Śrila Sanatana Gosvāmi it is clear they avoided them. The reason, however, is not because they considered them in- terpolated but because the chapters go against their philo- sophical conclusions. Madhvācārya and his followers do not accept that demons killed by Kṛṣṇa can attain liberation. The following verses make it clear, however, that this is not the verdict of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. sa nityadodvigna-dhiyā tam iśvaram pibann adan vã vicaran svapañchvasan dadarśa cakrāäyudham agrato yatas tad eva rūpam duravapam apa Kamsa was always disturbed by the thought that the Supreme Lord would kill him. Therefore when drinking, eating, moving about, sleeping or simply breathing, the King always saw the Lord before him with the disc weapon in His hand. Thus Kamsa achieved the rare boon of attaining a form like the Lord’s. (Bhag. 10.44.39) tathaiva cânye nara-loka-virá ya ähave krsna-mukháravindam netraiḥ pibanto nayanābhiramam pårthästra-putâḥ padam ápur asya Certainly other fighters on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra were purified by the onslaught of Arjuna’s arrows, and while seeing the lotuslike face of Krsna so pleasing to the eyes, they achieved the abode of the Lord. (Bhag. 3.2.20) ye và mrdhe samiti-salina atta-capah kamboja-matsya-kuru-sṛñjaya-kaikayȧdyaḥ yasyanty adarśanam alam bala-pārtha-bhima- vyājāhvayena hariņā nilayam tadiyam 366 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha All demonic persons like Pralamba, Dhènuka, Baka, Keśi, Arişṭa, Caṇura, Mustika, Kuvalayapīḍa, Kamsa, Kāla- Yavana, Narakasura and Paundraka, great marshals like Sälva, Dvivida, Balvala, Dantavaktra, the seven bulls, Šambara, Vidūúratha, and Rukmi, as also great warriors from Kamboja, Matsya, Kuru, Sṛñjaya and Kekaya, and other great heroes who would all fight vigorously carrying bows, either with Lord Hari directly or with Him under His names of Baladeva, Arjuna, Bhima, etc. will attain liberation being killed by the Lord. (Bhag. 2.7.34) On the strength of these verses one may safely conclude that claims that demons killed by Kṛṣṇa do not attain libera- tion, or that Pūtană could not attain the status of the Lord’s mother and so forth, are not grounds for rejecting the said chapters as interpolated. Further, although Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi comes in the Madhva-sampradaya, as a follower of Mahaprabhu Śrī Caitanya, he belongs to an offshoot of Madhva’s line. Naturally there are some philosophical differ- ences as evidenced by the dvaitavada of Madhvācārya and the acintya-bhedabheda-vada of Śrīman Mahaprabhu. Hence, to accuse Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi of being a rebel and envious of previous ācāryas like Śrīla Madhvācārya is un- founded. This is evident from Anuccheda 28 of Tattva- Sandarbha where Śri Jiva refers to Śrila Madhvācārya as the prolific preacher of Vaiṣṇava philosophy, the chief among the knowers of the Vedas. Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi cites Madhvacārya, but he does not promise to accept Madhva’s philosophy in all respects. In a case of contention, Jiva Gosvāmi’s ultimate fidelity lies with Caitanya Mahaprabhu and not with Madhvācārya. F You (Jiva Gosvāmī) have said that these three chap- ters are popular. We ask then whether they are popu- lar among fools, scholars, or both? If they are accepted by fools, then certainly that does not prove their authenticity. If you say it does, then the bodily conception of life should also be accepted. Were they accepted by all scholars there would be no dispute. This automatically negates the third possibility. These chapters cannot be accepted simply because į Appendix Two 367 of popularity, as reasoned by you. Even hundreds of blind men cannot see an object. RESPONSE Here Lal says that if fools accept these chapters and write commentaries on them that does not prove their authentic- ity. He is clearly implying that all who accept these chapters are fools and those who do not accept are scholars. Who but a fool will accept such definitions? Certainly these chap- ters are popular among scholars, and Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi named but a few of them. To raise this question is in poor taste, for no one cites fools to support his case. This simple fact Lål does not understand, and so he asks, “Are these chapters popular with fools or scholars?” Among Vedic scholars, especially those who study Bhāgavatam, it is accepted that the real test of scholarship is in understanding and commenting on the Śrimad- Bhāgavatam-vidyāvatām bhāgavate parīkṣā. Persons who comment on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, therefore, cannot be com- pared to the fools mired in the bodily conception of life. For example, Bopadeva is said to have studied Bhāgavatam twenty times from his teachers before attempting to write his commentary. Lål suggests that if hundreds of fools claim the disputed chapters bona fide, that does not make them so; but by the same token, if hundreds of fools say these chapters are in- terpolated, that does not make them so either. This reason- ing cannot apply to the stalwart scholars who have commented on Bhāgavatam. If Läl insists that it does apply, then he should first have proven his immunity from this blindness. Calling Bhāgavatam commentators fools is not a scholarly trait. Moreover Vyasa Bhatta, the son of Śrī Rāmānuja’s G disciple, rejected these chapters in his Suka paksiyam commentary on Srimad Bhagavatam. Following in his footsteps, Śri Viraraghavacārya must have considered them spurious, al- though he commented on them because of their popularity. 368 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha RESPONSE Here, by citing the examples of Vyasa Bhaṭṭa and Virarāghavācārya, Lal cites popularity as an argument to refute Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi’s acceptance of the three chap- ters. Earlier Läl tried to refute Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi’s argument of accepting them based on popularity. Thus Lal contradicts himself by arguing for their popularity to support his view. The interesting thing is that Virarāghavācārya says, ita ārabhya adhyaya-trayam prakṣiptam, iti vyāsācāryair upeikṣitam tathāpi prāyaśo vyavahriyamāṇatvät kaiścid vyākhyatatvacca vyäkhyāyate. Vyāsa Bhaṭṭa has not commented on them considering them spurious, but because these chapters are in vogue and have thus been commented on by some, I am also commenting on them.” (Bhagavat Candrikā 10.12.1) Viraraghava comments on these chapters because they are popular but Lål cites Vīrarāghava to attempt to prove the chapters spurious. Vīrarāghava makes no explicit mention that he considers the three chapters spurious. One may say that explicit mention is not necessary as the above quote clearly shows implicit agreement with Vyasa Bhatta. The fact, however, is that in 12.12.28 Viraraghava accepts part of the verse that mentions these lilás quoted earlier and he com- ments: Nispeso vadhaḥ aghāsurasya susamhāra.. ‘Nispeṣa means slaying. Kṛṣṇa killed the demon Aghasura.’ This indicates that he did not consider the three chapters inter- polated, rather he just mentioned that Vyasa Bhaṭṭa consid- ered them interpolated. H According to Padma Purāṇa, the propagators of the Vaiṣṇava sampradayas in the line of Lakṣmidevi and Lord Brahma are Rāmānuja and Madhvācārya. They con- sider these chapters spurious. If you do not accept the opin- ion of Sri Madhvacārya, then your sampradaya becomes a mere cult. Appendix Two RESPONSE 369 In fact it is Lål and his acāryas who reject the opinion of the Śrī and Madhva-sampradaya ācāryas who have all com- mented on the six verses beginning with 10.6.35. Still, Vallabha and his followers insist these verses are spurious. In his commentary on 10.6.35 Lal writes: atra yadyapi ‘dahyamānasya dehasya’ ity asya slokasya ‘kata-dhūmasya’ity anenäsangateḥ spastattvät tan madhye sat ślokāḥ prakṣiptā ity āhuḥ śri-mad-ācāryas tathāpi sarva- pustakeşu darśanāt te’pi vyākhyāyante. Here, although the verse beginning from dahya mānasya dehasya (10.6.35) goes along with the one beginning kaṭadhūmasya (10.6.41) and the six verses in between are interpolated according to Sri Vallabhācārya, yet they are seen in all books and thus I comment on them. In his opinion the verses are so popular that he is forced to comment on them. Here he specifically says that these verses are found in all editions-sarva-pustakesu. Of the two ācāryas, Rāmānuja and Madhvācārya, Śrī Rāmānuja did not write a commentary on Bhagavatam, and, as stated earlier, Madhvācārya did not directly say that these three chapters were interpolated. He simply did not write any commentary on them. And some followers of Rāmānuja, like Sudarsana Sūri and Viraraghava have commented on these chapters. No further comment is needed on this. In fact, although Vallabhācārya and his followers consider the three chapters spurious, many commentators in their line, including Vallabhācārya and Giridhara Lal, have commented on them, giving the excuse that they are popular among scholars and the masses. Yet Lål posed a question whether these chap- ters are popular among scholars or fools to attack Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi. Even if they are popular among the masses, if the chapters are in fact interpolated, further commentary will only further mislead others. The conclusion is that these commentators were not themselves convinced that the said 370 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha chapters are interpolated. They were unable to reconcile them, thus they propagated the interpolation theory. You (Jiva Gosvāmi) quoted verse 3.15.23, to prove that the word aghabhit indicates killing of Aghasura. Here the suitable meaning is “the dispeller of sins” and that fits in the context. In Srimad-Bhāgavatam the usage of the word agha means sin. (Lal quotes many verses to support this, two of which are 6.2.8 and 6.2.11: etenaiva hy aghono ‘sya kṛtam syad agha-niskṛtam yadā nārāyaṇāyeti jagada catur-akṣaram The Visnudūtas continued: Even previously, while eating and at other times, this Ajámila would call his son, saying, “My dear Nārāyaṇa, please come here.” Although calling the name of his son, he nevertheless uttered the four syllables nǎ-ra-ya-na. Simply by chanting the name of Nārāyaṇa in this way, he sufficiently atoned for the sinful reactions of millions of lives. na niskrtair uditair brahma-vādibhi tathā viśuddhyaty agha-van vratadibhiḥ yatha harer nåma-padair udahṛtais tad uttama-sloka-gunopalambhakam By following the Vedic ritualistic ceremonies or undergoing atonement, sinful men do not become as purified as by chanting once the holy name of Lord Hari. Although ritualistic atonement may free one from sinful reactions, it does not awaken devotional service, unlike the chanting of the Lord’s names, which reminds one of the Lord’s fame, qualities, attributes, pastimes and paraphernalia. RESPONSE There is no truth in the statement that the word aghabhit means only “dispeller of sin” and not “the killer of Aghǎsura.” It can even have both meanings simultaneously as Aghăsura is the personification of sin. Vallabhacārya accepts that the demons killed by Kṛṣṇa represent various lower human Appendix Two 371 qualities. Since Bhāgavatam is a kavya, a poetical composi- tion, it uses indirect methods to convey instruction. This was explained in Anuccheda 26 of Tattva-Sandarbha. Generally, proper nouns used in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam also have meanings related to their qualities. For instance, Bhisma also means “ferocious in fighting”; and Arjuna “one with pure character.” So no Vedic injunction prohibits aghabhit as be- ing taken as a name of Kṛṣṇa-the killer of Aghasura. Vallabhācārya and other commentators, including Lal, often give such double meanings to Kṛṣṇa’s names. For example Śrī Vallabhācārya considers Pūtanȧ the personification of ignorance. He writes, avidya-pūtanānaṣṭā-pūtana, “igno- rance was killed” (Subodhini 10.6.13); and nava viseṣanāni prākṛta-gunānām sarveṣām samavāyārthani, avidya hi navadha bhiṣikā, “The nine adjectives in this verse describ- ing Pūtanā represent all material qualities collectively. Igno- rance causes fear in nine ways” (Subodhini 10.6.16). That the demons were personifications of lower qualities is also substantiated in Śrī Kṛṣṇopanisad (14,15) dveṣaścāṇūra-mallo’yam matsaro muştiko jayaḥ.. aghāsuro mahā vyadhiḥ kaliḥ kamsaḥ sa bhūpatih: “The wrestler Căṇūra is the personification of hatred and Mustika is the personification of envy. Aghasura is the personifica- tion of disease resulting from sin, and King Kamsa is Kali.” Therefore, the meaning Śri Jiva has given to aghabhit-the killer of Aghǎsura-is not improper. Sridhara Svāmī has explained the term mataraḥ- mothers, in verse 10.6.36. He says the plural form is used to remind one of the pastime of Brahma’s stealing the calves-vatsa-haraṇa-filā. During this pastime Lord Krsna expanded Himself to become the sons of the gopis and thus He treated them as His mothers. This makes it improper for Him to perform rasa-lila with the gopis as it is improper to dance with one’s mother. This proves these six verses are spurious. 372 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha RESPONSE Śrīdhara Svāmi’s explanation is proper but Lâl’s conclusion is wrong. The Bhāgavatam doesn’t state that the gopis Krsna related to as mother during the Brahma-vimohana filā were the same ones He danced with in the rāsa-filă. According to the principles set forth in rasa-sastra this would be consid- ered rasābhāsa and be frowned upon by knowers of rasa. Since Kṛṣṇa is the supreme taster of rasa, it is foolish to think He would perform such an act. Obviously, He performed the rāsa-filā with gopis other than the ones He treated as mother. The Srimad Bhagavatam is the mature fruit of the Vedic tree of knowledge and is called the amala-puraṇa, the spot- less scripture and thus cannot contain rasābhāsa. Lål’s criti- cism is unfounded and reveals he is not knowledgeable in the science of rasa. Śrīdhara Svāmī explained these chapters out of cus- K tom, and in the same spirit he took the term vyāla- rākṣāsāt as Aghasura (10.31.3). Actually it refers to the Kaliya serpent and demons like Tṛṇāvarta. In the beginning of the Tenth Canto he claims there are ninety chapters in it, but this is also done only out of custom. He indicates this in his invocation to the First Canto, sampradayanurodhena, paurvǎparyänusärataḥ- “keeping strict adherence to the sampradaya and maintaining harmony between the earlier and later parts of the book.” Thus he commented on all ninety chapters. Sampradaya refers to Bopadeva and others who accepted ninety chapters. By paurvaparavirodhena, or rec- onciling the earlier and later statements, he means that there are 332 chapters. RESPONSE The logic given in this argument is childish. How does a critic know that Sridhara Svȧmi explained these chapters out of custom when Śridhara Svāmi himself never declaredAppendix Two 373 them spurious? In his commentary on Bhagavatam, Śrīdhara Svāmi mentions the verses he considered interpolated. One such example is 1.15.8. Then why would he be so unchar- acteristically enigmatic about these three chapters in the Tenth Canto, which is in the very heart of the Bhāgavatam? In his invocation to the Tenth Canto he mentions twice that there are 90 chapters therein and does not say a word about interpolation. Still Lal dares to misinterpret his invocatory statements sampradayanurodhena, paurvā- paryānusärataḥ. The direct meaning is “I (Sridhara Svāmi) will give the meaning (explain the significance) as I have studied in my guru parampara and there will be no contra- dictions in the earlier and later sections.” These are the natural qualities of a good commentary. Lal’s theory that Sridhara Svāmi acted only to conform with custom yet factually disagreed with his own statements is completely beyond our understanding. If that is the case then Sridhara Svami is following sampradaya in name only. Even so, why does he bother to explain the word mataraḥ, in verse 10.6.36, as related with brahma-vimohana līlā if he does not believe in it? Rather it goes against his promise that his explanation will have no internal contradictions. Moreover, even if he has explained these chapters only out of custom while lacking conviction, then we must believe that the custom of accepting these chapters was quite promi- nent. This custom must be among scholars because Śridhara Svāmi could not ignore it. This then lends support to the fact that these chapters are part of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śridhara Svāmi never explicitly mentions that these chap- ters are interpolated. Thus we conclude that Sridhara Svâmî has no objection to these chapters and accordingly he translates the word vyāla rākṣasa in verse 10.31.3 as Aghasura. Similarly, in commenting on the word mahāśanaiḥ in verse 10.2.1 he mentions that many have translated it as Aghasura. Vallabhācārya in his commentary, Subodhini, accepts that mahāsana could mean either a glutton or Aghasura. All these facts lead to one conclusion, that none of the 335 chapter of Srimad Bhagavatam are interpolations. 374 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha L At this point Lal tries to refute Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi’s explanation of the phrase dvātriṁśat triśatam, which is used by Sridhara Svami in one of his invocatory verses. Since Läl’s explanation is all based on intricate grammatical rules, and only one who has studied Panini grammar can understand it, I bypass it in favor of stating his conclusion, which is that the Bhāgavatam has 332 chapters. He says the number is usually stated for the readers’ easy under- standing and that Srila Jiva Gosvāmi’s explanation is very difficult and defeats the very purpose of giving the number. Hence the direct meaning, 332, is more logical. Thus, Lǎl proposes that Śrīdhara Svāmi considers these chapters spu- rious, and beyond that, owing to various defects in them, declares the said chapters interpolated. RESPONSE Here again, Lål has misunderstood and failed to present convincing arguments to reject these chapters. Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi has grammatically explained the meaning of the phrase dvātrimsat triśatam as 335. Since the refutation of Läl’s objection to this section is beyond the scope of those who have not studied Panini Sanskrit Grammar, we will not go into it. Śrila Jīva Gosvāmī is not the only one who takes the phrase to mean 335. Around 1870 Vamsidhara wrote an explanation of the commentary of Sridhara Svāmi called Bhāvārtha-dīpikā- prakāśa. Not much is known about his lineage, but he was definitely a Vaisnava. He quoted copiously from the work of Jiva Gosvāmi and Viśvanatha Cakravarti Thakura. He agrees that the above phrase means 335, dva-trimśat ca satāni ceti tripada-dvandvaḥ…. tena pañca-trimśad-adhika-sata-traya- sankhyākāḥ śākhā ity arthaḥ. Indeed he wrote a separate explanation of this, which he mentioned in his commentary on Sridhara Svāmi. Unfortunately that book is lost. Lål’s statement that the number of chapters is mentioned for the easy understanding of the reader is indeed correct. He argues that it is improper to give a complicated grammatical Appendix Two 375 explanation to prove the phrase means 335. This would have been a good argument had the verse in question (invoca- tion verse six) been composed by Sridhara Svȧmi, however, it is cited from the Padma Purana, Uttarakhanda 198.51. Sanat Kumāra, who is one of the greatest jñānis, spoke this verse to Nārada Muni, who is no fool. One can expect indi- rect statements from the Kumāras. Lord Krsna relishes when the sages speak indirectly (Bhag.11.21.35): vedä brahmåtma viṣayās tri-kända viṣaya ime paroksa-vädä ṛṣayaḥ paroksam mama ca priyam The Vedas, divided into three divisions, ultimately reveal the living entity as pure spirit soul. The Vedic seers and mantras, however, deal in esoteric terms, and I also am pleased by such indirect confidential descriptions. Indirect statements are not to be accepted as they appear, but need interpretation. An example of this are the verses: yayaharad bhuvo bharaṁ tâm tanum vijahâv ajaḥ kaṇṭakam kantakeneva dvayam capīšituḥ samam The supreme unborn, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, caused the members of the Yadu dynasty to relinquish their bodies, through whom He relieved the burden of the world. This action was like picking out a thorn with a thorn and then throwing them both away, not seeing any difference between the two. (Bhág. 1.15.34) yathā matsyādi rūpāņi dhatte jahyad yatha naṭaḥ bhū-bhāraḥ kṣapito yena jahau tac ca kalevaram The Supreme Lord relinquished the body which He manifested to diminish the burden of the earth. Just like a magician, He relinquishes one body to accept different ones, like the fish incarnation and others. (Bhag. 1.15.35) Here every commentator has interpreted the words vijahāv tanum (gave up the body) and jahau kalevaram (gave up his body) as giving up the bhāva, or mood, and not the body itself, because the Lord’s giving up His body does not make sense and goes against the philosophy of the Bhāgavatam. 376 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha For similar reasons Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī has interpreted the phrase from Śrīdhara Svāmi’s invocation, which only seems to mean 332, because actually there are 335 chap- ters. Also it is against the rules of Sanskrit grammar to trans- late dvātrimśat triśatam as 332. Moreover, in the beginning of the Tenth Canto, Sridhara Svāmi writes that the Bhagavatam has ninety chapters glo- rifying Lord Krsna in the Tenth Canto, kṛtā navatiradhyāyā daśame kṛṣṇa-kirttaye. (Bhāvārtha-dîpikā 10.1.1). After this he gives the break down of the ninety chapters, evam navatiradhyāyā daśame visadarthakaḥ, “In this way the ninety chapters in the Tenth Canto contain detailed descrip- tions.” Although Śrīdhara Svāmī has twice stated that the Tenth Canto has ninety chapters, Lål insists that he means eighty-seven, yet he accuses Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi of going against the previous ācāryas. Jiva Gosvāmī has said: “Since the attainment of lib- M eration by demons Kṛṣṇa killed does not conflict with Vaisnava principles, why not accept these three chapters.” This statement contradicts Vijayadhvaja Tirtha of the Madhva- sampradaya who explains that Putanȧ went to hell. He takes the word jananīgati (destination of a mother) to mean the place attained by sinners. Thus Madhvites, who are your predecessors, do not accept that demons killed by Kṛṣṇa attain liberation. The line sad-veṣad-iva pūtanā (Bhāg. 10.14.35-which states that Pūtană attained liberation by appearing in the dress of a devotee, meaning gopi) is from the interpolared chapters and thus cannot be accepted as authoritative. RESPONSE This objection is automatically answered by the response given to “E”. When Lal himself writes that demons killed by Kṛṣṇa get liberation, there is no sense in citing Vijayadhvaja’s opinion on the matter. How can he expect to argue both sides of the issue? Appendix Two 377 Verse 10.14.35 may be from the disputed three chapters, but there are many other verses which state that demons killed by Kṛṣṇa attain liberation (Bhag. 10.2.23): aho bakiyaṁ stana-kāla-kūtaṁ jighāṁsayāpāyayad apyasādhvi lebhe gatim dhâtrucitâm tato’nyam kam va dayālum saranam vrajema The sinful Pútaná smeared deadly poison on her breasts and offered them to Krsna with the intention of killing Him. Even to her the Lord gave the post of nurse. Then who else is more merciful than Him whose shelter we can take? Commenting on this verse Lål himself accepts that Pūtanā attained liberation. Dhātryā yasodāyā ucitām tad dhāma- prāpti-rūpām gatim lebhe prapatavati. Evam aparādhavatyā api yo muktim dattavan. “Dhatrya, or nurse, means ‘of Yasoda’ who attained the abode of the Lord. The Lord who gave liberation even to she who was an offender.” N Vallabhācārya has accepted that the demons in these instances attained liberation though not the same destination of the devotees. You agree with this so you can- not blame our ȧcārya. RESPONSE 10 We have no objection to this. Śrila Jīva Gosvāmī never blames Vallabhācārya anywhere in his discussion on the number of chapters in Bhāgavatam. O You argue that since the killing of Aghasura and the bewilderment of Lord Brahmă are both mentioned in the Padma and other Puranas, this authenticates the ap- pearance of these lilas in the Bhagavatam. But since the Padma Purāņa mentions these filas without giving details and makes no mention that they appear in Srimad- Bhāgavatam, this fails to offer any substantial support to your case. 378 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha RESPONSE The fact that these liläs are mentioned in other Purānas serves to prove that they did occur and are not a concoc- tion. Thus there is every possibility of them appearing in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which Vyasadeva wrote specifically to narrate the pastimes of Lord Kṛṣṇa. Verses 1.5.36, 1.5.39, 1.7.7, 1.7.10 and 1.7.12 clearly establish that Bhāgavatam was mainly compiled to narrate the pastimes of Lord Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In fact these verses confirm that filās barely referred to in the Padma and other Purāņas, are elaborately described in the Bhāgavatam. And because these pastimes are found in other sättvika Purāņas their philosophical conclusions have to be accepted. Other- wise Lal and others have to explain why these lilás are de- scribed in other sättvika Purānas. P It is not proper to reason that these filās are included in the Bhagavatam just because they are wonderful. If this is the standard, then the wonderful filās from Hari Vamsa, Visnu and Brahma-vaivarta Puranas should also be included. RESPONSE This is Vallabhācārya’s argument. He proposed that since these lilās are wonderful, some scholar included them in Śrimad-Bhāgavatam to woo the readers, yet offered no proof. Thus Lal has made the error of building his case with un- substantiated evidence. Furthermore, Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmī never argued that these pastimes were included owing to being wonderful. Q The fact that the places associated with these filās are found in Vmdāvana does not prove the filās are a legitimate part of Srimad-Bhagavatam. If so, then other lilás related with places such as Rådha-kuṇḍa, Lukaluka Kandara, and so on, should also be included. Appendix Two RESPONSE 379 Śrila Jiva Gosvāmī used this reason to support his logic as explained in the response to item “O.” He is not exclusively using this logic to support his case. It is not that because places associated with these lilās are found in Vṛndāvana that the lilās are considered part of Srimad-Bhāgavatam; rather, because the filas are mentioned in the Bhāgavatam, places associated with them are found in Vṛndāvana. This confirms the authenticity of the descriptions found in the Bhāgavatam. The explanation that those gopis whose breasts Lord R Kṛṣṇa suckled were of the same age as mother Yasoda, and the gopis with whom He performed rasa-filā were young is not satisfying to scholars. There is no such rule that only the gopis equal in age to Yasoda had sons and not the young gopis. According to verse 10.5.23, Yasoda gave birth to Kṛṣṇa in her old age, and even Lord Brahma will not claim that all the gopis who had sons were as elderly as Yasoda. The cowherd boys were the same age as Kṛṣṇa and thus their mothers would have been young. It is highly improper that Kṛṣṇa would engage in rasa-lila with them after having drunk their breast milk during the one year period of brahma- vimohana-filā. So vatsa-harana fila is spurious. Also, it is ludicrous that boys around five years old would feed on breast milk. RESPONSE In his Vaisnava Toşani commentary on 10.29.6, Śrī Jīva ex- plains that the gopis who danced with Kṛṣṇa had no sons, otherwise rasābhāsa would result. The statement that they were feeding milk pāyayantaḥ śisun (10.29.6) does not nec- essarily mean nursing their own children. Śrī Jiva says they were feeding milk to the children of their brothers or sisters. Jiva Gosvāmi did not say all the gopis who had sons the same age as Kṛṣṇa were elderly like Yaśodā. He says the 380 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha gopis with whom Kṛṣṇa engaged in conjugal pastimes are different from those who nursed Him. Whether the gopis who nursed Kṛṣṇa were elderly or young is not the issue. When he says that they were of the same age as mother Yasoda, he means they were elderly, not precisely the same age. This is explained in detail in Vaisnava toṣaṇī. It is not ludicrous at all that these five-year-old boys drank breast milk, as they were actually Kṛṣṇa, who is acintya. He is inconcievable in every respect. He does not have to con- form to our conception of what ordinary boys do. He may act as an ordinary boy, but at any moment he can do something extraordinary. At age seven He lifted Govardhana Hill and performed rasa-filā. Similarly, to please His devotees He may drink breast milk at age five. Actually, the milk He drank was love in liquid form. It is a medical fact that milk can appear in a woman’s breast under certain extraordinary circumstances, such as during intense feelings of love. Furthermore, ac- cording to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (4.9.50), when Dhruva Mahārāja returned home after his penances in Madhuvana and met his mother, Sunīti, milk flowed from her breasts- payah stanābhyām susrāva netrajaiḥ salilaiḥ sivaiḥ. Dhruva was six years old at that time. Similarly, out of love for Krsna milk would flow from Yasoda’s breasts even when Krsna was past the age of drinking breast milk. A number of Bhagavatam verses attest to this phenomenon: kriḍantam să sutam bālair ati-velam sahāgrajam yaśodājohavit kṛṣṇam putra-sneha-snuta-stani Kṛṣṇa and Balarama, being attached to Their play, were playing with the other boys although it was very late. Therefore mother Yasodâ called Them back for lunch. Because of her ecstatic love and affection for Krsna and Balarama, milk flowed from her breasts. (Bhag. 10.11.14) kṛṣṇa kṛṣṇāravindakṣa tāta ehi stanam piba alam vihāraiḥ kṣut-kṣäntaḥ krīḍā-śranto ‘si putraka Mother Yasoda said: My dear son Kṛṣṇa, lotus-eyed Kṛṣṇa, come here and drink the milk of my breast. My dear darling, You must be very tired because of hunger 1 Appendix Two and fatigue from playing so long. There is no need to play any more (Bhag. 10.11.15). yaśodā varṇyamänäni putrasya caritàni ca śṛnvanty aśrůny aväsräkṣit sneha-snuta-payodhara As mother Yasoda heard the descriptions of her son’s activities, she poured out her tears, and milk flowed from her breasts out of love. (Bhag. 10.46.28): 381 This happens when Kṛṣṇa had left for Mathura, which means He was more that eleven years old. tāḥ putram arkam āropya sneha-snuta-payodharaḥ harsa-vihvalitātmānaḥ sisicur netrajair jalaiḥ The mothers, after embracing their son, sat Him on their laps. Due to pure affection, milk sprang from their breasts. They were overwhelmed with delight, and the tears from their eyes wetted the Lord. (Bhág. 1.11.29): According to Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī in the Bhakti-rasāmṛta- sindhu (3.4.45), the flowing of breast milk is the ninth sattvika bhava in våtsalya-rasa-navātra sättvikāḥ stanya-srāvaḥ stambhâdayaśca te-when Kṛṣṇa manifested as the cow- herd boys in brahma-vimohana filà, the gopis manifested this ninth sattvika bhâva and fed breast milk to Kṛṣṇa who was disguised as the cowherd boys. This is described in 10.13.22. These verses describe Lord Kṛṣṇa’s activities after the dāma-bandhana-filā. During this pastime Lord Kṛṣṇa ran from mother Yasoda who was unable to catch Him. Certainly he was no longer a crawling baby fed on breast milk. If it is possible for elderly mother Yasoda to have breast milk, then why not for the younger gopis when Kṛṣṇa came to them disguised as their sons? S The statement that the girlfriends of Kṛṣṇa were of the same age is also untenable because the Adi Purana mentions that the young gopis desired to enjoy with Kṛṣṇa, who was just a small boy. 382 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha RESPONSE The Adi Purana may have such statements and perhaps refers to a different kalpa, but this is not the principle in Śrimad-Bhāgavatam. And even so, the Adi Purāna only states that the young gopis desired to enjoy with baby Kṛṣṇa but does not state that they did. The combination of a five-year-old lover and grown up woman is counted as rasābhāsa accord- ing to the Sahitya sastra which gives us the rules of poetics. According to Sahitya darpana, a standard book of rasa theology, if the rati (attachment) is existing in only one part- ner (alambana-vibhāva), that causes rasābhāsa, a distur- bance to the proper ebb and flow of transcendental mel- lows. Bahunayaka-viṣyāyām ratau tathanubhaya-niṣṭhāyām (S.d. 3.263) If a heroine has rati for many heroes, if rati ex- ists only in the hero or only in the heroine then it is consid- ered an improper situation for rasa. Hence, if the grown up gopis were to enjoy conjugal love with child Kṛṣṇa that would be improper. Their relationship is then marred with rasābhāsa. According to Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu this is called vibhāva vairūpya, or improper combination of lovers (Brs. 4.8.13). Rasikas, or those who are expert in tasting rasa, such as Śukadeva Gosvāmi, frown on such possibilities and it is not possible that rasābhāsa appears in the Srimad-Bhāgavatam, which is glorified as the amala-purāṇam, free from all de- fects (Bhag. 12.13.18). : According to Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.3, rasikas are rec- ommended to taste this rasa-śāstra-pibata bhāgavatam rasam. Others, ignorant of the intricacies of rasa, may take pleasure in reading rasabhāsa. T According to the Amarakosa, angana means a young woman, and it is used in various places in Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam to indicate the gopis (vrajānganā). This usage defeats the argument that the gopis were of the same age as Yaśodā. You (Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi) say there are no statements in the disputed chapters that contradict those of other chaptersAppendix Two 383 of Śrimad-Bhāgavatam; rather the statements establish the glories of the devotees of the Lord and that this understand- ing is realized by the special favor of the Lord. Such ideas may be welcome by your friends and followers but we see many contradictions. RESPONSE We have no objection to interpreting anganā as young dam- sel, because Kṛṣṇa did perform the rāsa dance with such vrajānganās. Its use in 10.8.24, however, refers to gopis who witnessed the childhood pastimes of Kṛṣṇa who were both young and elderly. Why would the elderly gopis not enjoy witnessing His bāla-filà? Angana can also refer to women in general, so the claim that it exclusively means young women is not accurate. The real meaning of anganā is ‘a woman with beautiful limbs” (prasastāni angāni yasyaḥ sa anganā Rāmāsvāmī commentary on Amarkosa 3.6.5). According to this defini- tion, though Yasoda is elderly, she is anganā and her beauty is described in verses 10.9.3,10 where she is referred to as subhru, “one with beautiful eyebrows,’ and sumadhyamă, “one with a beautiful waist.” Thus Lāl’s objection that the gopis who nursed Kṛṣṇa could not be elderly owing to being referred to as anganá is refuted. Verse 10.12.29 describes that the demigods became U unhappy and demons like Kamsa became happy when Kṛṣṇa entered the mouth of Aghasura. This infers that Kamsa witnessed the killing of Aghasura. Later, in verse 10.36.18, Nārada narrates to Kamsa the killing of these demons which seems inappropriate, since he had seen the killing of Aghasura. This proves that the Twelfth Chapter of the Tenth Canto is not part of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, as it does not fit properly. RESPONSE Nårada’s narration to Kamsa regarding the killing of Aghäsura might be inappropriate if Kamsa had inquired about it. 384 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha However, Nārada volunteered the information so there is no contradiction. Nārada Muni did not read Kamsa’s mind and then think, “Kamsa already knows about the killing of Aghásura, having witnessed it, so there is no need to nar- rate it.” Moreover, there is no proof that Kamsa witnessed the killing of all the demons. And even if he witnessed all of them, and Narada knew it, there is nothing wrong in narrat- ing them again because his purpose was to incite Kamsa’s anger so that he would immediately call Kṛṣṇa and Balarama to Mathurā. Even if Kamsa had not seen the killing of Aghasura, he knew that Kṛṣṇa killed the demons sent to Vraja. This is evi- dent from the following verses: kamsena prahită ghorā putanā bāla ghātinī śišums cacăra nighnanti pura-grāma-vrajādiṣu While Nanda Mahārāja was returning to Gokula, the same fierce Pūtana whom Kamsa had previously engaged to kill babies was wandering about in the towns, cities, and villages, doing her nefarious duty. (Bhag.10.6.2) daityo nāmnă tṛṇā-vartaḥ kaṁsa-bhṛtyaḥ pranoditaḥ cakravāta-svarūpeṇa jahārāsīnam arbhakam While the child was sitting on the ground, a demon named Tṛnävarta, who was a servant of Kamsa’s, came there as a whirlwind, at Kamsa’s instigation, and very easily carried the child away into the air. (Bhag.10.7.20) He was sending demons one after another who were get- ting killed as is evident from the above verses. Even if the Twelfth Chapter, Tenth Canto is discarded, Lal is still left with his objection. Somehow he overlooked this fact out of zeal. Another reason why Lal’s objection is baseless is that verse 10.12.29 does not actually mean that Kamsa person- ally saw Lord Kṛṣṇa entering the mouth of Aghăsura and felt elated. Rather, the demons headed by Kamsa, kaṁsādyaḥ, who witnessed this act, felt jubilant. It is not necessary that Kamsa was personally present. It could also mean that Kamsa got the news through his spies and felt happy. Lal also explained it in this very way in his commentary: Appendix Two tadă ghana-cchadā deva bhayad dha-heti cukrusuḥ jahṛşur ye ca kaṁsädyāḥ kauṇapas tv agha-bāndhavāḥ At that time the demigods who were hiding behind the clouds cried out “Alas! Alas!” out of fear. But the friends of Aghǎsura, the meat eating demons headed by Kamsa felt elated. (Bhag. 10.12.29) Lal comments: kamsa adirmukhyo niyantâ yeşâm te kauṇapāḥ kunapäśinā rākṣasāstu jahṛsurityanvayaḥ…cāraḥ sadyaḥ eva gatvǎ kathanāt kaṁsādināmapi tajjñānamiti jñeyam. The demons who are called kauṇapā because they eat corpses (kunapa) and whose controller or chief is Kamsa became happy. This is the proper arrangement of words. The messengers immediately went and informed Kamsa, therefore Kamsa also knew about it. 385 It is surprising that even after Lal comments in this way, he raises an objection based on Kamsa’s personal presence. V Chapter Twelve, verses 26 and 27, describe that the Lord knew the cowherd boys were unknowingly en- tering the mouth of the great python Aghasura and wanted to stop them. The Lord was surprised that they entered any- way and considered this to be an act of Fate. This is entirely against the personality of the Lord who is the controller of fate and is called satya-sankalpa, or one who has an unfailing will. If He has to marvel at Fate then we should worship Fate and not Kṛṣṇa. Moreover, the devo- tees are controlled by the will of the Lord and not by Fate. This has been established by an ācārya (Śrīla Viśvanatha Cakravarti Thakura) of your sampradaya in Madhurya Kādambini. Verses 10.13.16, 17 explain that after the calves and cow- herd boys were stolen, Lord Kṛṣṇa did not understand what had happened to them. Later on He could understand the reality. This type of ignorance is not possible in Lord Kṛṣṇa, who is called sarvajña and sarvavit in the Vedas-the all- knowing person. 386 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha RESPONSE It was explained in response to “D” that the Lord has three types of måyå. One of them is sva-mohini, or which bewil- ders even the Lord. If the Lord always remains fully con- scious of His magnificence, He will not be able to manifest His sweet humanlike pastimes. For the sake of fila He be- comes covered by His own māyā and so do His devotees. Thus both the Lord and His devotees may appear covered by ignorance, but this is only to accomodate the inconceiv- able pastimes of Krsna. Lord Kṛṣṇa performs humanlike pastimes, which means He does not manifest His aiśvarya and that’s why His pastimes are most pleasing-(filǎ-mādhuri is one of the four special characteristics found only in Kṛṣṇa). Since you (Jiva Gosvāmi) have disrespected the pre- W decessor ácāryas there is absolutely no possibility that you have received even a drop of mercy of the Lord; rather you are envious of both guru and Bhagavan. So to say that these pastimes are very confidential and that they are understood by the special mercy of the Lord is a foolish statement uttered out of excessive pride and befitting only people like you. Since Bopadeva accepts these chapters, he falls in the same class. The conclusion of the intelligen- tsia is that only people with blind faith accept these chapters as part of Śrimad-Bhāgavatam. RESPONSE Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi has not disrespected the previous ācāryas. Although he comes in line from Madhvācārya, he is a follower of Lord Caitanya’s acintya-bhedabheda, which has some differences with the dvaitavada of Madhvacārya. It is meaningless to assert that Śrila Jīva Gosvāmi is envi- ous of guru and Bhagavan. He has shown that these chap- ters naturally fit in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and explain the Lord’s wonderful filās. This is in accordance to the will of Lord Caitanya. So how can he be envious of the Lord? Appendix Two 387 In this way I have addressed in brief the major objections that Chapters Twelve through Fourteen of the Tenth Canto Twelve are not authentic and shown that Giridhara Lal’s claims are all unfounded. As explained before, my purpose in responding to Lal’s criticisms is not to belittle his exalted position as an acarya in the Pusti-marga sampradaya or discourage his followers. As a devout follower of Vallabhācārya he did his duty by attempting to support his predecessor ācārya, but he went too far by directly criticiz- ing Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi with harsh words. Hence, it becomes the duty of Śrila Jiva Gosvāmi’s followers to answer Lal so all unbiased readers can decide the outcome. The philoso- phy of acintya-bhedabheda of Lord Caitanya is the essence of Srimad Bhagavatam. We present a few more facts to fur- ther clarify the matter. As mentioned earlier, Lål’s objections can be divided in two classes-those based on internal contradiction and those based on tradition. The internal contradictions have been resolved and some light was shed on the traditional acceptance. From studying the available commentaries, a chart has been prepared to show what commentators con- sidered the disputed chapters interpolated and wrote com- mentary in refutation. (See Table VII) Śrila Jīva Gosvāmī lists the following commentaries, which are now lost, but which accepted the three chapters: Vāsanā Bhāṣya, Citsukhi, Sambandhokti, Vidvat-kämdhenu, Šuka Manoharā, Paramahamsa Priya of Bopadeva, Hanumad Bhasya and so on. Comparing all these commentaries we see that most of the commentators have accepted the three chapters as authentic. Even among those who reject them, most still commented on them. Though they all say the rea- son for their commenting is that the pastimes in the three chapters are popular, had they shown the courage of their conviction by not commenting they would have been more convincing. In fact there are only three commentators who did not comment on these three chapters and out of them, only one says that these three chapters are interpolated. The rest of 388 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha the ācāryas have commented on them even if they do not accept these chapters as bona fide. So from the commen- taries, it is clear that most are in favor. Sankarācārya was a disciple of Govindapāda, who was a disciple of Gauḍapāda. Gauḍapāda wrote several literary works and in his commentary on Uttara Gità, a book on yoga, he quotes from one of the disputed chapters of the Srimad- Bhāgavatam (10.14.4). This indicates that he considered these chapters authoritative. In the Sankara-sampradaya, he is considered a direct disciple of Sukadeva Gosvāmi. If that has any weight then his opinion is most authoritative. Modern scholars consider he was present late in the Sixth Century. Sankara himself accepted these pastimes as au- thentic. This is clear from his Govindāṣṭaka, Prabhoda Sudhakara, and Sahasra-nama Bhāṣya. Citsukhācārya came in Sankara’s line and from his Citśukhi commentary on Śrimad-Bhagavatam it is clear that he accepted these chapters. Śrīdhara Svāmi was also initiated in the Sankara- sampradaya and he considered Citśukhi authoritative. Thus the claim that Sridhara Svami wrote just out of custom has no basis. Rather, he followed the parampara which is much older than Pusti Mārga as well as dvaita-vāda. Hence the acceptance of these chapters by the great scholar of Srimad- Bhāgavatam and follower of Sankara, Bopadeva, is not inadvertant. The Gită Press, Gorakhpura, India, is well known for print- ing authoritative editions of Bhagavad-gită and Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam. They make use of many manuscripts to bring out these editions. Any differences in the readings are men- tioned in the footnotes. The Gità Press accepts the three chapters. So is the case with editions from other publishers. Traditionally, Srimad Bhagavatam is recited for one week for material as well as spiritual gains. This practice comes from the Bhāgavata Māhātmya mentioned in the Padma and Skanda Puranas. In this one week recital a fixed number of chapters are recited each day. The number varies accord- ing to the purpose. All the standard recitation schedules in- clude the 335 chapters. If only 332 chapters are recited, the participants do not get the desired benefit. TABLE VII OPINIONS OF SANSKRIT COMMENTATORS ON THE SRIMAD-BHAGAVATAM REGARDING THE DISPUTED CHAPTERS Appendix Two Author In chronological order
22. Śrīdhara Svāmi
23. Madhvacharya Name of Commentary Considered Interpolated Wrote Wrote Commentary Refutations Bhavartha Dipika No Yes No Bhagavat Tätparya No Mention No No
24. Vallabhacharya
25. Sanatana Gosvāmi
26. Jiva Gosvāmi
27. Madhusudana Sarasvati
28. Śrīnātha Cakravarti
29. Vijaydhvaja
30. Viraraghava
31. Śrī Nivāsa Suri
32. Sudarsana Suri 12. Satyadharma
33. Viśvanatha Cakravarti 14. Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa 15. Hari Sūri
34. Bhagavat Prasadācārya 17. Gopalananda Muni 18. Sukadeva
35. Giridhar Lal Vaisnavānandini Bhakti Rasayanam Subodhini Yes Yes Yes Brhad Vaisnava Tosani No Yes No Krama-Sandarbha No Yes No Hari Lilāmṛta Tīka No Yes No Caitanya Mata Mañjūsǎ No Yes No Pāda-ratnávali No Mention No No Bhagavat Candrika Yes Yes No Tattva-dipika Yes Yes No Suka Paksiya Yes Yes No Bhagavat Tippani Yes No No Sārārtha-darşini No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No Bhakta Manoranjant No Yes No Niyudhartha Prakāśā No Yes No Siddhanta Pradipa No Yes No Bälaprabodhini Yes Yes Yes
36. Vamsidhara Bhavartha Dipika Prakāśā No Yes No
37. Gangasahāya
38. Kasinātha Upadhyāya Anvitärtha Prakāśā No Yes No Tattva Prakāśā No Yes No 389 390 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha The most crucial problem which critics like Lâl have care- fully avoided is the number of verses in the Bhagavatam. According to the Matsya, Visnu, and Skanda Purānas and the Narada Pancaratra, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam has 18,000 verses. No one disputes this point. Gangasahāya, the writer of Anvitärtha Prakāśa, counted all the words of Srimad- Bhāgavatam including the úvācas and chapter endings, added them up and divided by 32 to convert the whole Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam into Anustup verses. This is the stan- dard way to count the number of verses. He did this thrice and his calculation was short by 11⁄2 verses. He included the three disputed chapters and the seven verses from the Chap- ter Six of the Tenth Canto in his calculation. Somehow it may be possible to accomodate the short- age of one and half verses by comparing different editions, but if these three chapters and the seven verses are re- moved, the Bhāgavatam will be short by about 210 anusṭup verses and there would be no way to compensate for this loss. It means that more than one percent of the total Bhāgavatam would be missing. Vallabhācārya declared the three chapters and seven verses spurious and gave some simple reason to substanti- ate his idea. But actually he commented on these chapters and accepted their popularity. He does not seem to seri- ously reject these chapters. It is his followers who have made this a big issue and wrote a great deal about it. In this re- spect, Giridhara himself is guilty of stepping over his founder ācārya of the suddha-dvaita sampradaya. Our conclusion is substantiated by verses from Purusottama-sahasra-nāma or A Thousand Names of Kṛṣṇa, which was composed by Vallabhācārya. These names are all based on Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes narrated in Srimad Bhag- avatam. Vallabhācārya writes: purăṇa-puruṣaḥ vişnuḥ purusottama ucyate nämnām sahasram vakṣyami tasya bhāgavatoddhṛtam “Lord Visnu, the oldest person, or the person who is glori- fied by all the Purānas is called Purusottama. I will recite His 1000 names taken from Śrimad-Bhāgavatam.” (Text 1) Appendix Two ananta eva kṛṣṇasya lilā nămapravartikā uktä bhāgavate gudhah prakaṭā api kutracit 391 “Lord Krsna has unlimited names because of His unlimited lilās. In Śrīmad-Bhagavatam these are mentioned directly and sometimes indirectly.” (Text 3) atastáni pravakṣyāmi nâmâni muravairinaḥ Therefore I will recite these names of Lord Krsna, the enemy of the Mura demon, beginning from the First Canto. (Text 4) While listing the names based on filas in the Tenth Canto Vallabhācārya writes: aranyabhoktapyathava balalilä-prarayaṇaḥ protsāhajanakaścaivam aghāsuranişūdanaḥ vyāla-mokṣa-pradaḥ pusto brahma-moha-pravardhanaḥ ananta-mürtiḥ sarvātmājangama-sthāvarākṛtih bramha-mohana-karta ca stutya ātmā sadapriyah (167-169) Here he clearly mentions the names based on the pas- times in Chapters Twelve, Thriteen, and Fourteen, such as killer of Aghasura, one who eats in the forest, liberator of the snake (Aghäsura), cause of Brahma’s delusion, who has unlimited forms (shown to Brahmā), brahma-mohana-kartā, or he who bewilders Lord Brahma. Further, in concluding he writes: haryāvesita-cittena śrībhāgavatasägarāt samuddhṛtāni nāmāni cintamani-nibhāni hi One whose heart is captivated by Lord Hari has extracted these names, which are like touchstone, from the ocean of Srimad Bhagavatam. (252) This proves that Vallabhācārya was not convinced in his heart that the three chapters are spurious. The dvaita-vădis have reason to deny these chapters because they cannot fit them in their philosophy, but we see no reason why Pusti margiya ācāryas have let loose their wrath when these chap- ters have nothing contradictory to their philosophy, except 392 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha for the personal liberation of Pūtana. Thus we suggest that the modern followers of Vallabhācārya reconsider the issue with an unbiased mind. Finally we would like to ask the following question. Who did the interpolation and when? No critic has furnished an answer to this. Indeed no one will ever be able to furnish one. Therefore with no substantial proof we have no reason to accept their claim that the three chapters and seven verses are interpolations. While it is convenient to brand anything incomprehen- sible as spurious, this is not a good idea. Especially in rela- tion to the Bhāgavatam, which is giving us the essence of knowledge regarding the name, fame, qualities, and pas- times of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is fur- ther proof from sadhu and sastra that the Tenth Canto has ninety chapters. A renowned 16 Century poet of Kerala, Nārāyaṇa Bhatta, composed a work called Nārāyaṇīyam, with 1,036 verses divided into twelve chapters. Each chap- ter corresponds to a canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam in the same order, i.e., Chapter Ten summarizes the Tenth Canto. It includes the killing of Aghasura and bewilderment of Brahma. He has composed twenty verses describing these pastimes. This means that scholars in Kerala considered these chapters part of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Similarly, the eighteenth century work, Śrī-bhakti- rasayanam, written by the great Bhāgavatam scholar Hari Sūri, explains the first forty-nine chapters of the Tenth Canto in verse. Each chapter of his book corresponds to each of the forty-nine chapters of the Tenth Canto. Therein Hari Sūri has accepted the three chapters that Lal disputes. Bopadeva, who is acclaimed as a great scholar of Bhāgavatam, wrote in his Hari-lilämṛta, nirodho dasama- skandhe navaty adhyāya iritaḥ: “The Tenth Canto describes the topic nirodha. It has ninety chapters.” Further on he writes: vadhaśca vatsa-bakayos tathāghäsura-bhoginaḥ vatsa-cora-brahma-moho brahmaṇā stavanaṁ hareḥ The Tenth Canto describes the killing of Vatsāsura, Bakǎsura, and the snake Aghasura. It narrates theAppendix Two stealing of calves, Brahma’s bewilderment, and glorification of Lord Kṛṣṇa by Brahma. 393 To drive home the final point we cite the following verses which clearly state that Srimad Bhagavatam has 335 chapters: grantho’ṣṭādasa-sahasraḥ śrīmad-bhagavatābhidhaḥ pañca-trimsottaradhyayas trisati-yukta išvari O Parvati, the beautiful Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam has 18,000 verses in 335 chapters. (Gauri-tantra, Bhagavata mahatmya 2.26). Here Lord Śiva explicitly states that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam has 335 chapters. Therefore, on the authority of the greatest Vaisnava, Lord Siva, Śrīla Jiva Gosvāmi’s analysis of dvātrśat triśatam from the invocatory verse of Sridhara Svāmi to mean 335 instead of 332 is correct. skandheşu sarveṣu gatām bruve’ham adhyāya-sänkhyām śrunuta dvijendräh ekonavimśǎă dasa ramarāmās tathaika-trimsad-rasa-netra sankhyāḥ nandendusamkhyāḥ śara-candra-sammitas caturdvayam cagrimake tathaiva kha-nanda-sankhyā vidhu-vahni-sänkhyā adhyāyasarkhyāḥ kramatāstrirupāḥ (Kausika-Samhita) O best of twiceborn, listen to me about the chapters in each Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam. The First Canto has nineteen chapters; the Second, ten; the Third, thirty- three, the Fourth, thirty-one; the Fifth, twenty-six; the Sixth, nineteen; the Seventh, fifteen; the Eighth, twenty- four; the Ninth, twenty-four; the Tenth, ninety; the Eleventh, thirty-one; and the Twelfth, thirteen chapters. This totals 335. Devotees of Krsna accept Srimad-Bhāgavatam as nondifferent from Him. Any act of reducing or cutting any part of this incarnation of the Lord in book form is compa- rable to the act of Jara, the hunter, whose arrow pierced Kṛṣṇa’s heel. Rejecting any part of the Tenth Canto is even worse because according to the Padma Purana, the Tenth Canto is not His heel, but the smiling face of Lord Kṛṣṇa. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Amarkosa, Amarsimha with Rāmāśrami ṭīkā, Sanskrit, Chaukhambhǎ Sanskrit pratisthāna, Delhi, 1984.
2. Aṣṭādhyayi sūtrapatha, pāṇini, Sanskrit, Kṛṣṇadāsa Academy, Varānāsi, 1985.
3. Atharvaveda, Veda Vyasa with Satvalekara Ṭikā in Hindi, Svådhyaya Mandala, 1985.
4. Bhakti-rasâmṛta-sindhu, Rūpa Gosvāmi, Durgamasangamanī and Bhaktisara-pradarśinī tīkās, Sanskrit, Harinama press Vṛndāvana, 1981.
5. Bhakti-ratnākara, Narahari Cakravarti, Bengali, Gaudiya Mission, Bāgabazara, 1981.
6. Bhagavad-gītā As it is, Veda Vyasa, English commentary by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, BBT, 1983.
7. Bhagavad-gită, Veda Vyāsa, Sankara bhāṣya Sanskrit, Gitā press Gorakhpura, 1984.
8. Bhagavata-tätparyya, Madhvācarya, Sanskrit, ABMM Udupi, 1980.
9. Brahma Sūtra, Veda Vyasa, Govindabhāṣya by Śrīpāda Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa, Sanskrit, Bābā Kṛṣṇadāsa Kusuma Sarovara, 1953.
10. Caitanya-caritămṛta, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, Bengali, English commentary by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, BBT 1974.
11. Caturvarga Cintamani, Hemädri, Sanskrit Chaukhambha Samsakṛta Samsthāna, Benaras 1985.
12. Drg-Drsyaviveka, Sankarācārya, Sanskrit, English commen- tary by Swami Nikhilānanda, Śrī Rāmakrishna Asrama Mysore, 1976.
13. Gauri Tantra, Lord Siva, Sanskrit, handwritten manuscript, Folio No.0563 Bhaktivedanta Swami International Gurukula, Vindāvana.
14. Gopatha Brāhmaṇa, Veda Vyasa, Sanskrit. Chaukhamba pratiṣṭhāna, Benāras, 1976.
15. Laghu Bhagavatāmṛtam, Rūpa Gosvāmī, Sanskrit, Caitanya Matha, Māyāpura, 1982.
16. Manaḥ-sīkṣā, Raghunatha dāsa Gosvāmi, Sanskrit, Imalitāla Vrindavan, 1959. 394
17. Mahābhārata, Veda Vyasa, Sanskrit, Gitä press Gorakhpura, 1987.
18. Medini Kośa, Medinikara, Sanskrit, Chaukhambhā Sanskrit Samsthāna 1968.
19. Mukta-phala, Bopadeva, Sanskrit, Commentary by Hemadri, Scottish Church College Calcutta, 1944.
20. Nama Kaumudi, Lakṣmidhara, Sanskrit, Śrī Kośalendra Matha, Ahmadābād, 1964.
21. Niruktam, Yaska, Sanskrit, Chaukhambha Vidyabhavana, Varanasi, 1983. Purānas, VedaVyāsa, Sanskrit
22. Agni, Nag Publishers Delhi, 1985.
23. Devi-Bhagavatam, Nag Publishers, 1986.
24. Kurma, Nag Publishers, 1983.
25. Matsya, Ananda Asrama, Poona, 1981.
26. Náradiya, Nag Publishers, 1984.
27. Padma, Nag Publishers, 1984.
28. Varaha, Sarvabhāratiya Kāširājanyāsa Varanasi 1983. 29) Visnu Purāṇa, Parimal Publication Delhi, 1986.
29. Visņudharmottara Purana, Nag Publishers Delhi, 1985. 31) Siva Purāṇa, Nag Publishers Delhi, 1986.
30. Skanda Purāṇa, Nag Publishers Delhi, 1986. 33 A) Srimad-Bhāgavatam, English commentary by His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, BBT, 1982. 33 B) Śrimad-Bhāgavatam 10th, 11th and 12th cantos. English commentary by H.H. Hṛdayananda dāsa Gosvāmi and Gopi- paraṇadhana dāsa Adhikārī, BBT, 1992. 33 C) Śrīmad-Bhagavatam, Sanskrit commentaries by Sridhara Svárni, Jiva Gosvāmi, Viśvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, Vallabhācārya, Giridhar Lal, Vamsidhara, Viraraghavacārya, Vijayadhvaja Tirtha, Gangasahaya, Srinivasa Sūri, Sudarsana Sūri, Vithalanatha, Baladeva Vidyabhuṣaṇa, Śrīnātha Cakravarti, Śukadeva, Radha Ramaṇa dasa, Purusottama, Bhāgavata Vidyapitha, Ahmedabad, 1965. 33 D) Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Mülamătram, Sanskrit, Gītā press, Gorakhpura, 1980.
31. Rāmāyaṇa, Valmiki, Sanskrit, Gitäpress Gorakhpura, 1990. 35) Sikṣāṣṭaka (songs of the Vaisnava Acāryas) Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, Sanskrit, BBT. 1979.
32. Smṛti Manu, Manu, Sanskrit, Chaukhambha Sanskrit series office Vārānāsi, 1979. 395 396 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha
33. Smrti Vyasa, Veda Vyasa, Sanskrit, Eastern book linkers Delhi, 1988.
34. Govindāṣtaka (Stotra Ratnavali) Saṇkārācarya, Gitā press Gorakhpur, 1990.
35. Vākya-Padiya, Bhartṛhari, Sanskrit, Chaukhambha Vidyabhavan, Varanasi, 1990. Upanisads, Veda Vyāsa. Sanskrit
36. Aitreya, 25 Näthamuni vithi Madras, 1973. 43) Isa, English commentary by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swāmi Prabhupada. BBT 1973.
37. Bṛhadaranyaka, Motilal Banarasidasa Delhi, 1984. 45) Chandogya, Motilal Banarasidasa Delhi, 1984. 46) Katha, Motilal Banarasidasa Delhi, 1984. 47) Kena,Motilal Banarasidasa Delhi, 1984. 48) Mundaka, Motilal Banarasidasa Delhi, 1984. 49) Taittiriya, Motilal Banarasidasa Delhi, 1984. 50) Sukarahasya, Motilal Banarasidasa Delhi, 1984. 51) Svetāśvatara, Motilal Banarasidasa Delhi, 1984.
38. Ślokavarttika, Bhatta Kumārila, Ratna Publications, Vārāṇasi, 1993 53) Satvat Tantra, Sanskrit, Śrī Kanailal Adhikari, Navadvipa, 1981. 54) Nārāyaṇiyam, Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa, Bharatiya Vidya Samsthāna, Benarasa, 1992.
39. Sankhya Karika Ṭikā, Vācaspati Miśra, Chaukhambhā Sanskrit Samsthāna, 1992.
40. Śrī Kṛṣṇa Yamala Tantra, Pracya Prakāśana, Vārāṇasi, 1992. GENERAL INDEX A A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. See Prabhupada Abháva 21. See also pramāṇa defined 21 Abhidheya 150, 151 definition of 232 is devotional service 226 Abhidheya 2, 17, 18, 172, 258 based on the essential difference between Lord and jiva 170 defined 96 is devotional service to the Supreme Lord 234 Abhidheya-tattva Bhakti-Sandarbha discusses 258 Absolute Reality is nondual 260 nature of 259 Absolute Truth acts contrary to logic 176 appears differently 272 Acaryas 32 Acintya-bhedäbheda 147, 223 defined 223, 272, 386 essence of Bhag. 387 Aśraya 290, 301, 303, 304, 308, 310, 314, 318, 333, 336 identified as Lord Sri Krsna 293 ultimate topic of Bhag. 290 Asraya-tattva 302, 305 Asvatthāmā 292 Aśvini Kumaras instructed by Dadhici 90 Adhíbhautika 304 Adhibhautika person 305, 306 Adhibhautika-puruşa 304 Adhidaivika 304 Adhidaivika person 305, 306 Adhidaivika-puruşa 304 Adhikari 2 qualifications of reader 12 Adhokṣaja 163 two meanings of 162 Adhyatmika 304 Adhyatmika person 305, 306 Adhyatmika-puruşa 304 Advaita Acārya 5 Advaita-vāda, a version of monism in between voidism and personalism 126 Rg Veda chanted by hota priest 55 Age of Kali. See Kali-yuga Aghabhit meaning of 370 Aghasura 344 personification of disease 371 Aghäsura-lilä 357 Agni 183 Agni Purana advises to meditate on Brahman 114 explains Gayatri 103, 108 final goal according to, 107 397 398 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha Agni Purana, (continued) on Gayatri 109 Ahankära 299, 324, 325 products of 324 See Table IV 326 three types of 324 Aitareya Up. on creation 300 Aitihya 21 See also pramäṇa defined 21 Amara-kosa on name of Krsna 242 Anādi 174 is inconceivable 175 Analogy 192, 199 208, 214, 224, 261, 266, 271, 279, 280 air carries aromas 306 atomic rays of light and jīvas 223 characteristics of good 208 churned butter- churned knowledge 96 defects in sky-pot 207 fair and dark-skinned brahmana boys 225 faulty application of 206 fire and knowledge 181 jivas and sparks of fire 185 licking bottle of honey 31 light bulb and jīva 173 lost infant 201 of Bhagavan realization and a million dollars 169 of colorless crystal 161 of completing golden bracelet 45 of ink and water 215 of sparks and fire 224 of spider and web 175, 261, 269 Analogy, (continued) of sun/cloud and måyå 168 of the life air 279 of the senses dissolution 280 of Vedas and mother 34 one who has never seen the sun 266, 271 rope and the snake 214 faulty 206 of clear crystal 199 of sky and clay pot 189 of the life air 283 sun and its reflection 220 valid meanings of 221 sun reflected in many pots 192 Annihilation 298 described 299, 300 four kinds of 329, 334 Aştânga-yoga 303 depends on the grace of bhakti for success 236 Anumana 22, 39. See also pramāņa defined 22 not adequate 27. Apȧśraya 336 defined 331 Apauruseya-sabda 24 Arjuna as tiger among men 219 Årsa 20. See also pramaņa defined 20 Artha 228 Arthäpatti 20. See also pramāna defined 20 Atharva Veda studied by brahmå priest 55 Atma máyȧ 363 Atmärǎma 155, 252 B General Index Bhagavan, (continued) realization of includes 399 Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa 5, 9, 13, 351 author of Govinda-bhāṣya 220 on bondage of the jiva 174 on indications of time 185 on mayȧ 167 on the Supersoul 277 points out inconsistencies of Māyāvāda 197 wrote commentary on Visnu- sahasranama, 342 Bhagavad-gītā on Brahman 196 cited 114 declares Krsna as seed- giving father 183 fools cannot know Krsna 293, 294 on beginningless nature of matter and jiva 174 on Brahman 169 on disregarding sastra 176, 295 on knowledge removing sins 181 on Lord’s separated energy 336 on maintainence 300 on nature of Krsna 263 on position of the jiva 214 on process of liberation 204 on Sama-Veda 115 on surrender 177 on the three modes 75 purpose of including in Mahabharata 112 Bhagavan 169 defined 166 Brahman and Paramātmā 169 Bhāgavata Māhātmya 388 Bhāgavata-Sandarbha. See Sat-Sandarbha Bhāgavata-tätparyaya authored by Madhvācārya 128 Bhagavatam See Śrimad- Bhagavatam composed after Mahabharata 245 Bhakti-rasämrta-sindhu bhakti superior to bliss of Brahman 244 characteristics of those with love of Krsna 240 cited 139 defines prema-bhakti 158, 235 defines sådhana-bhakti 235 describes three kinds of bhakti 158 Kṛṣṇa unparalleled reservoir of rasas 231 explains Krsna’s four unique qualities 160 on logic 37 Bhakti-ratnākara 9 Bhakti-yoga 227, 234, 236 difference between sadhana and prema 234 directly mitigates the miser- ies of the conditioned soul 234, 236 key to fufilling all desires 236 only means to cut bonds of mäyä 227 400 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Bhakti-yogena analyzed 158 Bhaktivedanta Swami. See Prabhupada Bhaktivinoda Thakura on the suffering of the jiva 181 Bhakty-ananda superior to brahmananda 244 Bharata-tätparya of Madhvācârya 146 Bhava-bhakti 159 compared to prema 235 Bhävärtha-dipika indicates Bhagavatam begins with Gayatri 82 Bhavisya Purana defines fifth Veda 49 Bhisma 139 Bhrama 19. See also Four defects Birth four sources of 280 Body undergoes six changes 278 different from self 279 Book elements of 2 four introductory topics of 17 Bopadeva 367, 392 Brahma, Lord 28, 327, 344 bewilderment of 359 blessed by the Lord 358 day of 300 first to receive Vedic knowledge 28 has full knowledge of Supreme 358 knows past, present and future 47 Brahma, Lord, (continued) never makes false decisions 357 prays not to be proud 358 propogated varṇāśrāma 28 secondary creation 325 would not test Kṛṣṇa 358 Brahma-vaivarta Purana describes Sukadeva’s history 150, 152, 255 Brahma-vimohana filā 350, 352,372, 373 Brahman 14, 221, 266, 271, 272, 273, 324 according to grammar is dual 213 and reflection theory 198 as only reality. 172 as prakṛti 324 beyond sense perception 196 can cast no reflection 194 cannot fragment 210 cannot reflect 198, 221 defined 265 described in scriptures 200 distinct from the jīva 187 has mercy 205 has qualities 272 is indivisible 210 jivas’ oneness with 271 no existence independent of the Lord 169 purpose of statements indicating oneness with 226, 273 Brahmananda compared to bliss of bhakti 244 Śukadeva was absorbed in 244 Breast milk General Index appears in sättvika bhava 381 can flow owing to love 380 Bṛhad-aranyaka Upanisad on Brahman 263 defines Brahman 188 describes Brahman 197 cited 38 indicates vidya knowledge with devotion 204 on origin of Vedas 56 says jivas come from the Lord 224 lists the scriptures that the Supreme Lord breathed 247 Buddha 125 philosophy of not based on sabda 29 Buddhism Mayavada is veiled 126 Buddhists on knowledge 267 C Cănūra personification of hatred 371 Caitanya Mahaprabhu 2, 9 accepted sannyasa in Sankara’s line 142 and Śrīdhara Svāmi 253 as golden avatára 4 at Sri Rangam 9 delivers kṛṣṇa prema 181 described in scripture 3 detested impersonalism 253 established prema as ultimate goal 229 gave acintya-bhedäbheda 225 401 Caitanya Mahaprabhu, (cont’d) limbs, ornaments, weapons, and associates of 5 nondifferent from Lord Krsna 3 protects His devotees 343 referred to in Bhag. 6 referred to in Naradiya Pūrāņa 5 taught räga-bhakti 126 teachings of glorified 229 verses referring to 341 Caitanya-caritămṛta 9 Catur-varga-cintamani, of Hemädri 102 Catuḥśloki Bhagavatam 360 Ceşţă 21. See also pramâna defined 21 Chandogya Up. on Brahman 188, 265 on the living entity 265 on the Supersoul 277 refers to fifth Veda 49 Changing consciousness 269 Channa-avatara. See also Caitanya Mahaprabhu Chanting 5 draws attention of Krsna 243 glories of in Visnu Dharma Purana 59 glories of 6 in Kali-yuga 6 result of 239 Characteristics two types of 292 Chronology of Vedic literature in Kali- yuga 246 Commentaries list of 387 402 Consciousness Śri Tattva-Sandarbha three states of 284 events of 265 Conundrums 212 Creation secondary 296 stages of 324 direct commentaries of 118 glories and superiority of 78 No. of chapters in 344 no. of chapters in each Canto 393 critique D purpose of 345 Dadhici 86, 90 also known as Hayagriva 90 bones used to make thun- derbolt 91 history of 90 Dàma-bandhana-lila. 381 Dattatreya 337 Deep sleep 281, 285, 289, 309, 332 different from liberation 285 symptoms of 280, 285 Demigods 328 Demons go to the lower species 348 killed by Krsna list of 349 killed by Kṛṣṇa attain liberation 366, 377 killed by Krsna do/don’t attain liberation 348 Devahūti 292, 337 Devi Bhagavatam appears to begin with Gayatri 88 contrasted to Srimad- Bhagavatam 88 Devi Bhāgavatam, (cont’d) described 88 glorifies giving charity 89 Vaisnava scholars don’t cite 89 Devotee superior to impersonalists 229 Devotional service 226 can subdue māyā 165 function of the Lord’s internal energy 165 recommended process for self realization 226 understanding one is subordinate and different to the Lord 227 Dharma 228

• Difference three kinds of 260 Direct perception inadequate 27 See pratyakşa Disciplic succession 35 Dissolution. See Annihilation Dreams 207 Dvaita-vāda 386 Dvǎpara-yuga Lord appears black in 4 Dynasties E two prominent 328 Ekadasi 88 Elements gross 299 subtle 299, 325 twenty-six listed 325 Etiquette between guru and disciple 138F False Ego See Table IV 326 General Index False ego 319. See also Ahankära three kinds of 324 Four defects G defined and explained 18 Garbhodakaśāyi Visnu 15, 16 source of the various filā. avatâras 15 Garga Muni 3 Gargācārya 4 Garuda Purana glorifies Śrīmad-Bhagavatam 93 Gauni-vṛtti 219 Gaudiya-sampradaya say Bhag, has 335 chapters 344 Gautama 57, 66, 258 advises Ambarisa Mahārāja to study Bhag. 61 the curse of 65, 66 cursed the brāhmaṇas 67 Gayatri 83 and sun 114 explained in Agni Purana 103 explained in detail in Paramåtma-Sandarbha 83 expresses worship of Visnu 113 illuminates the glories of the Supreme Personality 115 in Bhagavatam 83 Gayatri, (continued) indicated in first verse of Bhag. 83 manifestation of Sarasvati 109 meaning clarified 106 object of 89 403 real meaning of is worship of Lord Visnu 113 refers to Supreme Personal- ity of Godhead 113 thought to glorify sun-god or Brahman 113 why Vyasa did not write original in Bhag. 83 Giridhara Lāl arguments of disagremment with ăcăryas 364 Krsna would not dance with mothers 371 age of gopis 379 analysis of jananīgati 376 Brahma would not test Kṛṣṇa 358 cites Adi Purana 381 enviousness of guru 386 grammatical analysis of Sanskrit 332 374 liläs included for being wonderful 378 filás of Aghasura and Brahmã not mentioned elsewhere 356 meaning of aghabhit 370 Nārada narrates lilās to Kamsa 383 other scriptures don’t refer to pastimes in Bhag. 377 popularity is no criteria 366 404 Giridhara Lal Śri Tattva-Sandarbha arguments of, (cont’d) repitition, inconsistencies 351 Sūta’s, Uddhava’s, and Brahma’s lists do not inclu de all lilás 355 the Lord marveled at Fate 385 Vyasa Bhatta’s commen- tary 367 without following ācāryas, you are a cult 368 Giridhara Lål Gosvāmī 344 attacked Jiva Gosvāmi 344 Golden avatāra 4 Gopala Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmi, established Radha-ramaṇa 9, 10 homage paid to 10 Gopis who nursed and danced with Kṛṣṇa were different 350 Gotra 30 Govardhana Hill 380 Govinda eats butter 123 eight prayers glorifying 122 lifted Govardhana Hill 123 ordered Śiva to propagate impersonalism 125 Govinda-bhāṣya 220 Govindāṣṭaka cited 122 of Sankarācārya 120 Govindapāda 388 H Hare Krsna glories of chanting 6 Hare Krsna maha-mantra 242 Caitanya Mahaprabhu pleased by 7 Hari, Lord glories of chanting name of 59 Supersoul of the sun 114 Hari Sūri, 392 Haridasa Thakura 5 Hayagriva-brahma-vidyā 85 Hemådri 119 author of Catur-varga- cintamani, 102 cited 112 comments on sankirtana 122 on salvation 112 recommends donating Bhāgavatam on a golden throne 121 says Mahabharata is as valuable as the Vedas 102 Hetu 329, 331 Hlādini described 166 Immovable beings 326 Impersonal liberation is it in our best interest? 211 Impersonalism compared to tigress 187 ultimate form of selfishness 230 Impersonalists base their tenets on the Vedānta-sūtra and Upanisadas 188 insist that Brahman and the jivas are one 172 Impersonalists, (cont’d) General Index say world does not really exist 208 Incarnations 327 Indirect statements Krsna likes 375 Indra, Lord and Dadhici 91 talks with Māyā 182 Inference 288 See also anumana positive and negative 288 Invocation 151. See mangalācaraṇa Isänukathā 297, 298, 300 Isopanisad cited 269 describes inconceivable features of Lord 224 Itihāsas 41, 42, 44 appear from the breathing of the Supreme Being 42 as reliable as Vedas 44 complement the Vedas 40 divine origin of 42 easier to understand than Vedas 44 help infer meaning of Vedas 40 nondifferent from Vedas 41 Itihasas and Puranas as fifth Veda 48 convey same conclusions as Vedas 44 derived from Yajur Veda 55 emanated from Brahma’s mouths 50 equally authoritative as Vedas 46 not composed by mortals 56 405 Itihāsas and Puranas, (cont’d) J not used in sacrifical cer- emonies 55 produced from original Veda. 55 study of compared to chanting Kṛṣṇa’s name 62 Vedic nature of 50 Jaiva Dharma 181 Janamejaya 96 Jiva, See also living entities 186, 217, 227, 273, 307, 309 appears to be äśraya 307 as āśraya 331 as efficient cause of creation 335 as upadhi of Brahman theory defeated 171 as witness 309 can’t understand anything beyond the material world 181 controlling tendency of 227 distinct from the Lord 184 experiences nine states of bodily existence 337 is distinct from the Lord 169 Māyāväda concept of 211 one with/part of Brahman 273 purpose of their punishment 181 purpose of their suffering 181 predicament of described 159 suffering of ends by devotional service 217 406 Jiva, (continued) Śri Tattva-Sandarbha why he is not asraya 310 cannot attain perfection merely by knowledge 203 described as part and parcel of Brahman 271 essentially distinct from the Lord 187 how he is distinct from Isvara 190 is atomic 186 not the aśraya 336 oneness with Brahman 271 rehabilitation of 182 Jiva Gosvāmi 253, 254 accepts three pramāņas 25 analyzes hearts of Vyasa, Suka, etc. 151 as leader of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas 254 bars nondevotess from reading Sandarbhas 12 completed task of Gopala Bhatta Gosvāmī 10 foolish criticism of 253 loyal to Rūpa and Sanatana 254 major points in analyzing Bhåg. 250 method of analyzing Śrimad- Bhagavatam 142 on sabda 25 on tat tvam asi 203 rejects liberation 230 resolves apparent contradic- tion in the chronology 246 Sarva-samvadini 3 worshipable Deity of 2 wrote Vaisnava Toṣaṇī 379 Jivaka analysis of 11 Jñäna-yoga 303 depends on the grace of bhakti for success 236 Jñānam K as consciousness 261 Kapila 292 Kali-yuga 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 100, 341 enlightened persons worship 121 Lord appears in 341 Lord Caitanya appears in 341 Kāma 229 Karsa attained same form as the Lord 365 inquired from Narada 383 Kanāda 258 Kǎla 324 See Table IV 326 Karabhǎjana Rşi 3 Karaṇäpätava 19. See also Four defects Kāraṇadakaśāyi Viṣṇu 15 Karma 320 has an end 186 has no beginning 175 is beginningless 186 Kṛṣṇa, Lord 1, 7, 18, 38, 59, 160, 161, 239, 240, 241, 242 agrees to subject Himself to Yoga-māyā 362 appeared covered by māyā 361 as Aghabhid 347 as main subject of the Sandarbhas 18 General Index Kṛṣṇa, Lord, (continued) assured Sukadeva that måyå would not capture him 151 attraced by those who chant His name 242 beyond logic 38 controls material nature 15 conventional meanings of the name of 239 colors of 4 covered Himself 7 dama-bandhana-lilā 37 demons killed by attain liberation 348 described 14 does not give up body 375 four exclusive qualities of listed 160 free from all upadhis 161 holy name of 59 identified 240 indicated by puruşam půmam 160 is He indifferent toward suffering? 180 kaumāra and pauganda age of 352 most suitable object of love 230 rarely grants bhakti-yoga 156 result of hearing His name 239 Krsna Caitanya See Caitanya Mahaprabhu result of chanting name of 341 Kṛṣṇa consciousness surpasses happiness derived from impersonal realization 152 Kṛṣṇa, name of 407 conventional meaning 241 derived in Amara-kośa 242 derived in Gopala-tapani Up. 242 derived in Mahābhārata 241 identical with the person Krsna 242 the one who was suckled by Yaśodā 241 the Supreme Brahman 241 various persons with 240 Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes listed by Uddhava, Sūta and Brahma 355 Kṛṣṇa-prema 8 Kṛṣṇa-Sandarbha 16 Kṛṣṇa-vara analysis of 3 Krama-Sandarbha the seventh Sandarbha 14 Kṣaṇika-vijñǎna-vādīs, 267 Kşirodakaśâyi Vişnu 15, 16 expands as the Supersoul 15 Kubja 356 submits to Yoga-måyå for lå Kumārila Bhaṭṭa 2, 30, 31 386 teaches the jivas how to get free from Maya’s clutches 179 wants the vas to turn to Him 177 Yasoda tried to bind 38 accepts Vedas as divine 31 Kurukşetra Battle fighters who died in achieved abode of Lord 365 408 L Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Laghu-bhagavatāmṛta cited 16 describes Lord’s svayam- rúpa 16 Laksmidhara Pandita on names of Kṛṣṇa 241 Liberation attained by demons killed by Krsna 348 devotees do not covet 349 not equivalent to egolessness 213 Liberationists defect of 230 Linga Purana 77 Living entities. See also Jivas eternally distinct from the Lord 172 Logic 36, 37, 38, 39, 216, 225, 288. See also Nyaya applied to understand Vedas 38 ardha-kukkuți (half-hen) 225 As one of the Lord’s opulences 39 can never supercede Vedic opinion 38 cannot be final proof 36 can’t be used to understand inconceivable 36 of champion wrestler 345 dry 38, 288 dry, examples of 38 not absolute 37 of the branch and the moon 114 of the kapiñjala birds 348 of the law of remainder 35 Logic, (continued) of the needle and the kettle 158 proper 38 properly applied 38 Lord Brahmā See Brahma, Lord Lord Caitanya. See Caitanya Mahaprabhu in mood of Rādhā 343 referred to in Bhavisya Purāna 342 referred to in Mahābhārata 342 Lord Kṛṣṇa. See Kṛṣṇa, Lord Love for Krsna result of 240 Love of God M See also prema-bhakti effect of 239 superior to brahmananda 243 frees one from all lamenta- tion, delusion, and fear 239 the Lord’s internal potency 239 Madhvācārya 10, 31, 126 accepts three pramāņas 25 accepts Vedas as divine 31 author of Bhagavata- tåtparyaya 128 brief history of 146 changed allegiance to Vaisnava school 128 claim demons killed by Kṛṣṇa don’t get moksa 365 copied many scriptures 146 1 General Index Madhvācārya, (continued) did not comment on all chapters of Bhag. 364 forcefully refuted Māyāvāda 187 formerly a Sankarite 128 his philosophy called Tattva- vâda 147 some works of listed 145 soundly defeated Māyāvāda 147 Śrī Jiva glorifies 366 Maha-purana 316 distinguished from lesser 316 ten topics of 312 Mahâ-Viṣṇu 15, 16 reservior of all the living entities 15 Mahabharata, (cont’d) outweighs Vedas 97 purpose of, 99, 112 purpose of is to draw attention to kṛṣṇa-katha 112 409 recited by Vaisampayāna to Janmejaya 247 the Itihasa of 100,000 verses 55 Mahārāja Nimi 3 Mahat-tattva 213, 319, 324, 325, 331 See Table IV 326 Mangalācaraṇa 2 three types of 1 describes four things 2 Maintenance. See sthāna Maitreya 292 Mahabharata 45, 95, 97, 247 Manu 300, 328 as Itihasa 45 cited regarding Itihasas and Purānas. 40 composed before Bhagavatam 245 contrasted to Srimad- Bhagavatam 98 for the lower classes 45 glories of 95 history of 247 in higher planets has 6,000,000 verses 97 includes secret essence of the Vedas 97 more versatile than Vedas 98 number of verses available on what planet 98 offers different narration regarding Sukadeva 256 on logic 37 outweighed Vedas 95 Manu-samhita 28 cited regarding Itihasas and Purānas. 40 Manv-antara 297, 322, 328. See also Reign of Manu end of 335 partial dissolution at the end of 334 Märkandeya Rşi 113, 335 on Gayatri 113 Material nature 24 elements of 325 separated energy of Lord 336 Material world purpose of 336 Mathura 8 Matsya Purana classifies the Purāņas 73 decribes details about Puranas 75 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha 410 Matsya Purana, (continued) Māyā, (continued) describes Śrimad- Bhagavatam 80 glorifies Srimad-Bhagavatam 84 lists five subjects of Purâņas 71 on Purāņas 54 refers to Vyasa 53 Māyā 164, 167, 168, 173, 176, 182, 184, 185, 226 activities of 173 acts contrary to logic 168, 176 and Lord Indra 182 as a devotee of the Lord 176 as upadhi 172 cannot affect the Lord 168 cannot influence Lord or internal energies 167 cannot tolerate the jivas turning their backs on the Lord 172 compared to cloud 168 compared to Lord’s maidservant 167 controlled by the Lord 15 deludes jiva but not the Lord 226 does not constitute svarupa of the Lord 164 does not influence the Lord 184 has a personal form 182 her punishment serves three purposes 180 her purpose explained 179 how she overcomes jivas 168 inferior to Lord’s svarupa sakti and the jivas 167 inferior to svarupa sakti and jīvas 167 is ashamed before the Lord 172 is beginningless 185 is defeated by surrender to Lord 179 makes sure no unfit souls bother the Lord 179 not part of the Lord’s svarúpa 167 not sat or asat-inexplicable according to Māyāvādī 213 overcome by surrender to Kṛṣṇa 362 requires help of Paramātmā 183 runs away from the Lord’s direct presence 164 separate from the Lord 184 subordinate to Kṛṣṇa 165 Supreme Lord is foundation of 226 two aspects of according to Māyāvādīs 189 two principle functions of 173 Vallabhācārya says 3 types of 360 vidyǎ and avidya both products of 203 why Lord does not intervene with 178 Māyāvāda 212 duty of Vaisnavas to defeat 188 explained 188 flaws in 193 General Index Māyāvāda, (continued) hearing of destroys spiritual life 187 inconsistencies in 212 is greatest obstacle 187 logical refutations of 207 refutations of 187 theory of 172 Māyāvāda doctrine absurdity of 211 contradict Vyasadeva’s trance 193 defects in rope and snake example 214 defined 189 form and name are products of Māyā 195 how Brahman becomes jiva 209 inconsistencies in 197 say scriptures are only empirically real 214 summarized 211 theory of division 195 theory of reflection 195 three conundrums in 212 three realities of 195 world is unreal 195 Māyāvāda philosophy as veiled Buddhism 126 contradicts Vyasadeva’s trance 173 explained 172 Māyāvāda theories Brahman reflects in 192 on how Brahman becomes iśvara 192 on how Brhaman becomes jiva 191 two explained 191 Māyāvādis claim that ultimate reality is nondual 188 error of 225 greatest offenders against Śrī Kṛṣṇa 187 411 offenders at the lotus feet of Krsna 142 Mimämsakas arguments of 50 Mokşa 229 Momentary consciousness 270, 278 Monism 126, 127, 211, 226 advocates three levels of existence 194 Śrīdhara Svāmi opposed to 142 disproved by reference to sabda 216 Lord Siva ordered to propa- gate 125 supported neither by logic nor by scriptures 217 taught by Sankarācārya 120 tested by the authority of Bhagavatam 216 two main theories of 210 Monistic Statements 222 discussion of 218 require interpretation 222 Moving beings 326 Mukhya-vṛtti 160, 219 Mukti 298, 301, 303, 329 Mustika N personification of envy 371 Narada Muni instructed Vyasa to reveal Bhagavatam 61 412 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha Nārada Muni, (continued) on purpose of scriptures 227 Nåradiya Purana lists the topics of all twelve cantos of Bhag. 90 states Purāņas are more important than Vedas 66 Narahari Sarkara 341 Nārāyaṇa 86 armor of 86, 91 as chief of Vaikuntha 16 chanting name of 370 Nārāyana Armor 91 Nārāyaṇiya extracted from Mahābhārata 96 Nirodha 298, 318 defined 301 Nityananda Prabhu 5, 7 Nondual 260 defined 260 if free of three kinds of difference 260 Nondual reality 262 Nourishment 322. See also Posana Nyaya, 174 P See also Logic candra-śākha-nyaya 114 kapiñjala-alabhana 348 of Gautama 258 pradhana-malla-barhana 345 päriseṣya-nyaya 35 sūcī-kaṭāha-nyaya 158 Padma Purana 90 compares Bhāgavatam’s cantos with Kṛṣṇa’s limbs 92 Padma Purana, (continued) glorifies Śrimad-Bhāgavatam 87,90 lists Purānas according to three modes 71 on sättvika Puranas 77 on Vyāsadeva 60 Parama-püruşa 240 Päramärthika defined 172 Paramātmā 169, 311. See also Supersoul åśraya for Himself and jīva 311 expands from Krsna 169 no existence independent of the Lord 169 Paramätma-Sandarbha analyzes first verse of Bhagavatam 113 Parikṣit Mahārāja 151, 292 cursed by Śṛngi 134 received the sages 133 Pariccheda-vāda, 195, 207, 210 defined 191 refuted 195, 200 Pastimes 297, 300 Sūta Gosvāmi’s list cited 356 Pippalayana describes the jīva 275 Posana 297, 300. See also Nourishment Posanam 297 Prabhupada as scholar of Bhāgavatam 121 embodiment of teachings of Bhåg. 121 on the bondage of the jiva 175General Index Prabhupada, (continued) on the Sat-Sandarbha 14 on the Vedas 33 praises Jiva Gosvāmi 14 presented Srimad- Bhāgavatam in English 121 proved potency of Bhag. 121 Pradhana See Table IV 326 213, 299, 319, 323 Prahlada Mahārāja one living being is food for another 327 refers to Lord Caitanya 4 Prakāśānanda Sarasvati and Caitanya Mahaprabhu 253 Prakṛti 299, 324 See Table IV 326 disturbed state of 324 Pramada 19. See also Four Prayojana, (continued) defined 96 ultimate goal of life 228 Prayojana-tattva Priti-Sandarbha discusses 258 Prema 413 fifth and ultimate goal of life 229 Prema-bhakti, 18 159, 233, 235 See also Love of God beyond lamentation, delu- sion, and fear 159 cannot be generated 159 counteract the two funda- mental faults of bewilder- ment 234 defined 235 depends on Lord’s Grace 233 manifests in the aspiring defects Pramana defined 18, 20, 26 list of ten 20 referred to in scripture 26 Prameya 147 Pratibimba-vāda, 195, 207, 210 defined 192 refuted 195, 198, 200 Pratyakṣa 21. See also pramāņa defined 21 Prayojana 2, 17, 18, 150, 151, 172, 237, 258 based on the essential difference between the Lord and iva 170 devotee’s heart by grace 235 Priests duties and names of Vedic 53, 55 Primary creation 296 Protection 322, 327. See also Rakṣā Punyaranya wrote Māyāvāda commen- tary on Bhag. 130 Puşti-märga founded by Vallabhācārya 346 Puranas 41, 42, 44, 51, 61, 66, 68, 70, 72, 77, 313, 316 all have some glorification of Lord Hari 77 414 Purāņas, (continued) Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha all ideas of Vedas found in 60 appear from the breathing of the Supreme Being 42 appeared from Supreme Lord 51 as reliable as Vedas 44 complement the Vedas 40 divided according to modes 71 difficulties of studying 72 disrespect of 66 divine origin of 42 easier to understand than Vedas 44 establish different deities as supreme 72 essence of the original 55 five characteristics of 313 five subjects that characterize 71 five topics of lesser 313, 316 method of classifying according to modes 76 the original 55 400,000 verses comprise 55 help infer meaning of Vedas 40 in mode of goodness are superior 73 make Vedas complete 45 more important than the Vedas 66 named after original speak- ers 58 named after sages 61 natural commentary on Vedas 72 nondifferent from Vedas 41 Purānas, (continued) recited by less than twice- born 59 some named after sages 61 sometimes manifest and sometimes not 61 study of requires guru 68 three divisions of 70 three types of 70 used in the formal study of the Vedas 53 Purāņas, rájasic and tāmasic shortcomings of 77 Puranas, sättvic glorify Lord Hari 76 understood differently 78 Pure devotee 262 activities of 263 characteristics of 236 Purna defined 157 Pūrṇa-purusa further analysis of 162, 240 Puritati nerve 284 Pursuit of happiness 262 Puruşa incarnations described in Satvata-tantra 15 Puruşartha 229 defined 229 the fifth 229 Puruṣāvatāras described 15 Purvam analysis of 163 Pūtanȧ 256 as personification of ignorance 371 attained liberation 349, 377 attempted to kill Krsna 162 cause of liberation 350 R General Index 415 S S Rādhārāṇī 7, 167 Raghunatha dāsa Gosvāmi compares Māyāvada to tigress 187 Rakṣǎ 322. See also Protection components of 322 defined 322, 327 Rămananda Raya 5 Rāmānujācārya 10, 31, 126 accepts Vedas as divine 31 authored Śrī-bhāṣya 141 leader of Śri-sampradaya 141 Rāmāyaṇa 46 Rasa 372 Rasa theology Sahitya-darpaṇa standard book of 382 Rasa-śăstra 372 Rása-lilà 372 Rasǎbhāsa 372, 382 Realizations of Vyasa, Suka, and Suta the same 252 Reign of Manu 322 See also Many-antara Repetition not a defect in 11 cases 353, 354 examples of 354 Rhetoric rules of 353 Rṣabhadeva on love of God 238 Rtviks four kinds of 55 Rūpa Gosvāmi 8, 31 accepts Vedas as divine 31 describes three kinds of bhakti 158 Sikṣāṣṭaka cited 262 appears as as Sankara to Śiva, Lord propagate impersonalism 125 appreciated Bhāgavatam, 125 classifies Purānas according to modes 72 ordered to propagate monism 125 ordered to teach monism history of 125 Śiva Purána on origin of Purānas 57 Śloka-värttika 2 Sabda. See also pramâna defined 23, 28 importance of 29 only valid means to acquire vedic knowledge 28 superiority of 23 Śankarācārya as incarnation of Lord Siva 120 commentaries of 125 comments on Gītā 196 fourfold practice recom- mended by 202 on tat tvam asi: 202 promoted Māyāvāda philosophy 126 wrote Drg-dṛśya-viveka 195 Samsthá 334 See also Annihilation Samvit described 166 Śaci Devi, 341 416 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Sad-dharma 300, 322, 328 Sādhana-bhakti 159, 176, 232 characteristics of 233 directly counteracts material miseries 234 matures into prema-bhakti. 235 means to get Lord’s grace 233 must be learned from scripture and saintly person 235 result of 237 ultimately matures into love of Godhead 233 Sankarācārya 31, 120, 388 accepts Vedas as divine 31 respected Bhagavatam 122 teachings oppose Vyasa’s experience 188 Sankirtana 5, 6, 7, 122, 341 highest activity 122 remedy for Kali-yuga 6 the Lord performs 341 Sajâtiya-bheda. 260 Sälva 362 Săma Veda Bhagavatam compared to, 110 chanted by udgǎtǎ priest 55 glorifies Kṛṣṇa directly 116 supreme Veda 110 Sambanda-tattva first four Sandarbhas deal with 258 Sambandha 2, 18, 151, 258, 333 defined 96 Sambhava 21. See also pramāṇa defined 21 Sanatana Gosvāmi 8 inquired from Mahaprabhu 229 wrote Brhad Vaisnava Tosani 350 Sandarbha definition of 13 Sandhini described 166 Sanskrit two types of 43 word relationships 16 words have derived meaning and conventional usage 241 words have two kinds of meaning 219 Saptarsis 328 Sarasvati goddess of speech 109 Sarga 299, 324 details of 324 explained 299 primary creation 296 Sarva-samvadini 318, 334 of Jiva Gosvāmī 3 Sat-cit-ananda, 263 Sat-Sandarbha 2 begun by Gopal Bhatta 10 purpose of 1 methodology of 140 readers qualifications 12 reason for composing 8 six parts listed 13 subject of 257 Sattva superior to rajas and tamas 75 Sättvic Puränas 77 characteristics of 76 lead to liberation 77 Sätvata-samhită General Index another name for Srimad- Bhāgavatam. 186 Sâtvata-tantra 3 Purusa manifestations described in 16 Satya-yuga Lord appears white 4 Saunaka Rşi 106, 252 Savitri another name for Gayatri 115 Scripture as final authority 216 Secondary creation 296 Secondary meaning 220 Self as witness 276 Self-realization two processes for 337 Sense organs 324 Senses 324 cannot approach the incon- ceivable 31 perceptive 299 presiding deities of 306 seats of 306 Senses evolution of 324 knowledge acquiring 19 perceptive 325 two types of 324 working 325 Six enemies 227 Skanda Purana 92 glorifies Bhagavatam 87, 92, 100, 111 glorifies Vyasa 63 narrates history of re- establishing Vedas 65 on importance of the Purānas 69 Skanda Purāṇa, (continued) on the holy name of Kṛṣṇa 59 transcendental status of Puranas 46 Śṛngi 134 Śri-bhâşya of Râmânujācārya 141 Śri Krsna. See Krsna Śri-sampradaya 9 Śridhara Svâmî 10, 126 accepts 335 chapters in Bhag. 373 ‘as parama-Vaisnava 143 attracted impersonalists to Bhåg. 140 417 attracted monists 143 Bhag. commentary named Bhāvārtha-dipikā, 143 commented on 142 comments on puruşa 157 commentary appealed to impersonalists 126 describes the characteristics of Bhagavatam 85 impersonal explanations did not express his true 253 inserted Māyāvādī ideas in Bhavartha-dipika 143 Māyāvādīs primary audience of 143 not a Māyāvādi 144 on divisions of Vedas 56 on puma-purusa 160 reconciles Sukadeva and Sūta’s lists of ten topics 316 Sankara-sampradāya sannyasi 142 says Bhag. has 335 chap- ters 347 says Bhagavatam begins with Gayatri 82 418 Śrī Tattva-Sandarbha Śrīdhara Svāmi, (continued) says Tenth Canto has 90 chapters 376 Śrila use of 8 Śrila Prabhupada. See Prabhupada Śrimad Bhagavatam 97, 79, 84, 87, 91, 92, 94, 96, 136, 159, 240, 290, 294, 311 able to captivate the heart of a Brahman realized person 153 composed and revised by Vyasa 97 and golden throne 117 became unmanifest at end of Dvāpara-yuga 61 begins with Gayatri 79 best of all Pramanas 73 by hearing on attains supreme goal 240 by listening to one will attain love of God. 239 Cantos represent parts of Kṛṣṇa’s body 92 cited to support Māyāvāda 193 commentary on Gayatri 99, 103 compared to Sama Veda 110 compared to sun 118 compared to the sun 120 contains 335 chapters 101 described 84 does not depend on support of Vedas 139 emperor of all scriptures 111 essential points of 250 essential purport of 152 Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, (cont’d) establishes goodness as superior 76 establishes meaning of Mahābhārata 96 expanded edition of 246 explains bhakti 159 free of rasabhāsa 372 has 335 chapters 393 hear and chant to end material existence 87 how to calculate no. of verses in 390 illumines the supreme goal of life 149 has unique greatness 138 importance of keeping at home 101 instructs in three ways 136, 138 is directly Lord Kṛṣṇa. 92 is nineteenth Purana? 96 later edition composed after Lord Krsna’s disappear- ance 246 later edition of manifested before Śṛrigi had curse 246 must be learned from bona- fide guru 294 natural commentary on the Vedanta-sūtra 92, 94, 96 nondifferent than Krsna 91 offers highest philosophy 130 on activities of devotees 179 on association of pure devotees 177 on bhakti 236 on purpose of creation 180 on vidya and avidyȧ 203 f General Index Śrīmad-Bhagavatam, (cont’d) one living being is food for another 325 one verse repeated 5 times in 355 recitation of one verse equal to reading the eight 101 recounts events from Sarasvata-kalpa 115 repitition of verses in 351 reservoir of all good qualities 139 result of reading 120 revealed in trance 79 revealed to Vyasa in trance 82 sages who heard from Sukadeva 132 sages who heard listed 132 Sáma Veda among the Puranas 116 superiority of 78 supremacy of 136 supreme Purana 110 supreme scripture 87 ten topics of according to Sukadeva 290 ten topics of according to Sūta 311 both lists compared 323 not consecutive 313 tests one’s scholarship 347 the supreme Purana 100 three types of language in 345 was composed after the Mahābhārata 245 who claims 332 chapters 344 who claims 335 chapters Soul 279, 284, 286 arguments demonstrating existence of 279 419 aware of itself 283 compared to life air 281 different than body 283 distinct from Supersoul 286 is dependent on Supersoul 286 eternal nature of 275 experiences three states of consciousness 284 remembers deep sleep 282 unchanging 284 Speculative philosophers misuse logic 38 Spiritual master neglect of, spells doom 294 Śrī Rangam 9 Śrīvāsa Thakura 5 Śruti offers two statements regarding nature of jiva 273 Sthiti 297, 300 Śuka-rahasya Upanisad cited to support Māyāvāda 192 Sukadeva Gosvāmi 6, 91, 155, 217, 249, 250, 255, 353 analysis of his faith 148 appeared like avadhuta 133 as best of the self-realized 128, 130 attracted to Bhåg. 217 became free from Maya’s influence 250 brief history of 151 captivated by Bhāgavatam 249 344 420 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Sukadeva Gosvāmi, (cont’d) Supreme Brahman formerly absorbed in Brah- man 217 gave up attachment to impersonalism 353 had special qualification 244 his heart perfectly reflects Vyasadeva’s 158 history of narrated 255 knower of rasa 353 makes apparent statements about merging 190 most qualified to learn Śrimad-Bhagavatam 245 on purpose of creation 180 spoke Bhag. before his gurus 135 spiritual master of all sages 129 studied Bhag. from his father 152 testimony of 152 untouched by Mayȧ from his very birth 150 verses which captured 255 was situated perfectly in Brahman realization 152 why he studied Bhåg. explained 155 why he studued Bhag. 155 Supersoul 15, 157, 162, 277, 288, 308, 336. See also Paramātmā always transcendental to material nature 162 as controller of the material energy 161 as svāśraya 308 eight qualities of 277 in the sun 106 described from the individual viewpoint 290 viewpoint of the aggregate 292 Supreme Lord 231 as Supersoul dwelling in the sun 107 inconceivable characteristic of 224 most suitable object of love 231 Sūta Gosvāmī describes Mahā-purāna 312 describes the ten topics 319 expert in the Vedas 62 gives list of the Lord’s pastimes 116 lists the Lord’s filas 355 on Mahabharata 62 prayers of 151 qualified speaker of the Itihasas 52 spoke åtmäräma verse 252 was not twice-born 44 Svāmśa expansions 261 Svagata-bheda. 260 Svarupa-sakti 163, 165 Svayam bhagavan defined 16 svayam-rūpa defined 16 Svetāśvatara Upanisad cited 28 describes Brahman 199 Svetavaraha-kalpa 328 T Taittiriya Upanisad cited 15 on Brahman 265 1 Tamāla tree 241 Tan-matras defined 325 Tarka 288 tat tvam asi explained 202 Tattva-Sandarbha summary of 337 Tattva-vāda 145 Tenth Canto ninety chapters in 372 Time 186 General Index free from the control of the modes 186 is eternal 185 Tretā-yuga Lord appears red 4 Tṛnāvarta 384 Tri-yuga name of Kṛṣṇa 4 Tvaṣṭā 91 Tvisäkṛṣṇam analysis of 3 Twenty-four elements 325 U Umă personal form of Māyā 183 Upadhi apparent 207 defined 161 real or apparently real 206 real or unreal 197 will not magically dissolve 203 Upamäna 20. See also pramāna Upamāna defined 20 Úti 297, 298, 300, 321 V Vacaspati Miśra commented on Sankara’s Vedanta-sutra-bhāṣya 192 Vaisnava Epistemology 17, 18 421 See also Vedic Epistemology Vaisnava Tosani by Jíva Gosvāmi 347 Vaişeśika philosophy of Kanāda 258 Vaivasvata Manu 328 Vallabha Bhatta 142 Vallabhācārya describes 3 types of māyā 363 reconciles apparent prob- lems in Śrimad- Bhagavatam 346 wrote Purusottama- sahasranama 390 wrote Subodhini commen- tary 373 Vamsyanucaritam 328 Varähä Purana narrates Gautama’s curse 67 Vāyu 183 Vayu Purana cited on nature of Itihāsas and Purānas 52 describes the cãtur-hotra priests 55 Veda Vyasa. See Vyasadeva Vedāngas 43 Vedänta-sūtra 74, 78, 220, 293 also called the Brahma-sutra 37 422 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Vedanta-sutra, (continued) as alternative to studying Vedas 43 bona fide commentators of 96 Brahman cannot be delim- ited 218 has conclusion of Vedas 37 Paramātmā is different from the jiva 220 parts of 220 terse and esoteric nature of 78 Vedas 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 52, 68 and circular reasoning 33 appeared from Supreme Lord 28 are beginningless 29 arguments against 29 as mother 34 as śabda-pramāna 25 as source of knowledge 36 as supreme guide 36, 367 contents of 28 differences between Itihasas, Purānas, and 45 divisions of 42 evolution arguement 32 handed down through disciplic succession 29 illuminate themselves like the sun 36 impractical to study 43 Itihāsas, Purānas, same origin as 57 like the sun 36 motive for not accepting 30 need guru to understand 31, 34 Vedas, (continued) no authentic disciplic succession through which to 67 not authored by humans 30 not product of mortals 29 only 6% available 43 only dvijas can study 44 original source of knowledge 27 practical difficulties of studying 42 Purānas and Itihasas come from 49 purpose of 303 scholars dispute origin of 29 six limbs of 43 source of knowledge 28 speak indirectly 68 study of incomplete without study of Puräņas 72 subjects within 33 Techniques used to keep word order 45 three divisions of 110 Vedic epistemology. See also Vaisnava Epistemology cornerstone of 20 Vedic literature chronology of 246 Vedic priests listed 55 Vedic Sanskrit three intonations of 44 Vedic statements classification of 273 describing nondifference between the jiva and Brahman purpose of 277 that speak of the oneness of Brahman 226 1General Index Venkata Bhaṭṭa 9 Viśvanatha Cakravarti Thakura on bondage of the iva 174 on maya covering the jiva 168 on two editions of Bhagavatam 97 on māyā and karma 185 Viśvarūpa 91 Vidura 292 Vidya a product of Māyā 204 implies devotion 204 Vijätiya-bheda 260 Vijayadhvaja Tirtha 145, 364 Vijñāna-vāda 269 and changing consciousness 269 refuted by sastra 268 refuted by logic 269 Vijñāna-vādīs reject the Vedas 269 theory of reality 268 Viläsa expansion 16 Vişņu Dharma Purana on chanting 59 Visnu Purana 166 describes attributes of Bhagavan 166 describes three primary potencies of Lord 166 glorifies Vyasa 64 Visnu-dharmottara Purana explains Gayatri 99 on Gayatri 113 Visnu-sahasra-nāma 242 names Lord Caitanya 342 Vipralipsă 19. See also Four defects Visarga 296, 299, 320, 325 secondary creation 296 Voidism 127 Vopadeva 116 author of Muktǎ-phala 136 Vṛndāvana 241 has places associated with filās 378 Vrträsura 44 in Devi Bhagavatam 89 Vṛtti 279, 321 Vrtti-trayam three states of conscious- ness 333 Vyāsa 52, 66. See Vyasadeva as Lord Nārāyāna 64 divided Veda into four 52 his mind compared to sky 66 Vyasa Bhatta 368 Vyasa Tirtha 145 Vyǎsadeva 42, 153 Also see Vyǎsa 423 all knowing nature of 60 analysis of his trance 153 appears at the beginning of each Kali-yuga 66 complier of Vedānta-sūtra 37 composed Purāņas 55 composed two editions of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 97 condensed the Vedas 60 divided the original Veda 42 had prema-bhakti 158 in samadhi 154 in trance saw 3 internal potencies and external po 167 in trance saw Kṛṣṇa in Vrndāvana 167 instructed by Narada 81 424 Śri Tattva-Sandarbha Vyȧsadeva, (continued) on Vedanta-sūtra, and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 94 Vyasadeva’s trance conclusion of is to attain Lord Krsna by bhakti-yoga 169 described 154 defeats Māyāvada 216 does not explicitly mention Brahman effulgence or 168 importance of 157 scriptural interpretations must agree with 222 Vyāvahārika W defined 172 Waking consciousness 332 Words primary and secondary meanings of 160 Yajur Veda, (continued) origin of Puranas 55 Yamadūtas on chanting 242 Yoga 333 Yoga-māyā 4, 294, 359 Yudhisthira 139 Y Yasoda bewildered by Yoga-māyā 360 gave birth in old age 379 sees universal form 122 tried to tie Kṛṣṇa 38 Yajnavalkya 61 explains three legs of the Gayatri mantra 114 Yajur Veda 53, 55 as the original Veda 52 associated with adhvaryu priest 55 describes duties of four priests 55 largest of the four Vedas 56